Satya Nadella Admits He Was Against Nokia Acquisition

Posted on September 25, 2017 by Paul Thurrott in Windows Phones with 55 Comments

Satya Nadella Admits He Was Against Nokia Acquisition

In his book Hit Refresh, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella admits that he advised his predecessor not to purchase Nokia, the struggling smartphone maker. He later wrote off the entire $7.5 billion acquisition, and plotted Microsoft’s two-year exit from the smartphone market.

“The Nokia deal [was a] painful example of this loss [in mobile],” he writes in the book. “We were desperate to catch up after missing the rise of mobile technology … Nokia fell from the market-share leader in mobile to number three.”

Nadella then documents then Nokia-CEO Stephen Elop’s decision to partner with Microsoft in 2012 on Windows phone, and their resulting success: “Double-digit market share in some European countries.” But Windows phone always remained a distant third in the market.

Microsoft purchased Nokia because it had to: Had it not, Nokia would have adopted Android and potentially abandoned Windows phone. But either way, that move would have doomed Microsoft’s mobile efforts.

Curiously, this is not how Nadella tells this story.

“The hope was that combining the engineering and design teams at Nokia with software development at Microsoft would accelerate our growth with Windows Phone and strengthen our overall devices ecosystem. The merger could be the big, dramatic move Windows needed to catch up with iOS and Android in mobile.”

At the time, Satya Nadella was on then-CEO Steve Ballmer’s senior leadership team. And Mr. Ballmer, unsure about the acquisition, asked each member of the team to vote on whether it made sense.

“I voted no,” Nadella writes. “I did not get why the world needed the third ecosystem in phones, unless we changed the rules … But it was too late to regain the ground we had lost. We were chasing our competitors’ taillights.”

Microsoft’s halfhearted strategies over the next few years, under Satya Nadella’s leadership—swamp the market with barely-differentiated low-cost phones, mostly—didn’t help. But in 2015, Mr. Nadella wrote off the Nokia acquisition, eliminated nearly 18,000 jobs, and announced Microsoft’s plans to exit the smartphone business.

“Buying a company with weak market share is always risky,” Nadella explains. “We should only be in the phone business when we have something that is really differentiated.”

That sounds like a hint at future “Surface Mobile” devices, but it’s not clear, as he notes that Continuum and Office running across all mobile platforms were how Microsoft followed up on this “key insight.”

Anyway, interesting stuff.


Join the discussion!


Don't have a login but want to join the conversation? Become a Thurrott Premium or Basic User to participate

Comments (55)

55 responses to “Satya Nadella Admits He Was Against Nokia Acquisition”

  1. James Hancock

    The decision to kill Android emulation on Windows Phone will come back to haunt MS. This single decision combined with a failure to provide macs in the cloud to compile, debug, and deploy to the store against so you don't need to own a mac to write iOS applications has ensured that UWP and Windows development in general dies which will ultimately end Windows.  These two decisions killed consumer adoption AND ensured that small shops with limited resources wouldn't write UWP apps because if you already MUST own a Mac to access iOS then you're not going to put a second machine on your developer's desk or hire yet another developer just to target tiny UWP. You're just going to ignore it and tell Windows users to use the browser. If they'd put macs in the cloud and given it away for free as part of MSDN subscriptions then people would only need a PC to get all 3. Combine that with a logical strategy with Xamarin and the easiest path to iOS and Android would have been through the known of .NET and Windows, not a Mac and they could have gotten the market back.

    Worse, they've killed the Android Emulators so now you have a choice on your Windows Development box: Write UWP (which requires Hyper-V) OR develop for Android. You can't actually develop even an Android App on Windows now using Visual Studio and a UWP app at the same time. It literally isn't possible.

    Instead, they have the head of Xamarin on stage endlessly using a Mac continually demonstrating that UWP is a complete afterthought at best with no cohesive position that results in write once, works anywhere but best on Windows while simultaneously assuming that the average company has the budget for a Mac, and a Windows PC and that they'll use the Mac for Android because you sure aren't doing UWP and Android on the same box. *head bang*

    Sadly they're repeating the same on Azure with Hadoop by telling people to use Java to write code against "the" big data platform instead of C# they're ensuring that the tiny sliver of backend development that MS had with .NET is about to go away as well because why write .NET code when you already have to write Java code to get at your data? It's the same problem just a different market. 

    .NET is a great platform if you want to write web apps from 10 years ago or manage legacy Windows Desktop code while you move it to the web (Angular or React, not MVC.NET) or iOS and Android. What it isn't is a complete package to be able to develop anywhere like JavaScript now is with NativeScript/Ionic/ReactNative plus nodejs in the background or Java in the background with native iOS Swift, and Java in the front end.

    If Nadella doesn't get his head out of his a$$ soon, MS is the next IBM. (i.e. completely and utterly irrelevant.)

    The Xamarin guys need to be sent a message: Get on the same page YESTERDAY and get .NET Core UWP working natively on Android and iOS tomorrow with a complete write, build, debug, deploy message in Visual Studio OR YOU'RE FIRED. Get the Visual Studio/Windows team on the same page and get a seamless way to run the Google debug images directly under Hyper-V immediately OR YOU'RE FIRED.

    Same goes for the mess that is Azure Big Data: Either Data Lake gets full HBASE, Storm, Spark, and HIVE support immediately OR SQL Data Store gets high speed writes integrated with Event Grid/Hub with a competitive stack to what Hadoop can do, or HD Insight which is increasingly being orphaned better get native .NET integration that puts it beside Java in the root Apache Repo and deploys. (and preferably ALL THREE). If they don't, they're toast in big data too.

    It can't be stressed enough: Failure to follow through on these two things and get a seamless whole results in the death of MS in the dustbin with IBM, Solaris, et. al.

    • hrlngrv

      In reply to JohnGalt1717:

      Maybe, but it sure seems MSFT is Hell bent on making UWP the one path forward for PC software, and that may have required attracting as many developers as possible while Windows phones still existed as actively manufactured and sold devices and may have been undercut if MSFT made it too easy to run Android apps on Windows phones.

      From my perspective, an excellent example of the perfect (One Windows on all device types) being enemy of the good (thriving but separate mobile, PC, game console and IoT segments).

    • Elindalyne

      In reply to JohnGalt1717:


      Microsoft's all time high stock prices disagree with your premise. The may not be relevant in the consumer space in 10+ years other than as a utility, but they definitely will be relevant in the business world.

      • James Hancock

        In reply to Elindalyne:

        So did IBM's before they became irrelevant. So are Apple's while they have no new markets, are getting locked out of AI and new markets like Alexa etc. and have no innovation.

        Just because stock price is doing great doesn't mean anything. Tim Cook is a master at stock price but he's useless at innovation. Steve Jobs didn't give a crap about stock price but innovated and the stock price followed and it was obvious WHY.

        Microsoft is playing to strengths and cutting off their nose to spite their faces. Stock traders are too short sighted to see what that actually means for the company.

    • skane2600

      In reply to JohnGalt1717:

      Well, you covered a lot of topics so I won't address them all. Android emulation on Windows Phones would have bought very little for MS IMO. You want Android, you buy an Android phone. Why would people want the confusion of two different application platforms on their phone particularly with the risk that the Android emulation wouldn't be 100% compatible?

      Likewise, most people serious about iOS development will do it on a Mac. It's the lowest risk option. If a "small shop" can't afford both a PC and Mac chances are they aren't principally in the software development business. But even so, making iOS development cheaper doesn't help UWP, it just makes iOS development a tiny bit more attractive.

      The most popular tool for developing Android apps is Android Studio which runs on Linux, Mac, and Windows. So there's really no problem using a single Windows PC to develop both UWP and Android apps. I prefer VS to Android Studio or Eclipse, but I'd feel safer developing Android using the standard tool.

      • James Hancock

        In reply to skane2600:

        What Android apps on Windows Phone would have done is eliminate the app gap. Most users would never have known that they were using an Android app on their windows phone and the last objection would have gone away.

        And while that in the short term would have harmed windows dev, a proper port of UWP to Android that produced native looking apps there (or even better) and ran faster (because of Native Compile versus Java runtime) would have allowed developers to create better Android apps using Microsoft .NET and XAML than the native android tools. The result would have been developers writing for UWP and getting Android for free. And it would have looked and worked better on Windows and Windows Phone so people would have slowly started choosing windows phone and windows over Android as developers slowly chose it. This is the VB 6 game all over again.

        The fact is that the VAST majority of development happens in businesses, for in house dev and their websites. Those teams have little resources and often are 1 or 2 people writing code. There is no budget for multiple devices and they choose 1 AND ONLY 1 platform for the company to use and consume internally. Thus if the choice is iOS, then Macs because the defacto development tool and windows goes out the window right now (pun intended) because you can't seamlessly develop using C# and get everything. Meanwhile you see the side effects of all of this with the javascript world reinventing the wheel with Angular and React and the mess that is web/cordova development because they're on macs and don't have the tools that gave them.

