Skip to main content

Report: Ballmer had board pushback on Nokia deal, originally included HERE Maps division

Bloomberg BusinessWeek has a fascinating article today on the behind-the-scenes maneuvering by Microsoft on the Nokia devices acquisition. The four page article is mostly about how CEO Nadella is putting things back together, and asserting his vision, but there are some enthralling tidbits too about how the Nokia deal came to be.

In the report, it’s revealed that the original deal included Nokia’s HERE Maps in addition to Nokia’s hardware division. That’s interesting, if only because many arm-chair CEOs have suggested that Microsoft should just buy everything from Nokia. The Microsoft board, however, disagreed. The main complaint? The deal was “too expensive and complex” and the mapping division was not even needed (between Bing Maps and licensing, it’s not clear why Microsoft needs to own HERE Maps).

Even more revealing was a straw poll on the initial purchase. Future CEO Nadella was initially against the deal, though he changed his mind on the final vote. Outgoing Tony Bates was “staunchly opposed” and probably the biggest blow was Bill Gates was not on board either, expressing concern whether the company really needs to head into hardware. From the report:

“Gates didn’t agree that the world’s largest software maker should produce its own mobile devices, and Ballmer was hurt that Gates didn’t back him, the people said. At November’s shareholder meeting, General Counsel Brad Smith had to persuade them to take the stage together.”

Ballmer reportedly yelled a lot during the meeting, and some board members have hinted to Bloomberg that it was him not listening to their concerns that finally began the push to oust him from CEO.

New vision, new identity

It seems to be apparent now that Microsoft’s foray into hardware, including the Surface – which was critically praised, but suffered from lackluster sales – was not something the company was united on. Divisions, often reflecting the siloed nature of the company, seem to arise around this question of should Microsoft make its own hardware, and specifically, mobile phones?

Nadella was reportedly against this move, but has since come around. But the divisions the Nokia purchase wrought are obvious, with Tony Bates moving on from the company and other reorganizations expected in the future.

While Microsoft buying Nokia, who controls around 80% of the Windows Phone market, seems evident to outsiders, it’s clear that Microsoft’s board was much more hesitant. But with rumors of Nokia making Android phones after the February 2014, it looks like time was of the essence back when talks began in February 2013.

The Microsoft-Nokia deal is in its final days of approval, although Samsung and Google may delay things.

Source: Bloomberg BusinesWeek

Daniel Rubino
Executive Editor

Daniel Rubino is the Executive Editor of Windows Central, head reviewer, podcast co-host, and analyst. He has been covering Microsoft here since 2007, back when this site was called WMExperts (and later Windows Phone Central). His interests include Windows, Microsoft Surface, laptops, next-gen computing, and arguing with people on the internet.

