Hasn't Microsoft come a little late to the mobile party?

Microsoft/Nokia deal

News this morning that Microsoft have bought Nokia’s mobile phone unit for £4.6bn is a natural step for the two companies, who have already been working together very closely on smartphones since originally signing a strategic partnership in February 2011. But the question of whether two companies which have both have been accused of falling behind in the smartphone race and resting on their laurels can really regain lost ground, is one that seems too little too late.

The deal, which will see Microsoft license Nokia’s brand to use on its products for a 10-year period, was hailed by Microsoft chief executive, Steve Ballmer, as: "…a bold step into the future — a win-win for employees, shareholders and consumers of both companies… We are excited and honored to be bringing Nokia’s incredible people, technologies and assets into our Microsoft family."

Nokia’s shares rose an incredible 45 per cent on the news and on first glance, it seems like Microsoft have made a canny move in purchasing the second-largest mobile phone maker in the world, who managed to ship 60.9 million units in the second quarter of 2013. However, the truth is that the lion’s share of these sales were feature phones, less powerful than their smartphone brethren, and a shrinking market sector, which actually resulted in Nokia’s sales dropping by 27 per cent from the same quarter in 2012.

But where Microsoft is really hoping to make some waves is with Nokia’s Lumia range of smartphones, which run Microsoft’s Windows Phone 8 operating system and have seen robust growth of 78 per cent year-on-year. In their announcement to the media, Microsoft made a big splash of the fact that the Lumia range was outselling Blackberry smartphones in 34 markets. This seems like a great achievement, but hides the fact that shipments are a country mile behind the likes of Apple’s iPhone and Samsung’s devices running Google’s Android operating system, of which more than 100m were sold in Q2 this year.

With such well developed competitors, it’s going to be a long hard road to fight their way back to the top, especially given the nature of the smartphone market today. It is not just the hardware and the operating system that informs a consumer’s decision on which phone to purchase, it is also the range of apps on offer. Apple and Google’s Android launched their app stores as far back as 2008 and have stolen a march on the Microsoft alternative. By July 2013, both Apple and Google celebrated app downloads in excess of 50 billion.

Microsoft’s Windows Phone Store, on the other hand, has yet to reach such dizzying heights, and this was one of the biggest criticisms of Nokia’s decision to embrace Microsoft’s operating system for its Lumia range. The first product to be launched in November 2011, the Lumia 800, was lauded as a compelling alternative to the duopoly of Apple iOS and Android powered phones, but many critics voiced concerns over the relatively limited range of apps available for the Windows platform. Although the situation has been constantly improving since then, it still lags a long way behind.

To make matters worse, Microsoft has something of an uneven track record as a hardware manufacturer. Traditionally a software developer, it has only had limited exposure in the hardware sector, most recently with the launch of its Surface tablet last year, which has failed to live up to expectations. The company was recently forced to slash the price of the tablet, after writing down $900m because of unsold stock of the Surface RT, more than the $853m it had earned for sales of the device.

Hopefully some of Nokia’s expertise in this area will rub off on the software giant, otherwise things could go from bad to worse in the mobile phone sector for both companies.

Photograph: Getty Images

Mark Brierley is a group editor at Global Trade Media

Photo: Getty Images/AFP
Show Hide image

Is Yvette Cooper surging?

The bookmakers and Westminster are in a flurry. Is Yvette Cooper going to win after all? I'm not convinced. 

Is Yvette Cooper surging? The bookmakers have cut her odds, making her the second favourite after Jeremy Corbyn, and Westminster – and Labour more generally – is abuzz with chatter that it will be her, not Corbyn, who becomes leader on September 12. Are they right? A couple of thoughts:

I wouldn’t trust the bookmakers’ odds as far as I could throw them

When Jeremy Corbyn first entered the race his odds were at 100 to 1. When he secured the endorsement of Unite, Britain’s trade union, his odds were tied with Liz Kendall, who nobody – not even her closest allies – now believes will win the Labour leadership. When I first tipped the Islington North MP for the top job, his odds were still at 3 to 1.

Remember bookmakers aren’t trying to predict the future, they’re trying to turn a profit. (As are experienced betters – when Cooper’s odds were long, it was good sense to chuck some money on there, just to secure a win-win scenario. I wouldn’t be surprised if Burnham’s odds improve a bit as some people hedge for a surprise win for the shadow health secretary, too.)

I still don’t think that there is a plausible path to victory for Yvette Cooper

There is a lively debate playing out – much of it in on The Staggers – about which one of Cooper or Burnham is best-placed to stop Corbyn. Team Cooper say that their data shows that their candidate is the one to stop Corbyn. Team Burnham, unsurprisingly, say the reverse. But Team Kendall, the mayoral campaigns, and the Corbyn team also believe that it is Burnham, not Cooper, who can stop Corbyn.

They think that the shadow health secretary is a “bad bank”: full of second preferences for Corbyn. One senior Blairite, who loathes Burnham with a passion, told me that “only Andy can stop Corbyn, it’s as simple as that”.

I haven’t seen a complete breakdown of every CLP nomination – but I have seen around 40, and they support that argument. Luke Akehurst, a cheerleader for Cooper, published figures that support the “bad bank” theory as well.   Both YouGov polls show a larger pool of Corbyn second preferences among Burnham’s votes than Cooper’s.

But it doesn’t matter, because Andy Burnham can’t make the final round anyway

The “bad bank” row, while souring relations between Burnhamettes and Cooperinos even further, is interesting but academic.  Either Jeremy Corbyn will win outright or he will face Cooper in the final round. If Liz Kendall is eliminated, her second preferences will go to Cooper by an overwhelming margin.

Yes, large numbers of Kendall-supporting MPs are throwing their weight behind Burnham. But Kendall’s supporters are overwhelmingly giving their second preferences to Cooper regardless. My estimate, from both looking at CLP nominations and speaking to party members, is that around 80 to 90 per cent of Kendall’s second preferences will go to Cooper. Burnham’s gaffes – his “when it’s time” remark about Labour having a woman leader, that he appears to have a clapometer instead of a moral compass – have discredited him in him the eyes of many. While Burnham has shrunk, Cooper has grown. And for others, who can’t distinguish between Burnham and Cooper, they’d prefer to have “a crap woman rather than another crap man” in the words of one.

This holds even for Kendall backers who believe that Burnham is a bad bank. A repeated refrain from her supporters is that they simply couldn’t bring themselves to give Burnham their 2nd preference over Cooper. One senior insider, who has been telling his friends that they have to opt for Burnham over Cooper, told me that “faced with my own paper, I can’t vote for that man”.

Interventions from past leaders fall on deaf ears

A lot has happened to change the Labour party in recent years, but one often neglected aspect is this: the Labour right has lost two elections on the bounce. Yes, Ed Miliband may have rejected most of New Labour’s legacy and approach, but he was still a protégé of Gordon Brown and included figures like Rachel Reeves, Ed Balls and Jim Murphy in his shadow cabinet.  Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham were senior figures during both defeats. And the same MPs who are now warning that Corbyn will doom the Labour Party to defeat were, just months ago, saying that Miliband was destined for Downing Street and only five years ago were saying that Gordon Brown was going to stay there.

Labour members don’t trust the press

A sizeable number of Labour party activists believe that the media is against them and will always have it in for them. They are not listening to articles about Jeremy Corbyn’s past associations or reading analyses of why Labour lost. Those big, gamechanging moments in the last month? Didn’t change anything.

100,000 people didn’t join the Labour party on deadline day to vote against Jeremy Corbyn

On the last day of registration, so many people tried to register to vote in the Labour leadership election that they broke the website. They weren’t doing so on the off-chance that the day after, Yvette Cooper would deliver the speech of her life. Yes, some of those sign-ups were duplicates, and 3,000 of them have been “purged”.  That still leaves an overwhelmingly large number of sign-ups who are going to go for Corbyn.

It doesn’t look as if anyone is turning off Corbyn

Yes, Sky News’ self-selecting poll is not representative of anything other than enthusiasm. But, equally, if Yvette Cooper is really going to beat Jeremy Corbyn, surely, surely, she wouldn’t be in third place behind Liz Kendall according to Sky’s post-debate poll. Surely she wouldn’t have been the winner according to just 6.1 per cent of viewers against Corbyn’s 80.7 per cent. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.