Thread: Nokia - Microsoft partnership (merged threads)
View Single Post
Funklord is offline Funklord
2011-02-20 , 05:55
Posts: 69 | Thanked: 41 times | Joined on Feb 2010 @ Sweden
#1550
Originally Posted by ysss View Post
"Elops only responsibility is for the Microsoft stock he holds"

I think you meant to say "Elop's only responsibility is to Microsoft, due to the MS Share he has."

Questions:
1. Does MS exercise control over Elop because he owns MS share?
No, his shares go up, his wallet gets fatter, obvious, why should I be explaining this to you?

Originally Posted by ysss View Post
2. Will running Nokia down to the ground have a positive effect on MS share value? (so far the answer is no)
No, but Nokia dropping Maemo (and theoretically android) and soon to be acquired by MS will.

Originally Posted by ysss View Post
3. Does Elop, the already filthy rich b*@#tard, have other means to attain more personal gain (fame, fortune and glory) by doing good in Nokia than running it down to the ground?
Yes, but I believe he's too stupid for that.

Originally Posted by ysss View Post
Did you just say that generally developers know how to run multinational companies?
No, I said that developers know how to make working solutions, as long as their superiors stop putting sticks in their wheels.

Originally Posted by ysss View Post
If Nokia is facing an imminent cashflow problem if they continue on their current course, given what we know about their techs (opensourced Symbian, thrown away maemo and also dabbled in opensourced MeeGo), a very thin profit margin on a big chunk of their business (mobile phone) and receding marketshare on the hot and growing segment (smartphone), please tell me 3 possible sources for cash infusion.
Let me stop there for a bit, that whole paragraph is loaded with FUD. Free software is slowly eating away most of the market that the commercial software giants just recently had in their pocket. Nothing is going to change that. Either Nokia is in, or out.
People think that the phone business is somehow different, just because a lot of people suddenly started spending a lot of money on glorified dumbphones.
That market does not exist anymore in the next round.

Originally Posted by ysss View Post
Please tell us how that's obvious; it's not obvious to me.
If you told mcdonalds to start selling burger king branded burger king burgers and forbid them from selling mcdonalds type ones, how much money do you think they'd want for it?

Originally Posted by ysss View Post
First off, I assume you're talking about public companies.
Second, pay/renumeration is a whole different can of worm to talk about. Suffice to say that you can't get it far cheaper unless you go to unproven candidates; and that's an even bigger risk to take when you talk about the kind of numbers these gargantuan companies are pulling in.
Risks are only taken when you don't understand what the hell you're doing.

Originally Posted by ysss View Post
There are many ways to be profitable, and innovating is never the only way.

Please give a few examples of these small and innovative companies that you had in mind when you wrote that?
Instead, why don't you give me an example of a successful small company that hasn't been innovative?
Even your corner pizzeria is innovative in the way that they were the first on that corner when no one else bothered. That innovation is the reason you go there.
A large corporation could just make sure there aren't any pizzerias in the whole area apart from theirs, which is a block away.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to Funklord For This Useful Post: