Nokia Dieing Slowly

[lomatopo]

Nokia would, literally and figuratively, die to be able to sell 18.65 million units of essentially a high-end single model, with a GM of ~ 60%, in a single quarter, which is what AAPL did in Q2-2011.

That is truly amazing, but the iPad will probably blow the iPhone figures away in the next 24 months? Even the Luddites here have to appreciate that feat. Nokia might have to go back to making galoshes (rubber boots) and tires?

[bangkokrick]

Nokia would, literally and figuratively, die to be able to sell 18.65 million units of essentially a high-end single model, with a GM of ~ 60%, in a single quarter, which is what AAPL did in Q2-2011.

That is truly amazing, but the iPad will probably blow the iPhone figures away in the next 24 months? Even the Luddites here have to appreciate that feat. Nokia might have to go back to making galoshes (rubber boots) and tires?

I really don't understand the need for an Ipad if you have a newish laptop. The laptop will do as much and more than the Ipad, so why have 2 machines that basically do the same thing? By the way I still think that Nokia phones are the best on the market.

[Phil Conners]

If you just want a mobile device to make phone calls and nothing else I agree, Nokia gives very good quality and value for your money.

Those who think smartphones have no purpose may not need one. It's fine, not everyone does.

Tables vs. laptops is a different discussion. The prevalent opinion at the moment seems to be that tablets are very simple to use, no need to know much about the technology, they're simple appliances you switch on and use. I've thought long and hard about getting a tablet but I can't really see what I would use it for between my Android phone, my PC and my Kindle reader.

[Gary A]

I have a netbook. The netbook has 3 USB ports and a memory card reader built in. The WiFi works great. Even the speakers are adequate. The 10 inch screen is a little too small but it is OK for when I travel. When I close the lid, the screen is protected. It came with WIN 7 Starter and it does whatever I want it to do. I paid about 9,000 baht for it. WHY would I want less for a lot more money? I didn't have to buy any extras unlike some well known popular tablets.

[bangkokrick]

If you just want a mobile device to make phone calls and nothing else I agree, Nokia gives very good quality and value for your money.

Those who think smartphones have no purpose may not need one. It's fine, not everyone does.

Tables vs. laptops is a different discussion. The prevalent opinion at the moment seems to be that tablets are very simple to use, no need to know much about the technology, they're simple appliances you switch on and use. I've thought long and hard about getting a tablet but I can't really see what I would use it for between my Android phone, my PC and my Kindle reader.

Phil please have a look at the specs for the new breed of Nokia phones on the link below. This phone does very much more than making phone calls.

Nokia C7

I have had mine for around a month now and I am very satisfied with the Multi functionality.

I feel the same about the tablet, by the way.

[Phil Conners]

If you just want a mobile device to make phone calls and nothing else I agree, Nokia gives very good quality and value for your money.

Those who think smartphones have no purpose may not need one. It's fine, not everyone does.

Tables vs. laptops is a different discussion. The prevalent opinion at the moment seems to be that tablets are very simple to use, no need to know much about the technology, they're simple appliances you switch on and use. I've thought long and hard about getting a tablet but I can't really see what I would use it for between my Android phone, my PC and my Kindle reader.

Phil please have a look at the specs for the new breed of Nokia phones on the link below. This phone does very much more than making phone calls.

Nokia C7

I have had mine for around a month now and I am very satisfied with the Multi functionality.

I feel the same about the tablet, by the way.

Sure, but .. Symbian OS .. been there, done that, never again

I also had Winmobile and PocketPC devices. Same thing. I'm with Android now, for me it has been the best platform so far, by far, and I think if you look at the market share held by Android the majority of users agree.

[bangkokrick]

If you just want a mobile device to make phone calls and nothing else I agree, Nokia gives very good quality and value for your money.

Those who think smartphones have no purpose may not need one. It's fine, not everyone does.

Tables vs. laptops is a different discussion. The prevalent opinion at the moment seems to be that tablets are very simple to use, no need to know much about the technology, they're simple appliances you switch on and use. I've thought long and hard about getting a tablet but I can't really see what I would use it for between my Android phone, my PC and my Kindle reader.

Phil please have a look at the specs for the new breed of Nokia phones on the link below. This phone does very much more than making phone calls.

Nokia C7

I have had mine for around a month now and I am very satisfied with the Multi functionality.

I feel the same about the tablet, by the way.

