Steve Elop and Nokia's Future

[HeyCori]

How does it hurt Nokia to use google services alongside their own? How does it put them in a worse situation than they currently find themselves in? Oh right, it doesn't.

That Navteq purchase in 2007 was a 8 billion dollar deal. You don't willingly take second place after spending 8 billion.

If they wanted to, they could offer their competing services on the same devices, right alongside the google apps.

Never said they couldn't offer Nokia Drive on an Android phone. But one's going to be the standard (Google) and one's not (Nokia).

And google wouldn't have any issue with it.

Tell that to the OEMs that almost lost their Android license.

Or, they could go the amazon route and offer the devices sans google apps.

An Android phone without access to Android's 500K apps? You... you think that would succeed?!?!

Either way, their devices would have gotten into much more hands on the back of Android alone. Yeah they would have "sold out" in the eyes of many, but not in the eyes of the shareholders.

The thing is we're both arguing over two failed strategies. Neither what I'm saying or what you're saying was going to guarantee success for Nokia. Both strategies have their pluses and minuses. It's easy in hindsight to say that "Nokia should of done that," but almost two years ago Elop and Nokia's entire board got together and decided that it was a better longterm strategy to go with Windows Phone. And while I don't think anyone expected WP to sell this bad, they decided it was the best way to keep Nokia as Nokia.

 

[gpatrick15]

That Navteq purchase in 2007 was a 8 billion dollar deal. You don't willingly take second place after spending 8 billion.



Never said they couldn't offer Nokia Drive on an Android phone. But one's going to be the standard (Google) and one's not (Nokia).



Tell that to the OEMs that almost lost their Android license.



An Android phone without access to Android's 500K apps? You... you think that would succeed?!?!

No, it probably wouldn't have succeeded, but its just an option. An option I admittedly wouldn't suggest. And I can't use amazon as an example because amazon has the content to succeed without google services. I just think they'd have been in a better situation AND delivered top of the line hardware had they went with the device with ready made market share. They will always be playing from behind, no matter how stellar their devices are. I like the 920 so much that I may dump my galaxy nexus for it. Haven't decided yet. But Nokia is certainly doing something right. But can they succeed playing from behind every year? I doubt it. They are in too similar a situation to WebOs, minus the shoddy hardware the Pre launched with. And yes, they formed a partnership with Microsoft to avoid palms fate. But Microsoft was playing catchup too, in a battle for smartphone supremacy that they can't possibly win, not with iOS and Android gaining market share by the day.


By the way, this discussion is pretty intriguing. You've made some excellent points.

 

[Xsever]

Nokia are too proud and old in the business to have gone to Android where Samsung reigns. They picked WP so that they can be the #1 OEM.

This will definitely make their recovery slower, but I guess they'd rather do that than throw the towel. Amazing though how their image improved with the 920 announced and all the innovations it brought.

 

[lancguy]

I'm really getting tired of these posts on how Elop is a bad CEO and Nokia's doomed. You guys don't understand their strategy, and investment analysts like the one referenced here have no clue either. They at least should have some clue as investing is all about seeing what's in the long term.



Nokia's strategy is a long term one. It's kind of like chemotherapy to cancer. It sounds like a drastic choice, and in the short term may make things even worse, but it's the only way out in the long term. Looking at stock prices to argue about Elop's lack of business savviness is really narrow minded and it's surprising so many stock market blogs don't see further than the present.

I think the 920 exclusive is good thing: it creates buzz, hype and envy, just like when the iPhone was only available on att and I think in the long run it will pay off. On top of that, everything points toward these exclusives being limited to a few months. ****, even VZ could get a 920 variant.

So Nokia has a flagship device, the 920, and they have exclusive variants of the 820. Each carrier getting an exclusive guarantees they will advertise Nokia and WP device sufficiently.The 810, 820 and 822 are basically the same phone, with the same processing power as the 920 btw. The WP experience will be VERY similar, except for a few luxury features of the 920. Why do you think car manufacturers come up with dozens of different models every year?

At this point, the more diverse the WP offering, the better, as the platform needs to gain popularity. By having different models on all carriers, Nokia is making sure of that.

