Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel CEO: Nokia Should Have Gone With Android

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the completely-impartial-observations dept.

Android 246

nk497 writes "Intel CEO Paul Otellini has said Nokia made a mistake choosing Windows Phone 7, and should have gone with Android — but admitted the money on offer may have been too much to ignore. 'I wouldn't have made the decision he made, I would probably have gone to Android if I were him,' he said. 'MeeGo would have been the best strategy but he concluded he couldn't afford it.' Otellini said some closed mobile platforms will 'certainly survive,' but said open systems will 'win' in the end." Reader c0lo notes a followup to yesterday's news that open source software was banned from Windows Marketplace. It seems even Microsoft's own MS-RL open source license runs afoul of the Application Provider Agreement (PDF). The article suggests that these rules should give Nokia pause about their new partnership.

cancel ×

246 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

really intel? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35244144)

Intel should not speak. They are the one's putting drm into their chips....Talk about being open. Ass hats!

http://gigaom.com/video/intel-chip-drm/

Re:really intel? (4, Informative)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244434)

They also shouldn't risk biting a major player in the market. WP7 has a lot of big corporate backers, now obviously including Nokia. Whether they will be successful or not depends on a lot of factors, but Intel should be aiming to sell chips to nokia, whether it's for MeeGo, Droid, WP7 or some other OS, not criticising their management choices publicly.

Like it or not, Nokia still sells a LOT of phones, meaning there's a lot of money to be made as a part supplier, and a good chance than the sheer mass of Nokia + WP7 will be able to sustain that ecosystem. I know a lot of people coming over from Europe (I live in canada) regularly laugh at how terrible a lot of our supposedly wonderful iPhones etc. are, when Nokia phones have had better call quality, voice dialling, very good integration with MS office (without extra fees), maps etc. long before Apple or Google started bringing that to market. They still have a lot of brand loyalty, and a strong brand if they call pull it together.

Re:really intel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35244526)

I know a lot of people coming over from Europe (I live in canada) regularly laugh at how terrible a lot of our supposedly wonderful iPhones etc. are, when Nokia phones have had better call quality, voice dialling, very good integration with MS office (without extra fees), maps etc. long before Apple or Google started bringing that to market.

My first phone wasn't Nokia, though all people here were using them. I thought on paper everything looked as good as nokias but was cheaper. I was wrong. All devices I tried sucked, because they were full of glitches. I started using Nokia and everything just worked there. I am not a fan of Symbian, I am a fan of reliable hardware and software - Nokia delivers both.

Re:really intel? (0)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244722)

WP7 is not a major player in the market.

WP7 does not have a lot of big corporate backers.

Wall Street doesn't agree with your assessment, Nokia's stock has be punished big time.

But thanks for playing, moron.

Re:really intel? (3, Insightful)

Candid88 (1292486) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244886)

Making unprovoked personal insults is pretty moronic in my opinion.

Re:really intel? (2)

PickyH3D (680158) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244934)

Microsoft, Acer, Samsung, HTC, LG, and Nokia. Those are all big names, although--to be fair--LG may not continue with WP7. With or without LG, that's a fair number to call "a lot."

Re:really intel? (4, Informative)

monoqlith (610041) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244878)

Remember this? [arstechnica.com] Intel lost in this deal already. They are probably quite angry with Nokia for betraying the partnership they had with MeeGo. Intel has a right to criticize their former partner Nokia, and I think it's good that the Intel chief has the balls to do so for what, in the end, will probably turn out to be a terrible decision, one that harmed both Nokia and Intel all just to help Microsoft.

Re:really intel? (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 3 years ago | (#35245122)

Oh I don't doubt that they're angry, probably justifiably so. I agree, it's probably a bad decision, (and is almost certainly a bad decision to the /. crowd) but if WP7 gets 20% of the market, RIM 10, and google/apple split the remainder that's still a lot of phones selling that could have an intel inside sticker on them. I'm not sure that much market fragmentation is good, but then I've grown up with MS 90%, apple 9%, Other 1%, so my expectations are probably biasing things badly.

I think for nokia they're going to need something to differentiate them from the competition, and fast. They're behind the curve here, by years. Even vs other WP7 developers (but at least WP7 is behind the curve as well, so they just need to keep up with the growth). Putting a dual core ARM9 of some sort into a nokia phone and selling it isn't going to keep their market share. Whether they can pull off something cool with software, or need a different hardware platform (intel, AMD, in house, or something), they need something or else HTC, samsung, Motorola et. al. are going to eat them alive.

Re:really intel? (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244952)

They had a lot of brand loyalty, and a strong brand if they call pull it together.

there, fixed that for you. No-one has brand loyalty to a hardware manufacturer, no-one buys a Nokia just because its a Nokia. they buy it becuase they know it'll work the same as other nokias and their last phone was of at lteast reasonable quality.

Now its WP7 on Nokias, people will think twice, evaluate other handsets, and probably go with a HTC/Android or iPhone.

Re:really intel? (1)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244480)

Actually I was thinking that Intel shouldn't speak because they wouldn't be alive, or at least in their current market position, without Microsoft

Re:really intel? (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244554)

That's not quite true. Intel chips would simply be running a different OS, most likely IBM's PC-DOS or PC OS/2. Or maybe even a different third party like GEOS.

As for DRM, all of these companies are reacting defensively to protect their business. It makes perfect sense to put-up walls around themselves & their hardware, rather than embrace an open format that turns Hardware into commodities. That's the mistake IBM made with the PC, and Apple almost made with their Mac clones.

Re:really intel? (0)

gorzek (647352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244900)

You're assuming some other OS would have managed to reach the market penetration of Windows, which is certainly not guaranteed. Without Windows' market share, and the fact that Windows only runs on x86 hardware, Intel wouldn't be where they are today.

Supposing Microsoft settled on some other architecture, Intel would probably be making nothing but big iron and embedded chips now.

Re:really intel? (2)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35245280)

>>>Without Windows' market share, and the fact that Windows only runs on x86 hardware, Intel wouldn't be where they are today.

Your historical knowledge is not accurate. Intel-based IBM PC-compatibles were already outselling the competition (Atari, Commodore, Apple) by 10-to-1 before windows became commonplace (i.e. before 1991). Intel was already the dominant platform with 90% share and if windows had flopped, we'd simply be using some other OS on Intel CPUs.

Re:really intel? (1)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244936)

This is possibly why he is speaking out. There have been antitrust investigations (IIRC as part of the big set of investigations against MS some years ago) regarding Intel providing information to Microsoft that they did not provide to anyone else. Here Intel is publicly distancing itself from MS, but on an issue that does not affect them (how many x86 chips are going to be running in W7 phones?) without actually taking a shot directly (all he is saying is that he though Android might be a better match for Nokia right now, not that there is anything specifically wrong with Microsoft's offering).

Re:really intel? (1)

geekmansworld (950281) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244576)

Yeah, no doubt. For Intel to lecture about "open" technology is the pot calling the kettle black. They way they aggressively hold the x86 platform to their chest, a lawsuit always waiting to drop on AMD or NVidia if either company does something they don't like.

Open up the x86 platform to a few other chip makers, then we can talk about "open systems".

Re:really intel? (1)

arivanov (12034) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244634)

The more it moves towards the CPU the easier it will be to use it for other stuff.

A DRM chip in the video subsystem is useful only for media. A DRM integrated into a processor and chipset can be used for your own data, not just for the data of the media corps.

Re:really intel? (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35245368)

Were his comments wrong, or are you just going the "ad hominem" route?

open source software isn't banned (5, Informative)

sosuke (789685) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244146)

On the open source topic see another discussion here http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2226260 [ycombinator.com] and this quote by SimonPStevens

They aren't prohibiting "Free Software", they are prohibiting software that is under a license that requires the distributor to pass certain rights along to the recipient. Hence GPL like licenses that require distribution of source code, and that you grant redistribution rights to everyone you distribute it to are being explicitly prohibited. (And in fairness I can see why those licenses would cause problems for Microsoft as distributors) On the other hand BSD like licenses that allow you to repackage and distribute without source and without passing rights forward are acceptable.

Re:open source software isn't banned (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35244210)

Please don't confuse us!!! We have to believe that evil M$ banned open source software!

Re:open source software isn't banned (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35244234)

no they are not forbidding all free software just the majority of it - you know the bits that they actually find threatening.

Re:open source software isn't banned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35244522)

Threatening? You're giving yourself too much credit here. They just don't want to refit their entire distribution system to deal with self-propagating licenses like GPL, much like Apple didn't want to deal with it.

Re:open source software isn't banned (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244644)

I've seen GPL software for sale on Amazon, so why is it so hard for Microsoft and Apple?

Re:open source software isn't banned (1)

Lotunggim Ginsawat (689998) | more than 3 years ago | (#35245262)

Then Amazon is violating the GPL. If Amazon doesn't provide the source code, they will be in hot water for copyright infringement. Can you link the said software here?

Re:open source software isn't banned (2, Informative)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244560)

To be fair, and I'm no more an MS fan than anyone, the GPL puts an onus on Microsoft to do things that they don't want to be arsed to do. As the owner of the "store" Microsoft becomes the "distributor" of GPL software. That means if you, AC, put a piece of GPLed software on the store, you are effectively obligating MS to host the source code and GPL somewhere as the distributor. You can say, "Well, I'll handle that, they don't have to worry about it.", but they do have to worry about it. If you decided next month to stop "handling that" and the software is still on the store, MS is left holding the bag. By forbidding GPL code they are covering their asses.

This will become a problem as time goes on and more of these online "stores" pop up. As "distributors" these stores take on certain obligations that they may not want to deal with. Free software is easy enough to deal with when every computer has a compiler (or can easily get one). With the limited space and processing power on mobile devices "app stoes" make a lot of sense, but the GPL is decidedly unfriendly to the way most of them are setup. Maybe if the GPL put the onus on the developer to redistribute the code and license rather than the distributor? I dunno, I don't see Stallman changing the GPL to accommodate app stores, since he hates most of the companies that own them. It'll be interesting to see how it play out.

I'm not saying that either position is right or wrong, just that there are some intractable issues that may make them unable to work together.

Re:open source software isn't banned (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#35245054)

The store could charge the developer for auditing to make sure that any required source code was bundled with the app.

Wouldn't be a great solution for some of the source-hog libraries out there though, and the revenue from such apps might not even justify setting up such a process.

Re:open source software isn't banned (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 3 years ago | (#35245056)

This much is true. MS as a distributor would be required to ensure that the source is available. In practice, this means that they can link to the author's site; and yank the app if the author makes the source unavailable.

This entails some overhead in monitoring, but realistically... the OSS market for windows phone software isn't all that big. I would have hoped they would wait to make such a decision until it actually became burdensome.

Re:open source software isn't banned (2)

clarkn0va (807617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35245084)

That means if you, AC, put a piece of GPLed software on the store, you are effectively obligating MS to host the source code and GPL somewhere as the distributor.

Even if you're 100% correct on that, what load does that create for MS, really? Let's say they allow GPL apps in their store, and worst case scenario, every app submitted to the store is GPL. So they now have two extra obligations comared to the alternate reality of having 0 GPL apps in their store: 1. They have to host the code, and 2. They have to provide bandwidth to everybody that downloads the code. Storage is cheap, so I can't see #1 being a big issue. Add 1 cent to the price of every GPL app and you'll more than pay for that extra storage. #2 is a cost only when somebody actually downloads the source. How often does that happen really? Really? Am I being too generous to estimate that every 30th download of an app will be the source? I can't see this being a problem.

No, the real problem here is a philosophical one. MS simply will not acknowledge free (as in speech) software as a legitimate way to do things, because to do so would be a betrayal of their own business model, where every bit has a price. BSD-like licenses get a free pass because MS has ways of capitalizing on such licenses, and has in the past.

Re:open source software isn't banned (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#35245238)

Actually, considering the agreement mentions only GPLv3 and related licenses explicitly, it's not source code. After all, if Best Buy sells Linux (and they do - routers, TiVos, and maybe the odd netbook or even CD est), yet they're not obligated to provide source.

It's probably more about the anti-TiVoization clause - because of the DRM that both Apple and Microsoft put into their app stores. (Android apps have no DRM, which is why pirated marketplaces are rampant and full of malware).

If you read the agreement, the GPLv3 and assiciated licenses are mentioned explicitly and licenses similar to those. No comment about GPLv2 stuff...

Re:open source software isn't banned (3, Informative)

arivanov (12034) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244980)

No

They are prohibiting neither. They are prohibiting GPLv3, not v2. The significant difference is that GPLv3 has the interesting patent "mutual assured destruction" clause which is in direct contradiction to a number Microsoft agreements with customers and policies. In fact they cannot legally redist v3 without changing the policy they take on IPR.

zomg second (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35244178)

I just posted second on /. *sobs*

Actually only the GPL, not open source in general (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244196)

is banned from the Windows market. I'm also curious as to why he thinks open systems will win in the end. Apple's walled garden is doing pretty well and my "open" vibrant is hardly open at all. T-mobile and Samsung do their best to conspire keep it closed.

Unfortunately, writeups like these play to the slashdot crowd but the issue is bigger than "ZOMG OPEN PHONE GOOD!!!" Why is my android phone so locked down that I can't do basic things with it like I could with a PC?

The real issues is that all these companies, including google, intel, MS, Apple, etc all fear the basic commodization of their technology. Phones don't need carrier branding, carrier apps, etc. They really just need a decent data connection. Lets us use our own VOIP apps and don't put undeletable carrier bullshit on our phones.

In the meantime we can't have those things because its so much more profitable to pretend phones are premium items. Its no wonder that people aren't seeing faux openness as the same as owning an Apple or a Win7 phone, because at the end of the day its all the same. Joe User isn't installing custom ROMs. He just wants something that works and that he can afford. I suspect in two years iOS, MS, and Android will be neck to neck in marketshare regardless of who is technically more open than the other.

Re:Actually only the GPL, not open source in gener (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35244288)


but said open systems will 'win' in the end."

I agree! Open source Oracle's Niagara will win in the end and Intel and their proprietary technologies will bite the dust.

No, actually only GPLv3... (2)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244294)

...because GPLv3 would require Microsoft to disclose the signing certificate keys for DRM'ed apps. Apparently Microsoft isn't the only group capable of spreading FUD.

Re:Actually only the GPL, not open source in gener (1)

dave024 (1204956) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244302)

I thought it was only GPL Version 3 that was banned. My understanding is the third revision added restrictions that conflict with the app store policies.

Re:Actually only the GPL, not open source in gener (3, Informative)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244976)

GPL3 is cited as an example, not as the only specific case or as one of a set of specific cases - the more generic wording found around that example would exclude quite a few licenses for the same reason(s) it is not compatible with GPL3.

Re:Actually only the GPL, not open source in gener (1)

SaDan (81097) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244312)

is banned from the Windows market. I'm also curious as to why he thinks open systems will win in the end. Apple's walled garden is doing pretty well and my "open" vibrant is hardly open at all. T-mobile and Samsung do their best to conspire keep it closed.

http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=739304 [xda-developers.com]

Yeah, they really have that phone totally locked down.

Re:Actually only the GPL, not open source in gener (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244734)

You can root an iPhone too, that's not the point. Regular people don't do stuff like that, and hackers will find a way to root almost anything no matter how open or closed it is at "base". For regular day to day users of an Android phone there is very little difference in the "openness" vs. and iPhone or WP7 phone. Some of them (not all) allow you to install non-app store apps without rooting, and a very small number allow root access by default (I think, I'm even sure about this), so it's accurate to say that *some* Android phones are more open than iPhones. The majority however, are not. Yet these faux-open Android phones sell. iPhones sell. People don't, in general, care.

Re:Actually only the GPL, not open source in gener (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244844)

So? Is the iPhone any more locked down? You can root that too and jailbreak out of the walled garden.

The point is that the step shouldn't even be necessary on Android-based phones - the platform was designed to be open from the beginning, but in reality is not all that different from the iOS ecosystem in many cases, with only a couple of main differences; the ability to sideload apps without using the official market and the existence of some properly open phones like the Nexus One.

Re:Actually only the GPL, not open source in gener (2, Informative)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244334)

From TFA:

"Excluded Licenses include, but are not limited to the GPLv3 Licenses"

Re:Actually only the GPL, not open source in gener (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35245348)

From TFA:

"Excluded Licenses include, but are not limited to the GPLv3 Licenses"

That's called "fail-bait", note the "but are not limited to" - it's specific enough to argue but generic enough to argue, the result is that the better lawyers win.

Re:Actually only the GPL, not open source in gener (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244350)

I suspect that intel(speaking as a hardware manufacturer, and to a hardware manufacturer, not as an end-user) is speaking of "open" in the sense of "the software is freely(or RAND-ly, Intel isn't averse to paying for things if it suits them) for use and modification by multiple vendors" rather than "open" as in "not Tivoized"(which is really only the user's problem)...

Re:Actually only the GPL, not open source in gener (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244600)

(There is also another layer to consider: When Intel's CEO comes out with a public statement, odds are that it is neither a candid exposure of his innermost feelings nor altruistic friendly advice. In the PC and server market(particularly in the past few years, as AMD's lead from the A64 vs. Netburst days has faded), there are a number of companies generating enough profit to stay in the business; but the fight over the real margins is basically between Intel and Microsoft. AMD has some aggressively priced value offerings; but Intel has the high end and laptop-friendly thermals largely buttoned up. RAM, shitty onboard sound, mediocre ethernet, etc. are largely commodified. Thus, the big contest going on behind a shipped machine's BOM is how MS and Intel are going to split the juicy slice of the profit... In this case, it seems logical to assume that Intel would really prefer that Android take over, since that is the most plausible path to a situation where handset OSes can command very little of the handset's overall margin, which leaves more for the hardware guys. More broadly, if MS's attempt at the mobile market ends up being more money pissed down the rat hole, that weakens their overall grip a bit, which presumably means that more x86s, especially in servers, will ship with linux or heavily-discounted Windows, which will allow the margins to flow to Intel... FUDing Nokia a bit costs Intel very little, and might hit Nokia in the stock price, and/or require MS to dump more cash into them.)

Re:Actually only the GPL, not open source in gener (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244894)

What does a carrier locking down certain features on phones they support have to do with Android? Android is open, the carrier modified version running on your phone may not be. But you can put another OS on your Android phone if you don't like the one it came with. If I don't like iOS on my iPhone, what other options do I have? If I don't like Win7 on my Windows phone, what other options do I have?

Short Nokia stock (0, Flamebait)

xednieht (1117791) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244202)

MS is the kiss of death for Nokia

Re:Short Nokia stock (1)

PickyH3D (680158) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244364)

Only because Nokia was overvalued to begin with. If moving to WP7 is the end of the world as they know it, then maintaining Symbian while launching MeeGo as a pathetic alternative the other much better developed ecosystems (actually including WP7) means that their world was already over.

At the end of the day, it does not make a difference whether they managed to jump to WP7, Android, iOS, WebOS or even BlackBerry OS. The key is that they needed to either build yet another competitive ecosystem, which they appeared unable to do, or join one. They chose the one that enabled them to exceptionally reduce their R&D budget, which was also on a roller coaster ride out of control while bearing no fruits (somehow they were spending over 400% of Apple's R&D budget [intomobile.com] and still only pumping out the irrelevant Symbian and MeeGo).

Re:Short Nokia stock (3, Insightful)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244488)

Their problem is that the stock market, and the tech press, seems to see USA as the place to observe the future of mobile tech happening...

If one ignore Nokia's inability to get traction in the US market, they where doing fine.

Re:Short Nokia stock (1)

PickyH3D (680158) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244706)

That's very true, but they were only doing fine in the sense that they were selling things now. I don't believe that they could continue to sell things by pushing Symbian, and MeeGo is a joke at this point.

Re:Short Nokia stock (2)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#35245288)

Sadly, when Meego got started half its basis (Maemo) was no joke. Nokia fumbled that one badly (first by announcing a new Maemo alongside the N900, then buying Qt and saying all future Maemo would use that rather then GTK, then announcing the partnership with Intel by combining Moblin and Maemo into Meego).

As for the longevity of Symbian, hard to tell. S^3 is so far only found on one device, and have gotten little time to mature. S^4 seems to have gotten nowhere as every Symbian fundation member pulled out favoring Android (tho Samsung also fired up their BADA project).

The really crazy thing is that Nokia went WP7 almost to the day that we learned that "Android" (or more specifically the Dalvik VM) could run on top of Meego.

We do indeed live in interesting times...

Nokia's cost problem (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244666)

Nokia's cost problem is the old fashioned, traditional, Olly Wight consultants can talk about it till the cows come home, one of far too many products with far too little differentiation. Nokia's hardware offering is fragmented to hell and back. Apple produce one phone at a time. HTC produces only a few.

Re:Short Nokia stock (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244846)

I agree MeeGo was a non-runner. While it would be nice to see a Linux based tablet, the reality is there are already two Linux based tablet operating systems and another simply isn't going to make it. What surprises me most about MeeGo is it targets multiple architectures but doesn't think to use something like LLVM to provide a layer of abstraction.

It's a wasted opportunity since one could envisage a situation where apps were built once and ran on any MeeGo device. Or for that matter any desktop OS providing the same runtime. Without any recompilation at all. It would have been a massive deal to be able to write apps in this way.

Re:Short Nokia stock (1, Interesting)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244534)

Having used both the N900 and several WP7 phones, I'd have to say that Microsoft is certainly not the kiss of death for Nokia but is more likely to be its saviour - the N900 was horrific to use. It was so bad that after three months i went back to my iPhone 3G (and recently I moved over to a HTC Desire, which I love).

Re:Short Nokia stock (4, Informative)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244758)

the N900 was horrific to use.

Funny, I've had mine now for over a year and wouldn't give it up for anything. It's not a perfect phone, but it's a great pocket computer with phone capabilities. Perhaps one device and one OS doesn't work for everyone, unlike what Jobs and Ballmer would have us believe.

Re:Short Nokia stock (1)

Kludge (13653) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244914)

the N900 was horrific to use.

Darn, I wish someone had told me. This whole time I thought that I had been loving it!
The programmability in python, the fact that I'm now running my simulations and generating plots in R and matplotlib, the fact that I can reroute the networking anyway I want (e.g. ssh, vpn), all without needing anyone's permission.
For real nerds, there is truly no other option.

It was so bad that after three months i went back to my iPhone 3G (and recently I moved over to a HTC Desire, which I love).

Obviously you're not fickle.

Fox "News" + Engadget = Slashdot (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35244212)

Could the summary be more biased and factually incorrect???

Pedigree speaks for itself (4, Insightful)

Gopal.V (532678) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244224)

The guy's more comfortable with Microsoft, he's got shares in it, he talks to the people, he knows Microsoft. Now, Google is a totally different beast there - they're doing exactly the same thing, i.e just make an OS, but they're not really Mr Elop's circle.

And oh, yeah ... it is also a very distinct conflict of interest when SEC stops him [yle.fi] from selling all his MS Stock and buying NOK instead. It's like the rules tilted this particular crusade to a windmill.

I love my Nokia phones and I've never bought any other. For the brief period I worked for Ericsson, I was shocked to realize the depth of their patent portfolio, especially when it comes to UX stuff. I can guess those guns will be aimed at Apple first, while it's leaderless without Steve, but eventually the aim's going to turn around and point at Android.

Re:Pedigree speaks for itself (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244368)

It's safe to assume that everyone that's developing on Android is already a major Nokia patent licencee. They've got reciprocal agreements with almost everyone that mean they make money and avoid patent suits. Using a patent as a club's nowhere near as profitable as using it as a revenue stream and a white flag, assuming you're an actual product-developing business and not just an IP warehouse.

Re:Pedigree speaks for itself (1, Funny)

callmebill (1917294) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244622)

Pedigree speaks for itself? Your mom's a whore. What does that say about your potential?

Almost Everyone Agrees (2)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244276)

Even the stocks do..( fell by 20%+ on the announcement )

Re:Almost Everyone Agrees (3, Interesting)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244338)

Nokia's stock would've fallen even if they'd announced they were partnering with Jesus to bring an open-source version of iOS with Android's user interface to the market. They've spent absurd amounts of money acquiring and developing Symbian and collaborating on MeeGo as their primary platforms for the next decade, so switching to any alternative is a tacit admission that they'd thrown that money down the drain. A new partnership also involves a big transitional period in which it's very difficult to make much money. Investors do not like that kind of news.

Re:Almost Everyone Agrees (2)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244382)

Giving consumers the choice of Symbian/WP7/Android for each device until Meego is completely developed could have been a possibility

Consumer choice (3, Interesting)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244318)

Nokia should not "choose" an operating system. Make a phone, and make it available with any and all operating systems (Windows, Android, maybe even Symbian). Sell them all on the open market, and give the *consumer* the choice.

Re:Consumer choice (1)

trollertron3000 (1940942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244512)

Teams of assassins have just been sent from various parts of the world to kill you. This type of thinking must be dealt with. Choices? Freedom? Cease and desist immediately!

Re:Consumer choice (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244516)

That's an interesting idea, but Nokia was barely coping with putting out bug-free releases and providing customer and developer support on one smartphone OS. I shudder to imagine the state of the handsets they'd be shipping if they had to work on three.

(There's the customer confusion argument, too. Nokia already does about 20 new handsets a year to ensure it's properly fertilising all the niches, make it 60 and it'd be chaotic.)

Re:Consumer choice (2)

PReDiToR (687141) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244720)

It would seem that if any company were going to do this it would be HTC.

They make so many models and have so many OSs on them that they could just smash out phone after phone after phone with no OS and have either the carriers buy them and somehow justify the cost by putting their own Android OS on it or have resellers (even a department of their own) put basic Win/Droid/iOS (ha ha, yeah, whatever)/WebOS/Symbian/MeeGo etc. systems on with or without that carrier branding that is so popular around the world.

xda-developers, MoDaCo and the like show us that hackers (not crackers, except when necessary) can shoehorn alternative OSs into the metal, different versions can be squeezed in, original "hardware specs" can be altered to reflect the enabling of feaures that were disabled by the manufacturer.

After having a crapload of HTC devices running WinCE(+) and being on Android now, I fail to see why there is still the wild-eyed demonic look on the faces of the carriers and manufacturers whenever someone suggests that we could actually do what we want with our phones.

Most people who care soon go searching. The number of n00bs asking questions about it is staggering. More and more people are taking control of their devices and running what they want on them. Without permission ...

Re:Consumer choice (2)

gmack (197796) | more than 3 years ago | (#35245150)

There is a very simple reason the telcos hate it when we install our own stuff: They want to be the sole gatekeeper so they can tax us anytime we do something and they actually feel entitled to that money.

Telcos used to bully phone makers to no end to the point where they would provide the means to disable features that saved the customer money. I still recall hacking my phone to enable basic features like the ability to transfer files over USB instead of having to spent $0.75 a shot emailing *my own* pictures to myself or being able to upload custom ringtones instead of having to buy them from the telco's ringtone store.

Then, as much as I dislike Apple, Steve Jobs comes along and pulls the carpet out from under them all by allowing Wifi data transfers of all things on top of all of the features telcos were already forbidding the manufactures from providing. So now they are scrambling to get that control back.

Re:Consumer choice (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35244922)

You're drastically underestimating the difficulty involved in constructing a phone.

The effort involved in configuring an OS for a single phone is massive. Nokia releases hundreds of models. The only way they can do that is with a lot of standardization internally. They have to pick 1 OS.

Re:Consumer choice (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35245106)

Unfortunately smartphones have not benefited from the same level of standardization as the PC.

From what I've heard from folks who work on smartphone kernels, and what I've been able to surmise looking at Android-specific Linux kernel sources, the hardware interfaces on each device are pretty much a custom job, and if not that, something that closely resembles a custom job. There is a lot of driver work that goes into porting an OS to a new phone.

If you don't believe me look at the hacked Android images for non-Android devices. They're pretty broken.

I agree with the wish that the mobile phone hardware worked like a PC, where a kernel can implement a few de facto standards and run on a vast amount of hardware, but even if the industry wanted this (it doesn't), we'd be many years away from this.

open systems will 'win' in the end." (1)

laudunum (585188) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244342)

Pundits like to state this, but I always wonder how Windows is an open system? Don't get me wrong: I love the various *nixes I run -- which includes Linux and Mac OS X (one open and one closed) -- but the only clear winner in a previous epic battle was Windows over Mac OS, but neither was open. And so what does Otellini base his conclusion, apart from the wishful thinking of individuals with whom he'd rather not deal in most cases? (E.g., the various open and free movements that have an uncomfortable relationship at best with IP-warchested Intel.)

Re:open systems will 'win' in the end." (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35244444)

Windows won out because the masses care more about hardware (which costs money and you can hold in your hand) than software which is intangible, often bundled "free" with hardware (or they perceive it to be, or when software cost was a trivial percentage of the overall system), or can be downloaded for free.

Windows ran on open hardware and the software was a trivial part of the cost or could be pirated, macos, proprietary unix, amigaos etc ran on expensive hardware only available from one vendor.. So the open hardware won out, even tho it was technically vastly inferior to the proprietary alternatives.

Re:open systems will 'win' in the end." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35244780)

You have a very distorted view of reality. There was many OS's available on Intel hardware, including Unix, Desqview, GEM, etc.

Re:open systems will 'win' in the end." (3, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244536)

Pundits like to state this, but I always wonder how Windows is an open system?

Compared to many of the alternatives it was: with Windows on a PC you didn't have to pay thousands of dollars for a development license to get API documentation and build applications as we did with some other hardware. The end result was cheap software on cheap hardware, at least when compared to paying $20,000 for a Sun workstation.

Today though, hardware is so cheap that paying $100 for Windows is starting to be a big problem on a $300 PC. Netbooks would be running Linux if Microsoft hadn't cut deals with OEMs to make Windows free or almost free.

Re:open systems will 'win' in the end." (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 3 years ago | (#35245246)

Pundits like to state this, but I always wonder how Windows is an open system?

Compared to many of the alternatives it was

Linux has been around since 1991. Windows did not really take off until 1995. It's success had little to do with openness, and more to do with cheap hardware, an approachable UI and administration model, software, and compatibility with one's workplace.

The level of "openness" has some effect on a system's success, but the claim that "open systems always win" is pure fantasy.

They should go with iOS! (1)

mswhippingboy (754599) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244386)

Because iOS is soooo much better! Oh wait...

Re:They should go with iOS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35245334)

Yeah, having an accelerated UI totally sucks.

Oh wait.... my 2007 iphone is still smoother than my 2010 incredible. /wake me up for ice cream //if apple is still pulling shit, and xda sucks less, i'll be right over ///but continue being a butthurt idiot because you don't like what you bought.

non-qualified area man gives opinion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35244436)

I'm by no means an MS or Nokia fan-boy but this kind of nonsense sound bite really grinds my gears.

No references, no sources, and a CEO from an outside company (regardless of his industry contacts) making sweeping statements about the inner workings of another. Please.

Should've stuck with MeeGo + Qt (2)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244440)

Qt could have been the key to retain developers. Also, partnering with MS is a sure-fire way to get fucked in the butt. Finally, firing your in-house developers and outsourcing it to India is a sure-fire way to fuck yourself in the butt.

It was a business decision (0)

trollertron3000 (1940942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244498)

Well in fairness to them, who will assist them more Google or MS?

Microsoft has to really make some huge inroads into the territory after losing so much of the market to Android and iOS and I think they will do whatever it takes. So yes, technically Android is probably a better choice. But business-wise? Who wouldn't want MS coming in as a pinch-hitter? You're already up against the wall and MS has a track record of going the extra mile for its partners both financially and technically. Even if you "lose" you've won and you walk away richer.

Re:It was a business decision (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35244866)

You're already up against the wall and MS has a track record of going the extra mile for its partners both financially and technically.

I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.

Microsoft has a track record of going the extra mile to fuck its partners over both financially and technically.

LG, Motorola, Palm, Nortel, Verizon, Ericsson, Sendo, SGI, Novell, and even IBM. All had major difficulties within a few years after partnering with Microsoft directly due to the partnership and Microsoft fucking them all over.

Microsoft partnerships are where companies go to die.

Re:It was a business decision (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35244902)

Yes, HTC almost died because of M$ partnership!!!

Re:It was a business decision (1)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244998)

I don't want microsoft anywhere near my phone's OS. I've had them on 3 phones and their OS made all three of them annoying to use. People are choosing iOS and Android for good reasons. Not only are they functional and relatively stable, they are also NOT WINDOWS MOBILE. Many people I know are in the same boat with me.

We got burned by MS's crap mobile product and we won't ever look back.

QT is also incompatible and any other LGPL library (2)

SilenceBE (1439827) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244518)

"The Application must not include software, documentation, or other materials that, in whole or in part..."

Which also means that applications linking (part) to LGPL licenses are incompatible. So that community port of QT (LGPL) to Windows Phone 7 doesn't matter as applications written in QT will be banned from the store. Don't you love Microsoft and their tricks ?

And this is also one of the many reasons we as an userbase or group of developers should mistrust Nokia in everything...

Did Nokia choose M$ or did M$ choose Nokia? (3, Insightful)

NtwoO (517588) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244548)

The press round the whole move of Nokia to M$ is very focussed on Nokia's choice. It could also be that Microsoft chose Nokia as an attempt to obtain share with a reputable hardware vendor to gain some share in a segment that they clearly see themselves losing this time round. Who is the bigger party here? Who needs this most? Sure, Nokia is also falling around on its feet and had an eight count a few times in the last decade, but from the way I see it, this is a deal driven squarely by Microsoft.

Re:Did Nokia choose M$ or did M$ choose Nokia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35244716)

M$ have not much to lose from this agreement, while Nokia have a lot to loose.

Re:Did Nokia choose M$ or did M$ choose Nokia? (1)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244964)

It takes two to tango...

microsoft is the bad date.
nokia accepted, and is going to the movies at 7.

Re:Did Nokia choose M$ or did M$ choose Nokia? (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 3 years ago | (#35245006)

I definitely think Microsoft is the driving partner here. All Microsoft really did was shop their OS to a major hardware partner, that's been their plan all along, and doing this deal with Nokia is exactly how they'd want it to be. They provide software and large, respected hardware partner integrates and produces. Nokia on the other hand has completely changed their game plan in order to accommodate. If you had asked people two weeks ago what Nokia road map for the next 3 years looked like, then asked them today, it would be utterly different.

I'm not saying Microsoft isn't happy to get Nokia, they're a great name and partnering with them will help WP7; but Nokia clearly "needed it more". At least, Nokia thought they needed it more.

PS: M$? really? I thought we were over that as a culture.

totally meaningless. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35244580)

I still do not see any sense in adopting the least mobile OS sold last year. Well, actually, I see that MS is willing to pay billions to impose a market share of mobile devices.

Re:totally meaningless. (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244682)

By your argument, Google's Android shouldn't have seen the light of day since it was at one time the least mobile OS sold.

Vendors should trust open source more. (1)

pep939 (1957678) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244620)

I know Android is developed and driven by Google. This is a general comment I keep having lately... When will vendors understand that carefully written and a hundred times re-read open source code is always the logical and better solution than any relatively rushed closed source corporation's code... I am a computer science student, and sadly, being used to good code, the disillusion of corporate programming quality is immense, let me tell you. It's unbelievable how you get dropped into a world of incompetency and unreliable developing once in the "real world". :(

Re:Vendors should trust open source more. (1)

mswhippingboy (754599) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244746)

You can't always place the blame on corporate developers. Most times when a project comes up and an estimate is provided, management comes back and dictates that it needs to be done it 1/2 or 1/4 of the time. Padding the estimates doesn't help either. Most times going into a project someone else (on the sales side) has already promised the customer what it will cost them, so many times what gets cut out of the projects is sufficient analysis and design.

Sad but true. Welcome to the real "Cledus T. Judd" world.

Re:Vendors should trust open source more. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35244962)

I know Android is developed and driven by Google. This is a general comment I keep having lately...
When will vendors understand that carefully written and a hundred times re-read open source code is always the logical and better solution than any relatively rushed closed source corporation's code...

That is a gross oversimplification. Who is reading the code a hundred times? The interesting parts of the code might attract volunteers, but most of the work of software development will not get done unless you pay for it. The organizations that pay for it want a higher return on that investment than they can get by giving the results away. If you don't believe me, try getting sound to work on linux.

I am a computer science student, and sadly, being used to good code, the disillusion of corporate programming quality is immense, let me tell you. It's unbelievable how you get dropped into a world of incompetency and unreliable developing once in the "real world". :(

Spend some time in the world, and you will come to understand things better. There are reasons why the world is the way it is. Not all of them are good reasons, but assuming all of them are wrong is a dangerous mix of arrogance and ignorance.

I think he's right (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244688)

Nokia is a brand that relies on hardware and software to differentiate its products from other manufacturers on the market. When they go to WP7 there will be precious little to differentiate their phones from anyone else. The hardware will be the facilitator for the software which will be virtually the same from one handset to the next. So why exactly would anyone prefer to buy a Nokia phone running WP7 over one with HTC, LG, Samsung or Dell? Chances are they won't care at all because all the phones will be doing pretty much the same thing. Also note that only Nokia has burned its ships, all the other WP7 providers make handsets with other operating systems on them. So if WP7 doesn't work out they can withdraw without any loss of face. Except Nokia.

It's bizarre they didn't choose Android. There would have been plenty of room for customizing the experience while sharing the core functionality with other phones. They could have decked it out with a Symbian like icons & front-end, rejigged the settings to be more familiar, tossed in Ovi store and anything else they cared to do. Very little of that will happen with WP7. They're just one of Microsoft's bitches now and must come to heel when they're called.

Re:I think he's right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35244806)

You ask why anyone would prefer to buy a Nokia phone running WP7 over one with HTC, LG, Samsung or Dell?
I ask, why would anyone prefer to buy a Nokia phone running Android over one with HTC, LG, Samsung or Dell?

WebOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35244796)

A better option, IMHO, would have been to approach HP and try to form a WebOS based partnership.
  HP need to get it out there on handsets and Nokia need to have a decent OS. Win Win!

Nokia N97 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35244824)

...this, so bad.
I welcome WP7 if its on this phone, anything is better than Symbian

I will never use Windows Mobile phones again... (1, Insightful)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244932)

.. after years of experience with them.

I owned an HTC Mogul, HTC Touch Pro, and HTC Touch Pro 2 up until last December. All three phones ran Windows Mobile (which I kept updated). What I came to learn was that windows mobile is the best way to waste the great hardware that the phones were equipped with. All three of those phones were top notch upon release and could have been mind blowingly close to their advertised usability. Instead, and all because of the OS, they were so clunky and crippled it was (and still is for those using them) more of a bother to use than a pleasure. The only way I was able to rescue even *some* of the phone's intended power was to run custom roms that would remove unnecessary bloat-turd-services and provide some overclocking.

I ultimately gave the Touch Pro 2 to my father and I am astounded at what a piece of crap it is, all the while knowing that if the same hardware were running Android, the phone would be a pleasure to use.

And so while windows mobile 7 is the latest offering from microsoft, and I have yet to use it, I cannot and will not allow myself to support it with my dollars. I will not vote for more of their crap with my dollars. They (and Sprint) ruined my smartphone experience that I thought I was paying good dollars for. Instead my good dollars went to support an OS that cripples and ruins the phone experience, leaving the phone to not actually operate as advertised, or even comfortably.

In short: windows mobile is junk, and wastes the great hardware you pay for.

Probably Not Windows Phone SEVEN (1)

gordguide (307383) | more than 3 years ago | (#35244950)

It's repeated in the PCPro article linked to in the OP, that Nokia is migrating to Windows Phone 7. There is a great deal of evidence that this is at least partly misleading. Nokia's new CEO (and former Windows exec) Stephen Elop has been careful to never, not even once, in print or via interview, say they are going to move to Windows Phone "Seven".

There is good evidence to suggest that whatever Windows mobile OS Nokia adopts, it will be different in significant ways than the WP7 available now. Nokia has committed to releasing just one Windows Mobile OS phone in 2011, and that is not slated for release until October 2011. There have been hints that whatever Windows Mobile OS it does have, it will be worthy of at a minimum, a 7.5 version number, although knowing Microsoft, that won't stop them from going all out and calling it version 8. It could even be a true version 8-worthy release. In any case, the feature set is expected to differ from the current v7x offering.

The "real" adoption of Windows Mobile and significant new phone releases won't be until 2012 at the earliest.

Like many people, I have serious doubts about the strategy and believe there is great danger going forward for Nokia. However, it's my opinion that there are some rather broad hints from both Nokia and Microsoft that whatever happens, it won't be Windows 7 as we now know it that powers the devices it eventually does release.

What a feckless lot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35244978)

It is the year 2011, and still there are no open source friendly graphics chipsets? Intel needs to pull its head out of its ass, and do something more for the community than profit mongering whatever small improvements they can make to the CPU. (Yes, I see you have some open source developer job posting for Hillsboro. Something you should have done 5 years ago.)

Sandybridge! Congratulations! Disty is now almost completely devoid of anything based on sandybridge. I'm considering buying a musty old Nvidia chipset based motherboard, WITH AN AMD PROCESSOR, just to avoid another company (ATI) who cares little for open source.

Remember the Intel network product division that would never release good docs on the EtherExpress chipsets? Remember the network switch line Intel dumped?

Remeber Xscale, and how that was pissed away? Now there is money to be made off ARM, and Intel has... Nothing? Atom? Power hungry.

What little credibility Intel gained from Centrino (which was marketing and OEM arm twisting) doesn't transfer to phones.

Sure, these may be heady times, with Obama visiting today. But until Intel does something smart for a change, you strategic track record is bad enough, you are not in a place to tell Nokia anything.

People who live in glass houses (1)

AmericanBlarney (1098141) | more than 3 years ago | (#35245176)

..should probably keep their trap shut. When I think about companies that have really capitalized on the rise of the mobile phone market, Intel is top of the list...[sarcastic snicker]

Other Insights... (1)

severoon (536737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35245208)

Other visionary insights from Intel's CEO: the sky is blue, water is wet, and money actually can buy happiness.

Phone OS virtualization will make this irrelevant (1)

daboochmeister (914039) | more than 3 years ago | (#35245324)

There's a short-term window in which this matters, but I would fully expect that in the 5-year timeframe, running virtual machines on your phone will be the standard, and you will be able to select what OS you want on any compliant handset. Except possibly in the U.S., where the public still for some reason permits the carriers a bizarre amount of control of the business model.

Is that laughing I hear? It's already starting [vmware.com] .

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>