In most cases it is still cheaper to buy the CD and rip it, the iTunes store isn't that cheap
Not really. The average Cd still sells for at least $12, which is supposedly the average number of songs on a CD. So downloads are about the same price.
But people don't want to buy the Cd and rip it. They want to pick the songs that they actually LIKE, and add them to their library. That makes buying on iTunes MUCH cheaper than buying albums. This is why some "artists", and I do use that term lightly, aren't happy with iTunes. They want people to be forced to buy the entire album.
But that was an artifact of the Cd era. Before that, most people bought 45's, and only if they liked most of the album, and could afford it, would they buy it.
Music cost much more in the past than it costs today. People now don't understand that.
We're just going back to the way it was.
And, of course, I'm not talking about quality here, because most people don't care. That's not new either.
Truth is, an AAC encoded at 128Kb/s has higher quality than Lp's played on the really crummy little record players used by most people over the years. With the lack of interest in even cleaning records, or even keeping the in their sleeves, most Lp's became garbage very quickly.
CD's are far better, but people are losing interest.
Not really. The average Cd still sells for at least $12, which is supposedly the average number of songs on a CD. So downloads are about the same price.
most Lp's became garbage very quickly.
CD's are far better, but people are losing interest.
Truth is, when people get their DRMed iTunes music and try and play it on another device, they get annoyed, and lose interest in iTunes, the CD is good.
iTunes songs are still too expensive for what you get.
Truth is, when people get their DRMed iTunes music and try and play it on another device, they get annoyed, and lose interest in iTunes, the CD is good.
iTunes songs are still too expensive for what you get.
Depending on the popularity of the artist newer CD's can still cost $15 to $18. While the cost remains the same on iTunes.
Deapite how you may feel the reality is that iTunes user base only continue to increase. While CD purchaes are on a steep decline.
Truth is, when people get their DRMed iTunes music and try and play it on another device, they get annoyed, and lose interest in iTunes, the CD is good.
iTunes songs are still too expensive for what you get.
Except that you're just saying that. It's not as though it's true. If it were, then Apple wouldn't be the largest music retailer today.
Except that you're just saying that. It's not as though it's true. If it were, then Apple wouldn't be the largest music retailer today.
in the US. Or are you referring to mp3/aac type sales?
Also, there is the fact that the music being sold today, well, just isn't that good, I have purchased very liittle music in the last few years compared to what I would have 5 - 10 years ago.
The iTunes success could be put purely down to the single sales, which since Apple still has DRM on a lot of it's music causes issues
in the US. Or are you referring to mp3/aac type sales?
Also, there is the fact that the music being sold today, well, just isn't that good, I have purchased very liittle music in the last few years compared to what I would have 5 - 10 years ago.
The iTunes success could be put purely down to the single sales, which since Apple still has DRM on a lot of it's music causes issues
The sales number bear out the case that most people simply don't care about quality, or DRM.
It's interesting that with Amazon being given a free hand to sell DRM free songs at 256Kb's, and ten cents cheaper than Apple per song, iTunes still sells most of the downloaded music around the world, and over 80% of that in the USA, which is also Amazon's home base.
iTune's music sales pace keeps on increasing during this.
About poor quality music, well, I've always found that most music is crap. As we get older, newer music is further from our taste as well, making it seem worse than it is.
DRM, properly done causes no more issues than anything else. It's all very easy.
Some people are constitutionally against DRM, and they extrapolate that dislike to everyone else, thinking that it's only natural for everyone to be against it. But, it's not so. Most people couldn't care less, but the anti crowd is very loud, and drowns out everyone else.
It's interesting that with Amazon being given a free hand to sell DRM free songs at 256Kb's, and ten cents cheaper than Apple per song, iTunes still sells most of the downloaded music around the world, and over 80% of that in the USA, which is also Amazon's home base.
Since I do not live in the USA, I don't really care about Amazon's MP3 service. I will purchase non DRM music from iTunes, but if I like it enough I will just purchase the CD on sale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
DRM, properly done causes no more issues than anything else. It's all very easy.
Well Apples DRM music won't play on my PS3, so it is done poorly. I will not just limit myself to purchasing one companies devices to continue to play their music.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Some people are constitutionally against DRM, and they extrapolate that dislike to everyone else, thinking that it's only natural for everyone to be against it. But, it's not so. Most people couldn't care less, but the anti crowd is very loud, and drowns out everyone else.
Again, as people try and play their DRM music on other devices without mucking around by writing it to CD and ripping again, they will change their mind by it
Since I do not live in the USA, I don't really care about Amazon's MP3 service. I will purchase non DRM music from iTunes, but if I like it enough I will just purchase the CD on sale.
Well Apples DRM music won't play on my PS3, so it is done poorly. I will not just limit myself to purchasing one companies devices to continue to play their music.
Again, as people try and play their DRM music on other devices without mucking around by writing it to CD and ripping again, they will change their mind by it
I don't agree with what you're saying. I don't know anyone else who puts their music on their PS3, though I'm sure there must be a few. You can always put it on a cd.
Anyway, this discussion is going nowhere, so I'm ending my part. You can have the last word.
I don't agree with what you're saying. I don't know anyone else who puts their music on their PS3, though I'm sure there must be a few. You can always put it on a cd.
Anyway, this discussion is going nowhere, so I'm ending my part. You can have the last word.
ok, thanks for that (and I agree it is going nowhere).
I don't put my music on my PS3, I copy it to my NAS which has a uPNP server in it and I play it from there.
So who do you say is responsible for their falling marketshare in smartphones? Or are you saying it's happening everywhere BUT in Europe?
What?
Nokia's stance that they weren't going to get into a pricing war had nothing to do with smartphones or the iPhone which sells for MORE than ANY of their phones here. Take the USA/iPhone blinkers off!
Out in the rest of the world, Nokia is facing competition throughout it's models from the low end to the high end. For some time now LG and Samsung have been churning out mid range models every few months that differ slightly and go for nothing. The war isn't at the retail level, it's the wholesale price of the phones to carriers and retailers.
