You are putting a very limited label around what sophisticated and high end means. Your label tends to include functions where Nokia and SE phones excel but exclude functions where the iPhone excels. The potential of the iPhone from a software standpoint far far exceeds what Nokia or SE are currently capable of.
Maybe you didn't intend to but you proved my point. The iPhone is an iPod with phone capabilities. Your last post is proof positive of what I have been saying. Take out the sim card and you have an iPod. Thank you for finally seeing what I have been saying all along.
I will say for the last time Tenobell, the things the iPod part of the iPhone does, it does extremely well. I have stated this several times but you seem to ignore it. Hopefully you will get it now. Web browsing on the iPhone is nice simply because of the screen, aegis has pointed this out several times here as well. The media playback facilities are excellent. As a phone, the iPhone simply sucks.
However, for those of use (sic) that have used higher end phones since their inception, we have more sophisticated and discerning tastes. This is not a dig against you,
YES IT IS. STOP IT.
DO NOT REMARK ABOUT OTHER POSTERS OR I WILL PERMA-BAN YOUR ASS.
DO NOT REMARK ABOUT OTHER POSTERS OR I WILL PERMA-BAN YOUR ASS.
This was not a dig against him and I was making a comparison between different user types. Some who have used hihg-end phones for many years and those who are new to the game. I even quantified this by pointing out that the US was not always privy to higher-end Nokia or SE phones. Someone in this very thread said something similar and you did not pop up to confront them. If I am wrong, I have no truck with saying so, but I feel that you are vendetta bound. Soooo, you can do whatever you want to do. My ass does not care one way or another.
DO NOT REMARK ABOUT OTHER POSTERS OR I WILL PERMA-BAN YOUR ASS.
Wow talk about biased moderating. I don't think you're fit for the job if you think that statement qualifies a ban. What the post says is actually quite true... American's have been shovelled low end phones for a long time now, way behind the more advanced devices we get in Europe and Asia. The iPhone pops up, and in the US it's a roaring success because to the American market, it's a major, high end phone in comparison to what has come before. In Europe and Asia, we shrug our shoulders and say 'next' because we've seen it all before, and expect more.
Wow talk about biased moderating. I don't think you're fit for the job if you think that statement qualifies a ban. What the post says is actually quite true... American's have been shovelled low end phones for a long time now, way behind the more advanced devices we get in Europe and Asia. The iPhone pops up, and in the US it's a roaring success because to the American market, it's a major, high end phone in comparison to what has come before. In Europe and Asia, we shrug our shoulders and say 'next' because we've seen it all before, and expect more.
Thanks for the support dude but don't sweat it. If you read back, you will see that others have said even worse things and they go sailing right on by, but I say something that is even verified by Nokia, i.e. they have not concentrated on the US market as much, I mention this, and then it comes out as offensive. Anyway, don't get yourself banned for remotely agreeing with anything I said. As I stated, he can ban me, not ban me, whatever. I do not care. It's his forum.
What the post says is actually quite true... American's have been shovelled low end phones for a long time now, way behind the more advanced devices we get in Europe and Asia. The iPhone pops up, and in the US it's a roaring success because to the American market, it's a major, high end phone in comparison to what has come before. In Europe and Asia, we shrug our shoulders and say 'next' because we've seen it all before, and expect more.
People like to go on about Apple failing in Europe, but what about their precious Nokia struggling in America, why haven't they being able to translate their world domination into our American market or I guess when it comes to Nokia, it's irrelevant:
"Of course, providing a viable competitor to Apple?s iTunes means succeeding in the U.S. market as well. Currently, Nokia has just 7% market share in the United States, and its total North America sales accounted for only 2.6% of its overall, global revenues."
Maybe you didn't intend to but you proved my point. The iPhone is an iPod with phone capabilities. Your last post is proof positive of what I have been saying. Take out the sim card and you have an iPod. Thank you for finally seeing what I have been saying all along.
There are several problems with this line of logic. The first being that their are a line of iPods that don't all serve the same purpose.
The shuffle, nano, or classic bear little resemblance to the iPhone. Outside of media playback all iPods share a few cursory features but don't at all share many others.
The iPod Touch is basically an iPhone with no Phone or SMS. After the SDK and VOiP that distinction will also change.
The iPod Touch is more a PDA than simply a PMP. iPod is one application among several shipped with the device. It will also have access to the products of 20,000 developers and thousands of web based applications.