        Blazor (which runs C# in a browser with compiled code to asm.js or web assemblies if available in the browser allows developers to know C# for all code behind and HTML/CSS for the layout. There is now a project that does XAML as well inside the browser. The result is that a C# developer soon will be able to do all web development in the language they like to use with familiar tools. If done right you could have all of your public facing website done in C#/XAML and have it progressively then install your UWP application.

        But this is all being done 3rd party right now. Microsoft needs to take it over and drive it HARD to a SPA like angular but done in C#. It's already smaller after compile than Angular 4 and faster too by a significant margin.

        If UWP was ported to Android and iOS the same would and could happen. One elegant language and presentation system that does all of them. Xamarin is the promise but the execution is awful and the lead PM on it is a mac lover so getting where it needs to go just isn't happening and it's still a bloated pig because it's running on mono. .NET Core + UWP fixes that problem, brings full native compile to the table and provides one seamless markup for everything.

        This is how you win back developers instead of accommodating the decision they already made. You can do both, but you have to actually give them a path. MS has not only not given them a path but has put up road blocks right now that make it virtually impossible to develop on a single windows pc for iOS, Android and UWP.

    • Pedro Vieira

      In reply to JohnGalt1717:

      Microsoft is already on the way out. Take a look around: more and more people all over the whole world are already spending more time using their phones than their PCs or even laptops. Every IOS and Android release is worthy of attention while Windows is increasingly becoming a sidenote, with random release schedules and a chaotic naming convention ("Fall Creators Update", please).

      Even when using PCs, people use mostly Chrome and Google's ecosystem. The OS is just a minor detail at this point.

      Microsoft and Windows have their eyes on the enterprise market, which is really their only chance of generating big cash. As for the consumer market, losing the mobile wars was fatal, as time will show.

      • skane2600

        In reply to PeteMiles:

        Most people spend far more time in bed than in their cars, that doesn't mean cars are "on their way out". While there's some overlap between activities on a smartphone and a PC (or Mac), smartphones can't fully replace PCs. It's funny but if PC sales increased while smartphones sales decreased, I bet nobody would be talking about the demise of smartphones. That's because "mobile is the future" has become the standard mantra. There's no reason why smartphones and general purpose computers can't both be viable products for many years to come.

        • shameermulji

          In reply to skane2600:

          "smartphones can't fully replace PCs"

          For the vast majority of people and their use cases, yes they do.

          • skane2600

            In reply to shameermulji:

            A lot of smartphone uses cases were never a big thing on PCs and vice versa. People who never write formal documents or spreadsheets don't do it on PCs and don't do it on smartphones either. If one reads and writes emails on occasion, interacts on social sites, or consume content, a smartphone is fine if you don't mind the small screen. But if you need to accomplish tasks that have traditionally been done on PCs, it's a very poor experience.

      • hrlngrv

        In reply to PeteMiles:

        . . . The OS is just a minor detail at this point. . . .

        As it should be. OSes should provide security for one's files, and Windows is still less secure than it should be, e.g., first account created on a new PC has Administrator privileges, and the first startup script doesn't recommend creating a second standard user account.

        • skane2600

          In reply to hrlngrv:

          Not really a valid example of not providing security. Like saying cars don't provide safety features unless using a seat-belt is required to start the car.

          • hrlngrv

            In reply to skane2600:

            An account with administrator privileges can run takeown and cacls and then fubar anything on C:. That can be accomplished via script files, and when done from a command prompt console, UAC usually doesn't kick in.

            Using a car analogy, more like providing an power switch for the air bags which is initially off.

            • skane2600

              In reply to hrlngrv:

              The issue was never about whether administrator is a potentially dangerous account. If one is allowed to create non-administrator accounts then security has been supported with respect to that particular issue.

              As far as airbags are concerned, given the recent safety problems they've had, opting in might actually be a good idea.

      • James Hancock

        In reply to PeteMiles:

        IBM did the same. IBM is now most of the way in the dust bin. Even their AI sucks. If no one needs windows, then no one will use Azure either because there is no compelling reason to do so.

        Because MS is actively preventing good development on big data because of horrible tooling for Hadoop etc. they're relegating .NET to the dustbin as well because people will be forced to Java.

        End result if MS doesn't fix this is toast in every area.

  2. Jules Wombat

    And instead Satya has ploughed $27 Billion into Linked In !

    Microsoft only needed to support Android Apps on Windows Phones, to save the platform.

