Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Feech

Are phones too expensive?

Recommended Posts

Not to say one is better than the other (I have both) and to avoid an OS debate there seems to be more information on Apples cost than others.

 

"IF" (according to Google searches) it cost Apple around 200.00 to make an iPhone 5, does the Samsung Galaxy S3 or Optimus G have anything that would justify a much bigger cost?

 

Doesn't Foxconn make handsets for various vendors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to say one is better than the other (I have both) and to avoid an OS debate there seems to be more information on Apples cost than others.

 

"IF" (according to Google searches) it cost Apple around 200.00 to make an iPhone 5, does the Samsung Galaxy S3 or Optimus G have anything that would justify a much bigger cost?

 

Doesn't Foxconn make handsets for various vendors?

 

They have less of an economy of scale than Apple, but they are gouging the consumer as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not to say one is better than the other (I have both) and to avoid an OS debate there seems to be more information on Apples cost than others.

 

"IF" (according to Google searches) it cost Apple around 200.00 to make an iPhone 5, does the Samsung Galaxy S3 or Optimus G have anything that would justify a much bigger cost?

 

Doesn't Foxconn make handsets for various vendors?

 

Thank you, someone who got the point. It wasn't about Apple, it's just the easiest data to pull from.

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nexus 7 Specs

7" 1280x800 HD display (216 ppi)

Back-lit IPS display

Scratch-resistant Corning® glass

NVIDIA® Tegra® 3 quad-core processor

16 GB internal storage

$200

 

EVO LTE

720 x 1280 pixels 312 ppi

Dual core, 1500 MHz

16 GB

$549

 

I don't see that much of a hardware difference to justify a $350 dollar difference. Nobody said it was cheap to build a device at the same time at some point making a device should become cheaper over time.

 

Nexus 7 has no cellular chipset, much cheaper screen, and doesn't have to fit in your pocket.

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nexus 7 has no cellular chipset, much cheaper screen, and doesn't have to fit in your pocket.

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

The wireless network capability would only cost 30 dollars or less to add to the Nexus 7 from the manufacturer. That is not really an argument. The cheaper screen is too small extent, but for only another 30 or 40 dollars. And the larger device is more expensive in some ways too.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, we will even go with a AJ's $50 price point. It is still not even close. There is a crap load full of markup on these things. No doubt. And if subsidies were scrapped and people knew what they paid for devices, prices would come down. Period.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, we will even go with a AJ's $50 price point. It is still not even close. There is a crap load full of markup on these things. No doubt. And if subsidies were scrapped and people knew what they paid for devices, prices would come down. Period.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

That probably is true since it would fire off direct competition and force manufacturing to trim the fat.

 

Still, lots of people like to act like we should get these at cost. Why would they continue to make them on a break even scale?

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more thing to note.

 

A lot of the tablets are riding on the coattails of the r&d from the phones. There is significant cost in development that is built into the price structure of the phones. It all costs money someplace.

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One more thing to note.

 

A lot of the tablets are riding on the coattails of the r&d from the phones. There is significant cost in development that is built into the price structure of the phones. It all costs money someplace.

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

They are not lining R&D with these margins. They are lining shareholders pockets. And I'm OK with a profit margin. But they need to compete for it. Right now, they are getting unfair hand over fist. And we are paying for it. Those subsidy costs are burdened by consumers.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if Google can fix their supply chain and get devices in front of average consumers, and we may see the competition after all

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, if Google can fix their supply chain and get devices in front of average consumers, and we may see the competition after all

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

This is our best hope at the moment. And possibly Amazon too.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have less of an economy of scale than Apple, but they are gouging the consumer as well.

 

Isn't the S3 outselling the iPhone? I'd have to think Samsung has some clout as well.

 

The S3 is 549.00 on Sprints website. 599.99 on Verizon and 599.99 on T-Mobile. Still a rather expensive device looking at full retail.

 

The disparity of a phones value gets even murkier here:

 

Samsung Victory is 399.99 MSRP on Sprint postpaid but 249.99 on its pay as you go offering.

 

Optimus Elite is 249.99 on Sprint Postpaid but yet 149.99 on its new pay as you go offering and even cheaper @ 129.99 on Virgin Mobile. Same phone, same carrier, 3 different prices.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Isn't the S3 outselling the iPhone? I'd have to think Samsung has some clout as well.

 

 

Now, yes, but for the past few years the iPhone has tromped everyone else. Apple's disruption of supply chains is well documented and their economies of scale push foxconn and other suppliers to razor thin margins on the components. Samsung will be able to command that kind of economy of scale on the GS4 but did not have the ability to place that kind of order previously.

 

The GS3 did outsell the iPhone 5 in Q3 2012 and I will be interested to see the numbers for Q4 as many think the iPhone will reemerge as the top seller. Heck, for the first time I have ever seen, the newest model of the iPhone has been discounted. Apple is watching their market dominance slip through their tightly clenched fingers.

 

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk HD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to know where they are selling those puppies.. I've seen like one on the "street" since they launched. AT&T is selling the hell out of GS3's around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to know where they are selling those puppies.. I've seen like one on the "street" since they launched. AT&T is selling the hell out of GS3's around here.
I saw one person at work with one. Then again I have seen more blackberries at work than iPhone 5s...

 

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk HD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apple is watching their market dominance slip through their tightly clenched fingers.

 

Is it just the fingers that Apple has tightly clenched?

 

AJ

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been thinking about this for years and even more recently but what do you guys think of the price of phones that are off contract? Are they too expensive compared to what goes into them.

 

I look at the price of the iPhone 4S then the price of the iPod Touch of similar hardware and I notice a major discrepancy in pricing. This is purely a profit grab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The carriers take it on the chin with the iPhone more than the subsidized customer does.

 

They don't always know (or care) that you might get more for your 200.00 by getting an Optimus G or S3.

 

I'd be willing to bet a Windows phone or even the new Blackberry would be 199.99 out the door with a 2 yr. commitment.

 

 

 

 

Sent using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • Yup I can’t wait. Luckily Sprint has a good amount b41 deployed in urban areas. So I would assume T-Mobile will have to do a carrier update for their phones that are b41 capable. 
    • Sprint is in big trouble—and knows it Among Sprint’s challenges: Sprint continues to lose customers “despite Sprint’s aggressive attempts to add subscribers and thereby gain... Scale,” which is “exacerbating its scale disadvantages compared to larger competitors.” Sprint’s LTE network is smaller than those of its rivals, forcing it to engage in “costly” roaming agreements. Within Sprint’s network footprint, “the propagation limitations of its 2.5 GHz spectrum, coupled with an inadequate density of cell sites equipped with 2.5 GHz radios, result in significant coverage gaps in the 2.5 GHz layer.” Sprint is only going to deploy 5G on its 2.5 GHz spectrum, and only in dense urban areas, because it doesn’t have enough low-band spectrum for 5G and because it will be too expensive to deploy 5G on its 2.5 GHz spectrum nationwide. Moreover, Sprint is going to deploy massive MIMO—the carrier’s stepping stone to 5G—in areas that are currently congested, meaning that its 5G network “will not be contiguous.” Sprint continues to suffer from a “negative perception” of its network among Americans—“in fact, Sprint is the only major carrier with a rising churn rate.” Sprint’s finances are challenged, to say the least. “Sprint’s service revenue and ARPU have been declining for at least five years, with total service revenue falling around 25 percent from 2013 to 2018, and postpaid ARPU falling approximately 30 percent. Sprint also has a current net debt of approximately $32 billion and is the most highly leveraged company in the S&P 500,” the carrier wrote. Reading this list was really depressing...
    • That’s dope. I’m glad it’s worked out for you and to be able fully utilize your device with the VoLTE and stuff. You’ll be right back on B41 next year like you never left. I’m sure T-Mobile will really put it to use. 
    • Looking back I wish Dish acquired Sprint too. I think the two would have been great since they could offer many services to consumers and not to mention Dish had a good amount of Spectrum at that time. What Sprint and T-Mobile are trying to accomplish right now is what Dish and Sprint could have done years ago.    
    • That’s why I didn’t get to excited with Sprints network announcements. I had a feeling something was trouble. I’m sad to see them go but Band 41 will live on forever!!! 
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

×