Re: Theory 1: only 30% of the cost of the N900 is "real" cost
 

not only that its the labouring costs that make it expensive, for eg i make awards at my work and if they were sold face value i wouldnt get paid and i wouldnt be there in first place.

Its just typical business screw the customer for all its worth as the same guys are going to buy whether $500 or $400

Re: Theory 1: only 30% of the cost of the N900 is "real" cost
 

Just because someone mentions the scale of someone's dominance over it's so-called dominating rival doesn't make them a fanboy. I notice you didn't also post the smartphone market figures. So what basis DO you have to state Apple is "leading" anything other than recent profits? All that means is they do well in the high profit segment of the market. Most other manufacturers market to a far greater market than Apple. So Apple wins in the small high end segment, but fails everywhere else. It's an Audi vs. Toyota argument, and we know which dominates the auto market.

Nokia's handset division also made profits, with nearly $1 billion in profits last report, and with no special treatments in the US to bolster them. Let's revisit this debate again when at&t starts featuring more Symbian devices and implements a branded version of the Ovi Store next year. All it'd take is a healthy subsidy and a Nokia smartphone, or any other OS For that matter, could replace the iPhone as America's favored consumer device. But that's really the Blackberry anyway! All of the iPhone media attention is just PR. Let's talk about that...

I didn't think so. Until Apple dethrones RIM In the US and globally, this is a moot stance you make. You've called the iPhone the leader, the favorite, the best, etc. but none of that is truth. I rebutted with honest irrefutable facts. But I'm the fanboy?? Or is it you who is an iFan? Nothing wrong with that, but at least have some facts to back up your argument or I'll topple your loosely built house of cards. I'm a seasoned former debate team member. Next time be prepared...

I agree. From an experienced smartphone and PC user, my expectations are much higher than the standard of an iPhone. Your standards may be lower. I need more features and productivity over simplicity. Control is more important than looks for me and the majority of smartphone users. Stats don't lie.
I think the N90, N93i, and N97look better. And that's just my opinion, just like your statement is yours. And you're joking on utility, right? That would be Symbian's feature leading crown to lose. No other OS comes close except WinMo, which is just too clunky and stylus focused. But they'll be revamping the UI, too. Then the iPhone is even less unique. A slate form factor devoid of buttons is too common, imo. Market data shows the most favored form tor to actually be the side sliding QWERTY anyway (Maybe that's why the N900 sold so well). I like a portrait sliding T9. The point is there is no everyman device, and nothing will appeal to all. Nokia has wisely decided to appeal to most by diversifying its portfolio.

Only 17% of smartphone users agree, and 1% of all phone buyers. Any data to backup your opinions? Or will you say most people would like an iPhone if they could get one? Because I claim that most icans would choose a Nokia if they could. It'd all be conjecture.

Uh, WinMo and Blackberry lead in that space. BIS/BES is bigger than you imagine. What major services does Apple provide besides its music service, which has rivals in Nokia Music and Amazon? And as for the iPhone "apps" catalog, after games, the second larger genre is...ebooks. That's content, not apps or a service! Get your facts together and try again. I welcome the exchange.

Not even close! The N95x was one of the most groundbreaking devices of the decade, and outsold the iPhone. In fact, the only place where the iPhone outsold the N95 was the nascent Us market, where carriers feared it would negate it's ringtone and navigation services. Were it available, we may have already forgotten what an iPhone was.
Much of that is because of neophytes like you...

Re: Theory 1: only 30% of the cost of the N900 is "real" cost
 

Read that entire post again. I already gave a couple examples

Re: Theory 1: only 30% of the cost of the N900 is "real" cost
 

If you missed my "bold" claim before...

Nokia doesn't need to copy Apple, since most Apple innovations in the phone space were done by Nokia first.
* Nokia had an on device application and service delivery system on its phones long ago. "Download" was ahead of its time, and a precursor to the Ovi Store.
* Nokia almost invented the "desktop view on a mobile", and is still the leader in that space to this day. Most Nokia smartphones and even some featurephones do Flash embedded objects.
* Nokia's 770, the original Maemo device, featured an icon based touch interface years before the iPhone.

Re: Theory 1: only 30% of the cost of the N900 is "real" cost
 

Maybe if you learned the terms first. Market share is not the same as profit (or margin).

Market share tells how many devices of total a company sold. And Nokia is still bigger than the next 2 combined. There's no fanboyism in telling that.

