Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 23rd Jan 2014 11:54 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless

Nokia has just posted its results for the fourth quarter of 2013 - this is the last set of quarterly results which include the devices division, which has been sold to Microsoft. The parts that remain at Nokia are doing relatively well, but the holiday quarter for Lumia was a letdown.

Exactly how much of a letdown we can't say, since Nokia has - curiously, but tellingly - stopped reporting Lumia sales (update: Nokia has confirmed it sold 8.2 million Lumias). However, they do state that Lumia sales in the fourth (holiday) quarter were down from the third quarter, but up from the year-ago quarter, meaning they sold anywhere between 4.4 and 8.8 million Lumias during the holiday quarter of 2013. Tweakers' Arnoud Wokke has done the math, and concludes Nokia sold between 7.55 and 7.98 million Lumias (update: Nokia has confirmed it sold 8.2 million Lumias). Average selling price dropped again, most likely due to the popularity of the low-end 520. This gives Nokia a smartphone market share of about 2-3%.

All in all, the devices division, with its crashing Asha sales and struggling Lumia sales, was a clear stone around Nokia's neck, kept somewhat afloat by cash injections from Microsoft. However, those injections apparently weren't enough, and by now, we can conclude that Microsoft was effectively forced to step in and buy Nokia's devices division - lest someone else do it.

With this being the last quarter in which Nokia reports on its devices division, an era has come to an end. Now it's up to Microsoft to try and see if they can make something out of the Lumia brand - however, without the Nokia name, that's going to be a very tough sell.

Just ask the Surface department.

Thread beginning with comment 581547
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Cheap phones
by kwan_e on Fri 24th Jan 2014 03:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Cheap phones"
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

"Excuse my ignorance, but for what purpose does kids even need cellphones?


How about calling their parents if they're out playing and something happens? Or if they get lost? If they're at a friend's house overnight and get homesick and just want to call their parents quickly from the bed to ease them to sleep? I dunno, I certainly would want my kids to be able to reach me no matter where they are or what the time is.
"

I'm not normally an old fogey about these things, but kids have survived without cellphones before. It teaches them to be prepared every time they go out and not rely on the parents swooping in and provide them with what they need.

But I understand it will be a necessity in the future as people get rid of landlines*. All together.

* Or only use lines for the internet, which I do.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Cheap phones
by WereCatf on Fri 24th Jan 2014 07:32 in reply to "RE[3]: Cheap phones"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I'm not normally an old fogey about these things, but kids have survived without cellphones before.


That same argument can be used for pretty much anything, including antibiotics and vaccines; "kids and parents have survived without such in the past, ergo we don't need them now." Well, d'oh. Those things just have made it easier to survive, just as being able to call help when you need it makes it easier to survive, such things reduce mortality-rates.

It teaches them to be prepared every time they go out and not rely on the parents swooping in and provide them with what they need.


Having a cell-phone in no way or form stops you from teaching your kids to be prepared, it's just laziness on the parent's part if they don't bother to teach their kids anything. Or what, did the invention of antibiotics and such mean that your parents stopped teaching you to wash your hands before touching food? Mine certainly did tell us to always wash our hands. I also had a cell-phone when I was a kid, and yet I didn't grow up to be utterly-dependant on my parents.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Cheap phones
by kwan_e on Fri 24th Jan 2014 09:17 in reply to "RE[4]: Cheap phones"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"I'm not normally an old fogey about these things, but kids have survived without cellphones before.


That same argument can be used for pretty much anything, including antibiotics and vaccines; "kids and parents have survived without such in the past, ergo we don't need them now." Well, d'oh. Those things just have made it easier to survive, just as being able to call help when you need it makes it easier to survive, such things reduce mortality-rates
"

Uh... antibiotics and vaccines have MEASURED improvements and you can very well argue most of the kids today CANNOT have survived if they didn't have the remedies. You cannot make the same claim for mobile phones.

Phones have not increased kids' chances of survival in the same way medicine has, so you made a really bad argument.

"It teaches them to be prepared every time they go out and not rely on the parents swooping in and provide them with what they need.


Having a cell-phone in no way or form stops you from teaching your kids to be prepared, it's just laziness on the parent's part if they don't bother to teach their kids anything. Or what, did the invention of antibiotics and such mean that your parents stopped teaching you to wash your hands before touching food? Mine certainly did tell us to always wash our hands. I also had a cell-phone when I was a kid, and yet I didn't grow up to be utterly-dependant on my parents.
"

The point is the lessons don't STICK. Parents can teach all they want but kids need to put things into practice to learn.

You seem like a scientifically minded person, so why do you think a personal anecdote is in anyway a counter argument?

Reply Parent Score: 0