rim nokia, ms, fighting for number 2---no i'm sorry #3
how long did it take to fall from grace?
It's a sad story for Nokia. I've said for almost three years that Nokia could slide way down if they didn't understand their problems and fix them. The problem for them has been evident in the way their supporters here stated why Nokia would remain on top. The people running Nokia stated the same things into the middle of last year. The Apple iPhone is a boutique product, they were saying, and we have nothing to worry about from there. As for Android, they didn't say much more. They considered Symbian to be a modern OS and just as good as anything out there, and even better in some regards. I'm sure there are people here who remember our arguments.
The problem for Nokia is that they've now made another bad decision in going solely with WP7 for the future. This is resulting in rapidly shrinking sales increases of Symbian smartphones, which is all they will have until early 2012, or possibly, late 2011. We saw that this quarter.
What they should have done, was to not describe their platform as burning, but rather just stated that they would be adding WP7 to the mix. Then, although it would cost them more, they would have reassured their Symbian customers, of whom they have a lot. If WP7 phones took off in 2012, they then could have increased their number while decreasing Symbian phone models in a smooth fashion. If WP7 didn't take off, they wouldn't have killed their Symbian line, and many of their customers. They then could have begun to add Android phones.
I don't see the estimates of WP7 phone sales for them as being realistic. They bombed here, why should anyone believe they will do so well there? There just seems to be an assumption they will because Nokia says they will. We see too much of this lazy analysis, where writers take company predictions and use them as they were real numbers. They're not!
There was a time when no one would have though that Motorola could have been knocked off its perch, but they were. Nokia is going the same way.
Guys, please, when someone has an obvious spam link as their sig, or in the post itself, don't include it in your replies, because I then have to try to find every one and edit it out of the post.
Please go over your posts and delete it for me. Thanks.
Geez! I see good things for the MS/Nokia deal and like WP7, yet I don’t think that will happen.
Well ya know Soli, I've been with ya on this "good things" prediction as well... but I actually do think that Nokia/WinMo 8 could overtake Apple around 2013.
My reasoning is that Nokia is so prevalent in the rest of the world, and beats Apple hands down already outside of North America.
And if you've followed my other posts, I don't see Google continuing to develop Android further than next year, and RIM will be long gone... so what's left? Yup. MS. It could be argued that Nokia wont be in that constellation as being tops, but I'll wager that Microsoft sure will be.
And please... no I'm not a troll... and I really, really do not like, nor am a fan of MS!!! However, you can't deny that they are the only company that can compete in the future at Apple's scale. Whether they are able to do everything they want to with Ball-Mer at the helm, is another discussion
It's a sad story for Nokia. I've said for almost three years that Nokia could slide way down if they didn't understand their problems and fix them. The problem for them has been evident in the way their supporters here stated why Nokia would remain on top. The people running Nokia stated the same things into the middle of last year. The Apple iPhone is a boutique product, they were saying, and we have nothing to worry about from there. As for Android, they didn't say much more. They considered Symbian to be a modern OS and just as good as anything out there, and even better in some regards. I'm sure there are people here who remember our arguments.
The problem for Nokia is that they've now made another bad decision in going solely with WP7 for the future. This is resulting in rapidly shrinking sales increases of Symbian smartphones, which is all they will have until early 2012, or possibly, late 2011. We saw that this quarter.
What they should have done, was to not describe their platform as burning, but rather just stated that they would be adding WP7 to the mix. Then, although it would cost them more, they would have reassured their Symbian customers, of whom they have a lot. If WP7 phones took off in 2012, they then could have increased their number while decreasing Symbian phone models in a smooth fashion. If WP7 didn't take off, they wouldn't have killed their Symbian line, and many of their customers. They then could have begun to add Android phones.
I don't see the estimates of WP7 phone sales for them as being realistic. They bombed here, why should anyone believe they will do so well there? There just seems to be an assumption they will because Nokia says they will. We see too much of this lazy analysis, where writers take company predictions and use them as they were real numbers. They're not!
There was a time when no one would have though that Motorola could have been knocked off its perch, but they were. Nokia is going the same way.
I can agree with everything you stated... that's why my outlook is for WP8 and 2013. Although yes, I have my doubts about Nokia being in the mix... MS will be there.
Once MS has their own enterprise-based eco-system re: Office apps coupled with Live services, working smoothly between all Win-based platforms... it will be a juggernaut again.
And once again... I am NOT an MS fan... just a realist.
When the iPhone was first launched before Android became available, it was many Nokia fans decrying how Nokia phones were already ahead of the iPhone, and that the iPhone would never be accepted in Europe.
None of those people are around any more.
They were right, the iPhone received major changes by Apple before it really took off in Europe.
Of course all the Apple haters will only look at the numbers sold.
oh course, there are two ways to look at this, from a shareholders point of view, the financials are important, from a consumers point of view you are being massively over charged.
oh course, there are two ways to look at this, from a shareholders point of view, the financials are important, from a consumers point of view you are being massively over charged.
How were they right if the iPhone actually took off in Europe?
Because the iPhone that took off in Europe isn't the one that was commented on. It has evolved since then, different hardware, different OS, it isn't the same phone.
If someone sells less units, but makes more money, then from a consumers point of view you are being overcharged for the item. From the shareholders point of view they are doing a great job. Two different perspectives of the same result.
If someone sells less units, but makes more money, then from a consumers point of view you are being overcharged for the item. From the shareholders point of view they are doing a great job. Two different perspectives of the same result.
Well those consumers must be silly if they aren't aware that Nokia sells a lot of lower cost smartphones along with their high-end ones. Doesn't that dilute the ASP of Nokia's phones? The ones that believe that Apple's "massively overcharging" for their phones simply because they generate more revenue with a lower number of units sold can't be serious with their thoughts.
Because the iPhone that took off in Europe isn't the one that was commented on. It has evolved since then, different hardware, different OS, it isn't the same phone.
If someone sells less units, but makes more money, then from a consumers point of view you are being overcharged for the item. From the shareholders point of view they are doing a great job. Two different perspectives of the same result.
That is true only if the more expensive units in question are of equal (or less) value. The market value of an item does not necessarily scale simply with the manufacturing cost. In this case the consumers buying iPhones presumably regard them as more valuable, and are willing to pay more. Those who think they are overpriced won't buy them (mostly).
So......if two units perform the same basic function they should cost the same? The only reason one should cost more than the other is because the customer is being over charged?
You really want to go with that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Are you being serious with this comment?
If someone sells less units, but makes more money, then from a consumers point of view you are being overcharged for the item. From the shareholders point of view they are doing a great job. Two different perspectives of the same result.
So......if two units perform the same basic function they should cost the same? The only reason one should cost more than the other is because the customer is being over charged?
You really want to go with that?
Yeah I do. If you are willing to pay the price, then fine I don't care about that. Personally I look at a number of factors before purchasing things, obviously you don't share the same thoughts when it comes to purchasing items.
But getting back to where I was going, from a consumers view, if one company is selling x units, and making y, and another is selling less than x, and making more than y, then it is pretty obvious is making a lot more money per unit than the first one, so charging more.
Well those consumers must be silly if they aren't aware that Nokia sells a lot of lower cost smartphones along with their high-end ones. Doesn't that dilute the ASP of Nokia's phones? The ones that believe that Apple's "massively overcharging" for their phones simply because they generate more revenue with a lower number of units sold can't be serious with their thoughts.
What consumer cares about ASP? Like I said, there are two viewpoints.
What consumer cares about ASP? Like I said, there are two viewpoints.
I actually don't think they care about that. In fact, I think the consumers are smart enough to see that low priced Nokia phones aren't in the same league as an iPhone - that's another viewpoint.
Yeah I do. If you are willing to pay the price, then fine I don't care about that. Personally I look at a number of factors before purchasing things, obviously you don't share the same thoughts when it comes to purchasing items.
But getting back to where I was going, from a consumers view, if one company is selling x units, and making y, and another is selling less than x, and making more than y, then it is pretty obvious is making a lot more money per unit than the first one, so charging more.
So just to be clear on this - you are arguing that all smartphones should be the same price? If so, how far would you extend that principle? Should all cars be the same price? All TVs? I think I'm missing something in your reasoning.
So just to be clear on this - you are arguing that all smartphones should be the same price? If so, how far would you extend that principle? Should all cars be the same price? All TVs? I think I'm missing something in your reasoning.
Sounds like he?s saying he judges the value of a product to his needs based on a company?s efficiency at doing business.
Comments
foget the numbers
would you rather be apple or nokia
stock of apple or nokia
employee of apple or nokia
the next 3 years apple or ms-nokia
rim nokia, ms, fighting for number 2---no i'm sorry #3
how long did it take to fall from grace?
