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

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 574617
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
JAlexoid
Member since:
2009-05-19

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:
2005-11-29

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

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Furthermore we seem to be at a disagreement over which metric to use. The "low margin device" to me is best countered by a per device stat.

Calculating profit or contribution margins pull in other things like marketing, admin overhead, r&d, etc that would undersell the potential given that Nokia is restructuring through 2013.

If you compare for example op expenses from last year to this year there's something like a 70% decrease due to Nokia scaling down its operations to meet volume. If we say hypothetically that Nokia sold these phones last year, their margins would look even worse if we use a profit margin.

Its the same deal here, as restructuring fades out and the division operates at true scale, the fruits of this labor will become more visible.

non-IFRS reporting gives you a glimpse into this.

* Also we're not accounting for the possibility that MSFT quarterly payments are factored into the cost of goods, so that may improve already good margins for the 520 which further underscores the helpfulness of the Msft deal.

Reply Parent Score: 2