I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees Palm's failure as a perfect opportunity for Nokia. They get a viable smartphone OS and a US presence with the Palm name.
Integrating Palm into Nokia would be hard. Just look at the problems Microsoft had with Danger.
How would one go about deciding which OS goes where? Does Nokia drop Symbian? Maemo? Both? What does Nokia use for non-touchscreen smartphones? Nokia would need to change all of its services to be compatible with WebOS too. I can't remember where I saw the stat but apparently Nokia employs more software developers than Apple. Do you make all of the existing developers redundant?
Buying Palm wouldn't be a silver bullet. It would be a massive gamble.
Ok guys let's take a chill pill and take a look.. and i'm not defending Nokia but let numbers talk..
Apple remained flat in market share at 17% and flat in sales (apple is flat at 17% for 3 quarters straight)
RIM increased market share to 21% and grew sales
NOKIA increased market share to 41% and grew sales (Nokia sold more smartphones than RIM, Apple and HTC combined)
So who won? what's more important long term? I don't know but I know one thing which is a no brainer, Apple will not grow out of that 17-18% with only one phone and at that price. Nokia may not be there yet software wise but they're catching up so if I were Apple I'd be scared right now and schedule my engineers into double shifts to bring out a couple more phones, one with a sliding qwerty keyboard and a mini version, that could easily double their sales in no time.
Don't take the numbers at face value.
RIM sells a lot of phones in the BOGOF model - a lot of percentage points are giveaways.
Nokia's smartphones include a lot that are barely "smart" and cannot compete with any real smartphone (anything below an N-series, maybe an E) - that more than halves Nokia's share.
Nokia's average selling price for smartphones is about 25% of what Apple makes leading to much lower revenue and profit from the sector that is supposed to be the most profitable and pay for R&D etc.
As you say Apple has staked out the very high ground and won't grow its share significantly without cheaper product but it is growing the volume, revenue and profit massively, ahead of all other competitors because it makes more per phone and is selling more every quarter. Apple's stagnant unit share is a minor statistic vs. revenue and profit and absolute unit growth. What is important is 100M iOS users who have all demonstrated the ability to spend real $s in the App/itunes stores rather than millions of dumbphone users who only buy ringtones or geeks who buy theme packs to customize their look and feel.
Focus on the business and not these meaningless stats and the picture is not as you would suggest.
Should we attribute the reported sale of 8.75 million $600 smart phones in one quarter to loyal fans or should we look at the product and see if it is actually the quality and utility of the device that are prompting people to purchase?
+1
those are some real stats, not idiotic unit share numbers...
The best you can do is get some images from 2003? And why don't we post some of the many "funny" looking Apple products they have released over the years...
There's funny looking (think G3 imac, cube, etc. at first release) and then there's unusable... Nokia are the kings of unusable design...
Hmm. They just developed the whole mobile industry with that R&D to the point that you can now create a phone + computer + camera + iPod + Navigator + PDA from essentially a single chip + some memory. That's no small feat to accomplish.
Wrong! Just wrong!
The big shift in the market was not HW or SW. Those were symptoms. Before the iPhone, there were only 4 customers in America as far as cell phone manufacturers were concerned. Those were the 4 major carriers. Apple was the first to come along and sell directly to the end user. They designed everything about the phone and its services for the end users, not the carriers. End users responded in unprecedented numbers. That is the difference between the phone industry before and after Apple.
So who won? what's more important long term? I don't know but I know one thing which is a no brainer, Apple will not grow out of that 17-18% with only one phone and at that price. Nokia may not be there yet software wise but they're catching up so if I were Apple I'd be scared right now and schedule my engineers into double shifts to bring out a couple more phones, one with a sliding qwerty keyboard and a mini version, that could easily double their sales in no time.
It looks like Dell is jumping into smartphones both feet first:
"Dell's Lightning, Thunder, Flash, Smoke and more: rounding up a storm of mobile leaks"
Dell has got several smartphones, most running Android, with the flagship of the line scheduled for WinPhone 7. The styling isn't my cup of tea (very techy and minimalist with lots of glass and metal), but one of them has a very different form factor, which is interesting.
The names they chose seem to indicate that they intend to "storm" onto the market.
One thing I'd bet on is that we are nearer the beginnings of the great smartphone wars than we are the end.
The big shift in the market was not HW or SW. Those were symptoms. Before the iPhone, there were only 4 customers in America as far as cell phone manufacturers were concerned. Those were the 4 major carriers. Apple was the first to come along and sell directly to the end user. They designed everything about the phone and its services for the end users, not the carriers. End users responded in unprecedented numbers. That is the difference between the phone industry before and after Apple.
Thanks. That makes it as easy as paint by numbers to understand. Apple completely changed the game, the focus. Someone here earlier said that the telecom's are about infrastructure and not about the delivery of the service. Apple has stepped in to change that by trying to keep it simple and trying to make sure it works.
Dell has got several smartphones, most running Android, with the flagship of the line scheduled for WinPhone 7. The styling isn't my cup of tea (very techy and minimalist with lots of glass and metal), but one of them has a very different form factor, which is interesting.
The names they chose seem to indicate that they intend to "storm" onto the market.
One thing I'd bet on is that we are nearer the beginnings of the great smartphone wars than we are the end.
The thing about this approach, it seems to me, is that it's trying to replicate the stylistic novelty marketing of dumbphones, ala the Razr et al, but for small handheld computers that need to be convenient and easy to use above all else.
It's all well and good to trick out your phones with a lot of bling and fussy bits when all they need to do is make phone calls and text. But on a smartphone the OS and functionality is plenty fussy as it is.
I dunno, could be wrong, but my impression is that most consumers would desire soothing straightforwardness and as much simplicity as possible for the handset itself, and are happy to leave the elaborations to the software.
Secondly, the organisation has an unbelievable amount of innovation. I mean for techies, truly incredible. Which is the life blood of a high-tech company.
Thirdly, we have slowly been transforming ourselves to a services and software company, which with Nokia history and hardware focus this is pretty major change. From a Symbian OS perspective, the OS is one of the most capable OSs in the world. From a Nokia historical perspective, it has been let down by the UI. Of course we have been so busy in this area, so watch this space.
Sorry, but "saying that you're innovating" is not the same as "innovating".
Show us a phone that makes the rest of the industry drop all their current projects and re-think their entire approach and we'll talk.
In the meantime, Apple show no sign of slowing down.
The big shift in the market was not HW or SW. Those were symptoms. Before the iPhone, there were only 4 customers in America as far as cell phone manufacturers were concerned. Those were the 4 major carriers. Apple was the first to come along and sell directly to the end user. They designed everything about the phone and its services for the end users, not the carriers. End users responded in unprecedented numbers. That is the difference between the phone industry before and after Apple.
I know that is what you think, but it isn't true. If this was true, then why have features been held back to aid AT&T?
Now you'll argue that the internals, OS or apps aren't "designed" or that you are only talking about the external HW, as if the rest of the device's usability isn't in question.
Now you'll argue that the internals, OS or apps aren't "designed" or that you are only talking about the external HW, as if the rest of the device's usability isn't in question.
The first comment sums it up "This video is based on the first version of the firmware". I'm sure there are issues with the first gen firmware on that model, just like there was on the first gen firmware of the iPhone.
Now you'll argue that the internals, OS or apps aren't "designed" or that you are only talking about the external HW, as if the rest of the device's usability isn't in question.
Another example of your disorder, I have said it before, and I will say it again, you have a serious illness, you should seek professional attention immediately before harm yourself, or someone you care about.
Comments
...poor Verizon (reflecting Droid) results....
Not to gloat or anything, but WilliamG, where are ye?
(See the WSJ, "Verizon Earnings: Is Droid Fizzling?" http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2010...roid-fizzling/)
Ouch, ouch, ouch. For those who don't get the reference:
We can't rule out that he meant this:
Hold on...
Hmmmm........
I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees Palm's failure as a perfect opportunity for Nokia. They get a viable smartphone OS and a US presence with the Palm name.
Integrating Palm into Nokia would be hard. Just look at the problems Microsoft had with Danger.
How would one go about deciding which OS goes where? Does Nokia drop Symbian? Maemo? Both? What does Nokia use for non-touchscreen smartphones? Nokia would need to change all of its services to be compatible with WebOS too. I can't remember where I saw the stat but apparently Nokia employs more software developers than Apple. Do you make all of the existing developers redundant?
Buying Palm wouldn't be a silver bullet. It would be a massive gamble.
Ok guys let's take a chill pill and take a look.. and i'm not defending Nokia but let numbers talk..
Apple remained flat in market share at 17% and flat in sales (apple is flat at 17% for 3 quarters straight)
RIM increased market share to 21% and grew sales
NOKIA increased market share to 41% and grew sales (Nokia sold more smartphones than RIM, Apple and HTC combined)
So who won? what's more important long term? I don't know but I know one thing which is a no brainer, Apple will not grow out of that 17-18% with only one phone and at that price. Nokia may not be there yet software wise but they're catching up so if I were Apple I'd be scared right now and schedule my engineers into double shifts to bring out a couple more phones, one with a sliding qwerty keyboard and a mini version, that could easily double their sales in no time.
Don't take the numbers at face value.
RIM sells a lot of phones in the BOGOF model - a lot of percentage points are giveaways.
Nokia's smartphones include a lot that are barely "smart" and cannot compete with any real smartphone (anything below an N-series, maybe an E) - that more than halves Nokia's share.
Nokia's average selling price for smartphones is about 25% of what Apple makes leading to much lower revenue and profit from the sector that is supposed to be the most profitable and pay for R&D etc.
As you say Apple has staked out the very high ground and won't grow its share significantly without cheaper product but it is growing the volume, revenue and profit massively, ahead of all other competitors because it makes more per phone and is selling more every quarter. Apple's stagnant unit share is a minor statistic vs. revenue and profit and absolute unit growth. What is important is 100M iOS users who have all demonstrated the ability to spend real $s in the App/itunes stores rather than millions of dumbphone users who only buy ringtones or geeks who buy theme packs to customize their look and feel.
Focus on the business and not these meaningless stats and the picture is not as you would suggest.
Should we attribute the reported sale of 8.75 million $600 smart phones in one quarter to loyal fans or should we look at the product and see if it is actually the quality and utility of the device that are prompting people to purchase?
+1
those are some real stats, not idiotic unit share numbers...
The best you can do is get some images from 2003? And why don't we post some of the many "funny" looking Apple products they have released over the years...
There's funny looking (think G3 imac, cube, etc. at first release) and then there's unusable... Nokia are the kings of unusable design...
Not to gloat or anything, but WilliamG, where are ye?
(See the WSJ, "Verizon Earnings: Is Droid Fizzling?" http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2010...roid-fizzling/)
hey, but look, jfanning is here...
There's funny looking (think G3 imac, cube, etc. at first release) and then there's unusable... Nokia are the kings of unusable design...
Cube!? Wow, that hurts. I happen to think it is one of the great industrial designs of all time. I still adore mine. (Perhaps I should duck).
Hmm. They just developed the whole mobile industry with that R&D to the point that you can now create a phone + computer + camera + iPod + Navigator + PDA from essentially a single chip + some memory. That's no small feat to accomplish.
Wrong! Just wrong!
The big shift in the market was not HW or SW. Those were symptoms. Before the iPhone, there were only 4 customers in America as far as cell phone manufacturers were concerned. Those were the 4 major carriers. Apple was the first to come along and sell directly to the end user. They designed everything about the phone and its services for the end users, not the carriers. End users responded in unprecedented numbers. That is the difference between the phone industry before and after Apple.
So who won? what's more important long term? I don't know but I know one thing which is a no brainer, Apple will not grow out of that 17-18% with only one phone and at that price. Nokia may not be there yet software wise but they're catching up so if I were Apple I'd be scared right now and schedule my engineers into double shifts to bring out a couple more phones, one with a sliding qwerty keyboard and a mini version, that could easily double their sales in no time.
It looks like Dell is jumping into smartphones both feet first:
"Dell's Lightning, Thunder, Flash, Smoke and more: rounding up a storm of mobile leaks"
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/22/d...ore-a-roundup/
Dell has got several smartphones, most running Android, with the flagship of the line scheduled for WinPhone 7. The styling isn't my cup of tea (very techy and minimalist with lots of glass and metal), but one of them has a very different form factor, which is interesting.
The names they chose seem to indicate that they intend to "storm" onto the market.
One thing I'd bet on is that we are nearer the beginnings of the great smartphone wars than we are the end.
Wrong! Just wrong!
The big shift in the market was not HW or SW. Those were symptoms. Before the iPhone, there were only 4 customers in America as far as cell phone manufacturers were concerned. Those were the 4 major carriers. Apple was the first to come along and sell directly to the end user. They designed everything about the phone and its services for the end users, not the carriers. End users responded in unprecedented numbers. That is the difference between the phone industry before and after Apple.
Thanks. That makes it as easy as paint by numbers to understand. Apple completely changed the game, the focus. Someone here earlier said that the telecom's are about infrastructure and not about the delivery of the service. Apple has stepped in to change that by trying to keep it simple and trying to make sure it works.
It looks like Dell is jumping into smartphones both feet first:
"Dell's Lightning, Thunder, Flash, Smoke and more: rounding up a storm of mobile leaks"
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/22/d...ore-a-roundup/
Dell has got several smartphones, most running Android, with the flagship of the line scheduled for WinPhone 7. The styling isn't my cup of tea (very techy and minimalist with lots of glass and metal), but one of them has a very different form factor, which is interesting.
The names they chose seem to indicate that they intend to "storm" onto the market.
One thing I'd bet on is that we are nearer the beginnings of the great smartphone wars than we are the end.
The thing about this approach, it seems to me, is that it's trying to replicate the stylistic novelty marketing of dumbphones, ala the Razr et al, but for small handheld computers that need to be convenient and easy to use above all else.
It's all well and good to trick out your phones with a lot of bling and fussy bits when all they need to do is make phone calls and text. But on a smartphone the OS and functionality is plenty fussy as it is.
I dunno, could be wrong, but my impression is that most consumers would desire soothing straightforwardness and as much simplicity as possible for the handset itself, and are happy to leave the elaborations to the software.
Secondly, the organisation has an unbelievable amount of innovation. I mean for techies, truly incredible. Which is the life blood of a high-tech company.
Thirdly, we have slowly been transforming ourselves to a services and software company, which with Nokia history and hardware focus this is pretty major change. From a Symbian OS perspective, the OS is one of the most capable OSs in the world. From a Nokia historical perspective, it has been let down by the UI. Of course we have been so busy in this area, so watch this space.
Sorry, but "saying that you're innovating" is not the same as "innovating".
Show us a phone that makes the rest of the industry drop all their current projects and re-think their entire approach and we'll talk.
In the meantime, Apple show no sign of slowing down.
There's funny looking (think G3 imac, cube, etc. at first release) and then there's unusable... Nokia are the kings of unusable design...
Two photos provided were from 2003, seven years ago, can you please provide a list of these unusable designs from a more modern era?
hey, but look, jfanning is here...
What is that meant to mean? Nothing to add so you thought you would start with the insults early?
The big shift in the market was not HW or SW. Those were symptoms. Before the iPhone, there were only 4 customers in America as far as cell phone manufacturers were concerned. Those were the 4 major carriers. Apple was the first to come along and sell directly to the end user. They designed everything about the phone and its services for the end users, not the carriers. End users responded in unprecedented numbers. That is the difference between the phone industry before and after Apple.
I know that is what you think, but it isn't true. If this was true, then why have features been held back to aid AT&T?
Two photos provided were from 2003, seven years ago, can you please provide a list of these unusable designs from a more modern era?
Exhibit A: http://www.mobileinc.co.uk/2010/03/n...-vs-real-life/
Now you'll argue that the internals, OS or apps aren't "designed" or that you are only talking about the external HW, as if the rest of the device's usability isn't in question.
Exhibit A: http://www.mobileinc.co.uk/2010/03/n...-vs-real-life/
Now you'll argue that the internals, OS or apps aren't "designed" or that you are only talking about the external HW, as if the rest of the device's usability isn't in question.
The first comment sums it up "This video is based on the first version of the firmware". I'm sure there are issues with the first gen firmware on that model, just like there was on the first gen firmware of the iPhone.
Now you'll argue that the internals, OS or apps aren't "designed" or that you are only talking about the external HW, as if the rest of the device's usability isn't in question.
Another example of your disorder, I have said it before, and I will say it again, you have a serious illness, you should seek professional attention immediately before harm yourself, or someone you care about.
What is that meant to mean? Nothing to add so you thought you would start with the insults early?
It was in reply to my post, and I know what he meant. So, no need for you to worry about it.