The phrase "enable to afford one" coupled with citing Nokia's "vision" clearly introduces a moral aspect to this argument. You're suggesting that Nokia is choosing to sell low margin phones out of a desire to make sure anyone and everyone can enjoy the benefits of owning a cell phone, because of their "vision." Again, nonsense.
At any rate, as has been said, I don't have any problem with that. I don't find it an "issue." It is, in fact, a perfectly reasonable business strategy. It's just that most of that strategy has nothing to do with the market Apple is in and isn't relevant to discussions of the iPhone.
ok, then if Nokia doesn't make these phones and make money off them, someone else will have to, will that be Apple? Nope. There is a market for a variety of phones at various price points, Nokia is selling at all of them, Apple only at the expensive end. Again, what is the issue with this?
ok, then if Nokia doesn't make these phones and make money off them, someone else will have to, will that be Apple? Nope. There is a market for a variety of phones at various price points, Nokia is selling at all of them, Apple only at the expensive end. Again, what is the issue with this?
Jesus H. Christ! No one is arguing that Nokia isn't profitable or making money at all various parts of the handset market. What is discussed is their drop from being the top selling premium smartphone vendor. Stop kidding yourself, Nokia wants this segment back. They aren't just going to leave it because they're making money in other areas. Did you forget that Apple didn't exist in this market 3 years ago and now makes more net profit than any other handset maker?
Jesus H. Christ! No one is arguing that Nokia isn't profitable or making money at all various parts of the handset market. What is discussed is their drop from being the top selling premium smartphone vendor. Stop kidding yourself, Nokia wants this segment back. They aren't just going to leave it because they're making money in other areas. Did you forget that Apple didn't exist in this market 3 years ago and now makes more net profit than any other handset maker?
No, there are a number of people here claiming Nokia is making next to nothing from sell cheaper phones, but since you have problems with reading you most likely haven't got to that bit of the thread yet. Also, in case you don't realise, Nokia is still number one in smartphones, they still sell the most smartphones. And why are you continually going on about Apples profit, as a consumer I don't purchase something based on who will make the most profit
And why are you continually going on about Apples profit, as a consumer I don't purchase something based on who will make the most profit
But you care how many phones they sell in each market segment? You care if they sell more phones than Apple? You care enough to comes into a forum about a company you apparently have no interest in? You care so much that you even participate on threads about unit sales and marketshare? Some of us have reasons to participate in discussions. Perhaps you should evaluate how you just excluded yourself from half the article threads on this site.
But you care how many phones they sell in each market segment? You care if they sell more phones than Apple? You care enough to comes into a forum about a company you apparently have no interest in? You care so much that you even participate on threads about unit sales and marketshare? Some of us have reasons to participate in discussions. Perhaps you should evaluate how you just excluded yourself from have the article threads on this site.
I own several Apple products, is there any reason why I can't come to this site, I didn't realise you had been promoted to the high lord almighty.
Also, can you re-write the bolded sentence in English, it doesn't make much sense.
I own several Apple products, is there any reason why I can't come to this site, I didn't realise you had been promoted to the high lord almighty.
Pay attention. You stated that you don't make any decision based on a companies profit. Yet you come here to participate in every thread that talks about sales. Why would you bother if you don't care about the topics. I was calling you out because you do care and you have plenty of posts showing that you have opinions about a company's sales. Or are you going to say that you don't care about "profit" but you do care about "revenue, marketshare and unit sales", because those are things consumers should worry about before purchasing? Seriously!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jfanning
I don't purchase something based on who will make the most profit
Neither does anyone else, but we come to forums about a company's finances and products to talk about a company's finances and products.
Pay attention. You stated that you don't make any decision based on a companies profit. Yet you come here to participate in every thread that talks about sales. Why would you bother if you don't care about the topics. I was calling you out because you do care and you have plenty of posts showing that you have opinions about a company's sales. Or are you going to say that you don't care about "profit" but you do care about "revenue, marketshare and unit sales", because those are things consumers should worry about before purchasing? Seriously!
Wow, you looked at my history of posting and came up with that outcome, I had thought more highly of you, I guess that was a waste of time. Those are all your thoughts, and conclusions, not mine, and you got them all wrong as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Neither does anyone else, but we come to forums about a company's finances and products to talk about a company's finances and products.
