Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 27th Mar 2013 23:33 UTC
Windows "According to Kevin Restivo, an analyst at IDC, the countries where Windows Phone shipments exceeded those of iPhone during the fourth quarter were: Argentina, India, Poland, Russia, South Africa and Ukraine. A seventh 'country' where Windows Phone shipments beat iPhone is actually a group of smaller countries, including Croatia, that IDC lumps together in a category called 'rest of central and eastern Europe'." Not bad. Unsurprisingly, these are Nokia countries.
Order by: Score:
Argentina...?
by pablius on Wed 27th Mar 2013 23:52 UTC
pablius
Member since:
2005-07-11

Not hard to outsell iPhones here, where they are not sold at all via carriers.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Argentina...?
by przemo_li on Thu 28th Mar 2013 07:48 UTC in reply to "Argentina...?"
przemo_li Member since:
2010-06-01

Well, I poland at least iPhone is sold in contracts..

for 3x cheapest Lumnia, (and now WP7.8 Lumnias are for 1zł - 0,25euro in contracts).

No wonder dirty cheap is outselling expensive in (under)developed countries. ;) One can only wonder why it was not THE strategy from beginning...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Argentina...?
by bnolsen on Thu 28th Mar 2013 13:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Argentina...?"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

because profitability matters and MS's history shows they will first try to sell their wares at huge price premiums. Then if that doesn't work they start more maneuvering, including cost cutting. The real elephant in the room is android. What do those numbers look like in those countries? It's well known that apple's marketshare is overall shrinking, although they still are increasing sales.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Argentina...?
by judgen on Fri 29th Mar 2013 11:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Argentina...?"
judgen Member since:
2006-07-12

The Poles i know that want an non-contract iphone just buy them on mail order from germany, hungary or scandinavia.

edit: spelling error.

Edited 2013-03-29 11:58 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Argentina
by petete on Thu 28th Mar 2013 00:17 UTC
petete
Member since:
2011-07-15

In Argentina we have an import ban on electronics, so you can only buy stuff "made in Argentina". (That means made in China, assembled in Argentina. Only the box, manual and styrofoam has to be made here)

There a few of these "factories" that assemble products for a lot of brands in Tierra del Fuego, but there no argentinian-made Iphones. So carriers stopped selling them when they run out of stock after the ban.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Argentina
by protomank on Thu 28th Mar 2013 00:34 UTC in reply to "Argentina"
protomank Member since:
2006-08-03

Interesting, that explains why, here in brazil, Android took the place from Nokia while in Argentina things are stalled.
Sad to see the economics and politics of our side country to diminish from what it was (much better than brazil in 80's and part of 90's).

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Argentina
by judgen on Fri 29th Mar 2013 12:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Argentina"
judgen Member since:
2006-07-12

The name iPhone in brazil is owned by another phone making company in that particular country. there are several articles about it here on osnews and also explain *some* of the difficulties for apple in Brazil.

Lovely country btw, i will visit again. But this time i might go to the coast, but perhaps Manaus is the friendliest place on earth that i have ever visited.

Reply Score: 2

v SHIPMENTS or SALES?
by tomz on Thu 28th Mar 2013 00:26 UTC
RE: SHIPMENTS or SALES?
by JAlexoid on Thu 28th Mar 2013 00:54 UTC in reply to "SHIPMENTS or SALES?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Don't even start. Shipments can't hold high for quarters on end. Stuffing the sales channel is effective only in very short terms(one or two quarters)

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: SHIPMENTS or SALES?
by Tony Swash on Thu 28th Mar 2013 01:11 UTC in reply to "RE: SHIPMENTS or SALES?"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

I think it would be much better if all companies just posted their sales figures, almost none do. How many Kindle's have Amazon sold? Who knows, but occasionally they farcically claim their sales have doubled. How many Nexus devices has Google sold? Nobody knows because they are not telling. What about total sales figures for the Samsung smart phone or tablets? Ditto.

Interestingly on the few occasions that actual figures have been revealed such as during the disclosure process in the Samsung/Apple legal case the real figures are often very unimpressive.

I can't help but feel that when a company does not release sales figures for a high profile product it is because the news is not good.

So when we get this sort of fact free guff from Microsoft my response is simply - tell me how many W8 phones have been have sold or just shut up.

PR minus facts is just wind.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: SHIPMENTS or SALES?
by Tony Swash on Thu 28th Mar 2013 11:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: SHIPMENTS or SALES?"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Turns out the stats on which the 'out sold iPhone' story were based are also estimates and not official. Plus it seems three of the markets — Ukraine, South Africa and “rest of central and eastern Europe” — are small enough that there were fewer than 100,000 Windows Phone unit shipments in the fourth quarter in each of them.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/where-in-the-world-are-win...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: SHIPMENTS or SALES?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 28th Mar 2013 11:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: SHIPMENTS or SALES?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Apple doesn't report sales either. They report only shipped. They just redefine "shipped" into "sold" in their SEC filings. While in the first few weeks a new model is sold-out in some markets, that tends to fade quickly, and applies to e.g. the Galaxy models as well. On top of that, while in the US most sales may happen through Apple Stores, the rest of the world is served almost entirely through third parties... With stock.

It's a dirty game, but at least the companies reporting "shipped" are more honest than Apple is. It's just too bad many people fall for Apple's redefinition.

And yes, it would be great if everyone reported SALES numbers, including Apple, but they do not, and they have no obligation to do so. Even if they all did - I wouldn't trust their figures anyway. Companies are pathological liars.

Reply Score: 6

v RE[4]: SHIPMENTS or SALES?
by Tony Swash on Thu 28th Mar 2013 14:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: SHIPMENTS or SALES?"
RE[5]: SHIPMENTS or SALES?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 28th Mar 2013 15:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: SHIPMENTS or SALES?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Your irrational hatred for Google has made you misread my comment (as usual). Go back, read it again, and this time, try not to let your Google-hatred get the better of you.

Good luck!

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: SHIPMENTS or SALES?
by Tony Swash on Thu 28th Mar 2013 17:37 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: SHIPMENTS or SALES?"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Your irrational hatred for Google has made you misread my comment (as usual). Go back, read it again, and this time, try not to let your Google-hatred get the better of you.

Good luck!



How? I don't understand what you are saying? How does pointing out that Google (amongst others) does not release details about how many of it's Nexus devices are shipped/sold translate into irrational hatred of Google?

You seem to think no data is as good or possibly better than some data. I would like more data wouldn't you?

I made a point that it would be great if large tech companies released regular data about how their products were actually doing. I would have thought that you would have supported such a position in which case a simple 'I agree' would have sufficed. Instead you respond by attacking Apple, a company I didn't actually mention in my comment. I don't think the irrational hatred element is coming from me.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: SHIPMENTS or SALES?
by Tony Swash on Thu 28th Mar 2013 17:46 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: SHIPMENTS or SALES?"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Just a follow up thought. You made a lot of the difference between shipped and sold, and indeed those things are different. But presumable if a company reports regularly and at fixed intervals on total units shipped then quite quickly shipped and sold will become essentially the same thing as sales channels can only be stuffed so far and eventually fill up.

If you launch a new product and at some statistically convenient point you announce you have shipped "X" amount, but in reality the product is selling poorly and all that has happened is that channels have been stuffed, then that would be a deceptive use of the difference between shipped and sold. But as I said if you actually report shipped units regularly quarter after quarter over the entire life span of a product then over time shipped and sold become almost identical because resellers and the owners of sales channels would only accept so many non-selling units before they said 'no more thank you'.

Edited 2013-03-28 17:49 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: SHIPMENTS or SALES?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 28th Mar 2013 18:04 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: SHIPMENTS or SALES?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

How? I don't understand what you are saying? How does pointing out that Google (amongst others) does not release details about how many of it's Nexus devices are shipped/sold translate into irrational hatred of Google?


Because my comment didn't mention Google, and wasn't referring to Google in any way, shape, or form. Yet, you felt the need to drag it into the mix yet again. It's almost... Compulsive.

You seem to think no data is as good or possibly better than some data.


Uh, my comment is the EXACT opposite of what you're writing here. The EXACT opposite. Here it is again:

"It's a dirty game, but at least the companies reporting 'shipped' are more honest than Apple is. It's just too bad many people fall for Apple's redefinition.

And yes, it would be great if everyone reported SALES numbers, including Apple, but they do not, and they have no obligation to do so. Even if they all did - I wouldn't trust their figures anyway. Companies are pathological liars."

We're seeing your cognitive dissonance coping strategies at work here again, live. I am fully agreeing with your position, yet it just doesn't register with you. You're so hell-bent on this delusional idea that I'm out for Apple that you conjure up all sorts of things I supposedly said.

It's... Fascinating. It truly is.

Edited 2013-03-28 18:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: SHIPMENTS or SALES?
by zima on Wed 3rd Apr 2013 20:25 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: SHIPMENTS or SALES?"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Instead you respond by attacking Apple, a company I didn't actually mention in my comment.

Oh come on, Apple is all you talk about. If the topic is not somehow related to Apple, you simply don't comment.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: SHIPMENTS or SALES?
by jared_wilkes on Thu 28th Mar 2013 20:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: SHIPMENTS or SALES?"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Apple not only announces device shipments, they also detail channel inventory.

They are the most transparent of all manufacturers. Virtually the only manufacturer with any degree of transparency whatsoever.

A few fanboys retreading a wellworn falsehood does not make Apple a bad actor.

Reply Score: 1

Speaking of Poland
by dsmogor on Thu 28th Mar 2013 07:44 UTC
dsmogor
Member since:
2005-09-01

IPhone have always been a tough seller here, not reaching even 5-6% of smartphone penetration (lowest in UE). I attribute it partly to steep price, much more conservative subsidizing (IPhone deals have always been extremely poor) and good terms that both Nokia and Samsung have with the carriers. There's also an overall society anti elitist sentiment while the hipster youth simply can't afford Apple products.
It's also Android that was quite quick catch up and presented affordable smartphone revolution to the masses.

The major factor in WP success is also developer environment imo. Poland professional software companies have long tradition (reaching to late 80ties) of being MS mono-cultures . Strong enough to withstand IOS and Android dominance. E.g. major personal navigation software provider (dominant, due to maps quality) has only recently and in great pains ported their software from WM6. This translated to quite quick uptake WP among major web services companies which dramatically lessens current WP app gap in the country, and makes WP quite a value proposition, esp. on the low end. I'd like to see WP7 / WP8 breakdown though. Gut feeling is most of sales belong to the crazy, stock emptying WP7 deals.

Edited 2013-03-28 07:48 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Speaking of Poland
by cdude on Thu 28th Mar 2013 08:29 UTC in reply to "Speaking of Poland"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Also WP7 Lumia are dumped cheap at selected markets/countries right now. Splitting WP7, WP8, sold and channeled may not easy taken its all very small numbers :-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Speaking of Poland
by unclefester on Thu 28th Mar 2013 09:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Speaking of Poland"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Also WP7 Lumia are dumped cheap at selected markets/countries right now.


WP7 phones are very expensive considering their hardware. The Nokia 610 cost $200-300 outright in Australia. Yet it has lower spec hardware than the cheapest entry level android phones.

Edited 2013-03-28 09:41 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Speaking of Poland
by cdude on Thu 28th Mar 2013 14:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Speaking of Poland"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Australia doesn't belong to that markets. They clean inventory by decreasing price and dumping at selected, not all markets. Reasons are that it limits negative effects, eg on sold WP8 Lumia, and gives better statistics, like outsold iPhone, at selected markets.

Reply Score: 1

v Comment by przemo_li
by przemo_li on Thu 28th Mar 2013 07:54 UTC
RE: Comment by przemo_li
by cdude on Thu 28th Mar 2013 08:35 UTC in reply to "Comment by przemo_li"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Recent news say starting this Q1 quarter Nokia pays $40 for each sold device for the WP license to Microsoft. Minimum $250 million each quarter. The quarters before they got $250 million each quarter from Microsoft. That makes it minus $500 million each quarter they have on top now and no headquarters, land left to sell. Siemens leaving NSN and Huawei as new WP low-end Microsoft partner are hitting in too.

That limits how far low they can go. Also till today Nokia makes lose with each sold unit including high end Lumia's. Going future down and increasing number of sold devices may not help them in becoming profitable again and they not have much time and money left.

Watch out, its an end-game. The 3-No's are going to be completed. Nortel, Novel, Nokia. All exclusive strategic Microsoft partners that went all in, all gone.

Edited 2013-03-28 08:49 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by przemo_li
by unclefester on Thu 28th Mar 2013 09:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by przemo_li"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Recent news say starting this Q1 quarter Nokia pays $40 for each sold device for the WP license to Microsoft. Minimum $250 million each quarter. The quarters before they got $250 million each quarter from Microsoft. That makes it minus $500 million each quarter they have on top now and no headquarters, land left to sell. Siemens leaving NSN and Huawei as new WP low-end Microsoft partner are hitting in too.


Paying a licence fee of $40 is far cheaper than hiring thousands of developers.

Nokia has a thriving and extremely profitable network business.

Most large companies don't own their own headquarters - or any other real estate.

That limits how far low they can go. Also till today Nokia makes lose with each sold unit including high end Lumia's. Going future down and increasing number of sold devices may not help them in becoming profitable again and they not have much time and money left.


WP8 is super responsive on hardware that can barely run Android ICS. This means that Nokia can sell extremely cheap hardware at premium prices. Nokia WP8 phones cost 50-100% more than Android phones with similar hardware.


Watch out, its an end-game. The 3-No's are going to be completed. Nortel, Novel, Nokia. All exclusive strategic Microsoft partners that went all in, all gone.


Considering that MS has effectively bought Nokia there is no real danger of Nokia going broke.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by przemo_li
by cdude on Thu 28th Mar 2013 14:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by przemo_li"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Paying a licence fee of $40 is far cheaper than hiring thousands of developers.

Owning and controlling your own future is invaluable and so is not depending on Microsoft's good will only.

WP8 is super responsive on hardware that can barely run Android ICS. This means that Nokia can sell extremely cheap hardware at premium prices

And so can, and does, Huawei, HTC and Samsung. All of them have the same WP8. Samsung and HTC seem to have given up on WP8, Huawei's bestseller are there Android's (same Hardware like there WP8).

MS has effectively bought Nokia

While not paying a dime and even getting money from Nokia now. $40 for each sold unit, that is double as much Samsung had to pay for there WP licenses. Clever.

there is no real danger of Nokia going broke.

Not broke, they will be cut into pieces and parts, like there patents still worth some $, be sold to Microsoft and others.

Edited 2013-03-28 14:56 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by przemo_li
by unclefester on Sat 30th Mar 2013 05:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by przemo_li"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Owning and controlling your own future is invaluable and so is not depending on Microsoft's good will only.


Have you used WP8? IMHO it is by far the best phone OS around.

And so can, and does, Huawei, HTC and Samsung. All of them have the same WP8. Samsung and HTC seem to have given up on WP8, Huawei's bestseller are there Android's (same Hardware like there WP8).


Nokia is the de facto phone division of MS. Samsung is switching to Tizen. HTC is going nowhere. Huawei is a bottom feeder.

While not paying a dime and even getting money from Nokia now. $40 for each sold unit, that is double as much Samsung had to pay for there WP licenses. Clever.


