CNBC: "Nokia In Full Scale Collapse"

[tekhna]

Exactly right. There are maybe 1-1.5 billion people that can buy a high end phone. So that leaves around 6 billion for low end phones.

All these companies have the same goal. Relatively few people can afford a computer. But mobile phones are far cheaper. They want to get one into as many hands around the globe as possible.

Nokia is right to put effort into the low end phones. In many many places around the world people cannot afford even the iPhone 3GS or iPhone 4. But they can afford a Lumia 610. Or right now the BB curves and low end Android models.

Last quarter 78% of the smart phones AT&T sold were iPhones. That isn't something Microsoft or Nokia can crack easily and will take a lot of time. But other markets are much easier.

But Nokia is losing the low-end market. Their low-end phone sales are absolutely tanking.

 

[trazer]

I think they'll be ok if things continue and they can offer WP8 upgrades and such. If customers are screwed out of updating by MS yet again, they will be virtually starting over in the market yet again and then they are doomed.

You can't burn all the early adopters and hope to survive for round two, not when they are in the state they are now anyway!

Still hoping for the best personally.

 

[MattLFC]

That's bull. Nokia was the synonym for innovation for a couple of decades.

Are we talking pre-90's here? Sorry, but that's like saying Nokia lead the way in boots and tyres. Completely irrelevant in the modern world.

Nokia we're always late to market with the latest mobile technological innovations throughout the 90's and 00's. However, this was one of the reasons they did so well, and built up a reputation like they did, they only used mature technologies; they may not have been first to the party, but by the time they arrived, they were always the best. Others who were first (Siemens had a huge run of world-firsts in the late 90's/early 00's) tended to find their technologies were unstable, unreliable, and at worst, incompatible once standardisation of the technology hit-in (the Siemens S25i with its psuedo-colour screen and WAP 1.0, which was incompatible once 1.1 came out etc).

The companies that pushed the boundaries, with bleeding-edge technology, generally fell (Siemens, Motorola, Mitsubishi, Panasonic, Sharp) in the mobile industry, whereas Nokia outsold, and outlived them all.

 

[texantony]

Nokia is actually on the positive side most of today. I've been buying shares everytime it drops. 95% of the time my gut feeling is correct. Let's hope NOK doesn't fall in the 5%

I remember late last year every other analyst was putting down bank of America and look what happen in march.

Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express

 

[erzhik]

Nokia is not going to collapse. People been saying that for years and they are still here and still one of the biggest (if not the biggest) manufacturer of phones. I never trust analysts because all they do all day is analyze meaningless statistics and throwing their GUESSES to us. Because every analyst expects manufacturers to sell same amount of units as Apple, if they don't than that company fails in analysts eyes.

And please tell me when was the last time that an analyst was right?

 

[rich4A1]

I asked over in off topic who, if anyone, actually owned Nokia stock, and it's been crickets.

I do....

 

[N8ter]

Nokia is actually on the positive side most of today. I've been buying shares everytime it drops. 95% of the time my gut feeling is correct. Let's hope NOK doesn't fall in the 5%

I remember late last year every other analyst was putting down bank of America and look what happen in march.

Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express

Love when people come to forums acting like they're stockbrokers. See that alot on Crackberry.com too. Always tickles me

And Bank of America is not comparable to Nokia.

 

[N8ter]

Nokia isn't exactly an expert at making decently spec'ed phones. If not for the fact that Windows Phone has standardized chipsets, the mask would fall off and expose Nokia's flaws. Nokia was the company with the worst spec'ed! Even behind RIM and Palm (before it was bought out).

Phones like the N8 and the C7 are the devices you expect from Nokia. (Not only slow but bulky and small display). Slap Android on top of those and you have a Nokia Android. There is no way Nokia could have ever succeeded in Android. You need a competent company to compete in the cutthroat Android market and Nokia isn't halfway competent enough to reel out decent Windows Phones device, tbh.

If not for extensive marketing, even Nokia WPs would be nothing but thick phones with small, outdated displays.

That's another important issue. Companies such as Samsung are designing their own snappy chipsets and I have no faith Nokia could handle that given its mess in Symbian.

Nokia could have made better Symbian devices, and without the hardware limitations they certainly could have made 1st class Android devices.

I bet a main reason why they took up Microsoft was the money and the fact that microsoft was willing to give them a competitive advantage over the other OEMs. That's something they could not have had with Android. They would have had to "try harder" to compete in that market and they didn't want to put in the work/investment all by themselves.

