Whats the point of Google marketing the Nexus 4 for $299/$349 ??

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Phone being pocketable and able to make calls is irrelevant. Size does matter in that it generally costs more to build tablet than a phone. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Bigger the tablet, the more expensive it is to build. It's more expensive to build a tablet than small media player like an iPod. So if anything, phones should be cheaper than tablets.

You do realize that not all products are priced based on how much they cost to build. It's the fact there's more importance behind a phone than a tablet. It's the fact that it's more functional in that you do carry it with you make calls. You can argue phones should be cheaper than tablets all you want but that's not how the market is. Get over it.

I don't know why you keep comparing phone prices in other parts of the world. Do you think we give a damn? You think you're cool because you imported phones and paid higher price? It's understood by everyone US has the cheapest price for pretty much anything electronics and most other goods. Some of that is due to our buying power and some due to low taxes and tariffs. You can't do direct 1:1 price conversion with international countries. Galaxy Note 2 sells for close to $1,000 in Korea while it sells for $650 in the US. BMW 3 series that sells for $40k here will sell for over $100k in Korea. $20k Hyundai Sonata will sell for $35k in South Korea. What does this say about the market? Nothing other than goods are cheaper in the US. Every market is different and your constant attempt to compare prices in Europe and Asia to the US is stupid.

Your example with cars is just horribly off. That's because cars are only made in certain countries and as a result has to be imported with huge amounts of taxes. Furthermore, car manufacturers make different cars for different regions of the world.

We're talking electronics here. Your iPad is the same in the US as it is in Asia. There may be a higher price due to imports, but in general they're shooting for the same price range. The fact is phones are $600 whether you are in Europe or Asia or the US. You act like somehow you can dismiss the fact that this is a global market. In that case your American-centric view of how cell phone pricing should be just as irrelevant as it's only a small fraction (less than 5%) of the world market. In fact given that unlocked phones is really just relevant to less than half of the US population.

Have you ever tried going around the world to look at cell phone prices? They're the same country to country. +/- 10% depending where you go, but it's not going to be $300 vs $600. Pretty much you've shown no reasoning in this whole argument, and all you're saying is:

1) Cell phones don't cost much to make. It should be cheaper.
2) Cell phones are cheaper than tablets. They should be cheaper.
3) Wah wah wah. Who cares about what the current market situation of unlocked phones are. They should change.

Well guess what? Handbags are cheaper than phones to make, so why the hell is a designer bag $5000? THE MARKET determines the pricing and that's how it is. You can push that price down with competition, but to expect the standard to be based on how YOU think things should be priced is absolutely ridiculous.

The solution to this isn't to fix pricing at $299. The solution is to get the US carriers to reform. I know you don't know how to read what I wrote earlier, so I'll spell it out to you. The unlocked phone needs to become a viable option in the US, and the carriers are making that impossible. Perhaps the FCC can help change things up a bit. Once you have an unlocked phone market again, let the market determine the appropriate price. Google's not a hardware maker. Its $299 price point is not a sustainable one for the rest of the makers out there.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

And what is wrong with market price going to $299 now? How much money are HTC, Nokia, Motorola (pulled out of EU and Asia), etc making selling $600 phones?

You do realize the Galaxy S sold 30+ million units (Q3 2011 figure). When you add up the US phones it's like 7 million tops and that's including the Galaxy S 4G that was sold into 2012. They sell plenty of phones worldwide. The unlocked business model works just FINE worldwide.

 

[ponyo]

DLeRium: US carriers phone monopoly and pricing need to be changed.
Google: OK. Here is Nexus 4. Unlocked GSM phone. $299 for 8gb, $350 for 16gb. How's that for change?
DLeRium: What? That's unfair! The price should be $600-650. Because that's what phones costed in the past and phones should always cost $600-650. Because that's how it is in the rest of the world. And will be for the rest of ethernity.
Google: That's cool. If you want to continue to pay $600-650, be our guest. Someone has to pay the stupid tax. For the rest of you in our market, you can buy our phones for $300-350. Hopefully we can cut costs and drop the price even more in the future. Maybe we can hit $200 in couple of years.
DLeRium: No fair. No fair. Phones should never be priced below $600-650. I know because I bought imported phones in the past at that price.