Are you kidding? 1. Design 2. Screen: better resolution, better refresh rate, better colors and sunlight readability, extra sensitivity, size. 3. Image stabilization 4. Built-in NFC and the list goes on.

But, to me, the important features are screen size, cordless recharging, and memory. built in NFC, Screen Sensitivity are built in to both classes of phones. I don't want to settle for a smaller screen size or no wireless charging. Nokia really did hone in on the big features to differentiate the phones that I'm sold on. I think the screen size on the 920 is perfect. And I like the idea of wireless recharging while connected to a bluetooth speaker. I don't take many pictures. But I do want to have a good number of mp3's on my phone to get rid of my iPod. So yea, the 810, 820, 822 is not going to work for what I want in a window's phone. And if I really have to give up those features, I might as well go with the Ativ or 8x to make up for what I'd loose if I went with an 800 series nokia.

And if I recall correctly the both the 8x and Ativ use the same processor also.....

 

[maverick786us]

Steve Elop's problem is that he doesn't listen to the market. His mistakes are:

1. Pre-announced Symbian's sudden death while announcing Windows phones. Who wants to buy phones with dead OS. Nokia shares down from $20+ to $2. He didn't have to do that. He can just announce Windows phone and let market to decide on the Symbian phones.

2. Refused to provide Android phones. His excuse is that Nokia can't provide enough differentiators to win among the Android phone crowd. So there won't be a Windows crowd? Loyalty to MS is dangerous. Steve Ballmer will reward Nokia with a Surface phone. It is crazy.

3. Insisted on marketing L920 with exclusive carriers.

4. (There won't a chance for him to make mistake No. 4)

I think Nokia still has time, along with windows they can tie up with Jolla (instead of buggy android, I am more impressed with MeeGo compared to Android) and use both the OS with its different variants.

 

[Villain]

not going into a lot of detail but people never ever stop and read to actually see what Nokia gained by going with MS... do you really think Nokia just gave/gives Microsoft features/apps/maps etc for free for all windows phone devices? not to mention nokia maps are built into bing itself and ms's adcenter etc

and the Android argument lol only one doing great with Android is samsung lol

 

[mmacleodbrown]

If Nokia are going to compete, then they need to have a unique proposition and Android isn't it.
Whilst Samsung has done well, there are major issues with the fragmentation of Android and carrier based upgrades which google have now been forced to address by increasing their Nexus line.
By backing MS, Nokia have have the chance to become a major player in a new ecosystem, rather than just another bit part manufacturer.
For those who are concerned about lack of sales, that is more down to MS than Nokia as there are a whole load of Android/IOS users who consider WP7.xxx as a complete non starter for a phone OS. Too many compromises and not enough capability yet - count me in that camp.
The 920 could have come out with WP7.xx on it and I wouldn't have touched it, but Win8/WP8 are the game changers here..
I fully expect Nokias position to gradually improve. As for exclusivity, as a non US resident, Im lucky that I don't care - and I don't think that Nokia should be too bothered until the whole US mobile network has grown up. If Nokia can shift enough 920's and 820's in Europe and Asia, then the US doesn't matter so much. Nokia did get to number 1 without the US market, they can do so again and then concentrate stateside once the carriers have evolved into services that are about providing connectivity for users rather than fleecing them
It wasn't until I found here and started researching the US telco market that I realised just how bad it is over there - I feel for you guys...

 

[gpatrick15]

If Nokia are going to compete, then they need to have a unique proposition and Android isn't it.
Whilst Samsung has done well, there are major issues with the fragmentation of Android and carrier based upgrades which google have now been forced to address by increasing their Nexus line.
By backing MS, Nokia have have the chance to become a major player in a new ecosystem, rather than just another bit part manufacturer.
For those who are concerned about lack of sales, that is more down to MS than Nokia as there are a whole load of Android/IOS users who consider WP7.xxx as a complete non starter for a phone OS. Too many compromises and not enough capability yet - count me in that camp.
The 920 could have come out with WP7.xx on it and I wouldn't have touched it, but Win8/WP8 are the game changers here..
I fully expect Nokias position to gradually improve. As for exclusivity, as a non US resident, Im lucky that I don't care - and I don't think that Nokia should be too bothered until the whole US mobile network has grown up. If Nokia can shift enough 920's and 820's in Europe and Asia, then the US doesn't matter so much. Nokia did get to number 1 without the US market, they can do so again and then concentrate stateside once the carriers have evolved into services that are about providing connectivity for users rather than fleecing them
It wasn't until I found here and started researching the US telco market that I realised just how bad it is over there - I feel for you guys...

