Apple poised to overtake Nokia in mobile phone sales after 26% iPhone surge in Q3

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 42
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member
    melgross wrote: »
    Not having read the report, I can't say whether it's them making the mistake or not. The brand name for the entire line of phones remains Nokia, not Microsoft. So Gartner could be labeling the line that way. Until it changes, but acknowledging that Microsoft now owns that line. But our writer should be calling them Microsoft phones.

    The brand shouldn't matter, only the manufacturer. When HTC made phones under a range of (mostly operator) brands, Gartner would still report all of their sales under HTC.

    But, I agree, it's hard to guess Gartner logic without reading the report.
  • Reply 22 of 42
    melgross wrote: »
    rogifan wrote: »
    If they're not selling what they're shipping wouldn't that eventually show up in their financial results? Or do carries and resellers take the hit for unsold inventory? Somebody would have to be writing down this inventory.

    Ooh! I've explained this some time ago. As someone who previously was an electronics manufacturer, I know secrets. Companies can claim shipped numbers that aren't really correct. There's a trick to that if they do sell a lot of product through some distributors or retailers, and so are friendly with them.

    So let's simplify this for the sake of the argument, and use numbers that are exaggerated for the sake of the argument.

    So a manufacturer ships a million devices to a major retailer, who they convinced would be able to sell that number. At the end of the quarter, the retailer has only sold half. They tell the manufacturer they want to ship the other half back. The manufacturer doesn't want this, of course. They convince the retailer to hold the product in their warehouse, but write the cost of the product back as a credit to them, and no one needs to pay for the large shipping cost. After all, they will need more product next quarter anyway. Now the product is off the retailers books, as having been turned back.

    The beginning of the next quarter, the manufacturer claimed to have shipped another million devices. How did that happen? Well, they shipped them another half million, and charged the half million in the retailers warehouse back to the retailer, for a total of a million. This can go on for some time. Finally, when sales of the product begin to taper off, the manufacturer ships less and less of the device, and more and more of those in the warehouse get sold by the retailer, hopefully evening out by the end of the year.

    As far as the public knows, the manufacturer has shipped perhaps 3.5 million devices, but in reality, has shipped only about 2.25 million. As I said, I've over simplified, and the numbers are exaggerated, but this is they way it's often done. It's why writers often say that shipments don't always mean sales.

    This is opposite of what I learned from [@]Gatorguy[/@] but I don't want to turn this into a smashing rounding error fight.
  • Reply 23 of 42
    philboogie wrote: »
    I don't understand this article. Or rather, why the iPhone is being compared to all cellular phones. The numbers are quite meaningless, they should be comparing the iPhon against similar priced smartphones. Market share cannot be calculated here, but 'journalists' then exclude the iPad at will when talking about PeeCee market share.

    I hear what you're saying Phil, but this isn't a comparison of Smart phones, but of manufacturers of cell phones.

    In this comparison Apple still compares beautifully... tight on the heels of Nokia, an established low-end manufacturer , and beating out all other low-end manufacturer except Samsung. To fare so well against such a diverse crowd is quite remarkable!

    In 2007 when Ballmer snarked and laughed at Apple's emergence into the phone market, he had no idea that his miss on the phone market would be one of the reasons he'd be out of Microsoft today. Notably Blackberry, a powerhouse at the time, is listed among the "other" group on this report, and Motorola doesn't even earn an asterisk.
  • Reply 24 of 42
    malax wrote: »
    melgross wrote: »
    Not having read the report, I can't say whether it's them making the mistake or not. The brand name for the entire line of phones remains Nokia, not Microsoft. So Gartner could be labeling the line that way. Until it changes, but acknowledging that Microsoft now owns that line. But our writer should be calling them Microsoft phones.


    Microsoft has 18 months from the date of the sales to change the name of the line from Nokia to whatever they want to call it. Of they come up with a new phone that wast ready for production by the time of the sale, they must not label it with Nokia. Microsoft is moving quickly to name their phone line Lumia, rather than just some of the phones themselves.


    Nokia stated that they may be interested in coming out with another line of phones, using their Nokia name. We're seeing some prototype phones from them already, but I think they have to wait until late 2015, or 2016 before they can sell them.


    Right.  I expect that actual Gartner report (available for purchase, yeah right) mentions that Nokia==MS, but the press release doesn't (and why should it because who cares about non-smartphone mobiles phones, and there's the only place where Nokia still have a presence).

    I'm under the impression that Nokia still has phones built under their name in Vietnam. If Gartner is counting Nokia (the part separate from MS) shipments in with those phones carrying the Nokia and Microsoft names and manufactured under Microsoft's contracts, then it's one way of inflating the Nokia shipments, keeping them ahead of Apple.
  • Reply 25 of 42
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post





    I'm under the impression that Nokia still has phones built under their name in Vietnam. If Gartner is counting Nokia (the part separate from MS) shipments in with those phones carrying the Nokia and Microsoft names and manufactured under Microsoft's contracts, then it's one way of inflating the Nokia shipments, keeping them ahead of Apple.

     

    Nokia aren't legally allowed to sell phones anywhere in the world at the moment. Microsoft has sole rights to the Nokia brand on phones (although interestingly not tablets).

  • Reply 26 of 42
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,585member
    philboogie wrote: »
    This is opposite of what I learned from [@]Gatorguy[/@] but I don't want to turn this into a smashing rounding error fight.

    Ah, Gatorguy, can't help but to love him!
  • Reply 27 of 42
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,585member
    I'm under the impression that Nokia still has phones built under their name in Vietnam. If Gartner is counting Nokia (the part separate from MS) shipments in with those phones carrying the Nokia and Microsoft names and manufactured under Microsoft's contracts, then it's one way of inflating the Nokia shipments, keeping them ahead of Apple.

    I can't imagine where you got that information from, but it's not true. Nokia, the company, sold all of Nokia, the phone division, to Microsoft. All of it. What they're doing now, is showing a couple of developmental phones running Android.
  • Reply 28 of 42
    melgross wrote: »
    philboogie wrote: »
    This is opposite of what I learned from [@]Gatorguy[/@] but I don't want to turn this into a smashing rounding error fight.

    Ah, Gatorguy, can't help but to love him!

    I have to admit, he often makes a lot of valid points.
  • Reply 29 of 42
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,585member
    philboogie wrote: »
    I have to admit, he often makes a lot of valid points.

    Sometimes, he does. But all too often, he uses twisted logic.
  • Reply 30 of 42
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,388member
    melgross wrote: »
    Sometimes, he does. But all too often, he uses twisted logic.
    LOL!
  • Reply 31 of 42
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    melgross wrote: »
    Sometimes, he does. But all too often, he uses twisted logic.

    And who here isn't guilty of twisting logic here and there? ;-)
  • Reply 32 of 42
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,388member
    melgross wrote: »
    I can't imagine where you got that information from, but it's not true. Nokia, the company, sold all of Nokia, the phone division, to Microsoft. All of it. What they're doing now, is showing a couple of developmental phones running Android.
    Beginning the end of 2016 Nokia can license the Nokia name to 3rd parties smartphones. They can already put the Nokia name on products that don't directly compete with a Microsoft product.
  • Reply 33 of 42
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

    And who here isn't guilty of twisting logic here and there? ;-)

     

    Maybe Coldplay? That’s so obscure that I just looked it up myself.

  • Reply 34 of 42
    And who here isn't guilty of twisting logic here and there? ;-)

    Maybe Coldplay? That’s so obscure that I just looked it up myself.

    And women. ????
  • Reply 35 of 42
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,585member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    And who here isn't guilty of twisting logic here and there? ;-)

    Intentionally?
  • Reply 36 of 42
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,585member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Beginning the end of 2016 Nokia can license the Nokia name to 3rd parties smartphones. They can already put the Nokia name on products that don't directly compete with a Microsoft product.

    Yes, they can, but we're talking specifically about phones.
  • Reply 37 of 42
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,585member
    And women. ????

    And you.;)
  • Reply 38 of 42
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,388member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Beginning the end of 2016 Nokia can license the Nokia name to 3rd parties smartphones. They can already put the Nokia name on products that don't directly compete with a Microsoft product.
    melgross wrote: »
    Yes, they can, but we're talking specifically about phones.
    Perhaps you are confused. I very specifically mentioned Nokia's licensing rights for phones in the very first sentence. :???:

    melgross wrote: »
    Intentionally?
    If that's intended to be a claim I intentionally twist logic to make my points, which would be dishonest, it borders on an a personal attack unless you have some evidence to link to showing I do so. As I don't believe you have even a single example to offer I would appreciate your keeping to facts rather than insinuating something that's untrue, and doing so repeatedly. I ignored it for the most part until you felt you had to continue with yet another post in this thread alluding to dishonesty on my part. Worse there was no clear reason to even begin the insult since I hadn't even posted in this thread.

    As a moderator I would expect better conduct.
  • Reply 39 of 42
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,585member
    gatorguy wrote: »

    Perhaps you are confused. I very specifically mentioned Nokia's licensing rights for phones in the very first sentence. :???:
    If that's intended to be a claim I intentionally twist logic to make my points, which would be dishonest, it borders on an a personal attack unless you have some evidence to link to showing I do so. As I don't believe you have even a single example to offer I would appreciate your keeping to facts rather than insinuating something that's untrue, and doing so repeatedly. I ignored it for the most part until you felt you had to continue with yet another post in this thread alluding to dishonesty on my part. Worse there was no clear reason to even begin the insult since I hadn't even posted in this thread.

    As a moderator I would expect better conduct.

    Oh, go away, please.

    I was talking earlier about Nokia again MAKING phones. You always do this to us.
  • Reply 40 of 42
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,388member
    melgross wrote: »
    Oh, go away, please.

    I was talking earlier about Nokia again MAKING phones. You always do this to us.
    Do what, make you or someone else aware of something you perhaps didn't know about?

    ... and yes Nokia can return to building smartphones under the Nokia name in late 2016 if they choose to. At this point they only plan to license the name to other smartphone sellers rather than get back into manufacturing themselves.

    http://www.mobileworldlive.com/nokia-smartphone-brand-licensing-effort-cards-report
Sign In or Register to comment.