Now, a few words about the Forbes article (Nokia's Motorola Moment).
The article did state clearly, that it was because of a lack of innovation, that Nokia was now facing its catastrphy. Not because Nokia phones are not easy to use, not because Nokia is not executing effectively a transition from a hardware maker to software company, and not because Nokia's OS is not as good as the iPhone has. The Forbes article made a very dramatic and hysterical claim in its title, and the point made very clearly, and many times in the article, is that what causes Nokia's Motorola Moment, is a lack of innovation.
The article did say that there is more innovation now than before in mobile (and I agree). The article did say that Apple, RIM, Palm and Toshiba have been innovating in the mobile space (and I agree). But when the article said Nokia has not innovated, and currently not at all, and specifically, Nokia is less innovative than Apple, then I disagree.
The first and most important point. I list 10 significant innovations currently shaking the mobile telecoms industry. TEN innovations (not counting megapixels among one of them) and could have listed ten more. But the point is, that for most of those ten innovations, I also list a previous article by FORBES that credits Nokia for that given innovation.
The journalist said Nokia is doomed because it is not innovating. Even if you ignore all of my evidence and arguments, is it not at least worth considering the merits of the issue, if Forbes before in half a dozen articles has mentioned most of those innovations as specifically Nokia's contributions to the industry?
If Forbes says, the Motorola Moment comes if you are not innovating. Remember they did not say make best UI or OS. But not innovating. And I show that FORBES has said that Nokia is innovating. Then at least this latest Forbes article is very questionable, is it not.
As you can see, if you go through the comments in the Forbes website, there are very many who point out different errors in the story. Not one error or two. The story is riddled with errors.
Now, I am not trying to claim Nokia is better at its UI or its OS. I am only refuting the silly claim, that Nokia did not innovate. Remember, to innovate does not mean you have to make it user-friendly or even commerically successful. The Wright Flier was a lousy plane to fly. It still is heralded as the first airplane. Usability has noting to do with innovation. Almost all inventions were horribly bad to use the first time. The first telephones, for 20 years were so horribly bad for users, that even if you owned one, you could not complete a phone call with it. You had to have another person complete it for you (or often, many people). The telephone became more user-friendly, when someone finally invented the rotary dial, 20 years later and we could start to call friends by ourselves. Before that to make one call, took 2 people just to "dial out"..
Usability has nothing to do with innovation, but usability CAN be, and often is, also innovation. Apple has made a career out of UI innovation, from the PC to the PDA to the Music Player to the Mobile Phone. Each had had its Apple Moment and is forever changed after Apple. But that is only one innovation, making the user interface better. You can also innovate in many other ways.
COMMENTS 67-71 MEGAPIXELS
A few words, on the comments thread around 67-71, there is discussion about megapixels, and suggest that megapixels are not innovation, and that because I talk about megapixels, I am now talking of meaningless matters.
I took that order of those features from Apple's own Press Release when the iPhone 3GS was launched. The first feature APPLE mentioned, that was new and hot, in this new phone (after the generalities) was 3 megapixel camera. The other things (MMS and video call and whatnot) came later in the press release. I took it in the same order. If you think a phone maker should not celebrate its bigger camera, then blame Apple, don't blame me.
COMMENTS 76-81 WHO FIRST
The discussion thread also talks about the "who did what first" and suggests it is petty or pointless to lsit who did what when. Maybe so, in a general sense of where this industry is today, and on the overall topic of this thread. But I was not blogging to participate in this discussion, I was blogging to refute a SPECIFIC article, with a boatload of errors. And that Forbes Journalist made the explicit point, that recently the innovation in mobile phones, has been "sprearheaded by Apple" and Nokia is totally not innovative.
If that was true, the facts would stand up to it. But if it is not true, then someone DOES have to set the facts straight. Now, is 3G an innovation? Apple thinks so, they celebrated their second edition of the iPhone so much, that they added 3G to the name of the product. So Apple thinks upgrading a slow 2G phone to a fast 3G phone is an innovation. Now, if Forbes says that Apple spearheads innovation in mobile phones, and Nokia is not innovative, and I show that before Apple had a 3G phone, Nokia had a 3G phone, the Forbes article is proven to be false.
As it had so MANY errors, I had to give proof for every one. I am sorry, if that came out like I was bashing Apple. I did not pick to compare Nokia with Apple. If the journalist had known what they were doing, they could have made a very powerful case, that Samsung or NTT DoCoMo truly is more innovative than Nokia in phone design.. But not Apple (yet). Apple HAS made SOME innovations and some of their innovations have been SHATTERINGLY powerful, far more so than Nokia adding an FM radio to a phone - but the truth is, that for those main features that APPLE ITSELF celebrated as improvements to its iPhone line (in iPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS) ie the phones themselves (not Apps Store) - Nokia had been there before Apple on just about all of them.
That is fact, and if the point to prove is who was more innovative, then Nokia does win in handset design comparing those phones. Now, we can all argue if the OS is a MORE RELEVANT innovation, that is fine, but the journalist claimed that Nokia is not innovating in phones, and clearly the journalist did not know what was writing, nor indeed what six other Forbes journalists had written before.
Moi moi (hello hello). Yeah. The industry is obsessing with the iPhone, and almost every smartphone maker is hoping for a hit to be the "iPhone killer". That was LG's Chocolate for example, a clear attempt to try to beat the iPhone 2G (and while a far less user-friendly phone, Chocolate did outsell the 2G, Choco was also cheaper..)
So yeah, most makers have at least one product they try to position against the iPhone, think Palm Pre for example or Samsung's Armani. And where earlier it was N95, now very clearly as its also a touch-screen smartphone, Nokia's current answer is the N97.
But note, this is a bit like taking the Porsche and then having GM trying to match it. What will GM do, it will make a Corvette. In some ways its faster maybe (some models, some engines) but in reality, the Porcshe is truly better engineered. The N97 has some thing it does better, the 3GS has some things it does better, but undeniably, for those who truly value the easiest phone to use, the iPhone is it. No contest. We see grandparents who'd never think of trying the "mobile web" suddenly posting Facebook pictures via the iPhone etc.. It is a game-changer.
What Nokia has, is not only far wider sales channel (almost every country almost every carrier in the GSM world) and that will be a very strong asset to even the scales.
Let me make one point about N97 and 3GS. Those of you who live in America, probably think the 3GS has a price tag of 200 dollars? Did you know the real price is 700 dollars. In Italy (where handset subsidies are illegal) they pay 700 dollars for both the 3GS and the N97. What the subsidy allows, is for your carrier AT&T in the USA, O2 in the UK etc, to hide a monthly installments plan that they force you to eat.
Imagine if you go to a car dealership to buy a car. It has a sticker price 25,000 dollars. They have financing terms that allow you to pay 20% down, and rest on 3 year contract. So you only pay 5,000 dollars today, and the rest is a monthly payment. The car did not suddenly became a 5,000 dollar car. You still bought a 25,000 dollar car, you only are committed to paying the rest in installments.
So please do not think for one moment the 3GS is a 200 dollar phone. It is not. It is almost identical in price, 700 dollars, as the N97 (coincidence?). And to show how unfair the world is, in the UK you still pay about 200 dollars (a bit more actually) for the iPhone via O2, but on the rival networks, they offer the N97 for free. How twisted is that?
And in the UK this past week, the N97 became the bestselling phone in Britain. Nokia said they shipped half a million in the first days. It will be a slug-match, but Nokia has an unfair advantage in its other models. They have the 5800, the N86, the E-series etc.
Oh, and meant to say, the one company totally ignoring the iPhone (until very recently) is RIM. And of Nokia's divisions, the E-Series is not exposed to the iPhone, but the N-Series is. Helps explain why this past year, N-Series sales down, E-Series sales up..
PS sorry for long postings, don't have time to edit, am at airport lounge, my plane soon taking off..
Of course he has done a lot of work for Nokia. Nokia is to mobile tech what Opera is to web standards. Basically all the "big" names work for Nokia at some point. And the guy is Finn so...
If you think that Siemens, NTT Docomo, etc. etc. (there are others as he has been consultant for quite some time) aren't phone manufacturers, I think it's better to end this conversation. Over and out.
Edit. And someone wondered if I have something to do with Nokia. I can honestly say that I've never worked for Nokia or any firm that does software / hardware for Nokia. And I'm not Apple hater, I actually love certain aspects of Apple products (there are also things that I hate).
Btw. melgross: Maemo is already out. Has been for couple of years. It's just the next version of Maemo which is coming out.
It quite clearly shows that their smartphone market share has been:
Q2 2008: 41%
Q1 2009: 38%
Q2 2009: 41%
While I found Q2 2009 results mentioning the smartphone share. I couldn't find the result for Q2 2008. I only found the overall phone share of 40% and the forward estimate of 39%.
Would you show, link to, or quote the part about Q2 2008 smartphone percentage?
Quote:
Unless I'm mistaken, Apple hasn't released its Q2 results yet. You're making assumptions based on thin air. Even though I can't remember the official audited numbers being released, didn't the iPhone 3GS sell 1 million in its opening weekend vs. 1 million for the iPhone 3G? I'm aware that the 3GS was released in fewer countries but we all know that the big markets were hit.
Apple released them. The results you are waiting for are the third quarter results, as Apple's first quarter is the Oct -Dec. quarter. Comparisons I've been making are for the first quarter Nokia results compared to the second quarter Apple results, as they are the comparable time periods. Thats one reason why we have been at odds with sim of the numbers. i've had to respond to the Nokia 2nd quarter results as that's what you are referring to, but they aren't really useful yet when compared to Apple's, obviously. That's why the 38% number for Nokia equates to the 10.8% number for Apple.
Tuesday, when Apple releases its results, then we can compare its 3rd quarter to Nokia's 2nd quarter.
I hope that clears some of this mess up.
Quote:
And have you used it? The UI is worse than S60. It's no-where near good enough for the mainstream. It needs serious, serious investment to even have a chance.
haven't seen any device that uses it. I only know what I've read about it from Nokia and other web sites, and from what I've seen of some online demos.
If you're saying that this is worse, then that really doesn't bode well for Nokia, does it?
Perhaps you and Eric Perduel should be taking about this.
I could be wrong, but my impression is that he thinks that Meamo is a good thing for Nokia.
I have never seen anyone at a high level in any industry come on a rumors site such as this one and post so much commentary.
I must say that you certainly are not modest, are you?
That is, assuming that it really is Mr. Ahonen.
How did you even learn of this debate in which "your" name was brought up?
Now, with the assumption that you really are who you say you are, I will bring up something.
What I've noticed in this long running debate that has its roots in debates going back 2.5 years now, ever since Apple first announced their phone, that those who strongly support the phone are labeled as Apple fans (US based company).
But, I've also noticed that those living in Finland seen to be amongst the strongest supporters of Nokia. So what does that say? Are we seeing some local manufacturer fans as well? I can understand that as Finland is a small country, and Nokia as the worlds largest phone manufacturer is a proper source of pride.
As was stated very clearly in the "rebuttal"
{quote}Innovation has nothing to do with usability. Many who have commented here, or on various forums, read between the lines in the Forbes article, and perhaps also inject their own personal experiences with recent Nokia smartphones (vs iPhone in particular) and think, but there is a point, the iPhone is far better to use than Nokia. That may be true, but it has nothing to do with innovation. If the Forbes article had been entitled "Nokia smartphones not as easy to use, this may be Nokia's Motorola Moment" - I'd have NO problem with that premise. I'd examine the evidence, but probably would agree. Certainly, I totally agree - totally agree - that Apple's iPhone is by far the best phone out there in terms of usability. (I said so earlier in this blog article!) But usability is not innovation and innovation is not usability.[/quote]
This is what I've always believed, and what many others also believe, which is why Apple share of the market has risen so quickly.
THIS IS the major innovation that Apple has brought to the market, and is what isn't being understood by those who constantly nag us about one little used feature or another.
And while it's true that Nokia made a half a billion in sales on its software sales, it a totally different kind of area than what Apple has been doing.
Quote:
mobile services, applications and content.
It's the "services" that Apple doesn't have. Exactly what are these services, and who buys them? Can you tell us what percentage of that .5 billion was in services as opposed to apps and content? Also, if Apple breaks out iTunes sales for the iPhone, their numbers would be much different. The numbers "you" used for Apple were just for app sales.
While it's clearly impossible to debate the entire rebuttal here, as it's so very long, ironically, the entire concept of what you said there is summed up in reality by that one paragraph I quoted.
Nokia is lagging in many respects, and the big question is whether they can move past their methodology.
The main thread of this topic is Nokia's quarterly results and its market share.
Note that Nokia HQ is very focused on profits. They said they want to achieve about 40% market share but not go above it (said years and years ago) so they can maximize profits. Almost every quarter this whole decade, of the big 5 handset makers, Nokia, Samsung, LG, SonyEricsson and Motorola, Nokia has been the most profitable. Just now when the economy tanked, in the first quarter of 2009, Nokia's two Korean rivals did post better profitability than Nokia.
So Nokia has not pursued an ambitious "get it all" market share, but has always wanted to return very high profits to the company (and its owners).
Now, smartphones. Many in the industry feel that smartphones are the key to future phones (some others say low-cost phones, some others say hardware becomes irrelevant and it will all be software; and then there is the netbooks lobby who believe the shrinking PC will steal the show). Well, if you believe smartphones will win the day, Nokia has consistently, every every single quarter since it reached 30% market share, has had its smartphone market share exceed the company's overall handset market share.
Currently the smartphone market share for Nokia is 41%. So, its the biggest player by far, and in smartphones it performs better than overall. Not a bad position to be in.
Now, the smartphone market share has been bigger, certainly. But remember Nokia's overall intent is to provide profits, so pursuing too aggressive a market share in smartphones is very expensive. They're very happy as long as Nokia branded smartphones outsell Nokia branded regular phones.
Who is Nokia's rival. I'm sorry, you guys here, the Apple iPhone is nowhere near Nokia's rival. Yes, its a design icon, and it is being reverse-engineered by all, and dozens of copies and wannabees flood the market (and outsell the original iPhone) but the iPhone is only at 1% global market share. This is only a "minor irritant" to the biggest player. I do not mean to dismiss Apple or the iPhone. But Nokia would be foolish to focus on the iPhone (currently). RIM of Canada sells twice as many smartphones as Apple and is available in more markets than the iPhone and is available on more carriers than the iPhone. Among smartphones, Blackberry is the real threat to Nokia's N-Series, E-Series and consumer smartphones.
