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

Doesn't it feel good to have some facts behind your arguments? Seriously after all nonsense that you've posted here your only comment is related to something like that.

One of the biggest sins of internet forums is that there's no discussion, just people trying to beat the opposition. Discussion requires interaction where you are allowed to change your mind and admit that you were wrong in some issues.

No hard feelings, this is not meant to be a personal attack. I just have a feeling that you don't stand behind your words and answer only the easy questions.

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

It wasn't and still isn't that important for Nokia. I preferred to search for my own apps anyway. App Stores are never complete, but Apple's has set the bar. I only pointed out that it was an idea Apple copied from Nokia, who got it from the Japanese.

By the way, why use USB when I used to just download and install straight from the browser? Looks like you weren't as wise as most Nokia users. Good thing Apple does all your thinking for you. I've aways called the iPhone the "smartphone for dummies".

Ask Apple. Before the HTC Hero, only S60 devices had this feature. Skyfire brought it to WinMo. Now even the Palm WebOS has it. Why is it taking so long for Apple to catch up?? Please answer this honestly. I can give you a clue. Pure predatory nickle and diming of neophyte consumers. Apple makes a living off of those that don't know any better, like you. Nokia has implemented the features used most, like IM, so we aren't forced to pay $1.99 for it. And hots off to them for it.


I don't see why not? You claim they "invented" this and that, but they didn't. In fact, do some searching, and you'll find Nokia has most of the patents that are the backbone of this industry. They're the real innovators. Apple has profitted from the blood and sweat of Nokia technology, with no compensation for three years! So some of those profits belong to Espoo. It is what it is.

It didn't have any third party application framework in 2007, and wasn't a smartphone at the time it launched. Jobs called it one and the sheep flocked. IMO, no non ultitasking device should be considered a smartphone. For example, what feature or function did the original iPhone have that an upper tier S40 featurephone didn't? I'll tell you this. S40 devices matched the iPhone feature for feature, AND added a framework for installable apps! Were those smartphones, too? Or is it only a smartphone if dumba**es can use it? Because every man, woman, and child could use S40.

ROFL!! The N95 was the first phone termed a superphone. It was one of the best selling smartphones of all time, without counting sales of its candybar version, the N82. These 2 year old, nearly 3 year old, models are still highly coveted and sold today. They remain in the top ten rated smartphones on InfoSync to this day! It's no fun if you run in traffic. At least pose some sort of a defense. Opinions are like...

And by the way. I'm 100% American, born in Louisiana, living in the DFW Metroplex, proud home of the Telecom Corridor. We know a thing or two about mobility and communications, and a large concentration of mobile bloggers and analyst call the area home. (Shout out to Texrat, Darla Mack, Gadget Virtuoso, Symbian Guru, and the rest of the crew!)

I live to engage and expose ill informed chaps like yourself, as you can see in my last post on MF:
http://maemo-freak.com/index.php/tho...yst-are-idiots

Were you of any significance, I'd be roasting you as well, along with your TiPB brethren. But I'll let you make it. I suggest you do alot more studying, learn the industry from a global business perspective, and come back when you're more seasoned. You know a little, but have so much to learn...

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

"Most analysts agree the future is web based apps and services. Where is Apple in these areas? I'll tell you. Setting themselves up for dependence on Google, Ovi, and Microsoft for services, where the real money will be made for decades to come. "

So are you saying that the thousands of developers who currently develop for the app store are going to switch to developing for the Ovi store? I see no shortage of software for the iPhone, but where are they for the N900? Even porting a similar previous version maemo sw is not trivial.

"Apple looks to be repeating this error by focusing on gouging consumers by crippling the browser to force the need for patches/apps to cover up its absence."

This very same gouging is what Nokia does as well. This is the whole point of this thread.

"Apple has a music and media services, but so does everyone else."

Really? And how do they compare to iTunes? Playing some catching up for 2 years and still nowhere?

"They are in the top two spots in every market but the US..."

Which is the reason why the Beatles eventually came to USA to become stars and not to some third world countries to become market leaders there. No real company can underestimate the size of the US market.

"Apple seems to be repeating the same mistakes it did with the desktop. Know your history, and be wise enough to notice when it is repeating itself."

One ironic thing is that Nokia's market share can only decline and Apple's can only go up. The same with the iMac/PC argument. Do you think that Apple investors are stupid to currently have over 150B+ invested in the company if they think that it leads nowhere?

"The evil carriers and acquiescent US consumers are to blame for that, and it is only to our detriment that most of the really powerful smartphonesdon't make it Stateside."

Examples of so smart phones? Even the N95 got here only to be pushed to the sidelines. And N95 is not smart phone as I said before.

"Consumers have always complained about device choices and prices compared to Europe and Asia."

I don't know about that. The N900 costs less in the US than it does in Europe.

"Nokia was unwilling to allow the carriers to cripple their flagship models, and chose to walk away in support of consumers and the Nokia Nseries and Eseries brands."

Typical European arrogance. Had they given more flexibility to carriers here they'd done much better. Ignore the realities of the US market and be marginalized.

"Like F-150, CTS-V, G4, Z28, PSP, PS3, 151, N95, S2000, MR2, GT-R, 760Li, M3, TR-808, etc. You sure are digging a hole here."

Leave the cars out of this. We're talking about phones. Examples of models in the US that go by their model number? N95? Noone knows what it is. We like names like lg chocolate, apple iphone, sony experia and not some weird model number.

"Your POS American made car (I prefer German) made a Navi system able to sync with mobiles, not the other way around."

My POS NA car is a 2009 Toyota Venza, made in the States, fully loaded that is top of the line of its segment. It has no problem connecting to ANY other phone via BT but nokia. It turns out that Nokia BT stack is NOT backwards compatible with earlier versions. Typical Nokia.

" My N95 connected to every bluetooth factory system it ever came across. I'd be willing to bet the issue was with the system and not the device. "

I've had the N95 8GB NAM model. It did not work with my Venza (or Acura TSX). Care to try and report your results?

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

It's true that Apple shares are priced much higher, but that doesn't make it a larger company only higher valued by the stock market.

Also if you look at the numbers they also tell us that now would be a good time to buy Nokia since it's undervalued at the moment (difference to net sales is over 1.5 times higher). It's also not a good moment to buy Apple since their stocks are valued 5 times higher than their net sales (which indicates the actual size of the company best if you only use one indicator). If you bought Apple stocks for example last fall good for you since it's more than doubled in value since then. :)

Nokia is also the 5th most valued brand in the world (after Coca-Cola, IBM, Microsoft and GE) and Apple is number 20.

Stock markets are fickle and can change drasticly over short amounts of time. The higher the company value on the stock market the better of course, but it is often skewed and not very informative in and of itself.

As an addendum for those that dont know net sales is the most defining data when calculating the value of a company not listed in the stock market (after that comes things like possible brand recognition and such).

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

well, counting on market price is not a good argument. you can try researching their true value and tell us who's the biggest. add up with competitive advantage, like global reach, brand name, etc. Apple is surely on it's way high, followed by those wall st analysts who value it very high for *maybe* falsely projected profit.

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

He's not referring to anything about LCD's. He's clearly talking about Apple's use of GSM and other technologies without paying anyone, and using intermediaries to sublicense as a featurephone instead of a smartphone, which normally costs considerably more. How much profiteering would there be if their surplus weren't padded with cash that doesnam belong to them?

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

OrangeBox, I think your dictionary has a problem. 'Smart' is not defined as 'Apple i'

Smartphones existed as a market sector a long time before Apple produced one.

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

christexaport and orangebox, both of you are very convincing. hahah. i take no side, and I just watch who really throws the cleaner facts. but i must admit christexaport does.

even though i know not much about American consumer behavior, what we've known, in our perception, is that Americans are consumptive. that's part of what drives the depreciation of dollars (from what i've read in buffett's comments). that's what drives china to the power. maybe this behavior has been exploited by most of american carrier by providing low initial cost of ownership. it lures people into their consumerism trap by high expense without really know if they needed those plans, or if they really can make more dollar out of their spending. that's what i've thought of.

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

market cap is a paper statistic. A rumor alone could increase or decrease that number. I value Nokia only slightly lower than Apple, based on the applicable nature of its patent catalog, brand recognition, and the industry they are focused on. Apple has a flagging iPod division, a marginal if strong PC business, and the iPhone division, which has vast reserves, but no major service strategy and an App Store profit model that could be easily disrupted once the double edged sword of Symbian^4 and Maemo 6 come to dinner in 11 months.

Palm's market cap has jumped up and down on Nokia merger talk, but in real life, they are a collection of assets. Please believe if anyone wanted iin the mobile business, Nokia is the jewel of the industry. They have the number 5 most recognized brand of any consumer product, the best distribution network, most carrier support worldwide, major contol of two mobile computing platforms, the highest quality catography data company on the face of the earth, an enormous IP portfolio that nearly prevents anyone from building a mobile phone or network without paying them some royalty along the way, extensive media rights agreements in most regions of the globe, a burgeoning netbook position with full carrier support, a strong position in the BRIC markets, where the "next billion" will mostly come from, a growing services arm, and the control of an application and graphics framework to allow it to address 60% of the smartphone market, potentially all of it, and 100% of the desktop and server market.

Can Apple name its assets with such braggadocio? They are entrenched in the desktop market, with the iPhone making app money today, but no long term lockin to services or IP other than multitouch, which has competition from others as well.

Apple is a short term investment. Nokia is a long term growth candidate. I'm no financial analyst, so that total opinion based on what is important to me, but many real analysts in the sector see Nokia as highly undervalued.

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

How about first off all, you learn how to quote people in a forum. Thank you.