  3. PincasX

    At the time it really seemed that MS was just not all in with Windows Phone and this kinda of confirms it. Admittedly, Nutella had a better view of what the company could spend time and resources on and what they couldn't than I so I kind of have to assume that he made the right call. It is still kind of a bummer though, It would have been interesting to see what could have been if Nutella had been committed to the product. There was some really great ideas there.

  4. glenn8878

    “We should only be in the phone business when we have something that is really differentiated.”

    Sounds like something Apple would never look upon as an obstacle. Microsoft are such sorry competitors.

    "Begging the question" made factual. I should not try for I might fail. I tried, which confirms my failure.

  5. johnh3

    Nokia just before Microsoft bought them did a AOSP Androd version phone called Nokia X. A lot of pre-installed Microsoft apps. But a lot of android apps to as a bonus. And a developer program to make apps to it. As I understand that program worked very well.

    Nadella and Microsoft could easily continue with it. But they could not decide what to do for several months.

    They decided to continue with Windows Phone. As a result they now got basicly almost zero precenfe in the mobile space that hurt them in all other areas to.

    And for that I blame Nadella and not Ballmer. With the Nokia X program they could have a android platform with all Windows apps but also Snapchat and all the popular consumer apps to. Would be a interesting option in the market.

  6. JimP

    Dropping Windows Phone was Nadella's biggest mistake. What a waste.

    • hrlngrv

      In reply to JimP:

      I figure the reason Nadella is CEO and Ballmer isn't at the moment is because when the Nokia acquisition failed to meet targets, the MSFT board insisted that the CEO be someone who'd be willing to kill off Windows phones. IOW, I figure the board made this decision and put a CEO in place who'd follow orders. I also figure even MSFT's generous forecasts showed Windows phones never making money, and quite possibly losing enough money that dropping the phones and the phone OS given all the knock-on downside would still be better financially for MSFT.

  7. Martin Sjöholm

    I have a confession to make: I never liked the Windows Phone OS. I tried to like it. I told myself I liked it. In the end, the only thing I really liked was the message center (not recalling the correct name), where you had all communication per contact. Beyond that I was never a fan. But I told others that I were. Now, I'm not missing it.

    • CompUser

      In reply to RoundaboutSkid: I'll confess as well, although I really did like my Windows phone. Maybe it was because the only other phone I had personally experienced before it was a Blackberry at work. Anyway, I recently switched from AT&T to Xfinity Mobile, who only supports Android phones that they sell, and I don't miss my Windows phone at all. I also should confess that my LG Xcharge Android phone from Xfinity Mobile is running Microsoft's Arrow Launcher, which is a great improvement to the basic Android UI.

  8. Tony Barrett

    Does every MS CEO feel the need to write a book? You can bet you a*s MS lawyers had to approve every word though.

    Reading between the lines, it just sounds like he's trying to distance himself from the whole Nokia fiasco - leave the blame with Ballmer if you like on the actual decision to purchase. Nadella carries the can for dropping Nokia though - hard, and despite all that, he doesn't sound sorry in the slightest what MS did. They completely and utterly destroyed the company, and the Nokia we see now trying to get back on the ladder is Nokia only in name - it bares little resemblance to one of the mobile pioneers.

    • clowngod

      Agreed. Nadella blundered big time. Windows OS on Nokia (aka GOOD hardware as opposed to "Blu" and other low end garbage iterations) was rock solid with none of the crashes and anomalies that are every day life on Android. In fact the only advantage of running an i-Phone with it's hellish ios is Apple makes decent hardware (unlike LG and Samsung ).

      The only disadvantage Windows phone had was the app. store. An obstacle that MS and it's umteen billion developers could have summited in under 6 months had Nadella and his minion Ellop had a little more sense. As it turned out when they trashed Windows OS they actually damed a key portion and one may argue the most ccritical portion of their infrastructure. 

      All that's left now is Windows dying OS, Azure/Cloud (which Amazon is beating them handily at), and X-Box. As far as I can tell at this point, Nadella is pretty much the Donald Trump of the Tech world.
      In reply to ghostrider:

  9. pwrof3

    Yeah, because I see EVERYONE at the office hooking up their Windows 10 Mobile devices to their Continuum dock and plugging into their monitor. Key insight, indeed.

  10. straker135

    The lack of commitment to Phone reflected a lack of vision as to how the consumer space would end up driving enterprise device, OS and services usage and ensured failure. From the outside Microsoft didn't really try with Phone: no meaningful advertising, no positioning in the market by having a lower cut of developer income via the Store than competitors, taking too long to make the OS free to manufacturers, basically misunderstanding the critical role a viable phone ecosystem would have in driving future services use.

    It seems to me that Microsoft is trying to quietly abandon the consumer space, apart from X-Box, not really appreciating that in a decade or two if they think they can hold out in Enterprise when no one uses their products in the real world, Microsoft will have become IBM, or perhaps Kodak.

    • hrlngrv

      In reply to straker135:

      Re no advertising, I remember the Seriously ad campaing in which people with MSFT phones would scoff at other people transfixed by other types of smartphones. The message I got from that is that Windows Phones are [OK, were] for people who don't want to use their phones much, kinda like advertising sports cars to grannies who'd only drive to the grocery and church.

  11. RossNWirth

    "Microsoft’s halfhearted strategies over the next few years, under Satya Nadella’s leadership—swamp"


    You mean swap?

  12. edwan

    His comment, “We should only be in the phone business when we have something that is really differentiated.” provides an insight into the management style we are likely to see in the future. If one applies that philosophy to other areas, there would only be say 2 cars manufacturers, 2 aircraft manufacturers, etc. Like it or not capitalism is a VERY competitive environment. The cost of not competing is failure, If Nadella applies that rationalization to other technologies the world wil move on and Microsoft will be stagnant.

    • skane2600

      In reply to edwan:

      In the last 50 years how many sucessful new car companies have been started in the US? Even Tesla's fate hasn't been determined yet. MS could have certainly created a "me too" Android phone, but it would have been difficult to compete against the more established players.

      • CompUser

        In reply to skane2600: There are several small, independent U.S. car manufacturers that are profitable with their tiny market shares. But Tesla's business model is Tesla's biggest problem. They should have made hybrids instead of all-electric cars because there is not an adequate infrastructure to support cross-country travel by all-electric vehicles. Who wants an expensive car that has a 300-mile range, and that takes hours to fully recharge, when there may or may not be charge stations available when/where they're needed during cross-country road trips? I just completed a trip from Colorado Springs, CO, to Fargo, ND, and back (about 950 miles each way). I didn't see a single sign indicating the presence of a charging station anywhere along U.S. highway 24, state highway 71, or I-76 in Colorado; I-80 or highway 81 in Nebraska; highway 81 or I-90 in South Dakota; or I-25 in either North or South Dakota. Nor did I see any while driving around the metro area of Fargo. In fact, according to a web search I just did, there are only six in the Colorado Springs metro area, and 15 in the Denver metro area (mostly downtown with one at Denver International Airport). And I believe that lack of infrastructure is why Tesla Motors is failing miserably.
        • clowngod

           LOL you'll rarely see a sign-post or Billboard advertising charging stations. EV users normally download an app. like PLUG-SHARE, etc. or check pluginamerica etc.

          While travelling across country, through the most rural areas may prove a little challenging for an e-Golf or an i-3 (not at all for a Tesla) those are corner cases to be sure.
          Currently there are Plugs all up and down the coast, and infrastructure is already so far along that argument has been void for some time, as infrastructure only continues to snowball.

          In reply to CompUser:

  13. JustinMSalvato

    I miss Steve Ballmer.

  14. CmdrZod4R

    Meanwhile hot on the heels of Paul T, Bill G has happily switched to an Android phone - he claimed to have no interest in the iPhone.

  15. ponsaelius

    Nokia seemed the more committed partner to Windowsphone in many ways. To Microsoft it was a sku among many but to Nokia it was the business.

    However mobile wasn't about just being an ecosystem it was about the technology that went with it; location based services, maps, mobile payments, and eventually AR.

    Additionally if Microsoft abandoned the platform it would hit consumer trust, oem trust and being part of a growing market. Almost every decision Microsoft made in mobile was wrong. It doesn't seem to be improving. However Wall Street is happy with Nadella's cloud and enterprise focus so it looks like consumer is being left to Google and Apple.

    • shameermulji

      In reply to ponsaelius:

      A bit simplistic. MS still has their Xbox division which is entirely consumer-focused. Just to expand from there, gaming is one area where MS is heavily invested in, that includes not just Xbox but the PC as well (ie: VR).

  16. Waethorn

    After looking at the statements about this and the line about "Microsoft had no choice", it's clear now that they DID have a choice: don't bother. Don't bother wasting the money. What did it get them, ultimately? A bad name in mobility that they likely won't ever recover from, and a whole bunch of money flushed down the toilet.

    If you think that Nutella made a good decision, wouldn't the smarter decision to have been to just embrace iOS and Android earlier? The choice they should've made was to abstain from a market that they were already losing in. Instead, they just dragged out the inevitable. If they ever release another phone platform, they'll be looked on as the short-lived BB10-era Blackberry.

  17. bbennett40

    Whaa???? Ya don't say.

  18. Bats

    There is a lot of things in Paul Thurrot's post, that I don't understand. It's making me think that Satya Nadella isn't fit to be CEO of Microsoft or he thinks people are stupid.

    So what if Nokia dropped to #3? It's only two away from the top spot! Also, what exactly was #3? Nokia phones or the OS that ran it? If Nadella was referring to the phone, then #3 is good! Isn't it? In a market where the phones were made by Apple, Samsung, Motorola, Blackberry, Sony, LG, etc....and Nokia was I missing something here?

    As for "Double-digit market share in some European countries." , I remember this. Paul's commentary on this always made it seem like Windows Phone was turning the corner and was ready to take off. 

    I don't totally agree with Paul's statement here when he said this: "Microsoft’s halfhearted strategies over the next few years, under Satya Nadella’s leadership—swamp the market with barely-differentiated low-cost phones, mostly—didn’t help." For the most part, Paul was "selling" these low cost Windows Phones pointing out that the Windows Phone OS was soooooooooooooo good, it was comparable to the higher end Lumias. As for the "differentiated" issue, did Microsoft highlight that with their phones? YES-THEY-DID. If people don't remember, Microsoft was marketing the hell out of Windows Phones, in particular, the camera. Microsoft was boasting the 41 megapixel feature on one of their phones and, if I remember correctly, the 4x zoom. No phone in the market (Samsung and Apple) had a phone, whose camera boasted that many megapixels. 

    Look, the reason why Windows Phone failed is this: It just wasn't a good phone or a pocket computer. Compared to Android, it hardly did anything. It's like getting used to eating steak to then suddenly be served with a burger. It was the worst $200 item, I ever spent OR.....(currently) the worst $200 dedicated Skype headset ever.

    It was just a bad phone. 99.99% of the worldwide population can't be wrong.

    • Tallin

      In reply to Bats:

      "99.99% of the worldwide population can't be wrong."

      That is not scientifically, historically, logically or in an other way true. Particularly since we are dealing with personal preference.

    • CompUser

      In reply to Bats: "... 99.99% of the worldwide population can't be wrong." They were wrong selecting VHS over Beta-max and selecting Blue-ray over HD-DVD, so yea, they can be wrong. Both those winning formats had lower resolution than the loser, but they were selected because of higher recording capacity.

  19. hrlngrv

    More Android phones and iPhones than Windows PCs and Macs: how much business acumen would it take to recognize Android and iOS were the next big markets for Office? Smoothing the transition from Windows to Office as the premier product was Office passing Windows in revenues.

    Anyway, back to Windows phones. It had become clear by early 2014 that Nokia was getting flaky on Windows Phone, that what growth it had seen in Europe and a few part of Latin America had stagnated, and that MSFT's only option for avoiding Windows phones crashing and burning then was to buy Nokia's phone design and manufacturing operations. In hindsight, perhaps MSFT should have let it crash and burn earlier rather than later.

  20. skane2600

    “I did not get why the world needed the third ecosystem in phones.."

    A good point except that he should have said "mobile" rather than "phones". There is no separate phone and "everything else mobile" ecosystems.

    • skane2600

      In reply to skane2600:
      I can only assume that those who down-voted me believe there's a separate smartphone iOS and tablet iOS and/or a separate Android for smartphones and an Android for tablets. Although the results aren't always optimal I'm pretty sure that the first and second ecosystems are mobile, not just smartphone.
  21. Tallin

    The question then is if Windows phones had continued under someone who believed in the platform, would it have fared better? Most likely not, but it does have a bit of the "self-fulfilling prophecy" vibe to it.

    • hrlngrv

      In reply to Tallin:

      At the time MSFT acquired Nokia's phone operations, who do you believe in MSFT senior management believed more in Windows phones than Steve Ballmer? I figure Ballmer insisted on the Nokia acquisition, and the board set thresholds Windows phones needed to meet. The acquisition went ahead, the thresholds weren't met, and Ballmer was gone. At that point, the only workable strategy became get the most out of the Windows phone carcass before everyone else realized it was a carcass.

  22. dontbe evil

    no surprise, ASAP he became CEO, he got his revenge ... hope for a new MS CEO ASAP