Nokia is committed to Windows Phone, full stop

In August 2012, Nokia CEO Stephen Elop seemed committed to the Windows Phone platform from Microsoft, saying, "In today's war ... (between) Android, Apple and Windows, we are very clear, we are fighting that with the Windows phone." Now it looks like his firm stance has wavered, just a little bit.

In a new interview on the Spanish language website El Pais, Elop is asked flat out if they plan to launch a mobile phone that runs on Google's Android OS. Elop's translated response isn't a total denial:

In the current ecosystem wars we are using Windows Phone as our weapon. But we are always thinking about what's coming next, what will be the role of HTML 5, Android... HTML5 could make the platform itself—being Android, Windows Phone or any other—irrelevant in the future, but it's still too soon to tell. Today we are committed and satisfied with Microsoft, but anything is possible.

Nokia has gone all out in supporting Windows Phone more than any other smartphone maker. The launch of Windows Phone 8 saw several different models from Nokia released and more are reportedly in the works. Last week, rumors hit the Internet that a smaller and thinner version of the Nokia Lumia 920, using an aluminum body is in development for launch later this year.

Update: Nokia has reached out to Neowin and provided the actual transcript of Elop's message and it is a bit different that what was previously reported. Here is what Nokia says Elop actually stated:

So, the way I think about it is, in the current war on ecosystems, we are fighting with Windows Phone. That’s what we’re doing. Now, what we’re always doing is asking, how does thatevolve? What’s next? What role does HTML5 play? What role does Android or other things play in the future? We’re looking further into the future, but it terms of what we’re bringing to market, and what we’re immediately focused on, we’re focused on Windows Phone.

Nokia is committed to Windows Phone, full stop. Nothing to see here, move along.

Source: El Pais | Image via Nokia

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Asus VivoTab Smart Tablet for Windows 8 looks a lot like Surface

Next Story

A 1 TB USB 3.0 Flash drive? Yep ... but it will be pricey

64 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

NOKIA want to survive and will do what they can to succeed.
I think a Lumia style device running android will probably do pretty well.

thank you for updating this article cause when I first saw your headline I knew you were wrong and full of **** and did not get the translation correctly.

Color me skeptical. Why join the crowd, when you can set yourself apart from it? No logical reason why Android is the answer to everything for some people.

Stay away from Android It is it better to go with what you believe in and stick with it, improving it, and increasing it's potential than being giving up and resorting to what everyone else is using.

I am always going to purchase the phone and OS that offer me the most. Right now I have a HTC One X, the reason for this is I like Android and like the shape of the One X vs the shape of the Galaxy SIII.

Before I moved to Android, I always had a Nokia phone. If Nokia was to release a phone that had the quality of the Lumia and the possibilities of Android then I would be throwing my money at them.

I have considered a Windows phone but am currently annoyed with MS (as silly as that may sound) because of my Windows 8 frustrations, I fear they will decide on a path for Win Phone and not consider what users want in the future. At least with Android it can be customised (for now).

As I said at the start, the phone and OS that work for me at the time, will be the one i purchase. Android is working just fine, a Nokia handset would be the icing on the cake.

Where Nokia went wrong is simple, they believe Windows would be all they need as they were with Symbian. To keep phones cheap and sellable in Asian counties, Symbian was fine. Keeping Windows that cheap is near impossible. The licensing is a deal breaker even if you are a partner. Partner equals cheaper license cost, but doesn't get rid of them.

Nokia cant get a foot hold in the USA. They never have and likely never will. Even if they had used Android, in the USA they would still be in the same boat. Nokia is not a household name here, only in Euro-Asia.

What they should have done is went Android for the vast majority of their phones and use Windows on top models like the Lumia as it is now. Those cheaper Lumia devices could have had both to be a mid-ranged device.

