Right, and even if they get a sweet deal from Microsoft, they are still betting on an unknown with much of their success dependent on Microsoft.
In Android, they'd build on a known platform with success or failure in their own hands. Don't like what Google is doing in the future? They'd have options without abandoning the platform. Hell, they could let Google develop the core, port Qt, use Bing maps and search, and Amazon Appstore.
Do we know enough about the terms of the partnership to know that? MS is certainly capable of screwing over their existing hardware partners (see also: PlaysForSure) My hunch is that Nokia wouldn't have gone for the deal if they're just going to be another mere supplier.
My impression is that nobody but an ex-Microsoft employee would even consider such idea.
This partnership benefits Microsoft's executives in the mobile division, who will have their vindication in a major phone maker going with their platform instead of Android. Their bonuses will be outlandish this year. It hardly benefits Nokia, who is betting the company on an unknown platform nobody else is betting on.
A friend of mine usually said that when you see two lines in the bank, one being much shorter than the other, you can bet the short one is the wrong line for you.
I should have split my comment - I didn't really mean to imply that the reason his time was quite short was because I don't think he performed at the same level of Sinofsky.
To be clear (and fair to Elop), whether or not he was effective at his role wasn't very clear to me. What I can say is this:
* His time at Microsoft was quite short. While he may have a monetary incentive for this deal, I doubt he has any cultural ties to "go Microsoft"
* His impact on MS was (to me, anyway) minimal. He seemed to be in charge of keeping the ship going in a straight line, without the pressure of changing direction. There definitely wasn't anything like what is going on at Nokia to "test his mettle", so to speak.
"A friend of mine usually said that when you see two lines in the bank, one being much shorter than the other, you can bet the short one is the wrong line for you."
a bit OT but worth it nonetheless:
my father always sas than whenever there is bureaucracy involved (i.e. the DMV, embassies, other government departments, etc.) one should choose the shortest line - it means that the clerk in place there is probably the most efficient and less inclined to play "power games" with you.
Served me right on several occasions.
I have missed several trains because of this, the ticket box with the shortest line was usually the one when some clueless grandma sieged the cashier with endless stream of questions about the ticket and travel directions and who knows what, with only few last remaining people, who have invested so much of their time that they couldn't justify leaving for another, longer, queue line.
Yeah, I've encountered those as well. "Hi, I'd like to go to Madrid, from Copenhagen, utilizing only local trains, and going through Vienna - can you tell me the connections?"
don't they already have major manufacturers producing wp7 phones? I am quite sure I have seen a commercial showing a samsung phone with WP7 installed (and android as a second option)