Personally, they'd have been served better by going a hybrid route and targetting multiple platforms (i.e. release a high end WP7, Android, Meego device) and see how they all compared to each other with similar builds.

The WP hardware specs exist to help Nokia, cause if HTC/Samsung could utilize their better Android assets/specs they'd be blowing Nokia away right now in the WP7 hardware ecosystem.

 

[jabtano]

Now then I advise you buy Nokia stock currently $3.67 per share if you are looking for something that in 12-24 mo. time this stock could be in the upper $15-18 per looking at Lumia sales numbers and what a Nokia tablet could bring and also what the sales will be like in the Asian market. One must think back that Apple at one point was $7.00 per share and I also advised a buy ..buy for the long term.the same with Nokia this is a very strong compnay with a cash fund of over 7 billion US./ that is not debt that is actual cash in the bank. so before you call Nokia dead do some homework. we have some new devices coming out from Nokia along with a Nokia win8 tablet soon. I see this as a strong company in transition..

 

[texantony]

Love when people come to forums acting like they're stockbrokers. See that alot on Crackberry.com too. Always tickles me

And Bank of America is not comparable to Nokia.

Not comparing Bank of America to Nokia. Comparing the analysts.

Another winning day for me with Nok in the market. Now, back to bed. LOL

 

[squire777]

I'm sure the recent sales of the 900 will help Nokia out in the long run. I have also heard that here in Canada, Rogers has sold a lot more 710s than they had expected so that should help in a small way. Nokia just needs to get the 900 out onto more carriers in North America so they can keep riding this wave.

On a side note, it's funny to see the detractors of WP try to rain on the sales of the 900 by saying that most AT&T stores probably had 5 phones in stock, when the reality is that we've heard from employees who have stated that they are selling out in much larger numbers.

 

[MattLFC]

Nokia could have made better Symbian devices, and without the hardware limitations they certainly could have made 1st class Android devices.

No they couldn't; Symbian, as most of us realised, was past its sell-by date in 2007.

Like it or not, the iPhone changed everything. Nokia never reacted quick enough, and expected Symbian to keep selling on the basis of brand alone. In the past, Nokia have always done well through their philosophy of waiting for "new" technologies and hardware to mature, instead of being early adopters; what Nokia hadn't bargained for however, was that although the iPhone and its technology was brand new, because it was essentially built upon the success of the iPod and the iPod platform as a whole, the iPhone was already mature, stable and standardised.

Nokia had a mountain to climb to keep Symbian in the running, and though the brand alone maintained marketshare, the popularity of the iPod, and Apples marketing, not only managed to eat into Nokia's huge marketshare, but also left Nokia users feeling ripped-off, and out in the cold, once they saw their friends iPhones doing even more than they could with their Symbian devices, but most importantly, doing everything better.

[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcHYZsbrK8A[/YT]

This video, more than 3 years after the launch of the original iPhone, for me, illustrates how bad Symbian is/was, and even though Nokia did try to improve it, the effort was complete half-arsed at best, and did not do anything to help devices compete with the iPhone - their primary competition. Just look how slow, awkward and incomplete Symbian looks in comparison to the iPhone. The internet browser is atrocious, and by this time, people were using the mobile internet on an hourly basis. It's only saving grace, was it's flash-support, but Nokia treated the browser as though it was still the early 2000's, and it was a niche thing to have or something. Yes, you can get Opera Mini and that would blow Safari out of the water... but I remember a friend with a 5800 - didn't have a clue about Opera Mini until I installed it for him - and to say he was made-up is an understatement. Previous to having Mini installed, he barely touched the Nokia browser - and most people don't/didn't know what Opera was. Ultimately, he upgraded to an iPhone after his miserable time with the 5800 and never looked back.

Anyone thinking that better, more powerful devices would have helped Symbian, is only kidding themselves. The N8 was a fantastic device by all accounts, it was the software that let it down, and more importantly, people would look at how fast, modern and fluent their friends iPhones were, and think what is this crap. The internet browser in Symbian in 2010, had barely changed since I had a Nokia 6600 - back in 2003. 7 years of innovation by Nokia, had led to nothing.