It is probably a test to see if it can challenge the iPhone in sales that way. If it does, they might do it elsewhere. If it doesn't, they will likely keep prices high elsewhere.
Nokia's prices are only high in the USA and Canada. You seem to have a different pricing structure than elsewhere that mandates high handset prices. Is that Nokia's fault or Rogers? I would guess the latter.
Elsewhere, Nokia's smartphones have no problem challenging the iPhone, outselling them 20-to-1 or so.
Nokia's stance that they weren't going to get into a pricing war had nothing to do with smartphones or the iPhone which sells for MORE than ANY of their phones here. Take the USA/iPhone blinkers off!
Out in the rest of the world, Nokia is facing competition throughout it's models from the low end to the high end. For some time now LG and Samsung have been churning out mid range models every few months that differ slightly and go for nothing. The war isn't at the retail level, it's the wholesale price of the phones to carriers and retailers.
Take your own European blinkers off. You're not responding to the question. This has nothing directly to do with their defensive statements, but to the fact that their share in Smartphone sales has been falling.
Nokia's prices are only high in the USA and Canada. You seem to have a different pricing structure than elsewhere that mandates high handset prices. Is that Nokia's fault or Rogers? I would guess the latter.
Elsewhere, Nokia's smartphones have no problem challenging the iPhone, outselling them 20-to-1 or so.
Perhaps the info about pricing is right elsewhere, I don't know.
But when you consider that Nokia has so many smartphone models, from versions that aren't even properly smartphones to the newest, which I've been reading will cost $900 without a contract, it's not surprising they would be outselling Apple's one model (though the numbers we're seeing are not current, they are from the last quarter, when Apple had only the model everyone knew Apple would be discontinuing, and had run out of stock on as well). But, Apple just arrived in a significant number of countries, though still not as many as Nokia is in. Most of Nokia's advantages in sales so far has been the number of models, and the number of places in which they've been sold.
Also, of course, Apple's new model has just begun to sell. It's going to take several quarters before we will see any significent inroads.
Assuming that your 20 to 1 number is correct, remember it well. If it shrinks in favor of Apple, moving to 18 to 1, 16 to 1, and lower, then you will HAVE to admit that Apple is doing well, with their one model, against the Nokia build everything and see what sells approach.
Take your own European blinkers off. You're not responding to the question. This has nothing directly to do with their defensive statements, but to the fact that their share in Smartphone sales has been falling.
Please respond to that.
Sales of smartphones WORLDWIDE grew 16% last quarter over the previous year.
Sales of smartphones in the USA grew 79% in the same period and now accounts for 25% of the world market.
EUROPE was up 29%. Asia/Pacific down 5%, Japan down 24%.
So, in the markets where the iPhone and RIM are popular, there sales went up. In the areas Nokia sell, they more or less cancelled out European growth with downturns elsewhere.
The growth area in smartphones is the USA catching up. It's no wonder Nokia's share slips when they don't sell phones in the USA! The reason they don't sell phones in the USA is complex. On the flipside the reasons RIM and Apple didn't sell here either aren't that complex. Apple have fixed it (pricing and 3G), RIM are getting there too but they're still mostly a niche business toy and we all use SMS here, not email.
As I said back at the start of this thread, the conclusion that the iPhone is the cause of Symbian's downturn is just plain stupid wrong. The interpretation that Nokia meant Apple where the company with aggressive pricing they were not prepared to match is also plain stupid wrong.
Perhaps the info about pricing is right elsewhere, I don't know.
But when you consider that Nokia has so many smartphone models, from versions that aren't even properly smartphones to the newest, which I've been reading will cost $900 without a contract, it's not surprising they would be outselling Apple's one model (though the numbers we're seeing are not current, they are from the last quarter, when Apple had only the model everyone knew Apple would be discontinuing, and had run out of stock on as well). But, Apple just arrived in a significant number of countries, though still not as many as Nokia is in. Most of Nokia's advantages in sales so far has been the number of models, and the number of places in which they've been sold.
Sorry, but you're wrong. The N95 has been a huge hit and '$900 without a contract' is irrelevant here as almost nobody buys phones without a SIM, be it contract or PAYG.
And don't say I'm defending the N95 as a nice phone. I personally don't like it, but plenty of people do, especially when it's free. Nokia don't give out sales figures by model but I'd be very surprised if just the N95 or E61 hasn't sold more than the iPhone.
Symbian is stretching down into non-smartphones though like the 6220 midrange candybar - comes with a 5mp camera, flash, HSDPA, GPS. Fab little phone - £250 from Nokia with no contract, Free pretty much anywhere with a contract and pretty cheap PAYG.
What was that quote about skating to where the puck is going to be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Also, of course, Apple's new model has just begun to sell. It's going to take several quarters before we will see any significent inroads.
Yep, they should do well now they have the price right and it has 3G. It's still a couple of years behind the competition hardware-feature-wise though and even software-wise in some respects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Assuming that your 20 to 1 number is correct, remember it well. If it shrinks in favor of Apple, moving to 18 to 1, 16 to 1, and lower, then you will HAVE to admit that Apple is doing well, with their one model, against the Nokia build everything and see what sells approach.
I think I'm being conservative personally. How many iPhones sold in the UK prior to the 3G? And how many Symbian phones? Apple deserve to do better now, and it's almost entirely because of pricing, but so far the analysis coming from the US from the Apple press seems to be misguided with respect to market share. There share is coming from a growing US market, not from elsewhere yet.
Sales of smartphones WORLDWIDE grew 16% last quarter over the previous year.
Sales of smartphones in the USA grew 79% in the same period and now accounts for 25% of the world market.
EUROPE was up 29%. Asia/Pacific down 5%, Japan down 24%.
So, in the markets where the iPhone and RIM are popular, there sales went up. In the areas Nokia sell, they more or less cancelled out European growth with downturns elsewhere.
The growth area in smartphones is the USA catching up. It's no wonder Nokia's share slips when they don't sell phones in the USA! The reason they don't sell phones in the USA is complex. On the flipside the reasons RIM and Apple didn't sell here either aren't that complex. Apple have fixed it (pricing and 3G), RIM are getting there too but they're still mostly a niche business toy and we all use SMS here, not email.
