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 (), 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.