Sure, but .. Symbian OS .. been there, done that, never again

I also had Winmobile and PocketPC devices. Same thing. I'm with Android now, for me it has been the best platform so far, by far, and I think if you look at the market share held by Android the majority of users agree.

Oddly enough I have just been on the Nokia site to upgrade the phone software and the software new version is called Symbian Anna. I will post if any improvements found. Each to their own I guess mate.

[lomatopo]

Here's a decent amalgamation of Q1 2011 sales figures. The drastic drop for Nokia from Q42010 to Q12011 is startling, and they have nothing to stop the free-fall.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/05/28/analysis-whos-who-in-smartphone-business-in-q1-201.aspx

Regarding the netbook comment, all I can say is did you get a buggy-whip with that thing.

Some headlines from a quick search...

Netbook Sales Are Crashing! Quick! Blame The iPad, Not The Lousy Netbooks!

Microsoft reveals more on plight of Netbook sales

Netbooks Lose Status as Tablets Like the iPad Rise

They're both wrong - Nothing can revive netbook sales

Department of obvious research: Netbook sales are slowing

Netbook sales crash: the downside to the tablet upside

Edited August 20, 2011 by lomatopo

[GreenSnapper]

I just bought the Nokia C7 and it's the best phone that I have ever had. It is equal in spec of the I phone and only half the price. Nokia are far from Dying.

Check it out

The C7 and N8 are very fine phones and IMHO superior to iPhones and most Androids.

They are basically the same (HW and SW), but N8 is equipped with a much better camera and some gimmicks like HDMI connection.

The C7 is a bargain in Thailand for ~10000 Baht. It supports all 3G frequencies necessary here, unlike most Androids. Take this into account if you want to use DTAC or TRUE.

The only problem is that it is now general "knowledge" that Android is cool, while Symbian is yuck.

In reality is a bit more complicated. I attach a text I copied from Nokia forum, which is quite on the spot.

I am using both Symbian and Android so I guess I can answer these well enough.

1. Most people are simply preferring Android because it looks good. (It does). However, when we go down to basics, Nokia phones have better hardware components (GPS chips, radios, music chips, durability, etc). Also, people have the impression that Nokia OS sucks and Android does not. Actually, the only problem I see why Android has become more preferable because in its current situation, Symbian is more micromanaging and less "idiot friendly" (if you'd forgive the term) than Android. The learning curve for Symbian is pretty steep.

2. Nokia will be releasing WP7 phones as their flagships starting next year.

3. Pros and Cons:

Android Pros:

-lots of apps and widgets. Very highly customizable to look and feel the way you want it to.

-The UI is fluid and quite obvious.

-the OS is basically a platform with each application sandboxed from each other. When an app crashes, the phone does not necessarily crash unless you are using a very resource intensive app like a PSX emulator. You can force close the crashed app (like the end task option in Windows Task Manager).

Android Cons:

-No proper task switching or managing. It only keeps a certain number of apps running and closes apps automatically when you are reaching full RAM usage. This may be nice in theory since you dont get the memory full message, but you have no control about which app it closes. Sometimes its very annoying when it closes the app you actually need to be running at the time. It does cache the app to start again from where it last was, but it doesnt happen to all apps and sometimes having to go through loading processes again is annoying. Symbian allows more control on what apps get closed and what are left running.

-Its more prone to malware and spyware due to its high level of being open source. Unlike Symbian which has certificate management, Android does not, so its best to have an Antivirus on it. Malware even found their way into Android Market

-Fragmentation. There are so many different droids with differing chipsets and hardware that not all apps would work the same way on one droid as on another. For example, Falling Fred for Android works well on a Galaxy S, but on an HTC Evo, there are some lags, despite the Evo having way better hardware than the SGS.

-Has practically no advantages to Symbian when you will be using it offline apart from games. Yes the apps you will use are different and may feel better on Android, but in terms of practicality, almost anything you can do on Android you can do on Symbian if both are offline. Android only wins big if you have a data plan to make use of its full potential (or maybe wifi everywhere you go?)

- Connectivity limitations. Android cannot create or connect to adhoc networks (unless you root it). Also their PC connectivity solutions/software are absolutely awful (or if they work good, they are worse in terms of functionality and capability than Ovi Suite, let alone PC Suite).

Symbian Pros:

- Proper multitasking control. As said before, you control what gets closed and what stays open

- Proper PC integration. We all know how bad Ovi Suite is compared to PC Suite, but nothing Android has can even compare to Ovi Suite in terms of functionality.

