Originally Posted by BigBadGuber! (Post 1071426)

Google bought Motorola mobile division purely for patents.

Originally Posted by egoshin (Post 1071530)

Just wait until they divide Nokia and sell divisions separately. Even in Motorola case there was a split - Google bought Moto Mobile only.

Originally Posted by MoJo (Post 1071546)

Nobody makes no allusions as to the dire situation Nokia is in. I get the issues Elop was brought in to handle, but because of the drastic "ripping the bandage" type of action undertaken at Nokia to even begin the transition has really exposed quite a bit of underlying weaknesses with Nokia.

The realization that Symbian wouldn't cut it; albeit public really created massive losses for Nokia. Choosing to go WP7 solely had made the level uncertainty too much, and revealed that OPK had many years to transition towards Maemo but dropped the ball. Nokia has lost credibility, and that is why investors have become skeptical and consumers have become even more so hostile. Also CEO's are of different Pedigrees, Elop is first and foremost the Mergers/ Acquisitions type of CEO. The next billion with S40's and 150million Symbian by 2015 were fantastical numbers that this community even found quite hard to believe and the projections are not looking favorable. Obviously if Nokia can make such an error, how can we begin to believe that WP7 will be a success? Nokia doesn't have the timing to wage a slow war where WP7 increases market share ever so slowly year over year. They need instant hits, across all product lines and the first negative report countering that narrative will spell big problems for Nokia.

Nokia can't even sell its hardware wherever it chooses anymore. They speak of phones and shelves with carriers being limited, but they forget to mention that at most 1 WP7 will be ready by years end and not a single N9 that is ready by September will be available at stores for Christmas and Holiday shopping spree. The truth is MS made it so that N9 never sees the light of day to the wide world market.

I have tried WP7, and said it many times before that it is actually a solid device albeit some things can be better. The issue with Nokia is that they leveraged the entire company on WP7, and I find it hard to believe that WP7 can make that difference. They should of did both Android and WP7 ... why not, what is stopping them?

So overall things don't look good and odds are Nokia will fail to revive, but it is doing a dual track plan. It is making it pretty to sell, and that has the highest probability of occurring. It doesn't take a genius to figure out ... WP7 if it doesn't sell well then Nokia is kaput, so what are the chances of that occurring. The guys who want solely patents can wait till negative numbers implodes Nokia stock. Those who want to protect Nokia's game plan have really a lot to lose ... remember MS will be taking a double risk, one that their OS is successful and another on Nokia as a business. The one who'll most likely make a move now is the company that wants to make a move into the mobile arena or strengthen it's mobile division. I think Samsung and Intel are key players in this arena. The deal between MS and Nokia isn't worth buying Nokia over ... they already have a bunch of partners, they may make some sort of arrangement where Nokia is partly invested in by MS as a minority stakeholder to ensure it gets through aggressive takeover bids and probably Nokia needs to cut the dividends, but that won't be good for the stock holders who only value that right now.

Originally Posted by ericsson (Post 1071790)

The global mobile business is impossible to predict.

Originally Posted by Crashdamage (Post 1071775)

Google did NOT give their Android partners the finger. They gave them a big umbrella to protect them from storm of patent lawsuits and fees. The deal only strengthens Android's overall position. That has to be good news for anyone selling Android devices. IOW, if you sell Android what's good for Android is good for you.

The only negative for HTC, Samsung etc. is of course Moto is overnight a stronger competitor. But doubtful it will suddenly make Moto a sales monster. And doubtful HTC or Samsung are particularly scared of Moto. An increase in Moto sales will likely be at the expense of RIM or WP7 more than other Android vendors.

Originally Posted by Daneel (Post 1071782)

It will if google decides to differentiate the UI/Features on their Motorola phones, something no other manufacturer can do(sense is just a lame UI skin).

Originally Posted by tkatchev (Post 1071795)

Also, 'patents' are a ridiculous red herring for keeping clueless people confused. Patents have nothing to do with anything.

Originally Posted by ericsson (Post 1071790)

These predictions can be made because they do not involve future fantasies and immature fanboy feelings, only facts.

Originally Posted by Texrat (Post 1071798)

Since that opinion flies in the face of so many legal and business moves, especially the past several years, can you explain why you say that?

Originally Posted by tkatchev (Post 1071806)

Stop drinking the cool-aid.

In the modern world there is no such thing as a 'patent'. 'Patents' are meaningless scrip that's used as ammunition for determining which corporate penis is larger in court.

For 16 billion you can buy an awful amount of lawyers, enough to not care about 'patents' whatsoever.

Originally Posted by tkatchev (Post 1071796)

And of course they will. That's the whole point of buying Motorola.

Now Google can compete with Apple on the profit margin and marketing fronts, while still locking in third-party manufacturers like HTC and Samsung into their ridiculous Android 'ecosystem'.

Obviously Google thinks they have HTC and Samsung by the balls, in that HTC and Samsung are now entrenched, trapped with Android.

I wonder what HTC's and Samsung's next move will be. (Bada?) They must be furiously thinking right now.

Originally Posted by tkatchev (Post 1071806)

Stop drinking the cool-aid.

In the modern world there is no such thing as a 'patent'. 'Patents' are meaningless scrip that's used as ammunition for determining which corporate penis is larger in court.

For 16 billion you can buy an awful amount of lawyers, enough to not care about 'patents' whatsoever.

Originally Posted by gerbick (Post 1071811)

Wait. If there is no such thing as a patent, then what is Microsoft using to get royalties from HTC and the others (Samsung, et al)? If not patents, then what? It may be argued that the patent infringements are bogus - Google is saying that right now, actually - but patents are indeed real. Some are enforceable, some are straight written bullcrap that needs to be revoked or ignored.

Please be specific. Because I'm genuinely curious.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man (Post 1071784)

What happens to your stock in a company if they split like that? E.g. If I bought Motorola stock and then they split.

Originally Posted by tkatchev (Post 1071806)

Stop drinking the cool-aid.

In the modern world there is no such thing as a 'patent'. 'Patents' are meaningless scrip that's used as ammunition for determining which corporate penis is larger in court.

For 16 billion you can buy an awful amount of lawyers, enough to not care about 'patents' whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Zoxir (Post 1071818)

Well actually MS it's using its size and bullying HTC as there are no patent claims just the threat that they might do so in the future if HTC does not pay royalties to them. So it's more like pimping LOL

Originally Posted by tkatchev (Post 1071806)

Stop drinking the cool-aid.

In the modern world there is no such thing as a 'patent'. 'Patents' are meaningless scrip that's used as ammunition for determining which corporate penis is larger in court.

(...)

Originally Posted by tkatchev (Post 1071795)

Wrong on all counts.

In the end, Android is not an open system anymore. Of course that is bad for HTC and Samsung.

Also, 'patents' are a ridiculous red herring for keeping clueless people confused. Patents have nothing to do with anything.

Originally Posted by NOMOS (Post 1071840)

MS is in a position of weakness because of current limited market share, not because their business model is flawed, so buying Nokia solves exactly nothing for them.

Originally Posted by ysss (Post 1071821)

You mean if they spin off a part of their operation into a separate entity/corporation?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man (Post 1071851)

Yeah. Does that mean your stock splits? Or does it stick with the main company?

Originally Posted by Texrat (Post 1071845)

So you don't think that acquiring strategic partner Nokia, or at least parts of it, could help ensure Microsoft increased market share? Why not?

Originally Posted by NOMOS (Post 1071853)

No, it would not. Nokia already is betting the farm on WP, no advantage in commitment to be gained by purchasing. The only motive would be defensive.

Originally Posted by Texrat (Post 1071870)

Good points Crashdamage. It would be interesting to see what unfolds if ANY company even shows a tiny bit of interest in Nokia now...

Originally Posted by Laughing Man (Post 1071784)

What happens to your stock in a company if they split like that? E.g. If I bought Motorola stock and then they split.

Originally Posted by Texrat (Post 1071892)

Just to play devil's advocate for the outright naysayers...

Consider that when the Microsoft-Nokia partnership was announced it looked like Nokia was being reduced to an OEM. No one can be blamed for arriving at that conclusion.

But then to find out that Nokia will be using Compal as the actual producer for their WP devices has to result in a lot of head scratching. Those unfamiliar with the cell phone business could be forgiven for asking why Microsoft did not just go directly to Compal.

The short answer is mobile expertise. Nokia has it, Microsoft not so much. Despite a bizarre claim here negating the very existence of patents (:rolleyes:), they also play a large part in Microsoft's original decision.

BUT--

Does Microsoft need Nokia as a company, or mainly that expertise?

Employees are assets, too, as much as I hate to reduce humans to that term. So, really, all Microsoft needs from Nokia is patents plus people. No infrastructure. Not even a brand when it comes down to it. Nokia's channels could still prove useful, but even those are eroding.

Regardless, as one confused poster put it (and in this case rightfully), it's impossible to completely predict the mobile space these days-- with the exception that change, often drastic, is inevitable.

Originally Posted by ericsson (Post 1071978)

Careful now, you may actually make some sense. Nokias patents are not eroding, they are being produced at a rapid rate as we speak..

Originally Posted by BigBadGuber! (Post 1071989)

Why would an American company wanna buy nokia, when they have absolutely no presence in USA

Originally Posted by Texrat (Post 1071992)

Is that a rhetorical question, or are you really struggling for answers to that?

You might as well ask "Why is Nokia investing so heavily in the US, when they have absolutely no presence there?"

Originally Posted by BigBadGuber! (Post 1071995)

Nokia will not be acquired

Originally Posted by gerbick (Post 1072003)

Even Atari and Commodore, as well as Amiga are worth a damn just for the name brand.