| Don't you think it's a bit suspicious a recently hired CEO who was until recently a high profile Microsoft employee discontinues a major platform investment on the eve of launching a competitive product (I have played with the N9 and it's a very good phone) and bets the company on a yet-unproven (and I am being more than generous on this assessment) Microsoft product? I haven't tried the N9 so I cannot comment on it nor the platform which powered it, only that historically, Nokia's only edge has been good hardware. They have been (and still are, as far as I have seen) absolutely horrible at software. I would trust a platform made by Microsoft infinitely more than anything coming out of Nokia HQ, and that is despite all the failings of Microsoft in the mobile and tablet space. Now... With that said: There is no doubt that by going the Microsoft route Nokia is losing something. They are now a generic phone-vendor delivering someone else's OS. They no longer fully own their own platform and stack. This is quite a significant loss and definitely a big risk. However: Given Nokia's history with delivering software and software-platforms, I think it's a smaller risk than trying (once again) to deliver something made in-house. And I really don't find it "suspicious" that a recently hired CEO choose to turn to technology and people he already know. I find it a very obvious move, even though it's not very obvious if it is the best choice or not. |
Nokia could also be the only Android phone maker that would be completely imune to lawsuits by any other phone maker. And from Microsoft ("It's a shame you are suing us, you know. It would be horrible if we decided to sue all your WinMo 6 and 7 OEMs").