Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 26th Jul 2013 14:56 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless "In smartphones, it's not all about Apple and Samsung anymore. For several years, these two companies have dominated the mobile phone-making business, successively one-upping each other with ever sleeker, more technologically sophisticated iPhones and Galaxy handsets that left would-be rivals grasping. But now the competition is stirring, and consumers are giving another look to brands they once ignored." Not only is Samsung now more profitable in mobile than Apple (next goalpost please), smaller Android manufacturers, such as LG, ZTE, and Lenovo, are making huge inroads, and are raking in growing profits - in fact, these three now belong to the top 5 mobile device makers. The common parlance that only Samsung is making a profit off Android is simply no longer true.
Thread beginning with comment 568014
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by cdude
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 26th Jul 2013 16:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by cdude"
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

Its sometimes possible to be presented with a win win option, where you'll be successful regardless of which option you choose.

That's not really the point, the point the parent was making is that it wasn't the lose with android or win with Microsoft option that Elop thought it was.

I guess your point, which is masked with your blindly argumentative post, is that it wasn't a win with Android, lose with Microsoft option that many people think it was.

I'm not sure I can trust either set of numbers at this point. I'd like to wait and see how well Motorola does with the Moto X and a few more data points showing the robust health of the android manufactures as well as some more quarters of Nokia to see if windows phone adoption actually picks up enough steam to replace their former symbian revenues.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by cdude
by cdude on Fri 26th Jul 2013 17:36 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by cdude"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

LG is a prime example. They went WP, fall down to 2% marks share, shifted to Android just some time ago and have now near double as much smartphones sold this quarter then Nokia has (Asha's are not smartphones dear Nelson). Huawei and Lenovo are two more newcomers jumping from zero to profitable using Android.

Moto is exceptional, more difficult to compare with, cause of there stand as Google owned company. If Moto grows fast people, like our Nelson, will point out that's the reason. The other candidates, where no such inter-connection exists, are much closer to Nokia. Except Nokia, back then, would not start from zero but as market leader with the most loyal customer base. A highly profitable well-connected mobile gorilla multiple factors larger then Samsung and Apple back then.

Point is, those latest arguments given by Nokia's Elop why not also* Android are now even more wrong then before. That's what this article and the sudden success of LG, Huawei, Lenovo shows. Even Samsung shows it since back then it wasn't Samsung leading Android, it was HTC.

* The question is not and never was WP or Android. The question is why only WP? No competitor went all in**. Even ZTE, growing with Android, is also doing FirefoxOS now.

** Even Microsoft not went all in with Nokia. Samsung, HTC, Huawei do WP too.

Edited 2013-07-26 17:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by cdude
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 26th Jul 2013 18:10 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by cdude"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

The only reason I listed Motorola, is for the counter example. If Motorola can't be profitable despite its close ties to Google, well then its really difficult to make money with android and Nokia might have a valid point.

You can't forget that HTC despite its stellar phones and reviews is not very profitable with android. If others besides samsung are doing well, then it must be something HTC is doing wrong. When Nokia made the statement, they were kind of pointing at HTC as the poster child of a company destroyed by samsung.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by cdude
by Nelson on Fri 26th Jul 2013 19:15 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by cdude"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

LG is a prime example. They went WP, fall down to 2% marks share, shifted to Android just some time ago and have now near double as much smartphones sold this quarter then Nokia has (Asha's are not smartphones dear Nelson). Huawei and Lenovo are two more newcomers jumping from zero to profitable using Android.


I'm not counting Asha shipments, I don't much care. Nokia is fast approaching double digit millions with Lumia shipments, and them cracking that list will prove WP is moving mainstream. Something some have said was impossible.

LG never really tried with WP, Nokia did.


Moto is exceptional, more difficult to compare with, cause of there stand as Google owned company. If Moto grows fast people, like our Nelson, will point out that's the reason.


Actually no. Drop the strawman. Ill go on record and say that Moto wont really grow quickly at all. If they do, come back and quote me on this.

The other candidates, where no such inter-connection exists, are much closer to Nokia. Except Nokia, back then, would not start from zero but as market leader with the most loyal customer base. A highly profitable well-connected mobile gorilla multiple factors larger then Samsung and Apple back then.


Moto will likely do no better than LG or Sony. I'd be extremely surprised. Everyone says wait for Moto X, so I'll wait, but well see.

These were probably the only coherent set of points in your comment so I'll stop here.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by cdude
by Nelson on Fri 26th Jul 2013 19:08 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by cdude"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Its sometimes possible to be presented with a win win option, where you'll be successful regardless of which option you choose.

That's not really the point, the point the parent was making is that it wasn't the lose with android or win with Microsoft option that Elop thought it was.


There's still the issue of Samsung utterly dominating Android, which despite Thoms best efforts, isn't exactly disproven by these articles.

What is important is that Nokia is leading the Windows Phone charge and actively increasing volumes despite what many on this website wish would happen.

What's also important is that Nokia chose an OS more closely aligned to its own design centric nature and a partner in Microsoft which offered it much more financial support, both in the form of platform installments and in marketing dollars.

It also served to help them in todays competitive dynamic by offering a clear differentiation against a sea of Android, where OEMs are itching to hedge their bets against the established duopoly.

Its also kind of backwards to suggest a company under the financial strain Nokia was under would be able to do a three way juggle, or even two way between Symbian, Android, and WP.

That's an incredible proposition and I'm surprised that what would otherwise be very serious people are suggesting that.


I guess your point, which is masked with your blindly argumentative post, is that it wasn't a win with Android, lose with Microsoft option that many people think it was.


I think I am within my right, considering that I am the few that actually stake out a tangible position and provide hard estimates, and am willing to take people up on bets as to what will happen, to want to cash in when I am proven right.

Anyone who could read a damn financial report knew Nokia was in a bad, but not terminal state. I'm just tired of the faux insight peddled by people who preach a desired narrative. Its easy to get upvoted when the target audience hates Microsoft to begin with.

So yes, I will loudly proclaim when the bets I make pay off and when my analysis ends up being spot on. I suggest that Nokia will increase volumes, and in called a blind defender. When Nokia increases volumes, you bet your ass I'm going to be argumentative.


I'm not sure I can trust either set of numbers at this point. I'd like to wait and see how well Motorola does with the Moto X and a few more data points showing the robust health of the android manufactures as well as some more quarters of Nokia to see if windows phone adoption actually picks up enough steam to replace their former symbian revenues.


I think this is sensible, I'm waiting to see how Nokia holds up in Q3, in order to see if they can maintain momentum. I'm also interested in their bottom line moving forward given that the brunt of restructuring charges are behind them.

This is where underlying profitability and IFRS profit gaps start to become less pronounced and a clearer view of the company emerges.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by cdude
by zima on Fri 2nd Aug 2013 22:36 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by cdude"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

see if windows phone adoption actually picks up enough steam to replace their former symbian revenues.

It needs to do more than that - Symbian formed a minority of Nokia revenue (and was a huge costs sink, with R&D budget ~3-4 years ago larger than the entire R&D of Apple; for meagre results...), what kept Nokia afloat all those years were Series40 "feature phones" ...sales of which are drying up, so far captured largely by lower-end Androids; but Lumia 520 supposedly shows promising sales...

Edited 2013-08-02 22:38 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2