Symbian was going to die because Android was going to kill it anyways. Symbian is outdate, to slow to update and way behind the times. Bring it up to even Android like status would have costed a pretty penny. They would have did a bit better with Android. With Nokia selling 70M Android phone possibly, Android would relish APple to less than 5% of the market. They would have been no room for Windows Phone.

Quite frankly, Microsoft shouldnt have even tried getting back into the game. They themselves stopped playing by no innovation and allowing phone makers to use crappy hardware to run Windows Mobile. Microsoft should have made their own device as they did with the Surface.

Consumers wont ever see Windows as a consumer based option because Windows is considered a business platform. It always has been. Even tho its more socially oriented, it pales compared to iOS or Android in may ways. The integration of social networks is nice and the OS UI is a new evolution top static icons which I like, but the phones themselves get boring to fast. I tried 3 devices from Windows Phone 7 and I return each after just a few days.

TechieXP said,
Where Nokia went wrong is simple, they believe Windows would be all they need as they were with Symbian. To keep phones cheap and sellable in Asian counties, Symbian was fine. Keeping Windows that cheap is near impossible. The licensing is a deal breaker even if you are a partner. Partner equals cheaper license cost, but doesn't get rid of them.

Nokia cant get a foot hold in the USA. They never have and likely never will. Even if they had used Android, in the USA they would still be in the same boat. Nokia is not a household name here, only in Euro-Asia.

What they should have done is went Android for the vast majority of their phones and use Windows on top models like the Lumia as it is now. Those cheaper Lumia devices could have had both to be a mid-ranged device.

Symbian was going to die because Android was going to kill it anyways. Symbian is outdate, to slow to update and way behind the times. Bring it up to even Android like status would have costed a pretty penny. They would have did a bit better with Android. With Nokia selling 70M Android phone possibly, Android would relish APple to less than 5% of the market. They would have been no room for Windows Phone.

Quite frankly, Microsoft shouldnt have even tried getting back into the game. They themselves stopped playing by no innovation and allowing phone makers to use crappy hardware to run Windows Mobile. Microsoft should have made their own device as they did with the Surface.

Consumers wont ever see Windows as a consumer based option because Windows is considered a business platform. It always has been. Even tho its more socially oriented, it pales compared to iOS or Android in may ways. The integration of social networks is nice and the OS UI is a new evolution top static icons which I like, but the phones themselves get boring to fast. I tried 3 devices from Windows Phone 7 and I return each after just a few days.


No cheap WP devices? Nokia is releasing a 50bucks WP device mate. If that isn't a cheap simple smartphone, then what is.

TechieXP said,
Where Nokia went wrong is simple, they believe Windows would be all they need as they were with Symbian. To keep phones cheap and sellable in Asian counties, Symbian was fine. Keeping Windows that cheap is near impossible. The licensing is a deal breaker even if you are a partner. Partner equals cheaper license cost, but doesn't get rid of them.

Nokia cant get a foot hold in the USA. They never have and likely never will. Even if they had used Android, in the USA they would still be in the same boat. Nokia is not a household name here, only in Euro-Asia.

What they should have done is went Android for the vast majority of their phones and use Windows on top models like the Lumia as it is now. Those cheaper Lumia devices could have had both to be a mid-ranged device.

Symbian was going to die because Android was going to kill it anyways. Symbian is outdate, to slow to update and way behind the times. Bring it up to even Android like status would have costed a pretty penny. They would have did a bit better with Android. With Nokia selling 70M Android phone possibly, Android would relish APple to less than 5% of the market. They would have been no room for Windows Phone.

Quite frankly, Microsoft shouldnt have even tried getting back into the game. They themselves stopped playing by no innovation and allowing phone makers to use crappy hardware to run Windows Mobile. Microsoft should have made their own device as they did with the Surface.

Consumers wont ever see Windows as a consumer based option because Windows is considered a business platform. It always has been. Even tho its more socially oriented, it pales compared to iOS or Android in may ways. The integration of social networks is nice and the OS UI is a new evolution top static icons which I like, but the phones themselves get boring to fast. I tried 3 devices from Windows Phone 7 and I return each after just a few days.

