Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Nokia Selling Its Headquarters To Raise Funds

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the too-much-writing-on-its-walls dept.

Businesses 186

PolygamousRanchKid writes with news the Nokia is looking to generate some cash by selling its headquarters and leasing it back from the new owner. The sale price for the 48,000 sq. meter building is €170 million. "The struggling mobile phone company has operated in the glass and steel building in Espoo near Helsinki, known as Nokia House, since 1997. The sale is another step towards reducing costs and concentrating on its core business. Nokia has spent almost a third of its cash reserves in 12 months, and in October had about €3.6bn left in the bank to turn itself into a smartphone manufacturer capable of competing with Apple and Samsung."

cancel ×

186 comments

Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42186473)

This is SLASHDOT. We are BIAS.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating. (0)

ipquickly (1562169) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186537)

This is SLASHDOT. We are BIAS.

Damn it! And I had a good one planned, now you spoiled it.

Wait, I think I hear my 5 year old Nokia Communicator crying in the other room. ...

damn moisture sensor changed color

Why hire M$ moles in the first place ? (3, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year and a half ago | (#42187023)

I do not own any Nokia shares - and I thank the man upstairs for granting me the wisdom for keeping myself away from Nokia as far as I can.

Back to the main stuff ---

I still do not understand the rationale of Nokia's BoD hiring a M$ mole to run Nokia.

What's so special of that M$ mole in the first place?

I mean, look at Nokia now, versus the Nokia before that M$ mole took over.

Nokia was in a decline - yes, a decline, before the M$ mole was hired.

After that mole took over, Nokia took a nose dive.

No longer a decline, but a nosedive.

For how many quarters already Nokia has posted a loss?

Because of that M$ mole, Nokia has run out of cash - and now, even its HQ building has to be sold to raise some.

Man ...

As I have said - I just do.not.understand !!

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating. (5, Insightful)

Flipao (903929) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186705)

This is SLASHDOT. We are BIAS.

You mean the company that single handedly set the web back at least five years and has been criminally convicted for anti competitive behavior and the company that is being run into the ground by the 8th largest shareholder of the previously mentioned company?

Gee, I wonder why anyone would hate them.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42186891)

...And witches were criminally convicted for being witches.

It doesn't mean it was right.

I got around to reading parts of the judge's findings of fact in the MS antitrust trial. What amused me was that one of the reason's MS was found to be a monopoly was because the judge didn't buy Microsoft's argument that Linux (or Apple) was a threat to Windows.

I have a question for Slashdot - was the judge right when he said Linux and Apple weren't viable threats (thus making Windows was a monopoly), or is Linux actually a viable replacement for Windows?

You can't have it both ways.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42186993)

...Oh, and I forgot to add something before I posted:

Exactly how did MS set the web back 5 years? Why is Microsoft always blamed for the fact that nobody else was making a better internet browser in the early 2000s?

People used IE in the early 2000s because it was the best browser. As soon as a better one came along (Firefox in 2004) IE started losing share. If a better browser had existed in 1998 then people would have used THAT browser instead of IE because. Contrary to the myth, Microsoft never put a gun to grandma's head and forced her to use IE.

The ones who failed were the people who simply couldn't or wouldn't innovate a better browser than MS's offering. That's not MS's fault.
http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/12/12/04/2252205/nokia-selling-its-headquarters-to-raise-funds#

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42187343)

People used IE in the early 2000s because it was the best browser.

What? I don't even. IE 6? The Windows Me of browsers? God...Netscape Communicator? Opera? Anything that cared about standards? IE might have had the largest market share, but that was because of...ooooh...monopolistic practices.

Bill Gates, for all his current philanthropy which I do say we all should appreciate, delayed the innovation of the Internet with his business practices. That is all. Once MS's monopoly was given the slap on the wrist, things got better for everyone.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating. (5, Informative)

Divebus (860563) | about a year and a half ago | (#42187897)

Exactly how did MS set the web back 5 years?

Oh.. that 5 year span when NOTHING improved on IE? That piece of time between the death of Netscape and the advent of tabbed browsing (and RSS feeds) on Firefox? The lack of innovation certainly WAS Microsoft's fault. Not only that, it was their plan - eliminate everything else so they didn't have to spend money on competition.

People used IE in the early 2000s because it came with the computer. Microsoft had won the desktop wars and with it, everything else. The era of being cross platform was gone. Everyone clicked the Big Blue E to get on the Internet and nobody was going to PAY for Netscape. IE was the logical choice as most people thought Microsoft was the only source for computer software. Under threat of never seeing your precious Word and Excel documents again, they were right.

The ability to stifle innovation (including their own) came from two things; Microsoft Server Extensions and tolerance to really bad code, both of which were a good thing in a way. The big problem with Netscape at the time is they were trying really hard to be W3C standards compliant and, except for the addition of Java to Netscape, things moved very slowly. Microsoft grew impatient with the W3C and leapt out way ahead with Server Extensions, those little addons which made the browser much more like a client-server relationship instead of the stateless relationship originally intended with browsers. Front Page made it easy to activate complex tasks by moving the heavy lifting to the server and calling it with a simple trigger in HTML.

