| Author |
Have Sony Ericsson finally taken the lead in global mobile phone solutions? |
ares
Joined: Dec 11, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Coimbra, Portugal
PM |
@Super G you say 6680 has everything, does it have fm radio??? All a modern phone can have then??? lol
[ This Message was edited by: Arez on 2005-03-23 15:46 ] | |
|
goldenface
Joined: Dec 17, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Liverpool City Centre
PM |
The CEOs of  have no intention of staying at No6, that has been made quite plain. They intend to be No1. It is better for them to take on Europe and Japan first as these are traditionally the most difficult markets to break into.
Where their sales will take a huge leap is when they get established in the larger, less mature markets of India, SE Asia and China.
They have done well to be no 3 in Europe where they are competing with more established players. They have done this by producing cutting edge, high end phones which have done well and not done this by flooding the market with dumbed-down smartphones. |
mib1800
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: > 500
PM |
@scotsboyuk
Quote:
|
Please read my posts, I am speaking of the high-end market. The cross-section I refer to is within the high-end market, or do you assume that only certain 'types' buy high-end mobile phones?
|
|
OK. So then am I right to assume that u r advocating the majority of these "high-end" buyers are indifferent to (or hv no knowledge of) the smart-features of a phone?
Quote:
|
As for the K750 being 'steam-rolled' over, why should it be? Unless one specifically wants smartphone capabilities thenwhy would one choose a mobile that has inferior specifications on basic features common to all mobile phones (and desired by the majority of the public)?
|
|
My scenario (which I hv made known to u quite a few times) is that what if both smart & non-smart have similar basic features? Then how would this situation play out?
Quote:
|
As has been covered many times in this thread, smartphones and non-smartphones do not compete with one anothe ron the same terms, no matter how much you may wish to the contrary.
|
|
how do they compete then? Hypothetically, if Joe Blogg has shortlisted 2 phones (s60 and K750). Here assume Joe Blogg has no idea s60 is a smartphone, an idea which is compatible with ur assertion. How will Joe Blogg decide?
Quote:
|
The 6600 offers a good range of basic features, which customers can identify with, it also has the look of an ordinary mobile phone, agains omething most customers appreciate. One only has to look at some of Nokia's..... (so on and so on)
|
|
Let's uncomplicate the issue. Let me ask you this. Assume 6600 is NOT a smartphone. If u r buying a phone and u hv 6600/ T630/K700/6230/E700 as your choices, would anyone in the right mind think that the 6600 is an attractive/competitive choice? Would you?
Quote:
|
The average Joe going to buy a new televsion may very well be told that it has a range of sound options and that the display features certain amazing qualities, but these sort of thing aren't important to him. The average man on the street wants certain features that he knows about e.g. picture quality, sound quality and reliability. He probably doesn't care less what the screen is coated with or if the sound system can be hooked up to certain speakers to provide a difference in quality he probably can't and won't appreciate.
....
|
|
Aiyah, you r wandering off again and not answering my point.
To put it shortly. You are offered tv A and B. Both perform the same in basic features (e.g. picture/sound quality). To entice you to buy tv A, salesman throws in advanced options (displ/sound/speakers features) for free. Do you buy tv A or B?
Why is it so difficult to see that many buyers will be tempted by tv A?
Quote:
|
....but this is tantamount to what youb are doing in assuming that smartphone sales increases are attributable to smartphone capabilities alone.
|
|
This is ABSOLUTELY NOT what I meant or implied. You r blatantly presumptous here.
What I am saying is that smartphone is as "leading edge" as K750 and if basic phone capability is similar, then the smart-features give an added (and by no mean an absolute) competitive advantage.
Quote:
|
I was taught something at nurserey school that has stayed with me for the rest of my life. I shall try and remember the exact quote ... ah yes, "... because I'm right and you're wrong!" |
|
a wise man once said, "look before you jump"  |
dave_uk
Joined: Mar 06, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: London, UK
PM |
@ Super G
I agree with virtually everything you just posted! 
Although, I'm not sure what the benefits are of the "stealth" introduction of smartphones by Nokia, unless we assume that people do start to use some of the features that they didn't know were there out of curiosity and therefore take to using more services. This would surely only benefit the operators (new revenue streams from wider adoption of data services for example), though, rather than the manufacturers, which does leverage their position but is a very indirect benefit at any rate.
As I said, I'm not sure about the benefits of this ploy, as the feedback I get through my job is that the majority of people still value simplicity above all else when talking about mobiles, and Nokia may even turn their meat and drink against them if they continue in this vein.
But I guess we'll have to wait and see... 
@MIB
_________________
This message was posted in an envelope
[ This Message was edited by: dave_uk on 2005-03-23 16:02 ] |
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-03-23 16:37:30, Super G wrote:
UIQ3.0 as correctly pointed out offers alternatives to pen-based input. I was referring to earlier version of UIQ that didnt have other alternative but pen-based earlier.
|
|
Then again the Pxxx series wasn't really aimed at those ooking for a mid-range smartphone, it was aimed at business users requiring a certain degree of PDA functionality.
Quote:
|
I think UIQ3.0 will offer completely new market opportunities to and as such will allow to do what Nokia does with s60, no doubt about that.
|
|
It will allow that, but that is very unlikely to happen. SE's strategy so far has been to release select handsets, not flood the market with a massive range. SE will very likely apply that same strategy to any new smartphones.
Quote:
|
I do believe in fact it has hit not to have any cheap smartphone to date.
|
|
I would agree with you if SE's strategy had been to compete in the smartphone market in the same way Nokia has. Simpy put SE have not bothered with this market to any great extent yet. SE perhaps realise that since the majority of customers want certain features it is better to produce handsets that offer those features rather than concentrate on smartphones, which, as a smaller, company, they may not be able to sell as effectively as Nokia.
Quote:
|
What Nokia is showing to the market (and in fact pioneering) is that you can sell millions of smartphones without people necessarily knowing they get a smartphone. And it works.
|
|
It only works because Nokia sell so many mobiles anyway. If Nokia was decide to give away a free slic eof cheese with each handset thenc heese consumption would no doubt rise. Smartphones have come to make up a large percentage of Nokia's product range, hence they sell well. Your point about people not knowing they are getting a smartphone is spot on and is probably one of the principle reasons that other manufacturers haven't bothered with the smartphone market to the same extent as Nokia has.
What will be interesting to see is how the manufacturers respond when the smartphone market has matured to the point where they are very much in the mainstream.
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC |
mib1800
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: > 500
PM |
@max_wedge
Quote:
|
I never said that it was so, I only referred to the many times you inferred that it was. I'm not going to look for more examples since the ones I've already given are obvious enough.
|
|
is the following the same?
1. "smartphone is a high-end phone"
2. "high-end phone must be smartphone"
|
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-03-23 16:50:15, mib1800 wrote:
OK. So then am I right to assume that u r advocating the majority of these "high-end" buyers are indifferent to (or hv no knowledge of) the smart-features of a phone?
|
|
Bingo! Finally it seems to have dawned on you!  Most people who buy a mobile phone, irrespective of whether or not it is high-end or not don't care for smartphone features. They have no need for them in their professional lives. More importantly still they have no need for them in their social lives.
Mobile phones are social tools, they are status symboles, whether it is children in the playground or chaps in the pub. People like to impress other people with what they have. Demonstrating how one's mobile can display a spreadsheet is not quite a simpressive to the vast bulk of the population as demonstrating how one's mobile can play an mp3 is.
Smartphone features will only matter to someone who actually uses them. If the sales assistant says, "Oh and your mobile can edit word documents", the customer may very well smile and nod, but unless they are actually going to use that feature they will, in all likelyhood, forget about it. It will simply not make a difference to their buying decision.