Also comparing the numbers is kind of difficult because most of the iPhones sold are sold with a contract (kind of selling them to AT&T first and getting the money later)

Re: Theory 1: only 30% of the cost of the N900 is "real" cost
 

apple hasn't payed royalities to patent owners and if it has, those have been 2/3 compared to competitors (with subcontracting mindtricks)

Re: Theory 1: only 30% of the cost of the N900 is "real" cost
 

And he claims Apple was the main beneficiary of Nokia's fallen marketshare, but it was RIM that grew more than Apple last quarter! And Android gained a bit as well.

The 5% Nokia lost is a typical swing that sounds large to Apple, since they only have 1% of all devices and 17% of smartphones, but when you're 4000% larger from a devices standpoint and a bit over twice as large from a smartphone position, and you aren't hedged with 39% of your sales in the US, that 5% is miniscule and easily recoverable.

But see what happens to Apple if it begins to lose 5% of its US position. It should happen soon with Nokia entering the US to grow while Android and WinMo are focused on Apple. Nokia will easily pass Palm in the US, and just may give Android something to ponder. Dilution in the US market is slowly happening, and we could feasibly see 3 or 4 OSes garner over 15% of the market.

Re: Theory 1: only 30% of the cost of the N900 is "real" cost
 

"Most other manufacturers market to a far greater market than Apple. So Apple wins in the small high end segment, but fails everywhere else. It's an Audi vs. Toyota argument, and we know which dominates the auto market."

Yes, do one thing and do it well. It is called specialization. Seems to make tons of $$$ for Apple.

Your argument about market dominance is flawed. GM dominated the car sector. Look where it took them. It doesn't matter who dominates. Apple sold 1/100th (1%) of the total number of devices then Nokia did last year. With those 1% they made money while Nokia lost. It is PROFITABILITY that matters and not dominance. Nokia will soon realize that it can't be everywhere for everyone. It'd better pick a nieche market (like the N900 users) and market the hell out of it. That's what Apple did with the iPhone and it made them superstars.

In North America Nokia is considered...well...nothing. People still remember the cheap Nokia devices of the 90s. Noone I know here owns a Nokia (beside me). And I know a quite a few people. Again, Nokia needs to focus on North America. And I don't mean having a flagship store in NYC. It is making deals with operators, like Apple did. Listen to what NA users want.

Also, you can't sell anything with a name like 'N900' in NA. Simple fact of life.

Someone in this thread posted an argument about the N95 being a good phone. That's what I've had just until recently. And guess what. That was the only phone that I could not synch with my car nav, because Nokia gives sh.t about NA made cars. Its BT stack is horrendous. I was the target of laughs with my $700 N95 that couldn't synch with my car while the cheapest Motorola, BB pearl, Sony-ericcsons could.

Re: Theory 1: only 30% of the cost of the N900 is "real" cost
 

"Nokia had an on device application and service delivery system on its phones long ago. "Download" was ahead of its time, and a precursor to the Ovi Store."

And it was NOTHING compared to the App store. Not even close. It was a totally cheap user experience. How many people used it vs. directly downloading stuff from getjar and copying it over via USB? Also, it had nothing to do with the whole app ecosystem. What Apple did was to create an end-to-end solution where developers, marketeers and users all benefit from the app store.


"Nokia almost invented the "desktop view on a mobile", and is still the leader in that space to this day. Most Nokia smartphones and even some featurephones do Flash embedded objects."

I give you this one, although what is to invent about using a browser that supports flash? Could the iPhone not do it? Is it not just a licensing issue?


"Nokia's 770, the original Maemo device, featured an icon based touch interface years before the iPhone. "

This is not a fair comparison. Apple iPhone came about in 2007. Anything before that (i.e. the invention of the transistor) can be credited to someone else obviously. What apple brought to the masses is the smartphone, however want to define it. Before the iPhone there were no smartphones. And no, the N95 is not a smartphone. It is a phone with great features but is missing the "smart" part. For most people smartphone means that the phone is smart and not the user. It is to make users' lives easier.That's why the iPhone is a success here, because as you Europeans like to say "Americans are dumb".

This is the same analogy as driving a standard vs. automatic. Most Europeans drive standard while Americans drive automatic. We value our convenience.

My 2 cents.

Re: Theory 1: only 30% of the cost of the N900 is "real" cost
 

"apple hasn't payed royalities to patent owners and if it has, those have been 2/3 compared to competitors (with subcontracting mindtricks) "

Ah, yes I guess you refer to Nokia recently suing Apple for 10 infringed patents in GSM technology? Or Nokia suing the LCD makers for price fixing?

Do some googling and discover who sued Nokia for what and how much money Nokia ended up paying.