|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Sprint PCS > November 2006 > NEWS: Nokia maintains spot as mobile top dog
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
NEWS: Nokia maintains spot as mobile top dog
|
|
| John Navas 2006-10-19, 3:33 pm |
| <http://www.theregister.com/2006/10/19/nokia_results/>
Nokia has consolidated its position as the world's leading mobile
phone maker and announced a 20 per cent rise in net sales during its
fiscal third quarter.
The Finnish giant said on Thursday that sales rose to €10.1bn from
€8.4bn in the same three month period a year ago.
...
According to Nokia's latest figures, it sold 88.5m devices during its
fiscal third quarter, up 13 per cent compared to the preceding
quarter and a rise of 33 per cent versus the same three month period
a year ago.
...
Nokia grabs 35 per cent mobile market share.
Meanwhile, a new report from Strategy Analytics, which was also
released on Thursday, revealed that the Finnish-based firm has
maintained its top spot on the worldwide vendor table, clocking up
its highest market share level for three years with 35 per cent.
...
Strategy Analytics reports mixed blessings for Motorola, however. The
research firm's study indicates that "Razr mania" would seem to have
peaked with the company losing its crown as the fasting-growing
mobile maker for the first time since the first quarter of 2005. The
US-based mobile manufacturer grew shipments at a healthy 39 per cent
annual rate during the third quarter. It currently has 21 per cent
market share, up from 18.4 per cent a year ago.
[MORE]
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Diamond Dave 2006-10-19, 10:33 pm |
| On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:25:34 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
><http://www.theregister.com/2006/10/19/nokia_results/>
>
> Nokia has consolidated its position as the world's leading mobile
> phone maker and announced a 20 per cent rise in net sales during its
> fiscal third quarter.
I guess you'd care if you had a GSM phone on a GSM carrier. Nokia is
leaving the CDMA market, which is fine by me because I don't care for
their phones anyhow - GSM or CDMA.
Dave
| |
| John Navas 2006-10-19, 10:33 pm |
| On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:02:43 -0400, Diamond Dave
<dmine45.NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in
< rtpfj21isj3olvalggh7
ctu4590ci6i8jj@4ax.com>:
>On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:25:34 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>I guess you'd care if you had a GSM phone on a GSM carrier. Nokia is
>leaving the CDMA market, which is fine by me because I don't care for
>their phones anyhow - GSM or CDMA.
Nokia is leaving the CDMA 2000 market (not the WCDMA market) because "it
sees [it] as a shrinking market in the longer term".
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Todd Allcock 2006-10-20, 4:33 am |
| At 20 Oct 2006 00:22:08 +0000 John Navas wrote:
> Nokia is leaving the CDMA 2000 market (not the WCDMA market) because "it
> sees [it] as a shrinking market in the longer term".
I'll take "What is Nokia's Official Corporate Excuse for Total Failure in
the CDMA Market?" for $1000, Alex...
Seriously, we're talking about Nokia, who'll pump out 6 different
versions of the same phone for a carrier with an 8% market share in Outer
Mongolia, yet Verizon and Sprint, controlling over half the US market are
too small a market for them? The same manufacture who designed and
produced a one-shot GAIT phone for a single client (Cingular), and
designed and built a new TDMA handset (the 3560) while both major US TDMA
carriers were in the midst of their conversion to GSM?
Nokia has yet to produce a single CDMA handset with any innovation- just
low-end CDMA knockoffs of their low-end GSM (and TDMA) phones. I
certainly don't blame them for bailing on CDMA, but it has nothing to do
with "long term shrinking markets."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Diamond Dave 2006-10-20, 7:33 am |
| On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 00:09:41 -0600, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>Nokia has yet to produce a single CDMA handset with any innovation- just
>low-end CDMA knockoffs of their low-end GSM (and TDMA) phones. I
>certainly don't blame them for bailing on CDMA, but it has nothing to do
>with "long term shrinking markets."
Nokia has never done well in the American market. I used to have a
Nokia phone back in the AMPS days. A lousy phone. I never used then
when I went to GSM and later to CDMA. Went to Motorola and never
looked back.
Dave
| |
| Nessnet 2006-10-20, 3:33 pm |
| There is a bottom line here.
Nokia sold shit CDMA devices. The market reacted by not buying them.
Nokia decided to get out because they were not selling anything.
Basic business.
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message news:ii5gj297q74b6jg
tg05hq2t1t62fdkmqp0@
4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:02:43 -0400, Diamond Dave
> <dmine45.NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in
> < rtpfj21isj3olvalggh7
ctu4590ci6i8jj@4ax.com>:
>
>
> Nokia is leaving the CDMA 2000 market (not the WCDMA market) because "it
> sees [it] as a shrinking market in the longer term".
