Canalys worldwide smartphone figures for Q3 are in

with Apple being the big overall winner, up from 4% to 17%, thanks to the initial surge when the iPhone 3G was launched

...and will Apple be the big overall loser when the surge goes back down again? Every time that happens people just dismiss it, so they ought to dismiss it going up as well.

I don't think we should be comparing Apple's quarter-by-quarter sales with other manufactureres because Apple only releases one model a year. Their sales fluctuate wildly when looked at on such a small scale, which isn't fair on other manufacturers and isn't fair on Apple either as it's not their fault if people decide to buy models near their release date.

A much fairer comparison is year-by-year, which evens these fluctuations out, though obviously journalists aren't going to enjoy that because it cuts down the number of articles they can write about it.

It's a bit like car number plates in the UK, sales of cars in Britain used to go waaaaaaaay up near the time of the new number plates so people could show off having a new car, then dip right down in the period before the new plates. People didn't particularly want to buy new cars at that time of year, they just wanted the new plates, and when the government started spreading new plate releases throughout the year the car sales spread out too.

Until Apple start releasing several models a year, I don't think they really belong in these quarter-by-quarter comparisons.

I echo you Tzer2

Tzer2 wrote:
Until Apple start releasing several models a year, I don't think they really belong in these quarter-by-quarter comparisons.

What a peculiar notion, I must say. Both Nokia's and Apple's product strategies are what they are because both companies think they can make the most money and/or get the most market share that way. The execution is their strategies result in sales figures, which can be compared to each other. That's how one measures the success of these strategies.

What the figures here say is that Nokia and other Symbian-using manufacturers are losing a lot of sales. The market has grown by more than 8 million devices compared to the same quarter a year ago. But in this growing market Nokia has managed to sell half a million devices less, and the other manufacturers sold 2.3 million devices less. It is not they are growing slower than the competition, they are starting to shrink.

I have been waiting to hear what AAS had to say about the numbers, because they are quite shocking.

After 6 months of hearing Windows Mobile is dying/ dead already, I found it interesting that Symbian dropped more than 20% in market share and 12%in actual sales volume over the last 12 months, whereas WM sales, as small as they are, have kept up quite well with the market and actually gained market share.

Even if you look Quarter to Quarter, Symbian sales have been flat, with only 1% growth over the 6 months, when the market actually went up by 23%.

Is this why Nokia is making Symbian open source? Is it an act from a position of weakness rather than strength?

Surur

svdwal wrote:
But in this growing market Nokia has managed to sell half a million devices less, and the other manufacturers sold 2.3 million devices less. It is not they are growing slower than the competition, they are starting to shrink.

Indeed.

This is the thing that should really scare Nokia.

It is worth noting that the drop in market share for Nokia is not so much due to selling less phones (half a million difference), but rather its competition selling more. Neither of these are good news for Nokia. The significant portion of the Symbian's drop is due to a slow down / decline in sales in the Japanese market (and this itself is to do with regulatory changes / subsidy changes and of course the economy is factor too).

But yes these number do reflect the growing competition in the open mobile platform space. You can obviously spin this several ways e.g. Nokia being 'smashed by competition' through 'Nokia faces declines in face of competition' to 'Nokia still dominates market'.

On the one hand a decline for Nokia is inevitable as competition comes into the market (same goes for Symbian). Its not like Apple / Google etc aren't going to enter the market at all. On the other hand Nokia's lack of growth is more worrying (its not going to have the same percentages obviously as it starts from a bigger base, but you would hope for +ve movement)... that said I think Canalys opinion on the future is spot on (based on stuff like the 5800 and what else is coming). You can also make these number much more +ve for Nokia if you take out the US market. Its rivals have good sales in the USA where Nokia has very few. This also hold for developing markets too.

Also rather interesting to see the relative absence of Linux despite predictions over the past 5+ years.

surur - I don't think you can draw too much from 6 months of figures - it is to liable to spikes. Be that iPhone 3G release or a weaker portfolio for Nokia in the first half of the year. I've never though that Windows Mobile is on its way out - its in a good position - moreover I expect it to do well next year due to a number of reasons.