Quote:
|
My scenario (which I hv made known to u quite a few times) is that what if both smart & non-smart have similar basic features? Then how would this situation play out?
|
|
Why are you asking this question again when I have expaline dit so many times? I shall break it down into three simple componnets for you:
Price - a major factor for most people
Design - people like to buy tings that they think looks good
Conservatism - most people like to stick with what they know, especially where technology is concerned
The customer will opt for the product he is most happy with, namely that, which he feels most comfortable using and isn't too pricey. If soemone has always used a Motoroal, for example, then that person is quite liekly to kepe buying a Motorola (if he's happy with its performance of coure).
Take a look through mobile forums like HoFo, m-r, etc and notice how people stick to the brand they know. It's what people do hence why advertising companies make so much money as companies try to change people's minds.
Quote:
|
how do they compete then? Hypothetically, if Joe Blogg has shortlisted 2 phones (s60 and K750). Here assume Joe Blogg has no idea s60 is a smartphone, an idea which is compatible with ur assertion. How will Joe Blogg decide?
|
|
Joe Bloggs will decide based on the criteria I set out above. If Joe Bloggs has been using a Nokia since he first bought a mobile phone and has always liked them then he is more likely to buy a other Nokia than a handset from a manufacturer that he doesn't necessarily know a great deal about.
If Mr Bloggs decides that the K750's camera, for example, is something that he needs then he may buy the K750. If Mr Bloggs decides that the S60 looks better then he may buy that.
Here we see what is known as 'customer choice'. What happens is that the customer will compare each potential purchase and he will decide, which one he will rather have.
If Mr Bloggs is looking for a smartphone then he is not going to consider buying a non-smartphone is he? Standing in a shop comparing a S60 with a K750 when he knows that he needs a smartphone seems somwhat stupid. Now what Mr Bloggs may do if he is looking for a smartphone is to compare an S60 with another smartphone, since that would be a valid comparison and a far better use of his time and effort.
The bottom line is that those seeking basic features will compare smartphone and non-smartphones on a like for like basis. Those looking to buy a smartphone are not going to compare it with a non-smartphone.
Quote:
|
Let's uncomplicate the issue. Let me ask you this. Assume 6600 is NOT a smartphone. If u r buying a phone and u hv 6600/ T630/K700/6230/E700 as your choices, would anyone in the right mind think that the 6600 is an attractive/competitive choice? Would you?
|
|
I didn't realise you found the issue complicated, but fair enough ...
There are two points to consider here:
1.) The 6600 is a amsartphone, what exactly is your point in asking me to assume that it isn't? I might as well assume that a house is a mobile phone and compare it with a K700. Having to alter actual facts sorrunding the issue does nothing save to complicate the issue, which is the opposite of hat you said you were doing.
2.) Going along with your assumption one comes across a very strange question. Namely; what are you trying to prove? As I said before, you are not the standard, by which society sets is design meter. Everyone has individual tastes, just because you do not think the 6600 is a nice looking handset does not mean to say that millions of people share that opinion.
Personally I am not a huge fan of the design of the D500, thinking it too feminine, but millions of other men obviously disagree with me since they seem to be buying it.
The 6600 has a decent range of non-smartphone features and to be quite honest (now don't tell mib1800 this ) I actually rather ,ike the way it looks. Whethe a handset is a smartphone or not does not really directly affect whether someone is going to like thew ay it looks or not, they either will or they won't, as is the case with anything people buy.
Quote:
|
Aiyah, you r wandering off again and not answering my point.
|
|
I was, I thought an example would be best since I have found that direct points seem to need repeating ...
Quote:
|
To put it shortly. You are offered tv A and B. Both perform the same in basic features (e.g. picture/sound quality). To entice you to buy tv A, salesman throws in advanced options (displ/sound/speakers features) for free. Do you buy tv A or B?
Why is it so difficult to see that many buyers will be tempted by tv A?
|
|
Ah we say hello to our old friend Mr Twsited Words again!
You are not responding to my example, except to alter it to suit your argument. As in the above examples, the customer will choose the product he likes best. People are not stupid, they generally know what they wantwithin certain parameters. Fancy extra features are all very well if the customr understands what they are, how they can use them and more importantly if they are actually relevant to the customer.
When people are spending a lot of money on something they become very concerned about not being rippe doff or sold something that is unnecessary. Consumr analysis tends to become very conservative at this stage and people have a tendency to 'go with what they know'.
Quote:
|
This is ABSOLUTELY NOT what I meant or implied. You r blatantly presumptous here.
|
|
Read your post, you will see that you do infer that smartphone sales increases come froms martphone abilities. If you accept that smartphone sales are increasing and you refute that this is mainly due to manufacturers (read Nokia) substituting a large proportion of their product base for smartphones, effectively pushing customers towards smartphones as opposed to buying non-smartphones, then all you really have left to explain the ris eins ales are the smartphone capabilities themselves.
Quote:
|
What I am saying is that smartphone is as "leading edge" as K750 and if basic phone capability is similar, then the smart-features give an added (and by no mean an absolute) competitive advantage.
|
|
This asusmption is wrong because, as I have repeatedly stated, those smartphone abilities only impart an edge when the customer is actually looking for them. The K750 is an advanced non-smartphone and can be compared to smartphones only in so far as the abilities it shared with them.
Quote:
|
a wise man once said, "look before you jump"
|
|
I say "Get someone to carry you."
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC |
ares
Joined: Dec 11, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Coimbra, Portugal
PM |
Quote:
| Let's uncomplicate the issue. Let me ask you this. Assume 6600 is NOT a smartphone. If u r buying a phone and u hv 6600/ T630/K700/6230/E700 as your choices, would anyone in the right mind think that the 6600 is an attractive/competitive choice? Would you? |
|
I see young kids with it, i see old folks with it, i see every kind of people with 6600. Most of those are people that bought it because itīs a nokia and it was strongly advertised by nokia and operators here (Vodafone, TMN and Optimus) as a CAMERA PHONE. Adds on magazines focused 6600 on itīs imaging abilities, not s60 special functions
They bought it because it was a Nokia, and a nokia camera phone
Other people bought it because it was Nokiaīs top of the line phone when it was launched, and it was also advertised as business phone
And the minority bought if because they want/need S60
_________________
k700i + hbh 600
http://pbase.com/ares (my photo page)
[ This Message was edited by: Arez on 2005-03-23 17:14 ] |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
@dave, I reckon the operators are getting into bed with the phone companies, who are driving the content war.
Also, SE have Sony, a massive content provider, as one half of the SE equation.
|
*Jojo*
Joined: Oct 15, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
Nokia will still rule the mobile fone industry this year - 2005 !
[addsig] |
mib1800
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: > 500
PM |
@scotsboyuk:
I got to give it to you, ur lecture on human buying behaviour is eye-opening. There may some truth in it for some buyers but it is a bit far-fetched, imho, when u say the majority of high-end phone buyers are indifferent to or hv no knowledge or hv no use for smartphone.
I see we r going nowhere. I believe smartphone is taking off and u said it is not. Maybe u can advise SE (since ur r rumoured to be working for them ), to sleep on the smartphone thing for 2 years.
btw: Mr Evader, you still have not answer my question (not that i expect u to). Do u take tv A or tv B? Do you find 6600 competitive if it is not a smartphone?
|
c96sthl
Joined: Mar 31, 2002
Posts: > 500
PM |
it seem like SE can stop hiring their consultation from all the big marketing, advertising and indutrial design firm to get an in depth knowledge of consumer/user behavior....not to mention future trend of mobile user.
They can find it all from Esato...... |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
@mib there are no phones that can be compared in that way. You are assuming that people don't consider style or personal ergonomics choices, which are unique to the individual.
I may see two phones identical in features, except that one phone is a smartphone. Say the smartphone does not appeal to my sense of style or ergonomics. The other phone perfectly suits my sense of style and ergonomics, but isn't a smart phone.
In that context I'd take the non-smartphone, since ergonomics and style are more important to me than smartphone capabilities. Before you decry me as vain, I actually would buy the smartphone over the ergonomicly perfect phone if the smartphone had better camera, memory, and music ability, since those three things are a the top of my list of what I want in a phone. (other than telephony of course!).
But we are comparing phones with identical features, one smart one not. Now if the style and ergonomics both appealed to me equally, yes I would buy the damn smartphone. BUT GUESS WHAT? There is no smartphone on the market that suits my top priorities ie: camera, memory, music, ergonomics and style, in that order.
SE keep besting Nokia in features, ergonomics and style, so you see, because Nokia can't produce a phone that satisfies those criteria for me, I haven't yet been tempted to buy a Nokia smartphone. I want to buy a smartphone, I'm keen, but I suspect it will take SE to bring one out that satisfies my expectations of what a truly good phone/pda integration should be.
To me a phone is a phone first, multimedia device second, and a smartphone third.
|
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
I got to give it to you, ur lecture on human buying behaviour is eye-opening. There may some truth in it for some buyers but it is a bit far-fetched, imho, when u say the majority of high-end phone buyers are indifferent to or hv no knowledge or hv no use for smartphone.
|
|
I don't see it as being far fetched at all, simply because that is what the current mobile market is like. As time progresses and smartphones are actually pushed for what they are and made more relevant to people then they will become more interested in them.
I don't think we should necessarily equate a high-end phone buyer with someone who is deeply interested in technology. There is the case for both, but in between those extremes and on one extreme we have people who are buying such products for the 'wow factor' and because they merely like a certain feature or two.
Quote:
|
I see we r going nowhere. I believe smartphone is taking off and u said it is not.
|
|
Actually I do think smartphones are taking off, which you can see from my previous posts in this thread. I do not think, however, that increased smartphones sales are necessarily to do with an uptake in interest in smartphone features though.
More and more people are becoming interested in smartphones as smartphones, but I think we are still a few years away from a situation, in which smartphones can enter the mainstream mobile market on their own merits i.e. smartphone features and be accepted by the high-end customer at large.
Quote:
|
Maybe u can advise SE (since ur r rumoured to be working for them ), to sleep on the smartphone thing for 2 years.
|
|
SE are rumoured to have two new smartphones coming out this year, which you can read about here. There is also rumoured to be a new generation of smartphone, the P1000 if you will, next year. So I'm told anyway; Miles mentioned it to me when we were standing in the lunch queue.
Quote:
|
btw: Mr Evader, you still have not answer my question (not that i expect u to). Do u take tv A or tv B? Do you find 6600 competitive if it is not a smartphone?
|
|
I thought I did answer those questions, but nevertheless ...
On the question of the telly:
Personally I would choose the one I liked best, irrespective of what fancy features it had. I prefer Sony products as I believe them to be of a high quality, so I would probably go with the Sony option if there was one. I have bought products before that didn't have quite as many features as another product because I don't need them and I know may people who have done likewise. Basically I would choose the option that best suited my needs, fancy features or not.
As for the 6600:
I think the 6600 was very competitive when it was released, although it does look somewhat dated now (both in terms of basic and smartphone features). As Arez pointed out, all sorts of people bought a 6600 simply because it was a Nokia cameraphone. Personally I would have bought a 6600 if I had been out of contract when it came out. My K700 was bought for me and by the time the S700 was released the 6600 was outdated in terms of the basic features that I wanted from it. However, given the option I would have probably bought a 6600, I rather liked the look of it and it had a fairly good range of basic features that I would have used.
You have been a most worthy opponent sir, I doff my cap to thee.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2005-03-24 12:32 ] |
Cell Phone Votary
Joined: Mar 23, 2005
Posts: 28
From: Hot AZ, US
PM |
I have had several PDA/Phones and always ended going back to a regular phone, the screens are just to small for real work. | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2005-03-23 16:42
