Analyst: "Microsoft will fail with Nokia handsets"

[JustToClarify]

And why do you believe this?

MS had to invest a lot of money into Nokia to help them with their transition.

Nobody was going to do that if they went Android. No money cushion.



They'd have to be able to be in business for any of your Android scenarios to happen. But Google was not willing to help them out financially. Google was not willing to be their customer for the location services that they wanted to grow.

you mean the money cushion they had to pay back MS for insanely expensive WP licences?

 

[ChMar]

you mean the money cushion they had to pay back MS for insanely expensive WP licences?

Please tell me the insane expensive wp license prices. I'm not being sarcastic I just wish to know because I truly am curious. And also tell me about what the cost are for android licensing. And please keep in mind that paying for wp license also grants support from ms with people and features where android being open source you do not receive any kind of support.

 

[Reflexx]

you mean the money cushion they had to pay back MS for insanely expensive WP licences?

LOL. Really?

Enlighten us.

 

[spaulagain]

you mean the money cushion they had to pay back MS for insanely expensive WP licences?

Wait, you mean the licenses for Android that Microsoft gets? You know, with all those patents violated, MS gets paid something like $13 for every Android phone. Nokia would have been paying Microsoft even if they went with Android

Besides, I'm pretty sure MS gave Nokia a pretty good deal when it comes to adopting Windows Phone. But yes, please enlighten us with these insanely expensive license costs you speak of.

 

[JustToClarify]

there is a huge difference between $13 and >$53 no?!

 

[a5cent]

there is a huge difference between $13 and >$53 no?!

What? Where did you get that crazy number from? The price of a WP license depends on the price of the hardware being sold. Inexpensive phone = inexpensive license. I'm unaware of any WP licensee ever paying more than $32, often it is half that price!

1. That includes integration support from Microsoft.
2. That includes legal protection (which would have saved Samsung billions in their court battles with Apple). If any company takes the OEM to court over anything related to the OS, MS will go to court in the OEMs place, defend their position and cover all legal fees.
3. That includes bugfixing. If you find a bug in the OS, Microsoft will fix it as soon as they can, whereas the Android OEM must do so themselves.
4. That covers all software IP licensing costs, including a license for all Apple technology. Should anyone decide that WP is infringing on their IP... see number (2).

For inexpensive devices that is a very good deal. The argument that a WP license is expensive can only be made for high end phones. For all cheaper devices, which are those that sell in volume, a WP license is just as good a deal, if not better (considering the mitigated risks).

Much of the costs of a WP license for a high end device are compensated by the fact that you can install the OS on your phone, setup the configuration files and be ready to go. For an Android device the OEM must employ a few hundred engineers to adapt the OS to the specific hardware configuration they intend to use. Those are huge additional costs that the WP licensee doesn't have. What is better ultimately depends on margins after all the engineering work is factored in, and the number of unit sales.

Anyway, that Android is the better deal and always cheaper is a myth. It's a lot more complicated than that.

 

[JustToClarify]

I have read its over fifty bucks for 920s when they came on the market.

 

[spaulagain]

I have read its over fifty bucks for 920s when they came on the market.

It doesn't even matter now because they're going to own Nokia.

 

[iamtim]

Either of you cite your sources? I'm curious...

 

[spaulagain]

Either of you cite your sources? I'm curious...

Articles from 2012 state that Windows Phone 7 licensing fees were between $23-31. Not sure if that price increased with WP8 or not. But I have a hard time believing it would be north of $50. That is ridiculously expensive and certainly not a good way to get OEMs on board. I doubt Microsoft would be that stupid :/

http://www.neowin.net/news/zte-reveals-cost-of-windows-phone-os-licensing

 

[hopmedic]

I'll throw in there that without digging for references, I recall seeing figures in the same range as spaulagain has stated. I also seem to recall seeing at least one article that mentioned licensing fees as low as $10, though I'm guessing that was only for Nokia, if I'm correct at all.