- Symbian phones generally have better hardware components. Speaking for Nokia vs Samsung alone, the GPS antenna, AGPS computations, 2g/3g radios, wifi receivers and transmitters, audio quality, durability feel and quality, of Nokia phones are superb compared to almost any Android phone in the market today.

- Ovi Maps - still better than anything Android can throw. I cant use Google Navigation in my country, but the rest all fail in comparison. Android doesnt even natively support the use of bluetooth GPS devices, you need to buy/download a Mapping System that does. Also, my 5800 running on Integrated GPS alone can get a more accurate fix than my SGSL on integrated GPS. It takes the same time for both to get a full fix too. If I use AGPS on the Nokia, it gets fix in 2seconds. Samsung Fail yes (bad GPS antenna), but partly Android too due to bad AGPS data calculation scripting.

Symbian Cons:

- App developers are leaving, so you have less apps and games to choose from. These is what is now starting to give Android more functionality than symbian. There's usually an app for whatever you may want to do.

- When an app crashes, the whole OS can crash, depending on the app, especially if its an integrated app.

- While many people customize Symbian (regional devs, operator devs), Symbian editing often causes problems, while Android is made to be customizable, reducing probable software errors which may ruin the phone up by devs and operators.

There are a few other things I cant think of right now, but as I said, I currently use 2 phones for 2 networks, and one is a Droid and the other Symbian, allowing me to enjoy the advantages of both OS and the ability to ignore the deficiencies of one by using the other for that purpose.

[lomatopo]

The only problem is that it is now general "knowledge" that Android is cool, while Symbian is yuck.

Don't you just hate it when those pesky customers choose the "cool" products.

I think Betamax was superior technically?

I'd buy a C7 for 5,000 baht, an N8 for 7,500. I think the N8 has sold (end-user not channel) a few hundred units here, but I don't think they could give the C7 away here for free?

I did like this comment: "We all know how bad Ovi Suite is compared to PC Suite"

Nokia started the death spiral ~ 2004. Admit it, they got a bit lucky with the GSM standardization, and delivered sleek candy-bar phones before anyone really caught on, then spent too long in the sauna (two month vacations during which time nothing gets done). Yes, I worked there for ~ 3 years as a result of their buying a start-up where I worked. I do miss the people and the country is very beautiful in the summer).

Edited August 20, 2011 by lomatopo

[bangkokrick]

I just bought the Nokia C7 and it's the best phone that I have ever had. It is equal in spec of the I phone and only half the price. Nokia are far from Dying.

Check it out

The C7 and N8 are very fine phones and IMHO superior to iPhones and most Androids.

They are basically the same (HW and SW), but N8 is equipped with a much better camera and some gimmicks like HDMI connection.

The C7 is a bargain in Thailand for ~10000 Baht. It supports all 3G frequencies necessary here, unlike most Androids. Take this into account if you want to use DTAC or TRUE.

The only problem is that it is now general "knowledge" that Android is cool, while Symbian is yuck.

In reality is a bit more complicated. I attach a text I copied from Nokia forum, which is quite on the spot.

I am using both Symbian and Android so I guess I can answer these well enough.

1. Most people are simply preferring Android because it looks good. (It does). However, when we go down to basics, Nokia phones have better hardware components (GPS chips, radios, music chips, durability, etc). Also, people have the impression that Nokia OS sucks and Android does not. Actually, the only problem I see why Android has become more preferable because in its current situation, Symbian is more micromanaging and less "idiot friendly" (if you'd forgive the term) than Android. The learning curve for Symbian is pretty steep.

2. Nokia will be releasing WP7 phones as their flagships starting next year.

3. Pros and Cons:

Android Pros:

-lots of apps and widgets. Very highly customizable to look and feel the way you want it to.

-The UI is fluid and quite obvious.

-the OS is basically a platform with each application sandboxed from each other. When an app crashes, the phone does not necessarily crash unless you are using a very resource intensive app like a PSX emulator. You can force close the crashed app (like the end task option in Windows Task Manager).

Android Cons:

-No proper task switching or managing. It only keeps a certain number of apps running and closes apps automatically when you are reaching full RAM usage. This may be nice in theory since you dont get the memory full message, but you have no control about which app it closes. Sometimes its very annoying when it closes the app you actually need to be running at the time. It does cache the app to start again from where it last was, but it doesnt happen to all apps and sometimes having to go through loading processes again is annoying. Symbian allows more control on what apps get closed and what are left running.