It's a sad story for Nokia. I've said for almost three years that Nokia could slide way down if they didn't understand their problems and fix them. The problem for them has been evident in the way their supporters here stated why Nokia would remain on top. The people running Nokia stated the same things into the middle of last year. The Apple iPhone is a boutique product, they were saying, and we have nothing to worry about from there. As for Android, they didn't say much more. They considered Symbian to be a modern OS and just as good as anything out there, and even better in some regards. I'm sure there are people here who remember our arguments.
The problem for Nokia is that they've now made another bad decision in going solely with WP7 for the future. This is resulting in rapidly shrinking sales increases of Symbian smartphones, which is all they will have until early 2012, or possibly, late 2011. We saw that this quarter.
What they should have done, was to not describe their platform as burning, but rather just stated that they would be adding WP7 to the mix. Then, although it would cost them more, they would have reassured their Symbian customers, of whom they have a lot. If WP7 phones took off in 2012, they then could have increased their number while decreasing Symbian phone models in a smooth fashion. If WP7 didn't take off, they wouldn't have killed their Symbian line, and many of their customers. They then could have begun to add Android phones.
I don't see the estimates of WP7 phone sales for them as being realistic. They bombed here, why should anyone believe they will do so well there? There just seems to be an assumption they will because Nokia says they will. We see too much of this lazy analysis, where writers take company predictions and use them as they were real numbers. They're not!
There was a time when no one would have though that Motorola could have been knocked off its perch, but they were. Nokia is going the same way.
Guys, please, when someone has an obvious spam link as their sig, or in the post itself, don't include it in your replies, because I then have to try to find every one and edit it out of the post.
Please go over your posts and delete it for me. Thanks.
for zipping around and doing the clean-up dude!
Geez! I see good things for the MS/Nokia deal and like WP7, yet I don’t think that will happen.
Well ya know Soli, I've been with ya on this "good things" prediction as well... but I actually do think that Nokia/WinMo 8 could overtake Apple around 2013.
My reasoning is that Nokia is so prevalent in the rest of the world, and beats Apple hands down already outside of North America.
And if you've followed my other posts, I don't see Google continuing to develop Android further than next year, and RIM will be long gone... so what's left? Yup. MS. It could be argued that Nokia wont be in that constellation as being tops, but I'll wager that Microsoft sure will be.
And please... no I'm not a troll... and I really, really do not like, nor am a fan of MS!!! However, you can't deny that they are the only company that can compete in the future at Apple's scale. Whether they are able to do everything they want to with Ball-Mer at the helm, is another discussion
It's a sad story for Nokia. I've said for almost three years that Nokia could slide way down if they didn't understand their problems and fix them. The problem for them has been evident in the way their supporters here stated why Nokia would remain on top. The people running Nokia stated the same things into the middle of last year. The Apple iPhone is a boutique product, they were saying, and we have nothing to worry about from there. As for Android, they didn't say much more. They considered Symbian to be a modern OS and just as good as anything out there, and even better in some regards. I'm sure there are people here who remember our arguments.
The problem for Nokia is that they've now made another bad decision in going solely with WP7 for the future. This is resulting in rapidly shrinking sales increases of Symbian smartphones, which is all they will have until early 2012, or possibly, late 2011. We saw that this quarter.
What they should have done, was to not describe their platform as burning, but rather just stated that they would be adding WP7 to the mix. Then, although it would cost them more, they would have reassured their Symbian customers, of whom they have a lot. If WP7 phones took off in 2012, they then could have increased their number while decreasing Symbian phone models in a smooth fashion. If WP7 didn't take off, they wouldn't have killed their Symbian line, and many of their customers. They then could have begun to add Android phones.
I don't see the estimates of WP7 phone sales for them as being realistic. They bombed here, why should anyone believe they will do so well there? There just seems to be an assumption they will because Nokia says they will. We see too much of this lazy analysis, where writers take company predictions and use them as they were real numbers. They're not!
There was a time when no one would have though that Motorola could have been knocked off its perch, but they were. Nokia is going the same way.
I can agree with everything you stated... that's why my outlook is for WP8 and 2013. Although yes, I have my doubts about Nokia being in the mix... MS will be there.
Once MS has their own enterprise-based eco-system re: Office apps coupled with Live services, working smoothly between all Win-based platforms... it will be a juggernaut again.
And once again... I am NOT an MS fan... just a realist.
When the iPhone was first launched before Android became available, it was many Nokia fans decrying how Nokia phones were already ahead of the iPhone, and that the iPhone would never be accepted in Europe.
None of those people are around any more.
They were right, the iPhone received major changes by Apple before it really took off in Europe.
Of course all the Apple haters will only look at the numbers sold.
oh course, there are two ways to look at this, from a shareholders point of view, the financials are important, from a consumers point of view you are being massively over charged.
oh course, there are two ways to look at this, from a shareholders point of view, the financials are important, from a consumers point of view you are being massively over charged.
Massively overcharged for what?
They were right, the iPhone received major changes by Apple before it really took off in Europe.
How were they right if the iPhone actually took off in Europe?
How were they right if the iPhone actually took off in Europe?
Because the iPhone that took off in Europe isn't the one that was commented on. It has evolved since then, different hardware, different OS, it isn't the same phone.
Massively overcharged for what?
Are you being serious with this comment?
If someone sells less units, but makes more money, then from a consumers point of view you are being overcharged for the item. From the shareholders point of view they are doing a great job. Two different perspectives of the same result.
Are you being serious with this comment?
If someone sells less units, but makes more money, then from a consumers point of view you are being overcharged for the item. From the shareholders point of view they are doing a great job. Two different perspectives of the same result.
Well those consumers must be silly if they aren't aware that Nokia sells a lot of lower cost smartphones along with their high-end ones. Doesn't that dilute the ASP of Nokia's phones? The ones that believe that Apple's "massively overcharging" for their phones simply because they generate more revenue with a lower number of units sold can't be serious with their thoughts.
Because the iPhone that took off in Europe isn't the one that was commented on. It has evolved since then, different hardware, different OS, it isn't the same phone.
I see.
Are you being serious with this comment?
If someone sells less units, but makes more money, then from a consumers point of view you are being overcharged for the item. From the shareholders point of view they are doing a great job. Two different perspectives of the same result.
That is true only if the more expensive units in question are of equal (or less) value. The market value of an item does not necessarily scale simply with the manufacturing cost. In this case the consumers buying iPhones presumably regard them as more valuable, and are willing to pay more. Those who think they are overpriced won't buy them (mostly).
You really want to go with that?
Are you being serious with this comment?
If someone sells less units, but makes more money, then from a consumers point of view you are being overcharged for the item. From the shareholders point of view they are doing a great job. Two different perspectives of the same result.
So......if two units perform the same basic function they should cost the same? The only reason one should cost more than the other is because the customer is being over charged?
You really want to go with that?
Yeah I do. If you are willing to pay the price, then fine I don't care about that. Personally I look at a number of factors before purchasing things, obviously you don't share the same thoughts when it comes to purchasing items.
But getting back to where I was going, from a consumers view, if one company is selling x units, and making y, and another is selling less than x, and making more than y, then it is pretty obvious is making a lot more money per unit than the first one, so charging more.
Well those consumers must be silly if they aren't aware that Nokia sells a lot of lower cost smartphones along with their high-end ones. Doesn't that dilute the ASP of Nokia's phones? The ones that believe that Apple's "massively overcharging" for their phones simply because they generate more revenue with a lower number of units sold can't be serious with their thoughts.
What consumer cares about ASP? Like I said, there are two viewpoints.
What consumer cares about ASP? Like I said, there are two viewpoints.
I actually don't think they care about that. In fact, I think the consumers are smart enough to see that low priced Nokia phones aren't in the same league as an iPhone - that's another viewpoint.
Yeah I do. If you are willing to pay the price, then fine I don't care about that. Personally I look at a number of factors before purchasing things, obviously you don't share the same thoughts when it comes to purchasing items.
But getting back to where I was going, from a consumers view, if one company is selling x units, and making y, and another is selling less than x, and making more than y, then it is pretty obvious is making a lot more money per unit than the first one, so charging more.
So just to be clear on this - you are arguing that all smartphones should be the same price? If so, how far would you extend that principle? Should all cars be the same price? All TVs? I think I'm missing something in your reasoning.
So just to be clear on this - you are arguing that all smartphones should be the same price? If so, how far would you extend that principle? Should all cars be the same price? All TVs? I think I'm missing something in your reasoning.
Sounds like he?s saying he judges the value of a product to his needs based on a company?s efficiency at doing business.