10-14-2012 09:59 PM
48 12
tools
  1. Villain's Avatar
    not going into a lot of detail but people never ever stop and read to actually see what Nokia gained by going with MS... do you really think Nokia just gave/gives Microsoft features/apps/maps etc for free for all windows phone devices? not to mention nokia maps are built into bing itself and ms's adcenter etc

    and the Android argument lol only one doing great with Android is samsung lol
    10-12-2012 02:03 AM
  2. mmacleodbrown's Avatar
    If Nokia are going to compete, then they need to have a unique proposition and Android isn't it.
    Whilst Samsung has done well, there are major issues with the fragmentation of Android and carrier based upgrades which google have now been forced to address by increasing their Nexus line.
    By backing MS, Nokia have have the chance to become a major player in a new ecosystem, rather than just another bit part manufacturer.
    For those who are concerned about lack of sales, that is more down to MS than Nokia as there are a whole load of Android/IOS users who consider WP7.xxx as a complete non starter for a phone OS. Too many compromises and not enough capability yet - count me in that camp.
    The 920 could have come out with WP7.xx on it and I wouldn't have touched it, but Win8/WP8 are the game changers here..
    I fully expect Nokias position to gradually improve. As for exclusivity, as a non US resident, Im lucky that I don't care - and I don't think that Nokia should be too bothered until the whole US mobile network has grown up. If Nokia can shift enough 920's and 820's in Europe and Asia, then the US doesn't matter so much. Nokia did get to number 1 without the US market, they can do so again and then concentrate stateside once the carriers have evolved into services that are about providing connectivity for users rather than fleecing them
    It wasn't until I found here and started researching the US telco market that I realised just how bad it is over there - I feel for you guys...
    10-12-2012 03:25 AM
  3. gpatrick15's Avatar
    If Nokia are going to compete, then they need to have a unique proposition and Android isn't it.
    Whilst Samsung has done well, there are major issues with the fragmentation of Android and carrier based upgrades which google have now been forced to address by increasing their Nexus line.
    By backing MS, Nokia have have the chance to become a major player in a new ecosystem, rather than just another bit part manufacturer.
    For those who are concerned about lack of sales, that is more down to MS than Nokia as there are a whole load of Android/IOS users who consider WP7.xxx as a complete non starter for a phone OS. Too many compromises and not enough capability yet - count me in that camp.
    The 920 could have come out with WP7.xx on it and I wouldn't have touched it, but Win8/WP8 are the game changers here..
    I fully expect Nokias position to gradually improve. As for exclusivity, as a non US resident, Im lucky that I don't care - and I don't think that Nokia should be too bothered until the whole US mobile network has grown up. If Nokia can shift enough 920's and 820's in Europe and Asia, then the US doesn't matter so much. Nokia did get to number 1 without the US market, they can do so again and then concentrate stateside once the carriers have evolved into services that are about providing connectivity for users rather than fleecing them
    It wasn't until I found here and started researching the US telco market that I realised just how bad it is over there - I feel for you guys...
    Nokia got to numer 1 worldwide on the backs of S40 handsets and S60 smartphones, back when Symbian was the most popular OS in the world. Those glory days are long gone. Symbian, Blackberry, and PalmOs lost traction the day the iPhone was announced. Android played catchup from day 1, but, since the OS was essentially free to any OEM to use it, it was a clear choice for all of these OEMs looking for new strategies after Microsoft screwed the pooch with Windows Mobile. Nokia can compete on hardware quality but they are no longer a household name. Walk into any carrier store and Windows Phone is overshadowed by Androids and iPhones. Recently, with the announcement of WP8 and the Lumia handsets, I have have started to look into Windows Phone since it is beginning to be a viable option. To the general public, it';; be hard to convince, especially with the glaring lack of apps compared to the other major players. Being an Android early adopter, I don't think I could go back to waiting on apps to come to my platform after being on the market leaders device for months, sometimes a year or more. That would be a significant entry barrier for many consumers.
    10-12-2012 07:42 AM
  4. snowmutt's Avatar
    Rewriting history does not actually change it.

