Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 9th Oct 2013 21:47 UTC

Paul Thurrot has a number of rumours up about Windows Phone 8.1. Two stand out to me.

Where GDR3 is widely expected to support 5- to 6-inch screens, 8.1 will supposedly support 7- to 10-inch screens as well. This obviously infringes on Windows RT/8.x tablets, so it's not clear what the thinking is there.

So, Windows RT will become even more pointless than it already is.

Aping the iPhone navigation model, Microsoft will apparently remove the Back button from the Windows Phone hardware specification with 8.1. The Back button just doesn't make sense, I was told: Users navigate away from an app by pressing the Start button and then open a new app, just like they do on iPhone. And the "back stack" is ill-understood by users: Most don't realize what they're doing when they repeatedly hit the Back button.

This I am not happy with. The back button is my main navigational input in both Android and Windows Phone, and I miss it dearly in iOS.

I'm just hoping on performance improvements, still my biggest issue with Windows Phone. I used my HTC 8X for a few hours today, and I was stunned by just how slow everything is compared to Android 4.3. Of course, application quality is another huge issue, but there's little Microsoft can do to convince developers that their Windows Phone applications are more than just side projects done between serious work on Android and iOS.

Thread beginning with comment 574380
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Nokia has a 26% profit margin on a $29 dollar phone. I just didn't want to bother digging through my sources originally, especially since you're not the one who usually responds, its some fanatic who doesn't bring value to the conversation so its a wasted effort.

Plus I was saving it to respond to Thom/cdude's thread above which is about the same thing.

Now lets take that source and extrapolate from there the fact that cheap doesn't mean small margins, couple it with the gross margin of over 20% and low ASP in Q2 and you can conclude with a reasonable amount of faith that the 520 is by no means a low margin device.

At the volumes its selling it is likely sustainable north of 10 million units a quarter which is the trajectory they're on.

Reply Parent Score: 3

cdude Member since:

cheap doesn't mean small margins
conclude with a reasonable amount of faith that the 520 is by no means a low margin device.

Faith? Really?

Edited 2013-10-10 23:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

Nelson Member since:

This is why I don't take the time, you get small minded responses like this.

Get something right for once.

Reply Parent Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:

That 26% means very little on a $29 device, because it's gross margin(revenue from sales - cost to manufacture).
Profit margins include all other costs and are not per device.

520 is most definitely a low absolute margin device.

Now do some extrapolation... Selling 50mil 520ies per year at 30% gross margins would bring in a measly €150mil gross margins... How can you maintain Nokia with those sales?!?!?!? That's a medium company's budget, not Nokia's. To put it into perspective, if their gross margins were 20% last quarter they would have to run their giant business with €2.4bn yearly. That might sound a lot, but it's the reason why their operating profits are in the red.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Nelson Member since:

You seem to e off by an order of a magnitude, and also probably skewed by the fact that Nokia doesn't sell the 520 for a singular price anywhere so such calculations will end up being pretty rough and potentially overshooting in either direction.

I did it per quarter, 10M devices at $100 (being generous as device routinely sells for 180) gets you 200M at a more reasonable 20% margin.

Doing 50M for a 100 phone at 30% margins gets you 1.5B for the year, not 150M.

Reply Parent Score: 2