6 ms·

Nokia’s Lumia line ‘not good enough’ to battle iOS and Android, say carriers

32 points by shin_lao 15y ago

coob 15y ago
How about letting customer's decide? I cannot wait until carriers (and ISPs) are dragged kicking and screaming down to the level of basic utility pipe providers they really are.
- vibrunazo 15y ago
  According to this article [1], it is the customers deciding. Carrier rejection is just a reflection of customer rejection. It happens like this: customers buy windows phone, get disappointed because it's worse than the old nokia n9. Return it to store. Stores get scared of high number of returns, which are bad for their business. Stores avoid selling them in the first place. [1] http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2012/03/brutal-truth-about-lumia-cannot-sustain-even-1-to-1-replacement-of-symbian-windows-phone-strategy-do.html http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2012/03/brutal-...
- talmand 15y ago
  From my limited experience all I've heard is the people who have them love them but the people who sell them push people to other platforms. I've always heard talk of kickbacks for selling one phone over another. For the vast majority of people out there just about any of the decent smartphones will work for them, they just have to play with them to decided which one they like best. Arguments over things like "not enough apps" or "too much fragmentation" is most likely not an issue (knowingly or unknowingly) to most shoppers. It seems logical to assume that the sales guy will push you towards the phone he needs to sell, whether due to kickbacks, quotas, or management pressure. This is done regardless of the wants and needs of the customer. Part of my reasoning behind this is just the general behavior of these companies towards their customers to begin with.
  - orbitingpluto 15y ago
    The 'kickbacks' usually come in the form of retail 'educational programs'. The most effective of these are of the form: (pretend to) read some articles, take a quiz, earn some points and then redeem them for branded gadgets. I once worked retail as a computer 'technician' for three months and I made as much in free stuff as I did in wages. (I was quite up front about my limited tenure there but I later found out why HR took no issue with that: at three months you can be the senior non-mgmt employee.) I would assume these loyalty programs are becoming even more aggressive towards retail workers and that you could even quintuple your 'salary' for the lowest paid computer/phone positions. If you've ever wondered why Craigslist was flooded with $1000 CPUs priced to $300, now you know.
- sp332 15y ago
  Customers seem to love the Lumia 900. e.g. http://gdgt.com/nokia/lumia/900/ http://gdgt.com/nokia/lumia/900/
melling 15y ago
The reality for app developers is that supporting a third platform is really stretching it. Even in the PC vs. Mac desktop world, the Mac often gets forgotten. It only has 5-7% market share so it's not worth the effort for many developers. Linux? Not a chance. I'd pay for Photoshop on Linux, really! Anyway, Linux might take off as an appliance someday, but I'm digressing. At this point, Microsoft is probably too late. It'll sell phones to people who just want phones, but I think it's too late for the whole ecosystem. Not to worry for fans, I doubt if they'll ever give up.
- alsocasey 15y ago
  I cannot wait for the day when developing for mobile will mean a decent/optimized/design-once-play-on-every-platform's browser mobile site rather than a native app. It seems a no brainer, but the current state of mobile browsers forces native development efforts for every platform.
  - greedo 15y ago
    It isn't the fault of mobile browsers, but browsers in general. Despite all the advances in browsing technologies, it's still an app world, both on the desktop and on mobile devices.
- freehunter 15y ago
  I wouldn't rush that claim until Windows 8 is released. Despite the prejudice thrown at it by the Internet community (despite the product not actually being out), people will buy it. New computers will come with it. Developers will make software for it. And that software will be able to run on Windows Phone with only slight modifications. So unless you're predicting imminent death for the company with the overwhelming majority of marketshare, people will be developing apps for Windows, which puts them 90% of the way towards having an app for Windows Phone.
  - runako 15y ago
    >> And that software will be able to run on Windows Phone with only slight modifications. I'd bet accomplished mobile devs would take exception to that. Changing the UI, inputs metaphors, device capabilities, etc. may not be significant to some apps, but those are are in the minority.
freehunter 15y ago
He said Microsoft's software worked nicely with PCs and allowed you "to do tons of cool things" but few customers knew this. Isn't this what the sales reps are supposed to do? Help the customer make an informed decision? Or are they just paid to be hand the customer a phone? Why wouldn't the conversation go like this: Do you own a Mac or a PC? Mac: buy an iPhone, unless you care about... PC: Do you like to listen to a lot of music/are you active on Xbox Live/etc... do you use iTunes/have a lot of friends playing iPhone games... do you like (whatever mainstream aspect Android has over the competition)... Fill in the blanks with what sales reps are paid to do. Find what your customer wants and needs, show them the phone that covers that aspect, show them the competition, make a recommendation, then let them choose. If the customer doesn't go into the store knowing 100% what they want, it's the reps place to help them understand. Not to sell them an iPhone or a Galaxy.
- runako 15y ago
  >> Why wouldn't the conversation go like this: Because then it's a discussion and sales process. If the rep simply hands the customer the iPhone (or top Android), he's out the door happy and the rep can sell the next phone. Apple and Google have taken care of education and creating customer desire by the time the customer arrives at the store; Microsoft is failing at this.