Of course, Server Extensions brought many new capabilities never before seen on a browser, something the W3C couldn't keep up with and it was never Microsoft's intention to standardize them (as in go through a standards committee to define and publish the technology). The problem was that all these sites were "IE Only". Microsoft was VERY close to ensuring anyone not using a totally Microsoft technology chain on the Internet saw a blank screen. In other words, they nearly owned the Internet.

IE's tolerance for bad coding was good for IE users as it rendered pages with broken code pretty well. Microsoft handed out a lot of free copies of Front Page to create this broken code which would render with unexpected results on other browsers. Front Page (and plain bad hand coding) made anything other than IE look illiterate. That's the price of sitting around on your hands. Microsoft was there to take it all away in a long series of brilliant chess moves... and then everything went thud for a while.

It actually functioned rather well when it was novel, but nothing moved in terms of real technical advances unless Microsoft was threatened by some shred of competition which was quickly squashed. The next software patch would allow IE to do the same thing for free but for Windows only. Otherwise, Microsoft pretty much sat on their asses and took their sweet old time releasing anything new. Innovation was dead as long as nobody dared try to use anything else.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42187151)

I have a question for Slashdot - was the judge right when he said Linux and Apple weren't viable threats (thus making Windows was a monopoly), or is Linux actually a viable replacement for Windows?

I've seen many variations of this same comment posted all over the interwebs this week. Is this the new script from Burson Marsteller's astroturf division?

Microsoft was actively threatening OEMs who installed other OSs on PCs to develop and maintain their monopoly.
Since then, they've used format, API and communication protocol lockin to prevent interoperability and make it difficult to switch away from their products.It's very destructive to innovation and affordability.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42188335)

I have a question for Slashdot - was the judge right when he said Linux and Apple weren't viable threats (thus making Windows was a monopoly), or is Linux actually a viable replacement for Windows?

I have been using GNU/Linux as my primary operating system since early 2000 with only virtualized Microsoft Windows XP or 7 for very specific instances. I spend 99.999% of my time with GNU/Linux and feel tainted in any workplace where Microsoft Windows is installed on their desktop or notebook computers, especially in environments where all the work functions are performed via web browser and/or an SSH session to a *nix box.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating. (2)

Divebus (860563) | about a year and a half ago | (#42187291)

I'll try that one - the ruling forced Microsoft to survive on the merits of their products rather than strong arm tactics to force business partners to submit to their wishes. No innovation allowed that would circumvent their leverage of Office into every other aspect of business computing.

There was lots of innovation going on and lots of excitement about what could be done with a microcomputer. Microsoft uniquely understood the power of cross platform capabilities (that's exactly where they started - porting software to the myriad platforms out there). When they suddenly realized they had created their own platform, everything shifted to protecting it. They would "partner" with countless software companies like the old days, modify the product to be Microsoft only, release it to the masses stripping away any cross platform capability and made the original technology irrelevant.

That was the death of any threats against Microsoft for several years.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42187809)

It's actually a viable replacement yes, but it wasn't a threat, no. That is precisely the problem with abusing monopoly powers to prevent competition from viable alternatives.

It is becoming a threat, because it allows people to escape MS in a product space that isn't controlled by MS, so it is easy for people to do. It is becoming a threat, because MS "partners" no longer want to put up with their selfish backstabbing controlling bullshit.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating. (2)

samkass (174571) | about a year and a half ago | (#42187763)

...and has been criminally convicted for anti competitive behavior...

Not to nitpick too much, but the court decision was not criminal and therefore not a "conviction". It was a civil anti-trust suit.

Why O Why o Why ELOP??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42187969)

At what point are the board going to act and boot out Elop? Look at it:

Every single plank of his approach has failed, he took a company with the leading market share, that just needed a refresh of its products, and has decimated them. WHY???

It's not like he is somehow disconnected to this mess, he did the biggest chunks of damage when he announced that their Symbian was dead, even as he announced it would continue to sell! Staggering incompetence. He chose a platform that had no hope and it flopped, (WP7), he's got a refresh of it that also has no hope (WP7.8), yet another platform that also has no hope WP8.

Seriously? At what point are the board going to show some leadership and eject him??

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating. (1)

PYRILAMPES (609544) | about a year and a half ago | (#42188425)

Microsoft does this to every business partner. They always have. If Nokia was fool enough to trust Microsoft, there will be no tears shed. The more reasonable answer is Nokia officers dropped the ball and got paid well for dancing with the Microsoft. The "only" losers were the employees and their stockholders.

Nothing to do with perhaps a Memo (5, Insightful)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186711)

This is SLASHDOT. We are BIAS.

Its not bias of slashdot!? that has made Microsoft Windows Phone and that Nokia Strategy as popular Marmite covered spiders. Nokia twinning themselves *exclusively* with an OS that late; with less features and incompatible with its predecessors, with no viable upgrade path, with proprietary software...on hardware made in china; with less features than its predecessors or the competition at the cost to real peoples jobs, its market value, revenues; market share; brand value....only for it being replace with the latest suitor HTC [with the pattern repeated as Microsoft become their own OEM]. Has become a patent troll with Microsoft...while devaluing those patents to anyone who would have bought them.

I'm just barely touching the surface of what is perhaps a decline of company on an unrepresented scale. I find it insulting to an nth degree that anyone would try to pass anything, anyone saying anything against this is, as emotional, although I suspect the thousands of newly unemployed probably aren't loving them right now.

