I launched yesterday a series of short articles about the Nokia collapse where each blog article looks only at one specific aspect of it, and is illustrated by one picture. Both of these are rare for me, usually my blogs are longggggg and comprehensive (and very repetitive) and text-only, like this about the 20 risks Nokia listed in its Form 20-F which now have all turned out to be true and are haunting Nokia. So today in the Nokiasaga, we look at Nokia's two main competitors in smartphones over the past few years, Apple's iPhone and Samsung's smartphones on several platforms but most famously led by the Galaxy series on Android. So lets start with a riddle:
MANAGEMENT RIDDLE - WHICH OF THESE THREE IS ON THE BRINK OF DEATH?
This graph may be freely shared
So yes, in the picture we have Apple, Nokia and Samsung but not necessarily in that order. Which of the three companies is in deep trouble, so hopeless, its CEO destroys the platform and invites employees to jump off the 'burning pltform'?
Blue company has seen growth in smarpthone sales - so strong growth in fact, that it set a company-record in smartphone unit sales in 2010. It also finds its smarphone unit profitable, in fact it sets a new company record for most profits by that unit, ever, in 2010. Blue company considers itself a mobile company and states that smartphones are critical to its success in the mobile industry.
Lets compare to Green company, which totally differently from Blue company, in 2010, sets a company-record in smartphone unit sales in 2010, and its already-profitable smartphone unit sets a company record for most profits in that unit, ever, in that year. But Green company thinks that smartphones are vital to its future in the mobile industry, which it considers is its primary business.
Well, what of Red company, which totally differing from the first two, actually in 2010, sets a company-record in smartphone unit sales and the profitable smartphone unit also sets a company record for biggest smartphone profits in 2010. Red company however, sees mobile as its future and says that smartphones form the critical part of its success in the mobile industry.
This riddle would not trouble any first-year MBA student for any time at all. The three companies are performing in exactly the same way, reporting exactly the same internal performance benchmarks of excellence. There is no difference between the three. If you have a growing, profitable business, and its profits are growing - you have a successful unit, congratulations. Unless there is any other info to the contrary (illegal dealings like some banks did, or perhaps cancer-causing business like cigarette-sales etc or your technology is polluting or something like that) - these are three HEALTHY businesses of excellent condition. Only a pure madman would terminate any of those three.
Especially if 'smartphones' are the stated future of YOUR company main business. It doesn't matter at all whether you are company Blue or company Green or company Red, if you set company record growth and set company record profits in this smartphone business which is the future of your company industry, then you are SUCCEEDING. DO NOT STOP THIS SUCCESS.
Any first year MBA student gets this. Elop did not. Nokia had a highly profitable and growing smartphone business when Elop joined Nokia in the middle of 2010. That smartphone business grew so well, it set a new Nokia record for growth in 2010, and its profits were growing so well, the smartphone unit not only set a Nokia record for profits for the unit - the profitability itself grew towards the end of the year. It was only getting better.
Only a certifyable idiot would call this growing business success a Burning Platforms problem at Nokia. Which is before we figure out which of the three actually is Nokia? Who do you think? Apple must be company Blue, right, in 2010, iPhone 4 and so forth, the huge runaway global success that was so the darling of all the techie press with Steve Jobs on every magazine cover holding an iPhone. So which is Nokia, company Green or company Red. How was Samsung doing in 2010? When did the Galaxy launch?
Actually Apple is not company Blue. Nokia sold 28.6 million smartphones in Q4 of 2010, thats the blue line. Nokia is company Blue. For the full year 2010, Nokia sold 103.6 million smartphones according to the latest Quarterly data as reported by Nokia. Apple is company Green, the middle line, and as we know, Apple sold 47.5 million iPhones in 2010. So company Red is Samsung which sold 24.0 million smartphones in 2010. Nokia in smartphones was literally more than twice as big as Apple and more than four times as big as Samsung in 2010.
TWICE AS BIG AS NEAREST RIVAL
This is incredibly rare. I have to emphasize this point. Toyota has most of the recent years been the world's biggest car maker. GM ie General Motors of the USA has been in most of the other recent years. When was Toyota last so dominant in its industry, that it was twice as big as GM - or any other rival? Try 'never'. Yes, Toyota the car giant, has NEVER been twice as big as its rivals. How about GM? When was GM last twice as big as its rivals? NEVER HAPPENED. Volkswagen? Never. Fiat? Never. Nissan? Never. Renault? Never.
