7 ms·

I expect it’s more about the competition than those companies willingly leaving that level of profit on the table. In the android market, people have the option

I expect it’s more about the competition than those companies willingly leaving that level of profit on the table. In the android market, people have the option of switching to a competitor if you’re not price competitive yourself. For IOS, apple is the only game in town on hardware.

cs702 5y ago
Maybe. I'm not so sure. In theory, a company like, say, Samsung could stop making cheaper, money-losing phones and invest primarily on making increasingly better, premium, profitable phones like the Galaxy Fold, but they choose not to do that, year after year.
- chii 5y ago
  > focus primarily on making premium, profitable phones like the Galaxy Fold believe it or not, apple's supply chain and verticals and operations are much more efficient than samsungs'. Tim cook did wonders during steve job's era to scale out their operations. So much so that samsung cannot really compete at the same quality.
- cies 5y ago
  What differentiates those premium phones? It runs the same Android of which I rather have a stock version than the bloat-ware rubbish that phone makers install on there for me. The iOS devices link into a web of ease-of-use, and come with a reasonably well make stock version of iOS. And then there's trust. Whom does an average user trust more with their data? (Apple/USgov, or Google/USgov+Samsung/SouthKorea+...)
  - oblio 5y ago
    Believe it or not, but "stock Android" has been tried about 10 times. It failed. Only techies care. Regular users want a ton of features. Edit: Sales numbers tell you all you need to know about "stock Android" success :-)
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      Regular users don't actually know anything about the difference. They look at how many megapixels the camera has and the resolution of the screen and things like that, because they're numbers you can compare. Regular users don't know what "stock Android" is. And then they come home with a phone full of bloatware and complain about it after. Nobody actually buys the phone for the bloatware. These companies are wasting their money developing it. They just want the phone with the better camera. The real problem is that techies can't improve Android because the hardware vendors are shipping custom kernels and their hardware can't use the stock kernel. So Android is "open source" but there is no ecosystem of people scratching that itch with the improvements flowing to the ordinary users because it's so hard to modify what came with your device. Especially when many of the techies still care about the better screen and camera. Think about it this way. There is no reason every Android phone on the market shouldn't come with the option of stock Android. Even if you think the majority of "regular users" wouldn't want it, the availability of it would get them a few sales from techies, right? And then we would really find out what people want, because they get the choice without it being tied to the rest of the hardware.
      - oblio 5y ago
        > There is no reason every Android phone on the market shouldn't come with the option of stock Android. Umm...there is a very solid reason: support costs. Nobody wants to double the support matrix.
        AnthonyMouse 5y ago
        The vendor's Android is going to be 99% stock Android and 1% things that will have higher rather than lower support costs than stock Android because it will have a smaller user base and be less likely to have the bugs already discovered and patched. Support costs would, if anything, go down.
      - kube-system 5y ago
        > Regular users don't actually know anything about the difference. They look at how many megapixels the camera has and the resolution of the screen and things like that, because they're numbers you can compare. > Nobody actually buys the phone for the bloatware. Often the bloatware is half of the silly stuff listed in the marketing specs on the box. The features might be junk, but they're bulletpoints in a list of features that people are looking at on the shelf. I see these kinds of "specs" listed all the time: digital zoom, "optimizers" of various sorts, social media "integrations", etc.
  - tomjen3 5y ago
    The expensive Samsungs are the foldables and things like the ultra, with super zoom cameras.
  - FpUser 5y ago
    I suspect o called "average user" would probably trust anything. Non average: I have no idea but I personally just simply do not trust. Do not care what is the company name.
- tbrock 5y ago
  If they did they would be dead in a year. They sell a fraction of the >$1000 phones apple sells by the shipload. Their bread and butter is the cheap stuff. The same way nobody wants to spent $35k on a honda when they could have a tesla.
  - neogodless 5y ago
    Looks like Honda Accord is approaching $32k on average[0]. 200k Honda Accords sold in the U.S. 2020[1]. 450k Tesla Model 3 + Y sold globally[2]. Though Model 3 and Y average price closer to $49k and $65k respectively[3]. If I have a point, it's that if you have $35k to spend, you're probably getting a high trim level Honda Accord. Because you need another $15k to get an "average" Tesla Model 3. (Obviously the Model 3 is worth spending $50k for lots and lots of buyers!) [0] https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/price-trends/Honda-Accord-d585 https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/price-trends/Honda-Accord-d585 [1] https://www.best-selling-cars.com/usa/2020-full-year-usa-honda-and-acura-sales-by-model/ https://www.best-selling-cars.com/usa/2020-full-year-usa-hon... [2] https://www.best-selling-cars.com/brands/2020-full-year-global-tesla-car-sales-worldwide/ https://www.best-selling-cars.com/brands/2020-full-year-glob... [3] https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/price-trends/Tesla-m112 https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/price-trends/Tesla-m112
    - tbrock 5y ago
      The Y is a much more expensive car with a discontinued standard range version and the base model 3 is by far and away the best selling version of the vehicle. Averages can be misleading. Id like to see the median prices given that the base tesla model 3 is VERY premium vs the base model accord which is not.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        If I was looking to minimize cost per mile, I would get an Accord, not a Tesla. Hondas and Toyotas are tried and true with a few decades of reputation built up. And routine maintenance on those does not cost much.
  - FpUser 5y ago
- dhritzkiv 5y ago
  Do people want the Fold? (No snark - genuinely asking)
  - gumby 5y ago
    I saw one in the flesh (a friend had one) and it was surprisingly good, I expected the screen to be crap but it was not. You could legitimately get a big screen on a device that fit in your pocket. It also has a screen on the “outside” so you can use it without opening it — as a convenience or to reduce the number of flexes of the screen? The thing is, android tablets suck (I know, and it appears the market does too) so the experience of the larger screen is meh. I’m happy with a small phone when walking around and an iPad (or hell just a laptop) when I’m at home.
  - fomine3 5y ago
    Folding tech/gimmick itself isn't what people want (I believe). It makes possible tablet can be folded so fit on my pocket. There's no switching cost from smartphone to tablet. It changes my digital life. I no longer use narrower smartphone to read web/books in everywhere. Personally I don't know how Flip3 useful, but it seems to sold well, maybe cool for some people.
    - skinnymuch 5y ago
      You’re saying a foldable tablet fitting in your pocket would be good for you? Then why call folding a gimmick at the beginning? The iPhone was called a gimmick when it was new. Same with the iPad, less so but still with the Apple Watch.
      - fomine3 5y ago
        I'm not a native so maybe used wrong word. Flexible OLED was also used for smartphone like LG G Flex, Galaxy Note Edge/S6 edge and its successor, but those aren't welcomed well. Samsung widely used the edge "gimmick" but it's not welcomed by majority from what I see because it shows curved content, makes accidental touch, and makes (a bit) hard to put screen protector. Finally they advanced to foldable OLED and developed game changing Galaxy Fold. Fold3 is really good but I think final product is important than the tech itself. But maybe, without Galaxy Edge phones, Fold won't be developed.
- ChrisLomont 5y ago
  >they choose not to do that, year after year Because they could not simply take the profit that Apple is making. Surely they're not dumb enough to throw out profit for giggles. Android phones face lots of competition from Android phones.
- toast0 5y ago
  Having a spectrum of phones helps sell the premium phones. If you decide to buy a premium phone to replace your current phone, and you're happy with the one you have, you may shop the same brand. Without the lower end phones, you won't get those customers. Windows Mobile 10 was a trainwreck for a lot of reasons, but Microsoft only sold upper mid tier and premium phones for it, and the sales numbers were terrible. If they had commited to low end phones (which they did well for WP7 and WP8), it might have gone differently. (Of course, that would have required a much more polished OS release)
  - fomine3 5y ago
    IIRC cheap Lumia was also sold packed in blister pack, but still not succeeded.

