cckgz4
New member
Felt this would be appropriate in this topic as well, since some of these "frustrated concerned" members have predicted their analysis for Nokia as a "fail" also:
Nokia frustration does not = hate for OEM
- Thread starter steve_w_7
- Start date
AngryNil
New member
So, let's see. If AT&T tells Nokia it has to have exclusivity - perhaps for a period - on a Lumia 920-like device if Nokia wants any kind of promotion and point-of-sale favours, Nokia should run to T-Mobile, the least of the major carriers?
Even Samsung had to create carrier "exclusives" with the Galaxy S2, and that's after worldwide success of the predecessor and the S2 itself.
poiman
New member
Personally I'm on WP because of Nokia. Because they make the best phones and the quality of their commitment, innovations and hardware can make any OS usable (even Symbian that was a ****... I've been using it for 2 years on my N8 because up until recently no other phone could take photos nearly as good. My friends are still impressed by their quality after 2 years!). So if Nokia's WP strategy doesn't work and a new one has to be made I'll probably move with them too.
cckgz4, the Droid RAZR was indeed a failure, as Motorola is still missing its sales predictions and is deep in the red. They recently announced that they're laying off about half of their staff. Doesn't seem like a "success" to me.
The other examples are all either failures or examples from 5+ years ago.
The Sprint Hero and BB Torch were both sales bombs.
Talking about the Original iPhone, the LG Chocolate (not even a smartphone), the original Moto RAZR (not even a smartphone) or the Sprint Exclusive Treos in 2003 is about as relevant as discussing the Atari 1040ST or the Macintosh SE. They're not even in the modern technology context.
Next, you're going to start citing VoiceStream and Comcast Metrophone press releases as evidence that the failed carrier-exclusive business model for smartphones in the modern era "can succeed."
The other examples are all either failures or examples from 5+ years ago.
The Sprint Hero and BB Torch were both sales bombs.
Talking about the Original iPhone, the LG Chocolate (not even a smartphone), the original Moto RAZR (not even a smartphone) or the Sprint Exclusive Treos in 2003 is about as relevant as discussing the Atari 1040ST or the Macintosh SE. They're not even in the modern technology context.
Next, you're going to start citing VoiceStream and Comcast Metrophone press releases as evidence that the failed carrier-exclusive business model for smartphones in the modern era "can succeed."
Hmmm... let's think carefully about this one.
Do I want to be the flagship phone of a smaller carrier who will promote my phone as the best on its network, suggesting that people buy my Lumia 920 instead of an iPhone from the big guys, resulting in millions of sales and major publicity for my new flagship phone?
Do I want to sell my phone through the #4 carrier that sells more of my phones in the US market than any other, with a large population of millions of Nokia users ready to step up to the latest-and-greatest?
Or should I go with an exclusive on the larger #2 carrier who will have a half-dozen other "exclusive" phones in addition to mine at the same time, ticking off the smaller carrier who has historically sold most of my phones, while ensuring that my "exclusive" Lumia 920 collects dust on a back shelf and is only purchased by my brand's die-hards?
Should I go with an exclusive on the #2 carrier who promised me they'd sell 2 million Lumia 900s, but only ended up selling about 300,000?
Should I go with the exclusive on the #2 carrier who has almost no remaining Nokia users, and thus nobody to upgrade?
Decisions, decisions...
Daniel Ratcliffe
New member
There's much grumbling at T-Mo. Back when Nokia was radioactive and no carriers wanted to do business with them, T-Mobile championed Nokia devices, from flip-phones to Symbian smartphones. They even had specialists who would help you get your unlocked Nokia from the Nokia store running on T-Mo when Cingular/AT&T refused to sell "just SIMs." As a result, about 65% of all Nokia smartphone users in the USA are on T-Mobile.
Then they partnered with Nokia on the launch of the Nurun Symbian smartphone that nobody else would sell, and picked up the 710 (with plans to launch a version of the 900 until the late launch on AT&T and the orphaning of Mango-class devices in July).