184 Comments
  • According to original report( NYT)  , Nokia's chairman demanded that Here Maps was taken off the table evven before they get started with the  buyout talks. Here Maps wasn't for sale to begin with .    http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/the-long-road-to-nokia-deal-a-b...
  • Everything is for sale.
  • in MEXICO!
  • ??????  
  • I hope you're joking. Whatsapp solld out for 19 billion where??? Microsoft paid 7 billion for the handset division. Nokia already sold their headquarters building for cash. In Nokia's case it's not 1 persons choice it's a board / shareholders. EVERYTHING is for sale. Microsoft had opportunity to buy B.B. and yahoo recently.They passed because there was no value added. Same with Nokia's Here services. It was redundant and added no value. So Microsoft only bought a piece of the pie instead of the whole pie.
  • Let us keep the facts straight: Ballmer wanted to buy Yahoo, it was that minus habens of Jerry Yang that refused the offer.
  • Which original report? Bloomberg specifically noted 
    "The board rejected the first deal as too expensive and complex, including not only the handset division but also a mapping unit Microsoft didn’t need."
    The first deal. It sounds like either there was a price, or the MS board was split on whether they should try and buy HERE Maps too.
  • I think soon, Nokia will give everything to Microsoft.
  • You think wrong.
  • ...but Microsoft won't buy it. Its not worth it. Whatever was worth has been purchased or licensed already.
  • Actually it is quite the opposite: the division making phones was loosing money; other Nokia activities are profitable. http://propakistani.pk/2014/01/24/nokia-announces-last-financial-report-before-buyout/
  • If the handset division was not profitable, then why are all Finns upset that the division was sold? Please don't drop the old, "Asha was on fire until the WP deal". Please give an honest answer.
  • They are upset because Nokia handsets became sort of national trademark. I imagine that If Nokia stopped making phones altogether, they would be upset as well.
  •     National pride; if Winchester were bought by a foreign company would not a lot of US people be upset?     Besides it is not an "If" as you are trying to imply. It is clearly stated in Nokia financial statement which is an official document.
  • If "it" (Asha) was selling so well, why windows phone, android, or any other for that matter? Why was it not eating Android or Apples market share? Honestly it was choppy and laggy just like their latest android X phones; that being said, what makes the x better than Asha? Last bit not least, pride doesn't ensure a companies profitability or survival..
    ..Money talks, bullsh*t walks. You belove board chose, "Show me the Money"
  • Asha are feature phones, Android, WP and Apple are smartphones. Besides, reading Nokia financial statement, which is an official report, not something generated by the PR department clearly show which Nokia divisions were/are profitable and which not.
  • Again, if it was profitable, why move away from it now? You seem to be avoiding he question, because asha live on even after the wp lumia line; it was only a week or so ago that the X series was announced. Lumia is supposable selling well overseas with the exception of maybe China and Japan, so why even get on the Android train if the two platforms you currently support are doing well? According to Finn's, asha is selling like hotcakes, and according to media reports, WP is doing well in many European countries even surpassing the iphone in many; with that being said, if the x line isn't going to be sold in the US, why would you inject a device into the regions your other devices are selling well in? This will only lower the profitability of the others potentially having all 3 of them appear as write downs via future financial reports. While I am a Nokia support and device user, this show me the stupidity of the management team/board that currently make decisions at Nokia. At least Microsoft in giving WP a specific period of time for the platform to mature before moving on to another platform or starting over again from the ground up. Nokia on the other hand has had Meego, Maemo, Asha, as well as the rumors of them being behing sailfin/Jolla....They're all over the place and can seem to make a definitive decision on what the should do.....It's like tossing coins in the air to see which one catches on. The only sensible decision they've made lately is to sell the hardware division and continue with their mapping technologies focusing on getting them into autimobiles of all kinds despite what the blind Finnish Fanboy think.
  • "so why even get on the Android train if the two platforms you currently support are doing well?"