Nokia got to numer 1 worldwide on the backs of S40 handsets and S60 smartphones, back when Symbian was the most popular OS in the world. Those glory days are long gone. Symbian, Blackberry, and PalmOs lost traction the day the iPhone was announced. Android played catchup from day 1, but, since the OS was essentially free to any OEM to use it, it was a clear choice for all of these OEMs looking for new strategies after Microsoft screwed the pooch with Windows Mobile. Nokia can compete on hardware quality but they are no longer a household name. Walk into any carrier store and Windows Phone is overshadowed by Androids and iPhones. Recently, with the announcement of WP8 and the Lumia handsets, I have have started to look into Windows Phone since it is beginning to be a viable option. To the general public, it';; be hard to convince, especially with the glaring lack of apps compared to the other major players. Being an Android early adopter, I don't think I could go back to waiting on apps to come to my platform after being on the market leaders device for months, sometimes a year or more. That would be a significant entry barrier for many consumers.

 

[snowmutt]

Rewriting history does not actually change it.

There have been great rebuttals and defenses of Mr. Elop's decisions in this thread. But what those who refuse to give him credit fail to do is really look at the infrastructure of Nokia before him. Why does anyone think he got the job? Nokia was bloated, top heavy, uninspired, and in competition with itself. The R&D costs for developing Symbian, MeeGo, and MeaMo devices were outrageous and getting larger. Infighting was the common, with all these factions fighting for dollars and attention. The cost per phone was OUTRAGEOUS and profits were paying more to the levels of repetitiveness then anywhere else.

Mr. Elop walked into this. I agree with 2 mistakes he made which may end up his undoing:

1) Killing Symbian development before WP caught on. Rest assured, I feel (bias admitted) that WP devices are the future and the best chance for Nokia. But not keeping a line or two of Symbian phones in development until the WP line took off was short sighted. Keeping those sales going would have kept investors happy.

2) His PR ability leaves a little to be desired. (Slight understatement.)

But, by doing what he did (he also looked at Android and BB07 before deciding on WP, a fact lost on a lot of nay-Sayers) he cut the HUGE, profit killing R&D down to a portion of what it was, allowed Microsoft to help absorb the transition cost, made Nokia a hardware first company, and will make MORE PROFITS PER HANDSET THEN EVER. Nokia could sell less devices but turn greater profit. That will make investors happy in a hurry.

Yes, WP8 needs to sell. But even if they don't, Nokia is through it's restructuring and the next CEO will walk into a lean company prepared to compete.

I still believe in them. I intend to support them. We all as WP fans should be cheering for them.

 

[mmacleodbrown]

Recently, with the announcement of WP8 and the Lumia handsets, I have have started to look into Windows Phone since it is beginning to be a viable option. To the general public, it';; be hard to convince, especially with the glaring lack of apps compared to the other major players.

And this is the key point. WP7.xx handsets will not sell as the OS (despite being well designed) is a crock of ****. I work in IT, and I wouldn't touch a 7.xx handset not even if it was free.
However W8 will sell, and the more people who get a surface the better as it might take a while, but if the surface is as good as they say it is, then it will make sense for them to get a WP8 phone.
Im not saying that it will be immediate, but Im betting that there will be alot of tablet owners who 6-12 months later end up on a WP phone becuase switching between ecosystems on their phone will become a right pain.

Lets face it, how many people do we know who are thinking of this? More than there were six months ago...

