Re: Let's talk Nokia stock. Really.
 

You are right, Google paid exorbitant price for Motorola. Everyone acknowledges it was a waste of money

http://www.businessinsider.com/motor...-market-2013-7

NOKIA may have been a better purchase, but I dont think that Finns were looking to sell in 2010. I think they were looking to add value to the worthless Symbian and dead Maemo. They chose Windows for two reasons: differentiate, and make MS dependent on them, so if worst came to worst, they could count on selling to MS for a good price as MS had not other significant manufacturer but NOKIA. Very clever I would say.

OK. Lets take Android love scenario. No differentiation. competing with Samsung and company, you fail, nobody will want you and nobody will buy you. If you succeed, it will still be low margins as you are cut throating with Samsung and other Asian companies. So Android would produce no buyer and would likely not give you much profits.

Re: Let's talk Nokia stock. Really.
 

hahahahahahahahhahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahaahhahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Re: Let's talk Nokia stock. Really.
 

No, Nokia wasn't selling in 2010. If they were, they'd be worth more than Motorola. After years of dealing with Microsoft only, they were quite worthless because they didn't have any operating system(s) of their own, they didn't have a distribution channel of their own any more, they didn't have the same marketshare and mindshare as before, and ultimately, they weren't in the same position as before.

But even if Nokia were to sell to Google and not Microsoft, they would have been worth more than Motorola in 2013 than $7 Billion dollars based on brand strength (weakened), brand position (weakened) and it would be seen as a bargain at $7 Billion, which honestly I think - and I'm quick to point out how the Nokia Board screwed themselves) is an under-evaluation. And that's what I say about a company that's pissed me off more times than I can count.

Don't forget that Symbian had more share in 2010 than Windows does in 2013. So... are you saying that WP8 is more worthless than Symbian? Think about it.

Not clever enough. It sank their stock prices even further. WP was just a thin bandaid on a very injured Nokia. It didn't stop the bleeding, just slowed it down somewhat.

You're arguing that Android would have been the lesser way. I disagree, Nokia could have handled multiple OS's easily. They had in the past. So why not do it with more modern ones in the future? Take Android, skin it, make it your own. Worked for Samsung. And they've differentiated themselves quite well.

I won't argue that point though. It's not in my best interests since it didn't happen. I can talk about valuation a bit more though; because of the factors that are known - patent portfolio, programming acumen, marketing and mindshare that Nokia still commanded in 2010. And I'll even say this - Maemo/MeeGo was not in their best interests.

Nokia never knew what to do with Maemo or MeeGo. So Android + WP could have been their future. Not Symbian. Not MeeGo. MeeGo should have been adopted by other companies - which, is what Jolla did years later.

Re: Let's talk Nokia stock. Really.
 

Man, you are really phuckin' stupid.

Ah hahahaha

Re: Let's talk Nokia stock. Really.
 

Let us see... I think you were talking about Nokia mobile division being worthless and all in2010, and my claim was that the mobile division was healthy. Let us not changing the channel.....So let us look at the number, shall we look at the company's official sale numbers, in million of units

yr 2009 yr 2010
Nokia 67.8 100.3
Apple 25.1 47.5

Just for kicks, the sale # for Apple was also shown as well:)
So, unless Nokia was selling at a lost for ALL their units, then I guess the Nokia evaluation at 2010 could be not too bad. Hey, if they could make $2 profit per sale unit, than it would work out to be $200M profit on the year -- not too bad in terms of actual $.

Now, unless the management at Nokia were really really really bad:), it would be very hard for Nokia to sell ZERO number of unit and to make a LOSS in next year. So, from where I sit(plus wearing a rose coloured glasses also helps), In 2010, Nokia mobile were not worthless as you claimed; or it was in such an unhealthy state that a 180 degree turn of business direction was needed.

If Nokia is still worth a few $B dollars now to MS given their current performance(isn't the year to date sale # ending Sept 2013 was below 5M units?), then surely Nokia mobile in 2010 timeframe would have worth a LOT more than ZERO(plus, they already have had a nice set of tech patents and all in 2010 - which should also count for some $$$ if they were in talk for selling the unit at all)

I welcome you to show the numbers/results to counter my view.

May be Mr. Elop is your hero, the nice turn-around-artist in your book; but me think - he did a poor job and tanked the company big time. The really sad things are that lot of families, lives and were damaged by his actions and that was hameful.

Cheers

Re: Let's talk Nokia stock. Really.
 

Hence lies the trick of management. They knew they lost the battle, that this was the last year where they pushed their inferior devices at cutthroat prices, and it looks great, like that model marriage that you then read in the papers where the husband took an axe and decapitated his wife. OPK wanted to go on the high, but they all new, that the battle was lost.

So the problem for people like you, is that you dont understand that despite the great numbers (hell BB had them too, should I pull those also?), the pre-ELOP nokia was dead man walking. Everyone was abandoning Symbian. It looks like OPK went on the high note, while it belied his incompetence to set a new course for NOKIA.

YOu can inhale this numbers, let them soothe your belief that somehow Elop destroyed NOKIA, that somehow Finns hired the butcher and let him kill the whole of Finland, without a single Finn raising a hand to stop him (sounds like Finns are then very impotent under that scenario). But the beauty of the human brain is to dig underneath the numbers and to realize that pre-Elop NOKIA was dead. Very dead. So dead, that they brought in Elop to set a new course. If you dont see this, you will lose on investments, you will lose when you lead, and you are a loser.

Re: Let's talk Nokia stock. Really.
 

I am a simple guy. All I know is this: a single digit number, says 5 is much less than 100. As in most things in life, more is better. So, under Mr Elop's leadership, Nokia latest sale were under 10M; Nokia sale in 2009-2010 were 100M. So, on sale # alone, Elop is not doing too hot.

So, let me think... Nokia went from being able to sell 100M units to below 10M, and other Android phone(say Samsung) went from 10M(my guess) to 90M(saw this # somewhere). if you can call Nokia's result is a improvement/a turn-around, Wow...what a concept,.

If Nokia was very dead before Elop, then do I have to believe that Nokia is MUCH better now because they are having 10x less sale and putting themself up for sale is a good thing.

By the way, it seems that you like to change the channel again by talking about BB's numbers. If you believe Nokia under Elop is doing better than before Mr. Elop's management? Then I guess you are wearing a much better rose-colored lens than I. Well, it is a 'free' internet :); you are entitled to what you think.

Cheers,

Re: Let's talk Nokia stock. Really.
 

I can see why you are simple. You are right, you just look at the numbers. Very unexamined life.

Navigation devices and cameras?

Re: Let's talk Nokia stock. Really.
 

The answer may lie here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2...evices_whynot/