People like to go on about Apple failing in Europe, but what about their precious Nokia struggling in America, why haven't they being able to translate their world domination into our American market or I guess when it comes to Nokia, it's irrelevant:
"Of course, providing a viable competitor to Apple’s iTunes means succeeding in the U.S. market as well. Currently, Nokia has just 7% market share in the United States, and its total North America sales accounted for only 2.6% of its overall, global revenues."
Absolutely true, Nokia has done poorly in the US market. But ppl tend to overlook it because they're doing so well worldwide, and have 40% of the world market in cellphones.
Their problems in the US are pretty straightforward, and much the same as what some folks have been criticizing Apple for in Europe: Trying to foist the preferences of their home market on a foreign one, intentionally or unintentionally.
In Nokia's case, this meant insisting that US customers would eventually fall in love with GSM and candy-bar style phones, in a US market that is over 50% CDMA, and which overall prefers flip/clamshell phones.
Nokia also never officially brought over many of its high-end models, phones like the N82, N73, E90 and N95, which are not offered through any US carrier (though you can pay an outrageous sum of money and buy them unlocked). Perhaps even worse for business, Nokia preferred to dictate terms to carriers, when for most other phone maker- carrier relationships, it is exactly the other way around.
So, Nokia ended up falling flat on its face in the US, due in large part to its own arrogance. Is there possibly a cautionary tale here for Apple in Europe? No? Tsk, too bad. \
FWIW, Nokia seems to have started to wake up to the fact that it needs to change to do well in the US:
Indeed, North America has been a particularly tough nut to crack for Nokia in part because the company just doesn't have many CDMA-based phones that can be sold through big carriers like Verizon and Sprint.
According to Nokia's chief designer Alastair Curtis, that's about to change. In an interview with Finland's Helsingin Snaomat, Curtis said the company is planning to release a number of new models that are specifically tailored to meet the needs of U.S. carriers in the coming months. Some of these phones will be new CDMA-based models, he said, while others will be European adaptations that can take advantage of the more common calling frequencies and bands used in North America.
..."They need to invest in CDMA now. They also need to start getting their high-end GSM products to the U.S. market now."
There are several problems with this line of logic. The first being that their are a line of iPods that don't all serve the same purpose.
The shuffle, nano, or classic bear little resemblance to the iPhone. Outside of media playback all iPods share a few cursory features but don't at all share many others.
The iPod Touch is basically an iPhone with no Phone or SMS. After the SDK and VOiP that distinction will also change.
The iPod Touch is more a PDA than simply a PMP. iPod is one application among several shipped with the device. It will also have access to the products of 20,000 developers and thousands of web based applications.
Oh come now Tenobell. remember when I mentioned moving the goal posts? Game, set, match.
You know as well as everyone here that we are talking about the iPod Touch. You are now bringing up the entire iPod line, but okay we will do it your way. I will slide along with the goal posts in this debates.
Minus the all the other iPods and leaving only the Touch, the iPhone is nothing more than a Touch with telephone capabilities. Thus you have proven my point for once and for all. Check and mate.
To sum up, the iPhone is nothing more than a Touch with a phone. Discussion concluded on this point.
People like to go on about Apple failing in Europe, but what about their precious Nokia struggling in America, why haven't they being able to translate their world domination into our American market or I guess when it comes to Nokia, it's irrelevant:
"Of course, providing a viable competitor to Apple?s iTunes means succeeding in the U.S. market as well. Currently, Nokia has just 7% market share in the United States, and its total North America sales accounted for only 2.6% of its overall, global revenues."
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000% correct. Nokia has also built an empire, so to speak, without focusing (as they admitted on the US). Not bad I would say. Apple thought it could bring a third rate product into Europe and the masses would fall all over it. It didn't work. The iPhone has been compared to the N95, N82 (really a much better phone) and in terms of the basic features (telephony) it lost. In terms of more advance features it only did marginally better at best, or marginally worse. So Europeans looked at it and were not impressed. Rightfully so in my opinion. As I stated, and got yelled at for, the US market has not had the high-end phones in the same way, Europe and Asia, as well as the Mid East have, so for most Americans, they have no frame of reference. When something like the iPhone comes along it has the "wow" factor going for it, but little or no substance behind it.
According to Nokia's chief designer Alastair Curtis, that's about to change. In an interview with Finland's Helsingin Snaomat, Curtis said the company is planning to release a number of new models that are specifically tailored to meet the needs of U.S. carriers in the coming months. Some of these phones will be new CDMA-based models, he said, while others will be European adaptations that can take advantage of the more common calling frequencies and bands used in North America.[/I]
..."They need to invest in CDMA now. They also need to start getting their high-end GSM products to the U.S. market now."
Thanks for posting the article. I remember this but could not remember the guy that said it. My friends over at Nokia has said they have some things coming that the US market will like. They brought in a bunch of guys from Dallas to help them design US market styled phones. What I find funny is that many people actually think Nokia is willing to just lay down and let Apple take over the phone world. It just ain't gonna happen.
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000% correct. Nokia has also built an empire, so to speak, without focusing (as they admitted on the US). Not bad I would say. Apple thought it could bring a third rate product into Europe and the masses would fall all over it. It didn't work. The iPhone has been compared to the N95, N82 (really a much better phone) and in terms of the basic features (telephony) it lost. In terms of more advance features it only did marginally better at best, or marginally worse. So Europeans looked at it and were not impressed. Rightfully so in my opinion. As I stated, and got yelled at for, the US market has not had the high-end phones in the same way, Europe and Asia, as well as the Mid East have, so for most Americans, they have no frame of reference. When something like the iPhone comes along it has the "wow" factor going for it, but little or no substance behind it.
All this talk about Europeans being spoiled by tons of high-end nokia phones --- is over-rated.
The iphone didn't do too well in the US either --- if you just look at the activation numbers.
If AT&T did 900K and O2 did 200K --- and the US has 5x the population of UK --- then you will know that the US numbers are not that great to begin with.
All this talk about Europeans being spoiled by tons of high-end nokia phones --- is over-rated.
The iphone didn't do too well in the US either --- if you just look at the activation numbers.
If AT&T did 900K and O2 did 200K --- and the US has 5x the population of UK --- then you will know that the US numbers are not that great to begin with.
Well, it is not necessarily over rated, but it is true.
What the post says is actually quite true... American's have been shovelled low end phones for a long time now, way behind the more advanced devices we get in Europe and Asia. The iPhone pops up, and in the US it's a roaring success because to the American market, it's a major, high end phone in comparison to what has come before. In Europe and Asia, we shrug our shoulders and say 'next' because we've seen it all before, and expect more.
There's a couple of reasons for this. It's because our network infrastucture is way behind that of Europe and Asia. You can't sell the "high end" phones available elsewhere here because many of the features they had won't work here. But "high end" phones are available here. They just aren't as "high end" as those in Europe and Asia. And most of them have to be bought.
Which brings us to the other reason for this. Over here, it makes sense to commit to a single carrier (with National coverage) for two years in exchange for a free (or nearly free) phone. The vast majority of us here never leave the States. Or do so infrequently. Those who do travel a lot do buy "high end" phones so that they can use it while travelling. Most will settle for the "low end" phones that they get for free.
In Europe and Asia, you can take a 1 hour train ride and be in another country. So it makes sense to buy the phone out right and pay for the service where you use it. In Europe and Asia you can literally spend the weekend in another country and think nothing of it. Over here, unless you live next to the Mexican or Canadian border, another country is either a long drive or an air flight away. So in Europe and Asia, when you have to buy a phone, most will buy the best they can afford. But when you get it for free, you take what they shovel you because in two years they'll give you another one.
And if the iPhone is not so special to the people of Europe and Asia, then why are so many iPhones bought here in the States, endind up in Europe and Asia unlocked? Where Nokia rules. Surely Nokia must a have a "high end" phone at a cheaper price and more features that would make buying and risk unlocking an iPhone a sensless act. Even if it's last year model. Afterall, the iPhone is not cheap by any standards, can't do many of the stuff a Nokia "high end" phone can do and is not even a 3G phone.
The iPhone is a roaring success in the American market because it's marketed as a "high end" phone for the consumers. Not for the businessman. To the average consumer a "high end" Nokia is of no value if you have no use for 80% of the features that makes it "high end". And it's diffuclt to use the 20% of the features that you do want to use. For sure it's not a "high end" phone for the businessman. Not yet at least.
The consumers are more concern about having easy access to their music. Being able to find a snapshot that they took of their kids, with the phone several weeks ago. Easily getting on to the internet and having it look like what they see on their desktop at home. They want to be able to do the smiplest things without looking like they're text messaging on their phone.
