[Everything Goes]

Nokia has reached its lowest market share ever at 18% while Samsung continues its lead in the Android market with 42.5%. I do wonder if things would be different if Nokia hadn't put all its eggs in the one basket.

Android continued its lead on the smartphone market, accounting for 69.7% of all smartphones during Q4.

Apple was boosted more by sales of the cheaper iPhone 4 and 4S, rather than the iPhone 5, which launched during the quarter.

http://www.mobiletoday.co.uk/News/24...t_decline.aspx

[BrokenArrow]

Weird to see Huawei comes in 3rd place.

I have a G300.

[whoever,hey]

It it really the lowest nokias market share has ever been? Thats still pretty high. market share means bugger all anyway, its sales that count. They arent the same thing.

[Faust]

According to analysts reports Nokia are slowly starting to see a return to growth and dare one say - profit. Just shows that what they say about stats is true.

[konebyvax]

Originally Posted by BrokenArrow

Weird to see Huawei comes in 3rd place.

I have a G300.

Been saying it for a few months (basically since I got the G300); Huawei will be a rival even for Samsung over the next few years.

[Mustabuster]

Nobody can and should stay in top spot forever, it's just a massive change in a very short space of time for all mobile phone companies. Personally I'd like to see more players out there just to keep things interesting.

[Everything Goes]

Interesting that most of Apples sales were with the iPhone 4 and 4S rather than the 5.

[TheBigM]

Originally Posted by Faust

According to analysts reports Nokia are slowly starting to see a return to growth and dare one say - profit. Just shows that what they say about stats is true.

Yes because although market share is collapsing that is being driven mainly by selling fewer lower-margin handsets and the market growing fast.

Nokia's improving sales of the Lumia line mean improving margins for their business.

[flagpole]

quite. the market share masks the fact that the majority of nokia phones are low $30-$50 margin. some even less. where as the likes of apple are making hundreds of dollars per handset.

but again the changes also mask the fact that nokia is slowly trending to again sell high margin handsets. god you'd give up 20 budget phones to africa for one western lumia sale.

[konebyvax]

Originally Posted by Everything Goes

Interesting that most of Apples sales were with the iPhone 4 and 4S rather than the 5.

Surprised no-one picked up on this before. Does it tell us that the iPhone 5 has proved disappointing overall? No idea but it's a surprising result (to me anyway). It probably backs up the rumours of Apple downgrading the orders for iPhone 5 parts, I guess. I know it missed out on some of the quarter by being launched in the quarter but it's a new Apple phone and so that should negate any lack of selling time, surely?

[Everything Goes]

Originally Posted by konebyvax

Surprised no-one picked up on this before. Does it tell us that the iPhone 5 has proved disappointing overall? No idea but it's a surprising result (to me anyway). It probably backs up the rumours of Apple downgrading the orders for iPhone 5 parts, I guess. I know it missed out on some of the quarter by being launched in the quarter but it's a new Apple phone and so that should negate any lack of selling time, surely?

While I cant see a detailed breakdown it does suggest that there isn't any compelling reason to buy the iPhone 5. Q4 2012 should have been massive for the iPhone 5. My guess is that the slightly bigger screen hasn't been a big pull. If people want much bigger screens perhaps other manufactures phones are more tempting?

http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2335616

[gadgetebz]

Originally Posted by Everything Goes

Nokia has reached its lowest market share ever at 18% while Samsung continues its lead in the Android market with 42.5%. I do wonder if things would be different if Nokia hadn't put all its eggs in the one basket.

Android continued its lead on the smartphone market, accounting for 69.7% of all smartphones during Q4.

Apple was boosted more by sales of the cheaper iPhone 4 and 4S, rather than the iPhone 5, which launched during the quarter.

http://www.mobiletoday.co.uk/News/24...t_decline.aspx

Microsoft paid Nokia 1 Billion dollars to come to Windows Phone...

A big reason Nokia chose Windows Phone is that they are more than just another OEM they are a partner. Nokia will also have influence on the future direction to the OS...
I think its likely we will see Nokia Services in other parts of the Windows Echo System in future and this will generate large licence fees.

Rumour has it Microsoft offered RIM (Blackberry) a similar deal but they rejected it to go with Blackberry 10... Pity as I think BBM would have been a killer on Windows Phone...

I think Nokia will get part of the licence fee paid by OEMS to Microsoft on every phone sold. So potentially if Windows Phone is successful it could be a huge deal.

Had Nokia gone Android they would have had to buy Google Services when they already have their own equivalents. I think Elop said that was a major stumbling block.

To be honest how would Nokia do any better than Sony, LG, Motorola and HTC? Those OEMS`s have nice phones, good specs and designs but Samsung is totally dominant in the Android market and that will not change in the near future...

[TheBigM]

Originally Posted by gadgetebz

To be honest how would Nokia do any better than Sony, LG, Motorola and HTC? Those OEMS`s have nice phones, good specs and designs but Samsung is totally dominant in the Android market and that will not change in the near future...

I guess some people would make the argument that they could have outdone Samsung and been top dog in the android space.