As I said back at the start of this thread, the conclusion that the iPhone is the cause of Symbian's downturn is just plain stupid wrong. The interpretation that Nokia meant Apple where the company with aggressive pricing they were not prepared to match is also plain stupid wrong.
That's all very nice, but it has nothing to do with it.
Besides I never said that Nokia's falling marketshare was completely due to the iPhone.
Nokia themselves commented on their falling marketshare, and according to them, it's all part of their plan. It has nothing to do with growth rates across the world as you seem to think it does. That should be obvious. Nokia is about everywhere, including here, in the USA. If the growth in the USA's percentage of the worlds smartphones has increased, as it has, so should Nokia's numbers here. Their marketshare overall therefore, should remain steady, but it hasn't.
The company also cites a tougher overall market...
You can put that down as meaning, as it always does, more, and better competition.
Quote:
Sorry, but you're wrong. The N95 has been a huge hit and '$900 without a contract' is irrelevant here as almost nobody buys phones without a SIM, be it contract or PAYG.
And don't say I'm defending the N95 as a nice phone. I personally don't like it, but plenty of people do, especially when it's free. Nokia don't give out sales figures by model but I'd be very surprised if just the N95 or E61 hasn't sold more than the iPhone.
Symbian is stretching down into non-smartphones though like the 6220 midrange candybar - comes with a 5mp camera, flash, HSDPA, GPS. Fab little phone - £250 from Nokia with no contract, Free pretty much anywhere with a contract and pretty cheap PAYG.
Not every area operates as Europe does. Here, and in other areas, these phones have been very expensive, and not very popular.
Quote:
What was that quote about skating to where the puck is going to be?
It seems that Nokia is losing sight of where the puck is.
Quote:
Yep, they should do well now they have the price right and it has 3G. It's still a couple of years behind the competition hardware-feature-wise though and even software-wise in some respects.
While you think that these little features are all important, very few people agree with you. Look at the percentage of those who have smartphones there, and understand that a large chunk of them don't have those features, or don't use them. The iPhone competes in the area of about 85% of the market in which those features mean little.
Quote:
I think I'm being conservative personally. How many iPhones sold in the UK prior to the 3G? And how many Symbian phones? Apple deserve to do better now, and it's almost entirely because of pricing, but so far the analysis coming from the US from the Apple press seems to be misguided with respect to market share. There share is coming from a growing US market, not from elsewhere yet.
You're trying to use facts that don't exist, or are irrelevant. The phones were on sale for a short time in the UK before the 3G came out. If what you keep saying about 3G is true, then they wouldn't have sold vast amounts. You can;t have your argument both ways. But, now we will have to wait a while to see how sales are doing over some extended period to get a real idea of how they will compete.
...at me. That's one of the very pieces I'm talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Not every area operates as Europe does. Here, and in other areas, these phones have been very expensive, and not very popular.
Yes. I said the same thing. Your pricing structures are different to the rest of the world for some reason but I don't think, as the electronista and Daniel's piece extrapolated, that Apple was the company with aggressive pricing in comparison to Nokia. It's clearly not the case outside the USA in Nokia's core markets but if you're American then you might see the world that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
It seems that Nokia is losing sight of where the puck is.
I don't think so. They've lost their way with Symbian somewhat, fracturing it into S60/UIQ/MOAP but they seem to have a plan there. I don't personally think their S60 interface is good for a smartphone - UIQ is better. S80 was better. They're fixing that. Unfortunately it might end up looking like S60, which would be a shame. Nokia need to ditch their two button interface.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
While you think that these little features are all important, very few people agree with you. Look at the percentage of those who have smartphones there, and understand that a large chunk of them don't have those features, or don't use them. The iPhone competes in the area of about 85% of the market in which those features mean little.
The two features I said were important were price and 3G. They've fixed those. The rest are indeed minor features and I'm not denying that. However, when Nokia's midrange non-smartphones are starting off with 5mp cameras with flash, turn based voice assisted GPS and HSDPA tethering, you might just as well get by with a non-smartphone. Apple skated to where the puck was. Symbian skated downmarket. Apple will still sell well though as their phone is now good enough and priced competitively as well as having Apple's marketing behind it. I'll be buying one next month for instance when they add PAYG here, but I'll have to keep another phone handy for mobile data when I'm out the (home)office. I'm also keeping an eye on the netbooks, some of which are capable of running OSX and have expresscard slots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
You're trying to use facts that don't exist, or are irrelevant. The phones were on sale for a short time in the UK before the 3G came out. If what you keep saying about 3G is true, then they wouldn't have sold vast amounts. You can;t have your argument both ways. But, now we will have to wait a while to see how sales are doing over some extended period to get a real idea of how they will compete.
I'm not having it both ways. The previous iPhone was on sale 6 months. It sold dismally until they dropped the price to clear it. The 3G will sell much better because it's not priced stupidly and has 3G. In the meantime they've added the App Store too. That would seem to be the crux of my gripes over the past year with the iPhone. Sure there's minor niggles but it's now good enough (OS 2.1 fixing bugs at least) that I'll bite.
Of course the 3G selling well will be hailed by the Apple fanbois as Nokia losing share rather than validation of what we (in Europe) have been saying for the last year, that the first iPhone was flawed.
Well. no it doesn't. I showed why it doesn't. You're saying that it does doesn't mean anything, because you aren't showing why. The good reasons I gave show that it doesn't. If you want to contradict them with specific reasons of your own, then you're welcome to do so.
...at me. That's one of the very pieces I'm talking about.
Because it supports my argument, not yours. In it, though I shouldn't have to say this again, Nokia admits to their falling marketshare, and says why it's happening, according to their dissembling.
Nowhere, do they agree with your contention that its almost solely due to the US market growing so quickly.
