16 ms·

There is no money in being an Android vendor except if you're Samsung and are totally vertically integrated. There are a lot of people who would have picked up

There is no money in being an Android vendor except if you're Samsung and are totally vertically integrated. There are a lot of people who would have picked up the attractive, well built, well engineered Nokia devices if they had the platform of Android. The core problem with the "no money in Android" argument is that you can't choose not to compete with Android if you're in the smartphone game, which is pretty obvious given that we're talking about a company that went from hero to zero largely at the hands of Android (RIM being another example). WP8 just isn't compelling compared to Android for a lot of users, which led to a lot of people moaning that they wish they could get one of those nice Nokia devices...but WP7/8.... Apple obviously is very much in a battle with Android, though they're in a much better position, and it's one that Microsoft isn't going to be able to emulate bringing hardware in house (especially given that it was already effectively in house. This new arrangement changes essentially nothing, but makes official what people long assumed).

macspoofing 13y ago
>There are a lot of people who would have picked up the attractive, well built, well engineered Nokia devices if they had the platform of Android. Yeah maybe. There is no guarantee that the outcome would have been more favorable than being bought out by Microsoft. >Apple obviously is very much in a battle with Android ... Apple already lost to Android. Last count, Android had 80% of the market. There is zero chance of that changing anytime soon. Apple's saving grace is that they can cut themselves a nice little niche, and make some good margins based on the strength of their brand much like they do with Macs. This will be doubly true if HTML pushes out native apps and and makes the platform largely superfluous again. The war is over however.
- hippee-lee 13y ago
  Can we not talk about this in terms of war and battle? It is the business of selling consumer electronics, same as it has always been. You do explain your position well but I feel the references to war and battle water it down. No one has been killed in the development of phones. I get that the MBA crowd read the art of war and it's practical knowledge seeped into popular discussion. But the endless reference to war in consumer electronics (and other areas not really war) is tedious and uninformative.
  - corresation 13y ago
    Whatever your personal hangups are, words such as "battle" (an extended contest, struggle, or controversy) and "war" (a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end) are entirely and absolutely appropriate for such discussions. Your comment borders on bizarre.
    - hippee-lee 13y ago
      No personal hang ups. Just expressing an opinion on the use of words that I think are overused and therefore watered down in today's environment. You clearly have a different take on it. No need to belittle me for my opinion.
    - Apocryphon 13y ago
      Those combat terms assume zero-sum conflicts. There can be a situation where the smartphone OS market consists of multiple survivors, even if it's only a duopoly.
    - chris_wot 13y ago
      Neither of those are the full definition of the terms mentioned. Both have connotations of violence. War is an armed conflict. Battle is a military conflict. Both have non-military meanings, but what is being said about the use the terms is not weird or bizarre.
  - macspoofing 13y ago
    How about we use language and imagery that most people understand.
    - hippee-lee 13y ago
      Is this a question or a statement? Modern battle and war have very little in common with business. So, it is my opinion that the use is such terms waters down an otherwise reasonable well thought out comment.
      - 13y ago
- clarky07 13y ago
  Android has 80% worldwide market share, but it's much much closer in the US. If you take out the crap phones that are smartphone in name only, it's much closer worldwide. While Android is clearly winning by a decent margin, I'm not convinced it's over. I think the hopefully coming soon cheaper iPhone could make things a lot more interesting. Note that I don't actually want the iPhone to win. I would very much prefer that neither "wins". 50% each would be a better outcome for consumers for years. Better yet, windows gaining share and having 3 at 33% would be awesome.
  - gbog 13y ago
    No, please, we have such hard time moving MS out of the hot field, don't bring them back! Remember when everyone feared MS? I mean, that was really terriying time for our industry. How forgetful is it to "wish" MS could gain a third of the phone OS market shared... Apple and Google conjugated efforts kept the wolf outside and you want to open the gates? However, I agree that a domineering Android/Google or Android/Samsumg is harmful for the market. Let us hope some other OSes can grab a piece of it. I have some hope in Cyanogenmod, which could be forking away from Android (just like Linux forked Unix). And, if you look at it, that is just what Chinese companies are doing (xiaomi, etc.): forking Android and gain market shares.