You need to learn how multinational businesses work. In reality Nokia is deliberately "paying" an exorbitant licence fee to MS. MS in turn "pays" Nokia too much for (possibly worthless) goods and services. In reality they are sham transactions (no actual money is involved) designed to reduce taxes - usually known as Transfer Pricing.

Not broke, they will be cut into pieces and parts, like there patents still worth some $, be sold to Microsoft and others.


The alternative is bankruptcy. Nokia had no future without WP7/8.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by przemo_li
by cdude on Sun 31st Mar 2013 02:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by przemo_li"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Nokia is the de facto phone division of MS.


Was not is. When Nokia failed hard two times Microsoft went on. Surface Tablets, Surface Phone. HTC, not Nokia, made the WP8 flagship model. Huawei is the exclusive WP8 partner for all of Africa, not Nokia.

When that Nokia-Microsoft partnership was announced Nokia had lot to offer. They where number 1 with the biggest market share. Thats what they had to offer. That is gone now and with or without Nokia made NO notable difference for WP sales. Just compare WP market share before Nokia with now. Its the same 1-2%.

Samsung is switching to Tizen. HTC is going nowhere. Huawei is a bottom feeder.


Tizen is going to happen independent of Samsung's Android and WP offers. They are not so stupid to put all eggs into only one basket. They still do WP even if it not sells. They can offer that unlike Nokia.
HTC is back. They are making profit again after switching away from long years of Microsoft partnership back onto Android.
Huawei is in the top 10 striving to the top unlike Nokia who strive to the bottom. They have Android and WP. There Android, same hardware, sells very good. WP not so but that's the case for all WP resellers. Just like Samsung Huawei can do that, continue to offer WP without going down like Nokia, cause they have good selling alternates.

The alternative is bankruptcy. Nokia had no future without WP7/8.

Up until that infamous burn-everything memo Nokia was profitable with growing profits. That is past. Just like Boston Chickens and Macromedia they got Elopped.

Edited 2013-03-31 02:53 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by przemo_li
by zima on Wed 3rd Apr 2013 21:59 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by przemo_li"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

If you must post your standard ~Nokia delusions, try at least in better EN...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by przemo_li
by tylerdurden on Thu 28th Mar 2013 19:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by przemo_li"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17


Paying a licence fee of $40 is far cheaper than hiring thousands of developers.


It depends on the development costs, volume shipments, and what not.


Nokia has a thriving and extremely profitable network business.


Which would be great if that was their bread and butter, but it isn't. Nokia also used to have thriving shoe making business, alas we're talking about the cell phone market...


Most large companies don't own their own headquarters - or any other real estate.


Another silly generalization based in you confusing your perception with reality. Most companies that can afford it, prefer or tend to own their real estate. Why? Because ASSETS (value of owned real estate) look much much better than EXPENDITURES (leasing costs) on the books. Accounting 101 really.

However, companies with liquidity problems are forced to cannibalize their assets when they can't generate enough revenue via product sales/shipments. This is what Nokia was forced to do. Context makes a huuuuuuge difference.


WP8 is super responsive on hardware that can barely run Android ICS. This means that Nokia can sell extremely cheap hardware at premium prices. Nokia WP8 phones cost 50-100% more than Android phones with similar hardware.


Who needs quantitative facts when one can just pull qualitative arguments our of their derriere, right?

Considering that MS has effectively bought Nokia...


That would be news for both MS and Nokia, you should contact them and let'em know...

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by przemo_li
by unclefester on Sat 30th Mar 2013 06:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by przemo_li"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

It depends on the development costs, volume shipments, and what not.


Licence fees typically have no upfront cost. You only pay for what you sell. It is a far better method of cost control


Which would be great if that was their bread and butter, but it isn't. Nokia also used to have thriving shoe making business, alas we're talking about the cell phone market...


Actually networking IS Nokia's current core business. Phones are basically a sideline.


Another silly generalization based in you confusing your perception with reality. Most companies that can afford it, prefer or tend to own their real estate. Why? Because ASSETS (value of owned real estate) look much much better than EXPENDITURES (leasing costs) on the books. Accounting 101 really.


Wrong. Properties may appear as assets on balance sheets but they are generally considered to be a cost by accountants. Leasing a building is more tax effective than owning one. In fact most large corporations sell their buildings to financiers and lease them back.

Who needs quantitative facts when one can just pull qualitative arguments our of their derriere, right?


The Nokia WP8 phones all have far less RAM and much slower CPUs than Android phones in the same price bracket. eg The Nokia 620 (AUD300 outright) has identical hardware to the Nokia Xperia U (AUD130). Even the flagship Nokia 920 has only 1GB of RAM and a dual core 1.5GHZ CPU - half what the far cheaper Nexus 4 has.

That would be news for both MS and Nokia, you should contact them and let'em know...


Nokia is the de facto owner of the Nokia phone division. Nokia "pays" MS licence fees (a sham deal to minimise tax), drops it's own OS development and decides not to licence Android. In return MS spends billions of dollars to market WP8 phones. That is ownership in all but name.

Edited 2013-03-30 06:02 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by przemo_li
by zima on Wed 3rd Apr 2013 20:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by przemo_li"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

>Paying a licence fee of $40 is far cheaper than hiring thousands of developers.

It depends on the development costs, volume shipments, and what not.

Yes it does. And, IIRC, 3 years or so ago the Symbian division alone cost more than the entire R&D of Apple, for quite meagre results...

Edited 2013-04-03 20:23 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by przemo_li
by moondevil on Fri 29th Mar 2013 09:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by przemo_li"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Nokia has a thriving and extremely profitable network business.


Yeah, that is the surely the reason why my unit was terminated in 2008. We were just in the way of such profits.


Most large companies don't own their own headquarters - or any other real estate.


Except on NSN's case it was sold, because the running costs were too high.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by przemo_li
by bnolsen on Fri 29th Mar 2013 14:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by przemo_li"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

will we start to see nokia finally shipping android units like everyone else? All they really need to do is provide a stock version of android with no crap and they would do well. Unless MS has some major grip on them still going into android would give them much needed diversity, access to a large established market and very possibly even more much needed leverage on MS.

One definition of insanity is to keep repeating what doesn't work. Nokia seems to have discovered the formula for losing almost all their once dominant marketshare in the fastest expanding market in history and they still seem to be stubbornly persuing the same strategy.

Edited 2013-03-29 14:37 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Comment by viton
by viton on Thu 28th Mar 2013 12:21 UTC
viton
Member since:
2005-08-09

Do they only count official shipments?
Most iPhones sold in Russia via "grey" imports.

"Authorised reseller" price for 32GB iPhone5 is ~$1200+,
while it could be purchased under $1000 from numerous internet sites (US GSM / Euro models).

BTW In Moscow I've yet to see _any_ modern Nokia smartphone "in the wild".

Edited 2013-03-28 12:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Nokia countries
by akavel on Thu 28th Mar 2013 13:37 UTC
akavel
Member since:
2009-10-27

Curious, what do you actually mean by "Nokia countries"?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Nokia countries
by tylerdurden on Thu 28th Mar 2013 19:14 UTC in reply to "Nokia countries"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Nokia still has a huge name recognition and market share momentum in certain markets. I assume those are the countries that term refers to.

Similar with Blackberry, they're still huge in certain markets.

Reply Score: 3

nokia
by pos3 on Fri 29th Mar 2013 08:47 UTC
pos3
Member since:
2010-06-25

Mobile phones are not subsidized in India. Brand new iPhone costs around $750+. When there are only 3 major OS running beating iPhone would not be a big deal.
Nokia still has good brand recognition but they lost heavily in smart-phone share.

Reply Score: 1