Why does everyone love Nokia so much?

[Daniel Ratcliffe]

Because Nokia are going **** for leather with Windows Phone. I'm a HTC TITAN user myself, and love it. But here is the thing, HTC couldn't give a rats arse about WP7. Android is the big money, so they release the phone and then they're pretty much rinsing their hands of it. Nokia however, I swear my dad seems to get about 20 daily updates on his L800... they're ALWAYS fixing things! My HTC TITAN? My last update was 2 months ago... Think that proves the point.

Also, my last update actually buggered up the phone, and the only way to fix it was a FACTORY reset.

 

[prodwel2]

1. They only make Windows Phones because Microsoft paid them > $ 1 Billion dollars to do so. Prior to that they made no Windows Phones at all.

Let me preface this by saying to the original poster that in no way am I trying to come across as condescending.

That being said, statements like this baffle me. I find it just as baffling when people make claims that the "only reason the Lumia sells well is because it's being sold for such a low price." Well, yeah, that's exactly the point.

It's called business. Selling a phone for a low price is called pricing strategy. It's called marketing. It's a very specific strategy aimed at selling a product, gaining market share, etc. etc.

The same goes for the Microsoft $1 billion comment. This is a partnership. It is a very specific strategy that is mutually beneficial with the goal of providing Nokia the funds to focus solely on a single platform, while using that focus to build products that they can price strategically and benefit from the additional marketing and development funds. Conversely for Microsoft, the $1 billion INVESTMENT provides access to a global Nokia channel, network of partners, brand alignment, and a dedicated supplier who is solely focused on building market share for their growing platform.

These are STANDARD business, marketing, and operations strategies that MOST successful companies employ DAILY in their operations. Without good pricing strategy, without good marketing, without a great investment in strategic partnerships - a company would not be successful.

Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. all have partnerships and employ a variety of strategic operations. They come in many forms - while Microsoft may invest $1 billion in a Nokia partnership; Apple will invest billions of dollars (over many years and into the future) in supply-chain material pre-orders to secure low pricing on components. These are both great strategies and sound investments. Microsoft's is in the form of a $1 billion funding agreement, Apple's is in the form of $x billion supply chain optimization. Both examples have direct benefits and are based on corporate strategy. There are hundreds of thousands of these types of strategies - at all scales - throughout the global economy.

I understand that on a forum we are interacting with people from K-12 age individuals to adults and not everyone will have the business education or experience to recognize these complex daily workings and strategies of a company - but instead of making such negative uninformed claims, we should all ask questions to gain a better understanding of WHY the world works the way it does and then proceed to making our judgements.

Taking all that into account - the quoted comment from the original post is nonsensical.

Once again - I'm not trying to condescend the OP, but I felt this needed to be said.

 

[N8ter]

Microsoft's partnership with Nokia has absolutely nothing to do with Apple's supply chain and the kinds of deals they get on components (due to their scale, since they sell a ton of iPhones). The two aren't even comparable. Apple gets supplies from a number of vendors, including Samsung, but they are not paying Samsung to give them components outside of what they cost. Not are they paying LG. In fact, due to Apple's scale, they often get much lower prices for their components than their competitors, even when their competitors use WORSE components. That's simply supply and demand.

Nokia's partnership with Microsoft isn't even close to being comparable to that. The only thing I personally think is somewhat comparable is Verizon's partnership with Motorola for the Droid devices back when, but they were not paying Moto that kind of cash.

Not only are you condescending (if you have to preface, it sort of defeats the purpose), but your post is filled with inaccurate analogies to boot.

Microsoft is known for buying their way into markets, so this isn't suprising. They paid Verizon to preload and lock Search to Bing on numerous Android phones in an attempt to erode some of Google's dominance and then complained about it later, for example. They're also paying RIM to put Bing on Blackberries.

