Insteon being discontinued?

[DAlter01]

23 minutes ago, apostolakisl said:

That is a rediculous analogy.  That would be like saying Apple is a failure because they don't make the iphone 3 anymore.  Let me ask you this, would Apple ever, ever, in a million years, let some completely independent company put the Apple brand on their product?  Nokia apparently is willing to sell their name to a company, that as has been mentioned, does not have a good reputation.  Nokia isn't fixing this company, they aren't buying the technology and bringing it in house.  They are, it would appear, charging some money for their name.  This is a sure sign of a company that is not in good shape.   

No rediculous at all.  Most of the products you buy are made by, developed by, and distributed by a company other than the name on the front of the package.  That is how a large, large portion of the business world works my friend.  

Edited September 9, 2021 by DAlter01

[DAlter01]

35 minutes ago, larryllix said:

AS North Americans we tend to only see the world in our own environment. Many companies are huge in EurAsia and not so big in N.Am., tainting our perception.

I wouldn't call RIM or Nokia a failure. They were big and successful with their products at one time but technology changed and they chose not to stay up with it. Many had a change of managers and grew tired of the fight and drive needed. Failure?  depends on your point of view.

OTOH Ford could be called a failure. They didn't give up willingly, or change concepts, they were just surpassed by the competition. The market rejected them despite trying their best to make a profit.  I am aware of two class action suits they have already paid out, due to being caught knowingly/purposely producing a bad product. There may be more legal suits yet. They just don't care about their product quality or customers. I don't see that same attitude for Nokia or RIM. Insteon? the jury is still out.

I know one thing. Almost every Insteon product I have touched, has outlasted almost every Ford product I have ever seen in Canada.

Maybe just semantics?

Yes, I think just semantics.  Ford isn't perfect, but the point is they are more financially successful than many, many companies and have had to evolve over time.  And, just because someone gets sued and even loses in court doesn't mean they were in the wrong.  I don't know anything about the cases you mention so I'm not defending them, but in court there is often a bending of reality.  

Edited September 9, 2021 by DAlter01

[lilyoyo1]

1 hour ago, DAlter01 said:

Is Ford's name not worth anything to you because they no longer make the Thunderbird?  That car was a success for many years yet it's demand declined and was eventually discontinued.  Going along the lines of thought in your posts, Ford is now a "failed" company or desperate? 

You move forward, you take calculated risks, you take a step in a new direction.  Ford and Nokia have done well over the years.  I too have a company, take risks, etc.  It seems Ford and Nokia have done better than my company despite me thinking I've done well.  Like Ford, like Nokia, like my company, we evolve to the environment, create new things with fresh ideas, or go after an existing business segment with a new approach.  But, I guess I'm just a failure, my company has a bad reputation and I'm desperate because everything my company has ever done didn't work perfectly, we changed course, and my business has evolved to sometimes more lucrative and sometimes less lucrative avenues as it has grown?  From my seat, it doesn't look like a failure, maybe to you it does. 

Nokia is a success.  Will the partnership with Smartlabs be a success, we don't know.  I'm thinking it will be a financial success which is the metric that matters to Smartlabs and Nokia.  Will the technology take over the industry and be around for 30 years, No, but if that is your definition of success than your views are different than an investor's/companiy's definition.

I agree with everything you say. I try not to criticize other companies for their business decisions (especially those much more successful than mine). While i may not agree with some things they do or don't do, i realize their plan is not my plan. I'm sure if people looked at my business they'd say the same thing about how I run it. But then again, my plan isn't their plan. Where I'm at today isn't where i started and today isn't where i want to be tomorrow. Everything I do is geared towards that. That's how most businesses think. Along their path some of their ideas may not pan out but they regroup and keep moving forward

It says something for them to fall and yet they are billion dollar company today. 

 

[DAlter01]

18 minutes ago, lilyoyo1 said:

I agree with everything you say. I try not to criticize other companies for their business decisions (especially those much more successful than mine). While i may not agree with some things they do or don't do, i realize their plan is not my plan. I'm sure if people looked at my business they'd say the same thing about how I run it. But then again, my plan isn't their plan. Where I'm at today isn't where i started and today isn't where i want to be tomorrow. Everything I do is geared towards that. That's how most businesses think. Along their path some of their ideas may not pan out but they regroup and keep moving forward

It says something for them to fall and yet they are billion dollar company today. 

