The Windows 10 April 2018 update has arrived! Get the new Dell XPS 15, starting at $999.99
10-14-2012 09:59 PM
48 12
tools
  1. Yangstax'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?
    10-11-2012 12:09 PM
  2. gpatrick15'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.
    aniym likes this.
    10-11-2012 12:29 PM
  3. theefman'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?
    Everywhere else but North America you can buy the phone unlocked and use it on whatever network you choose. Carrier exclusivity wont affect Nokia that much in areas where the wireless carriers are not a monopolistic cartel.

    Funny how all the predictions of doom and gloom are based solely on Nokia being exclusive to at&t and conveniently forget that Elop has secure China Mobile (650 million subs) as a carrier for the 920. I'd bet they sell a good number to that userbase. And unless the world ends this year (in which case none of us will care) next year Nokia can build on the 920 and bring devices to more carriers. Saying this is the last chance is highly premature.
    snowmutt, cckgz4, tissotti and 2 others like this.
    10-11-2012 12:55 PM
  4. vp710'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.

    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 Pureview 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?
    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.

    Without Pureview camera, there is basically no major differentiator.
    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.
    10-11-2012 01:08 PM
  5. Yangstax'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.
    Steve Elop's problem is that he doesn't listen to the market. His mistakes are:

    1. Pre-announced Symbian's sudden death while announcing Windows phones. Who wants to buy phones with dead OS. Nokia shares down from $20+ to $2. He didn't have to do that. He can just announce Windows phone and let market to decide on the Symbian phones.

    2. Refused to provide Android phones. His excuse is that Nokia can't provide enough differentiators to win among the Android phone crowd. So there won't be a Windows crowd? Loyalty to MS is dangerous. Steve Ballmer will reward Nokia with a Surface phone. It is crazy.

    3. Insisted on marketing L920 with exclusive carriers.

    4. (There won't a chance for him to make mistake No. 4) :)
    10-11-2012 01:16 PM
  6. HeyCori's Avatar
    Sometimes I'm not sure what's worst, actual analysts or armchair analysts.
    10-11-2012 01:31 PM
  7. gpatrick15's Avatar
    Sometimes I'm not sure what's worst, actual analysts or armchair analysts.
    Call it what you want, but similar mistakes (with some key differences, too) were made by other manufacturers. No one wants Nokia to go the way of the dodo with Palm and soon to be RIM. Elop, just like those Palm execs and the RIM execs made glaringly obvious, avoidable mistakes, and even the "armchair executives" of the world knew it. Having a carrier exclusive is certainly not anything new, especially amongst US carriers. But why should the 920 be a carrier exclusive when WP and Nokia are already fighting an uphill battle for market and mind share? WP7 launched with a bunch of forgettable handsets, but this time things could be different, and they should have offered the phone from the start for as many carriers as it could have. There's only 4 major carriers, all with a huge selection of Android handsets and 3 with the iPhone. To enthusiasts such as yourselves the choice would be easy, but the general public knows very little about Windows Phone, and not everyone is on AT&T.
    10-11-2012 01:59 PM
  8. socialcarpet's Avatar
    Steve Elop's problem is that he doesn't listen to the market. His mistakes are:

    1. Pre-announced Symbian's sudden death while announcing Windows phones. Who wants to buy phones with dead OS. Nokia shares down from $20+ to $2. He didn't have to do that. He can just announce Windows phone and let market to decide on the Symbian phones.
    Symbian was already dead with or without Elop acknowledging it. It had zero presence in the U.S. market, which is one of the, if not THE most important smartphone markets. It couldn't possibly compete with modern smartphone OS's. People who still want low end Symbian phones with 320x240 screen can still get them and they will be able to for some time to come. What Elop did was make a clear distinction about the future of Nokia and that needed to be done. Symbian will be around but it needed to be pushed into the background otherwise it would be a distraction. It's bad enough with the few European Symbian fan boys stirring up crap about it as it is.

