“According to Kevin Restivo, an analyst at IDC, the countries where Windows Phone shipments exceeded those of iPhone during the fourth quarter were: Argentina, India, Poland, Russia, South Africa and Ukraine. A seventh ‘country’ where Windows Phone shipments beat iPhone is actually a group of smaller countries, including Croatia, that IDC lumps together in a category called ‘rest of central and eastern Europe’.” Not bad. Unsurprisingly, these are Nokia countries.
Not hard to outsell iPhones here, where they are not sold at all via carriers.
Well, I poland at least iPhone is sold in contracts..
for 3x cheapest Lumnia, (and now WP7.8 Lumnias are for 1zÅ‚ – 0,25euro in contracts).
No wonder dirty cheap is outselling expensive in (under)developed countries.
One can only wonder why it was not THE strategy from beginning…
because profitability matters and MS’s history shows they will first try to sell their wares at huge price premiums. Then if that doesn’t work they start more maneuvering, including cost cutting. The real elephant in the room is android. What do those numbers look like in those countries? It’s well known that apple’s marketshare is overall shrinking, although they still are increasing sales.
The Poles i know that want an non-contract iphone just buy them on mail order from germany, hungary or scandinavia.
edit: spelling error.
Edited 2013-03-29 11:58 UTC
In Argentina we have an import ban on electronics, so you can only buy stuff “made in Argentina”. (That means made in China, assembled in Argentina. Only the box, manual and styrofoam has to be made here)
There a few of these “factories” that assemble products for a lot of brands in Tierra del Fuego, but there no argentinian-made Iphones. So carriers stopped selling them when they run out of stock after the ban.
Interesting, that explains why, here in brazil, Android took the place from Nokia while in Argentina things are stalled.
Sad to see the economics and politics of our side country to diminish from what it was (much better than brazil in 80’s and part of 90’s).
The name iPhone in brazil is owned by another phone making company in that particular country. there are several articles about it here on osnews and also explain *some* of the difficulties for apple in Brazil.
Lovely country btw, i will visit again. But this time i might go to the coast, but perhaps Manaus is the friendliest place on earth that i have ever visited.
There is a problem with dumping toxic waste and other trash in 3rd world countries.
The title says “Outselling” but the link says “shipments”.
Stuffing the channel is not sales, check Communities Dominate Brands.
Of course WP8 is more bland than brand and should be banned.
Someone should pay XDA to see if they can convert the hardware to run Android.
I still have my n810, and would live an n950.
How large is Blackberry’s ecosystem?
Don’t even start. Shipments can’t hold high for quarters on end. Stuffing the sales channel is effective only in very short terms(one or two quarters)
I think it would be much better if all companies just posted their sales figures, almost none do. How many Kindle’s have Amazon sold? Who knows, but occasionally they farcically claim their sales have doubled. How many Nexus devices has Google sold? Nobody knows because they are not telling. What about total sales figures for the Samsung smart phone or tablets? Ditto.
Interestingly on the few occasions that actual figures have been revealed such as during the disclosure process in the Samsung/Apple legal case the real figures are often very unimpressive.
I can’t help but feel that when a company does not release sales figures for a high profile product it is because the news is not good.
So when we get this sort of fact free guff from Microsoft my response is simply – tell me how many W8 phones have been have sold or just shut up.
PR minus facts is just wind.
Turns out the stats on which the ‘out sold iPhone’ story were based are also estimates and not official. Plus it seems three of the markets — Ukraine, South Africa and “rest of central and eastern Europe†— are small enough that there were fewer than 100,000 Windows Phone unit shipments in the fourth quarter in each of them.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/where-in-the-world-are-win…
Apple doesn’t report sales either. They report only shipped. They just redefine “shipped” into “sold” in their SEC filings. While in the first few weeks a new model is sold-out in some markets, that tends to fade quickly, and applies to e.g. the Galaxy models as well. On top of that, while in the US most sales may happen through Apple Stores, the rest of the world is served almost entirely through third parties… With stock.
It’s a dirty game, but at least the companies reporting “shipped” are more honest than Apple is. It’s just too bad many people fall for Apple’s redefinition.
And yes, it would be great if everyone reported SALES numbers, including Apple, but they do not, and they have no obligation to do so. Even if they all did – I wouldn’t trust their figures anyway. Companies are pathological liars.
So tell me how many Nexus devices has Google reported as shipped, or how many Kindle devices has Amazon reported as shipped, or perhaps how many tablets have Samsung reported as shipped.
Less than complete official and accurate (reported as part of auditable SEC filings) statistics are surely preferable than no stats.
Would you not be pleased if all the big players published official stats at least as detailed as Apple’s even if the latter could be improved?
Your irrational hatred for Google has made you misread my comment (as usual). Go back, read it again, and this time, try not to let your Google-hatred get the better of you.
Good luck!
How? I don’t understand what you are saying? How does pointing out that Google (amongst others) does not release details about how many of it’s Nexus devices are shipped/sold translate into irrational hatred of Google?
You seem to think no data is as good or possibly better than some data. I would like more data wouldn’t you?
I made a point that it would be great if large tech companies released regular data about how their products were actually doing. I would have thought that you would have supported such a position in which case a simple ‘I agree’ would have sufficed. Instead you respond by attacking Apple, a company I didn’t actually mention in my comment. I don’t think the irrational hatred element is coming from me.
Just a follow up thought. You made a lot of the difference between shipped and sold, and indeed those things are different. But presumable if a company reports regularly and at fixed intervals on total units shipped then quite quickly shipped and sold will become essentially the same thing as sales channels can only be stuffed so far and eventually fill up.
If you launch a new product and at some statistically convenient point you announce you have shipped “X” amount, but in reality the product is selling poorly and all that has happened is that channels have been stuffed, then that would be a deceptive use of the difference between shipped and sold. But as I said if you actually report shipped units regularly quarter after quarter over the entire life span of a product then over time shipped and sold become almost identical because resellers and the owners of sales channels would only accept so many non-selling units before they said ‘no more thank you’.
Edited 2013-03-28 17:49 UTC
Because my comment didn’t mention Google, and wasn’t referring to Google in any way, shape, or form. Yet, you felt the need to drag it into the mix yet again. It’s almost… Compulsive.
Uh, my comment is the EXACT opposite of what you’re writing here. The EXACT opposite. Here it is again:
“It’s a dirty game, but at least the companies reporting ‘shipped’ are more honest than Apple is. It’s just too bad many people fall for Apple’s redefinition.
And yes, it would be great if everyone reported SALES numbers, including Apple, but they do not, and they have no obligation to do so. Even if they all did – I wouldn’t trust their figures anyway. Companies are pathological liars.”
We’re seeing your cognitive dissonance coping strategies at work here again, live. I am fully agreeing with your position, yet it just doesn’t register with you. You’re so hell-bent on this delusional idea that I’m out for Apple that you conjure up all sorts of things I supposedly said.
It’s… Fascinating. It truly is.
Edited 2013-03-28 18:04 UTC
But my comment that you were referring to did mention Google, amongst other companies, as examples of companies that release no data on how their products are doing. You then say that Apple (a company I did not mention in my original comment) are somehow even worse on releasing data because they only release data on products shipped (a bizarre position in my opinion) so I asked if Google, Samsung or Amazon had released any data on products shipped, and once again this in your eyes becomes some sort of assault on Google.
Jesus man grow up, this is schoolyard pedantry .
Of course they have no obligation to release any data – what are you their fucking lawyer!
My point is that that it would be good if companies released more data – even data on devices shipped – and that PR puff based on third party estimates are no substitute for real data.
Seeing as you have brought Apple into this I would point out that Apple’s disclosure of actual product performance is far better and far more transparent that Google’s, Amazon’s or Microsoft. I also repeat my point which is that if a company reports audit-able product shipment figures at regular short intervals, say quarterly, then the number of products shipped and the number of products sold are essentially the same over time as sales channels can only be stuffed once and to a limited degree.
One final point, Apple are almost certainly not lying about their figures as they are included in Apple’s SEC filing which is a formal financial statement submitted to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and lying in it would be serious criminal offence.
Thom – on the transparency of product performance data Apple is better than the others. Just get over it.
Well, to be honest, you both are sucking it up in this discussion where you’re both talking past each other and spending more time debating the topics you want to debate instead of actually discussing a single topic. It happens to the best of us.
Not any product shipped may go to sales channels. Returns, replacements, bundling (like buy one, get two), promotion (eg one Lumia for free to every AT&T sales), etc are all in shipments but not in sales. Also stuffed channels may get cleared in ways a larger number of shipped units are not sold but written off (like dumping extra cheap to selected markets).
If you only have shipments and lose for each sold device, like in the case of Lumia, one possible explanation could lay in the difference between shipped and sold units. We will never know while Elop runs around waving his shipment-numbers like they are actually sold and by customers used devices. I think the difference is huge in the case of Lumia and much smaller for iPhone.
Edited 2013-03-29 11:41 UTC
Oh come on, Apple is all you talk about. If the topic is not somehow related to Apple, you simply don’t comment.
Apple not only announces device shipments, they also detail channel inventory.
They are the most transparent of all manufacturers. Virtually the only manufacturer with any degree of transparency whatsoever.
A few fanboys retreading a wellworn falsehood does not make Apple a bad actor.
IPhone have always been a tough seller here, not reaching even 5-6% of smartphone penetration (lowest in UE). I attribute it partly to steep price, much more conservative subsidizing (IPhone deals have always been extremely poor) and good terms that both Nokia and Samsung have with the carriers. There’s also an overall society anti elitist sentiment while the hipster youth simply can’t afford Apple products.
It’s also Android that was quite quick catch up and presented affordable smartphone revolution to the masses.
The major factor in WP success is also developer environment imo. Poland professional software companies have long tradition (reaching to late 80ties) of being MS mono-cultures . Strong enough to withstand IOS and Android dominance. E.g. major personal navigation software provider (dominant, due to maps quality) has only recently and in great pains ported their software from WM6. This translated to quite quick uptake WP among major web services companies which dramatically lessens current WP app gap in the country, and makes WP quite a value proposition, esp. on the low end. I’d like to see WP7 / WP8 breakdown though. Gut feeling is most of sales belong to the crazy, stock emptying WP7 deals.
Edited 2013-03-28 07:48 UTC
Also WP7 Lumia are dumped cheap at selected markets/countries right now. Splitting WP7, WP8, sold and channeled may not easy taken its all very small numbers 🙂
WP7 phones are very expensive considering their hardware. The Nokia 610 cost $200-300 outright in Australia. Yet it has lower spec hardware than the cheapest entry level android phones.
Edited 2013-03-28 09:41 UTC
Australia doesn’t belong to that markets. They clean inventory by decreasing price and dumping at selected, not all markets. Reasons are that it limits negative effects, eg on sold WP8 Lumia, and gives better statistics, like outsold iPhone, at selected markets.
Another proof that MS have really BAD understanding how mobile teleco market works.
They targeted SMALL, (almost) BACKWATER North America market…
And killed they product more by targeting High End dominated by iOS+Android.
And killed it even more by picking hw partner ABSENT in that market.
And killed it good by picking poor excuse for CEO for its hw partner.
Now, if MS released low end handsets for emerging/underdeveloped worlds, current marketshare for WinP would look better.
Hey even BadaOS for entry level smartphones outsold in emer./underdev. words outsold WinP7….
And from that list of countries only Indie show good promise. After China its second most promissing market…
For low budget, low end handsets… (so weak iOS sales are to be expected).
Now if only Nokia could EARN on WinP7/8 handsets it sell……….
(Recent + in quaterly results come out of selling buildings and land..)
Recent news say starting this Q1 quarter Nokia pays $40 for each sold device for the WP license to Microsoft. Minimum $250 million each quarter. The quarters before they got $250 million each quarter from Microsoft. That makes it minus $500 million each quarter they have on top now and no headquarters, land left to sell. Siemens leaving NSN and Huawei as new WP low-end Microsoft partner are hitting in too.
That limits how far low they can go. Also till today Nokia makes lose with each sold unit including high end Lumia’s. Going future down and increasing number of sold devices may not help them in becoming profitable again and they not have much time and money left.
Watch out, its an end-game. The 3-No’s are going to be completed. Nortel, Novel, Nokia. All exclusive strategic Microsoft partners that went all in, all gone.
Edited 2013-03-28 08:49 UTC
Paying a licence fee of $40 is far cheaper than hiring thousands of developers.
Nokia has a thriving and extremely profitable network business.
Most large companies don’t own their own headquarters – or any other real estate.
WP8 is super responsive on hardware that can barely run Android ICS. This means that Nokia can sell extremely cheap hardware at premium prices. Nokia WP8 phones cost 50-100% more than Android phones with similar hardware.
Considering that MS has effectively bought Nokia there is no real danger of Nokia going broke.
Owning and controlling your own future is invaluable and so is not depending on Microsoft’s good will only.
And so can, and does, Huawei, HTC and Samsung. All of them have the same WP8. Samsung and HTC seem to have given up on WP8, Huawei’s bestseller are there Android’s (same Hardware like there WP8).
While not paying a dime and even getting money from Nokia now. $40 for each sold unit, that is double as much Samsung had to pay for there WP licenses. Clever.
Not broke, they will be cut into pieces and parts, like there patents still worth some $, be sold to Microsoft and others.
Edited 2013-03-28 14:56 UTC
Have you used WP8? IMHO it is by far the best phone OS around.
Nokia is the de facto phone division of MS. Samsung is switching to Tizen. HTC is going nowhere. Huawei is a bottom feeder.
You need to learn how multinational businesses work. In reality Nokia is deliberately “paying” an exorbitant licence fee to MS. MS in turn “pays” Nokia too much for (possibly worthless) goods and services. In reality they are sham transactions (no actual money is involved) designed to reduce taxes – usually known as Transfer Pricing.
The alternative is bankruptcy. Nokia had no future without WP7/8.
Was not is. When Nokia failed hard two times Microsoft went on. Surface Tablets, Surface Phone. HTC, not Nokia, made the WP8 flagship model. Huawei is the exclusive WP8 partner for all of Africa, not Nokia.
When that Nokia-Microsoft partnership was announced Nokia had lot to offer. They where number 1 with the biggest market share. Thats what they had to offer. That is gone now and with or without Nokia made NO notable difference for WP sales. Just compare WP market share before Nokia with now. Its the same 1-2%.
Tizen is going to happen independent of Samsung’s Android and WP offers. They are not so stupid to put all eggs into only one basket. They still do WP even if it not sells. They can offer that unlike Nokia.
HTC is back. They are making profit again after switching away from long years of Microsoft partnership back onto Android.
Huawei is in the top 10 striving to the top unlike Nokia who strive to the bottom. They have Android and WP. There Android, same hardware, sells very good. WP not so but that’s the case for all WP resellers. Just like Samsung Huawei can do that, continue to offer WP without going down like Nokia, cause they have good selling alternates.
Up until that infamous burn-everything memo Nokia was profitable with growing profits. That is past. Just like Boston Chickens and Macromedia they got Elopped.
Edited 2013-03-31 02:53 UTC
If you must post your standard ~Nokia delusions, try at least in better EN…
It depends on the development costs, volume shipments, and what not.
Which would be great if that was their bread and butter, but it isn’t. Nokia also used to have thriving shoe making business, alas we’re talking about the cell phone market…
Another silly generalization based in you confusing your perception with reality. Most companies that can afford it, prefer or tend to own their real estate. Why? Because ASSETS (value of owned real estate) look much much better than EXPENDITURES (leasing costs) on the books. Accounting 101 really.
However, companies with liquidity problems are forced to cannibalize their assets when they can’t generate enough revenue via product sales/shipments. This is what Nokia was forced to do. Context makes a huuuuuuge difference.
Who needs quantitative facts when one can just pull qualitative arguments our of their derriere, right?
That would be news for both MS and Nokia, you should contact them and let’em know…
Licence fees typically have no upfront cost. You only pay for what you sell. It is a far better method of cost control
Actually networking IS Nokia’s current core business. Phones are basically a sideline.
Wrong. Properties may appear as assets on balance sheets but they are generally considered to be a cost by accountants. Leasing a building is more tax effective than owning one. In fact most large corporations sell their buildings to financiers and lease them back.
The Nokia WP8 phones all have far less RAM and much slower CPUs than Android phones in the same price bracket. eg The Nokia 620 (AUD300 outright) has identical hardware to the Nokia Xperia U (AUD130). Even the flagship Nokia 920 has only 1GB of RAM and a dual core 1.5GHZ CPU – half what the far cheaper Nexus 4 has.
Nokia is the de facto owner of the Nokia phone division. Nokia “pays” MS licence fees (a sham deal to minimise tax), drops it’s own OS development and decides not to licence Android. In return MS spends billions of dollars to market WP8 phones. That is ownership in all but name.
Edited 2013-03-30 06:02 UTC
Yes it does. And, IIRC, 3 years or so ago the Symbian division alone cost more than the entire R&D of Apple, for quite meagre results…
Edited 2013-04-03 20:23 UTC
Yeah, that is the surely the reason why my unit was terminated in 2008. We were just in the way of such profits.
Except on NSN’s case it was sold, because the running costs were too high.
will we start to see nokia finally shipping android units like everyone else? All they really need to do is provide a stock version of android with no crap and they would do well. Unless MS has some major grip on them still going into android would give them much needed diversity, access to a large established market and very possibly even more much needed leverage on MS.
One definition of insanity is to keep repeating what doesn’t work. Nokia seems to have discovered the formula for losing almost all their once dominant marketshare in the fastest expanding market in history and they still seem to be stubbornly persuing the same strategy.
Edited 2013-03-29 14:37 UTC
Do they only count official shipments?
Most iPhones sold in Russia via “grey” imports.
“Authorised reseller” price for 32GB iPhone5 is ~$1200+,
while it could be purchased under $1000 from numerous internet sites (US GSM / Euro models).
BTW In Moscow I’ve yet to see _any_ modern Nokia smartphone “in the wild”.
Edited 2013-03-28 12:24 UTC
Curious, what do you actually mean by “Nokia countries”?
Nokia still has a huge name recognition and market share momentum in certain markets. I assume those are the countries that term refers to.
Similar with Blackberry, they’re still huge in certain markets.
Mobile phones are not subsidized in India. Brand new iPhone costs around $750+. When there are only 3 major OS running beating iPhone would not be a big deal.
Nokia still has good brand recognition but they lost heavily in smart-phone share.