Nokia’s Android implementation could create a rich and market-leading total offering benefiting additionally from the Google ecosystem. Moreover, it would easy become a volume leader within the Android ecosystem.
I asked this question from a former Nokia executive and his response was “you might as well ask why Muslims don’t eat pork”. But Nokia is already partnering with their former ‘enemy’ Microsoft on many levels. “Fair enough, but there’s sin and then there’s mortal sin. The R&D Mullahs will not permit operating system digressions. Microsoft is just application and runtime fooling around.”
So let’s look at the arguments Nokia might be able to find against not licensing Android. The reasons would give for refusing to license will be some combination of the below:
- Existing investment in Symbian. This is a bogus response as Symbian is sunk costs and should never be used in considering where to move next.
- If chosen in parallel to Symbian, fragmentation. This is also bogus since Symbian is chronically fragmented and Mameo has already shown Nokia’s willingness to go multi-platform.
- Lowered margins. This is valid in theory. A licensed OS is unlikely to offer differentiation and hence high margins. However, it’s bogus because Nokia’s margins are collapsing with or without licensing. Competitor margins with licenses OS’s have shown some resilience depending greatly on many other factors.
- “Control” issues. There is a dependence on a supplier. True to some degree, but not if the code is open source.
What will not be an issue is increase in BOM or R&D. Android has no fees and the development costs can be controlled.
Overall I don’t think Nokia can make a solid argument against Android which is why I think they use mythology and spiritualism to defend an arcane cost structure.
