Great move by Microsoft.<p>This is an acquisition that arguably puts Microsoft mobile capabilities above that of Google's, and closest to Apple's. They're getting industry veterans with great design talent. They're getting a Lumia product that has the best build quality of any non-Apple smart phone. They're acquiring proven channels to access global markets. Both Nokia and Microsoft have been floundering in the mobile space recently; neither have had any real explosive successes. Together they might make some really compelling offerings.<p>I'm not a fan of their mobile OS, but I am a huge fan of Nokia's latest smartphones, and if Nokia design's talent can figure out how to introduce a better UI, I'd seriously consider getting The Windows Phone as my next smartphone.
Motorola and now Nokia, the last of the previous era big wigs have fallen. 13 years ago Lucent, Motorola, Ericsson, Sun, Nortel were huge. Now they are all gone. Even HP, Dell are no longer leading. That is a really short time span for a company to be on top of the world and disappear. Is this the expected life span of a tech company?
I found this statement interesting - "Microsoft will draw upon its overseas cash resources to fund the transaction." I've seen it mentioned quite a few times that tech companies end up with massive overseas cash reserves they can't repatriate for tax reasons. Anyone with better knowledge of finance/tax want to chime in with whether this makes the deal even more attractive for MS?
This is the ultimate indictment of Steve Ballmer's "I like our strategy, I like it a lot" statement. This is the final admission that their strategy of licensing a mobile OS to phone manufacturers, just as they licensed desktop Windows to PC makers, has completely failed. This must have been in the works for months, so now finally the other shoe has dropped and we know why he had to leave. There's no way he could save face over something like this.<p>Just to be clear, the strategy itself wasn't the problem, just look at Android, the problem was that technically their product was technically deficient. They failed to execute the strategy effectively. What I have always wondered is whether this was simply due to hardware limitations of the day, or whether the old Windows Mobile was deliberately held back technically to prevent it competing with Desktop Windows. If the former then Microsoft just suffered from a form of first mover's disadvantage, and a lack of foresight. If the latter then they richly deserve all the failure they've reaped. I'd love to know.
Seems like Elop stayed true to his nickname - of a trojan horse. He never really worked for Nokia. He's been working for Microsoft the whole time, just to sell it for this low price.<p>How the hell are the shareholders okay with this? I'm <i>shocked</i> it sold for under $10 billion. Nokia's total valuation is about 15 billion, and you'd have to imagine they'd have to pay a 30 percent premium when buying it, so that's $20 billion for the whole. I assume the devices division was worth at least half of that. Didn't Nokia already sell the telecom part?
"Microsoft will draw upon its overseas cash resources to fund the transaction."<p>This is an important aspect of the deal - bringing money earned overseas into the US is often costly (taxes, etc.). As a result, US companies often end up with cash sitting overseas with nothing to spend it on, and are hesitant to take the hit that happens when they bring it to the US... so this is a great way for Microsoft to use that money in an effective way.<p>According to this article, Microsoft has $60 Billion sitting offshore in order to avoid US taxes:
<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2013/08/01/apple-google-among-top-u-s-companies-parking-cash-offshore-to-reduce-taxes-study-says/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2013/08/01/apple...</a>
Software is eating the world. For real now. And it is eating hardware. This is such a strong force that even old time franchises like Microsoft and Motorola can't do anything about it. And apparently "pure software" companies don't mind venturing into it. They know it's software, for the most part, and believe vertical integration is worth the trouble with the messy hardware parts.<p>How deep is the integration anyway? Did Google and Microsoft end up owning the manufacturing plants? Apple is known to outsource the manufacturing itself.
This news may sound exciting/disappointing to the developed countries, but it is certainly extremely disappointing for people in third-world countries, especially India.<p>It is not at all hyperbole to say 'Nokia played a key role in India's mobile penetration'. They sell affordable, reliable and rigid phones for rough use in rural places of India. And I think it's true for most other countries like Africa. On the other hand Microsoft mostly makes premium software and hardware. I don't know any affordable tool(w.r.t developing countries) from Microsoft. This may put Microsoft in a better position in terms of smartphone. But in other terms this may be a step towards 'diminishing power of poor people'.
I think this has been expected since the Nokia Windows Phone bet. I suspect that this is not unrelated to the Ballmer departure.<p>I'm not sure it does either company much good. If anything it looks to me like a panic move of two companies who while from te outside they seem huge and successful to many are actually seeing the writing on the wal and have no real plan for the future.<p>This won't make Microsoft competitive with Apple where it wants to be despite the hopes of Redmond.
Annual cost synergies of 600MM within 18 months - sounds like they plan to kill 3000 jobs.<p><a href="http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/download/press/2013/StrategicRationale.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/download/press/2013/Stra...</a> (page 21)
The press release says Microsoft will acquire Nokia’s Devices & Services business and license Nokia’s patents and mapping services. So what happens to the <i>rest</i> of Nokia?
And now Microsoft has a hardware division. I can easily see most hardware vendors being ousted by the trio of Google/MS/Apple - all of whom now either make or have been making their own hardware to go along with their software. And so the walled garden grows...
I found Microsoft's strategic rationale for this deal interesting: <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/download/press/2013/StrategicRationale.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/download/press/2013/Stra...</a>
Speaking of handset makers that missed the revolution, I wonder who will pick up RIM as they circle the drain. Microsoft is probably the favorite right?
With the apparent growing trend on emerging markets of Windows Phones (the Lumia series produced by Nokia, and pushed by carriers on LATAM like Telcel/America Movil)<p>This seems like a great move from MS, they have bought more runway.<p>But come on, the move was telegraphed a couple of years ago.
What would this mean for all the Nokia feature phones ? The latest Asha series was very good and selling pretty well at least in India. How would this figure in MS strategy? Are they going to ditch it? That would be sad, because Nokia still makes phones that can withstand rough use.
On the other side would Nokia start manufacturing Laptop in future. I would really like Nokia design team to come up with a good Windows laptop!
The old fat couple in the room had a dance and #microsoft just ran out of things to say, so in order to avoid an awkward moment (high end sales are abysmal) he proposed. #nokia looked around, didn't want to die alone, and like any scared middle aged woman, said yes.
I hope Ballmer and Gates have a dedicated CEO in mind now that Ballmer's leaving... very few people will be able to lead a company this large, and it will be quite a tragedy if Microsoft's reputation declines and takes down Nokia with it.
Slightly off-topic : For hackers outside the USA/EU I think Microsoft succeeding can be a bad thing since Macs are really expensive here and Microsoft silently allowing piracy means that everyone uses Windows. I feel that ISVs better supporting Linux would be a nice thing and one of the important things to happen for that is for Windows to loose its monopoly ( second is of course some sort of agreement between all Linux distros around some standard ). I can't but feel that is to be a distant dream, since Microsoft seems to have infinite pockets and can buy their way out of any trouble for years to come.
Microsoft has destroyed companies before :<p>See : <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/09/microsoft_destroyed_i4i_filing/" rel="nofollow">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/09/microsoft_destroyed_...</a>
I wonder if this played into Ballmer leaving. Odd to have a massive re-org and massive purchase, only to have the CEO turn around and leave right afterwards.