 

[jimmy1one]

One of you guys said something that rings true, can the Carriers set back and allow Nokia to fell? In effect leave their future to be dictated by Apple, these people who know how to hold a gruel. MS is all in, either Nokia succeeds with WP8 or Windows 8 OS is dead in the water ditto ATT having made Nokia their Flagship for WP or crawl back to Apple asking forgiveness. The other manufactures of IP based products even the TV manufactures are all gearing up for all out war with Apple fearing the lost of their own market share if Apple moves into their market. The real story is people just buy the Apple products having been told they are THE best. It does not matter if another Manufacturer came out with a new product with a 3.5 inch screen they'd be DOA. Historically there is no reason for the Pied Piper effect of the IPhone. MS and Nokia are right why clone the IPhone those who want an IPhone will stay with the IPhone. I'm holding onto my Focus I'll pickup a new WP8 and Windows 8Tablet when available putting the difference in my grans 529 and having a nice laugh.

 

[peestandingup]

^The carriers are about what makes them money, period. Whether its from Samsung, or Apple, or whoever. They have zero interest in propping up any floundering hardware maker. If that were the case, Palm would have lived.

 

[jimmy1one]

^The carriers are about what makes them money, period. Whether its from Samsung, or Apple, or whoever. They have zero interest in propping up any floundering hardware maker. If that were the case, Palm would have lived.

Just goes to show you I'm clueless. I'm an Att customer and I admit they nickle and dime you but I'm yet to be charged for pictures or my camera use. In the interest of fairness I've used Androids and IPhone but I can not venture an opinion on the Palm. I will say this, no carrier can survive depending on a dictating supplier let alone have their entire business model be subject to the wimp of a supplier. It makes no difference how popular that suppliers product may be this is a fluid market change is a given . It's in every Carrier's interest to have as many products available to the consumer as possible. The failure of Nokia at this time means WP 8 and W 8 are a failure. The relationships are such you can not separate the OS from the Phone. BTW all in is all in, I'm not a betting man but it's clear no one involved in this fight is going to roll over, there's just no upside to letting this happen.

 

[peestandingup]

^Carriers are different because it doesn't matter to them who supplies what. They're pretty much just providers of basic services, like internet service providers are. I know that some of them TRY not to be, with exclusives, branding (Verzion's DROID) & all that stuff. But thats really what they are in the end when you look past all the marketing crap they do here in the US (in the EU they're more like straight up providers). Dumb pipes funneling data. So they really don't have anything to do with hardware, nor could they even if they really wanted to. Hence why they won't care what Nokia (or MS does for that matter). If its not a Nokia device, it'll be something else either way.

Its a series of tubes, man. Series of Tubes Music Video - YouTube

 

[socialcarpet]

The carriers don't necessarily want to prop Nokia up, but the appeal of Nokia is that they make interesting, nice looking phones and they offer an alternative in WP which gives the stores something else to sell.

What the carriers DO want, is a way to have some leverage against Apple other than Android. A viable third choice gives them one more way to attract new customers, or get new customers to buy a new phone sooner. A viable third choice also gives them some leverage when Apple demands the carriers subsidize more of the cost of the iPhone.

Up until Nokia got in the game, none of the carriers cared much about WP7 because none of the OEM's were really invested in it. All they did was retread Android phones with WP7, they did nothing to make them stand out, nothing to support them beyond the minimum necessary. Nothing to advertise Windows Phone.

Nokia has changed everything though by committing to WP as their primary platform. Now the Nokia brand will reinforce the WP brand and vice versa. Much the way Android was drifting aimlessly until Verizon and Motorola got behind it with the "Droid" brand and promoted it like crazy. That worked so well that many people STILL call all Android phones "Droids".

It's NOT the OS that sells the phone to most people. It's the phones. The OS is part of the phone, but you need to have a phone that isn't stuck in a corner and something that looks appealing enough for someone to walk over and pick it up. Another black slab won't do at all.

This is why I am optimistic about Nokia's future. Because if there is anything Nokia knows, it's how to build interesting and unique phone hardware, and THAT is what sells phones.

Sensuous looking modern and colorful Lumia's that look different than anything else will do more to boost Windows Phone than 10,000 Windows Phone OS commercials ever could.

Nokia needs people to ask for the Lumia by name. People need to know what a Lumia looks like and that a Lumia isn't a "Droid" or an iPhone, it's something different. Doesn't matter if they understand what Windows Phone is or not, they just need to know that there is something OTHER than "Droid", iPhone and Blackberry when they go phone shopping.

