Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : NOK... without the BS -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lahcim Leinad who wrote (349)	9/5/2012 2:13:56 PM
From: AreWeThereYet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 580

The spec has been published. Ultra-high Megapixel is meaningless to photographers but the spec confirmed the 920 uses a small BSI 1/3" sensor. It is equipped with optical image stabilizer on a F/2 lens which is unusual for phone camera. So there are optical improvements over the 808 Pureview. Sensor is a big step backward compared to 41Mp 1/1.2" part. In theory, the Lumia 920 should able to produce better image quality than the 4S and SGS3 but have to see real world samples to make any conclusion. Large sensor costs more and it requires even more expensive lens. Not a practical move for Nokia to include 808 Pureview sensor in the mass produced Lumia 920. I wonder if Nokia will make a Lumia 928 Pureview for the photo enthusiasts. Perhaps with new Sony stacked sensor, that will be awesome!

To: Lahcim Leinad who wrote (349)	9/5/2012 2:21:56 PM
From: sense	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 580

Three major errors you tend to see poorly led large engineering solution firms making... One is the "not invented here" syndrome... where a company is handed a market killing potential on a platter... and refuse to pick up the weapon to kill their competitors... because they didn't make it themselves... NOK doesn't have that problem... rather than something of the opposite in valuing what others create more than what they create themselves... so.... The second is that you see here at NOK... where market killing potentials that are created by the company's engineers... aren't recognized as having value, by management, who are focused externally on some metric tied to an incorrect view of "how it would look" if you did have... exactly what you do have. Xerox is probably the most widely cited archtype... but, you could also note Bell Labs, prior to the breakup... Texas Instruments in a couple instances... and a host of others who have developed "the answer" in house, hold it in hand... and still failed to recognize it... Clear enough, in the current instance, that Elop is focused on engineering issues, while thinking success is fully and properly defined as "making windows products work"... and is focused on that to and beyond the limit of NOT being focused on optimally making NOK's products work better in the market place than competitors. There are a lot of implications inherent in that particular myopia... which you might note reveals a corporate version of a lack of self esteem... that results in management grossly undervaluing their people and their capabilities... not respecting them or their accomplishments generally... while imposing some other, non merit based scheme in governance from the top down... necessary to sustain the errors against various challenges... The third is the opposite of the first... where a company is handed a market killing potential on a platter... and rather than deal honestly with the outside creator... they choose to steal it... because they can... while justifying the criminal acts directed from the boardroom as "worth it" because of the impact int he market competition... The Apple Samsung dispute is the far and away the least of that third problem... certainly relative to what a more functional intellectual property system would enable in accelerating rather than suppressing both technology that would exist otherwise, and more basic free market functions... That third issue is also a NOK problem... although in this instance with NOK playing the willing victim of others piracy, rather than doing even a passing job of enforcing its own IP rights... That's also a fairly natural result... of not properly recognizing or valuing what you do have. Looks to me like there's basically nothing at all wrong with NOK... other than being misled and mismanaged by a management and board who are clueless enough to not even recognize "where they are" in the competitive landscape... Whey you do grossly misidentify your problems... it is a fairly natural thing to not have the resulting effort be capable of solving them...

To: Lahcim Leinad who wrote (349)	9/5/2012 3:16:57 PM
From: sense	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 580

Hmmm. Earlier today, I noted the 60MA at $2.43... Now, oddly, it suddenly jumped lower... down to $2.38, first... and then again, now down at $2.36... making the charts appear as if NOK didn't violate that prior line in the support... The MA seems now to have incorporated some "revision" that dates all the way back to the trade on August 1st, at least... and it is that apparent "revision" in relation to prior trades that has dragged the line lower, in part ? Right now the 60MA in my charting also shows it is being dragged lower RIGHT NOW... moving down in real time, for both yesterday and today... which it seems to me should not be happening in a lagging indicator... making it very curious... as it has the 60MA moving MORE than the 20MA... based on todays trading action. Anyone got a reasonable explanation for that ?