That's the thing, if a phone costs $100 to make then by selling it for $200 you are making quite a huge profit. I don't undertand why the demand for unlocked phones is high enough to justify marking them up over 500% of their true cost. I thought Google was going to break the cycle of massive markups, but the most recent rumors are pointing to $199 w/ Tmo contract so your probably looking at 400-500 with no contract.
Maybe because you're used to buying phones only in the US through a carrier? Do you think Apple rakes in only $199 for your new iPhone?
The fact is these things have a MARKET PRICE. Carriers pay for your phones so you can get them for a ridiculously low price. I don't understand what the issue is. For the rest of the world where unlocked phones rule, people accept the fact that phones do cost that much. You can complain that they sell for $$$ when its worth only $, but the fact is the market defines the price. There are R&D costs and what not too. Why do computer makers like Dell HP and stuff sell computers for those prices when you know chips are a dime a dozen? You can build a bare bones system from Fry's for a ridiculously low price also. How does Apple manage to sell MacBooks for that much when they're cheap pieces of crap in reality (ok the aluminum unibody is actually pretty interesting to build but the inside components are standard).
$200 isn't unreasonable although it might look like $299 also. I'm not doubting that these phones can come for cheap with a contract. T-Mobile pays out very nice subsidies you know... they pay very well on commission also. When the Asian stores used to do AT&T activations too, buying an unlocked phone w/ t-mobile contract would yield you FAR better prices than to go with AT&T. I got top notch ~350-400 phones for only like $50 with a contract. It was ridiculous (Sony Ericsson K750).
Why do you keep saying "Google" breaking from the markup trends? I don't get it. That's like saying, why don't we have a laptop manufacturer break from the trends and sell a laptop for true cost. HTC's making this phone after all, not GOOGLE. HTC's Touch HD2 is a WinMo equivalent of this phone essentially. It runs for $800 at the moment... but will come down with wide release. I imagine $599 or so. But then again that phone has a 4.3" screen. So maybe the Samsung Omnia II is more comparable at its $500 pricepoint.
I said it was well received - from a feature standpoint, it DID destroy everything on the market. Let me guess...it was no Blackberry Curve? 🙄
The Nokia N95 was a HUGE hit overseas. I saw it everywhere. Hong Kong, China, Taiwan. Then I flew to Europe for a trip and it was everywhere too. In 2007, not many phones gave you WiFi, GPS (which could run Garmin Mobile XT and turn your N95 into a Garmin GPS basically), and then throw in a top notch 5 MP camera with LED flash? Throw in VGA video recording too. I know SE was the "leader" in camera phones then but they had terrible video recording quality even though they were one of the first to throw in a flash. The N95 had it all. I have an N82 and while the UI is outdated, featurewise, the phone is still very strong. It's an N95 but with xenon and I love it.
BlackBerry and Nokia N-series were never meant to compete... Do BlackBerrys even have an LED flash? Did you see the 5MP shootout back in the day? The N95 won hands down as the best camera phone. Let's see your BB do that. Oh wait, they typically don't even throw in BB photos in camera shootouts. I'm guessing it doesn't compare.
DBZ, I know you love BB, but it's a totally different device, and I wish Nokia implemented e-mail like RIM did. Exchange mail on my Nokia is a joke, but like I said. Two very different devices.
