back to article HTC profits PLUNGE 98%: Pins hopes on HTC One, 'Facebook mobe'

Beleaguered smartphone-maker HTC is hoping that a massive marketing drive and gathering sales momentum for its One device and the HTC First "Facebook phone" will help it recover from its disastrous Q1 outing. Sales slumped nearly 37 per cent to NT$42.8bn (£930m) - and HTC made a measly NT$85m (£1.85m) profit on that - …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Silver badge

Bloody hell..

HTC were up there, just a couple of years ago. It shows how volatile the mobile market is - and possibly that the mobile market may end up like the Desktop market - one huge player, one less player, and a few niche players :( And that won't be good.

2
0
Silver badge
Pint

Re: Bloody hell..

The desktop market had one huge player in OS, but healthy competition between hardware vendors, and one small but profitable vertical. Mobile has more OS diversity, but there's not going to be the same amount of hardware players.

Sony are making a last dash at Android (which has never made them a cent in profit), HTC lost an early lead to Samsung, and are now losing money on Android in the long run (profits won't cover the next model R&D costs), Motorola also losing money on Android, and this despite being owned by Google. ZTE and Huawei are loss-leading on Android as well, and may actually make something off it, but that's at Chinese overhead levels, and their profitable business is in operator-tailored handsets, something that may finally go away in the next couple of years. So, how is it that removing the software cost from smartphone development has managed to destroy everyone's business, bar Samsung? (..or Apple and Nokia who aren't playing this game, but have their own special long- and short-term problems, respectively)

I think it's a loss of leverage. When I sell you something, we have a mutually-beneficial arrangement. You become my customer, and I respond to your requests to improve the product to gain more sales, because it's easier to keep a customer than get a new one. If, however, I just give the thing away, I am freed from the responsibility of having to make it useful to my customers, and so I can produce something that doesn't take their needs into account at all. My choice is: spend time and money to accommodate someone using my product, and gain $0.00 extra revenue, or do what I want with that same time and money, and still gain $0.00 extra revenue. That's why Android runs so badly on cheap hardware: making it run better is distinctly "un-sexy" development, and it's also difficult and time-consuming. Adding new features and apps to the platform is both easy and gratifying, and who cares if it increases the minimum platform requirements. Samsung will make faster hardware.

Android is popular now, but long-term, unless Google pull their finger out and look at its efficiency, it isn't going to deliver the goods for the mobile makers - Samsung has become the only Android producer to make enough money off the platform for it to be a viable business, partly because their industrial scale allows them to build a device with enough power to run Android properly at an affordable price. The hardware is getting better, but the OS is being burdened with more crap at the same rate: net result, not being able to catch the competition. You know you've got a problem when Apple can produce an OS that's more resource-efficient than yours.

It looks like we're over the fun bit of the party, and now we're getting to the bit where the free bar has run out, and people start arguing about the bill.

Oh, not that it'll help or anything, but: If your phone happens to run Android. I am not insulting you. I don't know you. I'm sure you're a great person. I also don't have a problem with Open Source software (although I have a small issue with Google calling Android that), and I wish you a happy weekend, hopefully free of pointless tribal arguments about mobile phone operating Systems. Have a beer.

5
6

Re: Bloody hell..

Too many of the, now failing, manufacurers released under specced and cheap phones to try and jump on the android gravy train. Early sonys are crap, almsot everything after the htc desire HD is garbage. The other manufacturers tried to grab cash at the cost of the customer, and now its coming back to bite them.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Bloody hell..

Android phones have always had better CPUs and more RAM than phones running any other OS. Yes, they're under-specced, but because Android is the heaviest of all current mobile platforms, not that the phones are weak in themselves.

If you're a carmaker, and you can't make a fast model without putting a 500 hp V8 under the hood, you look at cutting weight, not developing an even bigger engine, because there's only so much extra power you can throw at the problem before it becomes uneconomical. Weight reduction is a much better strategy, but Android's distribution model has deprived phonemakers of the leverage to get that weight cut out of the OS.

Maybe a real open-source Linux OS will arrive and give a better, lighter weight option, but I doubt it as long as Linux Foundation are running the mobile OS projects...

1
6
Silver badge

Re: Bloody hell..

> So, how is it that removing the software cost from smartphone development has managed to destroy everyone's business, bar Samsung? (..or Apple and Nokia who aren't playing this game, but have their own special long- and short-term problems, respectively)

It hasn't destroyed *everyone's* business, it just seems that you have an agenda that wishes this to be true.

