They did a good job fighting QCOM and got a reduced royalty rate... but no longer control the architecture.
Actually, Nokia didn't do a good job at all.
Qualcomm has become the largest mobile telecom equipment maker in the world --- in terms of market cap, it's bigger than Nokia, Siemens, Ericsson, Acatel-Lucent, Motorola, Texas Instrument, Broadcom...
People like to think that GSM "won" over CDMA --- yet Qualcomm somehow becomes the biggest winner of them all.
Qualcomm has become the largest mobile telecom equipment maker in the world --- in terms of market cap, it's bigger than Nokia, Siemens, Ericsson, Acatel-Lucent, Motorola, Texas Instrument, Broadcom...
People like to think that GSM "won" over CDMA --- yet Qualcomm somehow becomes the biggest winner of them all.
GSM has won over CDMA (though CDMA will be around for a vey long time) but remember that Qualcomm holds patents for WCDMA, used in the 3G for GSM-based networks, not to mention their other product offerings. However, they do seem to losing money last time I checked, which isn't too big of a
deal overall, though on this forum we think a company is doomed when they don't have a record breaking year-over-year quarter.
When the telco tech went from circuit switched networks to IP... guess what happened? Lucent, Nortel, etc that dominated the circuit switches just imploded and the Cisco controls the business. Cisco developed a disruptive tech... and the old companies just got wiped out. BTW, Lucent and Nortel were no light weights either - in their heyday, they had business in cash, huge market caps $100B. Lucent has Bell Labs with experts in every area and even Nobel Prize winners.
Well apart from the fact that Nokia owns half of NSN, which is one of the largest telecommunication solution providers
Let's all get along. Even Teckstud likes his iPhone. There just might be a God after all.
Anyway, seriously, Nokia's been asleep at the wheel for years now. This is what they get.
As for Motorola . . . they should just go dark for a year and completely rethink their strategy. Reshuffle management, or bring someone in who knows what they're doing. There's no point in "me too" phone rollouts.
Nokia is copying iPhone. Just look at the n97. Same as iPhone.. white/ black colours, 3.5 inch screen , touchscreen. They have no innovations?
Nothing can be forecasted with certainty. However, if Nokia was not capable of building a "...new, robust OS with a focus on UI..." when they were a $120B mkt cap company, I seriously doubt that they can do so as a $50B company.
With 3G, Nokia has to pay royalties to others like QCOM. The whole phone has morphed into a portable data platform with a powerful OS like the in the iPhone, plus the apps and the value chain. This kind of change is very disruptive to the existing order and their profits and market cap reflects this reality.
They did a good job fighting QCOM and got a reduced royalty rate... but no longer control the architecture. If they continue in the current path, their phones will be just commodities for low end use here and 3rd world thin margin biz.
When the telco tech went from circuit switched networks to IP... guess what happened? Lucent, Nortel, etc that dominated the circuit switches just imploded and the Cisco controls the business. Cisco developed a disruptive tech... and the old companies just got wiped out. BTW, Lucent and Nortel were no light weights either - in their heyday, they had business in cash, huge market caps $100B. Lucent has Bell Labs with experts in every area and even Nobel Prize winners.
Lucent and Nortel went under because of incompetent management. Cisco didn't have much to do with it. Telecom network still aren't that much IP based, but it is slowly moving there.
And you will also find that Nokia owns a significant amount of those 3G patents. Half the fight with Qualcomm was over who owned more and why anyone should pay Qualcomm when they had so small piece of the pie.
2) The logic in the link you post aounds like Teckstud wrote it as it doesn't actually address the key points of the Forbes article. Honestly, I couldn't be bothered to read any more than the parts stating that a higher megapixel is an innovation when It's
clear how and why
Nokia can offer higher megapixels and better quality images in many of their phones. However, I do agree that Nokia is not a Motorola.
2) The logic in the link you post dounds link Teckstud wrote it. The "innovation" mentioned has nothing to do with megapixels and the lack of video recording in the previous iPhone is well understood by most. I couldn't be bothered to read any more than that, though I agree that Nokia is not Motorola.
If you can't be bother to read good counter arguments, why even comment about the flawed article in the first place.
If you can't be bother to read good counter arguments, why even comment about the flawed article in the first place.
If the first point of a counter argument is how more megapixels equates to "innovation" then the article is, at the very least, poorly written. There is no reason to continue reading at that point as that should be the strongest argument in a tech article.
In the high tech business you have to win your customers over and over again. Every time the leading edge moves forward you must be willing to abandon the current tech and jettison your existing customers then win them back with the new technology. Only Apple seems to know this. Microsoft certainly does not. Neither does Dell. And apparently Nokia doesn't as well.
In the high tech business you have to win your customers over and over again. Every time the leading edge moves forward you must be willing to abandon the current tech and jettison your existing customers then win them back with the new technology. Only Apple seems to know this. Microsoft certainly does not. Neither does Dell. And apparently Nokia doesn't as well.
In MS’s defense, their business model depends on having legacy support. It is crutch for their future, but it’s made them a lot of money and will continue to make them a lot of money. While I love Apple’s business model as a consumer it does not, in any way, work for the majority of corporations. Each system has its pros and cons.
If the first point of a counter argument is how more megapixels equates to "innovation" then the article is, at the very least, poorly written. There is no reason to continue reading at that point as that should be the strongest argument in a tech article.
I read most of it and it's a mess. It's driven by the same brain-dead "har har features list Apple doesn't actually innovate Japan" nonsense which is so much of the reason why Apple has been able to make the inroads they have.
Every other cell phone manufacturer (except, perhaps, Palm, maybe) needs to have a big sign put up in the corporate offices that says "Your OS, UI, and content integration suck, and adding more goddamn "features" and getting pissy when people don't give you props for them won't fix it."
And then all the tech writers that want to grumble about how Apple gets undeserved praise need to get a copy of that sign tattooed on their ass, where it will be clearly visible when their head is in its customary position.
Snarky parsing of who technically did what first so totally, tragically, ignorantly misses the point. Bitching about who has the most pixels on their camera is just a symptom of that point whizzing by, distant and forever out of reach. I'm sure Apple would be happy to continue to compete with people who think they can make an iPhone killer if they just get that bullet list of features long enough, or complain loudly enough that their phone could do stuff long before the IPhone did.
In MS’s defense, their business model depends on having legacy support. It is crutch for their future, but it’s made them a lot of money and will continue to make them a lot of money. While I love Apple’s business model as a consumer it does not, in any way, work for the majority of corporations. Each system has its pros and cons.
Yes it's made them a lot of money but it has also turned Windows into a bloated, resource-hogging, multi-patched monstrosity that everyone complains about and hates so devotedly. Instead of spending billions of dollars trying to develop an OS that is state-of-the-art and yet supports legacy apps (which I will claim is well nigh impossible), MS would have been better off if they built a lean, state-of-the-art OS from the ground up and then use the billions of dollars to subsidize their customers' transition to the new OS. [e.g. Your 5000 seats of Office will no longer work in the new OS but we are upgrading them all for FREE!] Yeah they may squawk but where will they go? Linux? Apple? None of them have the infrastructure to provide adequate support to that many ex-Windows users. And really, it is not a lie to tell those companies that they really will be better off if they stop using WinXP and Win2000 and move to the new OS. Well, assuming that the new OS is built right. Which may be asking too much of MS?
Speaking from the perspective on someone living in the UK, in terms of feature phones, there is almost no reason why anyone sensible would buy NOKIA over Sony Ericsson, as the Sony Ericsson will invariable have nicer industrial design, more features and a smaller price tag.
And Sony Ericsson are in all sorts of trouble at the moment, so it doesn't surprise me NOKIA are feeling the pinch.
After a brief flirtation with Windows Mobile, Sony Ericsson look set to mix their industrial design with the Android Operating System. This will likely put them in a better place product wise than NOKIA. I imagine most people will have seen this phone: The 1GHz processor is the feature highlight.
Again, quoting yourself, that is just one persons opinion.
To say that Nokia is clueless is very naive, and to go around quoting it says a lot of the knowledge of a company like Nokia around here.
Remember Apple's stock tanked a while back, dropped from $200 down to $60 something. When that happens to Apple, the comment is always "That is happened to the whole market". , this thread hasn't said anything of value, and won't.
Comments
They did a good job fighting QCOM and got a reduced royalty rate... but no longer control the architecture.
Actually, Nokia didn't do a good job at all.
Qualcomm has become the largest mobile telecom equipment maker in the world --- in terms of market cap, it's bigger than Nokia, Siemens, Ericsson, Acatel-Lucent, Motorola, Texas Instrument, Broadcom...
People like to think that GSM "won" over CDMA --- yet Qualcomm somehow becomes the biggest winner of them all.
Actually, Nokia didn't do a good job at all.
Qualcomm has become the largest mobile telecom equipment maker in the world --- in terms of market cap, it's bigger than Nokia, Siemens, Ericsson, Acatel-Lucent, Motorola, Texas Instrument, Broadcom...
People like to think that GSM "won" over CDMA --- yet Qualcomm somehow becomes the biggest winner of them all.
GSM has won over CDMA (though CDMA will be around for a vey long time) but remember that Qualcomm holds patents for WCDMA, used in the 3G for GSM-based networks, not to mention their other product offerings. However, they do seem to losing money last time I checked, which isn't too big of a
deal overall, though on this forum we think a company is doomed when they don't have a record breaking year-over-year quarter.
When the telco tech went from circuit switched networks to IP... guess what happened? Lucent, Nortel, etc that dominated the circuit switches just imploded and the Cisco controls the business. Cisco developed a disruptive tech... and the old companies just got wiped out. BTW, Lucent and Nortel were no light weights either - in their heyday, they had business in cash, huge market caps $100B. Lucent has Bell Labs with experts in every area and even Nobel Prize winners.
Well apart from the fact that Nokia owns half of NSN, which is one of the largest telecommunication solution providers
LOL.
Let's all get along. Even Teckstud likes his iPhone. There just might be a God after all.
Anyway, seriously, Nokia's been asleep at the wheel for years now. This is what they get.
As for Motorola . . . they should just go dark for a year and completely rethink their strategy. Reshuffle management, or bring someone in who knows what they're doing. There's no point in "me too" phone rollouts.
Nokia is copying iPhone. Just look at the n97. Same as iPhone.. white/ black colours, 3.5 inch screen , touchscreen. They have no innovations?
Nothing can be forecasted with certainty. However, if Nokia was not capable of building a "...new, robust OS with a focus on UI..." when they were a $120B mkt cap company, I seriously doubt that they can do so as a $50B company.
Cough, cough, Maemo.
Look it up.
They may find it difficult to change.
This is the article with the "Motorola minute" in it. It sums up things fairly well
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/17/nok...partner=alerts
That analyst is to Nokia as Rob Enderle is to Apple.
But anyway, here a bigger smackdown to iPhone than I could imagine...
http://communities-dominate.blogs.co...reporting.html
With 3G, Nokia has to pay royalties to others like QCOM. The whole phone has morphed into a portable data platform with a powerful OS like the in the iPhone, plus the apps and the value chain. This kind of change is very disruptive to the existing order and their profits and market cap reflects this reality.
They did a good job fighting QCOM and got a reduced royalty rate... but no longer control the architecture. If they continue in the current path, their phones will be just commodities for low end use here and 3rd world thin margin biz.
When the telco tech went from circuit switched networks to IP... guess what happened? Lucent, Nortel, etc that dominated the circuit switches just imploded and the Cisco controls the business. Cisco developed a disruptive tech... and the old companies just got wiped out. BTW, Lucent and Nortel were no light weights either - in their heyday, they had business in cash, huge market caps $100B. Lucent has Bell Labs with experts in every area and even Nobel Prize winners.
Lucent and Nortel went under because of incompetent management. Cisco didn't have much to do with it. Telecom network still aren't that much IP based, but it is slowly moving there.
And you will also find that Nokia owns a significant amount of those 3G patents. Half the fight with Qualcomm was over who owned more and why anyone should pay Qualcomm when they had so small piece of the pie.
That analyst is to Nokia as Rob Enderle is to Apple.
But anyway, here a bigger smackdown to iPhone than I could imagine...
http://communities-dominate.blogs.co...reporting.html
1) Are you also jfanning on this forum?
2) The logic in the link you post aounds like Teckstud wrote it as it doesn't actually address the key points of the Forbes article. Honestly, I couldn't be bothered to read any more than the parts stating that a higher megapixel is an innovation when It's
clear how and why
Nokia can offer higher megapixels and better quality images in many of their phones. However, I do agree that Nokia is not a Motorola.
1) Ard you also jfanning on this forum?
No he isn't
2) The logic in the link you post dounds link Teckstud wrote it. The "innovation" mentioned has nothing to do with megapixels and the lack of video recording in the previous iPhone is well understood by most. I couldn't be bothered to read any more than that, though I agree that Nokia is not Motorola.
If you can't be bother to read good counter arguments, why even comment about the flawed article in the first place.
If you can't be bother to read good counter arguments, why even comment about the flawed article in the first place.
If the first point of a counter argument is how more megapixels equates to "innovation" then the article is, at the very least, poorly written. There is no reason to continue reading at that point as that should be the strongest argument in a tech article.
In the high tech business you have to win your customers over and over again. Every time the leading edge moves forward you must be willing to abandon the current tech and jettison your existing customers then win them back with the new technology. Only Apple seems to know this. Microsoft certainly does not. Neither does Dell. And apparently Nokia doesn't as well.
