Anecdotally, I'm very impressed with some of the new Lumias. I got a 620 to replace my stolen iPhone, and for $200 unlocked its phenomenal phone. The build quality makes a flagship Samsung feel like cheap plastic crap. And Windows Phone flies despite the modest specs. I was disappointed in the 920 I had earlier, but at this price point the shoe is on the other foot.
I hope this is portends a Microsoft phone...
Together, these companies would have had a serious chance at being the indisputable third platform.
On their own, they came up with a dozen incompatible variants of Windows Mobile, and PlayBook. Now both companies and both platforms are teetering on the edge of oblivion.
As it is, they each wanted to play the same game as Apple and Google, and that has failed dramatically for both. If they had decided to play a different game entirely, they would have been formidable.
Most execs want iPhones or similar.
WP market is much much smaller, so, by becoming a big player in this market, which Nokia achieved in very little time, they became in fact a big player in a market where there really is no money.
Had they instead of this focused on becoming a big player in a market that actually matters, e.g. the Android market, then Nokia may still (or again) be worth a lot. (But then they wouldn't be a cheap take-over target for Microsoft.)
With Nokias connection to telcoms, they could have easily achieved a big chunk of the android market share.
Specifically, for $12.5 billion, minus $2.4 billion for the set-top box business, minus $3.4 billion in net cash, minus $2.5 billion for tax assets. Actual cost to Google: $4.2 billion.
Compared to Nokia: €5.4 bilion = $7.2 billion.
Nokia was the market leader in smartphones before they went WP. They were larger than Apple and Samsung combined and then some more. Motorola wasn't a big factor in the smartphone business. Google bought them for their patents, certainly not for their mismanaged smartphone strategy. So, Motorola went from 0% smartphone market share to roughly 3% with Android. (Nothing to write home about, but you can't blame this on Android.)
Nokia on the other side was at 34% when they decided to go all in on WP, and look where they are now: 3%. Nokia's fall is of historic proportions. Motorola's fall doesn't even come close.
Nokia's mistake wasn't in killing Symbian for smartphones in 2011. It was in not killing Symbian in 2009 or 2008. But it's hard to give up that market share and start from zero.
In cases of disruption, high market share is actually a disadvantage, because you stick with your existing product longer than you should.
As for Nokia killing Symbian: To publicly announce a year before you actually ship the next product, that your current products are now obsolete - huge mistake! I don't think there is any dispute on this.
But we digress: I strongly believe that if you do it right there is money to be made as an Android vendor (don't forget those emerging companies from China, Huawei, xiaomi,...), but there is no money in WP. Nokia did a brilliant job with their Lumias, but they just won't sell without the right OS.
Telco relationships and distribution channels are necessary but not sufficient. All the other phone makers had telco relationships and distribution channels, too. Didn't help them compete against the iPhone.
What got them some traction was that they threw out their old smartphones and started over -- 2 years before Nokia finally got around to doing it. That 2 years made all the difference.
There is an argument for Nokia ditching Symbian and keeping it secret. This assumes it could've been kept secret. A change of that magnitude was bound to leak out -- for example, a Symbian engineer quitting the company in disgust and telling the newspapers.
Disruptive innovation is called disruptive because it turns your assets into liabilities. For example, your factories and distribution network used to be valuable because they gave you scale that nobody else had. But now, they just cause you to have higher fixed costs than your competitors. The classic example being US Steel when the minimill disrupted the steel business.
I remember when the consensus was that there was no money in being an Android vendor, period.
I'm also not sure how the $10 billion valuation of Xiaomi, on sales of $2 billion Android phones figures into this "not making money" thing. Weirdly, those charts you see every few months that tell that "Only Samsung makes money from Android" don't include any of the top 5 smartphone sellers in China. I mean Lenovo is hardly an unknown name in tech.
For the downvoters: Nokia is losing money right now, but managed to post a profit for Q4 2012, which at $585m was more than Lenovo made in all of 2012, and about 5-6 times more than ZTE made in 2012.
Beyond a certain point, market share is much less important than profits, much more so in the phone space because it's not like the desktop operating system space where people are building up large systems that will be hard to port in the future.
Earnings aren't the sole determinant of whether a company is a worthwhile ongoing venture...
Being an Android vendor is like being a PC vendor. Acer, Lenovo, etc, not only do they not make any money, but they have no hope of dominating the market and winning on volume the way Wal-Mart does and Amazon hopes to do. It puts food on the table, I guess, but if I were a Nokia shareholder I'd rather they just liquidate and return their capital than take that course of action.
Another issue is Microsoft does not have profitable consumer services other than Xbox. Even Microsoft can integrate a lot of its services with Windows Phone, it is a big money sink until Microsoft can make profit on search, maps, outlook.com, skydrive, etc. They have tried for over a decade by now.
In the end, I really like to see 3-way competition between Apple, Google, Microsoft.
The only way for Microsoft to entice carriers is to bend over backwards with deals, promotions and letting them customize the phone. Which was exactly what Microsoft was trying to avoid by copying the "we're calling the shots" way of Apple.
The other option, of course, is to make a phone that is so desirable that customers will start demanding it. So far, WP8 is not that phone. Partly because it's _not_ so much better than iPhone or Android, and partly, perhaps, because people's not so positive association with the Windows brand ("isn't that the thing that always needs updating?").
...but that's price fragmentation, not a commentary on the 'cohesiveness' of the Nexus 4, which is a brilliant device.
This is almost certainly to satisfy regulators who will have final say over whether this transaction will close.
Better known by his pen-name, Mark Twain.
However Microsoft will have a 10-year license grant, meaning that Microsoft is immune to the beast anyways.
Nokia was really starving for money and wanted to monetize their patents, and saw VP8 as a threat. Instead of waiting for it to be popular and then pounce, they pre-emptively requested Google(which is rolling in dough) to license their patents. They did spend a lot on R&D in their heyday, they're not a garden variety patent troll. If a CEO didn't try to get their patents licensed while hurting badly for money, they would be called out for it.
I fail to see any MS hand in this, hidden or not. Do you have any references to back that up?
I doubt it. It looked more like an attack on the open web. MS and Apple always didn't like open codecs. They never even implemented them in their browsers and products. Nokia is not part of MPEG-LA, so they aren't really direct competitors codecs wise. So I see no point for Nokia themselves to be such jerks as to attack open codecs. It makes more sense to do such thing for MS or Apple, and MS is in closer proximity here.
That's an empty excuse they used to explain why they didn't ship open codecs. Totally bogus, since MPEG-LA doesn't indemnify anyone from lawsuits of any patent troll either (MS were even sued themselves by Motorola!), yet MS is completely OK with using H.264.
> Except for one big reason, to monetize their patents.
Suddenly now, out of the blue? Nokia are not new to patent litigation. VP8 is not new either. But now MS has a good grip over Nokia. And VP8 is being attacked. Everything points to MS here.
The acquisition includes distribution channels around the world, factories, devices, R&D and softwares including google maps replacement Nokia Here, which in my opinion very good too.
When we compare this to a software starup Tumblr with 1.2B this seems very less. I could be wrong and missing something big.
Nokia has a net cash position of about €2 billion. (Was €4 billion before buying out the Siemens half of NSN.)
No debt is being assumed in this deal, and no cash is going along for the ride to Microsoft.
In any case, debt makes a deal more expensive if it is being assumed -- not cheaper. If it stays with the original company, then it has no effect on deal price.
My other concern is if Microsoft is being negligent instead of if they are right or wrong. For example, I think Skype acquisition was negligent in a moment where this kind of technology was moving to the browser (WebRTC), being commoditized, and with a few lines of code everyone can technically replicate the technical parts of the service. Nokia acquisition and Microsoft recent write-offs will scare investors.
In others aspects I also experienced a general degradation in the Microsoft relationship with partners/developers that can obviously harm their business and developers ecosystem. For example, they didn't release the latest Windows 8.1 version to MSDN customers, only to a few vendors. Companies need the latest release to test their software in new environments.
There are a lot of positive things that Microsoft is doing right related to the cloud such as Hyper-V, App-V, Azure, and development tools. The main concern is if they only understand the infrastructure and not the end user and if this issue is embedded in their DNA. When I deal with some of their commercial hosted web services, like Microsoft Exchange, it seems like nobody in Microsoft used GMail, AdWords, or Google Analytics before...