Could you be anymore wrong? First of all, people do know who Nokia is here in the States. Second of Microsoft would have been stupid not to try and get back in the game. If you ask me, they're doing quite well, they just have to keep pushing.

neonspark said,
He needs to ask HTC how well android is doing for them

HTC used to be king for the first few years. Hoping them start doing well again soon.

HTC's problem isn't Android, HTC's problem is it's image. HTC broke Sense, had repeated reliability and battery issues with their newer phones (even their WP8 devices) and flooded the market with senseless phones. A combination of factors that have made people think twice about buying them. So the point is moot. It just shows it's not Android, it's the company making the hardware and the bloated software. Samsung is making a killing, so it's not about Android.. it's about the company and management, Android just makes it easy to achieve their goals quickly without reinventing the wheel.

Tech community blogger: "Will X happen"
Some guy: "Sure, pigs may fly, hell could freeze over, and X could happen"
Tech community blogger: "There you have it, folks, we have definite proof that X is happening, and soon, and they are shipping flying pigs and really hot but frozen water in the box!"

misleading headline. whats with these bloggers with their bull**** headlines?

the "anything is possible" comment was about what future platforms might be dominant, not about switching to android. he said , for all he knows, an html5 platform might make all the current platforms irrelevant,so anything in the future is possible. But right now they are commited to Windows Phone.

Possibly the stupidest title.

He didn't even allude to the idea of using Android as an OS. The quote simply implies that OS may one day be irrelevant.

I'd 100% buy any Nokia device running Android, especially with Nokia's own features, it's own UI which distinguishes it from others, Pureview tech, awesome build quality etc..

Some might argue that Nokia may just become one of those failing Android manufacturers but Nokia has its brand name, design quality and superb features.. Their Android products will sell well in emerging/developing markets. They could just make something comparable to the SGSIII and if marketed properly they might just become a top selling brand like Samsung.

yowanvista said,
I'd 100% buy any Nokia device running Android, especially with Nokia's own features, it's own UI which distinguishes it from others, Pureview tech, awesome build quality etc..

Some might argue that Nokia may just become one of those failing Android manufacturers but Nokia has its brand name, design quality and superb features.. Their Android products will sell well in emerging/developing markets. They could just make something comparable to the SGSIII and if marketed properly they might just become a top selling brand like Samsung.


The Lumia with its dual core will be burned by the SGIII.
Android has no chance on those lower power CPU's. Nokia will have to upgrade it to a quad core at least. And then all sorts of other negativities will come forward.
The Lumia is no way near powerful enough to run Android and compete in the high end segments.

Shadowzz said,

The Lumia with its dual core will be burned by the SGIII.
Android has no chance on those lower power CPU's. Nokia will have to upgrade it to a quad core at least. And then all sorts of other negativities will come forward.
The Lumia is no way near powerful enough to run Android and compete in the high end segments.

Not true, any current generation Snapdragon S4 Plus SoC can easily handle Android. I'm running Android JB on an old a single core Snapdragon S2 SoC with 512MB of RAM and it rocks, sure it can't multitasking heavily like the GSIII but it can run 5-8 Apps before running into memory issues. I'd say that 1GB of RAM is the sweet spot for Android.

Modern versions of Android don't require quad cores to run smoothly, it's a myth spread by haters. Project Butter works perfectly on low end single core devices for the most part.

wouldnt be surprised of Nokia did start making Androids as well. Putting all their effort in to WP only is not a good idea. Most other phone companies have Android and WP as well. So again, no big surprise here.

Only thing is Nokia is already making more money off of Android than HTC is by actually producing Android phones, there's room for Samsung in the Android OEM market, that's about it at this point.

alwaysonacoffebreak said,
Only thing is Nokia is already making more money off of Android than HTC is by actually producing Android phones, there's room for Samsung in the Android OEM market, that's about it at this point.

