Microsoft to buy Nokia?

[Humodour]

Nokia is close to bankrupt, because they have no future in phones. They're spending literally billions (mostly in advertising) to try and build a future in phones with the Windows phones (Lumia), but it's not working, because people do not need a ****ty alternative to Android and iPhone and plastering Sydney with ads about how "great" the Lumias are won't change that.

 

Meanwhile, Microsoft is also pouring its heart and soul into the Lumia Windows phones, because Microsoft, too, was too slow to enter the smartphone race, and sees its deal with Nokia to make all Nokia smartphones run on Windows Phone OS as its last chance.

 

So if Nokia is about to go under, can anybody really see Microsoft just sitting around and taking it? I can't. Microsoft is still to this day pumping money into the Zune and Bing, even though they're haemorrhaging money. I imagine they'll buy Nokia outright if they have to, just to ensure Windows Phone OS still has a piece of the smartphone pie, however miniscule.

 

http://technologyspe...serves-analysts

Edited May 21, 2012 by Krezack

[Gorth]

That would make Microsoft the de facto owner of Finland, wouldn't it?

[Pidesco]

Yes. Nokia is like responsible for 30% of Finland's workforce or something.

[Rostere]

I prefer WP over IPhone, if it weren't for the fact that there are more apps for IPhone I don't see why anyone would want one instead of a WP. It's a bit crazy when you think about a Windows product more "designed" than an Apple product (although that has nothing to do with why I prefer WP). Android is an open source OS, and as much as I'd like to say that it's a great advantage, most casual users probably won't have any use for that.

[Humodour]

Android is an open source OS, and as much as I'd like to say that it's a great advantage, most casual users probably won't have any use for that.

 

1.9% of smartphones sold these days are Windows phones

7% of smartphones sold these days are Blackberries

23% of smartphones sold these days are iPhones

56% of smartphones sold these days are Android phones

 

I think Android does interest casual users. Just because something is open source doesn't mean it isn't good for casual users. Do you use Firefox or Chrome or Libre Office, for instance?

Edited May 21, 2012 by Krezack

[Rostere]

Android is an open source OS, and as much as I'd like to say that it's a great advantage, most casual users probably won't have any use for that.

 

1.9% of smartphones sold these days are Windows phones

7% of smartphones sold these days are Blackberries

23% of smartphones sold these days are iPhones

56% of smartphones sold these days are Android phones

 

I think Android does interest casual users. Just because something is open source doesn't mean it isn't good for casual users. Do you use Firefox or Chrome or Libre Office, for instance?

 

I didn't say that it wasn't good, just that it wasn't necessarily BETTER. What I'm saying was that none of the inherent strengths of having an open source OS is of particular interest to the casual user. If Android did not have the backing of Google I doubt it would have emerged in the first place. Firefox or Chrome? Yes, but the other OSs also have web readers. I doubt the difference to casual users is larger than it is for the PC.

 

If all people made "rational" choices from the perspective of computer geeks no single MAC would be sold (because you pay a lot for very little, and you can make a Hackintosh if you're after the OS for any reason). People would easily dual boot between different OSs when the need arose and write their own code when they encounter new problems. Everyone would build their PCs from components, and so on and so forth.

 

You should reflect over where Google get their money from. Sooner or later, they will be the "new Microsoft", I swear.

[Humodour]

Android is an open source OS, and as much as I'd like to say that it's a great advantage, most casual users probably won't have any use for that.

 

1.9% of smartphones sold these days are Windows phones

7% of smartphones sold these days are Blackberries

23% of smartphones sold these days are iPhones

56% of smartphones sold these days are Android phones

 

I think Android does interest casual users. Just because something is open source doesn't mean it isn't good for casual users. Do you use Firefox or Chrome or Libre Office, for instance?

 

I didn't say that it wasn't good, just that it wasn't necessarily BETTER. What I'm saying was that none of the inherent strengths of having an open source OS is of particular interest to the casual user.

 

Great, except you were the one who brought up the fact that Android is open source. My initial response is: who cares? We're talking about which smartphone platform is better. But hey, you are right to being up the open source aspect, because Android being open source DOES actually make it a better platform, which I'll explain later in this post.

 

If Android did not have the backing of Google I doubt it would have emerged in the first place.

 

Android was built by Google, so I doubt it would have emerged without Google, either. That said, plenty of companies were already working on open source phone platforms (mostly based on Linux) for smartphones before Google, anyway, and these died as Android took over. So I think your actual point - that an open source smartphone platform wouldn't have emerged without Google - is extremely incorrect.

 

Firefox or Chrome? Yes, but the other OSs also have web readers. I doubt the difference to casual users is larger than it is for the PC.

 

Actually, the point I was trying to make by bring up the examples of Firefox, and Open Office was that open source projects can drive casual user adoption on their own, as seen by the adoption rates of these products on desktop computers. More people globally use open source browsers than they do closed source browsers.

 

If all people made "rational" choices from the perspective of computer geeks no single MAC would be sold (because you pay a lot for very little, and you can make a Hackintosh if you're after the OS for any reason).

 

Not really. It's a rational choice to buy a Mac in many scenarios, especially when you don't have the time or skill to build a hackintosh (which, by the way, is not the most reliable machine, since it's very hard to get the OS optimised for the unexpected hardware). If you're arguing that people who buy Mac are irrational, that's a mistake, because different people have hugely different goals when buying PCs. For instance, one of the target demographics of Apple tends to be technically uninformed people with lots of money to waste who want a computer that works with the least amount of fiddling and tweaking. From the perspective of those people, Apple Macs fit the bill. Just because these people are technically uninformed, or want a PC that works without fiddling doesn't make them irrational, it just means they've probably got other priorities in their lives. Another group of people for whom it would be logical to use a Mac is video editors and musicians, IIRC, as their is a larger software ecosystem for them on Mac than on Windows.

 

And the above is why I love that Ubuntu Linux exists, as the people at Canonical are working hard to present a viable superior, open source, and monetarily free alternative to Mac (and Windows) for these people, and they're doing really well at that goal.

 

People would easily dual boot between different OSs when the need arose and write their own code when they encounter new problems. Everyone would build their PCs from components, and so on and so forth.

 

You are expecting that everyone has high-level technical skills accross multiple areas, and that's not rational. I am really lost as to what your argument is. At first I thought it was that "Android is not suitable for casual users because it is open source" but when I showed you that most casual users prefer Android phones (as well as most advanced users), your argument morphed into an explanation of why open source isn't a factor driving Android adoption.

 

Well, no, I disagree with that, too. Open source is a huge factor driving Android adoption. But not for techies or end users - not directly. The open source aspect of Android is a huge factor driving developer and manufacturer adoption, which in turn significantly expands the Android ecosystem (in simple terms: more apps and devices to choose from to cater to all kinds of needs and desires) and hence drives Android adoption by casual users.

 

You should reflect over where Google get their money from. Sooner or later, they will be the "new Microsoft", I swear.

 

Right, well, until your "prediction" comes true, I'll just avoid the old, still really bad*, Microsoft and the current new Microsoft (Apple).

 

Honestly, how much sense do you think you're making when you say "I use a Windows phone"** and then warn me against Google by saying "one day they'll become as bad as Microsoft"?

 

*Check out what Microsoft are doing with Windows 8 to prevent people from installing alternative OSs and browsers on their machine

**Or were you just saying you think they look better, but don't own one yourself?

[Nepenthe]

Nokia had 22 000 employees in Finland two years ago and they've been firing people left and right since then. I assume the logistics company Itella (formerly Finnish post, now having branched out into a lot of things) is now the biggest employer in Finland.

 

I'm not sure how many people depend on Nokia indirectly at the moment, they're terminating their last production facilities in Finland, so it's basically just admin and R&D that's left.

 

Not to say that their impact on Finnish economy isn't significant due to the corporate taxes they pay (or don't pay, when they do poorly), but your numbers seem to have been pulled (deep) from ze ass.

 

In fact, there's a popular conspiracy theory that the current (incompetent) CEO, a former Microsoft executive, is a Trojan horse sent to run down the company so that Microsoft can acquire Nokia's manufacturing know-how for peanuts.

[Gorth]

Yeah, they've gotten a bit slack this last decade Nokias impact on economy 2001 Back in 2001, they made up 3.3% of the GDP and 25% of Finlands export (not sure what "32 percent in relation to volume of exports" means).

[Rosbjerg]

So, Google just bought Motorola I guess that could force Microsoft into the industry as well.

[Blank]

Not gonna lie guys. I have a Windows Phone, and I love it. It is extremely intuitive and user-friendly, and Microsoft has rolled out consistent updates to the OS. The integration with Office and other file manipulation is quite handy for my school needs, and I have seen few, if any glitches.

 

Of course, that does not mean the iPhone is worse, but Microsoft put out a competitive product. It just looks like they came into the game pretty late for it to be profitable in the foreseeable future.

[Rostere]

[Lots of text here]

 

Hmm, I think you've blown our differences out of proportion. The essence of the message in my first post is that the market is very fickle (phones sell with regards to hype and looks), and not so easily predicted by the kind of logic you seem to use. I also shared my personal preferences (I prefer WP over IPhone, open source OS is a good idea in the long run).

 

Most people I talk to buy their phones for reasons such as "my friend has one", or something which boils down to "I like one of the default apps", "I like the look", "I recognize the logo" and so on. I tried to underline that in my second post, but I think you misinterpreted it all.

 

As I see it, the positive thing with Android is that it's an open source OS. The market share of Android may be 0% or 100% or anything in between, my point being that most people - as you put it - are "technically uninformed". They bought it because they couldn't afford/ didn't want the latest IPhone, or for some other circumstantial reason (of course this applies to WP buyers as well). We can discuss pros and cons for all eternity, in the end smartphones will sell or not sell because of hype, pricing, "it's shiny, durr" and so on.

 

You say that "people do not need a ****ty alternative to Android and iPhone" and "plastering Sydney with ads about how "great" the Lumias are won't change [anything]". In my personal opinion WP is just as good, if not better, for the casual user compared to the other two. Additionally, "plastering Sydney with ads" might be just the thing for pushing sales for the WP. There's such an insane amount of things being sold for no real reason other than the fact that it's been hyped and advertised properly, so why wouldn't it work for Windows Phone? I'm not saying that it necessarily will, just that you shouldn't dismiss the possibility just because you're immune to that kind of marketing yourself.

[Humodour]

I dismiss the possibility of Microsoft's ad campaign with Windows Phone succeeding because MS has a track record of failing horribly at getting people to buy its products. C.f. Bing, Zune. Also because their ad campaign has failed so far and Nokia doesn't have much time left before it runs out of money (1 or 2 years). If Nokia goes, Windows Phone goes, because none of the other manufacturers are happy with Windows Phone OS.

 

And I thoroughly disagree with you that there are no underlying reasons as to why one smartphone platform does well over another. That's just illogical.

 

The main reasons driving Android adoption are: it's appealing to techies, it's appealing to developers, and its openness to manufacturers.

 

The more techies that like a platform (assuming it is easy to use and there is no sufficient incumbent), the more the uninformed masses will like a product. This is because they have technical friends and they go to them for advice, then repeat that advice to their own friends.

 

The more developers that like a platform, the more quality apps that product will have. You're kidding yourself if a diverse and useful app ecosystem doesn't draw even a lot of average joes. It's not secret that one of the things Microsoft is struggling with for the Windows Phone ecosystem is simply enticing developers to produce apps for it.

 

The more manufacturers like a platform (in this case because of its openness to customisation), the more devices and support for it, meaning a larger number of people using that platform (think about your flawed logic for a moment, and lets pretend it is correct, because it does contribute a small portion to a platform's success: people buy phones randomly. In such a scenario, if 10 manufacturers put out 10 Android devices, 2 put out Windows devices, and Apple puts out just their iPhone, what, statistically, are the chances of people buying an Android phone?).

 

Are these 3 reasons the main reasons why everyone buys Android? Not at all. Some people do just go "durr", walk into a shop, and buy a phone for a random reasons. But enough (a majority) don't buy in this manner, making the above reasons the key determinants of a smartphone's success.

[Humodour]

Hey, look, here's a good summary of my argument Rostere. I recommend you take a look, and if we still disagree with eachother, then, well, that's life. But please, give this video a go first:

 

YouTube clip comparing the Android, Windows Phone, and iPhone ecosystems

[Blank]

http://www.fonec.net/TechNews/2012/04/28/steve-wozniak-on-windows-phone-compared-to-android-theres-no-contest/

 

Discuss.

[Humodour]

http://www.fonec.net...res-no-contest/

 

Discuss.

 

I already discussed those supposed 'criticisms' here.

[Blank]

[Rosbjerg]

Yeah, well it seems this thread has run it's course.