Interesting take by Horace Dediu:

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/08/goog...takes_dro.html

"But a single point of focus is incorrect and misses a bigger point: The MMI purchase is the result of Google's miscalculations about the way value is captured in mobile computing. These strategic missteps placed Google in a position of weakness and forced it into a costly and desperate move."

I agree with Horace on this. This, together with a price of close to $ 40 (Cap plus 65% as with MMI sale to Google) Billion makes it highly unlikely MS will buy Nokia. What would they gain? It would be a defensive move if someone else wants to buy Nokia, but then who would? MS is in a position of weakness because of current limited market share, not because their business model is flawed, so buying Nokia solves exactly nothing for them.

So you don't think that acquiring strategic partner Nokia, or at least parts of it, could help ensure Microsoft increased market share? Why not?

I seem to recall the rumors about Microsoft acquiring Nokia some months back boiled down to an agreement they came to regarding such an event.

Specifically, it says that if a company offers to acquire Nokia, Microsoft is allowed to match it. If the offer from Microsoft and the other company match, Nokia has to accept Microsoft's offer.

This is in place just in case someone does come along and tries to snipe Microsoft's plans.

And no, I don't think MS will buy Nokia. My conjecture regarding their plans is to ensure that if things go badly, Nokia eats most of the losses instead of Microsoft. That would be defeated if Microsoft took ownership of the company.

Yeah. Does that mean your stock splits? Or does it stick with the main company?

It depends. IANAL so I'm not going to even pretend to know all the particulars, but I do know there are options depending on whether the division is divested as a private or public company.

No, it would not. Nokia already is betting the farm on WP, no advantage in commitment to be gained by purchasing. The only motive would be defensive.

Unlike others I'm not ruling out a defensive motive. They are becoming increasingly common.

But I'm still curious about your reasoning. I still don't see anything that conclusively rules out a Microsoft purchase of Nokia. Of course for most if not all of us here the arguments come down largely to personal opinion...

It's not that buying Nokia solves MS probems in the mobile arena. It's that buying Nokia prevents bigger problems. A kinda defensive/offensive move, depending on which way you look at it. Bottom line - MS simply CANNOT at almost any cost allow anyone else to buy Nokia.

And who else would? Obvious candidate is Intel. They have deep pockets and with their Intel/Nokia/MeeGo strategy sabatoged by the Elopalypse no doubt Ballmer & Co. is not on their party invite list anymore. And that failure also means they are struggling as much as MS to stay relevent in the very mobile future. Both companies need a win badly for their team and Nokia is the biggest free agent available to boost the roster.

Regarding MS: Nokia owns Qt. I'm not sure how much of a threat that framework might pose, but if certain claims are not exaggerated, I'm afraid MS might be interested in storing that particular piece of programming on a very dark and dusty attic. And that's just one reason.

If we consider the acquisition for a more defensive reason, ok, I'm gonna give my thoughts room to play, so this might sound mighty paranoid:

The N900, while not fully open, is still the openmost mobile platform I have ever heard of. We've (as a community) OC'd it, we've modified it, we've bricked many times, we've added features that Nokia had no plans of. The phone improved WAY beyond its state upon launch.

Much of this stems from its openness; while not fully customisable due to binary blobs, its still very flexible. Now, here's the thing...

Not only did the N900 run a very customisable quasi-open source OS, as it introduce a few of its users to linux. And guess what... While very complex if one was to dig into its guts, the phone was still plain easy to use. One could very well take that experience and through it realise that linux isn't some arcane piece of software that takes a hedge wizard to tame and use.

As said, tin foil hat time, and I might be wrong or otherwise might have simply incorrectly evaluated a few points... But assume that Linux actually spreads due to its adoption by a handset company. Maybe it makes sense to actually try to take such company down, or otherwise simply buy it.

Also, Intel is mostly a hardware company: It's business model is/would/will be hardware-centric, I assume, so they probably don't care as much about controlling its software than as to spreading it as much as they can, along with their CPUs. It's the FOSS spread scenario all over again, which surely could drive MS to acquire Nokia for this fact alone.

Or so I would guess, wildly.

Good points Crashdamage. It would be interesting to see what unfolds if ANY company even shows a tiny bit of interest in Nokia now...