-Its more prone to malware and spyware due to its high level of being open source. Unlike Symbian which has certificate management, Android does not, so its best to have an Antivirus on it. Malware even found their way into Android Market

-Fragmentation. There are so many different droids with differing chipsets and hardware that not all apps would work the same way on one droid as on another. For example, Falling Fred for Android works well on a Galaxy S, but on an HTC Evo, there are some lags, despite the Evo having way better hardware than the SGS.

-Has practically no advantages to Symbian when you will be using it offline apart from games. Yes the apps you will use are different and may feel better on Android, but in terms of practicality, almost anything you can do on Android you can do on Symbian if both are offline. Android only wins big if you have a data plan to make use of its full potential (or maybe wifi everywhere you go?)

- Connectivity limitations. Android cannot create or connect to adhoc networks (unless you root it). Also their PC connectivity solutions/software are absolutely awful (or if they work good, they are worse in terms of functionality and capability than Ovi Suite, let alone PC Suite).

Symbian Pros:

- Proper multitasking control. As said before, you control what gets closed and what stays open

- Proper PC integration. We all know how bad Ovi Suite is compared to PC Suite, but nothing Android has can even compare to Ovi Suite in terms of functionality.

- Symbian phones generally have better hardware components. Speaking for Nokia vs Samsung alone, the GPS antenna, AGPS computations, 2g/3g radios, wifi receivers and transmitters, audio quality, durability feel and quality, of Nokia phones are superb compared to almost any Android phone in the market today.

- Ovi Maps - still better than anything Android can throw. I cant use Google Navigation in my country, but the rest all fail in comparison. Android doesnt even natively support the use of bluetooth GPS devices, you need to buy/download a Mapping System that does. Also, my 5800 running on Integrated GPS alone can get a more accurate fix than my SGSL on integrated GPS. It takes the same time for both to get a full fix too. If I use AGPS on the Nokia, it gets fix in 2seconds. Samsung Fail yes (bad GPS antenna), but partly Android too due to bad AGPS data calculation scripting.

Symbian Cons:

- App developers are leaving, so you have less apps and games to choose from. These is what is now starting to give Android more functionality than symbian. There's usually an app for whatever you may want to do.

- When an app crashes, the whole OS can crash, depending on the app, especially if its an integrated app.

- While many people customize Symbian (regional devs, operator devs), Symbian editing often causes problems, while Android is made to be customizable, reducing probable software errors which may ruin the phone up by devs and operators.

There are a few other things I cant think of right now, but as I said, I currently use 2 phones for 2 networks, and one is a Droid and the other Symbian, allowing me to enjoy the advantages of both OS and the ability to ignore the deficiencies of one by using the other for that purpose.

Thanks for that green snapper a very interesting read. Not sure about the App comment as there are 100's of very useful Apps on OVI.

[GreenSnapper]

The only problem is that it is now general "knowledge" that Android is cool, while Symbian is yuck.

Don't you just hate it when those pesky customers choose the "cool" products.

Doesn't bother me very much, I'm not a fanboi

When I went shopping for a new smartphone a while ago, priced around 10-15KB, all friends suggested the cool LGs, HTCs or Samsungs. OK, I thought, let's check them out.

And then I found, that they all cannot do what I need and the outdated, dying Nokia is much better value.

And no regret so far.

Your miles will vary.

[bangkokrick]

The only problem is that it is now general "knowledge" that Android is cool, while Symbian is yuck.

Don't you just hate it when those pesky customers choose the "cool" products.

Doesn't bother me very much, I'm not a fanboi

When I went shopping for a new smartphone a while ago, priced around 10-15KB, all friends suggested the cool LGs, HTCs or Samsungs. OK, I thought, let's check them out.

And then I found, that they all cannot do what I need and the outdated, dying Nokia is much better value.

And no regret so far.

Your miles will vary.

I agree on all counts. One great Nokia App is the FM transmitter on the C7. Tune any radio (90.00 Mhz) in and play you Nokia music tracks in surround sound. Awesome.

[dominique355]

If you just want a mobile device to make phone calls and nothing else I agree, Nokia gives very good quality and value for your money.

Those who think smartphones have no purpose may not need one. It's fine, not everyone does.

Tables vs. laptops is a different discussion. The prevalent opinion at the moment seems to be that tablets are very simple to use, no need to know much about the technology, they're simple appliances you switch on and use. I've thought long and hard about getting a tablet but I can't really see what I would use it for between my Android phone, my PC and my Kindle reader.