Nokia has _added_ software costs and their business is destroyed. The only conclusion is that software licence cost and business destruction, or success, are completely unrelated.

Sorry to disappoint you.

1
1
Silver badge

Re: Bloody hell..

> Android phones have always had better CPUs and more RAM than phones running any other OS. Yes, they're under-specced, but because Android is the heaviest of all current mobile platforms, not that the phones are weak in themselves.

Some Android phones have better CPUs and more RAM, some have less. All seem to run reasonably well.

The reason that WP7 phones could run reasonably well on medium CPUs is that they never did background tasks* and tombstoned apps put into background, WP8 _requires_ dual core CPUs while Android does not.

* there was a sort of background task that was more like MS-DOS TSRs than multi-tasking.

1
1
Silver badge

Re: Bloody hell..

" Nokia has _added_ software costs and their business is destroyed. "

Untrue on both counts. What costs have Nokia added? The special apps they do for Windows Phone are ports of the products they provided on Symbian (and Maemo), so no increase in cost. They have, however, relieved themselves of the platform costs of maintaining Symbian (and qualifying the hundreds of carrier and device specific releases of Symbian), of developing Maemo, of juggling the perfectly good Maemo to fit with MeeGo. They also have dropped the majority of their Ovi web/cloud product. Overall, engineering costs have decreased dramatically, even with a large increase in Series40 development. You can see that in figures if you look up their financials.

" The only conclusion is that software licence cost and business destruction, or success, are completely unrelated. "

Yes. That was my point, but I wouldn't use the word "completely". Some companies have failed miserably despite having their costs "reduced" by choosing Android, others have prospered despite doing everything in-house. Some are in between, and as you brought them up, Nokia is one of those.

You appear to be implying that Nokia's business was "destroyed" by choosing Windows Phone - which is a bit like claiming that firefighters cause the roofs of burning buildings to collapse. Causes are often much further ahead of effects than that.

A very small bit of research into that company will show that by the time WP was chosen as their primary platform, the major damage had already been done. Nokia bought marketshare from 2009 to 2011 by dumping loss-making Symbian devices into the market, because it couldn't get its software efforts completed on time. The last revision of Symbian (Belle FP2) is actually pretty competent, but it came out in early 2012: two years later than it should have. Then they wasted a whole year on merging their perfectly serviceable Maemo mobile platform with Intel's "hey-lets-work-on-everything" Moblin to make MeeGo - an effort that went nowhere: the Nokia N9, the only phone to "run on MeeGo", doesn't even run MeeGo; it's the pre-merger version of Maemo, hastily ported to the hardware. A whole year. Gone. That kind of mismanagement is why Nokia's business has collapsed, not any choice of Windows Phone over Android.

If you wanted Nokia to adopt Android, the time would have been 2009, not 2011. But in 2009, they had a realisable roadmap for an open-sourced phone OS: Maemo, and it was more mature than Android was at that time. Compare a Nokia N800 with Android 1.6, and tell me which is better? It was only Nokia's inept management after this time that makes Android look like a good choice in retrospect.

I really have no agenda: I own shares in none of these companies, and I use all of their products daily (my phone is an old Nokia, running Symbian, my two laptops are MacOS and Windows8, my desktop runs Ubuntu, OS X or Windows7 depending on what I need, and I use Google's web services). I like to see diversity in the market, because it helps new and better products to appear. Because what's out there can always be improved.

Maybe you want to see a Google hegemony, but count me out: we've only just managed to get free of one grasping monopolistic corporation that stifled progress for twenty years - why are you so eager to jump into the arms of another? Open source? yeah, right, and I've got some beads I'll swap you for this here island... Google don't give a rat's ass about Open Source, they care only about Google, and if more people realised this, we'd be better off in the long run.

1
1
Silver badge

Re: Bloody hell..

> What costs have Nokia added?

The cost of the MS WP licences. But more importantly, the 'cost' of being tied to MS dictating requirements. They can only build what MS allows them to in terms of actual SoC used, UI, layout of the screen, and many other.

> The special apps they do for Windows Phone are ports of the products they provided on Symbian (and Maemo), so no increase in cost.

So your claim is that they are not developing these beyond what they were two years ago and merely ported them ?

