Database Info

[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

Are smartphones going down in price faster now?

Are smart phones going down in price faster than they did a couple of years ago?
I can buy a samsung s2 for $540 on amazon.com when it's on sale. The s2 is not even a year old, if I'm not mistaken.
I'm pretty sure when the HTC HD2 was released, it took alot longer to go down in price.
And some people are saying they bought the samsung galaxy note for $700 - 760, even before it was officially released.
So following this trend, can we expect to have top of the line quality smartphones for $300 or less within 5 years?

They go down faster in price now because they are releasing more faster.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using XDA App

Way too much and too fast
Slow it down htc

In a few years, I can see $300 models being more than enough for most people. They will still sell top of the line models for $700-800, but fewer people will buy them.

DPMAce said:
Are smart phones going down in price faster than they did a couple of years ago?
I can buy a samsung s2 for $540 on amazon.com when it's on sale. The s2 is not even a year old, if I'm not mistaken.
I'm pretty sure when the HTC HD2 was released, it took alot longer to go down in price.
And some people are saying they bought the samsung galaxy note for $700 - 760, even before it was officially released.
So following this trend, can we expect to have top of the line quality smartphones for $300 or less within 5 years?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The S2 is actually *months* old and you can find it at about 410€ on many sites. Anyway, i really don't uderstand why people complain about this: it's a phone, not a share, the least it costs the better. Does it make sense that the totally outdated iPhone4 still costs 700€? How is that good for you unless you wanna sell it? If you want bleeding edge technology then you have to live with the fact that your toy will have its price dropped soon, regardless what you paid for it. Imho phones are meant to be used, and not to be sold, so i'm really happy about what's going on on the android platform. As a power user i care about my SPECS not being reasonably up to date, the price doesn't really matter to me anyway. To make it clearer: i don't upgrade my GPU every time a new one comes out just for the sake of being up to date, i do that when my rig can't stand the current games or a particular game i wanna play anymore, and when i do i'm happy if i can find one at a lower price.

vnvman said:
The S2 is actually *months* old and you can find it at about 410€ on many sites. Anyway, i really don't uderstand why people complain about this: it's a phone, not a share, the least it costs the better. Does it make sense that the totally outdated iPhone4 still costs 700€? How is that good for you unless you wanna sell it? If you want bleeding edge technology then you have to live with the fact that your toy will have its price dropped soon, regardless what you paid for it. Imho phones are meant to be used, and not to be sold, so i'm really happy about what's going on on the android platform. As a power user i care about my SPECS not being reasonably up to date, the price doesn't really matter to me anyway. To make it clearer: i don't upgrade my GPU every time a new ones comes out just for the sake of being up to date, i do that when my rig can't stand the current games or a particular game i wanna play anymore, and when i do i'm happy if i can find one at a lower price.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Totally agree. Anyway you should consider that a trend is a trend. No matter what. Stupid people will pay a lot of €uros just to get themselves realized and soccially accepted. Silly ones.

But its not nice for the people which bought the phones early... and sometimes even are early adopters or better beta testers...

Yeah i bought mine early and now its way cheaper haha next time i know to just wait

JPeterson66 said:
Yeah i bought mine early and now its way cheaper haha next time i know to just wait
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's the point: complaining makes no sense at all...once you understand that androids aren't the kind of phones (especially Samsung ones) to buy on the day they are released you're just fine. I waited a few months before getting my GS2, so i was able to find it at the price of 490€ in August. All in all it was a good bang for the buck i think: i don't care if we get quadcores in 2012, i wanna enjoy my phone NOW, whatever i choose, and possibly at a reasonable price.

With more competition, Android ICS on the horizon and more frequent releases prices will continue to go down.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk

vnvman said:
That's the point: complaining makes no sense at all...once you understand that androids aren't the kind of phones (especially Samsung ones) to buy on the day they are released you're just fine. I waited a few months before getting my GS2, so i was able to find it at the price of 490€ in August. All in all it was a good bang for the buck i think: i don't care if we get quadcores in 2012, i wanna enjoy my phone NOW, whatever i choose, and possibly at a reasonable price.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wow, are people really complaining? This is a really exciting time for phonophiles!
Always an exciting new phone on the horizon. And the prices keep on dropping faster and faster. I have my eye on the Galaxy Note right now. And I know if I can wait a couple of months, the price will drop drastically, and there will probably be an even better phone released by then. And so many accessories to go with each phone!!

Now that i have a decent phone in the share of a galaxy s2 i know that i would not be in too much of a rush for a phone upgrade time. Before i had a wildfire which i hated so wasn't wanting to wait too long for a phone and my upgrade was due at release.
sent from t'internet

Why does 3G cost so much?

