True.
I don't think so. To be sure, WP7 is a very well done platform. But they already have plenty of vendors to have made a splash. Their problem is that consumers aren't interested in another ecosystem, i.e. WP7 is about 18 months too late. Adding Nokia as a WP7 OEM is unlikely to benefit them much more than adding Motorola would.
Wrong. The difference is that Nokia has a tremendous development and software development infrastructure already set up, larger than any other company's. The terms of the deal also are much more significant than just adding motorola; Nokia isn't just some OEM (the fact that you think so makes me think you've been reading too much AC or other Android blogs), they are microsoft's direct partner in WP7 development. Microsoft and Nokia sit at the top, and the other OEMS like HTC are below them.
I recommend you go read
this interview with WP7s Aaron Woodman, and you'll see that they are already dramatically tamping down discussion of letting Nokia meddle much under the hood of WP7. In fact Woodman refers to Nokia simply as a WP7 "OEM"...which possibly wasn't the most PC way he could have phrased it.
Actually, that's not correct. Nokia has been given carte blanche to do what it wants to WP7. They have already said they won't, however, because they don't want to fragment the platform like Android. Reading your post, it also seems that you completely misunderstand the relationship between Nokia and Microsoft here; Nokia isn't just some OEM, they are going to be doing a fair bit of development and under the hood development with microsoft on the platform. They'll be doing far more than any other WP7 OEM will be allowed to do, and that's the terms of the deal.
Nokia says it can customize the heck out of Windows Phone, won't do anything that would delay updates -- Engadget
Also, read Woodman's interview again. Your statements above don't match anything he actually said.
It's true that picking WP7 will solidify the use of Nokia's map services on that platform (which is a bit more revenue) but in the end that seems like a huge bet to make, rather than just being an OEM for multiple mobile OSes, if the OEM route is the one they are essentially taking.
Except it isn't. They're not just some OEM.
In the end they'd probably have had a lot more freedom to alter the user experience on Android, but that's not what they really care about. They cut a deal to get revenue from their mapping service (which obviously Android doesn't need). And it'll only work if WP7 succeeds, which is not actually made much more likely by this deal. Nokia will end up in two years that much further behind making Android phones, with no access to the volume inexpensive smartphone market without Symbian. If they'd gone the all out OEM route they could have at least parlayed their strong hardware brand, while making WP7 phones, Android phones, Symbian phones (without any pressure to EOL them) and even Meego phones (albeit with a trimmed down and restructured development team).
To put it bluntly; Nokia wanted no part of Android because its turning into a fragmented and over-crowded mess. We know for a FACT that Google refused to let Nokia alter any core elements of the OS, including stripping out Google Maps and other elements to replace them with Nokia versions, and instead told them they could just develop skins like the other OEMs. Frankly, Google could have had a big win getting Nokia on board, but Schmidt's (and I would wager Rubin's) ego wouldn't cede the fact that Nokia *might* just have some better ways of doing things, and wouldn't let them do it. For the lack of Android, blame Google.
As I said, the idea that Nokia will get free reign (or even significant freedom) to mess with WP7 turns out to be simply false; it's the type of over-reaching statements you'd expect from a CEO who knows he has a company in revolt over the decision. Also, given how poor Nokia's software development trackrecord is, why do you imagine that letting them meddle with WP7 development would be a positive thing for the platform? Don't you think MSFT is also aware of that?
Except it isn't. Both Nokia and Microsoft have said that that the former will be allowed deep access into WP7 that other partners will not have.
I would also kindly instruct to read the interview with Woodman again; he never said they wouldn't be allowed to customize. In fact, he said they WOULD be able to, and because of Nokia's special status, much of that should filter back up into WP7 as a whole. In fact, Woodman *specifically* says Nokia will be given the opportunity to make alterations to the OS that very well may not reach the other OEMs.
Meh. It's intriguing in the sense that I've rarely seen such a poor decision as the one Nokia has chosen to pursue; and that's not a knock on WP7 either. Even if Nokia had decided it was in their best interest to move to WP7 they could have handled it soooo much better. They should never had announced exclusivity this far in advance of having a product ready to ship. They should never had EOLed Symbian publicly like this (it's going to cause their market share collapse this year and their developers to abandon ship, followed by the hemorrhaging of their distribution network and manufacturing channels).
If they'd announced a closer relationship with MS, including putting Bing on all their phones and WP7 officially adopting Nokia's maps, perhaps closer collaboration on their app stores, etc., that would have made sense. Announce they are looking into supplementing Symbina/Meego development with other platforms. Build a really top notch WP7 handset (hopefully ready before the holidays) and then if it garners good reviews announce you're dropping Meego for WP7.
But the way it's handled it will be a disaster for Nokia, and is unlikely to get WP7 more than 2-3% extra marketshare over the next 24 months, if that.
Nokia has a handset on the way. It should be here within the next 12 months if not sooner. What they specifically said is that they would not have MULTIPLE handsets out, because they need time to wind-down Symbian and Meego, as well as restructure.
I don't blame them for announcing what they did. In fact, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that Nokia had no other choice. Continuing to limp through the market, without a clear way forward, would have been far more damaging to the company than announcing what they did. There has been an arrogance in Nokia's management for years, that what they were doing was right, that the questions about it were not worthy of response. They needed a bold response to the criticism, and they needed a bold move away from what the company has become in the last few years. And that's what we got. This won't be a disaster for Nokia, because they finally have a clear direction.