Welcome to the Windows Central Forums Create Your Account or Ask a Question Answers in 5 minutes - no registration required!
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 80
Like Tree33Likes
  1. cp2_4eva's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    755 Posts
       #1  
    Hello folks. I was having random thoughts about the state of the smartphone biz. I know this isn't the first time someone has thought about this, but some of our favorite WP7 devices cost as much as devices with better processors and better screen resolutions. Why are we buying into this allowing the companies to make big bucks off of totally outdated specs? I received my Lumia for free plus an extra 100 so long as I stick with my ATT contract. Off contract it is 429. Which is what it should be. But some other phones cost 549. Lesser specs other than LTE. Is it worth it? Knowing that the companies may be getting over on us a bit?

    Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express
  2. bush715's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    77 Posts
    #2  
    When the Os runs with few issues on the existing hardware why buy into the spec only side of things. Android has to tout specs as they have no other way to differentiate between the hundred of phones not only that but make the average consume hears specs automatically assumes better. Eventually with Apollo we should have different hardware specs available but that will only do so much for a pretty seamless experience.

    Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express
    Thanked by:
    eric12341, aubreyq, Jazmac and 3 others like this.
  3. fatclue_98's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    2,590 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,719 Global Posts
    #3  
    Oh no! Not the spec discussion again! bush715 has nailed it as well as anyone can, let's just leave it there.
  4. cp2_4eva's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    755 Posts
       #4  
    Oh I agree that the experience speaks for itself, but not all experiences are created equal. Some folks have had issues from data loss to reboots, etc. So the WP7 system isn't perfect. But I guess this goes back to customer satisfaction ratings. Forget specs, and focus more on general reception. And I'm not speaking about specs. I'm more speaking about the price we pay for specs. I mean, it would seem the price of specs these days ate inflated which to a degree forces some folks into buying into this 2 year contract?

    Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express
  5. willied's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    714 Posts
    Global Posts
    718 Global Posts
    #5  
    I actually agree. You shouldn't be paying as much for these phones if the parts to make them don't cost as much. I also don't think they are bad deal, either, especially when you can easily find good deals on them usually. This problem should be rectified once WP8 comes out. I can't wait.
    xalasten likes this.
  6. fatclue_98's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    2,590 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,719 Global Posts
    #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by cp2_4eva View Post
    Oh I agree that the experience speaks for itself, but not all experiences are created equal. Some folks have had issues from data loss to reboots, etc. So the WP7 system isn't perfect. But I guess this goes back to customer satisfaction ratings. Forget specs, and focus more on general reception. And I'm not speaking about specs. I'm more speaking about the price we pay for specs. I mean, it would seem the price of specs these days ate inflated which to a degree forces some folks into buying into this 2 year contract?

    Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express
    I fail to grasp this fascination with specs. Besides the fact that it is a marketing ploy that is working beautifully, I don't see why anyone should care. I'll explain. When shopping for a car, dealers and automotive journals talk about horsepower, 0-60 times and other nonsense. There's a very old saying that horsepower sells cars, torque wins races. Back to the phone side of things, MS specified (there's that word again) that all WP7 phones shall have at minimum...... That's what the OS needs to function properly. Beyond that, manufacturers can put in what they see fit to enhance the experience or just as a way to attract buyers. Perception, whether real or imagined, is a powerful tool that manufacturers of all industries prey on and they should be praised for their efforts. Can anyone tell me with a straight face that a 1.4 gHz processor is that much faster than a 1.2? Perhaps the device with the faster cpu has a bigger screen and requires a faster cpu just to keep up. Back in the Windows Mobile days a WM Standard phone with the same processor as a WM Professional phone would slaughter it in any benchmark tests. Duh, no touchscreen to power. My Treo Pro with a 416 mHz cpu would smoke my Samsung Epix with the faster processor on any app and especially loading web pages. Why? Maybe a smaller screen or Palm tweaked the 6.1 better than Samsung, who knows? The point is, specs should be viewed as a starting point for comparison, not an end-all. Hands-on use is the best indicator and side-by-side comparisons should at least involve similar devices. You cannot expect a Titan II with that 16 meg camera to load photos to FB as fast as a 8mp or 5mp phone. That would be like racing a Mustang GT vs. a Mustang GT pulling a boat.
    aubreyq likes this.
  7. cp2_4eva's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    755 Posts
       #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by fatclue_98 View Post
    I fail to grasp this fascination with specs. Besides the fact that it is a marketing ploy that is working beautifully, I don't see why anyone should care. I'll explain. When shopping for a car, dealers and automotive journals talk about horsepower, 0-60 times and other nonsense. There's a very old saying that horsepower sells cars, torque wins races. Back to the phone side of things, MS specified (there's that word again) that all WP7 phones shall have at minimum...... That's what the OS needs to function properly. Beyond that, manufacturers can put in what they see fit to enhance the experience or just as a way to attract buyers. Perception, whether real or imagined, is a powerful tool that manufacturers of all industries prey on and they should be praised for their efforts. Can anyone tell me with a straight face that a 1.4 gHz processor is that much faster than a 1.2? Perhaps the device with the faster cpu has a bigger screen and requires a faster cpu just to keep up. Back in the Windows Mobile days a WM Standard phone with the same processor as a WM Professional phone would slaughter it in any benchmark tests. Duh, no touchscreen to power. My Treo Pro with a 416 mHz cpu would smoke my Samsung Epix with the faster processor on any app and especially loading web pages. Why? Maybe a smaller screen or Palm tweaked the 6.1 better than Samsung, who knows? The point is, specs should be viewed as a starting point for comparison, not an end-all. Hands-on use is the best indicator and side-by-side comparisons should at least involve similar devices. You cannot expect a Titan II with that 16 meg camera to load photos to FB as fast as a 8mp or 5mp phone. That would be like racing a Mustang GT vs. a Mustang GT pulling a boat.
    and I'm with you on that. I just don't understand why people justify paying tat much off of specs alone. I like windows phones for what they are not their specs.

    Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express
    Jazmac likes this.
  8. cluberti's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    133 Posts
    #8  
    If you're simply comparing clockspeed, or cores, or the amount of DRAM, then you could indeed conclude that Windows Phones are "cheap". However, one has to remember that the design was actually for pretty good hardware back when it was released (Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 ARM CPU is arguably the most bang for the least battery "buck", perhaps even today). I would agree that today, the hardware is arguably behind the times, but the OS is still as slick as ever on it (and those large screens are *really* expensive compared to the rest of the device - the ClearBlack AMOLED on the L900 for instance is $58 of the whole $209 it costs to simply manufacture the device). Yes, there's profit built into the phone's cost, but I would argue that it's not much more (or less) comparatively to the higher-end hardware and what it's costs are, for example some of the really high-end Android designs.
  9. ninjaap's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    2,454 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,466 Global Posts
    #9  
    That's like saying 12mp camera is better than an 8mp. We all know that it's simply not true. I will gladly buy the lowered spec camera if it gave me better pictures.
    aubreyq likes this.
  10. Seketh's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    248 Posts
    #10  
    The Lumia 900, for example, is actually more expensive than the iPhone 4S:

    iPhone 4S - $188: iPhone 4S Costs $188 To Manufacture

    Lumia 900 - $209: Lumia 900 materials cost $209, point to low-cost approach by Nokia, Microsoft - Computerworld
    xalasten likes this.
  11. jbjtkbw00#AC's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    319 Posts
    Global Posts
    636 Global Posts
    #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by fatclue_98 View Post
    There's a very old saying that horsepower sells cars, torque wins races.
    My favorite saying is Horsepower is how fast you get to the wall. Torque is how much of the wall you take with you when you hit it. Forgot where I heard that, but I digress......
    Thanked by:
    aubreyq and snowmutt like this.
  12. cp2_4eva's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    755 Posts
       #12  
    Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express
  13. fatclue_98's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    2,590 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,719 Global Posts
    #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by cp2_4eva View Post
    Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express
    Having issues with Board Express again?
  14. sentimentGX4's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    241 Posts
    Global Posts
    1,097 Global Posts
    #14  
    The logistics of constructing a phone are complicated. High end specs don't cost a lot to add; but, the intrinsic value of a lower spec phone to consumer plummets greatly.

    Believe me when I say that the phone manufacturers WANT to sell you a quad core phone for $600. They're not going to make more money selling you outdated phones for less because they're not nearly as cheap as you think to manufacture.
  15. cp2_4eva's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    755 Posts
       #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by fatclue_98 View Post
    Having issues with Board Express again?
    as usual lol.

    Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express
  16. cp2_4eva's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    755 Posts
       #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by Sentimentgx4 View Post
    The logistics of constructing a phone are complicated. High end specs don't cost a lot to add; but, the intrinsic value of a lower spec phone to consumer plummets greatly.



    Believe me when I say that the phone manufacturers WANT to sell you a quad core phone for $600. They're not going to make more money selling you outdated phones for less because they're not nearly as cheap as you think to manufacture.
    this makes sense. Its just that your average consumer may not look at it that was ESPECIALLY when you have stupid store associates telling them its better because of the specs. Rarely in my many treks to the corporate Verizon and ATT stores have I over heard them selling lower speed WP7 phones because they were great and stable overall. I always hear them selling old ladies and young kids the popular high spec phones.

    Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express
    snowmutt likes this.
  17. Laura Knotek's Avatar

    Posts
    17,441 Posts
    Global Posts
    33,002 Global Posts
    PIN
    Email
    #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by cp2_4eva View Post
    as usual lol.

    Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express
    Funny that I haven't had any issues.

    Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express
  18. #18  
    Because it runs better than 99% of the phones out there with better specs that's why.
  19. Reflexx's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    4,281 Posts
    #19  
    I agree that the perception is that the price should be lower for the mere fact that it's older and cheaper hardware. We can all agree that the "experience" is stellar. It's just knowing that you're shelling out more than what you expect the hardware demands the cost should be.

    Though I think consumers forget the other costs associated with making phones in lower quantities. Not that it's the consumer's problem.

    Nokia is the one doing things right. Priced right for the hardware. That's how you get new users to give you a shot. You allow them to perceive value immediately, as opposed to having to use it for a while to be able to see it.
    xalasten likes this.
  20. scottcraft's Avatar
    Retired Moderator

    Posts
    2,401 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,526 Global Posts
    #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by Winning Guy View Post
    I agree that the perception is that the price should be lower for the mere fact that it's older and cheaper hardware. We can all agree that the "experience" is stellar. It's just knowing that you're shelling out more than what you expect the hardware demands the cost should be.

    Though I think consumers forget the other costs associated with making phones in lower quantities. Not that it's the consumer's problem.

    Nokia is the one doing things right. Priced right for the hardware. That's how you get new users to give you a shot. You allow them to perceive value immediately, as opposed to having to use it for a while to be able to see it.
    I agree tha Nokia is doing it right. At $199 the Titan 2 is competing with the 4S, the One X and all of the top android phones with terrific cameras and high resolution screens. Sure the user experience is just as good or better, but not everyone sees it that way. The Nokia at $99 is a great value compared to the other phones at that price point.
    snowmutt likes this.
  21. cp2_4eva's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    755 Posts
       #21  
    All of folks that currently own a windows phone 7 device know it's worth, but to the people new to smartphones or just in general don't know much about them would assume that more X is better. Windows phones happen to have less X than many devices out there, but runs a lot better (in my opinion) than many other phones out there. But you wont truly know that until you buy into the phone. In the store it may have less things installed on it and then you wont get the full experience.

    I was playing with the HTC One X the other day and to my surprise (or not so surprise) I still found some lag in transitions, bringing up webpages, etc. Where it shined was that camera. man was it sweet. But in the stores you have a windows phone which many store associates don't pay much attention to until now, but the display model has NO extra apps to show off some more live tile functionality and more of what it brings to the table. The average Joe sees that and finds it to be plain, but we all know it's great.
  22. aubreyq's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    1,245 Posts
    Global Posts
    1,267 Global Posts
    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by cp2_4eva View Post
    I was playing with the HTC One X the other day...Where it shined was that camera. man was it sweet.
    HTC has been kicking a$$ with their phone cameras. Looks like they have that down pat.
  23. selfcreation's Avatar
    Retired Moderator

    Posts
    3,288 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,304 Global Posts
    #23  
    well the sooner people relies that buying into SPECS is a BAD idea the sooner they would relies that they are paying for OVER ALL QUALITY and not just specs.

    My single core FOCUS is worth HUNDREDS more then the Crap Samsung Nexus or GS2..

    even with there *superior* specs ...my phone is still smother , faster , more reliable ...etc...

    so specs = mean NOTHING. if you buy into specs you ether misinformed and/or a Media Child(brainwashed)
    If your looking for Information, be sure to check out: WindowsPhone: Getting started!
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    If one of our Members helps you, be sure to THANK him or her!

    snowmutt likes this.
  24. N8ter's Avatar
    Banned

    Posts
    712 Posts
    Global Posts
    717 Global Posts
    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjaap View Post
    That's like saying 12mp camera is better than an 8mp. We all know that it's simply not true. I will gladly buy the lowered spec camera if it gave me better pictures.
    MP Count has always been a useless metric; all it tells you is how big the picture is, and nothing about the actual quality of the picture.

    There are more important things than that, and Android/iOS devices continue to have superior camera tech in them than Windows Phones coupled with easily superior camera software to go along with it. Some of them have dedicated chips for image processing allowing you to do things like take stills while recording video or shooting rather high quality burst shots.

    This discussion has been made many times and the general consensus is that the user experience makes up for it but that's purely subjective. People are increasingly making buys based on objective, tangible aspects of the device and specs are a huge part of that. Lagging behind so far looks bad and makes it seem like the device is overpriced. People will often go with the technology that is more up to date and will last the longest without falling too far behind. With WP7 devices, consumers feel like they're starting in 10th place trying to catch up to an Amtrak on horseback.
  25. N8ter's Avatar
    Banned

    Posts
    712 Posts
    Global Posts
    717 Global Posts
    #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by Se1fcr3ation View Post
    well the sooner people relies that buying into SPECS is a BAD idea the sooner they would relies that they are paying for OVER ALL QUALITY and not just specs.

    My single core FOCUS is worth HUNDREDS more then the Crap Samsung Nexus or GS2..

    even with there *superior* specs ...my phone is still smother , faster , more reliable ...etc...

    so specs = mean NOTHING. if you buy into specs you ether misinformed and/or a Media Child(brainwashed)
    GS2 is bad phone to use in that comparison since that phone has recieved glowing reviews for its performance, reliability, and even its battery life. Personally I know for a fact the GSII is a superior device to a 1st gen Focus. Really, you're stretching things.

    Specs do matter. Even if WP7 had BT file transfer or tethering, the GSII would outperform it handily becuase it has a module with BT3 + HS allowing up to 24 Mb/sec transfer speeds. The Focus has BT 3.1. The GSII has a sAMOLED+ screen, the Focus has a 1st gen sAMOLOED PenTile Screen which looks terrible and burns in easily (I had a Vibrant, same screen tech). The focus does not outperform the GSII. Not sure where you're getting that from. The GS2 Camera is much superior to what's in the focus. There is no area where the Focus is better than the GS2 that is purely objective. Pretty much everything from Cell Radio to BT to WiFi module to Screen Tech to Camera, etc. is superior in that phone.

    The Focus is basically a downgraded GS1 device with WP7 on it.

    There are games that lag on WP7 devices that perform without a hitch on that phone (and others) due to the superior SoC and huge RAM differential between the two.

    Hardware matters a lot, not sure why people are trying this hard to discredit its impact.

    I'm not sure what Nexus you're talking about, the Nexus S is a downgraded GS1 as well, the Galaxy Nesus is superior to a Focus in almost every way except it lacks an SD Card slot.

    The hardware argument is loss for all current WP7 devices. The user experience is subjective and if a consumer prefers WP7 then perhaps they will choose it based on its merits as a software system. However a lot of people base percieved value on the hardware components (read: specs) and they are at a huge disadvantage there.

    Yes, maybe Apollo will fix that. If Microsoft opens up things a bit more than I think Nokia will not fare as well against Samsung and HTC, though :P The reason why Samsung's plastic phones sell so well is because the hardware in them is fantastic. HTC faltered because even though their external build quality was good, their hardware was worse. Nokia is running the tables in WP7's eco because Microsoft locked the specs so people can just buy based on external build quality and be assured that the internal specs are basically equalized between all the vendors, anyways. The tables will turn once Microsoft starts allowing vendors like Samsung to use their own hardware in their phones.
    Last edited by N8ter; 05-07-2012 at 01:47 PM.
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions