back
43 comments
I love Nokia's hardware, and have great respect for Microsoft's mobile team. But I'm not sure whether two dinosaurs together can run faster than one.
What is the track record of Microsoft in this kind of partnerships?

Genuine question.

You'd have to define "this kind of partnership". There are a number of mobile device makers building Windows phones. And there have been many co-development and branding deals over the years with Microsoft and PC makers. Many have been successful, many have failed.

This, however, brings to mind the OS/2 deal, to me. If Microsoft culture is anything like it was in the 90s (which may not be the case), I would expect Microsoft to be a loyal partner with Nokia until such time as it is advantageous for them to go their own way, leaving Nokia holding the bag on a jointly developed "standard" platform that no one else wants.

But, hey, I'm a cynical old nerd that's been involved in technology too long. The fact that Microsoft is a distant third, and losing ground daily, in the market might make a difference in how they treat their friends.

The supposed Microsoft Nokia partnership isn't joint development of a phone OS. It looks more likely that Nokia could get out of the OS business altogether.

I'm not sure that OS/2 is the best analogy. That wasn't a hardware company and software company teaming up. And it is unlikely that Nokia and Microsoft will evolve to become direct competitors in the way IBM and Microsoft did in the late 1980's and early 90's.

"I'm not sure that OS/2 is the best analogy. That wasn't a hardware company and software company teaming up."

I can't make any sense of this statement. IBM was the definitive hardware company at the time. Microsoft was the definitive software company at the time. What kind of companies do you think they were?

"The supposed Microsoft Nokia partnership isn't joint development of a phone OS."

As far as I can tell, we have no idea what sort of partnership they have in mind. But, I would expect Nokia to want a unique value, if they build Windows phones. And they have a huge development workforce, and have made numerous software acquisitions over the years. I'd be surprised if they don't plan to write some code, too.

IBM was a systems company, not a hardware company. The difference is that a hardware company doesn't, by and large, develop their own software.

Apple is another example of a systems company.

"IBM was a systems company, not a hardware company. The difference is that a hardware company doesn't, by and large, develop their own software."

You can't have it both ways. Nokia makes the vast majority of their own software and has for years. They have a huge software development staff, and have acquired a number of major software shops to augment it.

And, while we're on the subject, in the PC market, IBM did not, by and large, develop their own software. They contracted out to Microsoft to make the OS in the beginning, and then teamed up with them to make OS/2. So, technically, I guess you can't compare the two because Nokia makes a lot more of the software on its devices than IBM made on its early PCs. But, that's the opposite of the argument you've made above.

I don't think it really matters, though. I think this is a mistake for Nokia, and I think time will bear that assertion out.

And, of course, if you don't like the IBM and OS/2 comparison, how about SGI and Windows NT? That was a unique relationship between a hardware (and software) company and Microsoft that had disastrous consequences for SGI.

There is a reason the term "Wintel" was created. But I'd bet they can't pull it off again.
I think the primary point would be that Wintel created a brand new market that hadn't yet really been developed yet. This time around (if it really happens), they're attacking a market that's pretty well developed. Still growing, but by no means at an infant stage.
The distinction between "a brand new market that hasn't yet really been developed yet" and a market that's "well developed [but] still growing" can only be drawn in retrospect. Wintel was a decade late to personal computers, but it turns out a decade late was early enough.
Fair enough. But I'd also say the key metric to analyze would be market penetration, percentage of total population buying the products. A lot more people have cell phones these days, both percentage-wise and gross numbers-wise, than people had personal computers back in the day.
or two drunks tied together will walk in a straight line
You know, I bet two drunks tied together would be way more stable than one. Four legs are better than two.
Two drunks tied together don't make four legs. They make two legs vs. two legs.
I'm with you on that, I expect the probability of 'drunks tied together' falling down to increase following the square-cube law.

I have a similar theory that the reason female washrooms always seem to have too few stalls is because their is a square-law going on. Ever notice how when your wife/girlfriend/friend goes to the washroom on their own they take roughly the same time as a guy, but when they go with their friend they easily take double the time it would for two guys, even assuming only one stall available. This is my reasoning on why buildings increase the number of washrooms rather than simply expanding on the one despite the extra washrooms usually being in inconvenient locations.

I think somewhere some architect built a banquet hall with a 100 stall female washroom and at a function all the women knew each other, meaning they spent like two-weeks in the washroom and resorted to cannibalism.

>I'm with you on that, I expect the probability of 'drunks tied together' falling down to increase following the square-cube law.

I think this is true only up to a point. I imagine that once you get a sufficient number of drunks, that you can simply tie them together tight enough that they'd stay standing like a shock of wheat.

Female washrooms also have queueing inefficiencies compared to male washrooms. Women need a stall no matter what, men only need a stall in some cases and a urinal for other cases. And urinals have much higher throughput.
Not to mention, when push comes to shove, a guy can urinate pretty much anywhere. I remember back in my college days when I'd go to the bar restroom and the stalls were being used, the urinal was in use, a guy was peeing in the trash can and another dude was using the sink...
I could imagine Nokia becoming just a phone hardware manufacturer (many have pointed out that they have great hardware) like LG or HTC, and integrate software from companies such as Microsoft. If Samsung, LG, HTC do it, how hard can it be?
Nokia doesn't want that though. Nokia leadership views "just a phone hardware manufacturer" as a doomed fate in a commodity business, much like PC manufacturers have been a commodity for the past 10-20 years. Granted, Dell has done alright in that space, but overall that market still represents a commoditized business.