 

[cliftonite]

You do realize that not all products are priced based on how much they cost to build. It's the fact there's more importance behind a phone than a tablet. It's the fact that it's more functional in that you do carry it with you make calls. You can argue phones should be cheaper than tablets all you want but that's not how the market is. Get over it.



Your example with cars is just horribly off. That's because cars are only made in certain countries and as a result has to be imported with huge amounts of taxes. Furthermore, car manufacturers make different cars for different regions of the world.

We're talking electronics here. Your iPad is the same in the US as it is in Asia. There may be a higher price due to imports, but in general they're shooting for the same price range. The fact is phones are $600 whether you are in Europe or Asia or the US. You act like somehow you can dismiss the fact that this is a global market. In that case your American-centric view of how cell phone pricing should be just as irrelevant as it's only a small fraction (less than 5%) of the world market. In fact given that unlocked phones is really just relevant to less than half of the US population.

Have you ever tried going around the world to look at cell phone prices? They're the same country to country. +/- 10% depending where you go, but it's not going to be $300 vs $600. Pretty much you've shown no reasoning in this whole argument, and all you're saying is:

1) Cell phones don't cost much to make. It should be cheaper.
2) Cell phones are cheaper than tablets. They should be cheaper.
3) Wah wah wah. Who cares about what the current market situation of unlocked phones are. They should change.

Well guess what? Handbags are cheaper than phones to make, so why the hell is a designer bag $5000? THE MARKET determines the pricing and that's how it is. You can push that price down with competition, but to expect the standard to be based on how YOU think things should be priced is absolutely ridiculous.

The solution to this isn't to fix pricing at $299. The solution is to get the US carriers to reform. I know you don't know how to read what I wrote earlier, so I'll spell it out to you. The unlocked phone needs to become a viable option in the US, and the carriers are making that impossible. Perhaps the FCC can help change things up a bit. Once you have an unlocked phone market again, let the market determine the appropriate price. Google's not a hardware maker. Its $299 price point is not a sustainable one for the rest of the makers out there.

If it is not sustainable for them then they will fail. Google is part of the market and if they want to set the price at $299 then it is their right.

 

[cliftonite]

You do realize the Galaxy S sold 30+ million units (Q3 2011 figure). When you add up the US phones it's like 7 million tops and that's including the Galaxy S 4G that was sold into 2012. They sell plenty of phones worldwide. The unlocked business model works just FINE worldwide.

So it won't work with phones at $299?

 

[BenSkywalker]

Google was able to have plenty of the $199 Nexus 7 at launch

Huh?

http://www.techradar.com/us/news/mo...-7-is-sold-out-pretty-much-everywhere-1089774

The Nexus 7 launch was just like this one(outside of more day one ordering snafus for the 4). Google released a product that was overwhelmingly popular and they weren't ready for it. The 7 launched in July, took me a week to find some in stock at the end of August. The Nexus 10 is the only device they released this year that I can think of that didn't have overwhelming demand out of the gate.

 

[Eug]

That's why I was surprised with Nexus 4 launch. I figured they would have learned. However, the other difference is that the Nexus 7 was later available in stores.

 

[Remobz]

That's why I was surprised with Nexus 4 launch. I figured they would have learned. However, the other difference is that the Nexus 7 was later available in stores.

My whole plans to get a Nexus 4 8gb is now screwed!!

I have until Jan. 12 to get it in the USA or not

OH well, have to pick some other phone then.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Huh?

http://www.techradar.com/us/news/mo...-7-is-sold-out-pretty-much-everywhere-1089774

The Nexus 7 launch was just like this one(outside of more day one ordering snafus for the 4). Google released a product that was overwhelmingly popular and they weren't ready for it. The 7 launched in July, took me a week to find some in stock at the end of August. The Nexus 10 is the only device they released this year that I can think of that didn't have overwhelming demand out of the gate.

