Behind Microsoft Deal, the Specter of a Nokia Android Phone | Hacker News Reader

Behind Microsoft Deal, the Specter of a Nokia Android Phone

bits.blogs.nytimes.com

47 pointscoloneltcb36 comments

I didn't work in the phone division, but my impression from working at Nokia and spending time in Finland in the early 2000s was, that like any company producing hardware, there were efforts at producing phones for a few years out. This included both hardware and software -- tools for some of the system 60/80 stuff was contracted out to a company no longer in existence.

So, from the stand point of future thinking, it seems perfectly reasonable that Nokia had handsets that could run android. This is no different than Apple making sure OS X ran on both Power and Intel architectures. Hedging one's bets is always good.

Android is open enough that Nokia could likely cobble up a very decent speculative port of AOSP plus gapps and scare the crap out of anyone not familiar with android porting, making them think a deal was immanent. Nokia's handsets all use recent Qualcomm chipsets, so I would not be surprised if they demo'ed the whole product line running Android just to stampede Microsoft into this deal.

A Nokia Android phone would have been a compelling alternative if priced correctly.

Nokia has a huge brand here in Latin America, my last 12 years' worth of phones were Nokias and I wouldn't have switched if Nokia offered an Android smartphone.

Too bad they didn't, it would be like Coke offering Classic Coke after offering the New Coke for a few years!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke

On my Android phone wish list is:

- a phone with a camera button, that's the thing I miss the most on my smartphone, I had a Nokia N86. (I think the Android spec forbids it?)

- I also want a sliding Android phone - something like an Android-based Blackberry Torch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackBerry_Torch_9800

- an Android Smartphone that can be operated with one hand, with physical buttons - probably a keyboard or slider design would work, but I haven't found a keyboard Android with a decent enough screen. Something like a Blackberry Q10 with Android maybe.

- all of the above with over 2 days of battery life (I think Motorola managed that part)

- Nokia-like build quality (my N86 is still in great shape and has a fantastic keyboard)

Maybe if an Android vendor buys Blackberry I'll get my wish :)

(Android spec doesn't forbid it. The cheap LG Optimus V had a camera button; super useful.)

My samsung intercept has a physical keyboard, physical camera button and good build quality (I've dropped it several times, a few times on hard floors). Unfortunately, it's still a shitty phone. It's waayy too slow, doesn't have enough RAM, and the battery life isn't great. On the other hand, I've had it for two years now and given that I haven't been arsed to replace it yet, it's clearly above a certain threshold of usability.

I do agree with your point. This is my first smartphone, all my previous phones were Nokia feature phones and my experiences with those suggest if Nokia tried to make this phone, they would've got it right.

Yeah, something like an updated Intercept would work, I'd like it more if it were an up-slider/pop slider, not a side-slider.

Motorola has some pretty impressive side-sliders too, but I liked my Nokia up-sliders (Nokia 5200 and N86).

Yes - yes - camera button, please!!

Tasker can remap long-presses on the volume buttons to open the camera app[1]. But yes, I'd like a dedicated button too.

I had a Nokia E71 with a physical keyboard. I'm not convinced that really was a big advantage for me personally.

[1] http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1976077

I wonder if this deal was staged from the beginning. Stephen Elop leaves Microsoft to become CEO of Nokia. He can't turn things around there (and/or may not have had any intention to do so), does his due diligence and shops the company back to his former employer, and is back at Microsoft. Sounds a bit too convenient, doesn't it? I know similar things happen elsewhere, but this is all I could think about throughout this--a super easy and convenient acquisition.

i still don't complete understand why you can't just buy a phone nowadays and install either android or windows phone os on it.

shouldn't this be the strategy which microsoft pursues?

That could be a strategy for an underdog like Microsoft (in this market) to pursue.

For everyone else, it's no surprise they don't commoditize their own products. That'd just be throwing away money. Samsung wants to sell you the special experiences only their S4 will provide you. Apple wants to sell you the special experiences only an iPhone will provide you. That's how they get you to pay a premium, and to upgrade every 2 years, where you only replace most other items you own when they wear out or break.

Nobody wants to be just one of a dozen vendors of black bricks with a tech spec sheet.

>Nobody wants to be just one of a dozen vendors of black bricks with a tech spec sheet.

That sounds a lot like the current PC industry.

It is; that's a commoditized market, which is why margins are thin on consumer PC sales.

I think most PC companies would give their left foot to have margins large enough to describe as "thin"

That is what computing used to be in the Mac/Atari/Amiga/Acorn/PC days.

I miss those days, as it fostered innovation and provided integrated experiences.

you can http://projects.goldelico.com/p/gta04-main/

Android and several other phone OSs are Linux-based. Several Linux distributions are working on achieving the same level of hardware support for ARM SoCs as they currently have on PCs. At that point it should be possible to replace Android with Jolla or other Mer-derived OSs, Firefox OS, or Ubuntu on a large number of devices. Not quite a perfect world, because some devices will have locked boot loaders, but getting closer.

"Getting Android to run on Nokia’s hardware was not a Herculean engineering effort, according to the people familiar with the project."

No shit, Sherlock...

To be fair, it's not obvious for every audience.

Hey, you never know. What if Nokia never put in a MMU in their phones?

They had at least two phones (N9 and N900) running Linux already, though.