    - valleyer 13y ago
      Huh? Microsoft was terrifying because they dominated the PC market. This comment proposes their having 33% of the smartphone market. How is that "terrifying"?
      - Samuel_Michon 13y ago
        Microsoft has a long history of not playing fair. If it were to have 33% of the market, it isn’t unthinkable that it will try all possible dirty tricks in the book to gain the upper hand. Right now, Windows Phone’s market share is negligible, Microsoft has zero leverage so it has to play by the book.
        13y ago
- StandardFuture 13y ago
  I'm sorry but moving this conversation towards being about Android and Android's "market share" is going off topic. Microsoft clearly did not need to purchase Nokia to have a Windows Phone. That already exists (in partnership with multiple hardware vendors as well). So, market share of Mobile OSes is obviously not a (main) motivation behind this acquisition.
  - tanzam75 13y ago
    Nokia accounts for 80% of Windows Phone sales. The "other OEMs" are basically HTC and Samsung. Both of which are primarily Android companies.
  - Maarten88 13y ago
    > Microsoft clearly did not need to purchase Nokia to have a Windows Phone. They could not afford having anyone else buying Nokia. With the low stock valuation of Nokia, that was a realistic and very scary scenario for Microsoft. I see it as a pre-emptive move of Microsoft, and a move of Nokia (the non-phone part) to preserve their long-term independence.
- guiambros 13y ago
  Market Share (of a free OS) <> Profit. Plus, Market Share has little correlation with innovation or product quality. In fact, Innovator's Dilemma presents a compelling case of the exact opposite. So, exactly which "war" are you referring to?
- bdcravens 13y ago
  "Apple already lost to Android. Last count, Android had 80% of the market." Everyone throws this out there, but phones running 2.3 that cost less than $100 are practically a different product than what Apple and Samsung are offering, which is where the true battle is. Over 1/3 of all Androids run 2.3: http://www.ibtimes.com/android-vs-ios-adoption-rates-jelly-bean-finally-most-popular-version-google-mobile-operating-system http://www.ibtimes.com/android-vs-ios-adoption-rates-jelly-b...
  - DominikR 13y ago
    A 2.3 Phone will run almost every existing Android app out there. In fact, most Android apps target 2.2 and up.
    - coldtea 13y ago
      Which shows how backwards the platform is.
      - beedogs 13y ago
        yeah, how dare they allow people to have a useful phone for several years at a time.
        coldtea 13y ago
        What? It's the very inverse: they DONT allow people to have a useful phone for several years at a time, they saddle them with an osbolete OS and don't provide upgrades. It's a very big pain point that Android makers don't provide upgrades for their older devices (even 1 year old ones). For some models they don't provide upgrades AT ALL, and you have to get custom-install on them to have a new Android. That's why (Google's own numbers) older (by up to 3 years) Android releases amount to 60%+ of the CURRENT installed base, whereas on iOS over 80% of users update on the latest version on the very first month of its release.
        bdcravens 13y ago
- BuckRogers 13y ago
  > Apple already lost to Android. That's not true. Apple's mobile devices are more profitable than any single line of Android devices. Also, sales of the iPad vs any other line of Android tablets, ie. Samsung's are not even close. Your comparison is no different than comparing Windows Server vs Linux servers. Yes, it might have hurt the market for WinServer a little bit (and Apple's iOS devices), but it's not like anyone is making a killing off of all those Linux/Android powered devices out there. When comparing what Android itself as a free platform (mostly free, there are contracts for Google's services that most sign onto)- iOS is far more profitable for Apple than Android is for Google. What you're repeating is common man nonsense. Secondly, FirefoxOS and Ubuntu Mobile will be cheaper devices and likely only cut into Android's marketshare. Add in Tizen, which is being specifically created to STOP paying fees to Google for Android, and you will see your 'zero chance' of Android's 80% marketshare changing. And sooner than you believe. Android has the most precarious position as a 'free' choice. There are many more entrants on the way for the cheap market. The war is just getting started, and I'd rather be in Apple's shoes than Google's (but you act as if Google cares about Android, they don't- it's just a delivery mechanism for their services). Signed by someone who uses a GS3.
  - macspoofing 13y ago
    >Your comparison is no different than comparing Windows Server vs Linux servers. I think a better comparison is Mac vs. Windows. Windows won, but Macs are still thriving, and Apple is making nice margins. This is how I see iOS vs. Android playing out.
    - cageface 13y ago
      Perhaps, but the difference here is that Macs are still better machines in most respects. Macs endure as a niche product because they're higher quality products. Premium Android phones, on the other hand, provide a user experience that a lot of people consider superior.
      - philwelch 13y ago
        Some people prefer Windows to Mac OS, too, so I really don't see your point.
- ddeck 13y ago
  >Apple already lost to Android. Last count, Android had 80% of the market. That's like suggesting that Mercedes Benz have lost already to Ford because they have smaller market share. Apple produce a premium product with prices and margins that reflect that. Of course they would prefer dominant market share, as would Mercedes. But a non-majority share does not imply that they've somehow lost.
  - cageface 13y ago
    The car analogy gets trotted out over and over again when talking about smart phone market share but it really doesn't work at all. Smart phone ecosystems have powerful network effects that just don't exist for most luxury goods.
    - chrischen 13y ago
      Ok, then go by profit.
      - cageface 13y ago
        Samsung is very quickly closing that gap. This is likely to snowball if iOS's share starts dipping into single digits.
    - snom380 13y ago
      Maybe a better example is the PC market, where Apple also has a small market share but huge profits?
      - cageface 13y ago
        Sure. This analogy I can buy and this seems to be where Apple is headed right now.
    - Tloewald 13y ago
      Good point. Which ecosystem seems to be stronger again? It's like mercedes, only mercedes also gets to drive on nicer roads that go more places. When market share translates to usage and developer revenue, as it may some day, this will change. But network effects scarcely reinforce your point.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >Apple already lost to Android. Last count, Android had 80% of the market. Yes. The low-margin 80% of the market that makes few profits. Apple makes as much revenue/profits from it's 20% share as the rest of the 80% Android OEMS combined (namely, Samsung). >There is zero chance of that changing anytime soon. That's great, because who would really want the 80%, low margin market segment? If it'll play like the PC Market (where Apple makes more money that the rest 4 top PC makers), then Android will be like Windows all over again. Dell, anyone?
  - powertower 13y ago
    To put some figures on this - Global operating profits in the smartphone market for the second quarter of 2013: Apple - 53% (shipped 31.2M smartphones) Samsung - 50% (shipped 72.5M smartphones) All Others - negative 3% (operating losses)
StandardFuture 13y ago
> This new arrangement changes essentially nothing, but makes official what people long assumed Precisely! There is no "new" move here. This was just the next step in a series of moves that have already been in motion. I am curious as to how this will affect Microsoft's relationships with Samsung, HTC, and others. This does open the door to more hardware options for them which could integrate with their other devices e.g. Kinect, One, potentially any PC running Windows, etc. I remember Bill Gates talking about Microsoft research in pervasive computing. I imagine Microsoft may be trying to use Nokia's solid hardware business to start delivering 'pervasive' devices/services.
- gtirloni 13y ago
  I don't think Samsung and HTC (what others?) have a serious relationship with Microsoft. IMHO, they just made 1-2 phones to test the water and keep some expertise inhouse and handy in case they wanted to put more focus on it. I think not much will change.
Joeri 13y ago
WP8 suffers more from a perception problem than anything else. I just switched from android to wp8 and the way i see it i got the smooth interaction and ease of use of iOS at the price point of android. The US market is a special beast because the subsidies erase most of the price difference, but in markets where people buy unlocked I think WP8 can take a lot of market share away from android by virtue of its better experience at the same price. The apps are a red herring. The Nokia devices ship with so much out of the box functionality that most people probably won't even install any.
- mrtksn 13y ago
  >The Nokia devices ship with so much out of the box functionality that most people probably won't even install any if this is true, WP8 is just a feature phone with lots of features. if people are not installing apps then the developers wont build apps.
- BuddhaSource 13y ago
  I agree with this. I switched to windows 8 from Android and suddenly I realised this is underrated. OS is well build but suffers a lot because of perception. Apps are limited of course but there is a great potential. A developer build a cool Instagram client for windows phone called 6tag. In 1-2days he got 2 million downloads, not to mention you have to pay to remove ads & upload more than 1 video. The ux is really cool too.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- Pxtl 13y ago
  Less price, even. I love Android, but compared to its competitors it's a system-requirements beast. No other platform needs a quad-core processor to get a pleasant user experience. WP8 phones giving users better performance for less money will make Android feel clunky.
- Maarten88 13y ago
  For example, you can buy a Nokia 520 for $100 without contract. You get a well-built phone. Add a 64gb Micro SD and you have a very capable device. You can download worldwide HERE maps on it for offline navigation, for free. Or use it as a music device with one of the available Music services. And you can expect it to be updated for one or two versions of WP ahead. I'd say Windows Phone is a much better value than people know, and for most people, better value than Android.
grey-area 13y ago
about a company that went from hero to zero largely at the hands of Android (RIM being another example). I think iOS had a lot more to do with Nokia's decline than Android. iOS came first and dominated the high end of mobile phones for years, displacing Nokia in that niche, and then Android also undermined them, but it was hardly all down to Android. Nokia used to sell a lot of high end phones, which they made money on, as well as dominating the low-end.
- regularfry 13y ago
  I think Nokia had more to do with Nokia's decline than iOS or Android. They had the hardware and software to do what Apple and Palm did at least a full generation before iPhone 1.
  - 3825 13y ago
    The Nokia n95 was announced in September 2006 and available in March 2007. Its ad slogan was "It's what computers have become."[0] What stands out in the second paragraph of the article where they highlight the capabilities is "the ability to install and run third party Java ME or Symbian mobile applications". By contrast, the iPhone was decidedly not a computer. Not in the traditional sense. It is apparent in hindsight that people don't care about the downsides of being inside a walled garden. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_N95 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_N95
    - regularfry 13y ago
      I'd argue that the N770 in 2005 was even more interesting. Less polished as a product overall, but if they'd just slapped a phone in it...
      - darklajid 13y ago
        Or in general would've sticked with Maemo (Meego, Sailfish, whatever it was called in-between). I loved my 'Internet Tablet'.
      - 13y ago
Fuxy 13y ago
Nokia is an excellent company and they built the best mobile phones before the smartphone craze. Just as a testament to how good they are there are still pre-smarphone craze Nokia phones available and their probably the best choice if you tend to drop your phones very often or get mad easily and like to trow them to relieve some anger. I was very disappointed when they choose to sell their new Lumia phones with windows. I would have bought a Nokia with Android in a heartbeat but the fact that they choose Microsoft made me think twice and I eventually went with Samsung. I just hope Microsoft doesn't ruin Nokia they're still one of the better hardware manufacturers unfortunately they were never very good at software.
rayiner 13y ago
The fact that a lot of people would have bought the phone doesn't mean it would result in profit. Lots of people by HTC phones, but that company is circling the drain. The problem is that an Android phone is a commodity. Its hard to differentiate yourself on the product side. That means you're in extreme price/specs competition. That drives profits towards zero, just as they are on other commodity platforms like the PC (Acer and Lenovo, for example, have abysmal margins). With Windows phone, Microsoft mostly keeps the spec war in check, and WP8 runs fine on 1G/dual 1.5 Ghz on a "flagship" phone.
- ajuc 13y ago
  What would you choose: small profits, or no customers? That's the choice. Android was "IBM PC trick", and competititors trying to preserve high margins and differentiate their products will end like Amiga, Commodore or Atari.
  - aet 13y ago
    Or, they'll end up like Apple
    - mkr-hn 13y ago
      Apple's position depends on no one undercutting them with a phone that has equal or greater polish and a lower price point.
      - mortehu 13y ago
        It still baffles me that it's so hard for anyone other than Apple to make a single well-polished device, all the way through. If someone gets the casing right, they'll still mess up UI transitions that are meant to be seamless, create laggy or inaccurate touch input, fail to run at 60 or 30 fps, or make hilariously ill-informed UI decisions in the most frequently used apps (clock, settings, camera, ...). What's the explanation for this phenomenon?
        13y ago
cdf 13y ago
I think WP8 is ok. The biggest challenge is the image of Microsoft. In the hands of Apple, WP8 would be lauded insanely great too. The next CEO of Microsoft has to repair this image, and give Microsoft a new reason to be cool again.

