Under Ballmer, Microsofts Income has exploded. Ballmer hasn't ruined Microsoft, he has made it loads of money. However, Microsofts investors have always been dissatisfied with Ballmer: even with growing income, he has never managed to improve the stock value.

Also, Microsofts position now seems to be just like Nokias was just recently: ready to topple over.

If you said that Microsoft have made loads of less than satisfying OS versions under Ballmer, I'd agree somewhat more. But I can't think he makes these Windows-thingies all on his own, and under his management some of the best Windows versions have also been made. There have been tens and hundreds of failed attempts at taking over other segments, and for those he's more directly to blame. I don't think gaining control of Nokias patents can be considered one of those faults, though.

Win some, lose some. Ballmer has done well for a raving madman.

What the hell are you talking about? :P

He's doing a tepid to crappy job all-around...
http://betanews.com/2012/01/19/micro...venue-falls-6/

Additionally...
http://www.geekwire.com/2012/microso...t-ceo-america/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhart...s-microsoft/3/

Oh, I don't know, bing maps on my webos devices are working great for me. I have no words to express what a total disaster Nokia maps on the N900 was on the other hand.

I'm not sure if you're teasing... or ignoring that 2011 was a record year for Microsoft and they're actually doing ok.

But Ballmer is universally seen as the worst CEO thus far. I mean, only somebody that could take Nokia from the top spot to almost a dollar stock in 21 months could be seen as worse...

Oh wait...

I am talking about the simple fact that Microsoft a la 2000 made a lot less money than Microsoft a la 2012, even with the recent drops.

Simple example graph from random google search:



Feel free to compare that to a similar Nokia graph under Elops period.

That is exactly the hell I am talking about, Microsoft made most it's money under Ballmer, who became CEO in 2000 unless my internet is mistaken.

Although old and outdated graph, these are cold dollars that mostly came in under Ballmers leadership. What you linked to are hot opiniated blogs. Dollars beats opinions, or Nokia would have closed down Symbian after the first US techblog reviewed it.

This isn't about Nokia Stocks itself, but I haven't found a better thread for that.

Lumia 900 prices on Amazon fell down from $100 to $0.01 with AT&T contract. At least I though it was a 100 bucks before (?).

http://www.amazon.com/Nokia-Lumia-Wi...s_2422313011_6

Despite that the WP update-story is rather a marketing- than a software problem, reactions from various carriers around the world aren't looking good. Even though Lumia phones weren't sold as much as expected, recent news will have a big impact on Nokia's income.

I believe that the price was $50.

We've already on offtopic, so... When you compare prices like that, do you take in account the different subscriptions? I assume there's more than a single AT&T contract available.

I mean, any phone can cost $0.01, it's just a question of how expensive the contract is. In Norway, they are required to always put a visible "minimum total price" which is the total cost of owning the phone throughout the contract time and not use it.

So, while "price" can be $0.01, the "minimum total price" can be $1000.

You pay for the phone regardless per month, be it prepaid or post-paid. In the US, there are no advantages for unlocked phone ownership.

You can change SIM as you like for an unlocked phone which is an advantage when you travel, even within U.S. When you go overseas you can change to a local SIM and take advantage of cheap data packages.