Sony Ericsson / Sony : General : Have Sony Ericsson finally taken the lead in global mobile phone solutions?
>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
Sony Ericsson / Sony >
General
> Have Sony Ericsson finally taken the lead in global mobile phone solutions?
Bookmark topic
@scotsboyuk
Quote:What I am trying to do is demonstrate the absurdity of your argument when reliant upon statistics. My own argument is equally as absurd in such circumstances.
I absolutely do not agree with this. As I have said in response to slattery, every piece of information is vital. Whether u like it or not, stats may the only thing we have to help us understand the dynamics of the market/human behaviour. If u discard these stats, then we go into the realms of the soothsayers.
Quote:
Yes I can actually for a very simple reason, there is no proof to the contrary. That every mobile manufacturer isn't racing to produce as many smartphones as possible and that mobile phone networks are not rushing to implement features supporting smartphones indicates to me that there is no major demand for them yet. It is simple deductive reasoning.
Yes, I can (from stats). Let me repeat again.
1) If you read the stats, you will see that globally smartphones (excl. PDA) is growing like 100%. This is twice the rate of normal phone.
2)If you go to symbian homesite, it will give you how many symbian smartphones are in development by manufacturers. If I'm not mistaken, in 2003 there is 40. And this does not includes Linux and WM.
3) Many operators are starting to support RIM's style push email.
4) Quantum leap in demand for smartphone software.
5) Direction to provide video/music streaming.
If this is not good enough for you, I dont know what is.
Quote:
Therein lies my point, Nokia are selling more smartphones because they are producing more, hence sidelining non-smartphones. As smartphones ar eproduced in ever greater numbers more are bought thus reducing sales of non-smartphones; a classic Malthusian model.
Like you say, smartphones is displacing normal phone. So this gradual displacement will continue because global smartphone growth is double that of non-smartphone. You said that SE is not into smartphone and it dont see smartphone as important. So based on this logic, is it not true to say that SE sales will slowly be displaced by smartphone?
--
Posted: 2005-03-18 03:41:56
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2005-03-17 18:10:55, Wyrus wrote:
@ Mib
Also you CAN'T compare a non-smartphone with a smartphone. They're two completely different categories. The same way you can't compare an s60 with a desktop PC
(pc winz)
...
Can a smartphone make calls like a phone?
Can u put a smartphone into your pocket like a phone?
Can a PC make phone calls?
Can you put a PC into your pocket?
Maybe u hv to find a better comparative analogy.
--
Posted: 2005-03-18 04:54:53
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2005-03-17 18:29:05, goldenface wrote:
Quote:
On 2005-03-17 17:13:11, mib1800 wrote:
Contrast to SE which has drop off from the chart. From this I can see that SE is NOT leading in the smartphone mobile solution (at least from the market share point of view).
Who on earth said they were leading in the Smartphone mobile solution?
Where does it say 'Smartphone' in the title of this forum?
Have you been posting in the correct thread?
Is a smartphone a "PHONE" or a "MOBILE" phone??
What is so contradictory?
--
Posted: 2005-03-18 04:58:43
Edit :
Quote
@Mib1800. Is a Satellite phone a Phone or a Mobile phone? Ditto
A smartphone suits you sir. It is not my idea of what the ideal solution to a mobile phone is.
--
Posted: 2005-03-18 10:34:45
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2005-03-18 03:41:56, mib1800 wrote:
I absolutely do not agree with this. As I have said in response to slattery, every piece of information is vital. Whether u like it or not, stats may the only thing we have to help us understand the dynamics of the market/human behaviour. If u discard these stats, then we go into the realms of the soothsayers.
What rot! Statistics are completely useless for trying to understand human behaviour as you yourself pointed out in an analogy regarding weathe rpatterns. All statistics can do is show general trends within a sample, unless you poll everyone they cannot possibly give one a true measure of what is happening.
A good example of this would be cameraphones, sales have rocketed, yet picture messaging remains something of a damp squib. If one is to take the logic you are using in relation to the figures you provide then one would look at the massive rise in cameraphone sales over the last few years and deduce that picture messaging must be very popular. This sort of logic is flawed.
Quote:
1) If you read the stats, you will see that globally smartphones (excl. PDA) is growing like 100%. This is twice the rate of normal phone.
Again one can look to cameraphones to see an example of a product selling that is not necessarily being used in the way that one might expect. The whole reason for the increase in cameraphone sales is that manufacturers have increased the number of them in their ranges, so customers don't really have much choice in not buying one. The same looks to be true of smartphones from manufacturers such as Nokia, their customers increasingly have little choice in buying a smartphone.
Quote:
2)If you go to symbian homesite, it will give you how many symbian smartphones are in development by manufacturers. If I'm not mistaken, in 2003 there is 40. And this does not includes Linux and WM.
This ties in with my point above. That more smartphones ar ebeing produced is no indication of the actual desire to own one amongst customers.
Quote:
3) Many operators are starting to support RIM's style push email.
How many of these operators are targeting this feature at their customer base in general as opposed to business customers?
Quote:
4) Quantum leap in demand for smartphone software.
Really? By whom? Millions of ordinary customers around the globe? Are there statistics to show that non-business and non-tech fans are buying such software in ever increasing quantities? Where is the advertising for such software in the mainstream media that would indicate that ordinary customers ar eindeed interested in such products and are being actively targeted by the companies involved?
I see no evidence for this claim amongst the majority of customers, business chaps perhaps, but the average Joe no. Hyperbole pure and simple.
Quote:
5) Direction to provide video/music streaming.
Is this a smartphone feature? No! Non-3G smartphones are quite capable of this and the service still hasn't caught on anywhere near as much as the networks had hoped. High prices and a disinterested in most of the content have seen to that.
Quote:
If this is not good enough for you, I dont know what is.
Simple evidential based arguments, not sweeping hyperbolic statements that pertain to include statistical fact, but which in fact do little more than create a speculative juxtasposition of semi-coherent models of the mobile market.
Quote:
Like you say, smartphones is displacing normal phone. So this gradual displacement will continue because global smartphone growth is double that of non-smartphone.
What you fail to take into account is that Nokia are producing smartphones irrespective of the actual demand for them. By filling such a large proportion of their range with smartphone models they ensure that people effectively have to buy them.
Quote:
You said that SE is not into smartphone and it dont see smartphone as important. So based on this logic, is it not true to say that SE sales will slowly be displaced by smartphone?
You misunderstand the nature of that pragmatism. If you actually look to SE you will see that their sales increase, but according to your dynamic this should not be the case. The reason that SE haven't concentrated on smartphone and the reason that their sales have not gone into freefall is because they recognised one very important fact; not very many people are all that interested in smartphones!
_________________
"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 2005-03-18 11:45 ]
--
Posted: 2005-03-18 12:44:35
Edit :
Quote
@scotsboyuk:
your argument sounds very logical but it doesnt help at all in reinforcing your position. at least i hv tried to use stat to at least try to explain my point of view. I hv said those stats are indicative proof and there will be probability of errors.
Why dont you try to make this a more constructive debate and provide some indicative proof to justify your position and not just use the easy way out by tearing down mine.
--
Posted: 2005-03-18 14:13:29
Edit :
Quote
Well I have lot's of anecdotal evidence. In my recent experience, only one of about 10 nokia s60 users new what a smart phone was. They might have known they have a smartphone, but they didn't know my K700i wasn't a smartphone.
Time and again I see this. As far as the general public are concerned a smart phone is a phone that can take photos, videos, browse the net, send email etc. That is, a phone with lot's of organiser and multimedia features.
I see more non-smartphone SE handsets mistaken for smartphones than any other make. Hence my belief the title of this thread is correct.
SE have the leading handsets in many classes, and this only really breaks down if you count "smartphone" as an important feature for general users. If people want a smart phone they go a series 9 Nokia, or P900 or some such, not a cheap nokia smartphone.
So if a Nokia smartphone is in the same price range as say a K700i, then only people with a specific need to install 3rd party software will sacrifice the better features of the K700i for the cheap smartphone.
Like I have said in this thread (i think it was here), I don't think smartphones are really ready yet to be the pda replacement for the everyday dude. Yeah sure techos love smartphones, but it still takes a techo to appreciate the full power of a pda.
The general public want phones that already do stuff, not ones they have to go and buy third party utilities for before they can use it.
--
Posted: 2005-03-18 16:38:51
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2005-03-18 14:13:29, mib1800 wrote:
@scotsboyuk:
your argument sounds very logical but it doesnt help at all in reinforcing your position. at least i hv tried to use stat to at least try to explain my point of view. I hv said those stats are indicative proof and there will be probability of errors.
I disagree, what you have done is use statistics to try and reinforce a point in the face of continued criticism. If you had intended to use statistics to explain your point of view you would have done so many pages ago. Rather I feel this is more of ana ttempt at pandering to baser considerations.
Quote:
Why dont you try to make this a more constructive debate and provide some indicative proof to justify your position and not just use the easy way out by tearing down mine.
I actually find this statement innane and somewhat rude. I have made my point very clear time and time again quoting practical examples, yet you still persist in supporting an argument that is both flawed in terms of applicability and relevance.
The debate has been entirely unconstructive since you seem unable, or unwilling, to concede to the very real fact that smartphone products iare not seeing widespread adoption on the mertits of smartphone abilities.
A very simple test that anyone can carry out that will allow one to see this principle in action very succiently is to simply stand in a mobile phone shop for an hour and listen to people as they are asked what they require in a mobile. Very few people mention smartphone features, yet a number of people are sold smartphones. As I have been saying for umpteen pages now, the reason being that smartphones are becoming an ever increasing part of Nokia's range and Nokia continues to be the default brand for most customers, hence those smartphone products are selling well irrespective of their more advanced features.
--
Posted: 2005-03-18 17:04:21
Edit :
Quote
And round and round and round it goes
--
Posted: 2005-03-18 17:30:31
Edit :
Quote
Scots, I agree. It is that simple!
I think people like mib don't agree when we claim smartphones aren't important, because they see it is the natural progression of all phones, to move towards pda integration.
It probably is, but it won't be for a few more years yet. Until then, a phone doesn't have to be "smart" to lead the market, in either technology or marketshare.
--
Posted: 2005-03-18 17:35:50
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
