Same could be applied to many of those Nokia models listed. Hardware differences between 3G and 3GS are vastly larger than between N97 and N97 mini, for example.
-Generation gap between CPUs
-Double memory
-Faster GPU
-Better camera
3g and 3GS look similar though. In that sense they are essentially the same phone.
I don’t understand the first graphic. It suggests that HTC has the most market share and Nokia has the least. However the sales chart and numbers on the Y axis of the first graphic suggest that is incorrect. Shouldn’t Nokia be at the top and HTC at the bottom of the first graphic? Most people assume the Y axis has the lowest number at the bottom of the chart where it appears you have it the other way.
You’re looking at the chart as if the items sit in front of each other, so the highest is the biggest. However, the sit on top of each other, so the lowest one is the biggest. Its kind of like a pie chart with time included. Notice nokia has 39% and htc has 5% at the end.
I understood it but only when I looked at the numbers. Again, usually the bottom of the y-axis is the lowest value. You can still have each sit on top of each other in which case it would be easily understood that HTC has the lowest market share at 5%. If my employer would allow me to upload files, I might be able to show you an example.
Had palm 10 yaers ago and after PDA phase I have changed to smartphone phase with HTC, had 2×2020, 1×3030 and now I have rather old but still suprisingly good 9090, I dont understand how Nokia which never made good smartphone (since communicator (had two) they was disasters) can hold so much of the market comparing to really good Windows based HTCs…
Anyway I saw a lot of those smartphone nokias and they are no match to htcs… Perhaps its just about the brand, for me last good nokia was 3310.
I don’t understand how Apple’s average price can be $550, if their phones scale from $99 for a 8GB 3G, to $199 for a 16GB 3GS, to $299 for a 32GB 3GS. And if you say they those prices are w/ a 2 year contract — they’re really $499, $599, & $699 — then, really(?), Nokia’s high-end “smart”phones are really that cheap, er, inexpensive? I guess you get what you pay for… If a contract is worth $400, then Nokia’s new promotion should be to pay us $150 to use their phones!
Nice graphic! Nokia makes some great phones, great smartphones, and no one does better at getting these handheld bits of advanced technology into the very hands of the worlds’ most marginalized.
If we could get the power of a ($99) iPhone into the hands of a billion, that would change the world.
I dont understand how Nokia which never made good smartphone (since communicator (had two) they was disasters) can hold so much of the market comparing to really good Windows based HTCs.
1 (iPhone 3G) + 1 (iPhone 3GS) = 1?
It is essentially the same phone though..
Same could be applied to many of those Nokia models listed. Hardware differences between 3G and 3GS are vastly larger than between N97 and N97 mini, for example.
-Generation gap between CPUs
-Double memory
-Faster GPU
-Better camera
3g and 3GS look similar though. In that sense they are essentially the same phone.
I don’t understand the first graphic. It suggests that HTC has the most market share and Nokia has the least. However the sales chart and numbers on the Y axis of the first graphic suggest that is incorrect. Shouldn’t Nokia be at the top and HTC at the bottom of the first graphic? Most people assume the Y axis has the lowest number at the bottom of the chart where it appears you have it the other way.
You’re looking at the chart as if the items sit in front of each other, so the highest is the biggest. However, the sit on top of each other, so the lowest one is the biggest. Its kind of like a pie chart with time included. Notice nokia has 39% and htc has 5% at the end.
I understood it but only when I looked at the numbers. Again, usually the bottom of the y-axis is the lowest value. You can still have each sit on top of each other in which case it would be easily understood that HTC has the lowest market share at 5%. If my employer would allow me to upload files, I might be able to show you an example.
maybe this may help: http://www.marketmodelers.com/MyImages/ShareGraph.PNG It is a marketshare over time graph as well but seems much more obvious what the market share is.
Had palm 10 yaers ago and after PDA phase I have changed to smartphone phase with HTC, had 2×2020, 1×3030 and now I have rather old but still suprisingly good 9090, I dont understand how Nokia which never made good smartphone (since communicator (had two) they was disasters) can hold so much of the market comparing to really good Windows based HTCs…
Anyway I saw a lot of those smartphone nokias and they are no match to htcs… Perhaps its just about the brand, for me last good nokia was 3310.
I don’t understand how Apple’s average price can be $550, if their phones scale from $99 for a 8GB 3G, to $199 for a 16GB 3GS, to $299 for a 32GB 3GS. And if you say they those prices are w/ a 2 year contract — they’re really $499, $599, & $699 — then, really(?), Nokia’s high-end “smart”phones are really that cheap, er, inexpensive? I guess you get what you pay for… If a contract is worth $400, then Nokia’s new promotion should be to pay us $150 to use their phones!
Nice graphic! Nokia makes some great phones, great smartphones, and no one does better at getting these handheld bits of advanced technology into the very hands of the worlds’ most marginalized.
If we could get the power of a ($99) iPhone into the hands of a billion, that would change the world.
I dont understand how Nokia which never made good smartphone (since communicator (had two) they was disasters) can hold so much of the market comparing to really good Windows based HTCs.