Unregistered (which ever one you are), thanks for the help.
Steve, Rafe, anyone (expect you, unregistered)?
More stats in: Symbian sales way up, share slightly down
The start of the inevitable pro-Nokia 'Unregistered' backlash?
Counting the days til EVERYONE has to be registered to post on AAS.
Duncan J Murray wrote:Slightly odd categories here.'linux' share went down, but 'android' went up?
????!!!
Android is built on Linux, but the exposed API is very different from what you would expect on Linux. Think Maemo, OpenMoko, and there are apparently some other Linux phones out there.
KPOM wrote:NWill Kindle ever come to Symbian? What about other more complex applications?
It's quite apparent who is from the other side of the pond.
I'm interested in Kindle application when Amazon starts to sell kindle content in my language, or even to the country where I live in.
I also sense that you don't really know what kind of applications there are for Symbian, or what is missing for that matter.
KPOM wrote:If they could sell phones for $500-600 (before subsidies) they would. It seems people just aren't willing to pay that kind of money for a Symbian phone.
Well they are, at least here in Europe.
I am always surprised by reactions to articles on these figures!
In February 2010, Canalys offers an analysis on "Worldwide Touch-Screen smart phones"!
(Http://www.canalys.com/pr/2010/r2010021.html)
Symbian's share: 1.5% (2008) to 29.5% (2009)
Symbian "Touch-Screen Smart Phone" in units sold rose to 4070.8%
At the same time, Apple loses market share: 37.8% to 33.1%
What's the next analysis, the smartphone market touchscreen with GPS, accelerometer, compass, with no customization, no true multi task, with a store over 50,000 applications including iad, and with a fruit logo on back ?
Argh... What would be Symbian's market share... ?
Sorry for using Google Translate, I didn't find Ovi Translate yet 😉
Thank's a lot, AAS !
Newton's Theory.
morpheus2702 wrote:That's a pretty tenuous series of connections you make. It could almost be called utter nonsense. In fact I'd say absolute bollocks.To use a metaphor, that going out to buy a Ferrari and coming back with Ford. Yes it could happen. But face it, the chances are damn low.
You think that buying a Ferrari makes you smarter?
I think that makes you someone pretentious who pays more for dream that for reality.
Is for you the value of people equivalent to his bank account? Yes ? So buy a Vertu...
The consumer does not care that Apple makes a profit, it's good for people who gets the money, not the one who pays??? What is that argument we can see everywhere???
With less presence on websites, magazines and mostly Operator, more people are buying Symbian, more...
I do not have Ferrari, I'm not American and I do not speak English very well, my vote counts as an American who has a Ferrari? Even if I was Chinese or Indian?
"Sorry for using Google Translate, I didn't find Ovi Translate yet
Thank's a lot, AAS !
Newton's Theory."
viipottaja wrote:So no one knows/has any hunch on what the Linux category contains?
It is probably things like LiMo phones and may well include some of the Japanese MOAP-L phones. Will try and find out the exact details.
[QUOTE=Newton'stheory;466339]You think that buying a Ferrari makes you smarter?
I think that makes you someone pretentious who pays more for dream that for reality.
Is for you the value of people equivalent to his bank account? Yes ? So buy a Vertu...
The consumer does not care that Apple makes a profit, it's good for people who gets the money, not the one who pays??? What is that argument we can see everywhere???
With less presence on websites, magazines and mostly Operator, more people are buying Symbian, more...
I do not have Ferrari, I'm not American and I do not speak English very well, my vote counts as an American who has a Ferrari? Even if I was Chinese or Indian?
"Sorry for using Google Translate, I didn't find Ovi Translate yet
Thank's a lot, AAS !
Newton's Theory."[/QUOTE]
Again a lot of assumptions are made here.
No, buying a Ferrari doesn't make you smarter in the same way that buying an iPhone doesn't make you smarter.
That was not the point I was making AT ALL. You could argue that buying a Ford (and using the metaphor, the 5230) is the smarter move since it is, in the real world, more practical day-to-day in the real world.
That 'argument' is one of personal taste and not absolute fact.
I understand that English is not your first language, however I don't drive a Ferrari, I don't have a Vertu and I don't judge someone by the size of their bank balance. Wankers come in all varieties rich or poor.
But to suggest that someone who has their heart set on buying a Nexus 1, HTC Desire or iPhone and actually ends up buying a 5230 (despite all the 'Pros' it may have) is rubbish and highly, highly unlikely.
Written not as a fanboy or apologist for ANY OS!!!
morpheus2702 wrote:I was expecting something a bit more Zen Grunter? Shame.
Why?
Don't know, just thought that 'weird' was a bit of a let-down reply wise. Maybe too relaxed to say anything else. 😊
morpheus2702 wrote:Again a lot of assumptions are made here.No, buying a Ferrari doesn't make you smarter in the same way that buying an iPhone doesn't make you smarter.
That was not the point I was making AT ALL. You could argue that buying a Ford (and using the metaphor, the 5230) is the smarter move since it is, in the real world, more practical day-to-day in the real world.
That 'argument' is one of personal taste and not absolute fact.
I understand that English is not your first language, however I don't drive a Ferrari, I don't have a Vertu and I don't judge someone by the size of their bank balance. Wankers come in all varieties rich or poor.
But to suggest that someone who has their heart set on buying a Nexus 1, HTC Desire or iPhone and actually ends up buying a 5230 (despite all the 'Pros' it may have) is rubbish and highly, highly unlikely.
Written not as a fanboy or apologist for ANY OS!!!
Are you disputing Ford's market share over Ferrari's? The figures are publishing market share and the cost of the phones does not weight these figures in favour of the expensive. Ford's share of the new car market is an order of magnitude greater than Ferrari, that's obvious.
So, why would you dispute the figures to suggest that Ford market share is illusory because they sell cheaper cars?
Why dispute that Nokia's market share is illusory because they sell cheaper phones? They sell cheaper phones because they can. The market share is an indication of how many smartphones are out there in the wild running Symbian. Great news, Symbian can run on low cost devices, well done Nokia.
morpheus2702 wrote:Don't know, just thought that 'weird' was a bit of a let-down reply wise. Maybe too relaxed to say anything else. 😊
Got better things to do thanks.
The Grunter wrote:Got better things to do thanks.
Verry happy for you. Hope the basket weaving is going well.
NotRegisted wrote:Are you disputing Ford's market share over Ferrari's? The figures are publishing market share and the cost of the phones does not weight these figures in favour of the expensive. Ford's share of the new car market is an order of magnitude greater than Ferrari, that's obvious.So, why would you dispute the figures to suggest that Ford market share is illusory because they sell cheaper cars?
Why dispute that Nokia's market share is illusory because they sell cheaper phones? They sell cheaper phones because they can. The market share is an indication of how many smartphones are out there in the wild running Symbian. Great news, Symbian can run on low cost devices, well done Nokia.
Am I disputing anything you've just posted?
Please point out where I am and I'll be happy to respond in kind.
Unregistered wrote:To all naysayers, put up all your white flags. It is time to give up. Nokia is trying to make phones for people of all walk of life whether you are a student or a investment banker. You all have been following the Iphone band wagon, you should just give up. Nokia makes products that works and that is very durable. At any rate, Nokia has proven their strategy works. That is the bottom line.
Take a look at their stock price over the last 4 years compared to Apple and Google, and you might come to a different conclusion.
NotRegisted wrote:So, why would you dispute the figures to suggest that Ford market share is illusory because they sell cheaper cars?
Why dispute that Nokia's market share is illusory because they sell cheaper phones? They sell cheaper phones because they can. The market share is an indication of how many smartphones are out there in the wild running Symbian. Great news, Symbian can run on low cost devices, well done Nokia.
They sell cheaper phones because that is their business model. That they also happen to run Symbian says more about Nokia's omnipresence than it does about Symbian's attractiveness as an OS. IOW, Nokia's popularity is propping up Symbian's market share. Symbian does not appear to be driving Nokia's popularity. Nokia probably could port Maps to S40, Android, or Bada (or anything else), put that on their phones, and sell just as many.
morpheus2702 wrote:
No, buying a Ferrari doesn't make you smarter in the same way that buying an iPhone doesn't make you smarter.I understand that English is not your first language, however I don't drive a Ferrari, I don't have a Vertu and I don't judge someone by the size of their bank balance. Wankers come in all varieties rich or poor.
morpheus2702 wrote:
Written not as a fanboy or apologist for ANY OS!!!
morpheus2702 wrote:
I think it would be interesting if the average unit price was also shown alongside each OS.I would expect Symbian sales to be up given the emphasis on the low/mid market handsets Nokia has been releasing over the past 9 months.
Figures that show share by volume tell one story, figures that show share by value tell quite another.
The "Wanker's" questions are
Why do we talk about Value ?
Why don't we talk about possibilities, people's choices or purchases ?
These figures give us the number of users, consumers (Each choice as the same level as the other). Why do we integrate "value", morpheus2702?
I'm confused, do we see any figures about the share by "value" of computer's market, of car's market, or of any other market? Wheat perhaps?