macspoofing 13y ago

>There are a lot of people who would have picked up the attractive, well built, well engineered Nokia devices if they had the platform of Android. Yeah maybe. There is no guarantee that the outcome would have been more favorable than being bought out by Microsoft. >Apple obviously is very much in a battle with Android ... Apple already lost to Android. Last count, Android had 80% of the market. There is zero chance of that changing anytime soon. Apple's saving grace is that they can cut themselves a nice little niche, and make some good margins based on the strength of their brand much like they do with Macs. This will be doubly true if HTML pushes out native apps and and makes the platform largely superfluous again. The war is over however.

hippee-lee 13y ago
Can we not talk about this in terms of war and battle? It is the business of selling consumer electronics, same as it has always been. You do explain your position well but I feel the references to war and battle water it down. No one has been killed in the development of phones. I get that the MBA crowd read the art of war and it's practical knowledge seeped into popular discussion. But the endless reference to war in consumer electronics (and other areas not really war) is tedious and uninformative.
- corresation 13y ago
  Whatever your personal hangups are, words such as "battle" (an extended contest, struggle, or controversy) and "war" (a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end) are entirely and absolutely appropriate for such discussions. Your comment borders on bizarre.
  - hippee-lee 13y ago
    No personal hang ups. Just expressing an opinion on the use of words that I think are overused and therefore watered down in today's environment. You clearly have a different take on it. No need to belittle me for my opinion.
  - Apocryphon 13y ago
    Those combat terms assume zero-sum conflicts. There can be a situation where the smartphone OS market consists of multiple survivors, even if it's only a duopoly.
  - chris_wot 13y ago
    Neither of those are the full definition of the terms mentioned. Both have connotations of violence. War is an armed conflict. Battle is a military conflict. Both have non-military meanings, but what is being said about the use the terms is not weird or bizarre.
- macspoofing 13y ago
  How about we use language and imagery that most people understand.
  - hippee-lee 13y ago
    Is this a question or a statement? Modern battle and war have very little in common with business. So, it is my opinion that the use is such terms waters down an otherwise reasonable well thought out comment.
    - 13y ago
clarky07 13y ago
Android has 80% worldwide market share, but it's much much closer in the US. If you take out the crap phones that are smartphone in name only, it's much closer worldwide. While Android is clearly winning by a decent margin, I'm not convinced it's over. I think the hopefully coming soon cheaper iPhone could make things a lot more interesting. Note that I don't actually want the iPhone to win. I would very much prefer that neither "wins". 50% each would be a better outcome for consumers for years. Better yet, windows gaining share and having 3 at 33% would be awesome.
- gbog 13y ago
  No, please, we have such hard time moving MS out of the hot field, don't bring them back! Remember when everyone feared MS? I mean, that was really terriying time for our industry. How forgetful is it to "wish" MS could gain a third of the phone OS market shared... Apple and Google conjugated efforts kept the wolf outside and you want to open the gates? However, I agree that a domineering Android/Google or Android/Samsumg is harmful for the market. Let us hope some other OSes can grab a piece of it. I have some hope in Cyanogenmod, which could be forking away from Android (just like Linux forked Unix). And, if you look at it, that is just what Chinese companies are doing (xiaomi, etc.): forking Android and gain market shares.
  - valleyer 13y ago
    Huh? Microsoft was terrifying because they dominated the PC market. This comment proposes their having 33% of the smartphone market. How is that "terrifying"?
    - Samuel_Michon 13y ago
      Microsoft has a long history of not playing fair. If it were to have 33% of the market, it isn’t unthinkable that it will try all possible dirty tricks in the book to gain the upper hand. Right now, Windows Phone’s market share is negligible, Microsoft has zero leverage so it has to play by the book.
      - 13y ago
StandardFuture 13y ago
I'm sorry but moving this conversation towards being about Android and Android's "market share" is going off topic. Microsoft clearly did not need to purchase Nokia to have a Windows Phone. That already exists (in partnership with multiple hardware vendors as well). So, market share of Mobile OSes is obviously not a (main) motivation behind this acquisition.
- tanzam75 13y ago
  Nokia accounts for 80% of Windows Phone sales. The "other OEMs" are basically HTC and Samsung. Both of which are primarily Android companies.
- Maarten88 13y ago
  > Microsoft clearly did not need to purchase Nokia to have a Windows Phone. They could not afford having anyone else buying Nokia. With the low stock valuation of Nokia, that was a realistic and very scary scenario for Microsoft. I see it as a pre-emptive move of Microsoft, and a move of Nokia (the non-phone part) to preserve their long-term independence.
guiambros 13y ago
Market Share (of a free OS) <> Profit. Plus, Market Share has little correlation with innovation or product quality. In fact, Innovator's Dilemma presents a compelling case of the exact opposite. So, exactly which "war" are you referring to?
bdcravens 13y ago
