4 ms·

This article completely ignores the concept of mindshare. Which equates to how many people are thinking about a product, and thus how many people are more likel

This article completely ignores the concept of mindshare. Which equates to how many people are thinking about a product, and thus how many people are more likely to buy that product someday. In 2010 Nokia's mindshare was slim to none and slim was heading out of town. He tries to make it sound like Nokia was doing well then but it may have been doing well in the moment, but we all know what the derivative was. My opinion: Nokia is fine. They have a good business strategy in their new smartphone pillar that I strongly believe will work. Why? Because it's a two pronged strategy. They're selling performant inexpensive smartphone like the Lumia 510 in the developing world that will be retailing for $150 (off contract!). While they're doing this to increase their marketshare, they're making high end 'hero' devices like the Lumia 920 that will ship in the developed world and increase mindshare. Its unrealistic to expect a 'breakthrough' in western markets because many customers are entrenched into certain ecosystems and are difficult to move. That said, mindshare is easier to get, and if you can convince people that your stuff is cool, you can start to slowly nibble away at the western markets. Nokia is fine. Elop is fine. I'm tired of all of this doomsday predicting crap.

turingbook 14y ago
Now in China, the mainstream mid-end Android phones from local brands price at $150 or so. Less and less people buy Symbian and feature phones. And Windows Phone only has very small market share, maybe 3%. Nokia is dying.
blinkingled 14y ago
Selling something for $150 off-contract isn't anything to get excited about when the developing world (India and China mainly) already has huge market penetration from the likes of Samsung, ZTE, SE etc. - they are all selling equally capable phones at similar price point. I.E. the situation is not very different from western markets - Samsung/Sony/ZTE already have a mindshare there at low and high end - even if you forget the low end iPhones. Plus to Nokia's detriment, Samsung can always release their "better" $150 Windows Phone in those markets. Also the app situation isn't changing - at this point they really needed the app development scene nailed - Microsoft hasn't even released the SDK for WP8. Developing world is not somehow going to ignore that and spend $150 buying a dumb phone replacement.
- ansible 14y ago
  Selling something for $150 off-contract isn't anything to get excited about when the developing world (India and China mainly) already has huge market penetration from the likes of Samsung, ZTE, SE etc. Actually, $150 is waaaay too high for the developing world. You can get a kinda-OK Android phone for half that in places like Brazil.
  - Metrop0218 14y ago
    They're obviously going to keep pushing lower and lower price points. This is just the beginning. But the point is that android phones you get for 150$ or less off contract are rough, very rough. If you can offer someone a phone that's a wee bit more but that is so much more performant, you can sway them over. But that said, this is just the beginning. You'll see Nokia push even lower price points later.
    - css771 14y ago
      Actually, smooth performance is something very few consumers in the developing world actually care about. I bought an android phone for ~$130 in 2010. It ran eclair. Now it runs the latest version of gingerbread. I never really felt it's performance was a deal breaker at any point. And consequently, the galaxy Y duos, a gingerbread phone that retails for ~$160 today, runs pretty smooth. Here's a video of it http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&v=qZdAbI0ZMuE http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&v=qZdAbI0ZMuE It's performance is really good enough and something most consumers would buy.
jpxxx 14y ago
From an American persoective, yes. Nokia was a titan everywhere but in American smartphones. They owned the low end, the owned the high end, and they owned everywhere in between. Now they have completely lost the script on smartphones and are losing their grip on the dumb phones that have paid the bills for more than a decade. There is no upside to be seen anywhere.
- 5teev 14y ago
  It's hard to imagine nowadays, but in the late 1990's, Nokia made cell phones Americans craved. Their blunder in the US market was to think they didn't have to get in bed with specific carriers and make phones exclusive to one or another. A titan the world over, Nokia was surely surprised at how effectively they could be diminished by the business model the US carriers settled on. They never recovered in the US, and I don't think they ever will.
- Spearchucker 14y ago
  I'm not as close to Nokia as you, so can you explain where Nokia lost the script on smart phones? I ask because I pre-ordered a 920 off-contract on the basis of a number of features unavailable anywhere else - - Offline maps, search and navigation - PureView/OSI camera - Being able to use the phone wearing gloves - Wireless charging There are a number of other reasons I chose to pre-order the 920 without knowing what it'll cost. UEFI. Knowing that the phone won't come with some crazy manufacturer's interpretation of a UI skin. Knowing that no manufacturer or network operator will include bloatware that can't be uninstalled without rooting the phone, or being forced to use iTunes. Would love to know if I made a mistake, and why.
  - jpxxx 14y ago
    I've no doubt it's a great phone, and those are all good features. But it's late, it's not shipping today, it's only on one carrier in the USA (odd considering capturing the American premium smartphone market was the whole rationale for 'Burning Platforms'), it's based on an ecosystem that's still a distant third-to-fifth in many metrics, and it's part of a brand that's struggling mightily to mean anything in the minds of customers. Nokia's late 00's Symbian lineup wasn't necessarily competitive with the premium side of the market, but it was quite competitive in the lower tiers and was still selling like gangbusters in the lower-grade markets. Publicly throwing them all out overnight was an extraordinarily bad move that suffocated Nokia just as they needed cash to compete more than ever before. Their ASPs dropped like a rock, carriers told them to fuck off now that they had a legitimate and thriving alternative (Android 2.x), and the idea of Nokia being a vendor of status phones evaporated overnight. One great phone isn't going to fix their situation.
cmccabe 14y ago
Nokia's sales have collapsed. It's not "doomsaying" at this point-- more like "doom observing." The only real assets they have left are their patents and their NAVTEQ division (whatever they're calling it now). Now would be a good time for them to break up the company, sell those assets, and maybe manage to return something back to the shareholders. On the other hand, if you still think it's "fine," then you should buy some Nokia stock.

turingbook 14y ago

Now in China, the mainstream mid-end Android phones from local brands price at $150 or so. Less and less people buy Symbian and feature phones. And Windows Phone only has very small market share, maybe 3%. Nokia is dying.

blinkingled 14y ago

Selling something for $150 off-contract isn't anything to get excited about when the developing world (India and China mainly) already has huge market penetration from the likes of Samsung, ZTE, SE etc. - they are all selling equally capable phones at similar price point. I.E. the situation is not very different from western markets - Samsung/Sony/ZTE already have a mindshare there at low and high end - even if you forget the low end iPhones. Plus to Nokia's detriment, Samsung can always release their "better" $150 Windows Phone in those markets. Also the app situation isn't changing - at this point they really needed the app development scene nailed - Microsoft hasn't even released the SDK for WP8. Developing world is not somehow going to ignore that and spend $150 buying a dumb phone replacement.

ansible 14y ago
Selling something for $150 off-contract isn't anything to get excited about when the developing world (India and China mainly) already has huge market penetration from the likes of Samsung, ZTE, SE etc. Actually, $150 is waaaay too high for the developing world. You can get a kinda-OK Android phone for half that in places like Brazil.
- Metrop0218 14y ago
  They're obviously going to keep pushing lower and lower price points. This is just the beginning. But the point is that android phones you get for 150$ or less off contract are rough, very rough. If you can offer someone a phone that's a wee bit more but that is so much more performant, you can sway them over. But that said, this is just the beginning. You'll see Nokia push even lower price points later.
  - css771 14y ago
    Actually, smooth performance is something very few consumers in the developing world actually care about. I bought an android phone for ~$130 in 2010. It ran eclair. Now it runs the latest version of gingerbread. I never really felt it's performance was a deal breaker at any point. And consequently, the galaxy Y duos, a gingerbread phone that retails for ~$160 today, runs pretty smooth. Here's a video of it http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&v=qZdAbI0ZMuE http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&v=qZdAbI0ZMuE It's performance is really good enough and something most consumers would buy.

jpxxx 14y ago

From an American persoective, yes. Nokia was a titan everywhere but in American smartphones. They owned the low end, the owned the high end, and they owned everywhere in between. Now they have completely lost the script on smartphones and are losing their grip on the dumb phones that have paid the bills for more than a decade. There is no upside to be seen anywhere.

5teev 14y ago
It's hard to imagine nowadays, but in the late 1990's, Nokia made cell phones Americans craved. Their blunder in the US market was to think they didn't have to get in bed with specific carriers and make phones exclusive to one or another. A titan the world over, Nokia was surely surprised at how effectively they could be diminished by the business model the US carriers settled on. They never recovered in the US, and I don't think they ever will.
Spearchucker 14y ago
I'm not as close to Nokia as you, so can you explain where Nokia lost the script on smart phones? I ask because I pre-ordered a 920 off-contract on the basis of a number of features unavailable anywhere else - - Offline maps, search and navigation - PureView/OSI camera - Being able to use the phone wearing gloves - Wireless charging There are a number of other reasons I chose to pre-order the 920 without knowing what it'll cost. UEFI. Knowing that the phone won't come with some crazy manufacturer's interpretation of a UI skin. Knowing that no manufacturer or network operator will include bloatware that can't be uninstalled without rooting the phone, or being forced to use iTunes. Would love to know if I made a mistake, and why.
- jpxxx 14y ago
  I've no doubt it's a great phone, and those are all good features. But it's late, it's not shipping today, it's only on one carrier in the USA (odd considering capturing the American premium smartphone market was the whole rationale for 'Burning Platforms'), it's based on an ecosystem that's still a distant third-to-fifth in many metrics, and it's part of a brand that's struggling mightily to mean anything in the minds of customers. Nokia's late 00's Symbian lineup wasn't necessarily competitive with the premium side of the market, but it was quite competitive in the lower tiers and was still selling like gangbusters in the lower-grade markets. Publicly throwing them all out overnight was an extraordinarily bad move that suffocated Nokia just as they needed cash to compete more than ever before. Their ASPs dropped like a rock, carriers told them to fuck off now that they had a legitimate and thriving alternative (Android 2.x), and the idea of Nokia being a vendor of status phones evaporated overnight. One great phone isn't going to fix their situation.

cmccabe 14y ago

Nokia's sales have collapsed. It's not "doomsaying" at this point-- more like "doom observing." The only real assets they have left are their patents and their NAVTEQ division (whatever they're calling it now). Now would be a good time for them to break up the company, sell those assets, and maybe manage to return something back to the shareholders. On the other hand, if you still think it's "fine," then you should buy some Nokia stock.