Support NeoGAF

[tino]

How much of that revenue would Nokia catch?

30% or whatever if Nokia is building their own market on top of Android, which is what those companies are doing now.

Think MS will let you build a third party store in WP7? Nop.

 

[Firestorm]

How much is the contract on a monthly basis?

Doesn't work like it does in Europe. Same price regardless of plan as long as you get voice and data. My plan after heavy negotiation costs $33 a month while my brother's after negotiation costs $75.

 

[itxaka]

See, Nokia gets a pass from me cause they made the fucking Matrix phone but I haven't used one of their handsets in years just because their idea of what a mobile OS should be is so completely disconnected from what my vision of handheld computing is.

It's just that they didn't understand the smartphone approach. The basic OS they still use for basic phones is incredibly good. Fast, reliable (I have never in my life seen a nokia phone get blocked) and easy to know. Once you played with a Nokia phone you already knew all of them.

Then they jumped on the smartphones and forgot about everything that made Nokia UI/OS so good in the first time. Latest Nokia I had was an N73 and it was horrible (Still got it, hard as a rock) Slow, strange UI, disconnected actions, got locked several times, hanged.

 

[SRG01]

What's funny is I went with the iPhone 3G over the N95 in 2008 because the iPhone was considerably cheaper (on my upgrade it was $250 for the iPhone 3G vs $450 for the N95).

A possible issue for Nokia:
http://communities-dominate.blogs.c...et-share-crash-dive-i-may-have-an-answer.html

Only read what's found under the header "A HOUSE OF CARDS". It's really long-winded and that's all you gotta skim.

I don't really agree with this article, namely because it doesn't address the issue of Nokia in emerging markets, where it is being displaced by cheaper Indian/Chinese manufacturers.

Not to mention that most phones in those locations are unsubsidized too.

 

[numble]

That's not how you make money. You make money by selling something for more than it costs you to make.

Nokia already has the volume. They sell a lot of phones. What it doesn't have is control or access to a functioning ecosystem for application and other media sales. Microsoft has that. Microsoft will make its money from Marketplace sales and Bing ads. I think Nokia wants a slice of that. Microsoft gains volume, Nokia gains revenue straight to the bottom line.

The ecosystem doesn't make much money. It doesn't even make much money for Apple:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20008540-37.html

Just like they don't make much money on iTunes music and video, which you can Google if you want.

 

[Riddick]

I had the misfortune of using a Nokia N8 the other day. Hardware wise it was a fine device, but man, the OS was a piece of shit. I could not figure out what the fuck was happening most of the time.

Every time I've heard someone try and defend the thing the first feature they mention is the camera, as if it's the most important bit. The owner of the phone said he's lucky to get half a day usage out of it. Amazing, I'll take two.

Your post is full of misinformation. N8's battery actually lasts a lot and is comparable if not better to other smartphones. And like I mentioned earlier like Symbian seems too complicated for some, Android and WP7 seem too simple for others. Europeans seem to prefer the complicated Symbian actually. Symbian ^3 is a perfectly good OS but I can't say the same for S60 v5. Admittedly Nokia dropped the ball during the transition to touch screen phones for a while.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Dose anybody have any charts showing Nokia's marketshare in Europe?

Also Windows Mobile 7 is doing bad? If I were a bit more of an asshole and a low life I'd be making many people eat some nasty crow right now.

 

[LCfiner]

Dose anybody have any charts showing Nokia's marketshare in Europe?

Also Windows Mobile 7 is doing bad? If I were a bit more of an asshole and a low life I'd be making many people eat some nasty crow right now.

MS has not given numbers for sales of WP7, so the assumption is that sell through to customers is not very hot. and, to be honest, this surprises me. Either the stigma of WM6.5 is worse than I thought or, even at this early stage, people are already locked into iOS or Android.

 

[Kamakazie!]

MS has not given numbers for sales of WP7, so the assumption is that sell through to customers is not very hot. and, to be honest, this surprises me. Either the stigma of WM6.5 is worse than I thought or, even at this early stage, people are already locked into iOS or Android.

People just don't know about it.
Most people even know what Android is (or have heard of it) but really outside of people who know at least a little about tech. all they talk about is iPhone this, iPad that. Mainly because everyone else does rather than an intimate knowledge of the advantages or disadvantages.

 

[tfur]

This could be the true beginning of the end of Nokia.

