Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 18th Dec 2013 17:24 UTC

2013 was nothing less than a blockbuster success for Windows Phone, which went from industry also-ran to the undisputed third mobile ecosystem, and is poised to challenge iPhone for the number two spot. You didn't think it could get this good? That's OK, neither did I.

Windows Phone seemingly turns a corner with every new application, small operating system update, and new Nokia Lumia. It's turning so many corners it's running in circles.

Thread beginning with comment 578962
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: "Growth" numbers are useless
by Nelson on Wed 18th Dec 2013 17:58 UTC in reply to ""Growth" numbers are useless"
Member since:

Installed base isn't useful for identifying an ongoing trend as it biases established players, quite obviously.

Nokia for example keeps posting great growth rates on similar volumes to other Android OEMs. LG was flat, Lenovo was 9%, Sony was 4%. Nokia was 19% at similar volumes.

If we're speaking for the purposes of identifying a trend then the numbers speak favorably for Windows Phone.

Edited 2013-12-18 18:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

The123king Member since:

Exactly. This whole "Nokia and Windows Phone is dead" logic is blown way out of proportion. I'm sure, if you found some numbers somewhere, Nokia has probably sold more phones than the once-kingpin Blackberry, LG, Lenovo, ZTE and all the other small-time Android device manufacturers. They've still got a long way to go to conquer Apple, Samsung and probably HTC too though.

Reply Parent Score: 3

acobar Member since:

Oh! Really, does it?

Lets create a hypothetical setting where we had the following market share on some unspecified time and then regularly update it with hypothetical constant sales by period:

Total sales / period (for example months or years)
Android Apple Microsoft
20 10 5

Total sales (accumulated) and initial set
Android Apple Microsoft
20 50 0
40 60 5
60 70 10
80 80 15
100 90 20
120 100 25

Market Share %
Android Apple Microsoft
28.57 71.43 0.00
38.10 57.14 4.76
42.86 50.00 7.14
45.71 45.71 8.57
47.62 42.86 9.52
48.98 40.82 10.20

Note how the initial (trend) growth of MS is staggering! Like people said, it derives from the fact that it did not had a market presence. Android is looking to be running out of gas even though it is at every period putting 4 times more phones than Microsoft! Who would thought!? The final situation after infinity time?

Market Share %
Android Apple Microsoft
57.14 28.57 14.29

Now, before you jump to conclusions, let me start arguing that, at least to me, the worst case scenery is to see Google achieve the same market dominance that MS once had on desktops. I would like to see them, Microsoft, succeed, first and foremost, to have a more balanced market and to improve competition, what is good for us all, and not only stockholders minority.

I also think that MS has a nice development tooling and a strong business appeal but, unluckily to them, and I am talking from a business customer perspective, their later steps on licensing generated a lot of dissatisfaction between their very own installed base. I used to like them when their only worry was to sell "good" products by fair values but it all changed under MS Ballmer umbrella. Also, their politics toward Android manufactures is despicable, to say the least. Lets hope they have the time and willingness to correct their steps. I am not standing still for that, though.

Edited 2013-12-19 16:15 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

Nelson Member since:

No. How about we don't create a hypothetical and actually use real numbers from real financials of the companies I mention. Those were their growth rates.

People trot out the "from a low base" argument which is probably because its the last leg they have to stand on.

What they leave out is that Nokia had similar volumes to all of these OEMs individually, but is still growing more strongly. LG especially was flat QoQ and Sony had anemic growth.

I will also point out that Nokia had strong 19% sequential growth during what traditionally is their slowest quarter, and Q4s growth trajectory could be even higher.

I understand fully that the 150% YoY growth comes from a low base initially, but that's precisely why o eont cite them (seriously, look at my comment history) and instead cite Nokia's volume shipments compared to the other Android OEMs.

Reply Parent Score: 3

glarepate Member since:

Actually the installed base numbers do identify a trend.

With an installed base estimated to reach as high as 45 million by the end of this year MSFT's phone OS will have slightly more phones in use than were sold in the last 5 quarters.

The trend this indicates is that they are selling new phones to users who are just replacing an existing WP device with a new one and/or that most of the users who bought these devices in the last 3 years have moved to other platforms.

As a growth story this is interesting but not dynamic.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Nelson Member since:

That number is a forecast by ABI Research done in February, id say its a bit of a reach to draw conclusions without a follow up.

I'd say that measuring this kind of thing is notoriously difficult, but what probably can serve as an indicator is app store transactions and developer revenue. Both of which are sharply up for WP.

I don't know of any way to reliably measure churn like that and I'm wary of those kind of reports.

Reply Parent Score: 3

tylerdurden Member since:

LG was flat, Lenovo was 9%, Sony was 4%. Nokia was 19% at similar volumes.

LG sold 12 million units in Q3, Sony moved 10 million xperias during that period. Nokia moved 8.8 million lumias, or 36% and 14% less than LG and Sony respectively. As usual, it depends what you mean by "similar."

From Q1 to Q2 Sony actually managed to hit the same 19% growth rate, actually surpassing Nokia in unit shipped for 2013. Does that mean Xperias are on the same boat to success as you claim Nokia to be?

In any case LG and Sony, not being the main Android OEMs, still managed to ship 150% more units on their "flat" quarter than Nokia did on their best record quarter.

Edited 2013-12-20 22:12 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

Nelson Member since:

No, Sony's growth was anemic for the past few quarters. I believe last time we touched on this subject I pulled Sony's financials for the past few quarters and showed how they're more or less stagnant.

On the other hand, Nokia has had sequential double digit growth for as many quarters. So lets leave the false equivalence right at the door.

I think its fair to say that the volumes are similar, or to put it another way, its getting more difficult to attribute their shipment increases solely to coming from a low base.

Edited 2013-12-21 00:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3