Remember at $399 a Nexus 10 is a lot less attractive than a 7" Nexus 7. People have been skeptical about Android tablets for now. The NExus 7 was the right strategy because it's a cheap tablet that allows people to get their feet wet without sinking $500. The iPad is tried and true and people have less hesitation dropping $500 there. Plus at 1 million/month, the Nexus 7 isn't a big mover to be a true manufacturing issue (compare to iPhone for example). The Nexus 10 probably sells half that or even less.

 

[Eug]

On sale at Amazon for $549 (8GB). 1 still available! (There were 2 not too long ago.) MSRP is claimed to be $699.99.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00A9Z...sr=8-1&pi=SL75

However, it is from a 3rd party seller.

 

[lothar]

DLeRium: US carriers phone monopoly and pricing need to be changed.
Google: OK. Here is Nexus 4. Unlocked GSM phone. $299 for 8gb, $350 for 16gb. How's that for change?
DLeRium: What? That's unfair! The price should be $600-650. Because that's what phones costed in the past and phones should always cost $600-650. Because that's how it is in the rest of the world. And will be for the rest of ethernity.
Google: That's cool. If you want to continue to pay $600-650, be our guest. Someone has to pay the stupid tax. For the rest of you in our market, you can buy our phones for $300-350. Hopefully we can cut costs and drop the price even more in the future. Maybe we can hit $200 in couple of years.
DLeRium: No fair. No fair. Phones should never be priced below $600-650. I know because I bought imported phones in the past at that price.

Pretty much this.
DLeRium's problem is that he has put too much faith in the FCC to try and fix our broken subsidy model like what they have in Europe where the spectrum is owned by the government and all the telecom carriers share it, and everyone pays $600 for their phone.
The FCC alone isn't the solution...In fact, it's a part of the problem.

How long are we going to wait for the FCC to act? What if they never act? How will the FCC snatch back spectrum that AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon already own exclusively and paid millions for?

At least this Google system is doing something. Doing something is better than the current status quo of being raped by the US carriers and waiting for the FCC to act.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Plus at 1 million/month, the Nexus 7 isn't a big mover to be a true manufacturing issue (compare to iPhone for example).

A million units a month doesn't present manufacturing issues? Serious question, are you a student? Some of the comments you come out with scream that you don't have a clue about anything(I could break down the shipping logistics with a decent amount of accuracy, that alone isn't trivial).

The Nexus 7 sold more units in its' first four months then the iPad. Not all Android devices, or all Android tablets, or even all Nexus devices. The Nexus 7, singular, sold more units then the original iPad- the one that Apple couldn't keep in stock for months.

Edit- Had to double check, but the Nexus 7 significantly outsold the early iPhone numbers also. So no, Apple hasn't proven they can launch a new product category and hit sales numbers higher then the Nexus 7 yet.

 

[Eug]

Not really a very good comparison.

Asus said that the Nexus 7 sold approximately 0.5 million Nexus 7 units per month early on, but that increased to about 1 million in October.

Yeah, that may be more than the first iPad did, but that was when Apple tablets didn't even exist. Basically Apple created the market, unless you count Windows tablets (I don't).

In contrast, by the time the Nexus 7 was released, there were tons of Android tablets out there.

I think the Nexus 7 is a success, and I own one (although it's getting sent in under warranty), but to try to pump up its success by comparing its sales to the original iPad's doesn't make a lot of sense.

As for the first iPhone, it was only available in the US for the first several months, a limited release for a single carrier.

 

[makken]

Ask and ye shall receive.

is it too late to join in the fun?

 

[dagamer34]

Not really a very good comparison.

Asus said that the Nexus 7 sold approximately 0.5 million Nexus 7 units per month early on, but that increased to about 1 million in October.

Yeah, that may be more than the first iPad did, but that was when Apple tablets didn't even exist. Basically Apple created the market, unless you count Windows tablets (I don't).

In contrast, by the time the Nexus 7 was released, there were tons of Android tablets out there.

