Active Topics

 


Page 2 of 2 1 2
Reply
Thread Tools
mrojas's Avatar
mrojas is offline mrojas
2009-09-25 , 08:01
Posts: 733 | Thanked: 991 times | Joined on Dec 2008
#11
Originally Posted by vvaz View Post
This table is so wrong on so many accounts, I will try to cover most important.

1. In 2q08 iPhone sales flatlined completely. Some even predicted end of iPhone but it was everyone waiting for second generation. Also after that quarter Apple product became officially available globally. This sales jump came in most part from international sales. And this also explains why Nokia is lukewarm about US - it is global game. Success at all costs in US isn't so impotrant like still US-centered internet likes to think.
2. All this hype about failing Nokia covers interesting fact. Apple target was 10 million units sold per year while annualized numbers from that table are hinting for 5.6 millions. Oops?
3. How 'smartphones' are counted? With width and breadth of Nokia's offering isn't it possible that middle level phones are becoming 'good enough' to replace previous top of the line (especially in times of crisis)?
The slide in Nokia World showing the combine selling of the 5800 and N97 on 10 millions should have given people a clue. But some are clue-proof.
 
twaelti is offline twaelti
2009-09-25 , 08:35
Posts: 883 | Thanked: 980 times | Joined on Jul 2007 @ Bern, Switzerland
#12
I can give an even better clue: my wife who has no idea whatever about mobile technology wants a new phone. Yesterday, she goes to the local Orange shop. Comes back home all excited and wants to buy a...N97! :-)
 
matthewcc is offline matthewcc
2009-09-25 , 09:29
Posts: 267 | Thanked: 128 times | Joined on Sep 2009 @ Somerville MA - USA
#13
Warning: this is biased to the US market...

The problem is not what Nokias phone are able to do, it is how they are percieved. Nokia is not seen as being innovative. They do a piss poor job of marketing themselves, apple on the other hand does a brilliant job. They are probably the best marketing company other there right now. Somehow they managed to make 'cut and paste' new and innovative.

The US, which for good or bad drives global pop culture, Nokia is regarded as a provider of cheap,low-end, low-function phones with minimal cache. If you want a mid-high end phone from nokia you have to pay multiples of what it costs for a similarly speced HTC, LG, Motorolla, Apple phone.

The well it is unsubsidized argument is dead and stupid to consider in the US. The facts are:
- There is a financial penalty to a consumer who gets an unlocked phone.
- consumers do not know that a subsidized phone may have its functionality castrated, and assume that is just how the device works.

If Nokia refuses to get into bed with US carriers and gather some mindshare they will fail.

People who state that apple does not compete in the business world... well thats changing and quickly. you get all your corporate email on your iphone and you get your salesforce.com etc.
 
SubCore's Avatar
SubCore is offline SubCore
2009-09-25 , 12:41
Posts: 850 | Thanked: 626 times | Joined on Sep 2009 @ Vienna, Austria
#14
Originally Posted by matthewcc View Post
Warning: this is biased to the US market...
no kidding...

The US, which for good or bad drives global pop culture, Nokia is regarded as a provider of cheap,low-end, low-function phones with minimal cache.
sorry to disappoint you, but people outside the US could care less what her pop culture considers "in".

The well it is unsubsidized argument is dead and stupid to consider in the US.
you're blaming the manufacturers for your sh*tty telcom regulations? if nokia would have listened to you, and bowed down before US carriers, there would be no n900.

matter of fact is: the US has one of the world's worst carrier systems. i didn't realize how bad it really is until i started reading this forum regularly. you should stand up and demand better regulations. that would lead to more competition and lower prices, and a weaker carrier-lock-in.

ranting about nokia not willing to give in is just useless and dangerous, because it means you have given up trying to change something where it _really_ matters.
 
matthewcc is offline matthewcc
2009-09-25 , 13:04
Posts: 267 | Thanked: 128 times | Joined on Sep 2009 @ Somerville MA - USA
#15
Originally Posted by SubCore View Post
sorry to disappoint you, but people outside the US could care less what her pop culture considers "in".
Since I split my time between the US (70%) and W. Europe (30%)I would disgree

Originally Posted by SubCore View Post
you're blaming the manufacturers for your sh*tty telcom regulations? if nokia would have listened to you, and bowed down before US carriers, there would be no n900.

matter of fact is: the US has one of the world's worst carrier systems. i didn't realize how bad it really is until i started reading this forum regularly. you should stand up and demand better regulations. that would lead to more competition and lower prices, and a weaker carrier-lock-in.
I think you are wrong on the n900. Explain what you mean?

I don't disagree on the carriers. I have written my local federal reps as well as different telco's. I have demanded and their reaction has been less than fulfilling.