BTW I think the most impressive performance here is RIM. I had rather written them off a year ago as a serious player in the future.

Well however you look at it - monthly, quarterly, yearly.... apple is still doing pretty well for a company that only recently entered the mobile phone market. You should respect that what your personal views are.

Absolutely they've done a great job. I think the debate now is really around what role they'll play in the future. Will they look to launch multiple products and can they do that sucessfully? To what extent?

Personally I think they'll do well in the high end (especially in the US), but will struggle elsewhere. i.e. a sort of boutique type approach when looking at the macro level. Plenty of devices / money in that boutique level though! This sort of matches what Apple has done in the PC space. That style / elegance / attitude led approach to product is sort of in the Apple DNA. You know the quasi-elitism / status associated with owning an Apple product.

I guess an addendum to that is how serious a player you can be in the mobile space and its service led future with a limited number of devices in your portfolio / desite to own the experience end to end? i.e. stuff around services and openness...

Are the big future three: Microsoft, Google and
Nokia? Should we include Samsung, RIM, Sony Ericsson and Apple in that?

Rafe wrote:Absolutely they've done a great job. I think the debate now is really around what role they'll play in the future. Will they look to launch multiple products and can they do that sucessfully? To what extent?

Personally I think they'll do well in the high end (especially in the US), but will struggle elsewhere. i.e. a sort of boutique type approach when looking at the macro level. Plenty of devices / money in that boutique level though! This sort of matches what Apple has done in the PC space. That style / elegance / attitude led approach to product is sort of in the Apple DNA. You know the quasi-elitism / status associated with owning an Apple product.

Then there's the marketing. There are lots and lots of books and booklets about the iPod and iPhone, but ther's just one for Symbian smartphones (and that's a very geeky one). This gives the impression that iPods are not only cool, but also useful.

I guess an addendum to that is how serious a player you can be in the mobile space and its service led future with a limited number of devices in your portfolio / desite to own the experience end to end? i.e. stuff around services and openness...

Openness is a bit of a red herring. Being able to write the app you want has its advantages, but if nobody is paying money for it, what's the point? I'd rather write apps that users want. Compared to the PC and web worlds, the different smartphone worlds are closed, the difference between them are the number of locks on the doors. ATM, Symbian is not the one with the least number of locks, or the easiest to obtain keys.

Services. Well, we have all seen what happened with people's saving money in the cloudy bit that was called Icesave.

Are the big future three: Microsoft, Google and
Nokia? Should we include Samsung, RIM, Sony Ericsson and Apple in that?

My list would be Nokia, Apple, RIM. Smartphones only.

Those are fair comments by Rafe.

I would be very surprised to see Apple being a major player in the phone market mainly due to the fact that their products are generally high end. If you look at the world wide mp3 player market I am sure that Apple only has a small market share - remember that there are thousands of cheap mp3 players available.

I guess Apple may be able to produce a nano type phone...

I wonder if Nokia will be able to produce a phone that has the impact of the iPhone? Seems to me that most of their top end devices are fairly mediocre - the N96 is a classic example of this - poor processor and terrible software and the only exciting feature - TV is of limited use (due to the fact that most countries dont have the correct infrastructure). Infact when you think about it Apple is doing much better at producing high end devices in a new market for them whereas Nokia is struggling in a market they use to dominate.

I hope Nokia will reverse this change! I used to love their devices and competition is good for the end user. I think the problem for high devices is that the market is relatively small and that Nokia, possibly wisely, might be aiming for volume sales and this is not the high end market - looks like the 5800 touch is a solid device and will hopefully sell well. That said Apple does well in desktop and laptop sales and sometimes makes devices that capture cult status (and good volume sales) like the iPod.

Is the best business strategy to offer the cheapest or the best? Who knows! But I know what I prefer.

Don't forget their immensely succesful iPod range. I don't agree with you about the elitist bit being the sole factor. Apple products are also very easy to use, and they do not depreciate in value as quickly as most other products.

Then there's the marketing. There are lots and lots of books and booklets about the iPod and iPhone, but ther's just one for Symbian smartphones (and that's a very geeky one). This gives the impression that iPods are not only cool, but also useful.

Yes good point about the iPod range and if I wasn't clear I don't think 'elitism' is the only factor. But a lot of the success can be tied to this - e.g. high resale value is because of high perceived value due to coolness.

Ease of use. Agree - I think that's where Apple's competitors could learn a lot )out of the box experience etc.). Incidentally I actually think Nokia has got quite close in the music departme. At the same time Apple also limits functionality to achieve this simplicity and I wonder whether this is a good long term strategy.

Why is it that a large number of device models is seen as the road to mobile succes? Lots of devices also mean that it is very easy to make the wrong choice as a consumer. Not all Nokia devices are succesfull, most of them are not.

Indeed this isn't the only possible strategy, but as a minimum you need a range of models at different prices. Nokia's approach does mean that some products are duds, but absolute success is difficult to measure. If you compare Nokia to other mobile manufacturers its profit margins (i.e. money it makes on each device) are far higher - a good indicator of success. The same is true of Apple, but its obviously easier to achieve a good margin on a high end product than a low end one.

Openness is a bit of a red herring. Being able to write the app you want has its advantages, but if nobody is paying money for it, what's the point? I'd rather write apps that users want. Compared to the PC and web worlds, the different smartphone worlds are closed, the difference between them are the number of locks on the doors. ATM, Symbian is not the one with the least number of locks, or the easiest to obtain keys.

Here I think ecosystem openness is just as important as the actual platform itself. i.e. Apple want to control the experience end to end (e.g. relationship with operators). Nokia has very different strategy - it enables it devices to use many services and it own Ovi strategy calls for a platform approach to third party services with API's etc (though we've not seen much implementation of this yet). I think this different in ecosystem strategy (control versus enabling) is a critical factor for the future. You can make argument as to which is better both ways.

Services. Well, we have all seen what happened with people's saving money in the cloudy bit that was called Icesave.

Nice try, but I still think services are the future - though I do agree that the cloud has its own set of problems that have yet to fully solved. Hence the hybrid approach works best (e.g. maps on the devices and available in the cloud).

My list would be Nokia, Apple, RIM. Smartphones only.

Interesting. No place for Microsoft or Google? BTW I think Linux phones are likely o be there, but will be runnign service from the ones mentioned above.

With the exit of Motorola and SE, the market share of Symbian based smartphones will continue to drop in the future. I believe more handset manufacturers will drop Symbian in favour of Android as long as Google continues to stay out of handset manufacturing business.

Rafe wrote:
Indeed this isn't the only possible strategy, but as a minimum you need a range of models at different prices. Nokia's approach does mean that some products are duds, but absolute success is difficult to measure. If you compare Nokia to other mobile manufacturers its profit margins (i.e. money it makes on each device) are far higher - a good indicator of success. The same is true of Apple, but its obviously easier to achieve a good margin on a high end product than a low end one.

Here I think ecosystem openness is just as important as the actual platform itself. i.e. Apple want to control the experience end to end (e.g. relationship with operators). Nokia has very different strategy - it enables it devices to use many services and it own Ovi strategy calls for a platform approach to third party services with API's etc (though we've not seen much implementation of this yet). I think this different in ecosystem strategy (control versus enabling) is a critical factor for the future. You can make argument as to which is better both ways.

Nokia needs to make sure developers can make that kind of money on their platform too. When that has happened, openness becomes a discussion point.

Nice try, but I still think services are the future - though I do agree that the cloud has its own set of problems that have yet to fully solved. Hence the hybrid approach works best (e.g. maps on the devices and available in the cloud).

More generally speaking, the whole cloud idea is to my mind too much of a technology push and not enough of a consumer pull. Even with all the issues soved, there's no guarantuee normal people (early mayority in marketing speak) are going to store their stuff in the cloud.

Interesting. No place for Microsoft or Google? BTW I think Linux phones are likely o be there, but will be runnign service from the ones mentioned above.