5 ms·

Why are phones so bloody expensive? The iPod Touch can be had for $200ish, so why does adding the "phone part" double the cost? (full disclosure: I'm on the iPo

Why are phones so bloody expensive? The iPod Touch can be had for $200ish, so why does adding the "phone part" double the cost? (full disclosure: I'm on the iPod Touch curmudgeon phone plan -- I pay Skype $3/mo for outgoing calls and insist that incoming callers leave voicemail, which is emailed to me through Google Voice.)

mattmaroon 17y ago
Well there's the phone part. The GPS. The camera. It costs $99 subsidized, and if I'm not mistaken you can get out of a contract for $200, so that's $300 right?
rdouble 17y ago
http://www.isuppli.com/News/Pages/iPhone-3G-S-Carries-178-96-BOM-and-Manufacturing-Cost-iSuppli-Teardown-Reveals.aspx http://www.isuppli.com/News/Pages/iPhone-3G-S-Carries-178-96...
- g_lined 17y ago
  There are enough questions about where their numbers come from that it would be advised to think before using them as any more than a guide to some costs involved. http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/04/13/isuppli-shuffle http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/04/13/isuppli-shuffle http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/isuppli http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/isuppli
timdorr 17y ago
It's not the "phone part", it's the size. They're packing a phone, various hardware components, a CPU, storage, a bright screen, and a battery to power the whole thing into a tiny package. I'm surprised it's only $529 unsubsidized.
nostrademons 17y ago
My phone's got more processing power and more memory than the laptop I bought 5 years ago. It also has a GPS, camera, accelerometer, voice recognition, and cellular connection. And it fits in my pocket. The laptop cost $1600 when I bought it. Why are we complaining about a $500ish phone?
- swolchok 17y ago
  Because some handwavy analogue to Moore's Law says that said laptop ought to cost about $400 now (and in fact it's hard to justify blowing $1k on a laptop). Have you priced something equivalent (compute-wise, screens are still expensive) lately?
  - nostrademons 17y ago
    Given a choice between a $400 laptop and a $500 phone, I think the phone is significantly more useful. You can't shove a laptop into a pocket. You generally can't talk to a laptop and have it understand what you're saying. It's rather inconvenient to take pictures with your laptop. Your laptop doesn't have a GPS, and even if it did you can't fit it on the dashboard of your car. You get cellular service in many more areas than you can find open wireless networks. If I could code conveniently on my phone, I wouldn't use my laptop for anything. I've switched over to my phone as my primary web browser, e-mail client, music player, thumb drive, GPS, atlas, address book, camera, and game machine.
    - jrockway 17y ago
      Laptops can be purchased with integrated 3G/WiMax now. Laptops can run the exact same software as phones, too. (Fire up Android in VirtualBox.) I find phones nice for their niche (almost-computer when you aren't near a computer), but if I was sitting next to a laptop and a phone, I would only use the phone for phone calls.
      - nostrademons 17y ago
        The point of the phone is that you're likely to be sitting next to the phone far more often than you're likely to be sitting next to the laptop.
- jrockway 17y ago
  But a laptop that's much more powerful is about $250 these days. That's why people are complaining. (But, to be fair, capacitative touch screens and 3G modems are not cheap parts.)
nimrody 17y ago
Others already mentioned the camera, GPS, multiband radio (RF). There are also much more difficult issues of heat dissipation and power consumption. Finally, you have to pay for tons of patents used in every phone. I guess Google does not have a good cross licensing contracts with Qualcomm/Nokia/others since it probably does not own any essential patent in this area. You also pay for tons of interoperability testing Google has to run.
- aditya 17y ago
  Wow, no wonder there aren't any startups making phones... the closest is openmoko which was part of a much larger entity.

mattmaroon 17y ago

Well there's the phone part. The GPS. The camera. It costs $99 subsidized, and if I'm not mistaken you can get out of a contract for $200, so that's $300 right?

rdouble 17y ago

http://www.isuppli.com/News/Pages/iPhone-3G-S-Carries-178-96-BOM-and-Manufacturing-Cost-iSuppli-Teardown-Reveals.aspx http://www.isuppli.com/News/Pages/iPhone-3G-S-Carries-178-96...

g_lined 17y ago
There are enough questions about where their numbers come from that it would be advised to think before using them as any more than a guide to some costs involved. http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/04/13/isuppli-shuffle http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/04/13/isuppli-shuffle http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/isuppli http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/isuppli

timdorr 17y ago

It's not the "phone part", it's the size. They're packing a phone, various hardware components, a CPU, storage, a bright screen, and a battery to power the whole thing into a tiny package. I'm surprised it's only $529 unsubsidized.

nostrademons 17y ago

My phone's got more processing power and more memory than the laptop I bought 5 years ago. It also has a GPS, camera, accelerometer, voice recognition, and cellular connection. And it fits in my pocket. The laptop cost $1600 when I bought it. Why are we complaining about a $500ish phone?

swolchok 17y ago
Because some handwavy analogue to Moore's Law says that said laptop ought to cost about $400 now (and in fact it's hard to justify blowing $1k on a laptop). Have you priced something equivalent (compute-wise, screens are still expensive) lately?
- nostrademons 17y ago
  Given a choice between a $400 laptop and a $500 phone, I think the phone is significantly more useful. You can't shove a laptop into a pocket. You generally can't talk to a laptop and have it understand what you're saying. It's rather inconvenient to take pictures with your laptop. Your laptop doesn't have a GPS, and even if it did you can't fit it on the dashboard of your car. You get cellular service in many more areas than you can find open wireless networks. If I could code conveniently on my phone, I wouldn't use my laptop for anything. I've switched over to my phone as my primary web browser, e-mail client, music player, thumb drive, GPS, atlas, address book, camera, and game machine.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    Laptops can be purchased with integrated 3G/WiMax now. Laptops can run the exact same software as phones, too. (Fire up Android in VirtualBox.) I find phones nice for their niche (almost-computer when you aren't near a computer), but if I was sitting next to a laptop and a phone, I would only use the phone for phone calls.
    - nostrademons 17y ago
      The point of the phone is that you're likely to be sitting next to the phone far more often than you're likely to be sitting next to the laptop.
jrockway 17y ago
But a laptop that's much more powerful is about $250 these days. That's why people are complaining. (But, to be fair, capacitative touch screens and 3G modems are not cheap parts.)

nimrody 17y ago

Others already mentioned the camera, GPS, multiband radio (RF). There are also much more difficult issues of heat dissipation and power consumption. Finally, you have to pay for tons of patents used in every phone. I guess Google does not have a good cross licensing contracts with Qualcomm/Nokia/others since it probably does not own any essential patent in this area. You also pay for tons of interoperability testing Google has to run.

aditya 17y ago
Wow, no wonder there aren't any startups making phones... the closest is openmoko which was part of a much larger entity.