> Overall, engineering costs have decreased dramatically,

Yes, they fired whole groups of engineers and developers and closed factories and outsourced almost everything. That doesn't save costs it merely redistributes them to some other account.

> not any choice of Windows Phone over Android.

I doubt that Android was the only choice. Symbian collapsed not because of the costs but because it was announced as being dead when sales were actually increasing. In fact they stopped production to prevent people buying them because they were still outselling WP. Maemo/Meego N9 was outselling WP where it had been allowed to be sold and was also killed

> Compare a Nokia N800 with Android 1.6, and tell me which is better?

I still have and use an N800. It is not a phone. I do have an Android which is used mostly for development. They are completely different types of devices. I would have liked to get an N950 or similar but never had the opportunity as it was killed off so as not to compete with MS products.

> Maybe you want to see a Google hegemony,

Not at all. And Android is not trying to do that either. Google makes it available and it is up to manufacturers to do as they wish. They can use as many different OSes as they wish to, or change the way that Android works (granted that if they want to use the Google brand then there are some restrictions).

0
1
Silver badge

@Kristian Walsh

I think you caught a small piece of the problem but fouled it off.

The hardware manufacturers are in a commodity business with no margins. The people getting rich off of it are the service providers and maybe the software owners. I had an HTC that I really liked, but I gave it up because the service vendor didn't provide what I needed at a price I could afford. I wanted solid 4G signal on my mass commuter trips to and from work. But reception on 3G was spotty at best and non-existent on certain parts of the route. So I turned it in and paid the early contract cancellation fee. And I'm not in a service poor area for wired. I actually have at least three competitive vendors.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Bloody hell..

" The cost of the MS WP licences. But more importantly, the 'cost' of being tied to MS dictating requirements. They can only build what MS allows them to in terms of actual SoC used, UI, layout of the screen, and many other."

WP licences are cheaper than Symbian development. Yes SoC is limited, but as a developer I think this is a strength of the platform, not a weakness. Ditto UI layout. I think allowing manufacturers to skin Android is a major flaw of the platform.

"So your claim is that they are not developing these beyond what they were two years ago and merely ported them ?"

No, I'm saying that whether they're developed for Windows Phone or Symbian, the cost of ongoing development is going to be the same, because the new development is a replacement for, rather than an addition to, what was being done before. Don't take my word for it: look at the company's financial reports. R&D costs have fallen far more than licensing costs increased. A net saving.

"I doubt that Android was the only choice. Symbian collapsed not because of the costs but because it was announced as being dead when sales were actually increasing. "

This is a myth. The decline in sales started in late 2010. Advance orders for Symbian devices collapsed at this point, as the N8's introduction turned sour (Bluntly, the hardware was excellent, but the software was not finished, and return rates went through the roof). Sales drops in 2011 were down to networks not renewing orders for Symbian devices back in late 2010. Hardware industries have long lead times: causes go back long before the visible effects. The collapse of Symbian orders, combined with the inability to finish the MeeGo software prompted the famous "Burning Platform" memo; it was not the other way round.

Memo or not, Symbian was already on it's last hurrah, and was never going to continue past Symbian^4, scheduled for 2011 but abandoned in 2010 (but many of its features, running on S^3, came into the Belle release in late 2011). The engineering efforts to get Symbian3 onto the ARM11 SoCs used in N8 and subsequent devices was grossly underestimated, and were the reason why the N8 itself, scheduled to release in early 2010 barely scraped onto the market in November 2010. Nokia's version of Symbian had poor separation of functional layers and was just too difficult to bring into today's more powerful hardware. (open-sourcing the code also sucked time and energy out of the company: perfectly good, working code was re-written to allow the entire OS to be Open-Sourced, and in the end nobody used it.)

"I still have and use an N800. It is not a phone. "

I know that, but telephony is an application; it's not intrinsic to the OS. As an application platform, which was more mature? N800 or the Android release of the time? Actually, if you insist on pedantry, compare Maemo5 on the N900 with Android Cupcake (1.6), both from late 2009.

" as [N950] was killed off so as not to compete with MS products"

No it was not. N9 was put on sale because it was too late to stop, and there were customer orders in place that needed to be fulfilled, but there was no future in the OS. MeeGo was an absolute disaster. It failed to achieve any of its goals, and Intel had failed to deliver any of the hardware that was to propel its progress in tablets - even now, where are those low-power Atom tablets? I love the N9, I think it's a beatiful combination of software and hardware, but it was two years late. The N950 is actually the hardware that N9 was supposed to launch with, but wasn't shipped because there was no software ready. You need to stop seeing this failure as a Microsoft conspiracy, it was entirely of Nokia's own making. It's unpalatable, but true.