Originally Posted by SubCore View Post
ranting about Nokia not willing to give in is just useless and dangerous, because it means you have given up trying to change something where it _really_ matters.
I dont see the danger any more than asking the telco's to change.

My other option is go with a different hardware provider, which i may end up if the ones I want are either inaccessible or unavailable.
 
icebox's Avatar
icebox is offline icebox
2009-09-25 , 13:10
Posts: 282 | Thanked: 120 times | Joined on Nov 2007
#16
Originally Posted by Soulfarmer View Post
Based on your statement, your market share isn't actually increasing all that fast. Your visitor count increased percentage-wise a great deal.

Same thing with Nokia sold units vs. Apple sold units. Even if either one sold 1 billion units, they would never reach 100% market share (with that amount, would be darn close tho )

People stare too much on percentages, that's what I think.

I could be gravely mistaken, but am I?
That's exactly what I meant.

You could state that my market share increased by 600% of the original 0. And than make a table putting me on top. That's exactly what I wanted to point out: a few million devices as oposed to none is a much bigger growth than a few tens of millions after tens of millions
 
eiffel's Avatar
eiffel is offline eiffel
2009-09-25 , 13:27
Posts: 600 | Thanked: 742 times | Joined on Sep 2008 @ England
#17
Originally Posted by SubCore View Post
... you should stand up and demand better regulations. that would lead to more competition ...
In general, regulations reduce competition. They tend to result in each market player "barely meeting the minimum regulations" rather than differentiating themselves.

The solution is consumer education which leads to consumer empowerment.

Originally Posted by matthewcc
consumers do not know that a subsidized phone may have its functionality castrated ... If Nokia refuses to get into bed with US carriers and gather some mindshare they will fail.
To the extent that Nokia gets into bed with carriers, they just perpetuate the rotten system.

I'd prefer to see Nokia buying advertising time to explain to consumers why buying a locked crippled device is not always the brightest thing to do ("smart people buy unlocked"). The next round of ads could spotlight unlocked Nokia devices (from the cheapest $20 handset to the N900).

Regards,
Roger
 
SubCore's Avatar
SubCore is offline SubCore
2009-09-25 , 13:31
Posts: 850 | Thanked: 626 times | Joined on Sep 2009 @ Vienna, Austria
#18
Originally Posted by matthewcc View Post
Since I split my time between the US (70%) and W. Europe (30%)I would disgree
maybe you're hanging out with the wrong people (j/k)
seriously, i was referring to apple's massive marketing campaigns, which certainly haven't had much effect anywhere outside the US.

I think you are wrong on the n900. Explain what you mean?
If Nokia wanted to please US carriers and make a big hit there, they certainly wouldn't have a mostly open-source OS on their flagship phone. nokia knowingly accepted that carrier subsidisation will be difficult, because they don't want to cripple maemo. and that's A Good Thing.


I dont see the danger any more than asking the telco's to change.
My other option is go with a different hardware provider, which i may end up if the ones I want are either inaccessible or unavailable.
and that's exactly the problem. as long as telcos are under no pressure to change their behaviour (and the only one capable of forcing them is your legislative body), US consumers will continue to buy subsidized and heavily locked down, castrated devices with absurd monthly subscription fees.
 
SubCore's Avatar
SubCore is offline SubCore
2009-09-25 , 13:37
Posts: 850 | Thanked: 626 times | Joined on Sep 2009 @ Vienna, Austria
#19
Originally Posted by eiffel View Post
In general, regulations reduce competition. They tend to result in each market player "barely meeting the minimum regulations" rather than differentiating themselves.
i stronlgy disagree.

it all depends on the actual regulations of course, but to give you an example:
since telcos were forced by austrian law to unlock any device you bought from them, competition has become far more intense, because now they have to price new subsidized phones even more aggressively.

but the most important thing for the US would be to consolidate 3G frequencies. that's IMHO the main reason for the market being so uncompetitive. if every carrier shared the same frequency-bands, customers would have a REAL choice. until then, they don't.
 
Texrat's Avatar
Texrat is offline Texrat
2009-09-25 , 16:30
Posts: 11,700 | Thanked: 10,045 times | Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA
#20
Originally Posted by eiffel View Post
In general, regulations reduce competition. They tend to result in each market player "barely meeting the minimum regulations" rather than differentiating themselves.

The solution is consumer education which leads to consumer empowerment.
I also strongly disagree in this case. US telcos enjoy an extreme protection status not accorded to other industries. Regulation is the ONLY way, in such a scenario, to ensure truly fair competition. Yes, it's ironic and perhaps counterintuitive, but true nonetheless.

And consumer education/empowerment are also pointless given the circumstances.
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
 
Reply
Page 2 of 2 1 2

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:01.

Contact Us - Home - Archive - Top