Instead, Nokia wants to control the stack. That means having an integrated hardware + software solution. That creates real competitive advantage, which creates real profits. Apple has 25% margins. Dell has single digit margins.

No-one else can be Apple. It's questionable how long Apple can continue to be Apple. They got to own a stack because they started way ahead of the competition and haven't slacked or hit any technological walls. Upon the inevitable moment they lose momentum, the clones baying at their heels will eat them. This happened before, with classic Mac before the Jobs renaissance.

As for Nokia, the market has reached a point of consolidation on standards comparable to the collapse of competing computer types in the early 90s from Atari, Commodore, Acorn, Amstrad etc to PC and Mac and nothing else. So they can either sell hardware or die.

It's interesting to note that Apple was in a very similar position back in those days. They were dying, and made the decision to buy NeXT to change OS directions. The primary consideration was the OS, not Jobs; they were apparently very close to buying BeOS instead. Jobs being the catalyst for strategic change happened to be a pleasant surprise. He didn't even become the CEO of Apple again until much later.

So, to be clear, even Apple wasn't Apple. Apple didn't reinvent itself. Apple bought NeXT to try to go a new direction; that is, innovation was acquired, not developed in-house. Looks like Nokia would be forced to do the same, judging from the mood around meego (or in this case, simply partner with an outsider).

So, Nokia is said to prefer a 'partnership' with Microsoft, as opposed to being just another hardware vendor working with Google's Android. That means Nokia would have a special status with Windows Phone 7.

Would the other hardware vendors Microsoft has been working with be kicked out, leaving WP7 to run only on Nokia hardware? I find it hard to think of any other 'special status' Nokia can have, if other vendors also offer WP7 phones. Or would other vendors be forced to offer ones with severe limitations, to differentiate Nokia's? If so it seems to not make sense for the other vendors.

Also not sure why it makes sense for Microsoft. Giving Nokia special status means limiting the amount of hardware vendors. Perhaps Microsoft just wants to do the iPhone thing - tightly integrated software+hardware - but they could have done that in-house, like the did with Zune. Why have a single hardware vendor that isn't themselves?

For Nokia, I can see how this might make sense - they have had lots of delays while developing their software platform, and Microsoft has a viable one now. However, it seems it would make much more sense for Nokia to just fork Android, which is also a viable platform, and a more popular one at that. Also, it is free of cost, unlike WP7.

So overall this is very odd, but I guess the details will come out soon, and maybe it will make more sense.

> Would the other hardware vendors Microsoft has been working with be kicked out, leaving WP7 to run only on Nokia hardware?

Exactly my thought. Even if they are not "kicked out" I can't see how it wouldn't have a huge negative effect on all the other manufacturers of WP7 phones if they perceive it is not a level playing field. They would immediately redouble their Android efforts and drop priority on WP7. To me, adding Nokia but losing HTC, Samsung, LG and Motorola would be a giant net loss. So it doesn't make sense for me on the MS side.

And on the Nokia side, if Nokia goes exclusively WP7 with no fallback options they would seem to be taking an enormous risk - however much anybody likes it WP7 is just not proven yet - it seems bizarre to bet the whole company on something that is unproven and depends totally on another partner, especially one who has been so fickle in the past (eg: Kin).

> "However, it seems it would make much more sense for Nokia to just fork Android, which is also a viable platform, and a more popular one at that. Also, it is free of cost, unlike WP7."

I've seen WP7 run faster on remarkably little hardware - it's a lot like iOS in that sense. Where even Froyo would lurch and struggle, iOS and WP7 have been shown to make very snappy experiences out of relatively old hardware.

This can potentially lend a lot of hardware advantages. The current "we have N core in our phones!" race that HTC, LG, Moto, and Samsung are running in is in no small part due to the lackluster performance of Android. The only apparent solution is to throw more and more hardware at it (and to be fair, it's working, the latest generation of Android devices are finally as snappy as my pokey 500MHz iPhone).

But consumers don't care about their megahurtz or their cores. They want a snappy UI that works for them - if Nokia can create a better experience for less hardware, they pocket that difference. This can also confer spec-sheet advantages that customers do care about - e.g. battery life.

Secondly, as a "preferred partner" for MS, Nokia might have some say over where the platform goes. I think it's pretty safe to say that Google does what it wants with Android, and if Nokia wanted a feature they'd have to wait in line like everyone else. Given the poor sales of WP7 so far, I'm betting MS is willing to bend over backwards and Nokia may get to drive the platform development in a big way.

I wouldn't go as far as saying WP7 can run better on older or lower end hardware than Android. Remember Android runs pretty well on 500 Mhz ARM11 chips, while WP7 has to run on at least 1 Ghz Cortex A8 chip. I don't think that requirement is a coincidence after seeing how slow the Xbox Avatar was moving for example.

