Pretty sure this entirely misses the point
The stock was rebounding during the announcement up until the point that Elop admitted they were not going to talk about pricing or availability. That's the real story.
Nokia failed to excite any investors with its new WinPhones yesterday, its stock slumped 15.9 per cent as the Lumia 920 and 820 were launched. Nokia's shares dropped to $2.38 on the New York stock exchange yesterday, indicating that some shareholding folks don't think the new Lumias will take back any major market share from …
The stock was rebounding during the announcement up until the point that Elop admitted they were not going to talk about pricing or availability. That's the real story.
Agreed. Investors don't care whether the product is better or worse than the competition - they want to know how much money Nokia can make by selling it.
To figure that out, they need to know how much it will cost, and which of the big US carriers will take it. Without major carrier availability, the product cannot succeed in the US.
AT&T and T-Mobile are Nokia partners already, but Verizon's co-operation would be very significant - they are the largest carrier in the US and were instrumental in getting Android up to critical mass (the "Droid" models were VZW exclusive). The company has publicly stated that they will carry Windows Phone devices once 8.0 is released, so the market analysts may have been expecting announcement of a Nokia/Verizon deal at the launch, and this didn't happen.
(FWIW, the rumour mill says that something called a Nokia Lumia 922 -- the 920 is UMTS only, so wouldn't work on Verizon -- has showed up on Verizon's internal stock system)
That's the rub.
They are putting the phone out there, but they don't know the price because they haven't locked in carriers in the US. Price will depend on how much subsidies they will have to give to get the phone picked up by a carrier.
So the question... is the phone a good phone?
Meaning if you're in the US and your carrier offered you the phone, would you want one over the competition if the price was the same?
What about if the price was $50.00 less?
What if the price was $100.00 less?
That's the key.
Unfortunately the press and analysts didn't care for the actual phone, but how it would be priced against the competition. I mean it could be the world's greatest phone, but if Nokia was losing $50.00 a handset... well you get the idea.
They are trying to sting Nokia for the maximum possible amount. That's why Nokia shares fell: they couldn't lock in a price and date for release. I know the carriers' aim is to make mobile operating system creators as weak and powerless as possible, but even by their standards this is idiotic: if WP8 fails the future belongs to whatever Google and Apple deign to release unto them.
Well considering the current Lumias cost $450 each to try and sell to an indifferent audience, it's not looking rosy....
Nokia has been in the phone business for a very long time, not some Johnny come lately like Apple.
They know how to work those carriers.
Simple fact is no punters want their gears. The carriers know it.
But Elop is a Johnny come lately and he is driving the bus where he wants no matter what the experienced Nokiers say.
While Nokia has had its moments of genius in the past, it was already decaying before Elop came along. Elop is just doing the humane thing and speeding up the end.
I'd go one step further and say it doesn't matter that it's Nokia. Apple gets some nice upward momentum for a few days before they announce a new shiny but come the day of the announcement the stock price drops and typically does so for the next few days. Sure there are a few exceptions but it isn't often.
Wrong, the Lumia 920 is LTE based as well. From Nokia:
Dual Transfer Mode (2G)
WCDMA Band V (850)
WCDMA Band VIII (900)
WCDMA Band II (1900)
WCDMA Band I (2100)
Data speed - Upload
HSUPA Cat 6 - 5.76 Mbit/s
LTE Cat 3 - 50 Mbit/s
Data speed - Download
EGPRS MSC 12 - 236.8 kbit/s
HSDPA Cat 24 - 42.2 Mbit/s
LTE Cat 3 - 100 Mbit/s
just oust Elop before its too late...
Making Nokia a one-trick-pony and then picking the lamest pony in the whole circus surely can't work.
And Elop probably needs firing.
They need to admit they went with the wrong phone OS. Android is where the users and apps are, it's the reality and Nokia is desperately in need of a reality check if their share price isn't enough of one.
They make decent hardware and phone designs, they just need to put Android on them.
They do make great hardware, but putting Android on them would be a mistake. Here's why:
Nokia's business is under attack from a number of angles. Their "cheap as chips" phones are facing stiff competition from Chinese handsets and are losing market share there.
Android, while popular, is causing legal headaches for the companies that use it. If they're not being mugged quietly by Microsoft and being made to pay them a royalty for each handset sold they're being mugged loudly by Apple, who takes them to court.
Imagine the following: Nokia had chosen Android rather than WP7. They get hit by MS for $10 for each mobe they sell and then get sued by apple in multiple jurisdictions, stopping their product from even reaching market. They've got nobody to bail them out (MS gave them $1 billion and other unspecified payments) and no big, powerful friends to help.