Overall, far more than worry about Blackberries, the two hungry players growing fast, making profits while doing so, are the two South Koreans, Samsung and LG. Here is Nokia's real battle. If they lose to Samsung (or LG) it will be a real Motorola Moment indeed. Incidentially Motorola and SonyEricsson have posted countless quarters of profits, so Nokia is not very worried about them right now.
I hope this helps give a bit of context to the discussion. I do understand that Wall Street reacted very strongly (negatively) to Nokia's guidance that the rest of the year will be tough. But Wall Street makes extreme over-reactions on a daily basis, that is how they get volatility and volatility brings them more business ie sales commissions. I don't care gery much about daily reactions on Wall Street. I do care about the company's market share and profitability.
Apple has also said that they aren't interested in being the largest smartphone manufacturer. Jobs did say that Apple would be happy to get 10% of the smartphone market, something Apple has achieved. Rapidly. While Apple doesn't like to talk about its intend about achieving profits, it's well known that they do have an intent to get a good profit on every device they sell. They have been able to do that.
So, in a sense, both Nokia and Apple have similar goals.
Wall street reacts badly to Apple's conservative guidance as well.
As I pointed out, the problem with Nokia is not the technology side but the management side. Their management is horrendous. Pure and simple. Take the E-Series phone for example. The N-Series product leader has a stick up his ass towards the E-Series guy so guess what. No 3.5mm headphone jack because it is better to screw the customer than to put a standard size jack in the phone. So we have a great phone (better than a BB in my opinion) but cripple by a dysfunctional family feud. You should see the Nokia forums full of screaming customers wondering who came up with this abortion of a decision. The CEO of Nokia is a nice guy with very little spine. The N-Series guys basically makes things happen and gives the marching orders. The CEO simply fields questions. In my years of working in Finnish companies, I was impressed by their ability to innovate and come up with ideas but dismayed at their ability to never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. They come up with ideas that are truly groundbreaking but get mired down in committee, infighting, back stabbing, and in some cases lack of interest. Case in point: Ovi. It is more like a hobby than a real business. In short, Ovi simply sucks. MobileMe on the other hand just works, and sits in the background working. Why is that? Is it that Apple has better servers, or better Internet connections? No, they have a single minded goal of "one team, one fight". Nokia is all over the map without a real focus on providing the services at a level which will make consumers stop and think.
Nokia can turn this around but they need to clean house. Fire all the dead wood, bring in some aggressive, hungry types that can turn all of that spare cash into a consumer centric experience.
Now, a few words about the Forbes article (Nokia's Motorola Moment).
The article did state clearly, that it was because of a lack of innovation, that Nokia was now facing its catastrphy. Not because Nokia phones are not easy to use, not because Nokia is not executing effectively a transition from a hardware maker to software company, and not because Nokia's OS is not as good as the iPhone has. The Forbes article made a very dramatic and hysterical claim in its title, and the point made very clearly, and many times in the article, is that what causes Nokia's Motorola Moment, is a lack of innovation.
The article did say that there is more innovation now than before in mobile (and I agree). The article did say that Apple, RIM, Palm and Toshiba have been innovating in the mobile space (and I agree). But when the article said Nokia has not innovated, and currently not at all, and specifically, Nokia is less innovative than Apple, then I disagree.
The first and most important point. I list 10 significant innovations currently shaking the mobile telecoms industry. TEN innovations (not counting megapixels among one of them) and could have listed ten more. But the point is, that for most of those ten innovations, I also list a previous article by FORBES that credits Nokia for that given innovation.
The journalist said Nokia is doomed because it is not innovating. Even if you ignore all of my evidence and arguments, is it not at least worth considering the merits of the issue, if Forbes before in half a dozen articles has mentioned most of those innovations as specifically Nokia's contributions to the industry?
If Forbes says, the Motorola Moment comes if you are not innovating. Remember they did not say make best UI or OS. But not innovating. And I show that FORBES has said that Nokia is innovating. Then at least this latest Forbes article is very questionable, is it not.
As you can see, if you go through the comments in the Forbes website, there are very many who point out different errors in the story. Not one error or two. The story is riddled with errors.
Now, I am not trying to claim Nokia is better at its UI or its OS. I am only refuting the silly claim, that Nokia did not innovate. Remember, to innovate does not mean you have to make it user-friendly or even commerically successful. The Wright Flier was a lousy plane to fly. It still is heralded as the first airplane. Usability has noting to do with innovation. Almost all inventions were horribly bad to use the first time. The first telephones, for 20 years were so horribly bad for users, that even if you owned one, you could not complete a phone call with it. You had to have another person complete it for you (or often, many people). The telephone became more user-friendly, when someone finally invented the rotary dial, 20 years later and we could start to call friends by ourselves. Before that to make one call, took 2 people just to "dial out"..
Usability has nothing to do with innovation, but usability CAN be, and often is, also innovation. Apple has made a career out of UI innovation, from the PC to the PDA to the Music Player to the Mobile Phone. Each had had its Apple Moment and is forever changed after Apple. But that is only one innovation, making the user interface better. You can also innovate in many other ways.
COMMENTS 67-71 MEGAPIXELS
A few words, on the comments thread around 67-71, there is discussion about megapixels, and suggest that megapixels are not innovation, and that because I talk about megapixels, I am now talking of meaningless matters.
I took that order of those features from Apple's own Press Release when the iPhone 3GS was launched. The first feature APPLE mentioned, that was new and hot, in this new phone (after the generalities) was 3 megapixel camera. The other things (MMS and video call and whatnot) came later in the press release. I took it in the same order. If you think a phone maker should not celebrate its bigger camera, then blame Apple, don't blame me.
COMMENTS 76-81 WHO FIRST
The discussion thread also talks about the "who did what first" and suggests it is petty or pointless to lsit who did what when. Maybe so, in a general sense of where this industry is today, and on the overall topic of this thread. But I was not blogging to participate in this discussion, I was blogging to refute a SPECIFIC article, with a boatload of errors. And that Forbes Journalist made the explicit point, that recently the innovation in mobile phones, has been "sprearheaded by Apple" and Nokia is totally not innovative.
If that was true, the facts would stand up to it. But if it is not true, then someone DOES have to set the facts straight. Now, is 3G an innovation? Apple thinks so, they celebrated their second edition of the iPhone so much, that they added 3G to the name of the product. So Apple thinks upgrading a slow 2G phone to a fast 3G phone is an innovation. Now, if Forbes says that Apple spearheads innovation in mobile phones, and Nokia is not innovative, and I show that before Apple had a 3G phone, Nokia had a 3G phone, the Forbes article is proven to be false.
As it had so MANY errors, I had to give proof for every one. I am sorry, if that came out like I was bashing Apple. I did not pick to compare Nokia with Apple. If the journalist had known what they were doing, they could have made a very powerful case, that Samsung or NTT DoCoMo truly is more innovative than Nokia in phone design.. But not Apple (yet). Apple HAS made SOME innovations and some of their innovations have been SHATTERINGLY powerful, far more so than Nokia adding an FM radio to a phone - but the truth is, that for those main features that APPLE ITSELF celebrated as improvements to its iPhone line (in iPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS) ie the phones themselves (not Apps Store) - Nokia had been there before Apple on just about all of them.
That is fact, and if the point to prove is who was more innovative, then Nokia does win in handset design comparing those phones. Now, we can all argue if the OS is a MORE RELEVANT innovation, that is fine, but the journalist claimed that Nokia is not innovating in phones, and clearly the journalist did not know what was writing, nor indeed what six other Forbes journalists had written before.
I quoted this entire post because I found it to be so very interesting. Much more so than quoting numbers.
The one thing we agree on, and disagree on, is what the word "innovation" seems to mean in this context.
Does innovation really mean that every time some "feature" is added that few people use, or can even understand, in some cases, that the manufacturer has innovated?
Or does it mean that a company takes a hard look at those features, decides which ones are the most important for the largest number of customers, and attempts to implement them in a way that makes them much easier, and pleasurable to use, while working on others of lessor importance to most customers in order to get them as "right" as possible, so as to enable them in a more useful manner?
To me, the latter is what "real" innovation is. This is the Apple approach, while the former is the approach that most other companies seem to prefer.
Now, with Apple's success, other companies are attempting to copy Apple's model, at least in the area of copying the iPhone and App Store as much as they can.
If you, and others, keep commenting on all the features some phones have, out of the context of usability, then you are going to lose sight of what really matters, and it isn't the largest number of pixels, or an FM tuner.
I notice that in this post, other posts, and in the rebuttal itself, a small part of which I quoted, you do give credit for the actual fact that Apple has innovated. You also give credit to the fact that Nokia's phones are hard to use, especially when compared to Apples'.
That's part of the debate you admit Nokia is losing.
This is really all that we've been saying.
And by the way, in mentioning, in this thread, that only the 3Gs has really caught on in Japan, are you forgetting that Nokia pulled out of Japan? Or have they changed their minds?
Let me make one point about N97 and 3GS. Those of you who live in America, probably think the 3GS has a price tag of 200 dollars? Did you know the real price is 700 dollars. In Italy (where handset subsidies are illegal) they pay 700 dollars for both the 3GS and the N97. What the subsidy allows, is for your carrier AT&T in the USA, O2 in the UK etc, to hide a monthly installments plan that they force you to eat.
So please do not think for one moment the 3GS is a 200 dollar phone. It is not. It is almost identical in price, 700 dollars, as the N97 (coincidence?). And to show how unfair the world is, in the UK you still pay about 200 dollars (a bit more actually) for the iPhone via O2, but on the rival networks, they offer the N97 for free. How twisted is that?
I'd like to respond to this briefly.
No one here thinks the iPhone costs $200, or $300. I don't know where you got that incorrect impression. We are all very aware of how the phone is priced, both here, and abroad. We understand subsidies (which, by the way, are very different from your incorrect use of the car analogy). We understand full pricing. We've discussed this many times.
As I pointed out, the problem with Nokia is not the technology side but the management side. Their management is horrendous. Pure and simple. Take the E-Series phone for example. The N-Series product leader has a stick up his ass towards the E-Series guy so guess what. No 3.5mm headphone jack because it is better to screw the customer than to put a standard size jack in the phone. So we have a great phone (better than a BB in my opinion) but cripple by a dysfunctional family feud. You should see the Nokia forums full of screaming customers wondering who came up with this abortion of a decision. The CEO of Nokia is a nice guy with very little spine. The N-Series guys basically makes things happen and gives the marching orders. The CEO simply fields questions. In my years of working in Finnish companies, I was impressed by their ability to innovate and come up with ideas but dismayed at their ability to never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. They come up with ideas that are truly groundbreaking but get mired down in committee, infighting, back stabbing, and in some cases lack of interest. Case in point: Ovi. It is more like a hobby than a real business. In short, Ovi simply sucks. MobileMe on the other hand just works, and sits in the background working. Why is that? Is it that Apple has better servers, or better Internet connections? No, they have a single minded goal of "one team, one fight". Nokia is all over the map without a real focus on providing the services at a level which will make consumers stop and think.
Nokia can turn this around but they need to clean house. Fire all the dead wood, bring in some aggressive, hungry types that can turn all of that spare cash into a consumer centric experience.
"never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."
Heh! A diplomat you are. You sound like you're talking about the PLO.
Most of are saying what you are saying here. It's certainly what I've been saying. And it's the reason for the "Motorola moment" remark.
Motorola was considered to be, for decades, one of the top companies in the field of electronics, chips, phones, etc. but with poor management, they lost much of that leadership.
It's ALWAYS management. As an owner of two companies, though far smaller (75 employees or so), I understand the responsibilities very well. We are responsible for the success of the company, no one else. We are also responsible for its failure, should that happen.
As is said in Ads for financial companies; "Past success doesn't insure future profits." Or something similar.
This is very true in business. Just because Tomi can point out Nokia's successes in the past doesn't mean that he can insure that the future will hold more of the same. He seems to be attempting that, while at the same time cushioning himself by asserting Apple's "innovations".
They haven't come out with it yet for a phone, which is the point I was making, as we are talking about phones, not internet tablets.
It can be adapted I think for phones. I am not an developer, but it is Linux so you never know. One thing is also true. Symbian the OS is very good, very powerful and suited well for phones, but the UI is scary beyond belief. I like the functionality of my N97 and will put it up against my iPhone (when I get it in 10 days. I am sure the iPhone UI and video playback features will kill the N97 but the N97 will hold its own in the telephony, file manipulation, emailing, messaging arena. For me, neither out does the other as I seem them as two different types of phones. Maybe this is why I have no problem with either company unlike the rabid iBoy iSheeple (not you Mel) who troll the halls of AI. Nokia has a few things up its sleeves and they look pretty interesting.
"never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."
Heh! A diplomat you are. You sound like you're talking about the PLO.
Or can be said of Israel. Oi ve (spelling).
Nokia had some boneheaded guy in the UK talking about the iPhone will suck the N97's gravy, but the truth of the matter is, they are not in the same league. People, namely the media, put them side by side always. The iPhone, in my view, is very focused and specific, while I feel the N97 is a jack of all trades master of none which will appeal to a very large base. There is plenty of market for both and Tomi is correct, LG and Samsung are the new giant killers. What out for them. They are very good. Once they get past the "cram it all in boys even if it doesn't quite work right" phase and get down to making all of that technology ubiquitous, they will start to make inroads. This should all mean great stuff for consumers. Either way, I will probably have two or three of each. [/quote]
Comments
The article did state clearly, that it was because of a lack of innovation, that Nokia was now facing its catastrphy. Not because Nokia phones are not easy to use, not because Nokia is not executing effectively a transition from a hardware maker to software company, and not because Nokia's OS is not as good as the iPhone has. The Forbes article made a very dramatic and hysterical claim in its title, and the point made very clearly, and many times in the article, is that what causes Nokia's Motorola Moment, is a lack of innovation.
The article did say that there is more innovation now than before in mobile (and I agree). The article did say that Apple, RIM, Palm and Toshiba have been innovating in the mobile space (and I agree). But when the article said Nokia has not innovated, and currently not at all, and specifically, Nokia is less innovative than Apple, then I disagree.
The first and most important point. I list 10 significant innovations currently shaking the mobile telecoms industry. TEN innovations (not counting megapixels among one of them) and could have listed ten more. But the point is, that for most of those ten innovations, I also list a previous article by FORBES that credits Nokia for that given innovation.
The journalist said Nokia is doomed because it is not innovating. Even if you ignore all of my evidence and arguments, is it not at least worth considering the merits of the issue, if Forbes before in half a dozen articles has mentioned most of those innovations as specifically Nokia's contributions to the industry?
If Forbes says, the Motorola Moment comes if you are not innovating. Remember they did not say make best UI or OS. But not innovating. And I show that FORBES has said that Nokia is innovating. Then at least this latest Forbes article is very questionable, is it not.
As you can see, if you go through the comments in the Forbes website, there are very many who point out different errors in the story. Not one error or two. The story is riddled with errors.
Now, I am not trying to claim Nokia is better at its UI or its OS. I am only refuting the silly claim, that Nokia did not innovate. Remember, to innovate does not mean you have to make it user-friendly or even commerically successful. The Wright Flier was a lousy plane to fly. It still is heralded as the first airplane. Usability has noting to do with innovation. Almost all inventions were horribly bad to use the first time. The first telephones, for 20 years were so horribly bad for users, that even if you owned one, you could not complete a phone call with it. You had to have another person complete it for you (or often, many people). The telephone became more user-friendly, when someone finally invented the rotary dial, 20 years later and we could start to call friends by ourselves. Before that to make one call, took 2 people just to "dial out"..
Usability has nothing to do with innovation, but usability CAN be, and often is, also innovation. Apple has made a career out of UI innovation, from the PC to the PDA to the Music Player to the Mobile Phone. Each had had its Apple Moment and is forever changed after Apple. But that is only one innovation, making the user interface better. You can also innovate in many other ways.
COMMENTS 67-71 MEGAPIXELS
A few words, on the comments thread around 67-71, there is discussion about megapixels, and suggest that megapixels are not innovation, and that because I talk about megapixels, I am now talking of meaningless matters.
I took that order of those features from Apple's own Press Release when the iPhone 3GS was launched. The first feature APPLE mentioned, that was new and hot, in this new phone (after the generalities) was 3 megapixel camera. The other things (MMS and video call and whatnot) came later in the press release. I took it in the same order. If you think a phone maker should not celebrate its bigger camera, then blame Apple, don't blame me.
COMMENTS 76-81 WHO FIRST
The discussion thread also talks about the "who did what first" and suggests it is petty or pointless to lsit who did what when. Maybe so, in a general sense of where this industry is today, and on the overall topic of this thread. But I was not blogging to participate in this discussion, I was blogging to refute a SPECIFIC article, with a boatload of errors. And that Forbes Journalist made the explicit point, that recently the innovation in mobile phones, has been "sprearheaded by Apple" and Nokia is totally not innovative.
If that was true, the facts would stand up to it. But if it is not true, then someone DOES have to set the facts straight. Now, is 3G an innovation? Apple thinks so, they celebrated their second edition of the iPhone so much, that they added 3G to the name of the product. So Apple thinks upgrading a slow 2G phone to a fast 3G phone is an innovation. Now, if Forbes says that Apple spearheads innovation in mobile phones, and Nokia is not innovative, and I show that before Apple had a 3G phone, Nokia had a 3G phone, the Forbes article is proven to be false.
As it had so MANY errors, I had to give proof for every one. I am sorry, if that came out like I was bashing Apple. I did not pick to compare Nokia with Apple. If the journalist had known what they were doing, they could have made a very powerful case, that Samsung or NTT DoCoMo truly is more innovative than Nokia in phone design.. But not Apple (yet). Apple HAS made SOME innovations and some of their innovations have been SHATTERINGLY powerful, far more so than Nokia adding an FM radio to a phone - but the truth is, that for those main features that APPLE ITSELF celebrated as improvements to its iPhone line (in iPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS) ie the phones themselves (not Apps Store) - Nokia had been there before Apple on just about all of them.
That is fact, and if the point to prove is who was more innovative, then Nokia does win in handset design comparing those phones. Now, we can all argue if the OS is a MORE RELEVANT innovation, that is fine, but the journalist claimed that Nokia is not innovating in phones, and clearly the journalist did not know what was writing, nor indeed what six other Forbes journalists had written before.
Tomi Ahonen :-)
www.tomiahonen.com
Those comparisons aren’t congruent due to release dates.
@ Brucep,
Do you really need to quote the entirety of such a long comment just to write a single lined reply?
Hey mel did that to me !!
I wanted to show for all his bluster, he really added nothing new.
But I agree and in future time I will make a large cut.
Thank you for the heads up.
9
peace
Moi moi (hello hello). Yeah. The industry is obsessing with the iPhone, and almost every smartphone maker is hoping for a hit to be the "iPhone killer". That was LG's Chocolate for example, a clear attempt to try to beat the iPhone 2G (and while a far less user-friendly phone, Chocolate did outsell the 2G, Choco was also cheaper..)
So yeah, most makers have at least one product they try to position against the iPhone, think Palm Pre for example or Samsung's Armani. And where earlier it was N95, now very clearly as its also a touch-screen smartphone, Nokia's current answer is the N97.
But note, this is a bit like taking the Porsche and then having GM trying to match it. What will GM do, it will make a Corvette. In some ways its faster maybe (some models, some engines) but in reality, the Porcshe is truly better engineered. The N97 has some thing it does better, the 3GS has some things it does better, but undeniably, for those who truly value the easiest phone to use, the iPhone is it. No contest. We see grandparents who'd never think of trying the "mobile web" suddenly posting Facebook pictures via the iPhone etc.. It is a game-changer.
What Nokia has, is not only far wider sales channel (almost every country almost every carrier in the GSM world) and that will be a very strong asset to even the scales.
Let me make one point about N97 and 3GS. Those of you who live in America, probably think the 3GS has a price tag of 200 dollars? Did you know the real price is 700 dollars. In Italy (where handset subsidies are illegal) they pay 700 dollars for both the 3GS and the N97. What the subsidy allows, is for your carrier AT&T in the USA, O2 in the UK etc, to hide a monthly installments plan that they force you to eat.
Imagine if you go to a car dealership to buy a car. It has a sticker price 25,000 dollars. They have financing terms that allow you to pay 20% down, and rest on 3 year contract. So you only pay 5,000 dollars today, and the rest is a monthly payment. The car did not suddenly became a 5,000 dollar car. You still bought a 25,000 dollar car, you only are committed to paying the rest in installments.
So please do not think for one moment the 3GS is a 200 dollar phone. It is not. It is almost identical in price, 700 dollars, as the N97 (coincidence?). And to show how unfair the world is, in the UK you still pay about 200 dollars (a bit more actually) for the iPhone via O2, but on the rival networks, they offer the N97 for free. How twisted is that?
And in the UK this past week, the N97 became the bestselling phone in Britain. Nokia said they shipped half a million in the first days. It will be a slug-match, but Nokia has an unfair advantage in its other models. They have the 5800, the N86, the E-series etc.
Oh, and meant to say, the one company totally ignoring the iPhone (until very recently) is RIM. And of Nokia's divisions, the E-Series is not exposed to the iPhone, but the N-Series is. Helps explain why this past year, N-Series sales down, E-Series sales up..