    2. Refused to provide Android phones. His excuse is that Nokia can't provide enough differentiators to win among the Android phone crowd. So there won't be a Windows crowd? Loyalty to MS is dangerous. Steve Ballmer will reward Nokia with a Surface phone. It is crazy.
    Nonsense. Nokia has always provided a consistent user experience and Android does a miserable job of this. Furthermore, Elop is 100% correct about not being able to differentiate enough with Android. Nokia needs to FOCUS right now, if they spread their resources out between Android, WP and Symbian they would be spread far too thin. Android phones are too plentiful and they would be forced to compete with cheap Asian imports which they can never beat on price. They would get lost in the ocean of black boxes and forgotten.

    Windows Phone is a calculated risk, but it was always Nokia's best chance. Symbian is dead. Maemo and Meego were a day late and a dollar short, Nokia did not have the time and the world did not have the patience for yet ANOTHER smartphone OS. It's hard enough trying to gain marketshare with Windows Phone, but at least Nokia isn't in it alone. Microsoft will be far more help here as far as pushing development and propping the platform up.

    The "surface phone" talk is a bunch of nonsense. It's vaporware right now and will probably never amount to anything. Even if it does, it will be a very limited thing, a design study like the Nexus phones, but far less popular. It isn't going to hurt Nokia or anyone else.

    3. Insisted on marketing L920 with exclusive carriers.
    Lots of OEM's do this. People need to get over it already. Within 6 months there will probably be 920 variants on Verizon and another carrier. This is NO WHERE NEAR the problem people are making it out to be. People are just bitter because they aren't on AT&T and don't get the device first.

    4. (There won't a chance for him to make mistake No. 4) :)
    How many companies have you served as CEO for?

    All the armchair CEO's make me laugh. I don't claim to be an expert, but a little deductive reasoning and careful thought made me realize Nokia's overall strategy is pretty sound. Sure, there have been some missteps and Nokia is not out of the woods, but none of the nonsense people suggest about Android, Symbian or contract exclusivity would have made the company much more successful in the long run.
    cckgz4, maj71303, mister2d and 5 others like this.
    10-11-2012 02:20 PM
  9. gpatrick15's Avatar
    Nonsense. Nokia has always provided a consistent user experience and Android does a miserable job of this. Furthermore, Elop is 100% correct about not being able to differentiate enough with Android. Nokia needs to FOCUS right now, if they spread their resources out between Android, WP and Symbian they would be spread far too thin. Android phones are too plentiful and they would be forced to compete with cheap Asian imports which they can never beat on price. They would get lost in the ocean of black boxes and forgotten.

    Windows Phone is a calculated risk, but it was always Nokia's best chance. Symbian is dead. Maemo and Meego were a day late and a dollar short, Nokia did not have the time and the world did not have the patience for yet ANOTHER smartphone OS. It's hard enough trying to gain marketshare with Windows Phone, but at least Nokia isn't in it alone. Microsoft will be far more help here as far as pushing development and propping the platform up.

    The "surface phone" talk is a bunch of nonsense. It's vaporware right now and will probably never amount to anything. Even if it does, it will be a very limited thing, a design study like the Nexus phones, but far less popular. It isn't going to hurt Nokia or anyone else.
    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.
    10-11-2012 02:44 PM
  10. cakeatealobster's Avatar
    I clicked onto the link of that and the first sentence was wrong, so i stopped. Nokia was already a sinking ship before Elop took rein, since the end of '08. Smartphone market share then barely began, and Nokia didn't start into it till much later, hence the fail; and at that time, they still churning out phones that weren't smartphones, thus the decline in market share as smartphones take dominance.

    speculations from here on out from turned iPhone 5 upgrade to the Lumia 920.

    They announced the phone on Sept 5, before it's actually ready; hence the whole Pureview scandal. the reason for doing is is to lured those who were on the iPhone 5 bandwagon to get off the ride, by introducing innovations into the phone. that's how they got me. i waited and waited till the announcement of the iPhone 5, and i was seriously underwhelm. the "revolutionary" i5 was just following after the the GS3 which was released months back; and tho it won against several aspect of the GS3, its functionality was still crap in comparison.

