[jigglylizard]

Quote:

The iPhone 4's pricing is no different than it's been in for the past two generations -- $199 for one, and $299 for double the storage. But what's different now is the cost.

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/iphone-i...news-7264.html

 

[stargate125645]

I am not surprised considering Apple's track record. The question is, though, how this compares with other phones.

 

[mothergoose729]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stargate125645 I am not surprised considering Apple's track record. The question is, though, how this compares with other phones.

Really well. The iphone 4's display is really excellent, and hardware wise it is pretty much the same as any droid or nexus phone.

Apple is in an interesting position with their phones where they are a hardware vendor, that makes almost no money of the hardware. A testimate to the app store really. And lucrative contracts with AT&T and (soon) verizon.

 

[stargate125645]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mothergoose729 Really well. The iphone 4's display is really excellent, and hardware wise it is pretty much the same as any droid or nexus phone.

The display is the only real bonus that the iPhone 4 has, and it's wasted on a 3.5" display (in my opinion, anyway). Nothing else it has isn't surpassed by other phones except for perhaps battery life. So, no, it's not the same.

Quote:

Apple is in an interesting position with their phones where they are a hardware vendor, that makes almost no money of the hardware. A testimate to the app store really. And lucrative contracts with AT&T and (soon) verizon.

Wow, are you ever missing the big picture. How much does an iPhone 4 cost without a contract? $599. Last time I checked, that was a bit higher than $199. In other words, AT&T and Apple are basically swindling the customer under the guise that they are getting a bargain on the iPhone 4 by getting a contract, when in actuality Apple is still making money on the sale of the phone. This is why I wanted a cost analysis of other phones to see if they are being overpriced similarly. If they are, then Apple isn't the lone evil doer.

Edit: For the record, I'd be very surprised if Motorola isn't benefiting from a similar pricing arrangement on the Droid or Droid X, for example. We can chastise Apple for this, but not without also making sure other phone makers aren't doing the same (or we chastise them all).

 

[quentin]

Other phone companies do this as well. You're not just paying for the hardware, but also the software, technology, assembly, customer service. That's why the profit margin looks huge, but a portion of it is really going back to the help the customer. It's still overpriced, but not as much as you think.

 

[mothergoose729]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stargate125645 The display is the only real bonus that the iPhone 4 has, and it's wasted on a 3.5" display (in my opinion, anyway). Nothing else it has isn't surpassed by other phones except for perhaps battery life. So, no, it's not the same.

What do other phones have that is superior to the iphone? Better camera? Qwerty keyboard if you are in to that? All of the smart phones hardware wise are pretty much the same. If you want to argue graphics then tests have been done on that as well, and the iphone graphics has tested considerably faster then nexus one. What matters in a phone package is firstly software, then career, followed usually by display and battery life. AT&T is not the best career but the iphone is the best in all of these categories. No fanboy here, don't own any of them, just stating a fact.

Quote:

Wow, are you ever missing the big picture. How much does an iPhone 4 cost without a contract? $599. Last time I checked, that was a big higher than $199. In other words, AT&T and Apple are basically swindling the customer under the guise that they are getting a bargain on the iPhone 4 by getting a contract, when in actuality Apple is still making money on the sale of the phone. This is why I wanted a cost analysis of other phones to see if they are being overpriced similarly. If they are, then Apple isn't the lone evil doer. Edit: For the record, I'd be very surprised if Motorola isn't benefiting from a similar pricing arrangement on the Droid or Droid X, for example. We can chastise Apple for this, but not without also making sure other phone makers aren't doing the same (or we chastise them all).

I don't understand your somewhat charged response here. All smart phones are over priced without a contract. They are sold at massive rebates because they are subsidized heavily by the career. Both google, HTC, and apple make far more money from the wireless companies then they do from individual consumers. I believe I made that observation in my first post. I would argue that nearly all smart phones, including iphones, are bought with a contract or a some sort of upgrade plan through the wireless company.

