MS to aquire Nokia divices division

[darkewaffle]

"aquire divices"

:/

I'm interested to see if this affects hardware design and their branding.

 

[WelshBloke]

What bad decisions did he make?

The positives for Microsoft in you're post were negatives from Nokias point of view yes?
And Nokia ultimately ended up being bought for pennies on the dollar under his rule so at best he was ineffectual.

 

[vi edit]

Microsoft needs someone who can help turn the company around. Elop doesn't have a record of doing that. The problem is that he may be the best they have left internally, since it seems like Ballmer drove off anyone else who might have made a decent CEO.

Wonder if they have Alan Mullaly's number.

 

[Eug]

So, is this another nail in Blackberry's coffin?

The Motorola purchase by Google continues to confuse me. Moto seems to be on life support. Samsung is just crushing everyone with HTC and LG sort of hanging around fending for the scraps. I don't know if Google is scared to push it too much and piss off Samsung by using Moto to do the Nexus line or what. The only interesting thing Moto has offered in the last few years is the MAXX line and that's just a phone with a big ass battery hooked to it. They've got decent build quality but other than that their cameras suck, their marketing is to 15-20 something males and they just don't have a whole lot else going on.

I would *not* use that business arrangement as a model for MS & Nokia.

Motorola's phones out so far are not a product of the Google acquisition of Motorola. These were phones that were already in the pipeline, although I suppose one might argue that the fact Motoblur is now near stock Android might have something to do with Google. I think they were going that direction anyway, but I'm thinking the Google acquisition probably pushed it faster to near-stock.

New true Google-partnered Motorola products though won't be out until next year.

I'm not sure about the advertising comment though. I don't see the advertising here in Canada as being directed toward 15-20 year-old males, but maybe because a lot of the advertising comes from the carriers themselves here and I'm not seeing the true Motorola-sourced advertising.

 

[vi edit]

I'm not sure about the advertising comment though. I don't see the advertising here in Canada as being directed toward 15-20 year-old males, but maybe because a lot of the advertising comes from the carriers themselves here and I'm not seeing the true Motorola-sourced advertising.

Down here the only carrier that even markets Motorola phones is Verizon and their "Droid" line. And all of those are tacky giant robots fighting and ninjas on motorcycles and a pile of other cheesy sci-fi/action oriented imagery.

 

[Bateluer]

Not unexpected. More surprised it took this long. Not sure how I feel about Elop being a front runner to replace Ballmer though, MS needs someone who can bring in fresh ideas. Elop has more of a track record of sticking with old ideas, running Nokia into the gutter in the process.

Still, they could do worse. They could hire Jim Balsillie.

 

[lothar]

I'd vote for the best candidate. Elop would be a better prospect if he had fared better with Nokia, but his history as CEO isn't really all that flattering. He was CIO of a company that went bankrupt and was acquired by a competitor. Later, he became CEO of Macromedia that ended up being acquired by Adobe shortly thereafter.

Microsoft needs someone who can help turn the company around. Elop doesn't have a record of doing that. The problem is that he may be the best they have left internally, since it seems like Ballmer drove off anyone else who might have made a decent CEO.

And who in your opinion would that be?

As for the 2nd part, most of that isn't relevant.
He was the CIO of a freaking restaurant business. A CIO of a non-technology company(in this example, a restaurant) is basically a figure-head and not involved in day to day operations of where the company earns $$$ like a CEO, CFO, COO, Presidents and Vice presidents are.

Chief Information Officer or Information Technology Director, is a job title commonly given to the most senior executive in an enterprise responsible for the information technology and computer systems that support enterprise goals.

If someone was the CIO of McDonalds and McDonald's went bankrupt tomorrow, I don't see the person as being responsible for the bankruptcy unless you can prove to me without reasonable doubt that he was responsible because McDonalds makes money serving burgers, fries, soda, and franchise businesses.
Now, if someone was the CIO at Intel, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon, or some other tech company and it went bankrupt; that would certainly make me pause.

Regarding him being the CEO of Macromedia and being acquired by Adobe, what exactly was bad about it? Did he sell to Adobe for less than what the company was worth at the time of the transaction? Did he sell to Adobe for less than what the company was worth when he started as the CEO? Selling a company you're the CEO of does not automatically mean a bad deal. I'm sure if a company came out and wants to buy Berkshire Hathaway for a trillion dollars, even Warren Buffett would take it.

Based on what I've seen, Elop's record at Microsoft was excellent.

From January 2008 to September 2010, Elop worked for Microsoft as the head of the Business Division, responsible for the Microsoft Office and Microsoft Dynamics line of products, and as a member of the company's senior leadership team. It was during this time that Microsoft's Business Division released Office 2010.

Reading the quarterly and annual SEC filings of Microsoft, the Office division increased profits while he was there and even a year after he left.

That part about Ballmer firing many people that were perceived as threats to his leadership is definitely interesting and I've read many things about it.
I was taken aback when Steven Sinofsky was fired because I expected him to be the next CEO in line at Microsoft. Many people prior to Steven Sinofsky have either gone(or been fired) as well.

