Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cellphones Android Businesses Handhelds Operating Systems

Nokia Turns To Android To Regain Share In Emerging Markets 146

Posted by timothy
from the reaction-time dept.
puddingebola writes "Nokia is preparing to release its first Android phone, as the lost market share in emerging markets from the death of Symbian has never been recovered. Windows Phone could never be adapted to the entry level devices that have driven growth in these markets, necessitating the move. From the article, 'Nokia was once the king of cellphones in emerging markets. But it has lost ground because it was slow to respond to Android's popularity in many countries. In India, where Nokia's Symbian-powered phones held a big share of cellphone sales just a few years ago, Android was installed on 93% of new smartphones shipped there last year, according to estimates from research firm IDC.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nokia Turns To Android To Regain Share In Emerging Markets

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    you cannot compete with free.

    • Sorry but if you think that Android is free I have some land on the moon I'd like to sell you. I doubt that Nokia can just build a device and throw Android on it and it works out of the box. Nothing is that easy...
      • by Anonymous Coward

        Given that Nokia's Hardware isn't too different from what's out there, Android would just work.

        • As Google moves more of its functionality from ASOP to Google Play store apps [arstechnica.com], it is becoming less free (as in beer [google.com] and freedom).

          • GMS isn't licenced on a payment basis.
            • Directly speaking, that's true. Indirectly speaking, a phone vendor effectively must forgo any revenue potential for providers of services that compete with Google, given Google's restrictictions around prominence of their apps, and the defaults they enforce around search and location. Coincidentally, there is another Ars article [arstechnica.com] on the topic.

            • Actually, it is. Google is charging between $0.5 and $2 for manufacturers to bundle their apps, depending on what they bundle, and also restricting what else they're allowed to ship. They're trying very hard to do to the mobile phone market what Microsoft did to the PC market: make the hardware a cheap, interchangeable, commodity and their software the bit that customers are willing to pay for. Oh, and on the subject of Microsoft, don't forget that they're charging around $15/device for the patents of th
          • by thegarbz (1787294) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @07:06PM (#46241765)

            I don't understand. They have a completely open source operating system. Why should that automagically give everyone unrestricted rights to all of Google's services?

            Just because I needed to buy a copy of a program doesn't make Linux any less free and open source. And by extension there are several other Android platforms out there which don't have any of Google's Services including the app store, (see Amazon, B&N etc)

            It hasn't moved any functionality out of Android. Just because the Google Play Music app exists doesn't mean the old app has stopped working. Just because Google Cards is now the default search on their phones, doesn't mean the old Google Search stopped, and by extension just because Google is forcing man+dog to the G+ platform won't mean that the SMS app suddenly stops sending SMSes. In fact I'm willing to bet that the apps will happily interact.

      • by Sockatume (732728) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @12:52PM (#46238945)

        Android's super-open, it just turns out people are more interested in the idea of having Google services on a phone than in Android itself. And that part is certainly not open. If you want to find your own supplier for maps, email, calendar, and browser, then you can launch your own Android gizmo; Microsoft has all those things.

        • If you want to find your own supplier for maps, email, calendar, and browser, then you can launch your own Android gizmo; Microsoft has all those things.

          Ho ly crap... If Microsoft "forks" android with MS versions of the droid apps, that would be a serious earth shaker. Keep in mind that there are a lot of cheap tablet players making droid devices with no Google apps due to this licensing. Robing Google of Android market-share would be both amusing, and potentially profitable!

          • Robing Google of Android market-share would be both amusing, and potentially profitable!

            It would be good to see other companies competing with Google for a bundled app-stack on Android, so if MS or even Apple were to compete, then this would be a good thing.

            But just to pick up on your point about it being "amusing", I assume you're saying that because Google created Android, and thus if they got screwed over for making a genuinely open platform, this would some how be funny?

            Let's be clear here, Google have been playing nice (mostly) all the way through. That's why other people can take tha

            • But just to pick up on your point about it being "amusing", I assume you're saying that because Google created Android, and thus if they got screwed over for making a genuinely open platform, this would some how be funny? Let's be clear here, Google have been playing nice (mostly) all the way through. That's why other people can take that platform and monetise it without paying Google a bean. I'd love to see MS do something like that... because of course, they wouldn't.

              I was thinking about how much money was invested in the SEVERAL failed Windows phone operating systems, and to finally have success with the Google free OS would be amusing. It is success, so they should be happy, but with someone else's stuff, so... :)

      • by thegarbz (1787294)

        Tada [android.com]

        You can feel free to load that on any device you want. All that is needed is an electronics platform to put it on and the vendors to provide you with any drivers for the sensors or the specs to write the driver in question. You see that's exactly what you get when you load custom ROMs. Some guy grabs the AOSP and strips the drivers out of the phone's firmware (or reverse engineers it), and bam, the latest Android 4.4 on your shitty old abandoned phone.

        This is as free as putting Linux on a computer. Now

  • by Kjella (173770) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @11:14AM (#46238055) Homepage

    Seriously, who's going to buy a Nokia Android phone when you know they've been bought by Microsoft and won't care one bit about supporting it? Same as the Maemo/MeeGo based phones that Nokia released after the Nokia/Microsoft deal was announced, it's stillborn. And unlike those who might have some unique features this is yet another Android phone that you can get from other companies, so it makes even less sense. Nokia must be running out of feet to shoot itself in.

    • by gstoddart (321705)

      Nokia must be running out of feet to shoot itself in.

      Or Microsoft has shot off all the toes they needed to get what they wanted -- which was an established brand to make Microsoft Phones.

      Don't forget, it was Stephen Elop from Microsoft who has more or less ruined the company and dragged down their value by making terrible decisions.

      • My perspective, the terrible decisions and more damaging, lousy execution of plans were already done when Elop took over - the biggest terrible decision of course being to give Elop the job.

        They had a rough go with Qt/Maemo, then they changed course, to a dead end street.

        I've read elsewhere that Windows is embracing Android, both on the desktop and in their phones, so a pure Android Nokia phone isn't 100% off base, especially if it can do something clever with MS Office and Exchange integration.

        Personally,

        • They had a rough go with Qt/Maemo, then they changed course, to a dead end street.

          Was Maemo ever Qt? I thought they changed the name when they switched it from GTK to Qt. And there you see the real problem with Nokia: a complete lack of direction. They had, in EKA2, a beautifully designed kernel for mobile applications, tied to a userland and userspace APIs that were designed when 1MB of RAM was an insane quantity reserved for the most expensive of phones. So, the first thing they did was try to shoehorn Linux into a phone. Then, having replaced the one good bit of their stack with

          • I never kept up with the names - beyond Qt at least. They always seemed like pre-beta not ready for wasting my time on projects.

            If I had gotten Elop's job at Nokia (which I wouldn't have, because I don't have ties to Microsoft, but just fantasize), I would have continued the Linux on phone development with Qt as the UI, put serious resources into a desktop phone emulator that works (unlike my current experience with Eclipse and Android simulation), and focused on making developer friendly software that wor

            • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @01:45PM (#46239359) Journal

              From what I've heard from ex-Nokia people, it wasn't just senior management that lacked direction. They had internal teams all developing complete stacks in isolation and competing for resources. Elop wasn't completely wrong: making them all focus on a single platform was probably the only thing that could have saved Nokia, and Windows Phone wasn't a completely ludicrous choice, as they did want something to differentiate themselves from the competition and there weren't any other significant Windows Phone vendors to compete with.

              Pushing ahead with Linux + Qt might have worked, but only if they'd fired about 90% of middle management and reorganised the teams. Even then, there would likely have been a lot of resentment from the various teams that had their work discarded in favour of another's. Remember that Nokia didn't have a Linux + Qt platform, they had several, all with mutually incompatible frameworks built atop Qt, none of which was compellingly better than the others.

              It's a shame that the Qt on EKA2 project was killed. The EKA2 kernel was a much better fit for mobile devices than Linux (it still amazes me after all of Google's investment how few of its features Android has), and Qt would have given them the base of a modern development environment that would have competed well with other platforms.

              • >internal teams all developing complete stacks in isolation and competing for resources

                One of the prime dangers of being big and well resourced. Somebody at the top should have been regularly breaking up the party and selecting "the best of" what was developed to be the companywide platform, then continue from there. Or, better still, train the teams to play in their own sandboxes and trust their colleagues to give them the support they need. Both approaches have drawbacks, but competing with yourself

                • Intel does the former quite successfully, but it does cause problems internally. Promotions and so on are often linked to project success, yet projects can be cancelled simply because Intel had 5 guesses about what the market would want a few years down the line and your group was given one of the ones that didn't turn out to be accurate to work on. This leads to resentment and competent engineers realising that they have more prospects for advancement if they go and work for competitors. It's hard to ge
                  • Story of my life...

                    I was hired at a local firm as a "Senior Developer," then promptly given responsibility for managing an international development team, developing a new product architecture from the ground up, updating the infrastructure and driving adoption of best practices, etc. Not a problem, it's what I do, but lately I'm given that "Senior Developer" title because my professional career lacks any big home run projects. Judged not based on abilities or performance of me or my teams, but on the mar

          • Correct, Maemo was GTK and Meego was QT. I owned an N900 till it died (ran over by a car) and still use my N9.
          • ... since ~2009. The community, who seem to be in love with Qt, have ported Qt5: http://talk.maemo.org/showthre... [maemo.org]

        • by Lisias (447563) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @12:28PM (#46238745) Homepage Journal

          They had a rough go with Qt/Maemo, then they changed course, to a dead end street.

          I have a hilarious history from the time I used to work to a Nokia partner. :-)

          Nokia had given us a free QT for Mobile workshop for our team. We attended the workshop, and we enjoyed it very much.

          However, roughly one year later, someone on Nokia had called us bitterly complaining why in hell our shop didn't released any APP using QT yet.

          Our answer? "Because YOU had hired us to develop APPs for you, and YOU had NOT asked for it!"

          The funny thing is that in that year, we were called to develop APPs (or prototypes) on J2ME, Symbian, Android, iOS and even BADA (serious! I made a APP for BADA!! Honest!). But nobody on Nokia had asked us for anything using QT.

          Go figure it out - I couldn't.

          • by bondsbw (888959)

            I'm not following. You said to Nokia, "YOU had hired us to develop APPs for you"... doesn't that by definition mean they requested you to develop apps for them? Why would you then say "YOU had NOT asked for it"?

            • Sounds like an unused retainer agreement to me - I had one of those once...

            • by Curate (783077)
              Go re-read the GP's post again. I understood it just fine. Nokia had hired them to write apps, and had asked for apps for the J2ME, Symbian, Android, iOS, and BADA platforms; but not for the QT platform. So naturally they didn't spend any time developing for the QT platform. You quoted the first half of a sentence, but the second half of that sentence is important too.
              • by PeelBoy (34769)

                Doesn't make what he said any less confusing. He could have clarified wtf he was talking about when he quoted what he was saying to the Nokia rep.

                This sentence: "Because YOU had hired us to develop APPs for you, and YOU had NOT asked for it!" was confusing as hell in the context it was given.

                I literally read that quote several times thinking I was reading it wrong.

          • by Jmc23 (2353706)
            Fucking myopic nerd, why do you think they sent you to the seminar???
            • by Lisias (447563)

              Fucking myopic nerd, why do you think they sent you to the seminar???/quote
              To make QT Apps, of course.

              However, since THEY are the contractors, we build the APPs THEY ask for. And they didn't ask for any QT APPs.

              This is clear enough for you, fscking functionally illiterate slashdotter? :-)

      • by Sockatume (732728) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @11:50AM (#46238353)

        As an S60 fan from their glory days, this is a traditional Nokia mistake. You'd be amazed at the incredible products Nokia has managed to render obsolete or irrelevant by competition between different business units.

    • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @11:41AM (#46238287)

      Seriously, who's going to buy a Nokia Android phone when you know they've been bought by Microsoft and won't care one bit about supporting it?

      Possible customers include anyone who doesn't follow mobile phone news very closely. Which is most people. Tech business news is not exactly gobbled up by the public. Most slashdotters won't buy, but mobile nerds aren't common. AND I might buy one if the hardware's nice enough and I can root it. What do I care about support for it if I can just install cyanogenmod?

      • by tlhIngan (30335)

        Possible customers include anyone who doesn't follow mobile phone news very closely. Which is most people. Tech business news is not exactly gobbled up by the public. Most slashdotters won't buy, but mobile nerds aren't common. AND I might buy one if the hardware's nice enough and I can root it. What do I care about support for it if I can just install cyanogenmod?

        The hardware's for emerging markets, one of Nokia's strong points.

        It's not going to be "nice" hardware, it's going to be "cheap" hardware. The on

        • by cbhacking (979169)

          Well, they don't include *ultra*-low-end phones. WP7 would run on 1GHz single-core w/ 256MB of RAM, but it's dying. WP8 requires 1GHz dual-core w/ 512MB RAM, which is still damn cheap these days. The Lumia 520 has done well, and can be had for about $50 if you know where to look (though its MSRP is rather higher).

          With that said, yeah, you won't find a $35-at-typical-retail-price WP8 device right now.

    • by Sockatume (732728)

      It's classic Nokia, really: dispirate teams running over time on projects so that by the time they launch, the market no longer exists. Meego, Maemo, Symbian^3, you name it, Nokia can make it run so far over time that all the company can do is pitch it out ate at whatever region that device is least irrelevant in.

      • i disagree. They made a lot of products before the market even existed. N770 for one. The problem is management never pushed the projects or marketed them well enough. Having no vision did not help either. Nor did selling out to Microsoft when they were the leading cellphone manufacturer. It was just dumb.

    • by squiggleslash (241428) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @11:49AM (#46238345) Homepage Journal

      I'm guessing they're not going to waste enormous effort on this to produce a me-too Android phone that they have to discontinue. The relationship between Nokia and Microsoft being what it is, I suspect this is a face-saving way Microsoft has of adopting Android in some shape or form.

      Something the summary didn't highlight: this isn't GMS/Android (GMS - Google Mobile Services, the apps and infrastructure that make up Google Play and that are bundled with most modern Android devices), Nokia are building this from AOSP in much the same way as Amazon have with the Kindle Fire version of Android. It will have no Google Play Store nor any of the underlying Google non-AOSP infrastructure, and apps written for GMS (an increasing body of work that grows by the day) will need a fair amount of work to make them available in the Nokia app store.

      Windows Phone hasn't exactly been a roaring success. Maybe it should have been, perhaps Windows 8's failure to take off has hurt it, but it hasn't been, and at some point Microsoft is going to look for options. I think it's a pretty major change of direction to jump on a third party product and tweak it for their own needs, but it's not impossible or unheard of - Microsoft tried to do that with Java. Hey, they even had Xenix once. With the exceptions of Linux and Busybox, AOSP has the kind of FOSS licensing Microsoft isn't scared of.

      And Amazon's made a success of the strategy. There are only two popular alternatives to iOS, one is Google's Android, the other is Amazon's.

      If nothing else, allowing Nokia to use a version of Android that's under Nokia/Microsoft's control lets Microsoft buy time.

    • by tuxrulz (853366)
      I'm sure only the 4% "Geek Audience" of the whole billions of phone users world wide knows Nokia sold to Microsoft.

      Nokia have done very good phones in the past, and even some Lumias (taking the WinPhone 8 away) are nicely designed. I know they can do a good, if not great Android phone. Probably not in the first try, but neither LG, Samsung, HTC made awesome phones in their 1st try.

      My doubt is about the company itself.... Do they sold to Microsoft? Microsoft has the exclusive rights to the Lumia de
    • by Andy Dodd (701)

      The same people who buy crap from Micromax.

    • by Luckyo (1726890)

      People bought N9 which was doomed to the same fate.

      So we'll see.

      • I love my N9. Best UI I've ever seen on a phone. After using Meego for a day, I couldn't stand the monstrosity that is Android's interface.
    • Nokia is dead.
      Long live Winkia.
      There are way more uninformed, uncaring, give me something shiny, consumers out that will buy Nokia phones than there are tech savvy ones, if and only if they make something that gets advertising, and reviews, and sparks the consumer's interest.
      But between LG, Samsung, and iPhone phones how are they going to do that?
      However, the reviews are written by people who do actually pay attention and thus, the only great reviews Nokia is likely to see will be the ones they pay fo
    • Seriously, who's going to buy a Nokia Android phone when you know they've been bought by Microsoft and won't care one bit about supporting it?

      Since when has Android products been supported by anybody? Seems like if you want an upgrade from the OS you bought with your phone, it normally has to be done by the owner because the manufacterer isn't going to put out an upgrade. Then again, most people don't seem to keep phones long enough to make a difference anyhow.

    • by Jmc23 (2353706)
      Then again, they might just make it into a new n900 and then who cares what they do afterwards because we'll be able to do anything with it.
  • I guess selling your soul to the devil(Microsoft) did not work as well as planned did it Nokia?

    • by CastrTroy (595695)
      Well, it's not going to work well to capture emerging markets. Most windows phones are pretty high end, and not in the price range of consumers in emerging markets.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        Nokia's smartphone ASP is almost half of the global smartphone market.
        And since Nokia owns WP market share, the vast majority is low end.

      • Re:Hmmm. (Score:4, Informative)

        by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @11:49AM (#46238347)

        Well, it's not going to work well to capture emerging markets. Most windows phones are pretty high end, and not in the price range of consumers in emerging markets.

        Microsoft hasn't exactly cornered the high end market either...

  • That is all.
    • by tuxrulz (853366)

      That is all.

      Is never too late, and with the vast amount of crappy Android phones in mid/low markets, the have a couple of segments where they can be a hit.

      And even in the high end, I'm sure many of the Samsung Galaxy, and HTC users are already bored of the lines and want something fresh.

  • by gstoddart (321705) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @11:19AM (#46238097) Homepage

    But it has lost ground because it was slow to respond to Android's popularity in many countries.

    And just how much of this can be laid at the feet of Microsoft?

    Because once Stephen Elop got in there, he took what was a profitable company and turned it into a dog by changing their focus.

    Microsoft doesn't care about Nokia, they care about having a division which makes Microsoft phones.

    That Nokia is now realizing they might need to embrace Android to turn things around means it's going to be interesting to see when Microsoft finishes buying them. Because there's no way Redmond is going to allow them to make phones running anything but Microsoft stuff.

    Microsoft has been nothing but bad for the viability of Nokia, and I don't see that changing in the future.

    Because, really, these [wikipedia.org] are appalling numbers:

    During Elop's tenure, Nokia annual revenues fell 40% from 41.7 Billion Euros per year to 25.3 Billion Euros per year. Nokia profits fell 92% from 2.4 Billion Euros per year to 188 Million Euros per year. Nokia handset sales fell 40% from 456 million units per year to 274 million units per year. Nokia share price which was at 7.12 Euros on the day Elop was hired, had fallen to 81% to a bottom level of 1.44 Euros two years later, after which it began trading at 4.14 Euros, up 36% on the day.

    Elop was either grossly incompetent, or was there to lower the price of the company for the take over. Because he sure as hell failed to actually grow the company or do anything good for it.

    • I see a shareholder lawsuit in the future. Microsoft did preditory business a bit too well.
    • by timeOday (582209)

      Because once Stephen Elop got in there, he took what was a profitable company and turned it into a dog by changing their focus.

      Almost all cellphone makers are losers:

      A new report from Raymond James analyst Tavis McCourt has some bad news for the smartphone industry. McCourt forecast that in 2014, non-Chinese smartphone markers will see zero growth while Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) and Samsung (SSNLF.PK) continue to suck up over 100 percent of the industryâ(TM)s profits, according to a research note seen by I

    • by Sockatume (732728) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @12:55PM (#46238975)

      Nokia's revenues were already falling dramatically; they peaked in 2007:

      http://www.wikinvest.com/stock... [wikinvest.com]

    • Sounds like the standard Microsoft "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" strategy:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

  • ...and the high end? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Richard_J_N (631241) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @11:22AM (#46238131)

    If I can get a high-end Lumia and have Android, that would be amazing.

    • by Therad (2493316)
      If (and that is a big if) they release android phones, they will not be high-end, since that would compete with windows phone and I doubt microsoft wants that.
      • True, but how many consumers would like a phone that can run their choice of OS? I certainly would.
        If necessary, I'd even pay for MS as long as I don't have to use it. (as with almost all laptops)

        • Realistically, almost none. The geek market would love it, but that's not a large market. Most people will buy some sort of computer (using the word rather generally) and use what came on it until it dies or they discard it.

          • But a dual-boot phone, especially if it shipped with both would be widely liked, I think.

            • Why? It would have serious geek value, but it would almost certainly wind up being left with one OS on most of the time.

              • Of course . but the consumer could then have their favourite OS and phone. For example, I might like a Nokia running Android, while somone else might prefer an S5 with Windows. (What I really want is an iPad with Lubuntu).

    • by rvw (755107)

      If I can get a high-end Lumia and have Android, that would be amazing.

      That 41MP camera is amazing. I like the Nokia quality. I would be interested, and many people with me I think. Is this the first sign of common sense since Ballmer is gone?

  • It's very likely that Nokia tested Android on its phones when it wanted Microsoft to close the deal, this is probably a false alarm born from those prototypes.

    It makes no sense at all for MS to release an Android phone, and I doubt Nokia can release it and sell it in numbers before April (aquisition date), so I don't expect it to happen.

    If it actually does come out, I see only two explanations. 1) Nokia is trying to scare MS from sealing the deal. 2) it's a thinly veiled attempt at saying "we tried Android

    • by philmck (790785)
      There's an interesting blog post from Tomi Ahonen about this - he agrees it probably won't happen. http://communities-dominate.bl... [blogs.com]
    • by gstoddart (321705)

      If it actually does come out, I see only two explanations. 1) Nokia is trying to scare MS from sealing the deal. 2) it's a thinly veiled attempt at saying "we tried Android but our customers would not want it". Most likely the former.

      Or, now that Elop is gone someone is genuinely trying to make Nokia a profitable and viable company again.

      I strongly suspect there's still someone there who gives a damn and can see the situation they're in. And if that someone isn't beholden to Microsoft, they might actually

    • by Sockatume (732728)

      3) It's a product that someone in Nokia thought could save the company a few years ago, and which they're going to launch because it is finally actually finished. It would not be the first time.

  • Welcome back, old friend. There's a place set at the table for you; have a seat.
  • Hey Nokia.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lumpy (12016) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @11:45AM (#46238323) Homepage

    Do it right. your flagship phones, rip that garbage Windows OS off of them and install Android. I would LOVE your 900megapixel phone with a nice clean Android 4.4 on it.

    you could get it to market in 30 days, no hardware to change. Want it faster?? contact the Android hackers and tell them how to unlock the bootloader and give them full details on the hardware. You will have android ported to it within the week.

    You will INSTANTLY gain market share.

    • Re:Hey Nokia.... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Type44Q (1233630) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @12:05PM (#46238505)

      Want it faster?? contact the Android hackers and tell them how to unlock the bootloader and give them full details on the hardware

      Easier said than done? Seriously, with the amount of 3rd-party IP you're likely talking about, six to twelve months sounds more like it...

  • Now Ballmer is gone, will MS make the right decisions? This one could be the first sign of common sense at MS since a long time.

  • Another term whose meaning has become useless. "Entry level" used to describe the level at which a person started, and then subsequently grew out of. It's not an entry level device if the consumer buys it and never grows up. I mean it is an entry level device, but calling it one is meaningless since any first is an entry.

    Entry level devices, loss-leaders, starters, basics; these all used to be items that a consumer new to the technology would trial. If it worked for them, they'd throw it out and buy the

  • by kamapuaa (555446) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @12:30PM (#46238757) Homepage

    TMobile has sold the Windows-based Nokia Lumia 521 for $100 (non contract) for half a year or a year now. It's supposed to be a pretty decent phone for the low-end. $100 is already pretty low, and surely with the continual progress of hardware they could install the phone OS on $50 hardware.

    Android has become the de facto standard, and people would have to have some compelling reason to choose Windows phone over the system everybody else has.

    • by adolf (21054)

      TMobile has sold the Windows-based Nokia Lumia 521 for $100 (non contract) for half a year or a year now.

      So you're telling me that I can walk into a T-Mobile store and walk out with a completely paid-for Nokia Lumia 521, for $100, cash and carry?

      Because if I can't do that, then it's not a $100 device.

  • I thought Nokia sold its devices division to Microsoft. Also they already have their low end Asha platform

  • There is an awful lot of vendor-supplied software on my phone I want to keep at arms length.

  • by DrXym (126579) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @01:01PM (#46239021)
    It was corporate suicide for Nokia to go with Windows Phone. Maybe Microsoft waved a large wad of money under their noses. Maybe Elop's intention all along was to drive the corp into the ground and clean up from its sale. Whatever happened, they really fucked up big time with their choice.
    • They sure did. Palm also accepted the Microsoft Mobile Kiss of Death, so Nokia didn't even learn from history.

      So let's see how "pissing in your pants to keep warm" works out :D

    • Elop's intention all along was to drive the corp into the ground and clean up from its sale

      This. People don't call him the Manchurian CEO for nothing.

  • Short Term:
    - Start by making near stock (all Google app.) phone.
    - Raise patent licensing fees for all Android phone makers other than MS/Nokia.
    - Use cost advantage + internal Exchange/Office interoperability to grow userbase of consumers and businesspeople respectively; make MSNokia _THE_ brand to get for users that concurrently like Android & MS Windows.
    - Start user conversions by first running MS apps alongside Google ones and giving incentives {free MS docs, Exchange, web storage, MS Live single sign

A CONS is an object which cares. -- Bernie Greenberg.

Working...