WebRTC makes sense if you have a web service that the majority of people already have accounts on, have open in their browser whenever they're online, and already know their friends' usernames on - something like for example GMail. Which is probably why Google have been pushing it so hard.
But I can also argue about the business side. If you think how fast companies such as Facebook, Tumblr, etc achieved traction you can think that Skype risks are big.
However, that plan would only have worked if they did it just around the time when Android became popular. Now it's probably too late.
However, Nokia actually has, and used to have lots of resources, far more than most other phone vendors. They had the Ovi store, Nokia Comes With Music, N-Gage, and finally a very nice in-house NAVTEQ Maps application. The "only" problem was that they never really managed to do most of these _well_.
Which I think is at the core of the problem. Choosing Windows Phone as the platform only made it worse and tied Nokias hands, not better.
>With Windows Phone, Nokia and Microsoft at least have some hope of carving out a profitable stake in the market.
I think you mean Microsoft, Nokia is no more. You think they'll really do it this time? They've only been trying since before the iPhone. I dunno, maybe without Ballmer, they can make something happen.
>for $200 unlocked its phenomenal phone.
Don't get used to that. It's because they overestimated demand.
Anyway, there are plenty of great Instagram apps on Windows Phone 8:
Edit: he had a comment there saying he has tickled me and he is using Blackberry q10 indeed.
It seems to be a great move for MS if anything. That'd be fine if it wasn't a move that was planned by planting a CEO with a plan to decimate the company until MS could buy it. It might be legal but it's certainly not moral.
What does this mean? You paid $200 for the phone? You paid $200 to unlock it? What do these phones cost, with contract, without?
The way it works in most of the world.
A more descriptive term might've been "$200 unlocked, off-contract."
Suicide by Microsoft.
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).
All phones are commodities. Going with Windows Phone just meant that they were a commodity with an incompatible OS.
Now anyone can grow wood, but the big money is turning that wood into furniture and that takes a skilled carpenter.
Actually DoComo pretty much made the smartphone what it is today. Japan was selling "smartphones" way back in 2001. It was the incredible revenues they generated that got the attention of US carriers.
Smartphones were less rare in Europe before 2005, but still there.
Android was "IBM PC trick", and competititors trying to preserve high margins and differentiate their products will end like Amiga, Commodore or Atari.
Of course it isn't. What about "the potential for a great deal of customers"? I'm certainly not suggesting that MS has executed on this, but they're in the best position out of any second-tier OS. They have huge resources, the Xbox, a music subscription service, the whole suite of Live services, Office...
Like I said, they haven't exactly been successful despite these advantages. But if I were a failing handset manufacturer that had to tie myself to one available ship...
In fact, were they clever, MS would position themselves well in all of the non-1st-world markets (Indian sub-continent, Central America, South America, Africa, Asia). Its like playing Risk, they've got America, Europe, and Australia, but you can still hold on with the others.
That would offer more scope for growth.
"But when it comes to smartphones, Microsoft only has the right to use the Nokia name on Windows Phones that are in the market when the deal closes"
One thing that strikes me about apple is their culture of secrecy. There are departments within the same company that are not allowed to talk to one another. When you have no idea what other people are doing, it's very hard to play politics and the only thing you can do is just do great work.
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.
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.
Some would consider that "making a killing".
Strategy Analytics: http://bgr.com/2013/07/26/samsung-smartphone-profits-q2-2013...
Canaccord Genuity: http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/07/31/apple-takes-53-of-...
They're all for the quarter that ended two months ago and say (Samsung-Apple) 53%-47%, 50-53% and 43%-57% respectively and they were all at more like 15-80% two years ago.
What seems to trip people up with this one is that the profit share "line" is an average over the last 4 quarters, which since the two number are moving quickly in opposite directions adds lag, the actual estimate for the quarter is a purple dot.
But even with that lag, the trend is fairly hard to miss (people do seem prepared to put that effort in though).
A few years ago there was a real risk that Apple would start dropping Google services (ref Apple Maps). Fortunately for Google, iCloud is a mess and Apple is so far away from Google in the services-game that it's not even funny.
Then they have the added hedge of Android which they have full control over.
Basically, Google already has Apple by the balls. In a power struggle between the two, Google will come out on top. Android is certainly an important piece to this puzzle, but saying that Android is "winning/losing" is framing the problem incorrectly.