Nokia's problems were all in full force years before they signed up as a windows licensee. I waited for N8. I waited for N9. Neither of them were on time, neither as good as they should have been (N8 disgracefully so). My main phone is still an N8. With the last software release on it, it's a pretty good phone, but, again, that was nearly two years later. Had N8 launched on schedule, with Symbian Belle on it (hell, even with Anna), there would have been no problem. It didn't.

Nokia went with Microsoft for solid business reasons. Not liking this outcome doesn't make the whole deal a conspiracy. Google was the other option, and they were approached (I believe WebOS was also considered) and it simply did not make business sense.

Here's a major reason: Google would not allow Nokia to preserve their mapping and navigation apps if they became an Android licensee. They would have been asked to ditch their entire investment in buying Navteq, and all of the work they'd done to make Symbian's maps and navigation class-leading, for no revenue return. Going with a "non-Google Android" would have let them keep Maps, but wasn't a viable choice - the only truly good things about Android are Google's online services: they'd have been locked out of Calendar, the app store, and all of the things that Android does very well, and been castigated by the press for it.

Those services are another reason why Android was a no-go. The post above says that the Android phonemakers have been reduced to box-makers on narrow margins, with no recurring revenue, which is a pretty good assessment of the situation. By choosing Microsoft, Nokia were able to bring their existing services (music and navigation) to Windows Phone that give them recurring revenue streams; those services are made available on all WP handsets, not just Nokia's. That wasn't an option on Android.

Finally, you have to consider the loss of first-mover advantage: Windows Phone 7 was less than six months on the market when Nokia signed up; Android had had nearly two years, and Samsung's position as top dog was becoming very clear.

"And Android is not trying to do that either. Google makes it available and it is up to manufacturers to do as they wish."

That is not how it works. Google churns it in secret, with no input from its customers, spits it out, and leaves it there: then it's up to the non-favoured manufacturers to try to get it working. Linux doesn't work like this; Qt doesn't work like this; WebKit doesn't work like this. Almost every open-source project out there lets you see the sources at all times, so that you know what's coming down the track. Android springs it on you, becaue it's the minimum that Google have to do to be acceptable to the "Open Source" evangelists.

We obviously disagree about this, and there's not much I can say that would change your mind, but you cannot blame Nokia's current woes on Microsoft, or on not choosing Android. They, and they alone, are the authors of their own past misfortunes. That said, their future looks better than some who chose Google's "free OS".

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Bloody hell..

>> "And Android is not trying to do that either. Google makes it available and it is up to manufacturers to do as they wish."

> That is not how it works. Google churns it in secret, with no input from its customers, spits it out, and leaves it there: then it's up to the non-favoured manufacturers to try to get it working.

And the difference between what I said and your 'not how it works' is ?

You complained that Google could become a hegemony and then complain that they give no direction, no directives.

> I think allowing manufacturers to skin Android is a major flaw of the platform.

Manufacturers don't, users don't. It is called innovation and choice. Every WP from all makers looks the same as the first ones did 3 years ago. What's the point of that ?

0
0
Silver badge

oh yeah..

If they're gambling on the Facebook phone reviving their fortunes, I've got some Enron and Northern Rock shares at a knockdown price they can have.

3
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Bronze badge

2 years on...

And I'm planning to keep my HTC Desire HD for another two years....

Who knows what I'll want by then...

3
0
Silver badge

Re: 2 years on...

I have the Desire Z myself, which is approaching three years old and is showing signs of getting clunky as the app demands grow. Much as I like it, I keep getting the impression it's time to move on. I'm currently favoring Samsung's Galaxy S IV, mostly because, unlike the HTC One (Sorry) I can install an SD card and remove the battery.

3
0

At least it made profit...

And I love my HTC One.

2
1
Silver badge

One or the other

HTC was the daddy for quite some time, Samsung passed them by and it doesn't look like catch up is going to be easy.