The only difference is that the Nokia deal was on a much larger scale and has bigger implications, but it's not really that big of a factor. This goes on all the time, your comparisons are just a bit laughable.

The reason why they went all in with Nokia that way is cause they're desperate and need an OEM that will function the way Motorola functioned for Verizon back when they started pushing Android.

Nokia was an easy target because their platforms are dead for all intents and purposes and they would have not been able to gain much traction on Android due to it not being a very profitable company (and thus cannot push the envelope the way Samsung/HTC or even LG can) and they'd have been very late to the game. Going with WP7 gave them a chance to get in early on a new ecosystem and their partnership with Microsoft gives them competitive advantage over other OEMs.

When you look at it from a whole market, cross-formfactor perspective it is a promising decision, since Microsoft can leverage it's Windows, XBox, Office, Enterprise, and SaaS/Services assets to push their platform, and they are a bit stronger in those areas than competitors like Apple and Google.

It will all depend on execution and how hard the other OEMs are willing to compete on WP7 (provided Microsoft isn't cockblocking them the way they're rumored to be cockblocking HTC, cause I don't think Nokia has ever made a tablet - at least not one worth mentioning - nor do they ship nearly as many high end smartphones as HTC).

 

[Alex Rodriguez Jr.]

There goes N8ter, you know, with those bias views he swears are factual.

Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express

 

[theefman]

There goes N8ter, you know, with those bias views he swears are factual.

Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express

The guy never, ever has anything positive to say about Windows Phone. Do yourself a favour and add him to your ignore list, the more people that do that the sooner he gets fed up and leaves.

 

[anon(5335877)]

The guy never, ever has anything positive to say about Windows Phone. Do yourself a favour and add him to your ignore list, the more people that do that the sooner he gets fed up and leaves.

I thought he bought an HTC One X or something, I'm not sure though.

I still think djdtox is worse though. At least N8ter has something to contribute to the thread.

 

[N8ter]

Please quote where I said something negative in that post about WP7. I'm interested in knowing how you people continue to cook up these things out of thin air.

In fact, I actually said some things that were complimentary of Microsoft in that post. Maybe read it next time...

Microsoft paid RIM to get Bing on Blackberries, Paid Verizon to get Bing on some Android devices, Invested in Facebook to get into Social after Windows Live failed as a Social Platform, and paid Nokia to go All-In on Windows Phone (otherwise they could have done just as well using a multi-platform approach like other OEMs - they probably get a good deal on WP7 license fees as well as patent-sharing agreements). They bought Skype to get into the VoIP market as well, cause outside of Lync we all know WLM is not a huge success in that market...

These are simple facts. Facts are agnostic. They don't favor one side or the other.

I could care less what OS Nokia uses on their devices because I don't buy Nokia hardware, and don't plan to - irregardless of what OS I choose to run at any point in time. What phone I own has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion we're having.

 

[prodwel2]

Microsoft's partnership with Nokia has absolutely nothing to do with Apple's supply chain and the kinds of deals they get on components (due to their scale, since they sell a ton of iPhones). The two aren't even comparable.

...

N8ter. I appreciate your response - I enjoy discussions. But the entire premise of your response is based on you claiming my "comparisons" are "laughable". Please note that I did not COMPARE or make an ANALOGY to the Nokia/Microsoft deal and Apple's supply chain optimization. I clearly stated that those are two completely different strategies and are not comparable in their operations, but in their association with overall corporate strategy. Note the operative phrase "they come in many forms", "a variety of strategic operations", "at all scales" - especially "Microsoft's is in the form of..."

"Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. all have partnerships and employ a variety of strategic operations. They come in many forms - while Microsoft may invest $1 billion in a Nokia partnership; Apple will invest billions of dollars (over many years and into the future) in supply-chain material pre-orders to secure low pricing on components. These are both great strategies and sound investments. Microsoft's is in the form of a $1 billion funding agreement, Apple's is in the form of $x billion supply chain optimization. Both examples have direct benefits and are based on corporate strategy. There are hundreds of thousands of these types of strategies - at all scales - throughout the global economy."