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Todd Allcock 2006-10-20, 3:33 pm |
| At 20 Oct 2006 05:49:09 -0400 Diamond Dave wrote:
> Nokia has never done well in the American market.
If by "done well" you mean you never liked their phones, I'll accept that.
However, in terms of sales, Nokia ruled the US for virtually all of the
1990s and the first couple years of this century, finally
losing it to Motorola a year or two ago.
> I used to have a
> Nokia phone back in the AMPS days. A lousy phone. I never used then
> when I went to GSM and later to CDMA. Went to Motorola and never
> looked back.
>
> Dave
Really. I was the opposite. Almost every phone I've owned has been a
Nokia- three AMPS, five TDMA, and three GSM. I tried a Moto StarTac, and
an Ericsson flip back in the TDMA days, and always went back to Nokia.
My favorite phone ever (considering the day and age it was around) was
the Nokia 8290. Six years ago I had a phone that was still small by
today's standards, wighed nothing, had good receptionand even rudimentary
data connectivity. It's still my "hostile environment" phone- the phone
I take places I'd never take my current, far more fragile PDA phone phone
(the beach, for example.)
My current phone is an HTC Windows Mobile-based PPC. I think Nokia has
lost it recently, as if they're trying to make their phones look as
"wild" as possible instead of ergonomically useful. I assume it's a
variant of the "if you throw enough s**t at the wall..." theory- if they
release 20 goofy looking phones a year, one of them HAS to "click" with
the public and become the next RAZR, right? ;-)
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| George 2006-10-20, 3:33 pm |
| Nessnet wrote:
> There is a bottom line here.
>
> Nokia sold shit CDMA devices. The market reacted by not buying them.
> Nokia decided to get out because they were not selling anything.
>
> Basic business.
It was more than that. They couldn't get their CDMA designs past the
carriers acceptance testing. The few that did get thru then fell into
the worst performer category as you described.
>
> "John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message news:ii5gj297q74b6jg
tg05hq2t1t62fdkmqp0@
4ax.com...
>
>
| |
| Michael Wise 2006-10-21, 4:33 am |
| In article < ii5gj297q74b6jgtg05h
q2t1t62fdkmqp0@4ax.com>,
John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
> Nokia is leaving the CDMA 2000 market (not the WCDMA market) because "it
> sees [it] as a shrinking market in the longer term".
Great, then why bother such continued cross-postings to
alt.cellular.verizon? Its OT for the n.g.
--Mike
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2006-10-21, 10:33 pm |
| On 2006-10-20, Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 20 Oct 2006 00:22:08 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>
> I'll take "What is Nokia's Official Corporate Excuse for Total Failure in
> the CDMA Market?" for $1000, Alex...
>
> Seriously, we're talking about Nokia, who'll pump out 6 different
> versions of the same phone for a carrier with an 8% market share in Outer
> Mongolia, yet Verizon and Sprint, controlling over half the US market are
> too small a market for them? The same manufacture who designed and
> produced a one-shot GAIT phone for a single client (Cingular), and
> designed and built a new TDMA handset (the 3560) while both major US TDMA
> carriers were in the midst of their conversion to GSM?
I think Nokia's problem with CDMA is that they don't like Qualcomm, or
at least paying licensing fees to Qualcomm. I seem to remember Nokia
and Qualcomm involved in litigation over some of Qualcomm's CDMA patents
a few years ago, and Nokia is the only company I know which has managed to
develop IS-95/CDMA2000 mobile phones without the use of Qualcomm chips or
cores (to minimize the use of licensed Qualcomm intellectual property).
I think the latter is actually quite an admirable achievement, though
it is unfortunate that none of their CDMA phones actually worked
very well.
It is the case that, while the USA managed to bully CDMA2000 through
the ITU as a second 3G phone international "standard", IS-95/CDMA2000 is
actually the proprietary technology of a single company to an extent
that makes GSM and WCDMA (which have their own IPR problems) look quite
free and open, relatively speaking. I guess Nokia decided they could
make a good living by dominating the bigger portion of the market without
having to make Qualcomm rich at the same time, and took the opportunity
to do so.
Note that (to make clear my biases) I think CDMA2000 is superior
technology, in both principle and practice, but the one-company ownership
of the technology bugs me a bit. I guess it bugged Nokia more.
> Nokia has yet to produce a single CDMA handset with any innovation- just
> low-end CDMA knockoffs of their low-end GSM (and TDMA) phones. I
> certainly don't blame them for bailing on CDMA, but it has nothing to do
> with "long term shrinking markets."
