Microsoft Ending its Short-Lived Tenure as Android Phone Maker(recode.net)
recode.net
Microsoft Ending its Short-Lived Tenure as Android Phone Maker
http://recode.net/2014/07/17/microsoft-pulls-back-on-nokias-short-lived-android-gambit/
14 comments
As you said, the Android phones were developed by Nokia before the acquisition was made. They were initially released by Nokia just before the acquisition went through. Also, I suspect you mean Windows Phone - Windows Mobile stopped being a thing in 2010, if I'm not mistaken.
I have a Nokia X1 and it's what you'd expect from a budget phone - low spec so a fair amount of lag. No Google Play but then the phone is aimed squarely at emerging markets (although there's a way to enable Play on the X1 anyway). The part I like most is that it's dual-SIM.
I have a Nokia X1 and it's what you'd expect from a budget phone - low spec so a fair amount of lag. No Google Play but then the phone is aimed squarely at emerging markets (although there's a way to enable Play on the X1 anyway). The part I like most is that it's dual-SIM.
[deleted]
This is good. The Lumia 520 proves that Windows Phone runs fine on the lowest end - in fact, it proves that it might be a better choice there.
All Microsoft needs to do is come up with a way to support more than a very select set of Qualcomm SoCs. Bringing Windows Phone to the same markets as Android and maybe Firefox OS will go for is very hard if you stick to a subset of the SoCs made by one vendor.
All Microsoft needs to do is come up with a way to support more than a very select set of Qualcomm SoCs. Bringing Windows Phone to the same markets as Android and maybe Firefox OS will go for is very hard if you stick to a subset of the SoCs made by one vendor.
My old Lumia 620 was a very solid phone, and the new 635 is coming in with LTE at $129 unlocked at the Microsoft Store. WP8 flies on very modest hardware. That's a phenomenal bargain on the low end. I don't see any point of having Android in their lineup.
> I don't see any point of having Android in their lineup.
Well, as someone who likes Major League Soccer, the inability to get MLS Live on a Windows Phone is a reason I as a user wouldn't see any point in buying a Windows Phone.
The point being that Windows Phone is kind of a failure, at least in terms of getting the ecosystem on par with iOS or Android, and it's been that way for many years with no signs of improvement. So I do see a point in a manufacturer of phones, even if you build your own phone OS like both Microsoft and Samsung do, making phones for operating systems developers actually care about.
This whole moving away from "devices and services" promise falls flat on its face in light of Microsoft investing more into Windows Phones. I don't think Microsoft has figured out that being only on 14% of devices means you should make software for other devices the focus of your company, not try to grow that 14% when the reality that this is very unlikely to happen seems kind of obvious.
I would have loved to buy a premium Nokia phone that runs Android.
Well, as someone who likes Major League Soccer, the inability to get MLS Live on a Windows Phone is a reason I as a user wouldn't see any point in buying a Windows Phone.
The point being that Windows Phone is kind of a failure, at least in terms of getting the ecosystem on par with iOS or Android, and it's been that way for many years with no signs of improvement. So I do see a point in a manufacturer of phones, even if you build your own phone OS like both Microsoft and Samsung do, making phones for operating systems developers actually care about.
This whole moving away from "devices and services" promise falls flat on its face in light of Microsoft investing more into Windows Phones. I don't think Microsoft has figured out that being only on 14% of devices means you should make software for other devices the focus of your company, not try to grow that 14% when the reality that this is very unlikely to happen seems kind of obvious.
I would have loved to buy a premium Nokia phone that runs Android.
But that's not what was being talked about here. Nokia X was low-end handsets running a forked version of Android without Google's services, including the Play Store. So you're looking at an app selection similar to what Amazon has for the Fire at best, not the full Android ecosystem. And you're not looking at premium devices. Microsoft has no interest in being another second-class Android OEM, competing with all the other companies that are losing to Samsung in that space.
Come on, 512MB RAM in 2014? Bargain? Underspecced device, unable to run any slightly advanced recent WP game, incomparable even to Moto E. 935 with Win 8.1 might be interesting to talk about, 635 is underwhelming, the only possible advantage are offline HERE Maps.
Meh, WP8 runs just fine on 512MB. On the other specs, the 635 is between the Moto E and Moto G LTE, notably: it has the same processor, storage, and LTE support as the Moto G LTE, despite being the same price as the E ($129) and much cheaper than the G LTE ($219).
You have to make compromises to hit these price points, and with WP8's memory efficiency, I think the often dramatic user-visible improvement from supporting LTE is a much bigger deal than being able to play certain memory-intensive games.
You have to make compromises to hit these price points, and with WP8's memory efficiency, I think the often dramatic user-visible improvement from supporting LTE is a much bigger deal than being able to play certain memory-intensive games.
If you look at forum complaints with low-end WP devices, most people complain exactly about low memory that prevents them to install a lot of interesting stuff from the Windows Phone Store. I couldn't believe when Nokia decided to limit availability of 525 to 3rd world countries (that one had 1GB), and continued offering 520/6xx in the rest of the world, and then acting surprised when their sales were dropping like crazy. And after that they decided to release 635 again with 512MB...
I remember when Elop was arguing that WP doesn't need to support more cores as it runs fine on a single core (when Nokia didn't have multicore SoC supplier and MS had only single core kernel in WP7). Immediately as Nokia signed Qualcomm and MS released multicore kernel in WP8, Elop started marketing the more cores, the better. I just have feeling that your argument is a different version of the same.
I remember when Elop was arguing that WP doesn't need to support more cores as it runs fine on a single core (when Nokia didn't have multicore SoC supplier and MS had only single core kernel in WP7). Immediately as Nokia signed Qualcomm and MS released multicore kernel in WP8, Elop started marketing the more cores, the better. I just have feeling that your argument is a different version of the same.
I'm not saying that 512MB isn't a step down from 1GB. I'm saying that, considering WP8's overall memory efficiency, I'd rather have LTE (Lumia 635) at the $129 price point than the extra memory (Moto E). I think for typical usage (web, e-mail, music, etc), the 635 is a lot more compelling than the E, because of LTE + double the storage. I certainly don't see how you can call it "underwhelming" given that the E with lesser specs on everything except memory has gotten very good press for being a good value.
Lowest? Android is on $25 (retail) handsets. I've not seen WinPho running on the same cost hardware as FFOS, either.
At that cost, the licensing fees eat up a significant chunk of profit. Not to mention that the OEMs now have a several years' of Android experience.
At that cost, the licensing fees eat up a significant chunk of profit. Not to mention that the OEMs now have a several years' of Android experience.
The problem with the $25 handsets is that they are unusable abysmal pieces of junk. I've used an $80 Android and it was impossibly horrible. The 520 is pretty neat and performs well. My daughter has one.
I'm one for Android though so I settled for a Moto G 8Gb which is just about the lowest price Android handset that actually works properly.
I'm one for Android though so I settled for a Moto G 8Gb which is just about the lowest price Android handset that actually works properly.
>At that cost, the licensing fees eat up a significant chunk of profit.
Where can you get a $25 Android handset?
AliExpress, though the listings might be lying.
$50 is a more reasonable ceiling: http://www.aliexpress.com/category/5090301/mobile-phones.htm...
That said, from everything I've heard they're almost unusable.
$50 is a more reasonable ceiling: http://www.aliexpress.com/category/5090301/mobile-phones.htm...
That said, from everything I've heard they're almost unusable.
Sorry, got the £$ conversion the wrong way round!
It's easy to find £40 handsets (no contract) in the UK. See http://www.carphonewarehouse.com/phone/alcatel/alcatel-pop-c...
Is it shitty? No, not if it's your first smartphone. Or it's the most convenient way to read Wikipedia / play Angry Birds.
Is it shitty? No, not if it's your first smartphone. Or it's the most convenient way to read Wikipedia / play Angry Birds.
I too am interested. The cheapest I was able to find (and one that is almost definitely a terrible phone) is here on DX.com[1] and is still $44.55.
[1] http://www.dx.com/p/m-h0rse-9500mini-w-e08-sc7710-android-4-...
[1] http://www.dx.com/p/m-h0rse-9500mini-w-e08-sc7710-android-4-...
Windows Phone on the Lumia 520 is indeed surprisingly fantastic. It's an easy recommendation for a phone that costs $50 new-in-box without a contract.
Well Microsoft still makes more money off of Android than Windows Phone with their patent licensing deal.
Why go through the trouble of making your own Android phone when you make great money (some say $5 per phone, which is about $2bn) off of other people doing it.
Why go through the trouble of making your own Android phone when you make great money (some say $5 per phone, which is about $2bn) off of other people doing it.
You know capitalism works when a company gets $5 per handset for doing absolutely nothing. The patent system is totally farcical.
Except Microsoft actually does innovate, and they also use their patents. They pour quite a bit of money into their research division, why shouldn't they get a return from that investment?
There are absolutely huge issues with the patent system, but Microsoft's patent licensing profits are not among them.
There are absolutely huge issues with the patent system, but Microsoft's patent licensing profits are not among them.
It's all fun and games in your job/startup until Microsoft comes in and demands royalties for their patents (most of them obvious implementations).
But when it happens to HTC, Samsung, etc it's just: "why shouldn't they get a return from that investment?"
Microsoft (or any other company for the matter) demanding patent royalties after treating to sue a product they had no hand in producing, is wrong.
Earning more money form their patent extortion from a competitor's product than it's own implementation, it's just sad and pathetic.
But when it happens to HTC, Samsung, etc it's just: "why shouldn't they get a return from that investment?"
Microsoft (or any other company for the matter) demanding patent royalties after treating to sue a product they had no hand in producing, is wrong.
Earning more money form their patent extortion from a competitor's product than it's own implementation, it's just sad and pathetic.
Sorry explain exactly why MS deserve to make more money than the actual Company investing all the R&D into developing Android OS just because they can use their cash warchest to acquire offensive patents they're anti-competitively using to artificially inflate the cost of their competitor products?
Is this the kind of ideal use of software patents that rewards innovators and end-consumers?
Is this the kind of ideal use of software patents that rewards innovators and end-consumers?
[deleted](1)
They pour quite a bit of money into their research division, why shouldn't they get a return from that investment?
They should get a return. But nothing they created contributed to Android, so they shouldn't be extorting money from Android vendors.
The patents that Microsoft has been willing to assert publicly against Android are dominated by FAT patents which describe a system for working around the limits of Microsoft's own file system. Nobody wants to use Microsoft's file system for its own merits -- plenty of free systems exist that have none of its drawbacks and Android uses them internally. Android uses FAT only to interchange information with Microsoft systems and others based on their backwards filesystem. The patent system has been abused to allow Microsoft to block compatibility without contributing anything technological. It's a classical failure mode of the patent system which was supposed to promote innovation and publication, not vendor lock in.
They should get a return. But nothing they created contributed to Android, so they shouldn't be extorting money from Android vendors.
The patents that Microsoft has been willing to assert publicly against Android are dominated by FAT patents which describe a system for working around the limits of Microsoft's own file system. Nobody wants to use Microsoft's file system for its own merits -- plenty of free systems exist that have none of its drawbacks and Android uses them internally. Android uses FAT only to interchange information with Microsoft systems and others based on their backwards filesystem. The patent system has been abused to allow Microsoft to block compatibility without contributing anything technological. It's a classical failure mode of the patent system which was supposed to promote innovation and publication, not vendor lock in.
1. "Absolutely nothing"? Let's not forget Microsoft was a huge player in mobile pre-iPhone, and many of the features we take for granted were innovated by them back then. The fact that Android just re-implemented them does not mean that the original innovations lost any value.
2. The oft-repeated "litigating instead of competing" meme is wrong. Windows Phone does compete on the merits. WP devices regularly get decent reviews. Most people who've tried them prefer the OS to Android. Personally I've seen WP work smoother on lower-specced hardware than Android on a more powerful device.
Windows Phone actually did something innovative when it came out and differentiated itself greatly from the the iPhone. Something that, you know, Android didn't bother with until Apple started suing left and right.
Arguably the only reason Android has the market share it has is because Google gives it away for free, because its search monopoly profits allow it to do so. When Microsoft did the same thing with browsers, they were being "anticompetitive", but when Google does it, it's not? If you think Google does not browbeat OEMs the way Microsoft did, look into the Skyhook lawsuit where a whole bunch of confidential licensing agreements spilled out.
3. If Google can attack Microsoft's business model, Microsoft can certainly attack Google's. People here just don't like Microsoft's attacks because they don't like patents in general. I mean, every patent ever is automatically deemed to be "broad" and "bogus", but nobody even knows how patents work.
2. The oft-repeated "litigating instead of competing" meme is wrong. Windows Phone does compete on the merits. WP devices regularly get decent reviews. Most people who've tried them prefer the OS to Android. Personally I've seen WP work smoother on lower-specced hardware than Android on a more powerful device.
Windows Phone actually did something innovative when it came out and differentiated itself greatly from the the iPhone. Something that, you know, Android didn't bother with until Apple started suing left and right.
Arguably the only reason Android has the market share it has is because Google gives it away for free, because its search monopoly profits allow it to do so. When Microsoft did the same thing with browsers, they were being "anticompetitive", but when Google does it, it's not? If you think Google does not browbeat OEMs the way Microsoft did, look into the Skyhook lawsuit where a whole bunch of confidential licensing agreements spilled out.
3. If Google can attack Microsoft's business model, Microsoft can certainly attack Google's. People here just don't like Microsoft's attacks because they don't like patents in general. I mean, every patent ever is automatically deemed to be "broad" and "bogus", but nobody even knows how patents work.
This is probably for the best. Any Android phone without Google Play services (targeting a user base primarily in North America and Western Europe) is bound to be DOA. Minimal OS differentiation but a sizable gap in the app store when it comes to "must have" apps.
The devices in question weren't targeting North America or Western Europe.
True. I should rephrase that to say that if the Android phone isn't in a market where local apps can possibly invalidate the need for the top tier apps in Google Play, for example Weibo in China, then the AOSP phone isn't going to fare well (I'm looking at you Amazon Fire Phone).
That's a lot of qualifiers and still doesn't have anything to do with these Nokia phones.
The thing that REALLY surprises me is that according to the article they pulled the plug on Asha and S40 phones. That's insane. In the market where the volumes are (Asia, Africa) they are everywhere.
In Q3 2013 Nokia sold 47 million feature phones (6 times more than their Lumias). In comparison, Apple sold 31 million iPhones in that time frame.
Pulling the plug on that seems crazy to me. Big opportunity for Firefox OS though, as it was created to compete at the Asha price level. If there is no competition from Nokia/MS anymore the only offering between 30-50 USD will be FFOS devices.
In Q3 2013 Nokia sold 47 million feature phones (6 times more than their Lumias). In comparison, Apple sold 31 million iPhones in that time frame.
Pulling the plug on that seems crazy to me. Big opportunity for Firefox OS though, as it was created to compete at the Asha price level. If there is no competition from Nokia/MS anymore the only offering between 30-50 USD will be FFOS devices.
I think it's safe to assume this also means the end of the Windows Phone/Android dual boot concept that has been floating around for a while: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2107863/microsoft-shakes-up-w...
Nokia/Meego and Nokia/Android both nixed at launch. Could the redundant Microsoft Nokia people be hired by Nokia Research in Finland? Launch a new device when the Nokia smartphone trademark reverts in 2016?
This was almost certain to happen. It would have been extremely uncharacteristic of Microsoft to continue this product line.
Unfortunately, this also closes off an avenue to Nadella to prod Windows Phone to become truly competitive as a mobile platform, and for Microsoft's ecosystem to have an in-house target for platforms other than Windows Phone.
Unfortunately, this also closes off an avenue to Nadella to prod Windows Phone to become truly competitive as a mobile platform, and for Microsoft's ecosystem to have an in-house target for platforms other than Windows Phone.
Microsoft is definitely targeting Android - its just that they don't think they need to 1) fork or 2) provide hardware that runs Android to be successful.
Of course that's what they are thinking. But that line of thinking is brittle in a couple of ways: With no constituency for applications on an Android runtime inside of Microsoft, there will be a tendency to find "synergy" and make products for Windows Phone first. Windows Phone has a small enough share that it could fall off the bottom of the mobile market share ladder. Even without a complete market failure, the natural tendency to serve an internal constituency first and best will limit the reach of Microsoft's ecosystem.
There is a good case to be made that Amazon is a better competitor against Google's media products because Amazon's native platform is based on AOSP and development uses the Android toolchain.
There is a good case to be made that Amazon is a better competitor against Google's media products because Amazon's native platform is based on AOSP and development uses the Android toolchain.
Another win for the Windows division to the detriment of the company as a whole. Nokia X might have been a bad idea, but we'll never know for sure now.
Bummer. The only reason i stopped buying Nokia phones is because they didn't have an Android version otherwise the hardware is solid.
Nothing against windows phone but it doesn't have the apps I'm used to and I don't really want to switch to it.
The brief experience i had with it connecting other peoples phones to the WiFi the menus didn't seem very intuitive.
Nothing against windows phone but it doesn't have the apps I'm used to and I don't really want to switch to it.
The brief experience i had with it connecting other peoples phones to the WiFi the menus didn't seem very intuitive.
That was an unnecessary distraction from the get-go. How did Nokia/Microsoft ever expect to compete with the Huaweis or Xiamois of the world on price with an OS that is clearly seen as 'not theirs'. Odd to begin with.
It's logical, there is no longer a need to copy Metro GUI to Android now - Google is already doing it for them.
They were never too serious about it. If they were, they would've put real Android on one of their flagship phones, not WP8's ugly step brother, with even fewer apps, and on a phone that was about as exciting as a rock.
That was the Last sign of Nokia's existence.
Second system effect unfortunately :-( IMHO They should have started with a simpler Harmattan-level functionality rather than redesigning most of the things and getting inspiration even from WP with the color palette and UI layouts. They lost authenticity and originality in the process, N9 seemed super elegant comparing to the 1st Jolla phone, the icons especially are unpleasant to look at. And I say this as a fan of Jolla and previously of MeeGo/Maemo. I hope they will improve with their 2nd device.
Well as the Product Manager for Nokia Z Launcher, I beg to differ ;)
So does that mean we are not getting rid of the Windows phone "scourge"? No offence, but it's just another OS to support which we don't really need... another copy of IE to tolerate... ;-)
(for the comically-challenged, this was a joke)
(for the comically-challenged, this was a joke)
Even without Windows Phone you will probably have more than two mobile OSs to support. Some of the contenders will gain a foothold in the market and you will be writing apps in Qt or Javascript on some mobile platform's framework.
Running an internal project to get Android working with Microsoft's services as a hedge against Windows Mobile failing - a bit like Apple did with OSX on Intel - I can understand.
But to actually release it as a product only to kill it a short time later I don't.
Good though they may have been (I have no idea), they should never have seen the light of day. It demonstrates a lack of focus, makes it clear Microsoft isn't confident in its own platform and is a waste of resources and effort. Like the Kin.