[Shamanmuni]

But they were together already. This past time Nokia only developed Windows phones and Microsoft paid for the marketing of the Lumia. Nokia had Stephen Elop as CEO, for crying out loud. We already knew Nokia was a part of Microsoft. This is not a move, just a formality; the low price gives you another hint. If the partnership Microsoft-Nokia could have changed their positions in the mobile sector, it would have happened years ago.

Nothing will change as a result of this.

[kyro]

It's more than that. Microsoft is acquiring the Lumia brand. This gives them the ability to bundle both hardware and software to create one simple, cohesive experience. They will no longer be pushing the Nokia Lumia with Windows Phone 8, but The Microsoft Phone. And they can now brag about how they are the smartphone with the best camera. From a marketing perspective, this makes lots of sense.

Lots of that is speculation on what I hope Microsoft does with this, namely adopting Apple's marketing simplicity and control of the user experience.

[count]

I wonder if such bundling will be an issue with their existing anti-trust issues?

[dangrossman]

Microsoft hasn't had real anti-trust issues in a while. Windows 8 did lots of things they wouldn't have gotten away with 15 years ago; nobody's going after them because they don't really wield the monopoly power they once did.

[count]

My understanding is that Microsoft, like IBM and ATT before it, was permanently disallowed to do certain things? I understand that nobody is/has gone after them (yet?), but is that just prosecutorial oversight/prioritization issues, or is there actually nothing wrong?

[tanzam75]

Yes.

For example, Microsoft is permanently enjoined from restricting OEM crapware preloads. OEMs are allowed to preload whatever they wish on top of Windows.

However, it's perfectly fine for Microsoft to bundle an app store -- so long as an OEM is also allowed to load its own app store. (As Lenovo is doing.)

As for Windows RT and Windows Phone, Microsoft can do anything it wants. When the news came out that Windows RT would only allow Internet Explorer and would only allow programs to be loaded through the app store, the EU competition commissioner said in an interview that he saw nothing wrong with it.

That's because the antitrust case defined Microsoft's monopoly to be over x86 operating systems. Windows RT and Windows Phone run on ARM. What's more, Windows RT and Windows Phone do not have anywhere close to a monopoly of the tablet or smartphone markets.

There may be some tying issues, but branding is not a form of tying.

[count]

Thanks for the explanation!

[jwr]

Exactly. My first reaction to this news was "wait, didn't this already happen?", before I realized that it didn't quite happen, but the speculation at the time Elop joined Nokia was precisely about an acquisition.

[anuragramdasan]

Actually I wouldn't totally agree to that. Some things will have to change. Now that Nokia is not a separate entity but a part of microsoft, it will have to fit within the microsoft way of doing things. This could probably mean more restrictions on whatever Nokia would have done as a separate entity.

[berntb]

>>Nothing will change as a result of this.

A good guess is that the enthusiasm at e.g. Samsung for making Windows Phones have gone down quite a bit...

Windows Phones seems to be an internal Microsoft thing now, Xbox style.

[rbanffy]

> the enthusiasm at e.g. Samsung for making Windows Phones have gone down quite a bit...

It's probably part of their IP licensing deal about the secret patent list Android violates. They pay less per Android phone if and only if they build Windows Phone devices.

[gtirloni]

How would that make any sense? Microsoft would be essentially paying Samsung (by not collecting licensing fees) to just keep 1-2 phones that barely sell / are available in the WP8 ecosystem. For what? Just to say "the biggest smartphone vendor uses our software"? How does that help anything?