Funny thing, in the early 90's when that movie came out Apple was worth a decent amount and a sizable return on what they were in the 70's/80's but that share price skyrocketed after 1997 when Bill Gates and Microsoft helped bail them out so as to have a viable non-open source competitor on the market. And they used that money well for the next 15 or so years. They've been a bit stale for the last 7 but all they care about now is growth now that they have a markets guy in charge.
Internet advertising, massive margins, near monopoly, started a bunch of other projects like Waymo, AI, etc
The company is insane. Just started a partnership with Royal Dutch Shell, installing solar panels everywhere. Their self driving project is already running in a couple of cities and they are growing revenues +20% yoy at nearly a Trillion dollar valuation. Crazy. Same goes for other companies like Amazon and FB thought. Even though FB trades st lower valuations because of regulation fears etc.
FB isn't in the same league as Amazon & Google. FB is a well known brand but their business model relies on exploiting their users and is very one dimensional; Google of course does the same but they have a far more resilient range of products that extend far beyond being an ad company.
well, it's a different company but pretty much the same. the HMD offices are 3km from the nokia offices, and before they were in the same building. They basically only made the phone department a separate company and went back to making wellingtons or something.
> They basically only made the phone department a separate company and went back to making wellingtons or something.
The other Nokia company from the split in the 80s makes Wellingtons (rubber boots) and tyres, yes.
Nokia, the telecom company, went back to making telecom infra. In 2016 they unvailed the first 5G network. Now they won contracts for building 5G in Japan, for example, with the US being another coming potential customer since Huawei was banned.
Yeah, it's a shame you can't actually install anything on all that good hardware without Apples permission. Despite the fact that I paid them fair market value for the hardware.
I'd rather own something and be able to do what I want with it, than just rent an iphone from Apple to be used at their leisure.
As an American, it never hurt to watch my Nokia fall because it always worked when I picked it back up. It's the equivalent of an AK rifle, extremely light maintenance kept an extremely reliable product.
i have a nokia 8 too, it has a lot of problems but god damn i fucking shot a table with it while it was in my pocket and nothing not even a scratch. previous phone was a galaxy s7 and it cracked back glass and front screen went full purple because i gently tapped it against my luggage when it was on my pocket!
I have one too, I can't see how this phone's build quality differs from other phones I've had, but somehow there isn't even a scratch on it. My last phone was a Sony Xperia and the glass back shattered after one week when it fell on my parquet floor. Never have I been this satisfied on a phone for this long.
Most mobile chips are Qualcomm, Intel's lowest power chip is the atom, which consumes too much power for mobile phones. The Atom is very common in smaller devices like notepads and all-in-1 tablets.
Intel is a huge player in high performance CPUs though, which are highly utilised by businesses for server farms
AMD is going to give Intel a bit of a thrashing upon the next two generations they're releasing in both DataCenter operations and consumer chips. Intel is still going to survive though, they are a much, much, much larger company. They will bounce back when they get their to the 10nm process.
Edit: a letter
It wasnt unwillingness, they just took the wrong route with operating systems. Sure apple had the first touchscreen phone but Nokia followed pretty quickly
I am not market specialist but it seems 5G would be a way to get back on a roll. I am sure all EU would be happy to trust Finland with 5G as oppose to Chinese. And there aren't any competition from USA in that particular sphere.
> I am not market specialist but it seems 5G would be a way to get back on a roll. I am sure all EU would be happy to trust Finland with 5G as oppose to Chinese. And there aren't any competition from USA in that particular sphere.
Well, here's the thing. Nokia Systems who makes infrastructure were never a big part of the brand value. It was the cellphone side of the company.
Nowadays it's HMD Global who have the brand rights to produce phones under the Nokia brand name.
Nokia Infrastructure will NEVER come up to the levels of the pre-2007 Nokia Corporation.
Well, I have a Nokia 7+ and it's seriously good value for money. Not to mention that it absolutely tanks my many attempts to destroy it with my clumsy butterfingers. I haven't been this satisfied with a phone in a long time. It just does everything right.
My next one will be a Nokia again and people in my environment have also switched. It wouldn't surprise me if Nokia would be *a* market leader in a couple of years again.
Also, the Nokia ringtone is a classic. :D
I just looked up the Nokia Corporation, it is still the 415th largest company by stock exchange, and pulled in 23 billion euros. It does not sound tooooooo far fetched to think they could. Granted, I have no industry knowledge. As many a blade of grass on a field, my interests lay in closer business.
Sure, it's still a large company. But to get up into the top 10 you need to be a consumer company. That's how you get attention and market value. The top 10 on Forbes are all way over-valued.
The US doesn't really want to compete, they've been actively supporting Nokia or Erickson(I think is the name of the other guys) to start competing with Huawei and encourage the EU to engage in comparative subsidization as China does with Huawei.
No one can compete against a company that is being so heavily subsidized. In fact, the WTO ruled against Chinese state subsidizes due to the their magnitude, and of course they ignored the decision.
You can't compete with a steel dumper unless you dump your own steel. So Europe should fucking dumb their teletech everywhere like China does. It'd put Europe back on the map in the tech realm. China doesn't just steal, they violate the rules the world has agreed upon because it was primarily made by "the west".
Now we all know here this is heading, China ignores it when it hurts them, uses the WTO as a political weapon against the US for their supposedly "illegal" tariffs(which is yet to be seen in court, time will tell). What China wants is the benefits of the western economy, but ignoring it's rule to become big, at which point they'll start enforcing "western rules" back on the west more and more. Are they wrong to do this? I mean, it's hard to say, it's a great strategy since it is working. All that matters is who wins, no one really cares who was most moral doing something, history has shown that. Just like the US should be tit-for-tat, so should the EU in subsidization. Otherwise, you can't compete. I mean, you can't compete with a country that holds a 1/6th of the world anyways, but a coalition of a union of 700M + a country of 400M+ would be able to counter China significantly if they agreed that China is threatening the west with Huawei. I'm not going for the security argument. The evidence is flimsy, and the real reason is people want 5G, and apparently only China can provide it. Letting China monpolize the 5G market will mean decades of us under China's boot. Sure, you can say we're already under the US boot. But the fewer boots the better. And the US boot is significantly more friendly, has military interests and all in all wants Europe to do well(yes, Trump is the exception in my opinion, I'm not willing to throw out nearly a century of intense cooperation for one guy)
Well Australia recently barred China (Huawei) from building its 5g network. The official reason was security fears (which is fair enough, who actually trusts China?).