Quote:
Yes. I said the same thing. Your pricing structures are different to the rest of the world for some reason but I don't think, as the electronista and Daniel's piece extrapolated, that Apple was the company with aggressive pricing in comparison to Nokia. It's clearly not the case outside the USA in Nokia's core markets but if you're American then you might see the world that way.
Well, you don't have to agree with his extrapolation, but I would think that he's in a better position than you (or me!) are to evaluate that. It's his business, after all.
Quote:
I don't think so. They've lost their way with Symbian somewhat, fracturing it into S60/UIQ/MOAP but they seem to have a plan there. I don't personally think their S60 interface is good for a smartphone - UIQ is better. S80 was better. They're fixing that. Unfortunately it might end up looking like S60, which would be a shame. Nokia need to ditch their two button interface.
It's the fracturing of the market that will cause them problems in the end. Developers like to write to a stable, unified marketplace. They have to, somehow, manage to put the same version on all their phones. Otherwise, that lost puck will continue to remain lost.
Quote:
The two features I said were important were price and 3G. They've fixed those. The rest are indeed minor features and I'm not denying that. However, when Nokia's midrange non-smartphones are starting off with 5mp cameras with flash, turn based voice assisted GPS and HSDPA tethering, you might just as well get by with a non-smartphone. Apple skated to where the puck was. Symbian skated downmarket. Apple will still sell well though as their phone is now good enough and priced competitively as well as having Apple's marketing behind it. I'll be buying one next month for instance when they add PAYG here, but I'll have to keep another phone handy for mobile data when I'm out the (home)office. I'm also keeping an eye on the netbooks, some of which are capable of running OSX and have expresscard slots.
I know I've stated this before, but itbears repeating. In the beginning of a new technology area, there are a lot of specialized little things that make it to market. These are all fixed functions, electrically, and in hardwired software. We saw this way back with the first game machines and toys. The games were hardcoded into the devices. They worked well enough, until one had to upgeade a game. Then you needed a new device.
The phones found around the world that have a bunch of these features are going to become obolete, as their functions are taken over by more generalized devices suchas the iPhone.
Really, mist ofthese specialized functions dont have to be done that way at all. They were bwcause there was no better way at the time, and that has carried over tothe present. But just as general ourpose game machines, and computers have passed the hardwired devices, these 'old tech" phones with the specialized chips and such will also go down the tubes.
It mat not be obvious at first, but it will happen. I can but quite a bit of stuff from my iPhone right now, as well as do banking, etc.
As more iPhones are sold, and it's possible that as many as 35 to 45 million may be sold in 2009 alone, we'll see more services, and little, free, apps coming out for it to take advantage of these products and services.
With Paypal on my phone, I can but anything that is paid for through PayPal, which is becoming more and more popular on web sites. I was at just how popular iy it, when I bought the Ped3 tand for my iPhone the other day. Even my Mac user group has payments through PayPal.
My iPhone can also read the square IPC codes on a product, with a little program, and takes me to the manufacturer's, or store's website, where I can read about it, and sometimes purchase it.
I can buy almost anything online now.
No need for specialized chips.
When Europe moves into more modern areas of commerce this is how it will be done.
Quote:
I'm not having it both ways. The previous iPhone was on sale 6 months. It sold dismally until they dropped the price to clear it. The 3G will sell much better because it's not priced stupidly and has 3G. In the meantime they've added the App Store too. That would seem to be the crux of my gripes over the past year with the iPhone. Sure there's minor niggles but it's now good enough (OS 2.1 fixing bugs at least) that I'll bite.
Well, you say it needed 3G to sell, and the first one didn't have it. So you can't look at the first models slow sales unless you just put it down to not being right for the market. That doesn't bother me. It didn't actually do THAT badly, but the new one was coming out, and they cleared out the old ones, which people wouldn't buy when they knew it would be replaced soon. I don't know how they thought that introducing a model 6 months before a new one was available would be a great idea is beyond me. That would happen with anything. If they had come out in the UK at the same time they came out here, it would have been different.[/quote]
I didn't buy the first model, as you know, because I was also waiting for 3G and an app store, or whatever process Apple would have to support 3rd party apps, which I kept saying from the beginning that Apple would have.
Quote:
Of course the 3G selling well will be hailed by the Apple fanbois as Nokia losing share rather than validation of what we (in Europe) have been saying for the last year, that the first iPhone was flawed.
I don't understand why every statement that you don't like has to be attributed to an Apple "fanboi (though I note that you spell it the way I do ). With all I've said about Apple over the years screwing up with various matters, do you consider me to be a fanboi? That would be strange if you do.
But, neither of those statements invalidates the other. I don't know why you think they do.
If the iPhone was flawed from the perspective of not having 3G and third party apps (as it was t me), then it wouldn't be expected to have done too much. That's not even quite true, because it was doing quite well even in the countries in which it was being brought in clandestinely.
But, if those problems are not "fixed", and it's selling much better, why wouldn't that contribute to a lowering of Nokias marketshare? That makes no sense. It would have to.
If Apple is selling a good deal more phones in the countries it was selling few before, and is selling well in countries in which it wasn't selling at all, why wouldn't that contribute to Nokia's losing marketshare. It would have to.
What other phone is now selling around Europe is good numbers that wasn't selling there last year, or the year before?
I'm even sure that RIM is doing better in Europe that it was before, possibly even Windows Mobile phones. Maybe even Palm sold a few more.
Near the end, there was a summary of the smartphone business which I think was very accurate.
On the beginning... Palm owned the handheld platform, but just did not do enough to keep that ownership.
The Window Mobile has frustrated users and partners by advancing too slowly. And Symbian is in a very similar position.
Three relatively lackluster players. Slow progress. But no surprises.
Because all three were equally weak, the opportunity was there for someone to come in and do it better. All of a sudden Rim, Apple and Android have entered the market with much more interesting devices.
It's going to be fun to see how the old guard respond.
Comments
In most cases it is still cheaper to buy the CD and rip it, the iTunes store isn't that cheap
Not really. The average Cd still sells for at least $12, which is supposedly the average number of songs on a CD. So downloads are about the same price.