A 16GB SGN10.1 WiFi cost the same as a 16GB iPad WiFi at $499.99
Why does the SGN10.1 16GB 3G cost $750 while the same spec iPad with LTE only cost $630?
You can argue that the Note has more functionality but that argument is invalid because both cost the same on WiFi only models. the 3G Note costs $120 more than the iPad with LTE. If anything it should cost equal or less than the iPad because iPad has LTE while the Note does not.

It is always the same problem and also with 3 G:
Once a company does not develop the hardware and software (protocols) by itself and it´s patented by another company 90% of the costs we have to pay is for PATENT LICENSES FEES.
And as long some stupid jacka... with no brains like Apple are able to patent finger gestures and natural designs (form follows function) just like this we will have to pay more and more with each device.
Maybe there is already a patent from Apple that uses vomiting as phone input method cause this iPhone then I would buy. Because every time I see an Apple device I have to vomit knowing that everything in this device is just a copy by itself and was there long before Apple patented it. Who remembers the Compaq iPac ? It was an excellent device at it´s time but technology was quite limited at this time but scrolling and swiping was already implemented, but not patented.
Just remember: NOT Graham Bell invented the telephone, he only patented it first ............................

didn't asus say all future tablets will have 3/4g radios installed since they only raise the costs about $40US for the end user?

Oh boy, don´t You read at least PC/Tablet Mags ?
Apple exploits Chinese and earns netto 50% of each device. An iPad should cost 200 bucks for it´s non existent value
Other companies assemble diff devices in different countries at different costs. THAT is the calc-base. But don`t worry, Samsung earns much less net than Apple and always ask Yourself: why do YOU earn a certain amount per hour in Your job and others earn less in the same job...... :laugh:

troed said:
Oh boy, don´t You read at least PC/Tablet Mags ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
acutally this article came from one:
http://www.macworld.com/article/1166726/atandt_sees_an_end_to_wi_fi_only_tablets.html
it was at&t (surprize) that said it.

The heck with 3G, just root your phone and tether it.

mitchellvii said:
The heck with 3G, just root your phone and tether it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AMEN

madsquabbles said:
acutally this article came from one:
http://www.macworld.com/article/1166726/atandt_sees_an_end_to_wi_fi_only_tablets.html
it was at&t (surprize) that said it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"Now, the cost of a 3G HSPA+ radio to device makers is only about $30 on an average"
This to me seems to be only the radio cost and not the license fees.
I think it is important to differentiate license fees for something innovative (3G radio) rather than something [email protected]#! like curved edges on a phone (iphone). It is perfectly reasonable to ask for license fees for 3G/4G radios as it is useful and the companies that spent money developing the technology deserve to be paid.

Is 3G really that innovative that it costs consumers $250 on top of the device itself? That's 50% of the cost of the WiFi version. What about the cost to make the note what it is compared to an iPad? iPad can't do squat yet it cost the same as a note. Does this mean the note innovation is worthless in terms of monetary value?
If you're talking about licensing fees and other costs to include cellular radio in the device then why can 1 company do it cheaper than another? Apple don't own 3G or LTE and neither does Samsung but Apple's able to include it for half of the price of Samsung. Does this mean Apple has better lawyers? better negotiators? They probably do since they won the law suit against Samsung.

Still a funny discussion.......
I give You another example:
On a German prize comparison webpage You get the NOte 10.1 3G from 599.- to 749.-€.
How do You find THAT ?
There is a chain of people LIVING ON SELLING THESE DEVICES . Sammy does not make the final prize You pay .......

It's essentially an unlocked phone, but with a 10" screen. $750 really isn't that unreasonable.
Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk 2

troed said:
Still a funny discussion.......
I give You another example:
On a German prize comparison webpage You get the NOte 10.1 3G from 599.- to 749.-€.
How do You find THAT ?
There is a chain of people LIVING ON SELLING THESE DEVICES . Sammy does not make the final prize You pay .......
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're right, they don't but they do set the MSRP that authorized resellers must obey by.

They are charging a premium for consumer stupidity. Its like charging an extra $100 for a cpu that is .2 ghz faster when you could just overclock it yourself for nothing.
Just root your phone and tether it. Save yourself $250.
Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk 2

Ipad can't make phone calls and sms,mms...Samsung tablets (models with 3G) can do voice and data.Maybe that's the reason.Cheers!

Yes, indeed.
if you try to compare the 3G vs Wi-Fi version, you will find the 3G price is a bit ridiculous.
Apart from WTH patent things, I still found the note 10.1" 3G versions is still in acceptable price.
I still can't forget that I bought my N7000 under the same price with the N8000.
My N7000, only 5.3", while N8000 is 10.1" (but yes, N7000 is a super AMOLED screen, whereby N8000 is just a TFT screen). But WTH is super AMOLED ? It drains battery so fast if you never do any tweaks to your phone.
The original N7000 (without rooting / changing ROM / other tweaks), the battery can last only till 8 hours or 9+ hours max. But with rooting, change the best ROM, and a lil bit tweaks here and there, now my N7000 can last for 16-18 hours (enough for the whole day use).
Don't forget about the blackclipping issue on the super AMOLED also, which some devices are suffered with this issue (mine is an example).
And as for blackclipping issue, some device needs different tweaks to get rid of it.
So with the same phone functions on N8000, and with some more additional functions to N8000, I think the price is still reasonable for the 3G.
But don't compare it to the wi-fi versions, of course you will find it so expensive.

s9+ lost 50% in 1 year, now selling for half price!

Samsung should be ashamed for it's phone to fall 50% in a year! I feel sorry for all who bought it for the full price!
But that tells you about Samsung's pricing strategy and all misleading marketing and exaggeration of its functions and capabilities...
This phone doesn't deserve to be compared with iphone xs, period
Its camera sucks too
I was criticizing it from the start and luckily didn't buy for full price but even on 600 it's too much!
https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/02/13/the-dual-sim-galaxy-s9-is-on-sale-for-550-via-ebay/

S9 price has dropped because it didn't sell well because it looks too similar to the S8 and to the average consumer that's all they care about.....
This phone is toe to toe with the iPhone Xs and this price difference means that for us, people who actually know a thing or 2 about phones, it is a steal right now...

martin80k said:
Samsung should be ashamed for it's phone to fall 50% in a year! I feel sorry for all who bought it for the full price!
But that tells you about Samsung's pricing strategy and all misleading marketing and exaggeration of its functions and capabilities...
This phone doesn't deserve to be compared with iphone xs, period
Its camera sucks too
I was criticizing it from the start and luckily didn't buy for full price but even on 600 it's too much!
https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/02/13/the-dual-sim-galaxy-s9-is-on-sale-for-550-via-ebay/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Galaxy S9's camera is very good, even compared with the iPhone XS... I got it for 700$ And I don't regret... It's an amazing phone, except for battery life.

You do know apple is marked up for that logo right? You should be ashamed for purchasing from a failing company and defending the prices to justify your purchase. Go back to whatever apple site you came from and pretend apple doesn't have any problems of their own. Hyphen hyphen hyphen hyphen lol.
We purchased this phone cause we wanted it, like how you purchase your phone cause you wanted it. It's just a phone and they all do the same thing no matter what brand. One's just more open than the other.

haha what a stupid post..
you tell me that the iphone is worth more than a 1000 bucks?

I bought it in April for 550$. So I think I spent well. Again please don't compare with apple. They are the worst company who once innovated.

1. I frankly have zero regrets about buying mine at launch, albeit I got a much better deal off eBay versus retail.
2. 50% drop in face value is what it SHOULD be. Cell phones are not investments.
3. Apple has done a successful job in positioning itself as a status symbol and/or premium coveted device brand, with unmatched support. Confidence in the product you are getting is sky high, and Apple can pat themselves on the back for that. When you pair product confidence with aesthetic appeal, people will be ready to pay more. If Android OEMs can offer OTC swaps, walk-in face-to-face expert ("genius?") consultations etc, their residual value will also naturally rise.

Also talking about the camera I don't think there's much difference between the iPhone X and Xs but all my family members who have the X still chose my phone to take pictures with because they look better I have the S9+ btw

I think you shouls buy an iPhone and get the f out of here!

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions right or wrong.
Let's keep the conversation civil please and not resort to rude responses.
Thanks!

Apart from the battery life the S9+ is a beast.

martin80k said:
Samsung should be ashamed for it's phone to fall 50% in a year! I feel sorry for all who bought it for the full price!
But that tells you about Samsung's pricing strategy and all misleading marketing and exaggeration of its functions and capabilities...
This phone doesn't deserve to be compared with iphone xs, period
Its camera sucks too
I was criticizing it from the start and luckily didn't buy for full price but even on 600 it's too much!
https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/02/13/the-dual-sim-galaxy-s9-is-on-sale-for-550-via-ebay/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I know I already posted a comment, I just wanted you to see your savior company's business practice. Talk about getting hustled lol. $370 to make the phone, sells for $1000. And you complain about Samsung. You are one hot mess.

I'm good, you don't need to feel sorry for me.... Maybe find a new hobby or something?

I had xz premium which was snappier, but s9 has best camera with its low apertures. Thats why I bought it.

...