Business Week: Why does Nokia lag behind

Nokia CEO Elop (Stephen Elop): The latest edition of the US Business Week print says Nokia has gradually lost its leading position in the mobile market because of its inability to fully understand market changes and the lack of timely adjustment of geographical layout. The following is the full text of the article: who was the most successful European enterprise in the 90 's? Too easy, of course, Nokia. The Finnish handset maker seized on the rise of the mobile phone market and became the industry's most powerful brand. Since the launch of the first GSM mobile phone in 1992, Nokia's handsets have almost defined the entire industry. From 1996 to 2001, the company's revenues were almost 5 times times the size of the world's largest handset-maker by 1998.　　Nokia sold its 1 billionth mobile phone in 2005, a 1100-cell phone sold to Nigerian users. The politicians praised Nokia and said the company could continue to prosper in 21st century. Romano, Romano Prodi, the European Commission's Chairman, specifically highlighted the success of Nokia and its rival, Sweden's Ericsson, in his 2002 speech. "Their success in the mobile market has created two vibrant clusters of industries, located in Oulu, Finland, and Stockholm, Sweden, which attracts a large number of start-ups and foreign investment. "These examples demonstrate the ability of the European region to develop new High-tech clusters," said Prodi. "Now, who was the most disappointing company in the first decade of 21st century?" Also very simple, or Nokia.　　The company's performance has fallen sharply – Nokia announced on September 10 that it would appoint the first non-Finnish CEO, highlighting its current weakness. Like the lessons of Nokia's success for Europe, the decline also tells us why European companies-and big businesses around the world-often stumble. Over the past 3 years, Nokia's bad news has followed. Nokia's share price has fallen by 49% since Apple released its iphone in January 2007. Nokia ranked 43rd in the 2010 global brand rankings released by Millward Brown Optimor, with a 12-month slump of 30.　　The company's profit margins have also shrunk, with market share and average handset prices falling in varying degrees. Indeed, Nokia still occupies the top one-third of global handset sales. But its position in the market is Charybdis. South Korean handset makers such as Samsung dominate the leading consumer market, with Apple's iphone and rim BlackBerry dominating the high-end smartphone market. Aware of this daunting set of challenges, Nokia decided to hire Microsoft executives, Elop, a Canadian, to reverse the dilemma. Everyone wants him to finish the job successfully. As to whether he knows enough about the phone, heDon't talk about it.　　Microsoft has yet to make any headway in the industry. The brutal reality is that, despite the still-impressive market share, Nokia has become a dead world. The mobile phone industry is integrating computing and social networks, but Nokia does not understand the trend.　　And now it's probably too late to fix it. Nokia should learn a lot from this terrible experience. First of all, success is not once and for all. Although Nokia soon took the top spot in the industry, it has since become complacent. Under the leadership of CEO Kallasvuo (Olli-pekka Kallasvuo), Nokia began to worry about market share rather than trying to develop innovative products that would bring surprises to consumers. Second, Nokia is unwilling to challenge itself. It has always been stubbornly that the main purpose of mobile phones is to call.　　Instead of realising it, users are gradually starting to use their mobile phones to view emails, find restaurants and update Twitter messages. The consequences of isolation Finally, Nokia's headquarters is not located in the same enterprise clusters. The creation of a technology giant in Finland is indeed a great achievement, but Nokia does not have a large number of internet companies or consumer electronics manufacturers around. This means that the company is unable to get all kinds of ideas, forcing it to question its theory day after day, and repeatedly. In fact, Finland is not the mainstream of Europe, and has never become an important part of the global economy. Most of Europe's most successful industries are concentrated in several smaller geographical areas. For example, the pharmaceutical industry in Europe is mainly located in Basle and southeastern England. The luxury car industry is mainly located in Munich and Stuttgart. The banking sector is in London. But there are individual exceptions, such as Airbus, which is located in Toulouse. Neighbors tend to be good for the business, they can dig horns and exchange ideas with each other.　　And isolation is not only disadvantageous to people, but also unfavorable to the development of enterprises. This is especially true for industries that are experiencing rapid change. Nokia needs to find its niche in the computing industry and even focus on the film, music and internet industries. While we still don't know what the phone will look like, it's hard to imagine a business outside Europe that can take that trend. Nokia should have relocated its headquarters to California as early as 10 years ago. It would certainly have been openly opposed by the Finnish Government, and the European Commission would probably not support it, but it was worth it. Nokia needs to devote itself to the trend of technological change.　　In this way, Nokia may be able to retain its brand leadership, rather than letting a computer maker close to the brink of collapse 10 years ago take the nose. There are still many companies in Europe that dominate the oil, aerospace, pharmaceutical, automotive and financial services sectors. All these companies are repeating similar mistakes. Are carmakers ready for the arrival of electric cars? Are pharmaceutical companies ready for the integration of computing technology and biotechnology? When debt has fallen steadily over the past decade, has the bank been solidly entrenched?　　I'm afraid not. Politicians and business experts spendA lot of time to praise Nokia and try to gain experience from his success. They should spend the same amount of time studying Nokia's decline. Otherwise, the rest of Europe could make the same mistake as Nokia. And Europe cannot afford to lose more of the world's leading companies. (Ding Macro)