Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
The article says Nokia licensed the name and the design *to* Foxconn, who build and sell it. Not terribly different from Philips licensing their name to Tatung for HDTVs outside Europe.
The design may have originated with Nokia but the actual vendor is Foxconn.
|
I understand that, but to say this is Foxconn product -- in this case -- is simply not true. It would
almost be like saying that, since Foxconn assembles iPads, that the Apple iPad was "really" a Foxconn product.
Again, the distinctiion here is that the design was Nokia's and
they went to Foxconn to build and market it (even "own" it), whereas -- usually -- when a manufacturer (like Foxconn) is simply using a name, the product is generic and the manufacturer licenses the name
only, to help sell the
generic product. In this case this is a very important distinction. Nokia is not an "out of business" company merely selling their name, they're a company that plans to get back into the market, and this is their first post-Microsoft product. Maybe they will continue to license their products to Foxconn, but I doubt it. I'm guessing this was the easiest, fastest way to keep their name out there.
As one analyst put it ...
Quote:
|
IHS analyst Fogg notes, “For Nokia, the advantages of licensing are considerable. Nokia can enter the mobile device market without needing to worry about manufacturing, supply chain management, stock control or hardware distribution. And, by selling its former devices unit to Microsoft, Nokia has freed itself from historic baggage, restructuring costs, and can start afresh.”
|
http://www.geekwire.com/2014/surpris...ndroid-tablet/