    The long wait for the Lumias are killing it right now. along with those that doesn't want to wait 2 months, as well as the announcement of several other phones, and the *****slap of a move to sell the 920 exclusively, brings a huge cloud of skepticism to the phone's success. but seriously, Nokia wont fail due to this.

    Granted, the exclusive deal with ATT is a bad move, considering the US is a pretty big determinant of how a hero phone is going to thrive. but Im glad that Nokia did it, considering ATT was the only carrier who gave a crap regarding the WP, shows that Nokia has some empathy. this is a company that actually pays its customers a crap($100 each due to the software issue with the purple line) instead of spouting 'it's normal' or 'ur holding it wrong.' so the short term exclusive deal with ATT is like a gesture of thanks from Nokia for sticking with them, even tho the L900 failed to make a big splash.

    And tho the Lumia 920 is exclusively that of ATT in the States, like a poster above me stating that Nokia landed a deal with the world's biggest carrier. in China, i think there are 3 parts where the high end smartphones are in dominance, HK, Taiwan, and Singapore(not sure if each is its own country.) the rest of them are of the midrange or lower tier smartphones, where Nokia can eat them up with their 820. the problem here is that Samsung just announced the GS3 Mini, which is kinda like a *****slap to Apple if they release the phone as a possible midrange phone (the understood gesture 'we made a 4" phone too, and it's dirt cheap comparing to ur **** with nearing the processing speed.') If Samsung decides to release this phone as a midrange phone, then Nokia's hope of eating up the market share in China will be for naught, unless they release an 8XX with just the same amount of power. the Lumia 8XX line is a really big determinant of Nokia's survival.

    Regarding Elop's decision, i cant say crap since im not in his shoes; but we all know that if the upcoming phones doesnt make it big in the coming months, he'll be canned for sure. so...maybe selling 2 million Lumia 920 is good. if it fails, Nokia will still be fine for maybe 2 years, even with the constant decline in market share that is.

    All speculation aside, if Nokia goes down, i'll be gladly remain aboard the ship with my red Lumia 920 in hand.

    Ohh, and imho, Nokia with Android wont work well, as they'll enter a fight against a giant that is Samsung with last i check, ~80% of the android's market share. then again, im kinda bias since i just want Nokia to just focus on WP. I like the "single minded determination" sort of thing.
    Last edited by cakeatealobster; 10-11-2012 at 03:03 PM.
    snowmutt and gpatrick15 like this.
    10-11-2012 02:55 PM
  11. gpatrick15's Avatar
    I clicked onto the link of that and the first sentence was wrong, so i stopped. Nokia was already a sinking ship before Elop took rein, since the end of '08. Smartphone market share then barely began, and Nokia didn't start into it till much later, hence the fail; and at that time, they still churning out phones that weren't smartphones, thus the decline in market share as smartphones take dominance.

    speculations from here on out from turned iPhone 5 upgrade to the Lumia 920.

    They announced the phone on Sept 5, before it's actually ready; hence the whole Pureview scandal. the reason for doing is is to lured those who were on the iPhone 5 bandwagon to get off the ride, by introducing innovations into the phone. that's how they got me. i waited and waited till the announcement of the iPhone 5, and i was seriously underwhelm. the "revolutionary" i5 was just following after the the GS3 which was released months back; and tho it won against several aspect of the GS3, its functionality was still crap in comparison.

    The long wait for the Lumias are killing it right now. along with those that doesn't want to wait 2 months, as well as the announcement of several other phones, and the *****slap of a move to sell the 920 exclusively, brings a huge cloud of skepticism to the phone's success. but seriously, Nokia wont fail due to this.

    Granted, the exclusive deal with ATT is a bad move, considering the US is a pretty big determinant of how a hero phone is going to thrive. but Im glad that Nokia did it, considering ATT was the only carrier who gave a crap regarding the WP, shows that Nokia has some empathy. this is a company that actually pays its customers a crap($100 each due to the software issue with the purple line) instead of spouting 'it's normal' or 'ur holding it wrong.' so the short term exclusive deal with ATT is like a gesture of thanks from Nokia for sticking with them, even tho the L900 failed to make a big splash.