If this happens: I would not be surprised if in less than 3 years this new CEO steps down, Nokia stock plummets, and Microsoft and others end up bidding on Nokia for patents.

Microsoft deals seem to more often end up destroying companies, rather than boosting companies.

 

[ep85]

People just don't know about it.
Most people even know what Android is (or have heard of it) but really outside of people who know at least a little about tech. all they talk about is iPhone this, iPad that. Mainly because everyone else does rather than an intimate knowledge of the advantages or disadvantages.

Microsoft paid a load of money on advertising WP7, so I don't think people don't know about WP7. I'm sick and tired of companies telling me, you don't want to be this type of person so here's our device that will make you the right type of person. Just show me what the device does and how it improves usability. No need to put a certain group of users down with competitor's devices just to prove your point.

 

[Firestorm]

MS has not given numbers for sales of WP7, so the assumption is that sell through to customers is not very hot. and, to be honest, this surprises me. Either the stigma of WM6.5 is worse than I thought or, even at this early stage, people are already locked into iOS or Android.

I think it's because people don't buy for the OS. They buy for the cool hardware. WP7 does not have a flagship with that wow factor and marketing. Nokia could provide that much like Motorola did. It's just that unlike the Droid, they don't have a large iPhone-less carrier to fund the campaign so it'll have to be Microsoft.

I agree with analysts that it may be too late for Nolia to join the Android game. The cons don't outweigh their pros at this point.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

MS has not given numbers for sales of WP7, so the assumption is that sell through to customers is not very hot. and, to be honest, this surprises me. Either the stigma of WM6.5 is worse than I thought or, even at this early stage, people are already locked into iOS or Android.

What's to be surprised about? As it's been demonstrated countless times in the electronic industry there is a very specific time frame to when a company has to launch to have the potential to become a big player in the market. This is solely due to the fact that while the consumers may be willing to switch to a different operating system, hardware manufacturers and developers aren't. Markets often end in stardardization or oligopoly because that is what the hardware manufacturers and developers, "middlemen" as I tend to refer to them, prefer because it is much more easier and convient.

Yes Windows Mobile 7 was is an impressive OS, but it was too little too late. Android had proved its worth and there was already a tidal wave of hardware manufactures and developers either on board or on the final stretch to be. Unless Windows Mobile 7 was going to rewrite the mobile OS like the iPhone did in 2007, it didn't have a chance.

To me this has always been incredibly obvious. I'm sure you remember me stating this in previous threads prior to it launching. By that point the mobile OS war had already begun, the Android and iArmy were marching into battle. And unless Microsoft had an ace up their sleeve they were going to be miles behind.

I think it's because people don't buy for the OS. They buy for the cool hardware.

People buy for both.

Plus, the whole "WP7 is the phone that saves you from your phone" thing really isn't all that compelling. People like playing with their phones.

They never made any sense because it's relatively fast to do most things on your smartphone.

Want to surf the web? Just go to the home screen and click on Browser or Safari.
Want to make a call? Just go to your contacts/recent calls and click on the name.
Want to email someone? Just go to the homescreen and click on Gmail.

Nobody needs saving from what's already good.

For such a huge company Microsoft has a very shitty marketing department outside of their Xbox division (which even then is usually mediocre).

 

[dream]

Plus, the whole "WP7 is the phone that saves you from your phone" thing really isn't all that compelling. People like playing with their phones.

 

[Burger]

Your post is full of misinformation. N8's battery actually lasts a lot and is comparable if not better to other smartphones. And like I mentioned earlier like Symbian seems too complicated for some, Android and WP7 seem too simple for others. Europeans seem to prefer the complicated Symbian actually. Symbian ^3 is a perfectly good OS but I can't say the same for S60 v5. Admittedly Nokia dropped the ball during the transition to touch screen phones for a while.

My post was opinion and observation. Live with it.

 

[LCfiner]

What's to be surprised about? As it's been demonstrated countless times in the electronic industry there is a very specific time frame to when a company has to launch to have the potential to become a big player in the market. This is solely due to the fact that while the consumers may be willing to switch to a different operating system, hardware manufacturers and developers aren't. Markets often end in stardardization or oligopoly because that is what the hardware manufacturers and developers, "middlemen" as I tend to refer to them, prefer because it is much more easier and convient.