But people don't want to buy the Cd and rip it. They want to pick the songs that they actually LIKE, and add them to their library. That makes buying on iTunes MUCH cheaper than buying albums. This is why some "artists", and I do use that term lightly, aren't happy with iTunes. They want people to be forced to buy the entire album.
But that was an artifact of the Cd era. Before that, most people bought 45's, and only if they liked most of the album, and could afford it, would they buy it.
Music cost much more in the past than it costs today. People now don't understand that.
We're just going back to the way it was.
And, of course, I'm not talking about quality here, because most people don't care. That's not new either.
Truth is, an AAC encoded at 128Kb/s has higher quality than Lp's played on the really crummy little record players used by most people over the years. With the lack of interest in even cleaning records, or even keeping the in their sleeves, most Lp's became garbage very quickly.
CD's are far better, but people are losing interest.
Not really. The average Cd still sells for at least $12, which is supposedly the average number of songs on a CD. So downloads are about the same price.
most Lp's became garbage very quickly.
CD's are far better, but people are losing interest.
Truth is, when people get their DRMed iTunes music and try and play it on another device, they get annoyed, and lose interest in iTunes, the CD is good.
iTunes songs are still too expensive for what you get.
Truth is, when people get their DRMed iTunes music and try and play it on another device, they get annoyed, and lose interest in iTunes, the CD is good.
iTunes songs are still too expensive for what you get.
Depending on the popularity of the artist newer CD's can still cost $15 to $18. While the cost remains the same on iTunes.
Deapite how you may feel the reality is that iTunes user base only continue to increase. While CD purchaes are on a steep decline.
Deapite how you may feel the reality is that iTunes user base only continue to increase. While CD purchaes are on a steep decline.
Even in spite of Amazon's much better offering. Convenience is such an important factor.
Truth is, when people get their DRMed iTunes music and try and play it on another device, they get annoyed, and lose interest in iTunes, the CD is good.
iTunes songs are still too expensive for what you get.
Except that you're just saying that. It's not as though it's true. If it were, then Apple wouldn't be the largest music retailer today.
Except that you're just saying that. It's not as though it's true. If it were, then Apple wouldn't be the largest music retailer today.
in the US. Or are you referring to mp3/aac type sales?
Also, there is the fact that the music being sold today, well, just isn't that good, I have purchased very liittle music in the last few years compared to what I would have 5 - 10 years ago.
The iTunes success could be put purely down to the single sales, which since Apple still has DRM on a lot of it's music causes issues
in the US. Or are you referring to mp3/aac type sales?
Also, there is the fact that the music being sold today, well, just isn't that good, I have purchased very liittle music in the last few years compared to what I would have 5 - 10 years ago.
The iTunes success could be put purely down to the single sales, which since Apple still has DRM on a lot of it's music causes issues
The sales number bear out the case that most people simply don't care about quality, or DRM.
It's interesting that with Amazon being given a free hand to sell DRM free songs at 256Kb's, and ten cents cheaper than Apple per song, iTunes still sells most of the downloaded music around the world, and over 80% of that in the USA, which is also Amazon's home base.
iTune's music sales pace keeps on increasing during this.
About poor quality music, well, I've always found that most music is crap. As we get older, newer music is further from our taste as well, making it seem worse than it is.
DRM, properly done causes no more issues than anything else. It's all very easy.
Some people are constitutionally against DRM, and they extrapolate that dislike to everyone else, thinking that it's only natural for everyone to be against it. But, it's not so. Most people couldn't care less, but the anti crowd is very loud, and drowns out everyone else.
It's interesting that with Amazon being given a free hand to sell DRM free songs at 256Kb's, and ten cents cheaper than Apple per song, iTunes still sells most of the downloaded music around the world, and over 80% of that in the USA, which is also Amazon's home base.
Since I do not live in the USA, I don't really care about Amazon's MP3 service. I will purchase non DRM music from iTunes, but if I like it enough I will just purchase the CD on sale.
DRM, properly done causes no more issues than anything else. It's all very easy.
Well Apples DRM music won't play on my PS3, so it is done poorly. I will not just limit myself to purchasing one companies devices to continue to play their music.
Some people are constitutionally against DRM, and they extrapolate that dislike to everyone else, thinking that it's only natural for everyone to be against it. But, it's not so. Most people couldn't care less, but the anti crowd is very loud, and drowns out everyone else.
Again, as people try and play their DRM music on other devices without mucking around by writing it to CD and ripping again, they will change their mind by it
Since I do not live in the USA, I don't really care about Amazon's MP3 service. I will purchase non DRM music from iTunes, but if I like it enough I will just purchase the CD on sale.
Well Apples DRM music won't play on my PS3, so it is done poorly. I will not just limit myself to purchasing one companies devices to continue to play their music.
Again, as people try and play their DRM music on other devices without mucking around by writing it to CD and ripping again, they will change their mind by it
I don't agree with what you're saying. I don't know anyone else who puts their music on their PS3, though I'm sure there must be a few. You can always put it on a cd.
Anyway, this discussion is going nowhere, so I'm ending my part. You can have the last word.
I don't agree with what you're saying. I don't know anyone else who puts their music on their PS3, though I'm sure there must be a few. You can always put it on a cd.
Anyway, this discussion is going nowhere, so I'm ending my part. You can have the last word.
ok, thanks for that (and I agree it is going nowhere).
I don't put my music on my PS3, I copy it to my NAS which has a uPNP server in it and I play it from there.
So who do you say is responsible for their falling marketshare in smartphones? Or are you saying it's happening everywhere BUT in Europe?
What?
Nokia's stance that they weren't going to get into a pricing war had nothing to do with smartphones or the iPhone which sells for MORE than ANY of their phones here. Take the USA/iPhone blinkers off!
Out in the rest of the world, Nokia is facing competition throughout it's models from the low end to the high end. For some time now LG and Samsung have been churning out mid range models every few months that differ slightly and go for nothing. The war isn't at the retail level, it's the wholesale price of the phones to carriers and retailers.