Re:Nothing to do with perhaps a Memo (4, Funny)

Divebus (860563) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186983)

Hehe... You said "surface"

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42186901)

It's CUE, you stupid retarded bastard. CUE. A cue is a signal you give a performer to let them know it's their time. A queue is a bunch of things in a row, you stupid retarted illiterate bastard.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42187003)

It's retarded, not retarted. Literate much?

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42187303)

Literate has no verb form, you illiterate bastard.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42187815)

A typo is one thing (obvious since it was spelled right the first time); using a completely wrong word (queue vs cue) is another you ignorant ape.

Also, it beg's the question, irregardlessly, I could care less?

No hate here, just sorrow (4, Insightful)

EzInKy (115248) | about a year and a half ago | (#42188267)

It really is painful to see such a fantastic nerd friendly company hit bottom like this. I really would like them become a phoenix and raise from their ashes, but I'm not seeing it in the cards. But you know, if they would only ship an updated version of their famed N900 I'd certainly be willing to send another $600 their way, and I'd be willing to wager so would a few other million people as well. Hope those 170 million Euros will keep Nokia alive long enough to come to its senses.

Tax or Financial Engineering (2)

alexander_686 (957440) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186485)

I wonder if they are doing this for

Tax Reasons: In the U.S. Real Estate Investment Trusts have favorable tax treatment – which is why the owner of the building and the occupier of the building is almost never the same, or for

Financial Engineering reasons: a one time transaction to raise cash and is good window dressing for the financial statements. Better than taking out a mortgage, but it’s only a one time, stop gap measure.

Re:Tax or Financial Engineering (4, Interesting)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186691)

3) Monetary reasons. They actually need the cash right now to stay in business. They're betting on a recovery and future sales covering the cost of money. (Speaking as having worked for a failing company that tried this. It probably helped them stay in business for a few more months.)

Re:Tax or Financial Engineering (-1, Troll)

NemoinSpace (1118137) | about a year and a half ago | (#42187433)

I wonder if they are doing this for They do it all the time, Slashdot is full of jaded little socialists that want everything free, hence linux, android, and... oh... Nokia's doing it to shore up the balance sheet for next quarter.. It's working. Stock up 5% today in a down market. What kills me is I wasted the whole day trading, and come over to Slashdot for a break and i get this crap. Slashdot has pretty much jumped the shark.

Re:Tax or Financial Engineering (1)

yoshi_mon (172895) | about a year and a half ago | (#42187665)

1. 7 Digit UID, check.

2. Bashing non-conservative talking points, check.

3. Talking about the stock market as if it is not a rigged game for the rich, check.

Why is this post not at -1?

Re:Tax or Financial Engineering (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about a year and a half ago | (#42187743)

Er – I am not a jaded socialist.

If Finland’s tax code allows REITs then this maneuver will create long term value for the company. (I dislike REITs because the REIT tax code distorts the real economy - which might give you a hint where I am on the political / economic spectrum).

If Nokia is doing this for some quick cash and for some window dressing to its balance sheet – that is something else. That would reek of short term desperation – which implies long term hardship.

A really sad demise (5, Interesting)

Bruce Perens (3872) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186487)

I have a Nokia n770 and n900, and they were capable systems. In some ways Android is only now reaching a similar capability. If Nokia could have been convinced to market them, Android might never have taken the market the way it did.

I was one of a series of consultants they did not listen to with regard to Open Sourcing Symbian and what was, and was not, still of value in Symbian at that late date. Much of what they really valued - like the Symbian kernel - wasn't really business-differentiating in the eyes of the customer and nobody wanted it any longer, but yet they spent Billions on it.

Their destiny is to become a patent troll or to have their assets bought by one. What a shame.

Re:A really sad demise (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42186581)

They should have gone for Linux/Unix derivative in late 1990s instead of the obscure Symbian. I can tell you that there were working prototypes at that time.

Re:A really sad demise (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42186653)

Maybe I'm not the average customer but the Symbian kernel is differentiating to me. Symbian phones are fast as hell and have battery life that Linux and BSD powered smartphones can only dream of.

Re:A really sad demise (3, Informative)

Bruce Perens (3872) | about a year and a half ago | (#42188521)

Maybe I'm not the average customer but the Symbian kernel is differentiating to me. Symbian phones are fast as hell and have battery life that Linux and BSD powered smartphones can only dream of.

Maybe so, but would you have spent a king's ransom to make it run IPV6? I think they did.

Re:A really sad demise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42187891)

Their destiny is to become a patent troll or to have their assets bought by one. What a shame.

Wrong, Nokia's patents have real value. GSM is almost a Nokia-designed protocol. While LTE may not rely on Nokia patents as much, I'm pretty sure Nokia has some very high value patents there. If Elop allows it there will be big companies attempting to buy those patents. Apple, Broadcom and Google/Motorola all come to mind, Microsoft would be a front-runner, hopefully their Board of Directors forces Elop to consider offers from them.

Re:A really sad demise (1)

Bruce Perens (3872) | about a year and a half ago | (#42188537)

I don't think we're contradicting each other, are we? Of the companies you've mentioned, I think Broadcom is the least litigious. They sued Qualcomm once.

of course they are. (3, Insightful)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186511)

Why of course they are selling the headquarters. Why would Microsoft need it when they already have a headquarters? All they just want the patents software(nokia maps) talent and factories. They already have all the bureaucracy and buildings they need.

