Here is the information as you know it: Apple controls hardware and software successfully. Microsoft controls hardware and software unsuccessfully.
From this, you have determined: Controlling hardware and software is not successful.
Come off it.
I just said that it wasn't a magical formula that would automatically work, never did I say it wasn't successful but the truth is that more companies that make both are failing a lot more than companies that are successful with it.
NO, I didn't say it did, but I'm sure a certain amount would. That's usually what happens, I'm sure the amount of cash that's affiliated with the Mobility unit STAYS with the mobility unit if they are operated separately.
No, Google didn't buy the entire company, they bought the Mobility division which has their own P&L, which is essentially doing the same thing.
Really you did:
"Actually, it's $7.2 and there is about $7 Billion in cash that they will get access to, so it's going to actually cost LESS than $7.2 Billion"
was your quote.
There's zero indication that any Nokia-held cash will be included in the asset transfer. That wouldn't even make sense.
...and yes, when Google bought Motorola Mobility they bought "the entire company" which included plant, equipment, IP and any other assets along with outstanding obligations. It wasn't just a division of Motorola. Nokia simply sold off a division of their company, Nokia devices and services (and apparently not even 100% of that based on the wording), and not a separately operated subsidiary.
Know what's even stranger? Nokia can even start building and selling smartphones again in 30 months if it wishes to. "Upon the closing of the transaction, Nokia would be restricted from licensing the Nokia brand for use in connection with mobile device sales for 30 months and from using the Nokia brand on Nokia’s own mobile devices until December 31, 2015." So what the heck is MS getting for their $7B? Rental of the Nokia name, Nokia-owned plant and equipment involved in producing smart-devices and a non-exclusive license to Nokia IP.
Well, they have quite some debt, too. And the latest ER's cash/equivalent positions do not reflect the 50% of NSN acquisition from Siemens yet (which reduces cash and increases debts), as it only becomes effective in the current quarter.
What I am not really clear about right now is in how far Nokia's share holders could boycott this deal, as the remainder of Nokia is really worth nothing.
IMHO it's really a pretty good deal for Nokia. In reality they aren't even selling off the phone business entirely. They're renting it out. They've only told MS they'll be granted an exclusive to the Nokia name for phone marketing for 30 months. After that Nokia is free to build Nokia-branded phones (and tablets) again OR even license the brand to someone else in addition to MS if I'm understanding the agreement.
Microsoft doesn't get any Nokia IP, just a 10-year license, it doesn't get ownership of the Nokia name for phones, just an exclusive "rental" period, and it gives up a cross-license to Nokia of all applicable MS patents.
... oh and pays Nokia over $7B US in bonds that Nokia can cash in as needed while disgorging a division that's become a drag on Nokia earnings. That's supposed to be a bad deal for Nokia? Seems more like winning a game of brinkmanship to me.
This is what I call a "big, bold move", the kind Apple has not yet made. I wonder what someone had in mind when they used those words.
I guess it depends on your definition. I would consider releasing the first iPhone a big, bold move. I'm a tech nerd so of course I was drooling when I first saw it, but there were no guarantees that it would be a successful product at that time. The smart phones and tablets that existed before the first iPhone weren't exactly beacons of hope for guaranteed success.
In case anyone is confused by Nokia keeping all the patents rather than selling them to MS along with the phone business, Nokia has signaled a more aggressive licensing policy that may include existing licensees.
Comments
I just said that it wasn't a magical formula that would automatically work, never did I say it wasn't successful but the truth is that more companies that make both are failing a lot more than companies that are successful with it.
Really you did:
"Actually, it's $7.2 and there is about $7 Billion in cash that they will get access to, so it's going to actually cost LESS than $7.2 Billion"
was your quote.
There's zero indication that any Nokia-held cash will be included in the asset transfer. That wouldn't even make sense.
...and yes, when Google bought Motorola Mobility they bought "the entire company" which included plant, equipment, IP and any other assets along with outstanding obligations. It wasn't just a division of Motorola. Nokia simply sold off a division of their company, Nokia devices and services (and apparently not even 100% of that based on the wording), and not a separately operated subsidiary.
Know what's even stranger? Nokia can even start building and selling smartphones again in 30 months if it wishes to.
"Upon the closing of the transaction, Nokia would be restricted from licensing the Nokia brand for use in connection with mobile device sales for 30 months and from using the Nokia brand on Nokia’s own mobile devices until December 31, 2015." So what the heck is MS getting for their $7B? Rental of the Nokia name, Nokia-owned plant and equipment involved in producing smart-devices and a non-exclusive license to Nokia IP.
EDIT: Here's the Nokia press release which may help you understand what Microsoft is paying for
http://press.nokia.com/2013/09/03/nokia-to-sell-devices-services-business-to-microsoft-in-eur-5-44-billion-all-cash-transaction/
IMHO it's really a pretty good deal for Nokia. In reality they aren't even selling off the phone business entirely. They're renting it out. They've only told MS they'll be granted an exclusive to the Nokia name for phone marketing for 30 months. After that Nokia is free to build Nokia-branded phones (and tablets) again OR even license the brand to someone else in addition to MS if I'm understanding the agreement.
Microsoft doesn't get any Nokia IP, just a 10-year license, it doesn't get ownership of the Nokia name for phones, just an exclusive "rental" period, and it gives up a cross-license to Nokia of all applicable MS patents.
... oh and pays Nokia over $7B US in bonds that Nokia can cash in as needed while disgorging a division that's become a drag on Nokia earnings. That's supposed to be a bad deal for Nokia? Seems more like winning a game of brinkmanship to me.
This is what I call a "big, bold move", the kind Apple has not yet made. I wonder what someone had in mind when they used those words.
This is what I call a "big, bold move", the kind Apple has not yet made. I wonder what someone had in mind when they used those words.
I guess it depends on your definition. I would consider releasing the first iPhone a big, bold move. I'm a tech nerd so of course I was drooling when I first saw it, but there were no guarantees that it would be a successful product at that time. The smart phones and tablets that existed before the first iPhone weren't exactly beacons of hope for guaranteed success.
@jodyfanning
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/nokia-confirms-patent-attacks-may-continue-after-microsoft-purchase/