It is probably a test to see if it can challenge the iPhone in sales that way. If it does, they might do it elsewhere. If it doesn't, they will likely keep prices high elsewhere.
Nokia's prices are only high in the USA and Canada. You seem to have a different pricing structure than elsewhere that mandates high handset prices. Is that Nokia's fault or Rogers? I would guess the latter.
Elsewhere, Nokia's smartphones have no problem challenging the iPhone, outselling them 20-to-1 or so.
What?
Nokia's stance that they weren't going to get into a pricing war had nothing to do with smartphones or the iPhone which sells for MORE than ANY of their phones here. Take the USA/iPhone blinkers off!
Out in the rest of the world, Nokia is facing competition throughout it's models from the low end to the high end. For some time now LG and Samsung have been churning out mid range models every few months that differ slightly and go for nothing. The war isn't at the retail level, it's the wholesale price of the phones to carriers and retailers.
Take your own European blinkers off. You're not responding to the question. This has nothing directly to do with their defensive statements, but to the fact that their share in Smartphone sales has been falling.
Please respond to that.
Nokia's prices are only high in the USA and Canada. You seem to have a different pricing structure than elsewhere that mandates high handset prices. Is that Nokia's fault or Rogers? I would guess the latter.
Elsewhere, Nokia's smartphones have no problem challenging the iPhone, outselling them 20-to-1 or so.
Perhaps the info about pricing is right elsewhere, I don't know.
But when you consider that Nokia has so many smartphone models, from versions that aren't even properly smartphones to the newest, which I've been reading will cost $900 without a contract, it's not surprising they would be outselling Apple's one model (though the numbers we're seeing are not current, they are from the last quarter, when Apple had only the model everyone knew Apple would be discontinuing, and had run out of stock on as well). But, Apple just arrived in a significant number of countries, though still not as many as Nokia is in. Most of Nokia's advantages in sales so far has been the number of models, and the number of places in which they've been sold.
Also, of course, Apple's new model has just begun to sell. It's going to take several quarters before we will see any significent inroads.
Assuming that your 20 to 1 number is correct, remember it well. If it shrinks in favor of Apple, moving to 18 to 1, 16 to 1, and lower, then you will HAVE to admit that Apple is doing well, with their one model, against the Nokia build everything and see what sells approach.
Take your own European blinkers off. You're not responding to the question. This has nothing directly to do with their defensive statements, but to the fact that their share in Smartphone sales has been falling.
Please respond to that.
Sales of smartphones WORLDWIDE grew 16% last quarter over the previous year.
Sales of smartphones in the USA grew 79% in the same period and now accounts for 25% of the world market.
EUROPE was up 29%. Asia/Pacific down 5%, Japan down 24%.
So, in the markets where the iPhone and RIM are popular, there sales went up. In the areas Nokia sell, they more or less cancelled out European growth with downturns elsewhere.
The growth area in smartphones is the USA catching up. It's no wonder Nokia's share slips when they don't sell phones in the USA! The reason they don't sell phones in the USA is complex. On the flipside the reasons RIM and Apple didn't sell here either aren't that complex. Apple have fixed it (pricing and 3G), RIM are getting there too but they're still mostly a niche business toy and we all use SMS here, not email.
As I said back at the start of this thread, the conclusion that the iPhone is the cause of Symbian's downturn is just plain stupid wrong. The interpretation that Nokia meant Apple where the company with aggressive pricing they were not prepared to match is also plain stupid wrong.
My figures are from the Gartner - http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=754112
Perhaps the info about pricing is right elsewhere, I don't know.
But when you consider that Nokia has so many smartphone models, from versions that aren't even properly smartphones to the newest, which I've been reading will cost $900 without a contract, it's not surprising they would be outselling Apple's one model (though the numbers we're seeing are not current, they are from the last quarter, when Apple had only the model everyone knew Apple would be discontinuing, and had run out of stock on as well). But, Apple just arrived in a significant number of countries, though still not as many as Nokia is in. Most of Nokia's advantages in sales so far has been the number of models, and the number of places in which they've been sold.
Sorry, but you're wrong. The N95 has been a huge hit and '$900 without a contract' is irrelevant here as almost nobody buys phones without a SIM, be it contract or PAYG.
And don't say I'm defending the N95 as a nice phone. I personally don't like it, but plenty of people do, especially when it's free. Nokia don't give out sales figures by model but I'd be very surprised if just the N95 or E61 hasn't sold more than the iPhone.
Symbian is stretching down into non-smartphones though like the 6220 midrange candybar - comes with a 5mp camera, flash, HSDPA, GPS. Fab little phone - £250 from Nokia with no contract, Free pretty much anywhere with a contract and pretty cheap PAYG.
What was that quote about skating to where the puck is going to be?
Also, of course, Apple's new model has just begun to sell. It's going to take several quarters before we will see any significent inroads.
Yep, they should do well now they have the price right and it has 3G. It's still a couple of years behind the competition hardware-feature-wise though and even software-wise in some respects.
Assuming that your 20 to 1 number is correct, remember it well. If it shrinks in favor of Apple, moving to 18 to 1, 16 to 1, and lower, then you will HAVE to admit that Apple is doing well, with their one model, against the Nokia build everything and see what sells approach.
I think I'm being conservative personally. How many iPhones sold in the UK prior to the 3G? And how many Symbian phones? Apple deserve to do better now, and it's almost entirely because of pricing, but so far the analysis coming from the US from the Apple press seems to be misguided with respect to market share. There share is coming from a growing US market, not from elsewhere yet.
Sales of smartphones WORLDWIDE grew 16% last quarter over the previous year.
Sales of smartphones in the USA grew 79% in the same period and now accounts for 25% of the world market.
EUROPE was up 29%. Asia/Pacific down 5%, Japan down 24%.
So, in the markets where the iPhone and RIM are popular, there sales went up. In the areas Nokia sell, they more or less cancelled out European growth with downturns elsewhere.
