No doubt they would have thought about it. They may even include it. doesn't make me believe they can compete in the handset market. I don't think it's as simple as just ordering a GSM radio and shrinking your tablet, they would need to pay for patented features that apply to handsets in particular, they would need to have carrier backing. I mean the difference between a iPad with and without cellular is £100.

Samsung and Motorola are well established phone manufacturers. Motorola being one of the first few around. They have a large hardware patent portfolio around mobiles. MS did more than just think about entering the phone market, they tried and failed. I see no reason why trying again with the same strategy would be different. Unless you can tell me what exactly caused them to fail and what will make them succeed if they try again now.


If by internal politics you mean business then I agree. MS struggled entering a well established market because they had no real market leverage or expertise.

haha, that's true.
What is even cheaper (and what they have done) is to sell their software to Nokia for a price, dictate what Nokia make with a set of strict hardware specifications, get the immediate patents, market presence, carrier backing of Nokia. In comparison to making a phone themselves, paying Nokia and countless others for licensing patents, building a new phone brand from scratch, trying to convince carriers with little to no telecommunications presence/force/expertise, and hiring a workforce to do it all. They've already bought Nokia without paying the price, they don't need to formalize it.

Are you suggesting WP is like Malaria? Ballmer the mosquito?
That's an interesting strategy.

Sure does. They might, but I still believe they would struggle without an already well established handset manufacturer such as Nokia. By Nokia I mean either the independent mobile manufacturer or the subsidiary of MS formerly known as Nokia.