"Nokia needs device revamp to regain U.S. ground: analysts"

There is a bottom line here.

Nokia sold **** CDMA devices. The market reacted by not buying them.
Nokia decided to get out because they were not selling anything.

Basic business.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:02:43 -0400, Diamond Dave
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:25:34 GMT, John Navas
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>><http://www.theregister.com/2006/10/19/nokia_results/>
>>>
>>> Nokia has consolidated its position as the world's leading mobile
>>> phone maker and announced a 20 per cent rise in net sales during its
>>> fiscal third quarter.
>>
>>I guess you'd care if you had a GSM phone on a GSM carrier. Nokia is
>>leaving the CDMA market, which is fine by me because I don't care for
>>their phones anyhow - GSM or CDMA.
>
> Nokia is leaving the CDMA 2000 market (not the WCDMA market) because "it
> sees [it] as a shrinking market in the longer term".
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

---

› See More: "Nokia needs device revamp to regain U.S. ground: analysts"

Nessnet wrote:
> There is a bottom line here.
>
> Nokia sold **** CDMA devices. The market reacted by not buying them.
> Nokia decided to get out because they were not selling anything.
>
> Basic business.

It was more than that. They couldn't get their CDMA designs past the
carriers acceptance testing. The few that did get thru then fell into
the worst performer category as you described.


>
> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:02:43 -0400, Diamond Dave
>> <[email protected]> wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:25:34 GMT, John Navas
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <http://www.theregister.com/2006/10/19/nokia_results/>
>>>>
>>>> Nokia has consolidated its position as the world's leading mobile
>>>> phone maker and announced a 20 per cent rise in net sales during its
>>>> fiscal third quarter.
>>> I guess you'd care if you had a GSM phone on a GSM carrier. Nokia is
>>> leaving the CDMA market, which is fine by me because I don't care for
>>> their phones anyhow - GSM or CDMA.
>> Nokia is leaving the CDMA 2000 market (not the WCDMA market) because "it
>> sees [it] as a shrinking market in the longer term".
>>
>> --
>> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >> Nokia has consolidated its position as the world's leading mobile
> >> phone maker and announced a 20 per cent rise in net sales during its
> >> fiscal third quarter.
> >
> >I guess you'd care if you had a GSM phone on a GSM carrier. Nokia is
> >leaving the CDMA market, which is fine by me because I don't care for
> >their phones anyhow - GSM or CDMA.
>
> Nokia is leaving the CDMA 2000 market (not the WCDMA market) because "it
> sees [it] as a shrinking market in the longer term".


Great, then why bother such continued cross-postings to
alt.cellular.verizon? Its OT for the n.g.



--Mike

On 2006-10-20, Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
> At 20 Oct 2006 00:22:08 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> Nokia is leaving the CDMA 2000 market (not the WCDMA market) because "it
>> sees [it] as a shrinking market in the longer term".
>
> I'll take "What is Nokia's Official Corporate Excuse for Total Failure in
> the CDMA Market?" for $1000, Alex...
>
> Seriously, we're talking about Nokia, who'll pump out 6 different
> versions of the same phone for a carrier with an 8% market share in Outer
> Mongolia, yet Verizon and Sprint, controlling over half the US market are
> too small a market for them? The same manufacture who designed and
> produced a one-shot GAIT phone for a single client (Cingular), and
> designed and built a new TDMA handset (the 3560) while both major US TDMA
> carriers were in the midst of their conversion to GSM?

I think Nokia's problem with CDMA is that they don't like Qualcomm, or
at least paying licensing fees to Qualcomm. I seem to remember Nokia
and Qualcomm involved in litigation over some of Qualcomm's CDMA patents
a few years ago, and Nokia is the only company I know which has managed to
develop IS-95/CDMA2000 mobile phones without the use of Qualcomm chips or
cores (to minimize the use of licensed Qualcomm intellectual property).
I think the latter is actually quite an admirable achievement, though
it is unfortunate that none of their CDMA phones actually worked
very well.

It is the case that, while the USA managed to bully CDMA2000 through
the ITU as a second 3G phone international "standard", IS-95/CDMA2000 is
actually the proprietary technology of a single company to an extent
that makes GSM and WCDMA (which have their own IPR problems) look quite
free and open, relatively speaking. I guess Nokia decided they could
make a good living by dominating the bigger portion of the market without
having to make Qualcomm rich at the same time, and took the opportunity
to do so.

Note that (to make clear my biases) I think CDMA2000 is superior
technology, in both principle and practice, but the one-company ownership
of the technology bugs me a bit. I guess it bugged Nokia more.

> Nokia has yet to produce a single CDMA handset with any innovation- just
> low-end CDMA knockoffs of their low-end GSM (and TDMA) phones. I
> certainly don't blame them for bailing on CDMA, but it has nothing to do
> with "long term shrinking markets."

Actually I think at a technical level Nokia's CDMA handsets were exceedingly
innovative compared to everything else's since, unlike everyone else, they
managed to build them from scratch without use of Qualcomm silicon or
cores. The phones just didn't work all that well.

