Nokia Tops Apple By More Than 150%

1/13/13 3:17PM EST

nokialumia920

Since August 2012, Nokia stock has beaten Apple stock by more than 150%. It may come as a shock to many, but it seems the biggest reason lies in the fact that Nokia sold about 4.4 million Lumia smartphones. This is in conjunction with the fact that iPhones seem to be declining and overtaken by Samsung’s phenomenal sales for its Note II and Galaxy S3 phones. As a result, the Lumia has crept along in sales as a silent competitor and given Nokia just enough push to raise its stocks to notable values.

Nokia CEO Stephen S. Elop stated, “We are pleased that Q4 2012 was a solid quarter where we exceeded expectations and delivered underlying profitability in devices & services and record underlying profitability in Nokia Siemens Networks. We focused on our priorities and as a result we sold a total of 14 milion Asha smartphones and Lumia smartphones while managing our costs efficiently, and Nokia Siemens Networks delivered yet another very good quarter.

This is also great news for Microsoft because Lumia phones are based on a Windows operating system.

Could this be the start of Nokia’s rise to that of Apple and Samsung? Chances are slim in the long-run because Apple seeks to expand into the Chinese markets and Samsung is making a killing with their new line of smartphones and will not be holding back. There are also rumors that Samsung is coming out with a new flexible, and bendable smartphone that surpasses other competitor’s models.

[Image via Nokia]

 
1 comments
HongkeeCheng
HongkeeCheng

The arguments of this article sounds pretty weird.....


1. Benefiting the singles doesn't mean to penalize the married. Can we say that giving out tax cut and tax return to the married households is to punish the singles and force them to be married? No! There is always a particular class of people who can benefits the most from a particular policy. 


2. No insurance out there is always guaranteed that the premium will not go up and always stay the same. If it goes up and beyond people can afford, people sign off and that's it.


3. I don't know what were you implying. Were you implying medical reimbursement rate needed to be reviewed? Or, you were implying we shall call off the Obamacare and kick those Americans who could not afford medical attentions before back to where they belong so that the system can be back to "normal" again?


4.  I am not the expert at this matter but Im wondering if there is any option other than having ACOs in promoting such a national-wide scheme of health care thing. 


5. In the employers' eyes, anything makes them pay more in business motivates them to cut costs including employees' hours. Corporate tax does that, minimum wage does that, insurance for workplace does that and now Obamacare might do that too.  The question is it is worth doing it or not. The way I see it is, it protects more working class people from health related issues and frees them from saving money for future medical expense, which results to a greater productivity in workplace and more consumption spending in economy. They are the intangible benefits you'll miss if you only look at the small picture.