For all the talk of N8's, iPhone 4 and Galaxy S smartphones, there's another much more important battle happening. At the low end of the market, cheap footsoldiers such as the Symbian-powered Nokia 5230 are gearing up for a fight with Android devices like the ZTE Racer. Can Android provide as much of a success as S60 5th Edition in the £100-and-under market? And why could it be regarded as the key battleground for market share? Read on for my thoughts...
Read on in the full article.
ewan i hear what you're saying and see some merits in it BUT wasn't the rush for numbers without actually monetizing them one of the prime causes of the .com boom / bust cycle?
a blind rush for numbers is meaningless unless they can be monetized and it sure as hell isn't a strategy that will work these days
That's a meaningless comment, because these phones aren't loss leaders being pushed out for the sake of marketshare. The margins may be thin, but they do make money for Nokia. This may not be the case for ZTE and their Android phones - I don't know to be honest.
_fakefur,
Google have acknowledged that Android OS is bringing them in roughly $10 per handset per year. So while it's a free licence in theory to use, they still get income.
Nokia's margins on phnes, especially when they are selling millions of each handset, means they are not selling these at a loss. And while the networks are potentially adding a bit of subsidy, the phones drive up ARPU through data connectivity and software. It frankly is a win all round.
And if one or two big players are left standing from the 12 that started the year n hardware and software,t hat's a lot of $10 to pick up
By getting low cost handsets out there keeps the Nokia and Symbian name in circulation, gets entry level users who may follow the upgrade path and establishes the platform as a de facto.
Having messed up big with the N97, Nokia are playing a good strategy to bridge the time until they recover the more pemium sector, and catch a new generation of smartphone users that were created by the propagation of the low cost handsets.
I had a brief chat with Steve about this some months ago on Twitter, and I personally cant see how Android will run on cheap devices fluently if 2.1 struggles on the HTC Hero, and it has specs that are more than comparable to the current Symbian phones. Anything less and it will be unbearable I suspect. If Android 3.0 is as rumoured it wont run on many of the current Android devices either and specs will have to go up and prices too.
A slow phone or computer is the most annoying thing and in the end consumers just get fed up.
However, if today's high-end is tomorrow's budget model, I see no reason why Android 2.1 or even 1.6 couldn't thrive in the budget world.
Also, the Betamax/JVC argument doesn't really hold water. The car market seems to be a better analogy for the wireless devices market. Companies like BMW thrive even though they don't compete in the low-end ranges. Even Porsche would still be independent if it didn't try to acquire VW. Apple here is the BMW of the market. Nokia for many years looked like the Toyota of the group (dominant in all sectors), though its stumbles of late make that less apt (though perhaps in light of Toyota's recent issues, maybe it is on point). Google is like the Tata Motors, in that it is the upstart that is making rapid gains.
Reality check:
Android's on between less than 1% - 2% market share, Symbian's on 41%.
Android's now selling 200,000 phones a day, Symbian's selling 300,000. You do the maths.
Also, Android is technically immature, limited in a variety of technical ways, runs on a virtual machine, gets the CPU to do all the work, and NEEDS that high end expensive CPU to give a half decent user experience. Symbian is the most mature and technically sophisticated OS out there and leads the pack by a LONG way in running well on cheap hardware. With the UI improvements of Symbian^3 and beyond i wouldn't rate Android's chances in being a threat to Symbian.
That said it is definitely a good thing for Nokia/Symbian to have some competition at all price points.
KPOM wrote:However, if today's high-end is tomorrow's budget model, I see no reason why Android 2.1 or even 1.6 couldn't thrive in the budget world.Also, the Betamax/JVC argument doesn't really hold water. The car market seems to be a better analogy for the wireless devices market. Companies like BMW thrive even though they don't compete in the low-end ranges. Even Porsche would still be independent if it didn't try to acquire VW. Apple here is the BMW of the market. Nokia for many years looked like the Toyota of the group (dominant in all sectors), though its stumbles of late make that less apt (though perhaps in light of Toyota's recent issues, maybe it is on point). Google is like the Tata Motors, in that it is the upstart that is making rapid gains.
BMW make the 116i and the mini which are competitive at the low end. They are also in all sectors except supercar, with a massive choice of different products. Unlike Apple who make one product with a choice of colour and storage capacity. If Betamax doesn't hold water, the BMW analogy is a wire shopping basket.
Google is like an independent car designer not manufacturer having produced a chassis and allowing other makers to use it to base their own vehicles on. Tata usually get in their designs from such people.
I don't think there is a business model like Apple in any industry. Certainly there is no industry car maker that concentrates all their efforts on a single product and then sells it mass market so anyone can have one, and then supports the product with after-market services.
Unregistered wrote:Also, Android is technically immature, limited in a variety of technical ways, runs on a virtual machine, gets the CPU to do all the work, and NEEDS that high end expensive CPU to give a half decent user experience. Symbian is the most mature and technically sophisticated OS out there and leads the pack by a LONG way in running well on cheap hardware. With the UI improvements of Symbian^3 and beyond i wouldn't rate Android's chances in being a threat to Symbian.
.
It's true but how is Symbian based on 1997 EPOC32 more mature than an OS such as Android based on 1991 linux? As a phone OS I suppose it is more mature.
Unregistered wrote:It's true but how is Symbian based on 1997 EPOC32 more mature than an OS such as Android based on 1991 linux? As a phone OS I suppose it is more mature.
EPOC32/Symbian was designed from the ground up to be a mobile OS.
As good as Android can be, the core OS wasn't originally designed for mobiles. Sure, LinuxUnix based OS's can be tailored to many purposes, but it wasn't truly designed for mobile usage. And also, isn't Android based on a virtual machine?
[QUOTE="Clonmult"]
e. And also, isn't Android based on a virtual machine?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, Dalvik VM. A bit of an overhead unfortunately.
And more on the car analogies above. Android is not originally Google, it's a buy-in technology, Google bought Android Inc. They are the technology provider not hardware maker though.
Unregistered wrote:Reality check:
Android's on between less than 1% - 2% market share, Symbian's on 41%.
Android's now selling 200,000 phones a day, Symbian's selling 300,000. You do the maths.
However, Symbian has been around since the late 1990s. Android has been around since 2008. If we look at the trajectory, Android is in ramp-up mode. Symbian is growing slower than the rest of the smartphone market.
Even if we accept Symbian has a long future as a low- to mid-range OS, the assertion that it somehow helps them at the high-end is a bit dubious. That said, I do agree Symbian will survive in the low- and mid-range segments. Nokia has such huge economies of scale, it's difficult to see HTC or others making significant headway in the next 5 years.
Unregistered wrote:BMW make the 116i and the mini which are competitive at the low end. They are also in all sectors except supercar, with a massive choice of different products. Unlike Apple who make one product with a choice of colour and storage capacity. If Betamax doesn't hold water, the BMW analogy is a wire shopping basket.
Two flaws here. First, the 116i and MINI are marketed as premium cars, not econoboxes competing against the likes of the Ford Ka. Second, in the US, which is BMW's biggest market, they do not sell anything with less than a 2.8L engine, apart from the MINI, which is marketed as a niche premium product. Thus, there is no 116i, or even a 320d. BMW and MINI are very much the "Apple" of the US car market.
Dazzy wrote:...and I personally cant see how Android will run on cheap devices fluently if 2.1 struggles on the HTC Hero...
Uh, Moore's Law, anyone? And dropping components prices?
The prior year's Hero, is today's give away feature phone. By the end of this year, the Milestone's/original Droid's hardware will be for all purposes, given away on contract, and that can most definitely run Android smoothly, along with the whole Android app market.
That's why it's important for Nokia to be competitive in the high end again, because today's high end is tomorrow's middle, and the day after's low end. Within two or three years, a dirt poor farmer in Africa or India will be able to afford a basic smart phone with a 1GHz processor. By then, the high end will be featuring multi core smart phones, but they really won't be phones anymore, and they're really not now. They're PDAs and convergence pocket computers.
Unregistered wrote:Yes, Dalvik VM. A bit of an overhead unfortunately.And more on the car analogies above. Android is not originally Google, it's a buy-in technology, Google bought Android Inc. They are the technology provider not hardware maker though.
I, a long time advocate of all things Symbian and Nokia, finally took the plunge into the murky waters of Android by getting the LG540 from carphone warehouse for only �99 plus usual obligatory �10 credit. I have to say that I have been doing myself a lot of disservice by toeing the 'Symbian/Nokia is superior' line. The LG540 offers better user experience than any device from Nokia. GPS takes seconds to lock and does so even when indoors, in complete contrast to this, my Nokia 5800 (which cost me twice the price) is not only a PAIN to use most times but GPS takes ages to lock and when it does get going, I find Ovi maps out of date when it comes to searching for services (it still has my local church which moved over 7 yrs ago at its ole address, I reported this to Nokia over a year ago and still no change, IMAGINE that guys), google maps is not as bandwidth efficient to run but it does the job better with steet view, layers etc thrown in. BTW, I also have the Nokia N900 which cost me multiples of my new Android phone and running OVI maps on it is a non starter.
Dont even talk about web browsing, email, notifications, virtual keyboard etc. I wont even go into apps. The android API is as clean as whistle, QT is promising but Java has a massive army of developers. Only area Nokia holds the advantage is hardware (5800 stereo spkers are gold, my N900 is rock solid with keyboard to boot, Optics better and hardware is mostly durable) though this is no longer a dead cert with N8 rocking a mono speaker and 5800 etc based on slow processors, limited RAM, N900 lacking compass. The �99 Android phone boasts 600mhz and 256mb ram and even a compass, if lowly LG can do it , why not the mighty Nokia?.
Anssi V of Nokia is right, they have a big fight on their hands, and I wont bet on them winning.
Android has been a pleasure to use, a breath of fresh air and with competition heating up, it can only get better. I like Nokia and wish Symbian 3 will deliver the goods (my first real job was at Symbian) but its no good assuming superiority, google are no mugs and will continue to improve Android. To those who consider dalvik a weakness, actually, its a big strenght and with the turbo charged froyo show what can be done with a VM based architecture - tune it once and all existing apps are go. Also given all apps run in a sandbox, stability is enhanced which is why symbian is more likely to crash as any longtime user like me will attest. Its all about implementation - my N900 runs desktop class Linux but is not as responsive as my new Android phone nor is it as good when it comes to memory management resulting in missed calls when overloaded etc.
Nokia, RIM and even Apple are up against it here, no DOUBT.
KPOM wrote:Two flaws here. First, the 116i and MINI are marketed as premium cars, not econoboxes competing against the likes of the Ford Ka. Second, in the US, which is BMW's biggest market, they do not sell anything with less than a 2.8L engine, apart from the MINI, which is marketed as a niche premium product. Thus, there is no 116i, or even a 320d. BMW and MINI are very much the "Apple" of the US car market.
Two flaws here (at least) the Mini and the 116 are definitely NOT seen as premium, the mini even uses a Peugeot engine FFS.
And the USA is not the world. Not even a large part of it so 2.8 or 1.6 doesn't matter.
When Apple sell as many varieties of phone as BMW have cars then you might have a point. Until then Apple are as much BMW as they are Baskin Robbins.
Some people really suck in the marketing BS. Have a mind of your onw FFS.
Unregistered wrote:Two flaws here (at least) the Mini and the 116 are definitely NOT seen as premium, the mini even uses a Peugeot engine FFS.And the USA is not the world. Not even a large part of it so 2.8 or 1.6 doesn't matter.
When Apple sell as many varieties of phone as BMW have cars then you might have a point. Until then Apple are as much BMW as they are Baskin Robbins.
Some people really suck in the marketing BS. Have a mind of your onw FFS.
Apple sells phones, tablets, music players, desktops, notebooks, servers, software, services (music, applications) and computer accessories. Think outside the box a bit and you'll see that Apple has a far more diverse product line than Nokia.
Also ask BMW what their most important market is. For BMW, it's the USA, followed closely by China. Europe isn't the center of the universe, as much of a shock as it seems to most people there.
Mini used to use a Chrysler engine. That didn't stop it from being marketed as a premium product in the US. BMW's main attempt at going "mainstream" was their disastrous acquisition of Rover. When they finally shuttered that, they refocused on the high end.
Jimmy1 wrote: Within two or three years, a dirt poor farmer in Africa or India will be able to afford a basic smart phone with a 1GHz processor.
😃 😃 I hope you are just joking. Otherwise, your ignorance is staggering. Dirt poor farmers in India or Africa don't even have water or electricity (FYI: 2 billion people don't have access to power). Over 40% of India's population still lives on less that US$1.25/day!
viipottaja wrote:😃 😃 I hope you are just joking. Otherwise, your ignorance is staggering. Dirt poor farmers in India or Africa don't even have water or electricity (FYI: 2 billion people don't have access to power). Over 40% of India's population still lives on less that US$1.25/day!
