With Microsoft they only have one other party to depend on, and they know they are a big deal to that party. Heck the rumour is that Microsoft pays Nokia $200 per Windows phone shipped. The reality is that the success of Windows phone is tied to the success of Nokia.
If using Android Google wouldn't have been able to play favourites much with Nokia. (See how they treat Motorola who they own.) If Nokia was on Android, the success of the platform wouldn't be that relevant to the success of Nokia.
So do you want to be a big fish in a little pond where the success of the pond depends on your success, or a small fish in a large pond where you are mostly irrelevant, but have more "control"?
Nokia's fundamental problem is that they have difficulty executing on software development. Getting someone else to do substantial chunks of development helps, but I've never seen anything indicating they have figured out development yet. So even if they had gone Android, what evidence is there they would have done it well?
> So do you want to be a big fish in a little pond
But how is this a little pond? Basically every other big player offering Android phones also offer Windows Phones. If Nokia starts making money with windows Phones, everybody else will also start making money with windows phones. If the pond grows, all other fish will also grow and consume the growing pond, so Nokias share will remain the same. The pond is only little as there is no money in it.
From all the other big players, only Nokia for some reason limited itself to offering only Windows phones. If they think their Android phones couldn't beat other Android phones, how exactly are their Windows phones supposed to beat other Windows phones? If they somehow can apply a magic formula to make Windows Phones a success, what hinders them from applying that same formula to Android?
Nokia didnt want to become just another Android manufacturer and get a small piece of the big Android pie, instead they've become just another Windows Phone manufacturer and will get a small piece of the small Windows Phone pie.
My interpretation as to why they went with Windows Phone:
1. The $$$, it's hard to turn down more than $1 billion dollars in a year (and probably more per device sold). Just makes the stupid gamble harder to turn down.
2. Nokia can still go with Android at anytime (and maybe they will once their exclusivity contract ends with Microsoft).
There aren't that many Windows phones available and as an example you won't find phones by Samsung, Motorola, Huawei, LG etc. And as the chart above shows what is out there isn't selling.
The rising tide lifts all boats arguments is correct, but there is a significant lead time in coming out with new phones. Last time I looked it was around 18 months, so new players jumping in will have a lag of around that much. There is first mover advantage.
Nokia's problem is execution, especially with software. Developing for two platforms (Windows and Android) wouldn't have made them any better at it. Better to concentrate your efforts in one place and succeed than spread and fail.
I do agree with your speculation as to the future - no matter what they do they won't get too far unless they fix their software development - and to a large degree the platform or how many of them doesn't matter that much except how much work they have to do.
> The reality is that the success of Windows phone is tied to the success of Nokia.
The difference is that if WP7 fails (and it did, since it'll be replaced by WP8, W8 or whatever the thing is called), Nokia flops and Microsoft walks. It's a classic bacon-and-eggs partnership, where Microsoft brings in the eggs and Nokia is the bacon.
> I've never seen anything indicating they have figured out development yet
Why would they? They run a third party software stack.
> what evidence is there they would have done it well?
Not much, really. Meebo was technically impressive and poorly marketed, but then there is Microsoft, with a proven track record of ruining anything non-desktop.
If Android or WP failed, Google and Microsoft could both walk. The difference is that if Nokia was on Android and Nokia failed then Android would keep going. If Nokia fails on WP then Microsoft probably walks and that is a huge blow to Microsoft.
Google can advertise at you almost irrespective of platform you are using. But Microsoft is getting no relevance (or revenue) when you use the new mobile platforms. It is a mistake to think of the "phone" platforms as phones. They are really a new software platform that coincidentally can sometimes make phone calls (on some of the devices). http://daringfireball.net/2012/07/iphone_disruption_five_yea...
Do you realise that non-desktop (Android, iOS etc) devices/platforms will soon (~2013) outship desktops and that the prognosis is a consequent decline in Microsoft's relevance? That would such an incredibly bad thing for Microsoft to walk away from.
See platform stuff above. It is all about the software. You'll always want to personalise your offering in some way, even if it is as trivial as changing the default search engine in response to kickbacks. But generally you'll want to do more. Nokia also has divisions like Navteq (maps).
On the personalization point, no you don't have to. Honestly, I find that all changes done to Android by manufacturers tend to make it worse and not better.
Also, before iPhone and Android came along, Nokia was pretty much the only company that knew how to execute on hardware. In 2006, I would never have considered buying anything other than Nokia. Samsung, HTC and Motorola all made shitty flimsy phones.
If Nokia had gone with Android early, they wouldn't have needed to customize their offering. I'm willing to bet that Nokia hardware running stock Android would've sold like hotcakes in 2008-2009
> On the personalization point, no you don't have to. Honestly, I find that all changes done to Android by manufacturers tend to make it worse and not better.
We never talked about whether the others were any good at software either. The reality is that the iPhone was a transformation from a hardware centric device to a software centric one. And most manufacturers are terrible at software. Have you ever heard anyone praising the quality and usability of software from Samsung, LG or HTC?
Android let them avoid doing software, but for commercial reasons you still want to do something. If you have exactly the same software on two devices then the user will use price as the differentiator. Software is an easy way to make them look different, and to give people a reason to pay more you need to have something unique. As a Motorola person explained there is no way Verizon is going to stock a bunch of different phones where the only difference is a little Samsung/Motorola/LG logo.
Nokia's plans were all over the place. They were developing multiple different platforms concurrently, but weren't getting traction on the new ones. They had no idea there was a problem, hence no inkling of an Android solution.
If they went Android they too would have customized it to give people a reason to buy their devices over the competition. (The million people a day activating devices are not you or me.)
You can of course prove every manufacturer wrong by starting your own company that does stock only, and make reasonable profits. We'd all love to hear a success story like that :-)
It's certainly true that differentiation matters, but I'm not sure how it benefits Verizon when training sales people on platforms is so important and they barely succeed on getting people who can answer questions about iPhone and Android.
Interesting quote from the Motorola person, I'm guessing the reason to favor Samsung is more subtle. (Such as, the Galaxy is a sexier phone and easier to push, or the Droid name got old and is closely associated with Motorola, or Motorola moved too slowly on 4GLTE devices.)
Verizon needs differentiation so they can play manufacturers off against each other. If the phones from several different manufacturers are essentially identical (aka "stock") then there is no point stocking all of them since that really would cause consumer confusion. By having a variety of devices they don't become too dependent on one manufacturer.
Like any geek I strongly prefer stock. But if I was in the business there is no way I would do it. Since Google is weak on social I'd make sure my "enhanced" software experience put Facebook front and centre. I'd make my screen contents seem bright (choice of theme and default wallpaper). Consumers are notorious for buying the loudest sound systems (something Bose exploits) and the brightest TVs (hence default modes on them). HTC's stuff looks good - it shows the time in big digits, somewhat retro with the weather. And then I'd sure as heck make it sound like you are getting more. Literally by claiming various enhanced sound apps, I'd do something about storage (eg a partnership with Dropbox), and something about peace of mind should you lose the device (remote wipe, lock, gps find me) and more.
The moment you start the customizations even if it is just additional widgets & apps, extra wallpapers etc it becomes a simple slippery slope from stock. They all give people a reason to buy your "enhanced experience" phones versus anyone saying they have just stock.
It doesn't matter so much how big of a fish you are in the pond, if the pond is really small. Nokia was the biggest fish in the Symbian and Meego pond as well.
If WP7 was a runaway success, other manufacturers would flock around it in no time.
Do you really think Microsoft is a loyal, dependable long-time partner, based on their previous track record?
In this sentence, 'they' is Google and they are the subject. The 'actor' in the sentence. The 'actor' mistreats and owns the object in this sentence. The proper word to use for the owned object is whom.
Sidebar: It is my sincere belief that people who take naturally to the structure and nature of grammar have an easier time programming (I'm a coder).
What would be your opinion on those who have another mother tongue than english? If they never succeed to master all the details of english grammar, do you consider they are doomed to have a hard time programming?
> If they never succeed to master all the details of english grammar, do you consider they are doomed to have a hard time programming?
I was actually talking about anybody's ability to master the intricacies of grammar in general, not specific to English.
That aside, it's commonly understood that programming without knowing English isolates you greatly and robs you of the opportunity to both collaborate with and benefit from 99% of other programmers.
English has been and continues to be the lingua franca of programming.
I understand your point of view. Here's my insight on this.
French is my mother tongue, and I was quite good at it a few years ago. I thought that people misusing words or making blatant grammar errors were careless and demonstrated an absence of perfectionism. Then I started to work and study in English. Since then, my level of English has greatly improved, but my mastery of French syntax and grammar intricacies is decreasing. In fact, I noticed that I tend to forget much of the edge cases of French. Sometime I write a text in French and get to feel bad while re-reading it, knowing I used to have a much better style and grammar.
Of course, I could dedicate a greater part of my time to nurturing my study of both languages details. But natural languages intricacies are too often irrationals, or too far stretching for the added value they bring. Thus I have a hard time finding the passion to go in their details, master them and use them. I don't mean I won't investigate them when I first encounter them; I will out of curiosity, but I won't give them as much importance.
Now, I got to start learning a third language, which is fundamentally different from French and English: Vietnamese. As I study it, I find further less reasons to concentrate on each languages edge cases. I understand the beauty of using a language to its full extent. But I do not intend to be a master of any specific language, I intend on communicating ideas in the three languages. I prefer being a master at communicating using languages, than being a master at communicating in one language. As long as I am able to communicate any idea of any complexity, I'll be fine.
Maybe it's a sad use of the Art of Languages, using only their generic components. But I feel my brain can only hold this much by-hearth-illogical-details, and there are only so few minutes left in my life, I have to make good use of each one.
So now, my perspective on language comes to be that my ability to communicate with 90% correctness with as many people as possible is more important than my ability to be correct 100% of the time in a single language.
It's quite similar to my view on programming languages. They come and they go: concentrating on a single one, learning and exploiting its intricacies seems inefficient to the bigger picture, and more error prone when working with other people who might not understand my use of little known features. Knowing to effectively convey meaning in many languages seems more useful. Not that I wish to be "jack-of-all trades, master of none"; just that I think I can be a master at languages, without being master of a language.
So to sum it up, I used to think mastery of a language was a symbol of perfectionism. Then I got to feel that only so many details about a language are useful in 99% of the cases. Then my recent experience at learning a third language further comforted this opinion. And when I look back at my friends who write perfect French but have little energy left to learn other languages, I feel sorry for them as they are putting themselves in cages.
Thus, I think one can have an easy time programming even though they do not master the intricacies of a single natural language. =)
If using Android Google wouldn't have been able to play favourites much with Nokia. (See how they treat Motorola who they own.) If Nokia was on Android, the success of the platform wouldn't be that relevant to the success of Nokia.
So do you want to be a big fish in a little pond where the success of the pond depends on your success, or a small fish in a large pond where you are mostly irrelevant, but have more "control"?
Nokia's fundamental problem is that they have difficulty executing on software development. Getting someone else to do substantial chunks of development helps, but I've never seen anything indicating they have figured out development yet. So even if they had gone Android, what evidence is there they would have done it well?