Nokia's Present & Future

Discussion in 'Mobile Industry' started by Arun, Dec 22, 2010.

  1. Mize

    Mize 3dfx Fan
    Moderator Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    5,048
    Likes Received:
    1,097
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio USA
    How can anyone claim "the only way X could ever happen is Y" and then follow it in the very same post with a way X happened using Z?
    It's absurd to say that Nokia had no other choices or chances. That was one talent-laden company before Elop destroyed it and the very nature of true innovation is that others don't see it coming.

    ...unless your Silent_Buddha of course ;)
     
    Florin likes this.
  2. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,962
    Likes Received:
    4,553
    Yes, defending his actions was ridiculous then, but it's even worse doing it now, when everyone can see all the destruction he left in his path.

    Just one small note that negates all Elop-sympathizers:
    - By February 11 2011, the day of the burning memo, Nokia had been raising their profits for 3 quarters in a row.

    B-but they were losing everything already - Yeah, except for money and sales.
     
    liolio likes this.
  3. liolio

    liolio Aquoiboniste
    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    193
    Location:
    Stateless
    "Whatever US company etc." relates to MSFT, Apple or Google.
    The Finnish OS got killed.
     
  4. Silent_Buddha

    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    16,137
    Likes Received:
    5,074
    Driven more by their feature phone lineup, which dominated their revenue and profit lines. Something that was going to start taking a tumble once low cost Android devices started to enter the low end phone market. That influence wouldn't start having a large impact until after 2011. Nokia did a good job of staying relevant in that space for awhile but the writing was already on the wall. But with people already abandoning their Symbian platform, it just compounded things as their feature phone lineup also started to fall.

    It doesn't matter who was at the helm, and it doesn't matter if that memo never went out. Symbian was a dying platform. The only reason Elop was brought in was because the board of directors saw it coming long before 2011, and didn't see the current CEO doing anything to address the problem in a satisfactory way.

    Or do you think the board of directors felt that the company was in a wonderful place, making nice tidy profits with a bright future, and deliberately sabotaged their own company? Because it certainly wasn't Elop that made that decision. And it certainly was Microsoft or anyone else that made that decision. It was Nokia that made that decision to hire Elop after looking at their company and how their company's products were trending and looking at the marketplace and watching developers leave their platform for the competition. They hired Elop because they knew Nokia was headed downward unless they did something about it. Elop wasn't the answer as history shows. But in hindsight there was likely nothing they could have done to improve the situation.

    Regards,
    SB
     
    #2444 Silent_Buddha, Jul 15, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2015
  5. Silent_Buddha

    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    16,137
    Likes Received:
    5,074
    When the market is new is the best time for upstarts to make a play. Once established it takes extraordinary effort to shift the balance. While smartphones existed before Apple entered the market, smartphones as people know them today was defined by iOS and later expanded on by Android before iOS could establish a dominant position. And even then it wasn't easy. Similar to how Microsoft entered the GUI desktop OS market before Apple could establish a dominant foothold there. Microsoft was able to push Apple to a minor player and Android is slowing doing the same to iOS.

    Android now is like Windows in the 90's, except with Apple stronger now than they were back then. It's going to take something extraordinary to be anything other than a footnote as a smartphone OS. Especially with app. lock in. Especially purchased apps. Again similar to Windows dominance.

    Just introducing a novel OS isn't going to cut it. Not if it only does the same as current smartphone OS's just with a "better" UI or minor feature upgrades. The only reason I mention Microsoft having a sliver of a chance is if phones become powerful enough to serve as productivity replacements for Windows desktops/laptops while being able to run the same apps as desktops/laptops. And that only potentially gets them a minor stake as the 3rd player. In other words, even with that potential advantage it wouldn't be enough to displace iOS much less the gorilla in the room, Android.

    Regards,
    SB
     
  6. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,962
    Likes Received:
    4,553
    Symbian had been projected to terminate since 2009, to be replaced with MeeGo.
    The N9 with MeeGo was launched half a year after the burning memo, 2 months before Nokia launched the first Windows Phone, and was received with critical acclaim throughout the world, its user interface was incessantly praised as something better than iOS and much better than Android at the time, and it won dozens of "Device of the year" awards throughout the world. And it got all this despite using an old-ish SoC, not getting any marketing budget and Elop forbidding its sales in any of the major markets (so it wouldn't cannibalize on the lumias).

    The first Nokia WP, the Lumia 800, never got even a fraction of the attention the N9 did and never sold a fraction of what the N9 did, despite being sold in all major markets and having a huge marketing budget which translated completely on losses.



    Some people will still try to re-write history, though.
     
  7. Mize

    Mize 3dfx Fan
    Moderator Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    5,048
    Likes Received:
    1,097
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio USA
    Indeed, I purchased an award-winning N9 and it was a very nice phone. Much nicer HMI than Android or iOS. Maybe not up to the polish of webOS, but about ten times faster.

    The conflicting interests of controlling board members have already been documented, BTW.
     
  8. wco81

    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    263
    Location:
    West Coast
    Unlikely MeeGo would have won big share against iOS or Android.