    There have been great rebuttals and defenses of Mr. Elop's decisions in this thread. But what those who refuse to give him credit fail to do is really look at the infrastructure of Nokia before him. Why does anyone think he got the job? Nokia was bloated, top heavy, uninspired, and in competition with itself. The R&D costs for developing Symbian, MeeGo, and MeaMo devices were outrageous and getting larger. Infighting was the common, with all these factions fighting for dollars and attention. The cost per phone was OUTRAGEOUS and profits were paying more to the levels of repetitiveness then anywhere else.

    Mr. Elop walked into this. I agree with 2 mistakes he made which may end up his undoing:

    1) Killing Symbian development before WP caught on. Rest assured, I feel (bias admitted) that WP devices are the future and the best chance for Nokia. But not keeping a line or two of Symbian phones in development until the WP line took off was short sighted. Keeping those sales going would have kept investors happy.

    2) His PR ability leaves a little to be desired. (Slight understatement.)

    But, by doing what he did (he also looked at Android and BB07 before deciding on WP, a fact lost on a lot of nay-Sayers) he cut the HUGE, profit killing R&D down to a portion of what it was, allowed Microsoft to help absorb the transition cost, made Nokia a hardware first company, and will make MORE PROFITS PER HANDSET THEN EVER. Nokia could sell less devices but turn greater profit. That will make investors happy in a hurry.

    Yes, WP8 needs to sell. But even if they don't, Nokia is through it's restructuring and the next CEO will walk into a lean company prepared to compete.

    I still believe in them. I intend to support them. We all as WP fans should be cheering for them.
    10-12-2012 08:39 AM
  5. mmacleodbrown's Avatar
    Recently, with the announcement of WP8 and the Lumia handsets, I have have started to look into Windows Phone since it is beginning to be a viable option. To the general public, it';; be hard to convince, especially with the glaring lack of apps compared to the other major players.
    And this is the key point. WP7.xx handsets will not sell as the OS (despite being well designed) is a crock of ****. I work in IT, and I wouldn't touch a 7.xx handset not even if it was free.
    However W8 will sell, and the more people who get a surface the better as it might take a while, but if the surface is as good as they say it is, then it will make sense for them to get a WP8 phone.
    Im not saying that it will be immediate, but Im betting that there will be alot of tablet owners who 6-12 months later end up on a WP phone becuase switching between ecosystems on their phone will become a right pain.

    Lets face it, how many people do we know who are thinking of this? More than there were six months ago...
    10-12-2012 08:56 AM
  6. socialcarpet's Avatar
    The highlighted part isn't entirely true. You (and Elop) allege that Android doesn't allow Nokia to stand out, but that hasn't prevented the top Android OEM's from showing differentiation in their apporach. They have been bastardizing Android for nearly as long as they have been out, and each major product line offers something different. And with the right features and benefits, Nokia could have stood out. People are quick to mention the slew of cheap android devices from Asian manufacturers and what not, but look at the sales. People buy the top end devices. The Galaxy S3 is T-Mobiles all time best selling device, yet they offer more cheap, low end android phones than any other national carrier. Every carrier has a slew of low end devices by Huawei and ZTE, etc, but nobody buys them because, for $99 on contract, you can get yourself a capable device from a reputable OEM. Nokia uses Windows Phone as their software. And their Windows Phone is nearly the same as HTC's Windows phone, minus a few Nokia specific apps. So what's the differentiator there? Nokia could have dropped Google Maps in favor of their own if they wanted to. They could have implemented pureview camera technology. Every thing that Nokia has over the other Windows Phone OEM's could have been offered on Android, If anything, Android offers Nokia an even bigger canvas to differentiate itself from the Samsungs, Motorolas, and HTCs of the world. They could have made their own device without Google even interfering.
    Yet another bastardized, skinned Android phone. Just what the world needed.