    Actually, the answer is very simple: because the future is in smartphones and you need cheap smartphones to replace your cheap featurephones.
    Ashas are not smartphones and Lumias are not that cheap. They needed real smartphones to replace Ashas.
  • Actually, the most valuable part of Nokia was not purchased or even licensed: the ability to use the Nokia name on smartphones. I wish they had grabbed the rights to that. Anyway, so it seems Ballmer pushed hard for this deal, got his way, but it cost him his job. This is interesting because I'm surprised there was so much opposition to the deal. Considering that Facebook just bought Whatsapp for $19 billion or whatever, Microsoft getting Nokia's devices business for $8 billion (or whatever) is a bargain. Plus, Microsoft really had no other choice. Nokia was going to go Android and once that happened Windows Phone would've been dead. All that time and money that Microsoft had spent investing in Windows Phone over the past 3-4 years would've been for naught. They absolutely had to double down, and they did. So, for all the hate for Ballmer, I think he may have actually saved the company's chances in the mobile sector, selflessly doing so even though he knew it might get him canned. Respect.
  • Word!
  • The Nokia name is definitely not worthless but it's not as valuable now as it used to be. If it were, Nokia would still be no.1 and they would not have needed to get rid of Symbian and use WP instead. And if it were as valuable as it's vaunted to be, WP would be in a better position now that Nokia is the main engine for its spread. As to your second paragraph, I agree with you completely. I now see that had it not been for Ballmer, Microsoft would probably be already lost out there in the wilderness by now, based on the board's attitude as reported by the article. And am I now glad that Tony Bates never made it to the CEO position!
  • You statement makes sense, but you said something the Finn's should be appreciative of, but they're not......"Microsoft spent millions on windows phone which was injected into Nokia". So it wasn't like Nokia just decide to make windows phones, they were paid to do so, no matter how it looked when Stephen Elop made the announcement....This was all about money! While everyone is saying Elop was a trojan, could this have been a setup from the begining to make Nokia profitable for the eventual sell??? It wouldn't surprise me, look a what happend with Skype....It all coming out now; go read the material on the moves they made prior to sell off.
  • Me too. Here could be  agreat value to Microsoft. It gives the opportunitie to integrate into car infotainmentsystemes: that's the place to be for the comming years! If not, Apple will completely defeat MS in this market as well. Beside that It would also be better to keep the Nokia brand on the Lumia phones. That will give the opportunity to sell that part of the company (and keep the great name) if the hardware strategy of MS is not continued.  
  • The original report from NYT and AllthingsD ( before they moved to Recode) here are a few quotes.
    "Nokia also made it clear that it had no intention of parting ways with a mapping service called Here, which Microsoft wanted as part of the deal. Microsoft had to come to peace with that, Nokia executives said."
    http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/the-long-road-to-nokia-deal-a-b...
    "A particularly strong sticking point was Nokia’s mapping business. Siilasmaa was unwavering in his belief that the business was vital for Nokia to continue as a company, and Microsoft felt similarly strongly that it couldn’t succeed in mobile without control over the location technology it was using."
    http://allthingsd.com/20130904/from-can-we-talk-to-a-coffee-table-mishap...   These are two independent reports... 
  • Nokia HERE maps are slow and often not accurate. It all worked well since MS already have superior product in Bing maps. Now MS must step up their game and start producing phones with Surface design and quality. Simply Lumia 'design language' is weak and doesn't sell.
  • Yes the surface was widely appraised. But the lumia design is weak and doesn't sell??? Are you living a under a bridge or something? If it was "weak" it wouldn't be so widely cloned. Case in point - iphone 5c.
  • So S = same and C= copy.......maybe?
  • Leo Apotheker didn't want HP to have anything to do with device either, only software, and we all saw how practically killed HP and WebOS in the space of a few minutes. I hope the new CEO has a bit more sense and doesn't write down Nokia devices and Windows Phone the first chance he gets. The surface, take it or leave it, its been a failure.
  • Steve had different ideas altogether. He was an aggressive businessman. Gotta see what Nadella is.
  • Will be interesting to see Nadella's approach to where he sees MSFT going, especially with mobile.