"Apple already lost to Android. Last count, Android had 80% of the market." Everyone throws this out there, but phones running 2.3 that cost less than $100 are practically a different product than what Apple and Samsung are offering, which is where the true battle is. Over 1/3 of all Androids run 2.3: http://www.ibtimes.com/android-vs-ios-adoption-rates-jelly-bean-finally-most-popular-version-google-mobile-operating-system http://www.ibtimes.com/android-vs-ios-adoption-rates-jelly-b...
- DominikR 13y ago
  A 2.3 Phone will run almost every existing Android app out there. In fact, most Android apps target 2.2 and up.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    Which shows how backwards the platform is.
    - beedogs 13y ago
      yeah, how dare they allow people to have a useful phone for several years at a time.
      - coldtea 13y ago
        What? It's the very inverse: they DONT allow people to have a useful phone for several years at a time, they saddle them with an osbolete OS and don't provide upgrades. It's a very big pain point that Android makers don't provide upgrades for their older devices (even 1 year old ones). For some models they don't provide upgrades AT ALL, and you have to get custom-install on them to have a new Android. That's why (Google's own numbers) older (by up to 3 years) Android releases amount to 60%+ of the CURRENT installed base, whereas on iOS over 80% of users update on the latest version on the very first month of its release.
        bdcravens 13y ago
BuckRogers 13y ago
> Apple already lost to Android. That's not true. Apple's mobile devices are more profitable than any single line of Android devices. Also, sales of the iPad vs any other line of Android tablets, ie. Samsung's are not even close. Your comparison is no different than comparing Windows Server vs Linux servers. Yes, it might have hurt the market for WinServer a little bit (and Apple's iOS devices), but it's not like anyone is making a killing off of all those Linux/Android powered devices out there. When comparing what Android itself as a free platform (mostly free, there are contracts for Google's services that most sign onto)- iOS is far more profitable for Apple than Android is for Google. What you're repeating is common man nonsense. Secondly, FirefoxOS and Ubuntu Mobile will be cheaper devices and likely only cut into Android's marketshare. Add in Tizen, which is being specifically created to STOP paying fees to Google for Android, and you will see your 'zero chance' of Android's 80% marketshare changing. And sooner than you believe. Android has the most precarious position as a 'free' choice. There are many more entrants on the way for the cheap market. The war is just getting started, and I'd rather be in Apple's shoes than Google's (but you act as if Google cares about Android, they don't- it's just a delivery mechanism for their services). Signed by someone who uses a GS3.
- macspoofing 13y ago
  >Your comparison is no different than comparing Windows Server vs Linux servers. I think a better comparison is Mac vs. Windows. Windows won, but Macs are still thriving, and Apple is making nice margins. This is how I see iOS vs. Android playing out.
  - cageface 13y ago
    Perhaps, but the difference here is that Macs are still better machines in most respects. Macs endure as a niche product because they're higher quality products. Premium Android phones, on the other hand, provide a user experience that a lot of people consider superior.
    - philwelch 13y ago
      Some people prefer Windows to Mac OS, too, so I really don't see your point.
ddeck 13y ago
>Apple already lost to Android. Last count, Android had 80% of the market. That's like suggesting that Mercedes Benz have lost already to Ford because they have smaller market share. Apple produce a premium product with prices and margins that reflect that. Of course they would prefer dominant market share, as would Mercedes. But a non-majority share does not imply that they've somehow lost.
- cageface 13y ago
  The car analogy gets trotted out over and over again when talking about smart phone market share but it really doesn't work at all. Smart phone ecosystems have powerful network effects that just don't exist for most luxury goods.
  - chrischen 13y ago
    Ok, then go by profit.
    - cageface 13y ago
      Samsung is very quickly closing that gap. This is likely to snowball if iOS's share starts dipping into single digits.
  - snom380 13y ago
    Maybe a better example is the PC market, where Apple also has a small market share but huge profits?
    - cageface 13y ago
      Sure. This analogy I can buy and this seems to be where Apple is headed right now.
  - Tloewald 13y ago
    Good point. Which ecosystem seems to be stronger again? It's like mercedes, only mercedes also gets to drive on nicer roads that go more places. When market share translates to usage and developer revenue, as it may some day, this will change. But network effects scarcely reinforce your point.
coldtea 13y ago
>Apple already lost to Android. Last count, Android had 80% of the market. Yes. The low-margin 80% of the market that makes few profits. Apple makes as much revenue/profits from it's 20% share as the rest of the 80% Android OEMS combined (namely, Samsung). >There is zero chance of that changing anytime soon. That's great, because who would really want the 80%, low margin market segment? If it'll play like the PC Market (where Apple makes more money that the rest 4 top PC makers), then Android will be like Windows all over again. Dell, anyone?
- powertower 13y ago
  To put some figures on this - Global operating profits in the smartphone market for the second quarter of 2013: Apple - 53% (shipped 31.2M smartphones) Samsung - 50% (shipped 72.5M smartphones) All Others - negative 3% (operating losses)