Dennis Ferguson

At 21 Oct 2006 21:40:58 +0000 Dennis Ferguson wrote:

> I think the latter is actually quite an admirable achievement, though
> it is unfortunate that none of their CDMA phones actually worked
> very well.

I agree completely. It might be a more interesting wireless world today
if Nokia had managed to pull off a decent Qualcomm-less CDMA chip.

> I guess Nokia decided they could
> make a good living by dominating the bigger portion of the market
without
> having to make Qualcomm rich at the same time, and took the opportunity
> to do so.

I agree again. I really wasn't knocking Nokia's technical prowess as
much as ridiculing their excuse that they're getting out of CDMA because
it's a losing market share. Not wanting to license someone else's
technology is a perfectly valid reason not to play in CDMA. They don't
need a marketing excuse!
>
> Note that (to make clear my biases) I think CDMA2000 is superior
> technology, in both principle and practice, but the one-company
ownership
> of the technology bugs me a bit. I guess it bugged Nokia more.


Agreed. I think CDMA is superior in many ways, but from _my_ end user
standpoint, the ability to change phones without involving my carrier,
and select phones from outside of my carrier's official (and often
"crippled" offerings trumps the technology advantages of CDMA. (This, of
course, is not a technology limitation, just the business decisions of
Sprint and Verizon.)

> > Nokia has yet to produce a single CDMA handset with any innovation-
just
> > low-end CDMA knockoffs of their low-end GSM (and TDMA) phones. I
> > certainly don't blame them for bailing on CDMA, but it has nothing to
do
> > with "long term shrinking markets."
>
> Actually I think at a technical level Nokia's CDMA handsets were
exceedingly
> innovative compared to everything else's since, unlike everyone else,
they
> managed to build them from scratch without use of Qualcomm silicon or
> cores. The phones just didn't work all that well.

You are correct- I was really talking about feature sets rather than
innovation "under the hood." There was nothing compelling in any Nokia
CDMA handset's features that would make customers buy them in enough
numbers to justify Nokia investing more into perfecting their CDMA
chipsets. The world has enough low-end CDMA candy-bar phones to need one
that doesn't work as well, and there are plenty of GSM carriers in the
world to keep Nokia busy building phones that don't enrich Qualcomm.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Todd Allcock wrote:

> I agree again. I really wasn't knocking Nokia's technical prowess as
> much as ridiculing their excuse that they're getting out of CDMA because
> it's a losing market share. Not wanting to license someone else's
> technology is a perfectly valid reason not to play in CDMA. They don't
> need a marketing excuse!

Especially since CDMA is actually gaining market share. CDMA has more
subscribers than any other technology in the U.S., and is increasing its
market share in other countries around the world. Of course outside of
the U.S., except for Korea, increasing your market share is easy when
you are starting from almost nothing. Still, China is expanding CDMA
like crazy, and it still isn't clear what's going to happen in India.

Dennis Ferguson wrote:

> It is the case that, while the USA managed to bully CDMA2000 through
> the ITU as a second 3G phone international "standard", IS-95/CDMA2000 is
> actually the proprietary technology of a single company to an extent
> that makes GSM and WCDMA (which have their own IPR problems) look quite
> free and open, relatively speaking.

Well GSM anyway. W-CDMA is still CDMA, and Qualcomm still gets royalties.

CDMA was the perfect technology for the U.S., where spectrum efficiency
was of paramount importance, and where the longer range of CDMA made it
more suitable for eventual replacement of rural AMPS. This is why CDMA
continues to be the dominant technology in the U.S. and why it continues
to gain market share (though with Sprint's declining fortunes, I think
that CDMA's market share will begin to stabilize and not keep going up).

It has less advantages in densely populated countries, such as most of
Western Europe, where spectrum was not as limited, and where longer
range is not as much of an issue.

But yes, Nokia, and other phone manufacturers despise Qualcomm, much as
memory manufacturers despise Rambus. In Qualcomm's case, their patents
are ironclad, unlike Rambus's patents.

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 13:42:00 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> I agree again. I really wasn't knocking Nokia's technical prowess as
>> much as ridiculing their excuse that they're getting out of CDMA because
>> it's a losing market share. Not wanting to license someone else's
>> technology is a perfectly valid reason not to play in CDMA. They don't
>> need a marketing excuse!
>
>Especially since CDMA is actually gaining market share. CDMA has more
>subscribers than any other technology in the U.S., and is increasing its
>market share in other countries around the world. Of course outside of
>the U.S., except for Korea, increasing your market share is easy when
>you are starting from almost nothing. Still, China is expanding CDMA
>like crazy, and it still isn't clear what's going to happen in India.

Total nonsense.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 13:55:32 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
>> It is the case that, while the USA managed to bully CDMA2000 through
>> the ITU as a second 3G phone international "standard", IS-95/CDMA2000 is
>> actually the proprietary technology of a single company to an extent
>> that makes GSM and WCDMA (which have their own IPR problems) look quite
>> free and open, relatively speaking.
>
>Well GSM anyway. W-CDMA is still CDMA, and Qualcomm still gets royalties.

Not true, as I've explained previously.

>CDMA was the perfect technology for the U.S., where spectrum efficiency
>was of paramount importance, and where the longer range of CDMA made it
>more suitable for eventual replacement of rural AMPS. This is why CDMA
>continues to be the dominant technology in the U.S. and why it continues
>to gain market share (though with Sprint's declining fortunes, I think
>that CDMA's market share will begin to stabilize and not keep going up).

Not true.

>It has less advantages in densely populated countries, such as most of
>Western Europe, where spectrum was not as limited, and where longer
>range is not as much of an issue.
>
>But yes, Nokia, and other phone manufacturers despise Qualcomm, much as
>memory manufacturers despise Rambus. In Qualcomm's case, their patents
>are ironclad, unlike Rambus's patents.

Not true.

0 for 3.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

for those of us new to cell phones, could someone define CDMA2000 and
WCDMA?


"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:02:43 -0400, Diamond Dave
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:25:34 GMT, John Navas
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>><http://www.theregister.com/2006/10/19/nokia_results/>
>>>
>>> Nokia has consolidated its position as the world's leading mobile
>>> phone maker and announced a 20 per cent rise in net sales during its
>>> fiscal third quarter.
>>
>>I guess you'd care if you had a GSM phone on a GSM carrier. Nokia is
>>leaving the CDMA market, which is fine by me because I don't care for
>>their phones anyhow - GSM or CDMA.
>
> Nokia is leaving the CDMA 2000 market (not the WCDMA market) because "it
> sees [it] as a shrinking market in the longer term".
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDMA2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W-CDMA


On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 07:57:48 -0400, "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>for those of us new to cell phones, could someone define CDMA2000 and
>WCDMA?
>
>
>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:02:43 -0400, Diamond Dave
>> <[email protected]> wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:25:34 GMT, John Navas
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>><http://www.theregister.com/2006/10/19/nokia_results/>
>>>>
>>>> Nokia has consolidated its position as the world's leading mobile
>>>> phone maker and announced a 20 per cent rise in net sales during its
>>>> fiscal third quarter.
>>>
>>>I guess you'd care if you had a GSM phone on a GSM carrier. Nokia is
>>>leaving the CDMA market, which is fine by me because I don't care for
>>>their phones anyhow - GSM or CDMA.
>>
>> Nokia is leaving the CDMA 2000 market (not the WCDMA market) because "it
>> sees [it] as a shrinking market in the longer term".
>>
>> --
>> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Here are links for you:

http://www.mobileisgood.com/CDMA2000_evolution.html
http://www.mobileisgood.com/WhatIsUMTS.html (second one for W-CDMA)


"Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> for those of us new to cell phones, could someone define CDMA2000 and
> WCDMA?
>
>
> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:02:43 -0400, Diamond Dave
>> <[email protected]> wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:25:34 GMT, John Navas
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>><http://www.theregister.com/2006/10/19/nokia_results/>
>>>>
>>>> Nokia has consolidated its position as the world's leading mobile
>>>> phone maker and announced a 20 per cent rise in net sales during its
>>>> fiscal third quarter.
>>>
>>>I guess you'd care if you had a GSM phone on a GSM carrier. Nokia is
>>>leaving the CDMA market, which is fine by me because I don't care for
>>>their phones anyhow - GSM or CDMA.
>>
>> Nokia is leaving the CDMA 2000 market (not the WCDMA market) because "it
>> sees [it] as a shrinking market in the longer term".
>>
>> --
>> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>
>

From what I've seen, you explain nothing.

As I see it 0 for 0 - and alot of BS....


"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Not true, as I've explained previously.
>
> Not true.
>

> Not true.
>
> 0 for 3.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 13:42:00 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>Todd Allcock wrote:
>>
>>> I agree again. I really wasn't knocking Nokia's technical prowess
>>> as much as ridiculing their excuse that they're getting out of CDMA
>>> because it's a losing market share. Not wanting to license someone
>>> else's technology is a perfectly valid reason not to play in CDMA.
>>> They don't need a marketing excuse!
>>
>>Especially since CDMA is actually gaining market share. CDMA has more
>>subscribers than any other technology in the U.S., and is increasing
>>its market share in other countries around the world. Of course
>>outside of the U.S., except for Korea, increasing your market share is
>>easy when you are starting from almost nothing. Still, China is
>>expanding CDMA like crazy, and it still isn't clear what's going to
>>happen in India.
>
> Total nonsense.
>


Prove it.

Diamond Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:25:34 GMT, John Navas
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> <http://www.theregister.com/2006/10/19/nokia_results/>
>>
>> Nokia has consolidated its position as the world's leading mobile
>> phone maker and announced a 20 per cent rise in net sales during its
>> fiscal third quarter.
>
> I guess you'd care if you had a GSM phone on a GSM carrier. Nokia is
> leaving the CDMA market, which is fine by me because I don't care for
> their phones anyhow - GSM or CDMA.

Nokia is far behind Motorola in the U.S. market, due to their almost
total lack of CDMA phones. Since CDMA is the leading technology in the
U.S., with more subscribers than GSM, it really makes Nokia's goal of
being number one in the U.S. a fantasy. They really are going to have to
re-enter the CDMA market at some point, as CDMA continues to expand in
growing markets like China.