In MS’s defense, their business model depends on having legacy support. It is crutch for their future, but it’s made them a lot of money and will continue to make them a lot of money. While I love Apple’s business model as a consumer it does not, in any way, work for the majority of corporations. Each system has its pros and cons.
That analyst is to Nokia as Rob Enderle is to Apple.
But anyway, here a bigger smackdown to iPhone than I could imagine...
http://communities-dominate.blogs.co...reporting.html
That's your opinion, but the report quoted more than one person.
The page you linked to is totally worthless. They said nothing. They are just Nokia supporters.
I can link to many sites that say the same thing the Forbes site did. They all agree that Nokia is clueless, and losing on all fronts.
Heres one from Bloomberg, do you want more?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a.VGNGiOPNCU
No he isn't
If you can't be bother to read good counter arguments, why even comment about the flawed article in the first place.
That link didn't have good counter arguments.
If the first point of a counter argument is how more megapixels equates to "innovation" then the article is, at the very least, poorly written. There is no reason to continue reading at that point as that should be the strongest argument in a tech article.
I read most of it and it's a mess. It's driven by the same brain-dead "har har features list Apple doesn't actually innovate Japan" nonsense which is so much of the reason why Apple has been able to make the inroads they have.
Every other cell phone manufacturer (except, perhaps, Palm, maybe) needs to have a big sign put up in the corporate offices that says "Your OS, UI, and content integration suck, and adding more goddamn "features" and getting pissy when people don't give you props for them won't fix it."
And then all the tech writers that want to grumble about how Apple gets undeserved praise need to get a copy of that sign tattooed on their ass, where it will be clearly visible when their head is in its customary position.
Snarky parsing of who technically did what first so totally, tragically, ignorantly misses the point. Bitching about who has the most pixels on their camera is just a symptom of that point whizzing by, distant and forever out of reach. I'm sure Apple would be happy to continue to compete with people who think they can make an iPhone killer if they just get that bullet list of features long enough, or complain loudly enough that their phone could do stuff long before the IPhone did.
Because consumers really, really care.
In MS’s defense, their business model depends on having legacy support. It is crutch for their future, but it’s made them a lot of money and will continue to make them a lot of money. While I love Apple’s business model as a consumer it does not, in any way, work for the majority of corporations. Each system has its pros and cons.
Yes it's made them a lot of money but it has also turned Windows into a bloated, resource-hogging, multi-patched monstrosity that everyone complains about and hates so devotedly. Instead of spending billions of dollars trying to develop an OS that is state-of-the-art and yet supports legacy apps (which I will claim is well nigh impossible), MS would have been better off if they built a lean, state-of-the-art OS from the ground up and then use the billions of dollars to subsidize their customers' transition to the new OS. [e.g. Your 5000 seats of Office will no longer work in the new OS but we are upgrading them all for FREE!] Yeah they may squawk but where will they go? Linux? Apple? None of them have the infrastructure to provide adequate support to that many ex-Windows users. And really, it is not a lie to tell those companies that they really will be better off if they stop using WinXP and Win2000 and move to the new OS. Well, assuming that the new OS is built right. Which may be asking too much of MS?
>... need to get a copy of that sign tattooed on their ass, where it will be clearly visible when their head is in its customary position. <
.
What a charming image. NOT!
Cheers for the thoughts, though; spot on!
And Sony Ericsson are in all sorts of trouble at the moment, so it doesn't surprise me NOKIA are feeling the pinch.
After a brief flirtation with Windows Mobile, Sony Ericsson look set to mix their industrial design with the Android Operating System. This will likely put them in a better place product wise than NOKIA. I imagine most people will have seen this phone: The 1GHz processor is the feature highlight.
That's your opinion, but the report quoted more than one person.
The page you linked to is totally worthless. They said nothing. They are just Nokia supporters.
That comment coming from a bunch of Apple fans, that really makes a big impact
I can link to many sites that say the same thing the Forbes site did. They all agree that Nokia is clueless, and losing on all fronts.
Heres one from Bloomberg, do you want more?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a.VGNGiOPNCU
Again, quoting yourself, that is just one persons opinion.
To say that Nokia is clueless is very naive, and to go around quoting it says a lot of the knowledge of a company like Nokia around here.
Remember Apple's stock tanked a while back, dropped from $200 down to $60 something. When that happens to Apple, the comment is always "That is happened to the whole market". , this thread hasn't said anything of value, and won't.
That link didn't have good counter arguments.
Acutally it did, but since it contradicts all the "Apple was the first with everything" notion the message won't go far