What is the track record of Microsoft in this kind of partnerships?
Genuine question.
Genuine question.
This, however, brings to mind the OS/2 deal, to me. If Microsoft culture is anything like it was in the 90s (which may not be the case), I would expect Microsoft to be a loyal partner with Nokia until such time as it is advantageous for them to go their own way, leaving Nokia holding the bag on a jointly developed "standard" platform that no one else wants.
But, hey, I'm a cynical old nerd that's been involved in technology too long. The fact that Microsoft is a distant third, and losing ground daily, in the market might make a difference in how they treat their friends.
I'm not sure that OS/2 is the best analogy. That wasn't a hardware company and software company teaming up. And it is unlikely that Nokia and Microsoft will evolve to become direct competitors in the way IBM and Microsoft did in the late 1980's and early 90's.
I can't make any sense of this statement. IBM was the definitive hardware company at the time. Microsoft was the definitive software company at the time. What kind of companies do you think they were?
"The supposed Microsoft Nokia partnership isn't joint development of a phone OS."
As far as I can tell, we have no idea what sort of partnership they have in mind. But, I would expect Nokia to want a unique value, if they build Windows phones. And they have a huge development workforce, and have made numerous software acquisitions over the years. I'd be surprised if they don't plan to write some code, too.
Apple is another example of a systems company.
You can't have it both ways. Nokia makes the vast majority of their own software and has for years. They have a huge software development staff, and have acquired a number of major software shops to augment it.
And, while we're on the subject, in the PC market, IBM did not, by and large, develop their own software. They contracted out to Microsoft to make the OS in the beginning, and then teamed up with them to make OS/2. So, technically, I guess you can't compare the two because Nokia makes a lot more of the software on its devices than IBM made on its early PCs. But, that's the opposite of the argument you've made above.
I don't think it really matters, though. I think this is a mistake for Nokia, and I think time will bear that assertion out.
And, of course, if you don't like the IBM and OS/2 comparison, how about SGI and Windows NT? That was a unique relationship between a hardware (and software) company and Microsoft that had disastrous consequences for SGI.
Hence the premise, "It looks more likely that Nokia could get out of the OS business altogether". Without that premise; yes, Nokia is obviously IBM. So question that premise rather than the validity of the argument, if that's your intention. I myself think it's a shaky premise, but given that premise, Nokia isn't IBM.
And, while we're on the subject, in the PC market, IBM did not, by and large, develop their own software
IBM had literally decades of experience developing their own software for every other type of computer before PC's even existed. Likewise, Nokia has decades of experience developing embedded software for cellular phones. Has Nokia matched iOS or Android yet? No, and neither had IBM matched the Apple II.
The company-defining question is where one goes from there--IBM adopted DOS as a stopgap but quickly worked to develop OS/2, first with Microsoft and then without them (hence attempting--and failing--to remain a systems company). Nokia has attempted to develop Symbian, but if they drop Symbian and decide to adopt Windows Phone (which, again, was expressly the premise of that comment), they would move in the opposite direction, like Tandy did.