  • Don't know about devices but cloud services would be great
  • Great when everyone has a connection.
  • I loved Ballmer, but Nadella is a technician, I have big hopes with him. His first moves seem very promising :)
  • What has he done so far that is promising? Actually, what has he done at all? I don't think his feet are wet yet.
  • While I believe in Nadella, I think Penn Should have been dismissed as well. His advertising/marketing strategy stinks and frankly, I dont want him anywhere near strategy.
  • Well why didn't he call a "Technical Foul" on Penn? The only worthy marketing campaign he's come up with over the years is the recent superbowl ad.....Instead of focusing on "Scroogled", he should have been focusing on the beauty of WP and it's functionality.....maybe showing someone playing a game via xb hub or an app, who then gets a call from the office needing information, that person then opens the office hub, selects a document (Exel spreadsheet) and shares it with the caller from the office...and in the end resuming the game he was playing before receiving the request from the office. Simplistic, straight to the point, and gorgeous!
  • 80%? I thought it was 90%?
  • At the time it was closer to 80% but has crept to 90% in the last few months.
  • Yes i read the article... What 90% percent of what ? I'll go reread
  • They are talking about how much Nokia's market share in Windows Phone is. When the article was written it was around 80%, but now it's around 90%
  • I wish to Nokia rethink about selling
  • Why??!
  • And lose out to Android?
  • Even I feel so. Because otherwise MS will be controlling everything at their own slow pace. 2013 had a lot to do with Nokia's support, which shall now no longer be there once MS comes in charge. I think the two companies should function independently.
  • They did add that crucial input & urgency which made a big difference.
    However now everything is under one roof and everything can now be baked into perfection.
  • Like all thing Microsoft are "baked to perfection", i.e. Bing, Xbox, Skype?
  • All I have to say about XB is.....#1 Selling console world wide!
  • I think this is a good point, Nokia was in a bad place when they got into WP and had to move fast and aggressively to survive.  Microsoft have billions rolling in, while its good to see the Nokia division not working under that sort of stress at the same time I hope they dont get fat and complacent.  I guess though that they will always have Microsoft asking them what they are doing next and that pressure to be relevent in the marketplace, hopefully we'll still see great things in future.  
  • I understand why you say so. You think now you won't see nokia, end of Nokia, etc.. I felt the same at first. But you see, Nokia under Microsoft has good financial support for their R&D.. This way they can make better products.. And as they said.. Nokia and Lumia branding will remain the same. At leat Lumia is for sure staying.
    So it's just the same phone with better chances to fight lagdroid.
  • No. Microsoft did not buy the whole Nokia, just their biggest division. Nokia will continue being Nokia and do something else. Again. The phones might continue being Lumia, but not Nokia. After the initial period anyway.
  • Get outta here please with the nonsense. If they don't sell, they will have to have massive layoffs. What will the Finns think about them once it impacts the community via those layoffs. Look at where foolishness led blackberry. Is that what you guys want to see happen to Nokia?
  • That HERE-thing was reported soon after the deal already. Siilasmaa was not happy with the idea:   http://allthingsd.com/20130904/from-can-we-talk-to-a-coffee-table-mishap...   "A particularly strong sticking point was Nokia’s mapping business. Siilasmaa was unwavering in his belief that the business was vital for Nokia to continue as a company, and Microsoft felt similarly strongly that it couldn’t succeed in mobile without control over the location technology it was using."   Seems like Nokia was in a strong position during the negotiations after all (at least these reports seems to give that kind of an aspect to this topic)
  • Given that Nokia bought what was originally Here, for something like $8 billion, I'm thinking MS just didn't offer enough.
  • There will always be major issues of disagreement within a company, but when a final decision is made, everyone needs to stand behind it with full support.  It's often the case that multiple routes can prove fruitful, but you need everyone involved to be involved 100%.  Hopefully this is something Nadella can achieve, because it sounds like Ballmer couldn't.
  • Two Trojans.
  • Satya nadella agree or disagree with the Nokia deal???
  • Reading is FUNdamental
  • Nice wordplay!
  • Is it really faster typing a question and waiting for an answer than reading the damn article?!
