Canalys has just released a limited set of numbers for smartphone sales in Quarter 2, 2010, showing Nokia with a leading 38% marketshare across the world, with actual sales of its Symbian-based smartphones up 41% year on year. RIM's Blackberrys were second in terms of smartphone marketshare, with 18%, while Apple was at 13% worldwide. Android-powered smartphones made up a lot of the 'noise' in the analysis, split across a multitude of manufacturers, but showing very siginificant growth.
Read on in the full article.
Nokia is PWNING in China.
As for Apple... Well, iPhowned.
BBC News coverage has the table showing worldwide figures for 2009/2010:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10839034
Thanks, yes, I saw, and added to the story....
To be fair, Q2 is always the iPhone's weakest quarter since it's the last quarter of the old device. The growth of Android should be worrying to both RIM and Nokia since it seems to be coming at the expense of their platforms.
Nokia's figures are good for lower-end phones (sub-250 dollar), but not quite good for the higher end. That fact says one thing for certain: Their phones appeal to people with shallow pockets, and folks of this kind rarely think about features; all they want is a phone they can afford -- and that's where Nokia's playground is. Period.
Most Android and iOS devices cost at least $400 (unlocked) outside of U.S., and the fact they sell better than most Nokias of the same price range really doesn't do Nokia any favor. Lower end phones mean less profit margin. Quote from WSJ:
"In the third quarter last year (2009, ed.), Apple overtook Nokia as the world's most profitable phone maker, booking $1.6 billion in profit on the iPhone in the quarter compared to Nokia's $1.1 billion, according to Strategy Analytics. Nokia made 108.5 million phones in that quarter, while Apple sold 7.4 million."
---
And let's not kid ourselves by even trying to argue those two facts. You should all remember that Nokia's board members have been on a search for a new CEO because they're unhappy of current situation.
Nokia didn't release any notable new devices in that quarter either, so...
And Q2 includes iPhone 4 release.
Android and iPhone can't be more direct competitors right now. Android's growth is at the expense of iPhone. Don't kid YOURSELF.
And duh, of course Android devices now sells better than Nokia's -- Nokia's high-end devices are very old. Doesn't take a genius to see that.
Low end devices have slimmer profit margin? Really?! You think that's news to us? I don't think it takes a nobel prize winner to know that.
Unregistered wrote:Nokia's figures are good for lower-end phones (sub-250 dollar), but not quite good for the higher end. That fact says one thing for certain: Their phones appeal to people with shallow pockets, and folks of this kind rarely think about features; all they want is a phone they can afford -- and that's where Nokia's playground is. Period.Most Android and iOS devices cost at least $400 (unlocked) outside of U.S., and the fact they sell better than most Nokias of the same price range really doesn't do Nokia any favor. Lower end phones mean less profit margin. Quote from WSJ:
"In the third quarter last year (2009, ed.), Apple overtook Nokia as the world's most profitable phone maker, booking $1.6 billion in profit on the iPhone in the quarter compared to Nokia's $1.1 billion, according to Strategy Analytics. Nokia made 108.5 million phones in that quarter, while Apple sold 7.4 million."
---
And let's not kid ourselves by even trying to argue those two facts. You should all remember that Nokia's board members have been on a search for a new CEO because they're unhappy of current situation.
We know all that, why are you stating the obvious? It's all irrelevant though, because the point is not Nokia's economic performance whilst they undertake a damage limitation strategy until they recover. The point is that there is far more Symbian out there than any other phone OS. By a huge margin. That's more Symbian in more parts of the world in more hands. There is nothing wrong with the fact that Nokia are supplying the phones that people want.
Nokia are doing a fine job with this bridging strategy, another company might have gone down the Palm route.
Nokia's playground is where they decide to take it.
It's amazing when people see these figures with millions more Symbian phones being shipped, they create some abitrary rule about which phones should be counted. THAT is kidding yourself.
Unregistered wrote:Nokia didn't release any notable new devices in that quarter either, so... And Q2 includes iPhone 4 release.
Android and iPhone can't be more direct competitors right now. Android's growth is at the expense of iPhone. Don't kid YOURSELF.
And duh, of course Android devices now sells better than Nokia's -- Nokia's high-end devices are very old. Doesn't take a genius to see that.
Low end devices have slimmer profit margin? Really?! You think that's news to us? I don't think it takes a nobel prize winner to know that.
Q2 included all of 1 week of iPhone 4 in one country.
Maybe it's telling that Nokia didn't release any major new devices that quarter, or the quarter before, or the quarter before...
Android and iOS are competitors, but iOS has a loyal following. Android is growing at RIM's expense. Why else would RIM have rushed the BlackBerry Torch, which is coming out next week?
At the end of the day, Nokia's 38% market share means little if they aren't successful in reasserting themselves at the high end. A HUGE amount is riding on the N8, Symbian^4, and MeeGo. With each passing day that the N8 is not yet released and there isn't more clarity on Symbian^4 and MeeGo, some more momentum goes to their competitors.
Symbian is shipping on lots of devices, but the question remains whether "Symbian" is what is selling the phones. Are people simply buying Nokia phones that happen to be running Symbian, or is Symbian attracting them to the phones? One brand of embedded chip or one leather supplier might dominate the car market, but that doesn't imply that the embedded chip or leather supplier are what makes the car attractive.
In the case of Nokia, it sounds like price is what is making them attractive. But one of the justifications for the emphasis on smartphones was to avoid commoditization and improve product differentiation. That's exactly the part where Nokia has been stumbling.