iPhone tops business rankings, steals Nokia market share - Page 3

Some of what you say is true. Nokia didn't have to compete in the US market really because they made a TON of money while almost completely ignoring the US market. Not bad. Now they have decided to compete in this market and that requires them to change and they are in the process. Developers hated Symbian because of the costs involved, the somewhat static way Nokia operated, but now that it is open source, the developers will come and be happy with the new environment. If anything, Nokia has the cash to throw at the problem to fix. You act as though only Apple is able to come up with software ideas. Very myopic.

Apple have an interesting position.

They have a unique software platform that originated in workstation-class computers, Which they have quickly adapted to mobile. It's not just an OS. It's a best-in-class software development environment, a tradition of user-interface design and a technology which makes great use of the GPU. All these factors combine to create something unique.

Developers can write an app on the iPhone. Have the SDK solve most of the problems, and have the GPU do all the rendering. It is awesome. And Apple pay you 75% of the revenue when you sell it on their store.

Apple has 20 odd billion USD in the bank and zero debt. Enough to bail-out a medium-sized bank.

Nokia is the mobile market leader in terms of sales and units. Nokia has a platform which originated in handheld computers. Their adoption of open-source is bizarre. Money attracts developers, not fixing someone else's OS.

If this wasn't bad enough, suddenly any company with zero cash can adopt Android and technically leapfrog over Nokia.

Apple is not alone in being able to think-up new software ideas. But is alone in having a platform like this. Google is a credible second. MS and Nokia are looking very weak in comparison.

Now considering at these facts, please, tell me how I am mis-understanding this situation. Precisely what witchcraft can Nokia perform to put itself back at number one?

C.

(My Finnish joke was clearly wasted)

If you were attempting to make a joke at my expense because you thought I am Finnish, then yes it was wasted and you made a major assumption. The same can be said about Nokia. Now because Apple is in a profitable position the past seems to be forgotten. Good thing Microsoft came along and saved them. In this case it was money that clogged the drain. The same money that Nokia has to throw at this problem. If you really think that Nokia will not use its considerable muscle and financial resources to compete, then you might as well stand in line with the rest of these rabid kool-aid drinkers. However, I do not see you in that light. If anything, you might be way over biased that Nokia will fail but within a few weeks, I am sure they will release their one phone you know about and one you don't and it will have people talking for sure.

There are people other than me looking at this situation and are shocked by the situation that Nokia finds itself in. It has nothing to do with "rabidity", "bias", or "kool aid". This market is about technology and rational business decisions.

We know what Apple is doing. We know what Google is doing. We know what Microsoft is ..er.. not doing.

Please describe exactly what it is you think Nokia will do to respond. How will Nokia use its muscle and resources to compete.

This is not a problem Nokia can solve through marketing, or leveraging its customer base. Nokia needs a comprehensive technical solution at least as credible as Android.

Making Symbian Open Source is not a credible response.
Starting a Linux-based OS *is* a credible response but it is 3 years too late and may well drive away more Symbian developers than they hoped to attract with the open source initiative.

C.

No it isn't, it is a standard business practise, you adjust to your surroundings.


Fact is, the iPhone is a failure outside of the USA, there has been very few sales, and Apple doesn't understand the market. And if you recall the statement Apple made the other day, they will be raising the price of their devices in Europe, bet the sales get even better because of that.


You do realise that Nokia has been selling a Linux based device for over three years?


ha ha ha ha ha you are so funny. But you do know that Symbian (by the way, it powers only a few of their phone models) is a British company?

They didn't quickly adapt it, they said they had been working on the phone for years


You made a slight mistake there, Developers can write an apple approve ap on the iPhone.


So?


Well technically they are still number one, and will remain in that position for quite a while. You seem to forget Apple is selling a single device (with restricted functionality), at an expensive price, and for which their providers are charging a massive monthly cost for, that is enough to keep themselves there.

Plus, and you don't seem to understand how businesses work, they will be working internally on devices now, and unlike Apple, the will develop devices for different markets as they have a bit more knowledge in this area.

Do your homework before commenting.

Apple was engaged in a number of ongoing patent and software legal disputes with Microsoft and the $150M investment from MS was part of a settlement that benefitted both companies. Microsoft agreed to continued making Office for at least 5 more years and invest $150M in Apple, and Apple agreed to license some of their technology to MS and make IE the default Mac browser. It was a smart move on Apple's part, simultaneously getting cash and letting go of some expensive legal battles at a time when they were in a tough situation financially.

Microsoft's money sure didn't hurt, but it's a stretch to say MS saved Apple.

Sure, Symbian, is the OS from the old Psion organizer.

C.

I have said that. Nokia are number one in terms of sales and units I think. Nokia make millions of low priced handsets and have the low-end market sewn up. I am sure they will be selling that stuff for years and years. But the low end is a commodity business. The top end is where the profits are.

And the top end of the market is undergoing a dramatic about-turn.

Apple is indeed a single product sole vendor. But it's not just Apple. The Android platform is the second part of the double-whammy. Apple are going after a single wedge of market with a single device. Google are looking to clean up the leftovers.

Can someone please say what technical response Nokia can produce to counter this?

C.

Like I said, maybe you should read some more.

Nokia has already mentioned what they intend doing with S60, and their other mobile OS

I have said the same thing for the last few post but he does not want to get it, so make this all go away, he is correct. Nokia is going to have a fire sale. All phones half off, they concede that Apple is the Jesus Phone and there is no need for them to EVEN try to complete because Carniphage knows better than Nokia what Nokia will do.

I guess all those high end N95, N96, N81, N85, E90, E66, E71, series phones were all flash in the pan and combined sales don't even come closer to Apple right?

I guess the fact that Symbian will be open source and developers are looking forward to this makes no difference. Or the fact that Nokia has some nice unannounced phones coming means nothing as well. Better have a board meeting and tell the Nokia guys that people with more in the know have spoken and the news does not look good.

So all of that would have taken place without a penny from Microsoft? Apple would have remained in biz? Is this what you are saying?

I really don't understand how this improves anything.
Application developers want to make cash, not repair the OS for free.
Are 3rd parties going to branch the OS?
Please explain.


I think they have had that board meeting.

http://www.nokia.com/A4136001?newsid=1266189

Nokia can make nice devices. But so can HTC and so can Apple. That's not the problem. The problem is the software platform. Nokia's software platform suddenly looks very tired.
It's not just me saying this. Because its really obvious. Show a customer the N96 and then show them G1. See what happens.

This is an astonishing situation where the world leader in a field, could find itself with a collapsing market share.

I really do hope that Nokia have some sort of super secret black-ops OS waiting in the wings. It will be a good thing for the mobile market. Competition is good (TM)

But I am not holding my breath.

C.

Yes it will go well, here is a N96, available in a lot of countries, here is a G1, available in the USA.


Go read about Maemo 5, and then think of applications of this OS outside the internet tablet market.

Genuine thanks for the answer.

I was just looking at this video.
http://www.atmasphere.net/wp/archive...a-n95-and-n800

A switch of platform away from Symbian and to the Maemo linux sounds like a solution.

But there is some confusion here. How can they make such a transition without angering the bitter-and-twisted Symbian developer community?

C.

Frankly I can't see what the problem is. Symbian works and it works well. I don't see why Nokia need huge plans to move away from Symbian, or why if they don't it'll be the end of Nokia as we know it. S60 just needs a bit of jazzing up which it is slowly but surely getting.

I think Nokia would have a lot to worry about if Apple had a whole range of devices with OSX mobile on them but until then, more people than not are going to want features in their phone that Apple currently doesn't offer

Apple's product is targeted at one specific lucrative segment of the market. iPhone is a single product. So Nokia did not have to worry.

But Android is not.

A few minutes playing with the G1 left me thinking that Nokia need to mount a very robust defense.

C.

I'm still not entirely sure what you think makes a good mobile OS. Nokia have a touch screen phone coming out with new OS version and it's well known that there'll be a vast range of Nokia devices with touch screen to cater for different people (same as Android). So Nokia's touch screen potential matches Androids in that respect.

It depends on how they do it, with the removal of the licence fee for S60, you can expand the use of it to lower value models of phones, then introduce something for the higher value. Or maybe they will just leave it for the tablet market as they have been doing so now.

OK, found the answer. I just don't understand it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IZVIV37YRY

C.

So true. So true. Actually, they will have some other types of phones coming out. Think Maemo.....

First off, who cares if MS "saved" Apple as that was 11 years ago. (notice the quotes around saved) It's in the past and really has no bearing on where they are today other than maybe MS committing to develop office for said years. Second of all, you have to repeat your same lame comment for what reason? I could say MS wouldn't be what they are if they didn't get "help" from Apple in the early 80's. Thirdly, 150 million investment didn't save Apple it surely helped but didn't "save" them and there was much more to it that that. Forthly, you make comments on Apple's past as they were almost out of business yet Nokia was in a similar situation. Fifthly, you make "Appleista" comments which, justified or not, point out your intellectual level of personal attacks. You are arguing with people that are continuing this discussion acting as we are saying that Nokia will dissappear.

The facts are...

Apple is not far behind Nokia in profit (in the mobile space) after 18 months in the market.

Nokia is setting themselves up to compete with Apple or others but to compete none the less BECAUSE of Apple's innovations.

You fail to realize and acknowledge that Apple came in on foreign ground and shook up the entire industry not only with innovation but profit and number of phones sold to boot.

I will end this now saying why are you acting like I or others are saying Apple will destroy Nokia? Apple has done tremendous and I believe and signs point to even more market share in the future. They beat their 1% goal and thats impressive and the future will be software and they are in a much better position at the moment then most except maybe Google and RIM but that's a stretch to me. Apple's recent history has them not sitting on a comfortable position like others do... cough... MS... cough...

Thank you very much for not oversimplifying my point of view, he said sarcastically.

Apple wasn't going to go out of business, but carrying on expensive legal disputes with Microsoft was counterproductive and Steve Jobs knew it so he cut a deal that benefitted both companies and put the legal disputes at an end. The $150M gave them a good boost, but Apple wasn't dead at that point. Another few years of similar legal battles with MS probably would have done them in, however.

There's your problem statement since not everyone will agree with you on that. You might just have to accept that not everyone thinks or wants the future to be software.

Not really, Apple didn't have a history of mobile phones, but they did hire/buy a lot of people that did

Actually most people on this site claim that Apple will distroy Nokia.

Also, you have to use the 10,000,000 figure, as Apple might of hit 1% of the market of a few years ago, but that 1% has grown a lot since then

No sign of Maemo phones here...

http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2008/1...play/#comments

Which suggests that Apple will be on its 3rd generation of Unix phones before Nokia release its first. (not counting the tablet)

C.

In terms of building a hardware device, many companies can buy components and create designs. They then hire Chinese companies to glue the bits together. Anyone can do it. But Nokia have an upper hand because of the enormous scale of their business and their experience doing so.

If the market becomes all about software, then it changes things. Companies which have the most advanced software technology will get a real advantage.

Go back 12 years, and Symbian was called Epoc and ran on a Psion handheld. And OS X was called NextStep and ran on a big-ass workstation. That difference is being felt by developers today. Apple and 3rd party iPhone developers inherit a great development environment. Symbian developers struggle and complain.

As users, we know that the S60 Browser and Mobile Safari are based on Webkit. But it's the iPhone version that is remarkable.

C.

Why don't you count the tablet? You can make calls with it (it has Skype, and a SIP client built in)

The tablet looks like a sand box to try out the technology.

The fact that the phone road-map is 100% linux-free suggests that Nokia are not yet ready to put this into a mainstream handset.

If they did intend to do that, I am sure there'd be press conferences and developer conferences.

C.

No, a document that engadet published doesn't have a linux model on it, that doesn't mean they don't have anything. If you had looked up the maemo information you would have seen details there.

Also, Apple has tried out the sandbox method a lot times in the past, you will find a lot of businesses will do that.

[QUOTE=Phizz;1336899]1. Yes, it is. Although there is no agreed industry definition for "smartphone", the iPhone (note the capitalisation) matches or surpasses all the definitions out there in terms of features and capabilities.

I think the more correct term would be to call it the "World dumbest Smartphone" Don't get me wrong, I love the device but it's so lacking in basic smartphone functionality that it isn't even funny. So in that sense, I think there is an argument to be made for someone who says it's not a smartphone.

Just found Cringely's take on this.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2...23_005500.html

I think he over-estimates Apple's potential market share.

C.

Doesn't matter what I think it's a fact. Things have been software for decades now... Gates saw that before most did but just didn't innovate just stole, copied, etc. We are rapidly approaching a point where our hardware is no longer the weak link our software is the problem. The iPhone and iPod are examples of "better" software on the same hardware is whats really needed. That doesn't mean I think the iPhone's software is the best in class just an example of how the same hardware with better software is gets you a better product. Everything is software interacting with hardware and hardware can only do so much.

The problem with Symbian is that is was designed with the thought that mobile devices would not use software similar to desktop software. Apple raised the bar by bringing an OS and its API's designed for the desktop to the mobile space. The foundation of Symbian is not really built to compete with this at all.

Apple will continue to advance mobile OS X in ways that Symbian cannot, unless it went through a complete rewrite. With Apple raising the bar others will bring new mobile OS such as Andriod to compete with the iPhone. Symbian is not well positioned to compete.


Looking at iPhone sales over 18 months, how many people do you believe are waiting?

What exactly is the list of features a smartphone has to have to officially be a smartphone? I've never seen such a list.

At best we can look at sales to account for what features are required for a phone to be viable.

And your point? What does that matter? If they bought an existing product and then got the same results maybe your statement would have merit. They designed and entered a market with no presence and are doing well.

As for destroying Nokia I never said nor do I agree with that...

As for the 1% now your just arguing for the sake of being right or whatever your motive is...

The point is what I said and their numbers are impressive...

Completely disagree with you on this one.

The problem with the 1% goal is twofold.

One is that the market grew --- it went from 1 billion cell phones a year to an (estimated) 1.25 billion cell phones this year (the year hasn't ended yet). So Apple need to go 12.5 million iphones in order to get a 1% market share.

The second problem is that the original 1% goal as announced by Steve Jobs at the keynote is that the iphone came with a original price tag of $600. Selling 12.5 million iphones at $600 each is a lot different than selling 12.5 million iphones at $200 each.

Don't forget that the $200/$300 price tag is for a subsidized device.