|
|
|
|
|
|
by jeffb
5600 days ago
|
|
|
"he also talked up the significant “value transfer” in financial terms that would come Nokia’s way as a result of reduced operating expenses and new revenue streams such as access to Microsoft’s search and advertising capabilities." Wouldn't these two "value transfers" have occurred with Google? Nokia's operating expenses might have been reduced even further if they'd gone with Android (free) instead of WP7 (which they are paying to use). Wouldn't Nokia have gained access to Google's search and advertising capabilities if they'd gone with Android? I don't know if Google or Microsoft is better for Nokia, but this article doesn't make it sound like Elop had any convincing reasons for his decision. It sounds like Nokia agreed to give Microsoft money (WP7 fees), but they haven't actually agreed on anything concrete that Microsoft will give Nokia yet? |
|
|
MS fee is what? $10 per phone, probably less for Nokia? But, do anyone actually think that Android is free? Sure, it can be free if you're some cheap Chinese factory that just slaps the latest commit from Android repository on their handset, but key Google applications aren't open sourced, and to get them you need to make a deal with Google ("Google experience" apps, support, etc), which I doubt is free.
On top of that, if Nokia wants to differentiate itself from said Chinese manufacturer, they need to build some custom UI on top of stock Android (which probably everyone will hate, but that's the way of doing things in Android world). And to support that UI on couple of future Android releases in timely fashion for each handset, to avoid angry mob with obsolete phones mere months after the purchase (SonyEricsson, I'm looking at you). Developers time aren't free, and Nokia is notoriously bad at making software, just look at their Symbian record.