    And tho the Lumia 920 is exclusively that of ATT in the States, like a poster above me stating that Nokia landed a deal with the world's biggest carrier. in China, i think there are 3 parts where the high end smartphones are in dominance, HK, Taiwan, and Singapore(not sure if each is its own country.) the rest of them are of the midrange or lower tier smartphones, where Nokia can eat them up with their 820. the problem here is that Samsung just announced the GS3 Mini, which is kinda like a *****slap to Apple if they release the phone as a possible midrange phone (the understood gesture 'we made a 4" phone too, and it's dirt cheap comparing to ur **** with nearing the processing speed.') If Samsung decides to release this phone as a midrange phone, then Nokia's hope of eating up the market share in China will be for naught, unless they release an 8XX with just the same amount of power. the Lumia 8XX line is a really big determinant of Nokia's survival.

    Regarding Elop's decision, i cant say crap since im not in his shoes; but we all know that if the upcoming phones doesnt make it big in the coming months, he'll be canned for sure. so...maybe selling 2 million Lumia 920 is good. if it fails, Nokia will still be fine for maybe 2 years, even with the constant decline in market share that is.

    All speculation aside, if Nokia goes down, i'll be gladly remain aboard the ship with my red Lumia 920 in hand.

    Ohh, and imho, Nokia with Android wont work well, as they'll enter a fight against a giant that is Samsung with last i check, ~80% of the android's market share. then again, im kinda bias since i just want Nokia to just focus on WP. I like the "single minded determination" sort of thing.
    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?
    10-11-2012 03:53 PM
  12. cakeatealobster's Avatar
    I do think that Nokia's overall package will much superior to that of Samsung's if they had gone with android, but to challenge Samsung who's cap is in the hundred billion with Nokia with just barely a tenth of it, is no go.
    Taken from Sony's example, who's package is similar in quality to Nokia and market cap is just a bit higher than NOK, they barely have a foothold in the android market. HTC is still making profits, but it's decreasing profit in comparison to their former years; while Samsung is claiming they're making record profits(the fourth in a row), dunno yet since it havent been officially released.
    Along with the fact that Nokia is getting help from Microsoft by being with WP exclusively, while Google android is a sort of an open sourced OS, so no real help from them.
    So yea, even if Nokia's overall package is better, Samsung will win out even if some of the android users chooses to go with Nokia rather than Samsung in that market, due to that fact that most android users feel that the android name is synonymous to Samsung similar to android to that of Google. So Nokia will be like a new breed of fish introduced to a big pond, no one has the gut to come up to it and says hello.

    there were only 2 ways Nokia can realistically go: the SymbianOS which is a lot like Android except more proficient(just not as widespread as android since Nokia modded it), or WP OS.

    Well, no point talking about it, Nokia chose to go with WP, so might as well root for them even if this is the last stance(in the smartphone market).
    10-11-2012 04:45 PM
  13. Reflexx's Avatar
    If I write up an article and post it online, will I be considered an analyst too?
    snowmutt and cckgz4 like this.
    10-11-2012 05:04 PM
  14. HeyCori's Avatar
    Something that people forget to factor in when debating whether Nokia should adopt Android is that Google is their competitor in both phones and services. It's not just about Nokia getting lost in the flood of Android OEMs. And it's not just about offering first class hardware.

    Nokia is one of the few companies that can challenge Google in mapping and location services. Several months ago Elop said he wants Nokia to become the "where" company and they've signed some pretty slick deals since then. So what has that got to do with Android?

    Google has made it clear that OEMS had better use Google's location services if they want access to the Android Market. That's a problem for Nokia which is reliant on their own location services. Nokia wants their services to be front and center. Going Android turns Nokia into a background app. It would be lights out for Nokia's location services.

    Imagine if Microsoft said they will stop selling Windows directly and it would only be available as a download on Apple computers. That would make Apple the default, the standard. It would kill Windows and hand Apple the PC market. It wouldn't matter if Windows was "still available," developers would mainly adopt OSX because it's now the default option for computer buyers.

    That's basically the same thing that would happen if Nokia went Android. Yes, Nokia could still offer their location services. And yeah, millions of people would probably still download it, but that kills any shot of them directly competing with Google. And while I won't argue that Nokia is in anything close to being a great position, at the very least Nokia can still keep their business model intact and can continue to grow their location services.
    phirefly, snowmutt, cckgz4 and 3 others like this.
    10-11-2012 06:05 PM
  15. Yangstax's Avatar

    How many companies have you served as CEO for?

    All the armchair CEO's make me laugh. I don't claim to be an expert, but a little deductive reasoning and careful thought made me realize Nokia's overall strategy is pretty sound. Sure, there have been some missteps and Nokia is not out of the woods, but none of the nonsense people suggest about Android, Symbian or contract exclusivity would have made the company much more successful in the long run.

    No, I havn't. Have you? You sounds like a Nokia employee and try to argue for your boss' failing policies. I rather not be a CEO than a failed CEO.

    1. The numbers don't lie. The rate of falling sales of Symbian/Meego phones after Steve's announcement is unprecedent and stunning along with their share prices. It doesn't have to be this way. It could be much more gradual and orderly to buy time for the emerging Windows phones. You let market to decide which OS dies. Asha phones are doing quite well.

    2. With an Android 4.1 version of L920 would be just as competitive in the Android world as that in the Windows world. There are going to be tons of cheap Windows phones coming out from China and the fierce competition would be no better than that in the Android phone crowd. With an Android offering, you will capture a major share of the existing Android market which has 500k+ apps. The transition from Symbian would be much smoother, especially financially. Again, you let market to decide.

    3. I certainly will not give the exclusivity to any carrier. I will make sure whoever wants a L920 will get one and also make sure they can select any color of their choice at any carrier. Nokia simply has no time to play games. As a basic manufacturer's responsibility, you must provide the maximum availablity of your product to the largest potential clients. It is crazy to think that AT&T customer reps would push Nokia phones specifically over other brands. I certainly did not feel that way at all when I visited our local AT&T store to purchase my L900. What does that exclusivity deal give you? Nothing.

    4. L820 is born to fail or lukewarm success at best. It doesn't have the main course of dinner - Preview camera. It simply can't compete with HTC and AtivS, especially the HTC 8x. If I were Nokia CEO, I would provide Preview camera to both models, one with larger screen (4.5 -4.8") and one with smaller screen (4.0 - 4.3"). Both have a microSD slot.

    As a Nokia shareholder, I feel things stronger about Nokia's future than just Nokia fans. Time is running out.
    10-11-2012 06:39 PM
  16. Reflexx's Avatar
    No, I havn't. Have you? You sounds like a Nokia employee and try to argue for your boss' failing policies. I rather not be a CEO than a failed CEO.

    1. The numbers don't lie. The rate of falling sales of Symbian/Meego phones after Steve's announcement is unprecedent and stunning along with their share prices. It doesn't have to be this way. It could be much more gradual and orderly to buy time for the emerging Windows phones. You let market to decide which OS dies. Asha phones are doing quite well.

    2. With an Android 4.1 version of L920 would be just as competitive in the Android world as that in the Windows world. There are going to be tons of cheap Windows phones coming out from China and the fierce competition would be no better than that in the Android phone crowd. With an Android offering, you will capture a major share of the existing Android market which has 500k+ apps. The transition from Symbian would be much smoother, especially financially. Again, you let market to decide.

    3. I certainly will not give the exclusivity to any carrier. I will make sure whoever wants a L920 will get one and also make sure they can select any color of their choice at any carrier. Nokia simply has no time to play games. As a basic manufacturer's responsibility, you must provide the maximum availablity of your product to the largest potential clients. It is crazy to think that AT&T customer reps would push Nokia phones specifically over other brands. I certainly did not feel that way at all when I visited our local AT&T store to purchase my L900. What does that exclusivity deal give you? Nothing.

    4. L820 is born to fail or lukewarm success at best. It doesn't have the main course of dinner - Preview camera. It simply can't compete with HTC and AtivS, especially the HTC 8x. If I were Nokia CEO, I would provide Preview camera to both models, one with larger screen (4.5 -4.8") and one with smaller screen (4.0 - 4.3"). Both have a microSD slot.

    As a Nokia shareholder, I feel things stronger about Nokia's future than just Nokia fans. Time is running out.
    Sounds like your focus is to get a quick fix rather than to establish a strong foundation for a long term strategy.

    Great if you hold shares and plan to sell them.

    Bad if you care about the future of the company.
    10-11-2012 07:16 PM
  17. gpatrick15's Avatar
    Something that people forget to factor in when debating whether Nokia should adopt Android is that Google is their competitor in both phones and services. It's not just about Nokia getting lost in the flood of Android OEMs. And it's not just about offering first class hardware.

    Nokia is one of the few companies that can challenge Google in mapping and location services. Several months ago Elop said he wants Nokia to become the "where" company and they've signed some pretty slick deals since then. So what has that got to do with Android?

    Google has made it clear that OEMS had better use Google's location services if they want access to the Android Market. That's a problem for Nokia which is reliant on their own location services. Nokia wants their services to be front and center. Going Android turns Nokia into a background app. It would be lights out for Nokia's location services.

    Imagine if Microsoft said they will stop selling Windows directly and it would only be available as a download on Apple computers. That would make Apple the default, the standard. It would kill Windows and hand Apple the PC market. It wouldn't matter if Windows was "still available," developers would mainly adopt OSX because it's now the default option for computer buyers.

    That's basically the same thing that would happen if Nokia went Android. Yes, Nokia could still offer their location services. And yeah, millions of people would probably still download it, but that kills any shot of them directly competing with Google. And while I won't argue that Nokia is in anything close to being a great position, at the very least Nokia can still keep their business model intact and can continue to grow their location services.
    Verizon once famously hid Google search and gave users Bing as the default option on a few of the Samsung android phones a few years ago. Why? Because they could. If Nokia wanted to eschew google maps in favor of their own, they could have easily done so and still retained acces to google apps, including the play store. On carrier branded phones, such as my old inspire 4g, the default maps app was AT&T navigator. Whenever I clicked on an address, it opened that app until I finally went into the settings and disabled that as the default. Yeah, Nokia Maps AND google maps may have been both loaded, but Nokia offers a slightly more well rounded maps solution, and could have easily marketed the **** out of that. There is essentially nothing a manufacturer can't do to android, hence the sometimes ridiculous bastardization that these oems have done to the stock ui. Nokia maps could have been the default maps app. Nokia music (if there is such a service) could have been the default. Just give the users choice.
    Last edited by gpatrick15; 10-11-2012 at 07:48 PM.
    10-11-2012 07:41 PM
  18. HeyCori's Avatar
    Verizon once famously hid Google search and gave users Bing as the default option on a few of the Samsung android phones a few years ago. Why? Because they could.
    Which backfired on Verizon and Microsoft. It was a 5 year deal that would put Bing as the default search engine. Needless to say, doesn't look like that deal panned out. And while this is my own speculation, it wouldn't surprise me if Google didn't put a little pressure on Verizon, who desperately needed something to compete against the iPhone.

    If Nokia wanted to eschew google maps in favor of their own, they could have easily done so and still retained acces to google apps, including the play store.
    Motorola wasn't allowed to change their default mapping service, so I'm not sure why Google would give Nokia (a legit competitor) a free pass. I'm not talking about Nokia not being able to offer their location services. I'm talking about one service being the default (Google) and one being an app you have to go find (Nokia).

    On carrier branded phones, such as my old inspire 4g, the default maps app was AT&T navigator.
    A call AT&T can make because they can tell HTC they won't sell the phone. Can you imagine Nokia trying to bully AT&T? Not happening.

    There is essentially nothing a manufacturer can't do to android, hence the sometimes ridiculous bastardization that these oems have done to the stock ui.
    Untrue. OEMs still have to sign a licensing agreement with Google. And if Google doesn't like what you're doing with Android they will pull your license.

    *And as a side note, how ironic that the "Google of China," Alibaba (a competitor to Google) wasn't allowed to do what they wanted with Android.

    OEMs can choose to use Android minus the Android Market and then you get products like the Kindle Fire and Nook. It's true, a handful of carriers have flexed their muscle, but Nokia is not in that position now and they were not in that position two years ago. The only two OEMs with that sort of power is Apple and Samsung (who just recently got there).

    Sure, OEMs can do whatever they want to the UI, but Google's services better be front and center if they want access to the Android Market. Nokia going Android just isn't as clear cut as people want it to be, and all the failed phones and carrier forced search deals doesn't make it less complicated or devastating to Nokia's locations services.

    I simply don't see anything in Google's past or present that suggests they would allow Nokia to roll into town on a white horse and sell 50, 60, 70 million phones using Android OS but with Nokia's services as the default. They didn't allow Motorola do to it 2 years ago and they didn't allow Alibaba to do it several months ago. The only way to get Google to change their default services is if they're forced and Nokia doesn't have the clout.
    Last edited by HeyCori; 10-11-2012 at 09:03 PM.
    snowmutt likes this.
    10-11-2012 08:10 PM
  19. gpatrick15's Avatar
    Which backfired on Verizon and Microsoft. It was a 5 year deal that would put Bing as the default search engine. Needless to say, doesn't look like that deal panned out. And while this is my own speculation, it wouldn't surprise me if Google didn't put a little pressure on Verizon, who desperately needed something to compete against the iPhone.



    Motorola wasn't allowed to change their default mapping service, so I'm not sure why Google would give Nokia (a legit competitor) a free pass. I'm not talking about Nokia not being able to offer their location services. I'm talking about one service being the default (Google) and one being an app you have to go find (Nokia).



    A call AT&T can make because they can tell HTC they won't sell the phone. Can you imagine Nokia trying to bully AT&T? Not happening.



    Untrue. OEMs still have to sign a licensing agreement with Google. Part of that agreement requires OEMs to use Google's services if they want access to the Android market, evident by the link I posted. OEMs can choose to use Android minus the Android Market and then you get products like the Kindle Fire and Nook. It's true, a handful of carriers have flexed their muscle, but Nokia is not in that position now and they were not in that position two years ago. The only two OEMs with that sort of power is Apple and Samsung (who just recently got there).

    Sure, OEMs can do whatever they want to the UI, but Google's services better be front and center if they want access to the Android Market. Nokia going Android just isn't as clear cut as people want it to be, and all the failed phones and carrier forced search deals doesn't make it less complicated or devastating to Nokia's locations services.
    How does it hurt Nokia to use google services alongside their own? How does it put them in a worse situation than they currently find themselves in? Oh right, it doesn't. If they wanted to, they could offer their competing services on the same devices, right alongside the google apps. And google wouldn't have any issue with it. Or, they could go the amazon route and offer the devices sans google apps. Either way, their devices would have gotten into much more hands on the back of Android alone. Yeah they would have "sold out" in the eyes of many, but not in the eyes of the shareholders.
    10-11-2012 08:24 PM
  20. HeyCori's Avatar
    Look above, I edited in some points, probably while you were typing in your response. I will still respond to your last reply.
    10-11-2012 09:06 PM
  21. HeyCori's Avatar
    How does it hurt Nokia to use google services alongside their own? How does it put them in a worse situation than they currently find themselves in? Oh right, it doesn't.
    That Navteq purchase in 2007 was a 8 billion dollar deal. You don't willingly take second place after spending 8 billion.

    If they wanted to, they could offer their competing services on the same devices, right alongside the google apps.
    Never said they couldn't offer Nokia Drive on an Android phone. But one's going to be the standard (Google) and one's not (Nokia).

    And google wouldn't have any issue with it.
    Tell that to the OEMs that almost lost their Android license.

    Or, they could go the amazon route and offer the devices sans google apps.
    An Android phone without access to Android's 500K apps? You... you think that would succeed?!?!