    If Nokia had done that, I'd probably be using an iPhone now and so would a lot of other people.
    10-12-2012 09:15 AM
  7. socialcarpet's Avatar
    You made some excellent points, most of which I agreed with. Let me ask you this, though: Samsung has ~80% of the android market. But wouldn't you buy a Lumia android phone, knowing that Nokia has a history of high quality hardware and software finely tuned to the hardware it runs on? In Nokia's heydey (in the US, at least), they had some of the best hardware around. I think if they made a high end Lumia android device, it would beat out a comparable samsung phone overall because they hold themselves to a higher standard of quality. The build quality would be better. Their camera tech is miles ahead. Samsung has great screens, so they may get an edge there. But, as far as overall package goes, wouldn't you buy one?
    I would not EVER buy another phone with an Android OS on it. I don't care if Nokia made it or not. The nicest hardware in the world does not make up for an ugly, cobbled together resource hungry OS with a fractured ecosystem. Android is pure crap.
    10-12-2012 09:18 AM
  8. socialcarpet's Avatar

    1) Killing Symbian development before WP caught on. Rest assured, I feel (bias admitted) that WP devices are the future and the best chance for Nokia. But not keeping a line or two of Symbian phones in development until the WP line took off was short sighted. Keeping those sales going would have kept investors happy.
    They haven't actually "killed" Symbian. They've just outsourced it to Accenture and Nokia is still selling a ton of Symbian phones. If you go to Nokia's Finland site, or it's sites for other countries, you'll still see several Symbian models there.

    I think Elop did the right thing. It was painful for the company and maybe the shareholders in the short run, but allowing Symbian to have even a little of the spotlight for one minute more would be stealing attention and resources from Lumia and that is something Nokia could not afford.

    The Pureview 808 was Symbian's swan song. Kiss it goodbye.
    10-12-2012 09:26 AM
  9. gpatrick15's Avatar
    I would not EVER buy another phone with an Android OS on it. I don't care if Nokia made it or not. The nicest hardware in the world does not make up for an ugly, cobbled together resource hungry OS with a fractured ecosystem. Android is pure crap.
    I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. If Android was such a piece of crap people would have jumped off the bandwagon by now. And I know, argumentum ad populum and all, but clearly Google is doing something right with their OS. I don't agree with skins on android phones either, which is why I strictly buy Nexus phones. You can't tell me that stock ICS and Jellybean is a piece of crap, then you'd lose all credibility. You don't have to buy it, but there are millions right behind you who will. People also said that Windows Phone's are pieces of crap, which of course isn't true either. Different strokes for different folks.
    10-12-2012 09:31 AM
  10. tissotti's Avatar
    How Stephen Elop Destroyed Nokia - Seeking Alpha

    Reading this article and looking at his choiced method of marketing new Lumia phones, you can't help but to be concerned about Nokia's future. L920 is a great phone and it should be sold well by those carriers with exclusivity deal. But Steve Elop chose to restrict the distributions and that in fact is making sure not everybody can't get one. On the otherhand, it is really doubtful that L820/810/822 can achieve any appreciable sales facing the more competitive HTC 8x and Samsung Ativ S in all carriers. Without Preview camera, there is basically no major differentiator. The global overall sales of the new Lumia phones may be way below Nokia's expectation. This is last chance for Nokia to make a comeback. Is Steve Elop blowing it again?

    Honestly. Nokia Lumia 920 is not available via Verizon and T-Mobile. In UK it will be exclusive to EE, but it also has behind it the UK's first 4G network.
    Some times this USA centric view here is a bit too glaring.


    Why aren't people making these threads about HTC not getting a single Windows Phone to China Mobile with 650 million subs? That's the world largest seller of smartphones in the world, in a country that is world largest smartphone market and Windows Phones largest market.

    Lumia 920 will still be available 95% of the world where exclusive carrier deals don't even exists. Same goes for Lumia 820.

