Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 11:54 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless

Nokia has just posted its results for the fourth quarter of 2013 - this is the last set of quarterly results which include the devices division, which has been sold to Microsoft. The parts that remain at Nokia are doing relatively well, but the holiday quarter for Lumia was a letdown.

Exactly how much of a letdown we can't say, since Nokia has - curiously, but tellingly - stopped reporting Lumia sales (update: Nokia has confirmed it sold 8.2 million Lumias). However, they do state that Lumia sales in the fourth (holiday) quarter were down from the third quarter, but up from the year-ago quarter, meaning they sold anywhere between 4.4 and 8.8 million Lumias during the holiday quarter of 2013. Tweakers' Arnoud Wokke has done the math, and concludes Nokia sold between 7.55 and 7.98 million Lumias (update: Nokia has confirmed it sold 8.2 million Lumias). Average selling price dropped again, most likely due to the popularity of the low-end 520. This gives Nokia a smartphone market share of about 2-3%.

All in all, the devices division, with its crashing Asha sales and struggling Lumia sales, was a clear stone around Nokia's neck, kept somewhat afloat by cash injections from Microsoft. However, those injections apparently weren't enough, and by now, we can conclude that Microsoft was effectively forced to step in and buy Nokia's devices division - lest someone else do it.

With this being the last quarter in which Nokia reports on its devices division, an era has come to an end. Now it's up to Microsoft to try and see if they can make something out of the Lumia brand - however, without the Nokia name, that's going to be a very tough sell.

Just ask the Surface department.

Order by: Score:
Interesting
by Deviate_X on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 12:11 UTC
Deviate_X
Member since:
2005-07-11

Sales of Lumia also dipped in 2012 Q3 as well as 2013 Q3. Astonishingly the pattern is repeated.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Interesting
by dsmogor on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 14:21 UTC in reply to "Interesting"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Yoy is rising, though not by the fantastical numbers that get passed around.

Living in most Lumia friendly country I can assure it got off the ground the moment carriers started pushing it heavily. The middle to low level devices are large majority (haven't seen 1020 in the wild yet) + absolute Nokia domination in the segment.
This is rational, low end Lumias are great value and can be easily used to convert former dumb phone users. They sell much better than chineese Android devices in the same price range (some under local brands and some quite decent) that have recently became available in various outlets (but not comparably pushed by carriers).

I can also assure that app situation followed. As far as polish web (banks, portals, etc) is concerned, WP is firmly a the 3rd ecosystem.

Edited 2014-01-23 14:29 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Interesting
by Nelson on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 15:16 UTC in reply to "Interesting"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I'd be much more forgiving of a Q3 drop, but flat growth during Q4 with seasonality's wind at your back is unacceptable. They missed an opportunity.

My guess is that the Microsoft purchase threw a wrench in all this. For example VZW wouldn't negotiate the Lumia flagship until after the deal closed. They prefered to deal with Microsoft instead.

Anecdotally, I saw a lot less advertising post shareholder agreement, I'm not sure about the legality once the purchase was shareholder approved but there seems to have been a huge drop off in marketing effort.

Can't say I blame Nokia too much all things considered, its Microsoft's problem now.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Interesting
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 15:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Interesting"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Anecdotally, I saw a lot less advertising post shareholder agreement, I'm not sure about the legality once the purchase was shareholder approved but there seems to have been a huge drop off in marketing effort.


Weird, as I only started seeing Nokia advertisements AFTER the deal. Probably just coincidence, I'd say.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Interesting
by Morgan on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 23:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Interesting"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Coincidence, or maybe a regional thing. It seems like I've seen more Lumia advertising in brick-and-mortar stores in the past few months than I had before. And T-Mobile is really pushing the Lumia 521 around these parts.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Interesting
by Deviate_X on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 15:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Interesting"
Deviate_X Member since:
2005-07-11

Well true, but the point is that things dip, especially as you point out... the mobile division is currently in no-mans land.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Interesting
by dsmogor on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 21:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Interesting"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Hollyday drop might be related to the fact that maybe Lumia is not perceived as premium, and thus not chosen deliberately in gift giving context. It gets rebound in when normal carrier replacement cycle takes over as a rational choice for value sensitive customers.

Edited 2014-01-23 21:21 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Cheap phones
by henderson101 on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 12:18 UTC
henderson101
Member since:
2006-05-30

My 11 yo daughter told me last weekend "Everyone in my school has an iPhone, a Lumia or a Samsung. They don't have any other phones really". This is the reality we geeks try to ignore. Kids don't know what OS the phones run (or at least don't think about that), they know the brand names. I asked her "What about Blackberries?" and she replied "no one has those any more because they are not as good".

Lumias are being pushed at the sub £100 - £200 mark for the 5xx and 6xx models, so it is pretty easy to see why.

I guess the real problem is one of profit. Do the cheaper phones make as much money for Nokia? That's the real story.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Cheap phones
by XenonXZ on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 12:51 UTC in reply to "Cheap phones"
XenonXZ Member since:
2011-05-25

Sadly, it's all about status, not if the OS is any good ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Cheap phones
by WereCatf on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 13:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Cheap phones"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Sadly, it's all about status, not if the OS is any good ;)


How would you define "good" with regards to kids or the average populace? Easy access to APIs don't mean nothing to them, nor does easy access to stuff outside of walled gardens, nor does access to low-level filesystem specifics -- they have absolutely no use for any of such stuff. On the other hand stability? Well, that's a useful thing for them, and all the current major mobile-OSes are more-or-less stable and solid. Easy access to some popular chat apps? Check. As few viruses and malware-laden apps as possible? Well, there Android actually draws the short stick!

Really, iOS, Android and WP are "good" OSes for the general populace if you just bother to look at them with their needs and wants in mind, not your own. Your ideals and needs and wants don't mean none to them and them being different than the general populace's don't mean the OS ain't "good" for them even if it ain't "good" for you.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Cheap phones
by roblearns on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 14:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Cheap phones"
roblearns Member since:
2010-09-13

Sadly, it's all about status, not if the OS is any good ;)


I recommend the book "Linked: The New Science of Networks". Frankly it should be required reading for everyone at OSnews. OS markets are not trendy, they follow networking principles.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Cheap phones
by WereCatf on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 13:03 UTC in reply to "Cheap phones"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

This is the reality we geeks try to ignore. Kids don't know what OS the phones run (or at least don't think about that)


I'd say they're ignorant geeks who do that. Why should kids or your Average Jane and Joe care about such details? It means very little to them, they don't have any need to know the details or politics behind any single device or OS as long as the device suits their needs.

Just recently my sister spoke to me as she's trying to decide on what phone to get next, her current one is having some hardware issues and the warranty is long gone. She doesn't know what OS her current one runs, she doesn't know the difference between WP, Android, iOS and whatnot, she just wants something that can do what she wants, looks reasonably appealing and fits in the price-range she can throw at it.

Since I have no experience with iOS, WP or such all I could offer her was several Android-phones I figured would be suitable, but I did tell her to check if any of her friends have any Lumias and iPhones to try and see how she likes them before making any decisions.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Cheap phones
by bnolsen on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 13:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Cheap phones"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

Does she buy any apps which would help her with her decision.

Edited 2014-01-23 13:29 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Cheap phones
by WereCatf on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 13:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Cheap phones"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Does she buy any apps which would help her with her decision.


Nothing specific, no.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Cheap phones
by WorknMan on Fri 24th Jan 2014 00:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Cheap phones"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Why should kids or your Average Jane and Joe care about such details?


IDK, I figure if you're going to drop $200+ on a device, at least you should've done enough research to know what's running on it, and be able to reply with something other than a blank stare if somebody asks you the difference between iOS, Android, etc. Of course, these are the same people that used to drop $1,000+ on a PC, and if you asked them what was running on it, they'd say 'Windows 97'.

In other words, they're morons.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Cheap phones
by unclefester on Fri 24th Jan 2014 03:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Cheap phones"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

IDK, I figure if you're going to drop $200+ on a device, at least you should've done enough research to know what's running on it, and be able to reply with something other than a blank stare if somebody asks you the difference between iOS, Android, etc.


People often spend $2000 on a "high quality" Swiss watch without understanding that is uses a common $2 quartz movement.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Cheap phones
by WorknMan on Fri 24th Jan 2014 06:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Cheap phones"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

People often spend $2000 on a "high quality" Swiss watch without understanding that is uses a common $2 quartz movement.


Same difference ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Cheap phones
by bnolsen on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 13:32 UTC in reply to "Cheap phones"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

The good that is happening is that we should start seeing more and more offerings for that price range. So far apple and samsung in the have gotten away with selling very expensive devices. time for that to change and for the carriers to lose more power over devices (and i'm pretty upset with verizon and att for boot locking the galaxy s4)

Edited 2014-01-23 13:33 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Cheap phones
by nagerst on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 19:51 UTC in reply to "Cheap phones"
nagerst Member since:
2013-11-07

Excuse my ignorance, but for what purpose does kids even need cellphones? They are under adult supervision almost all the time they are away from home and cellphones are very distracting to young minds and has proven to be a bad influence on their grades and decreases the attention span.

I mean i would be a silly parent if i did not send a cellphone if they are going out camping in the woods, or traveling a long distance on public transportation and so on. But i would never buy one for my kids, when they are old enough to save up for one, they can do so with their own money.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Cheap phones
by WereCatf on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 19:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Cheap phones"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Excuse my ignorance, but for what purpose does kids even need cellphones?


How about calling their parents if they're out playing and something happens? Or if they get lost? If they're at a friend's house overnight and get homesick and just want to call their parents quickly from the bed to ease them to sleep? I dunno, I certainly would want my kids to be able to reach me no matter where they are or what the time is.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Cheap phones
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 20:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Cheap phones"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Yeah, looking back on stories from childhood with parents is a common activity. Usually the story has a point where someone points out how a cell phone would have prevented the whole catastrophe.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Cheap phones
by Morgan on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 23:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Cheap phones"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Yep. We watched an old movie the other day (Nick of Time) that would have been over in five minutes if cellphones had been as ubiquitous then as they are now. The second or third person the protagonist ran across would have been able to call the cops and fix the whole problem.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Cheap phones
by kwan_e on Fri 24th Jan 2014 03:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Cheap phones"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"Excuse my ignorance, but for what purpose does kids even need cellphones?


How about calling their parents if they're out playing and something happens? Or if they get lost? If they're at a friend's house overnight and get homesick and just want to call their parents quickly from the bed to ease them to sleep? I dunno, I certainly would want my kids to be able to reach me no matter where they are or what the time is.
"

I'm not normally an old fogey about these things, but kids have survived without cellphones before. It teaches them to be prepared every time they go out and not rely on the parents swooping in and provide them with what they need.

But I understand it will be a necessity in the future as people get rid of landlines*. All together.

* Or only use lines for the internet, which I do.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Cheap phones
by WereCatf on Fri 24th Jan 2014 07:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Cheap phones"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I'm not normally an old fogey about these things, but kids have survived without cellphones before.


That same argument can be used for pretty much anything, including antibiotics and vaccines; "kids and parents have survived without such in the past, ergo we don't need them now." Well, d'oh. Those things just have made it easier to survive, just as being able to call help when you need it makes it easier to survive, such things reduce mortality-rates.

It teaches them to be prepared every time they go out and not rely on the parents swooping in and provide them with what they need.


Having a cell-phone in no way or form stops you from teaching your kids to be prepared, it's just laziness on the parent's part if they don't bother to teach their kids anything. Or what, did the invention of antibiotics and such mean that your parents stopped teaching you to wash your hands before touching food? Mine certainly did tell us to always wash our hands. I also had a cell-phone when I was a kid, and yet I didn't grow up to be utterly-dependant on my parents.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Cheap phones
by kwan_e on Fri 24th Jan 2014 09:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Cheap phones"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"I'm not normally an old fogey about these things, but kids have survived without cellphones before.


That same argument can be used for pretty much anything, including antibiotics and vaccines; "kids and parents have survived without such in the past, ergo we don't need them now." Well, d'oh. Those things just have made it easier to survive, just as being able to call help when you need it makes it easier to survive, such things reduce mortality-rates
"

Uh... antibiotics and vaccines have MEASURED improvements and you can very well argue most of the kids today CANNOT have survived if they didn't have the remedies. You cannot make the same claim for mobile phones.

Phones have not increased kids' chances of survival in the same way medicine has, so you made a really bad argument.

"It teaches them to be prepared every time they go out and not rely on the parents swooping in and provide them with what they need.


Having a cell-phone in no way or form stops you from teaching your kids to be prepared, it's just laziness on the parent's part if they don't bother to teach their kids anything. Or what, did the invention of antibiotics and such mean that your parents stopped teaching you to wash your hands before touching food? Mine certainly did tell us to always wash our hands. I also had a cell-phone when I was a kid, and yet I didn't grow up to be utterly-dependant on my parents.
"

The point is the lessons don't STICK. Parents can teach all they want but kids need to put things into practice to learn.

You seem like a scientifically minded person, so why do you think a personal anecdote is in anyway a counter argument?

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Cheap phones
by WereCatf on Fri 24th Jan 2014 09:24 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Cheap phones"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Uh... antibiotics and vaccines have MEASURED improvements and you can very well argue most of the kids today CANNOT have survived if they didn't have the remedies. You cannot make the same claim for mobile phones.


It seems you are missing the point here. It actually can be proven scientifically that access to cell-phones have saved many lives, including, but not limited to, those of many kidnapped children.

Phones have not increased kids' chances of survival in the same way medicine has, so you made a really bad argument.


Of course not, and I never claimed it did. My point was what I said above, ie. the improvement is there and it can be quantified, even if you don't like the trend.

You seem like a scientifically minded person, so why do you think a personal anecdote is in anyway a counter argument?


You're not offering anything better, now are you? My personal experiences don't necessarily reflect those of everyone else, but at least I can personally prove that your claims didn't come to fruition in my family or close relatives.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Cheap phones
by kwan_e on Fri 24th Jan 2014 10:14 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Cheap phones"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"Phones have not increased kids' chances of survival in the same way medicine has, so you made a really bad argument.


Of course not, and I never claimed it did. My point was what I said above, ie. the improvement is there and it can be quantified, even if you don't like the trend.
"

That improvement cannot be attributed to phones alone. Crime has been generally on a decline, some say, at the same rate lead was removed from our industrial wastes. Then there's all the paranoia around child safety even before mobile phones became widespread.

What's more, camera phones are quite likely to intensify gang bashings, bullying that leads to suicides and the whole thing about sending naked pictures of themselves.

This is not to say to ban everything, but to point out the link isn't very strong if any.

"You seem like a scientifically minded person, so why do you think a personal anecdote is in anyway a counter argument?


You're not offering anything better, now are you? My personal experiences don't necessarily reflect those of everyone else, but at least I can personally prove that your claims didn't come to fruition in my family or close relatives.
"

Of course I am. I come across many people who have had mobile phones when young and are entirely dependent on their parents. You could say my anecdotes cancels out your anecdotes, but we both know it really doesn't as there are statistically more people who fit the mould than don't.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Cheap phones
by unclefester on Fri 24th Jan 2014 07:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Cheap phones"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Excuse my ignorance, but for what purpose does kids even need cellphones?


Here's a perfect example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Daniel_Morcombe

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Cheap phones
by henderson101 on Fri 24th Jan 2014 09:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Cheap phones"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

She is in the equivalent of the US "High school". She walks to school unsupervised. If we sent her to school with no way of her contacting us in an emergency, we would be failing as parents. Given also that I'm separated from her mother, it also allows her to keep in contact with me on a regular basis and in such a way that her mother is not in total control.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Cheap phones
by WereCatf on Fri 24th Jan 2014 10:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Cheap phones"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

She is in the equivalent of the US "High school". She walks to school unsupervised.


Here in Finland it's common for kids all the way from the 1st grade of elementary-school to walk unsupervised to the school. Parents or someone they know walk them to school and back for the first few weeks so they learn the route, but after that they generally walk it all by themselves. As such there's plenty of reason to make sure they always have a cell-phone with them.

As an aside, in my family all the kids had a saldo-limit on their phones, ie. you got 10 Finnish marks (we moved to Euro much later) a month to use as you saw fit, but after that you could only call our mom or the police, or receive calls. No SMS, no calls to anyone else. It taught us some preliminary skills at planning and budgeting the 10 FIMK so it'd roughly last the whole month, a skill that isn't terribly easy to teach to kids so young, but one that we couldn't avoid learning simply because we all had cell-phones. IMHO it was a useful skill to learn.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Cheap phones
by zima on Mon 27th Jan 2014 01:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Cheap phones"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

11 years in an equivalent of high school? O_o

Edited 2014-01-27 01:53 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Cheap phones
by lindkvis on Fri 24th Jan 2014 14:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Cheap phones"
lindkvis Member since:
2006-11-21

But i would never buy one for my kids, when they are old enough to save up for one, they can do so with their own money.


You might change your mind when your kids are the ones that don't get invited for birthday parties and nobody comes to theirs. Having a principled attitude towards it isn't going to heal the heart break.

Reply Score: 2

That is it!
by crocodile on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 12:30 UTC
crocodile
Member since:
2010-01-18

This is the maximum one can get from a Windows phone!
Hopefully MS will get that!

Reply Score: 3

WP was a half assed attempt
by reduz on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 13:52 UTC
reduz
Member since:
2006-02-25

It had plenty of good ideas and nice design, but lack of meaningful updates, large amount of bugs and usability issues and a terrible relationship with developers are cementing it as a thing of the past.

I still have my Lumia, will probably change it for a Nexus 5 or Moto X in March when I go to the states.

Reply Score: 8

Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 13:54 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

Not going to mince words here, these results are terrible. Every conceivable metric is down for devices. -7% growth during a holiday quarter is unacceptable.

This took what little wind they had in their sales all away and raises some questions as they transition to Microsoft. I'll be interested to hear Microsoft field questions on their strategy today.

I didn't really see this coming at all and I was wrong in my own projections for Q4. I wanted at least 30% growth, at least, hopefully more. What I got was truly terrible results.

I think it's worth revisiting a few things: Nokia's Android Asha replacement most importantly. The last time this was brought up, I shrugged it off as an impossibility. Since then I've heard compelling arguments in favor of Microsoft actually launching the handset.

Another thing worth revisiting is Microsoft striking deals with regional OEMs. Can this move the needle on volumes in an acceptable direction?

As I feared when the deal closed though the detailed Lumia breakdown is no where to be found so it'll be hard to pinpoint exactly what went wrong, and I don't hold out hope for Microsoft being forthcoming with the information either.

Disappointing.

Reply Score: 10

RE: Comment by Nelson
by hamster on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 14:19 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
hamster Member since:
2006-10-06

Respect for admitting you were wrong.

About the nokia android phone. I don't see it as a posibility. I would think that Nokia has some limits on what they can do on the mobile phone area for x years.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 15:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

True, but I actually think now that Microsoft will launch this handset.

Consider the following:

- Microsoft already has their services on Android (Skype, Outlook, Xbox Live games, Xbox Music, etc)

- We live in an Android world. Why not Microsoft Android? It can be positioned as a cheaper alternative to Google Android where you'd need to pay out licensing fees to Microsoft.

- Microsoft has a volume play to put their services front and center, like Kindle Fire. Microsoft can curate their own Android app store like Amazon does.

- Microsoft can push their development platform onto Android. If they buy out Xamarin/Mono then they already have Xamarin.Android which is a lot of the way there already.

- Microsoft can still push Windows Phone. Just push it in addition to Android devices replacing the low end, and iOS Services

- S40 on Asha is already foreign to Microsoft, so they might as well go to Android for that lineup.

- High growth exists mostly in developing countries. Android lets them reuse existing manufacturing lines, component supplier BSPs, and has a warmer reception from carriers

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by Vanders on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 15:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

If Microsoft were to launch an Android handset, it would likely be a bullet in the head for WP. Even if Microsoft don't intend it to be, I suspect that the market and app developers would see it as a sign that Microsoft don't have faith in WP as a platform, and react accordingly.

I'd expect them to plug on with WP, possibly even launching WP9, before they re-evaluate their strategy.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 17:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I don't think so, if they limit it strictly to device categories traditionally suited for Asha. It wouldn't be an Android smartphone as much as itd be an Asha dumbphone of sorts.

I've seen some leaked screen shots and it seems to look a lot like Metro for WP, moreso than Asha today, and the base is probably more workable.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by Fergy on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 23:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

If Microsoft were to launch an Android handset, it would likely be a bullet in the head for WP.

They might get Elop to replace Balmer so it is a very likely chance.
;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by cdude on Fri 24th Jan 2014 10:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

it would likely be a bullet in the head for WP

Thing is that bullet is already in the head of WP and its mission impossible to remove it the way they tried. As Bill Gates answered in an interview some time ago: "that strategy failed". The news is that Bill Gates is still chairman of Microsoft, Mister WP - the Ballmer - gone, its changing. Its going to change drastical. Not just W7=>WP8=WP9 upgrade-like with more marketing dollar and a removed RT suffix plus smaller, more colorful tiles.

I suspect that the market and app developers would see it as a sign that Microsoft don't have faith in WP as a platform, and react accordingly.

WP has an own ecosystem. War of ecosystems it was. That war was lost for WP. It would be overall silly to continue a war you lost and there is not much to gain by collecting more bullets in your head.

An alternate strategy may to adapt. Take Android, extend and integrate it into your own ecosystem, compatibility where needed and platform lock-in by incompatibility where wanted.

Edited 2014-01-24 10:21 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by TBPrince on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 15:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

I think there is 0.0 chances they will launch any handset using Android. Controlling your own operating system is the basic strategy as OS (both on mobile, desktop, tablets and everywhere) actually is the trojan horse for your services.

This is true for Google / Android and for Microsoft / Windows (Phone).

Microsoft will simply do what they need to make WP successful enough, including buying handset makers out as they did. Interestingly enough, that's what Google also did.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 17:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I just think that to beat Google, Microsoft must become Google. Google long ago came to grips that Microsoft dominated the PC space, so it shipped a bunch of value add services on top. Hell, they did the same with Linux for Android and ChromeOS.

Its even recently done the same by putting ChromeOS inside of a Metro browser. Microsoft needs to take a page out of that playbook.

I think given their D&S focus, it would make sense. Its not a Windows only world, the next best thing is a Windows/Android(with MSFT services) world.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by Fergy on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 23:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

I think there is 0.0 chances they will launch any handset using Android. Controlling your own operating system is the basic strategy as OS (both on mobile, desktop, tablets and everywhere) actually is the trojan horse for your services.

Yet somehow Nokia did not understand this. And Samsung thrives on other peoples OS's.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by reduz on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 16:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
reduz Member since:
2006-02-25

http://www.mslinux.org/

I never thought this would actually become true, given it's 14 years old.

Edited 2014-01-23 16:21 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by unclefester on Fri 24th Jan 2014 07:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

WP8 phones use mostly standard Android hardware. WP8 uses fewer resources than Android. WP8 phones typically use cheaper hardware than big brand Android phones in the same price bracket. Using WP8 is a cheaper and better solution than Android.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by bnolsen on Fri 24th Jan 2014 13:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

you are making pure technology arguments. that never takes the whole picture into account meaning technology isnt everything.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by hamster on Sat 25th Jan 2014 13:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
hamster Member since:
2006-10-06


- Microsoft can still push Windows Phone. Just push it in addition to Android devices replacing the low end, and iOS Services


Seeing how they currently are working the buttom price range allready with wp i am not so sure that they would want to use their own version of android in that area aswell.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by zima on Mon 27th Jan 2014 01:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

- S40 on Asha is already foreign to Microsoft

And not only S40, also ex-Smarterphone / Asha platform ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_Asha_platform )

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 14:40 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Btw, NOK shares are down on D&S miss (a segment they will soon no longer own) even as they beat EPS. I'm increasing my position, its quick money when it pops back to ~8.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Nelson
by TBPrince on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 15:47 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

Definitely disappointing, mostly because Lumias seem to be everywhere.

Carriers here almost only advertised Lumias during holidays and many people I know switched to Nokia since their contracts were expiring.

I think that to better put this in context, we should understand what are results for other handset makers. If, for example, Samsung phones were up 10% during holidays and Nokias were down 7%, that would be very meaningful.

If trend was down for other handset makers too, that would be less than a problem, being related to current economic situation.

Anyone has news about what Apple or Samsung posted ?

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Fergy on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 23:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

Definitely disappointing, mostly because Lumias seem to be everywhere.

I have seen one person with a windows phone. He was so happy the day he could switch to an android phone.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Fri 24th Jan 2014 12:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Samsung posted a drop in profit, also posted lower volumes in Q4 and issued guidance for even lower volumes in Q1.

Something interesting is happening.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by TBPrince on Fri 24th Jan 2014 12:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, true. Analysts expect Samsung to post a 6% rise YoY but a 18% QoQ drop, which is far worse than Nokia 6-7% drop (which however is a 3x rise compared to holidays 2012). Most notably, they expect such drop to be related to a drop in hi-end devices, something which could be significant.

However, I think many also expect a good quarter for Apple, which will probably break the 50m devices barrier for first time.

Let's see what happens and where such gains will happen. Anyway, 8.2m Lumias looks a definitely better figure if Samsung results will be confirmed.

Edited 2014-01-24 12:22 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by cdude on Fri 24th Jan 2014 17:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Samsung was overtaken by Xiaomi in China. In germany they got plenty bad press and customers switched away or delayed because of that new SIM DRM - you cannot use new Samsung's outside of the country where it got initially activated. Newest thing is Samsung DRM's external equipment. They are killing themself. But no problem, there are plenty alternates. Xiaomi and Huawei have good products too. Cheap, DRM-free and a better Android closer to stock.

Edited 2014-01-24 17:07 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by bnolsen on Fri 24th Jan 2014 13:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

the low end lumias actually hit the market in the right place at the right time. the days of expensive phones with silly feature are ending (4" 1080p+ screens come on!). Apple will take the biggest hit first.

Edited 2014-01-24 13:37 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by unclefester on Sat 25th Jan 2014 03:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

the low end lumias actually hit the market in the right place at the right time. the days of expensive phones with silly feature are ending (4" 1080p+ screens come on!). Apple will take the biggest hit first.


Last week I saw an article about offering 4K resolution on smart phones! WTF?

Reply Score: 2

Status symbol? Jealous
by ezraz on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 15:16 UTC
ezraz
Member since:
2012-06-20

Oh please an iPhone stopped being a status symbol in the states years ago. Most iPhones are a model or 2 back and are heavily used and some are bandaged up. Most people who have them keep them for years and years, while Android users seem to need/want a new device every 8 months. Soon as they get their new droid they can't put it away (won't fit in their pocket) and they have to run around trying to impress iPhone owners with their new plastic toy.

If an iPhone is a symbol of anything these days it means you like simplicity and reliability, and/or you have a macbook and didn't even look at competing mobile platforms.

I refuse to believe that Apple's are bought by nothing but frontrunners. Too many people supported Apple through bad years (decades?) to be called frontrunners. We were considered just the opposite - someone who is following dead technology from a dying company.

Remember -- Apple Inc. has been "near-death" for 30+ of it's 40 years. Their products continually rank highest in customer satisfaction and lower total cost of ownership. Such does not make a status symbol.

Edited 2014-01-23 15:17 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Status symbol? Jealous
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 21:55 UTC in reply to "Status symbol? Jealous"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Its a fallacy to believe that the same apple loyalists that endured the 90's are representative of today's crew.

Just as its crazy to beleive that Apple's products have always ranked highest in customer satisfaction and lower total cost of ownership.


I have memories in university of entire computer labs of macs that sat untouched while there were lines to get on a windows computer. There was a reason for that, and it had a lot to do with the lack of satisfaction with the Macs.

Edit: the reality distortion field actually does disappear at times when Apple's products really are insanely great... like the first ipod that was compatible with windows, or the first iphone/ipad.

Edited 2014-01-23 22:07 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Status symbol? Jealous
by ezraz on Fri 24th Jan 2014 16:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Status symbol? Jealous"
ezraz Member since:
2012-06-20

Its a fallacy to believe that the same apple loyalists that endured the 90's are representative of today's crew.

Just as its crazy to beleive that Apple's products have always ranked highest in customer satisfaction and lower total cost of ownership.


I have memories in university of entire computer labs of macs that sat untouched while there were lines to get on a windows computer. There was a reason for that, and it had a lot to do with the lack of satisfaction with the Macs.

Edit: the reality distortion field actually does disappear at times when Apple's products really are insanely great... like the first ipod that was compatible with windows, or the first iphone/ipad.



I have memories like that too. System 7, System 8, System 9 those were unstable OS's. Used to have to save every minute. Apple's boxes weren't that much better than stock PC's, and in some categories they were way behind. I bought a legal mac clone.

But it wasn't that bad, you know you are exaggerating. I was doing things on my Sys7 mac (DTP and pro-tools, video editing, etc) that the other platforms couldn't touch. And besides the aforementioned crashiness which had a daily reboot or two as part of life, the OS was complete and easy to use.

In the states at my age, it was Apple II's in classrooms and high school, plus an occasional GS and Windows 3 machine. Only business people used PC's, until people in my neighborhood could start affording a home machine, then many bought cheaper PC's, like 386s then pentium 2's.

Our agreement of the 90's computing landscape does not disprove my point though. Don't make the same mistake you are accusing me of and assume all apple people now are snotty 19 year olds with too many gadgets. The bread and butter of Apple stores are still creative professionals, small business workers and owners, and general computing people who just want something that works simply.

It wasn't until windows users were able to use an iPod and see the apple way that their fortunes started changing. I feel like android/chrome/google is the first real answer to the iMac and the iPod and sorry to say microsoft got left behind in a bad way.

It's kinda embarrassing when someone in a meeting these days is fumbling with a windows machine and it's messing up their presentation.

It's very 90's to still run windows in my opinion. I would have thought the various UNIX' would have destroyed it by now. If I wasn't a mac guy or if apple went away I'd be the biggest linux or Be user.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Status symbol? Jealous
by nt_jerkface on Mon 27th Jan 2014 01:24 UTC in reply to "Status symbol? Jealous"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Oh please an iPhone stopped being a status symbol in the states years ago.


Yea that was over when every mom at the grocery store had one.

Half the US population has an Apple device.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-03-28/cnbc-surv...

Sorry but chalking off the ongoing success of the iPhone to vain hipsters and the wealthy no longer works. Most people I know who own an iPhone don't switch because they have no reason to. Their apps/music/movies are on the iPhone and switching would cost them far more in time than any initial savings. Android also still has some annoyances as seen by the lower satisfaction rates.

Reply Score: 2

Might sell better if...
by Bobthearch on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 18:02 UTC
Bobthearch
Member since:
2006-01-27

With this being the last quarter in which Nokia reports on its devices division, an era has come to an end. Now it's up to Microsoft to try and see if they can make something out of the Lumia brand - however, without the Nokia name, that's going to be a very tough sell.

It might sell better with a Microsoft emblem instead of Nokia. I doubt the "Nokia" label is a selling point outside of Finland, which is a relatively small sales market.

Just ask the Surface department.

Oddly, and against overall trends, the Microsoft tablets are quite popular here among the kids (or so my school teacher wife tells me). I can't explain it, other than maybe a nearby store had them on special for the holidays?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Might sell better if...
by saso on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 19:15 UTC in reply to "Might sell better if..."
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

I doubt the "Nokia" label is a selling point outside of Finland, which is a relatively small sales market.

Actually, Nokia was a symbol of solid design, construction and high quality in most of Europe. The Northern Americas were pretty much the only oddball out where Nokia didn't have a major foothold before the "smartphone wars".

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Might sell better if...
by Bobthearch on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 19:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Might sell better if..."
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

It's not that Nokia has a bad reputation here, I just think that in the US no one cares what the badge on their phone says - unless it's Apple.

My own phone is the 'free' POS that came with the service. I don't even know the brand name.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Might sell better if...
by saso on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 20:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Might sell better if..."
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

It's not that Nokia has a bad reputation here

Sure, I know, I merely said they didn't have a major foothold. Didn't say anything about Americans liking or disliking Nokia products per se.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Might sell better if...
by cdude on Fri 24th Jan 2014 11:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Might sell better if..."
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Its only the US. Everywhere else, from europe over asia and africa to south-america (you know, 95% of the world or so), Nokia had THE strongest brand, most loyal customer-base, etc. etc.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/terokuittinen/2014/01/23/just-how-much-...

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Might sell better if...
by MOS6510 on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 19:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Might sell better if..."
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

In my experience Nokia is what people say when talking about old phones, pre-smart phone ones.

Lumia´s are very rare over here (The Netherlands). If you do see something by Nokia it´s either a dumb phone or a feature one while before the iPhone and what came after it Nokia´s were everywhere. They were the brand to have.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Might sell better if...
by saso on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 20:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Might sell better if..."
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

In my experience Nokia is what people say when talking about old phones, pre-smart phone ones.

Hence why I said "before the 'smartphone wars'." Of course nowadays they're a fairly rare occurrence, but the mindshare doesn't die off so easily. And it wasn't just the dumbphones which were held in high regard. Their Communicator line was also praised a lot.

Reply Score: 1

danger_nakamura Member since:
2011-06-21

Before the Smartphone wars. Before the Empire.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Might sell better if...
by saso on Fri 24th Jan 2014 11:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Might sell better if..."
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

Do you understand the meaning of quote marks?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Might sell better if...
by zima on Mon 27th Jan 2014 01:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Might sell better if..."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Nokia was a symbol of solid design, construction and high quality in most of Europe.

But not high quality of software. They managed to get by in the S30 days, but after that it was only getting worse.

Edited 2014-01-27 01:47 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Lumia comments
by SonicMetalMan on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 19:34 UTC
SonicMetalMan
Member since:
2009-05-25

I have say that Nokia still makes a great handset, Windows or not. I purchased a couple of Lumia 521's for my wife and son to use with our T-mobile "uncarrier" plan and I have to say they are great cheap devices if you are not chained to the Google ecosystem. At $80 USD each they are a Hell of a lot better than any $100 android device I've ever seen. You would need to spend more than twice that for a Moto G to even get close to the same build quality.

I'm still an Android guy at heart but I do recognize that there can be a market for Nokia to occupy. Concede the mid-range market to Android and try to capture the low and ultra high-end and be happy with it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Lumia comments
by chandler on Fri 24th Jan 2014 00:42 UTC in reply to "Lumia comments"
chandler Member since:
2006-08-29

A Lumia 521 on T-Mobile is an incredibly rational choice that can save thousands of dollars compared to more popular choices like the iPhone 5S on Verizon.

And... this is exactly the problem. Nokia and Microsoft are offering a rational choice in a fundamentally irrational market. It can work well enough to scrape off the bottom end of the market, but you'll never make as much money as Apple by selling products that cost much less.

Right now the moneymakers in the market are the irrational choices and the shovelware phones that carriers are paid to promote to their customers. Making sense unfortunately just doesn't make dollars, only cents.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Lumia comments
by calden on Fri 24th Jan 2014 01:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Lumia comments"
calden Member since:
2012-02-02

Good comment, what amazes me is when people pay so much for these premium phones when they'll only ever use a handfull of apps that are available by the way on cheaper phones like the Lumia 520 or 720. I finially broke down and bought a Nokia 1020 a few months back but I bought it unlocked, used from ricardo.ch, it was new, the user before me never even removed the plastic sreen protector. Ricardo is the Swiss equilivant of eBay. I haven't bought a phone on contract since 2001, unlocked and all paid up front is the only reasonable option, hence the reason why I almost always buy used.. People who buy iPhones, Lumias, Xperia's, whatever, on contract will always be better served just buying the thing outright. Cheaper contract, cheaper phone (you usually pay 400 - 600 dollars more in the end when you buy on contract) and no bloatware from the provider.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Lumia comments
by unclefester on Fri 24th Jan 2014 07:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Lumia comments"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

And... this is exactly the problem. Nokia and Microsoft are offering a rational choice in a fundamentally irrational market. It can work well enough to scrape off the bottom end of the market, but you'll never make as much money as Apple by selling products that cost much less


The reality is that in 2-3 years $100 prepaid phones will be good enough to satisfy >90% of users. That is when the WP8 strategy will finally succeed and Apple and Samsung will really suffer.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Lumia comments
by cdude on Fri 24th Jan 2014 11:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Lumia comments"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Reality is that in most parts of this world below $100 pre-payed smartphones are standard since a while now and its all Android. The carrier-control, limited device-choice and high device- and call/data-prices in US, and also to a certain extend here in europe, is non-standard insanity.

Edited 2014-01-24 11:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Lumia comments
by benytocamela on Tue 28th Jan 2014 18:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Lumia comments"
benytocamela Member since:
2013-05-16

Ironic use of the word "reality" to refer to events in the future, which have a low chance of actually happening considering Nokia loses money in those sub-$100 WP phones currently (aka actual "reality").

Reply Score: 2

Friggen pissed
by calden on Fri 24th Jan 2014 00:35 UTC
calden
Member since:
2012-02-02

I was so livid over the MeegOS fiasco so it's hard to feel sorry for them. I absolutely love my Nokia N9 and even though I now own a Nokia 1020 and really enjoy the camera, Windows 8 Mobile is a dud of an operating system. Like iOS I can't stand OS's that don't give you access to the filesystem. I cringe everytime I have to transfer photos or data from my wifes iPhone to my home server. Thank goodness I use and enjoy Skydrive, especially that I can have 200GB for the same price as 50GB for Apples iCloud. Not bashing Apple, just stating a fact, I absoltuly adore OSX and my Macbook Air. Like iOS though W8M is plagued with the same, "must have ultimate controll over our users as Apple does". I will miss Nokia as I they were at one time my favorite, I've owned every Communicator they made but they screwed up by allowing that snake to become CEO. Disgusting beyond words. I hope Ubuntu Touch becomes a reality as the mobile scape isn't looking to promising.

Edited 2014-01-24 00:44 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Friggen pissed
by ricegf on Sat 25th Jan 2014 21:30 UTC in reply to "Friggen pissed"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Yes, Ubuntu Touch would be my first choice, but of the "next wave" of phone operating systems, looks like they'll be the last to actually ship. That's disappointing, and will make it harder for them to break into serious market share.

Mozilla has done far better than I expected with Firefox OS - several phones, a tablet, and now TVs. I guess after slaying the IE dragon, I shouldn't have underestimated them. Love the openness, but miss Qt. Maybe next phone.

Jolla has started shipping with Qt and the Other Half goodness, too. Looks great; wish them the very best. Were that they were successful enough to launch in the USA.

Neither Tizen or WP 8 interest me much, so I guess I'm not surprised at Nokia's slump and Samsung's endless delays.

Android and iOS are ok, but we need more real options. It's been fun to have OS competition again - I really don't want that to end!

Reply Score: 2

Interesting that...
by Dano on Fri 24th Jan 2014 01:48 UTC
Dano
Member since:
2006-01-22

Microsoft's earning are up 14% this quarter...they can't be being dragged down by Surface and Bing that much! Actually +$900 million USD for Surface sales is a pretty amazing turnaround. Be damned Windows 8 LOL

Edited 2014-01-24 01:51 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Lumia 520 for $59 in the states
by asupcb on Fri 24th Jan 2014 05:25 UTC
asupcb
Member since:
2005-11-10

I just saw that the Microsoft store in the U.S. is selling Nokia Lumia 520's for $59 off-contract for the AT&T GSM version. My mom wants to get a smartphone for the first time.

I was going to tell her to buy a Moto G, but at $59 off-contract I think a 520 just makes more sense. She really didn't want to spend more than $100 on a phone, plus her and my father plan to switch to StraightTalk (an American MVNO that resells access to all four major American networks) at some point this year.

She mostly just wants calls, texts, MMS, Facebook, Maps/directions and email. As far as I know WP8 provides all of that. She isn't very tech savvy and I don't see her wanting any apps outside of the basics.

If you want to check out the special here is a link:
http://www.microsoftstore.com/store?Action=pdp&Locale=en_US&Nokia-L...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Lumia 520 for $59 in the states
by bnolsen on Fri 24th Jan 2014 13:41 UTC in reply to "Lumia 520 for $59 in the states"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

for now MS is buying marketshare just like they did in the console days. amazing war chest they have.

Reply Score: 3

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

They're $7B richer after this last quarter. Microsoft makes enough in three months to buy Nokia.

They effectively have unlimited cash. Now with Nokia's supply chain and manufacturing expertise (no more write downs), they will be very formidable indeed.

Microsoft actually when it comes to it will ship nearly 20M devices (phones, tablets, consoles) a quarter.

Surface is almost a billion dollar business itself and is on the verge of break even, albeit at lower margins due to markdowns. But they can recoup that through value add.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Lumia 520 for $59 in the states
by Morgan on Fri 24th Jan 2014 14:47 UTC in reply to "Lumia 520 for $59 in the states"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

For what it's worth, I have a Lumia 521 (T-Mobile version of the same phone) on Straight Talk and it's perfect. Low price on the service itself, unlimited everything*, and the phone is outstanding for the price. And, if they end up not liking WP8, it's easy to jump to another phone as long as it's compatible with the type of SIM you have.

WP8 does indeed handle all of your stated needs, and the mapping/navigation in particular is very nice. Facebook and other social networks are integrated into the phone's interface, and you can also install the standalone apps. The phone itself is very fast and fluid, and I'd say the only thing lacking in the hardware department is a camera flash.


*Technically there's a soft cap at ~2GB wherein the data drops to 2G speeds, but I've never hit it and I'm a heavy data user. As long as you are signed in to WiFi whenever possible it won't be an issue, and things like mapping/navigation, email and basic browsing aren't affected as much by speed.


Edit: I almost forgot, if you're bringing an unlocked phone to Straight Talk, you'll have to set up the APNs correctly, as the instructions they provide aren't as thorough as they should be. Here's a link to the correct settings for ATT phones on Straight Talk. It says "Android" but is the same for any phone on that service.

http://wirevalley.com/ultimate-apn-settings-for-straight-talk-with-...

Edited 2014-01-24 14:53 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Surface Comment
by gmlongo on Fri 24th Jan 2014 18:10 UTC
gmlongo
Member since:
2005-07-07

Still laughing at the ridiculous surface comment at the end. Nice timing Thom...

Reply Score: 0