 

[mechtech]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stargate125645 Wow, are you ever missing the big picture. How much does an iPhone 4 cost without a contract? $599. Last time I checked, that was a big higher than $199. In other words, AT&T and Apple are basically swindling the customer under the guise that they are getting a bargain on the iPhone 4 by getting a contract, when in actuality Apple is still making money on the sale of the phone. This is why I wanted a cost analysis of other phones to see if they are being overpriced similarly. If they are, then Apple isn't the lone evil doer. Edit: For the record, I'd be very surprised if Motorola isn't benefiting from a similar pricing arrangement on the Droid or Droid X, for example. We can chastise Apple for this, but not without also making sure other phone makers aren't doing the same (or we chastise them all).

Duh, everyone knows that all phones are subsidized... The only one that wasn't was the Nexus One, which tanked. Consumers and corporations alike seem to prefer the subsidized business model.

 

[stargate125645]

Quote:

Originally Posted by quentin Other phone companies do this as well. You're not just paying for the hardware, but also the software, technology, assembly, customer service. That's why the profit margin looks huge, but a portion of it is really going back to the help the customer. It's still overpriced, but not as much as you think.

Good points. I hadn't thought of it in that manner. Still, we are getting ripped off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mothergoose729 What do other phones have that is superior to the iphone? Better camera? Qwerty keyboard if you are in to that? All of the smart phones hardware wise are pretty much the same. If you want to argue graphics then tests have been done on that as well, and the iphone graphics has tested considerably faster then nexus one. What matters in a phone package is firstly software, then career, followed usually by display and battery life. AT&T is not the best career but the iphone is the best in all of these categories. No fanboy here, don't own any of them, just stating a fact.

What do you mean by "career?" Also, your second to last sentence is simply wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mechtech Duh, everyone knows that all phones are subsidized... The only one that wasn't was the Nexus One, which tanked. Consumers and corporations alike seem to prefer the subsidized business model.

3rd grade much? I already made the point that I intended to in an earlier post. I made it in both posts, actually.

 

[FuNkDrSpOt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mothergoose729 I don't understand your somewhat charged response here. All smart phones are over priced without a contract. They are sold at massive rebates because they are subsidized heavily by the career. Both google, HTC, and apple make far more money from the wireless companies then they do from individual consumers. I believe I made that observation in my first post. I would argue that nearly all smart phones, including iphones, are bought with a contract or a some sort of upgrade plan through the wireless company.

But what this article states is that that's no longer happening. Phones USED to be sold at a huge loss in order to lock you into a contract ( phone costs $200 to make, you get it for free ), but if the phone costs $188 to make then that's not a loss to sell it under contract for $200.....that's a huge profit by both ( because i'm assuming that the carrier is still paying off the phone maker somewhat )

Maybe it has to do with AT&T's costs associated with building up their 3g network?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForumViewer At what point are you satisfied? When you get free service from whatever carrier you want? When they give you the phone for free? $200 bucks for any smartphone with service you have to pay for anyway isn't that bad a deal. Oh wait, this is an Apple thread...so of course you're whining like always.

Well, he actually articulated his argument to include ALL phones and ALL carriers...whereas you're still doing the Apple fanboy routine across multiple threads. He makes a valid point, which i already addressed in the quote above this one.

 

[E_man]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForumViewer At what point are you satisfied? When you get free service from whatever carrier you want? When they give you the phone for free? $200 bucks for any smartphone with service you have to pay for anyway isn't that bad a deal. Oh wait, this is an Apple thread...so of course you're whining like always.

When $400 out of $600 of the cost of a phone is profit (minus other costs like CS as mentioned, so even say $200) there is room for improvement. Nobody is saying give them for free, they are saying there is room to make things a little cheaper, from all companies in question.

 

[Cacophony]

i want the new iphone......it looks so cool.

 

[mothergoose729]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stargate125645 What do you mean by "career?" Also, your second to last sentence is simply wrong.

Career, meaning wireless service provider. If you would like to pick out specificities that you disagree with, please do. Technically speaking the screen on the new iphone is better then previously released phones. Technically nominal battery life is better on the iphone then a comparable nexus one or HTC Droid. The iphone OS is not every bodies favorite and maybe you prefer android, but a lot of people seem to like it. Can't see it is inferior to the competition at least.

