Talk:Sony Mobile/Archives/2014

Handset production
Ericsson handset production was at huge loss (with production cost being twice the selling price). At 2001 Ericsson's situation was so bleak they couldn't bear this loss anymore so they de-facto handed over production to Sony (who in turn started to restructure it). This info should be added into article, it is too rosy now. Pavel Vozenilek 22:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * any sources for that? --Juxi 11:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've edited the article accordingly (and I've got a source). Been meaning to do it for weeks. Mark83 17:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone screwed the article up
Somebody, stupid enough to sign his/her name on the page, messed up with the links on the page. I corrected some of the names in text, but not all of them, because they were too messed up. If anyone knows the correct names/links, please straighten them out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ftpaddict (talk • contribs) 16:04, 27 March 2006‎ (UTC)
 * You can use History in such cases :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sverde1 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 8 April 2006‎ (UTC)
 * Right, thanks! I'm still a beginner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.32.91.49 (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2006‎ (UTC)

Formatting the article
The article has a "need reference or source" tag on it. I couldn't find anymore relevant links. But I did format the articles in the relevant sections such as Mission, Org Structure, Financial Info... Hope that helps. Takamaxa 7:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The annual report says that the sales are correct. One source... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.177.69 (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Financial information
There are many grammatical mistakes in the financial info section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.158.188 (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2006‎ (UTC)

Has anyone up-to-date info about SE's market share or sales figures as the stuff in this section is kinda old? Lostgonzales (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * - according to Bloomberg, Sony-Ericsson's 2008 market share is falling down to fifth place (below Nokia, Samsung, LG, and Motorola), so, does anyone care to update the article with better and newer references? 114.121.31.105 (talk) 08:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * and now the Q3 results are out putting Sony Ericsson #3, having overtaken both LG and Motorola. Maybe the article should be rewritten to be more timeless so it's not constantly out-of-date 130.235.253.72 (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ze Bobber (SWE)?
No, "Ze Bobber" is not a Swedish word (at all). Googling for the phrase only brings up pages similar to this one where it is claimed to be swedish, so the rumor has spread quickly. Why it's called Z? I have no idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.135.138 (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2007‎ (UTC)

Sony Ericsson India
None of the other subsidiaries are mentioned as prominently. Why is this one??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laxstar5 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 10 June 2007‎ (UTC)

History section
The flow of the History section could be improved. It starts off with a description of Ericsson's supply problems with Philips and then abruptly jumps to Sony Ericsson's acquisition of UIQ Technology. I'm assuming that between those two defining moments, Sony and Ericsson created the joint venture but it's not mentioned (and the only reason I'm assuming this is because I read the Introduction). How about filling in the details for a more smooth and complete History section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.180.119 (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2007‎ (UTC)

Headquarters
Sony Ericsson's headquarters is in London not Seattle. Their US HQ is in Research Triangle Park, NC, not Seattle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.195.63 (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Japanese market
This artice does not describe Sony Ericsson products for Japanese market. In particular, naming system is quite different in Japan, due to the fact that market is operator-oriented and thus phone names are set by operators rather then vendors. However, such phones are still Sony Ericsson products. Netrat_msk (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"While Sony Ericsson has been enjoying strong growth recently, Q1 2008 results have been disappointing with profits crashing significantly by 43% to €133 million, sales falling by 8% and market share dropping from 9% back to 8%, despite favourable conditions that the handset market is expected to grow by 10% in 2008 - it is now widely feared that Sony Erricson is on the verge of decline along with its struggeling rival, Motorola.[1]" <- "widely feared"? This paragraph is quite alarmist and it is strange that only the sales figures for the most recent quarter is mentioned. Also, if it is really "widely feared" that SE is dying, then I would like to see a somewhat more trustworthy source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.53.26 (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Problems with phone, anyone?
There are problems (software, hardware, etc) reported by users (including C902). anybody have any idea of the actual statistics of problematic phone ratio to produced phone? Or the reports i heard are just super minority?ADouBTor (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Networks
Are all Sony Ericsson phones on the GSM Network? 72.160.246.160 15:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * - no, their JDM version has different network. 114.121.31.105 (talk) 08:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Why so much emphasis on the naming convention?
The article has a huge amount about how the company's phone models are named. Is this really notable? And even if it is, why does it need to take up so much space? It seems to me that someone knew a lot about the naming convention so stuck a lot about the naming convention in the article Brightonjon (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What actually interests me, is how W910i fits into the convention - the last number indicates that it is a candybar, when it is, in fact, a slider...193.34.52.2 (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Needs references
The references on this page are really patchy. Some sections are good, but others (especially the 'History' section) are really lacking in good references. Can someone with knowledge in the area help add some? Rimmington01 (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Statements needing references

 * There is now a Sony Ericsson Aino being released later this year that has Remote Play feature like the PSP which allows it to connect to a Playstation 3 system through a wifi zone Rimmington01 (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Green Section B.S.
The quote from the article:


 * Sony Ericsson is ahead of many of its competitors in eliminating chemical substances in its products and is currently finalizing the phase out of antimony, beryllium, phthalates and the very small remaining use of BFR

Says eliminating 'chemical substances' when they surely mean a specific set, given that everything in the world is a chemical substance. It sounds like marketing by green activists who don't know any better. Iæfai (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I, for one, don't even get why this section is relevant enough to be included into the article. Okay, Sony (somehow) cares about environment, but who does the opposite today on this market? There's nothing in this section that makes us say that Sony MC is outstandingly conscious about the environment, compared to its competitors; and this is the article of a mobile company on Wikipedia, not on any environment-oriented wiki site. I'd better either remove the section at all, or go ahead and write more sections on why Sony is a conscious employer, ethically-concerned and so on, to make the article look even more BS. Ximaera (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Name change
Is there any citation for the renamed entity? the website (www.sonyericsson.com), still says Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications. Neither does it use the Sony Logo. They've merely shown two mobile phone models bearing the Sony name. The take over is still in the process. So unless we have a real reference that shows the name of the company has changed, I'd revert it back to Sony Ericsson Mobile CommunicationsAJ-India (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The rename is planned for February 2012, but not in effect yet: press release --46.119.38.140 (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The takeover is complete and the official name change will take place any day, a move back to Sony Ericsson strikes me as a wholly pointless exercise which will confuse readers and create unnecessary work which will inevitably have to be undone again in a short while.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe renaming the article currently really doesn't make sense, but IMHO in the article text it must be clearly stated that Sony Mobile Communications AB is the future but not company current name. --94.27.64.79 (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC) (aka 46.119.38.140)
 * I have tweaked the lead, hopefully this will suffice as the legal name should change any day.Rangoon11 (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think its fine now, especially with the name officially changed anyway. But in general, I think we should not jump the gun. The article should have been updated after the official name change.AJ-India (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I didn't actually make the change though.Rangoon11 (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Completely out of date
Information about SEMC -> Sony Mobile must be updated to recent numbers, as the current displayed data is invalid. Sebasgokart (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Dates. Are they really correct?
It says that Sony Ericsson was founded October 1, 1987. I'd say it is incorrect. Sony might have been founded. But Sony Ericsson was a joint venture that happened first after year 2000, early 2001 a.f.a.i.k (Not exact, but around the very late 90s to early 2000.) I remember it so well, because I was curious about their upcoming phones. Even got their very first Android phone shortly after. ...and there are other dates I'm suspicious about as well. Could someone with better knowledge check the dates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.132.252.222 (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

formatting issues
This page got formatting issues. Anyone fixing em? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.214.192 (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)