Is There Anything Left from the Nokia Acquisition?

Keith Wallace

New member
Nov 8, 2012
3,179
0
0
Visit site
I've heard you (Dan), say quite a few times that we shouldn't expect a great camera from Andromeda because that's not the main objective of the device. It reminded me that camera optics were pretty much THE thing high-end Lumias had to separate from the sea of alternatives. It would seem, now, that the famed Carl Zeiss tech we got isn't going to be around.

That left me to wonder: What IS around from the $7.5 billion Microsoft spent on the Nokia mobile division? The Nokia brand is gone. The Lumia brand is dead. The camera's gone. The OS has undergone two major upheavals (W10M, now apparent W10C). Are any of the key employees who came over left? Is the software from the Lumia camera (Arguably its weakest point when it launched, but it certainly got better) around? Could it exist in Andromeda?

I cared a lot about having a nice camera on my 920 and (now) my 950. When you say "don't expect a great camera," what does that mean? Does it mean we should expect to be worse than the competition, or merely just as good, rather than best-in-class like before? Should we expect a OP5 disappointment, where we lose something as key to me as OIS? Will the entirety of Microsoft's mobile efforts be stripped bare and reset, or will any of the positive legacy stick around?
 

techiez

Member
Nov 3, 2012
832
0
16
Visit site
I've heard you (Dan), say quite a few times that we shouldn't expect a great camera from Andromeda because that's not the main objective of the device. It reminded me that camera optics were pretty much THE thing high-end Lumias had to separate from the sea of alternatives. It would seem, now, that the famed Carl Zeiss tech we got isn't going to be around.

That left me to wonder: What IS around from the $7.5 billion Microsoft spent on the Nokia mobile division? The Nokia brand is gone. The Lumia brand is dead. The camera's gone. The OS has undergone two major upheavals (W10M, now apparent W10C). Are any of the key employees who came over left? Is the software from the Lumia camera (Arguably its weakest point when it launched, but it certainly got better) around? Could it exist in Andromeda?

I cared a lot about having a nice camera on my 920 and (now) my 950. When you say "don't expect a great camera," what does that mean? Does it mean we should expect to be worse than the competition, or merely just as good, rather than best-in-class like before? Should we expect a OP5 disappointment, where we lose something as key to me as OIS? Will the entirety of Microsoft's mobile efforts be stripped bare and reset, or will any of the positive legacy stick around?

A device that is intended to be a note taking device with assistant capabilities isnt expected to have a great camera or OIS.
 

fatclue_98

Retired Moderator
Apr 1, 2012
9,146
1
38
Visit site
A device that is intended to be a note taking device with assistant capabilities isnt expected to have a great camera or OIS.
Actually it should. A business oriented device is expected to scan PDFs damn near perfect. Lumias made CamScanner better on Windows than any other platform.

Sent from my Alcatel Idol 4S on mTalk
 

techiez

Member
Nov 3, 2012
832
0
16
Visit site
Actually it should. A business oriented device is expected to scan PDFs damn near perfect. Lumias made CamScanner better on Windows than any other platform.

Sent from my Alcatel Idol 4S on mTalk

Well I expect it to have a good camera but not something to compete with the best camera on phones these days. Though would be glad if I'm wrong.
 

tgp

New member
Dec 1, 2012
4,519
0
0
Visit site
Here's my theory on reasoning behind the Nokia acquisition:

Back when Nokia signed the exclusivity agreement with Microsoft, part of their protection was to guarantee minimum sales. Because Nokia sells hardware, they need to move hardware. As time went on and sales faltered, Microsoft was forced into payouts to cover their end of the bargain. It was cheaper to just buy Nokia's mobile division than to pay whatever Nokia had coming.

I suspect that Microsoft never intended to make anything of the Nokia acquisition. It was the cheapest way for them to settle.

My 2¢.

Disclaimer: I have no idea if this is anything near accuracy. I'm just musing. Every word is mine, and mine alone.
 

anon(8532178)

New member
Feb 12, 2014
291
0
0
Visit site
I've heard you (Dan), say quite a few times that we shouldn't expect a great camera from Andromeda because that's not the main objective of the device. It reminded me that camera optics were pretty much THE thing high-end Lumias had to separate from the sea of alternatives. It would seem, now, that the famed Carl Zeiss tech we got isn't going to be around.

That left me to wonder: What IS around from the $7.5 billion Microsoft spent on the Nokia mobile division? The Nokia brand is gone. The Lumia brand is dead. The camera's gone. The OS has undergone two major upheavals (W10M, now apparent W10C). Are any of the key employees who came over left? Is the software from the Lumia camera (Arguably its weakest point when it launched, but it certainly got better) around? Could it exist in Andromeda?

I cared a lot about having a nice camera on my 920 and (now) my 950. When you say "don't expect a great camera," what does that mean? Does it mean we should expect to be worse than the competition, or merely just as good, rather than best-in-class like before? Should we expect a OP5 disappointment, where we lose something as key to me as OIS? Will the entirety of Microsoft's mobile efforts be stripped bare and reset, or will any of the positive legacy stick around?

Careful before DJ gives his explanation.
 

techiez

Member
Nov 3, 2012
832
0
16
Visit site
Here's my theory on reasoning behind the Nokia acquisition:

Back when Nokia signed the exclusivity agreement with Microsoft, part of their protection was to guarantee minimum sales. Because Nokia sells hardware, they need to move hardware. As time went on and sales faltered, Microsoft was forced into payouts to cover their end of the bargain. It was cheaper to just buy Nokia's mobile division than to pay whatever Nokia had coming.