The problem with Android has always been lack of hardware acceleration, and I agree that Google made a terrible mistake by not supporting it from the very beginning.

I don't know about that, my iPhone 3G was unusable even before 4 was released, which doesn't bode very well for iOS. On the other hand, Android is very responsive on a $200 Samsung S, which can't be that much faster than the 3G...
iPhone 3G has an ARM11 620 MHz processor (underclocked to 412 MHz). I'm not sure what a Samsung S is (Galaxy S? Nexus S?), but if you are referring to a Galaxy S, the Galaxy S is quite a bit faster.
Sorry, it's called Galaxy 3.
I'm pretty sure Microsoft doesn't trust your HTC's anyway because those companies make so much more with Android than WP7.

Also, I'm guess Nokia is aiming for the US market only (for now) with WP7. Single market, single OS, hopefully a single model.

It just might work.

Unlike many other phone manufacturer's (and like Apple), Nokia has long placed strategic value on phone operating systems. For a company with that tradition, a Microsoft solution makes sense as a replacement for inhouse OS development because Microsoft's core business model is B2B (unlike Google and Apple).

In other words, nobody is likely to question Microsoft's ability to deliver and support a company the size of Nokia given their track record with large worldwide companies. Nor are people likely to question Microsoft's ability to provide user support when WP7 is placed on commodity phones given their track record with Windows.

What the article misses is that the first victim of Microsoft Nokia partnership is likely to be RIM. A Microsoft and Nokia partnership is likely to be a powerful player in enterprise. And from a strategic perspective, Microsoft can benefit even if the partnership is not a cash cow because it allows them to solidify the vertical extents of their product line. Reducing the penetration of Android and iOS into the enterprise isn't a bad thing for Microsoft either.

[Edit] Pitching Java in favor of .Net may also be a factor influencing Nokia's thinking - given the way Oracle has been acting recently.

It's a bit surprising that Nokia wouldn't go for another Linux-based platform (Android), but I guess that anything is better than their current strategy.

I guess that WP7 will allow them to provide an alternative to all the Android devices out there, and unlike Android, they could potentially be the premier WP7 vendor if they execute correctly.

There are still millions of windows users, and the phone is quickly becoming the computer. If you can make phones do "computer things" in away that is just like the computer these folks are used to, you might have an angle of attack, which is more than nokia has now.

Betting on the same plan as your nimbler competitors is a dominated strategy game theory-wise.

I think it's precisely because so many companies are choosing Android that they wouldn't want to go Android. There's very little differentiation in following the herd.

Of course, if you're going to differentiate, you want to be the quarterback chased by all the girls, not the scorned outcast playing alone in the courtyard, with only bullies providing social interaction.

Not exactly surprising considering Elop's background.
Yeah, everyone keeps trying to make this into a technical or business decision, when it's clearly not. Partnering with an also-ran doesn't make sense except in the context of Elop coming from Microsoft and bringing along a team of softies.

Only a Microsoft fanatic would look at the mobile landscape right now and think, "I know, I'll team my struggling company up with those guys. They really know what they're doing."

Microsoft knows how to work with large companies - and look at the alternatives to WP7:

1. In house development. Nokia has "been there done that" 2. Android - Google's B2B track record isn't all that great. 3. iOS [just kidding]

If Nokia were to do this, then they had better find a way to make developer migration/adoption as frictionless as possible.

We're talking about smartphones here, which are going to be driven by developers to some extent. A whole scale migration from Symbian/MeeGo to something else is going to be a messy one for sure, one that's definitely going to anger the current crop of developers.

With frameworks like Qt in place, which makes it easy for developers to build for all Nokia platforms, I tend to think that Nokia would not to go down the path of an OS overhaul.

Then again, anything is possible when you've got billions of dollars in revenue. It could be anything from an OS switch, to a new version of Qt which natively compiles Python, Ruby, JS, etc

EDIT: this - http://venturebeat.com/2011/02/09/nokia-cancels-meego-phone/

seems to make one wonder even more about Nokia is up to

The first "MeeGo" phone was designed to run Maemo 6 and was set to be released in 2010. MeeGo changed plans and the hardware was ready to be scrapped. The successor is in development.

I'd believe WP7 could replace Symbian in mid-range phones, and MeeGo is reserved for really high-end phones and tablets (possibly for x86-devices only). MeeGo and Qt won't go anywhere though, even if Nokia doesn't use them.

If this pans out it may prove to be one of the most interesting changes in the mobile landscape for awhile. Nokia has the hardware capabilities and while I don't personally like it, MS has come up with a pretty good OS which I'm sure is only going to evolve rapidly. Don't think anything I've seen yet will pry my Android out of hands but I would love to see his pan out and form another big mobile player. I think the market can easily support 3 solid platforms.
I see this as the last nail in Nokia's coffin. Android has a lot of momentum, Windows Phone 7 is "barely" out. Again Nokia plunges into uncertainty instead of competing with other manufacturers on the hardware front.
If true, I wonder what this means for Mac syncing. Nokia's Mac software works wonderfully with the E71 and I'd hate to see that go by the wayside.