Gee, looking at the title of this thread, I can't see anything about finances there, is this another of those conslusions you constantly get wrong?
So what does it suggest about Nokia's business over time? Are they suddenly going to fall from grace? Are poor people going to be banned from owning mobile phones? Selling massive volume, low margin products is just as valid as selling low volume, high margin products. What is it about one of those methods that is so bad? I really don't understand this tendency towards only the low volume, high margin method being the only valid one, and why doing anything different is wrong.
You're entirely correct. There are a gazillion different business strategies that can lead to profits.
Apple is somewhat like Porsche while Nokia is somewhat like Toyota. Different market segments, different strategies, but all four companies make money.
Cue: A fanboi should "refute" my point using some kind of lame dismissive comment about Toyota recalls.
I totally understand that in a monopolistic market, a vendor can force consumers to buy an over-priced product. But in a market with lots of choice and multiple vendors, it isn't possible at all. Consumers choose the product they prefer, and vote with their money.
There is more to a company being successful than just making the most profit, which I think a lot of people forget around here.
Not in the long run.
But in the short run, it is not unknown to accept lower margins in order to build market share. The Japanese car companies did exactly that in the North American market, and have profited greatly from the strategy.
But in the short run, it is not unknown to accept lower margins in order to build market share. The Japanese car companies did exactly that in the North American market, and have profited greatly from the strategy.
You mean the Japanese car companies that couldn't sell a luxury car under their current economy car name so Honda created Acura, Toyota created Lexus and Nissan created Infinity. YOU CAN'T DAMAGE YOUR BRAND NAME BY SELLING CRAP AND THEN JUST RAISE YOUR PRICE AGAIN WITH NO CONSEQUENCES. The Japanese automakers were much more competent than the US automakers which allowed for a growing of the brand over many years but this is neither easy nor quick.
I totally understand that in a monopolistic market, a vendor can force consumers to buy an over-priced product. But in a market with lots of choice and multiple vendors, it isn't possible at all. Consumers choose the product they prefer, and vote with their money.
As I originally understood the point, it was that the iPhone is more desirable than any Nokia phone because Apple makes a higher margin than Nokia.
I'm not going to start up with you about folks being forced to buy stuff. That is just a typical red herring.
If you prefer, consider my point to have been refuted.
I said: But in the short run, it is not unknown to accept lower margins in order to build market share. The Japanese car companies did exactly that in the North American market, and have profited greatly from the strategy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
You mean the Japanese car companies that couldn't sell a luxury car under their current economy car name so Honda created Acura, Toyota created Lexus and Nissan created Infinity. YOU CAN'T DAMAGE YOUR BRAND NAME BY SELLING CRAP AND THEN JUST RAISE YOUR PRICE AGAIN WITH NO CONSEQUENCES. The Japanese automakers were much more competent than the US automakers which allowed for a growing of the brand over many years but this is neither easy nor quick.
Yes. Exactly those companies. I'm not sure why you mix "selling crap" and accepting lower margins in order to build market share and brand loyalty.
Is Honda known for selling crap? If not, what the heck are you spouting about? You misunderstand folk's assertions on a regular basis, and then have fun knocking over your own straw men. The example I gave is NOT an example of anybody selling crap.
As I originally understood the point, it was that the iPhone is more desirable than any Nokia phone because Apple makes a higher margin than Nokia.
The other way round...
Anyone can buy devices and sell them at a break even rate.
But if companies are smart, there is some value-added alchemy that takes places. You take $200 of parts but sell the product at $400 - because the assembled product is worth that much to consumers. It is more desirable.
I said: But in the short run, it is not unknown to accept lower margins in order to build market share. The Japanese car companies did exactly that in the North American market, and have profited greatly from the strategy.
Yes. Exactly those companies. I'm not sure why you mix "selling crap" and accepting lower margins in order to build market share and brand loyalty.
Is Honda known for selling crap? If not, what the heck are you spouting about? You misunderstand folk's assertions on a regular basis, and then have fun knocking over your own straw men. The example I gave is NOT an example of anybody selling crap.
It's pretty nerve racking when posters claim they were being more direct in their misguided and vague posts than they really were, but instead of a Mea Culpa and a clarification, they try to claim they wrote that when the proof is there in print. You must be a huge PITA in to talk to in person. You used the inclusive term "Japanese car companies [...] in North [America]". You also included the qualifier "short run" which excludes anything you are now trying to claim about the the Big 3's luxury divisions.
It's pretty nerve racking when posters claim they were being more direct in their misguided and vague posts than they really were, but instead of a Mea Culpa and a clarification, they try to claim they wrote that when the proof is there in print. You must be a huge PITA in to talk to in person. You used the inclusive term "Japanese car companies [...] in North [America]". You also included the qualifier "short run" which excludes anything you are now trying to claim about the the Big 3's luxury divisions.
I am not trying to claim anything at all about the luxury divisions. You brought them up, to bolster some kind of point about selling crap, which too is an irrelevant topic. Please stop imagining things I may have said, and instead, respond (or don't) to what I DO say.
Here's my point again: Some companies accept lower margins in the short run in order to build market share. We saw the Japanese car companies do it in N. America long ago, and now they have loyal customers willing to pay normal margins.
I am not trying to claim anything at all about the luxury divisions. You brought them up, to bolster some kind of point about selling crap, which too is an irrelevant topic. Please stop imagining things I may have said, and instead, respond (or don't) to what I DO say.
Here's my point again: Some companies accept lower margins in the short run in order to build market share. We saw the Japanese car companies do it in N. America long ago, and now they have loyal customers willing to pay normal margins.
How obtuse can you be. Higher margins came from sales volume... just like Apple.They lowered their prices when their sales volume for the same item had doubled in 2-3 years. It's economics of scale.
What they have done —and what you did not stat—is that they eventually offered more expensive, items once they built up mindshare. This is not an easy way to grow your brand. You have wait for the mindshare to build. You have to wait for the customer to trust you. This takes time. It's not a short run scenario. And you still run the risk of growing too fast if you try to make a luxury item that doesn't fit with your current lines up.
Comments
The phrase "enable to afford one" coupled with citing Nokia's "vision" clearly introduces a moral aspect to this argument. You're suggesting that Nokia is choosing to sell low margin phones out of a desire to make sure anyone and everyone can enjoy the benefits of owning a cell phone, because of their "vision." Again, nonsense.
At any rate, as has been said, I don't have any problem with that. I don't find it an "issue." It is, in fact, a perfectly reasonable business strategy. It's just that most of that strategy has nothing to do with the market Apple is in and isn't relevant to discussions of the iPhone.
ok, then if Nokia doesn't make these phones and make money off them, someone else will have to, will that be Apple? Nope. There is a market for a variety of phones at various price points, Nokia is selling at all of them, Apple only at the expensive end. Again, what is the issue with this?
ok, then if Nokia doesn't make these phones and make money off them, someone else will have to, will that be Apple? Nope. There is a market for a variety of phones at various price points, Nokia is selling at all of them, Apple only at the expensive end. Again, what is the issue with this?
Jesus H. Christ! No one is arguing that Nokia isn't profitable or making money at all various parts of the handset market. What is discussed is their drop from being the top selling premium smartphone vendor. Stop kidding yourself, Nokia wants this segment back. They aren't just going to leave it because they're making money in other areas. Did you forget that Apple didn't exist in this market 3 years ago and now makes more net profit than any other handset maker?
Jesus H. Christ! No one is arguing that Nokia isn't profitable or making money at all various parts of the handset market. What is discussed is their drop from being the top selling premium smartphone vendor. Stop kidding yourself, Nokia wants this segment back. They aren't just going to leave it because they're making money in other areas. Did you forget that Apple didn't exist in this market 3 years ago and now makes more net profit than any other handset maker?
No, there are a number of people here claiming Nokia is making next to nothing from sell cheaper phones, but since you have problems with reading you most likely haven't got to that bit of the thread yet. Also, in case you don't realise, Nokia is still number one in smartphones, they still sell the most smartphones. And why are you continually going on about Apples profit, as a consumer I don't purchase something based on who will make the most profit
And why are you continually going on about Apples profit, as a consumer I don't purchase something based on who will make the most profit
But you care how many phones they sell in each market segment? You care if they sell more phones than Apple? You care enough to comes into a forum about a company you apparently have no interest in? You care so much that you even participate on threads about unit sales and marketshare? Some of us have reasons to participate in discussions. Perhaps you should evaluate how you just excluded yourself from half the article threads on this site.
But you care how many phones they sell in each market segment? You care if they sell more phones than Apple? You care enough to comes into a forum about a company you apparently have no interest in? You care so much that you even participate on threads about unit sales and marketshare? Some of us have reasons to participate in discussions. Perhaps you should evaluate how you just excluded yourself from have the article threads on this site.
I own several Apple products, is there any reason why I can't come to this site, I didn't realise you had been promoted to the high lord almighty.
Also, can you re-write the bolded sentence in English, it doesn't make much sense.
I own several Apple products, is there any reason why I can't come to this site, I didn't realise you had been promoted to the high lord almighty.
Pay attention. You stated that you don't make any decision based on a companies profit. Yet you come here to participate in every thread that talks about sales. Why would you bother if you don't care about the topics. I was calling you out because you do care and you have plenty of posts showing that you have opinions about a company's sales. Or are you going to say that you don't care about "profit" but you do care about "revenue, marketshare and unit sales", because those are things consumers should worry about before purchasing?
I don't purchase something based on who will make the most profit
Neither does anyone else, but we come to forums about a company's finances and products to talk about a company's finances and products.
Pay attention. You stated that you don't make any decision based on a companies profit. Yet you come here to participate in every thread that talks about sales. Why would you bother if you don't care about the topics. I was calling you out because you do care and you have plenty of posts showing that you have opinions about a company's sales. Or are you going to say that you don't care about "profit" but you do care about "revenue, marketshare and unit sales", because those are things consumers should worry about before purchasing?
Wow, you looked at my history of posting and came up with that outcome, I had thought more highly of you, I guess that was a waste of time. Those are all your thoughts, and conclusions, not mine, and you got them all wrong as well.
Neither does anyone else, but we come to forums about a company's finances and products to talk about a company's finances and products.
Gee, looking at the title of this thread, I can't see anything about finances there, is this another of those conslusions you constantly get wrong?
There are?
Name just one!
(I am sure Nokia would appreciate your analysis.)
Marketing. Please don't move the goalpost and pretend that I am firmly stating that this is the one and only reason.
So what does it suggest about Nokia's business over time? Are they suddenly going to fall from grace? Are poor people going to be banned from owning mobile phones? Selling massive volume, low margin products is just as valid as selling low volume, high margin products. What is it about one of those methods that is so bad? I really don't understand this tendency towards only the low volume, high margin method being the only valid one, and why doing anything different is wrong.
You're entirely correct. There are a gazillion different business strategies that can lead to profits.
Apple is somewhat like Porsche while Nokia is somewhat like Toyota. Different market segments, different strategies, but all four companies make money.
Cue: A fanboi should "refute" my point using some kind of lame dismissive comment about Toyota recalls.
As amusing as it is to yell about that, the fact remains that Nokia's share of the smart phone market is plummeting...
I'm just stating the facts.
Me too!
Apple's share of the smart phone market is shrinking, while Android's is growing:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=222600940
http://www.techday.co.nz/connectme/n...android/15291/
Marketing.
Could you please explain?
Perhaps using Nokia and Apple as examples...
I totally understand that in a monopolistic market, a vendor can force consumers to buy an over-priced product. But in a market with lots of choice and multiple vendors, it isn't possible at all. Consumers choose the product they prefer, and vote with their money.
C.
There is more to a company being successful than just making the most profit, which I think a lot of people forget around here.
Not in the long run.
But in the short run, it is not unknown to accept lower margins in order to build market share. The Japanese car companies did exactly that in the North American market, and have profited greatly from the strategy.
This graph shows why Nokia's market-share of Smartphones is growing.
But also why it really does not matter.
C.
Not in the long run.
But in the short run, it is not unknown to accept lower margins in order to build market share. The Japanese car companies did exactly that in the North American market, and have profited greatly from the strategy.
You mean the Japanese car companies that couldn't sell a luxury car under their current economy car name so Honda created Acura, Toyota created Lexus and Nissan created Infinity. YOU CAN'T DAMAGE YOUR BRAND NAME BY SELLING CRAP AND THEN JUST RAISE YOUR PRICE AGAIN WITH NO CONSEQUENCES. The Japanese automakers were much more competent than the US automakers which allowed for a growing of the brand over many years but this is neither easy nor quick.
Could you please explain?
Perhaps using Nokia and Apple as examples...
I totally understand that in a monopolistic market, a vendor can force consumers to buy an over-priced product. But in a market with lots of choice and multiple vendors, it isn't possible at all. Consumers choose the product they prefer, and vote with their money.
As I originally understood the point, it was that the iPhone is more desirable than any Nokia phone because Apple makes a higher margin than Nokia.
I'm not going to start up with you about folks being forced to buy stuff. That is just a typical red herring.
If you prefer, consider my point to have been refuted.
You mean the Japanese car companies that couldn't sell a luxury car under their current economy car name so Honda created Acura, Toyota created Lexus and Nissan created Infinity. YOU CAN'T DAMAGE YOUR BRAND NAME BY SELLING CRAP AND THEN JUST RAISE YOUR PRICE AGAIN WITH NO CONSEQUENCES. The Japanese automakers were much more competent than the US automakers which allowed for a growing of the brand over many years but this is neither easy nor quick.
Yes. Exactly those companies. I'm not sure why you mix "selling crap" and accepting lower margins in order to build market share and brand loyalty.
Is Honda known for selling crap? If not, what the heck are you spouting about? You misunderstand folk's assertions on a regular basis, and then have fun knocking over your own straw men. The example I gave is NOT an example of anybody selling crap.
As I originally understood the point, it was that the iPhone is more desirable than any Nokia phone because Apple makes a higher margin than Nokia.
The other way round...
Anyone can buy devices and sell them at a break even rate.
But if companies are smart, there is some value-added alchemy that takes places. You take $200 of parts but sell the product at $400 - because the assembled product is worth that much to consumers. It is more desirable.
Desirability creates profitability.
C.
I said: But in the short run, it is not unknown to accept lower margins in order to build market share. The Japanese car companies did exactly that in the North American market, and have profited greatly from the strategy.
Yes. Exactly those companies. I'm not sure why you mix "selling crap" and accepting lower margins in order to build market share and brand loyalty.
Is Honda known for selling crap? If not, what the heck are you spouting about? You misunderstand folk's assertions on a regular basis, and then have fun knocking over your own straw men. The example I gave is NOT an example of anybody selling crap.
It's pretty nerve racking when posters claim they were being more direct in their misguided and vague posts than they really were, but instead of a Mea Culpa and a clarification, they try to claim they wrote that when the proof is there in print. You must be a huge PITA in to talk to in person. You used the inclusive term "Japanese car companies [...] in North [America]". You also included the qualifier "short run" which excludes anything you are now trying to claim about the the Big 3's luxury divisions.
It's pretty nerve racking when posters claim they were being more direct in their misguided and vague posts than they really were, but instead of a Mea Culpa and a clarification, they try to claim they wrote that when the proof is there in print. You must be a huge PITA in to talk to in person. You used the inclusive term "Japanese car companies [...] in North [America]". You also included the qualifier "short run" which excludes anything you are now trying to claim about the the Big 3's luxury divisions.
I am not trying to claim anything at all about the luxury divisions. You brought them up, to bolster some kind of point about selling crap, which too is an irrelevant topic. Please stop imagining things I may have said, and instead, respond (or don't) to what I DO say.
Here's my point again: Some companies accept lower margins in the short run in order to build market share. We saw the Japanese car companies do it in N. America long ago, and now they have loyal customers willing to pay normal margins.
I am not trying to claim anything at all about the luxury divisions. You brought them up, to bolster some kind of point about selling crap, which too is an irrelevant topic. Please stop imagining things I may have said, and instead, respond (or don't) to what I DO say.
Here's my point again: Some companies accept lower margins in the short run in order to build market share. We saw the Japanese car companies do it in N. America long ago, and now they have loyal customers willing to pay normal margins.
How obtuse can you be. Higher margins came from sales volume... just like Apple.They lowered their prices when their sales volume for the same item had doubled in 2-3 years. It's economics of scale.
What they have done —and what you did not stat—is that they eventually offered more expensive, items once they built up mindshare. This is not an easy way to grow your brand. You have wait for the mindshare to build. You have to wait for the customer to trust you. This takes time. It's not a short run scenario. And you still run the risk of growing too fast if you try to make a luxury item that doesn't fit with your current lines up.
PS: Why do people insist on using car analogies?