Re: Look at the bright side
> the latest Kantar figues
Kantar have very selective figures which do not match up with quarterly total sales.
> 9.9% UK market share for Windows Phone
Which is down from 12%. But even that 9.9% is old news:
"""according to the latest statistics from analyst outfit Kantar Worldpanel Comtech:
"""Windows Phone saw its market share slip too, following reports that sales of Lumia handsets are starting to slow. In June, the Microsoft mobile operating system had a 7.5 percent market share, compared to 9.1 percent the previous month and 9.5 percent in June 2013."""
> Nokia never sold any handsets at below parts cost.
You don't know that, they may have. But 'below parts cost' does not represent the only way to 'sell at a loss'. The finished product is _much_ more than a list of parts, it includes assembly, packaging, transport and marketing and maybe more. What is known is that they made massive losses which includes selling off some models at less than FOB:
> Nokia ended up paying Microsoft more in license fees than Microsoft paid Nokia in platform support payments.
That would only be true if each licence were around $35 (1billion/30million). As this is about twice what others have said the licence would cost then it is unlikely. Also that is irrelevant. If Nokia had to pay licence fees then that is part of the cost.
> If Windows Phone had always been license free then Nokia would have made a profit.
If it were licence free _and_ MS still paid then a $billion dollars then they _may_ have broken even at least in some quarters, but not all.
> This was to plug the gap between their really basic 3rd world type handsets and the premium Windows Phone range.
While there were some 'premium' models in the WP range most of the sales were in the 'bargain bin' range.
"""The report also notes a sequential and year-on-year decline in average selling prices for devices, indicating that those who did buy Nokia phones shied away from higher-priced models."""