News Forum Phone database

> New Topic
> Reply
< Esato Forum Index > Sony Ericsson / Sony > General > Have Sony Ericsson finally taken the lead in global mobile phone solutions? Bookmark topic

@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 ]
--
Posted: 2005-03-23 16:42:38
Edit : Quote


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.
--
Posted: 2005-03-23 16:45:16
Edit : Quote


@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"
--
Posted: 2005-03-23 16:50:15
Edit : Quote


@ 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 ]
--
Posted: 2005-03-23 16:54:58
Edit : Quote


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.
--
Posted: 2005-03-23 17:00:15
Edit : Quote


@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"


--
Posted: 2005-03-23 17:19:49
Edit : Quote


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."
--
Posted: 2005-03-23 17:55:57
Edit : Quote


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 it´s 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 it´s 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 Nokia´s 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 ]
--
Posted: 2005-03-23 18:11:38
Edit : Quote


@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.



--
Posted: 2005-03-24 00:56:17
Edit : Quote


Nokia will still rule the mobile fone industry this year - 2005 !
--
Posted: 2005-03-24 01:40:35
Edit : Quote

---

New Topic   Reply

Forum Index