You were curious about the comparison in terms of cost and hardware to other phones, that is my take on it.

 

[stargate125645]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForumViewer At what point are you satisfied? When you get free service from whatever carrier you want? When they give you the phone for free? $200 bucks for any smartphone with service you have to pay for anyway isn't that bad a deal. Oh wait, this is an Apple thread...so of course you're whining like always.

Thank you for proving you have not read any of my posts and again affirming you have no use on these forums that doesn't involve being crotch level to Steve Jobs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mothergoose729 Career, meaning wireless service provider. If you would like to pick out specificities that you disagree with, please do. Technically speaking the screen on the new iphone is better then previously released phones. Technically nominal battery life is better on the iphone then a comparable nexus one or HTC Droid. The iphone OS is not every bodies favorite and maybe you prefer android, but a lot of people seem to like it. Can't see it is inferior to the competition at least. You were curious about the comparison in terms of cost and hardware to other phones, that is my take on it.

I was talking hardware cost. What you said has nothing to do with hardware costs of other phones. If you want to get into a debate about that new screen or the iOS, use the PM button. There exist plenty of other threads with information to refute your statements and hijacking this thread isn't going to do anyone any good.

FYI, the Droid is not HTC. I've also never heard the term "career" used in this manner before...it makes no sense. You silly Californians...

 

[DayzaStarr]

All phone companies do this I don't think we need a comparison of who does it "more" or for more profit because I'm sure all these manufacturers are screwing us over.

OT: I believe he is trying to say carrier, but by looking at his posts he isn't very good with grammar.

 

[justarealguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mothergoose729 Career, meaning wireless service provider. If you would like to pick out specificities that you disagree with, please do. Technically speaking the screen on the new iphone is better then previously released phones. Technically nominal battery life is better on the iphone then a comparable nexus one or HTC Droid. The iphone OS is not every bodies favorite and maybe you prefer android, but a lot of people seem to like it. Can't see it is inferior to the competition at least. You were curious about the comparison in terms of cost and hardware to other phones, that is my take on it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stargate125645 Thank you for proving you have not read any of my posts and again affirming you have no use on these forums that doesn't involve being crotch level to Steve Jobs. I was talking hardware cost. What you said has nothing to do with hardware costs of other phones. If you want to get into a debate about why that new screen or the iOS, use the PM button. There exist plenty of other threads with information to refute your statements and hijacking this thread isn't going to do anyone any good. FYI, the Droid is not HTC. I've also never heard the term "career" used in this manner before...it makes no sense. You silly Californians...

He means "carrier".

The Droid is not made by HTC; the Driod Incredible is though.

 

[stargate125645]

Quote:

Originally Posted by justarealguy He means "carrier". The Droid is not made by HTC; the Driod Incredible is though.

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooh. Now it makes sense. Good catch! And people wonder why spelling and grammar are important...

 

[linkinparkfan007]

in here in canada without a contract it's worth 1000 dollars

 

[Domino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FuNkDrSpOt But what this article states is that that's no longer happening. Phones USED to be sold at a huge loss in order to lock you into a contract ( phone costs $200 to make, you get it for free ), but if the phone costs $188 to make then that's not a loss to sell it under contract for $200.....that's a huge profit by both ( because i'm assuming that the carrier is still paying off the phone maker somewhat )

Usually they include that in the total cost to manufacture the product. Likewise, most companies sell technology for rougly a 30% profit. In this case, Apple is making roughly 100% markup on their products selling it to the phone companies.

Phone companies probably make the same putting you on a contract, more then likely even more.

 

[donthaveacow]

I dont see whats so amazing? everything I see from them pc wise cost's half they price they sell if for if you built it yourself

 

[Seeing Red]

It seems all these threads turn out to be the same. THIS is better than THAT. Pretty much all these phones do the same damn thing, get what ever appeals to you. The service companies are not that different in the same respect. No one is wrong for choosing the phone they enjoy using. And the best way not to get screwed over by these companies is not to buy in. Perhaps they will change their methods someday, but most likely not.