Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 30 2013 @ 03:01 PM EDT |
Jaques Nasser wasn't acting on behalf of, say an oil company, to make Ford cheap
to buy.
Elop, allegedly, acted in concert with or as agent for, Microsoft and, if true,
has conflict of interests written all over it.
Only problem is, he looks to have done his part too well and Nokia ended up
being worth less than the bargain Microsoft may have tried to engineer, leaving
Elop hanging.
One big question is who knew what in the boardrooms...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- The difference - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 01 2013 @ 01:19 PM EDT
|
Authored by: ailuromancy on Monday, July 01 2013 @ 02:20 AM EDT |
I wanted to see how Jacques Nasser compared to Stephen Elop
using Ahonen's
criteria, but I could not find the figures.
Ahonen's point is that Nokia had
double the market share of the
second place competitor, but within two years,
Nokia was in third place,
with half the market share of the second place
competitor.
Nokia is now barely in the top ten, with 3% market share.
Nasser (CEO
from 1999 to 2001) took the share price from $37 to $25, and the price later fell to $7.
The price went below $2 in 2009, but I do not know if it is sensible to
blame Nasser for that. Share price is not market share, and I
would like to
compare oranges with oranges. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|