I'm pretty surprised by the fact that almost everybody in here is of the opinion that Nokias Windows Phone strategy is not working.
Last I checked, selling more and more smartphones per quarter while slowly growing marketshare, especially in Europe, is not the sign of a bad strategy.
It's amusing to me that people consider success to mean 50% marketshare overnight. It's equally amusing to me that people fail to see that Android is absolutley no guarantee of success either, see HTC for example.
Nokia made a bold bet, but because they chose a MS platform it's not surprising that the HN crowd see this as failure. I mean we have people in here saying they should even have gone with FireFox OS!
Wow.
My opinion, this is a slog, and Nokia is at least making a game of it and walking in the right direction.
There are no slogs in business. Nokia is on the brink of death.
The problem with the WP strategy is and always has been the exclusivity. From Nokia's perspective, why in the world would I want to exclusively sell WP devices, and not _also_ Android devices?
Note that that's what the others do. They're selling WP. Should it become a huge hit, Samsung and LG already have WP devices. Should it fail - well, obviously they've got tons of Android devices / experience.
Why would you want to tie yourself to a single technological choice like that? The answer is you don't want to, you never should, and Nokia is suffering because of this decision. I know they got cash for it - it was a very bad deal.
This bold bet idea - where did this come from? What's bold about limiting your own choices? That's not bold, that's stupid.
Careful. That's a view that can burn badly. A slog is nothing more than a strategy, which consists of many discrete tactical steps [1].
Dig into Microsoft's acquisition history - they never acquire market leaders. And the world is surprised when, 5 years later, that non-market-leading acquisition is behind a market-leading Microsoft product. Not all work out that way for sure, but those that do, do so spectacularly.
Microsoft's relationship with Nokia is not an acquisition but shows signs of a similar strategy, nonetheless. mhomde's points above [2] are pretty accurate.
Comments
I'm pretty surprised by the fact that almost everybody in here is of the opinion that Nokias Windows Phone strategy is not working.
Last I checked, selling more and more smartphones per quarter while slowly growing marketshare, especially in Europe, is not the sign of a bad strategy.
It's amusing to me that people consider success to mean 50% marketshare overnight. It's equally amusing to me that people fail to see that Android is absolutley no guarantee of success either, see HTC for example.
Nokia made a bold bet, but because they chose a MS platform it's not surprising that the HN crowd see this as failure. I mean we have people in here saying they should even have gone with FireFox OS!
Wow.
My opinion, this is a slog, and Nokia is at least making a game of it and walking in the right direction.
There are no slogs in business. Nokia is on the brink of death.
The problem with the WP strategy is and always has been the exclusivity. From Nokia's perspective, why in the world would I want to exclusively sell WP devices, and not _also_ Android devices?
Note that that's what the others do. They're selling WP. Should it become a huge hit, Samsung and LG already have WP devices. Should it fail - well, obviously they've got tons of Android devices / experience.
Why would you want to tie yourself to a single technological choice like that? The answer is you don't want to, you never should, and Nokia is suffering because of this decision. I know they got cash for it - it was a very bad deal.
This bold bet idea - where did this come from? What's bold about limiting your own choices? That's not bold, that's stupid.
There are no slogs in business.
Careful. That's a view that can burn badly. A slog is nothing more than a strategy, which consists of many discrete tactical steps [1].
Dig into Microsoft's acquisition history - they never acquire market leaders. And the world is surprised when, 5 years later, that non-market-leading acquisition is behind a market-leading Microsoft product. Not all work out that way for sure, but those that do, do so spectacularly.
Microsoft's relationship with Nokia is not an acquisition but shows signs of a similar strategy, nonetheless. mhomde's points above [2] are pretty accurate.
Microsoft are masters of the long game.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War#Chapter_summary
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5910708