Except the users. Users win big time when there's an effective open source option for them to choose.
Users don't give a damn about Open Source. They don't even know what Open Source is (just ask some average teen girl with Android phone what she thinks about Android openness). What they want is an acceptable shiny device that does things. Samsung provides that. Apple provides that.
Similarly, having the Android source code available has increased the amount of handset manufacturers who choose to use it and increasing competition, putting on downward price pressure.
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.
Premium Android phones, on the other hand, provide a user experience that a lot of people consider superior.
As a data point just take the number of people who chose Samsung Galaxy S4 or HTC One over iPhone, even though they cost more less the same.
And anecdotes shouldn't be purported as facts.
Slides 6 (for US) and 9 for (UK)
Likewise, if you compare the hardware (build quality etc) I think most people would agree that Apple still is has the best devices compared to Samsung, which still uses the same plastic frame even on high end phones.
If we say "polymer" does it sound any better? I mean there's plastic.. and then there's plastic.
However, most plastic phones are made of plastic because it's a cheap material that doesn't require much in the way of precision to fit together, and it just doesn't have the same kind of quality (or even quality feel) as a phone made with a different material.
Then I got a Galaxy Nexus and revised my opinion on plastic phones entirely, it feels good in hand and has ruggedly endured all kinds of accidental abuse at my hands.
I always saw Apple products as a niche for people who like Apple's aesthetic. This turf war was tiring when Apple had an almost credible claim to technical superiority and I had to listen to Apple PC users rant and rave. Nowadays it's a lot more fun with Google, Microsoft, and their partners making Apple and its supporters wince.
The CR-48 has 8-9 hours of battery life.
Also, if someone steals my laptop, I can replace it with this ( https://play.google.com/store/devices/details?id=chromebook_... ) and lose nothing, since the passwords/ip addresses/etc are not stored on the machines, and no code is stored on the machine.
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:
I almost tried that, but stopped when I read in the custom ROM page that in some cases it could brick the phone. Since my phone is a "branched" version of the standard Ace I decided not to take the risk.
What do you mean "branched" version of Ace? nothing comes up on google :s
Only a very few low end phones made that braindead decision - my girlfriend has a cheaper Mini 2 and it has 1 GB of memory for apps.
You can install apps on the SD, but they still take a little of those valuable megabytes. The only apps I have on the internal memory are Gmail, Maps, Facebook and Youtube (plus Play Services). Several apps can be moved to the SD (Opera Mobile, most games, MX media player, Adobe Reader, so I manage.
Btw: I am an Android developer having a truly great time with this and other platforms.
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.
These are drastically underpowered devices. Even if an app can run on 2.2, it doesn't mean it'll run well (or at all) on sub-$100 hardware.
This is wrong, Google Play is compatible with every Android device. (link: http://source.android.com/compatibility/)
I don't know where you got this information from, but I can assure you that 99,9999% of all Android devices you'll find outside of China will have Google Play on it.
"These are drastically underpowered devices. Even if an app can run on 2.2, it doesn't mean it'll run well (or at all) on sub-$100 hardware."
Drastically underpowered like an iPhone4/4S? Most 2.2 - 2.3.3 devices out there are just 1-2 year old phones, so of course they are underpowered compared to todays standards.
Still, most apps will run on those devices the same way they still run on an iPhone4/4S - in a few cases slow, but still usable for the mayority of consumers.
Drastically underpowered like an iPhone4/4S? Obviously you're so hyped up by your anti-Apple venom that you failed to read my original post, so all is forgiven. No, think underpowered like an original iPhone - if that powerful.
My original point: there's tons of phones out there that aren't even remotely in the same category as the market that Apple and Samsung are selling to. Yet, those numbers keep getting included in the discussions about the Android install base. Samsung and other mid-to-high end Android makers are killing it; there's no need to be intellectually dishonest by including number that are irrelevant to their market.
In my country 90% of smartphones ship with Android, so I've seen a lot of 2.3. devices (I own one).
They are usually NOT underpowered (exception: the Galaxy Mini I certainly is, and it's the "free" smartphone over here), the user experience is quite good, usually better than an old iPhone.
I have a Galaxy Ace (which I don't like), my girlfriend has a Mini 2 (extremely good value for money), coworkers have Motorola Defy, Defy+, LG P880 4x, Galaxy S Advance, SII, SIII, SIV, Sony phones... all work reasonably well, I'd pick any of them over an old iPhone (and the LG and SIV over the latest iPhone).
Sub U$ 100 phones sold here all have Google Play btw.
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.
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.
Maybe this won't continue but if you're skating to where the puck will be then it doesn't look so much like Apple right now.
Which they have, when you're talking about market share. There's some cognitive dissonance going on here- Windows Phone can't succeed because it has a low market share. But Apple succeeds because it has a low market share.
Basically, if low market share isn't a problem for Apple, there's no reason why it would be a problem for MS.
There are still millions of iPhones sold every year, even if they're a smaller piece of the overall pie.
Contrast to Windows Phone which never had any kind of market share or importance, and has to fight up from absolutely nothing.
That's the difference between iPhone's small market share and WP's small share.
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.
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.
Darl McBride? Is that you?
In the last decade, Microsoft has been investigated and fined by several governments, and investigations by several are still ongoing.
Funny, replace Microsoft with Apple in this pull and it would still make sense (but not with the rest of the quote)
Since then, most of the leadership has changed, and, really because of that lawsuit, Microsoft became more serious, precautious company.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
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.
If Apple goes out of business it'll be scrappy MS v.s. Giant Google. Or if Google goes out of business it'll be the underdog MS v.s. the 800lb Gorilla named Apple. Even AMD, who has really no business competing with Intel at this point, and also has to deal with the higher performance ARM chips manages to survive and sometimes be profitable. Ultimately none of it matters because history has shown that there's always going to be competition. And ultimately thats exactly the way we want it to be.
Not a single person here should hope Apple and MS go out of business. Otherwise we might find out how evil Google is willing to be. The same holds true for the others. 90% Apple market share wouldn't be particularly good, even for the most rabid Apple fans. iPhone 5SSSSS anyone?
Ultimately what I find the most amusing about the rhetoric, is that post iMac and pre iPod/iPhone, Mac users were just happy that Apple wasn't going to go out of business. Pre Android, Samsung users were happy they were buying quality air conditioners and TVs... People would do well to gain some perspective on this stuff.
I strongly dislike Apples locked down ecosystem and many of their offerings, but there can be no doubting that their success has been great for the industry. It's broken the MS monopoly (which has had beneficial side effects for linux too), encouraged companies to make products that aim for better than the lowest common denominator, brought UX front and center, recreated the small team of developers making software that lots of people can buy dynamic, encouraged the open web, etc.
As long as we have healthy competition for these marketplaces, I don't worry about the future too much.
I can't quite decide if them being eaten by a US corporation is a good or bad thing.
Nokia dearly promised they wouldn't do it any more. But now all that expertise is safely owned by a US company and Nokia technically is not the same company any more, plus it's not really an oppressive regime if it's the global role model for Democracy(TM)
I'm kidding, I'm kidding. They are going to make phones. I can do some creative wildly free-associating tinfoil kookery if it's buried this deep in the comments, can't I? :)
>the use of such terms waters down an otherwise reasonable well thought out comment.
This may not be a battle you're going to win.
I think the war on this phrase has already been lost to be honest.
Your comment borders on bizarre.
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.
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.
The "other OEMs" are basically HTC and Samsung. Both of which are primarily Android companies.
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.
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?
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)
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?
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.
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.
WP8 phones giving users better performance for less money will make Android feel clunky.
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.
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.
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.
There's a danger in repeating such things as if they are facts, as the people that matter (e.g. developers, investors) start actually believing them. It's bullshit of course, but I don't blame you for being intoxicated by such propaganda.
When the iPhone was released, its success had much to do with it feeling like a portable computer that's polished instead of feeling like an expensive and failed experiment that was pushed on the market for the punishment and torturing of early adopters (like all the other phones before it, with the possible exception of Blackberries that I never tried). The iPhone for example was the first phone I used with a usable browser and a usable email client, two extremely critical pieces of functionality that every other phone maker was failing to deliver.
But living in a technological bubble, such as it happens when living in a place such as San Francisco where you see MacBooks and iPads everywhere, does tend to distort reality.
Fact of the matter is, customers don't care about walled gardens as long as they don't feel the walls. Take away some freedom they care about or show them what openness can do and they'll instantly reconsider their choices.