- smackfu 15y ago
  The tricky bit is that they are paid based on which phones people buy. Androids have higher commissions than iPhones, for instance.
  - Zirro 15y ago
    Who pays for that? Google and the phone-manufacturers?
- ticks 15y ago
  Presumably it has a lot to do with the ecosystem that the customer has already bought into. If they already use Google's products, then Android phones are the natural option, if iTunes then Apple. Nokia's shoved themselves into a specialist category by opting for Windows-only.
Tuna-Fish 15y ago
I'd say a large proportion of the carrier sales boycott of WP is simply fallout of the MS acquisition of Skype. The carriers are scared shitless about being reduced to dumb pipes, and purchasing Skype was pretty much an open declaration of war from MS. Nice rock you tied yourself to, Nokia.
- guard-of-terra 15y ago
  Aren't they dumb pipes already? I struggle to remember any examples of their contribution to the user experience. I can remember dozens of stories where they took advantage of their clients or harmed them in other way, tho. They better stay pipes.
  - Tuna-Fish 15y ago
    They bill for texts and calls, for rates hugely separated from the data cost of the operations. They should naturally be just dumb pipes. They are fighting tooth and nail to not to be forced to that role.
    - stcredzero 15y ago
      They should naturally be just dumb pipes. Does the fact that someone isn't wildly successful doing this indicate a market failure?
      - Tuna-Fish 15y ago
        The cost of entering the market is truly staggering. I'd be ready to make the case that last-mile ISPs (which the carriers really are, they just operate with wireless) should be utilities, with all the baggage that entails, for exactly the same reason water and electricity are utilities.
        protomyth 15y ago
        I actually wish the local gas / electric company would start running fiber to people's homes. They are ok with the economics of commodity products and already have access to the home.
thought_alarm 15y ago
"No one comes into the store and asks for a Windows phone." Of course not. People come into the store and ask for a phone the does "the email and stuff", and walk out with some Samsung model they've previously never heard of. Microsoft is currently paying AT&T to push the Nokia Lumia. The rest of the carriers have zero incentive to push Windows Phone devices when companies like Samsung and LG are so willing to customize their Android devices to each carrier's whim.
- guard-of-terra 15y ago
  Which is a selling point, by the way. The device in pristine state not touched by carriers is obviously better than "customized" one.
  - stcredzero 15y ago
    Is there an opportunity here? Even unsophisticated users know there's something wrong with crapware.
  - notatoad 15y ago
    it's not a selling point. a selling point is something that a salesperson can take advantage of to make a sale, and "my employer hasn't fucked this phone up as much as they have those other ones" isn't something a salesperson can tell a customer. lack of carrier crap is a feature, but it's not an advertisable one. even microsoft can't advertise it, because they have relationships with carriers to maintain.
MrVitaliy 15y ago
If it's the same "carrier" who put crap-load of useless, buggy malware with every android phone they sell, then who cares what they say. They clearly have no clue what is even "good enough" to weight in an opinion about Nokia.
corysama 15y ago
This article has a good breakdown of why carriers are strongly motivated downplay Windows phones. http://ceklog.kindel.com/2011/12/26/windows-phone-is-superior-why-hasnt-it-taken-off/ http://ceklog.kindel.com/2011/12/26/windows-phone-is-superio...
protomyth 15y ago
It's the same argument that Microsoft reps made against using Mac OS, Linux, BeOS, NeXTSTEP, etc. on the desktop. "You need to go with the most installed base / most apps to not waste your money". I get the feeling that Microsoft / Nokia is going to have to aggressively go after the pre-pay and feature phone market. They need something that undercuts the price and makes money for all the independents that sell phones. Android and iPhone are not players in the pre-pay market.
- firefoxman1 15y ago
  That would be a really great strategy. I love the pricing style of prepaid plans, but the phone selection is horrible. I always end up unlocking a smartphone and hacking it onto a prepaid plan. If Microsoft could also make data more available/affordable for prepaid plans, it would definitely be a hit.
  - protomyth 15y ago
    I am actually surprised one of the Android-based companies who isn't winning doesn't make an attempt at that market. It gets you the market share and makes it easier to upsell customers on your "premium" versions.
- vibrunazo 15y ago
  Not sure how the phone selection is where you live at. But android is huge in the pre-pay market at where I live. Samsung has some extremely low end stuff that is so bizarre that you never read about on blogs, but they exist. There are also the less known chinese brands that are slowly building a brand by selling very low end android stuff as well. It's very easy to buy an unlocked android smartphone for less than $100, and customers looking for those usually are not looking for brand name in the first place. Entering the pre-pay smartphone market wouldn't be a new strategy that no one came up with before. This market is already competitive and completely dominated by android.
  - protomyth 15y ago
    Every time I have looked it is always feature phones, mostly by LG.
elorant 15y ago
It’s amazing to realize that it took only five years for a giant like Nokia to become irrelevant in the market. That says a lot about the competitiveness and the speed of progress in the computing world.
xam 15y ago
Because the carriers really know what they're doing. What a bunch of imbeciles. The first iPhone was nearly killed by the morons.
nvrmor 15y ago
The Elopalypse continues...

32 points by shin_lao 15y ago

coob 15y ago

How about letting customer's decide? I cannot wait until carriers (and ISPs) are dragged kicking and screaming down to the level of basic utility pipe providers they really are.

vibrunazo 15y ago
According to this article [1], it is the customers deciding. Carrier rejection is just a reflection of customer rejection. It happens like this: customers buy windows phone, get disappointed because it's worse than the old nokia n9. Return it to store. Stores get scared of high number of returns, which are bad for their business. Stores avoid selling them in the first place. [1] http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2012/03/brutal-truth-about-lumia-cannot-sustain-even-1-to-1-replacement-of-symbian-windows-phone-strategy-do.html http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2012/03/brutal-...
talmand 15y ago
From my limited experience all I've heard is the people who have them love them but the people who sell them push people to other platforms. I've always heard talk of kickbacks for selling one phone over another. For the vast majority of people out there just about any of the decent smartphones will work for them, they just have to play with them to decided which one they like best. Arguments over things like "not enough apps" or "too much fragmentation" is most likely not an issue (knowingly or unknowingly) to most shoppers. It seems logical to assume that the sales guy will push you towards the phone he needs to sell, whether due to kickbacks, quotas, or management pressure. This is done regardless of the wants and needs of the customer. Part of my reasoning behind this is just the general behavior of these companies towards their customers to begin with.
- orbitingpluto 15y ago
  The 'kickbacks' usually come in the form of retail 'educational programs'. The most effective of these are of the form: (pretend to) read some articles, take a quiz, earn some points and then redeem them for branded gadgets. I once worked retail as a computer 'technician' for three months and I made as much in free stuff as I did in wages. (I was quite up front about my limited tenure there but I later found out why HR took no issue with that: at three months you can be the senior non-mgmt employee.) I would assume these loyalty programs are becoming even more aggressive towards retail workers and that you could even quintuple your 'salary' for the lowest paid computer/phone positions. If you've ever wondered why Craigslist was flooded with $1000 CPUs priced to $300, now you know.
sp332 15y ago
Customers seem to love the Lumia 900. e.g. http://gdgt.com/nokia/lumia/900/ http://gdgt.com/nokia/lumia/900/

