Nokia admits it rejected Android; eyes "billions" in revenue from WP7 deal

<i>&#62;&#62;"A decision to swing to Android would have tilted the mobile ecosystem in the direction of a duopoly, but we wanted to create a challenger," he said.</i><p>It looks like he didn't explain why they wanted to create a "challenger".<p>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.

"Nokia was unable to give a firm timeframe on when its first WP7 phone would appear but it is hopeful for a launch before year end."<p>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.<p>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.<p>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's not entirely clear what Elop means by "value transfer". My initial reading was that Microsoft would just be writing a big fat cheque to Nokia in exchange for Nokia using WP7. It sounds like it's actually something slightly more subtle but I wonder what it will boil down to.

I spent some time today looking at youtube videos of Nokia's Symbian OS, and also looking through the shopping catalog.<p>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.<p>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.<p>Nokia would have done just as well selling Android or refreshing it's Symbian OS. Anyone care to explain what is wrong with Symbian?<p>I own an Android now, but I would have bought a Nokia android if it was available.<p>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. <a href="http://www.symbian-guru.com/welcome/2010/07/symbian-guru-com-is-over.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.symbian-guru.com/welcome/2010/07/symbian-guru-com...</a>

They did it out of the goodness of their hearts, because it is better for the world if there isn't a duopoly? Yeah right...

&#62; to sell any personal shares he still owned in Microsoft as soon as he was allowed.<p>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?!<p>If it smells like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... oh, well.

"he also talked up the significant “value transfer” in financial terms that would come Nokia’s way as a result of reduced operating expenses and new revenue streams such as access to Microsoft’s search and advertising capabilities."<p>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?<p>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?

Honestly, it was a brilliant move by both Microsoft and Nokia. Microsoft dropped to 3% of the global market share for smartphones and Nokia's 2/3 market share dominance was nearly cut in half <a href="http://blog.cedowin.com/2011/01/mobile-future-taking-market-share-from.html" rel="nofollow">http://blog.cedowin.com/2011/01/mobile-future-taking-market-...</a>. Additionally, Android overtook the #1 sales spot in Q4 globally, (depending on who you get your numbers from).<p>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.

One issue with Android which seems to have escaped mentioned is Oracle's lawsuit over Dalvik and concerns about how vigorously Google will ultimately defend the suit given the role Dalvik plays in their revenue model. Two years ago, adopting Android would not have come with the baggage that it does today.

three viable ecosystems is better for consumers than two. it also forces more competition to be dev friendly since apps are a large part of each player's strategy.