 

[darkewaffle]

That part about Ballmer firing many people that were perceived as threats to his leadership is definitely interesting and I've read many things about it.
I was taken aback when Steven Sinofsky was fired because I expected him to be the next CEO in line at Microsoft. Many people prior to Steven Sinofsky have either gone(or been fired) as well.

Sinofsky was the sacrificial lamb for Win8's purported transgressions.

Personally I don't have a problem with Win8 but it's still curious how the president of the entire OS division still has a pretty good name even now while Win8 is generally considered Ballmer's failure and that Ballmer somehow forced Sinofsky out after there was so much negative press for Sinofsky's product.

 

[lothar]

Sinofsky was the sacrificial lamb for Win8's purported transgressions.

Personally I don't have a problem with Win8 but it's still curious how the president of the entire OS division still has a pretty good name even now while Win8 is generally considered Ballmer's failure and that Ballmer somehow forced Sinofsky out after there was so much negative press for Sinofsky's product.

There was a lot of negative press regarding Windows 8. I'm sure I was one of the critics and I still am today.
However that negative press has barely affected the profits of the Windows division at Microsoft much. In fact, I'm even surprised that they're doing as well as they are in their Windows division despite me and all the other people online and tech blogs that give Windows 8 negative press.

 

[preslove]

They could have done worse than their market share collapsing, their share price plummeting and ultimately getting bought out for a fraction of the price that they had been worth a few years previously?
Honestly how could it be significantly worse?

Seriously. Android could have saved Nokia. WP7 and WP8 doomed them, and this was pretty obviously the case at the time.

 

[Red Storm]

Seriously. Android could have saved Nokia. WP7 and WP8 doomed them, and this was pretty obviously the case at the time.

I wouldn't say doomed so much as relegated them to the back of the line, but I agree that Nokia should have at least tried branching out to Android as well, but I'm pretty sure when MS paid them that first bundle of millions they were only supposed to make Windows phones.

 

[Bateluer]

There was a lot of negative press regarding Windows 8. I'm sure I was one of the critics and I still am today.
... despite me and all the other people online and tech blogs that give Windows 8 negative press.

There's a few people on the /r/pcmasterrace subreddit that love Windows 8 . . . with ClassicShell installed, Start Screen and Charms disabled, plus the usual slew of tools, utilities and widgets that enthusiasts love. Not like it has anything to do with their inability to purchase Windows 7 any more either.

 

[openwheel]

There was a lot of negative press regarding Windows 8. I'm sure I was one of the critics and I still am today.
However that negative press has barely affected the profits of the Windows division at Microsoft much. In fact, I'm even surprised that they're doing as well as they are in their Windows division despite me and all the other people online and tech blogs that give Windows 8 negative press.

do you write in the tech world? Care to share what you've wrote outside this forum?

 

[lothar]

do you write in the tech world? Care to share what you've wrote outside this forum?

I don't write anything outside this forum. Why would you assume that from my post?

 

[openwheel]

I think windows phone would have more market share, if Samsung actually tried to make a decent WM8 device. Their lineup looked like an after-thought compared to Nokias. That's why Nokia has such a big share of the WM8 pie.

 

[openwheel]

I don't write anything outside this forum. Why would you assume that from my post?

You worded it that way, or maybe I mis-read it.

 

[lothar]

I think windows phone would have more market share, if Samsung actually tried to make a decent WM8 device. Their lineup looked like an after-thought compared to Nokias. That's why Nokia has such a big share of the WM8 pie.

Or maybe Samsung saw that Nokia seemed to be getting preferential treatment from Microsoft and decided not to waste much time on it and be played second fiddle?
They're probably doing the bare minimum possible because the $15/Android device Samsung pays Microsoft probably also requires them to make *some* Windows Phone devices.

You worded it that way, or maybe I mis-read it.

You misread it.

 

[openwheel]

maybe, maybe not

 

[Mopetar]

And who in your opinion would that be?

Terry Myerson who was behind the design of Windows Phone has at least shown that he's capable of creating something that most people would agree is a good mobile OS, the only major fault being that it was several years too late. They recently put him in charge of Operating Systems, probably hoping that he can work his magic again so that Windows 9 is actually worth getting. He also worked on the exchange group and has been with the company since the 90's so he's familiar with other areas of the company. Before Microsoft, he founded his own company (which Microsoft later acquired) so it's not as if he knows nothing of running a business either.

If they wanted to go with someone with a business perspective, their current COO, Kevin Turner, is a far better choice than Elop. Prior to joining Microsoft, he worked at Wal-Mart, where he became the company CIO after working his way up through the company. He was a corporate officer at only 29, which was the youngest in company history, so he's probably not a dummy. CIO is hardless a figurehead position at Wal-Mart, which has a massive inventory system. He later went on to become the CEO at Sam's Club. From what I've heard, he's a no nonsense type of person that tells things like they are and doesn't sit around making excuses. In that sense, almost the opposite of Ballmer who you could also say had a reality distortion field, although it never extended further than his own mind. He has actual experience in running companies, and to advance as far as he did within Wal-Mart, would suggest that he's got a good head on his shoulders.