What of the PC industry? HP is currenly the world's biggest PC maker by one analyst house and Lenovo is the biggest by another expert's opinion. When was HP last twice as big as its nearest rival? Never. What of Lenovo? Never happened. Dell, surely Dell at one point? Nope. How about Apple? It was once the world's biggest PC maker in the era of the Apple 2, but even then it was not twice as big as its nearest rival. IBM? Never in the PC era. Toshiba? Compaq? Acer? Siemens? Asus? Never never never never and never.
Can you understand how rare - and massively dominating - such a position is, when you have the luxury of being TWICE as big as your nearest rival. Nokia was MORE than twice as big as its nearest rivals. So yes, Nokia is company Blue and not only is it setting Nokia records for new sales per year, and Nokia records for profits in the smartphone unit, Nokia is so utterly towering over its rivals, that almost any major tech company CEO would jump to take that market position in a second. If you TOWER over your rivals, and you are setting records in growth and profits, you are the hero and this is the goose that lays the golden eggs. You do not shoot this goose, in the face, like Dick Cheney.
GREW FASTER THAN RIVALS
Now the most astonishing part. Here is actual sales for year 2009 and 2010 and the absolute growth for Nokia smartphones, Apple iPhones and Samsung smartphones. Look at the amount of growth in 2009-2010
COMPANY . . . SMARTPHONES 2009 . . . SMARTPHONES 2010 . . . GROWTH 2009-2010
Nokia . . . . . . . 67.8 million . . . . . . . . . . . 103.6 million . . . . . . . . . . . 35.8 million
Apple . . . . . . . 25.1 million . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.5 million . . . . . . . . . . . 22.4 million
Samsung . . . . . 7.0 million . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.0 million . . . . . . . . . . . 17.0 million
Source: Company data
This table may be freely shared
The gap between Nokia and its rivals was not closing in 2010, it was GROWING. Nokia grew more than its rivals. Nokia smartphones unit was growing more than Apple iPhone or Samsung's smartphone unit. Remember, these are absolute numbers, don't be fooled by the propaganda and spin-doctors, whether at Apple, Microsoft or Nokia who may talk about 'growth rate' as a percentage. The growth 'rate' measure is mathematically skewed always to show the smallest rival to seem to have the biggest rate, when in absolute terms it might not be so. For real competition, real growth, you have to always compare by absolute numbers.
Let me show by simple example. If you grew your 'number' by 20, and I grew that same 'number' by 10, you grew more. This could be smartphone sales. It could be our bank accounts. It could be Olympic polevault jumping heights or whatever. You grew twice the amount I did. Now lets show how 'growth rate' can distort the reality. If you were the biggest at 200 measures (in smartphone sales or bank account balances or whatever) your addition of 20 was only 10% growth rate. But if I only started from 20, a far smaller starting point, and added only half what you did, ie 10, my growth rate is still 50% - a number 5 times bigger than your growth 'rate'. The growth 'rate' number is misleading when comparing rivals of different size, but the absolute growth number is always correct.
Apple grew in 2010 by 22.4 million smartphones. Samsung grew in 2010 by 17.0 million smartphones. Nokia however, grew by a massive 35.8 million smartphones, ie by far the biggest growth. The gap between Nokia and Apple was not shrinking in 2010, it was growing. NOKIA WAS NOT LOSING TO THE iPHONE - NOKIA WAS WINNING. (I know it sounds so totally 'counter-intuitive' and surely every news article you read at the time suggested Nokia was doing a death-dance, but I don't deal with fantasies and imaginariums here. If you want to believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny and any myths that Apple was growing faster than Nokia in 2010, enjoy your delusions up there on whatever planet you live on. Here at the CDB Blog we deal only with the hard facts, not entertaining myths). The reality is - those are actual reported numbers by Nokia and Apple direct from their quarterly results. Like Bill Clinton said, its just math. If you live on Planet Earth, your reality will tell you, Nokia grew 35.8 million in 2010, in smartphones, more than Apple which only grew 22.4 million. And as Nokia already was more than twice as big as Apple, and Nokia already was profitable, and Nokia's profits were growing, this the very definition of winning. Nokia was winning the smartphone wars against Apple's iPhone in 2010. The math is undeniable.
Same is true of Nokia vs Samsung. Nokia was more than twice as big as Apple and more than four times as big as Samsung in smartphones - an the gap was only growing larger, in Nokia's favor. This, while Nokia's smartphone unit was profitable, and producing ever bigger profits.
If you suggest Nokia is somehow on a dying platform, ie 'burning platform' on fire, and it must be terminated as the loser - it is like today, if Apple looked at the massive dominance of the iPad over the Kindle and Galaxy Tab and other tablets, suddenly said, hey, we are losing, lets abandon the iOS platform for the iPad, lets switch to the smallest tablet platform we can find - ironically yes, Windows 8. If Tim Cook suggested that today, he'd be burned on the stake and Steve Jobs would turn in his grave. For Nokia to look at the smartphone wars in 2010, find itself more than twice as big as its nearest rival, growing faster than the competition, in a highly profitable business, setting new Nokia records for profits (with plenty of hot new smartphones coming down the pike too, for early 2011 launch) - only a complete lunatic, a Microsoftian Misguided Muppet could write a memo suggesting the Nokia smartphone platform was 'burning' and Nokia had to jump off it.
ELOP EFFECT
Yet, that is bizarrely, unbelievably, what Nokia's new delusional CEO, Stephen Elop did (and how on earth could he have tricked Nokia's Board to believe this fairy tale, who knows?), in what will go down as the costliest and maddest, most destructive management decision of all time. The Elop Effect. Elop wrote his Burning Platforms memo, which caused what is commonly called the Ratner Effect, and then compounded that with the sudden announcement of the Microsoft partnership while having no phones to sell - but collapsing instantly current Nokia Symbian based smartphone sales due to what is called the Osborne Effect. Nobody has ever tried these two self-destructive management mistakes together - until now. The Osborne Effect bankrupted the Osborne computer company while the Ratner Effect nearly did the same for the Ratner jewelry company (which only survived by firing its CEO and rebranding). Elop Effect combines those two suicidal management actions into this, the worlds' most destructive management mistake ever, called the Elop Effect. Here is what happened to Nokia's record-setting domination and growth, instantly after the Elop Effect. Compare how the rivals did under the same period:
This picture may be freely shared
Yes, this is the full picture of the earlier one we saw, the riddle. Now I have identified Nokia as the blue line, Apple as the green line and Samsung as the red line. You can also see where the Elop Effect happened and what happened to Nokia smartphone sales instantly after that.
Nokia's smartphone unit was instantly plunged into loss-making. Nokia issued a profit warning only weeks after this new strategy was announced and Nokia's smartphone unit has produced an ever-increasing loss ever since that day. In the latest quarter for which we have data, Q3 of 2012, Nokia's smartphone unit was generating a loss of 48% per smartphone it managed to sell. The sales have collapsed so comprehensively, Nokia went from 29% market share to under 3% now for Q4, ie very literally, Nokia has scared away nine out of every ten customers it had just two years ago. This is a world record in market destruction of a market leader, in any globally contested industry in human history. No car company has fallen this much this fast, not Toyota with its brakes problems, not Ford when launching the Edsel, not General Motors when it went through its bankruptcy. BP didn't see this rapid collapse of its business with the oil spill, and neither did Exxon with the Exxon Valdez oil tanker disaster. New Coke when launched, a textbook marketing disaster, did not cause this much total market loss for Coca Cola, and then - Coke wisely re-introduced its 'old platform' ie Coca Cola Classic, to regain its market.
We are witnessing the making of the world record in market failure by a global brand leader. Stephen Elop took the most rare 'sure thing' of utterly dominating his industry, holding victory in his hands, and cast it away. He literally snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Nokia's brand is damaged, Nokia's dumbphones business is damaged, Nokia's credit rating has had a series of downgrades and is now rated junk by all ratings agencies. Nokia's share price which had been growing 11% since Elop started at Nokia and passed 8.20 Euros in value, is now down to about 3 Euros and Nokia is frequently the target of takeover speculation or bankruptcy.
This decision to judge Nokia's market dominating and massively growing, profitable smartphone business as a 'failure' and 'burning platform' which Elop decided to destroy, has to go down as the worst management mistake of all time, and yes, worse than New Coke. As this was Elop's idea, his decision, his communication and his strategy and his execution - this is obviously Stephen Elop's personal management mistake. Thus Elop is the most incompetent CEO that has ever held corporate office. Having set the world record for management failure, Elop is thus, the world's worst CEO of not just technology or of last year but yes, when you set the world record for market self-destruction you are the worst CEO of all time. Stephen Elop, do the right thing and resign, now!
I will return with more analysis of Nokia's plight with more pictures soon.
How many billions have shareholders lost because of Elop?
Posted by: Interested to know | January 04, 2013 at 06:02 AM
Tomi, your predictions and analysis are mostly great, but you're being held back by being unrealistic. The argument that "Nokia was doing perfectly before Elop" is simply not true. If Nokia was doing so well, then why did their stock fall about 50% in 2010 before Elop started? Did they anticipate that he would ruin the company? Why did they even hire Elop if the company was doing so well?
Give Elop negative credit where it's due. He didn't destroy a great company on its way up, he destroyed it on the way down, hastening its demise and blocking any alternative that could allow it to recover. He was hired because Nokia was vulnerable and MS took advantage of that. The stock market knew Nokia wasn't on a good path in 2010, and company insiders knew. Elop's burning platform memo simply let consumers know too, killing a troubled platform, making Nokia now more vulnerable and desperate.
Yes, Elop is the worst CEO ever, and a criminal who conspired to destroy Nokia, but exaggerating the facts about it does nothing to convict him for his true crimes.
Posted by: m | January 04, 2013 at 06:12 AM
Hi Interested
I'll have a better answer and nice picture for you a bit later in this series, but the cumulative abandoned revenues just in the smartphone unit are about 49.5 Billion dollars (cumulative, over 2 years) and the abandoned profits and created losses amount to 7.0 Billion dollars of profits eliminated (cumulative, over 2 years) again, just in the smartphone unit. I'll get you a nice picture and story about that soon. but yeah, he is also the costliest or most destuctive CEO ever in terms of wiping out revenues and profits in any 2 year period following a highly profitable year.
Tomi Ahonen :-)
Posted by: Tomi T Ahonen | January 04, 2013 at 06:18 AM
Interesting, but I see the Nokia line in the second graph as being close to a ballistic curve. You can clearly see the line levelling out during 2010 while the Apple and Samsung lines have increasing upward curves (which the Samsung growth continues to follow nearly perfectly).
If you draw Nokia's sales as a continuous curve it would have peaked about Q2 2011 and then continued on down to hit the Apple, Samsung lines about Q1 2011.
That might be an artifact of the graph, but the delta in sales growth would be interesting. Just giving absolute numbers for one quarter doesn't show the full story. By that I mean it is necessary to see the change in growth per quarter. Given the graph I would guess that the quarterly growth in Nokia sales was decreasing per quarter while Apple and Samsung increased.
Posted by: Jody | January 04, 2013 at 06:35 AM
There's an alternate explanation that puts the blame for the misunderstanding of the entire phone industry on analysts who in a just world would be in jail for fraudulent analysis.
Spot the anomaly in the following article about the Nokia and Qualcomm settlement in 2008:
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/17/business/fi-qualcomm17
The claim in the article is that Nokia paid up front approximately $2.3 USD in royalties for the next 15 years of using Qualcomm's IP. That simply does not make any sense. What exactly are the other precedents for such an amount of money being paid in a lump sum in cash?
What occurred after the settlement is even more puzzling given the assertion that Nokia paid for a true cross-licensing agreement with Qualcomm. Nokia sold off its baseband chipset related units, going from a company that shortly beforehand owned the IP for the entire chipset stack to a company owning none of it. Nokia would eventually switch to using Qualcomm SoCs for its higher end phones including the ones it used in an attempt to re-enter the US in force. No, the actions of Nokia after the settlement bear no resemblance to that of a company that attained a cross-licensing agreement. Everything looks like an exit fee paid to Qualcomm, not a continuing license.
I suspect with the expiration of the previous 15 year cross-licensing deal with Qualcomm, Nokia simply lost the right to keep making smartphones without Qualcomm SoCs in them. I find it odd that in this corporate murder, the finger isn't pointed at the suspect who was the most bitter rival and who had the most to gain from Nokia's destruction. If one reads the article I linked, the article is implying at the time it was Qualcomm who was suspected to be the company that was dying. Nokia had to die so that Qualcomm could live.