cs702 5y ago

Maybe. I'm not so sure. In theory, a company like, say, Samsung could stop making cheaper, money-losing phones and invest primarily on making increasingly better, premium, profitable phones like the Galaxy Fold, but they choose not to do that, year after year.

chii 5y ago
> focus primarily on making premium, profitable phones like the Galaxy Fold believe it or not, apple's supply chain and verticals and operations are much more efficient than samsungs'. Tim cook did wonders during steve job's era to scale out their operations. So much so that samsung cannot really compete at the same quality.
cies 5y ago
What differentiates those premium phones? It runs the same Android of which I rather have a stock version than the bloat-ware rubbish that phone makers install on there for me. The iOS devices link into a web of ease-of-use, and come with a reasonably well make stock version of iOS. And then there's trust. Whom does an average user trust more with their data? (Apple/USgov, or Google/USgov+Samsung/SouthKorea+...)
- oblio 5y ago
  Believe it or not, but "stock Android" has been tried about 10 times. It failed. Only techies care. Regular users want a ton of features. Edit: Sales numbers tell you all you need to know about "stock Android" success :-)
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    Regular users don't actually know anything about the difference. They look at how many megapixels the camera has and the resolution of the screen and things like that, because they're numbers you can compare. Regular users don't know what "stock Android" is. And then they come home with a phone full of bloatware and complain about it after. Nobody actually buys the phone for the bloatware. These companies are wasting their money developing it. They just want the phone with the better camera. The real problem is that techies can't improve Android because the hardware vendors are shipping custom kernels and their hardware can't use the stock kernel. So Android is "open source" but there is no ecosystem of people scratching that itch with the improvements flowing to the ordinary users because it's so hard to modify what came with your device. Especially when many of the techies still care about the better screen and camera. Think about it this way. There is no reason every Android phone on the market shouldn't come with the option of stock Android. Even if you think the majority of "regular users" wouldn't want it, the availability of it would get them a few sales from techies, right? And then we would really find out what people want, because they get the choice without it being tied to the rest of the hardware.
    - oblio 5y ago
      > There is no reason every Android phone on the market shouldn't come with the option of stock Android. Umm...there is a very solid reason: support costs. Nobody wants to double the support matrix.
      - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
        The vendor's Android is going to be 99% stock Android and 1% things that will have higher rather than lower support costs than stock Android because it will have a smaller user base and be less likely to have the bugs already discovered and patched. Support costs would, if anything, go down.
    - kube-system 5y ago
      > Regular users don't actually know anything about the difference. They look at how many megapixels the camera has and the resolution of the screen and things like that, because they're numbers you can compare. > Nobody actually buys the phone for the bloatware. Often the bloatware is half of the silly stuff listed in the marketing specs on the box. The features might be junk, but they're bulletpoints in a list of features that people are looking at on the shelf. I see these kinds of "specs" listed all the time: digital zoom, "optimizers" of various sorts, social media "integrations", etc.
- tomjen3 5y ago
  The expensive Samsungs are the foldables and things like the ultra, with super zoom cameras.
- FpUser 5y ago
  I suspect o called "average user" would probably trust anything. Non average: I have no idea but I personally just simply do not trust. Do not care what is the company name.
tbrock 5y ago
If they did they would be dead in a year. They sell a fraction of the >$1000 phones apple sells by the shipload. Their bread and butter is the cheap stuff. The same way nobody wants to spent $35k on a honda when they could have a tesla.
- neogodless 5y ago
  Looks like Honda Accord is approaching $32k on average[0]. 200k Honda Accords sold in the U.S. 2020[1]. 450k Tesla Model 3 + Y sold globally[2]. Though Model 3 and Y average price closer to $49k and $65k respectively[3]. If I have a point, it's that if you have $35k to spend, you're probably getting a high trim level Honda Accord. Because you need another $15k to get an "average" Tesla Model 3. (Obviously the Model 3 is worth spending $50k for lots and lots of buyers!) [0] https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/price-trends/Honda-Accord-d585 https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/price-trends/Honda-Accord-d585 [1] https://www.best-selling-cars.com/usa/2020-full-year-usa-honda-and-acura-sales-by-model/ https://www.best-selling-cars.com/usa/2020-full-year-usa-hon... [2] https://www.best-selling-cars.com/brands/2020-full-year-global-tesla-car-sales-worldwide/ https://www.best-selling-cars.com/brands/2020-full-year-glob... [3] https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/price-trends/Tesla-m112 https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/price-trends/Tesla-m112
  - tbrock 5y ago
    The Y is a much more expensive car with a discontinued standard range version and the base model 3 is by far and away the best selling version of the vehicle. Averages can be misleading. Id like to see the median prices given that the base tesla model 3 is VERY premium vs the base model accord which is not.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      If I was looking to minimize cost per mile, I would get an Accord, not a Tesla. Hondas and Toyotas are tried and true with a few decades of reputation built up. And routine maintenance on those does not cost much.
- FpUser 5y ago
dhritzkiv 5y ago
Do people want the Fold? (No snark - genuinely asking)
- gumby 5y ago
  I saw one in the flesh (a friend had one) and it was surprisingly good, I expected the screen to be crap but it was not. You could legitimately get a big screen on a device that fit in your pocket. It also has a screen on the “outside” so you can use it without opening it — as a convenience or to reduce the number of flexes of the screen? The thing is, android tablets suck (I know, and it appears the market does too) so the experience of the larger screen is meh. I’m happy with a small phone when walking around and an iPad (or hell just a laptop) when I’m at home.
- fomine3 5y ago
  Folding tech/gimmick itself isn't what people want (I believe). It makes possible tablet can be folded so fit on my pocket. There's no switching cost from smartphone to tablet. It changes my digital life. I no longer use narrower smartphone to read web/books in everywhere. Personally I don't know how Flip3 useful, but it seems to sold well, maybe cool for some people.
  - skinnymuch 5y ago
    You’re saying a foldable tablet fitting in your pocket would be good for you? Then why call folding a gimmick at the beginning? The iPhone was called a gimmick when it was new. Same with the iPad, less so but still with the Apple Watch.
    - fomine3 5y ago
      I'm not a native so maybe used wrong word. Flexible OLED was also used for smartphone like LG G Flex, Galaxy Note Edge/S6 edge and its successor, but those aren't welcomed well. Samsung widely used the edge "gimmick" but it's not welcomed by majority from what I see because it shows curved content, makes accidental touch, and makes (a bit) hard to put screen protector. Finally they advanced to foldable OLED and developed game changing Galaxy Fold. Fold3 is really good but I think final product is important than the tech itself. But maybe, without Galaxy Edge phones, Fold won't be developed.
ChrisLomont 5y ago
>they choose not to do that, year after year Because they could not simply take the profit that Apple is making. Surely they're not dumb enough to throw out profit for giggles. Android phones face lots of competition from Android phones.
toast0 5y ago
Having a spectrum of phones helps sell the premium phones. If you decide to buy a premium phone to replace your current phone, and you're happy with the one you have, you may shop the same brand. Without the lower end phones, you won't get those customers. Windows Mobile 10 was a trainwreck for a lot of reasons, but Microsoft only sold upper mid tier and premium phones for it, and the sales numbers were terrible. If they had commited to low end phones (which they did well for WP7 and WP8), it might have gone differently. (Of course, that would have required a much more polished OS release)
- fomine3 5y ago
  IIRC cheap Lumia was also sold packed in blister pack, but still not succeeded.