 

[socialcarpet]

The highlighted part isn't entirely true. You (and Elop) allege that Android doesn't allow Nokia to stand out, but that hasn't prevented the top Android OEM's from showing differentiation in their apporach. They have been bastardizing Android for nearly as long as they have been out, and each major product line offers something different. And with the right features and benefits, Nokia could have stood out. People are quick to mention the slew of cheap android devices from Asian manufacturers and what not, but look at the sales. People buy the top end devices. The Galaxy S3 is T-Mobiles all time best selling device, yet they offer more cheap, low end android phones than any other national carrier. Every carrier has a slew of low end devices by Huawei and ZTE, etc, but nobody buys them because, for $99 on contract, you can get yourself a capable device from a reputable OEM. Nokia uses Windows Phone as their software. And their Windows Phone is nearly the same as HTC's Windows phone, minus a few Nokia specific apps. So what's the differentiator there? Nokia could have dropped Google Maps in favor of their own if they wanted to. They could have implemented pureview camera technology. Every thing that Nokia has over the other Windows Phone OEM's could have been offered on Android, If anything, Android offers Nokia an even bigger canvas to differentiate itself from the Samsungs, Motorolas, and HTCs of the world. They could have made their own device without Google even interfering.

Yet another bastardized, skinned Android phone. Just what the world needed.

If Nokia had done that, I'd probably be using an iPhone now and so would a lot of other people.

 

[socialcarpet]

You made some excellent points, most of which I agreed with. Let me ask you this, though: Samsung has ~80% of the android market. But wouldn't you buy a Lumia android phone, knowing that Nokia has a history of high quality hardware and software finely tuned to the hardware it runs on? In Nokia's heydey (in the US, at least), they had some of the best hardware around. I think if they made a high end Lumia android device, it would beat out a comparable samsung phone overall because they hold themselves to a higher standard of quality. The build quality would be better. Their camera tech is miles ahead. Samsung has great screens, so they may get an edge there. But, as far as overall package goes, wouldn't you buy one?

I would not EVER buy another phone with an Android OS on it. I don't care if Nokia made it or not. The nicest hardware in the world does not make up for an ugly, cobbled together resource hungry OS with a fractured ecosystem. Android is pure crap.

 

[socialcarpet]

1) Killing Symbian development before WP caught on. Rest assured, I feel (bias admitted) that WP devices are the future and the best chance for Nokia. But not keeping a line or two of Symbian phones in development until the WP line took off was short sighted. Keeping those sales going would have kept investors happy.

They haven't actually "killed" Symbian. They've just outsourced it to Accenture and Nokia is still selling a ton of Symbian phones. If you go to Nokia's Finland site, or it's sites for other countries, you'll still see several Symbian models there.

I think Elop did the right thing. It was painful for the company and maybe the shareholders in the short run, but allowing Symbian to have even a little of the spotlight for one minute more would be stealing attention and resources from Lumia and that is something Nokia could not afford.

The Pureview 808 was Symbian's swan song. Kiss it goodbye.

 

[gpatrick15]

I would not EVER buy another phone with an Android OS on it. I don't care if Nokia made it or not. The nicest hardware in the world does not make up for an ugly, cobbled together resource hungry OS with a fractured ecosystem. Android is pure crap.

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. If Android was such a piece of crap people would have jumped off the bandwagon by now. And I know, argumentum ad populum and all, but clearly Google is doing something right with their OS. I don't agree with skins on android phones either, which is why I strictly buy Nexus phones. You can't tell me that stock ICS and Jellybean is a piece of crap, then you'd lose all credibility. You don't have to buy it, but there are millions right behind you who will. People also said that Windows Phone's are pieces of crap, which of course isn't true either. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[tissotti]

How Stephen Elop Destroyed Nokia - Seeking Alpha

Reading this article and looking at his choiced method of marketing new Lumia phones, you can't help but to be concerned about Nokia's future. L920 is a great phone and it should be sold well by those carriers with exclusivity deal. But Steve Elop chose to restrict the distributions and that in fact is making sure not everybody can't get one. On the otherhand, it is really doubtful that L820/810/822 can achieve any appreciable sales facing the more competitive HTC 8x and Samsung Ativ S in all carriers. Without Preview camera, there is basically no major differentiator. The global overall sales of the new Lumia phones may be way below Nokia's expectation. This is last chance for Nokia to make a comeback. Is Steve Elop blowing it again?

Honestly. Nokia Lumia 920 is not available via Verizon and T-Mobile. In UK it will be exclusive to EE, but it also has behind it the UK's first 4G network.
Some times this USA centric view here is a bit too glaring.


Why aren't people making these threads about HTC not getting a single Windows Phone to China Mobile with 650 million subs? That's the world largest seller of smartphones in the world, in a country that is world largest smartphone market and Windows Phones largest market.

Lumia 920 will still be available 95% of the world where exclusive carrier deals don't even exists. Same goes for Lumia 820.

They haven't actually "killed" Symbian. They've just outsourced it to Accenture and Nokia is still selling a ton of Symbian phones.

Well they did literally kill Symbian the day Windows Phone deal was announced. They announced Symbian was going to be killed, they didn't even say that for Qt/MeeGo. Symbian sales actually dropped 20% in that quarter. Nokia was still selling 22 million Symbian phones back then.

That to me is easily Elop's mistake and something he has almost admitted saying he might have done things differently. Windows Phone 7.x was not ready, it doesn't need a rocket science to see that Nokia would have been better without WP on that stage.

And anyways Elop is just piece of a puzzle that is Nokia. Board of directors decide strategy inside public company. Board of directors can choose CEO to carry out the strategy.

 

[socialcarpet]

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. If Android was such a piece of crap people would have jumped off the bandwagon by now. And I know, argumentum ad populum and all, but clearly Google is doing something right with their OS. I don't agree with skins on android phones either, which is why I strictly buy Nexus phones. You can't tell me that stock ICS and Jellybean is a piece of crap, then you'd lose all credibility. You don't have to buy it, but there are millions right behind you who will. People also said that Windows Phone's are pieces of crap, which of course isn't true either. Different strokes for different folks.

I've never used Jellybean. It might be wonderful.

My experience was with Gingerbread and Honeycomb and both left me unimpressed to put it mildly. I appreciate that Google has finally decided to focus more on the quality of the end user experience as a whole a little more, instead of just piling on features no one ever asked for and hoping for the best.

Still, the openness that some people love about Android, is what i don't like about it. I want a consistent UI and I want apps that adhere to it. Android is off the reservation when it comes to both and my experience with it has really soured that whole ecosystem for me. I just like Windows Phone so much more. It does everything right that Android does wrong IMO.

As for the masses using Android phones, I'd argue most of them have them because they think there is no other choice. Only a small percentage are actual Nexus toting fanboys who swap ROMS out and think Google is the second coming of Christ. Most are just regular people who couldn't afford an iPhone, or are on a carrier that doesn't offer it or got suckered into buying any Android phone.

Of the 14-15 people I know who have Android phones, 3 absolutely hate them, 2 are fan boys and the rest simply tolerate them but I hear complaints from them too. Only the fan boys actually LIKE them.

 

[cckgz4]

Did the Droid Razr prove to be a "fail" for being on Verizon only?

The original Note?

The EVO 4G?

The Samsung Moment on Sprint?

The MyTouch phones (in the beginning) for T-Mo?

The sidekicks?

****, the original Razr that was on AT&T at first?

The LG Chocolate line on Verizon?

The Hero on Sprint that was different than the GSM version?

The Blackberry Torch on AT&T? The Storm on Verizon (granted it suck but there was buzz)?

All of these phones, did pretty damn well and created a lot of buzz regardless of being on one carrier. And outside of the storm, they were all well received. I NEVER saw any talks of how the company is going to FAIL simply of providing a carrier exclusive. Oh, flipping, well. It's been like this for decades. I've been with every major carrier except for Verizon, and while being on those, I've had a lot of phone envy seeing phones come out to certain carriers, but I've never had a reaction like people are having. It's beyond ridiculous. And IMO, it's really a joke for some members to pretend that their blatant tantrums are constructive criticisms that comes from a general concern for the OEM. Please. You are upset because YOU can't get the 920, and that's okay. I've been disappointed to not be able to handle A LOT of phones in my lifetime, but it's NOT this big of a deal.

 

[gpatrick15]

Did the Droid Razr prove to be a "fail" for being on Verizon only?

The original Note?

The EVO 4G?

The Samsung Moment on Sprint?

The MyTouch phones (in the beginning) for T-Mo?

The sidekicks?

****, the original Razr that was on AT&T at first?

The LG Chocolate line on Verizon?

The Hero on Sprint that was different than the GSM version?

The Blackberry Torch on AT&T? The Storm on Verizon (granted it suck but there was buzz)?