  • Depends on whether some fool answers in the comments lol
  • Wa-wa-wai-wait, will the deal get cancelled??? I don't get it...
  • Unfortunately no, it won't. But if Gates, Nadella and Bates voices were heard in time, it wouldn't even happen.
    Now the only thing that may delay the conclusion of the deal is Google/Samsung (see WPCs article on that)
  • You all forget that Ballmer made huge profit for MSFT. While most of the USA people dont see the need of Here maps acquisition because there is already Bing on board, in Europe things stand the other way around. Bing maps and bing in general lack, in most of the european countries.
  • Those profits were made on enterprise and Windows XP/7. Definitely not on Bing and other misguided adventures like Kin, Vista etc.
    But you're right about the superiority of HERE in Europe compared to Bing maps. Unfortunately they still both get kicked badly by Google Maps.
  • Any judge in his right mind will not let Google/Samsung delay this deal. But in this biased society of Android/Apple, I wouldn't be surprised
  • Seriously, right? If I were a judge and the two biggest players in mobile--the two companies that absolutely dominate the market--filed a lawsuit or whatnot against two companies merging that control just a few percentage points of the market, I would say, "Motion denied. And now you two have to pay all court costs for everyone, wasting everyone's time like a bunch of self-centered yahoos. Got it? Good. Now GTFO!"
  • For the record, as what i have read somewhere. This report was a flashback to the Microsoft-Nokia deal(Some time between June of last year till the mentioned date November in the article). Which is by the way on its final stages. It will not be cancelled.
  • IMO, dont think Wp has a chance to succeed unless they have their own hardware.  You can't count on HTC and Samsung is all up into google.  Surface on the other hand, not sure if it was needed or not, but the issue with the surface was the confusion with windows 8 and also the RT being such a bad product.  Laggy and confusing, it didnt help that MS store employees were goign around telling people to try the Surface RT that runs windows 8 instead of running RT, at least his happened in the store in my area.    The price point was also too high for the surface as well.   
  • Yeah - I think Microsoft having hardware interests in Surface and WP come from two different, but seemingly similar needs. With Surface - and Windows 8 - I think Microsoft lost faith in the hardware OEMs.  I think they were afraid of "Netbook part 2" experience where Win8 would just be thrown onto the same old hardware, rinse, and repeat. Since Win8 was so different, I think Microsoft felt they needed thay also needed to reset the hardware expectations and vision. With WP and Nokia's overwhelming penetration, short of other OEM's upping their commitments, MS needs an OEM focused intently on the hardware in order for the platform to exist and grow.  That OEM just happens to be themselves now.
  • The price point was high, and the SoC outdated and underpowered for the pre-8.1 RT. At $400 with S4 Pro inside, it wouldn't have made much, but would have helped drive the ecosystem, which also just wasn't there at the time. As for the deal, MS needs Nokia hw. If MS wants to be part of the "mobile revolution" they need someone to be making hw for their sw, and no one was/is really willing to risk it, except Nokia, which is more of a cautionary tale for other OEMs. MS can't afford any setbacks anymore, and losing Nokia (to whatever) would lose them most of their already miniscule market share, which in turn would hit their ecosystem. Windows 8 -tablets really seem to be the now and future shining beacon of hope (for growth), in the mean time WP needs to hang in there to enjoy the ride to the top.
  • Have a L920 and waiting for next updated version. Love this phone and unless another truely outstanding phone appears, I will have the next model.   Surface RT, as above suits my needs and will get another model sooner or later.   Just keep them coming and I remain a customer, with both above models and the excellent services from Microsoft included, Im staying WP and Surface, as whole package is awesome.
  • Whether or not they should go into hardware? I'm sure Apple thought going into hardware was a stupid idea....oh wait, last I checked, Apple was one of most valuable companies in the world, specifically because they were making their own hardware. Times are changing, and companies need to change with them or they will be left behind. Doesn't matter what kind of a company, everyone needs to stick with the time. Microsoft needs to become a consumer company if they want to stay in business for the next 20 years. Their Enterprise division is strong, but there is only so much enterprise is willing to buy. Average consumers spend a lot more than businesses.
  • Google is an example of a company who makes a lot of money and does NOT do hardware. In fact, they should got out of the smartphone game last month. Palm and BlackBerry are two examples of companies that do hardware and software and failed. Holding Apple up as this poster child for technology success I think is misguided if not greatly oversimplified.
  • Daniel that is flawed. Google makes money off its users by providing free stuff for their data. Palm and blackberry failed not because they do hardware and software but because they failed to innovate and move fast enough. Apple is the perfect example of a company who can do both.
  • You're missing the point. Whether or not a company produces their own hardware is not a primary determinant for success. Microsoft will not automatically fail or succeed solely because they have a new hardware division.
  • That's the point? That if you decide to enter the hardware business you won't magically become successful like Apple? Really? Why waste time pointing that out.  Obviously everyone knows that the hardware business is not a sure thing. But Microsoft had no choice in this matter: if they didn't buy Nokia's devices divisions, the WP market would've collapsed. Game over.
  • Apple is also the only company in the business that successfully combines HW and SW. They are a very rare exception.
  • Apple has failed to innovate and move fast enough since 2007! Yet their marketing benefits help them a lot!
  • So you don't think Microsoft can provide a piece of hardware combined with appealing enough software to succeed? All blackberry had was a keyboard and bes server basically
  • Dude, Apple has been making their own hardware since the 80s and almost went bankrupt doing it, what was the point of bringing them up?
  • Because Microsoft has been going after Apple for a few years now, including pretty much copies of Apple Stores as Microsoft Stores. It's clear that Ballmer wanted Microsoft to going head to head against Apple in every market, not just OS.
  • Yes but donig hardware and software early in the game is quite the difference than doing hardware and software late in the game.  Especially when your software was also late to the game.  You really can't compare the two situations, you can compare two when it comes to their goals and strategy, but the two situations are quite different. 
  • All we should be pointing out is that MS missed out early, because honestly, its never too late due to the fact that technology changes rapidly as everyone here often elude to when speaking about hardware and peripherals. So what it boils down to really is making a product that appeals to the masses.
  • It is debatable whether nokias partnership enabled higher synergy than what Microsoft can do with its own hardware. Personally im leaning towards Microsoft's pride, vision and Nokia's desperation to survive being a really good mix.. Microsoft is swimming against the tide and been caught napping at the moment.. Lots to do.. I have this feeling that Microsoft will willingly sell the handset division back to nokia once wp hits 10% market share. I think the primary reason for purchase was Nokia's desire to go android &wp post the partnership deal. (2015)
  • I'd highly doubt they woudl sell back the hardware divsion, especially back to Nokia.  If they reach 10% which is a long ways off, i can't imagine MS ever considering selling it back or selling period because clearly, the plan iwould be working if they reach that level. 
  • Not to mention Nokia can get a new, smaller and more sustainable hardware division in 2016, which is way way before WP ever reaches the two digits market share (IF it ever reaches it, which I doubt).
  • I agree with you. I am thinkgin that Nokia want to go the Apple way. Design and finalize the desing with Advanced services team and send it to Foxconn to manufactor and enjoy the profits. BB is also going that way. For MS, they had to buy the nokia division or else Lumia will be gone. So it was mostly MS foreced to buy Nokia hardware division rather than anythign else. Lets wait and see.
  • Dude, others almost ran Apple in the ground due to a power struggle at the top. That's why Steve Jobs went to pixel; once the board saw they were going down in flames without Jobs; they immediately brought him back, he brokered deal with Gates to infuse cash and the rest is history. I'm not an Apple fan boy, but facts are facts
  • MSFT has tried hardware: zune kin xbox. surface. I think we don't need more proof Apple cannot be defeated by MSFT in hardware. Leave it to samsung or a hardware company. MSFT needs to exit hardware. As much as I love surface, it isn't worth losing OEMs to it.
  • Zune - when did you see it advertised?
    Kin - too early for its time and interface needed refinement. Proof: what do most people use their phones/mobile devices for...social communication which the kin essentially was.
    Xbox - great gaming console. Best overall selling console in the world.
    Surface - Microsoft let there concerns about OEM partners affect the overall intent of the device; scared that if its too good and cheap, it wouldn't leave room for their partners the make money. Well its these stupid hardware partner who released sub par hardware along with bloatware that pushed consumers to apple hardware (desktops, macbooks, etc). These partner are just starting to produce decent looking machines now, but some still don't care.
  • while I agree with you on the OEMs, look at android's tablet marketshare? it just surpassed the ipad. This could be MSFT if OEMs (crappy ones as you say) were choosing windows and not android. Why does this happen? A lot of it is price yes, but a lot of it is simply companies like Acer being really really pissed at MSFT's surface. Surface is a great device. Maybe they should spin it up as another company. Maybe sell it to nokia or lenovo, or somebody to run with the brand. However at this point surface is doing more harm to windows than good.
  • I dont know much about zune,but kin had a terrible approach from what I read, it was doomed to failure. I dont see the Xbox as a failure, it is pretty succesful and today a big name in gaming. Surface is different, is great hardware with a unique idea (Pro version) I dont think MS approach, from what I see, is to have surface become a super seller, but more be set an example to OEMs. Coming back to Zune, i mever had one but most people say it wasnt really bad... Maybe MS didnt push it enough or they cant battle against the usual MS hate they recieve.
  • Pick one up off eBay, the Zune was actually very good, just unheard of due to lack of advertisement
  • I have a zune HD. great device but MSFT completely abandoned it software wise. It had an appstore but no developer could submit apps to it, they had to be "partners"...what's another failing product that tried this? oh the xbox one yes. An appstore with like 10 apps. If they had opened it, maybe they would have 10K apps by now, and sold as many as sony has. yet again proving MSFT and hardware, are like oil and water.
  • I've always been against this stupid deal as everyone knows. I'm glad to see that not only the guy I would pick up for CEO - Bates - was against it but also Bill Gates was against the deal.
    Even Nadella was, though he probably came around just as a real politik move to be able to get to CEO, and not because he believes in it.
    Of course, now it's too late but I still wish Gates and Nadella, now that that Ballmer ape is out, would revert things and drop the deal. As it won't happen, I'm glad Google and Samsung are creating delays, if only to see if I can still get one last true Nokia branded flagship before they go out, to last until 2016.
  • I'm not in favor the deal as well. Not that I'm a Nokia fan at all, but MS destroyed Danger and I could see that happening to Nokia. It's pretty unnecessary but I'm glad MS is working to get other OEMs back on board.
  • Yawn.
    Just get your gold iPhone and get out.
  • I can't, I left it at your mommy's house last night. Please ask her to send it to me if she hasn't sold it for cocaine yet. Thanks.
  • So... You're a necrophiliac?
    You need help. I use your own words against you and you resort to third grade 'yo mama' jokes. Classic.
  • We will all be getting iPhones in a few years, I'm afraid. MS needed Nokia innovating and sparring them. And selling phones.
  • Exactly. Though I think it's more likely we'll all be buying Android phones, specially if Apple keeps ignoring third world countries markets and pissing off Apple consumers in Western markets as they did with iOS7.
  • Eh I will just be without a phone if android is the only choice.
  • Due to Malware and spying, I will never use an Android handset. I'd carry a 7 inch tab and dumbphone instead. No way am I going to get Android.
  • Yeah, like the black update and photo apps that caused problems on the devices. I see most Finns are shortsighted and over look flaws simply because they love a specific company. While I support Microsoft, I'm not afraid to point out flaws,mistakes. Their first mistaken was bailing apple out years ago, second, under estimating internet/mobile. Third, allowing OEM's to produce poorly designed hardware. This is the short list, but they can right the wrongs of they get it right through this deal.
  • Doom and gloom, shouldn't you people be on a Nokia fan site since you all hate Windows Phone/Microsoft so much?
  • Everytime I think you're coming around, your alternated ego shows up : )
  • The overseas-tax savings from buying Nokia almost pays for itself but now MS has more to manage and it's been mismanaging a lot. Any sensible person would have push