 

Looking back at my 30 years in business, probably my biggest mistakes were in taking too little risk.  And, now that I can afford to make mistakes to reap the rewards the additional risks may generate, I'm too comfortable (and lazy I guess) to do it.  A company that has a professional board of directors and professional evolving management can re-energize with new perspectives and drive to continue that growth.  This is something exhibited by Nokia, etc.

I never took my company to that level of having a Board of Directors and evolving managment because I didn't want to take the risk of that much growth, losing control, unknown risks, etc.  Those entrepenuers that can take that step successfully have a skill set that I don't have.  I admire them now that I look back having gained knowledge and perspective.  These are things I had little of when I started but fortunately I did have plenty of energy and drive.  Regrets, no, perspective to see how many paths can be a good path to success/happiness/etc., yes.

I see no problem with the idea/risks taken with the Nokia/Smartlabs partnership.  It is an evolution, a new path, a fresh perspective.  Will it mean a change to Insteon, yes, it has.  

Edited September 9, 2021 by DAlter01

[lilyoyo1]

1 hour ago, apostolakisl said:

That is a rediculous analogy.  That would be like saying Apple is a failure because they don't make the iphone 3 anymore.  Let me ask you this, would Apple ever, ever, in a million years, let some completely independent company put the Apple brand on their product?  Nokia apparently is willing to sell their name to a company, that as has been mentioned, does not have a good reputation.  Nokia isn't fixing this company, they aren't buying the technology and bringing it in house.  They are, it would appear, charging some money for their name.  This is a sure sign of a company that is not in good shape.   

You do realize this happens often in the business world. Alot of brands you think you're buying from actually isn't made or owned by the company with the name on it.

Take GE lighting. This was sold to savant who now licenses the name from GE. This allows them to sell products to the general public without putting their high end name (and product line) on the line for any real or perceived issues with it. 

Edited September 9, 2021 by lilyoyo1

[lilyoyo1]

1 hour ago, DAlter01 said:

Looking back at my 30 years in business, probably my biggest mistakes were in taking too little risk.  And, now that I can afford to make mistakes to reap the rewards the additional risks may generate, I'm too comfortable (and lazy I guess) to do it.  A company that has a professional board of directors and professional evolving management can re-energize with new perspectives and drive to continue that growth.  This is something exhibited by Nokia, etc.

I never took my company to that level of having a Board of Directors and evolving managment because I didn't want to take the risk of that much growth, losing control, unknown risks, etc.  Those entrepenuers that can take that step successfully have a skill set that I don't have.  I admire them now that I look back having gained knowledge and perspective.  These are things I had little of when I started but fortunately I did have plenty of energy and drive.  Regrets, no, perspective to see how many paths can be a good path to success/happiness/etc., yes.

I see no problem with the idea/risks taken with the Nokia/Smartlabs partnership.  It is an evolution, a new path, a fresh perspective.  Will it mean a change to Insteon, yes, it has.  

I haven't had my company for 30 years but I'm in the same position as you. I wish I had the mind set of alot of business people who grew their companies into large corporations. But then again, when I look at my lifestyle and work/life balance, I'm happy with the choices I've made over the years. Especially from where i started out from. 

Alot of people have opinions and pass judgement on decisions of businesses without being in that particular person's shoes. It's easy to stand on the sideline and judge when it's not you (not you personally) having to be held accountable. 

This is why I don't judge insteon and Joe D. Regardless of what people say, insteon is still around and the man sold his company for millions. How many of us can say that?

Edited September 9, 2021 by lilyoyo1

[DAlter01]

39 minutes ago, lilyoyo1 said:

You do realize this happens often in the business world. Alot of brands you think you're buying from actually isn't made or owned by the company with the name on it.

Take GE lighting. This was sold to savant who now licenses the name from GE. This allows them to sell products to the general public without putting their high end name (and product line) on the line for any real or perceived issues with it. 

There are thousands of such structures, it is very common.  A couple of common reasons:  1) It allows a company to free up cash or time to pursue more promising revenue streams without the distraction by senior management of running a business line that isn't core to their direction.  Or 2)A smaller company that has developed/refined a product but can acheive a better growth trajectory by bringing on a partner that can bring something of value to the table (distribution infrastructure, reputation, or name recognition) to create a win-win situation.  Does reason #2 sound familiar?

Lets face it, the refined Insteon technology being worked on by Smartlabs isn't going to be tremendously profitable if they just improve it a little bit and continue distributing it the old way.  To make a true success out of the product they need to scale the business tremendously.  Will a new product called "Insteon II" have a successful product launch?  No. That is like beating your head against the wall.  You may break through the wall, eventually, but why try it that way, its brutal.  Think outside the box, go get a tool (jackhammer, dozer, whatever) and break through the wall with ease.  Nokia is the dozer.  

[apostolakisl]

35 minutes ago, lilyoyo1 said:

You do realize this happens often in the business world. Alot of brands you think you're buying from actually isn't made or owned by the company with the name on it.

Take GE lighting. This was sold to savant who now licenses the name from GE. This allows them to sell products to the general public without putting their high end name (and product line) on the line for any real or perceived issues with it. 

GE is another great example of a company that is floundering.  Ever since Jack Welsh left they have been treading water at best.  If you had bought GE stock in ~2000 you would be sitting on about a 75% loss.  If you bought Nokia in 2000, you would be sitting on a 90% loss.  Now lets look at the winners.  If you had bought Samsung in 2010 (first year available), you are up 400%.  If you had bought Apple in 2000, you would have ~ 150000% gain.  Nokia stock is trading at about $5.  That is basically a penny stock.  I don't know what they do in Europe, but it can't be much based on their stock.  Nokia is clearly a struggling company, small market share and getting smaller.  If Apple were handling this, they would buy Smartlabs, bring all the patents in house, fix all the problems, and sell it themselves using their customer support system.  They would have complete control.  Nokia instead is giving their name to a company, that again I repeat, has a suspect reputation, and isn't taking over any part of it.  There really is no reason to expect that Smartlabs is going to do anything different.  At first when I saw Nokia getting involved I thought maybe this is a good thing.  But after discovering it is simply a branding thing, I quickly changed my mind.  Companies with vision don't sell out like this.  I see this partnership being a big Meh at best.  Nothing exciting, no new engineers, no new management, no new sales team, no sharing of patents, nothing.

[larryllix]

2 hours ago, apostolakisl said:

That is a rediculous analogy.  That would be like saying Apple is a failure because they don't make the iphone 3 anymore.  Let me ask you this, would Apple ever, ever, in a million years, let some completely independent company put the Apple brand on their product?  Nokia apparently is willing to sell their name to a company, that as has been mentioned, does not have a good reputation.  Nokia isn't fixing this company, they aren't buying the technology and bringing it in house.  They are, it would appear, charging some money for their name.  This is a sure sign of a company that is not in good shape.   

For all the masses know SmartHome was sold to Nokia under an investment company's name and is pulling the strings that could break and embarrass them. Why would Nokia put their name on somebody else's product at all, when they don't market the product, manufacture it, or promote it? Something stinks in Denmark there.

[DAlter01]

1 minute ago, larryllix said:

For all the masses know SmartHome was sold to Nokia under an investment company's name and is pulling the strings that could break and embarrass them. Why would Nokia put their name on somebody else's product at all, when they don't market the product, manufacture it, or promote it? Something stinks in Denmark there.

It's called Richmond Capital PARTNERS for a reason.  We don't know who the partners are but it wouldn't be suprising to find out that Nokia, or a subsidiary, is one.  

[apostolakisl]

This is not the graph of a company with good ideas.  This is Global . . .so Europe not so good either.

Edited September 9, 2021 by apostolakisl

[larryllix]

Just now, apostolakisl said:

This is not the graph of a company with good ideas.

Appears to be a mobile phone sales chart and not the overall company market share chart. The excuses for that were already made.

[apostolakisl]

1 minute ago, larryllix said:

Appears to be a mobile phone sales chart and not the overall company market share chart. The excuses for that were already made.

I don't know what other market share graph to show.  But here is the stock for 5 years.  It is horizontal and low, exactly the same as their phone market share for the past 5 years.

 

[apostolakisl]

10 minutes ago, DAlter01 said:

It's called Richmond Capital PARTNERS for a reason.  We don't know who the partners are but it wouldn't be suprising to find out that Nokia, or a subsidiary, is one.  

Why would a company with a 35B market cap go into a partnership with a puny little company like Smartlabs?  This is just more bad decisions on the part of Nokia.  If they had made good decisions, they would be a trillion dollar company, but apple and samsung ate their lunch.

[DAlter01]

15 minutes ago, apostolakisl said:

This is not the graph of a company with good ideas.  This is Global . . .so Europe not so good either.

And yet they have $22B in sales, make about $800 Million in operating profit, and have a division called NGP Capital described below:

NGP Capital[edit]

NGP Capital (formerly Nokia Growth Partners) is a global venture capital firm, focusing on investments in the growth stage "Internet of things" (IoT) and mobile technology companies.^[203] NGP holds investments throughout the U.S., Europe, China and India. Their portfolio consists of companies in mobile technology including the sectors Connected Enterprise, Digital Health, Consumer IoT, and Connected Car. Following a $350 million funding for IoT companies in 2016, NGP manages $1 billion worth of assets.^[204]

Nokia had previously promoted innovation through venture sponsorships dating back to 1998 with Nokia Venture Partners, which was renamed BlueRun Ventures and spun off in 2005.^[205] Nokia Growth Partners (NGP) was founded in 2005 as a growth stage venture fund as a continuation of the early successes of Nokia Venture Partners. In 2017, the company was renamed to NGP Capital.^[206]

NGP's largest exits include GanJi, UCWeb, Whistle, Rocket Fuel, Swype, Summit Microelectronics and Netmagic.

They MUST be desperate.  Why would they invest in all of these technologies and ventures unless they were desperate for cash.... wait, I know, the potential for profit, growing their business.  Crazy ideas I know.

Edited September 9, 2021 by DAlter01

[larryllix]

1 minute ago, apostolakisl said:

I don't know what other market share graph to show.  But here is the stock for 5 years.  It is horizontal and low, exactly the same as their phone market share for the past 5 years.

 

Yeah, stock price isn't a good example of company progress or market either. Stock prices have absolutely nothing to do with company progress and are only related to the mass' perception, swayed by too many unrelated factors. My guess is Nokia is bigger in Eurasia. They may be targeting that market with Insteon technology, while it fades out on 60Hz zones.

[apostolakisl]

Just now, larryllix said:

Yeah, stock price isn't a good example of company progress or market either. Stock prices have absolutely nothing to do with company progress and are only related to the mass' perception, swayed by too many unrelated factors. My guess is Nokia is bigger in Eurasia. They may be targeting that market with Insteon technology, while it fades out on 60Hz zones.

Short term stock prices are based on speculation, attempts to predict the future, stock prices over the long term follow actual results.  Nokia sucks!  Seriously, would you buy Nokia stock?  

The phone sales were world wide.  Here is Nokia net sales for everthing they sell.  Not impressive.  They look like a company in a mature and dying industry.  But no, they are a tech company.  The miracle is they didn't go out of business.  In growth industries you typically either grow or die.  

[DAlter01]

7 minutes ago, larryllix said:

Yeah, stock price isn't a good example of company progress or market either. Stock prices have absolutely nothing to do with company progress and are only related to the mass' perception, swayed by too many unrelated factors. My guess is Nokia is bigger in Eurasia. They may be targeting that market with Insteon technology, while it fades out on 60Hz zones.

So true on stock price.  It often does not reflect the strength of a business in both directions (higher or lower).  Over time there is corelation but it can take quite a while.  And, some companies are worth 5X broken into pieces than they are as a single entity.  I don't know about Nokia but stock price can be deceptive.

[lilyoyo1]

9 minutes ago, apostolakisl said:

GE is another great example of a company that is floundering.  Ever since Jack Welsh left they have been treading water at best.  If you had bought GE stock in ~2000 you would be sitting on about a 75% loss.  If you bought Nokia in 2000, you would be sitting on a 90% loss.  Now lets look at the winners.  If you had bought Samsung in 2010 (first year available), you are up 400%.  If you had bought Apple in 2000, you would have ~ 150000% gain.  Nokia stock is trading at about $5.  That is basically a penny stock.  I don't know what they do in Europe, but it can't be much based on their stock.  Nokia is clearly a struggling company, small market share and getting smaller.  If Apple were handling this, they would buy Smartlabs, bring all the patents in house, fix all the problems, and sell it themselves using their customer support system.  They would have complete control.  Nokia instead is giving their name to a company, that again I repeat, has a suspect reputation, and isn't taking over any part of it.  There really is no reason to expect that Smartlabs is going to do anything different.  At first when I saw Nokia getting involved I thought maybe this is a good thing.  But after discovering it is simply a branding thing, I quickly changed my mind.  Companies with vision don't sell out like this.  I see this partnership being a big Meh at best.  Nothing exciting, no new engineers, no new management, no new sales team, no sharing of patents, nothing.

How many Billion dollar corporations have you built up again? 

You do realize more goes into stock prices than just the price. According to your logic Apple is a major failure as well since their stock price was once over 700.00 a share but now is less than 160.00 a share. 

[apostolakisl]

3 minutes ago, lilyoyo1 said:

How many Billion dollar corporations have you built up again? 

You do realize more goes into stock prices than just the price. According to your logic Apple is a major failure as well since their stock price was once over 700.00 a share but now is less than 160.00 a share. 

You didn't read anything I wrote.  First off, implying I am a failure for not building a billion dollar company is unwarranted.  I have done just fine thank you.

As I said, stock prices over the long term always reflect actual company success.  Take a 1 or 2 year running average and you will find that this closely track what the company is actually worth. 

 

So much love for Nokia here.  Astounding.  Lets see someone put their money where their mouth is.  I dare you, go buy some stock right now.

[larryllix]

11 minutes ago, apostolakisl said:

Short term stock prices are based on speculation, attempts to predict the future, stock prices over the long term follow actual results.  Nokia sucks!  Seriously, would you buy Nokia stock?  

<snipped>

 

Bad example. I wouldn't buy any stock. The whole stock market is one big scam and controlled by scammers ripping people off to benefit themselves.

[apostolakisl]

11 minutes ago, lilyoyo1 said:

How many Billion dollar corporations have you built up again? 

You do realize more goes into stock prices than just the price. According to your logic Apple is a major failure as well since their stock price was once over 700.00 a share but now is less than 160.00 a share. 

And I just realized, what?  Apple stock is basically at its all time high right now.  It has never been anything close to 700 a share split adjuisted.  You are familiar perhaps with stock splits?  

[DAlter01]

8 minutes ago, apostolakisl said:

You didn't read anything I wrote.  First off, implying I am a failure for not building a billion dollar company is unwarranted.  I have done just fine thank you.

As I said, stock prices over the long term always reflect actual company success.  Take a 1 or 2 year running average and you will find that this closely track what the company is actually worth. 

 

So much love for Nokia here.  Astounding.  Lets see someone put their money where their mouth is.  I dare you, go buy some stock right now.

It's not love for Nokia just a lack of hate.  Nokia is a signficant global player and the partnership improves the prospects for the success of the new product line with the intent of creating a win-win outcome.  That is opinion but I believe that opinion is supported by facts.  To reach a different conclusion about Nokia and the partnership is, in my opinion, not supported by facts or an objective analysis.

And, I think that is enought said by me on this topic for a while.  Have fun.

Edited September 9, 2021 by DAlter01

[larryllix]

2 minutes ago, DAlter01 said:

It's not love for Nokia just a lack of hate.  Nokia is a signficant global player and the partnership improves the prospects for the success of the new product line with the intent of creating a win-win outcome.  That is opinion but I believe that opinion is supported by facts.  To reach a different conclusion about Nokia and the partnership is, in my opinion, not supported by facts or an objective analysis.

I think it is a wait and see thing either way. Companies do not display their corporate business moves before they do them to "tip their hand".  I have seen companies put out public  broadcasts how well they are doing the day before closing their doors. In one, 800 employees of a many decade aerospace business, were told over the P.A. system, they had two hours to get out. Large companies have no morals or obligations to inform their employees or customers.

The friction is created by posters attempting to guess what Smarthome / Insteon is doing without disclosing sources, if there actually were any (guessing). The only real information we have is, what we have seen, logic from that and other companies history, and what users report from the SH support people contacts.

 

[MrBill]

43 minutes ago, apostolakisl said:

This is not the graph of a company with good ideas.  This is Global . . .so Europe not so good either.

It's not a valid graph because the Nokia handset line was sold in 2014 to Microsoft.It didn't even belong to Nokia for the last 3rd of that graph.  At the time of the sale, it was a good deal for both companies... but Microsoft was never able to reverse the trend started by the popularity of Android and iOS.