What if Motorola created non-Android phones?

They should have. It really made no sense when they decided to bet the farm on Android, just as it didn't make sense for Nokia to bet the farm on Windows Phone. Well, those decisions make sense from the perspective of eventual acquisitions I suppose.

Though there is a bit more justification for skipping a platform like Windows Phone, as it was one where Microsoft dictated the hardware -- the processor, GPU, screen, etc. So there could be a lot of engineering hassle with something like that -- you pretty much had to engineer hardware specifically for Windows Phone -- versus Android where Nokia really could easily adapt it to pretty any handset they have.

And I doubt Microsoft's concern was Nokia putting Android on some low end joke. They knew if the day came when a Lumia XXXX was available with either Android or Windows Phone, it may quickly yield some very poor press for the platform.

It made no sense for Motorola to bet on Android? What other options were carriers interested in buying that Motorola could have shipped?

"didn't make sense for Nokia to bet the farm on Windows Phone"

Who else was lining up to write Nokia billion dollar checks?

The problem is that Moto being Android-only didn't distinguish it in anyway. It was just another gray label Android vendor, for all everyone was concerned. What other options did they have? To be honest, I don't think Moto had any good options at all at the point the Android-only option was chosen.

We're talking abstractly about platforms, excluding externals like payola.

Motorola went all in on Android back in late-2008, which was incredible as the OS had close to no marketshare and was rather a PoS at the time. As primarily a maker of hardware, it made no sense that Motorola would cut out the possibility that Microsoft (or others) would come up with something compelling, but that's what they did.

Samsung, HTC and others were poised to be there if Windows Phone succeeded. It didn't and likely won't, but they didn't cut themselves out.

Just to respond to the other chap who responded to you -- I have never, ever bought the "just another Android maker" argument. It doesn't make sense, and has never been the case in the market. Each vendor tries to get your purchase through their own compelling merits, and the platform really does become a commodity, but in a good way for them. That is why Nokia and their hardware/imaging focus could likely have done gangbusters with Android.

"Motorola went all in on Android back in late-2008, which was incredible as the OS had close to no marketshare and was rather a PoS at the time. "

Right but in hindsight Android is a huge success so that was the right move.

"made no sense that Motorola would cut out the possibility that Microsoft (or others) would come up with something compelling"

Did they?

Sanjay explains that his company is willing to work with Microsoft on developing a handset based around its new OS, so long as the offering is "compelling." He notes that the first call he received upon becoming co-CEO and handset division chief back in 2008 was from none other than Steve Ballmer, but Microsoft's failure to deliver a new OS in '09 is what compelled him to go the Android route

http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/06/motorola-is-open-to-devel...

the right move for whom? Moto got bought. android destroyed the market for mobile OS due to its gratis nature. no mobile OS can be sold/licensed anymore, android has destroyed the price point.

apple is building its own OS, MS needs to do the same incl. the hardware. the rest of mobile companies are now all on android, wait for google to do the heavy lifting, for free.

"the right move for whom? Moto got bought."

Saying the decision to go with Android is what killed Motorola is like blaming the chef for the Titanic sinking. I mean they could have served duck that night instead of pheasant.

apple is building its own OS

Just saw this post, and to be clear most other examples of companies making their own smartphone OS have been completely failures. Blackberry had their moment, but they are done. All of the various in-house OS' at the other makers are sputtering or dead. Apple is the anomaly here, and when people use Apple as the example of anything to follow, it ignores the enormous counterexamples.

Apple succeeded with the iPhone because of the iPod and iTunes. Those early sales -- the ones that protected it from being end-of-lifed -- were almost entirely to people who had a big knowledge and investment with the iTunes ecosystem. Microsoft has nothing like that.

"Who else was lining up to write Nokia billion dollar checks?"

They didn't need them, they would have had a lot more than that just by growing their already impressive market share back then.

Symbian was extremely dated even by 2008, so the writing was on the wall - they needed a new OS.

edit: see for example a random(1) analysis by an MBA student in 2009/10:

http://es.slideshare.net/nomanalhasan/situation-analysis-of-...

Bullets from the 2009/10 presentation:

"About Nokia: largest producer of mobile phones

Facing tough competion from rival companies

Losing market share (lost 3% market share last year)

Weakness of Nokia

- slow reaction to new rivalry

- low popularity of symbian operating system

- poor design of smart phones

- low performance of smart phones

Opportunities

- mobile device market is growing at the rate of 14%

- smart phone demand is growing faster than ever

Threats to Nokia

- rival apple is taking up market share from nokia

- iPhone is the most popular mobile device

- Samsung, Motorola, Sony Ericsson are using Google Android which is more popular than symbian"

the analysis concluded the N8 would save Nokia, which obviously didn't happen.

So anyone saw it coming (Nokia execs obviously too)

(1) first result from a Slideshare search

Those billion dollar checks didn't float Nokia for long.

Lumia + Android + WP8 launcher

I use the WP8 launcher on my Galaxy S3 and nothing beats it.

I can't see anything in the Play Store called 'WP8 launcher".

There's a whole bunch of things with similar names.

Do you have a link or the exact name of the app?

Launcher8 free is the one I'm using. Very smooth. I wish there were more launchers with vertical and seamless home screens (like on Windows Phone).

Well,

Serious question: was $7 Billion any of kind premium for Nokia?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com