I can fully understand you, I was (and am) in the same situation (Android phone, Kindle, PC and laptop), but the little boy in me took over (toys etc.) and I got myself a HTC Flyer and installed a few apps, i.a. the Kindle app. Now I can read my Kindle books on the tablet and in color. I also appreciate the somewhat bigger screen of the 7" HTC Flyer (compared to the phone), especially for EMail.

And then my SIL brought me a Samsung 10.1 tablet from New York. The 10.1" makes it a bit less manageable then the 7" HTC but it's fast and the screen is great. Today the 1st update was ready and I installed it. Although the HTC has "only" Android 2.3 (compared to V. 3.1 of the Samsung tablet), it doesn't suffer with less speed or possibilities.

I am still looking for a real use for them. Meanwhile I like to fool around with them and explore all the possibilities. (Boyz toyz!)

[lennois]

I'm no symbian fan but the new Symbian Belle is actually pretty nice. It's amazing what a new coat of paint and a few nice transitions can do.

If you aren't a huge apps guy then N8 isn't a bad phone with Belle. Too late to save Nokia's fortunes of course. They are all in on WP7, which I still think they can do alright with.

I've never seen how a tablet fits in with my laptop, ereader and phone either. Can't replace any of them.

Edited August 20, 2011 by lennois

[lomatopo]

Doesn't bother me very much, I'm not a fanboi

You do realize that your multiple posts denigrating Android and Apple, while repeatedly proselytizing the benefits of a phone which you've had for 30 days is the very definition of a fanboi. I'm guessing not.

Mango (MSFT) and See-Ray (NOK) could cure cancer, slice bread and cook your dinner. It just doesn't matter as both companies are too massive, slow-moving, complacent to react to the market. They expect the market to react to them. Additionally there is not enough revenue to share between QCOM, NOK (and other HW makers) and MSFT. I mean, is this the first time any of you have seen this situation?

It is beyond amazing what AAPL and GOOG have accomplished in the mobile connectivity/communications markets in such a short time. (Samsung has also performed amazingly well.) They've actually done different things, but have ended up in (almost) the same place. Larry Page and Steve Jobs are amazing. (I am a long-term AAPL shareholder but own only an iPod.)

Anyone who doesn't see the market potential for tablets, by applying their personal preferences and ignoring the billion or so people who will eventually have a tablet, and not a netbook, are myopic, at best. I understand you might not need a tablet, or see the value, but this tablet market will be huge. And does NOK have any tablet plans? Of course not, because they think in the past. They very idea of a tablet is so foreign to them, it shouldn't be by the way, that they will have missed a ginormous market opportunity.

Edited August 20, 2011 by lomatopo

[lennois]

Doesn't bother me very much, I'm not a fanboi

You do realize that your multiple posts denigrating Android and Apple, while repeatedly proselytizing the benefits of a phone which you've had for 30 days is the very definition of a fanboi. I'm guessing not.

Mango (MSFT) and See-Ray (NOK) could cure cancer, slice bread and cook your dinner. It just doesn't matter as both companies are too massive, slow-moving, complacent to react to the market. They expect the market to react to them. Additionally there is not enough revenue to share between QCOM, NOK (and other HW makers) and MSFT. I mean, is this the first time any of you have seen this situation?

It is beyond amazing what AAPL and GOOG have accomplished in the mobile connectivity/communications markets in such a short time. (Samsung has also performed amazingly well.) They've actually done different things, but have ended up in (almost) the same place. Larry Page and Steve Jobs are amazing. (I am a long-term AAPL shareholder but own only an iPod.)

Anyone who doesn't see the market potential for tablets, by applying their personal preferences and ignoring the billion or so people who will eventually have a tablet, and not a netbook, are myopic, at best. I understand you might not need a tablet, or see the value, but this tablet market will be huge. And does NOK have any tablet plans? Of course not, because they think in the past. They very idea of a tablet is so foreign to them, it shouldn't be by the way, that they will have missed a ginormous market opportunity.

Well I disagree about Nokia and MS. They have been complacent in the past but I'm sure they are both more aware than anyone they can ill afford to be now. Nokia is still well ahead of the curve on the hardware front, and it's not like WP7 development isn't moving at a fast rate with a pretty novel and sexy UI to begin with. The mango updates are rather significant. Yes they are playing catch up but that's only because they started late (and by started I mean seriously started with WP7.) Market share is poor but so was androids for a long time. With noks outreach it's certainly about to climb

From a personal perspective, I love the idea of top notch nok hardware with WP7. WP7 is way slicker than android IMO and mango updates makes the functionality competitive. Doesn't have all the apps right now but they are coming, and the ones there already are generally slick.

As for tablets sure there is a large market, I'm just not included in it currently

Edited August 20, 2011 by lennois

[Crushdepth]

The only problem is that it is now general "knowledge" that Android is cool, while Symbian is yuck.

Don't you just hate it when those pesky customers choose the "cool" products.

Doesn't bother me very much, I'm not a fanboi

When I went shopping for a new smartphone a while ago, priced around 10-15KB, all friends suggested the cool LGs, HTCs or Samsungs. OK, I thought, let's check them out.

And then I found, that they all cannot do what I need and the outdated, dying Nokia is much better value.

And no regret so far.

Your miles will vary.

Back in your cave, caveman !

[Gary A]

Obviously different people like different things. I guess that I am hopelessly living in the past, or am I? What will those superior Android and Apple devices do that my old fashioned Nokia E52 won't do?

Why does my obsolete netbook have many more features than the new tablets and costs a lot less?

I guess that I should add that I DON'T like touchscreens. It's too bad that my Garmin GPS units have to have fingerprints all over the touch screen. Garmin gives me no choice and it's beginning to look like phones and mini computers may not give me a choice for much longer.

[bangkokrick]

Obviously different people like different things. I guess that I am hopelessly living in the past, or am I? What will those superior Android and Apple devices do that my old fashioned Nokia E52 won't do?

Why does my obsolete netbook have many more features than the new tablets and costs a lot less?

I guess that I should add that I DON'T like touchscreens. It's too bad that my Garmin GPS units have to have fingerprints all over the touch screen. Garmin gives me no choice and it's beginning to look like phones and mini computers may not give me a choice for much longer.

Good post Gary and I think that you hit the nail on the head. What will android etc do that the Nokia Symbian phones can't do. As a user I find Nokia phones very easy to use and i have never had to refer to the manuals.Value for money wise my C7 was 12000 baht compared to the Iphone 4 at 28000 baht. That is one hell of a difference considering the C7 will do as much and more than the Iphone. Call me neanderthal but i will stick with Nokia.

[Phil Conners]

There's a rather interesting article on the current situation of pads vs pc's on mashable today.

The other factor to consider is that, as Canalys notes, businesses are quite happy with their PCs. “We have been encouraged by the popularity of Windows 7 and the willingness of businesses to replace their install base,” said Canalys principal analyst Chris Jones in a release. “High-performance PCs are still clearly seen as a major driver of business productivity around the world.” Moreover, “few businesses had yet to replace notebooks with pads or smartphones,” the release states. Canalys expects that it will be a long time before businesses can overcome security concerns and application compatibility issues and embrace the so-called post-PC world.

The mass of consumers who are not thriving in this economy may feel the same way. When you’re pinched for cash, you start running your household like a business, scrutinizing every expense. At that point, an iPad may seem more like a luxury than a necessity and a Wintel PC may look like a great bargain.

[GreenSnapper]

You do realize that your multiple posts denigrating Android and Apple, while repeatedly proselytizing the benefits of a phone which you've had for 30 days is the very definition of a fanboi. I'm guessing not.

I don't see "multiple posts denigrating Android and Apple".

Owning Macs for many years, owning an iPad 2 and owning a Nokia since 4 months, I can't see how you come to those absurd conclusions.

Before buying an iPad, I was almost sold for a Galaxy Tab. Didn't buy it for technical reasons and happy about that decision.

The problems with fanboiz is that they don't want to see technical facts, they see what they have and how much better it is than what others have. They pretend to know that a "a Toyota is better than Mazda - Period!"

I buy anything which suits my needs. I may certainly buy an Android when it is mature enough. At the moment the only Android which I would seriously consider, is the Galaxy SII. The others cannot compete with Nokias in the 10KB range - and I have given my various reasons for my opinion.

Your miles will obviously vary. No reason to start a flame war on that.

[lomatopo]

As for tablets sure there is a large market, I'm just not included in it currently

Is this a Nokia management quote?

BTW, Nokia did have a Netbook, circa 2009, "Booklet".

------------------------

Nod to Mel Brooks…

Nokia Ultra-Senior VP of Customer Facing Activities: “Mr. Elop, the customers are revolting.”

Mr. Elop: “You said it, they stink on ice.”

Look, Nokia could incorporate time-travel into the next release (annabelle?), (of course, it would only take you back to 900 BC where you would be instantly killed for carrying a mobile phone and dressing so strangely), and it just wouldn’t matter.

Forkify it.

[Crushdepth]

Obviously different people like different things. I guess that I am hopelessly living in the past, or am I? What will those superior Android and Apple devices do that my old fashioned Nokia E52 won't do?

Why does my obsolete netbook have many more features than the new tablets and costs a lot less?

I guess that I should add that I DON'T like touchscreens. It's too bad that my Garmin GPS units have to have fingerprints all over the touch screen. Garmin gives me no choice and it's beginning to look like phones and mini computers may not give me a choice for much longer.

The short answer to your first question is "everything"

[FarangBuddha]

Obviously different people like different things. I guess that I am hopelessly living in the past, or am I? What will those superior Android and Apple devices do that my old fashioned Nokia E52 won't do?

Why does my obsolete netbook have many more features than the new tablets and costs a lot less?

I guess that I should add that I DON'T like touchscreens. It's too bad that my Garmin GPS units have to have fingerprints all over the touch screen. Garmin gives me no choice and it's beginning to look like phones and mini computers may not give me a choice for much longer.

The short answer to your first question is "everything"

I agree. These smart"phone" devices are amazing and I am generally not into the latest tech and am definitely a late adopter of such things. I usually wait a few generations whenever new technologies/devices come out until the kinks are worked out and prices come down.

So, after waiting 2-3 years after the first truly multi-function phones came out I bought the HTC Desire which is based on the Android OS. With this device, I can do everything and more that my stand alone computer (desktop or motebook) does at home with a form factor that fits in my pocket. This is especially so in terms of connectivity due to having access to both Wi-Fi and high-speed cellular data networks. The GPS chip also provides mapping and navigational functionality not found in computers.

The form factor is great for travel as well and I and most of my friends have found no need to bring out notebooks with us anymore (I am sitting in a cafe in Phnom Penh having my morning coffee right now as I type this out on my phone while surfing the web and listening to NPR radio [through their App.] I can also watch BBC news radio and video on the events in Libya, download and listen to my favorite podcasts (Google Listen) and check my Schwab balance and even execute some options trades (either using the web or their dedicated Android App.) before my lunch.

So for many people, a full featured smartphone definitely makes sense. In fact. I may never have the need to buy (to upgrade features) another computer again (or at least until the one I have already breaks as instill does need one as a hub unit for processor intensive applications and mass data storage and for video/photo editing and viewing.

In short I love my smartphone...not be side they are "cool" but for the functionality it gives me.

Edited August 23, 2011 by FarangBuddha

[GreenSnapper]

I agree. These smart"phone" devices are amazing and I am generally not into the latest tech and am definitely a late adopter of such things. I usually like to wait a few generations until the kinks are worked out and prices come down.

So, after waiting 2-3 years after the first truly multi-function phones came out I bought the HTC Desire which is based on the Android OS. With this device, I can do everything and more than my stand alone computer (desktop or motebook); this is especially so in terms of connectivity due to having access to both Wi-Fi and high-speed cellular data networks. The GPS chip also provides mapping and navigational functionality not found in computers.

While the HTC Desire is quite cheap nowadays with good specs (but lousy battery I believe?), it does not support 3G 850MHZ and thus cannot be used with DTAC or TRUE 3G. This must be considered when living in Thailand with their fragmented 3G "infrastructure".

In other countries you are normally fine with the standard 900/2100.

Otherwise I agree with you. smartphones are very nice travel devices. I used to travel with a Nokia N800 tablet (4 inch) in the past, but it is a bit slow after 4 years and now I carry an iPad together with my Smartphone. I just like the big screen and the more flexible handling.

But the iPad is for hotel, while the phone is everywhere. The iPad tethers to the phone, so no extra SIM card needed.

BTW, when you travel with a phone only, it is very useful to bring a small, light Bluetooth keyboard for writing emails and longer texts. Then you almost have the "computer experience".

Edited August 23, 2011 by GreenSnapper

[FarangBuddha]

I agree. These smart"phone" devices are amazing and I am generally not into the latest tech and am definitely a late adopter of such things. I usually like to wait a few generations until the kinks are worked out and prices come down.

So, after waiting 2-3 years after the first truly multi-function phones came out I bought the HTC Desire which is based on the Android OS. With this device, I can do everything and more than my stand alone computer (desktop or motebook); this is especially so in terms of connectivity due to having access to both Wi-Fi and high-speed cellular data networks. The GPS chip also provides mapping and navigational functionality not found in computers.

While the HTC Desire is quite cheap nowadays with good specs (but lousy battery I believe?), it does not support 3G 850MHZ and thus cannot be used with DTAC or TRUE 3G. This must be considered when living in Thailand with their fragmented 3G "infrastructure".

In other countries you are normally fine with the standard 900/2100.

Otherwise I agree with you. smartphones are very nice travel devices. I used to travel with a Nokia N800 tablet (4 inch) in the past, but it is a bit slow after 4 years and now I carry an iPad together with my Smartphone. I just like the big screen and the more flexible handling.

But the iPad is for hotel, while the phone is everywhere. The iPad tethers to the phone, so no extra SIM card needed.

BTW, when you travel with a phone only, it is very useful to bring a small, light Bluetooth keyboard for writing emails and longer texts. Then you almost have the "computer experience".

Very good points all...I wad speaking generally but yes, if you will be using the Thai 3G networks, one needs to check that your intended phone model supports the frequencies in use in Thailand.

Agree that the only thing one gives up with a smartphone is a satisfactory form factor for video playback. Therefore, sometimes I will bring along my old notebook for watching movies. This does also milatate for the future purchase of some type of tablet device in the future. (Again waiting a few generations to get the most for my money (Android Ice-Cream ).

As for the Desire, and most smartphones generally, battery life is poor but not so much when you consider the fast (power-hungry) chips and high def displays used and the small form factor (therefore small battery size). Because of this, I carry an external battery pack most of the time.

[Phil Conners]

While the HTC Desire is quite cheap nowadays with good specs (but lousy battery I believe?), it does not support 3G 850MHZ and thus cannot be used with DTAC or TRUE 3G. This must be considered when living in Thailand with their fragmented 3G "infrastructure".

In other countries you are normally fine with the standard 900/2100.

The battery on the Desire is not worse than any other Android phone (or phone with a similarly large screen - which is what consumes most of the power). If it's really a problem you can buy 2-3 spare batteries and a charger on Ebay for $10-15 depending on model.

There are two different Desire models, 850MHz and 900MHz, you just need to get what fits your preferred provider.

AIS use 900MHz for 3G and was at the last count the largest provider in Thailand with almost as many customers as DTAC and True combined.

[lomatopo]

Back to basics...maybe best to cede this market segment to someone else? Not sure first-timers have any Nokia brand awareness, suspect price will be the deciding factor. Nokia 101 sounds like a case-study class on "what not to do".

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/203713/20110825/nokia-launches-budget-smashing-phones-100-and-101.htm

Nokia Launches Budget-Smashing Phones 100 and 101

By Bhaskar Prasad | August 25, 2011 6:55 AM EDT

Finnish handset maker, Nokia, has launched two new phones, both of which are highly affordable. These are the Nokia 101 which comes at a cost of $36 (EUR25) and Nokia 100 that costs $28 (EUR20).

Mary McDowell, executive vice-president of Nokia Mobile Phones, said: “We recognize that for many of the next billion people, a phone purchase is an investment.” She added that these launches further underline the commitment of the company to connect with new consumers.

Nokia 101 is planned to be introduced in Q3 of 2011.

Edited August 25, 2011 by lomatopo

[FarangBuddha]

Back to basics...maybe best to cede this market segment to someone else? Not sure first-timers have any Nokia brand awareness, suspect price will be the deciding factor. Nokia 101 sounds like a case-study class on "what not to do".

http://www.ibtimes.c...100-and-101.htm

Nokia Launches Budget-Smashing Phones 100 and 101

By Bhaskar Prasad | August 25, 2011 6:55 AM EDT

Finnish handset maker, Nokia, has launched two new phones, both of which are highly affordable. These are the Nokia 101 which comes at a cost of $36 (EUR25) and Nokia 100 that costs $28 (EUR20).

Mary McDowell, executive vice-president of Nokia Mobile Phones, said: “We recognize that for many of the next billion people, a phone purchase is an investment.” She added that these launches further underline the commitment of the company to connect with new consumers.

Nokia 101 is planned to be introduced in Q3 of 2011.

Hard to think what they're thinking...when all the money is in the apps and ad-services these days and what sort of apps are developers going to sell to people who can only afford to spend $ 30 for a phone or who would pay to serve ads to these same people.