A T-Mo/Nokia alliance is a strong fit, and lots of Nokia loyalists will be tempted to other brands on T if Nokia doesn't have something stronger than the 810. The Galaxy S III and One S have been slowly converting Nokia customers, and the 8X will probably also gulp down a fair number of them.
But rather than say "Thank you, T-Mobile, for keeping Nokia alive in the US for so long when everyone else had given up, you really do deserve a top-line Nokia phone after keeping things going for so long," Nokia fans are bashing the stuffing out of them and urging T-Mo Nokia customers to sign up for twice the price at AT&T. It's far more likely that those long-suffering Nokia fans on T-Mo will give in to the siren song of an 8X in November, and Nokia will lose more Symbian users on T than they'll gain in WP users on AT&T.
It's like they want to fail or something.
Then they partnered with Nokia on the launch of the Nurun Symbian smartphone that nobody else would sell, and picked up the 710 (with plans to launch a version of the 900 until the late launch on AT&T and the orphaning of Mango-class devices in July).
A T-Mo/Nokia alliance is a strong fit, and lots of Nokia loyalists will be tempted to other brands on T if Nokia doesn't have something stronger than the 810. The Galaxy S III and One S have been slowly converting Nokia customers, and the 8X will probably also gulp down a fair number of them.
But rather than say "Thank you, T-Mobile, for keeping Nokia alive in the US for so long when everyone else had given up, you really do deserve a top-line Nokia phone after keeping things going for so long," Nokia fans are bashing the stuffing out of them and urging T-Mo Nokia customers to sign up for twice the price at AT&T. It's far more likely that those long-suffering Nokia fans on T-Mo will give in to the siren song of an 8X in November, and Nokia will lose more Symbian users on T than they'll gain in WP users on AT&T.
It's like they want to fail or something.
I am looking at it simply. Nokia did some stupid mistakes in marketing and exclusivity, yes. I am wondering what the marketing guy was smoking when he did the whole OIS ad with a DSLR. And exclusivity is good back in 2007 if you are an unique proposition.
But even if you are passionate, as I am with WP and Nokia, one does not attack the Nokia strategy and turn a semi-blind eye towards the other manufacturers' shortcomings. HTC's release of the 8X with its One X+? Samsung is so quiet with the ATIV lineup, and while there have been legit grumblings, it didn't come close to what Nokia's lineup faced.
I get the idea that Nokia is fundamental to the WP cause, they are the only OEM which is all in the WP cause, and sometimes I get the feeling that they are more concerned over MS. And they should not get a free pass for strategies that can seem dumb or are just dumb. But much of the words used are very strong and are literally anger-fueled. I don't agree with this approach. Constructive criticism is important.
Heck, Jay from My Nokia Blog is frustrated that the L920 isn't out yet and keeps posting about it on the blog, but at least it isn't one born from anger, but a legit concern that Nokia is losing sales the longer it delays the launch. And vote with your consumer dollars. It's how Nokia knew they were wrong.
But even if you are passionate, as I am with WP and Nokia, one does not attack the Nokia strategy and turn a semi-blind eye towards the other manufacturers' shortcomings. HTC's release of the 8X with its One X+? Samsung is so quiet with the ATIV lineup, and while there have been legit grumblings, it didn't come close to what Nokia's lineup faced.
I get the idea that Nokia is fundamental to the WP cause, they are the only OEM which is all in the WP cause, and sometimes I get the feeling that they are more concerned over MS. And they should not get a free pass for strategies that can seem dumb or are just dumb. But much of the words used are very strong and are literally anger-fueled. I don't agree with this approach. Constructive criticism is important.
Heck, Jay from My Nokia Blog is frustrated that the L920 isn't out yet and keeps posting about it on the blog, but at least it isn't one born from anger, but a legit concern that Nokia is losing sales the longer it delays the launch. And vote with your consumer dollars. It's how Nokia knew they were wrong.
jmshub
Moderator
The thing is, this market is simply bananas. Nokia cannot win. There is no logic that dictates the mission for success in the space.
The Nokia Lumia 900 is a failure because it is not upgradable to the newest version of the operating system...you know, like the 75% of Android phones running a version 2.x or older.
And of course, the Lumia 920 will be a train wreck equivalent failure due to a lock with a particular carrier,...you know, like the iPhone was the first four iterations
The Nokia Lumia 900 is a failure because it is not upgradable to the newest version of the operating system...you know, like the 75% of Android phones running a version 2.x or older.
And of course, the Lumia 920 will be a train wreck equivalent failure due to a lock with a particular carrier,...you know, like the iPhone was the first four iterations
Well, Nokia cannot win as it isn't exactly leading even in the timing of its execution of plans.
Here are the common rebuttals to your arguments
1) since the L900 is a flagship, and the S2, a flagship, can be upgraded to Android 4.0, it should be upgradable to WP8! Nokia cheated our money!
2) Exclusives are so 2007! Apple and Samsung are now doing simultaneous launches on all carriers! Nokia should do it so they can compete!
I do think Nokia should not do exclusives though. Still, I understand their reason, even if I personally feel that it isn't wise.
HTC and Samsung are better off in the US market. They can make mistakes that Nokia cannot, since Nokia is not a significant player in the US market.
It's not fair, but it's true. HTC and Samsung are top-of-mind players in the US marketplace. Nokia doesn't exist except as a "I remember those" player.
As a result, Nokia needs to play like a new entrant. That means flawless execution and understanding that even one stupid mistake could be fatal... even while "the big boys" can make mistake after mistake without many bad things happening immediately.
Nokia's core problem is its arrogance. It still thinks it's a significant player that people in the US care about. Outside of (some of) the WP community, the reality is that (in the US market) it's a has-been that many smartphone buyers have NEVER heard of. To get any chance of being a "big player" again, it needs humility, cleverness, and an aggressive strategy... not another line of "meh" phones on all carriers and an "exclusive" or two.
In addition, as the iPhone 5, Galaxy Series and One/WP8 X/S prove, Apple, Samsung and HTC are bringing their A-game to this fight, so the importance of flawless execution is even greater now.
Laura Knotek
Retired Moderator
Many people I know are not even familiar with Nokia, since Nokia never manufactured any CDMA phones. So folks who had VZW, Sprint, Alltel, US Cellular would never have seen a Nokia phone in their carriers' stores.
Other people I know just remember Nokia as being the brand of feature phone they used 10 years ago and are not even aware of any past/previous Nokia smartphones.
Nokia doesn't have much brand recognition in the US.
In the case of folks I know, it isn't dislike, it's complete unfamiliarity.
Daniel Ratcliffe
New member
A lot of my friends despise Nokia and think it should be dead and will never buy a phone by Nokia. It wouldn't surprise me to see some of them attack people with Nokias with guns because they hate the brand so much. With the aim of murdering said person of course.
AngryNil
New member
Do I want to be the flagship phone on a carrier whose owners want to sell it off ASAP?
Do I want to be the flagship phone on a carrier who has never created a success of any operating system, or really, any phone?
Do I want to be hitting a much smaller user base while the carrier will still be offering the best-selling GS3?
What makes you think the iPhone is the only hurdle? What makes you think T-Mobile will even have a value offering for Nokia? What makes you think T-Mobile can make Nokia relevant?
And I don't know a single person who despises Nokia.
Am I misunderstanding you, or are you suggesting that T-mobile could have sold more Lumia 900's than AT&T did?
Personally I don't think the way to improve awareness and status of your brand which has been almost forgotten in the U.S. is to launch your flagship on a 2nd tier budget carrier that has hardly any stores and no one notices and which cannot spend anywhere near the money that AT&T can to bring awareness to your brand.
How exactly would that be a sound business strategy?
"Bring the phone to T-Mobile! It will sell because we have hardly any other good phones in our lineup?"
"Bring the phone to T-Mobile! Never mind that we virtually no LTE, almost no coverage in much of the rural U.S. less than a third of the number of subscribers than AT&T and Verizon do individually....but we'll make up for that because our customers promise to buy Lumia's instead of Androids! We promise!"