All of these phones, did pretty damn well and created a lot of buzz regardless of being on one carrier. And outside of the storm, they were all well received. I NEVER saw any talks of how the company is going to FAIL simply of providing a carrier exclusive. Oh, flipping, well. It's been like this for decades. I've been with every major carrier except for Verizon, and while being on those, I've had a lot of phone envy seeing phones come out to certain carriers, but I've never had a reaction like people are having. It's beyond ridiculous. And IMO, it's really a joke for some members to pretend that their blatant tantrums are constructive criticisms that comes from a general concern for the OEM. Please. You are upset because YOU can't get the 920, and that's okay. I've been disappointed to not be able to handle A LOT of phones in my lifetime, but it's NOT this big of a deal.

None of those phones were launched by OEM's struggling for marketshare. When many of these lines released, they were on carriers that didn't offer the iPhone and targeted users who wanted something just as nice and advanced. As for the non smartphones: LG partnered with Verizon for the Chocolate initially, and, in an age where non smartphones ruled the day, Verizon marketed the crap out of the phone. Same with the RAZR on AT&T. Motorola, back then, had plenty of money to throw around on advertising the phones, and weren't in the dire straits they were in when Google scooped them up. The sidekick was the "IT" phone in it's day, and Danger wasn't about to go under. The Torch and Storm launched when people actually gave a damn about Blackberry. The only phone/carrier combo that meets the criteria here is the original Evo 4G. Sprint was tanking, and HTC wasn't doing all that great either. The Evo 4G saved sprint, relatively speaking. None of these phones you listed launched under the dubious circumstances that the 920 will launch under. Backs to the wall, struggling for marketshare.

I actually agree with you that the exclusive isn't the worst thing in the world. I have AT&T, so I'll have access to it immediately if I so choose, so it doesn't bother me. And I'm sure AT&T paid a heavy price for their exclusive rights. That still doesn't change the fact that a wider ranging launch in the US would have been better for their cause. People fail to realize the worldwide implications though. The world doesn't revolve around America, and, if I'm not mistaken, China Mobile will launch the phone too. So Nokia WILL get paid, but don't expect the numbers to be where many of you expect them to be, because the general public doesn't know enough--and doesn't care enough, either--about Windows Phones and that perception is unlikely to change very soon.

 

[chilero]

There are a lot of negative articles on Mr. Elop and Nokia. @matt24x7 via @gcaughey linked to a positive one written by an analyst for change.

It's Raining Good News On Nokia - Seeking Alpha

 

[cckgz4]

None of those phones were launched by OEM's struggling for marketshare. When many of these lines released, they were on carriers that didn't offer the iPhone and targeted users who wanted something just as nice and advanced. As for the non smartphones: LG partnered with Verizon for the Chocolate initially, and, in an age where non smartphones ruled the day, Verizon marketed the crap out of the phone. Same with the RAZR on AT&T. Motorola, back then, had plenty of money to throw around on advertising the phones, and weren't in the dire straits they were in when Google scooped them up. The sidekick was the "IT" phone in it's day, and Danger wasn't about to go under. The Torch and Storm launched when people actually gave a damn about Blackberry. The only phone/carrier combo that meets the criteria here is the original Evo 4G. Sprint was tanking, and HTC wasn't doing all that great either. The Evo 4G saved sprint, relatively speaking. None of these phones you listed launched under the dubious circumstances that the 920 will launch under. Backs to the wall, struggling for marketshare.

I actually agree with you that the exclusive isn't the worst thing in the world. I have AT&T, so I'll have access to it immediately if I so choose, so it doesn't bother me. And I'm sure AT&T paid a heavy price for their exclusive rights. That still doesn't change the fact that a wider ranging launch in the US would have been better for their cause. People fail to realize the worldwide implications though. The world doesn't revolve around America, and, if I'm not mistaken, China Mobile will launch the phone too. So Nokia WILL get paid, but don't expect the numbers to be where many of you expect them to be, because the general public doesn't know enough--and doesn't care enough, either--about Windows Phones and that perception is unlikely to change very soon.

yeah I knew the circumstances for why each phone I listed was successful and their financial situation. I guess my overall point was people need to wait to see if the lumia will generate it's own noise and stop the doom and gloom predictions over silly exclusive arguments. I'm not saying they will be big numbers but I think they'll make an impression.