I went from an iPhone 3GS to an Android because of 3 things - I couldn't block calls and SMS messages coming from some annoying numbers (Apple was banning such apps from iOS) + I couldn't do Wifi tethering with my iPhone because the capability was disabled by my career + uploading music on it wasn't as easy as simply connecting the phone through USB and copy/pasting files. Nowadays I have other reasons too, including the fact that iOS does not allow Firefox. And I also remember fondly when Google Voice was rejected back in 2009, because it "duplicated existing functionality".
I later explained my reasoning to two other non-technical folks, showing them what my Android could do that their device couldn't. They are now Android users. And I can probably convince more people of how dumb and locked down their expensive gadget is, if I cared enough, but I don't because Android is number 1 without my help and openness had everything to do with it (being a doubly edged sword no doubt, since open also means open for careers and phone makers).
One guy doesn't even have an email address.
I say this as a one-time Nokia N95 owner (and long-time Nokia smartphone owner) who moved to an iPhone and found it a revelation. Nokia were ridiculously far behind at that point, the N95 was their best effort and it was one of the most frustrating phones I've ever used.
By the way I still use an n95. It's great because it's a smart phone but not considered a smart phone by att so I dont get charged data. I can use wifi anywhere. It is a bit slow though.
After the iPhone was released, Nokia scrambled around with a number of different alternative operating systems because they knew they didn't have the software. Unfortunately, they didn't commit to the future. By the time Elop came in and committed to Windows Phone, it was already far too late.
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.
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.
My guess is that Elop will become MS CEO, and is not a bad choice. In his interviews, he comes across as someone really smart and eloquent. He is one of the few CEOs in the world with both enterprise and consumer experience that a future MS CEO badly needs.
Read up this guy's profile, do you really think he would approve hiring Elop just like that without such an eventuality in sight?
The real question will be what Elop's role back in Microsoft will be. If he ends up succeeding Balmer, everything that was predicted 3 years ago will end up coming true. I thought it was far-fetched that Nokia was really just the warm-up act to taking over Microsoft. But if that is really what happens, it was certainly foreseeable.
I'm wondering, how can anyone buy and use a Microsoft phone, when we've learned that they partner with the NSA, killing our privacy?
And Apple too.
But we have 2 alternatives now (and they are even open-source!):
1. Ubuntu: http://www.ubuntu.com/phone
2. FirefoxOS: http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/os/
So why does it look like everyone's already back to "whatever!"-mode as far as your right to privacy is concerned?
Everything you need already works just fine (and perfection will be there very soon).
If you need to know precisely about the current status:
- The most official phones: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArLs7UPtu-hJdDZ...
- The entire list (including the "unofficial" ones): https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Touch/Devices
3. Jolla http://jolla.com/
where (at least an earlier version of) the OS was actually shipped on a decent phone, the – Nokia – N9.
Along similar lines, I speculate that Microsoft snapped up Nokia because they threatened starting an Android line of phones.
I think there's a significant business lesson in here somewhere... Something along the lines off "partner with a giant, then become dangerous to it"
Funnily enough, MS also gets a nice patent bonus along with its purchase as Google did with Motorola. However, I think Nokia's patent portfolio is much, much more powerful than Motorola's. This is for three reasons, two publicly evident and one anecdotal:
1) Apple admitted defeat in its patent fight with Nokia, something it hasn't done with anybody else;
2) Nokia has multiple patent lawsuits ongoing, and none of them involve standards essential patents, the one thing most likely to invoke the ire of the antitrust gods;
3) A previous boss of mine knew the head of Nokia R&D in America, and he regaled me with stories of smartphone apps they had working in their labs way back in 2006 that made me go "how the hell do they do that?" Unfortunately, any two-bit app developer can do those things today on any modern smartphone platform using publicly documented API. But I am still curious about what goodies they have hidden away in their labs today.
I speculate that
Reading your comment further: I agree.
## I'm worried that I'm sounding prejudiced and that's not my intention. Not-smart people speculate constantly and I doubt they recognize it; it's hard to recognize speculation in our society. Smart people are the worst: their speculations sound reasonable/smart. Smart people silently-speculating are like Homer's sirens: sounds good until you're dashed on the rocks.
Denoting when you're speculating is definitely important. It can help to deconstruct the problem - a bit like a well-placed assert statement.