The main issue with that is they would have to promote google's own mapping services over their own.

[Step666]

Originally Posted by gadgetebz

I think Nokia will get part of the licence fee paid by OEMS to Microsoft on every phone sold. So potentially if Windows Phone is successful it could be a huge deal.

Anything they get back will pale in comparison to the licence fees they're paying MS for the OS.

Originally Posted by gadgetebz

Had Nokia gone Android they would have had to buy Google Services when they already have their own equivalents. I think Elop said that was a major stumbling block.

There are no licensing fees for Android, Nokia wouldn't have had to pay for anything like that.

Originally Posted by TheBigM

I guess some people would make the argument that they could have outdone Samsung and been top dog in the android space.

Except they couldn't.
When Nokia switched to WP, they were so far off of competitive, they would've died a quick and painful death trying to compete with Android OEMs. By switching to WP, they didn't have to put any time or money into the hardware, the OS or anything like that and they got a handout from MS to keep them afloat until they started to make a profit again.

Originally Posted by TheBigM

The main issue with that is they would have to promote google's own mapping services over their own.

No they wouldn't.

[whoever,hey]

Originally Posted by Step666

Anything they get back will pale in comparison to the licence fees they're paying MS for the OS.

There are no licensing fees for Android, Nokia wouldn't have had to pay for anything like that.

I doubt the the license fees would be that great. It was a two way partnership, because MS needed a manufacturer to take on their OS, when as you say Android is free.

But Android isn't free to license anyway is it?

[Step666]

Originally Posted by whoever,hey

I doubt the the license fees would be that great. It was a two way partnership, because MS needed a manufacturer to take on their OS, when as you say Android is free.

Nokia are already (theoretically) making payments to MS for licensing fees.
I can't find the article right now but when they announced their Q4 figures, one of the major tech blogs highlighted that the licensing fees Nokia paid to MS in that time run to hundreds of millions of dollars - and that will only increase whilst the payments from MS to Nokia as part of the deal for Nokia to switch to WP are coming to an end, so the flow of money between the two companies will reverse.

The fees will be in-line with other OEMs, I'm sure - there will be a marginal difference due to MS licensing Nokia Maps but no more.
If MS gave Nokia a discount, they'd lose the support of companies like HTC and Samsung.

Originally Posted by whoever,hey

But Android isn't free to license anyway is it?

Yeah, it is.
It's released under an open licence, there's zero cost for any person or company to use or modify it.

Google operates a certification process, whereby they insist on checking a device before the OEM can load the Google Services on there but there's no licensing fee as such for that, companies just have to provide the devices I believe.

[Stig]

Everybody loves to knock Microsoft and Nokia, and I have never worked out why.

The latest Nokia phones are getting really good reviews. The kids have decided that Apple isn't cool anymore and maybe Nokia/MS phones are the next big thing.

[TheBigM]

Originally Posted by Step666

When Nokia switched to WP, they were so far off of competitive, they would've died a quick and painful death trying to compete with Android OEMs. By switching to WP, they didn't have to put any time or money into the hardware, the OS or anything like that and they got a handout from MS to keep them afloat until they started to make a profit again.

You can't speak about this definitively, it's all conjecture about what could and would have happened. Nokia's main weakness was its software - Symbian. Taking that out would solve a heap of problems. As Android didn't have ecosystem building issues either Nokia wouldn't have needed to promise exclusivity the way they did with WP (as WP needed the confidence from developers to get apps). Nokia could have continued a slower decline of Symbian whilst getting Android out there and there would have been no hardware restrictions like WP had/has.

The Nokia N9 was generally greatly received as a handset other than the undeveloped ecosystem at that point and getting Android to work on it would have been much less challenging as a chipset swap to the WP qualcomm one would have been unnecessary.

Originally Posted by Step666

Yeah, it is.
It's released under an open licence, there's zero cost for any person or company to use or modify it.

Google operates a certification process, whereby they insist on checking a device before the OEM can load the Google Services on there but there's no licensing fee as such for that, companies just have to provide the devices I believe.

I guess you aren't aware of the string of deals Microsoft has struck with many Android using companies including all top Android handset manufacturers including HTC and Samsung as well as many you won't have heard from. All of these are paying Microsoft and other for the intellectual property they own and is used in Android so no, Android isn't free for OEMs.

An Android phone without access to Google's play store, access to Google Maps, GMail etc is not a competitive handset. So whilst much is made of open source and any company is free to use it etc, Google has strong control of Android and can choose who it licenses access to its services.

Amazon is the only company that has had the balls to use Android and fork it for its own purposes, sacrificing access to Google's services to do so.

[Step666]

Originally Posted by TheBigM

Nokia's main weakness was its software - Symbian.

It was one weakness, of many.
But focusing on software for a second, given it was Nokia's Achilles heel, do you honestly believe they would've coped well with producing a custom Android skin? I don't, nor do I imagine Nokia would've wanted to release their handsets with stock Android on them.

Originally Posted by TheBigM

As Android didn't have ecosystem building issues either Nokia wouldn't have needed to promise exclusivity the way they did with WP (as WP needed the confidence from developers to get apps). Nokia could have continued a slower decline of Symbian whilst getting Android out there...

Symbian was a black hole where Nokia's profits went to die, it was in their best interest to phase it out as soon as possible, no matter which OS they switched to.

Originally Posted by TheBigM

...and there would have been no hardware restrictions like WP had/has.

And how exactly would that have been a good thing for a company whose hardware wasn't competitive?
Look at any of the handsets Nokia were launching around the time they announced their switch to WP and compare them to the specs of Android handsets released at the same time, there was a gulf between them.

Originally Posted by TheBigM

The Nokia N9 was generally greatly received as a handset other than the undeveloped ecosystem at that point and getting Android to work on it would have been much less challenging as a chipset swap to the WP qualcomm one would have been unnecessary.

The N9 running Android would've been, at best, a mid-range handset.
My old Motorola Defy, which launched nearly 9 months before the N9 was announced and around a year before it reached the market, had the same specs and it was never a flagship handset.

Originally Posted by TheBigM

I guess you aren't aware of the string of deals Microsoft has struck with many Android using companies including all top Android handset manufacturers including HTC and Samsung as well as many you won't have heard from. All of these are paying Microsoft and other for the intellectual property they own and is used in Android so no, Android isn't free for OEMs.

Yes, I am aware of the various suits Microsoft have brought against Android OEMs.
That's separate to whether or not you have to pay a license fee to use Android, which you do not, which is what I said.

[cnbcwatcher]

Originally Posted by TheBigM

You can't speak about this definitively, it's all conjecture about what could and would have happened. Nokia's main weakness was its software - Symbian. Taking that out would solve a heap of problems. As Android didn't have ecosystem building issues either Nokia wouldn't have needed to promise exclusivity the way they did with WP (as WP needed the confidence from developers to get apps). Nokia could have continued a slower decline of Symbian whilst getting Android out there and there would have been no hardware restrictions like WP had/has.

I think Symbian is a rather outdated OS. Wasn't a variant of it called EPOC used on the old Psion palmtops in the 90s/early 00s? The main problem with Windows Phone is the lack of apps. The app ecosystem is nowhere near as good as iOS or Android and I guess WP is more like a newcomer to the market. Anyone remember Pocket PC/Windows Mobile? Another problem with Windows Phone could be lack of interest. Do many people really want a phone running Windows? As for Symbian, it might have been good on pre-iPhone smartphones but it needs to be put to rest now.

[grumpyoldbat]

The Google Apps Suite (Maps, Play etc) is part of a separate license. Whilst there's no info out there on pricing, I'd be very surprised if they're free to device manufacturers.

This is what the Google website says: "The Google apps for Android, such as YouTube, Google Maps and Navigation, Gmail, and so on are Google properties that are not part of Android, and are licensed separately. Contact android-partnerships@google.com for inquiries related to those apps."

"Licensed separately" indicates to me that these aren't part of Google's free open source project.

That website says there's no charge for the compatibility testing, but it doesn't say there's no charge for licensing the Google apps.

[clonmult]

Originally Posted by cnbcwatcher

I think Symbian is a rather outdated OS. Wasn't a variant of it called EPOC used on the old Psion palmtops in the 90s/early 00s? The main problem with Windows Phone is the lack of apps. The app ecosystem is nowhere near as good as iOS or Android and I guess WP is more like a newcomer to the market. Anyone remember Pocket PC/Windows Mobile? Another problem with Windows Phone could be lack of interest. Do many people really want a phone running Windows? As for Symbian, it might have been good on pre-iPhone smartphones but it needs to be put to rest now.

Symbian *had* an outdated interface. It is still as strong as (if not stronger than) the others out there for overall features and is actually a pretty good OS. The latest Belle FP2 devices are as good as anything else out there.

Symbian evolved from EPOC, and along with WinCE (ie. WM and WP7) is the only mobile OS actually designed for mobile devices.

Nokia never truly developed it - the latest devices were still running on the older ARM11 architectures for no particularly good reason; Samsung despite a general lack of commitment had the i8910 running on a Cortex, and even Nokia themselves demonstrated Symbian running on dual core chipsets.

Reasons for Nokias incoherent direction for Symbian was down to management and chronic in-fighting between teams. In that way they were very similar to MS (incompetent management, lack of direction, teams fighting each other).

I'll happily stick with my 808 for as long as it works, for me its a much better device than my iPhone 4S.

[Stuart_h]

Originally Posted by Stig

Everybody loves to knock Microsoft and Nokia, and I have never worked out why.

The latest Nokia phones are getting really good reviews. The kids have decided that Apple isn't cool anymore and maybe Nokia/MS phones are the next big thing.

I do quite like the windows phones (i had a windows 6.5 phone a while back and it was great). and its probably where i would jump to if Android did anything silly.

Im not sure whether the live tiles would keep me entertained for long though ..... I might try the windows 8 launcher for a bit again

I really dont think there is anything 'wrong' with the Nokia/Microsoft combo - its just that they may have left things too late.