So they've taken a risk. Symbian was dead (had a Symbian phone, hated it) and they needed to find something else. But was Android the answer? No.
Please stop with this tedious "Android is the only way" rubbish. If Nokia were to produce Android phones they would be an also-ran at best, probably completely bust by now. The fact that they are using a different OS is at least setting them apart from the background noise of mediocre Android producers - that's not to say that there aren't excellent Android producers, however Nokia wouldn't be one as they would have been so late to the market.
The problem is that lots of Linux/Android fans want MS and anyone who has anything to do with them to fail, in their eyes the only MS is a broken and out of business MS. This is dressed up in some sort of language that makes it look like "analysis" of the situation when it's just wishful thinking. There also seems to be a large helping of "better a bust Linux company than use MS software."
That would be really great because it would mean Google getting even more market share. They would then be in control of more of the market.
Apple should give up on iOS as well, stop making phones.
Here's an idea, why don't Samsung, HTC and all the other OEMs give up making phones too.
Lets let Google have the whole smartphone market, I'm sure they wouldn't rip us off and increase the price once they have a monopoly. Microsoft were always nice to people when they had 90+% of the desktop market (oh, they still do).
Operators want a viable alternative to iOS and Android, so Nokia doing Android phones would result in less competition and higher prices, use your loaf.
Not to mention Motorola and Nokia are two of the oldest suppliers of mobile technology and so having them on opposite sides of the OS market is a good thing.
They'd be an also ran if they went with Android? If so what are they right now?
Dunno where you're getting the rabid fanboyism idea from, it'd be nice if there were three big phone OS' out there. But there aren't, there are two. Windows Phone has failed. MS have been throwing billions at it and they're losing money on it, badly.
Nokia could compete if they went Android, instead they went with a phone os that nobody buys or develops for. That's the reality of the situation. People can hark on all they like about it, but it is the reality that android is here to stay and if you want to put out a phone not made by Apple you have to go Android.
My understanding is that Apple took Samsung to court for their Touchwiz capabilities, i.e., the skin overlaying Android, not Android itself.
So those who don't overly-embellish Android with Apple-like functionality should be okay.
Take your point on the MS royalty though.
WP hasnt failed. It nearly tripled it's market share in the last year, and Nokia sold 7 million WP handsets so far. Thats good for a new and not yet mature platform.
WP8 with the same platform on tablets, desktops and mobiles is going to massively drive market share for it.
They only sell them in a few low-population countries. Unfortunately they out sell Windows phones and make a profit.
"The Nokia/Windows partnership"
That's the cause of the problem right there. Even if Nokia had bigger margins on its smartphones that Apple does on theirs, it would still not make a big dent in covering Nokia's fixed operating costs because the market for WinPho is just too small. By not adopting the HTC, Samsung, etc. strategy of selling WinPho AND Android handsets, Nokia is in danger of becoming just another subsidised business of Microsoft.
Nokia has always had great looking phones. The Lumia line is no exception. The problem is that they're WinPho only and the majority of consumers don't want that.
Lumia is the lipstick on the WinPho pig.
What, from one phone to three?
Going Android wouldn't mean ONLY producing Android phones. Nokia could have produced a range of Android, Windows Phone, and Symbian phones, and creamed off the profit from whatever sells the most. Instead they got the Flop to burn their platforms for them, and look at where they are now. Worse than an also-ran, they're an also-ran with contractual obligations to stay an also-ran.
At least, until Microsoft buys them, strips their assets and dumps the remains in the bin.
Nokia do not "need" to go to Android at all - where would that leave us all? With the exception of RIM, you'd have a market cotrolled by two companies - are you seriously suggesting that environment would be good for consumers? We should encourage choice, because that's the only way to get prices down for the consumer - not choosing "A or B" - but appreciating that there is a C and D out there that do the same things, in different ways.
The "Android way or the high way" attitude is totally self-defeating and will ultimately do nothing but grant Google a total monopoly over the market - precisely the thing most open-source advocates have groaned about Microsoft for the last 20 years - the hipocracy is stratospheric.
"If so what are they right now?"
Second place in the market, having fallen from number one which is now Samsung.
"it'd be nice if there were three big phone OS' out there. But there aren't, there are two."
With nearly 70% share and rising, there's one - Android. There's Android dominant, with a few other OSs (IPhone, BlackBerry, WP, Bada). Putting IPhone on the same level as Android, and then saying there's nothing else, isn't really accurate.
"Windows Phone has failed."