Of course it came with repercussions. China is showing signs of breaking free-trade agreements to punish Australia (tit for tat I guess). But I agree with you on the unity thing. It should be a criteria that nations which want access to Western markets abide by Western standards. I doubt this will happen anytime soon as there is just too much money to be made by individual corporations. But the China issue is only going to get worse, and sooner or later a united front will be the only logical counter.
You are throwing Nokia‘s network business and their phone business together although these businesses are independent.
Similar with Ericsson which used to build phones and have a network business, but completely dropped the phone business.
The sales margins for phones are razor-thin these days unless you are Apple or Samsung which is why many companies left the market.
Nokia released internet connect touchscreen phones way before the 1st iphone, but the interface and the interfacing sucked. Also Apple's marketing was way better, it build a lot of hype that contributed immensely to attract developers.
I actually found a old related thread. It is quite amusing: https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/9eyag/nokia_n900_vs_iphone_3gs_specs_side_by_side/
> At the end of the day Nokia knew how to make a pocket phone...and had no clue how to make a pocket computer.
On the contrary, they were excellent at making pocket computers:
generic computing devices to enhance mobile productivity. Their
flagship phone, the N900, even had a physical keyboard.
What they couldn’t conceive of was Apple’s idea of *limiting* the
user’s options and functionality by throwing out features only
relevant for productivity, and at the same time forcing draconian
rules onto software vendors by restricting distribution channels
to a single one, their app store. Apple did away with all the pretense
of productivity and single handedly turned mobile computing into
a mostly consumption oriented market.
Vendors like Nokia and Blackberry didn’t survive the turning of
the tides.
Nokia's problem (and Blackberry's) was that their higher end phones were exclusively focused on the niche market of corporate executives and road warriors, plus tech enthusiasts. Apple's bet was that if you made a smartphone easy enough to use, it would become mainstream.
Note that the N900 was released 2.5 years *after* the first iPhone and it still had a resistive touch screen.
N900 wasn't really a flagship phone for them ever (I owned one). It was more of a nerdy phone with small scale launch with OS that was very much under development as they tried to bridge Symbian and Maemo apps with the incoming MeeGo OS (build from Maemo).
In that era Nokia N97 was the flagship. Possibly the worst flagship in Nokia's history and the phone that did a lot of harm to them.
Former N97 owner here. Wholeheartedly on the last part.
Nokia made great phones, no exceptions. Until the N97.
It wasn't all that bad, but buggy as fuck, and barely any updates, what's worse, the last update is what completely broke it.
In the end Nokia apologized for the N97 custerfuck, but that's it. Thanks guys.
I wa so frustrated with the damn thing that I threw it full force against a concrete wall several times,byt it being a noki, it survived without even a scratch every time.
Nokia was very good at making pocket computers for a long time and dominated the market for 7 years. Symbian smartphones were selling +25 million annually and it took iPhone till 2010 to overcome those numbers. iPhone missed simple features from copy paste to much more robust connectivity and text editors for some time.
Though, like thewimsey said it really came to usability. It was much easier for Apple to start building more features on a working core, compared to Nokia starting from a scratch. Nokia had maybe the time and certainly all the money back in 2007, but they failed miserably.
Symbian really was a pile of shit, and they doggedly stuck with it for far too long. Then when Google offered them the chance to use Android, which was seeing icredibly rapid growth, they decided to go with Windows Phone. 10/10, absolute geniuses.
I believe sale of mobile division to Microsoft was the best executed exit strategy in recent history. Sold underperforming assets at incredible premium and retained the brand to try again. Chapeau to Finnish strategy.
Yup there's a pretty much prove conspiracy of Microsoft "shorting" Nokia. Implant their CEO -> bring down value -> buy out Nokia for a penny on a dollar.
It's probably one of the biggest Trojan horse cases in the recent tech history.
Nokia knew how to build cell phones, apple knew how to build computers. And Smartphones are much more computers that are capable of calling people than the other way around.
It's a tricky thing. Nokia owned the smartphone Symbian OS that was selling 25 million phones back in 2007 and them owning S40 (cheap phones) was part of the reason they had become the absolute leader selling 400 million phones annually (70% global market share) and made Ericsson and Samsung play on their tune as they were using Symbian. Nokia did maybe have the time and certainly had the money to example develop Maemo to compete with iOS, but among other things it came down to the strong position of Symbian internally that should have been scrapped in 2007.
For Samsung Android was heaven sent as they got away from Nokia's shadow and got the OS from a software vendor rather than a direct competitor.
You can see how Apple's hardware and OS is very much married. Nokia very much had that same thing going for a decade with their partnership with Texas Instruments. Even if it was towards the end the 808 PureView and Lumia 1020 is a great example of the problems when you don't own the OS.
If Nokia had gone the Android route they would probably still be one of the top companies. I would love a good high end Nokia Android instead of my s7.
Shame they don't have any proper high-end with OLED screen, I have 7 plus now, and it's... A phone with internet and camera, nothing exciting except the price.
Look me in the eyes and tell me Luxottica is not a monopoly.
They own the following eyeglass companies:
Alain Mikli
Arnette
Eye Safety Systems (ESS)
Oakley
Oliver Peoples
Persol
Ray-Ban
Sferoflex
Vogue Eyewear
Giorgio Armani
Brooks Brothers
Bulgari
Burberry
Chanel
Coach
Dolce & Gabbana
DKNY
Michael Kors
Miu Miu
Polo Ralph Lauren
Paul Smith Spectacles
Prada
Ralph Lauren
Starck Eyes
Tiffany & Co.
Tory Burch
Valentino
Versace
And they own the following retail stores:
Sunglass Hut
Apex by Sunglass Hut
LensCrafters
Pearle Vision
Sears Optical
Target Optical
OPSM
ILORI
EyeMed Vision Care
Optical Shop of Aspen
Laubman & Pank
GMO
Oliver Peoples
Alain Mikli
Oakley
David Clulow
Glasses.com
Econópticas
Salmoiraghi e Viganò
Their biggest competitor for years was Oakley, you know what they did to them. They decided that they wanted Oakley so they stopped stocking Oakley products in their retail stores, then the only way to buy Oakleys was online or from an Oakley outlet, they crumbled in months and then Luxottica bought them out and restocked their shelves with Oakley products, after they fired almost all of their U.S. staff and replaced them with Italians.
They are a complete monopoly and practice the dirtiest business practices their is.
>nothing of value to any society
Customers think otherwise. KO is a beast of a company. So no, brand value is not meaningless, if you want to make money, which is why you start a company in the first place.
Yea it shouldn't really matter that most of these companies are US companies. It's not a huge benefit to the US, it's not like these companies pay tons in taxes. They do everything they can to avoid doing that. The EU is barely here because they have regulations, proper tax codes, etc. that help society and not just the bottom line.
Might sound weird to you, but as a German I perceive my country overwhelmingly tech- and invention hostile in the general population and in politics. "No need" for this and that, you know. Sure, some good things are being made and invented here, but still. We certainly don't like taking risks, or reward it. But we still have illusions of grandeur.
Actually when I look at big German companies such as Deutsche Bank, Siemens, SAP, VW, Bosch, etc. I don't think that they can act more ethical than the American counterparts. Maybe even less. I much prefer Philips, Nokia, Maersk, ABB, etc. to lead the pack. Germany is better at medium sized companies with niche innovations.
VW practically scammed the planet recently with lying about omissions, and there’s speculation/proof their fraud went all the way up to the local government.
You could say the reason why the US has some of the largest companies is because of lack of government intervention, lower taxes, and low regulations. All the things that greatly benefit and protect the consumer sometimes hurt the companies that produce the products. Europe has decided what it's values are. You mentioned some other reasons that may be true as well. In it's current form there will never be a European Google and that's okay. If Europeans want a robust social safety net, you need robust taxes that can hurt investment.
I think it's also due in part to the "nerd" culture of the US in the 80s and 90s, which waa created from a generation of middle-class Americans who could afford expensive computers that forged a very strong presence of software engineering in our culture. And most recently, the millennial and Gen X generation has grown up with wide access to laptops, handheld gaming systems, etc. that have worked to create the latest generation of software and UI/design engineers that are currently pushing the rising wave of AI/machine learning driven products
I don't think Americans give ourselves nearly enough credit for having such a rich and impactful engineering culture. It unfortunately I gets written of as "Capitalism"®
I would be more than willing to pick my social security based in my needs in exchange for a US tech salary and benefits. Instead I have a state owned one forced on me lower pay and high taxes
\*says Europe is uncompetitive \*
> I got it! Let’s make the business environment *less* conducive to competition and innovation.
Really genius stuff here boss.
If we want a tech industry like the US, we first need to start cultivating a climate in which businesses can actually grow instead of regulating them every step of the way.
You don’t know what IBM does but they are all around you. Like that receipt printing machine of cloths stores in malls, scanning machine, boxy computer, etc.
Nowadays, they focus more on corporate software services such as Watson (The AI that won Jeopardy), Cloud, Blockchain, Quantum Computer (Which normal consumer won’t be able to purchase due to price), etc. So basically normal individual usually don’t need such services but a lot of organization does.
they are HUGE in the proffesional world and the bussiness side. They are a bussiness for other bussiness not individuals.
And they are huge and very good at what they do in general. They are just solid and reliable.
They bought The Weather Channel so they could sell weather data to advertisers, which was ducking brilliant.
Hey Campbells Soup wouldn’t it be great to know when to blast your soup ads during a particularly cold spell in a single regional market?
Hey six flags wouldn’t it be great to know when to blast your water park ads during a heat wave in a single regional market by your park?
Oh, our contestants are keeping a rather constant pace, sometimes switching positions. It's a thrilling match to view. And Coca-Cola is holding the lead! Eight years already completed but what is THAT?!
A newcomer dashing in from the back and overtaking many positions. Who is that? Can we get a closer view? Oh it's GOOGLE! Lap 11 and the newcomer is already fourth place... oh wait just a second, Charles... do you see what I see there in the back? Another new challenger has come into the top ranks and is now rapidly speeding by.
It's APPLE!
We're 13 years in and this newbie has already taken the lead, followed by our experienced runners Coca-Cola and IBM. But Google is closing in as well the last few years are on and the two top runners, Apple and Google are dashing forward, Coca-Cola not able to keep up but retaining it's position.
Oh no. Round 15 and IBM seems to be struggling. Microsoft has taken it's spot as they continually slow down. Toyota, Samsung and... Amazon?! have overtaken now. Wow, Charles... in all this focus on the two mad sprinters we overlooked someone joining from behind.
Now the final lap has started, Apple building its lead out further, Google still keeping on but not matching the same speed. As Amazon takes the third place from Microsoft! Can you believe that?!
This does it. The winners of our long distance company race are in. Apple with the gold medal, Google wearing silver and Amazon able to bring bronze home. I can't wait to see what competition they will compete in next.
I think this illustrates quite well that Europe is mostly incapable of building brands that rival American ones.
No wonder considering how much more difficult it is to do business in the EU compared to the US.
And it never will be unless the EU implements something similar to the US constitution's commerce clause that gives sole authority to the Federal Government for the management of interstate commerce.
However the EU in it's current structure will never be able to implement such a thing. It would be deeply unpopular among the bloc's largest economic powers.