You teach great words, thank you morpheus2702! 😉 (Google translate refuse few translations)
"Sorry for using Google Translate, I didn't find Ovi Translate yet
Thank's a lot, AAS !
Newton's Theory."
Unregistered wrote:They sell cheaper phones because that is their business model. That they also happen to run Symbian says more about Nokia's omnipresence than it does about Symbian's attractiveness as an OS. IOW, Nokia's popularity is propping up Symbian's market share. Symbian does not appear to be driving Nokia's popularity. Nokia probably could port Maps to S40, Android, or Bada (or anything else), put that on their phones, and sell just as many.
Attractiveness of an OS without the price ? What does it mean ?
With an "if", any OS (and anything) could be attractive !
The only way to compare attractiveness is the number of real user !
And not the web propaganda of journalist, VIP, or Blogs...
"Sorry for using Google Translate, I didn't find Ovi Translate yet
Thank's a lot, AAS !
Newton's Theory."
hey Newton
I could teach you a few more words (and wankers was not aimed at you) but I wouldn't want to offend anyone's sensibilities as I am told I need to relax more. 😉
We talk about Value because it is something measurable, definite and objective. It gives you a greater idea about what is really happening in a market than volume alone. Though of not of particular relevance to the consumer, to those in an industry it is invaluable to know when making product decisions. Example: I work in Consumer Electronics and 10 years ago, VCR volumes were ten times those of DVD players. Yet the value of those VCR players was only around 50% that the total of the DVD players. What was the right market to be in?
We do talk about possibilities, people's choices and purchases all the time here and they are often a damn sight more interesting than facts and figures.
For the majority of industries people work in, there is market data available for it which includes 'value' as one of the most important pieces of information available. Granted it won't be much to the consumer - they know how much a device is, but collective not the total value of everyone who has bought the same device.
Pre-market trading shows NOK at another 52wk low. What are they seeing? Please don't answer manipulations and short-selling. When a stock is healthy, Longs rule. Millions of NOK shares exchange hands every day, if the Outlook is so rosy, then why are the sellers winning. NOK keeps smashing through every support level.
Rafe, thanks! What I also wondered is where Maemo is categorized. I gather could also be in Linur or else in Other?
Morpheus
Google didn't help me,... but wikip�dia give me a great (3D like) picture (Interested by a search ?)
morpheus2702 wrote:
We talk about Value because it is something measurable, definite and objective. It gives you a greater idea about what is really happening in a market than volume alone.
I understand your argument. But, ... I don't agree...
OK for DVD's...
But... what about PC's beginning...
There are many facts and figures that can explain evolution.
Market share in value is an illusion, so does profits reported (do not include investment, they are only accounting entries) and any other figures taken separately.
It only permits to increase reputation. "N�1 by value !" 😃 is better than N�3. 😞
The best selling OS is the one who sells the most units.
Since when do we talk about Smartphone market in value ? 2008/2009, don't we ? Why not before ? Why then ?
Unregistered wrote:
Wall Street obviously sees things differently.
Pre-market trading shows NOK at another 52wk low. What are they seeing? Please don't answer manipulations and short-selling. When a stock is healthy, Longs rule. Millions of NOK shares exchange hands every day, if the Outlook is so rosy, then why are the sellers winning. NOK keeps smashing through every support level.
By definition, trading isn't real. It's only hope and fear.
what influances traders?
Image and reputation (seen by whom?)
"Sorry for using Google Translate, I didn't find Ovi Translate yet
Thank's a lot, AAS !
Newton's Theory."
Agreed that 'best selling' means 'most units sold' but when you mention 'trading is an illusion' then it gets too metaphysical for me. 😊
[QUOTE=Newton'stheory;466367]Attractiveness of an OS without the price ? What does it mean ?
With an "if", any OS (and anything) could be attractive !
The only way to compare attractiveness is the number of real user !
And not the web propaganda of journalist, VIP, or Blogs...
[/QUOTE]
What I mean is whether someone is purchasing a phone because it has the Symbian OS. People who buy a Nokia 5263 or a 5800XM are buying a phone that happens to run Symbian, but would they be just as likely to buy it if it were running S40, Bada, Android, or even WinMo and were priced identically?
A big part of the draw of the iPhone is the operating system. That's why people are willing to pay $200-300 plus sign a long-term contract with AT&T (which has a bad reputation in the US) in order to get one. If it were running Symbian or even Android, I doubt very seriously iPhone buyers would still consider it. That's what I mean by whether the OS is attractive.
If Symbian is so popular, then why aren't developers writing for it in droves like they are for iPhone and Android? If it is so attractive, then why aren't more manufacturers choosing it for their phones? HTC, which produces a range of phones for multiple operating systems (WinMo and Android) does not make Symbian phones. If running Symbian would draw people to their products, they likely would. However, apparently HTC thinks other OSes are more attractive.
Maybe things will change with Symbian^3 or Symbian^4, but in my opinion, people are buying phones like the N97mini, 5263, and 5800XM in spite of Symbian^1, not because of it.
[QUOTE=Newton'stheory;466363]
I'm confused, do we see any figures about the share by "value" of computer's market, of car's market, or of any other market? Wheat perhaps?
[/QUOTE]
Absolutely. We don't judge BMW against the same standards as we do Ford or VW. We judge BMW against Daimler and other luxury brands, even though a Ford Focus or VW Golf may have a comparable engine and transmission.
Unregistered wrote:
What I mean is whether someone is purchasing a phone because it has the Symbian OS. People who buy a Nokia 5263 or a 5800XM are buying a phone that happens to run Symbian, but would they be just as likely to buy it if it were running S40, Bada, Android, or even WinMo and were priced identically?
I wouldn't ! Who say that, What is your source ?
A big part of the draw of the iPhone is the operating system. That's why people are willing to pay $200-300 plus sign a long-term contract with AT&T (which has a bad reputation in the US) in order to get one. If it were running Symbian or even Android, I doubt very seriously iPhone buyers would still consider it. That's what I mean by whether the OS is attractive.
I wouldn't ! I've another point of view. "Apple is so trendy, I wanna be one of them!" or "such a design!" "And Steve is so coool!!!"
Is the OS so attractive, or is it only a temporary trend. (before Andro�d...and after RIM, like in video Clips)
If Symbian is so popular, then why aren't developers writing for it in droves like they are for iPhone and Android? If it is so attractive, then why aren't more manufacturers choosing it for their phones? HTC, which produces a range of phones for multiple operating systems (WinMo and Android) does not make Symbian phones. If running Symbian would draw people to their products, they likely would. However, apparently HTC thinks other OSes are more attractive.
Attractive for professional ? Perhaps Apple's soul is branding, control and money. That is really attractive for developpers to make money, isn't it ! Manufacturers ? 1 OS and how many manufacturers (during construction of the foundation) SonyEricsson, Fujitsu, Nokia, Samsung, Sharp...
Maybe things will change with Symbian^3 or Symbian^4, but in my opinion, people are buying phones like the N97mini, 5263, and 5800XM in spite of Symbian^1, not because of it.
In your opinion, yes.
In my opinion, people are buying phones like the N97mini and 5800XM because of widgets, because of familiarity, because of real multitasking, because of real connectivity, because of Flash, because of Symbian family...
I understand your feeling, but many peoples who don't speak loud are not agree with these frequents remarks. 😉
"Sorry for using Google Translate, I didn't find Ovi Translate yet
Thank's a lot, AAS !
Newton's Theory."
Unregistered wrote:Absolutely. We don't judge BMW against the same standards as we do Ford or VW. We judge BMW against Daimler and other luxury brands, even though a Ford Focus or VW Golf may have a comparable engine and transmission.
I'm very interested in these figures...
Where could I find BMW's share in value in the market of luxury brands...
"Sorry for using Google Translate, I didn't find Ovi Translate yet
Newton's Theory."
[QUOTE=Newton'stheory;466433]I wouldn't ! Who say that, What is your source ?
Is the OS so attractive, or is it only a temporary trend. (before Andro�d...and after RIM, like in video Clips) [/QUOTE]
Yes, it is attractive. Apple correctly saw the appeal of capacitive touchscreens, mobile browsing, and mobile apps, and put together the first OS that made it easy for the masses to figure out. Sure other operating systems could do almost everything that the iPhone OS could, but not as easily. The web stats (which iPhone dominates) indicates that people actually use the functionality in the iPhone.
Symbian, for all its market share, has an extremely low share of web usage. That means, to me, that people aren't really using the functionality of the OS. They are buying a Nokia because they want a basic phone and the carrier is giving them a "deal" on a Nokia.
[QUOTE=Newton'stheory;466433]
Attractive for professional ? Perhaps Apple's soul is branding, control and money. That is really attractive for developpers to make money, isn't it ! Manufacturers ? 1 OS and how many manufacturers (during construction of the foundation) SonyEricsson, Fujitsu, Nokia, Samsung, Sharp... [/QUOTE]
But no longer Motorola. And Sony Ericsson has placed more effort into WinMo and Android as of late. The same with Samsung.
[QUOTE=Newton'stheory;466433]I wouldn't ! Who say that, What is your source ?
Is the OS so attractive, or is it only a temporary trend. (before Andro�d...and after RIM, like in video Clips) [/QUOTE]
Yes, it is attractive. Apple correctly saw the appeal of capacitive touchscreens, mobile browsing, and mobile apps, and put together the first OS that made it easy for the masses to figure out. Sure other operating systems could do almost everything that the iPhone OS could, but not as easily. The web stats (which iPhone dominates) indicates that people actually use the functionality in the iPhone.
Symbian, for all its market share, has an extremely low share of web usage. That means, to me, that people aren't really using the functionality of the OS. They are buying a Nokia because they want a basic phone and the carrier is giving them a "deal" on a Nokia.
[QUOTE=Newton'stheory;466433]
In my opinion, people are buying phones like the N97mini and 5800XM because of widgets, because of familiarity, because of real multitasking, because of real connectivity, because of Flash, because of Symbian family...
I understand your feeling, but many peoples who don't speak loud are not agree with these frequents remarks. 😉
"Sorry for using Google Translate, I didn't find Ovi Translate yet
Thank's a lot, AAS !
Newton's Theory."[/QUOTE]
The web stats support my view. People don't really access all that many web sites using Symbian phones. Nokia phones sell because they are cheap and Nokia has negotiated good deals with carriers in most countries. As much as Europeans like to knock the American mobile market, it does serve a good illustrative purpose. In June 2007, Apple had 0% market share. Nokia was hovering around 10% (down from 28% in 2002). Android didn't even exist. Since then, Nokia actively marketed Symbian in the US, struck deals with AT&T and T-Mobile, opened two flagship stores, started selling phones in other retail markets, and has seen its share drop below 5% while Apple and Google have rocketed to 1 and 2 in the US. After a slow start in Europe, Apple has picked up since the 3G model was introduced, and Android is making inroads.
Mind you, Nokia is the 800 pound gorilla in the mobile market. Apple and Google are the upstarts. Nokia has continually lost market share while it fumbled to release compelling phones. Several European carriers completely withdrew the original N97 from the market because of the complaints.
I had an N95, N85, N97, and N900. I switched to a Nexus One and now wonder what took me so long. I tried to like Nokia, and defended them in Apple forums when the iPhone was initially released. Android and iPhone OS look and feel like OSes designed from the ground up for touch screens, web usage, and apps, because they are. Symbian, at least through Symbian^1, looks and feels like an OS that was designed in the late 1990s that has gradually had more features tacked onto it, because that's what it is. It's like comparing OS X to Windows XP. Yes, Windows XP sold better, but OS X was more attractive. Maybe Symbian^3 and ^4 will be like Windows 7, but that remains to be seen.
One thing i will never understand, that people are saying:
Symbian is doomed, apple is king, Nokia can't compete, Symbian is dead, OS X is better which learnt multitasking in 2010, that too not full multitasking, Symbian is history because it could multitask a good decade ago as well, Nokia is not leader, Market share is irrelevant, Iphone and Android don't compete with Symbian (lol, it means iphone and android are satisfied with less combined market share than Symbian, who ever made this comment here is mentally not ok), Nokia is villain, Apple is hero
and the story goes on and on and on and on 😊
I don't understand why people who don't like Nokia and Symbian visit a Symbian Website and cry out loud whole like babies and yell out loud please please please Apple is good, Nokia is bad and etc etc.
My brothers' don't take tension, if for you android and iphone is better, use it and relax. for those Symbian is favorable, let them enjoy it, i am using Symbian for good 5 years and it satisfy my needs and budgets. so i as a common user, don't need your cry for my decision, give your opinion and in polite manner and don't enforce your thoughts on others.
You were satisfied with Non Multitasking OS, for me it was like s40 OS, multitasking was my addiction, everyone has there own needs, let them decide for them self.
Furthmore don't take tension that Nokia or any other company should be dead, if you have hard feelings for a brand and some jelousy, then try to keep it in heart don't expose 😊
Peace, love and relax, and try to skip Symbian websites, for symbian haters 😊 to avoid your burn of precious blood 😊
Those who were foolish enough to have actually bought the N97, please...dispense with the 'expert analysis'..its like an old broken record. If any of you were so smart, you would have seen what a dog the n97 was gonna be before it was released. I don't buy 'em, I dont bash 'em, I certainly dont impose my 'expert' opinion on which OS is better, and which will rule in the future. The fact is Symbian is still at the top and its still not doomed. From all the armchair analysis I've read in the past, it was supposed to roll over and die last year!!! Well guess what??? And I also happened to know a lot of people who bought the 5800 because of Symbian, not inspite of it.