melling 15y ago

The reality for app developers is that supporting a third platform is really stretching it. Even in the PC vs. Mac desktop world, the Mac often gets forgotten. It only has 5-7% market share so it's not worth the effort for many developers. Linux? Not a chance. I'd pay for Photoshop on Linux, really! Anyway, Linux might take off as an appliance someday, but I'm digressing. At this point, Microsoft is probably too late. It'll sell phones to people who just want phones, but I think it's too late for the whole ecosystem. Not to worry for fans, I doubt if they'll ever give up.

alsocasey 15y ago
I cannot wait for the day when developing for mobile will mean a decent/optimized/design-once-play-on-every-platform's browser mobile site rather than a native app. It seems a no brainer, but the current state of mobile browsers forces native development efforts for every platform.
- greedo 15y ago
  It isn't the fault of mobile browsers, but browsers in general. Despite all the advances in browsing technologies, it's still an app world, both on the desktop and on mobile devices.
freehunter 15y ago
I wouldn't rush that claim until Windows 8 is released. Despite the prejudice thrown at it by the Internet community (despite the product not actually being out), people will buy it. New computers will come with it. Developers will make software for it. And that software will be able to run on Windows Phone with only slight modifications. So unless you're predicting imminent death for the company with the overwhelming majority of marketshare, people will be developing apps for Windows, which puts them 90% of the way towards having an app for Windows Phone.
- runako 15y ago
  >> And that software will be able to run on Windows Phone with only slight modifications. I'd bet accomplished mobile devs would take exception to that. Changing the UI, inputs metaphors, device capabilities, etc. may not be significant to some apps, but those are are in the minority.

freehunter 15y ago

He said Microsoft's software worked nicely with PCs and allowed you "to do tons of cool things" but few customers knew this. Isn't this what the sales reps are supposed to do? Help the customer make an informed decision? Or are they just paid to be hand the customer a phone? Why wouldn't the conversation go like this: Do you own a Mac or a PC? Mac: buy an iPhone, unless you care about... PC: Do you like to listen to a lot of music/are you active on Xbox Live/etc... do you use iTunes/have a lot of friends playing iPhone games... do you like (whatever mainstream aspect Android has over the competition)... Fill in the blanks with what sales reps are paid to do. Find what your customer wants and needs, show them the phone that covers that aspect, show them the competition, make a recommendation, then let them choose. If the customer doesn't go into the store knowing 100% what they want, it's the reps place to help them understand. Not to sell them an iPhone or a Galaxy.

runako 15y ago
>> Why wouldn't the conversation go like this: Because then it's a discussion and sales process. If the rep simply hands the customer the iPhone (or top Android), he's out the door happy and the rep can sell the next phone. Apple and Google have taken care of education and creating customer desire by the time the customer arrives at the store; Microsoft is failing at this.
smackfu 15y ago
The tricky bit is that they are paid based on which phones people buy. Androids have higher commissions than iPhones, for instance.
- Zirro 15y ago
  Who pays for that? Google and the phone-manufacturers?
ticks 15y ago
Presumably it has a lot to do with the ecosystem that the customer has already bought into. If they already use Google's products, then Android phones are the natural option, if iTunes then Apple. Nokia's shoved themselves into a specialist category by opting for Windows-only.

