Nokia Is Said to Be Near Software Partnership With Microsoft
businessweek.com
businessweek.com
Genuine question.
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.
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 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.
Apple is another example of a systems company.
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.
Hence the premise, "It looks more likely that Nokia could get out of the OS business altogether". Without that premise; yes, Nokia is obviously IBM. So question that premise rather than the validity of the argument, if that's your intention. I myself think it's a shaky premise, but given that premise, Nokia isn't IBM.
And, while we're on the subject, in the PC market, IBM did not, by and large, develop their own software
IBM had literally decades of experience developing their own software for every other type of computer before PC's even existed. Likewise, Nokia has decades of experience developing embedded software for cellular phones. Has Nokia matched iOS or Android yet? No, and neither had IBM matched the Apple II.
The company-defining question is where one goes from there--IBM adopted DOS as a stopgap but quickly worked to develop OS/2, first with Microsoft and then without them (hence attempting--and failing--to remain a systems company). Nokia has attempted to develop Symbian, but if they drop Symbian and decide to adopt Windows Phone (which, again, was expressly the premise of that comment), they would move in the opposite direction, like Tandy did.
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.
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.
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).
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Betting on the same plan as your nimbler competitors is a dominated strategy game theory-wise.
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.
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."
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]
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
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.