Nokia enters the Tablet market

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Market saturation is reached when meaningful performance improvements subside.

*Market* saturation is reached when everybody who is going to adopt the product already has.

Effective saturation is when sales growth rate is minimal or even declining. New adopters still appear but not enough to absorb the manufacturing capacity of all the active players. At that point, the weaker players fold.

It doesn't matter if performance is improving or not, if people aren't buying. Usually because the old models work fine for them and they see no reason to upgrade.

The US tablet market is showing signs of approaching saturation, especially on the iPad side. It is still unclear if it might be a temporary adoption lull or it might be permanent, but the signs are there: sales have actually declined year to year.

There's a reason this tablet isn't coming to the west this year. It might never get here.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Normally, Foxconn builds stuff and ships it to their customer who is responsible for sales, distribution, and support. They take their money up-front, no risk of getting stuck with warehouses of non-selling gadgets.

This time, Foxconn is doing all three, and get paid when it sells, so it is really their tablet. They are using Nokia's name to sell it, but the bulk of the risk and money is theirs.

They are moving up the value-add chain. Next step would be to put a brand they own on the gadget.

Except, as I mentioned before, Foxconn is not just sticking Nokia's name on a generic tablet (which is how this usually works) -- Nokia came to Foxconn with the design and Foxconn is manufacturing and selling Nokia's tablet. Nokia does not -- currently -- having the ability to manufacture or market their own product (they were gutted in the sell-out to Microsoft). Yes, Foxconn is taking a risk, but they're taking a risk with a Nokia designed product. I'm guessing this is the most expedient way for Nokia to keep their brand name out there before re-entering the mobile phone market in 2016.

I'm not a huge tablet fan, but at $249 with the specs this Nokia tablet has, I think this one is going to be successful. And I'm guessing this is just the first of several (down the line). I'm also guessing the nature of Nokia's partnership with Foxconn will change as Nokia recovers.

[ShimSham]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Nokia entered the tablet market in 2005. I do not see how that is 3 years too late, given that Apple did not enter it until 2010.

I still have my Nokia 770 Internet Tablet, that I bought in 2007 and was my first ebook reader, until the battery died in 2011.

[mbovenka]

Originally Posted by ShimSham

I still have my Nokia 770 Internet Tablet, that I bought in 2007 and was my first ebook reader, until the battery died in 2011.

The Nokia Internet Tablets! I have an N800 lying around somewhere I bought around that time for the same purpose (FBReader FTW :-)). Didn't last long; I bought a Cybook Gen3 when it came out (october 2007) and never looked back.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Except, as I mentioned before, Foxconn is not just sticking Nokia's name on a generic tablet (which is how this usually works) -- Nokia came to Foxconn with the design and Foxconn is manufacturing and selling Nokia's tablet. Nokia does not -- currently -- having the ability to manufacture or market their own product (they were gutted in the sell-out to Microsoft). Yes, Foxconn is taking a risk, but they're taking a risk with a Nokia designed product. I'm guessing this is the most expedient way for Nokia to keep their brand name out there before re-entering the mobile phone market in 2016.

I'm not a huge tablet fan, but at $249 with the specs this Nokia tablet has, I think this one is going to be successful. And I'm guessing this is just the first of several (down the line). I'm also guessing the nature of Nokia's partnership with Foxconn will change as Nokia recovers.

The article says Nokia licensed the name and the design *to* Foxconn, who build and sell it. Not terribly different from Philips licensing their name to Tatung for HDTVs outside Europe.

The design may have originated with Nokia but the actual vendor is Foxconn.
(Like with Kobo readers and tablets or Philips TVs; it doesn't matter who designs and builds them. It matters who sells them and supports them.)

(Shrug)

If it were Nokia doing the distribution and selling it wouldn't be much news--lots of companies outsource design and manufacturing to Foxconn. What is notable is the inversion of the usual OEM/ODM roles and Foxconn taking steps tiwards being more than a job shop for virtual companies.

To me the Nokia name and IP is irrelevant--just another midrange android tablet--the big story is Foxconn evolving.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The article says Nokia licensed the name and the design *to* Foxconn, who build and sell it. Not terribly different from Philips licensing their name to Tatung for HDTVs outside Europe.

The design may have originated with Nokia but the actual vendor is Foxconn.

I understand that, but to say this is Foxconn product -- in this case -- is simply not true. It would almost be like saying that, since Foxconn assembles iPads, that the Apple iPad was "really" a Foxconn product.

Again, the distinctiion here is that the design was Nokia's and they went to Foxconn to build and market it (even "own" it), whereas -- usually -- when a manufacturer (like Foxconn) is simply using a name, the product is generic and the manufacturer licenses the name only, to help sell the generic product. In this case this is a very important distinction. Nokia is not an "out of business" company merely selling their name, they're a company that plans to get back into the market, and this is their first post-Microsoft product. Maybe they will continue to license their products to Foxconn, but I doubt it. I'm guessing this was the easiest, fastest way to keep their name out there.

As one analyst put it ...

IHS analyst Fogg notes, “For Nokia, the advantages of licensing are considerable. Nokia can enter the mobile device market without needing to worry about manufacturing, supply chain management, stock control or hardware distribution. And, by selling its former devices unit to Microsoft, Nokia has freed itself from historic baggage, restructuring costs, and can start afresh.”

http://www.geekwire.com/2014/surpris...ndroid-tablet/

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

To me the Nokia name and IP is irrelevant ...

Time will tell. I think Nokia has a lot more "good will" and brand recognition than you think.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Time will tell. I think Nokia has a lot more "good will" and brand recognition than you think.

When I hear the name Nokia, old-school phones come to mind; nothing more. I think the brand has legs in Europe and other parts of the world, but not so much in the US. Here, it's crawling.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Time will tell. I think Nokia has a lot more "good will" and brand recognition than you think.

They spent their last years working as hard at destroying their remaining good will as B&N are doing now.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

*Market* saturation is reached when everybody who is going to adopt the product already has.

Effective saturation is when sales growth rate is minimal or even declining. New adopters still appear but not enough to absorb the manufacturing capacity of all the active players. At that point, the weaker players fold.

It doesn't matter if performance is improving or not, if people aren't buying. Usually because the old models work fine for them and they see no reason to upgrade.

The US tablet market is showing signs of approaching saturation, especially on the iPad side. It is still unclear if it might be a temporary adoption lull or it might be permanent, but the signs are there: sales have actually declined year to year.

There's a reason this tablet isn't coming to the west this year. It might never get here.

You misquoted me.

I specifically stated "meaningful" performance improvement. Never did I infer incremental improvements would keep a market vital.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

When I hear the name Nokia, old-school phones come to mind; nothing more. I think the brand has legs in Europe and other parts of the world, but not so much in the US. Here, it's crawling.

Which is probably why this new tablet will sell first in China, then Russia and Europe and then (maybe) the United States.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

They spent their last years working as hard at destroying their remaining good will as B&N are doing now.

I don't think so. I think there is still a lot of good will for Nokia -- and that most folks see the Microsoft "intervention" as a monstrosity imposed on Nokia, not the "real" Nokia. At least that's the way I look it. And even when Microsoft controlled Nokia, it wasn't the hardware that was bad, it was the software. I'm looking forward to some innovative Nokia designs in the future.

[rollei]

Can't see anything bad about being Foxconn so long the product is reliable and of high quality. At one time many decades ago, people didn't think highly of Japanese brands, today it is different. So is Korean products, today Samsung is much sought after.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I don't think so. I think there is still a lot of good will for Nokia -- and that most folks see the Microsoft "intervention" as a monstrosity imposed on Nokia, not the "real" Nokia. At least that's the way I look it. And even when Microsoft controlled Nokia, it wasn't the hardware that was bad, it was the software. I'm looking forward to some innovative Nokia designs in the future.

Nokia's mishandling of internet tablet and smart phone development started years before microsoft involvement. Much of the trouble was from software, but even more was from policies.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Phogg

You misquoted me.

I specifically stated "meaningful" performance improvement. Never did I infer incremental improvements would keep a market vital.

You misunderstood me.

My point is that technical improvements, meaningful or not, can't convince people to buy if their needs are already met. Benefits, not features, is what sells. Old saw from the PC world.
Look to 3D TVs and 4K TVs, for starters.
Techies drool but the market shrugs.

Foxconn could deliver a 10 GHz tablet with 1GB hard drive and a holographic display for $499 and the people who use their tablets for email and websurfing who say "cool" and keep on keeping on.