Re:of course they are. (4, Insightful)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186737)

Side note, does Microsoft actually need Nokia's factories or talent? Once Microsoft owns the IP, can't they simply close everything down and move the business to the US, and the manufacturing to China? If Microsoft is only concerned with (essentially) one product (the Windows 8 phone), why would they need Nokia's talent at all?

Side side note, I wonder if this will have an appreciable effect on the economy of Finland? (Probably not, but I don't have the numbers in front of me.)

Re:of course they are. (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186921)

They probably don't "need it" but with the MS surface move Microsoft has made signals that they want a more apple like hardware operation, where they control hardware and software. Nokia has everything MS need aside for a phone and tablet show. Nokia had had dismal product lines recently but that because their CEO is trying to kill them so his former employer can buy up Nokia on the cheap. mind you much of thier products lines failing has been because they killed everything except windows phone but even there the hardware is descent quality and they have a record of building great phones before E(f)lop came along.

Re:of course they are. (2)

alexander_686 (957440) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186965)

Let me try to refine this question - Do you want to manufacture high quality phones or clone phones? I don’t know the answer.

Nokia is known for 1. Engineers who make really good hardware and 2. High quality manufacturing in context of supplying different models in different markets (think different languages, networking standards, supply chains, etc.).

Now, can Nokia charge a premium for it’s hardware over it’s rivals “beige box” android rivals? If the answer is yet then MSFT should keep Nokia intact. If not..

Re:of course they are. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42187075)

Very good point; having worked in a phone manufacturer with great hardware engineers, our software process sucked (and I am a SW engineer). I see that some phone companies have amazing hardware but terrible software (Nokia, Ericsson in the old days) while Android is an amazing software but the hardware is lacking. Apple managed to hit a sweet spot in the combination of both, charging a premium for it. And I say this as an apple hater, I hate their walled garden, the restrictions, the "we know what is better for you" attitude

Re:of course they are. (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42187261)

> Let me try to refine this question - Do you want to manufacture high quality phones or clone phones? I don’t know the answer.

In the context of this question, you want to manufacture Windows 8 phones, and *only* Windows 8 phones. Whether that falls into either above category is a matter of opinion.

> Nokia is known for 1. Engineers who make really good hardware and 2. High quality manufacturing in context of supplying different models in different markets (think different languages, networking standards, supply chains, etc.).

...but the Windows 8 phone is already designed, and surely it can be manufactured cheaper in China?

> Now, can Nokia charge a premium for it’s hardware over it’s rivals “beige box” android rivals? If the answer is yet then MSFT should keep Nokia intact. If not..

I think the question boils down to, what value to Microsoft is Nokia after they're bought out? Microsoft's business model is to charge a premium for their *software*. The hardware is peripheral. Microsoft has absolutely no interest in any hardware Nokia makes that isn't running Windows. So all that engineering and manufacturing pertaining to feature phones is not interesting to Microsoft. What's left? The manufacturing and IP of the Windows 8 Phone. (Windows 7 phone being a dead product and everyone knows it.) Manufacturing can easily be shipped offshore, (everyone else is doing that; the process is known) and the only thing left is the engineering crew specific to the Windows 8 phone. Then the question becomes, do you keep a skeleton crew employed in Finland to design the next iteration of the phone, or do you just pull all that back to Redmond? I think that question answers itself.

In summary, the larger question is not, what value does Nokia's manufacturing and engineering and current (non-MS) product line have to Nokia, it's what value does all that have to Microsoft. I'm thinking, not much.

Re:of course they are. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42187073)

Cellphone RF design - antenna, layout, testing etc is not exactly copy & paste. They need very specialized engineers and technician teams to do what they do. There is also the need for the embedded side to write the low level drivers for all that.

You can't rely on the chip vendors e.g. Qualcomm etc to deliver a full reference design. Yours would like exactly like the others that do that.

Re:of course they are. (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a year and a half ago | (#42187221)

Many Nokia factories are in other parts of Europe (or further) with cheaper labor rates. To be fair there was also some sense of being a larger EU/World player than just a Finnish brand. But some bad blood generated when they backed out of factory plans in Bochum Germany.

The Nokia talent is good though, better than MS talent. If MS wants to make a good phone then there is no better place to look for talent; unless they merely want an inexpensive phone. However phones these days aren't really much in the way of phones anymore, they're more about being tiny computers with a cheap phone tacked on and a lot of customers don't really care about high quality phone calls, so I suspect MS won't want good phone engineers. MS certainly doesn't want all the Nokia talent that dealt with back end networking, MS won't be selling hardware to carriers.

And it's just the headquarters. There are(were) many buildings, not just in Finland but around the world (including a new one in Silicon Valley that was quite probably a mistake). However the headquarters are very nice. It's in a prime location overlooking the bay, the building is very nice looking and stands out with glass everywhere, great access to freeways and busses, etc. You can send execs there to reward them in summer, or to punish them in winter.

Re:of course they are. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42187645)

Side note, does Microsoft actually need Nokia's factories or talent? Once Microsoft owns the IP, can't they simply close everything down and move the business to the US, and the manufacturing to China? If Microsoft is only concerned with (essentially) one product (the Windows 8 phone), why would they need Nokia's talent at all?

Side side note, I wonder if this will have an appreciable effect on the economy of Finland? (Probably not, but I don't have the numbers in front of me.)