Now if one wants an astonishing graph, graph the swing in the baseband chipsets used for smartphones in the same time period. One will find Apple switching from Infineon to Qualcomm almost immediately after Intel purchased Infineon, Nokia switching to Qualcomm, and soon apparently RIM switching from Marvell to Qualcomm.
Posted by: John Phamlore | January 04, 2013 at 06:39 AM
Hi m
This is EXACTLY the problem I have nowadays on this blog, when I attempt to cut corners and write a quick short blog story. Your comment is 100% valid, this is not in any way your fault, m. Thank you for the comment. You are 100% right, Nokia WAS in trouble before Elop came in, and Nokia had seen its share price fall by 55% over 3 years of the previous CEO management etc.
But - Nokia problems were of 'execution' in the overall corporation, from networks to dumbphones to Navteq to smartphones. The 'execution' problems were particularly seen in massive delays to new promised phones - the N97 was delayed by more than a year. And first phones were plagued with bugs and problems. When Chairman Jorma Ollila introduced Elop as the new CEO, Ollila expressly stated that Elop's primary mission was to fix Nokia's 'execution' problems.
Instead of fixing those, Elop changed the smartphone operating system (and other problems of the Elop Effect like announcing the Microsoft partnership with no phones to sell, etc). So its like a doctor, finding a patient whose heart has stopped, and deciding the doctor will now amputate a healthy leg. The original problem is not fixed, but the patient has a further new problem.
You are totally correct, Nokia had problems - I have written on this blog years before Elop came to town, critically of Nokia, that those problems (in execution) must be fixed and have listed often specific problems and specific solutions here etc. But in this 'short' blog today, I did not do my usual verbose 'lets review every step of Nokia's past 140 years' kind of comphrehensive blog posting as some of my blogs are over 10,000 words in lenght - yes, thats a whole chapter in one of my hardcover books - that is normal for this blog, just to avoid this problem.
I agree with you, Nokia had problems before. They were NOT in the choice of operating system and Elop did destroy a healthy part of Nokia. Look at this picture I have for you. Nokia - in its smartphones unit, not all of Nokia - was VERY much healthy and - Nokia as BEATING Apple and Samsung in smartphones. That is not a 'sick' patient needing an operation. That is a healthy athlete who deserves praise from his coach.
Nokia had problems but not in its smartphone operating system strategy of Symbian/Maemo/MeeGo/Meltemi with Qt and Ovi store. That strategy was winning. The evidence is in the pictures and the math in the above
Thank you for writing, and m, this was not in any way meant to be critical of you and your comment. Your comment is 100% valid. I am just venting my own frustration (and some of my regular readers will appreciate)
Tomi Ahonen :-)
Posted by: Tomi T Ahonen | January 04, 2013 at 06:41 AM
If one reads what the rest of the industry is doing, the clear trend is that China is leveraging its legacy TD-SCDMA and the alternate TD-LTE to induce Western companies to establish research and development branches in China training in aggregate thousands of Chinese engineers in the latest technology. One example is Marvell:
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4376402/Marvell-aims-to-be-China-IC-leader
Also companies such as Ericsson are being enlisted by the Chinese to co-develop demonstration projects managing combinations of technologies, open standards as well as Chinese variants.
http://www.zdnet.com/ericsson-to-build-td-lte-network-for-china-mobile-hong-kong-7000001196/
And in a few short years one suddenly sees rising competitors to Western companies such as this:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57484472-94/inside-huawei-the-chinese-tech-giant-thats-rattling-nerves-in-dc/
Back to Nokia. Well in 2008 it would have been apparent that Nokia gambit backing WiMAX was the costliest IP blunder in human history and they had no backup plan. Observe other companies' backup plan was transferring all of their technological know-how to China in a demonstration project knowing the Chinese in a few years would raise up their future competitor who would crush them.
Posted by: John Phamlore | January 04, 2013 at 07:03 AM
Losing that much money in still in a cushy job? Maybe Elop is crazy like a fox.
Nah, he's just crazy.
Posted by: Interested to know | January 04, 2013 at 07:08 AM
You refer to Elop's actions as mistakes. It doesn't appear that what he and his fellow Microsofters that he has brought in are doing things by accident. They look, as with the ones inside the Finnish university system, to be done on purpose. At this point Nokia is gone in all but name. Any hope for the future hangs on Jolla and the others.
Posted by: Olav | January 04, 2013 at 10:25 AM
From the user point of view:
Nokia 5800, N97 was terrible in user experience.
S^3 / Anna handsets was terrible, slow, buggy, unfinished work.
EDoF cameras, slow CPUs, low RAM killed the rest.
Nokia N9 had a chance. But then Elop came along.
Posted by: Naikon | January 04, 2013 at 10:34 AM
Tomi, if you save those pictures in "png" format, they'll look good. But if you save them in "jpg" format, they'll look bad, with "blurry" text, because those pictures are not photographs.
Thanks for all! Keep up the good work!
Posted by: Sysad | January 04, 2013 at 10:39 AM
@Olav.
I agree, it's not a mistakes. It's a good planned moves. The goals are different from what you can expect.
Look, even Nokia Maps are how de-branded to here, ready to go away. There is no Nokia anymore. We have Lumia, Asha and Here instead.
Posted by: Naikon | January 04, 2013 at 10:42 AM
Well this is very attractive post Greatest individual Management Mistake Ever Made - Nokia vs Competition in one picture indeed.Would like to read a small more of this. Brilent post. gratitude for the heads-up...This blog post was very educational and well-informed.
Posted by: ukdissertation.co.uk | January 04, 2013 at 11:18 AM
About how bad the decision to go with Windows Phone was, Asymco just posted an article on dumbphone to smartphone migration http://www.asymco.com/2013/01/03/the-last-featurephone/ and according to that, Windows Phone user base in the US actually shrank by 1 million during the last 12 months.
Posted by: chithanh | January 04, 2013 at 12:58 PM
This is a nice post.
However there is just one problem. You assume that Nokia was going to succeed with the strategy they had. You haven't presented any actual proof of that. We can't really know if they were going to succeed of not.
For example, can you explain to us, what would have stopped the collapse of Nokia's market share? You said earlier that it's not good that the market share is dropping and who knows how low it will go. I assume you tried to say that you had no idea of what was going to stop the fall of the market share.
You have been talking about market share. Can you make the same analysis with market share as the tool?
Now you are not talking about Nokia's market share in smartphones while you should because it's important. Before and after the strategy change.
Posted by: ukd | January 04, 2013 at 01:15 PM
@ukd
Have you read _anything_ of what is published and posted here on this blog?
Posted by: Lasko | January 04, 2013 at 01:36 PM
@ukd:
The marketshare was dropping because the strategy was delayed thanks to the well known execution problems, not because it was bad. If you release buggy devices and delay your next gen system thanks to management errors it's inevitable that it'll show up in your sales figures.
Nokia was already doing the right thing, i.e. preparing a successor for Symbian. And tell me what you want: MeeGo would have been more successful than Windows Phone by default - because it was a genuine Nokia product. It was a continuation from previous offerings, not a complete disruption.
Even if MeeGo had for some unlikely reason been a dud it'd still have sold more than Lumia is doing now.
Posted by: Tester | January 04, 2013 at 01:51 PM
@Lasko
I have. Analysis on market share, before and after the new strategy, is missing.
@Tester
Execution problems? Was there any proof that Nokia was successful in repairing those execution problems? If not, it's probable that the market share would have continued to decline while the execution problems continued.
Posted by: ukd | January 04, 2013 at 02:11 PM
@Interested :
Your question is not that easy :
Nokia's value was 37.73 Billions USD in December 2010, today (jan 4th 2013) it's 10.22 USD (knowing that shares are artificially high).
So that's about 27 Billions USD already lost (equivalent of Latvia's GDP)
If we add Tomi's figures (abandoned revenues, as I'm not sure of what to do with losses, if they're included already in company's value or not)...
So let's say at best, Elop Effect cost about 77 Billions USD (with this amount, one could "buy" the Sultanate of Oman, and have few extra cash left to buy Monaco)
But as I'm not sure of how to combine figures, I'd be interested in the full analysis of how much did indeed cost the Elop effect, overall.
Posted by: vladkr | January 04, 2013 at 03:33 PM
Why Nokia did not turn the strategy plan? Because Form 20-F was Elop
business plan for Nokia. That is why so accurate hits. That guy is an talented destroyer; why some countries need atomic power? They should hire Elop. Lol.
Posted by: geektech | January 04, 2013 at 04:21 PM