I had a couple of HTC phones and I liked them, they had a good solid feel about them, subsequently though, like many others, I moved over to Samsung. I started of the the TAB, then the NOTE and I now also have the S3 mini. I don't even bother to look at HTCs now. I have no real reason not to want to use a HTC anymore but they seem just to have lost their appeal.

I imagine that Apple and Samsung will end up down the same road.

0
0
Stop

Yet another Windows Phone casualty

They wasted their time with Windows Phone, and let Samsung take all the glory just as Android was emerging as they OS of choice.

HTC could have also been there, their early Android offerings were great (I had a HTC Legend, and it was fantastic). But they wasted their time on the Windows Phone folly and now look what happened...

4
7
Anonymous Coward

Re: Yet another Windows Phone casualty

Congratulations, Barry, I thought it would be Eadon who blamed MS for HTC's problems first.

3
3

2 HTC Phones, 2 Buggy Phones

I've owned 2 HTC phones - a HTC Chacha and a HTC Desire Z. Both had SHOWSTOPPING bugs (i.e. phone became unusable - the Desire Z would freeze the phone for minutes when sending a SMS, the Chacha would CRASH every time one pressed the call button after a over-the-wire software update).

While I later rooted both phones and put CyanogenMod on to fix the bugs I would think the majority of consumers wouldn't go so far and instead throw out these phones and switch brands.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: 2 HTC Phones, 2 Buggy Phones

Yeah I feel your pain. I have a Thunderbolt here in the states and it is garbage as well. HTC is the Edsel of smartphones.

0
2
FAIL

Re: 2 HTC Phones, 2 Buggy Phones

I tried abandoning the Apple ecosystem for Android a couple of years back. Got an HTC Sensation, which was on paper quite a nice phone--big screen, good specs, ability to upgrade with a flash memory card, all things my iPhone 3 lacked.

In the year I had it, it was replaced under warranty twice for the same flaw: first, the GPS would fail, erratically giving me results that were way off (To my knowledge, I've never been to the Middle East, and I'm quite certain I didn't get there by driving down my street!) and then crashing hard whenever I tried to access GPS at all. The second time I brought it in for warranty service, the guy at the phone store told me his Sensation had just been replaced for the same problem the day before.

It also had an unfortunate habit of suddenly and without warning heating up in my pocket until it was nearly too hot to touch. I'd like to think I have hot stuff in my pants, but not malfunctioning tech...

I have no idea if my experience was typical or not, but I know it'll be a cold day in Hell before I buy an HTC phone. (Should that cold day come, maybe I can use it to keep warm.)

2
0

Re: 2 HTC Phones, 2 Buggy Phones

I had a Desire Z and never experienced that SMS sending bug... I did have to root it eventually though. It was an amazing phone when I first got it with Froyo at release time but the OTA Gingerbread update screwed it up badly and made Sense restart if I ever had more than one app open. Thing is I actually really like Sense more than vanilla Android, so I installed Virtuous ROM on it, which was basically just a fixed, overclocked version of Gingerbread + Sense, and it was great again.

I moved to a One S (UK version) last summer and I adore that too. I'll admit that I did root it on the day I got it but that was mainly to remove carrier branding, no obvious bugs that I noticed. When I later replaced the ROM I went for ViperOneS, again a ROM based on Sense but with lots of extras and improvements. After staying loyal since my G1 I'm quite sad to see where HTC are heading these days. When it comes to replacing my One S it looks like I'll basically have a choice of Samsung. Nice specs but I find their build a bit plasticky.

0
0

Recently had the choice on any windows phone I wanted and went with an 8x after having a Lumia 710 that was disappointing. Very happy I did. My wife and my brother both have HTC Androids (I was not involved in either purchase decision) that they are very happy with as well.

2
0

This post has been deleted by a moderator

Anonymous Coward

Re: CURSE of WIN PHONE 8

Yeah, we already heard the guy before you. Honestly, Eadon, you need to get onto these things a bit quicker!

4
2
Silver badge

Re: CURSE of WIN PHONE 8

If MS is to blame for HTC's troubles presumably it's also responsible for Samsung's success?

2
2
Boffin

Re: CURSE of WIN PHONE 8

I don't buy into the argument that WP8 is entirely to blame for HTC woes, but I think it would be fair to argue that HTC might be hit harder than Samsung by weak WP8 sales.