Actually I think at a technical level Nokia's CDMA handsets were exceedingly
innovative compared to everything else's since, unlike everyone else, they
managed to build them from scratch without use of Qualcomm silicon or
cores. The phones just didn't work all that well.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
| Todd Allcock 2006-10-22, 4:33 am |
| At 21 Oct 2006 21:40:58 +0000 Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> I think the latter is actually quite an admirable achievement, though
> it is unfortunate that none of their CDMA phones actually worked
> very well.
I agree completely. It might be a more interesting wireless world today
if Nokia had managed to pull off a decent Qualcomm-less CDMA chip.
> I guess Nokia decided they could
> make a good living by dominating the bigger portion of the market
without
> having to make Qualcomm rich at the same time, and took the opportunity
> to do so.
I agree again. I really wasn't knocking Nokia's technical prowess as
much as ridiculing their excuse that they're getting out of CDMA because
it's a losing market share. Not wanting to license someone else's
technology is a perfectly valid reason not to play in CDMA. They don't
need a marketing excuse!
>
> Note that (to make clear my biases) I think CDMA2000 is superior
> technology, in both principle and practice, but the one-company
ownership
> of the technology bugs me a bit. I guess it bugged Nokia more.
Agreed. I think CDMA is superior in many ways, but from _my_ end user
standpoint, the ability to change phones without involving my carrier,
and select phones from outside of my carrier's official (and often
"crippled" offerings trumps the technology advantages of CDMA. (This, of
course, is not a technology limitation, just the business decisions of
Sprint and Verizon.)
just[color=darkred]
do[color=darkred]
>
> Actually I think at a technical level Nokia's CDMA handsets were
exceedingly
> innovative compared to everything else's since, unlike everyone else,
they
> managed to build them from scratch without use of Qualcomm silicon or
> cores. The phones just didn't work all that well.
You are correct- I was really talking about feature sets rather than
innovation "under the hood." There was nothing compelling in any Nokia
CDMA handset's features that would make customers buy them in enough
numbers to justify Nokia investing more into perfecting their CDMA
chipsets. The world has enough low-end CDMA candy-bar phones to need one
that doesn't work as well, and there are plenty of GSM carriers in the
world to keep Nokia busy building phones that don't enrich Qualcomm.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> I agree again. I really wasn't knocking Nokia's technical prowess as
> much as ridiculing their excuse that they're getting out of CDMA because
> it's a losing market share. Not wanting to license someone else's
> technology is a perfectly valid reason not to play in CDMA. They don't
> need a marketing excuse!
Especially since CDMA is actually gaining market share. CDMA has more
subscribers than any other technology in the U.S., and is increasing its
market share in other countries around the world. Of course outside of
the U.S., except for Korea, increasing your market share is easy when
you are starting from almost nothing. Still, China is expanding CDMA
like crazy, and it still isn't clear what's going to happen in India.
| |
|
| Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> It is the case that, while the USA managed to bully CDMA2000 through
> the ITU as a second 3G phone international "standard", IS-95/CDMA2000 is
> actually the proprietary technology of a single company to an extent
> that makes GSM and WCDMA (which have their own IPR problems) look quite
> free and open, relatively speaking.
Well GSM anyway. W-CDMA is still CDMA, and Qualcomm still gets royalties.
CDMA was the perfect technology for the U.S., where spectrum efficiency
was of paramount importance, and where the longer range of CDMA made it
more suitable for eventual replacement of rural AMPS. This is why CDMA
continues to be the dominant technology in the U.S. and why it continues
to gain market share (though with Sprint's declining fortunes, I think
that CDMA's market share will begin to stabilize and not keep going up).
It has less advantages in densely populated countries, such as most of
Western Europe, where spectrum was not as limited, and where longer
range is not as much of an issue.
But yes, Nokia, and other phone manufacturers despise Qualcomm, much as
memory manufacturers despise Rambus. In Qualcomm's case, their patents
are ironclad, unlike Rambus's patents.
| |
| John Navas 2006-10-27, 4:33 am |
| On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 13:42:00 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 453bad68$0$88635$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>
>Especially since CDMA is actually gaining market share. CDMA has more
>subscribers than any other technology in the U.S., and is increasing its
>market share in other countries around the world. Of course outside of
>the U.S., except for Korea, increasing your market share is easy when
>you are starting from almost nothing. Still, China is expanding CDMA
>like crazy, and it still isn't clear what's going to happen in India.
Total nonsense.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-10-27, 4:33 am |
| On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 13:55:32 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 453bb094$0$88663$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
>
>Well GSM anyway. W-CDMA is still CDMA, and Qualcomm still gets royalties.
Not true, as I've explained previously.
>CDMA was the perfect technology for the U.S., where spectrum efficiency
>was of paramount importance, and where the longer range of CDMA made it
>more suitable for eventual replacement of rural AMPS. This is why CDMA
>continues to be the dominant technology in the U.S. and why it continues
>to gain market share (though with Sprint's declining fortunes, I think
>that CDMA's market share will begin to stabilize and not keep going up).
Not true.
>It has less advantages in densely populated countries, such as most of
>Western Europe, where spectrum was not as limited, and where longer
>range is not as much of an issue.
>
>But yes, Nokia, and other phone manufacturers despise Qualcomm, much as
>memory manufacturers despise Rambus. In Qualcomm's case, their patents
>are ironclad, unlike Rambus's patents.
Not true.
0 for 3.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| for those of us new to cell phones, could someone define CDMA2000 and
WCDMA?
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:ii5gj297q74b6jg
tg05hq2t1t62fdkmqp0@
4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:02:43 -0400, Diamond Dave
> <dmine45.NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in
> < rtpfj21isj3olvalggh7
ctu4590ci6i8jj@4ax.com>:
>
>
> Nokia is leaving the CDMA 2000 market (not the WCDMA market) because "it
> sees [it] as a shrinking market in the longer term".
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
|
|
|
| news.verizon.net 2006-10-27, 10:33 pm |
| From what I've seen, you explain nothing.
As I see it 0 for 0 - and alot of BS....
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message news:q0i3k2hogj0gnrt
ulcmhsu13alhmof04j3@
4ax.com...
>
> Not true, as I've explained previously.
>
> Not true.
>
> Not true.
>
> 0 for 3.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Scott 2006-10-27, 10:33 pm |
| John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:c0i3k2de6fqh9vp
oi1ch60f0aqa29bck3k@
4ax.com:
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 13:42:00 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in < 453bad68$0$88635$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
> Total nonsense.
>
Prove it.
| |
|
| Diamond Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:25:34 GMT, John Navas
> < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
> I guess you'd care if you had a GSM phone on a GSM carrier. Nokia is
> leaving the CDMA market, which is fine by me because I don't care for
> their phones anyhow - GSM or CDMA.
Nokia is far behind Motorola in the U.S. market, due to their almost
total lack of CDMA phones. Since CDMA is the leading technology in the
U.S., with more subscribers than GSM, it really makes Nokia's goal of
being number one in the U.S. a fantasy. They really are going to have to
re-enter the CDMA market at some point, as CDMA continues to expand in
growing markets like China.
| |
|
| George wrote:
> Nessnet wrote:
>
> It was more than that. They couldn't get their CDMA designs past the
> carriers acceptance testing. The few that did get thru then fell into
> the worst performer category as you described.
However the bowling game is better than the Motorola games.
| |
| John Navas 2006-11-02, 4:33 am |
| On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 21:19:55 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45497ffe$0$88681$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Diamond Dave wrote:
>
>Nokia is far behind Motorola in the U.S. market,
Yes.
>due to their almost
>total lack of CDMA phones.
No. The real factor, as confirmed by authoritative sources, is the
RAZR, which has been phenomenally successful in the USA.
>Since CDMA is the leading technology in the
>U.S., with more subscribers than GSM, it really makes Nokia's goal of
>being number one in the U.S. a fantasy.
Nokia is actually abandoning CDMA2000 (not "CMDA") because it's a
"shrinking" market, focusing instead on the growing market, W-CDMA
(UMTS/HSDPA), a major blow to Qualcomm. Sprint's decision to move to
WiMAX is another major blow to Qualcomm and CDMA2000.
>They really are going to have to
>re-enter the CDMA market at some point, as CDMA continues to expand in
>growing markets like China.
Wishful thinking.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2006-11-04, 10:33 pm |
| On 2006-11-02, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Diamond Dave wrote:
>
> Nokia is far behind Motorola in the U.S. market, due to their almost
> total lack of CDMA phones. Since CDMA is the leading technology in the
> U.S., with more subscribers than GSM, it really makes Nokia's goal of
> being number one in the U.S. a fantasy. They really are going to have to
> re-enter the CDMA market at some point, as CDMA continues to expand in
> growing markets like China.
Bad example "growing market", maybe:
http://www.mwjournal.com/News/article.asp?HH_ID=AR_3476
"[In China] Market reports show revenue from CDMA service fell 1.3 percent
during the first half of 2006 and that profit margin was down 3.3 percent"
Poor China Unicom got stuck with their CDMA network, in addition to
GSM, as part of negotiations (with guess who?) for China's entry into
the WTO. Unicom's CDMA subscriber base is growing at less than half
the rate for Unicom's GSM, and (according to the Hong Kong newspaper)
Unicom is losing overall market share to China Mobile at a fair clip.
I like CDMA just fine, but it is worth keeping the respective sizes
of the worldwide markets in perspective. China alone has 20% more GSM
subscribers than CDG estimates of CDMA2000 subscribers in the
entire world.
Dennis Ferguson
|
|
|
|
|