Linked by David Adams on Sun 14th Jul 2013 17:49 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless A perennial question that revolves around Nokia is: why didn't it choose to go with Android to replace Symbian when it decided to kill that as its smartphone operating system in late 2010?
Thread beginning with comment 567145
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

This whole "Osborn Effect" thing is overblown, Symbian sales were collapsing a full quarter prior to the Windows Phone announcement.


This is a lie, Nelson, and you know it. Up until Elop announced the switch, Symbian sales were rising.

http://www.osnews.com/story/26959/Nokia_s_quarterly_results_paint_a...

You know this, because I mentioned it twice and you commented on both stories. Why purposely lie?

Reply Parent Score: 13

winter skies Member since:
2009-08-21

This is a lie, Nelson, and you know it. Up until Elop announced the switch, Symbian sales were rising.
[...]

You know this, because I mentioned it twice and you commented on both stories. Why purposely lie?


Because anything different wouldn't be functional to his narration. "Nokia needed Microsoft, Nokia couldn't have done anything alone, Elop made the right moves for Nokia, his strategy was a success".
Any fact like "Nokia was selling more than ever before the memo" or "Nokia was a large, successful global company which was dismembered and shrinked to a smallish OEM losing any hope of being independent in order to seem profitable again" doesn't fit in this theory and thus must not be taken into account.

Sorry for the harshness, but it is clear this partnership makes absolute sense when seen from Microsoft's point of view, while it makes close to zero sense from Nokia's.

Reply Parent Score: 7

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

" This is a lie, Nelson, and you know it. Up until Elop announced the switch, Symbian sales were rising.
[...]

You know this, because I mentioned it twice and you commented on both stories. Why purposely lie?


Because anything different wouldn't be functional to his narration. "Nokia needed Microsoft, Nokia couldn't have done anything alone, Elop made the right moves for Nokia, his strategy was a success".
Any fact like "Nokia was selling more than ever before the memo" or "Nokia was a large, successful global company which was dismembered and shrinked to a smallish OEM losing any hope of being independent in order to seem profitable again" doesn't fit in this theory and thus must not be taken into account.

Sorry for the harshness, but it is clear this partnership makes absolute sense when seen from Microsoft's point of view, while it makes close to zero sense from Nokia's.
"

I eagerly await your response to my post below, wise one.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Oh my, liar? That is a terrible charge.

Lets look further into this, shall we?
First I'm assuming you've read the relevant financial reports, hopefully your working knowledge is deeper than a reposted chart.

Now, if you'll look at Q410 financial results, you'll see Symbian sales rose 30%, but market share actually fell 14% because they were greatly outpaced by the market. All prior to this mythological Osborn effect.

Now I'll ask you to look back further into Q3 and Q2 2010 where they lost around 25% of their share in six months. A year before this mythological Osborn effect.

By January 2011 (a month prior to the WP announcement), Nokia for example had lost a third of their UK market share.

Starting in Q2 2010 Nokia went from
39% to 33% to 28% to 24% up through the Windows Phone announcement.

So actually, no, I'm not lying thank you very much. This is why I ask people to read the financial reports. What a new and radical idea, asking you to do your own research.

Given these rather steady declines, how can the Windows Phone announcement be attributed to something that never accelerated? The decline was linear, as I've demonstrated.

All of this is verifiable from Nokia financial reports from Q2 2010 and on.

You can't possibly positively speak about a 30% sales rise without qualifying it with market share, or you'd also have to mention the 400% Windows Phone growth, or 100% YoY performance Nokia is going to have in Q2, but for some strange reason I don't see a post on those incoming.

This takes critical thinking.

Reply Parent Score: 2

No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Ah, critical thinking. That's when you spin 100% YOY growth from barely nothing as great performance. You're an incredibly dishonest human being. I don't understand what motivates you.

Reply Parent Score: 8

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So actually, no, I'm not lying thank you very much. This is why I ask people to read the financial reports. What a new and radical idea, asking you to do your own research.


You're spinning again. This is what you said:

"This whole 'Osborn Effect' thing is overblown, Symbian sales were collapsing a full quarter prior to the Windows Phone announcement."

...but now, you're suddenly talking about market share collapsing. Those are two different things. Symbian sales were still rising quite steadily and quite well, up until Elop Osbourned his own company.

So yes, you were lying.

You may argue that market share is more important - and you might very well be right - but that would be quite inconsistent of you, because when you point out that Nokia's Windows Phone sales are rising (every so slightly), and I consequently point out that Nokia's/WP's market share is NOT rising, you argue that market share doesn't matter as much as mildly rising sales.

This takes critical thinking.


We call that spinning.

Edited 2013-07-15 11:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

hhas Member since:
2006-11-28

Dude, you said "Symbian sales were collapsing a full quarter prior to the Windows Phone announcement", which was incorrect: they were rising in that quarter. What you should have said was "Symbian market share was collapsing, which was the point Tomi Ahonen was making, and something I suspect Thom is conveniently overlooking.

Sales != market share; a distinction that seems to be lost on both of you, and other ideologically motivated commenters too. If your sales rise by X% but your (similarly sized) competitors' sales rise by 5X% in the same period, then your sales are increasing but your share of the total market is decreasing. Your revenue may still be healthy today (assuming you're maintaining a healthy margin on those sales), but a few years from now those now much larger and more powerful competitors start swallowing your sales as well.

I wish folks on these threads would go takes some business classes and come back once they understand the world beyond bits and bytes. The quality of comments would be immeasurably improved by it.

Reply Parent Score: 5