Fairly obviously Samsung are large enough that they can develop and release phones running a number of OS's - besides Android and WP, they also sell Bada, Tizen and whatever their feature-phones run. If Samsung ran into difficulty selling phones running one operating system, they have plenty of others. Samsung also put so little effort into WP phones, that some WP fans suspect conspiracy rather than incompetency: http://www.wpcentral.com/samsung-trying-sabotage-windows-phone-8-edge-out-microsoft

Compare that with HTC who got their start making Win Mobile phones for MS. The 8X phones are apparently decent hardware, and relatively unique design (compared with Samsung). You have to suspect that they made more of an effort in WP phones, as they can't seem to get ahead with their Android range.

Interesting thing to me (as somebody considering a new smartphone), is that even if a HTC flag ship phone was very good, if it is similar specs and similar price to a Samsung SIII/S4, then why wouldn't I just buy the Samsung? To stand out in a crowded market they have to be significantly cheaper or better than other Android phones. If they are the former, you get reduced profits (as reported) and they have a tough time ahead to cram more into phones to be better than a S4.

Doubt that going down the Nokia road would work either - they would have to compete with Nokia in a much smaller market. Tough times ahead...

0
0

Argruably the desire was the 1st mainstream android...

Which makes it a shame HTC are where they are now. Its completly their own fault however. The released too many phones, in too short a space of time. Each was virtually the same as each other, and for a while they released some really under specced ones.

3
1
Bronze badge

Re: Argruably the desire was the 1st mainstream android...

Regardless of the "1st mainstream" or not moniker, the fact of the matter was that the HTC Desire was crap, and most of what HTC have put out is crap. The sense UI was last I used it utterly buggy - if it was stable that'd be another matter.

The Desire was unreliable, the Wildfire which was the bargain basement model was so badly underspecified everyone I know with one hated it, and generally wanted to use it as a football. Then they released equally poor revisions with "S" (Wildfire S, Desire S) and all the guff about Beats Audio and so on.

HTC only have themselves to blame - they were great as a manufacturer of phones for others when nobody knew they existed. They got too cocky too soon, and played the all models and all sizes game which has gotten them nowhere because they went too low, meaning people bought the low end rubbish, were utterly disappointed with them and then blamed either HTC, or Android or both. I suspect HTC did more to damage the reputation of Android than anything else has.

2
1
Silver badge

Re: Argruably the desire was the 1st mainstream android...

Have to agree, I have a Wildfire and its crap - or more precisely the software is crap and HTC have done nothing to fix it in the last 2 years.

Any wonder their customers have deserted them?

0
0
Coat

They need to reduce their product portfolio.

They need to cut costs and drop non-profitable lines.

Looking at their web site they have 12 different models.

They should drop the 2 WinPho models ASAP. There's no point flogging a dead horse.

With regards to the other 10 they should cut these down to around 2 or 3, because I know what I'm talking about and 2 or 3 phones is all you really need because you bring out a new one every 6 months.

Then they should bring out a high-spec version of the Wildfire/Buzz. That phone has been recognised as their best ever so they should stick to what they know works and bring out a high spec version of it. Within a week it'll be shitting money.

1
5
JC_

Re: They need to reduce their product portfolio.

Then they should bring out a high-spec version of the Wildfire/Buzz... Within a week it'll be shitting money.

They should bring out a high-spec version of their low-end phone?

because I know what I'm talking about

Yeah, right.

1
0

Re: They need to reduce their product portfolio.

Prices have moved on so they could release a "Wildfire 3" at low-end prices with the performance of the Desire.

If Huawei can do it (my G300 was cheaper than my Wildfire!), why can't HTC?

2
0
Bronze badge

Re: They need to reduce their product portfolio.

So you think they should drop the One X - the Windows 8 Phone that Microsoft recommend over the Nokia (yes they do, every time I've seen them at any sort of trade fair etc). That'd be the one phone they have that's been selling reasonably well if quietly (mostly because Windows Phone is getting bad press unfairly as it's not as bad as you might think - and actually for many things I found it pretty slick - much like the Blackberry Z10).

They should drop all the budget crap they do that gives them a bad name.

1
1
FAIL

Re: They need to reduce their product portfolio.

Yes, they should drop the One X. If only because it's a WinPho and the market has shown that it doesn't want WinPho. As for MSFT endorsing it, well, that's the kiss of death, right there.

HTC + WinPho = FAIL.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

I used to like HTC. The hardward isn't the issue, it's the non-existent support! HTC have a bug in the stock mail app which they should be aware of considering how many people are complaining about it on the forums.