I think that's already happening. I don't think Finland depend on any one company. That's why all the Scandinavian countries are AAA+ stable rated countries.
They are socialism done right.

However the global backwater autocracy might try to make it look otherwise by eventually finding a way to bankrupt their economies too.

Re:of course they are. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42187835)

Side side note, I wonder if this will have an appreciable effect on the economy of Finland?

YES. I don't remember the facts but I vaguely remember something about it in some internet new item. Google it cuz I'm lazy. Finland's economy is expected to lag behind Europe's in part because of the sabotage of Nokia.

Re:of course they are. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42188503)

Nokia's biggest business is not Windows phones - they are only the most visible here in the West (US/Europe). Far and away, most revenues (and profits) are from the series 40 phones that sell in the billions all over the emerging markets (Asia, Africa, South America). Unfortunately, that is a very competitive market these days, especially with low cost android phones on the scene. So, you could say that Google is NOT Nokia's friend. MS may not be either, but it is contributing to the company's income.

Google sells Android for less than free ... (1)

Cassini2 (956052) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186513)

Microsoft charged money for their software, and Nokia is history.

Re:Google sells Android for less than free ... (2)

Swampash (1131503) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186559)

Seen how much money Microsoft is making out of Android?

Re:Google sells Android for less than free ... (1)

Threni (635302) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186577)

Not sure - nobody's being straight with their figures.

I do know that nokia have a good reputation for hardware, and that if they sold quality android phones they'd quickly be up there with Samsung and HTC. People have heard of them. 2 year ago, *noone* had heard of HTC. If nokia aren't careful, nobody will remember them in 2 years time.

Re:Google sells Android for less than free ... (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186787)

HTC have been making smartphones and PDA's for 10 years. Back then most of them were rebranded though. I was using HTC phones rebranded as i-mate around 8 years ago.

Re:Google sells Android for less than free ... (1)

Threni (635302) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186995)

Yeah, rebranded, and/or not used by regular people. Like I say, no-one had heard of them, and they just came out of nowhere, took the stage, and then faded as Samsung's star ascended.

Re:Google sells Android for less than free ... (5, Insightful)

Flipao (903929) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186715)

Seen how much money Microsoft is making out of Android?

More than they make from Windows Phone.

Re:Google sells Android for less than free ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42187091)

Seen how much money Microsoft is making out of Android?

More than they make from Windows Phone.

Google makes more from iOS than they do from Android.
and Apple basically just prints money

Android is all swag (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#42187595)

Google makes more from iOS than they do from Android.
and Apple basically just prints money

I bet you can't show me current figures to support your claim. Ignoring the indirect benefits of not having another vendor dominate the smart-phone market, when you want make money from advertising on mobile, or the intangible benefits it brings like heavily promoting its brands Google; Chrome; Android; Nexus; Gmail; Play; Wallet; Google+ etc. I suspect the direct benefit from taking a cut from every sale on play as it continues to be launched; inproved; expanded.

As for Apple printing money...absolutely, but as the tablet; phone market continue to mature its pursuit of profit over marketshare. Is looking increasingly shaky, but hey they learnt last time they did this right....

Re:Android is all swag (1)

MisterSquid (231834) | about a year and a half ago | (#42188401)

As for Apple printing money...absolutely, but as the tablet; phone market continue to mature its pursuit of profit over marketshare. Is looking increasingly shaky, but hey they learnt last time they did this right....

I don't understand all the people who measure and forecast success according to marketshare. Minority platforms not only can be healthy, they also can outperform majority platforms.

For one obvious example, Apple has about 10% marketshare for computers and low single-digit percentage in the installed base. Yet, Apple has fully dominated the consumer computer industry in terms of profit and growth. Apple does better than every single one of its competitors in consumer computing (selling new computers) because marketshare is not a factor now that the Internet and open standards exist.

This is even more true with mobile computing.

Who cares how many Android devices exist in relation to iOS devices? Consumers don't because what they mostly do is connect to the Internet with their smartphones, where they watch video, comb Facebook, check email, send texts, and post Tweets.

Why does anyone even talk about smartphone OS marketshare as if it matters?

Nobody knows? (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186843)

Seen how much money Microsoft is making out of Android?

What money!? There is loads of nominal amounts listed around the internet, Thinks hinted at of what has happened behind closed doors. We know a lot of deals have been struck we just can only speculate at what they are. The reality is I suspect very little actual money has changed hands.

Re:Google sells Android for less than free ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42186657)

And yet no one but Samsung and Google are making any actual profits off Android.

Re:Google sells Android for less than free ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42186735)

Ah! Another ill-informed call to cross the river into the promise land of Android. And don't get me wrong, Android is great for mobile devices and tablets and such but the fact of the matter is that for every vendor making money off of Android at least a dozen have come and failed. The success in question has less to do with Android than it has to do with a popular apps base. How do you think Apple keeps going in the face of the competition and the fury of fanbois?
 
By your own metric iOS is the best mobile OS out there as 100% of those making legitimate iOS devices are making a handsome profit from it.
 
Hell, a larger portion of vendors (by percentage) of Win8 RT and Win8 phone makers may make a profit than those who adopted Android.

Apple irrelevant; Android got swag (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#42187049)

the fact of the matter is that for every vendor making money off of Android at least a dozen have come and failed.