There is room for more....just right now Samsung is dominating. Before that, it was HTC. Always room for more competition.

techbeck said,

There is room for more....just right now Samsung is dominating. Before that, it was HTC. Always room for more competition.


Problem is, it only has room for 1 to get decent profits out of it. And while its saturated by Samsung. Why attempt battling Samsung and lose. Then have a headstart in a growing market?
WP will get a decent marketshare, might take some time. But they aren't going anywhere. MS made a big gamble and its already paying off. WP becoming the biggest is still a doubt.
And Nokia has a premier position in this section of the smartphone market.

"In today's war ... (between) Android, Apple and Windows, we are very clear, we are fighting that with the Windows phone."

WTF

Did a COE of a third party company just say that ?

I think that lumia's devices would be popular with android, but still...it'd be weird seeing a lumia device running android.

But I'd still get one running windows phone 8 os simply because I like the look and feel of microsoft's os.

Nokia build quality will be too expensive for the saturated and overcrowded Android market. There simply is no profit there for anyone but Samsung at this time.

paulheu said,
Nokia build quality will be too expensive for the saturated and overcrowded Android market. There simply is no profit there for anyone but Samsung at this time.

huh? iPhones build quality is pretty good and around the same price as android equivalents. So yea, lots of room and the build quality wont raise costs much, if at all.

And there is nothing wrong with Samsung's build quality. Yea, they use plastic...but seems to be more shock absorbent than the metal/aluminum cases some companies use.

And the cheap android market is over crowded...not really the high end market.

@techbeck
'huh? iPhones build quality is pretty good and around the same price as android equivalents. So yea, lots of room and the build quality wont raise costs much, if at all.'

Care to tell me where the $850 android phones are?

Nokia won't be able to differentiate themselves against Samsung which is about the only Android OEM making any money off of android Samsung by now has the power of numbers and is a HUGE company. And right now I think Nokia makes more money off of android then some OEMs who actually produce devices do.

paulheu said,
@techbeck
'huh? iPhones build quality is pretty good and around the same price as android equivalents. So yea, lots of room and the build quality wont raise costs much, if at all.'

Care to tell me where the $850 android phones are?

Nokia won't be able to differentiate themselves against Samsung which is about the only Android OEM making any money off of android Samsung by now has the power of numbers and is a HUGE company. And right now I think Nokia makes more money off of android then some OEMs who actually produce devices do.

But Samsung's build quality is not good and that's where Nokia could make a win.
Anyway, if they want to compete against Samsung, they should offer not only better build quality, but also equivalent hardware. I think that will be hard while keeping costs down as much as Samsung does.

paulheu said,
@techbeck
'huh? iPhones build quality is pretty good and around the same price as android equivalents. So yea, lots of room and the build quality wont raise costs much, if at all.'

Care to tell me where the $850 android phones are?

Nokia won't be able to differentiate themselves against Samsung which is about the only Android OEM making any money off of android Samsung by now has the power of numbers and is a HUGE company. And right now I think Nokia makes more money off of android then some OEMs who actually produce devices do.

How about the Samsung Galaxy Note II. Which is $800 without contract.

Luis Mazza said,

But Samsung's build quality is not good and that's where Nokia could make a win.
Anyway, if they want to compete against Samsung, they should offer not only better build quality, but also equivalent hardware. I think that will be hard while keeping costs down as much as Samsung does.

I dont mind Samsung's build quality. Ive dropped my Galaxy several times...once from 5ft on concrete....and only a minor scratch on the plastic. So I'd say the quality is pretty good since it can stand a beating. Same thing with the HTC phones I used to have.

To each their own tho...

techbeck said,

I dont mind Samsung's build quality. Ive dropped my Galaxy several times...once from 5ft on concrete....and only a minor scratch on the plastic. So I'd say the quality is pretty good since it can stand a beating. Same thing with the HTC phones I used to have.