Use of exaggeration to make a point, i.e. prices of consumer electronics drop drastically over time.
Tsepz_011 wrote:MINI is indeed positioned as a premium product regardless of what engine, BMW themselves will tell you that.
"BMW themselves will tell you that"
Point proven. People are suckers for marketing.
Mini has never been premium, use of another brand to go low cost is a standard business method to enter a lower market without damaging their main brand.
As 3 series Beemers are two a penny, they are just a standard car too.
"Premium" is a marketing term.
KPOM wrote:Mini used to use a Chrysler engine. That didn't stop it from being marketed as a premium product in the US. BMW's main attempt at going "mainstream" was their disastrous acquisition of Rover. When they finally shuttered that, they refocused on the high end.
Mini was a Rover Group brand having come through from the Austin BMC brand that went through BL to Rover. Where do you think they got it from?
Mini always was a small entry level car, and it still is a car often chosen by young women as a first car. BMW also own Rolls Royce cars. That's premium.
And are we discussing the phone makers s acar maker, not phone and computer as car am motorcycle makers or other industries, because if we need to introduce other products then the BMW analogy is even further destroyed.
oniox wrote:I, a long time advocate of all things Symbian and Nokia, finally took the plunge into the murky waters of Android by getting the LG540 from carphone warehouse for only �99 plus usual obligatory �10 credit. I have to say that I have been doing myself a lot of disservice by toeing the 'Symbian/Nokia is superior' line. The LG540 offers better user experience than any device from Nokia. GPS takes seconds to lock and does so even when indoors, in complete contrast to this, my Nokia 5800 (which cost me twice the price) is not only a PAIN to use most times but GPS takes ages to lock and when it does get going, I find Ovi maps out of date when it comes to searching for services (it still has my local church which moved over 7 yrs ago at its ole address, I reported this to Nokia over a year ago and still no change, IMAGINE that guys), google maps is not as bandwidth efficient to run but it does the job better with steet view, layers etc thrown in. BTW, I also have the Nokia N900 which cost me multiples of my new Android phone and running OVI maps on it is a non starter.Dont even talk about web browsing, email, notifications, virtual keyboard etc. I wont even go into apps. The android API is as clean as whistle, QT is promising but Java has a massive army of developers. Only area Nokia holds the advantage is hardware (5800 stereo spkers are gold, my N900 is rock solid with keyboard to boot, Optics better and hardware is mostly durable) though this is no longer a dead cert with N8 rocking a mono speaker and 5800 etc based on slow processors, limited RAM, N900 lacking compass. The �99 Android phone boasts 600mhz and 256mb ram and even a compass, if lowly LG can do it , why not the mighty Nokia?.
Anssi V of Nokia is right, they have a big fight on their hands, and I wont bet on them winning.
Android has been a pleasure to use, a breath of fresh air and with competition heating up, it can only get better. I like Nokia and wish Symbian 3 will deliver the goods (my first real job was at Symbian) but its no good assuming superiority, google are no mugs and will continue to improve Android. To those who consider dalvik a weakness, actually, its a big strenght and with the turbo charged froyo show what can be done with a VM based architecture - tune it once and all existing apps are go. Also given all apps run in a sandbox, stability is enhanced which is why symbian is more likely to crash as any longtime user like me will attest. Its all about implementation - my N900 runs desktop class Linux but is not as responsive as my new Android phone nor is it as good when it comes to memory management resulting in missed calls when overloaded etc.
Nokia, RIM and even Apple are up against it here, no DOUBT.
LOL, that was so fanboy. Most of that is contrary to my experience of Android.
Especially Google Maps the lame navigator.
Unregistered wrote:Mini was a Rover Group brand having come through from the Austin BMC brand that went through BL to Rover. Where do you think they got it from?Mini always was a small entry level car, and it still is a car often chosen by young women as a first car. BMW also own Rolls Royce cars. That's premium.
And are we discussing the phone makers s acar maker, not phone and computer as car am motorcycle makers or other industries, because if we need to introduce other products then the BMW analogy is even further destroyed.
Rolls Royce is ultra-luxury, not "premium." It's like Vertu.
Anyway, Ewan used the Betamax/JVC analogy. I pointed out that the car analogy may be more apt.
The bottom line is that "luxury," "premium" and "mid-range" are ALL marketing terms. I'm sure if Nokia could pass the N97 mini off as a "luxury" phone like the iPhone they would. In most urban areas, a Ford Ka gets you from point A to B as quickly as a Rolls Royce. That doesn't mean that Rolls Royce is just a "marketing gimmick."
Perhaps pre-merger Porsche is a better analogy for Apple than BMW, but in any case, Apple clearly is successful in marketing their products at premium prices, even as some of their products (iPod) have become mainstream.
ANYHOO, has anyone used the ZTE?
CodeEater wrote:LOL, that was so fanboy. Most of that is contrary to my experience of Android.Especially Google Maps the lame navigator.
It isn't contrary to my experience with Android after 5 different models of Symbian phones.
I have yet to get an out-of-memory error on my Android phone in 6 months, nor have I had to delete factory-installed programs to avoid running out of space on the main drive. Google Maps Navigation has been more than adequate for me, and unlike Ovi Maps, doesn't take as long to find a lock. Actually Google Maps for Symbian always found my location faster than Nokia Maps, so I'm not sure I'd point to Maps as such a strength for Nokia.
The one advantage Symbian has over Android that is relevant to me is that Cisco VPN works over tethering.
The question is less about what car makers convince the public that they are premium, what exactly is premium about iPhone prices?
I can walk into Tesco, get bread and milk and a bottle of beer, and while I'm there hand over �19 (nineteen pounds) and walk out with an iPhone 4. Or hand over nothing but a signature and walk out with a free iPhone 3GS. Anybody can have one, and judging by what I see out in public, everybody does.
Phones, even iPhones, are not expensive items by the standards of incomes these days.
A BMW 3 Series is going to cost me �263 per month, not to bad either. Maybe that's why they are everywhere.
BTW, I have a new iPhone 4 and 1 year old 320d.
LOL! I'm not exactly premium.
KPOM wrote:It isn't contrary to my experience with Android after 5 different models of Symbian phones.I have yet to get an out-of-memory error on my Android phone in 6 months, nor have I had to delete factory-installed programs to avoid running out of space on the main drive. Google Maps Navigation has been more than adequate for me, and unlike Ovi Maps, doesn't take as long to find a lock. Actually Google Maps for Symbian always found my location faster than Nokia Maps, so I'm not sure I'd point to Maps as such a strength for Nokia.
The one advantage Symbian has over Android that is relevant to me is that Cisco VPN works over tethering.
I can show you exactly how to get an error similar to out of memory. Out of battery is even easier.
It would be nice if I could actually see the map in google maps, unfortunately those ridiculous bitmaps don't always show up.
My Android experience is slightly better than Symbian, but miles behind the iPhone. But then I'm no fanboy.
CodeEater wrote:I can show you exactly how to get an error similar to out of memory. Out of battery is even easier.It would be nice if I could actually see the map in google maps, unfortunately those ridiculous bitmaps don't always show up.
My Android experience is slightly better than Symbian, but miles behind the iPhone. But then I'm no fanboy.
I'm not saying you can't force it to happen. I'm just saying that it hasn't happened to me in six months of everyday usage. On the N97 I was getting out-of-memory errors all the time, and my usage between the two phones isn't all that different.
With the N97, it seemed that I needed to be a "techie" to get it to do basic things. With Android, so far I haven't. I haven't "rooted" the Nexus One, or installed a lot of applications to replace the factory applications, or found the need to go burrowing through the menus to use "tricks" to free up memory or application space, all of which I needed to do with Symbian.
I tried both the original iPhone and the 3GS and found the platform a bit too limiting. I like having widgets on the home screen. That's why I went from Symbian to Android rather than Symbian to iOS.
Tsepz_011 wrote:My point is that thats how they have positioned it. Saying a Mini is low end is pure BS, at its price most who buy it arent looking for a point A to point B simple car,they buy it due to the whole status it brings with it,its.
There you go again "they have positioned it". You are following what they are saying. Look at the thing for yourself, it's a small car with a small engine and not much space for carrying things and fairly basic on equipment. Mini One can be had for under �12K brand new and one the road in the UK, about the same as a Ford Fiesta.
Mini doesn't really have any status. It's got a bit of a fashion thing going on, but not status. It's not expensive, it's not the lowest end but to suggest it is premium is BS. It is the BMW mass market brand that allows them to sell cheap without devaluing the slightly more expensive 116.
You are the marketing mans dream.