    They haven't actually "killed" Symbian. They've just outsourced it to Accenture and Nokia is still selling a ton of Symbian phones.
    Well they did literally kill Symbian the day Windows Phone deal was announced. They announced Symbian was going to be killed, they didn't even say that for Qt/MeeGo. Symbian sales actually dropped 20% in that quarter. Nokia was still selling 22 million Symbian phones back then.

    That to me is easily Elop's mistake and something he has almost admitted saying he might have done things differently. Windows Phone 7.x was not ready, it doesn't need a rocket science to see that Nokia would have been better without WP on that stage.

    And anyways Elop is just piece of a puzzle that is Nokia. Board of directors decide strategy inside public company. Board of directors can choose CEO to carry out the strategy.
    Last edited by tissotti; 10-12-2012 at 06:33 PM.
    snowmutt likes this.
    10-12-2012 11:51 AM
  11. socialcarpet's Avatar
    I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. If Android was such a piece of crap people would have jumped off the bandwagon by now. And I know, argumentum ad populum and all, but clearly Google is doing something right with their OS. I don't agree with skins on android phones either, which is why I strictly buy Nexus phones. You can't tell me that stock ICS and Jellybean is a piece of crap, then you'd lose all credibility. You don't have to buy it, but there are millions right behind you who will. People also said that Windows Phone's are pieces of crap, which of course isn't true either. Different strokes for different folks.
    I've never used Jellybean. It might be wonderful.

    My experience was with Gingerbread and Honeycomb and both left me unimpressed to put it mildly. I appreciate that Google has finally decided to focus more on the quality of the end user experience as a whole a little more, instead of just piling on features no one ever asked for and hoping for the best.

    Still, the openness that some people love about Android, is what i don't like about it. I want a consistent UI and I want apps that adhere to it. Android is off the reservation when it comes to both and my experience with it has really soured that whole ecosystem for me. I just like Windows Phone so much more. It does everything right that Android does wrong IMO.

    As for the masses using Android phones, I'd argue most of them have them because they think there is no other choice. Only a small percentage are actual Nexus toting fanboys who swap ROMS out and think Google is the second coming of Christ. Most are just regular people who couldn't afford an iPhone, or are on a carrier that doesn't offer it or got suckered into buying any Android phone.

    Of the 14-15 people I know who have Android phones, 3 absolutely hate them, 2 are fan boys and the rest simply tolerate them but I hear complaints from them too. Only the fan boys actually LIKE them.
    10-12-2012 10:37 PM
  12. cckgz4's Avatar
    Did the Droid Razr prove to be a "fail" for being on Verizon only?

    The original Note?

    The EVO 4G?

    The Samsung Moment on Sprint?

    The MyTouch phones (in the beginning) for T-Mo?

    The sidekicks?

    ****, the original Razr that was on AT&T at first?

    The LG Chocolate line on Verizon?

    The Hero on Sprint that was different than the GSM version?

    The Blackberry Torch on AT&T? The Storm on Verizon (granted it suck but there was buzz)?

    All of these phones, did pretty damn well and created a lot of buzz regardless of being on one carrier. And outside of the storm, they were all well received. I NEVER saw any talks of how the company is going to FAIL simply of providing a carrier exclusive. Oh, flipping, well. It's been like this for decades. I've been with every major carrier except for Verizon, and while being on those, I've had a lot of phone envy seeing phones come out to certain carriers, but I've never had a reaction like people are having. It's beyond ridiculous. And IMO, it's really a joke for some members to pretend that their blatant tantrums are constructive criticisms that comes from a general concern for the OEM. Please. You are upset because YOU can't get the 920, and that's okay. I've been disappointed to not be able to handle A LOT of phones in my lifetime, but it's NOT this big of a deal.
    10-13-2012 02:29 AM
  13. gpatrick15's Avatar
    Did the Droid Razr prove to be a "fail" for being on Verizon only?

    The original Note?

    The EVO 4G?

    The Samsung Moment on Sprint?

    The MyTouch phones (in the beginning) for T-Mo?

    The sidekicks?

    ****, the original Razr that was on AT&T at first?

    The LG Chocolate line on Verizon?

