Well, I suppose you don't always do the smartest thing when you're standing on a burning platform.
1. Choose Android and be delegated to one of the hardware supplier amongst HTC, Samsung etc (not necessary the preferred one).
2. Stick with Symbian, Meego and be slower and further down road (Users don't care about the OS. Just whether it works. I would argue that developing OS internally is just playing catching up with minimal hope of overtaking the others significantly)
3. Try Microsoft and hopes the strengths compliment one another (not-too-bad windows phone 7).
I don't envy Nokia. It's a tough choice. Effectively, they are trying to move into a field just disrupted by Apple and competing on a sustaining basis. Doesn't bode well but what other alternatives do they have?
This partnership benefits Microsoft's executives in the mobile division, who will have their vindication in a major phone maker going with their platform instead of Android. Their bonuses will be outlandish this year. It hardly benefits Nokia, who is betting the company on an unknown platform nobody else is betting on.
A friend of mine usually said that when you see two lines in the bank, one being much shorter than the other, you can bet the short one is the wrong line for you.
Well.. Stranger things have happened.
To be clear (and fair to Elop), whether or not he was effective at his role wasn't very clear to me. What I can say is this:
* His time at Microsoft was quite short. While he may have a monetary incentive for this deal, I doubt he has any cultural ties to "go Microsoft"
* His impact on MS was (to me, anyway) minimal. He seemed to be in charge of keeping the ship going in a straight line, without the pressure of changing direction. There definitely wasn't anything like what is going on at Nokia to "test his mettle", so to speak.
Contrast this to something that Sinofsky did: http://www.cornell.edu/about/wired/
a bit OT but worth it nonetheless: my father always sas than whenever there is bureaucracy involved (i.e. the DMV, embassies, other government departments, etc.) one should choose the shortest line - it means that the clerk in place there is probably the most efficient and less inclined to play "power games" with you. Served me right on several occasions.
In Android, they'd build on a known platform with success or failure in their own hands. Don't like what Google is doing in the future? They'd have options without abandoning the platform. Hell, they could let Google develop the core, port Qt, use Bing maps and search, and Amazon Appstore.
I agree, though that this something that is only done by a desperate company with few choices.
Apple got back some legitimacy as a platform. I remember betting at the time that they'd be out of business before 2000 (this was before the return of Jobs). Microsoft gave them the ability to say, we're going to be around for a while, and our customers are going to be able to get work done.
What Microsoft gained (aside from a good return on investment) was something that they could point to when negotiating with the DOJ. A strong Apple was absolutely required for Microsoft to remain intact. So what Microsoft really got wasn't a partner, but a competitor.
Microsoft also got a patent cross-licensing deal with Apple, IE shipping as the default browser on Macs (a blow against Netscape), and a settlement on some messy lawsuits.
(I imagine a lot of lawyers got paid, too... what a mess!)
Yeah, it was a sort of cynical "partnership". I think your analysis is bang-on.
Well, aside from quietly forgetting about the stolen Quicktime source code: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Canyon_Company
Microsoft, of course! What a silly question! Why else would they partner with someone?
HTC, once known as High Tech Computer,
is a Taiwanese company that began making
phone sets using Microsoft software in
2002. By 2005, it had grown to sales
of $2.2 billion, double that of the year
before, making it the fastest growing
tech company that year according to
BusinessWeek.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/02/18/microsoft-htc-has-m...
Furthermore, Microsoft engaged HTC in many matters of industrial design, and all these competencies allowed them to effectively move from being a PC company to a mobile phone company.
The situation for Nokia is somewhat different. MS is no longer the dominant platform in the mobile space.
However, MS still has the advantage of outlook/exchange being the dominant enterprise email solution. If MS can do a good job of integrating features like Sharepoint into WP7, then it has a strong position to defend.
1. They are desperate to get (back) into the mobile OS market. For a company that is built on OS dominance this is an existential crisis... much more than Google Search ever could be.
2. Everything they have tried so far has failed, badly. How many W7 phones have you seen in the wild?
3. Hooking up with partner like Nokia (remember: still the largest phone manufacturer, albeit mostly not smartphones) is probably the only credible move MSFT can make that may reverse this.
This implies that the deal probably is costing MSFT dearly. They needed Nokia, and Nokia knew it.
Remember: Microsoft still has more money than god. We've seen with Xbox that they're willing to use that cash to muscle into markets with entrenched players. If they want it bad enough they can be a force... imagine if they subsidize the hardware enough to make the phones almost free, buy several of the top indie iOS developers, and buy a pact with companies like EA to make new titles W7 exclusive at launch.
There's no reason to think they'll WIN.. after all, Apple and Google are hardly paupers. I'm just saying that it could get real interesting.
Or maybe it won't. MSFT might continue to make no headway in the market and Nokia will just end up going down the tubes.
Also, linux can use some decent developed UI toolkits. Nokia easily can cut a deal with Google for Android store revenue sharing. Especially if Microsoft is in the market, too for alliance candidates.
Choosing Android makes actually quite a lot of sense to me, from a Nokia POV.
Not that it couldn't be good, just that you cannot automatically think that it is from Windows 7's qualities.
No fanboy, you say...
I'm someone thats used a Mac quite extensively over the past year, and i have an iPhone too. Yet, i've just gone back to a Windows machine. Windows 7. Its a damn good OS, and you are right.
I hope they can find a way of bringing that goodness to their mobile platform. Lots of nice little surprises in Windows 7, so im hoping we'll see that in the Mobile OS when it matures a little more.
Everyone said the XBOX was going to be a disaster, and regardless of HOW MS did it, they STILL did it.
MS is perfectly capable of winning when it really, really wants too.
Will many developers seriously considering WP7, just for the ease of migration, and Nokia's logistics; executed properly this COULD be a win win.
[NB I rather like Visual Studio, but I don't think I'd do OS development using it]
[Edit - if there any current or ex Microsoft people who could answer this I'd love to know about the set of tools actually used to develop Windows]
This is the Microsoft. The company with an almost fanatical commitment to dogfooding.
Microsoft execs from the mobile division will have huge bonuses this year. They must be very excited.
> Windows 7 is probably the best piece of software I have ever used
I had to force myself not to laugh. What have you been using, pal?
> and yes I have a MacBook pro and an iPhone
Seriously, what's so good about Windows 7?
> so I'm not some fanboy
Nobody accused you of being one, yet.
> with two juggernaut companies putting their very survival on the line
Only Nokia is dying. Microsoft will go on for at least a couple decades before it hits the ground.
> no matter what happens the consumers will be the ultimate winners of such brutal competition
We will have the same number of competing platforms (Nokia won't be the only one selling WP7) at the cost of losing one stellar hardware supplier. No. That won't be good.
The thing is, with Android, when Samsung makes something good to it, everybody benefits, LG, Motorola, the Apache Harmony folks and it trickles all the way to Red Hat, IBM and even Oracle. Even Microsoft, because a lot of their stack is BSD-ish and Microsoft can incorporate it, no questions asked, into whatever products they want. If Nokia ever succeeds in making something that kind of makes WinMo7 suck less (I gather it's a somewhat decent platform) Microsoft stands to benefit the most.
Can't speak for OP, but it's the first windows version that 'just works' :) And that means a lot when you have to use windows.
Many people have to use a windows desktop. But the situation is different on the phone.
1) Maybe you should use more software (not that W7 is bad, but I wouldn't say it's the best evar)
2) Windows Phone 7 isn't Windows 7, not even close.
oh... wait...