When people say they have a Lumia and the average person knows what that means, that will mean they have succeeded.

Success for Nokia will help all the other OEM's who sell Windows Phones too, but Microsoft really needed a flagship brand that people would identify with the OS. Now they have it.

A bright blue or pink Lumia may get someone to walk over to that section of the store and play with it, versus the 400 Androids that all look the same and the two iPhones which they are already familiar with. Even if they don't buy a Lumia, we need them to PICK UP A WINDOWS PHONE and play with it for 5 minutes so they can see what Windows Phone is. That same person might then ask a sales person about it, and who knows they may buy a Samsung Focus S or an HTC Titan II.

 

[selfcreation]

are NOKIA sales not UP sints they dropped ( pretty much droped ) Symbian and switch to WP! no??

so how is it a collapse? its more of a re-build , they already collapsed 2 years ago..

unless they are talking about WP's 100% growth .. yes 100% cause it dint exist before lol.

 

[jimmy1one]

The carriers don't necessarily want to prop Nokia up, but the appeal of Nokia is that they make interesting, nice looking phones and they offer an alternative in WP which gives the stores something else to sell.

What the carriers DO want, is a way to have some leverage against Apple other than Android. A viable third choice gives them one more way to attract new customers, or get new customers to buy a new phone sooner. A viable third choice also gives them some leverage when Apple demands the carriers subsidize more of the cost of the iPhone.

Up until Nokia got in the game, none of the carriers cared much about WP7 because none of the OEM's were really invested in it. All they did was retread Android phones with WP7, they did nothing to make them stand out, nothing to support them beyond the minimum necessary. Nothing to advertise Windows Phone.

Nokia has changed everything though by committing to WP as their primary platform. Now the Nokia brand will reinforce the WP brand and vice versa. Much the way Android was drifting aimlessly until Verizon and Motorola got behind it with the "Droid" brand and promoted it like crazy. That worked so well that many people STILL call all Android phones "Droids".

It's NOT the OS that sells the phone to most people. It's the phones. The OS is part of the phone, but you need to have a phone that isn't stuck in a corner and something that looks appealing enough for someone to walk over and pick it up. Another black slab won't do at all.

This is why I am optimistic about Nokia's future. Because if there is anything Nokia knows, it's how to build interesting and unique phone hardware, and THAT is what sells phones.

Sensuous looking modern and colorful Lumia's that look different than anything else will do more to boost Windows Phone than 10,000 Windows Phone OS commercials ever could.

Nokia needs people to ask for the Lumia by name. People need to know what a Lumia looks like and that a Lumia isn't a "Droid" or an iPhone, it's something different. Doesn't matter if they understand what Windows Phone is or not, they just need to know that there is something OTHER than "Droid", iPhone and Blackberry when they go phone shopping.

When people say they have a Lumia and the average person knows what that means, that will mean they have succeeded.

Success for Nokia will help all the other OEM's who sell Windows Phones too, but Microsoft really needed a flagship brand that people would identify with the OS. Now they have it.

A bright blue or pink Lumia may get someone to walk over to that section of the store and play with it, versus the 400 Androids that all look the same and the two iPhones which they are already familiar with. Even if they don't buy a Lumia, we need them to PICK UP A WINDOWS PHONE and play with it for 5 minutes so they can see what Windows Phone is. That same person might then ask a sales person about it, and who knows they may buy a Samsung Focus S or an HTC Titan II.

socialcarpet I think we're on the same page but what do I know, only what's undeniable. MS did not forge their agreement with Nokia because the weather was rainy in Redmond. W 8 OS is effect a beefed up version of the WP 8 OS they're interchangeable AFA the consumer is concerned. We will not know what the WP 8 product will do until they are on products that meet the species but there will be no half stepping this time around. Again they are not trying to lure people away from the IPhone but grab a significant percentage of the smart phone market that's just emerging. Remember only 40 to 50 percent of the market has been penetrated depending on who you want to believe.

 

[sentimentGX4]

But Nokia is losing the low-end market. Their low-end phone sales are absolutely tanking.

The problem is that the low end market doesn't matter. It's an area that Nokia excelled in; but, profits were far too marginal to make any impact on their balance sheets. Companies completely dominating low end markets such as RIM and Nokia are suffering the most.

Given the state of Nokia's affairs, it wouldn't be unwise to exit from the low end market altogether to shift focus and to relaunch as a "premium" brand.