[Macworld]

Post your comments for Nokia and RIM, pioneers in wireless, seem to be on the ropes here

[CDTobie]

“Success or failure [in the wireless industry] is all about hitting the right marketing, public relations and advertising cord…,” Kagan said.

Thats odd; I thought success in Wireless was all about having the right product at the right time. Not messing up the marketing is a good idea too; but Nokia and RIM's main problem is not offering competitive products.

[NaOH]

CDTobie, on 03 October 2011 - 05:31 AM, said:

“Success or failure [in the wireless industry] is all about hitting the right marketing, public relations and advertising cord…,” Kagan said.

Thats odd; I thought success in Wireless was all about having the right product at the right time. Not messing up the marketing is a good idea too; but Nokia and RIM's main problem is not offering competitive products.

I also found that an odd conclusion for Kagan to make.

Do people still think that the only reasons Apple and Google have been successful in the smartphone business are good marketing, advertising and PR?

I definitely agree with CDTobie in that the product itself is at least as important as the way it is promoted.

[Steve_S]

All to often, people attribute the overall success or failure of a product to marketing. This assumption relies on the premise that consumers are stupid and can't tell one product from another on their own. While a company's marketing is important, the most effective form of marketing comes from word of mouth. When the iPhone was introduced, Apple received quite a bit of free press for a long time. Not because of Apple's marketing machine, but because it was a ground breaking product that caught everyone's attention.

For years, everyone in the wireless industry was focused on the hardware design as if that's what mattered the most. They all had lousy operating systems. It wasn't until the iPhone arrived that the focused moved from hardware to software and instantly made companies like RIM and Nokia irrelevant. They were dead, but just didn't know it yet. Their smugness kept them from taking the iPhone seriously until it was too late. Take RIM for example. They didn't purchase QNX until April, 2010. That was 3 years after the iPhone was released. Now, they are scrambling just to make a competent showing much less lead any market.

Nokia's story isn't that much different. Market leader... hardware is king... etc., etc. I believe there were internal groups within Nokia which understood the need to do something better software wise, but I don't think they had enough influence. Nokia was a hardware company afterall. Now, they're just another Windows Phone 7 OEM.

Microsoft realized the sea change when they saw the iPhone, but they were years behind the curve and had to catch up.

This post has been edited by Steve_S: 03 October 2011 - 06:40 AM

[BdotEss]

NaOH, on 03 October 2011 - 06:04 AM, said:

CDTobie, on 03 October 2011 - 05:31 AM, said:

“Success or failure [in the wireless industry] is all about hitting the right marketing, public relations and advertising cord…,” Kagan said.

Thats odd; I thought success in Wireless was all about having the right product at the right time. Not messing up the marketing is a good idea too; but Nokia and RIM's main problem is not offering competitive products.

I also found that an odd conclusion for Kagan to make.

Do people still think that the only reasons Apple and Google have been successful in the smartphone business are good marketing, advertising and PR?

I definitely agree with CDTobie in that the product itself is at least as important as the way it is promoted.

I would say that marketing definitely plays a huge part. The "best" product out is entirely subjective. I know people that think their Blackberry is still the "best." I think the iPhone is very popular for both reasons. It's a quality product and it's very well-marketed.

This post has been edited by BdotEss: 03 October 2011 - 07:18 AM

[Danielsw]

“Success or failure [in the wireless industry] is all about hitting the right marketing, public relations and advertising cord…,”

Why do all you writers (and commenters) have such a lot of trouble with homonyms?

It's "chord", not "cord."

Use a dictionary. Check your work before posting.

[SockRolid]

RIM and Nokia were "seemingly bulletproof" to the analysts because analysts can only see as far as their own noses. They can only extrapolate things as they are now, and they can only guess future trends based on historical data.

Boring. Predictable. Obvious.

Unless, of course, an analyst makes a crazy prediction just to generate publicity, and it randomly turns out to be true. Say, for argument's sake, that in 2006 some analyst predicted that Apple would sell an ultra-successful smartphone. Without a keyboard! Well, that analyst would have instantly been in demand around the world. S/he would be paid seven figures to analyze markets that s/he barely understands, submit a report to clients who pay dearly for it, then issue press releases contradicting the report so the analyst him/herself and the paid clients can profit from the unwashed masses' sheepish ignorance.

And that explains analysts, doesn't it? They all want to be the next rock star. Not just another spreadsheet jockey. They run with the pack, plus or minus spin depending on whether they own a particular stock and if they're long or short on that stock. And once in a while they'll take a shot at fame and fortune by making a wild prediction. Kind of like buying a lottery ticket, except that everyone knows you did it.

This post has been edited by SockRolid: 03 October 2011 - 09:45 AM

[bettercitizens]

Steve_S, on 03 October 2011 - 06:36 AM, said:

All to often, people attribute the overall success or failure of a product to marketing. This assumption relies on the premise that consumers are stupid and can't tell one product from another on their own. While a company's marketing is important, the most effective form of marketing comes from word of mouth. When the iPhone was introduced, Apple received quite a bit of free press for a long time. Not because of Apple's marketing machine, but because it was a ground breaking product that caught everyone's attention.

For years, everyone in the wireless industry was focused on the hardware design as if that's what mattered the most. They all had lousy operating systems. It wasn't until the iPhone arrived that the focused moved from hardware to software and instantly made companies like RIM and Nokia irrelevant. They were dead, but just didn't know it yet. Their smugness kept them from taking the iPhone seriously until it was too late. Take RIM for example. They didn't purchase QNX until April, 2010. That was 3 years after the iPhone was released. Now, they are scrambling just to make a competent showing much less lead any market.

Nokia's story isn't that much different. Market leader... hardware is king... etc., etc. I believe there were internal groups within Nokia which understood the need to do something better software wise, but I don't think they had enough influence. Nokia was a hardware company afterall. Now, they're just another Windows Phone 7 OEM.

Microsoft realized the sea change when they saw the iPhone, but they were years behind the curve and had to catch up.

Yes and even Apple can not rest on it's laurels. Multitouch is nice, but the future is more, more inputs into the interface, the "totalface" if you will. Multitouch, voice, facial and body language recognition, spatial recongnition (including dynamic orientation velocities and accelerations), etc. and a true intelligence built into our devices integrating our complete allowed electronic presence into "totalpresence" and "multipresence". Just as one can copy a file today, one may in the future be able to copy their "presence" into multiple streams that can accomplish tasks independently and collectively as necessary together. This is just the beginning...

[Steve_S]

bettercitizens, on 03 October 2011 - 10:29 AM, said:

Yes and even Apple can not rest on it's laurels. Multitouch is nice, but the future is more, more inputs into the interface, the "totalface" if you will. Multitouch, voice, facial and body language recognition, spatial recongnition (including dynamic orientation velocities and accelerations), etc. and a true intelligence built into our devices integrating our complete allowed electronic presence into "totalpresence" and "multipresence". Just as one can copy a file today, one may in the future be able to copy their "presence" into multiple streams that can accomplish tasks independently and collectively as necessary together. This is just the beginning...

Agreed. I don't think that's been a problem for the "modern" Apple though. Replacing the iPod mini with a newer more radical change while it was on top is not something most companies would have done. Apple also clearly saw the end of the iPod days ahead and knew that if anyone was going to make the iPod irrelevant, they wanted to do it. Hence the iPhone. As you mention, interface is an evolving thing. Multitouch was very important, but it's not the final word either. Many are expecting big things from Apple's "Assistant" (based on Siri technology) that is expected to be announced tomorrow. Again, I'm encouraged that Apple isn't just sitting still. Let's hope that doesn't change in the post "Jobs" era.

[Graphos]

Funny when they say tablets. It's not tablets, it's iPads.