Remember that MS makes money off Android phones.
MS also gets a nice patent bonus along [..] Apple admitted defeat in its patent fight with Nokia, something it hasn't done with anybody else
Apple has (well had but I'd bet dollars to donuts it was renewed) a patent cross-licensing agreement with Microsoft so this could be a win for Apple as well.
However, I cannot imagine anybody signing an eternal, all-encompassing cross-licensing deal to each others' portfolios. This is for many reasons, one simply being that one never knows what could be invented, and another being one simply doesn't know when the other will stop inventing and thus, reciprocating.
Yes, Apple certainly has a cross-license deal in place with MS (in addition to the one from the 90s, given the number of UI features WP shares with iOS but has not been sued over). But I would be very surprised if this acquisition was included in those deals. Rather, the relevant cross-licenses were made when Apple settled with Nokia.
Yes, but I assume not nearly as much as they'd make from the sale of their own phone system tied into their own application and media ecosystem. On average, this coupling would keep producing revenue long after the original sale.
Purportedly. I engaged in a debate on here before which involved trying to find the supposedly enormous sums of money that Microsoft makes from Android in their quarterly financial statements. At best it has to amount to what would be chump change to a company like Microsoft.
Instead we hear about supposed agreements where vendors who all happen to also be Windows Phone makers pay some unknown sum to Microsoft, which for all we know is used towards their WP licensing.
If Nokia released Android phones it would been devastating to Microsoft's mobile platform. It would have ruined it.
But you're right: it's chump change to MS, and Nokia putting out even a single Android phone would have been a huge blow to MS.
This is almost certainly to lubricate regulatory approval, and because it unleashes a Nokia patent monster upon the lands.
The main points of the deal are:
- Microsoft pays € 5.44 Billions for all of its Devices & Services business, including the Mobile Phones and Smart Devices business units as well as an industry-leading design team, operations including all Nokia Devices & Services production facilities, Devices & Services-related sales and marketing activities, and related support functions.
- Nokia will grant Microsoft a 10 year non-exclusive license to its patents as of the time of the closing (with option to extend to perpetuity), and Microsoft will grant Nokia reciprocal rights related to HERE services.
- Microsoft will become a strategic licensee of the HERE platform, and will separately pay Nokia for a four year license.
- Microsoft has agreed to make immediately available to Nokia EUR 1.5 billion of financing in the form of three EUR 500 million tranches of convertible bonds to be issued by Nokia maturing in 5, 6 and 7 years respectively. It is at Nokia’s discretion if it chooses to draw down all or some of these tranches.
- To avoid the perception of any potential conflict of interest between now and the pending closure of the transaction, Stephen Elop will step aside as President and CEO of Nokia Corporation, resign from the Board of Directors, and will become Executive Vice President, Devices & Services
Microsoft will also immediately make available to Nokia EUR 1.5 billion of financing in the form of three EUR 500 million tranches of convertible notes that Microsoft would fund from overseas resources. If Nokia decides to draw down on this financing option, Nokia would pay back these notes to Microsoft from the proceeds of the deal upon closing. The financing is not conditional on the transaction closing.
Sounds like Nokia may be running into a cash crunch? They specify that the financing is not dependent on the transaction closing - so it seems as if Nokia needs the money either way, and if the transaction closes they will repay MSFT.
That's basically the same isn't it? A patent can only remain active for 20 years, assuming most of the patents are several years old the majority of them will be pretty close to expiration in 10 years time.
Note: I'm basing this on NZ patent law, but I assuming it's the same for any 1st world country...
If Microsoft owned the patents they could enforce them against others. As a licensee, they simply protect themselves from Nokia enforcing it against them.
As I said elsewhere in here, a Nokia with a big stack of patents and no hardware business is going to be an ugly thing for the industry: They can go gangbusters with patent assaults while having nothing for their victim's to attack in return. All the while Microsoft will be enjoying their 10-year license.
Hmm that sounds rather a lot like mafia. "Pay up or else, no matter whether we're owned by you."
Thanks for the clarification, that makes sense
As for the Nokia patent monster, well... it's already been rampaging the countryside for a few months now. I haven't thought through the ramifications of this deal, but I wonder if it would allow them the same immunity that trolls enjoy?