Had IPhone failed for the first 3 years, when its market share was also small? And heaven forbid that MS spend "billions" on it, how much money do you think Apple spend? They've got almost a hundred billions saved up supposedly for the sole purpose of destroying Android, and look how that's failed. I don't get why MS spending money on this thing called "marketing" is something to ridicule when it's MS or Nokia, but not other companies.
For your last paragraph, exactly the same could have been said for Apple for years.
Personally I like Android, and I've not used WP. I'd prefer Android getting even more market share, so yes for me it's a shame Nokia don't make Android phones. But what's best for me personally isn't what's best for Nokia. Plus, I think it would be a dreadful shame if the only alternative to Android was IPhone - I'd rather WP develop as an alternative too. Choice is good.
The XKCD reference is only valid when comparing different platforms/companies. For some reason, it was fine for the media to use relative growth for years, to make Apple look better than Nokia/Symbian, even though Symbian was actually not only number one, but growing faster in absolute numbers. We could have done with that XKCD reference back then.
It would be wrong to claim that WP was doing better than Android or IPhone based on relative growth, but the OP didn't do that. He simply talked about its growth, and for a new platform, the growth is reasonable. It also shows it is growing significantly due to Nokia's entrance into the WP market, and not remaining static as many here seem to assume.
Of course the big question is whether it will continue, and tail off - the OP did make some predictions that may not be true. But up until now, the growth is doing as well as what the IPhone platform did in its first couple of years, and that didn't get this constant barrage of criticism about sales, it got nothing but wall to wall hype. Selling one million in 76 days was spun as an amazing success, even though it is low as far as phone platforms go (both now, and back then), and it's also what the first Nokia Lumia managed too.
And I say this as a Samsung Android fan. Try to be objective, rather than spinning it as a fail because you don't like Windows.
Nokia and Android might have been a nice match:
- Nokia would compete on the quality of their hardware. They (at some point) knew how to build good and reasonably priced hardware, so they could compete on that strength (instead of leaving it to MS to deliver, or not, a competitive system).
- Nokia has a good patent portfolio, so they could probably avoid the MS tax.
- Nokia has good navigation software, this would be a competitive bonus in the Android marketplace, but hardly makes a difference if it is tied to a windows phone.
By partnering with MS, Nokia gave up competing on its own strength and now they are left to tinkle with little details such as camera quality. That surely also matters, but only for the few % that would consider a MS phone.
I would imagine the majority of consumers either want a flagship mobile like an iPhone or Samsung Galaxy or they just look at the price.
Quite often I see "what phone should I get" postings on facebook and the rabid Fandroids always post the most replies. So there's your problem peer pressure, Android is like smoking.
Not producing Android and then threatening to do so is Nokia's strategy for keeping Microsoft until control.
Android makers aren't being mugged. $5 a handset is no more expensive than a MP2 licence.
The losers are Nokia, who are hemorreging money like it's going out of fashion.
It's costing them $450 to market a phone that has a $50 profit margin. That's not good, and much worse than stumping up for a licence for a quiet life. (many don't bother, and are prepared to fight fire with fire)...
Windows Phone HAS failed. The market has grown more than they have grown. It's a net loss in marketshare, and even bigger when you realize those bullshit numbers are shipped not sold.....
Nokia were offered a fortune by Microsoft and the US carriers in : Microsoft because they wanted an exclusive partner, the carriers because they fear Android and iOS attaining total dominance leaving them nobody weak enough to bully. But both have betrayed Nokia: Microsoft won't deign to update IE mobile, the carriers wouldn't let them launch their phones with prices and arrival times because they want to squeeze the maximum out in negotiations. The point when the Microsoft person smirked that he wouldn't reveal all of WP8's features when Nokia are fighting to demonstrate why people should buy their phones shows who's in charge.
But both the carriers and Microsoft are playing games that risk their (toxic) business models: next week Apple will announce from the mountaintop a phone AT&T and Verizon need but don't trust because they're having to pay a price for it.
I honestly don't know whether Nokia can survive the humiliation of another OS shift, but they should get Jelly Bean working on the Lumias just in case. This is a death spiral.
"because the market for WinPho is just too small"
I think you might be confusing market size with market share. The smart-phone market is actually rather large, but just the WIndows Phone share of it is currently small. The question is whether the OS can gain traction and grow share. It just might. It depends on the *future* competitiveness of the offering
"The problem is that they're WinPho only and the majority of consumers don't want that"
Well, that's a big call. Maybe you're relying on the sales figures so far a bit too much here, because the future competitiveness of WP is anchored in areas where the previous generation of handsets couldn't go. WP share is growing now and a greater range of handsets is being realised, plus there's some big integration things of the horizon (WP 8 across PC, laptop, Surface and phone). You only need a couple of other things in the mix (e.g. the Apple creative machine drying up with the death of Jobs, a pending security nightmare for Android) and perhaps the competitive landscape will look quite different in 2 years.
Or, it might not. I'm not going to deny that WP and Nokia are in a tough place, they're only reaching base camp now. Time will tell, hey
"Nokia has good navigation software, this would be a competitive bonus in the Android marketplace, but hardly makes a difference if it is tied to a windows phone."
..this was true a year ago, less so now. Offline nav on Google Maps under Android is disconcertingly good (and they just added bike nav modes too, coo).
Google's offline mapping is pretty disappointing - I was looking forward to this feature on my Galaxy, having loved the feature in Symbian, but found that the size of each offline map is limited to a city-sized area, and worse, you can only have a handful of them downloaded at any one time. The whole idea of limiting what you can store, when there's no constraint in memory, is annoying - reminds me of the limit on text messages my feature phone had 7 years ago, even though I had loads of memory on a microSD card. Why can't I just select countries or continents at a time? There's more than enough space on the phone. Android is a good OS, and Google maps has some advantages like the public transport directions, but offline maps is still something Nokia do better (plus remember you can still get the public transport directions on Google maps for other platforms anyway, it's just the sat nav that's limited to Android I believe).
A little puzzled by that- I was able to have the entire Greater London area stored in a single chunk without difficulty.
I know it'd be nicer to have all of the maps available right up front, but it's bloody fast, the maps are very high quality, and the nav works fine. The renderer is stupidly quick, and hits the sweet spot for handling annotations deftly, unlike most of the competition.
I am sure that if a phone I wanted to buy had Nokia maps on it, I'd give it a go (I used to use it on S40/60, after all), but it's not enough to make me want to buy a bad phone.
Also, this is a perfect opportunity to say fuck Garmin/Navigon. When my phone died, they refused to let me transfer my expensive all of Europe mapping software license, that I bought at considerable expense, to my new phone. After wasting a terribly long time on the phone and in email with their support, I was told in very broken Russian English that I would be expected to pay all over again. So yeah, screw them, Nokia maps beats that hands down. (Take note, Android, and iPhone users, ignore their stuff, look forward to iOS 6 maps, or use Google Maps offline mode in Android)
Firstly, it's wouldn't be controlled by two companies. Android is Open Source, you can fork it if you wish... You are free to contribute to it, which would be more constructive. Sure Google guide it, but they don't control it.
Secondly, I am not prepared to take a shitty Lumia phone, just to prop up the market with a 3rd mobile OS. You might be, but you are mostly alone it seems, looking at Windows Phone dismal marketshare.
"Nobody develops for" - do I really have to post that link again about how a BAFTA-nominated winner of the Dare to be Digital competition believes that the WinPhone is the platform of choice for the indie developer?
Never heard of them.. Are you sure it's not just some shill company/award created by Microsoft to award to their platform????
I not with interest that the Lumia photos are now proven to be fake tooo.....
No, WP had a net GAIN in market share in the last year.
Next time just download it from TPB.....
The first claim, the one with the girl in the street (http://st.gsmarena.com/vv/newsimg/12/09/nokia-fakes-images/gsmarena_001.jpg) is a still off a promotional video showing how great Optical Image Stabilisation is. It doesn't claim to be taken with the device, but rather with OIS. Very misleading, and frankly stupid when there's a whole internet full of OCD types waiting to pull your claims apart on a technicality.
The second picture ( http://st.gsmarena.com/vv/newsimg/12/09/nokia-fakes-images/gsmarena_003.jpg ), with the girl leaning against the tree in Central Park, IS claimed to be taken by the device, and I see no reason to doubt this claim.
Those who say it's faked because of "light sources" and the colours being "too bright" must never have seen long-exposure night shots before: Your eyes may not be sensitive to colour at low light levels, but a photo sensor has no such problems, and there is no discrepancy with any of the shadows or light sources in this image: the other camera just can't resolve enough background to show that the tree is lit by a streetlamp, and casting a shadow to the right. It's miles better than the other image (http://st.gsmarena.com/vv/newsimg/12/09/nokia-fakes-images/gsmarena_002.jpg) that uses (excessive) fill-flash with a shorter exposure.
I've taken pictures like the Central Park one using a DSLR and tripod, and this is exactly what they look like.
Handheld, I'd need stabilisation to take that picture, but it's not beyond what's achievable using OIS. Nokia claim a 3EV advantage from their OIS system, which is a little better than the DSLR guys, but Nokia's lens assembly weighs grammes, not hundreds of grammes, so it's easier to chuck around.
The promo video is definitely a problem, but it's not a whole lot different to manufacturers compositing in their product's display during post-production to make it look sharper, brighter, etc. To my eyes, though, there is nothing "faked" about the shots that Nokia have explicitly claimed are from the camera.
Tripled market share... here's an example of tripling market share.. I sold 1 unit.. then a year later I sold 3 (but in order to do it I dumped the price so it's a money looser).. that's tripling market share. doesn't mean much in reality.. And that's pretty much what Nokia did.
How are things on Fantasy Island?
Sorry, but when a companies yearly sales equals their two competitors monthly (weekly ? (Daily ?))) sales then you are failing.
And the days of sticking a "Windows" label on something and that is all that it takes for it to sell are over. The market (for what ever reason) has rejected WP.
And what would possible make you think that just because a PC is running Windows 8 (or was sold with widows 8 and quickly moved to 7) that people will want a phone running WP 8. The days of the PC driving technology are over.
Mobile is now the driving technology.
Time for you to catch the boat back to the real world.
Yeah, it is a real hit, especially with indie developers.
I suspect that the deal they signed with MS means it has to be the only way- simply because they sold their soul for a lot of financial support- unlike with other winpho vendors. The others were mostly co-erced with threats over patents, admittedly, rather than bribed.
That still beats having to pay a carrier $450 per unit to sell your kit.
Even the $1Bn of dosh from MS is only a few bucks per unit when you're dealing in the quantities Nokia should be thinking about.
Lumias (current range) are already selling at the rate of 16 million a year. That's hardly a fail. With WP8 and the new range thats likely to grow massively.
Android now does 1.3M per day, so in those terms your 16M/year is just over 12 days - aka a week and a half.
If they had gone Android, Nokia might have had devices out a year ahead of time, versus their first Win7P devices. And they could have made them competitive, versus the 2010-looking' Nokia Lumias. Good hardware into a proven market, versus good hardware into a non-existent market. The downside? They'd need enough sales to make up for the $250M per quarter Microsoft's paying them (this is quarterly, not a fixed $1B, from more reports) to go Windows-only.
That wouldn't have been much a problem. Elop's decision to kill off the SymbianOS and Linux markets -- and the really stupid decision to do this long before they had any Windows phones to sell, much less waiting for a successful Windows Phone market -- those were certainly part of this funding deal. So had they gone Android, they could have simply added Android as another device family.
They already had Linux expertise in-house, so they would have been better positioned than some of the competition to be able to deal with the software issues. And even if they did pay $10/device (but only for those markets in places Microsoft can assert those software patents) to Microsoft, it's better than what they're paying per unit for Windows Phone.
And Symbian was dying, but far from dead. It actually got a decent refresh. It might have done fine for years yet on the low-end of smartphones. And more critically, most of Nokia's income came from SymbianOS devices. Sure, that's not a long-term bet. But artificially killing it is what's caused Nokia to be losing over a billion per quarter lately ($1.7B in 1Q2012, 1.0B in 2Q2012). That's the real cost of the Microsoft deal, so far.
That's not a workable argument.
If you believe that Nokia can only make mediocre devices, it's impossible to argue that such devices, with an OS that no one wants right now, can compete with established devices from Apple and all those Android companies. If you believe that Nokia makes excellent devices, they shouldn't have any any trouble competing in Android. If, as you say, so many Android devices are Mediocre, perhaps Nokia makes good enough hardware to have become a leading Android vendor. Even 20% of the 65% share of all smartphones would beat having most of a 4% market. Not to mention that, if Windows 8 Phone is successful, Nokia's going to be competing with the same guys, like Samsung, anyway. But they'll wait for success of that OS, so they're not dropping $1B/quarter waiting for customers, as Nokia currently is.
Right. Nokia's big problem wasn't entering the Windows Phone market, but killing Symbian. That's where they made all their money. Microsoft paid them $250M per quarter to go WIndows-only, but they've been losing many times that every quarter, as the Symbian market collapses.
Regardless of the 5 or 10 year health of SymbianOS, it was still a very large share of the smartphone market, when Elop took over, and actually still growing, if not growing as fast as the smartphone market as a whole (so Nokia was losing market share, but shipping more units, each quarter). When a CEO says "we're killing this", that does have that very effect -- users leave. And most left for iOS or Android, not Windows Phone.