The growth area in smartphones is the USA catching up. It's no wonder Nokia's share slips when they don't sell phones in the USA! The reason they don't sell phones in the USA is complex. On the flipside the reasons RIM and Apple didn't sell here either aren't that complex. Apple have fixed it (pricing and 3G), RIM are getting there too but they're still mostly a niche business toy and we all use SMS here, not email.
As I said back at the start of this thread, the conclusion that the iPhone is the cause of Symbian's downturn is just plain stupid wrong. The interpretation that Nokia meant Apple where the company with aggressive pricing they were not prepared to match is also plain stupid wrong.
My figures are from the Gartner - http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=754112
That's all very nice, but it has nothing to do with it.
Besides I never said that Nokia's falling marketshare was completely due to the iPhone.
Nokia themselves commented on their falling marketshare, and according to them, it's all part of their plan. It has nothing to do with growth rates across the world as you seem to think it does. That should be obvious. Nokia is about everywhere, including here, in the USA. If the growth in the USA's percentage of the worlds smartphones has increased, as it has, so should Nokia's numbers here. Their marketshare overall therefore, should remain steady, but it hasn't.
Its been dropping.
http://www.electronista.com/articles...share.outlook/
They just are losing out
The company also cites a tougher overall market...
You can put that down as meaning, as it always does, more, and better competition.
Sorry, but you're wrong. The N95 has been a huge hit and '$900 without a contract' is irrelevant here as almost nobody buys phones without a SIM, be it contract or PAYG.
And don't say I'm defending the N95 as a nice phone. I personally don't like it, but plenty of people do, especially when it's free. Nokia don't give out sales figures by model but I'd be very surprised if just the N95 or E61 hasn't sold more than the iPhone.
Symbian is stretching down into non-smartphones though like the 6220 midrange candybar - comes with a 5mp camera, flash, HSDPA, GPS. Fab little phone - £250 from Nokia with no contract, Free pretty much anywhere with a contract and pretty cheap PAYG.
Not every area operates as Europe does. Here, and in other areas, these phones have been very expensive, and not very popular.
What was that quote about skating to where the puck is going to be?
It seems that Nokia is losing sight of where the puck is.
Yep, they should do well now they have the price right and it has 3G. It's still a couple of years behind the competition hardware-feature-wise though and even software-wise in some respects.
While you think that these little features are all important, very few people agree with you. Look at the percentage of those who have smartphones there, and understand that a large chunk of them don't have those features, or don't use them. The iPhone competes in the area of about 85% of the market in which those features mean little.
I think I'm being conservative personally. How many iPhones sold in the UK prior to the 3G? And how many Symbian phones? Apple deserve to do better now, and it's almost entirely because of pricing, but so far the analysis coming from the US from the Apple press seems to be misguided with respect to market share. There share is coming from a growing US market, not from elsewhere yet.
You're trying to use facts that don't exist, or are irrelevant. The phones were on sale for a short time in the UK before the 3G came out. If what you keep saying about 3G is true, then they wouldn't have sold vast amounts. You can;t have your argument both ways. But, now we will have to wait a while to see how sales are doing over some extended period to get a real idea of how they will compete.
That's all very nice, but it has nothing to do with it.
It has EVERYTHING to do with it.
Besides I never said that Nokia's falling marketshare was completely due to the iPhone.
So why quote...
http://www.electronista.com/articles...share.outlook/
...at me. That's one of the very pieces I'm talking about.
Not every area operates as Europe does. Here, and in other areas, these phones have been very expensive, and not very popular.
Yes. I said the same thing. Your pricing structures are different to the rest of the world for some reason but I don't think, as the electronista and Daniel's piece extrapolated, that Apple was the company with aggressive pricing in comparison to Nokia. It's clearly not the case outside the USA in Nokia's core markets but if you're American then you might see the world that way.
It seems that Nokia is losing sight of where the puck is.
I don't think so. They've lost their way with Symbian somewhat, fracturing it into S60/UIQ/MOAP but they seem to have a plan there. I don't personally think their S60 interface is good for a smartphone - UIQ is better. S80 was better. They're fixing that. Unfortunately it might end up looking like S60, which would be a shame. Nokia need to ditch their two button interface.
While you think that these little features are all important, very few people agree with you. Look at the percentage of those who have smartphones there, and understand that a large chunk of them don't have those features, or don't use them. The iPhone competes in the area of about 85% of the market in which those features mean little.
The two features I said were important were price and 3G. They've fixed those. The rest are indeed minor features and I'm not denying that. However, when Nokia's midrange non-smartphones are starting off with 5mp cameras with flash, turn based voice assisted GPS and HSDPA tethering, you might just as well get by with a non-smartphone. Apple skated to where the puck was. Symbian skated downmarket. Apple will still sell well though as their phone is now good enough and priced competitively as well as having Apple's marketing behind it. I'll be buying one next month for instance when they add PAYG here, but I'll have to keep another phone handy for mobile data when I'm out the (home)office. I'm also keeping an eye on the netbooks, some of which are capable of running OSX and have expresscard slots.
You're trying to use facts that don't exist, or are irrelevant. The phones were on sale for a short time in the UK before the 3G came out. If what you keep saying about 3G is true, then they wouldn't have sold vast amounts. You can;t have your argument both ways. But, now we will have to wait a while to see how sales are doing over some extended period to get a real idea of how they will compete.
I'm not having it both ways. The previous iPhone was on sale 6 months. It sold dismally until they dropped the price to clear it. The 3G will sell much better because it's not priced stupidly and has 3G. In the meantime they've added the App Store too. That would seem to be the crux of my gripes over the past year with the iPhone. Sure there's minor niggles but it's now good enough (OS 2.1 fixing bugs at least) that I'll bite.
Of course the 3G selling well will be hailed by the Apple fanbois as Nokia losing share rather than validation of what we (in Europe) have been saying for the last year, that the first iPhone was flawed.
It has EVERYTHING to do with it.
Well. no it doesn't. I showed why it doesn't. You're saying that it does doesn't mean anything, because you aren't showing why. The good reasons I gave show that it doesn't. If you want to contradict them with specific reasons of your own, then you're welcome to do so.
So why quote...
http://www.electronista.com/articles...share.outlook/
...at me. That's one of the very pieces I'm talking about.
Because it supports my argument, not yours. In it, though I shouldn't have to say this again, Nokia admits to their falling marketshare, and says why it's happening, according to their dissembling.
Nowhere, do they agree with your contention that its almost solely due to the US market growing so quickly.
Yes. I said the same thing. Your pricing structures are different to the rest of the world for some reason but I don't think, as the electronista and Daniel's piece extrapolated, that Apple was the company with aggressive pricing in comparison to Nokia. It's clearly not the case outside the USA in Nokia's core markets but if you're American then you might see the world that way.
Well, you don't have to agree with his extrapolation, but I would think that he's in a better position than you (or me!) are to evaluate that. It's his business, after all.
I don't think so. They've lost their way with Symbian somewhat, fracturing it into S60/UIQ/MOAP but they seem to have a plan there. I don't personally think their S60 interface is good for a smartphone - UIQ is better. S80 was better. They're fixing that. Unfortunately it might end up looking like S60, which would be a shame. Nokia need to ditch their two button interface.
It's the fracturing of the market that will cause them problems in the end. Developers like to write to a stable, unified marketplace. They have to, somehow, manage to put the same version on all their phones. Otherwise, that lost puck will continue to remain lost.
The two features I said were important were price and 3G. They've fixed those. The rest are indeed minor features and I'm not denying that. However, when Nokia's midrange non-smartphones are starting off with 5mp cameras with flash, turn based voice assisted GPS and HSDPA tethering, you might just as well get by with a non-smartphone. Apple skated to where the puck was. Symbian skated downmarket. Apple will still sell well though as their phone is now good enough and priced competitively as well as having Apple's marketing behind it. I'll be buying one next month for instance when they add PAYG here, but I'll have to keep another phone handy for mobile data when I'm out the (home)office. I'm also keeping an eye on the netbooks, some of which are capable of running OSX and have expresscard slots.
I know I've stated this before, but itbears repeating. In the beginning of a new technology area, there are a lot of specialized little things that make it to market. These are all fixed functions, electrically, and in hardwired software. We saw this way back with the first game machines and toys. The games were hardcoded into the devices. They worked well enough, until one had to upgeade a game. Then you needed a new device.
The phones found around the world that have a bunch of these features are going to become obolete, as their functions are taken over by more generalized devices suchas the iPhone.
Really, mist ofthese specialized functions dont have to be done that way at all. They were bwcause there was no better way at the time, and that has carried over tothe present. But just as general ourpose game machines, and computers have passed the hardwired devices, these 'old tech" phones with the specialized chips and such will also go down the tubes.
It mat not be obvious at first, but it will happen. I can but quite a bit of stuff from my iPhone right now, as well as do banking, etc.
As more iPhones are sold, and it's possible that as many as 35 to 45 million may be sold in 2009 alone, we'll see more services, and little, free, apps coming out for it to take advantage of these products and services.
With Paypal on my phone, I can but anything that is paid for through PayPal, which is becoming more and more popular on web sites. I was at just how popular iy it, when I bought the Ped3 tand for my iPhone the other day. Even my Mac user group has payments through PayPal.
My iPhone can also read the square IPC codes on a product, with a little program, and takes me to the manufacturer's, or store's website, where I can read about it, and sometimes purchase it.
I can buy almost anything online now.
No need for specialized chips.
When Europe moves into more modern areas of commerce this is how it will be done.
I'm not having it both ways. The previous iPhone was on sale 6 months. It sold dismally until they dropped the price to clear it. The 3G will sell much better because it's not priced stupidly and has 3G. In the meantime they've added the App Store too. That would seem to be the crux of my gripes over the past year with the iPhone. Sure there's minor niggles but it's now good enough (OS 2.1 fixing bugs at least) that I'll bite.
Well, you say it needed 3G to sell, and the first one didn't have it. So you can't look at the first models slow sales unless you just put it down to not being right for the market. That doesn't bother me. It didn't actually do THAT badly, but the new one was coming out, and they cleared out the old ones, which people wouldn't buy when they knew it would be replaced soon. I don't know how they thought that introducing a model 6 months before a new one was available would be a great idea is beyond me. That would happen with anything. If they had come out in the UK at the same time they came out here, it would have been different.[/quote]
I didn't buy the first model, as you know, because I was also waiting for 3G and an app store, or whatever process Apple would have to support 3rd party apps, which I kept saying from the beginning that Apple would have.
Of course the 3G selling well will be hailed by the Apple fanbois as Nokia losing share rather than validation of what we (in Europe) have been saying for the last year, that the first iPhone was flawed.
I don't understand why every statement that you don't like has to be attributed to an Apple "fanboi (though I note that you spell it the way I do
But, neither of those statements invalidates the other. I don't know why you think they do.
If the iPhone was flawed from the perspective of not having 3G and third party apps (as it was t me), then it wouldn't be expected to have done too much. That's not even quite true, because it was doing quite well even in the countries in which it was being brought in clandestinely.
But, if those problems are not "fixed", and it's selling much better, why wouldn't that contribute to a lowering of Nokias marketshare? That makes no sense. It would have to.
If Apple is selling a good deal more phones in the countries it was selling few before, and is selling well in countries in which it wasn't selling at all, why wouldn't that contribute to Nokia's losing marketshare. It would have to.
What other phone is now selling around Europe is good numbers that wasn't selling there last year, or the year before?
I'm even sure that RIM is doing better in Europe that it was before, possibly even Windows Mobile phones. Maybe even Palm sold a few more.
Near the end, there was a summary of the smartphone business which I think was very accurate.
On the beginning... Palm owned the handheld platform, but just did not do enough to keep that ownership.
The Window Mobile has frustrated users and partners by advancing too slowly. And Symbian is in a very similar position.
Three relatively lackluster players. Slow progress. But no surprises.
Because all three were equally weak, the opportunity was there for someone to come in and do it better. All of a sudden Rim, Apple and Android have entered the market with much more interesting devices.
It's going to be fun to see how the old guard respond.
C.