New and successful “post feature phone” business of Nokia with a new set of risks and uncertainties

Nokia successfully got over the “post feature phone” situation described a year ago as:

… many mid-range to high-end feature phones increasingly offer access to the Internet and applications and provide more smartphone-like features and design, blurring the distinction between smartphones and feature phones. We are subject to intense competition over the entire spectrum we address through our Mobile Phones business unit. Recently, smartphones of other manufacturers, particularly Android-based smartphones, are reaching lower price points, which is increasingly reducing the addressable market and lowering the price points for feature phones. …

… For higher-end feature phones in particular, the platform is a differentiating element with the addition of new functionalities and possibilities for customization and an improved user experience. If we are unable to produce competitive low-end and high-end feature phones and preserve our market share and profitability of our feature phones business, our business, results of operation and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected.

Now it has new types of affordable devices for which it needs only to add:

1. Continuation with their affordability
2. “… very rapid and low-cost production … increasingly at lower price points …”
3. Ability “to produce competitive devices at various price points”

This significant achievement is well reflected in the changes of the title of the risk descriptions:

pp.18-19 of the Nokia SEC filing for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 (FY11)	pp. 15-17 of the Nokia SEC filing for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 (FY12)
We may not be able to produce attractive and competitive feature phones, including devices with more smartphone-like features, in a timely and cost efficient manner with differentiated hardware, software, localized services and applications.	We may not be able to produce attractive and competitive devices in our Mobile Phones business unit, including feature phones and devices with features such as full touch that can be categorized as smartphones, in a timely and cost efficient manner with differentiated hardware, software, localized services and applications.

Consequently there is a new set of risks and uncertainties associated with that new “post feature phone” space as follows (highlighted full text comparisons of FY11 vs. FY12 you can see in a PDF format downloadable from here):

The market we address with the more affordable devices from our Mobile Phones business unit may further reduce in size if the higher-end price points become dominated by more affordable smartphones, such as Android-based smartphones, and the higher-end devices from our Mobile Phones business unit are not sufficiently competitive compared to those.

The features of higher-end devices from our Mobile Phones business unit may not be sufficiently competitive compared to more affordable smartphones, such as Android-based smartphones.

Our estimates of the growth potential in the markets we address through our Mobile Phones business unit may not be accurate and as such result in misplaced investments of resources.

…

Speed of shifts in market development and demand, for example, related to 2G, 3G and 4G mobile communication technology transitions and requirements, may be faster than we have anticipated, making our Mobile Phones portfolio less competitive if we are unable to timely develop and produce devices addressing such shifts.

We are using our internally developed platforms for our devices from the Mobile Phones business unit, which may hinder our ability or increase our costs in integrating hardware and sourcing components and other parts due to limitations in the platform and vendors tooling their supply and configurations for devices that operate on other platforms.

If the platforms that we use for our devices from the Mobile Phones business unit are not sufficiently competitive or otherwise optimal for our devices, developing the platform or switching to another platform may be time-consuming and costly, and there are no guarantees that our competitive position would benefit from such actions or that the development costs would result in a positive return on our investments. If the attractiveness of the platforms we use in the Mobile Phones business unit deteriorates, corrective actions will consume time and resources from us and may not lead to desired results, and may expose our Mobile Phones business unit to a significant deterioration in competiveness.

[vs. just a too general statement for all that used a year ago:

We may need to make significant investments to further develop platforms for devices from our Mobile Phones business unit. There can be no assurances regarding consumer acceptance of such platform developments or that the development costs would result in a positive return on our investments.]

…

There are shifts in the desired features and products in the market that are appealing to customers and consumers and such shifts may not be in our favor from a net sales or profitability perspective; for instance, QWERTY devices have been a traditional strength for us, but the overall market demand for QWERTY devices has declined and is expected to continue to decline.

[vs. nothing said about that a year ago]