    The question is whether Nokia might have done better adopting Android instead of Windows Phone back then.
     
  9. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,962
    Likes Received:
    4,553
    Yes, back in 2011, should they adopt an O.S. with the most terrible and stale/declining adoption rate ever (WP7) equipped with a rigid UI that blocks customization (and differentiation) or the one getting the fastest adoption growth (Android) and allows for complete customization (so much that they could even port the acclaimed Swipe UI to it)?

    Hum.. such difficult decisions..
     
  10. wco81

    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    263
    Location:
    West Coast
    Well short term it would have made sense.

    But long term?

    Only Samsung has been profitable with Android and it's seeing profits decline.
     
  11. Kaotik

    Kaotik Drunk Member
    Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Messages:
    8,183
    Likes Received:
    1,840
    Location:
    Finland
    Just one small note that negates all Elop-haters:
    - Nokia had chosen the path they were going for before and regardless of Elop
     
  12. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,962
    Likes Received:
    4,553
    Geez, I really wish this "only Samsung makes money with Android" myth would go away because it's so very wrong...

    Samsung, LG, Lenovo/Motorola, Huawei and Xiaomi are making profits with Android. And even HTC had profits until recently.
    Not to mention other smaller companies like TCL/Alcatel, Oppo, OnePlus, Meizu etc. All of them making profits with Android.

    It's very safe to say there's at least a dozen companies making profits with Android, and that number hasn't changed much since 2011 (actually, the number of companies has increased?)


    And in the meanwhile, how many companies made money with Windows Phone from 2011 to 2015?
    Zero.
     
  13. zed

    zed
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,441
    Likes Received:
    628
    Actually based on data on these forums sony have been making profits on their phones the last 2 years
     
  14. wco81

    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    263
    Location:
    West Coast
    It was just reported that Apple makes 92% of the profits and Samsung 15%.

    The rest are negative or maybe positive at a very small percentage.
     
  15. tuna

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2002
    Messages:
    3,139
    Likes Received:
    356
    Must be an accurate report!
     
    ToTTenTranz and Rys like this.
  16. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,962
    Likes Received:
    4,553
    I was actually wondering about this myself because earlier this year there was this rumor claiming that Sony was looking for company to buy their smartphone division.
    IIRC the rumor was denied by Sony, but it might have appeared for weak/negative profits from that division.
    Which I find odd because they've been making great smartphones with the Xperia Z line, and the Z1/Z3 Compact are a class of their own.
     
  17. zed

    zed
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,441
    Likes Received:
    628
    yes I posted this before, Doing their maths if samsung had a worse quarter then apple would of had more than 100% of the profits
    this was the same report that states sony mobile has been profitable for the last 2 years, so based on their incompetence, who knows if sony is profitable.
    yes Im looking at a xperia Z phone next, waterproof and excellent battery/GPS are important for me. Im waiting to see how the Z4 is before I purchase
     
  18. I.S.T.

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    3,174
    Likes Received:
    389
    https://www.theguardian.com/technol...nd-hmd-foxconn?CMP=twt_a-technology_b-gdntech

    And Nokia continues to get fucked, this time it's gotten Atari'd and turned into another company's name.

    Will wonders ever cease? Will Microsoft ever fuck up another acquisition as much as this one(From what I hear, Lionhead wasn't much better)? Will something ever truly surpass sliced bread as the greatest thing ever?

    The answers are no, no(Though they'll certainly try!) and no.
     
  19. Kaotik

    Kaotik Drunk Member
    Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Messages:
    8,183
    Likes Received:
    1,840
    Location:
    Finland
    It was Nokias choice, they didn't get "Atari'd"

    HMD got rights for the basic/feature phones from Microsoft, but for tablets and smartphones from Nokia
     
  20. Silent_Buddha

    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    16,137
    Likes Received:
    5,074
    To be clear, Microsoft never had the rights to the Nokia brand name. They couldn't sell it. Nokia retained all rights to the Nokia brand name (phones or otherwise) but Microsoft had exclusive rights to the name for phones (smart and dumb) for a limited period of time so that they could transition the lines to a Microsoft brand.

    What Microsoft did own, however, was the manufacturing, distribution and sales units that formerly belonged to Nokia as well as some of the existing feature phone and smartphone (Windows Phone) lines. That was part of the deal with Nokia. I'm sure Microsoft would have preferred to license manufacturing from Nokia, but Nokia wanted out of the phone business entirely as it wasn't a profitable venture and there was no way to turn it into a profitable venture.

    Microsoft sold off the manufacturing, distribution and sales units as they are far more comfortable licensing manufacturing from another entity and the distribution and sales units were redundant (waste of cash flow).

    Once Microsoft's limited time exclusivity to the Nokia brand name for phones was up, Nokia was free to sell the rights to the Nokia phone brand to whomever they wished. That is what happened. They had already licensed the Nokia brand for tablets to a third party previously.

    TL: DR - Nokia hasn't been "fucked" by anyone. At least not by anyone that isn't on the company's board of directors.

    Regards,
    SB
     
    BRiT likes this.
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...