Show me these facts. The irony in reference to this post is Asus and Sony are now profitable since they dropped Windows. Samsung I believe is making out like gangbusters. Lenovo; ZTE; Huawei doing great. Stop spreading this ill informed garbage.

...oh you mean HTC which is STILL profitable, and makes...you guessed it windows phones.

Oh your making a point about your beloved Apple making lots of profits...I'm afraid Apples pursuit of profits is already hurting Apples market share, which didn't work out well last time...they became Microsofts Bitch. They are already irrelevant.

Re:Apple irrelevant; Android got swag (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42187889)

The irony in reference to this post is Asus and Sony are now profitable since they dropped Windows.

Since when did either Sony [sony.com] (notice all the laptops with Windows 8 on them) or Asus [asus.com] (note the "ASUS recommends Windows 8" line). So what exactly is supposed to be ironic when both are still selling Windows machines? Maybe you meant "Windows Phone"? But then again, when did either of them sell Windows phones?

Samsung I believe is making out like gangbusters

Yes, Samsung would be the one vendor they were referring to.

ZTE

O really? Steep profits drop adds to ZTE woes [ft.com] .

Huawei doing great.

Huaweii profits dropped 22% [engadget.com] . Yeah sounds like they are doing great what with their profits dropping off at huge rates.

Stop spreading this ill informed garbage.

Says the guy spreading the ill-informed garbage.

...oh you mean HTC which is STILL profitable, and makes...you guessed it windows phones.

HTC Profit Falls 79% Amid Competition [wsj.com] . Oh and HTC makes more Android phone models than Windows phones for quite some time now.

Oh your making a point about your beloved Apple making lots of profits...I'm afraid Apples pursuit of profits is already hurting Apples market share, which didn't work out well last time...they became Microsofts Bitch. They are already irrelevant.

Yes, their market share has gone down because the market has expanded with tons of shitty Android phones flooding the market not because they are selling less phones and tablets.

You need to reread your links. (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#42188049)

Yes, their market share has gone down because the market has expanded with tons of shitty Android phones flooding the market not because they are selling less phones and tablets.

LOL and that is the point. Android had great phones at every price range...apple have only one phone, and its poor value..and its killing them. You need to recheck your links [those that aren't behind paywalls] I don't think you read them they include quotes like "now held over 12 percent of the Chinese smartphone market." and "It also claimed that the Ascend P1 and Ascend D1 had become best selling handsets in China, Western Europe, Japan, Australia and Canada"...a market Apple is being outsold 21:1 by Android. Calling these phones cheap, is a mistake they are great phones, and the words you're looking for is "good value"

As I said these Android phones are very profitable for those companies. If you can find evidence to the contrary I would love to see it :). Like I say even HTC are still making profits from Android, even with the Windows handycap.

Re:Google sells Android for less than free ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42187205)

Microsoft sold WP7 for less than free: they gave a huge cash infusion to Nokia to convince them to use their OS.

Re:Google sells Android for less than free ... (1)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#42187611)

Nokia promised to deliver their Symbian customers into the Windows Phone camp. They drove them all away instead. Now that they are out of Symbian users they are about to be reminded of the fine print.

Why a smart phone manufacturer? (1)

dubbreak (623656) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186515)

There is still a big feature phone market out there. One option would be cutting back everything but feature phones and be profitable in that market. From what I remember Nokia made some rock solid feature phones.

Re:Why a smart phone manufacturer? (1)

s73v3r (963317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186589)

I would highly doubt that market is anywhere near as profitable as the smartphone market was.

Re:Why a smart phone manufacturer? (1)

LordLucless (582312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186627)

But it's going to be a diminishing market. The majority of phones seem to be offered on a plan basis in Western countries, so even phones which would be prohibitively expensive up front are available to people who would otherwise get feature phones.

The only people I know with feature phones are people who explicitly do not want a smart phone (generally, but not always, the older generation). For most people, the cost difference between a plan with a feature phone, and a plan with a smart phone is marginal. I guess developing countries might be more interested in feature phones, but then again, I'd imagine they'd be in less of a hurry to continually upgrade than their developed counterparts, resulting in lower turnover for Nokia.

It used to be that feature phones were the default, with smart phones an expensive niche, but now, feature phones are really becoming the niche.

Re:Why a smart phone manufacturer? (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186817)

Feature phone market is down in the dirt. I can go to a shop and buy a feature phone for $29 with $20 credit on a prepay plan with no contract and the phone isn't even carrier locked. Android smartphones start at under $100. (all prices in NZD)

Re:Why a smart phone manufacturer? (1)

master5o1 (1068594) | about a year and a half ago | (#42187477)

Cancelling troll mod because phone moderation is a bad idea.

They gave it away (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186923)

There is still a big feature phone market out there.

Elop destroyed it by saying they were crap. In fact the OS set to replace symbian on these featurephones, the linux based "Meltemi" was cancelled make of that what you will. Samsung [featurephones]...and well "Value Android" are replacing these. I think you will be astonished at how powerful these value androids are...Check out the Huawei Ascend G330 look at the specs http://www.gsmarena.com/huawei_ascend_g330-4966.php [gsmarena.com] .

Re:They gave it away (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42187839)

Will it stay charged for 2 weeks while sitting on my desk or in my pocket like my $50.00 five year old cell phone does? (on a $100 per year plan) (well, truthfully, I did replace the battery once -- but I got the battery for free from another phone given to me, but even then the old battery was lasting over a week)... LG150 -- I think it has a recall notice but it works so I didn't bother changing it for a 160 a few years back.

They need to sell Finland (1)

Diamonddavej (851495) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186573)

Finland's GDP was US$189.4 billion in 2010 v's Apple's revenue of US$156.508 billion in 2012. Hard to compete when you rival's revenue exceeds your own countries' GPD.

Re:They need to sell Finland (3, Interesting)

alexander_686 (957440) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186701)

GDP is more akin to profit then to revenue. Apple's net profit was 47b in 2012, or about 1/4 of Finland. We should compare apples to Apple.

Re:They need to sell Finland (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42186827)

Yes and no. Neither is quite valid.

Re:They need to sell Finland (2)

Local ID10T (790134) | about a year and a half ago | (#42187021)

GDP is more akin to profit then to revenue. Apple's net profit was 47b in 2012, or about 1/4 of Finland. We should compare apples to Apple.

False.

Whichever method you use for calculating GDP, it is measuring economic activity -thus revenue, not profit.

  • Production method -market value of all final goods and services calculated during 1 year,
  • Income method -sum total of incomes of individuals living in a country during 1 year,
  • Expenditure method - all expenditure incurred by individuals during 1 year.

Simply put: "[GDP] is akin to ignoring a company's balance sheet, and judging it solely on the basis of its income statement." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product [wikipedia.org]

Re:They need to sell Finland (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about a year and a half ago | (#42187699)

I am going to disagree with you.

Pick apart the wiki article you posted and you will see things like:
          Production approach: Net Value Added = Gross Value of output – Value of Intermediate Consumption. (where Gross value of output is revenue) or
          Income approach: .Corporate profits
Etc.

Here is an example.

In country Y
Manufacture A has revenue of 45b and profits of 5b.
Middle Man B distributes company’s A product. It has revues of 50b and profits of 5b.

In country Z
Integrated company C produces and distributes 50b of product and has 10b of profits.

Question – Is countries Y GDP twice as big as country Z. No – because you nailed it on the head when you referred to real “economic activity”.

There are differences between corporate and GDP accounting. Investing is assets is a cost to companies reducing profits (short term, accounting wise). For GDP it is added in. But it is still more akin to prfoits then revenue.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/06/28/gdp-for-a-country-is-not-the-same-thing-as-turnover-for-a-business/ [forbes.com]

Re:They need to sell Finland (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186867)

Nokia's 2011 revenue was US$50b. Samsung Electronics was US$150b, which also includes all their TV's LCD panels, DRAM, Flash, Hard drives, Cameras, batteries and other appliances. They're beating Apple in the smartphone market.

Makes you wonder... (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186575)

Industry titan hits tough times and sells HQ. Apple is doing well now, but you have to wonder if we might see the new "mothership" on the block at some point.

Is Apple doing well (2)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186973)

Apple is doing well now

Apple had had billions wiped off its value; Its market share is declining; The launch quarter figures for its most profitable product the iphone, and its new product the iPad is already being overtaken by Android...again. There last product launch the mini, was disappointing.

...but this is all off topic. Apple has different problems..and is a long way from being in any immediate trouble. Unlike Nokia which Microsoft have destroyed in months.

"The sale is another step towards reducing costs" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42186615)

You do not reduce costs by leasing more. You increase costs in return for cash now. The only possible way this will reduce costs is if they get rid of all the Nokia Helsinki staff. Someone who knows needs to report whoever it was on the Nokia board who sold the company out.

"concentrating on its core business" - the only way that Nokia will concentrate on it's core business is by ditching the loss making, market share eating smartphone division. Rumor has it that Nokia has agreed to lock its self out of Android, which means it has no way back into the market.

This is yet more press release bullshit from a bunch of idiots killing a once great company.

Re:"The sale is another step towards reducing cost (2)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186773)

It "reduces costs" on the VERY short term, as you get an influx of cash and then essentially have to pay it back plus the holding company's profit margin. A desperate company will try this at some point, hoping against hope that this allows them to stay in business long enough to turn it around.

Re:"The sale is another step towards reducing cost (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186805)

...it's a little like outsourcing. Cost savings (on paper) is largely smoke and mirrors, as the cost savings from cheaper manpower must be balanced against the cost of the outsource company's profit margin, and the increased cost of doing business due to incompetent staff.

I'm sorry, did I say that out loud?

Re:"The sale is another step towards reducinCostco (1)

jbengt (874751) | about a year and a half ago | (#42187661)

There are some advantages to leasing rather than owning, though. Owning is not free, and can be more expensive than leasing Leasing can give more agility, you can (usually) grow and shrink more easily, being saddled wit a 5-year lease or so, rather than a 30-year mortgaqge. Leasing avoids some risk if you sign a favorable lease, you don't have to worry about cost fluctuations, paying for unexpected repairs, or whether the lease pays for the cost of operating. You don't have to become an expert in constructing and operating buildings, you don't need staff for all that. If you're actually profitable, you can make money doing what your company does, and hopefully make a better return on investment than you can running the building. It's classic capitalism, do what you do efficiently and trade (using money) for what others are good at. Though, none of that means it is necessarily wise in this case, when Nokia already has the building, and seems to only be using the money to invest in losing more money.

Re:"The sale is another step towards reducinCostco (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42187823)

Some good points, but I've yet to see an instance where a company sold their buildings to a holding company so that they could grow or shrink or move elsewhere more efficiently. I've only ever seen it as a short term cash grab.

Even if you owned the buildings, you (as a company) probably did not build them, nor do you necessarily have to have a crew to maintain them. All that can be contracted out. Moreover, you can sell a building with a 30 year mortgage and still recover some equity, whereas getting out early from a 5 year lease may be more costly.

Re:"The sale is another step towards reducing cost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42187981)

So herein lies the question, will the short-term cash enable Nokia to return to profitability in the long-term?

Looking at the situation, I suspect like many others the answer is almost certainly "no". Selling then leasing back HQ is a classic desperation maneuver, sure they might survive, but if someone had a list of companies that do this I suspect not even 1 in 100 succeed. Sell the stock if you've got them and can find a buyer, otherwise get certificates and use them as toilet paper.

not the first time (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42186639)

I seem to remember a comany called SGI that went into the real-estate biz to subsidize themselves... how did that work out for them?

Re:not the first time (2)

MrEricSir (398214) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186671)

Worked out great for Google!

Re:not the first time (1)

stox (131684) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186685)

Google got a nice campus out of it.

How long before (1)

stox (131684) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186681)

they put Navteq up for sale?

The Microsoft and the Nokia (4, Interesting)

DrJimbo (594231) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186723)

A Microsoft asked a Nokia to carry him across a river. The Nokia refused because it was afraid of getting stung by the Microsoft. But the clever Microsoft argued that if it stings the Nokia then they would both drown. So the Nokia agrees and carries the Microsoft into the river. Halfway across the Microsoft stings the Nokia dooming them both. In its dying breath the Nokia asks the Microsoft why it did such a thing. The Microsoft replies "it is my nature".

Re:The Microsoft and the Nokia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42187233)

A star trek voyager fan!

Re:The Microsoft and the Nokia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42187361)

actually tis a fable from Aesop.

Re:The Microsoft and the Nokia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42187669)

actually tis a fable from Aesop.

Nope. Wrong again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

Re:The Microsoft and the Nokia (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42187633)

A Microsoft asked a Nokia to carry him across a river. The Nokia
refused because it was afraid of getting stung by the Microsoft.
But the clever Microsoft argued that if it stings the Nokia then
they would both drown. So the Nokia agrees and carries the
Microsoft into the river. Halfway across the Microsoft stings
the Nokia dooming them both. In its dying breath the Nokia asks
the Microsoft why it did such a thing.

The Microsoft looks to HTC and Samsung as the Nokia sank. Grinning, it reaches for Nokia's patents as it goes under, whispering, "You see, Nokia, I can swim."

Can't blame them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42186803)

Why would anyone ever want to have a headquarter in Ass-poo?

Stick a fork in this turkey.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42186865)

It's DONE! WP8 isn't going to save the company...sales figures, while impressive for WP (quadrupling of sales), is STILL not going to amount to much more than 4 or 5% of the total market share, and that is FAR from being enough to save WP or Nokia. I won't shed a tear...the Nokia of today is NOT the Nokia we all knew and loved, they haven't been since Elop took the helm. Sorry fanboys and girls, it's time to say your goodbyes now.

sell the HQ (1)

rossdee (243626) | about a year and a half ago | (#42187041)

Congress could sell the Capitol building to aid in reducing the deficit

California: ahead of the curve (1)

slew (2918) | about a year and a half ago | (#42187179)

California was going to try to sell and lease-back a few buildings, but they bailed out before they did the deed...

Yomu FAIL it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42187951)

the 5ystem clean

This is pathetic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42188235)

Fire this idiot and traitor Elop, abandon Microsoft Disaster 8 at once, start selling good Android phones. This should have been done years ago.
Nokia could have competited with Samsung, HTC and others on the Android market today.
Instead Elop have chosen Nokia to be a slave and a whore of Microsoft.

When Nokia finally dies, I'm sure Microsoft will buy it for $1 just for their patents.

I really liked Nokia. Now I wish them quick death, because what they do is so pathetic. Just finish it now. To die is better than being a whore.

Well I just received a new E6 today, (1)

treadmarks (2528414) | about a year and a half ago | (#42188365)

It looks like if I waited much longer to buy it, I wouldn't be able to. Apparently if you stick around long enough you will live to see a respectable version of Symbian. And that makes the situation even more tragic, because just as Symbian is (almost) caught up, they decide to kill it and hitch their cart to Microsoft, the most laughable non-innovator of the last decade. Predictably, this has failed, and now my only wonder is whether this new phone will outlive Nokia, like some artifact from before its shameful marriage of desperation with Microsoft, when it still had something to be proud of.

Nokia Meets Monty Python's Meaning of Life (2)

guttentag (313541) | about a year and a half ago | (#42188461)

In the "birth" chapter of Monty Python's Meaning of Life, a hospital administrator walks in on a woman giving birth and is excited to see that they are using the most expensive machine in the whole hospital: the useless "Machine That Goes Ping." He explains to the doctors, nurses and students, who have forgotten all about the woman in labor, the twisted accounting brilliance this machine represents:

You see, we leased this back from the company we sold it to, and that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.

Everyone applauds.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...