|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 05:16 AM EDT |
Expanding on the "potentially dangerous" comment: I think this very much
shows Microsoft's motivation in their work with Nokia. Clearing out threats to
Windows from the Market place. If Meltimi, a low end limited platform was
"dangerous" then Meego/Maemo, a fully portable system capable of supporting high
end applications would have been extremely dangerous. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 07:00 AM EDT |
There has been endless debate about whether Nokia had no
other option but to
switch to Microsoft's WP7 OS, with some
insisting in-house alternatives were
not going to be ready
on time, others insisting Android wouldn't get them very
far
with all the Android OEMs already in the market. On the
other hand, many
concur with Tomi who feels the WP7 was an
illogical choice, and Nokia had a
perfectly workable path
forward without it. I thought this comment was germane
to
the debate...
@Story T
There is something I do not
understand in your reasoning.
According to you, it was a rational
decision to go for
WP7/WP8 as it had clearly better prospects in late 2010 than
in-house development.
If this was true, why were MS required to pay
$1B to Nokia
and promise another $1B, just for switching to
WP?
If WP was the smartest choice, MS would not have to pay off
Nokia
to switch to it (exclusively).
However, if Nokia would not have
switched without billions
from MS, then we must assume that Nokia saw WP as a
liability requiring compensation. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
