2 ms·

A contract subsidizes the hardware cost. Subsidized $87 hardware likely approaches or is $0.

grandalf 16y ago
Over the life of a typical contract, this amounts to less than 10% cheaper than an iPhone. Not a substantive price difference... and significantly inferior quality. It's actually Apple's supply chain integration that has allowed it to come so close. If you don't believe me, buy an Evo 4G and try to use it all day for a few calls and occasional surfing or app use. The battery will be dead by 4:30pm... and that is a phone that costs >= the iPhone 4G. The low end Android phones are so far behind state of the art Android that they are simply a way of tricking unsuspecting consumers (drawn to the touch screen and shiny icons) into buying a low end phone that is locked into an already out of date OS version. I realize consumers are naive now, but not for long. Google is trying to cash in on its brand image and help handset manufacturers hawk garbage phones at naive consumers. B/c of the contracts typically sold with the phones, human psychology often prevents these consumers from admitting they've been had. Worse, it may permanently sour many older users to smart phones. I love Google and am actually rooting for Google to win or at least come out with a phone that I want to own, but let's at least be honest about its strategy to date. Getting an Android phone in 2011 is like buying a Gateway 2000 PC in 2000 -- loaded full of garbageware to the point of hampered performance, and full of bold claims about performance that don't hold water... coasting on the brand's previous accomplishments.
- mcantelon 16y ago
  >Over the life of a typical contract, this amounts to less than 10% cheaper than an iPhone. Not a substantive price difference... and significantly inferior quality. There are many people to whom $99 vs $0 up front would constitute a substantive price difference. And again... quality isn't a big factor for many, i.e. Mcdonalds (and the "quality" argument depends on use-case... voice search and turn-by-turn nav quality on Android, for example, are considerably superior). >If you don't believe me, buy an Evo 4G and try to use it all day for a few calls and occasional surfing or app use. It will be dead by 4:30pm. Yes, EVO is a battery hog unless tuned. Luckily there are other models of Android phone.
  - grandalf 16y ago
    I don't think we disagree about the $99 upfront -- my interpretation of it is just that Apple has chosen to be a bit less aggressive than would be competitively optimal. As for quality, I'd argue that at least 9 out of 10 people would judge the iPhone 4 to be superior in quality (build quality, app quality, usability) compared to any Android phone if given each phone for a few months. You are correct about turn by turn, though the Mapquest 5 app for iPhone gives spoken turn by turn is 98% as good as Google's nav. Apple has really dropped the ball on nav and mail apps and that may account for 1 in 10 people preferring Android. A friend got the latest/greatest Android phone a few weeks ago and returned it due to abysmal battery life. I really don't think the issue has been resolved... Is anyone using these phones before they are released? Why don't they ship with a battery that will last a full day? Another friend using an Evo 4G is getting 2 hours per battery and carries around 3 batteries just to get through the day. I didn't test this, but I think based on his usage that an iPhone 4 would last a full day with his usage pattern.
    - mcantelon 16y ago
      >I don't think we disagree about the $99 upfront -- my interpretation of it is just that Apple has chosen to be a bit less aggressive than would be competitively optimal. Well, looking at the graph featured in the article I'd say it's high time they get optimal. ;)
      - grandalf 16y ago
        I think it's a case of not wanting to risk messing with such a cash cow (it is resulting in strong profitability). I admit it is very perplexing... both why Apple hasn't responded with a $0 (with contract) iPhone, and why Google has allowed the Android experience to be so mediocre.

Over the life of a typical contract, this amounts to less than 10% cheaper than an iPhone. Not a substantive price difference... and significantly inferior quality. It's actually Apple's supply chain integration that has allowed it to come so close. If you don't believe me, buy an Evo 4G and try to use it all day for a few calls and occasional surfing or app use. The battery will be dead by 4:30pm... and that is a phone that costs >= the iPhone 4G. The low end Android phones are so far behind state of the art Android that they are simply a way of tricking unsuspecting consumers (drawn to the touch screen and shiny icons) into buying a low end phone that is locked into an already out of date OS version. I realize consumers are naive now, but not for long. Google is trying to cash in on its brand image and help handset manufacturers hawk garbage phones at naive consumers. B/c of the contracts typically sold with the phones, human psychology often prevents these consumers from admitting they've been had. Worse, it may permanently sour many older users to smart phones. I love Google and am actually rooting for Google to win or at least come out with a phone that I want to own, but let's at least be honest about its strategy to date. Getting an Android phone in 2011 is like buying a Gateway 2000 PC in 2000 -- loaded full of garbageware to the point of hampered performance, and full of bold claims about performance that don't hold water... coasting on the brand's previous accomplishments.

mcantelon 16y ago
>Over the life of a typical contract, this amounts to less than 10% cheaper than an iPhone. Not a substantive price difference... and significantly inferior quality. There are many people to whom $99 vs $0 up front would constitute a substantive price difference. And again... quality isn't a big factor for many, i.e. Mcdonalds (and the "quality" argument depends on use-case... voice search and turn-by-turn nav quality on Android, for example, are considerably superior). >If you don't believe me, buy an Evo 4G and try to use it all day for a few calls and occasional surfing or app use. It will be dead by 4:30pm. Yes, EVO is a battery hog unless tuned. Luckily there are other models of Android phone.
- grandalf 16y ago
  I don't think we disagree about the $99 upfront -- my interpretation of it is just that Apple has chosen to be a bit less aggressive than would be competitively optimal. As for quality, I'd argue that at least 9 out of 10 people would judge the iPhone 4 to be superior in quality (build quality, app quality, usability) compared to any Android phone if given each phone for a few months. You are correct about turn by turn, though the Mapquest 5 app for iPhone gives spoken turn by turn is 98% as good as Google's nav. Apple has really dropped the ball on nav and mail apps and that may account for 1 in 10 people preferring Android. A friend got the latest/greatest Android phone a few weeks ago and returned it due to abysmal battery life. I really don't think the issue has been resolved... Is anyone using these phones before they are released? Why don't they ship with a battery that will last a full day? Another friend using an Evo 4G is getting 2 hours per battery and carries around 3 batteries just to get through the day. I didn't test this, but I think based on his usage that an iPhone 4 would last a full day with his usage pattern.
  - mcantelon 16y ago
    >I don't think we disagree about the $99 upfront -- my interpretation of it is just that Apple has chosen to be a bit less aggressive than would be competitively optimal. Well, looking at the graph featured in the article I'd say it's high time they get optimal. ;)
    - grandalf 16y ago
      I think it's a case of not wanting to risk messing with such a cash cow (it is resulting in strong profitability). I admit it is very perplexing... both why Apple hasn't responded with a $0 (with contract) iPhone, and why Google has allowed the Android experience to be so mediocre.