> It amazes me how behind this company is compared to other firms that
> entered this realm of phones.  They're so desperate for business that
> knowing full well they can't compete they decide to sue Apple.  What
> they are missing is the entrepreneuring spirit and innovative drive
> and I dont eer see thefinns mastering that....it's almost something
> that you have to born with .... the stock is a loser like the company.

> It amazes me how behind this company is compared to other firms that
> entered this realm of phones.  They're so desperate for business that
> knowing full well they can't compete they decide to sue Apple.  What
> they are missing is the entrepreneuring spirit and innovative drive
> and I dont eer see thefinns mastering that....it's almost something
> that you have to born with .... the stock is a loser like the company.

> Yes, Nokia should have evolved quicker and anticipated this era of
> mobile computers better (and so should Microsoft have). But they
> started as late as 2006 to start to become a real software company.

> Now, to compare this with Apple wichis is a very old software company
> isn´t really fair. Apple could transport their OSX onto a mobile
> device and they built also on past inventions like the iPod, Newton
> etc, and it wasn´t all that difficult to make a very good SDK (they
> already had one in place), and an app store via their existing iTunes
> store. And of course they had a lot of iPod customers that was
> familiar with Apple and so naturally wanted to buy an iPhone that was
> also an iPod. Apple did a brilliant acheivement with their multi-touch
> and user interface designed for a mobile device, and they also made
> really good strategic decisions, though.

> The other mobile companies you compare Nokia with, has built upon
> Google´s Android. Google of course is a major software company that
> has built up the Android (based on work done by others) since 2005. To
> then call Nokia unentrepreneurial or uninnovative isn´t really fair,
> in particular because they do a lot now, hiring people actually from
> the likes of Apple and Google, and we will see some major
> breakthroughs in 1-2 years; improved user-interfaces, SDK, building on
> Qt etc. And beyond that even more interesting things can happen (i.e.:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX-gTobCJHs)

> The N900 isn´t really intended to be a mass market phone to compete
> with iPhone etc, it is more like a trial until the next generation
> comes out in 1-2 years. I believe this upcoming device(s) will be a
> viable iPhone competitor. Also, I should say that neither Apple nor
> Google has done particularly much over the past 2 years (there´s not
> much new to the iPhone), Nokia has done more during that time. While
> Symbian and to some extent Maemo is still lagging, they both have some
> advantages over iPhoneOS because they are built for speed and battery
> performance etc, so developing on top of this fundament may have some
> advantages, rather than trying to transform a sophisticated OS like
> Apple´s onto a mobile device (they have done some great improvements
> in their last release though).

> But these high end-smartphones are only a small part of the market,
> Nokia is much more than that, and they are strongly positioned in
> emerging markets where most of the future growth of the world will
> happen. A lot of people there actually like their Nokia devices and
> would want to upgrade to higher-end Nokia´s over time. On the other
> hand Apple get 60% of its profit from the US, and when the US consumer
> has been living beyond his means for several years (via the government
> ´s money printing and borrowing), he will have to live beneath his
> means eventually in the future (via inflation or higher taxes). This
> will mean less profit (in real terms) for companies like Apple.

> Finally, the performance of a company and its share price may not be
> all that related. A really crappy company can be a great investment if
> priced low enough, while a formidable company with tremendous future
> prospects etc can be a miserable investment if priced with P/E´s of >
> 30. Nokia now trading 70% below its all time high,  while Apple
> trading so close to its all time high, I think the former makes a
> better investment, if you see beyond the immediate future. Actually I
> happen to believe that Apple stock will reach or has already reached
> its zenith this year, and would never return to these levels again
> (inflationary adjusted), as the sky high expectations will not be met
> with their earnings release in January.

> On Nov 6, 10:46 am, ll <r2k...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> > It amazes me how behind this company is compared to other firms that
> > entered this realm of phones.  They're so desperate for business that
> > knowing full well they can't compete they decide to sue Apple.  What
> > they are missing is the entrepreneuring spirit and innovative drive
> > and I dont eer see thefinns mastering that....it's almost something
> > that you have to born with .... the stock is a loser like the company.- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

> It amazes me how behind this company is compared to other firms that
> entered this realm of phones.  They're so desperate for business that
> knowing full well they can't compete they decide to sue Apple.  What
> they are missing is the entrepreneuring spirit and innovative drive
> and I dont eer see thefinns mastering that....it's almost something
> that you have to born with .... the stock is a loser like the company.

<igotssharesinnoobishn...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Well this is an ADR forum so it's quite US focussed.   ...All I will
> say is that Nokia ruled the whole European phone market in the way
> that Motorola sometimes has done in US, and has a very similar
> customer loyalty going back a ways.   Nokia pretty much WERE the
> mobile phone market, at times over here.   As in which Nokia have you
> got?  Rather than which handset have you got?

> ...Yes of course iPhone was a game changer to all that.

> I am just reminding that we are not talking a two bit challenger here,
> but a company with an outstanding reputation and positive sentiment
> behind them - if they can get themselves together I have seen worse
> places to assault a market from.

> I don't know - possibly you see them as more of a late entrant with
> less worthy phones in States - but that is not who this company are.
> As someone said above - their cheaper phones are the most rock solid
> on the market and purchased in their millions upon millions.   Who is
> to say.   Maybe the iPhone killer is not a phone at all but a twinned
> netbook and a more basic looking Nokia that just makes calls and is
> small in your pocket, as a wifi feed so they feel like two halves of
> the same device.  ...Now there is thought.   I look at these little
> pucks they are doing now that create a local wifi hub network around a
> user and...!

> Yours fom the emerging market that is the UK

> Noobz

> On 8 Nov, 10:48, Jako <jako...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Yes, Nokia should have evolved quicker and anticipated this era of
> > mobile computers better (and so should Microsoft have). But they
> > started as late as 2006 to start to become a real software company.

> > Now, to compare this with Apple wichis is a very old software company
> > isn´t really fair. Apple could transport their OSX onto a mobile
> > device and they built also on past inventions like the iPod, Newton
> > etc, and it wasn´t all that difficult to make a very good SDK (they
> > already had one in place), and an app store via their existing iTunes
> > store. And of course they had a lot of iPod customers that was
> > familiar with Apple and so naturally wanted to buy an iPhone that was
> > also an iPod. Apple did a brilliant acheivement with their multi-touch
> > and user interface designed for a mobile device, and they also made
> > really good strategic decisions, though.

> > The other mobile companies you compare Nokia with, has built upon
> > Google´s Android. Google of course is a major software company that
> > has built up the Android (based on work done by others) since 2005. To
> > then call Nokia unentrepreneurial or uninnovative isn´t really fair,
> > in particular because they do a lot now, hiring people actually from
> > the likes of Apple and Google, and we will see some major
> > breakthroughs in 1-2 years; improved user-interfaces, SDK, building on
> > Qt etc. And beyond that even more interesting things can happen (i.e.:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX-gTobCJHs)

> > The N900 isn´t really intended to be a mass market phone to compete
> > with iPhone etc, it is more like a trial until the next generation
> > comes out in 1-2 years. I believe this upcoming device(s) will be a
> > viable iPhone competitor. Also, I should say that neither Apple nor
> > Google has done particularly much over the past 2 years (there´s not
> > much new to the iPhone), Nokia has done more during that time. While
> > Symbian and to some extent Maemo is still lagging, they both have some
> > advantages over iPhoneOS because they are built for speed and battery
> > performance etc, so developing on top of this fundament may have some
> > advantages, rather than trying to transform a sophisticated OS like
> > Apple´s onto a mobile device (they have done some great improvements
> > in their last release though).

> > But these high end-smartphones are only a small part of the market,
> > Nokia is much more than that, and they are strongly positioned in
> > emerging markets where most of the future growth of the world will
> > happen. A lot of people there actually like their Nokia devices and
> > would want to upgrade to higher-end Nokia´s over time. On the other
> > hand Apple get 60% of its profit from the US, and when the US consumer
> > has been living beyond his means for several years (via the government
> > ´s money printing and borrowing), he will have to live beneath his
> > means eventually in the future (via inflation or higher taxes). This
> > will mean less profit (in real terms) for companies like Apple.

> > Finally, the performance of a company and its share price may not be
> > all that related. A really crappy company can be a great investment if
> > priced low enough, while a formidable company with tremendous future
> > prospects etc can be a miserable investment if priced with P/E´s of >
> > 30. Nokia now trading 70% below its all time high,  while Apple
> > trading so close to its all time high, I think the former makes a
> > better investment, if you see beyond the immediate future. Actually I
> > happen to believe that Apple stock will reach or has already reached
> > its zenith this year, and would never return to these levels again
> > (inflationary adjusted), as the sky high expectations will not be

> I agree: maybe the "iPhone killer" will turn out to be something very
> different (for example more something like Nokia´s morph concept, cf
> the youtube video link above). I also think we should not forget the
> exponential pace of technological innovation, where new things at an
> increasingly rapid pace comes and goes - this was of course a reason
> why Apple´s iPhone could gain so much fame over such a short period of
> time in the first place, but the very same mechanism may also lead it
> to be eclipsed by something else sooner than one may think. Three
> years ago, Facebook had only a few million users, today they have more
> than 300 million active users and have of course long ago sailed past
> the then popular MySpace. Ten years ago very few used internet. New
> technologies can come out of nowhere and disturb the situation for
> existing companies. But I think Nokia knows more about the future
> trends than we give them credit for, and their huge investments into
> location based services for example, may turn out crucial, as well as
> research into everything from nanotechnology to mixed reality
> solutions (they even have set up a research lab in US cooperating with
> Hollywood, for example).

> Nokia executives have for many years talked about the "technological
> leaders" that embrace the new things which others later follow. This
> happened with the iPhone and so it will continue to gain more mass
> market appeal for some time despite something new coming out embraced
> by these very same leaders. But I guess the latter individuals are
> already starting to get tired of the iPhone, of Apple´s restrictions
> and so on, and are eagerly looking for something new to promote -
> Google´s Android may see increased popularity, but is also starting to
> get "old". It is Nokia´s intention to some extent with the n900 to
> appeal to these groups and also to open source communities (becoming
> increasingly more important as we go forward).

> And yet on the the other hand we have the regular person that may be
> completely satisfied with his (or her) Nokia device and need nothing
> more than to make phone calls, maybe have email and some basic
> functionality, like a good mapping service so he can download the
> citymap before going on vacation and so on, and on this vacation he
> would like a good camera on the phone to take pictures, and maybe a
> facebook app..., and he wouldn´t want this to be an enormous piece of
> hardware, just a small phone with a keypad... He was satisfied with
> his old Nokia so he then buys a Nokia also the next time because I
> guess that´s what humans are like.

> But we tend to forget this very big group and focus too much on Apple
> with its 10-20 million annual iPhone unit sales, affordable only to
> the few. Even iPod sales have now stagnated at about 50 million units
> per year. So these figures are rather miniscule compared to the over 1
> billion phones sold each year, of which Nokia sells 400 million -
> making in effect Nokia the world´s biggest provider of cameras and mp3-
> players. In the end very high market share is extremely important
> because among other things it brings down production cost. And brand
> loyalty is important, as is distribution channels, footprint/presence,
> cooperation with carriers etc. Nokia have it all in a large part of
> the world.

> I also think one should not underestimate the carriers role in all
> this, they have an enormous profit (probably as much as 20 times Apple
> ´s), and have much more control than we may realize. Apple has reaped
> a lot of profit partially through the subsidization from these
> carriers, but this is not a situation that can continue when the
> iPhone lose its "hype" factor or even increased unit sales. It is not
> a good business for these carriers to provide phones with wifi (so one
> can make calls via skype etc), so they may for example want instead to
> subsidize some of Nokia´s touchscreen phones without that, such as the
> 5230/5530 etc. And it is also good business for these companies to
> cooperate with Nokia on their Ovi stores to provide various software
> solutions and get part of the profit.

> In any event, in the case of Apple, one have to separate profit from
> unit sales, and that´s the important thing for the investor. Apple I´m
> sure could triple their iPhone unit sales, and yet get less profit
> than now, and this would also undoubtedly lead to further
> cannibalization of their iPod sales.

> Sorry, another post that ended up way too long...

> On Nov 9, 5:41 pm, IGotsSharesInNoobishness

> <igotssharesinnoobishn...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Well this is an ADR forum so it's quite US focussed.   ...All I will
> > say is that Nokia ruled the whole European phone market in the way
> > that Motorola sometimes has done in US, and has a very similar
> > customer loyalty going back a ways.   Nokia pretty much WERE the
> > mobile phone market, at times over here.   As in which Nokia have you
> > got?  Rather than which handset have you got?

> > ...Yes of course iPhone was a game changer to all that.

> > I am just reminding that we are not talking a two bit challenger here,
> > but a company with an outstanding reputation and positive sentiment
> > behind them - if they can get themselves together I have seen worse
> > places to assault a market from.

> > I don't know - possibly you see them as more of a late entrant with
> > less worthy phones in States - but that is not who this company are.
> > As someone said above - their cheaper phones are the most rock solid
> > on the market and purchased in their millions upon millions.   Who is
> > to say.   Maybe the iPhone killer is not a phone at all but a twinned
> > netbook and a more basic looking Nokia that just makes calls and is
> > small in your pocket, as a wifi feed so they feel like two halves of
> > the same device.  ...Now there is thought.   I look at these little
> > pucks they are doing now that create a local wifi hub network around a
> > user and...!

> > Yours fom the emerging market that is the UK

> > Noobz

> > On 8 Nov, 10:48, Jako <jako...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Yes, Nokia should have evolved quicker and anticipated this era of
> > > mobile computers better (and so should Microsoft have). But they
> > > started as late as 2006 to start to become a real software company.

> > > Now, to compare this with Apple wichis is a very old software company
> > > isn´t really fair. Apple could transport their OSX onto a mobile
> > > device and they built also on past inventions like the iPod, Newton
> > > etc, and it wasn´t all that difficult to make a very good SDK (they
> > > already had one in place), and an app store via their existing iTunes
> > > store. And of course they had a lot of iPod customers that was
> > > familiar with Apple and so naturally wanted to buy an iPhone that was
> > > also an iPod. Apple did a brilliant acheivement with their multi-touch
> > > and user interface designed for a mobile device, and they also made
> > > really good strategic decisions, though.

> > > The other mobile companies you compare Nokia with, has built upon
> > > Google´s Android. Google of course is a major software company that
> > > has built up the Android (based on work done by others) since 2005. To
> > > then call Nokia unentrepreneurial or uninnovative isn´t really fair,
> > > in particular because they do a lot now, hiring people actually from
> > > the likes of Apple and Google, and we will see some major
> > > breakthroughs in 1-2 years; improved user-interfaces, SDK, building on
> > > Qt etc. And beyond that even more interesting things can happen (i.e.:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX-gTobCJHs)

> > > The N900 isn´t really intended to be a mass market phone to compete
> > > with iPhone etc, it is more like a trial until the next generation
> > > comes out in 1-2 years. I believe this upcoming device(s) will be a
> > > viable iPhone competitor. Also, I should say that neither Apple nor
> > > Google has done particularly much over the past 2 years (there´s not
> > > much new to the iPhone), Nokia has done more during that time. While
> > > Symbian and to some extent Maemo is still lagging, they both have some
> > > advantages over iPhoneOS because they are built for speed and battery
> > > performance etc, so developing on top of this fundament may have some
> > > advantages, rather than trying to transform a sophisticated OS like
> > > Apple´s onto a mobile device (they have done some great improvements
> > > in their last release though).

> > > But these high end-smartphones are only a small part of the market,
> > > Nokia is much more than that, and they are strongly positioned in
> > > emerging markets where most of the future growth of the world will
> > > happen. A lot of people there actually like their Nokia devices and
> > > would want to upgrade to higher-end Nokia´s over time. On the other
> > > hand Apple get 60% of its profit from the US, and when the US consumer
> > > has been living beyond his means for several years (via the government
> > > ´s

> It amazes me how behind this company is compared to other firms that
> entered this realm of phones.  They're so desperate for business that
> knowing full well they can't compete they decide to sue Apple.  What
> they are missing is the entrepreneuring spirit and innovative drive
> and I dont eer see thefinns mastering that....it's almost something
> that you have to born with .... the stock is a loser like the company.

> It amazes me how behind this company is compared to other firms that
> entered this realm of phones.  They're so desperate for business that
> knowing full well they can't compete they decide to sue Apple.  What
> they are missing is the entrepreneuring spirit and innovative drive
> and I dont eer see thefinns mastering that....it's almost something
> that you have to born with .... the stock is a loser like the company.

> It amazes me how behind this company is compared to other firms that
> entered this realm of phones.  They're so desperate for business that
> knowing full well they can't compete they decide to sue Apple.  What
> they are missing is the entrepreneuring spirit and innovative drive
> and I dont eer see thefinns mastering that....it's almost something
> that you have to born with .... the stock is a loser like the company.