STILL no fix, over 12 months later.

Sorry HTC you need to get a grip on both hardware and customer support.

My next phone won't be the HTC One, but it would have been.

1
0
Go

Mail client

I didn't like the mail client in my Wildfire, so I downloaded K-9 from Google Play, and haven't looked back. When I upgraded to a Huawei G300, I didn't even bother with the internal mailer, just used K-9 - and was even able to copy the settings across.

1
0
Bronze badge
WTF?

Re: Mail client

You can copy settings across?! How did you do this?

0
0
Go

Re: Mail client

In K-9, go Menu --> More --> Accounts, then Menu --> More --> Settings Import & Export.

The catch is when importing, you have to already have an account in place to import the account settings!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

And another one will bite the dust.

They should have betted on the windows platform where their expertise lays. HTC was the top dog on windows mobile 6.X and they made huge profits, but that market has been grabbed now by Nokia for Windows Phone, after dropping their Symbian experiment.

So I guess, in the long run there will be only 3:

Apple = IOS

Samsung = Android.

Nokia = Windows Phone.

1
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: And another one will bite the dust.

Three is a little bit too much. Let's settle on 2. something : Apple, Samsung and traces of Windows.

1
0

Good Phone

Have been round a few Android manufacturers - have to say I'm really happy with my One X, it feels solidly built and well designed - but it is missing a certain I-don't-know-what - it's just not desireable...

0
0

HTC has always done interesting designs.

The HTC One is the coolest looking phone on the market, excellent speakers, top notch camera... I hope it gets HTC back were we need them. Samsung G S3/4 is cheap generic looking glossy plastic junk.

I almost bought the One X last year but didn't like the button placement. I went Motorola Atrix.

1
1

HTC One - lovely phone

This is a bit of a shame because losing HTC would mean Samsung and Apple are the only big players around (ok, so there is Sony / Nokia I guess)....

I chose my HTC One - preordered it because it has a very high res screen (468ppi) and I read a lot on whatever device is in my hand.

They made just one mistake, no memory slot.

But it's a very competent, solid phone and it definitely deserves to succeed - though I would urge HTC to get OUT of the trend of no mem card slots. Silly silly choice.

I chose it over Samsung S4 and similar - its a better screen.

1
0
FAIL

Re: HTC One - lovely phone

No, not one mistake, at least 3, no memory slot, non-replaceable battery, nano SIM instead of micro.

Removing things that your earlier models had is a sure way to loose customers.

Unfortunately Samsung have started following their lead

3
0

Re: HTC One - lovely phone

i totally agree with this statement.

i was a long time htc owner, my last one was the htc one x and it was second worst experience ive ever had with a phone (first being the motorola milestone), infact i only used the pos for 6 months before purchasing the note 2.

the failings for me were non removable battery, no sd card. my memory went corrupt and i had to wipe the phone to get the memory back - this happened a number of times, if this had been sd card i would have just swapped it and carried on,

the battery was shocking, i never got more than 6 hr though mp3 playback before the thing would die, then there is the over heating issue while gaming or using sat nav.

i can see htc vanishing in the not so distant future, unless they can get thier heads around that people want these simple things on their phones.

i think this would be a shame and big loss, either love it or hate it sense made android look 1000x better, and i think this made google look at the os ui from ice cream sandwich onwards.

2
0
Gold badge

At least they are profitable...

I figure at least they are profitable. That's a bad sales drop, but the real problem companies are those ones where profits go up and up each quarter, but they keep managing to lose money. Don't get me wrong, this isn't a good sign for HTC, but they aren't actually in trouble yet. As volatile as the market is, I expect someone else will slip up and HTC's time will come again.

0
0

Sad decline for my favorite phone maker

I've enjoyed several HTC models (using the horribly named Droid Incredible 4G LTE today), and found the hardware worthy each time. Guess I was lucky missing the under-specced ones.

IMHO, HTC is losing for two reasons: brand dilution, and the decades one must wait to get updates to FuckShitStack (AKA the horrible Sense UI). Seems like they're addressing the brand dilution problem - whether that turns out to work or not is anyone's guess. As far as Sense and their updates issue, well, that's what Cyanogenmod et all are for. But it shouldn't have to come to that. HTC really needs to think hard about how they handle that, but nothing in the press suggests that they are.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums