Hacker News Reader

Comment by arethuza | Hacker News Reader

"for fear of arrest"

Whether you agree with the decision or not, nothing about it sounds in the least bit criminal.

An executive switches from company M to competitor N then abruptly throws much of N's development investment in the trash and signs a deal to license all of it from M instead, it smells funny.

I'm not saying anything actually is wrong, I don't know enough about it to care. But what I do see is Nokia being a big employer and part of national pride for Finland. This will likely become an issue in politics there.

They'd be wise not to lay off a single soul due to this deal at this point. Ironically, if Nokia really did need to trim R&D expenses, they may have more trouble doing it now.

Keep in mind the EU is still active in MS antitrust and users are offered the choice of Firefox when they install Windows. I would not want to be the guy who's name was attached to the sinking of Nokia at the advantage of Microsoft.

I am assuming the board talked about something like this happening - even directly with Elop - before hiring him. It's not like it's totally surprising.

I really wouldn't be surprised if the decision to shut down work on their own software platform had already been taken and he was hired and told to decide between Android or WP7 - with the expectation no doubt being that as he was from Microsoft he'd favor the latter.

The germ of this deal probably dates to the early days of WP7 development - seriously, Microsoft would have been negligent if they were not shopping for partners early on. For those deep inside the phone business, it probably has been a well known rumor for some time, which would explain the course taken by Motorola and HTC more plausibly than the corporate spite the article assumes.

But if the board wanted to consider switching to "someone else's platform", why would they hire someone from Microsoft?

Does this suggest that the board wanted to do a deal with Microsoft all along? If so, why would they need to hire him to do it?

Or that they didn't know what they wanted and this guy seized the initiative?

Edit: answering my own question. I think the board probably brought this guy in to take the heat in case this deal goes really bad from a PR and legal perspective.

It certainly surprised the Nokia staff. Wasn't it communicated inside the company? If so, why? I bet the answers to those questions are very interesting.

It's surprising to a degree, yes. But less surprising than if he was to announce, say, that Nokia is pivoting to become an oil company. He came from Microsoft on a rescue mission to a company where software was widely acknowledged to be the biggest problem.

  But less surprising than if he was to announce, say, that Nokia is pivoting to become an oil company.

Definitely, since that'd be utterly absurd.

Doesn't that pretty well describe the reasonably successful approach Apple used in moving to Mac OS X? Sure there are differences: Jobs was at Apple before; Apple bought Next; .... There are also similarities in that the MS/Nokia partnership represents a pivot from the current course that has no migration path other than total change.

no. Apple bought Next, they didn't license tech from them. Nokia is licensing tech from MS. those are very different circumstances indeed.

What part of "Apple bought Next" did you not read?

i read it, and commented on why that was the important factor, as opposed to licensing. and i did so without copping an attitude.

Except Apple now owns the technology, which is significantly different than licensing the technology.

nokia is a private company and is answerable to only its shareholders...there might be a backlash in Finland but any company that has to take or does take business decisions based on political/nationalistic considerations will find it hard to be competitive in the global economy

No, they're a publicly traded company answerable to their shareholders and the legal systems of Finland, the EU, and the US NYSE and SEC.

Any company that comprises a measurable percentage of a country's GDP and a big share of its exports had better take into account some political considerations.

Europe's anti-trust laws are very different from the USA's. I don't know enough about it to be sure, but simply making anti-competative actions such as partnering can be illegal.

If you have a dominant market position. Between iOS, Android and RIM, two minor players joining up isn't going to be a problem.

Huh, makes me wonder if the alternate platforms they are supporting (MeeGo, two Symbians) are just distractions to help satisfy the political situation (legal or otherwise).

And their 3rd party developers are asking themselves exactly that question.

Developers aren't dumb. Hedging one's bets often makes for a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Might be if he has a bunch of MSFT options - particularly if those options were tied to the performance of the Wp7 platform.

It depends on local law and where you are applying it. Elop's action can be interpreted as in breach of his duties towards Nokia shareholders. 15% of Nokia's value evaporated this morning.

There are places he could be arrested if there are any hints this value destruction is on purpose.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com