Tuna-Fish 15y ago

I'd say a large proportion of the carrier sales boycott of WP is simply fallout of the MS acquisition of Skype. The carriers are scared shitless about being reduced to dumb pipes, and purchasing Skype was pretty much an open declaration of war from MS. Nice rock you tied yourself to, Nokia.

guard-of-terra 15y ago
Aren't they dumb pipes already? I struggle to remember any examples of their contribution to the user experience. I can remember dozens of stories where they took advantage of their clients or harmed them in other way, tho. They better stay pipes.
- Tuna-Fish 15y ago
  They bill for texts and calls, for rates hugely separated from the data cost of the operations. They should naturally be just dumb pipes. They are fighting tooth and nail to not to be forced to that role.
  - stcredzero 15y ago
    They should naturally be just dumb pipes. Does the fact that someone isn't wildly successful doing this indicate a market failure?
    - Tuna-Fish 15y ago
      The cost of entering the market is truly staggering. I'd be ready to make the case that last-mile ISPs (which the carriers really are, they just operate with wireless) should be utilities, with all the baggage that entails, for exactly the same reason water and electricity are utilities.
      - protomyth 15y ago
        I actually wish the local gas / electric company would start running fiber to people's homes. They are ok with the economics of commodity products and already have access to the home.

thought_alarm 15y ago

"No one comes into the store and asks for a Windows phone." Of course not. People come into the store and ask for a phone the does "the email and stuff", and walk out with some Samsung model they've previously never heard of. Microsoft is currently paying AT&T to push the Nokia Lumia. The rest of the carriers have zero incentive to push Windows Phone devices when companies like Samsung and LG are so willing to customize their Android devices to each carrier's whim.

guard-of-terra 15y ago
Which is a selling point, by the way. The device in pristine state not touched by carriers is obviously better than "customized" one.
- stcredzero 15y ago
  Is there an opportunity here? Even unsophisticated users know there's something wrong with crapware.
- notatoad 15y ago
  it's not a selling point. a selling point is something that a salesperson can take advantage of to make a sale, and "my employer hasn't fucked this phone up as much as they have those other ones" isn't something a salesperson can tell a customer. lack of carrier crap is a feature, but it's not an advertisable one. even microsoft can't advertise it, because they have relationships with carriers to maintain.

MrVitaliy 15y ago

If it's the same "carrier" who put crap-load of useless, buggy malware with every android phone they sell, then who cares what they say. They clearly have no clue what is even "good enough" to weight in an opinion about Nokia.

corysama 15y ago

This article has a good breakdown of why carriers are strongly motivated downplay Windows phones. http://ceklog.kindel.com/2011/12/26/windows-phone-is-superior-why-hasnt-it-taken-off/ http://ceklog.kindel.com/2011/12/26/windows-phone-is-superio...

protomyth 15y ago

It's the same argument that Microsoft reps made against using Mac OS, Linux, BeOS, NeXTSTEP, etc. on the desktop. "You need to go with the most installed base / most apps to not waste your money". I get the feeling that Microsoft / Nokia is going to have to aggressively go after the pre-pay and feature phone market. They need something that undercuts the price and makes money for all the independents that sell phones. Android and iPhone are not players in the pre-pay market.

firefoxman1 15y ago
That would be a really great strategy. I love the pricing style of prepaid plans, but the phone selection is horrible. I always end up unlocking a smartphone and hacking it onto a prepaid plan. If Microsoft could also make data more available/affordable for prepaid plans, it would definitely be a hit.
- protomyth 15y ago
  I am actually surprised one of the Android-based companies who isn't winning doesn't make an attempt at that market. It gets you the market share and makes it easier to upsell customers on your "premium" versions.
vibrunazo 15y ago
Not sure how the phone selection is where you live at. But android is huge in the pre-pay market at where I live. Samsung has some extremely low end stuff that is so bizarre that you never read about on blogs, but they exist. There are also the less known chinese brands that are slowly building a brand by selling very low end android stuff as well. It's very easy to buy an unlocked android smartphone for less than $100, and customers looking for those usually are not looking for brand name in the first place. Entering the pre-pay smartphone market wouldn't be a new strategy that no one came up with before. This market is already competitive and completely dominated by android.
- protomyth 15y ago
  Every time I have looked it is always feature phones, mostly by LG.

elorant 15y ago

It’s amazing to realize that it took only five years for a giant like Nokia to become irrelevant in the market. That says a lot about the competitiveness and the speed of progress in the computing world.

xam 15y ago

Because the carriers really know what they're doing. What a bunch of imbeciles. The first iPhone was nearly killed by the morons.

nvrmor 15y ago

The Elopalypse continues...