Nokia scoops up Alcatel in €15,6bn deal - TechCentral

Nokia scoops up Alcatel in €15,6bn deal

Alcatel-Lucent CEO Michel Combes

Alcatel-Lucent CEO Michel Combes

Finland’s Nokia has agreed to purchase France’s Alcatel-Lucent for €15,6bn (about R200bn).

The deal will allow them to compete more effectively with market leader Ericsson and fast-growing Chinese rivals Huawei and ZTE.

The boards of both companies have approved the deal and it is expected to be finalised by the first half of 2016 after regulatory approvals.

Nokia and Alcatel-Lucent say that the deal will enable them to better prepare for “the next wave of technological change, including the Internet of things and transition to the cloud”.

Alcatel-Lucent CEO Michel Combes said the combination of the companies will “create a European champion and global leader in ultra-broadband, Internet protocol networking and cloud applications”.

Nokia, which last year sold its mobile phone business to Microsoft, has also taken the opportunity to indicate that it is considering  “strategic options” for its Here navigation, mapping and location intelligence business. Speculation is mounting about a possible bid by Microsoft or Uber for the Here business.  — © 2015 NewsCentral Media


  1. Vusumuzi Sibiya on

    These Nokia guys are on some serious comeback mission… had almost thrown them into that BB coffin but seems like they’re proving to be a cat with many lives, so I guess its just going to be a funeral for just the one dead brand.

  2. A Finnish-Franco-American company – good luck with that . What are the chances that my former Lucent shares will get back to the $200 mark? Sweet Franco-American I expect!

  3. Ofentse Letsholo on

    Now that’s a lot of money for them to buy Alcatel-Lucent but good luck to them as they have been doing well with LTE tech all over the world and getting contracts like there’s no tomorrow. I feel they are making a mistake when it comes to the sale of HERE Maps when it is the world’s leader and with more car manufacturers coming on board, but anyway good luck my Nokia ;-).

  4. Greg Mahlknecht on

    >I feel they are making a mistake when it comes to the sale of HERE Maps when it is the world’s leader

    They’re a long way behind TomTom, who are the world’s map leaders – HERE are in a distant second place, with Google an even more distant 3rd. But I agree to a point – Maps are such a strategic asset in this day and age they have to think long and hard before getting out of that business. On the other hand, maintenance of a global map set has ridiculously high costs, perhaps it’s just prohibitively high for a non-core business of Nokia.

  5. Ofentse Letsholo on

    Well I’m a bit skeptical of TomTom being no.1 but I’ll do more research though from lots of recent posts it was said that 3 in 4 cars use HERE data than of any competitor and from the car manufacturers mentioned it was believable plus if you go to their sites all car brands are listed even the “new member” Jaguar.

    Anyway I think the tech that NSN(Nokia Solution Networks) is producing can somehow help them in pushing the tech behind map coverage with maybe Cellphone Towers[Antennas] scanning the land where they are situated for updated accurate maps though I could be dreaming. I fully agree with you that map maintenance is costly but maps are just something special, I also think they should have also bought Garmin.

  6. Greg Mahlknecht on

    >Well I’m a bit skeptical of TomTom being no.1

    I’ve been in the geo game for a while – TomTom is the gold standard by which all maps are measured. Car makers might have chosen HERE for cost, but you’ll find where lives depend on the maps and cost isn’t an issue (fleet management, geographic analysis, etc) TomTom are the 1st choice.

    The most widely used maps on the internet are Google because they’re free for small deployments, but their map quality is 3rd rate compared to TomTom/HERE. Don’t confuse popularity with quality.

    > scanning the land where they are situated for updated accurate maps

    Maps are created with a combination of satellite imagery to get the first rough draft (this is how “cheap” guys get their maps done), and then cars drive every single road and take billions of images (like Streetview, but higher accuracy and quality, they’ve been doing this for long before Google did their stuff), those images are sent back to data processing centers to get all the lane info/signage/markings/etc filled in by operators manually “driving” the roads and placing everything. LOTS of work!

  7. Vusumuzi Sibiya on

    >>Don’t confuse popularity with quality.

    I get all the points that you’re making, however the “quality of being popular” is easily measurable whereas the quality that you refer to; is highly subjective.

    A Merc vs BMW argument will go on forever and a day but we can easily settle things with most popular using number of sales and there would be no arguing that.

    But just so we’re all clear on the point I’m making; there’s just two choices that you can make when it comes to cars… there’s Merc and then there’s the rest.

  8. Greg Mahlknecht on

    This isn’t Merc vs BMW – it’s comparing two data sets. It’s quite easy to say which data set has better coverage, more accuracy, and is updated more regularly.

    Just to be clear – I actually work with both data sets.

    > A Merc vs BMW argument will go on forever and a day but we can easily settle things with most popular using number of sales and there would be no arguing that.

    Using popularity as a metric, the best car between Merc vs BMW would be a Toyota.

  9. Vusumuzi Sibiya on

    I haven’t as yet got lost using the free Google maps…

    …but hey, if TomTom works best for you in your Toyota then that’s Gr8! 🙂

  10. Greg Mahlknecht on

    Actually, Google used to use TomTom maps for South Africa, but it was too expensive for them (Google’s map department is bleeding money) now they use AfriGIS locally, which are horrible – everyone has a friend or has personally had a sob story of how GMaps got them lost – I can find easily find a dozen errors within a few km of my house. The HERE maps on my Lumia are so much better as a GIS.

  11. Vusumuzi Sibiya on

    There was a time when I was an avid Nokia fan and the maps were Gr8! All I’m pointing out is that nothing changed for me when I started using GMaps –

    I was still able to get to all my desired destinations without fail… so it still comes down to what works best for you and that would be described as subjective.

  12. Greg Mahlknecht on

    I think they should sell, they just don’t have pockets deep enough to take the maps to the next level – when Nokia bought Navteq, they were better maps than TomTom, especially in coverage – but they have fallen behind because they haven’t had the money to advance them.

    I get what you’re saying about the tech helping making mapping easier, but I don’t think it’s a suitable tech for that – the mapping vans need sub-meter resolution for positioning, and the triangulation from the mobile networks are so far from that, even a 100x increase in their accuracy wouldn’t be enough.

    The reason that I’m pedantic about this is that currently there’s only two companies (TomTom/HERE) that’s interested in creating a data set with only accuracy and completeness in mind – Google and Apple are both making “good enough” data sets targeted to where their users are. We need there HERE data set to be maintained by someone with the same interests and deep pockets to have competition in this space.

  13. Greg Mahlknecht on

    But there are objective metrics for calculating map quality. This isn’t something anecdotes can find an answer to.

  14. Ofentse Letsholo on

    I understand what you are saying so I guess we’ll just have to wait and see, Microsoft is probably the first one who’s on the list to buy it as that map data will be their golden data to compete with Google Maps. 😉

© 2009 – 2019 NewsCentral Media