StandardFuture 13y ago

> This new arrangement changes essentially nothing, but makes official what people long assumed Precisely! There is no "new" move here. This was just the next step in a series of moves that have already been in motion. I am curious as to how this will affect Microsoft's relationships with Samsung, HTC, and others. This does open the door to more hardware options for them which could integrate with their other devices e.g. Kinect, One, potentially any PC running Windows, etc. I remember Bill Gates talking about Microsoft research in pervasive computing. I imagine Microsoft may be trying to use Nokia's solid hardware business to start delivering 'pervasive' devices/services.

gtirloni 13y ago
I don't think Samsung and HTC (what others?) have a serious relationship with Microsoft. IMHO, they just made 1-2 phones to test the water and keep some expertise inhouse and handy in case they wanted to put more focus on it. I think not much will change.

Joeri 13y ago

WP8 suffers more from a perception problem than anything else. I just switched from android to wp8 and the way i see it i got the smooth interaction and ease of use of iOS at the price point of android. The US market is a special beast because the subsidies erase most of the price difference, but in markets where people buy unlocked I think WP8 can take a lot of market share away from android by virtue of its better experience at the same price. The apps are a red herring. The Nokia devices ship with so much out of the box functionality that most people probably won't even install any.

mrtksn 13y ago
>The Nokia devices ship with so much out of the box functionality that most people probably won't even install any if this is true, WP8 is just a feature phone with lots of features. if people are not installing apps then the developers wont build apps.
BuddhaSource 13y ago
I agree with this. I switched to windows 8 from Android and suddenly I realised this is underrated. OS is well build but suffers a lot because of perception. Apps are limited of course but there is a great potential. A developer build a cool Instagram client for windows phone called 6tag. In 1-2days he got 2 million downloads, not to mention you have to pay to remove ads & upload more than 1 video. The ux is really cool too.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Pxtl 13y ago
Less price, even. I love Android, but compared to its competitors it's a system-requirements beast. No other platform needs a quad-core processor to get a pleasant user experience. WP8 phones giving users better performance for less money will make Android feel clunky.
Maarten88 13y ago
For example, you can buy a Nokia 520 for $100 without contract. You get a well-built phone. Add a 64gb Micro SD and you have a very capable device. You can download worldwide HERE maps on it for offline navigation, for free. Or use it as a music device with one of the available Music services. And you can expect it to be updated for one or two versions of WP ahead. I'd say Windows Phone is a much better value than people know, and for most people, better value than Android.

