Theory 1: only 30% of the cost of the N900 is "real" cost - Page 2 - maemo.org

texaslabrat | # 11 | 2009-12-09, 01:06 | Report

btw, if you feel that the N900 (or other smartphone that you mentioned) is unfairly priced, feel free to order the parts from the various suppliers and build your own....or stick with whatever you have now. As far as I know, Nokia is not in the habit of putting guns to people's heads to force them to buy their products

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to texaslabrat For This Useful Post:
bull, joshua.maverick, kopte3, mtran66, PortaDiFerro, ymb

OrangeBox | # 12 | 2009-12-09, 01:07 | Report

Originally Posted by fra83fra View Post

It's well-known that most smartphones have a cost production of 100-150$ (Nokia's, iPhone, etc.)
but Theory 2: you produce and sell 100s million of 17" panels and 500GB hard disks so less profit for each one is ok anyway

Sounds logical. So in theory 3, should nokia not want to sell millions and millions of N900s and making up for the profit by lowering the margin on each device and increasing production?

texaslabrat | # 13 | 2009-12-09, 01:12 | Report

Originally Posted by fra83fra View Post

It's well-known that most smartphones have a cost production of 100-150$ (Nokia's, iPhone, etc.)
but Theory 2: you produce and sell 100s million of 17" panels and 500GB hard disks so less profit for each one is ok anyway

yes it is well-known that the COMPONENT cost is $100-$150 for many of these devices. That doesn't cover the R&D costs, the assembly costs, the marketing costs, the certification costs, the QA costs, the distribution costs, or profit (these companies are, after all, for-profit entities and are not expected to do things out of the goodness of their hearts). When you add in all the internal expenditures, the actual cost for a low-volume product such as the N900 is considerably higher than the component costs would suggest. It's not until you have a "breakout" product like the iPhone that you can amoritize your internal costs across millions and millions of units and you can either 1) lower the price per unit or 2) enjoy a higher margin per unit. Apple has generally picked choice #2 (as any company with shareholders who have pulses would clamor for) since the demand is high enough to allow them to keep the price where it is (ie the market will bear the current price, so why lower it?).

Last edited by texaslabrat; 2009-12-09 at 01:14.

The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to texaslabrat For This Useful Post:
ARJWright, bull, GeneralAntilles, kopte3, liveslow, mtran66, nowave7, omniscy, Texrat, Thesandlord, TomJ, ymb

christexaport | # 14 | 2009-12-09, 01:29 | Report

If you look closely, the mobile has features the netbook can never have, like portability, pocketability, and battery life, plus high quality GPS and camera. It depends on what you need. I abhor netbooks, laptops, and desktops, so the N900 is pure freedom for me.

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to christexaport For This Useful Post:
BaKSo, leek, qole, youNit

Kozzi | # 15 | 2009-12-09, 04:18 | Report

Now this is something, comparing the n900 to a laptop.

The Following User Says Thank You to Kozzi For This Useful Post:
joshua.maverick

joshua.maverick | # 16 | 2009-12-09, 04:24 | Report

lmao, this is great, pure genius from the op

The Following User Says Thank You to joshua.maverick For This Useful Post:
OrangeBox

Texrat | # 17 | 2009-12-09, 04:26 | Report

Originally Posted by OrangeBox View Post

Let me explain...If we take an N900 with a hypothetical $500 price and compare the hardware internals of an identically priced laptop, it is clear that the N900 should cost about $150-200.

And no, I don't believe that the 3.5 inch touch screen costs more than a 17 inch non-touch, or a 32GB flash costs more than a 500GB HD, or Maemo with Nokia customizations costs more than Windows 7, or the GSM/HSPA radio costs more than 802.11n. If you follow this line of reasoning you come to the conclusion that the N900 (and the iPhone and the BB and the Droid and all other smart phones) are a total rip-off price-wise.

Any counter arguments?

Once again:

Smaller does not necessarily equal cheaper.

In fact, at a certain point, miniaturization of electronics assemblies tends to drive cost UP.

For those who do not understand this, I suggest maybe a job or internship in engineering. Should be a real eye-opener.

I really, really wish these naive comparisons would just go away...

The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to Texrat For This Useful Post:
bull, christexaport, davedickson, fatalsaint, GeneralAntilles, javispedro, kopte3, Mara, mobiledivide, mtran66, nowave7, sjgadsby, ymb

davedickson | # 18 | 2009-12-09, 04:31 | Report

Originally Posted by Kozzi View Post

Now this is something, comparing the n900 to a laptop.

lol why not?

Seriously btw, 32GB of storage, 256MB RAM (1GB virtual), added 16GB storage, 802.11 b/g, USB (ok no host), 5MP cam, 600 MHz cpu, gpu @ 15Mpoly/s, OpenGL, to list a few, oh sorry I forgot @ 181 grams!!

My first laptop had about as much processing power as me, and weighed 5 tonnes lol

The Following User Says Thank You to davedickson For This Useful Post:
christexaport

OrangeBox | # 19 | 2009-12-09, 05:04 | Report

Hi All, thanks for the kind sarcastic words. While I don't seem to understand basic economics and I could take some engineering intern positions I'm rather too old for bruised ego and my masters degree in science doesn't seem to help either, let alone that I run my own consulting business with 3 employees. Sure I could take some good lecture from you.

Anyway, you all seem to be very very very happy with the current price of the N900. Nokia sure loves people like you. Eventually (and hopefully sooner than later ) the price of this piece of hw will come down to earth as Asian manufacturers will definitely make Nokia run for its money.

There is nothing I repeat NOTHING sort of revolutionary hardware-wise in the N900. It is the "package" that makes it worthwile.

And yes, I believe that miniaturization is a cost saving measure and while it may drive prices up INITIALLY, it ultimately helps make things more profitable for the manufacturer.

Also, in North America (I'm not sure how it's done in Europe) nobody I mean nobody buys phones outright. I am one of the few who don't cave in to marketing gimmicks or operator gouging. Because of this trend, people don't see the real cost of phones. If their only option was to buy them with no contract I guarantee that noone would buy the N900 (or the 3GS or the Droid) here in NA.

Peace.

Last edited by OrangeBox; 2009-12-09 at 05:11.

Texrat | # 20 | 2009-12-09, 05:24 | Report

Originally Posted by OrangeBox View Post

And yes, I believe that miniaturization is a cost saving measure and while it may drive prices up INITIALLY, it ultimately helps make things more profitable for the manufacturer.

Broad statements like that seem at odds with your professed experience.

Oh, and the N900 engines are manufactured in Asia.

The Following User Says Thank You to Texrat For This Useful Post:
GeneralAntilles