I think the Nexus 7 is a success, and I own one (although it's getting sent in under warranty), but to try to pump up its success by comparing its sales to the original iPad's doesn't make a lot of sense.

As for the first iPhone, it was only available in the US for the first several months, a limited release for a single carrier.

It's a poor idea to compare the sales of a $200 and $500 device. Clearly price matters in the beginning.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Yeah, that may be more than the first iPad did, but that was when Apple tablets didn't even exist.

Google tablets didn't exist either. You can point out that Asus makes the tablets for Google, and then I could point out that Foxconn makes the iPad for Apple and Foxconn was making tablets prior to the iPad.

Google's first tablet versus Apple's first tablet- for the first several months of availability- Google sold more units. You can talk about marketshare relations and all sorts of other things- but we are talking about *manufacturing* and what it takes to ramp that up. Google has proven that they can *beat* Apple out of the gate on that particular point which is the one I was explicitly and exclusively addressing.

 

[dagamer34]

Google tablets didn't exist either. You can point out that Asus makes the tablets for Google, and then I could point out that Foxconn makes the iPad for Apple and Foxconn was making tablets prior to the iPad.

Google's first tablet versus Apple's first tablet- for the first several months of availability- Google sold more units. You can talk about marketshare relations and all sorts of other things- but we are talking about *manufacturing* and what it takes to ramp that up. Google has proven that they can *beat* Apple out of the gate on that particular point which is the one I was explicitly and exclusively addressing.

No, just no. Google hasn't proven anything, especially when ASUS was ready with the device 6 months prior when showing it off at CES 2012 under their own brand. That says nothing about manufacturing, and you are ignoring the all important difference of time.

Building a 10" multi-touch tablet at the beginning of 2010 is nothing like building a 7" multi-touch tablet today. The former had not been done before, the latter has been done several times by lots of Chinese manufacturers. It's far easier to build a tablet in 2012 because Apple created the market for such parts in 2010.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Building a 10" multi-touch tablet at the beginning of 2010 is nothing like building a 7" multi-touch tablet today.

From a manufacturing perspective, explain the difference. The technology used was rather old, the build out on them was a simpler(less modems, more relaxed packaging limitations) large cell phone, easier then the tablet PCs that had been in production for a long while.

 

[BladeVenom]

Building a 10" multi-touch tablet at the beginning of 2010 is nothing like building a 7" multi-touch tablet today.

LOL!

Building a 7" tablet is more challenging than building a 10" tablet.

Besides, MS was designing tablets 10 years before the iPad came out, and they weren't even the first.

 

[Eug]

No, just no. Google hasn't proven anything, especially when ASUS was ready with the device 6 months prior when showing it off at CES 2012 under their own brand.

The sad part is that Asus Memo ME370T was exactly the tablet I was looking for, with microSD support. It also had HDMI, although that was of less interest to me. Then it dropped off the face of the earth... to reappear as the Nexus 7 missing some of the features.

Ironically, Google's own demo was with the HDMI model, which led to all sorts of confusion at the time, because some people were thinking there'd be an HDMI model available.

 

[Zink]

The biggest aspect of 10" tablets that was new in 2010 from what I can see is the large mobile IPS touch screen and the software. The stuff on the inside is probably harder on a 7" but it's still just a big cellphone. It is probably true that making a product from scratch when the previous products and components are not in place is more difficult than what has to be done today. Today if your boss gives you the project to "make a tablet" you'd probably call some of the OEMs in China who are already doing this and see what they can do for you or what parts they have that fit what you need and then customize Android a bit. If Jobs told me to make an iPad 3-4 years ago I'd have to start from the ground up, first figure out what an iPad is and then see what custom screen and manufacturing you will need to get contracts for. The software part is also huge, even with Google's full backing Android tablets just got going this year. Apple hit the ground running and created tablet software that works and a new market for these devices when everyone was wondering why we needed a big iPod touch.
Seems like a bigger challenge at least from a management and UX perspective. Most of the hardware engineering work is probably no different than what has been happening in phones and laptops for decades.