"Bring the phone to T-Mobile! Never mind that we're using all of our tiny ad budget to promote our fast HSPA+ network which isn't really 4G so we'll have nothing left to promote your new phone. We may not be able to give you Deadmaus in London and Nicki Manaj in Times Square....but hey we have a nice pink color scheme that we're sure is going to get those customers in the doors!"
:straight:
Be happy you're getting the 810. Its by far the nicest of the 8xx variants we've seen yet. Heck, it might even win ME over to T-mobile.
Not really.
It's a **** of a lot better than having one of the Android crap factories being the "mascot" of WP. Those companies can take or leave WP and will NEVER give it the attention and love that Nokia has. Their loyalty is to the green robot first and foremost, never forget that. And Android is the real enemy of Windows Phone, NOT the iPhone.
Daniel Ratcliffe
New member
I know it's mind boggling, but some of the people I know are that way inclined.
jmerrey
New member
I think we've entered a very strange time on the wpcentral forums. The owner should really consider making a special sub forum for the trolling, device/manufacturer bashing, etc.
Depends. Do you prefer to pay $150 a month for the same service that T-Mo sells for $60/month just to get the Nokia?
And NOBODY looks at a carrier and says "oooh, its parent company wants to spin it off in an IPO, I cannot buy a phone there! I'm going to go pay 2.5x as much at this other carrier."
Incidentally, you are aware that DT is investing in LTE and recently made moves to acquire the #5 carrier, MetroPCS, and merge it with T-Mo, right? Making the network bigger and faster isn't something that a "non-committed owner who wants to sell it off ASAP" does.
And for comparison's sake, T-Mobile USA on its own has more subscribers than all of the carriers in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada COMBINED.
Moderate success just at T-Mobile USA is equivalent to dominating all of the many carriers in Australia, NZ and Canada. Rogers, Optus, Voda Oz, Voda NZ, Telus, Telstra, Videotron, Bell, Telecom NZ, and Wind combined still have fewer subscribers than T-Mobile USA.
Using your logic, that means that Nokia should skip those countries and their many carriers, and put those resources towards focusing on T-Mobile instead. After all, those are teeny-tiny countries with no people and no market, smaller than the piddling fourth-place carrier in the USA, right? If you can't waste your time with T-Mo, Australia's hardly worth the effort!
You're obviously not familiar with T-Mobile. They introduced the smartphone, along with Sprint, in the USA. T-Mo was the pioneer for Windows Mobile, Danger Sidekick (which was HUGE) and Android (the launch carrier in the USA for the country's dominant mobile OS).
Sprint's big launches were the Treo series (dead) and EVO (moderately successful). T-Mo has a better record, frankly.
AT&T still sells the best-selling GS3 as well. At T-Mobile, you'd have two flagships -- 920 and GS3. At AT&T, you'd have eight -- GS3, One X, One X+, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, Xperia, Galaxy Note II, and 920.
Which is a better sales strategy -- two in the retail store with enthusiastic salespeople, or eight, with the Lumia off in a dusty corner with no charge?
I never said that, so absolutely nothing at all.
T-Mobile sells the vast majority of Nokia phones sold in the USA. It's the only carrier that promotes Nokia as a viable choice.
T-Mobile is the only reason Nokia has ANY relevance in the USA.
The real danger here is that T-Mo has been spited, twice, by Nokia in a year's time. If the 810 isn't successful and the 8X, ATIV S and Android devices eat up Nokia share, Nokia will have fewer active users a year from now (and T-Mo is going to be far less inclined to help Nokia get them back).
If T-Mobile had treated Nokia the way Verizon, AT&T and Sprint did over the last ten years, Nokia wouldn't even have 100,000 customers in the USA.
And even if 920 is only a moderate hit on T-Mobile, that means it would sell far, far better than a runaway hit in all of Australia, NZ and Canada. This is undeniable.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Trending Posts
-
Post pictures of your latest purchase
- Started by Laura Knotek
- Replies: 3K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram