Nokia: We’re going Windows

Feb 11, 2011 by Dan Taylor    1 Comment     Posted under: Technology

Telcom execs breathe a sigh of relief, Nokia goes with Windows

There’s been quite a bit of talk about Nokia lately. While the Finnish manufacturer might be losing market share in the smartphone area, they still remain on top as the world’s largest selling mobile phone manufacturer. Following the massive outlet of top Nokia management, as well as the incoming, former Microsoft Executive Stephen Elop, Nokia has taken a dramatic shift over the past few months, and it looks as though the electronics giant is finally ready to speak.

Announced in London this morning, Nokia has outlined their marching orders, with a strong focus on changes in leadership, their operational structure, and perhaps most importantly, their speed of execution (Meego says what?).

The debate was up in the air for quite a while whether Nokia would go Android, continue on the Meego Path, or go with Microsoft’s Windows Phone. Meego is obviously a dead horse, and so we’re really down to a two horse race. And low and behold, Nokia is going with Windows Phone as their primary smartphone operating platform. This is part of a newly announced deep strategic partnership with Redmond. But honestly, does it come much as a surprise? See Elop above.

Additionally, Nokia is committed to a renewed approach to capture volume and value growth, ultimately resulting in connecting the “next billion” to the internet in developing countries. Remember the mention of largest selling handset manufacturer above? These non-smartphones are the developing countries handsets, and it looks like Nokia now wants to bring the internet to these same Nokia handset owners, with a bit of help from Microsoft.

“Nokia is at a critical juncture, where significant change is necessary and inevitable in our journey forward,” said Stephen Elop, Nokia President and CEO. “Today, we are accelerating that change through a new path, aimed at regaining our smartphone leadership, reinforcing our mobile device platform and realizing our investments in the future.”

The Nokia/Microsoft partnership now offers a valid competitor to both Apple and Android. It should be quite interesting to see how Nokia deals with it’s new collaborator, as by themselves, they were just players in Android/Apple’s world, but together, they are/will be a force to be reckoned with. The Microkia partnership will take advantage of the best of both companies; Nokia’s expertise in hardware optimization, software customization, and language support and scale, while Microsoft will leverage it’s massive scale, product variety, geographical reach, and brand identity (be that a good or bad thing).

MeeGo Where?

I’d be remiss if I didn’t speak to MeeGo’s future plans. While I had very high hopes for this project, and still do, it looks as though MeeGo is going the way of the original Symbian experience. At least in the way of open-source. The quasi-abandoned project from Nokia/Intel will serve as a longer-term market exploration of next-generation devices, platforms and users experiences. With that said, Nokia still plans on shipping a MeeGo based device later this year. Here’s to hoping that MeeGo will become the hacker’s platform of choice.

From The Top Down

In addition to striking deals with his former colleagues, CEO Stephen Elop’s new team looks drastically different than it did just days ago. Effective today, Nokia’s new executive board consists of: Stephen Elop, Esko Aho, Juha Akras, Jerri DeVard, Colin Giles, Rich Green, Jo Harlow, Timo Ihamuotila, Mary McDowell, Kai Oistamo, Tero Ojanpera, Louise Pentland and Niklas Savander.

The new team-at-the-top is expected to be much more nimble than their previous counterparts, thus allowing the company much more efficient decision making processes, placing a heavy focus on speed, speed, more speed, and results, speed, and accountability. Did I mention speed?

Two Roads in the Woods

In addition to partnering with Microsoft, putting MeeGo to bed (sorta), and shaking up the board, Elop is also splitting Nokia down the middle (divide and conquer?). As of April 1st (and no, this isn’t a joke), Nokia will effectively be split into two unique business units: Smart Devices and Mobile Phones. Each unit will have it’s own focus, the former, high-end smartphones, the later, mass market mobile phones (read: developing world…connecting the “next billion”). To put the units to task, Elop has designated that each unit will be responsible for their own profit-and-loss, as well as a stringent end-to-end accountability standards. What this means is that the smartphone unit needs to deliver and can not rely on the profits of mass phone sales, and vice versa.

Conclusion

As a member of the Nokia test program here in Austria, I’ve said it for quite a while now; Nokia – great hardware, absolutely crap OS. Oh, and the Ovi Store needs a serious makeover as well. However something tells me that with Windows Phone now on board, things at Nokia are about to get very interesting. I’ve seen Windows Phone 7 (thanks @datadirt), and while it’s still not my beloved iOS, I must admit…it was better than I expected. I’m currently testing a Nokia N8 (review forthcoming), and I truly wish that I could wipe Symbian today and load up WP7. Nokia was once the bright shining beacon of what a mobile phone should be, and unfortunately over time, they’ve been the sluggish giant that simply couldn’t keep up. That is, until now. I truly believe that planting Windows aboard a Nokia built device is one of the smartest things the company could have done, and here’s to hoping that Microkia can give Android and iOS a run for their money, because at the end of the day, it’s us, the consumers, that will come out on top.

Hats off to you Mr. Elop. It’s never easy being the “new guy in charge,” and I applaud your brevity. Now get out there and make me think twice about buying the iPhone 5.

Microsoft to dissolve in-game advertising arm Massive Inc.?

Oct 13, 2010 by Dan Taylor    No Comments    Posted under: Games

According to an exclusive report from Adweek, it appears as though Microsoft has called it quits on their own in-house in-game advertising branch, Massive. Sources say that Massive Inc. will be History Inc. by months end … if sources are correct.

Apparently Massive general manager J.J. Richards has already begun the search for a new gig, while members of Massive’s sales and tech teams are slated to be redistributed around other Microsoft projects.

Furthermore, sources indicate that Microsoft has been quietly shopping for a buyer for Massive over the past few months. They’ve even been talking to rival in-game ad supplier Double Fusion – with a sales tag reportedly in the high six, low seven figure range. As a point of comparison, when Microsoft purchased the agency in 2006, the estimated cost was between $200 and $400 million.

When Microsoft jumped on the IGA bandwagon, enthusiasm for the offering was quite high in the gaming community. So much so that former Massive CEO Mitch Davis proudly boasted that the market would reach $2 billion that year – a figure that was never achieved.

Conversely, Microsoft’s Xbox Live game/entertainment hub has seen a massive (pun-intended) increase in usership, now topping 25 million, globally. These ‘hubs’, as Sony has a similar service with ‘Home’, appear to be a far more attractive option to advertisers. I’d have to agree on this one, as within a Home or Live setting, I’m almost expecting to see ads, whereas if not done well, in-game ads can really strip away some of the environmental excitement of a game. Additionally, by keeping the ads separate on Xbox Live, Microsoft no longer has to share any revenues generated with game publishers.

Adding to the impending doom of Massive is the report from Adweek’s sources that the companies’ sales efforts were never fully integrated within the Xbox team. Apparently, at the time of acquisition, sever Microsoft execs were decidedly not on board with the decision, but ex-Microsoft exec Cory Van Arsdale and other members of the biz dev team fought hard to bring Massive Inc. under the Microsoft umbrella.

As stated above, I’m not opposed to the method – if it’s done right. For example, when playing Madden 11, or a Tiger Woods title, I rather enjoy seeing a Sprite ad on the sidelines, or a Taylor driver in my golf bag. To me, it only ads to the realism of the game. The opposite would be true, for example, with a blatant McDonalds ad plastered to the 900 billboards I’m destined to drive by in the latest Grand Theft Auto title.

Since this story was first published on October 8th, there have been very few other citings of it, and for Massive’s sake, I’m hoping that these “sources” simply amount to a few (or even one) recently dismissed, disgruntled employee. This news also flies directly in the face of a recent (May 2010) report issued by comScore/Massive extolling the advertising and marketing benefits of in-game advertising.

Burton Group Survey: Enterprise not quite grasping Social Networking

Apr 3, 2009 by Dan Taylor    2 Comments    Posted under: Productivity, Social Media, Technology

In a recent report published by the Burton Group, analysts’ found that attempts to replicate social networking (facebook) and their associated tools (twitter) aren’t really taking off within the corporate structure.

The report, social networking in the enterprise is based on detailed interviews with 21 companies spanning a wide variety of industries including utilities, consumer goods, technology, and finance.

With the Enterprise 2.0 Conference in Boston bearing down on us, this report from Burton couldn’t have come at a better time, as businesses are struggling to not only understand, but utilize and maximize the technologies potential.  The Enterprise 2.0 Conference is a gathering of tech vendors that create social applications similar to facebook, twitter, etc., but specifically tailored for business usage.  In addition to the old standbys such as IBM (Lotus Connections) and Microsoft (SharePoint), new players including Socialtext, Jive, and Six Apart are slated to be in attendance.

But according to Mike Gotta, a principal analyst with the Burton Group, it’s not a problem with vendors’ product offerings that are the stumbling stone, but rather the corporate culture itself.  Gotta says that the challenge is in addressing specific generational differences, and getting them all on the same page.  Specifically Baby Boomers have demonstrated that they’re not inclined to embrace social technologies in the workplace (although they’re flocking to them from a consumer perspective).

According the Burton survey, the problem may not lie with the Boomers, but rather in how their employer presenting the tools to them.  Many companies have used social networking tools to share expertise, collaborate, and connect with others, especially in multi-location global enterprises.

“Some vendors are saying employees will go in and naturally fill these enterprise social networking profiles out, but I don’t think that’s necessarily true,” Gotta says. “If you’re an employee, you have questions. Why should you maintain it? What are you going to do with it? Those questions still need to answered.”

What else does Gotta see holding corporation adoption back?

• Creating a business case is difficult for people who don’t understand the technologies or have rigid ways of defining their success. Your CFO might want hard ROI, which social tools have a difficult time showing because they aren’t necessarily replacement tools. So, for instance, if people begin trading information on a wiki, that maintains a document’s changes in real-time. This is generally better than sending around reply-all e-mails with messy attachments. But while you know the wiki has helped your collaboration efforts, it might be hard to figure an exact dollar amount in savings since e-mail isn’t being replaced. “For that person that who wants blood on paper ROI , it’s a hard conversation,” Gotta says.

• Getting the proper players involved. Gotta says it’s essential to have a presence from HR in getting these technologies off the ground. If, for instance, you want to turn your corporate intranet into a social network with employee profile pages, you need to help people feel comfortable to share and know the ground rules. If people feel awkward about inputting information, it’s as good as dead. In addition, stakeholders (often department heads) must show they believe in the adoption of the technology by using it themselves and encouraging adoption. If they use it, it’s not guaranteed their employees will use it, but it’s more likely.

• Traditional corporate communications structures and etiquette. More old, conservative organizations communicate in a top-down fashion, which runs counter to social networks, where people collectively weigh in and discuss issues. Burton quoted one participant who noted the following: “We have a classic company — we communicate ‘at’ people rather than ‘with’ them.” On the upside, the proponents of enterprise social networking say that the technologies, if used effectively, can uproot that type of communications model.