Mobile phones & tablets thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Ummm OK, it took me 2 seconds to google "nokia cash reserves 2012" and find out that the situation is not quite as dire as some would like to suggest. The media loves to take dumps on anyone who isn't Apple.

---

You should probably tell Stephen Elop that, not me. I'm just commenting on stories that are being reported.

Nokia sells off assets for cash

Quote:

---

Last month, Nokia reported a 1.53 billion-euro ($1.9 billion) loss for the second quarter. It burned some 700 million euros of cash in the quarter and ended June with net cash of 4.2 billion euros.

---

When I see a company burning through its cash because of losses and then having to sell assets to replenish cash, I know very well that that game cannot go on forever. To think otherwise is simply wishful thinking. It is what it is...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I'm sorry, but can I have some of what you're smoking? The Lumia 920 will likely eclipse the iPhone 5 in every single sense hardware wise. The reason why it's not seen as competitive is because it's not called an iPhone and it's not allied with an OS which is yet to be a runaway success. In fact I'm sure that if the iPhone 5 was just an original iPhone in a different colour then it would sell more than the Lumia 920 will. So you've got to ask yourself what the problem is and whether Nokia (at this point in time with decent product) is at fault or whether people will just buy whatever Apple peddles.

---

I'm not here to celebrate the fall of Nokia. I bought a Nokia phone for my mother and it's been a decent device for her. As for why its phones have not caught on, I don't know why. Speculation is fine, but if the answer was that easy, then Nokia probably wouldn't be facing the hurdles that it is. In my mind, phones are like any other product: consumers pick some models or brands over others. It may have to do with marketing, quality, features, price or other factors. But being very late to the game of smartphones and then coming out with devices that haven't exactly wowed the market certainly plays into it. One can't blame consumers for not supporting Nokia (vs. Apple, etc.), since consumers have no obligation to support them or anyone else.

From the reviews I've read, the new Lumia is a very good phone. But so are a lot of other phones out there. So now that most smartphone consumers have already chosen other brands and operating systems, what reason is Nokia (or Microsoft) giving them to switch to a different brand and ecosystem? If Nokia can come up with a good answer to that question, they may succeed. If they cannot come up with a good answer and generate some sales, they will likely go under within the next couple of years... short of a cash infusion or some other financial strategy to stay afloat. That's just life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

My phone will install two updates at once and doesn't allow me to pick one over the other. If I choose not to install an update, it will be waiting on the phone forever and I wouldn't be able to install the next update with the previous still pending

---

Not to be rude Henners, but you don't seem to grasp the issue at hand here. Updates with phones don't work like they do with Windows Update, you can't pick or choose what you want.

Wanting to install (version numbers made up) 11.5 but not 11.4 is like trying to put tiles on the roof of a house when you haven't actually got the roof framework up yet. It don't work that way. Think of it like a service pack for windows, you can't install service pack 2 and 3 on an original copy of XP until you've put SP1 on. It just doesn't work like that.

I know that Ioan perhaps isn't saying things in the nicest or most polite manner, but he's right.

One thing you mention which is yet anther strength for iOS and Windows Phone is the hardware specs. With Windows Phone 7 there is a minimum hardware spec which runs very nicely, iPhones of course are all equal in terms of specifications (comparing the same generation of course) so there are no widespread issues in terms of performance whereas a manufacturer of an Android handset can chuck any old components in the phone and the users may be left with a less than ideal level of performance. Android also has to cater to a variety of different types of hardware whereas iOS and Windows Phone are created for a very specific subset of hardware and screen resolutions and so on. That's why, even with flagship phones like the GS3, people can complain about slowdowns, whereas my Lumia 800 is far less powerful yet is always buttery smooth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

Nokia doesn't really have a USP but RIM's secure messaging system still gives it a loyal customer base doesn't it? Over here they are still popular with companies and the younger end of the phone market for precisely this reason. So much so in fact that during the riots the police specifically targetted shutting down RIM's system to stop rioters coordinating across London.

I don't think it'll be easy for them to gain market share but they may not lose much more either if they carry on with their current systems.

---

Yeah, I think they still have something of a loyal customer base, especially in some government and corporate circles. The problem RIM seems to be having is that the loyal base is continuing to shrink. They keep experiencing delays in getting out BlackBerry 10 software and devices. That's causing customers and developers to find other options, unless there is a real and specific need for BBM. But yeah, that is the one thing that RIM has. But during and after their most recent corporate shake-up this year, they began having talks with investment banks JPMorgan-Chase and RBC Capital about "strategic options". Whenever the company that I'm working for announces that it is exploring strategic options and I begin seeing investment bankers slithering around the company headquarters, I usually begin updating my resume... because that's seldom a sign of good things to come. "Exploring strategic options" is usually just a less direct way of putting the For Sale sign on the door.

RIM's BlackBerry will probably continue to be popular among a certain set. The question seems to be, is that loyal group of remaining customers enough to make the business viable? It looks kind of iffy.

BTW, I saw a RIM Playbook a few weeks ago and played around with it. As much of a dud as it turned out to be, as I used it, I kept thinking how it probably would have been a neat device to have if RIM had fully developed it before launching it. But from what RIM has said since that debacle, it's going to pretty much focus on the business and enterprise market, not so much on consumers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

You should probably tell Stephen Elop that, not me. I'm just commenting on stories that are being reported.

Nokia sells off assets for cash



When I see a company burning through its cash because of losses and then having to sell assets to replenish cash, I know very well that that game cannot go on forever. To think otherwise is simply wishful thinking. It is what it is...



I'm not here to celebrate the fall of Nokia. I bought a Nokia phone for my mother and it's been a decent device for her. As for why its phones have not caught on, I don't know why. Speculation is fine, but if the answer was that easy, then Nokia probably wouldn't be facing the hurdles that it is. In my mind, phones are like any other product: consumers pick some models or brands over others. It may have to do with marketing, quality, features, price or other factors. But being very late to the game of smartphones and then coming out with devices that haven't exactly wowed the market certainly plays into it. One can't blame consumers for not supporting Nokia (vs. Apple, etc.), since consumers have no obligation to support them or anyone else.

From the reviews I've read, the new Lumia is a very good phone. But so are a lot of other phones out there. So now that most smartphone consumers have already chosen other brands and operating systems, what reason is Nokia (or Microsoft) giving them to switch to a different brand and ecosystem? If Nokia can come up with a good answer to that question, they may succeed. If they cannot come up with a good answer and generate some sales, they will likely go under within the next couple of years... short of a cash infusion or some other financial strategy to stay afloat. That's just life.

---

Did you actually read the story you linked to? The selling off of Qt isn't described in that article as a firesale or selling off the family jewels, it's simply a part of the business that doesn't really fit with their new direction and they did what any sensible company would have done and sold it off.

Windows Phone 8 was always on the horizon so all Nokia could hope for was to get some nice product out the door and earn some kudos for that, and the Lumia 800 and 900 are nice products, and then deliver something really good for WP8.

Microsoft aren't going to let Nokia go down if they think there's any chance of Windows Phone going on to be successful, if it looks like it's going down then I'm sure they'll ditch Nokia like that. Just remember the patent wars are going on and Windows Phone, with all the patents that Microsoft hold, represents a safehaven for manufacturers against Apple.

My old Samsung Omnia 7 probably looks more like an iPhone than any of the handsets that Apple took Samsung to court over yet for some reason Apple haven't made any noise over it or tried to get sales of it banned ;) Funny that. Just remember that Apple gets a lot of money from networks as well on each sale, Microsoft isn't nearly as greedy so the networks do have some reason to push alternatives to the iPhone.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget....ro10192010.jpg
iClone much? ;)

It's all to play for and seeing Nokia selling a part of their company that doesn't make sense anymore shouldn't be interpreted as the titanic hitting an iceberg just yet.....

You also said that Nokia's launch this week was uninpressive, what features do you feel that other handset makers have, should have been announced in the 920? By all accounts the camera is fantastic (though perhaps not quite a DSLR ;) ), it's got wireless charging which a lot of people are going to like, it's got NFC and it's got LTE so I don't quite see what else they could have done to wow people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Did you actually read the story you linked to? The selling off of Qt isn't described in that article as a firesale or selling off the family jewels, it's simply a part of the business that doesn't really fit with their new direction and they did what any sensible company would have done and sold it off.

---

Who said it was a firesale? Who said it was the selling off of the family jewels? But yes, I actually read the entire article - including this part:

Quote:

---

To halt losses Nokia unveiled a massive restructuring program in June, including cutting 10,000 jobs and said it plans to divest non-core assets.

Last month, Nokia reported a 1.53 billion-euro ($1.9 billion) loss for the second quarter. It burned some 700 million euros of cash in the quarter and ended June with net cash of 4.2 billion euros.

The value of the deal in which Nokia will divest Qt software to Digia was not disclosed, but analysts estimated it was a fraction of the $150 million Nokia paid for Qt’s then-owner Norway’s Trolltech in 2008.

---

Nowhere did I say that it was an unwise move. In fact, it seems that it was a necessary move, even at a loss. You may not think this is a Titanic moment, but ask yourself this basic math question: with 4.2 billion Euros in reserve, how many quarters can a company continue to fund operations if it continues posting 1.5 billion Euro quarterly losses and burning through 700 million Euros of cash per quarter?

The next quarterly results will be coming out soon. Nokia doesn't necessarily have to begin posting profits by the end of the FY. But they most certainly do have to find some way to stem these losses.

Quote:

---

You also said that Nokia's launch this week was uninpressive, what features do you feel that other handset makers have, should have been announced in the 920? By all accounts the camera is fantastic (though perhaps not quite a DSLR ;) ), it's got wireless charging which a lot of people are going to like, it's got NFC and it's got LTE so I don't quite see what else they could have done to wow people.

---

At least initially, I believe I said that was the market's reaction to the announcement: Nokia Shares Fall 16% After Lumia Release Disappoints Investors

I had no personal reaction, as NOK isn't a stock that I trade. I did buy some RIMM puts earlier in the year and that worked out well. But NOK is now in "penny stock" territory and it's too volatile to predict short term movements.


As for what Nokia should have offered, that would have made a bigger/better splash... as I already stated:

Quote:

---

From the reviews I've read, the new Lumia is a very good phone. But so are a lot of other phones out there. So now that most smartphone consumers have already chosen other brands and operating systems, what reason is Nokia (or Microsoft) giving them to switch to a different brand and ecosystem? If Nokia can come up with a good answer to that question, they may succeed. If they cannot come up with a good answer and generate some sales, they will likely go under within the next couple of years... short of a cash infusion or some other financial strategy to stay afloat. That's just life.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

This is the one big issue with Android, the fragmentation in terms of updates.

What updates you get over the lifetime of your phone depend on whether the manufacture wants to allow it and whether your network allows it as well.

This is one big advantage that iOS and Windows Phones have. I think with iOS Apple has complete control over the updates and the same is true with Windows Phones although a carrier can choose to delay or even skip one update but then when the next one comes out they're forced to give the user both updates anyway..... in practice no carriers seem to excessively delay any updates. Security updates go through without delay.

In addition to this, when you do an update, Zune tells you the version number and gives you a rough explanation of what the update entails.

---

That was the big problem with Nokia's of old. Updates were carrier dependent. They would usually authorise one and them no more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

I don't think you have read the trail of posts concerning this particular conversation Daniel. Not being able to pick and choose updates is exactly the point I was making in response to ioan. He said we have the choice not to install every update and he in fact doesn't install more than 10% of the updates that come through for his Samsung Tab and Blackberry phone. I'll quote him for reference:

See Daniel? It was me who was suggesting you can't just pick and choose what you install. When an update is available on Android, you have to trust that because the manufacturer has tried, tested it, and authorized it for release, it should be good. If ioan has managed to pick and choose updates, I'm sure you'll will be as interested as I am to discover how he does this and by-passes such a thing? If you read back you'll see I made my point pretty clear.

What you mention here is a point I have debated on numerous times and been hit with a wall of opposition. I've argued that there are so many phones in the Android range that often the OS doesn't suit the hardware spec's available on devices. If Windows phones are anything like iOS as you say, then its a strong feature they have over Android in regards to stability. iOS is only released for one particular phone and is stable as a result. Its tested and written for one single spec and runs seemlessly, with no lag, freezes, and a fluid user experience. With a limited number of Windows phones available in comparison to Android, I suppose they are able to maximize performance based on the hardware available. We appear to have agreed on two points even if you didn't realize the first lol. :)

---

Apologies if I read your post wrong.

With Windows Phone 7 devices, they only run on Qualcomm Snapdragon chips so much like the iPhone, you're only really supporting one family of hardware so it's easy for the OS to run nice and smoothly and there is a minimum standard for the processor so no matter what Windows Phone handset you choose, you will get a quick phone. Go into a shop and you could walk out with an Android phone which is perhaps not the quickest. With a windows phone, no matter how cheap it is you're guaranteed a certain level of performance. Obviously with an iPhone it'll be quick too, but it'll cost you....

BBC News - Viewpoint: Apple's iPhone launches no longer excite

Quote:

---

More important, is this really the best we can expect from an outfit that claims to be the most innovative company in the world? This is the sixth version of the iPhone, and the user interface still looks almost exactly like the original iPhone in 2007.

The hardware on the iPhone has been the same for two years, since the iPhone 4 and 4S were virtually identical.

Now, having had two years to plot and scheme, Apple's renowned designer Jonathan Ive has replaced the tiny 3.5in (8.9cm) screen with a slightly-less-tiny 4in (10.2cm) screen? Wow. Knock me over with a feather. What do you do with the rest of your time, Jony?

This is what happens when a company is too cheap to invest in research and development. Did you know that Apple spends far less on R&D than any of its rivals - a paltry 2% of revenues, versus 14% for Google and Microsoft?

No wonder the Android platform, where new models appear every week, now represents 68% of the smartphone market, up from 47% a year ago, while Apple slid to 17% over the same period.

In case you're bad at math, let me work that out for you: Android's market share is now four times that of Apple. Four times!

---

You can't go along forever only investing a tiny bit of your revenue and expect to stay ahead (or behind or wherever Apple are) of your rivals.

I will wet myself with delight if the iPhone 5 gets a soft reception and starts to lose Apple marketshare going forward. Hell, the rather un-revolutionary 4S has already lost them marketshare in the US.

There are two big ways when it comes to getting in front of the competition in terms in innovation. One is to push yourself in front of them through an efficient R&D department. The other is to push the competition behind you, with more focus on the legal department. As a smart consumer, as I like to consider myself, I just love Apple's approach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

Dan Lyons has never been Apples biggest fan and the article is his viewpoint as a blog author. It's nice to have a personal view on this, but this is not the view of the BBC and that is made clear. The 4S is still the biggest selling smartphone to date with 100 million units sold, but suffered a slump between June and August due to the S3 being released. We will see what the launch of the new iphone brings of course.

---

Yes, but he's right.......