Nokia Shifts To Selling Back-End Systems To Mobile Networks 40
jfruh writes: With Nokia's handset business now sold off to Microsoft, you might be wondering what the remainder of the company does, exactly. The company is trying to use its expertise at other end of its old business, offering data centers and virtualized infrastructure to wireless networking companies to make their businesses more efficient. Competitors include Ericsson, another mobile phone also-ran.
News at 11 (Score:1)
With Nokia's handset business now sold off to Microsoft, you might be wondering what the remainder of the company does, exactly.
Why would anyone be wondering that anymore? Network stuff has been Nokia's main business for a long time already.
Just from Slashdot:
- Nokia Buys a Chunk of Panasonic [slashdot.org]
- Nokia Networks Demonstrates 5G Mobile Speeds Running At 10Gbps Via 73GHz [slashdot.org]
- Nokia To Buy Alcatel-Lucent for $16.6 Billion [slashdot.org]
Also-ran? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ericsson was a key provider of telecomunication equipment long before it was a mobile handset manufacturer - in the same way as Alcatel, Lucent and Nokia long provided back-end hardware. For all of them, handset production was a short-term dalliance in the late 90s and early 2000s, not the entire history of the company...
Re: (Score:2)
dalliance
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
"Short-term dalliances" tend not to nearly bankrupt a company.
Re:Also-ran? (Score:4, Funny)
dalliance
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
"Short-term dalliances" tend not to nearly bankrupt a company.
Oh, I don't know about that. Some marriages have been wrecked by short-term dalliances.
Ask Tiger Woods.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No no...
Much of the hardware that Nokia produced was superior and worked with only it's own handsets and wireless kit perfectly. Here's an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_full_rate
Licensing and patent issues
The Enhanced Full Rate incorporate several patents. It uses the patented ACELP technology, which is licensed by the VoiceAge Corporation.
Enhanced Full Rate was developed by Nokia and the Université de Sherbrooke (Canada).
Just about everyone else just produced handsets, but couldn't use
Re: (Score:1)
Nokia (and I suspect other European manufacturers) were locked out of the US market due to Qualcomm's Patents on CDMA. Nokia used a workaround to avoid licensing the patent, but as a result, their phones didn't work as well. They suffered worse battery life, lower call quality, more dropped calls, etc.
Nokia didn't license Qualcomm's patents because they cost significantly more if you didn't also license their chipsets. Nokia didn't license Qualcomm's chipsets because it required signing a clause stating tha
Re: (Score:2)
Spot-on ... Ericsson has revenues of well over $20 Billion USD. I wouldn't call that "also-ran". If you use a mobile phone anywhere in the world it is highly likely that Ericsson equipment is involved in some way on the back end.
Re:Also-ran? (Score:5, Interesting)
Nokia has also been in the market of selling the infrastructure for mobile networks for a long time. And, unlike the handsets, this is a very profitable place to be. Both Nokia and Ericsson saw the commoditisation of the handset market and Nokia in particular watched their margins evaporate and decided it was time to get out. But because they're now no longer in the public eye, they're perceived as losing. Now their customers are people who make money from the products that they sell, so are willing to pay a reasonable premium because a few minutes of downtime costs far more.
Of course, when Apple decides to concentrate on the high-margin part of a business, no one claims that they're dying, because they concentrate on a consumer-visible part of the market.
Re: (Score:2)
Nokia and Ericsson saw the commoditisation of the handset market and Nokia in particular watched their margins evaporate and decided it was time to get out.
HAH. Apple bet on that same business and is making a killing. They just couldn't keep up with technology and were their own worst enemy that's all.
You might be wondering...NOT! (Score:2)
Until the non-compete clause runs out (Score:2)
As part of their deal with the devil, aka Microsoft, there's a non-compete clause -- Nokia can't make cell phones until 2016. Rumors are strong -- even thought they have to keep quiet for now -- that Nokia fully intends to come back [blogs.com] to the handset business; the N1 tablet and Z Launcher are a solid hint of what's to come.
Re: (Score:3)
Nokia is making and selling cell phones at the moment. It can't build smartphones (i.e. small computer tablets with a radio stage that can transmit and receive voice calls directly over mobile phone networks via GSM or CDMA) but it's a major player in the featurephone and basic cellphone markets with a lot of decent offerings at bargain prices for those folks who don't need a Cray in their pocket.
Re: Nokia is a post it note in tech history (Score:3)
Nokia didn't miss the smartphone market, they owned it with Symbian, and there was an upgrade path ahead with MeeGo. Their downfall came from the very top -- if it wasn't for M$-plant Stephen Elop and the suicidal move to Windows Phone, there's a good chance Nokia would still be the top handset maker.
Re: (Score:2)
Agree!
I am still using my N9 with MeeGo, and I still haven't found a better mobile platform.
It does have some problems as it hasn't been updated for a long time, many apps are not available and so on, but as a general mobile system, MeeGo is ahead of both iOS and Android.
To try out something else I have a BQ with Ubuntu, and it is fun just by being very different.
It works in general as a mobile, but the system is very rough and there aren't almost any apps.
I do hope Nokia will come back, and if they come ou
Re: (Score:1)
Their downfall came from the very top -- if it wasn't for M$-plant Stephen Elop and the suicidal move to Windows Phone, there's a good chance Nokia would still be the top handset maker.
You've got the history wrong there. Nokia's downfall begun years before the Microsoft deal. Microsoft was introduced very late in the play when Nokia's cart was already rushing full speed down the mine shaft. Of course it's disappointing that Stephen Elop couldn't help the company much and he still got a juicy prize for his work. But Nokia absolutely would not be "still the top handset maker" if Microsoft didn't buy the handset business. Microsoft was only called to soften the inevitable doom.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Nokia was still the top smartphone vendor when Elop came on board. He's fully responsible for the mess he created.
He forced people to change to a totally incompatible Windows OS that was itself obsoleted by yet another Windows OS. Of course application developers fled.
Re: (Score:2)
I never understood how EPOC, which was light and clean and reliable, evolved into such a mess.
Second system effect?
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. I'm speaking from an end user POV. The amount of stuff on my E71 that simply didn't work was astonishing.
Care to share some insights as to why it was a bugger to develop on? Too objecty?
at other end of its old business (Score:2)
Rubber boots and bicycle tyres?