 

[ChMar]

And someone said that if you have volumes and ship on all continents it's 3$. So the truth is no one knows and saying that wp licenses are so expensive is just FUD. a5cent was spot on when he explained what buying a wp license means. I only want to add that in case of android you pay for patents to MS and you pay to google if you want to have anything google related. You want google play, gmail, or google maps you pay. So just because Android is open source does not means the OEMs can use it for free (even excluding the patents).

[link to what I stated abou the price look in coments but I don't believe anything is written there to be hard truth]
Windows Phone licensing cost revealed by ZTE: $23 – $30 | Mobile | Geek.com

 

[Reflexx]

Nokia had cheaper licensing costs than all other OEMs. The last I recall reading it was under $20.

No way Nokia, or any large OEM, would have agreed to a $50+ licensing deal.

 

[ChMar]

Nokia had cheaper licensing costs than all other OEMs. The last I recall reading it was under $20.

No way Nokia, or any large OEM, would have agreed to a $50+ licensing deal.

They might agree even with $50 per device if they would receive percentage from app sells in the market for each of their device just as carriers seams to get. So I don't think anyone would be able to guess the financial picture . I doubt that many people in any OEM knows the full financial details so there is a low chance for real valid leaks.

 

[Robert Novak1]

Oh, stop it. Gawd, all you Chicken Littles. No need to read any article, everyone is pulling predictions out of their arses. Every read old predictions about anything? Fly cars by 2000 being the classic example.

I like to overview the present phone maker/market situation as follows: Forget Blackberry, at least for now. That leaves Androids, made by many companies, iPhone, made by one company from beginning to end, and WP, up to now, made by a partnership. I think that looking over many millions of user experiences, iPhone is the most integrated, stable, no surprises platform. If there's a problem, Apple is on it. Android suffers from too many cooks and no one takes responsibility. Many problems over many years over many brands, some now attaining tradition status. Like battery drain. Just today a friend told me he uses 2-3 batteries a day, "but I'm on it a lot!"

MS makes mistakes. Zune mp3, anyone? Apple makes mistakes. How many HD video connectors have they created and dropped? But MS IS the 1000 pound gorilla in tech life because they tend, in aggregate, make good decisions.

(Someone above said that WP is only doing well in Europe, not at all true. Huge seller in Mexico, like a third of new phones and strong generally in Latin America.)

The only thing I fear about this purchase is that MS loses a head. You know, another voice as they make decisions. But Apple ain't doing so badly with only their own voice.

"The future's so bright I gotta wear shades."

MS was making serious headway with WM when it was released. They totally screwed the pooch and lost all of that lead that the did have...

 

[ChMar]

MS was making serious headway with WM when it was released. They totally screwed the pooch and lost all of that lead that the did have...

Like did everyone when iphone and the android appeared. windows mobile lost the lead, RIM with blackberry lost the lead nokia with their Symbian lost their lead. No os before the appearance of iphone was targeted towards multitouch capacitive touch screens and consumers in general. WM was not technical capable to compete on consumer market with iphone or android and neither was symbiam or blackberry for that matter. That lead is misleading . Since on one side you have installment base to consider (already sold phones) and on the other side you have market share to consider (selling of new phones). Since smart-phones moved from enterprise (small number of users) to consumers (large number of users) that lead of installed based and the market share of WM become inexistent against iphone and android.

 

[a5cent]

Either of you cite your sources? I'm curious...

Unfortunately, I can't site sources. Almost everything I state here at WPC is either my personal opinion or information I get from work. In this case it is the later. I work for a European carrier.

Anyway, the agreements between Microsoft and the OEMs are confidential, so I doubt you will find anything official mentioning licensing costs on the web. I'm surprised so many have apparently found material mentioning licensing cost.

 

[Castor Troy]

Perhaps leaving the Nokia branding on the smartphones with a Powered by Windows Phone will be an option they will explore. *Fingers crossed* on leaving Nokia branding on the smartphone line-up.

 

[ChMar]

The deal with the buyout will be finalized at the end of 2014 so until then there will be nokia branded phones. They have 1 year to change the brand from nokia lumia to lumia or Microsoft lumia. The US market is more important than the rest of the world for the benefit of the ecosystem. And in US nokia is not a strong brand