grey-area 13y ago

about a company that went from hero to zero largely at the hands of Android (RIM being another example). I think iOS had a lot more to do with Nokia's decline than Android. iOS came first and dominated the high end of mobile phones for years, displacing Nokia in that niche, and then Android also undermined them, but it was hardly all down to Android. Nokia used to sell a lot of high end phones, which they made money on, as well as dominating the low-end.

regularfry 13y ago
I think Nokia had more to do with Nokia's decline than iOS or Android. They had the hardware and software to do what Apple and Palm did at least a full generation before iPhone 1.
- 3825 13y ago
  The Nokia n95 was announced in September 2006 and available in March 2007. Its ad slogan was "It's what computers have become."[0] What stands out in the second paragraph of the article where they highlight the capabilities is "the ability to install and run third party Java ME or Symbian mobile applications". By contrast, the iPhone was decidedly not a computer. Not in the traditional sense. It is apparent in hindsight that people don't care about the downsides of being inside a walled garden. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_N95 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_N95
  - regularfry 13y ago
    I'd argue that the N770 in 2005 was even more interesting. Less polished as a product overall, but if they'd just slapped a phone in it...
    - darklajid 13y ago
      Or in general would've sticked with Maemo (Meego, Sailfish, whatever it was called in-between). I loved my 'Internet Tablet'.
    - 13y ago

Fuxy 13y ago

Nokia is an excellent company and they built the best mobile phones before the smartphone craze. Just as a testament to how good they are there are still pre-smarphone craze Nokia phones available and their probably the best choice if you tend to drop your phones very often or get mad easily and like to trow them to relieve some anger. I was very disappointed when they choose to sell their new Lumia phones with windows. I would have bought a Nokia with Android in a heartbeat but the fact that they choose Microsoft made me think twice and I eventually went with Samsung. I just hope Microsoft doesn't ruin Nokia they're still one of the better hardware manufacturers unfortunately they were never very good at software.

rayiner 13y ago

The fact that a lot of people would have bought the phone doesn't mean it would result in profit. Lots of people by HTC phones, but that company is circling the drain. The problem is that an Android phone is a commodity. Its hard to differentiate yourself on the product side. That means you're in extreme price/specs competition. That drives profits towards zero, just as they are on other commodity platforms like the PC (Acer and Lenovo, for example, have abysmal margins). With Windows phone, Microsoft mostly keeps the spec war in check, and WP8 runs fine on 1G/dual 1.5 Ghz on a "flagship" phone.

ajuc 13y ago
What would you choose: small profits, or no customers? That's the choice. Android was "IBM PC trick", and competititors trying to preserve high margins and differentiate their products will end like Amiga, Commodore or Atari.
- aet 13y ago
  Or, they'll end up like Apple
  - mkr-hn 13y ago
    Apple's position depends on no one undercutting them with a phone that has equal or greater polish and a lower price point.
    - mortehu 13y ago
      It still baffles me that it's so hard for anyone other than Apple to make a single well-polished device, all the way through. If someone gets the casing right, they'll still mess up UI transitions that are meant to be seamless, create laggy or inaccurate touch input, fail to run at 60 or 30 fps, or make hilariously ill-informed UI decisions in the most frequently used apps (clock, settings, camera, ...). What's the explanation for this phenomenon?
      - 13y ago

cdf 13y ago

I think WP8 is ok. The biggest challenge is the image of Microsoft. In the hands of Apple, WP8 would be lauded insanely great too. The next CEO of Microsoft has to repair this image, and give Microsoft a new reason to be cool again.