    The Hero on Sprint that was different than the GSM version?

    The Blackberry Torch on AT&T? The Storm on Verizon (granted it suck but there was buzz)?

    All of these phones, did pretty damn well and created a lot of buzz regardless of being on one carrier. And outside of the storm, they were all well received. I NEVER saw any talks of how the company is going to FAIL simply of providing a carrier exclusive. Oh, flipping, well. It's been like this for decades. I've been with every major carrier except for Verizon, and while being on those, I've had a lot of phone envy seeing phones come out to certain carriers, but I've never had a reaction like people are having. It's beyond ridiculous. And IMO, it's really a joke for some members to pretend that their blatant tantrums are constructive criticisms that comes from a general concern for the OEM. Please. You are upset because YOU can't get the 920, and that's okay. I've been disappointed to not be able to handle A LOT of phones in my lifetime, but it's NOT this big of a deal.
    None of those phones were launched by OEM's struggling for marketshare. When many of these lines released, they were on carriers that didn't offer the iPhone and targeted users who wanted something just as nice and advanced. As for the non smartphones: LG partnered with Verizon for the Chocolate initially, and, in an age where non smartphones ruled the day, Verizon marketed the crap out of the phone. Same with the RAZR on AT&T. Motorola, back then, had plenty of money to throw around on advertising the phones, and weren't in the dire straits they were in when Google scooped them up. The sidekick was the "IT" phone in it's day, and Danger wasn't about to go under. The Torch and Storm launched when people actually gave a damn about Blackberry. The only phone/carrier combo that meets the criteria here is the original Evo 4G. Sprint was tanking, and HTC wasn't doing all that great either. The Evo 4G saved sprint, relatively speaking. None of these phones you listed launched under the dubious circumstances that the 920 will launch under. Backs to the wall, struggling for marketshare.

    I actually agree with you that the exclusive isn't the worst thing in the world. I have AT&T, so I'll have access to it immediately if I so choose, so it doesn't bother me. And I'm sure AT&T paid a heavy price for their exclusive rights. That still doesn't change the fact that a wider ranging launch in the US would have been better for their cause. People fail to realize the worldwide implications though. The world doesn't revolve around America, and, if I'm not mistaken, China Mobile will launch the phone too. So Nokia WILL get paid, but don't expect the numbers to be where many of you expect them to be, because the general public doesn't know enough--and doesn't care enough, either--about Windows Phones and that perception is unlikely to change very soon.
    10-13-2012 09:03 AM
  14. chilero's Avatar
    There are a lot of negative articles on Mr. Elop and Nokia. @matt24x7 via @gcaughey linked to a positive one written by an analyst for change.

    It's Raining Good News On Nokia - Seeking Alpha
    10-13-2012 01:18 PM
  15. cckgz4's Avatar
    None of those phones were launched by OEM's struggling for marketshare. When many of these lines released, they were on carriers that didn't offer the iPhone and targeted users who wanted something just as nice and advanced. As for the non smartphones: LG partnered with Verizon for the Chocolate initially, and, in an age where non smartphones ruled the day, Verizon marketed the crap out of the phone. Same with the RAZR on AT&T. Motorola, back then, had plenty of money to throw around on advertising the phones, and weren't in the dire straits they were in when Google scooped them up. The sidekick was the "IT" phone in it's day, and Danger wasn't about to go under. The Torch and Storm launched when people actually gave a damn about Blackberry. The only phone/carrier combo that meets the criteria here is the original Evo 4G. Sprint was tanking, and HTC wasn't doing all that great either. The Evo 4G saved sprint, relatively speaking. None of these phones you listed launched under the dubious circumstances that the 920 will launch under. Backs to the wall, struggling for marketshare.

    I actually agree with you that the exclusive isn't the worst thing in the world. I have AT&T, so I'll have access to it immediately if I so choose, so it doesn't bother me. And I'm sure AT&T paid a heavy price for their exclusive rights. That still doesn't change the fact that a wider ranging launch in the US would have been better for their cause. People fail to realize the worldwide implications though. The world doesn't revolve around America, and, if I'm not mistaken, China Mobile will launch the phone too. So Nokia WILL get paid, but don't expect the numbers to be where many of you expect them to be, because the general public doesn't know enough--and doesn't care enough, either--about Windows Phones and that perception is unlikely to change very soon.
    yeah I knew the circumstances for why each phone I listed was successful and their financial situation. I guess my overall point was people need to wait to see if the lumia will generate it's own noise and stop the doom and gloom predictions over silly exclusive arguments. I'm not saying they will be big numbers but I think they'll make an impression.
    10-13-2012 01:28 PM
  16. firewall2302's Avatar
    On the otherhand, it is really doubtful that L820/810/822 can achieve any appreciable sales facing the more competitive HTC 8x and Samsung Ativ S in all carriers. Without Preview camera, there is basically no major differentiator.
    I had to stop right there. The Lumia 820/810/822 aren't supposed to compete with the HTC 8x and Samsung Ativ S. They're to compete with the HTC 8s and the bazillion cheaper Android devices that are out there. Believe it or not, there are people out there who choose to get a mid-range phone rather than shelling out the extra money for a flagship.

    And on the exclusivity front - I AGREE with Nokia's decision. Since each carrier wants to be able to market a device as being THEIRS it is the right way to go. Make variations to your design and features and then put those variations out as carrier exclusives. The carriers love to push phones that are their exclusive so you get a much stronger marketing push from people that are already paying you for exclusivity rather than investing a boatload of your own money in it.

    In fact, the only thing I could fault them on is that T-Mobile announced their Lumia before Verizon did. I would think the nation's largest carrier would be more important when it came to placating their subscribers by saying "yeah, you guys are getting a great phone too." However, MacPhisto has stated in other threads that it is likely this is Verizon's choice rather than Nokia's so I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
    cckgz4 likes this.
    10-13-2012 08:51 PM
  17. independentvolume's Avatar
    Verizon won't announce anything until a week before release.
    10-13-2012 09:28 PM
  18. lancguy's Avatar
    I'm really getting tired of these posts on how Elop is a bad CEO and Nokia's doomed. You guys don't understand their strategy, and investment analysts like the one referenced here have no clue either. They at least should have some clue as investing is all about seeing what's in the long term.



    Nokia's strategy is a long term one. It's kind of like chemotherapy to cancer. It sounds like a drastic choice, and in the short term may make things even worse, but it's the only way out in the long term. Looking at stock prices to argue about Elop's lack of business savviness is really narrow minded and it's surprising so many stock market blogs don't see further than the present.

    I think the 920 exclusive is good thing: it creates buzz, hype and envy, just like when the iPhone was only available on att and I think in the long run it will pay off. On top of that, everything points toward these exclusives being limited to a few months. ****, even VZ could get a 920 variant.

    So Nokia has a flagship device, the 920, and they have exclusive variants of the 820. Each carrier getting an exclusive guarantees they will advertise Nokia and WP device sufficiently.The 810, 820 and 822 are basically the same phone, with the same processing power as the 920 btw. The WP experience will be VERY similar, except for a few luxury features of the 920. Why do you think car manufacturers come up with dozens of different models every year?

    At this point, the more diverse the WP offering, the better, as the platform needs to gain popularity. By having different models on all carriers, Nokia is making sure of that.

    Are you kidding? 1. Design 2. Screen: better resolution, better refresh rate, better colors and sunlight readability, extra sensitivity, size. 3. Image stabilization 4. Built-in NFC and the list goes on.
    Yeah, but all these exclusive carrier devices in the US does nothing more but fragment the market. I can't help but think that it's a poor marketing strategy. I'd be willing to pay a premium to buy an unlocked 920 in the US and go to my carrier of choice. Would it hurt AT&T? I'm not an AT&T customer and will never will be again. Also AT&T and Verizon are virtually identical in monthly plan pricing. The only real differentiating factor is LTE coverage. So there is no incentive for an AT&T customer to switch to Verizon when you need to pay a premium for an unlocked phone, unless you have coverage issues or hate the company like I do. We also know the 920 will not work on Sprint or T-Mobile (until T-Mobile completes the re-farming for 4G).

    So I don't see the big deal with the exclusivity contracts. It's either a win-win for AT&T or a wash if the customer takes a BYOD to Verizon. What's up with the exclusivity?!?
    10-14-2012 12:27 AM
  19. Laura Knotek's Avatar
    Yeah, but all these exclusive carrier devices in the US does nothing more but fragment the market. I can't help but think that it's a poor marketing strategy. I'd be willing to pay a premium to buy an unlocked 920 in the US and go to my carrier of choice. Would it hurt AT&T? I'm not an AT&T customer and will never will be again. Also AT&T and Verizon are virtually identical in monthly plan pricing. The only real differentiating factor is LTE coverage. So there is no incentive for an AT&T customer to switch to Verizon when you need to pay a premium for an unlocked phone, unless you have coverage issues or hate the company like I do. We also know the 920 will not work on Sprint or T-Mobile (until T-Mobile completes the re-farming for 4G).

    So I don't see the big deal with the exclusivity contracts. It's either a win-win for AT&T or a wash if the customer takes a BYOD to Verizon. What's up with the exclusivity?!?
    At the present time one cannot take a device that is not branded to VZW and use it on VZW. VZW uses a database of ESNs/MEIDs and will not activate any device that is not listed in its database as having its own branding.

    That might change once voice over LTE is implemented. However, at this time the CDMA network is still used for voice, while the LTE network is used for data. VZW (and other CDMA carriers) will not activate any devices that are not branded as belonging to them. Hence, no Sprint devices on VZW and vice-versa.
    10-14-2012 12:32 AM
  20. Yangstax's Avatar
    I had to stop right there. The Lumia 820/810/822 aren't supposed to compete with the HTC 8x and Samsung Ativ S. They're to compete with the HTC 8s and the bazillion cheaper Android devices that are out there. Believe it or not, there are people out there who choose to get a mid-range phone rather than shelling out the extra money for a flagship.
    For those carriers which don't carry L920, L820/810/822 are competing with HTC 8x and Ativ S. HTC 8x is priced at only $199. How low can L820/810/822 be priced to avoid the range competition? We will soon find out when Veriaon and T-mobile announce their prices. Even L820 is priced at $99, it still can't avoid competition.
    10-14-2012 12:17 PM
  21. Aykazu's Avatar
    With the moves that Elop has made since his introduction as the Nokia CEO, I hardly see how he could survive another failure. If the Lumia line once again fails to catch on, he's gone. The shareholders won't stand for anymore stagnation. When people go into their carriers stores, they are walking out with an iPhone or a Galaxy SIII for the most part. The Lumia lineup is pretty intriguing, but 1. having it as an AT&T exclusive was a bad idea. 2. even though they have Microsofts backing, their marketing dollars have pretty much gone to waste. iPhone, Galaxy, Droid, they're all household names. The Lumia just doesn't have the recognition right now. It was a shortsighted decision for Nokia to align itself solely with a fledgling OS. Not saying Android was the way out of the dire straits Nokia was in, but they could have at least offered devices from both OS's. Samsung does it, HTC does it, and a few other OEMs do it. There's nothing wrong with playing both sides of the smartphone fence. The Lumia Nexus could have been launching alongside the Lumia 920, and likely would have been a success. Pride got in the way of Elop forming a partnership with Google alongside his Windows Phone selection, and it may cost him in the long run.

    Im saying that Nokia and especially Stephen Elop did not have the choice to go with Android and Windows Phone at the same time, it was far too risky for Nokia and Nokia was late from this game because of Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo, Anssi Vanjoki, Jorma Ollila and many other old leaders of Nokia.