Either of those choices would be preferable to Elop in my opinion.

Regarding him being the CEO of Macromedia and being acquired by Adobe, what exactly was bad about it? Did he sell to Adobe for less than what the company was worth at the time of the transaction? Did he sell to Adobe for less than what the company was worth when he started as the CEO? Selling a company you're the CEO of does not automatically mean a bad deal. I'm sure if a company came out and wants to buy Berkshire Hathaway for a trillion dollars, even Warren Buffett would take it.

It's not bad if you want a CEO who has a history of acquisitions, but Elop's tenure as CEO does not show the ability to turn a company around or raise its position. He was also COO of another company for a single year before moving from Adobe to Microsoft, although I don't know if he was fired or quit that position.

I think he's just a name that people are familiar with so people assume he's the best choice. I don't think he is.

 

[ElFenix]

The Motorola purchase by Google continues to confuse me. Moto seems to be on life support. Samsung is just crushing everyone with HTC and LG sort of hanging around fending for the scraps. I don't know if Google is scared to push it too much and piss off Samsung by using Moto to do the Nexus line or what. The only interesting thing Moto has offered in the last few years is the MAXX line and that's just a phone with a big ass battery hooked to it. They've got decent build quality but other than that their cameras suck, their marketing is to 15-20 something males and they just don't have a whole lot else going on.

I would *not* use that business arrangement as a model for MS & Nokia.

moto wasn't valuable for its phones, moto was valuable for its patents.

 

[LostPassword]

can't believe nokia settled for 7 billion.
microsoft needs to pay elop huge bucks for that steal.
nokia board has to the most idiotic group ever. ran that company to the ground.

 

[88keys]

Perhaps it's not as bad of a move as some might think.

The marketshare for their desktop OS will only shrink as tablets and smartphones advance further. They need to do something to carry them into the future. The problem I see here is that I think this could be too little too late. Most of the advancements that are to be made in the smartphone/tablet market have already been made. Apple has style and simplicity, Android has functionality and diversity. Not to mention that Mozilla will be making smartphones which further saturates an already flooded market. Where does M$ and Nokia fit into all of this? Microsoft's future could rest primarily with their gaming console.

 

[lothar]

Terry Myerson who was behind the design of Windows Phone has at least shown that he's capable of creating something that most people would agree is a good mobile OS, the only major fault being that it was several years too late. They recently put him in charge of Operating Systems, probably hoping that he can work his magic again so that Windows 9 is actually worth getting. He also worked on the exchange group and has been with the company since the 90's so he's familiar with other areas of the company. Before Microsoft, he founded his own company (which Microsoft later acquired) so it's not as if he knows nothing of running a business either.

If they wanted to go with someone with a business perspective, their current COO, Kevin Turner, is a far better choice than Elop. Prior to joining Microsoft, he worked at Wal-Mart, where he became the company CIO after working his way up through the company. He was a corporate officer at only 29, which was the youngest in company history, so he's probably not a dummy. CIO is hardless a figurehead position at Wal-Mart, which has a massive inventory system. He later went on to become the CEO at Sam's Club. From what I've heard, he's a no nonsense type of person that tells things like they are and doesn't sit around making excuses. In that sense, almost the opposite of Ballmer who you could also say had a reality distortion field, although it never extended further than his own mind. He has actual experience in running companies, and to advance as far as he did within Wal-Mart, would suggest that he's got a good head on his shoulders.

Either of those choices would be preferable to Elop in my opinion.



It's not bad if you want a CEO who has a history of acquisitions, but Elop's tenure as CEO does not show the ability to turn a company around or raise its position. He was also COO of another company for a single year before moving from Adobe to Microsoft, although I don't know if he was fired or quit that position.

I think he's just a name that people are familiar with so people assume he's the best choice. I don't think he is.

I recall many people say the same thing about the BlackBerry executives. BB10 is a good OS...Only it arrived several years too late, or it should have arrived around the time when BlackBerry revealed the "PlayBook", etc...
I personally wouldn't call Windows Phone to be successful yet. If anything, it's a partial failure in that it's still essentially fighting for scraps with BlackBerry for 3rd place. Would this Microsoft/Nokia deal change that? Let's hope so.

I think I highly prefer Kevin Turner over Terry Myerson. I know very well who Kevin Turner is and I've been a shareholder of Wal-Mart for many years.
At this point, almost anyone would be better than Ballmer. Even Elop.

 

[lothar]

The positives for Microsoft in you're post were negatives from Nokias point of view yes?
And Nokia ultimately ended up being bought for pennies on the dollar under his rule so at best he was ineffectual.

That's assuming it was not both his and Microsoft's plan to do so from the very beginning.

 

[WelshBloke]

That's assuming it was not both his and Microsoft's plan to do so from the very beginning.

Deliberately running Nokia down so that Microsoft could buy them cheaper would have been illegal wouldn't it?