It looks like he didn't explain why they wanted to create a "challenger".
imo having three dominant players is better than having two dominant players. However, it would have been great to get Elop's thoughts on what benefits Nokia would get from creating a "challenger" and why a "duopoly" was not good for Nokia.
Basically Nokia could have ended the smartphone war by joining with Android. But ironically, that makes them more valuable to Microsoft. This is just the same as Microsoft paying people to build apps for WP7, paying Verizon to use Bing, or paying devs not to release games on PS3 but on a massive, multi-billion dollar scale. It's a bit tragic when the greatest value your company can offer is to be paid to not join the dominant ecosystem in exchange for a cut of a desperate monopolist's war chest, but that's why you need to bring outsiders with no emotional attachment to your products in to do it.
So basically he wanted to "create a challenger" because Microsoft would pay them handsomely to do so. And if it doesn't work out, it's not like Android is going anywhere, so they've got a Plan B. (Though to be honest I think they're currently splitting the company into two pieces, the bit that will wring any remaining revenue from Symbian then close, and the bit that Microsoft will buy once they've sacked anyone Microsoft doesn't need. Microsoft will then try the PlaysForSure -> Zune thing again.)
So why did Nokia not get a better deal from Microsoft? The drop in Nokia's shares wasn't because they went for WP7, it's because they didn't get any kind of exclusivity deal.
Nokia has shown it was incapable of creating a challenger as it resorted to lawsuits rather than change. Without MS firing middle management will not happen with MS paying Nokia either. Its Siemens Handset biz replayed out again.
WP7 phones have rather tight hardware requirements [1] that to a degree influence the general handset. I fail yet to see how Nokia can top that (Maybe coming up with a better Camera/Zeiss optic. Maybe putting quite a lot more power in the handset - but the first option would be more for a niche imo and the second would cut into margins if you want to be competitive).
Sure, it's all just speculation until we see their first devices. But at this point I remain unconvinced that Nokia can differ enough to dominate the WP7 platform.
Nokia wouldn't be a minor player in the Android ecosystem. That's ridiculous. If they executed quickly and release some good Android phones within a year, they'd become relevant again. With their power, they could even beat Samsung, which is going to become the biggest Android phone manufacturer.
Of course they'd still need to compete well hardware wise. This decision seems to me like they need software differentiation because they know they can't compete well enough on hardware anymore.
By the time Nokia makes a few WP7 phones and sells them, Samsung will sell a lot more Android phones. I expect Samsung to become the #1 phone manufacturer within 2-3 years. This won't happen only because Samsung is growing, but because Nokia will sell a lot less Symbian units, due to competition in the mid and low end from Asian manufacturers.
And because Windows 7 Mobile allegedly runs a dodgy version IE 7, we can't make portable applications using HTML 5, either.
So we're really looking at something like 1985, when developers had to pick between DOS, the Apple IIe, the Mac, and the remnants of the 8-bit microcomputer market. In this market, the correct strategy was to support a single platform and hope that it won. Ironically, Microsoft ported Excel to a huge number of operating systems, and they were eaten alive by Lotus. They've never made the mistake of fragmenting their efforts again.
On a sidenote: This "there are two, now with WP7 there are three contesters" is (by accident? intentionally?) completely ignoring HP/Web OS. So maybe we're talking "4 ecosystems" now, supporting your point even further.
I find this very telling. As far as I can tell, Google made the first public announcement of the Open Handset Alliance in November 2007 and HTC released the first handset in October 2008.
Nokia and Microsoft who should both have more experience and resources specific to the mobile industry than HTC and Google did in 2007 are "hopeful" to even meet this timescale, let alone beat it.
In a year, Nokia will have even further to catch up. I'll admit I may be underestimating the difficulty of getting a new device to market, but it seems to indicate an aversion to risk-taking which may set Nokia even further back than they need to be.
It just makes me reminisce the fact that Nokia makes good reliable phones. In contrast Hua Wei phones I saw don't have the same build quality.
The Nokia wall papers are tastefully selected, but the standard Nokia fonts are looking a bit tired. I mean even Motif was good looking in its days, but human nature demands that these be refreshed regularly.
Nokia would have done just as well selling Android or refreshing it's Symbian OS. Anyone care to explain what is wrong with Symbian?
I own an Android now, but I would have bought a Nokia android if it was available.
By the way, there is a long write up on what's wrong with Symbian and Nokia back in July 2010 by a Symbian-Guru.com editor as he decided to move to Android instead. http://www.symbian-guru.com/welcome/2010/07/symbian-guru-com...
Wouldn't these two "value transfers" have occurred with Google? Nokia's operating expenses might have been reduced even further if they'd gone with Android (free) instead of WP7 (which they are paying to use). Wouldn't Nokia have gained access to Google's search and advertising capabilities if they'd gone with Android?
I don't know if Google or Microsoft is better for Nokia, but this article doesn't make it sound like Elop had any convincing reasons for his decision. It sounds like Nokia agreed to give Microsoft money (WP7 fees), but they haven't actually agreed on anything concrete that Microsoft will give Nokia yet?
MS fee is what? $10 per phone, probably less for Nokia? But, do anyone actually think that Android is free? Sure, it can be free if you're some cheap Chinese factory that just slaps the latest commit from Android repository on their handset, but key Google applications aren't open sourced, and to get them you need to make a deal with Google ("Google experience" apps, support, etc), which I doubt is free.
On top of that, if Nokia wants to differentiate itself from said Chinese manufacturer, they need to build some custom UI on top of stock Android (which probably everyone will hate, but that's the way of doing things in Android world). And to support that UI on couple of future Android releases in timely fashion for each handset, to avoid angry mob with obsolete phones mere months after the purchase (SonyEricsson, I'm looking at you). Developers time aren't free, and Nokia is notoriously bad at making software, just look at their Symbian record.
Nokia could have gone with Android, but why? There are already Android phones. Why be another number? The key to success is not to do what everyone else is doing but to do something different and find your niche. Microsoft touts itself as the "business" solution. This partnership of high quality hardware and business-minded software will set Nokia/Microsoft apart.
What if this is going to be true a few years from now and Nokia fails with WP7 because the Android ecosystem assimilates everything. Will they still be able to go to Android? They'll be destroyed by then, and it will be way too late too switch. At least by going Android now, they would have a fighting chance, and would just need to become a competitive company again, which they haven't been for a while, even in hardware. Yes, the N8 looked pretty good, and the camera was nice, but that's about it.
Nokia could have started making great hardware again like they used to. They could have put Android on it, and done what HTC does. Unfortunately they haven't made a good phone in a long while.
This is hilarious. The Nokia CEO inked a contract with his ex-employer MS that benefits MS hugely while still owning shares of MS. Um... what?!
If it smells like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... oh, well.