What's more - your response shows that we are in general agreement on how strategies are employed and the reasons Microsoft is executing theirs with Nokia. I agree on mostly all of your points after your misunderstanding of my Apple and MS examples. I'm just confused why you chose a confrontational approach in your response.

I apologize to all if I come across condescending. And I usually agree that stating the fact proves the accusation. I'm simply trying to eloquently state my case. And I am proud that I don't call other posters' opinions "laughable" and use words such as "cockblocking" - that can also be interpreted as condescending.

N8ter - these discussions are fun. We agree so there's no need to go back and forth on ours - let's just keep it cool!

 

[N8ter]

Of course I agree with the strategy. I just didn't agree with the loose comparison. It was there:

Microsoft may invest $1 billion in a Nokia partnership; Apple will invest billions of dollars (over many years and into the future) in supply-chain material pre-orders to secure low pricing on components.

...

 

[prodwel2]

Of course I agree with the strategy. I just didn't agree with the loose comparison. It was there:



...

The comparison is to employing a strategy to meet a corporate objective. Not between the two strategies.

I like your point on the other OEMs and their contribution to the competition that will help WP7 in the marketplace. That could be the biggest risk of the Nokia strategy - if the other OEMs "give up", then MS and Nokia become such a direct association that if one starts to fail, the other may catch the same fate.

 

[Snoops8]

Why do people love Nokia so much? Because they took a leap of faith.

There are those out there who believe that Stephen Elop is a Microsoft trojan horse and one day he showed at Nokia's headquarters with cash in hand and told them that they're going to ditch everything they've ever accomplished so they can make Windows Phones. That's a fine story but I highly doubt it was that simple.

Lets not forget that Nokia's entire board had to sign off on what is a massive deal. It's not just a cash infusion, or simply repackaging the N9; Nokia restructured their company to become a lean, mean Windows Phone machine. They took all the work and progress they made with Symbian/Meego and tossed it out the window.

That's not an overnight decision. An overnight decision is saying, "Hey, our Galaxy SII is pretty sweet. Lets toss Mango inside it and call it a day." What Nokia did required months of planning, meetings, watching market trends, and a massive evaluation of their long term strategy. They knew Symbian was dying and had two choices - Android or Windows Phone.

Now, when I say a leap of faith I a mean leap of super freakin' faith.

Who remembers when Windows Phone first launched? Multi-tasking? Son, we didn't have copy and paste! Poor app selection and crappy 1st gen hardware made Windows Phone users the laughing stock of smartphones. And Nokia joined up with who? Microsoft? A company that, at the time, only had 7% worldwide market share with their failing Windows Mobile platform. Sure Microsoft threw some money at them, but not nearly enough to make Nokia an overnight success or to guarantee long term growth.

Logically Nokia should have went with Android. It was and still is a much more mature platform. Google controls over 50% of the worldwide market with no signs of slowing down. It would have been easy for Nokia to slap a skin on Android and start pumping out device after device. However, someone at Nokia crunched the numbers and decided that Android was a poor choice. Look how that turned out. Samsung and Apple are expected to grab over 90% of mobile profits in 2012. 90-freaking-percent! LG, HTC, Motorola, they're hurting. And Nokia could be in the same boat had they chosen Android.

Now, Nokia choosing Windows Phone could still end with them going bankrupt, but instead of taking the easy Android route, Nokia took the very very very hard Windows Phone route. Considering the size of Nokia, they could blow a billion dollars in less than a year. A billion dollars just isn't enough money to justify the risk they're taking with Windows Phone. And if I'm not mistaken, that's 1 billion spread out over 5 years, thus making Windows Phone an even riskier choice.