I suspect that Microsoft never intended to make anything of the Nokia acquisition. It was the cheapest way for them to settle.

My 2¢.

Disclaimer: I have no idea if this is anything near accuracy. I'm just musing. Every word is mine, and mine alone.

Also to add, Nokia was almost considering switch to Android, that would have meant a premature death of WP, and since it was before Nadella so board decided to go for it.
 

fatclue_98

Retired Moderator
Apr 1, 2012
9,146
1
38
Visit site
Also to add, Nokia was almost considering switch to Android, that would have meant a premature death of WP, and since it was before Nadella so board decided to go for it.

I have to wholeheartedly disagree. Windows had a much higher participation from OEMs before Nokia came along. The blind Nokia fanboyism was the worst thing that happened to WP.
 

tgp

New member
Dec 1, 2012
4,519
0
0
Visit site
I have to wholeheartedly disagree. Windows had a much higher participation from OEMs before Nokia came along. The blind Nokia fanboyism was the worst thing that happened to WP.

But yet without Nokia, I doubt whether WP would ever have made the progress it did, at least in Europe. How many WP users were there because of Nokia? Most of them, I would guess.

I think many of us viewed (or still view) WP through rose colored glasses due to fanaticism, be it towards Microsoft (this was me personally), or the fact that it was not Apple or Google. We seem to think that WP was superior. However, most consumers couldn't care less what OS their smartphone is running, or the vendor behind the OS. People tried WP, and dropped it, in spite of it being on Nokia hardware. In short, WP never stood a chance, Nokia or no Nokia.
 

fatclue_98

Retired Moderator
Apr 1, 2012
9,146
1
38
Visit site
But yet without Nokia, I doubt whether WP would ever have made the progress it did, at least in Europe. How many WP users were there because of Nokia? Most of them, I would guess.

I think many of us viewed (or still view) WP through rose colored glasses due to fanaticism, be it towards Microsoft (this was me personally), or the fact that it was not Apple or Google. We seem to think that WP was superior. However, most consumers couldn't care less what OS their smartphone is running, or the vendor behind the OS. People tried WP, and dropped it, in spite of it being on Nokia hardware. In short, WP never stood a chance, Nokia or no Nokia.

I'll concede that Nokia probably made a sizable difference in Europe but certainly not in the US. The little bit of momentum WP was enjoying went straight into the toilet when Microsoft decided to bend every WP7 owner over and not upgrade to WP8. Nokia or no Nokia, that hurt bigly.
 

tgp

New member
Dec 1, 2012
4,519
0
0
Visit site
The little bit of momentum WP was enjoying went straight into the toilet when Microsoft decided to bend every WP7 owner over and not upgrade to WP8. Nokia or no Nokia, that hurt bigly.

That's true. But yet, wasn't WP's peak in the WP8/8.1 days? That would obviously have been after the shafting.

Either way, I doubt whether WP/WM would have ever grown to the point where it would have been able to run with the big boys. Evidently Microsoft didn't think so either. Hadn't it largely plateaued when Microsoft backed off? I would think they would have kept it going had it been still growing, unless they didn't anticipate it ever paying the bills.
 

fatclue_98

Retired Moderator
Apr 1, 2012
9,146
1
38
Visit site
That's true. But yet, wasn't WP's peak in the WP8/8.1 days? That would obviously have been after the shafting.

Either way, I doubt whether WP/WM would have ever grown to the point where it would have been able to run with the big boys. Evidently Microsoft didn't think so either. Hadn't it largely plateaued when Microsoft backed off? I would think they would have kept it going had it been still growing, unless they didn't anticipate it ever paying the bills.

That peak came courtesy of the 520/521 series because they were so cheap. You couldn't go wrong with those models just to try the OS out. Those who stayed eventually desired something better and upgraded to the 920/925 models and later the HTC One M8 or Ativ SE if you were on Verizon. Sprint customers had it worse since the HTC 8X was probably the highest you could go.
 

Laura Knotek

Retired Moderator
Mar 31, 2012
29,412
25
48
Visit site
Don't flatter the ******'s clout, $40 Lumia 520s did that.
I got a Lumia 900 as my first Windows Phone. I had been a Nokia Symbian user back in 2006-2009, prior to my switch to BlackBerry. I was leaving BlackBerry in 2011, and I saw the Lumia 900 given excellent reviews at CES 2012, so I went to the AT&T store on release date to get my Lumia 900. I knew nothing about Windows Phone at the time, but my past experience with Nokia Symbian convinced me that the Lumia 900 was the phone to have.
 

fatclue_98

Retired Moderator
Apr 1, 2012
9,146
1
38
Visit site
I got a Lumia 900 as my first Windows Phone. I had been a Nokia Symbian user back in 2006-2009, prior to my switch to BlackBerry. I was leaving BlackBerry in 2011, and I saw the Lumia 900 given excellent reviews at CES 2012, so I went to the AT&T store on release date to get my Lumia 900. I knew nothing about Windows Phone at the time, but my past experience with Nokia Symbian convinced me that the Lumia 900 was the phone to have.

You were one of the few US customers that had a Nokia smartphone. Their choices with carriers were abysmal with the exception of the E71 on AT&T and later the E73 Mode on TMO. Fact is, I'm actually trying to hunt down one of those E73s for my backup duties.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
323,628
Messages
2,244,109
Members
428,092
Latest member
raymowen