Database Info

Moto/verizon Android tablet (3.0)

check it out..
http://www.newsden.net/motorola-android-3-0-honeycomb-tablet-photos-and-specifications-emerge-5285/
It has very similar specs at the G-tablet except it has double the flash RAM, a back Camera..
The screen looks more square to me.. more like the Ipad..

That one will be pure sex. Too bad its prob going to cost a small fortune compared to teh rest of them.

Same specs but a Verizon price tag. The reason I like the gtablet is because DOESN'T have 3G or the carrier fees that come with it.

Lnin0 said:
Same specs but a Verizon price tag. The reason I like the gtablet is because DOESN'T have 3G or the carrier fees that come with it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would not say same specs.
Android 3.0
32gig built in memory
And a better resolution display.
This thing will most likely be significantly better than our gtabs but the price is going to have to be just as significant.

Does look nice... I rather have USB than micro USB though. Also don't want to have to pay for a data connection. Does not mention GPS, that would be nice.
What are the chances this will be in the under $550 range (with no data plan)? Wishful thinking, I know..

RojasTKD said:
Does look nice... I rather have USB than micro USB though. Also don't want to have to pay for a data connection. Does not mention GPS, that would be nice.
What are the chances this will be in the under $550 range (with no data plan)? Wishful thinking, I know..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm guessing it'll be $649 at the very least without a data plan. With a data plan, probably $499.00. Moto is gonna price it like the Ipad. But damn, that's gonna be sweeeeeet!

Lnin0 said:
Same specs but a Verizon price tag. The reason I like the gtablet is because DOESN'T have 3G or the carrier fees that come with it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Me too. I just don't get all of these people that whine about all these tablets w/o 3G when all it does is keep the price down, which is a good thing IMNHO. (Not to mention I really don't care about 3G and it's a non-feature to me, just adding cost...)
Look at the egregious pricing on the Tab and how so many fanbois are all over attempting to justify it, and it's not even Tegra2 based... just an old a8 which Samsung will probably soon replace with their new a9 based SoC, then do their usual lack of support/updates...
Pricewise yeah, that's a nice Tab and it has a few little features over the gTab that are nice like the higher res camera, extra flash, and higher res disp, but like the rest of you I fully expect it to be egregiously overpriced like the Tab... (I still think that the $400 price of the gTab is on the high side... $300 would be much more palatable... and closer to true value...)

I am thankful we have all these low budget knockoffs to combat the crazy prices.
Apple won't do anything to drive the cost of tablet computing down and it appears that the other big players are happy following their lead. Why not if people will spend that much for glorified netbooks.
Googles 3G requirements aren't helping matters since it just creates alliances with the cell phone carriers - not exactly known for 'friendly' pricing.
The more options people are given the more they will understand and demand justification for higher priced products.
The Galaxy just saw a price drop. Granted it is typical for cell carries to fleece early adopters before giving the same tech away free a month later but I still see the drop as a good sign...even if it was just on the subsidized price.
Like others have stated, 3G is not a selling point for many. 3G feels like dial up compared to the home/office connections most of us are used to and the ongoing fee doesn't justify the occasional convenience.

At least the G-tablet should be able to be upgraded to Honeycomb without any major hardware restrictions. I am more interested in the screen size, the size is more 4:3 rather than the G-table 16:9. Don't you think?

[Q] Tablet Prices

Is it me or are the standard tablet prices way too high?
Just checked the pricing for Sony Tablet S (Wi-Fi only) £399/$499 (16GB) and £499/$599 (32GB) with the 3G version roughly 100 more.
Not blaming Sony for this as all companies seem to be inflated.
If all companies were to take a look at the recent HP Touchpad saga, can they not see the potential if the prices were lower? (Maybe not to that extent, but you catch my drift hopefully).
As consumers, if we were to all agree worldwide that we were not going to pay these prices for something we believe should be at least a couple of £/$100 cheaper. Wouldn't companies have to eventually reduce prices due the poor sales?
P.s. TO MODS - If this belongs in Q & A apologies.

I think that the tablet market is still preadolescence. I believe that this will be the case for at least one or two more years then we can expect the tablet market to become more competitive on high quality tablets.

Hell yeah. But these companies have to make a profit or at least break even on the hardware.
I got a Streak 7 for $150. Loved it. I'm looking to find a Xoom or Transformer now.
Its all about searching for deals I guess.

@MeInGatineau - The Touchpad industry being young in it's life cycle is true, but as it stands there is enough competition to drive prices down. Companies will only do this if we refuse to buy at the inflated prices.
@vetvito - The companies do not "need to" make profit/break even on hardware so early, they "want to". The combination of software sales, economies of scale and cheaper components etc. in the long run should make them more than enough profit.

Have a Nook cost 200 bucks
A Asus EE tablet 380.00
A Samsung 10.1 paid 480.00
and a 32 gig Touchpad Paid 230.00 for it.
Cost is driven more by hype and perception than by academic business models.
All the above are 100-300.00 more in the stores if you buy "off the shelf"retail.
Always NEVER do that unless you are rich.
Typically the way electronics work is : They R/D a design and get it to manufacture , once there, they figure the baseline amount needed to be sold @ a given price in order to break even (recoup all costs for the project) Then , after they pass that mark costs begin to decline.... unless it is a hot seller then they exploit the hype of the market for the extra profit benefit it brings for as long as it lasts.
Apple is better at keeping the hype up than most other people in the market today, which explains why they have a following, you get less and pay more for it, and think it is a deal. NOW! that's great marketing !!!
If you really want to know more on this and markets and how they work just look at the Intel chip market.

Yes tablets are expensive at the moment but I don't think this immediately points to greedy manufacturers with big profit margins. Developing the tablets are quite costly and they are probably just covering their costs. Once they gain experience and pick up, I'm sure scales of economy kick and and products will become cheaper. Exactly how the laptop market has gone.
Competition will always drive prices down but no manufacturer is going to sell the tablet at a loss unless they are able to re-coop that money from elsewhere. E.g. Amazon sell the Kindle at a loss as they make money on the ebooks. Carriers sell mobile phones at a loss as they make money on the tariffs and carrier services used.
HP were selling the TouchPad for a loss. They could do this because the alternative was probably a greater loss.

Just Me said:
@vetvito - The companies do not "need to" make profit/break even on hardware so early, they "want to". The combination of software sales, economies of scale and cheaper components etc. in the long run should make them more than enough profit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't see how software sales would make profit for a tablet manufacturer? Most tablet manufacturers opportunities for profit are with the tablet sales and official accessories for that tablet.
I would argue that manufacturers do need to make profit/break even as quickly as possible. Manufacturers cannot afford to have long drawn out periods for products to break even. They do not know how they will sell, what competition will do or any of the other million factors that affect economy.
This isn't to say pricing them high will get them to break even as quickly as possible. Because if they are too high then they will not get enough sales.

@oka1 - That is my partly my point. There are deals to be had if you shop around, but why are the prices not discounted in the first place. The person/company that you bought from, would have bought from 1-2 people before you and it is likely that they all made money from each item.
I also have a Touchpad but the 16GB version, which I paid £127. Above the insane price of £89, but now that I have it, I realise I might have paid £200, but the £350+ price tag was ridiculous imo.
Also, I get your R&D point to an extent, but then why bring out a newer model with only slightly better features in 6 to 12 months and price it at the same price, as the original. Surely the the R&D cost wouldn't have increased significantly for the new product
@Techno79 - I'm not in the industry, but I can't really see the development cost being high enough to justify such a high selling price. I know it's not as straight forward as this but, tablets are generally just big smart phones, some with less features (e.g. Wi-Fi only).
In comparison the laptops that you mention are probably more costly to build, but are cheaper and have a lot more functions.
My point is, I don't believe they have to sell them for as much as they do and if, as a society, simplified, we all turned around and said drop the price by a couple of 100 and we'll all buy one, they would.
My software sales point was more at certain companies that get a % of sales revenue for apps sold, but true it's probably not the case for all.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that companies don't need to survive, I'm just saying, they should give a little back to the consumer that buy their products and help them make the vast amounts of profit they do.
In reality, as long as people are giving up their money as easy as they do, companies will sell at a premium.

hi
hi. this is just a test message

Yeah, it's too bad that companies want to make a profit.
Sent from my Galaxy Tab using Tapatalk

hp tablets
i just heard they were getting rid of these for like $99 bucks for 16gb
not a bad deal, can anyone confirm?

dutchman22 said:
i just heard they were getting rid of these for like $99 bucks for 16gb
not a bad deal, can anyone confirm?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They sold millions in 2 days for that price and now they are sold out. I got mine off some guy who bought one and marked up 75 bucks

Just Me said:
@oka1
@Techno79 - I'm not in the industry, but I can't really see the development cost being high enough to justify such a high selling price. I know it's not as straight forward as this but, tablets are generally just big smart phones, some with less features (e.g. Wi-Fi only).
In comparison the laptops that you mention are probably more costly to build, but are cheaper and have a lot more functions.
My point is, I don't believe they have to sell them for as much as they do and if, as a society, simplified, we all turned around and said drop the price by a couple of 100 and we'll all buy one, they would.
My software sales point was more at certain companies that get a % of sales revenue for apps sold, but true it's probably not the case for all.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that companies don't need to survive, I'm just saying, they should give a little back to the consumer that buy their products and help them make the vast amounts of profit they do.
In reality, as long as people are giving up their money as easy as they do, companies will sell at a premium.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you breakdown the different parts of a tablet's cost then you'll have something like this:
Hardware costs
Retail mark up
Taxes
Manufacturing/production costs
Manufacturer's Profit
Manufacturer's profit first has to cover the huge costs of R&D, marketing and service/maintenance. These combined costs run up in the millions and will take a lot of sales before they break even. I would guess that they'd need to sell 100s of thousands before they get to break even point. So, until they reach those sales figures, I do believe they are justified in selling a high selling price. Obviously, I'm not saying I like high costs but I do think the current Android tablet price points are somewhat justified.
Tablets may be larger versions of mobile phones, but like I said before, mobile phones can be sold at a loss as they offset the loss against consumers signing up to 12/18/24 month carrier plans and using additional cost services with that carrier. Take a look at SIM free mobile phone costs if you really want to compare like for like. Top end mobile phones can cost nearly £500.
Also, some of R&D can be reused from previous generation of devices. Manufacturers are probably on their 100th generation of laptops where as Android tablets are at the most on their 3rd or 4th generation and thus still very new. I think for this reason, laptops are probably cheaper to produce.
Competition also drives prices down a lot and there is obviously more competition with laptops than there is with tablets. When laptops were fairly new, they would cost well over £1000 for a decent model which is far more than the tablets at the moment. It's only in the last few years that laptops have been fairly cheap. I'm sure tablets will get to that point a lot quicker but I doubt we'll see that before end of 2011.
Also, not all tablets will be a super seller. Some tablets will flop and never cover their R&D and marketing costs. It's down to profits from other tablets that cover these costs.
I'm all for lower tablet costs but from manufacturers perspective, I don't see anything wrong with the current price points of Android tablets given how new Android tablets are and the level of competition in the market. It's guaranteed that costs will eventually come down.

Very valid points. I fully understand that everything you said is pretty much true, but there are many counter arguments to your points, so I'll agree to disagree overall.
But going back to what should have probably been the first line in the thread and not the last (I can see why the thread went the way it did, instead of the way I wanted):
"As consumers, if we were to all agree worldwide that we were not going to pay these prices for something we believe should be at least a couple of £/$100 cheaper. Wouldn't companies have to eventually reduce prices due the poor sales?"
Would this work? Or would the tablet market slowly die out?

Just Me said:
Very valid points. I fully understand that everything you said is pretty much true, but there are many counter arguments to your points, so I'll agree to disagree overall.
But going back to what should have probably been the first line in the thread and not the last (I can see why the thread went the way it did, instead of the way I wanted):
"As consumers, if we were to all agree worldwide that we were not going to pay these prices for something we believe should be at least a couple of £/$100 cheaper. Wouldn't companies have to eventually reduce prices due the poor sales?"
Would this work? Or would the tablet market slowly die out?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I personally don't think this would work. There are many consumers who are extremely well off and are happy to pay the high price for early adoption. How would someone be able to co-ordinate such a consumer boycott. I think the current natural system works. If a manufacturer releases a product at too higher price, then less consumers will purchase it. As time goes on, and the product gets cheaper, more consumers are likely to jump on board to buy. However, if the product remains too high a price for the duration of the products life, then this will be seen with low total sales and low profit margins for the manufacturer (possibly even a loss). The manufacturer "should" learn their lesson and make the next product at a better price point.
If manufacturers can make more profit from selling 100k products at a high price than selling 1M products at a low price then they need some other incentive to sell at low price point.
Hypothetically speaking, if we could agree between all consumers to not buy the tablets at their high price to force manufacturers to release them at a low price then the profit margins could be so low that manufacturers give up on tablets as they realise they can get more profit from netbook/laptop and other consumer devices. So yes, I do think a global boycott for the high initial early adoption cost could kill the tablet market.

Practically, in here, yes they are. But comparatively with other devices/gadgets, the current tablet market is decently-priced.

Just like everything else the prices will drop after all the early adopters jump. There will be more choices and lower price points.

Xiaomi phone can't be legit

So, as someone living and working in China, I've been super excited following up on the Xiaomi Phone. When they released the price as 2000 RMB (about $310 USD), I knew it had to be fake, or there was some serious funny business. The numbers just don't add up.
Engadget recently had a review of the Xiaomi phone and had it benchmarking near the Galaxy S 2 in several tests, so I think it makes sense to compare these two:
SGS 2 Advantages: Super AMOLED screen; 4.3 inch screen (vs 4 inch); forward facing camera; 1080p video recording (vs 720p); onboard storage (16 GB vs 4 GB); slightly smaller footprint.
Xiaomi Advantages: Price; processor speed (1.5 Ghz vs 1.2); battery (1930 mAh vs 1650); GLONASS and GPS tracking; highly customizable UI out of the box.
In China, the SGS2 retails for about 4300 RMB (about $670 USD). So how does a phone which is in the SGS2's ballpark retail for less than half the price?
It gets even more peculiar. Here are some questions Xiaomi hasn't cleared up(or at least I haven't seen their responses yet):
1) Xiaomi uses a Qualcomm processor and a LCD screen from Sharp (Japanese import). So they can't be using local parts to save costs, how are they able to offer the phone at only $310?
2) Local competitors like Huawei and ZTE who have much more experience in manufacturing (and much more leverage with suppliers) have yet to produce a phone remotely like this. Also, their closest local competition in terms of specs is something like the Huawei Honor, a single core phone that retails for about $400. Yet Xiaomi, which has never produced hardware before is getting better deals than these guys on components? Samsung also does component development in-house, but Xiaomi is getting better pricing than Samsung?
3) Xiaomi was originally a software developer. How did they pull a piece of impressive hardware like this out of nowhere?
4) Why retail for $310? They could sell it for $500 and it would still be way cheaper than an SGS2. Hell, I paid more than 2000 RMB for the crappy 2 year old Nokia I'm still using over here.
My Chinese is OK so I've been trying to read more on the Xiaomi forums, but I haven't really gotten any new information, other than there's something like 300,000 preorders already. I figure there's got to be some serious funny business going on. Probably:
a) ridiculous free loans and/or development assistance from the government to built up national prestige; or
b) copying another phone's internals verbatim; or
c) fake components of some kind
It looked really smooth in the Engadget video, so I'm inclined to be believe it's option A. Good for consumers I guess, but probably lousy if you're a Chinese taxpayer. Any ideas on why the price is so low?

Smaller companies tend to do these kind of things.
However I'm interested as well.

I believe that it's one part 'a' and another that generally huawei and zte have primarily been marketed for export (to SE Asia, India, EU) but the government is really trying to subsidize local start ups to fight imports (like HTC, Sony, etc...) and get Chinese to spend their money on Chinese things. But if a Chinese phone were 3000 RMB and a Korean or Japanese phone was also 3000 RMB, no one would get the Chinese phone for obvious reasons.

so basically you just made up a thread without any evidence and full of speculation accusing Xiaomi not being legit.

india are making ARM Cortex 9 phones with 4 GB for only $35
if they can do it, so can china
lol

Mmmhmm .
I don't why people have so much comments , no offence though .
Forever living in my Galaxy Ace using XDA App

I support you , and do your know meizu'M9 or MX?

hehe
it is good for everyone. thank you!

AllGamer said:
india are making ARM Cortex 9 phones with 4 GB for only $35
if they can do it, so can china
lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Seriously?

cdesai said:
Seriously?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes, there is a post with the pictures and spec here in the forum
aprox 5 days old
it's made for the india school system

Hi it's my first post and I have no exact figures to support this other than a simple comparison to another industry.
I remember hearing from someone that the mark up on mobile phones (this was a while ago) was a few hundred percent. Remember that it doesn't cost 800 dollars to make a phone and the people that usually make it in third world manufacturing companies or places with poor working conditions only get paid a few dollars an hour to make your 800 dollar phones.
our
My comparison industry is optometry. The following information comes from someone I know who is an optometrist:
"Frames like Gucci and Prada cost $3 per frame to make. In the stores you pay $500 dollars to buy them. That is an insane mark up. However they can't retail it cheaper because of an agreement in place to prevent the devaluation of the brand."
I am sure the same thing happens in the cell phone industry.
Just thought that this might put the legitimacy of the phone in perspective.
Thanks for your time.
andao79 said:
So, as someone living and working in China, I've been super excited following up on the Xiaomi Phone. When they released the price as 2000 RMB (about $310 USD), I knew it had to be fake, or there was some serious funny business. The numbers just don't add up.
Engadget recently had a review of the Xiaomi phone and had it benchmarking near the Galaxy S 2 in several tests, so I think it makes sense to compare these two:
SGS 2 Advantages: Super AMOLED screen; 4.3 inch screen (vs 4 inch); forward facing camera; 1080p video recording (vs 720p); onboard storage (16 GB vs 4 GB); slightly smaller footprint.
Xiaomi Advantages: Price; processor speed (1.5 Ghz vs 1.2); battery (1930 mAh vs 1650); GLONASS and GPS tracking; highly customizable UI out of the box.
In China, the SGS2 retails for about 4300 RMB (about $670 USD). So how does a phone which is in the SGS2's ballpark retail for less than half the price?
It gets even more peculiar. Here are some questions Xiaomi hasn't cleared up(or at least I haven't seen their responses yet):
1) Xiaomi uses a Qualcomm processor and a LCD screen from Sharp (Japanese import). So they can't be using local parts to save costs, how are they able to offer the phone at only $310?
2) Local competitors like Huawei and ZTE who have much more experience in manufacturing (and much more leverage with suppliers) have yet to produce a phone remotely like this. Also, their closest local competition in terms of specs is something like the Huawei Honor, a single core phone that retails for about $400. Yet Xiaomi, which has never produced hardware before is getting better deals than these guys on components? Samsung also does component development in-house, but Xiaomi is getting better pricing than Samsung?
3) Xiaomi was originally a software developer. How did they pull a piece of impressive hardware like this out of nowhere?
4) Why retail for $310? They could sell it for $500 and it would still be way cheaper than an SGS2. Hell, I paid more than 2000 RMB for the crappy 2 year old Nokia I'm still using over here.
My Chinese is OK so I've been trying to read more on the Xiaomi forums, but I haven't really gotten any new information, other than there's something like 300,000 preorders already. I figure there's got to be some serious funny business going on. Probably:
a) ridiculous free loans and/or development assistance from the government to built up national prestige; or
b) copying another phone's internals verbatim; or
c) fake components of some kind
It looked really smooth in the Engadget video, so I'm inclined to be believe it's option A. Good for consumers I guess, but probably lousy if you're a Chinese taxpayer. Any ideas on why the price is so low?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

I'd get the M9 or M9x ( or something.. Quad Core? HELLOOOOO )
I don't see why someone would get a device ONLY for Miui, most phones out there have a build of MIUI.

You really think that $600 phone costs $600 to make?
The markup on electrical goods from brand names can be over 200%

My point is not really related to the idea of a markup, I KNOW all cell phones have a dramatic markup, and I read not long ago an iPhone 4 costs about $180 to make, while they retail for something like $600 out of contract.
I'm more interested in a) How did this company come out of nowhere with this sort of hardware? and b) They don't NEED to sell it for 2000 RMB for it to be a hit. They could have sold it for $400-450 and it would have still been a hell of a lot cheaper than a Galaxy S 2.
That, coupled with the fact that the big guns in China (Meizu, Huawei, ZTE) are not even in the same ballpark with specs or price, is really weird.
If i can demo one and it works well, i'll definitely pick one up, but there must be some serious funny business behind the scenes.

Why must there be funny business?

Well, you can build a cheap phone if you want.
The question is: can you sell it cheap?
Operating costs, brand advertisement etc. They have no problem there, they just build a phone having no ad space on western media.They can do it, they are smart enough.Plus: we enthusiasts are their advertisement plan, we buy it for cheap, all our friends will buy it.
It's a win win scenario.My 2 eurocents.

andao79 said:
My point is not really related to the idea of a markup, I KNOW all cell phones have a dramatic markup, and I read not long ago an iPhone 4 costs about $180 to make, while they retail for something like $600 out of contract.
I'm more interested in a) How did this company come out of nowhere with this sort of hardware? and b) They don't NEED to sell it for 2000 RMB for it to be a hit. They could have sold it for $400-450 and it would have still been a hell of a lot cheaper than a Galaxy S 2.
That, coupled with the fact that the big guns in China (Meizu, Huawei, ZTE) are not even in the same ballpark with specs or price, is really weird.
If i can demo one and it works well, i'll definitely pick one up, but there must be some serious funny business behind the scenes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The issue is risk. Do you risk spending $300 on a new unknown brand or do you spend $450 on a noname brand when you can get a well known brand for $600?
There is obviously going to be a greater curve of buyers the lower the price you go and finding the balance is where your marketers need mettle. I think the current price is going to be very good to get users into buying the phone. Obviously, if they can become the new HTC, their markup is going to increase hugely.
My concern is going to be: at ~$300, what is the customer service going to be like? HTC's is mediocre here in the UK, but if Vodafone, Orange et al resell this phone, it's going to be VERY attractive to us as the carriers are held responsible until end of warranty.

russ18uk said:
The issue is risk. Do you risk spending $300 on a new unknown brand or do you spend $450 on a noname brand when you can get a well known brand for $600?
There is obviously going to be a greater curve of buyers the lower the price you go and finding the balance is where your marketers need mettle. I think the current price is going to be very good to get users into buying the phone. Obviously, if they can become the new HTC, their markup is going to increase hugely.
My concern is going to be: at ~$300, what is the customer service going to be like? HTC's is mediocre here in the UK, but if Vodafone, Orange et al resell this phone, it's going to be VERY attractive to us as the carriers are held responsible until end of warranty.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just to clarify, the retailer is responsible until you have had a reasonable amount of use out of it irrespective of warranty
The law doesn't care about warranties, they're in the best case an agreement that the device will be repaired without the need to take legal action, and in the worst case used to illegally convince consumers they have no rights.
Take my Sensation, afaik it has a 12month warranty.
Say the screen dies after 18 months, I'll be demanding O2 repair or replace it otherwise I'll be contacting trading standards as being a phone provided on a 24 month contract I should be able to expect it to last at least 24 months and more especially considering the price when new.
I love being a consumer in the UK

Xiaomo said:
I support you , and do your know meizu'M9 or MX?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes~ Meizu much better than xiaomi

kerwin_pig said:
yes~ Meizu much better than xiaomi
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
WHY DID YOU DIG UP OLD THREADS
Sent from my Nexus 4 using xda premium

[Q] Why smartphones are so expensive?

What is the difference between iPod Touch and iPhone? A $5 GSM/CDMA chip? Why $400 price difference?
Large screen Android tablets can be had for $200. Why unlocked phones are $600-800?
Sorry if it's been discussed, my search didn't find a good topic on the subject.

Wow, no answers! Noone else is interested in this question?
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk

Which?
They're expensive because of convenience, demand. people want it they gotta pay....
Sent from my LS670 using XDA App

They are so expensive, because people buy them anyways.
Manufactors and carriers are all after our money, why should they lower the price.
Besides that some devices also have to pay back the research that went into developing them.

Don't have any idea why unlocked phones are costlier but it you compare tablet and phone, size does matter. Smaller, faster and costier.

go overseas and see the prices some can have more then a hundred dollars difference even if they are the same devices

The price triples at the 3rd world countries. I wonder why.

Yeah, you're lucky for not live in a country like Brazil, there a smartphone like S2 or Iphone4 costs around 1000,00 US$ bucks...

well maybe unlucking phone is expensive because its not really designated in any other area than the original area, but the publisher wants to publicly sale it to other region. that can be the cause too

Development is expensive.

You buy a brand, this is why most of the time you pay double.. buy another phone with the same specs but with a non popular brand and you will pay less...
Not to mention that you are talking about Apple...

All your reasoning would apply for everything else electronic- TVs, MP3 or Blue Ray players, etc. Yet they all keep coming down in prices. But not the phones.

Yea, good question I was wondering the same.
It really is a gigantic gap between say an Iphone and Ipod touch in terms of price, yet the hardware has very little difference.
Seems like a marketing thing, as most users will want all the goodies packed together in a small package + a phone in one device.
It's a conspiracy i tell yea

You should see it like this. When you buy a phone, you pay for the development, the construction, the shipping, the people who check it, the people who made the software. add that up with an expensive casing (like HTC has.) and the euro's (or dollars) fly onto the price tag. With Apple, I don't know, they just rip your wallet.
Smartphones are still upcomming, with new technology added every time a new device is being developed.
Why is SSD more expensive than a normal HDD, because it's a new technology. DVD drives used to be really expensive aswell, look at them now they aren't so expensive anymore.
Anything that's new has a price, and it's your choice if you want to pay for it or not.
I hope this helps.

It's not that unbranded phones are more expensive, the price just isn't subsidised by the network operators.
Network operators sell you the handset at a loss, but tie you into a contract to recoup their initial cost. Customer inertia means there's a good chance you'll stay with them.

well they give you much more ie. i have an ace and i can do everything what i usually do on my pc... except gaming ofc.

Unlocked phones are not only expensive because of the demand. When you buy one on contract, you are going to end up paying over $1000 over the 2 year contract anyways. That's why they discount smartphones so much on contract, they know they will get paid back from the contract.
Sent from my HD2

I'm guessing prices don't come down on phones because carriers subsidize prices. Manufacturers know that and therefore prices will stay rather high. Having said that, development on new phone technology is going at a fast rate right now so manufacturers also are recouping those costs.

Althestrasz said:
You should see it like this. When you buy a phone, you pay for the development, the construction, the shipping, the people who check it, the people who made the software. add that up with an expensive casing (like HTC has.) and the euro's (or dollars) fly onto the price tag. With Apple, I don't know, they just rip your wallet.
Smartphones are still upcomming, with new technology added every time a new device is being developed.
Why is SSD more expensive than a normal HDD, because it's a new technology. DVD drives used to be really expensive aswell, look at them now they aren't so expensive anymore.
Anything that's new has a price, and it's your choice if you want to pay for it or not.
I hope this helps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Everything else also has to be developed, designed, engineered, assembled, shipped and retailed. In fact, iPod was developed before iPhone and they mostly made of the same parts.
Also, if you look at pricing for prepaid phones, I don't think that carriers subsidize that much. Mostly they hike their prices to force us in their contracts.
A week or so ago I saw a link on one of the "deal tracking" sites, an HTC tablet was offered for the same price with no contract or service as the "discounted" price from Sprint.

theyre expensives due to all research and work of the engineers...and of course to obtain more money from all of us...you want the finest and latest technology from theirs...you have to pay whatever their wants...

Phablet competition getting fierce?

By Krishan Sharma:
The competition is set to heat up further with both HTC and Nokia rumoured to be releasing a phablet each by the end of the year and even Apple reportedly working on screen sizes of up to 6-inches
On top of that, there’s increasing competition from Chinese brands such as Huawei and CoolPad with low cost sub $US200 phablets. So plenty at stake here for Samsung and the Galaxy Note 3 just might let it hold on to the phablet crown for now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think that in order to assure competition stays behind, all Samsung has to do is reduce Gnote3 abusive price..
Are you listening Samsung people?
.

Go get one of the cheap a$$ $200 phablets with 1gb of ram , etc ...there is no comparison those are just cheap knock offs ... yes htc is finally going to make one haha 3 years after the first and of course apple is going to inovate the whole world with their Iphablet somehow it will be the first according to every fanboi ... You get what you pay for samsung has 3gb of ram yes it could have a non pentile screen but it will be a great device
Sent from my SPH-L900 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2

I think that a 700 euros ($930 )pre-order price, is abusive no matter what, even for a state-of-the-art, high-end super smartphone...
Let's see how its price will look like over a couple of months from now.
Gladly, as a owner of the excellent GNote2, I am not in a hurry.
It's not about value or quality comparisons, is about strategy...
As a consumer, you don't have to accept or even justify, big corporations abusive prices policies.
Let them do that...be clever...
.

betoNL said:
I think that a 700 euros ($930 )pre-order price, is abusive no matter what, even for a state-of-the-art, high-end super smartphone...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Samsung (or any other manufacturer) will get away with the highest pricing they think the market will bear. There's no doubt the price will drop over time. It's kind of like buying a new car. If you buy it at the beginning of the model year you'll pay top dollar. If you buy it at the end of model year after the next generation's been announced you'll pay a hell of a lot less. You quoted what's happened to N2 pricing now that the N3's out.
As for the N3 vs. other phablets you do get a lot for the abusive price
32GB of NAND and 3GB of RAM
An inductive Wacom-esque display for inking and a Synaptics overlay for using some air-control features without needing the pen
Sensors for accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass, barometer, temperature, humidity, gesture
The new Qualcomm Envelope Tracking power saving chip
USB 3.0
MHL 2.0
4.3 (a short lived benefit)
Top tier components of the highest quality and "newness"
A removable battery which adds design complexity and cost
Samsung's army of s/w (though not everyone uses all the features)
Samsung's devices generally have a good durability record
The Note-series has always been aimed at "creation" and "productivity" and because of S Pen/S Note doesn't really have a lot of competition. All the other phablets that are out and coming out are really just giant versions of each manufacturers phone family and focused on consumption. So people who really want a giant phone have lots of choices. People that appreciate S Pen/S Note will pay the abusive price. I'm one of those people and if it weren't for S Pen/S Note I'd have a 4.7/5.2" standard-size phone and there's no guarantee it would be a Samsung. The N2 sold 15-20% of what the SGS3 did. If Samsung can abuse that same percentage of people to go for a N3 it'll be a hit. Time will tell.

Unless competitors add extensive stylus capabilities there will be no other phablet I consider in my phone quest. If I wanted a regular smartphone I'd opt for a S4 or something of the like. The productivity potential of the Note puts it above the competition for my use

@BarryH_GEG ,
Hey man, you promised me then, to always quote my posts integrally :laugh: :laugh: .
I know you are in love with with the GN3 ( or..are you a Samsung share holder?) and of course if I have to choose among an abusively priced HTC or an abusively priced Sony or an abusively priced Samsung like the GN3 I will always go for the GN3, since, just like you, I am also impressed with its specs and being a GNote series user since the beginning and all, however ...
An abuse is an abuse no matter what...( and the damn Apple is the one that started this trend of abusive prices, among other crap....).
And I am very optimistic that I will keep the willpower and wait as long as possible till prices get a lot less abusive and hoping to sell my excellent GN2 for a good price around then.
A buddy of my already laughed and said I won't be able to wait that long and will get that beast sooner than I think...but I am trying....
And if I wait too long I will probably will get the GN4 instead, with a (probably) flexible screen, abusive price and all
My primary goal is: resist all temptations and I have a very good phone right now to help me to achieve that.
At least we agree that the prices are abusive.
Do you hear Samsung? Abusive!
Anyway I am hopeful:
Here in Holland the Galaxy S4 is already 100 euros ($130) cheaper than the HTC one....and guess which one keeps selling way more?
Better + better price = competition killer.
And that's what I meant with that part of my post that you left behind in your quote:
betoNL said:
It's not about value or quality comparisons, is about strategy...
As a consumer, you don't have to accept or even justify, big corporations abusive prices policies.
Let them do that...be clever...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Strategy, and above all , THINKING AHEAD
.

I can relate
betoNL said:
By Krishan Sharma:
I think that in order to assure competition stays behind, all Samsung has to do is reduce Gnote3 abusive price..
Are you listening Samsung people?
.[/QUOTE
Krishan,
You have brought up some interesting points.
I do think that Samsung have got away with it because the NOTE series is still unique, in my mind. No one else has really managed to get such good integration of a stylus. I hope that some of the competitors do get much better in the Phablet category.
As an owner of the NOTE1 I decided not to get a NOTE2 but I am very keen to get the GN3. I am still willing to pay "TOP Dollor" because no one else gives me this type of passage. However I expect by next year it will have changed. Because a lot of companies are now paying serious attention to this category of device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Back in the day (in non-phone geek's eyes), if you had an Android phone, you had a "Droid." Now, if you have an Android phone, you have a "Galaxy."
Back then, you would pay top dollar for a Motorola Droid, since that is what people thought of when they went to purchase an Android phone. The Galaxy series has since (by far) taken the spotlight when it comes to Android. Therefore they are doing what any successful corporation would do; taking advantage of the popularity and charging more for the name.
Towle
Forum Moderator

betoNL said:
[MENTION=1493949]Hey man, you promised me then, to always quote my posts integrally :laugh: :laugh: .
I know you are in love with with the GN3 ( or..are you a Samsung share holder?) and of course if I have to choose among an abusively priced HTC or an abusively priced Sony or an abusively priced Samsung like the GN3 I will always go for the GN3, since, just like you, I am also impressed with its specs and being a GNote series user since the beginning and all, however ...
An abuse is an abuse no matter what...( and the damn Apple is the one that started this trend of abusive prices, among other crap....).
And I am very optimistic that I will keep the willpower and wait as long as possible till prices get a lot less abusive and hoping to sell my excellent GN2 for a good price around then.
A buddy of my already laughed and said I won't be able to wait that long and will get that beast sooner than I think...but I am trying....
And if I wait too long I will probably will get the GN4 instead, with a (probably) flexible screen, abusive price and all
My primary goal is: resist all temptations and I have a very good phone right now to help me to achieve that.
At least we agree that the prices are abusive.
Do you hear Samsung? Abusive!
Anyway I am hopeful:
Here in Holland the Galaxy S4 is already 100 euros ($130) cheaper than the HTC one....and guess which one keeps selling way more?
Better + better price = competition killer.
And that's what I meant with that part of my post that you left behind in your quote: Strategy, and above all , THINKING AHEAD.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
See, I quoted your entire post.
As for "love," I love my family, dogs, and closest friends. My devices are my devices. I'm excited about the N3 because I think it's cool and I've had my N7100 since November (a long time for me) and am itching for something new.
Here's part of my rationalization for buying early when prices are higher. I'd be lying if I said I didn't like having the newest tech before everyone else and showing it off. The life cycle of devices used to be about a year but now the DNA and N4 are considered ancient and the SGS4 and One aren't even "new" anymore; at least on XDA. So if I pay 20% more to have a new toy earlier and get to show off a bit I consider it worth it. YMMV of course.
P.S. - I swore I wouldn't but I pre-ordered a Gear when I found out you can shake it to turn it on which a lot of reviewers missed. It'll go well with my N3 and 3G Note 10.1 2014. Sigh. I'm tech addicted.

Samsung has put a lot into this device and certainly it is worthy of the price point. Besides in the US no one pays full price unless they want to. I have done it many times, but I opted to use my upgrade this time around.

Where's the address for that "techoholic anonymous" ?
:laugh:
.

betoNL said:
I think that a 700 euros ($930 )pre-order price, is abusive no matter what, even for a state-of-the-art, high-end super smartphone...
Let's see how its price will look like over a couple of months from now.
Gladly, as a owner of the excellent GNote2, I am not in a hurry.
It's not about value or quality comparisons, is about strategy...
As a consumer, you don't have to accept or even justify, big corporations abusive prices policies.
Let them do that...be clever...
.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
iPhone 5s (32gb) - 739 EUR preorder price
HTC One - 661 EUR preorder price
Note 2 - 650 EUR preorder price
LG G2 - 629 EUR preorder price
Lumia 1020 - 699 EUR preorder price
Given the price and specs of the Note 3's competition and predecessor I'm not sure how anyone can be surprised with the pricing. In my opinion, it's the cost of being on the bleeding edge. I don't see how the pricing is abusive when looking at similar devices. Keeping in mind the Note is the only high end device with a Wacom digitizer..

Maverick777 said:
iPhone 5s (32gb) - 739 EUR preorder price
HTC One - 661 EUR preorder price
Note 2 - 650 EUR preorder price
LG G2 - 629 EUR preorder price
Lumia 1020 - 699 EUR preorder price
Given the price and specs of the Note 3's competition and predecessor I'm not sure how anyone can be surprised with the pricing. In my opinion, it's the cost of being on the bleeding edge. I don't see how the pricing is abusive when looking at similar devices. Keeping in mind the Note is the only high end device with a Wacom digitizer..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They were/are all abusive prices.
I bought my Note2 a couple of months after the pre-order period for 530 Euros ( around 130 euros cheaper)
Today the Note2 is costing around 410 euros over here ( online)
It's just a matter of how long a high-techoholic / gadgetoholic can resist and wait :cyclops:
And the iPhone is not an example, cause it's for ubber-suckers :laugh:
.