I guess I don't believe that marketshare and the future of the biggest computing platform for the next 20 years has been decided after only 4 years (based on the iphone launch).

heck, smartphones existed long before Apple came on the market and they changed everything. they changed the public perception of the smartphone, the common design of the smartphone, and they changed the actual profit share in the market.

You could easily look at Nokia's POV in 2007 and think that it was "too late" for Apple to make any difference.

Essentially, I don't think it's too late for marketshare for iOS, Android and WP7 (even WebOS, to a degree) to change radically in the next 5 or 10 years. the majority of people still don't own smartphones.

 

[itxaka]

I think it's because people don't buy for the OS. They buy for the cool hardware. WP7 does not have a flagship with that wow factor and marketing. Nokia could provide that much like Motorola did. It's just that unlike the Droid, they don't have a large iPhone-less carrier to fund the campaign so it'll have to be Microsoft.

I agree with analysts that it may be too late for Nolia to join the Android game. The cons don't outweigh their pros at this point.

Only a 26% of people buy handsets for the cool factor(Netsize Guide to mobile business 2010)

 

[bionic77]

MS has not given numbers for sales of WP7, so the assumption is that sell through to customers is not very hot. and, to be honest, this surprises me. Either the stigma of WM6.5 is worse than I thought or, even at this early stage, people are already locked into iOS or Android.

As bad as Windows Mobile was I don't think that is holding people back because so few people actually used Windows Mobile (luckily for MS). I feel like most business people actually jumped on the smartphone bandwagon with Blackberry and then consumers actually started getting them after the iPhone (and no Android, WebOS, etc.).

Windows Mobile could actually do a lot, but man it was so fucking buggy and it was the least user friendly mobile OS (ever?).

 

[jagowar]

I guess I don't believe that marketshare and the future of the biggest computing platform for the next 20 years has been decided after only 4 years (based on the iphone launch).

heck, smartphones existed long before Apple came on the market and they changed everything. they changed the public perception of the smartphone, the common design of the smartphone, and they changed the actual profit share in the market.

You could easily look at Nokia's POV in 2007 and think that it was "too late" for Apple to make any difference.

Essentially, I don't think it's too late for marketshare for iOS, Android and WP7 (even WebOS, to a degree) to change radically in the next 5 or 10 years. the majority of people still don't own smartphones.

I agree with you about it being the beginning of the race for smartphones..... that has been the company line from ms when it comes to this question but I think wp7 has a real chance to succeed..... maybe not on the level of android or ios but they can be very successful selling 8-10 million units a year.

What wp7 needs to do is innovate in a few key areas compared to what everbody else is doing..... think zunepass for music (get some marketing out there so people know what the hell it is and why its great) and the area that has more potential than anything else in wp7 is xbox live. If they can be the first to multiplayer gaming "right" they can catch right up with anybody. They already have really good email and office and once they do some updating for security they will have a very strong corp message.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

I guess I don't believe that marketshare and the future of the biggest computing platform for the next 20 years has been decided after only 4 years (based on the iphone launch).

History has shown it usually is. Once products reach a certain point in mainstream adoption its really hard for things to turn around or have a new competitor enter the ring. The only way for that to happen is for somebody to introduce a revolutionary device, one of the competitors screw up something that contributes to their core success very badly, or both.

heck, smartphones existed long before Apple came on the market and they changed everything. they changed the public perception of the smartphone, the common design of the smartphone, and they changed the actual profit share in the market.

Yes, which is why I strongly stated in my post that Apple succeeded due to them completely changing the game, something Windows Phone 7 clearly wasn't going to do.

You could easily look at Nokia's POV in 2007 and think that it was "too late" for Apple to make any difference.

The iPhone was quite possibly the most revolutionary device of the previous decade. It literally changed everything in the smartphone mobile market. Windows Phone 7 may be a step forward, but it isn't something that is going to have waves of people flockign toward it.

Essentially, I don't think it's too late for marketshare for iOS, Android and WP7 (even WebOS, to a degree) to change radically in the next 5 or 10 years. the majority of people still don't own smartphones.

I never said it was impossible. What I implied was impossible is for a competitor to launch a mobile OS that is nothing more but an alternative that adds very little to the table to expect mass success.

If Windows Mobile 7 was touted by using the mobile devices as convergence devices, such as having a dock to plug into a mouse and monitor to use a full Windows OS, or was being touted by having a tablet OS that was truely designed ground up for tablet use and not simply a mobile phone OS streched out for a bigger screen than I could have gave Microsoft the benefit of the doubt. But it wasn't. Windows Mobile 7 was simply an alternative smartphone OS, it did nothing new and added very little to the table. Markets like these are morphed and conquered by pioneers and fresh experiences, not by mee-toos and superior alternatives.

 

[bionic77]

I disagree that MS is too late to the game. We are only 4 years into the consumer smartphone wars (post iPhone). A lot can (and will) happen over the next 10 years.

Like someone said before, it was really hard to imagine Nokia falling this far and this fast 4 years ago, I don't see why the same thing can't happen to Apple (especially with Steve Jobs failing health) or Google or any of the mobile companies.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

I disagree that MS is too late to the game. We are only 4 years into the consumer smartphone wars (post iPhone). A lot can (and will) happen over the next 10 years.

Like someone said before, it was really hard to imagine Nokia falling this far and this fast 4 years ago, I don't see why the same thing can't happen to Apple (especially with Steve Jobs failing health) or Google or any of the mobile companies.

Again I am not saying that the consumer mobile wars won't change (they will). What I am saying is that such changes don't occur due to alternatives, but more so revolutions. The Playstation didn't dominate its era due to it being an alternative console with a CD medium, but because it revolutionized the development and marketing process for gaming.Microsoft didn't get so much success because they built an OS that was an alternative to Amiga OS and Mac OS, but because it was so focused on working with multiple manufacturers instead of just a handful or going about by their own. The iPhone didn't find success because it was a phone with an Apple sticker on the back, but because it completely from the ground up changed how people interacted with their mobile devices. Microsoft was simply trying to imitate what Google did with Andriod in the smartphone market and they simply arrived too late to be seen as a competitor as WM7 didn't offer anything substantial over Android.

Yes the OS wars aren't over, and yes things will change, but we've come past the point with the 3rd generation mobile market where simply being an alternative won't result in a pot of gold.

 

[Kano on the Phone]

This could be the true beginning of the end of Nokia.

If this happens: I would not be surprised if in less than 3 years this new CEO steps down, Nokia stock plummets, and Microsoft and others end up bidding on Nokia for patents.

Microsoft deals seem to more often end up destroying companies, rather than boosting companies.

The beginning of the end of Nokia was when Steve Jobs thought "hey, let's make a phone that isn't garbage". This is just the death rattle of a company that stopped being relevant when they made you talk into the side of your phone.

I disagree that MS is too late to the game. We are only 4 years into the consumer smartphone wars (post iPhone). A lot can (and will) happen over the next 10 years.

Like someone said before, it was really hard to imagine Nokia falling this far and this fast 4 years ago, I don't see why the same thing can't happen to Apple (especially with Steve Jobs failing health) or Google or any of the mobile companies.

It isn't possible as long as every other mobile company has this "us too" strategy to take on Apple. Microsoft has come the closest to actually offering a newish alternative and even that is only viable in the same sense that the Zune is viable. It works, it's there, it's different, but why would most people bother?

 

[VanMardigan]

The beginning of the end of Nokia was when Steve Jobs thought "hey, let's make a phone that isn't garbage".

We are all confident they'll get the "not garbage PHONE" part right with the fifth iteration. Even after taking a step backwards with the 4.

 

[Kano on the Phone]

We are all confident they'll get the "not garbage PHONE" part right with the fifth iteration. Even after taking a step backwards with the 4.

 

[Burger]

We are all confident they'll get the "not garbage PHONE" part right with the fifth iteration. Even after taking a step backwards with the 4.

Lol u mad.

 

[Vanillalite]

 

[VanMardigan]

I mad....I guess?

Though I'll probably be wrong since the Verizon 4 might actually git er done in terms of a not shit phone experience on iPhone.

 

[Firestorm]

If the Xbox proved one thing, it's that Microsoft has enough money to break into whatever the hell they want. Apple and Google are Nintendo and Sony. Nokia is Sega.

 

[Kano on the Phone]

If the Xbox proved one thing, it's that Microsoft has enough money to break into whatever the hell they want. Apple and Google are Nintendo and Sony. Nokia is Sega.

As soon as Microsoft announces their Angry Birds 2 exclusivity and the Zune significantly bites into iPod sales, that analogy can stop being stupid.

 

[Firestorm]

As soon as Microsoft announces their Angry Birds 2 exclusivity and the Zune significantly bites into iPod sales, that analogy can stop being stupid.

Because the Xbox brand didn't take over 5 years to actually get somewhere. The point is they have enough money to be in it for the long haul.

 

[numble]

If the Xbox proved one thing, it's that Microsoft has enough money to break into whatever the hell they want. Apple and Google are Nintendo and Sony. Nokia is Sega.

Unless they manufacture and sell the phones themselves, they can't force themselves into the market. If the phones don't sell well, the manufacturers won't keep making them, when there is Google Android, with lower license fees (and the possibility of bundling in your own app stores) available.

The manufacturers do not have the huge profits behind them to take a loss on every phone sale like Microsoft could do with the XBox. Some are in the negative or barely breaking even.

 

[KtSlime]

Because the Xbox brand didn't take over 5 years to actually get somewhere. The point is they have enough money to be in it for the long haul.

The Xbox is where it is because they innovated with Xbox Live. Sony copied - and so they are behind.

If they want WP7 to succeed they need a serious innovation - it's that simple.

(disclaimer: I have a PS3 and no 360)

 

[dream]

Because the Xbox brand didn't take over 5 years to actually get somewhere. The point is they have enough money to be in it for the long haul.

Yeah, but Microsoft also has a history of prematurely throwing the towel in. Like the Courier concept and Windows 7 "slates" and, shit, even the Kin.

 

[Lagspike_exe]

Nokia is like GM. Everyone would laugh if somebody said they would start getting behind 5 years ago. Fifty years from now, they're be lucky to be alive. Considering how big Nokia is in Finland, government subsidies may keep them alive. Their issue is the philosophy. Until they resolve this (and this is the hardest thing to resolve) they'll be the followers, not the leaders.

 

[Fatalah]

Oh God, gaming-GAF please remain on your side of the aisle.

 

[Nemo]

Nokia is like GM. Everyone would laugh if somebody said they would start getting behind 5 years ago. Fifty years from now, they're be lucky to be alive. Considering how big Nokia is in Finland, government subsidies may keep them alive. Their issue is the philosophy. Until they resolve this (and this is the hardest thing to resolve) they'll be the followers, not the leaders.

What's their philosophy right now?

 

[Burger]

Yeah, but Microsoft also has a history of prematurely throwing the towel in. Like the Courier concept and Windows 7 "slates" and, shit, even the Kin.

Lol courier. It was a pipe dream, it had no operating system, only some broad concept. Face it, the Microsoft of today would never have been able to get that project off the ground. They can't even get a single update for their new phone platform out the door.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

It isn't possible as long as every other mobile company has this "us too" strategy to take on Apple. Microsoft has come the closest to actually offering a newish alternative and even that is only viable in the same sense that the Zune is viable. It works, it's there, it's different, but why would most people bother?

And this is why every phone company that tries to make "an iPhone killer" fails. You can't kill the iPhone because you are simply building upon what the iPhone has already built. If you want to kill the iPhone you have to raise the same trumphcard Apple used, which is don't make a product that's cutting edge now, make a product that would be cutting edge five or even ten years from now. Go into the uncharted territories of the market and place your bets of what people in the future will want and bring them to todays market. Unforunately there is no Nintendo of the mobile market so this idiotic mentality is likely here to stay.

If the Xbox proved one thing, it's that Microsoft has enough money to break into whatever the hell they want. Apple and Google are Nintendo and Sony. Nokia is Sega.

No it doesn't at all. The Xbox launched in a given time frame when launching a console that was viewed as an alternative was still highly viable (hence why it launched right alongside the Gamecube), Windows Phone 7 didn't.

And Nokia is SEGA? What the hell are you talking about?

How is a company that imploded on itself due to xenophobia and stubborness similar to Nokia?

Because the Xbox brand didn't take over 5 years to actually get somewhere.

Because it didn't.

The Xbox is where it is because they innovated with Xbox Live. Sony copied - and so they are behind.

If they want WP7 to succeed they need a serious innovation - it's that simple.

(disclaimer: I have a PS3 and no 360)

The Xbox is where it is at because Sony fucked up gargantually with the Playstation 3. The ball was placed firmly in Sony's hands but they decided to throw it across the court to jerk off and Microsoft picked the ball up for the rebound.

I really don't think many people remember just how much of a monster the Playstation 3 seemed in 2005. The tidal wave of support behind it wasn't comparable to anything we have now (not even the 3DS). It wasn't until E3 2006 that $599 and a bunch of other stupid crap was revealed that developers decided to go multiplat. Every game decided to jump on both boats except Metal Gear Solid 4.

 

[Kano on the Phone]

The Xbox is where it is because they innovated with Xbox Live. Sony copied - and so they are behind.

If they want WP7 to succeed they need a serious innovation - it's that simple.

(disclaimer: I have a PS3 and no 360)

This is exactly why the 360 is where it is and the Zune is where it is.

 

[Lagspike_exe]

What's their philosophy right now?

Conservative, believing the design concepts that worked in the past will work in the future. The revelation that they can't keep a platform alive alone has just hit them. The Microsoft deal is a desperate attempt to keep the smart phone market.

In the same way GM lost the low-tier sales to Japanese companies, Nokia will suffer from Chinese and Indian companies. And since they can't keep up in the mid and high tier, nor have the available marketing or the nationalism of a large share of the market to keep the sales alive, they'll suffer more and more.

Let's see how they'll enter the MS deal and if MS actually makes a big effort to stabilize their market share. It's an interesting approach. While their competitors are doing Android UI ports, or even applying the pure OS, Nokia will have a uniqueness factor at their side.

 

[Firestorm]

Yeah, but Microsoft also has a history of prematurely throwing the towel in. Like the Courier concept and Windows 7 "slates" and, shit, even the Kin.

Microsoft can't throw in the towel with Mobile. Smartphones are the future. Xbox had the money because they wanted to expand into the living room. Unless Microsoft wants to be a non-player in what will be where the majority of consumer computing takes place (especially with things like the Atrix Dock idea), they will put their resources behind Windows Phone.

And I'm including subsidizing hardware manufacturers with that.

No it doesn't at all. The Xbox launched in a given time frame when launching a console that was viewed as an alternative was still highly viable (hence why it launched right alongside the Gamecube), Windows Phone 7 didn't.

And Nokia is SEGA? What the hell are you talking about?

How is a company that imploded on itself due to xenophobia and stubborness similar to Nokia?

Because it didn't.

Nintendo and Sony were very established vs this newcomer. Nokia, much like Sega, has gone from having one of the dominant platforms in the world to being jokes. In different ways (as Nokia still has quite a bit of share outside NA but making little money), but the writing is on the wall for them. They were trading at <$10 before this Microsoft rumour became strong.

The Xbox brand had been completely unprofitable until well into the 360s life. It wasn't even close to a competitor in the PS2 era barely beating out the GCN.

 

[dream]

Microsoft can't throw in the towel with Mobile. Smartphones are the future. Xbox had the money because they wanted to expand into the living room. Unless Microsoft wants to be a non-player in what will be where the majority of consumer computing takes place (especially with things like the Atrix Dock idea), they will put their resources behind Windows Phone.

And I'm including subsidizing hardware manufacturers with that.

Right, but I'm not convinced their roadmap really includes WP7 anymore. Microsoft refusing to put WP7 on tablets raises a huge red flag for me.

Deep down I think they're just biding their time until mobile hardware is capable of running Windows.

 

[Lagspike_exe]

Right, but I'm not convinced their roadmap really includes WP7 anymore. Microsoft refusing to put WP7 on tablets raises a huge red flag for me.

Deep down I think they're just biding their time until mobile hardware is capable of running Windows.

Mobile hardware running Windows? That turned out great last time.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Microsoft can't throw in the towel with Mobile. Smartphones are the future. Xbox had the money because they wanted to expand into the living room. Unless Microsoft wants to be a non-player in what will be where the majority of consumer computing takes place (especially with things like the Atrix Dock idea), they will put their resources behind Windows Phone.

And I'm including subsidizing hardware manufacturers with that.

Microsoft will have to be insane to throw in the towel. There's still the mobile phones -> desktop docking idea that they will have a tremendous leg up on due to them owning the Windows OS. It isn't too late for Microsoft, just for Windows Phone 7's current philosophy.

If you want my opinion. I say that it would be best if Microsoft jumped on the near future Generation 4 mobile device which involves mobile devices completely replacing tradtional computers (like how I demonstrated above).

Nintendo and Sony were very established vs this newcomer. Nokia, much like Sega, has gone from having one of the dominant platforms in the world to being jokes. In different ways (as Nokia still has quite a bit of share outside NA but making little money), but the writing is on the wall for them. They were trading at <$10 before this Microsoft rumour became strong.

You're comparing apples to oranges. The gaming market works incredibly differently than nearly every consumer market out there. Unlike the computer market or mobile market, the gaming market goes through a reset every five years or so. This leaves competitors to do a lot of right things and a lot of wrong things. The Xbox 360's success is mostly contributed due to Sony astronomically fucking things up with the PS3. I'm sure there are at least some people who remember how the system had a tidal wave of support only for it to be dwindled to drops thanks to incredibly idiotic decisions.

As for Nokia = SEGA I can see the comparison, but yes they reached their positions due to very different reasons. Nokia is dwindling away due to remaining static in a quickly evolving marketplace. SEGA dwindled due to an incredibly jealous and sadastic Japanese branch doing everything it could to make hell for the much more intelligent and in-the-tune with market North American branch.

The Xbox brand had been completely unprofitable until well into the 360s life. It wasn't even close to a competitor in the PS2 era barely beating out the GCN.

The Xbox project still has a long ways to being profitable. It was only just recently that they hit the iron on the head with Kinect. I guess I'll wait and see how permenant this is.

Though this is all pointless as the Xbox was meant to dominate the living room, clearly it isn't doing that nor is it making the bucks Microsoft thought it would be making.

 

[infinityBCRT]

MS has not given numbers for sales of WP7, so the assumption is that sell through to customers is not very hot. and, to be honest, this surprises me. Either the stigma of WM6.5 is worse than I thought or, even at this early stage, people are already locked into iOS or Android.

I think Paul Thurrott mentioned it was about 1/5th of Android handsets.

edit: Here is the article and its actually much less than that.

http://www.winsupersite.com/article/wininfo/Windows-Phone-More-than-2-Million-Units-Sold.aspx

This week, Microsoft revealed that it has sold more than 2 million units of its Windows Phone 7 OS to hardware makers—a significant increase over the 1.5 million figure that the company supplied December 21. This figure represents sales through the end of 2010 and doesn't include sales from this month.

Although the 2 million figure is solid enough, it pales in comparison with the market leaders. Google claims that it's activating more than 300,000 Android devices every day, and Apple activated 180,000 iPhones every day in the fourth quarter of 2010, based on its reported quarter sales figures. If Microsoft sold 2 million Windows Phone OS units to its partners in the last quarter, the daily activation figure works out to just north of 22,000 units per day.

Of course, as critics are quick to point out, Microsoft measures sales a bit differently than its competitors do. That is, Microsoft counts sales when they're made, to its hardware partners. What Apple and Google are counting is activations, which represent sales to consumers.

Windows Phone Senior Product Manager Greg Sullivan explained to the press this week that there's a reason for this: Microsoft's hardware and wireless partners have "no contractual obligation" to supply the software giant with actual sales figures to individuals (or "activations"). But as I explained previously, Microsoft's method of reporting sales is still accurate and appropriate, since this is the point where Microsoft does register a sale of its OS anyway. But Sullivan added, "We have a high degree of confidence in the precision of the sell-in numbers, which is why that's what we're providing." In other words, Microsoft is providing a number that it knows is very accurate, and it does represent how well Windows Phone is doing in the market.

OK, so Windows Phone is hardly keeping pace with the market leaders, but then it's a new, untested platform..

 

[Karma]

History has shown it usually is. Once products reach a certain point in mainstream adoption its really hard for things to turn around or have a new competitor enter the ring. The only way for that to happen is for somebody to introduce a revolutionary device, one of the competitors screw up something that contributes to their core success very badly, or both.

Great but smartphones have not reached mainstream adoption yet. 80% of the phone market are still using dumb phones. Saying too little to late is just silly.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Great but smartphones have not reached mainstream adoption yet. 80% of the phone market are still using dumb phones. Saying too little to late is just silly.

Read my other posts.

 

[Fatalah]

Report: Nokia to move to Silicon Valley, abandon Finnish HQ

Presumably finnished?

 

[markot]

Except its not a HQ in silicon valley its an R&D centre >.< Nokia share holders wouldnt be too keen on abandoning Finland as a base, not to mention, moving to the US to try and capture the market there is a stupid move...