ysss | # 41 | 2010-10-01, 17:08 | Report

Thanks for demonstrating the spirit of optimism, unfortunately it doesn't directly address the issue of bottomline that I (and apparently all other Nokia's shareholders) are asking about.

High profit = enough gap between the selling price and the costs (not just the cost to produce, but also to operate the company). Just take a peek at iSuppli's parts breakdown reports. I really doubt Nokia's profit per unit can be anywhere near as well as you alluded.

bsving | # 42 | 2010-10-01, 17:48 | Report

LOL, well - sell then, and buy something else, RIM for instance . Profit per unit is one thing. Number of units sold is another. It all depends on how big a shareholder you are

N8, E7, C7, C6-01, same stuff (CPU+GPU), different wrappings. Phones for everyone, teenagers to buiz. And more will come.

ysss | # 43 | 2010-10-01, 18:33 | Report

Profit is ALWAYS measured in % and it's a significant measure of (business) success in any operation.

When that number is negative (or near zero), then the more units you sell can actually be worse for your company's operation. (Have to compare how much you have to lose by lowering your output or not producing at all, etc)

I think we're analyzing things on a different level here; you can't just compare companies 'success' by how much buzzword they tap into.

bsving | # 44 | 2010-10-02, 10:07 | Report

I don't think you get it. The current Symbian^3 series (in lack of any other name), is based on a CPU that entered the marked several years ago. What makes you think Nokia pay anything other than pure manufacturing costs on this one? Everything about that chip is already paid for, mostly by Nokia by he way. The GPU is a BCM2727. It is a stand-alone video/imaging chip with 2D and 3D capabilities exceeding the performance of anything else out there right now, and with much lower power consumption. In any case, that combination performs better and is considerably cheaper than for instance Samsungs Cortex-A8 based system used in the iPhone.

Profit per unit? it depends on your aim, and it is highly dependent on how many units you sell due to decreased manufacturing and development cost per unit. Nokia sell tons of units, and in the end it is the total profit (and stability) that counts for the big share holders at Nokia. Nokia is the biggest fish of them all, no one is out to purchase Nokia for their potential future profit margins or growth potential.

I don't understand why you have Nokia shares if short term profit is your goal, it is not like they will grow several hundred percent anytime soon, or anytime at all

ysss | # 45 | 2010-10-02, 10:40 | Report

Apple sells the iPhone 4 16GB for $599
Their parts cost per unit is $188 (ref: http://www.slashgear.com/iphone-4-co...uppli-2992005/)

How much cheaper do you reckon the parts cost for an N8 is?

RFS-81 | # 46 | 2010-10-02, 11:40 | Report

You forget that Apple's profit margins are out of proportion, compared to almost anythin else out there.
It's something that will pass.

ysss | # 47 | 2010-10-02, 12:18 | Report

Well, that's another argument (Ie: Apple has been around since 1976 and it's now 2010 and they keep finding new niches to charge their exorbitant prices to.).

I was giving some food for thoughts to bsing.

bsving | # 48 | 2010-10-02, 12:23 | Report

Just about the same as the N900 by the looks of it, or any other high end phone. However, I don't disagree, Apple knows how to do this better than anyone else, but that is not the point. The iPhone is a luxury fashion toy for the upper middle classes around the world. Its marked share is what? 1-2 % or something.

You might as well compare a Porsche that cost 40 thousand to produce and is sold for 200 thousands, and a Toyota that cost 10 thousand to produce, and is sold for 15 thousand. Now, who makes must money? Toyota, there is no comparison, even though he profit margins at Porsche is sky high. You cannot simply isolate the margins from the total, it makes no sense.

But for the sake of the argument. Lets say the N8 in the US cost $500, should be about right, and the parts cost the same as the iPhone. The iPhone has a margin of $412 while the N8 has $312 The N8 only need to sell 30% more units to make the same total profit. However, the C7 and C6-01 and E7 use essentially the same HW except camera, and a few other details. The C6 sells for maybe $300 in the us, but the part cost is about the same, $188. The profit margin for the C6 is only $112. The C6 will outsell the others by orders of magnitude. This will enable Nokia to lower their production costs, of not only the C6, but the whole range. What Nokia has to pay is more in the order of $90 (relatively), maybe even less, for the core parts. Nokia has 40% market share. 40% of all GSM radios are used in a Nokia phone, Nokia dictate prices. On top of this, Nokia use the an Arm 11. This processor virtually cost nothing for Nokia, and by doing this, Nokia prevents the cost of more advanced processors to drop. They also use the Broadcom GPU, preventing the price of PVR GPUs to drop.

Nokia is king, it doesn't matter what we think. I bet Nokia could sell the N8 for $100 and still make lots of money, but substantially less than at $500. No other manufacturer can do this.