    Either way, their devices would have gotten into much more hands on the back of Android alone. Yeah they would have "sold out" in the eyes of many, but not in the eyes of the shareholders.
    The thing is we're both arguing over two failed strategies. Neither what I'm saying or what you're saying was going to guarantee success for Nokia. Both strategies have their pluses and minuses. It's easy in hindsight to say that "Nokia should of done that," but almost two years ago Elop and Nokia's entire board got together and decided that it was a better longterm strategy to go with Windows Phone. And while I don't think anyone expected WP to sell this bad, they decided it was the best way to keep Nokia as Nokia.
    Last edited by HeyCori; 10-11-2012 at 09:20 PM.
    a5cent likes this.
    10-11-2012 09:11 PM
  22. gpatrick15's Avatar
    That Navteq purchase in 2007 was a 8 billion dollar deal. You don't willingly take second place after spending 8 billion.



    Never said they couldn't offer Nokia Drive on an Android phone. But one's going to be the standard (Google) and one's not (Nokia).



    Tell that to the OEMs that almost lost their Android license.



    An Android phone without access to Android's 500K apps? You... you think that would succeed?!?!
    No, it probably wouldn't have succeeded, but its just an option. An option I admittedly wouldn't suggest. And I can't use amazon as an example because amazon has the content to succeed without google services. I just think they'd have been in a better situation AND delivered top of the line hardware had they went with the device with ready made market share. They will always be playing from behind, no matter how stellar their devices are. I like the 920 so much that I may dump my galaxy nexus for it. Haven't decided yet. But Nokia is certainly doing something right. But can they succeed playing from behind every year? I doubt it. They are in too similar a situation to WebOs, minus the shoddy hardware the Pre launched with. And yes, they formed a partnership with Microsoft to avoid palms fate. But Microsoft was playing catchup too, in a battle for smartphone supremacy that they can't possibly win, not with iOS and Android gaining market share by the day.


    By the way, this discussion is pretty intriguing. You've made some excellent points.
    HeyCori and snowmutt like this.
    10-11-2012 09:25 PM
  23. Xsever's Avatar
    Nokia are too proud and old in the business to have gone to Android where Samsung reigns. They picked WP so that they can be the #1 OEM.

    This will definitely make their recovery slower, but I guess they'd rather do that than throw the towel. Amazing though how their image improved with the 920 announced and all the innovations it brought.
    snowmutt likes this.
    10-11-2012 09:40 PM
  24. 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.
    But, to me, the important features are screen size, cordless recharging, and memory. built in NFC, Screen Sensitivity are built in to both classes of phones. I don't want to settle for a smaller screen size or no wireless charging. Nokia really did hone in on the big features to differentiate the phones that I'm sold on. I think the screen size on the 920 is perfect. And I like the idea of wireless recharging while connected to a bluetooth speaker. I don't take many pictures. But I do want to have a good number of mp3's on my phone to get rid of my iPod. So yea, the 810, 820, 822 is not going to work for what I want in a window's phone. And if I really have to give up those features, I might as well go with the Ativ or 8x to make up for what I'd loose if I went with an 800 series nokia.

    And if I recall correctly the both the 8x and Ativ use the same processor also.....
    10-11-2012 10:49 PM
  25. maverick786us's Avatar
    Steve Elop's problem is that he doesn't listen to the market. His mistakes are:

    1. Pre-announced Symbian's sudden death while announcing Windows phones. Who wants to buy phones with dead OS. Nokia shares down from $20+ to $2. He didn't have to do that. He can just announce Windows phone and let market to decide on the Symbian phones.

    2. Refused to provide Android phones. His excuse is that Nokia can't provide enough differentiators to win among the Android phone crowd. So there won't be a Windows crowd? Loyalty to MS is dangerous. Steve Ballmer will reward Nokia with a Surface phone. It is crazy.

    3. Insisted on marketing L920 with exclusive carriers.

    4. (There won't a chance for him to make mistake No. 4) :)
    I think Nokia still has time, along with windows they can tie up with Jolla (instead of buggy android, I am more impressed with MeeGo compared to Android) and use both the OS with its different variants.
    10-12-2012 12:31 AM
48 12
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD