This is so far worst thing that Tomi Ahonen has produced. I mean, this time he gives us both lie and all the tools to check it. This long quotation is from very recent blog of Tomi Ahonen:

I have been screaming about this, the ultimate proof of ineptitude by Elop. Nokia is not a newcomer to smartphones. Nokia is not the ‘challenger’. Nokia is the incumbent. Nokia literally invented the smartphone. And Nokia was a dumbphone maker before that. So Nokia will not be measured by history, on how big profits it made or how big was its empire at its peak. The one measure that history will judge Nokia with, is when Nokia faced its paradigm shift, the shift from dumbphones to smartphones, did Nokia capitalize on that change or fall in the pursuit.” [1]

And how was Nokia doing? It was executing this, the most strategic transition, most successfully of any legacy handset maker (ie far better than Samsung or Motorola or LG or SonyEricsson etc). Every single quarter of all time, in the history of smartphones, Nokia’s migration rate from dumbphones to smartphones, had been ahead of the industry level. Nokia was literally ahead of the curve, and Nokia’s handset unit accomplished this without one blemish, not once was Nokia’s handset unit reporting a loss in this time while every other one of its rivals stumbled and reported losses attempting this transition. Nokia had victory in its sights.” [1]

That transition rate is what all legacy handset makers will be judged on, nothing else. We’ve already seen Motorola (and Siemens) die in that process, and Ericsson pull out of the Sony partnership too as the third former giant handset maker giant death.” [1]

From Q2 of last year, immediately after the Elop Effect, Nokia’s migration rate from dumbphones to smartphones reversed, to falling behind the industry average. Now as we hear Sony saying they will shortly complete their transition to a pure smartphone maker, how is Nokia’s transition? The industry average is about 34% in Q2. And Nokia’s migration level fell from the 14% it had become, to 12% now !!! Yes, adding all Lumia and Symbian and MeeGo smartphones together, Nokia’s proportion of total smartphones out of total handset sales fell even more, to 12%.” [1]

Wow. Long rant. Sorry that I could not make it shorter.
Now two things are ringing a FUD alarm bell here:

  1. Graph uses half-year intervals, but Nokia gives quarterly results. What is the need to choose different scale?
  2. Graph is completely linear. Real-life values are rarely (if ever) linear.

So I checked. And it was not a fun task to dig through old quarterly reports but I’d say it was worth it. Here’s the same data using Nokia quarterly results. [2]

More exact numbers:

So the peak is exactly at Q3 2010. Stephen Elop became CEO at end of that quarter, yes. Technically he could have somehow mastered Q4 2010 migration results to fail already, but Tomi has been rather clear that Elop screwed things up in first quarter on 2011, which is almost equal to the Q4 2010. Also: I already pointed out that first quarter Elop Effect could have ruined was Q2 2011, which in this graph is third quarter where migration rate is going downhill and falls no faster than Q4 2010 fell from Q3 2010.

Tomi is spreading here a blatant lie anyone can check. I have no clue what he was thinking when he wrote that. Even worse, this is Tomi repeating the same “message”. He already has spread the graph before this. [3] And he has repeated the message since:
NokiaDumbToSmartMigration20PercentQ42010
(The peak was not at 20% but let’s allow that for him. However Q4 was not the peak.)

I hate to go through stuff like this from someone who claims to be “former Nokia executive who has run a consulting practise on digital convergence, interactive media, engagement marketing, high tech and next generation mobile“. [1] I’m therefore once again asking him to publicly admit his fraud.

REFERENCES:

[1] http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2012/07/digging-deeper-into-nokia-q2-results-and-exactly-how-many-awesome-sales-was-att-and-china.html

[2] http://www.nokia.com/global/about-nokia/investors/financials/reports/results—reports/

[3] http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2012/06/the-final-reckoning-of-burning-platforms-memo-damaged-nokia-by-wiping-out-13b-in-revenues-and-destro.html

Guideline for commenting: I hate the way Tomi Ahonen deletes criticizing comments from his blog. However, I plan to follow three of his principles: I’ll delete comments that are

  1. Personal insults to someone
  2. Duplicates
  3. Spam

In addition, if you wish to challenge my previous posts, please comment to those.

Advertisements

1 thought on “Am I only one who bothered to check this? (Clearly fouled-up data from Tomi Ahonen)”

  1. Sander van der Wal said:

    Horace Dediu at http://www.asymco.com has pointed this out too: http://www.asymco.com/2012/04/12/how-samsung-beat-nokia/. He thinks that Nokia’s management had made the strategic decision to switch their attention to dumphones instead of smartphones at the time the market started to switch to smartphones.

    I believe he is right, and I can back that belief up with the observation that Nokia started to talk about the “Next Billion” around the time they bought Qt. Given their experiences with the apps market in the noughties, I think Nokia believed that apps were a dead-end. Lots of people believed that by the way, and the thinking at that time, 2007-2008, was that HTML5, webapps, would be the way forward.

    So in 2010 we could se the first effects of the new strategy. Which was already failing with the market demanding smartphones instead of dumbphones.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

    Quarter migration rate
    Q2 2010 21.6%
    Q3 2010 24.0%
    Q4 2010 22.9%
    Q1 2011 22.3%
    Q2 2011 18.9%