Before the iPhone came out, neither Nokia, Sony, RIMM or Steve Balmer believed that the average consumers would pay over $400 for a phone that had less features that a "high end" smartphone (at the time). And whose strongest selling point was that it did basically what much cheaper phones did but was only simpler to use. It's been almost a year and over 5 million people didn't buy the iPhone becausse they thought it was a "high end" business smartphone. They bought it because it's a "high end" consumer smartphone. And neither Sony, RIMM or Nokia has anything that compares to it at this level. They still don't get it. It's not about adding more features that the majority of the consumers don't care to use. It's about making it easier to use the features that the majority of the consumers want to use. And the last I checked, the consumers, not the businessman, are the vast majority of the cell phone users. No doubt that Apple will talyor the iPhone for businesses. But the bigger market will always be the consumer smartphone market.
There's a couple of reasons for this. It's because our network infrastucture is way behind that of Europe and Asia. You can't sell the "high end" phones available elsewhere here because many of the features they had won't work here. But "high end" phones are available here. They just aren't as "high end" as those in Europe and Asia. And most of them have to be bought.
Which brings us to the other reason for this. Over here, it makes sense to commit to a single carrier (with National coverage) for two years in exchange for a free (or nearly free) phone. The vast majority of us here never leave the States. Or do so infrequently. Those who do travel a lot do buy "high end" phones so that they can use it while travelling. Most will settle for the "low end" phones that they get for free.
In Europe and Asia, you can take a 1 hour train ride and be in another country. So it makes sense to buy the phone out right and pay for the service where you use it. In Europe and Asia you can literally spend the weekend in another country and think nothing of it. Over here, unless you live next to the Mexican or Canadian border, another country is either a long drive or an air flight away. So in Europe and Asia, when you have to buy a phone, most will buy the best they can afford. But when you get it for free, you take what they shovel you because in two years they'll give you another one.
And if the iPhone is not so special to the people of Europe and Asia, then why are so many iPhones bought here in the States, endind up in Europe and Asia unlocked? Where Nokia rules. Surely Nokia must a have a "high end" phone at a cheaper price and more features that would make buying and risk unlocking an iPhone a sensless act. Even if it's last year model. Afterall, the iPhone is not cheap by any standards, can't do many of the stuff a Nokia "high end" phone can do and is not even a 3G phone.
The iPhone is a roaring success in the American market because it's marketed as a "high end" phone for the consumers. Not for the businessman. To the average consumer a "high end" Nokia is of no value if you have no use for 80% of the features that makes it "high end". And it's diffuclt to use the 20% of the features that you do want to use. For sure it's not a "high end" phone for the businessman. Not yet at least.
The consumers are more concern about having easy access to their music. Being able to find a snapshot that they took of their kids, with the phone several weeks ago. Easily getting on to the internet and having it look like what they see on their desktop at home. They want to be able to do the smiplest things without looking like they're text messaging on their phone.
Before the iPhone came out, neither Nokia, Sony, RIMM or Steve Balmer believed that the average consumers would pay over $400 for a phone that had less features that a "high end" smartphone (at the time). And whose strongest selling point was that it did basically what much cheaper phones did but was only simpler to use. It's been almost a year and over 5 million people didn't buy the iPhone becausse they thought it was a "high end" business smartphone. They bought it because it's a "high end" consumer smartphone. And neither Sony, RIMM or Nokia has anything that compares to it at this level. They still don't get it. It's not about adding more features that the majority of the consumers don't care to use. It's about making it easier to use the features that the majority of the consumers want to use. And the last I checked, the consumers, not the businessman, are the vast majority of the cell phone users. No doubt that Apple will talyor the iPhone for businesses. But the bigger market will always be the consumer smartphone market.
Nokia, Samsung, SE etc do all of those things already. I don't know anyone who can't access their music, photos etc, because it's 'too complicated. A good majority of them can browse the web too exactly as you see it on your computer. And they do all of this whilst being cheaper and having extra features that the consumer may or may not choose to use, but they at least have the choice. In the UK and Europe, we already know how to use our phones. We don't need to job to be made any simpler, it's already simple enough.
Comments
The only apps that need the sim card:
-Phone
-SMS
Apps that don't use the sim card:
-Address Book
-Calendar
-Camera
- Clock
- Calculator
- Notes
- iTunes Store
- iPod
Apps that work with WIFI:
-YouTube
-Stocks
-Google Maps
-Weather
-iTunes Store
-Mail
-Safari
-1500+ Web Apps
You are putting a very limited label around what sophisticated and high end means. Your label tends to include functions where Nokia and SE phones excel but exclude functions where the iPhone excels. The potential of the iPhone from a software standpoint far far exceeds what Nokia or SE are currently capable of.
Maybe you didn't intend to but you proved my point. The iPhone is an iPod with phone capabilities. Your last post is proof positive of what I have been saying. Take out the sim card and you have an iPod. Thank you for finally seeing what I have been saying all along.
I will say for the last time Tenobell, the things the iPod part of the iPhone does, it does extremely well. I have stated this several times but you seem to ignore it. Hopefully you will get it now. Web browsing on the iPhone is nice simply because of the screen, aegis has pointed this out several times here as well. The media playback facilities are excellent. As a phone, the iPhone simply sucks.
However, for those of use (sic) that have used higher end phones since their inception, we have more sophisticated and discerning tastes. This is not a dig against you,
YES IT IS. STOP IT.
DO NOT REMARK ABOUT OTHER POSTERS OR I WILL PERMA-BAN YOUR ASS.
YES IT IS. STOP IT.
DO NOT REMARK ABOUT OTHER POSTERS OR I WILL PERMA-BAN YOUR ASS.
This was not a dig against him and I was making a comparison between different user types. Some who have used hihg-end phones for many years and those who are new to the game. I even quantified this by pointing out that the US was not always privy to higher-end Nokia or SE phones. Someone in this very thread said something similar and you did not pop up to confront them. If I am wrong, I have no truck with saying so, but I feel that you are vendetta bound. Soooo, you can do whatever you want to do. My ass does not care one way or another.
YES IT IS. STOP IT.
DO NOT REMARK ABOUT OTHER POSTERS OR I WILL PERMA-BAN YOUR ASS.
Wow talk about biased moderating. I don't think you're fit for the job if you think that statement qualifies a ban. What the post says is actually quite true... American's have been shovelled low end phones for a long time now, way behind the more advanced devices we get in Europe and Asia. The iPhone pops up, and in the US it's a roaring success because to the American market, it's a major, high end phone in comparison to what has come before. In Europe and Asia, we shrug our shoulders and say 'next' because we've seen it all before, and expect more.
Wow talk about biased moderating. I don't think you're fit for the job if you think that statement qualifies a ban. What the post says is actually quite true... American's have been shovelled low end phones for a long time now, way behind the more advanced devices we get in Europe and Asia. The iPhone pops up, and in the US it's a roaring success because to the American market, it's a major, high end phone in comparison to what has come before. In Europe and Asia, we shrug our shoulders and say 'next' because we've seen it all before, and expect more.
Thanks for the support dude but don't sweat it. If you read back, you will see that others have said even worse things and they go sailing right on by, but I say something that is even verified by Nokia, i.e. they have not concentrated on the US market as much, I mention this, and then it comes out as offensive. Anyway, don't get yourself banned for remotely agreeing with anything I said. As I stated, he can ban me, not ban me, whatever. I do not care. It's his forum.
YES IT IS. STOP IT.
DO NOT REMARK ABOUT OTHER POSTERS OR I WILL PERMA-BAN YOUR ASS.
Wow.
That's a '10' on the emote-o-meter if ever I saw it.
,
"Of course, providing a viable competitor to Apple?s iTunes means succeeding in the U.S. market as well. Currently, Nokia has just 7% market share in the United States, and its total North America sales accounted for only 2.6% of its overall, global revenues."
http://techland.blogs.fortune.cnn.co...apples-iphone/
Maybe you didn't intend to but you proved my point. The iPhone is an iPod with phone capabilities. Your last post is proof positive of what I have been saying. Take out the sim card and you have an iPod. Thank you for finally seeing what I have been saying all along.
There are several problems with this line of logic. The first being that their are a line of iPods that don't all serve the same purpose.
The shuffle, nano, or classic bear little resemblance to the iPhone. Outside of media playback all iPods share a few cursory features but don't at all share many others.
The iPod Touch is basically an iPhone with no Phone or SMS. After the SDK and VOiP that distinction will also change.
The iPod Touch is more a PDA than simply a PMP. iPod is one application among several shipped with the device. It will also have access to the products of 20,000 developers and thousands of web based applications.
People like to go on about Apple failing in Europe, but what about their precious Nokia struggling in America, why haven't they being able to translate their world domination into our American market or I guess when it comes to Nokia, it's irrelevant:
"Of course, providing a viable competitor to Apple’s iTunes means succeeding in the U.S. market as well. Currently, Nokia has just 7% market share in the United States, and its total North America sales accounted for only 2.6% of its overall, global revenues."
http://techland.blogs.fortune.cnn.co...apples-iphone/
Absolutely true, Nokia has done poorly in the US market. But ppl tend to overlook it because they're doing so well worldwide, and have 40% of the world market in cellphones.
Their problems in the US are pretty straightforward, and much the same as what some folks have been criticizing Apple for in Europe: Trying to foist the preferences of their home market on a foreign one, intentionally or unintentionally.
In Nokia's case, this meant insisting that US customers would eventually fall in love with GSM and candy-bar style phones, in a US market that is over 50% CDMA, and which overall prefers flip/clamshell phones.
Nokia also never officially brought over many of its high-end models, phones like the N82, N73, E90 and N95, which are not offered through any US carrier (though you can pay an outrageous sum of money and buy them unlocked). Perhaps even worse for business, Nokia preferred to dictate terms to carriers, when for most other phone maker- carrier relationships, it is exactly the other way around.
So, Nokia ended up falling flat on its face in the US, due in large part to its own arrogance. Is there possibly a cautionary tale here for Apple in Europe? No? Tsk, too bad.
FWIW, Nokia seems to have started to wake up to the fact that it needs to change to do well in the US:
Indeed, North America has been a particularly tough nut to crack for Nokia in part because the company just doesn't have many CDMA-based phones that can be sold through big carriers like Verizon and Sprint.
According to Nokia's chief designer Alastair Curtis, that's about to change. In an interview with Finland's Helsingin Snaomat, Curtis said the company is planning to release a number of new models that are specifically tailored to meet the needs of U.S. carriers in the coming months. Some of these phones will be new CDMA-based models, he said, while others will be European adaptations that can take advantage of the more common calling frequencies and bands used in North America.
..."They need to invest in CDMA now. They also need to start getting their high-end GSM products to the U.S. market now."
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/0...-promises.html
.
In Europe and Asia, we shrug our shoulders and say 'next' because we've seen it all before, and expect more.
Europe and Asia haven't seen what is soon to come.
There are several problems with this line of logic. The first being that their are a line of iPods that don't all serve the same purpose.
The shuffle, nano, or classic bear little resemblance to the iPhone. Outside of media playback all iPods share a few cursory features but don't at all share many others.
The iPod Touch is basically an iPhone with no Phone or SMS. After the SDK and VOiP that distinction will also change.
The iPod Touch is more a PDA than simply a PMP. iPod is one application among several shipped with the device. It will also have access to the products of 20,000 developers and thousands of web based applications.
Oh come now Tenobell.
You know as well as everyone here that we are talking about the iPod Touch. You are now bringing up the entire iPod line, but okay we will do it your way. I will slide along with the goal posts in this debates.
Minus the all the other iPods and leaving only the Touch, the iPhone is nothing more than a Touch with telephone capabilities. Thus you have proven my point for once and for all. Check and mate.
To sum up, the iPhone is nothing more than a Touch with a phone. Discussion concluded on this point.
People like to go on about Apple failing in Europe, but what about their precious Nokia struggling in America, why haven't they being able to translate their world domination into our American market or I guess when it comes to Nokia, it's irrelevant:
"Of course, providing a viable competitor to Apple?s iTunes means succeeding in the U.S. market as well. Currently, Nokia has just 7% market share in the United States, and its total North America sales accounted for only 2.6% of its overall, global revenues."
http://techland.blogs.fortune.cnn.co...apples-iphone/
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000% correct. Nokia has also built an empire, so to speak, without focusing (as they admitted on the US). Not bad I would say. Apple thought it could bring a third rate product into Europe and the masses would fall all over it. It didn't work. The iPhone has been compared to the N95, N82 (really a much better phone) and in terms of the basic features (telephony) it lost. In terms of more advance features it only did marginally better at best, or marginally worse. So Europeans looked at it and were not impressed. Rightfully so in my opinion. As I stated, and got yelled at for, the US market has not had the high-end phones in the same way, Europe and Asia, as well as the Mid East have, so for most Americans, they have no frame of reference. When something like the iPhone comes along it has the "wow" factor going for it, but little or no substance behind it.
According to Nokia's chief designer Alastair Curtis, that's about to change. In an interview with Finland's Helsingin Snaomat, Curtis said the company is planning to release a number of new models that are specifically tailored to meet the needs of U.S. carriers in the coming months. Some of these phones will be new CDMA-based models, he said, while others will be European adaptations that can take advantage of the more common calling frequencies and bands used in North America.[/I]
..."They need to invest in CDMA now. They also need to start getting their high-end GSM products to the U.S. market now."
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/0...-promises.html
.
Sweet !!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for posting the article. I remember this but could not remember the guy that said it. My friends over at Nokia has said they have some things coming that the US market will like. They brought in a bunch of guys from Dallas to help them design US market styled phones. What I find funny is that many people actually think Nokia is willing to just lay down and let Apple take over the phone world. It just ain't gonna happen.
Europe and Asia haven't seen what is soon to come.
Well to date what has been shown is not that impressive so anything would be a step up at this point.
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000% correct. Nokia has also built an empire, so to speak, without focusing (as they admitted on the US). Not bad I would say. Apple thought it could bring a third rate product into Europe and the masses would fall all over it. It didn't work. The iPhone has been compared to the N95, N82 (really a much better phone) and in terms of the basic features (telephony) it lost. In terms of more advance features it only did marginally better at best, or marginally worse. So Europeans looked at it and were not impressed. Rightfully so in my opinion. As I stated, and got yelled at for, the US market has not had the high-end phones in the same way, Europe and Asia, as well as the Mid East have, so for most Americans, they have no frame of reference. When something like the iPhone comes along it has the "wow" factor going for it, but little or no substance behind it.
All this talk about Europeans being spoiled by tons of high-end nokia phones --- is over-rated.
The iphone didn't do too well in the US either --- if you just look at the activation numbers.
If AT&T did 900K and O2 did 200K --- and the US has 5x the population of UK --- then you will know that the US numbers are not that great to begin with.
Sweet !!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for posting the article.
No prob.
.
All this talk about Europeans being spoiled by tons of high-end nokia phones --- is over-rated.
The iphone didn't do too well in the US either --- if you just look at the activation numbers.
If AT&T did 900K and O2 did 200K --- and the US has 5x the population of UK --- then you will know that the US numbers are not that great to begin with.
Well, it is not necessarily over rated, but it is true.
What the post says is actually quite true... American's have been shovelled low end phones for a long time now, way behind the more advanced devices we get in Europe and Asia. The iPhone pops up, and in the US it's a roaring success because to the American market, it's a major, high end phone in comparison to what has come before. In Europe and Asia, we shrug our shoulders and say 'next' because we've seen it all before, and expect more.
There's a couple of reasons for this. It's because our network infrastucture is way behind that of Europe and Asia. You can't sell the "high end" phones available elsewhere here because many of the features they had won't work here. But "high end" phones are available here. They just aren't as "high end" as those in Europe and Asia. And most of them have to be bought.
Which brings us to the other reason for this. Over here, it makes sense to commit to a single carrier (with National coverage) for two years in exchange for a free (or nearly free) phone. The vast majority of us here never leave the States. Or do so infrequently. Those who do travel a lot do buy "high end" phones so that they can use it while travelling. Most will settle for the "low end" phones that they get for free.
In Europe and Asia, you can take a 1 hour train ride and be in another country. So it makes sense to buy the phone out right and pay for the service where you use it. In Europe and Asia you can literally spend the weekend in another country and think nothing of it. Over here, unless you live next to the Mexican or Canadian border, another country is either a long drive or an air flight away. So in Europe and Asia, when you have to buy a phone, most will buy the best they can afford. But when you get it for free, you take what they shovel you because in two years they'll give you another one.
And if the iPhone is not so special to the people of Europe and Asia, then why are so many iPhones bought here in the States, endind up in Europe and Asia unlocked? Where Nokia rules. Surely Nokia must a have a "high end" phone at a cheaper price and more features that would make buying and risk unlocking an iPhone a sensless act. Even if it's last year model. Afterall, the iPhone is not cheap by any standards, can't do many of the stuff a Nokia "high end" phone can do and is not even a 3G phone.
The iPhone is a roaring success in the American market because it's marketed as a "high end" phone for the consumers. Not for the businessman. To the average consumer a "high end" Nokia is of no value if you have no use for 80% of the features that makes it "high end". And it's diffuclt to use the 20% of the features that you do want to use. For sure it's not a "high end" phone for the businessman. Not yet at least.
The consumers are more concern about having easy access to their music. Being able to find a snapshot that they took of their kids, with the phone several weeks ago. Easily getting on to the internet and having it look like what they see on their desktop at home. They want to be able to do the smiplest things without looking like they're text messaging on their phone.
Before the iPhone came out, neither Nokia, Sony, RIMM or Steve Balmer believed that the average consumers would pay over $400 for a phone that had less features that a "high end" smartphone (at the time). And whose strongest selling point was that it did basically what much cheaper phones did but was only simpler to use. It's been almost a year and over 5 million people didn't buy the iPhone becausse they thought it was a "high end" business smartphone. They bought it because it's a "high end" consumer smartphone. And neither Sony, RIMM or Nokia has anything that compares to it at this level. They still don't get it. It's not about adding more features that the majority of the consumers don't care to use. It's about making it easier to use the features that the majority of the consumers want to use. And the last I checked, the consumers, not the businessman, are the vast majority of the cell phone users. No doubt that Apple will talyor the iPhone for businesses. But the bigger market will always be the consumer smartphone market.
There's a couple of reasons for this. It's because our network infrastucture is way behind that of Europe and Asia. You can't sell the "high end" phones available elsewhere here because many of the features they had won't work here. But "high end" phones are available here. They just aren't as "high end" as those in Europe and Asia. And most of them have to be bought.
Which brings us to the other reason for this. Over here, it makes sense to commit to a single carrier (with National coverage) for two years in exchange for a free (or nearly free) phone. The vast majority of us here never leave the States. Or do so infrequently. Those who do travel a lot do buy "high end" phones so that they can use it while travelling. Most will settle for the "low end" phones that they get for free.
In Europe and Asia, you can take a 1 hour train ride and be in another country. So it makes sense to buy the phone out right and pay for the service where you use it. In Europe and Asia you can literally spend the weekend in another country and think nothing of it. Over here, unless you live next to the Mexican or Canadian border, another country is either a long drive or an air flight away. So in Europe and Asia, when you have to buy a phone, most will buy the best they can afford. But when you get it for free, you take what they shovel you because in two years they'll give you another one.
And if the iPhone is not so special to the people of Europe and Asia, then why are so many iPhones bought here in the States, endind up in Europe and Asia unlocked? Where Nokia rules. Surely Nokia must a have a "high end" phone at a cheaper price and more features that would make buying and risk unlocking an iPhone a sensless act. Even if it's last year model. Afterall, the iPhone is not cheap by any standards, can't do many of the stuff a Nokia "high end" phone can do and is not even a 3G phone.
The iPhone is a roaring success in the American market because it's marketed as a "high end" phone for the consumers. Not for the businessman. To the average consumer a "high end" Nokia is of no value if you have no use for 80% of the features that makes it "high end". And it's diffuclt to use the 20% of the features that you do want to use. For sure it's not a "high end" phone for the businessman. Not yet at least.
The consumers are more concern about having easy access to their music. Being able to find a snapshot that they took of their kids, with the phone several weeks ago. Easily getting on to the internet and having it look like what they see on their desktop at home. They want to be able to do the smiplest things without looking like they're text messaging on their phone.
Before the iPhone came out, neither Nokia, Sony, RIMM or Steve Balmer believed that the average consumers would pay over $400 for a phone that had less features that a "high end" smartphone (at the time). And whose strongest selling point was that it did basically what much cheaper phones did but was only simpler to use. It's been almost a year and over 5 million people didn't buy the iPhone becausse they thought it was a "high end" business smartphone. They bought it because it's a "high end" consumer smartphone. And neither Sony, RIMM or Nokia has anything that compares to it at this level. They still don't get it. It's not about adding more features that the majority of the consumers don't care to use. It's about making it easier to use the features that the majority of the consumers want to use. And the last I checked, the consumers, not the businessman, are the vast majority of the cell phone users. No doubt that Apple will talyor the iPhone for businesses. But the bigger market will always be the consumer smartphone market.
Nokia, Samsung, SE etc do all of those things already. I don't know anyone who can't access their music, photos etc, because it's 'too complicated. A good majority of them can browse the web too exactly as you see it on your computer. And they do all of this whilst being cheaper and having extra features that the consumer may or may not choose to use, but they at least have the choice. In the UK and Europe, we already know how to use our phones. We don't need to job to be made any simpler, it's already simple enough.