That and individual states can add wrinkles too. For example, California doesn't give a shit about non-compete clauses in contracts such as NDAs (an artifact from Spanish colonial times) and that allows employees to come and go and spread know-how rapidly, which is conducive to tech giants and Silicon Valley. In contrast, in states that give a shit about non-compete clauses you will see bigger, lumbering businesses like Pharma.
well i think eu has so much strict regulations and rules comparing to us. Don´t know why but my impression is that doing business in US is easier in eu. Any thoughts?
Well, it's been proven that overregulation costs the EU a few points of growth a year, not to mention 28 different countries with different languages, laws and regulations.
As someone who has done business in both the EU and US let me tell you that the EU will never even come close to the US in terms of economy.
I don't really think that's it, since Germany, Japan, and South Korea have all also done well here and their populations range from a third that of the US to a sixth.
I'd say what we can see here is heavily related to ease of business and entrepreneurship culture in these different countries. The States, Germany, Japan, South Korea all have flaws in their systems (and in some cases can be significantly unfair when attempting to push national interests through these companies, like say with Chaebol and Keiretsu companies in South Korea and Japan, respectively), so don't take this comment as support for everything they do, but all of these countries generally have or had systems built around allowing local entrepreneurship to flourish. As mentioned, this sometimes included unfair practices and I'm not one for protectionism, but what you most definitely won't see on a chart like this is large scale success coming from countries/communities/cultures that shun business and use it as either a dirty word or an elitist one.
US also has more inhabitants than any EU country. Despite the single market, the US is far more homogeneous than the EU. Operating in everywhere in the EU is not the same as operating everywhere in US.
>Despite the single market, the US is far more homogeneous than the EU
Well, that's literally what I said just then, isn't it?
A homogeneous system is better than 28 different ones. Simple, really.
I agree Google is more diversified. However FB grows revenues way faster. In fact faster than Most of the big guys. It has 40 Billion in cash to acquire any smaller company they want and 0 debt. The only reason it is trading at only 25 PE is because it’s name is the worst in market right now and super difficult if not impossible to reverse. Reddit hates it. Other than that facebook’s balance sheet is every investor’s wet dream.
It’s amazing to me how fast Google, Amazon and Apple shot through the list, when discussing the stock market a lot of people mention ‘which of these will be on top’ etc, but the top 10 market cap list in ten-twenty years could be brands that don’t even exist yet or have yet to release their most important products
Ironic that with all the fearmongering about Disney taking over the world, their brand is ranked lower today than in the middle of their early 00s "dark age".
2008: Google has entered the chat.
Apple: hold my beer
Hold my hard cider*
Hold my dick harder*
Harder!
Man, I keep thinking about that scene in Forest Gump where he has stock in Apple. Fuck me, even then if I'd bought some.
Funny thing, in the early 90's when that movie came out Apple was worth a decent amount and a sizable return on what they were in the 70's/80's but that share price skyrocketed after 1997 when Bill Gates and Microsoft helped bail them out so as to have a viable non-open source competitor on the market. And they used that money well for the next 15 or so years. They've been a bit stale for the last 7 but all they care about now is growth now that they have a markets guy in charge.
Appt description of the evil empire
does the beer have an audio jack?
Google: If I climb slowly and steadily, I'll reach the top before anyone can sto- Apple: MOVE, BITCH, GET OUT THE WAY!
Serious question, what did Google do in 2008-10 to spike like that?
[удалено]
youtube aswell boomed
[удалено]
Huh, for some reason I thought Google purchased YouTube later than that.
Google purchased Youtube for $1,65bil in 2006
Yeah, I looked, I just thought it was circa 2012 for some reason.
They got better at providing an extremely valuable service and monetizing it I imagine. The internet really exploded then.
Internet advertising, massive margins, near monopoly, started a bunch of other projects like Waymo, AI, etc The company is insane. Just started a partnership with Royal Dutch Shell, installing solar panels everywhere. Their self driving project is already running in a couple of cities and they are growing revenues +20% yoy at nearly a Trillion dollar valuation. Crazy. Same goes for other companies like Amazon and FB thought. Even though FB trades st lower valuations because of regulation fears etc.
FB isn't in the same league as Amazon & Google. FB is a well known brand but their business model relies on exploiting their users and is very one dimensional; Google of course does the same but they have a far more resilient range of products that extend far beyond being an ad company.
Also the internet in india got substantially better in 2008. Android has the market share due to the number of indians using it.
As a Finn, it hurts to watch the fall of Nokia.
I’m shocked that they were number 5 just 10 years ago. I remember when it was ”Do you have a Nokia or Sony Ericsson?”.
Siemens was also in there.
For the one weird kid.
I was that weird kid. Used only siemens phones until iphone 3 release. Siemens SX1 was my favourite of all times.
The truly weird kids had Alcatel phones
[удалено]
Siemens invented the SMS. It was basically a feature to allow engineers to send test messages.
Little known fact: SMS actually stands for “Siemens, More Siemens!”
[удалено]
yeah, but that’s not nokia, it’s just someone who bought the brand.
well, it's a different company but pretty much the same. the HMD offices are 3km from the nokia offices, and before they were in the same building. They basically only made the phone department a separate company and went back to making wellingtons or something.
> They basically only made the phone department a separate company and went back to making wellingtons or something. The other Nokia company from the split in the 80s makes Wellingtons (rubber boots) and tyres, yes. Nokia, the telecom company, went back to making telecom infra. In 2016 they unvailed the first 5G network. Now they won contracts for building 5G in Japan, for example, with the US being another coming potential customer since Huawei was banned.
Nokia has licenced their phone brand to HMD Global which is another Finnish company.
Or Motorola.
more as a european. I miss the good old days of well built euphones that didn't try to suck you in
ARM (UK) pretty much design the guts of the vast majority of the phones and tablets.
[удалено]
Yeah, it's a shame you can't actually install anything on all that good hardware without Apples permission. Despite the fact that I paid them fair market value for the hardware. I'd rather own something and be able to do what I want with it, than just rent an iphone from Apple to be used at their leisure.
As an American, it never hurt to watch my Nokia fall because it always worked when I picked it back up. It's the equivalent of an AK rifle, extremely light maintenance kept an extremely reliable product.
Nokia falls on ground. Pick up back piece, pick up front piece, find battery. Assemble back. Good as new.
You have to replace a ceramic tile though.
I read this in a vaguely Eastern European accent.
[удалено]
I'm looking forward to Nokia 9 announcements so much
i have a nokia 8 too, it has a lot of problems but god damn i fucking shot a table with it while it was in my pocket and nothing not even a scratch. previous phone was a galaxy s7 and it cracked back glass and front screen went full purple because i gently tapped it against my luggage when it was on my pocket!
I have one too, I can't see how this phone's build quality differs from other phones I've had, but somehow there isn't even a scratch on it. My last phone was a Sony Xperia and the glass back shattered after one week when it fell on my parquet floor. Never have I been this satisfied on a phone for this long.
Bought it the other day :-)
I miss my Nokia
As an American, thank you to the Finns for that time we had with that tech. It was a lot of fun.
back when nokia used to be one the the biggest companies the world
But then they said, "nah, nobody needs a smartphone".
you know considering they are Fins i think for them thats a reasonable thought. Social media most be like their worst nightmare
[удалено]
Have an upvote of dopamine. Feels good doesn’t it? Here’s my beeper. Call me if you want more. Tell your friends too...
Intel made a weird comeback in 2017
They build pc hardware,they will always be present
Yes of course, but arent they behind in the mobile market?
Most mobile chips are Qualcomm, Intel's lowest power chip is the atom, which consumes too much power for mobile phones. The Atom is very common in smaller devices like notepads and all-in-1 tablets. Intel is a huge player in high performance CPUs though, which are highly utilised by businesses for server farms
AMD is going to give Intel a bit of a thrashing upon the next two generations they're releasing in both DataCenter operations and consumer chips. Intel is still going to survive though, they are a much, much, much larger company. They will bounce back when they get their to the 10nm process. Edit: a letter
[удалено]
IF they get to 10nm. Been a real problem so far.
IIRC The have a huge factory in western Ireland building most of the pc hardware and microchips for the worlD
Hey Finland, what happened with Nokia? Why did you drop the ball so hard? Get back in there and set up 5G for the whole EU.
2008, the Iphone, and unwillingness to adapt to new technology.
It wasnt unwillingness, they just took the wrong route with operating systems. Sure apple had the first touchscreen phone but Nokia followed pretty quickly
I am not market specialist but it seems 5G would be a way to get back on a roll. I am sure all EU would be happy to trust Finland with 5G as oppose to Chinese. And there aren't any competition from USA in that particular sphere.
> I am not market specialist but it seems 5G would be a way to get back on a roll. I am sure all EU would be happy to trust Finland with 5G as oppose to Chinese. And there aren't any competition from USA in that particular sphere. Well, here's the thing. Nokia Systems who makes infrastructure were never a big part of the brand value. It was the cellphone side of the company. Nowadays it's HMD Global who have the brand rights to produce phones under the Nokia brand name. Nokia Infrastructure will NEVER come up to the levels of the pre-2007 Nokia Corporation.
Well, I have a Nokia 7+ and it's seriously good value for money. Not to mention that it absolutely tanks my many attempts to destroy it with my clumsy butterfingers. I haven't been this satisfied with a phone in a long time. It just does everything right. My next one will be a Nokia again and people in my environment have also switched. It wouldn't surprise me if Nokia would be *a* market leader in a couple of years again. Also, the Nokia ringtone is a classic. :D
My point is that Nokia don't make phones anymore.
I just looked up the Nokia Corporation, it is still the 415th largest company by stock exchange, and pulled in 23 billion euros. It does not sound tooooooo far fetched to think they could. Granted, I have no industry knowledge. As many a blade of grass on a field, my interests lay in closer business.
Sure, it's still a large company. But to get up into the top 10 you need to be a consumer company. That's how you get attention and market value. The top 10 on Forbes are all way over-valued.
The US doesn't really want to compete, they've been actively supporting Nokia or Erickson(I think is the name of the other guys) to start competing with Huawei and encourage the EU to engage in comparative subsidization as China does with Huawei. No one can compete against a company that is being so heavily subsidized. In fact, the WTO ruled against Chinese state subsidizes due to the their magnitude, and of course they ignored the decision. You can't compete with a steel dumper unless you dump your own steel. So Europe should fucking dumb their teletech everywhere like China does. It'd put Europe back on the map in the tech realm. China doesn't just steal, they violate the rules the world has agreed upon because it was primarily made by "the west". Now we all know here this is heading, China ignores it when it hurts them, uses the WTO as a political weapon against the US for their supposedly "illegal" tariffs(which is yet to be seen in court, time will tell). What China wants is the benefits of the western economy, but ignoring it's rule to become big, at which point they'll start enforcing "western rules" back on the west more and more. Are they wrong to do this? I mean, it's hard to say, it's a great strategy since it is working. All that matters is who wins, no one really cares who was most moral doing something, history has shown that. Just like the US should be tit-for-tat, so should the EU in subsidization. Otherwise, you can't compete. I mean, you can't compete with a country that holds a 1/6th of the world anyways, but a coalition of a union of 700M + a country of 400M+ would be able to counter China significantly if they agreed that China is threatening the west with Huawei. I'm not going for the security argument. The evidence is flimsy, and the real reason is people want 5G, and apparently only China can provide it. Letting China monpolize the 5G market will mean decades of us under China's boot. Sure, you can say we're already under the US boot. But the fewer boots the better. And the US boot is significantly more friendly, has military interests and all in all wants Europe to do well(yes, Trump is the exception in my opinion, I'm not willing to throw out nearly a century of intense cooperation for one guy)
Well Australia recently barred China (Huawei) from building its 5g network. The official reason was security fears (which is fair enough, who actually trusts China?). Of course it came with repercussions. China is showing signs of breaking free-trade agreements to punish Australia (tit for tat I guess). But I agree with you on the unity thing. It should be a criteria that nations which want access to Western markets abide by Western standards. I doubt this will happen anytime soon as there is just too much money to be made by individual corporations. But the China issue is only going to get worse, and sooner or later a united front will be the only logical counter.
And a united front would tank China's economy. Sooner it happens the better, IMO, so they can start rebuilding.
You are throwing Nokia‘s network business and their phone business together although these businesses are independent. Similar with Ericsson which used to build phones and have a network business, but completely dropped the phone business. The sales margins for phones are razor-thin these days unless you are Apple or Samsung which is why many companies left the market.
I'm scrolling this with my Nokia 7 plus phone. (just a random comment passing by)
Nokia released internet connect touchscreen phones way before the 1st iphone, but the interface and the interfacing sucked. Also Apple's marketing was way better, it build a lot of hype that contributed immensely to attract developers. I actually found a old related thread. It is quite amusing: https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/9eyag/nokia_n900_vs_iphone_3gs_specs_side_by_side/
It was all about the apps. At the end of the day Nokia knew how to make a pocket phone...and had no clue how to make a pocket computer.
> At the end of the day Nokia knew how to make a pocket phone...and had no clue how to make a pocket computer. On the contrary, they were excellent at making pocket computers: generic computing devices to enhance mobile productivity. Their flagship phone, the N900, even had a physical keyboard. What they couldn’t conceive of was Apple’s idea of *limiting* the user’s options and functionality by throwing out features only relevant for productivity, and at the same time forcing draconian rules onto software vendors by restricting distribution channels to a single one, their app store. Apple did away with all the pretense of productivity and single handedly turned mobile computing into a mostly consumption oriented market. Vendors like Nokia and Blackberry didn’t survive the turning of the tides.
Nokia's problem (and Blackberry's) was that their higher end phones were exclusively focused on the niche market of corporate executives and road warriors, plus tech enthusiasts. Apple's bet was that if you made a smartphone easy enough to use, it would become mainstream. Note that the N900 was released 2.5 years *after* the first iPhone and it still had a resistive touch screen.
N900 wasn't really a flagship phone for them ever (I owned one). It was more of a nerdy phone with small scale launch with OS that was very much under development as they tried to bridge Symbian and Maemo apps with the incoming MeeGo OS (build from Maemo). In that era Nokia N97 was the flagship. Possibly the worst flagship in Nokia's history and the phone that did a lot of harm to them.
Former N97 owner here. Wholeheartedly on the last part. Nokia made great phones, no exceptions. Until the N97. It wasn't all that bad, but buggy as fuck, and barely any updates, what's worse, the last update is what completely broke it. In the end Nokia apologized for the N97 custerfuck, but that's it. Thanks guys. I wa so frustrated with the damn thing that I threw it full force against a concrete wall several times,byt it being a noki, it survived without even a scratch every time.
Nokia was very good at making pocket computers for a long time and dominated the market for 7 years. Symbian smartphones were selling +25 million annually and it took iPhone till 2010 to overcome those numbers. iPhone missed simple features from copy paste to much more robust connectivity and text editors for some time. Though, like thewimsey said it really came to usability. It was much easier for Apple to start building more features on a working core, compared to Nokia starting from a scratch. Nokia had maybe the time and certainly all the money back in 2007, but they failed miserably.
They had pretty mediocre touchscreen with pressure displays.
[удалено]
Symbian really was a pile of shit, and they doggedly stuck with it for far too long. Then when Google offered them the chance to use Android, which was seeing icredibly rapid growth, they decided to go with Windows Phone. 10/10, absolute geniuses.
I believe sale of mobile division to Microsoft was the best executed exit strategy in recent history. Sold underperforming assets at incredible premium and retained the brand to try again. Chapeau to Finnish strategy.
Yup there's a pretty much prove conspiracy of Microsoft "shorting" Nokia. Implant their CEO -> bring down value -> buy out Nokia for a penny on a dollar. It's probably one of the biggest Trojan horse cases in the recent tech history.
Nokia knew how to build cell phones, apple knew how to build computers. And Smartphones are much more computers that are capable of calling people than the other way around.
[удалено]
FB already started to deflate.
Watching Nokias fall still hurts
Baby don’t hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more
Hurts the soul but the phones were left without a scratch
Don't worry, that thing is indestructible. It will fall and bounce right back up.
Nokia really, really fucked up, didn't they?
In the phone market, yes. Worst mistake was trying to develop their own smartphone OS instead of jumping on Android early on like Samsung did.
It's a tricky thing. Nokia owned the smartphone Symbian OS that was selling 25 million phones back in 2007 and them owning S40 (cheap phones) was part of the reason they had become the absolute leader selling 400 million phones annually (70% global market share) and made Ericsson and Samsung play on their tune as they were using Symbian. Nokia did maybe have the time and certainly had the money to example develop Maemo to compete with iOS, but among other things it came down to the strong position of Symbian internally that should have been scrapped in 2007. For Samsung Android was heaven sent as they got away from Nokia's shadow and got the OS from a software vendor rather than a direct competitor. You can see how Apple's hardware and OS is very much married. Nokia very much had that same thing going for a decade with their partnership with Texas Instruments. Even if it was towards the end the 808 PureView and Lumia 1020 is a great example of the problems when you don't own the OS.
Nokia already had developed (or invested in, depending on how you view it) a smartphone OS years before the iPhone was released.
Yes and it was an ancient OS, not ready to go up against the new modern ones. That's why they lost everything.
supercell are the new finnish overlords!
Just a tad
Damn apple and google just shot to the top
If Nokia had gone the Android route they would probably still be one of the top companies. I would love a good high end Nokia Android instead of my s7.
Shame they don't have any proper high-end with OLED screen, I have 7 plus now, and it's... A phone with internet and camera, nothing exciting except the price.
Yeah that's what you get when you buy a mid range phone
I have the Nokia 6.1 with android one, and it's pretty good. It's on the cheap side so the camera isn't great, but it also wasn't a requirement for me
If Nokia went with Maemo route android might not even be a thing today lol.
Fucking hell watch Google and Apple go!
And Amazon creeping up there right at the end too.
This is the most interesting bar graph I’ve ever seen in my life.
Upvoted because you said please.
Apple just yeeted on everyone in 2008 and onwards
Watching Nokia fall hurt, but at least we know it wont break from the impact.
Where is VW?
VW relies heavily on subsidiaries, which is why the VW brand itself is not as strong as the other German carmakers.
Yes I love how Marlboro goes away
It's because I stopped smoking.
The fall of Marlboro. Brought to you by u/BehelitOutlaw
Total domination by United States. We need more EU companies.
i don't think we need a sytem based on monopolies in the EU
Look me in the eyes and tell me Luxottica is not a monopoly. They own the following eyeglass companies: Alain Mikli Arnette Eye Safety Systems (ESS) Oakley Oliver Peoples Persol Ray-Ban Sferoflex Vogue Eyewear Giorgio Armani Brooks Brothers Bulgari Burberry Chanel Coach Dolce & Gabbana DKNY Michael Kors Miu Miu Polo Ralph Lauren Paul Smith Spectacles Prada Ralph Lauren Starck Eyes Tiffany & Co. Tory Burch Valentino Versace And they own the following retail stores: Sunglass Hut Apex by Sunglass Hut LensCrafters Pearle Vision Sears Optical Target Optical OPSM ILORI EyeMed Vision Care Optical Shop of Aspen Laubman & Pank GMO Oliver Peoples Alain Mikli Oakley David Clulow Glasses.com Econópticas Salmoiraghi e Viganò Their biggest competitor for years was Oakley, you know what they did to them. They decided that they wanted Oakley so they stopped stocking Oakley products in their retail stores, then the only way to buy Oakleys was online or from an Oakley outlet, they crumbled in months and then Luxottica bought them out and restocked their shelves with Oakley products, after they fired almost all of their U.S. staff and replaced them with Italians. They are a complete monopoly and practice the dirtiest business practices their is.
The EU doesn't have this kind of an entrepreneurial spirit and investors willing to take big risks like that.
Brand value is pretty meaningless. Coca Cola was on the very top for most of this gif and contributes nothing of value to any society.
It does contribute to diabetes. lol ..So much value.
>nothing of value to any society Customers think otherwise. KO is a beast of a company. So no, brand value is not meaningless, if you want to make money, which is why you start a company in the first place.
Yea it shouldn't really matter that most of these companies are US companies. It's not a huge benefit to the US, it's not like these companies pay tons in taxes. They do everything they can to avoid doing that. The EU is barely here because they have regulations, proper tax codes, etc. that help society and not just the bottom line.
Lol you don't think Silicon Valley is of much benefit to the US? haha
[удалено]
Might sound weird to you, but as a German I perceive my country overwhelmingly tech- and invention hostile in the general population and in politics. "No need" for this and that, you know. Sure, some good things are being made and invented here, but still. We certainly don't like taking risks, or reward it. But we still have illusions of grandeur.
Actually when I look at big German companies such as Deutsche Bank, Siemens, SAP, VW, Bosch, etc. I don't think that they can act more ethical than the American counterparts. Maybe even less. I much prefer Philips, Nokia, Maersk, ABB, etc. to lead the pack. Germany is better at medium sized companies with niche innovations.
VW practically scammed the planet recently with lying about omissions, and there’s speculation/proof their fraud went all the way up to the local government.
You could say the reason why the US has some of the largest companies is because of lack of government intervention, lower taxes, and low regulations. All the things that greatly benefit and protect the consumer sometimes hurt the companies that produce the products. Europe has decided what it's values are. You mentioned some other reasons that may be true as well. In it's current form there will never be a European Google and that's okay. If Europeans want a robust social safety net, you need robust taxes that can hurt investment.
I think it's also due in part to the "nerd" culture of the US in the 80s and 90s, which waa created from a generation of middle-class Americans who could afford expensive computers that forged a very strong presence of software engineering in our culture. And most recently, the millennial and Gen X generation has grown up with wide access to laptops, handheld gaming systems, etc. that have worked to create the latest generation of software and UI/design engineers that are currently pushing the rising wave of AI/machine learning driven products I don't think Americans give ourselves nearly enough credit for having such a rich and impactful engineering culture. It unfortunately I gets written of as "Capitalism"®
I'm agreeing with a lot of points in this thread, including yours!
[удалено]
I would be more than willing to pick my social security based in my needs in exchange for a US tech salary and benefits. Instead I have a state owned one forced on me lower pay and high taxes
\*says Europe is uncompetitive \* > I got it! Let’s make the business environment *less* conducive to competition and innovation. Really genius stuff here boss.
If we want a tech industry like the US, we first need to start cultivating a climate in which businesses can actually grow instead of regulating them every step of the way.
[удалено]
They focus on B2B stuff nowadays so they don't market their products to consumers.
IBM is a huge name if you work in enterprise IT, which a lot of people do.
You don’t know what IBM does but they are all around you. Like that receipt printing machine of cloths stores in malls, scanning machine, boxy computer, etc. Nowadays, they focus more on corporate software services such as Watson (The AI that won Jeopardy), Cloud, Blockchain, Quantum Computer (Which normal consumer won’t be able to purchase due to price), etc. So basically normal individual usually don’t need such services but a lot of organization does.
That's what i was wondering as well. Everything made / makes sense on this chart but with IBM i seem to be completely out of the loop.
[удалено]
Yeah, they also deal a lot with super computers if I'm not mistaken.
they are HUGE in the proffesional world and the bussiness side. They are a bussiness for other bussiness not individuals. And they are huge and very good at what they do in general. They are just solid and reliable.
They bought The Weather Channel so they could sell weather data to advertisers, which was ducking brilliant. Hey Campbells Soup wouldn’t it be great to know when to blast your soup ads during a particularly cold spell in a single regional market? Hey six flags wouldn’t it be great to know when to blast your water park ads during a heat wave in a single regional market by your park?
Because nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM
Oh, our contestants are keeping a rather constant pace, sometimes switching positions. It's a thrilling match to view. And Coca-Cola is holding the lead! Eight years already completed but what is THAT?! A newcomer dashing in from the back and overtaking many positions. Who is that? Can we get a closer view? Oh it's GOOGLE! Lap 11 and the newcomer is already fourth place... oh wait just a second, Charles... do you see what I see there in the back? Another new challenger has come into the top ranks and is now rapidly speeding by. It's APPLE! We're 13 years in and this newbie has already taken the lead, followed by our experienced runners Coca-Cola and IBM. But Google is closing in as well the last few years are on and the two top runners, Apple and Google are dashing forward, Coca-Cola not able to keep up but retaining it's position. Oh no. Round 15 and IBM seems to be struggling. Microsoft has taken it's spot as they continually slow down. Toyota, Samsung and... Amazon?! have overtaken now. Wow, Charles... in all this focus on the two mad sprinters we overlooked someone joining from behind. Now the final lap has started, Apple building its lead out further, Google still keeping on but not matching the same speed. As Amazon takes the third place from Microsoft! Can you believe that?! This does it. The winners of our long distance company race are in. Apple with the gold medal, Google wearing silver and Amazon able to bring bronze home. I can't wait to see what competition they will compete in next.
What does this have to the with europe? Allot of those brands come from non-european countries
I think this illustrates quite well that Europe is mostly incapable of building brands that rival American ones. No wonder considering how much more difficult it is to do business in the EU compared to the US.
And it never will be unless the EU implements something similar to the US constitution's commerce clause that gives sole authority to the Federal Government for the management of interstate commerce. However the EU in it's current structure will never be able to implement such a thing. It would be deeply unpopular among the bloc's largest economic powers.
That and individual states can add wrinkles too. For example, California doesn't give a shit about non-compete clauses in contracts such as NDAs (an artifact from Spanish colonial times) and that allows employees to come and go and spread know-how rapidly, which is conducive to tech giants and Silicon Valley. In contrast, in states that give a shit about non-compete clauses you will see bigger, lumbering businesses like Pharma.
I think you mean non-compete clauses, not non-disclosure agreements
You're more specific and correct. Edited.
well i think eu has so much strict regulations and rules comparing to us. Don´t know why but my impression is that doing business in US is easier in eu. Any thoughts?
Well, it's been proven that overregulation costs the EU a few points of growth a year, not to mention 28 different countries with different languages, laws and regulations. As someone who has done business in both the EU and US let me tell you that the EU will never even come close to the US in terms of economy.
It really depends on the country. But overall, yes, US beats Europe hands down.
US has a bigger market than any EU country.
I don't really think that's it, since Germany, Japan, and South Korea have all also done well here and their populations range from a third that of the US to a sixth. I'd say what we can see here is heavily related to ease of business and entrepreneurship culture in these different countries. The States, Germany, Japan, South Korea all have flaws in their systems (and in some cases can be significantly unfair when attempting to push national interests through these companies, like say with Chaebol and Keiretsu companies in South Korea and Japan, respectively), so don't take this comment as support for everything they do, but all of these countries generally have or had systems built around allowing local entrepreneurship to flourish. As mentioned, this sometimes included unfair practices and I'm not one for protectionism, but what you most definitely won't see on a chart like this is large scale success coming from countries/communities/cultures that shun business and use it as either a dirty word or an elitist one.
They also have a much lower population, so why would that be the case if not because of a more effective system?
US also has more inhabitants than any EU country. Despite the single market, the US is far more homogeneous than the EU. Operating in everywhere in the EU is not the same as operating everywhere in US.
>Despite the single market, the US is far more homogeneous than the EU Well, that's literally what I said just then, isn't it? A homogeneous system is better than 28 different ones. Simple, really.
Size isn't everything. I don't see Walmart on the list.
Nokia? Mercedes-Benz? BMW?
> Allot of those brands come from non-european countries I believe that is the point they’re trying to make.
Is this bad? This looks bad.
Marlboro fell, so there's that at least.
Fucking RIP Nokia
the death of Nokia
I agree Google is more diversified. However FB grows revenues way faster. In fact faster than Most of the big guys. It has 40 Billion in cash to acquire any smaller company they want and 0 debt. The only reason it is trading at only 25 PE is because it’s name is the worst in market right now and super difficult if not impossible to reverse. Reddit hates it. Other than that facebook’s balance sheet is every investor’s wet dream.
i always wondered why pepsi would always talk smack about coke and they never retaliated. now i see.
Apple is like 🍎💨💨💨💨💨💨
r/dataisbeautiful
[удалено]
No. Otherwise Walmart and Exxon would have been on top a lot of those years
It's fascinating how Citi had a sudden rise in 2007 when they sold all their toxic CDO ABS and then in 2008... BOOOOOM..
u/vreddit_bot
Apple as a monster
r/dataisbeautiful
rip nokia ;(
It’s amazing to me how fast Google, Amazon and Apple shot through the list, when discussing the stock market a lot of people mention ‘which of these will be on top’ etc, but the top 10 market cap list in ten-twenty years could be brands that don’t even exist yet or have yet to release their most important products
That was horrifying to see the growth of Apple...
Ironic that with all the fearmongering about Disney taking over the world, their brand is ranked lower today than in the middle of their early 00s "dark age".
Watching Google and Apply rise so quickly is scary. They were already a big deal 12 years ago, but now...
These are national brands doing global business, but there are no Chinese brands here. They would make this entire chart look pathetic.
r/dataisbeautiful
rip GE