Nokia took a massive leap of faith by choosing Windows Phone and users are standing behind them because they know Nokia is going at this 100%. What makes the Microsoft-Nokia partnership so beautiful is that they were both lost with no direction and they needed each other to find their path.

As for HTC... I've argued in the past that HTC has been very good to Windows Phone. I'd even argue that HTC was the number 1 WP vendor before Nokia came along. And contrary to popular belief, HTC has released firmware updates for their phones. In fact, the international version of the original Titan received several firmware updates. Those updates may still get released when Tango finally drops.

However, HTC still treats Windows Phone as a secondary option. HTC had over a year to make a competitive ecosystem and did absolutely nothing. They've also been slow to acknowledge problems with their Windows Phone. When users started reporting paint chipping on the new HTC One S, HTC immediately responded. Titan users have been complaining about terrible sound quality on the Titan and HTC hasn't said anything. Factoring in that fairly unusable WiFi antenna and I was not a happy Titan user. That's why I switched to the Lumia 900. HTC isn't the devil but Nokia has clearly eclipsed them in the support and ecosystem department.

And Samsung? Windows Phone is just a cash grab to them. Microsoft gave them 12 million to advertise their phones and Samsung skipped right back to Android town once that money ran out.

While it may seem unfair that Nokia has so many exclusive apps, I can't be mad at them because HTC/Samsung had over a year to build a superior ecosystem and flat out wasted it. Reap what you sow.

That's actually a good reason why.

Let me preface this by saying to the original poster that in no way am I trying to come across as condescending.

...

I understand that on a forum we are interacting with people from K-12 age individuals to adults and not everyone will have the business education or experience to recognize these complex daily workings and strategies of a company - but instead of making such negative uninformed claims, we should all ask questions to gain a better understanding of WHY the world works the way it does and then proceed to making our judgements.

Taking all that into account - the quoted comment from the original post is nonsensical.

Once again - I'm not trying to condescend the OP, but I felt this needed to be said.

Yes, I understand how business works and your explanation sounds really condescending and insulting on my end regardless if that was your intent. Of course the billion dollars will encourage Nokia to make phones. There's nothing wrong with that. I never said there was. Buying your way into a market for $1billion dollars isn't necessarily a bad deal, considering they have such a large portion of the worldwide cell phone market. Never said it was a bad deal either, and in fact may be a pretty good deal into buying an entry into the market. The only reason I brought up the money issue was that Nokia never bothered to create a WP until they received a financial incentive, unlike other companies. I never said it was a bad idea or that it didn't make sense.

I don't think you understood my question though. I stated my question a very specific way: "why does everyone love Nokia so much?" I specifically used the word love, because it seems like whenever people talk about Nokia they talk about it as if it is the greatest thing in the world, much the same way about how people talk about Apple. It seems that people have some sort of emotional attachment to Nokia as compared to other manufacturers, and that was the question I was after. I was not questioning the business decision to partner with Nokia -- I was questioning why people have such blind faith to what is, after all, just a company.

The quote above yours is more along the lines of the answer I was looking for.

 

[oldgaius]

Consumer mindshare on Windows Phone and the Lumia brand is growing. Nokia - for whatever reason - is the only company to be extensively advertising and marketing the phones and platform, at least here in the UK.

Talk about contractual obligations all you want, but it means diddly squat to the consumer. If you feel your favourite OEM is going to lose mindshare because of the Nokia/Microsoft agreement, encourage them to cosy up with Microsoft. Otherwise, just be grateful that Nokia are supporting your platform.

 

[DalekSnare]

Nokia was the first WP manufacturer that did something besides rehash a boring Android handset design. They are also doing more interesting hardware things than any other company, with high refresh screens, OIS, 41MP oversampling, wireless charging, etc. It didn't hurt that the Lumia 920 had twice the space of the 8X and cost half as much (on contract). And they have a bunch more apps that they procured for WP, and they even eventually end the exclusivity so other phones can enjoy what Nokia paid for. What's not to like?