PS sorry for long postings, don't have time to edit, am at airport lounge, my plane soon taking off..
Tomi Ahonen :-)
www.tomiahonen.com
How many of the smartphone's Nokia sold were low to midrange phone's like this:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_6120_classic
Judging by the 62 euro average handset sale price it's probably quite a lot.
There's no need to make guesses, it's all in Nokia's financial report. A report that the writers and moderators are apparently refusing to read.
It clearly states that the top two Nokia smartphones were the E71 and 5800.
I just thought I'd ask.
Of course he has done a lot of work for Nokia. Nokia is to mobile tech what Opera is to web standards. Basically all the "big" names work for Nokia at some point. And the guy is Finn so...
If you think that Siemens, NTT Docomo, etc. etc. (there are others as he has been consultant for quite some time) aren't phone manufacturers, I think it's better to end this conversation. Over and out.
Edit. And someone wondered if I have something to do with Nokia. I can honestly say that I've never worked for Nokia or any firm that does software / hardware for Nokia. And I'm not Apple hater, I actually love certain aspects of Apple products (there are also things that I hate).
Btw. melgross: Maemo is already out. Has been for couple of years. It's just the next version of Maemo which is coming out.
Which smartphones use that?
Which smartphones use that?
Maemo is the OS for Nokia's Internet Tablets. N770, N800, N810.
See, this just proves my point about lazy journalism. Don't get your information second hand, go to the source.
Go to the original press release from Nokia and make your own informed opinion. Don't draw conclusions from a secondary source.
Here's the untainted Q2 results from Nokia.
It quite clearly shows that their smartphone market share has been:
Q2 2008: 41%
Q1 2009: 38%
Q2 2009: 41%
While I found Q2 2009 results mentioning the smartphone share. I couldn't find the result for Q2 2008. I only found the overall phone share of 40% and the forward estimate of 39%.
Would you show, link to, or quote the part about Q2 2008 smartphone percentage?
Unless I'm mistaken, Apple hasn't released its Q2 results yet. You're making assumptions based on thin air. Even though I can't remember the official audited numbers being released, didn't the iPhone 3GS sell 1 million in its opening weekend vs. 1 million for the iPhone 3G? I'm aware that the 3GS was released in fewer countries but we all know that the big markets were hit.
Apple released them. The results you are waiting for are the third quarter results, as Apple's first quarter is the Oct -Dec. quarter. Comparisons I've been making are for the first quarter Nokia results compared to the second quarter Apple results, as they are the comparable time periods. Thats one reason why we have been at odds with sim of the numbers. i've had to respond to the Nokia 2nd quarter results as that's what you are referring to, but they aren't really useful yet when compared to Apple's, obviously. That's why the 38% number for Nokia equates to the 10.8% number for Apple.
Tuesday, when Apple releases its results, then we can compare its 3rd quarter to Nokia's 2nd quarter.
I hope that clears some of this mess up.
And have you used it? The UI is worse than S60. It's no-where near good enough for the mainstream. It needs serious, serious investment to even have a chance.
haven't seen any device that uses it. I only know what I've read about it from Nokia and other web sites, and from what I've seen of some online demos.
If you're saying that this is worse, then that really doesn't bode well for Nokia, does it?
Perhaps you and Eric Perduel should be taking about this.
I could be wrong, but my impression is that he thinks that Meamo is a good thing for Nokia.
II am really "the man" for the mobile industry.
Ok, now will post a few comments.
I have never seen anyone at a high level in any industry come on a rumors site such as this one and post so much commentary.
I must say that you certainly are not modest, are you?
That is, assuming that it really is Mr. Ahonen.
How did you even learn of this debate in which "your" name was brought up?
Now, with the assumption that you really are who you say you are, I will bring up something.
What I've noticed in this long running debate that has its roots in debates going back 2.5 years now, ever since Apple first announced their phone, that those who strongly support the phone are labeled as Apple fans (US based company).
But, I've also noticed that those living in Finland seen to be amongst the strongest supporters of Nokia. So what does that say? Are we seeing some local manufacturer fans as well? I can understand that as Finland is a small country, and Nokia as the worlds largest phone manufacturer is a proper source of pride.
As was stated very clearly in the "rebuttal"
{quote}Innovation has nothing to do with usability. Many who have commented here, or on various forums, read between the lines in the Forbes article, and perhaps also inject their own personal experiences with recent Nokia smartphones (vs iPhone in particular) and think, but there is a point, the iPhone is far better to use than Nokia. That may be true, but it has nothing to do with innovation. If the Forbes article had been entitled "Nokia smartphones not as easy to use, this may be Nokia's Motorola Moment" - I'd have NO problem with that premise. I'd examine the evidence, but probably would agree. Certainly, I totally agree - totally agree - that Apple's iPhone is by far the best phone out there in terms of usability. (I said so earlier in this blog article!) But usability is not innovation and innovation is not usability.[/quote]
This is what I've always believed, and what many others also believe, which is why Apple share of the market has risen so quickly.
THIS IS the major innovation that Apple has brought to the market, and is what isn't being understood by those who constantly nag us about one little used feature or another.
And while it's true that Nokia made a half a billion in sales on its software sales, it a totally different kind of area than what Apple has been doing.
mobile services, applications and content.
It's the "services" that Apple doesn't have. Exactly what are these services, and who buys them? Can you tell us what percentage of that .5 billion was in services as opposed to apps and content? Also, if Apple breaks out iTunes sales for the iPhone, their numbers would be much different. The numbers "you" used for Apple were just for app sales.
While it's clearly impossible to debate the entire rebuttal here, as it's so very long, ironically, the entire concept of what you said there is summed up in reality by that one paragraph I quoted.
Nokia is lagging in many respects, and the big question is whether they can move past their methodology.
Have you any real evidence that they can do so?
The main thread of this topic is Nokia's quarterly results and its market share.
Note that Nokia HQ is very focused on profits. They said they want to achieve about 40% market share but not go above it (said years and years ago) so they can maximize profits. Almost every quarter this whole decade, of the big 5 handset makers, Nokia, Samsung, LG, SonyEricsson and Motorola, Nokia has been the most profitable. Just now when the economy tanked, in the first quarter of 2009, Nokia's two Korean rivals did post better profitability than Nokia.
So Nokia has not pursued an ambitious "get it all" market share, but has always wanted to return very high profits to the company (and its owners).
Now, smartphones. Many in the industry feel that smartphones are the key to future phones (some others say low-cost phones, some others say hardware becomes irrelevant and it will all be software; and then there is the netbooks lobby who believe the shrinking PC will steal the show). Well, if you believe smartphones will win the day, Nokia has consistently, every every single quarter since it reached 30% market share, has had its smartphone market share exceed the company's overall handset market share.
Currently the smartphone market share for Nokia is 41%. So, its the biggest player by far, and in smartphones it performs better than overall. Not a bad position to be in.
Now, the smartphone market share has been bigger, certainly. But remember Nokia's overall intent is to provide profits, so pursuing too aggressive a market share in smartphones is very expensive. They're very happy as long as Nokia branded smartphones outsell Nokia branded regular phones.
Who is Nokia's rival. I'm sorry, you guys here, the Apple iPhone is nowhere near Nokia's rival. Yes, its a design icon, and it is being reverse-engineered by all, and dozens of copies and wannabees flood the market (and outsell the original iPhone) but the iPhone is only at 1% global market share. This is only a "minor irritant" to the biggest player. I do not mean to dismiss Apple or the iPhone. But Nokia would be foolish to focus on the iPhone (currently). RIM of Canada sells twice as many smartphones as Apple and is available in more markets than the iPhone and is available on more carriers than the iPhone. Among smartphones, Blackberry is the real threat to Nokia's N-Series, E-Series and consumer smartphones.
Overall, far more than worry about Blackberries, the two hungry players growing fast, making profits while doing so, are the two South Koreans, Samsung and LG. Here is Nokia's real battle. If they lose to Samsung (or LG) it will be a real Motorola Moment indeed. Incidentially Motorola and SonyEricsson have posted countless quarters of profits, so Nokia is not very worried about them right now.
I hope this helps give a bit of context to the discussion. I do understand that Wall Street reacted very strongly (negatively) to Nokia's guidance that the rest of the year will be tough. But Wall Street makes extreme over-reactions on a daily basis, that is how they get volatility and volatility brings them more business ie sales commissions. I don't care gery much about daily reactions on Wall Street. I do care about the company's market share and profitability.
Tomi Ahonen :-)
www.tomiahonen.com
Apple has also said that they aren't interested in being the largest smartphone manufacturer. Jobs did say that Apple would be happy to get 10% of the smartphone market, something Apple has achieved. Rapidly. While Apple doesn't like to talk about its intend about achieving profits, it's well known that they do have an intent to get a good profit on every device they sell. They have been able to do that.
So, in a sense, both Nokia and Apple have similar goals.
Wall street reacts badly to Apple's conservative guidance as well.
.......
Have you any real evidence that they can do so?
As I pointed out, the problem with Nokia is not the technology side but the management side. Their management is horrendous. Pure and simple. Take the E-Series phone for example. The N-Series product leader has a stick up his ass towards the E-Series guy so guess what. No 3.5mm headphone jack because it is better to screw the customer than to put a standard size jack in the phone. So we have a great phone (better than a BB in my opinion) but cripple by a dysfunctional family feud. You should see the Nokia forums full of screaming customers wondering who came up with this abortion of a decision. The CEO of Nokia is a nice guy with very little spine. The N-Series guys basically makes things happen and gives the marching orders. The CEO simply fields questions. In my years of working in Finnish companies, I was impressed by their ability to innovate and come up with ideas but dismayed at their ability to never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. They come up with ideas that are truly groundbreaking but get mired down in committee, infighting, back stabbing, and in some cases lack of interest. Case in point: Ovi. It is more like a hobby than a real business. In short, Ovi simply sucks. MobileMe on the other hand just works, and sits in the background working. Why is that? Is it that Apple has better servers, or better Internet connections? No, they have a single minded goal of "one team, one fight". Nokia is all over the map without a real focus on providing the services at a level which will make consumers stop and think.
Nokia can turn this around but they need to clean house. Fire all the dead wood, bring in some aggressive, hungry types that can turn all of that spare cash into a consumer centric experience.
Now, a few words about the Forbes article (Nokia's Motorola Moment).
The article did state clearly, that it was because of a lack of innovation, that Nokia was now facing its catastrphy. Not because Nokia phones are not easy to use, not because Nokia is not executing effectively a transition from a hardware maker to software company, and not because Nokia's OS is not as good as the iPhone has. The Forbes article made a very dramatic and hysterical claim in its title, and the point made very clearly, and many times in the article, is that what causes Nokia's Motorola Moment, is a lack of innovation.
The article did say that there is more innovation now than before in mobile (and I agree). The article did say that Apple, RIM, Palm and Toshiba have been innovating in the mobile space (and I agree). But when the article said Nokia has not innovated, and currently not at all, and specifically, Nokia is less innovative than Apple, then I disagree.
The first and most important point. I list 10 significant innovations currently shaking the mobile telecoms industry. TEN innovations (not counting megapixels among one of them) and could have listed ten more. But the point is, that for most of those ten innovations, I also list a previous article by FORBES that credits Nokia for that given innovation.
The journalist said Nokia is doomed because it is not innovating. Even if you ignore all of my evidence and arguments, is it not at least worth considering the merits of the issue, if Forbes before in half a dozen articles has mentioned most of those innovations as specifically Nokia's contributions to the industry?
If Forbes says, the Motorola Moment comes if you are not innovating. Remember they did not say make best UI or OS. But not innovating. And I show that FORBES has said that Nokia is innovating. Then at least this latest Forbes article is very questionable, is it not.
As you can see, if you go through the comments in the Forbes website, there are very many who point out different errors in the story. Not one error or two. The story is riddled with errors.
Now, I am not trying to claim Nokia is better at its UI or its OS. I am only refuting the silly claim, that Nokia did not innovate. Remember, to innovate does not mean you have to make it user-friendly or even commerically successful. The Wright Flier was a lousy plane to fly. It still is heralded as the first airplane. Usability has noting to do with innovation. Almost all inventions were horribly bad to use the first time. The first telephones, for 20 years were so horribly bad for users, that even if you owned one, you could not complete a phone call with it. You had to have another person complete it for you (or often, many people). The telephone became more user-friendly, when someone finally invented the rotary dial, 20 years later and we could start to call friends by ourselves. Before that to make one call, took 2 people just to "dial out"..
Usability has nothing to do with innovation, but usability CAN be, and often is, also innovation. Apple has made a career out of UI innovation, from the PC to the PDA to the Music Player to the Mobile Phone. Each had had its Apple Moment and is forever changed after Apple. But that is only one innovation, making the user interface better. You can also innovate in many other ways.
COMMENTS 67-71 MEGAPIXELS
A few words, on the comments thread around 67-71, there is discussion about megapixels, and suggest that megapixels are not innovation, and that because I talk about megapixels, I am now talking of meaningless matters.
I took that order of those features from Apple's own Press Release when the iPhone 3GS was launched. The first feature APPLE mentioned, that was new and hot, in this new phone (after the generalities) was 3 megapixel camera. The other things (MMS and video call and whatnot) came later in the press release. I took it in the same order. If you think a phone maker should not celebrate its bigger camera, then blame Apple, don't blame me.
COMMENTS 76-81 WHO FIRST
The discussion thread also talks about the "who did what first" and suggests it is petty or pointless to lsit who did what when. Maybe so, in a general sense of where this industry is today, and on the overall topic of this thread. But I was not blogging to participate in this discussion, I was blogging to refute a SPECIFIC article, with a boatload of errors. And that Forbes Journalist made the explicit point, that recently the innovation in mobile phones, has been "sprearheaded by Apple" and Nokia is totally not innovative.
If that was true, the facts would stand up to it. But if it is not true, then someone DOES have to set the facts straight. Now, is 3G an innovation? Apple thinks so, they celebrated their second edition of the iPhone so much, that they added 3G to the name of the product. So Apple thinks upgrading a slow 2G phone to a fast 3G phone is an innovation. Now, if Forbes says that Apple spearheads innovation in mobile phones, and Nokia is not innovative, and I show that before Apple had a 3G phone, Nokia had a 3G phone, the Forbes article is proven to be false.
As it had so MANY errors, I had to give proof for every one. I am sorry, if that came out like I was bashing Apple. I did not pick to compare Nokia with Apple. If the journalist had known what they were doing, they could have made a very powerful case, that Samsung or NTT DoCoMo truly is more innovative than Nokia in phone design.. But not Apple (yet). Apple HAS made SOME innovations and some of their innovations have been SHATTERINGLY powerful, far more so than Nokia adding an FM radio to a phone - but the truth is, that for those main features that APPLE ITSELF celebrated as improvements to its iPhone line (in iPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS) ie the phones themselves (not Apps Store) - Nokia had been there before Apple on just about all of them.
That is fact, and if the point to prove is who was more innovative, then Nokia does win in handset design comparing those phones. Now, we can all argue if the OS is a MORE RELEVANT innovation, that is fine, but the journalist claimed that Nokia is not innovating in phones, and clearly the journalist did not know what was writing, nor indeed what six other Forbes journalists had written before.
Tomi Ahonen :-)
www.tomiahonen.com
I quoted this entire post because I found it to be so very interesting. Much more so than quoting numbers.
The one thing we agree on, and disagree on, is what the word "innovation" seems to mean in this context.
Does innovation really mean that every time some "feature" is added that few people use, or can even understand, in some cases, that the manufacturer has innovated?
Or does it mean that a company takes a hard look at those features, decides which ones are the most important for the largest number of customers, and attempts to implement them in a way that makes them much easier, and pleasurable to use, while working on others of lessor importance to most customers in order to get them as "right" as possible, so as to enable them in a more useful manner?
To me, the latter is what "real" innovation is. This is the Apple approach, while the former is the approach that most other companies seem to prefer.
Now, with Apple's success, other companies are attempting to copy Apple's model, at least in the area of copying the iPhone and App Store as much as they can.
If you, and others, keep commenting on all the features some phones have, out of the context of usability, then you are going to lose sight of what really matters, and it isn't the largest number of pixels, or an FM tuner.
I notice that in this post, other posts, and in the rebuttal itself, a small part of which I quoted, you do give credit for the actual fact that Apple has innovated. You also give credit to the fact that Nokia's phones are hard to use, especially when compared to Apples'.
That's part of the debate you admit Nokia is losing.
This is really all that we've been saying.
And by the way, in mentioning, in this thread, that only the 3Gs has really caught on in Japan, are you forgetting that Nokia pulled out of Japan? Or have they changed their minds?
Let me make one point about N97 and 3GS. Those of you who live in America, probably think the 3GS has a price tag of 200 dollars? Did you know the real price is 700 dollars. In Italy (where handset subsidies are illegal) they pay 700 dollars for both the 3GS and the N97. What the subsidy allows, is for your carrier AT&T in the USA, O2 in the UK etc, to hide a monthly installments plan that they force you to eat.
So please do not think for one moment the 3GS is a 200 dollar phone. It is not. It is almost identical in price, 700 dollars, as the N97 (coincidence?). And to show how unfair the world is, in the UK you still pay about 200 dollars (a bit more actually) for the iPhone via O2, but on the rival networks, they offer the N97 for free. How twisted is that?
I'd like to respond to this briefly.
No one here thinks the iPhone costs $200, or $300. I don't know where you got that incorrect impression. We are all very aware of how the phone is priced, both here, and abroad. We understand subsidies (which, by the way, are very different from your incorrect use of the car analogy). We understand full pricing. We've discussed this many times.
Maemo is the OS for Nokia's Internet Tablets. N770, N800, N810.
That's what I seem to remember.
They haven't come out with it yet for a phone, which is the point I was making, as we are talking about phones, not internet tablets.
As I pointed out, the problem with Nokia is not the technology side but the management side. Their management is horrendous. Pure and simple. Take the E-Series phone for example. The N-Series product leader has a stick up his ass towards the E-Series guy so guess what. No 3.5mm headphone jack because it is better to screw the customer than to put a standard size jack in the phone. So we have a great phone (better than a BB in my opinion) but cripple by a dysfunctional family feud. You should see the Nokia forums full of screaming customers wondering who came up with this abortion of a decision. The CEO of Nokia is a nice guy with very little spine. The N-Series guys basically makes things happen and gives the marching orders. The CEO simply fields questions. In my years of working in Finnish companies, I was impressed by their ability to innovate and come up with ideas but dismayed at their ability to never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. They come up with ideas that are truly groundbreaking but get mired down in committee, infighting, back stabbing, and in some cases lack of interest. Case in point: Ovi. It is more like a hobby than a real business. In short, Ovi simply sucks. MobileMe on the other hand just works, and sits in the background working. Why is that? Is it that Apple has better servers, or better Internet connections? No, they have a single minded goal of "one team, one fight". Nokia is all over the map without a real focus on providing the services at a level which will make consumers stop and think.
Nokia can turn this around but they need to clean house. Fire all the dead wood, bring in some aggressive, hungry types that can turn all of that spare cash into a consumer centric experience.
"never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."
Heh! A diplomat you are. You sound like you're talking about the PLO.
Most of are saying what you are saying here. It's certainly what I've been saying. And it's the reason for the "Motorola moment" remark.
Motorola was considered to be, for decades, one of the top companies in the field of electronics, chips, phones, etc. but with poor management, they lost much of that leadership.
It's ALWAYS management. As an owner of two companies, though far smaller (75 employees or so), I understand the responsibilities very well. We are responsible for the success of the company, no one else. We are also responsible for its failure, should that happen.
As is said in Ads for financial companies; "Past success doesn't insure future profits." Or something similar.
This is very true in business. Just because Tomi can point out Nokia's successes in the past doesn't mean that he can insure that the future will hold more of the same. He seems to be attempting that, while at the same time cushioning himself by asserting Apple's "innovations".
Interesting.
That's what I seem to remember.
They haven't come out with it yet for a phone, which is the point I was making, as we are talking about phones, not internet tablets.
It can be adapted I think for phones. I am not an developer, but it is Linux so you never know. One thing is also true. Symbian the OS is very good, very powerful and suited well for phones, but the UI is scary beyond belief. I like the functionality of my N97 and will put it up against my iPhone (when I get it in 10 days. I am sure the iPhone UI and video playback features will kill the N97 but the N97 will hold its own in the telephony, file manipulation, emailing, messaging arena. For me, neither out does the other as I seem them as two different types of phones. Maybe this is why I have no problem with either company unlike the rabid iBoy iSheeple (not you Mel) who troll the halls of AI. Nokia has a few things up its sleeves and they look pretty interesting.
Which smartphones use that?
What's a smartphone?
This is a serious question.
"never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."
Heh! A diplomat you are. You sound like you're talking about the PLO.
Or can be said of Israel. Oi ve (spelling).
Nokia had some boneheaded guy in the UK talking about the iPhone will suck the N97's gravy, but the truth of the matter is, they are not in the same league. People, namely the media, put them side by side always. The iPhone, in my view, is very focused and specific, while I feel the N97 is a jack of all trades master of none which will appeal to a very large base. There is plenty of market for both and Tomi is correct, LG and Samsung are the new giant killers. What out for them. They are very good. Once they get past the "cram it all in boys even if it doesn't quite work right" phase and get down to making all of that technology ubiquitous, they will start to make inroads. This should all mean great stuff for consumers. Either way, I will probably have two or three of each.