To each their own tho...

I like it too.

paulheu said,
Nokia build quality will be too expensive for the saturated and overcrowded Android market. There simply is no profit there for anyone but Samsung at this time.
HUH!? They are made of plastic. Poly-carbonate is just a fancier plastic. Same thing the Samsung Galaxy SIII and Note II are made from. Do they seem to expensive in build quality for Android?

Come on man...!

Pluto is a Planet said,

5.5 inches. That's a big reason why it's more expensive, and as you pointed out it's still less than the iPhone.

More expensive because of what you can do with it AND the hardware. Still cheaper than the iPhone so I highly doubt that if Nokia starts making Androids, the price will be much different.

techbeck said,

More expensive because of what you can do with it AND the hardware. Still cheaper than the iPhone so I highly doubt that if Nokia starts making Androids, the price will be much different.

Samsung makes the chips, the board, RAM, screen... That's why their phones are "cheaper" than the competition. If Nokia goes Android, they will certainly be Samsung's clients.
So yes... There's a risk that Nokia may get screwed if they go Android.

Luis Mazza said,

Samsung makes the chips, the board, RAM, screen... That's why their phones are "cheaper" than the competition. If Nokia goes Android, they will certainly be Samsung's clients.
So yes... There's a risk that Nokia may get screwed if they go Android.

huh? You have any proof that because Samsung makes the parts, its cheaper? Then the iPhone and a lot of other phones should be more expensive than a $50 difference between the Note II and the iPhone 5.

And Nokia would never ditch WP and go strictly Android. It would be a mix of both.

techbeck said,

huh? You have any proof that because Samsung makes the parts, its cheaper? Then the iPhone and a lot of other phones should be more expensive than a $50 difference between the Note II and the iPhone 5.

And Nokia would never ditch WP and go strictly Android. It would be a mix of both.

LOL
I don't need proof. Go to business school and learn it, like I did.
But... I'll give you a tiny piece of the puzzle: the Note 2 parts in Apple's hands would cost A LOT MORE than on Samsung's hands. That's why they don't use OLED, but IPS... It's cheaper.
Also, if you make your food at home by buying the ingredients, isn't it cheaper than going to a fancy restaurant?
Bad question on your part.

Luis Mazza said,

LOL
I don't need proof. Go to business school and learn it, like I did.
But... I'll give you a tiny piece of the puzzle: the Note 2 parts in Apple's hands would cost A LOT MORE than on Samsung's hands. That's why they don't use OLED, but IPS... It's cheaper.
Also, if you make your food at home by buying the ingredients, isn't it cheaper than going to a fancy restaurant?
Bad question on your part.

Companies set the prices regardless of who makes the components. Macs/PCs for example. Same hardware and the same companies making hte components, but you pay more for a Mac.

Edited by techbeck, Jan 7 2013, 9:54pm :

techbeck said,

So again, then the iPhone 5 should be more expensive that $50. And Apple cut down on the amount of Samsung parts it is using in the iPhone 5 and it is still more expensive than Samsung's. Like the RAM is no longer made by Samsung in the iPhone 5...for example. And hmm, looky here. Seems Samsung is only making the processor...

http://www.isuppli.com/Teardow...-Same-Teardown-Reveals.aspx

So again, IF Nokia starts making Android, I doubt the prices would be much different than what is currently out there.

I'm sorry, but you're completely missing the point here. I decided recently that I will only have high level conversations here on Neowin (not counting on humorous subjects). You are not included and I'm not your teacher.
Bye

Luis Mazza said,

I'm sorry, but you're completely missing the point here. I decided recently that I will only have high level conversations here on Neowin (not counting on humorous subjects). You are not included and I'm not your teacher.
Bye

Haha, now that is rich. Your ego is getting the way and apparently, you cannot hold a conversation and think you are better than the rest. Funny really as I am sure you understand EVERYTHING out there and that no one has to teach you anything. And BTW, I never asked to be tought...but thanks for denying me anyway.

And this must be one of your high level convos you have or try to start here....


It would not be weird... You can customize Android pretty easily and it would look gay just like Windows Phone. lol

/s

Thanks for the laugh dude, you talk about high quality convos and you type something like that. Get over yourself.

And my whole point here, which you apparently missed, is that Nokia devices will not be more expensive because of build quality. In order to compete and make a dent initially, their prices need to be competitive.

BYE

techbeck said,

Haha, now that is rich. Your ego is getting the way and apparently, you cannot hold a conversation and think you are better than the rest. Funny really as I am sure you understand EVERYTHING out there and that no one has to teach you anything. And BTW, I never asked to be tought...but thanks for denying me anyway.

I'm not like that. But your answer was cute.
We're talking about the costs. When a company sells parts to Apple or any other manufacturer, that is including a profit margin. So Apple has to pay for a profit margin when buying from Samsung or any other manufacturer. If Apple replaced Samsung by another manufacturer, that is because it has more quality, or the price is lower or they want to sabotage Samsung.
Samsung is a HUGE company that makes a lot of the hardware, so their profit margin can be the same as Apple's, for instance (which are huge), but in this case, Samsung can sell more expensive parts because, well... It makes them. They don't have to pay for other manufacturer's profit margins on the most expensive parts of their own hardware.
I hope you can understand it now.

Luis Mazza said,

I'm not like that. But your answer was cute.
We're talking about the costs. When a company sells parts to Apple or any other manufacturer, that is including a profit margin. So Apple has to pay for a profit margin when buying from Samsung or any other manufacturer. If Apple replaced Samsung by another manufacturer, that is because it has more quality, or the price is lower or they want to sabotage Samsung.
Samsung is a HUGE company that makes a lot of the hardware, so their profit margin can be the same as Apple's, for instance (which are huge), but in this case, Samsung can sell more expensive parts because, well... It makes them. They don't have to pay for other manufacturer's profit margins on the most expensive parts of their own hardware.
I hope you can understand it now.

Sorry, I am done with you...thought you were with me as well?? I have no time for someone, after this, that insults others (saying you only have time for high quality convos) and show their ego/arrogance.

Have a good evening.

techbeck said,

Sorry, I am done with you...thought you were with me as well?? I have no time for someone, after this, that insults others (saying you only have time for high quality convos) and show their ego/arrogance.

Have a good evening.

I'm tired of talking to lots of superboys here on Neowin. Sorry if you're different and I disappointed you.
Good evening.

techbeck said,

Companies set the prices regardless of who makes the components. Macs/PCs for example. Same hardware and the same companies making hte components, but you pay more for a Mac.


Its not the same companies, only universal companies across almost every desktop is Intel and AMD. Nvidia a close 2nd. The rest varies from system to system.

However Samsung is HUGE. Their phone segment is just one of many. They have entire plants similar to Foxconn on their own. They easily have the capabilities to produce all the hardware required inhouse. Unlike Apple, Microsoft, Google, HTC, Nokia or others. Samsung is the one and only phone giant that can produce pretty much everything in house.

Really? Do you seriously believe that such statement is just a casual one?
In certain high echelons nothing is casual.....

TechieXP said,
You are reading way way way to much into his answer.

Compare how Elop answered similar questions in the past, I believe I wasn't reading way too Mich into his reply here.

Yes you are troll. He is saying base on the changing environment there's always the chance of theing using another platform. In case you didn't read it correctly, he specifically said that HTML5 could become the platform. Meaning that he understand that technology changes and chances are that it's possible for them to go with other platforms. Take a look at tech history and you will see why.

nickcruz said,
Yes you are troll. He is saying base on the changing environment there's always the chance of theing using another platform.

Elop brought up Android and then stated that anything is possible, so this is more than a casual careless comment. It's a deliberate move designed to be noticed by to shareholders, Microsoft, Google, consumers and tech sites.