    So why was Android out of the question? It was because Nokia was afraid of the patent wars. Now hold your horses and let me explain what I think. Looking through the Economics of Nokia we find out that when Stephen Elop took over in Nokia, Nokias sales were going down fast, the Symbian products did not sell enough and Elop saw this, he knew that there was something that needed to be done really fast.

    They propably looked through various of options which propably were:

    Develop Symbian and MeeGo and sell them there was a major downside in both of these products, in Symbian the problem was that it was just terrible compared to Android, it had no real advantage over Android.
    The MeeGo was good and it down right had everything needed to compete with Android exept Apps and LTE (WHAT!?!??!?!), yep LTE was missing and thats because it was developed with Intel and it supported Intels chipset which did not support LTE.
    Jollas version of MeeGo which they are announcing sometime later this year will not be exactly same MeeGo what we saw in the N9, infact they have stated that it is completely different platform even though sharing a lot from MeeGo and thus also the name change to Sailfish.

    So the consumers didnt want the Symbian and MeeGo could not offer them a future, let alone an ecosystem. Decision was made to ditch Symbian and MeeGo.


    Second option was propably the Android development: So Nokia saw that they could get a platform and a working ecosystem from Google, but they also knew that it would take time and they would need to fight patent wars consistantly with Apple and Microsoft and they would have dosens of competitors who allready have products with the same platform not to mention that they would still have to do something to differentiate themselves from the others. And Google did not offer them any exclusives. So even though it would have been possible to work with Android but it also had its downsides.

    Third option do both: Android and Windows Phone: This would have put Nokia in the same position with Samsung and HTC and they wouldnt have anything exclusive from Google nor Microsoft, they would have been just another OEM.

    4th option, go with Microsoft: Good things, get 1 billion dollars each year from Microsoft and get your maps to be the primary maps used in WP and W8. Get exclusive deals with third party app producers so differentiating with other OEMs.
    The downside with this was of course the fact that Windows Phone does not have a huge marketshare like Android so it would take time and effort to create that marketshare.

    Anyway the 4th option was the one they took, one reason was also propably because they taught that they could make theyr organisation more agile and that would lead Nokia to be able to make better products in less time and give better customer support.

    I know this is a really raw version but I really cant be bothered to write 10 pages of analysing the whole situation.
    Laura Knotek likes this.
    10-14-2012 01:41 PM
  22. firewall2302's Avatar
    For those carriers which don't carry L920, L820/810/822 are competing with HTC 8x and Ativ S. HTC 8x is priced at only $199. How low can L820/810/822 be priced to avoid the range competition? We will soon find out when Veriaon and T-mobile announce their prices. Even L820 is priced at $99, it still can't avoid competition.
    This is like saying that because my town has a Bentley dealership but not a Ferrari dealership then all of the Ford dealers in town are competing with Bentley...

    Ok, that might be a bit over the top, but the point remains the same.

    Just because they are smartphones doesn't mean they compete with all other smartphones. There are different market segments in the world of smartphones and the 820/810/822 are designed for the middle of the road.

    The 820/810/822 are not competing with the 8x and Ativ S, even on carriers that won't carry the 920. They were designed and marketed as mid-range phones and therefore can't compete with the flagship devices put out by other OEMs. Rather than being aimed at the people who have to have the best tech regardless of price they are aimed instead at the sensible people who want a good balance of features and price. The final group would be the low-end where features are less important than price - Nokia looks to be targeting that segment with it's previous WP7 devices ($.99 L900 anyone?) just like Apple does with the previous generation of iPhone.

    What this really means is that barring announcements that may be coming from Verizon, Nokia has chosen to not compete in the flagship segment on any US carrier other than AT&T. Which, to me, is a very sad decision. The more flagship devices WP8 can put in the market, the better it will do at taking market share away from iPhone 5 and GSIII.
    10-14-2012 03:18 PM
  23. lippidp's Avatar
    I'm not going to waste time trying to predict the future. I wish Nokia and Elop the best of luck. If they do tank THEN we can all chime in as to why. Nobody hear is right or wrong. It's still playing out.
    10-14-2012 09:59 PM
48 12
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD