11-09-2013 07:44 AM
91 1234
tools
  1. mase123987's Avatar
    Google sells Nexus devices more as an example of what Android can be. They have no intentions of making it a huge hit. They could have sold MANY more Nexus 4's at the $300 price if they wanted to. They make little to no money on the phone. You can't compare the two. Nokia can't afford to play that game

    To the person who keeps talking about the cost of the parts of the iphone to be $200: Does that include cost to put it together? Cost of R&D (it is not just a rebadged g2)? Cost of any advertising? etc. etc. etc.
    11-01-2013 09:55 PM
  2. AngryNil's Avatar
    To throw another wrench into the works: Moto G is supposedly 134.95 off-contract. Specs are comparable to the Lumia 1320.

    Google sells Nexus devices more as an example of what Android can be. They have no intentions of making it a huge hit. They could have sold MANY more Nexus 4's at the $300 price if they wanted to. They make little to no money on the phone. You can't compare the two. Nokia can't afford to play that game
    Are you forgetting that Microsoft is purchasing Nokia? It absolutely can afford to play that game.

    To the person who keeps talking about the cost of the parts of the iphone to be $200: Does that include cost to put it together? Cost of R&D (it is not just a rebadged g2)? Cost of any advertising? etc. etc. etc.
    Parts + assembly. R&D and advertising are obviously not included, but you're doing it wrong if you need to make $500 on a device to break even there. It largely is a rebranded G2, it doesn't bring anything particularly new.
    11-01-2013 10:20 PM
  3. mase123987's Avatar
    To throw another wrench into the works: Moto G is supposedly 134.95 off-contract. Specs are comparable to the Lumia 1320.


    Are you forgetting that Microsoft is purchasing Nokia? It absolutely can afford to play that game.


    Parts + assembly. R&D and advertising are obviously not included, but you're doing it wrong if you need to make $500 on a device to break even there. It largely is a rebranded G2, it doesn't bring anything particularly new.
    Nokia is STILL a separate company. Maybe you forgot about that. The deal has yet to go through.

    And NO the Nexus 5 and G2 are not basically the same. Here are the differences:

    G2 and Nexus 5 differences
    -Bands
    -Height, width, length
    -weight
    -screen size
    -glass type
    -WLAN capabilities and features
    -infrared port
    -camera specs/quality (and location)
    -barometer (as far as I can tell)
    -radio
    -battery size
    -back buttons

    Basically the only things that are the same are the processor, amount of memory and that both are made by LG.
    11-01-2013 10:43 PM
  4. AngryNil's Avatar
    Nokia is STILL a separate company. Maybe you forgot about that. The deal has yet to go through.
    If it wasn't clear, I'm talking about future plans and have been predominantly referring to Microsoft. It's not like I expect Nokia to slash all their prices after announcing them just a week ago. Even if the deal falls through, what's stopping Microsoft from further subsidising Nokia? (Actually, if the deal isn't approved, RIP Windows Phone.)

    Basically the only things that are the same are the processor, amount of memory and that both are made by LG.
    Many of those are simply a different body – I don't know about you, but I don't consider the 928 to be a brand new device just because the body differs to the 920. None that I can tell are groundbreaking new parts that would have cost significant R&D on the part of Google or LG. That is ultimately what I'm trying to get at, rather than bickering over the differences between the N5 & G2.
    11-01-2013 11:38 PM
  5. mase123987's Avatar
    Irrelevant, I'm talking about future plans and have been predominantly referring to Microsoft. Even if the deal falls through, what's stopping Microsoft from further subsidising Nokia? (Actually, if the deal isn't approved, RIP Windows Phone.)


    Many of those are simply a different body – I don't know about you, but I don't consider the 928 to be a brand new device just because the body differs to the 920. None that I can tell are groundbreaking new parts that would have cost significant R&D on the part of Google or LG. That is ultimately what I'm trying to get at, rather than bickering over the differences between the N5 & G2.
    You are still wrong though man. Let's say a Samsung and LG phone have the same processor and amount of memory, does that mean they are basically the same phone? If Nokia puts out two phones with the same processor and same amount of memory (may not be the same type) but basically everything else is different, does that mean that they are basically the same phone? Do you think using a different camera and moving it's position is always simple? Does changing battery size men that other parts have to be moved around to accept it?
    11-01-2013 11:44 PM
  6. techiez's Avatar
    n5 is less of a threat to nokia n more to other android OEMs. Hence google keeps its supplies limited.
    11-02-2013 12:10 AM
  7. AngryNil's Avatar
    You are still wrong though man. Let's say a Samsung and LG phone have the same processor and amount of memory, does that mean they are basically the same phone?
    It would require more similarities than that. Here we are talking about the same manufacturer, which does affect the equation. It means LG may have brought the G2 design to Google, and they worked off that. That's a different process from building something from the ground up. And as I said before:

    None that I can tell are groundbreaking new parts that would have cost significant R&D on the part of Google or LG. That is ultimately what I'm trying to get at, rather than bickering over the differences between the N5 & G2.
    So yeah, if you want me to hand you this aspect of an aspect of my overall argument, sure. I made incorrect claims about the sameness of the two as I did not realise the number of differences they had internally.
    11-02-2013 12:18 AM
  8. cckgz4's Avatar
    Nokia nor Microsoft is going to respond to every device put out by the competition. It took google this long to try and optimize their software for cheaper devices. Market share is growing at a steady rate, and the awareness is becoming more broad. Trying to keep up with the "times" is a losing race as far as specs go. I think what they're doing now, making niche devices for those that crave those things like the 1020, is the best route





    Sent from my RM-915_nam_usa_228 using Tapatalk
    11-02-2013 12:46 AM
  9. muvig's Avatar
    G2 can record at 60fps! i think nokia must do the same on their next lumia, + Radio with RDS as well,
    11-02-2013 12:55 AM
  10. muvig's Avatar
    I hope the next Nokia lumia would have all the features of 1020 be it 41M camera e.t.c, but the video recording would be 60fps or more and be able to watch videos in slow motion, FM radio with RDS+transmitter 64 -128Gb AND OBVIOUSLY the new Snapdragon 800.

    11-02-2013 01:52 AM
  11. Michael Alan Goff's Avatar
    what would you think if there's a phone with price $350 come up with 1080p, snapdragon 800, gorilla glass 3?
    If it's me I would be scare!!!
    How could that cheap??? Maybe if it used for 1 month then it broke? No quality check so the price so cheap?

    you guys must be know if buying something, if the price too low but it offering something "wow", that's mean there's something wrong with it
    I don't know what's wrong with Nexus but I'm scared.
    Google pretty much sells at cost. They don't make much money from these things.
    11-02-2013 09:05 AM
  12. HeyCori's Avatar
    Google pretty much sells at cost. They don't make much money from these things.
    This. The Nexus line is meant to be a loss leader, not a profit machine. Google sells them at near manufacturing costs merely to break even. Their profits aren't centered around selling phones like Nokia, Samsung, HTC and most other manufacturers. That's why companies charge way more than manufacturing costs, because they need the profits to pay the bills. Google makes the bulk of its money selling ads and don't rely on their Nexus line for additional profits. Maybe once Microsoft officially owns Nokia then we can talk about MS selling higher end devices at a lower cost.
    11-02-2013 09:51 AM
  13. tgp's Avatar
    Google pretty much sells at cost. They don't make much money from these things.
    True, but that doesn't mean that competitors can ignore it. It's still available on the market for the price it is (very low considering the specs), and its presence must be reckoned with.
    11-02-2013 10:14 AM
  14. Michael Alan Goff's Avatar
    True, but that doesn't mean that competitors can ignore it. It's still available on the market for the price it is (very low considering the specs), and its presence must be reckoned with.
    I was more arguing against the idea that this says anything about the quality of the Nexus 5. It says more about the business practices of Google.

    This. The Nexus line is meant to be a loss leader, not a profit machine. Google sells them at near manufacturing costs merely to break even. Their profits aren't centered around selling phones like Nokia, Samsung, HTC and most other manufacturers. That's why companies charge way more than manufacturing costs, because they need the profits to pay the bills. Google makes the bulk of its money selling ads and don't rely on their Nexus line for additional profits. Maybe once Microsoft officially owns Nokia then we can talk about MS selling higher end devices at a lower cost.
    Maybe, but I doubt it. Look at what they're selling the Surface devices for.
    tgp likes this.
    11-02-2013 10:40 AM
  15. taymur's Avatar
    The phone is cheap for a very good reason, no marketing, no distribution.

    This device will sell, but not much, its a very good phone, but if no one knew about it? Its useless.
    11-02-2013 10:45 AM
  16. Doctor Pork's Avatar
    It is obviously useless to compare prices with a phone more or less sold at cost by an advertising company which does not make money on hardware. To not count the price for advertising and research and development is clearly misleading, and by the way, apple likely have lower costs for manufacturing than the other manufacturers due to them only releasing a few models and than reaching economics of scale by selling tens of million of them.

    Even if we count these costs, it is still misleading to not count the costs of actually selling the phones. The operators might eat the costs on contract, but that is because they make their money selling you mobile services. The off contract prices have to take into account the costs of getting the phones to each store and then pay for the stores and the people selling the phones. The costs for actually selling a product to the end user are often higher than the costs to produce the product in the first place, just look at the cost breakdown of clothes.

    If the prices are so ridiculous, how come it's pretty much only Samsung and Apple making a big profit in this industry?
    11-02-2013 11:27 AM
  17. Daylife's Avatar
    lol.
    I dont understand where your "lol" is coming from?........Care to elaborate?
    11-02-2013 11:39 AM
  18. Michael Alan Goff's Avatar
    The phone is cheap for a very good reason, no marketing, no distribution.

    This device will sell, but not much, its a very good phone, but if no one knew about it? Its useless.
    Nexus 4 had almost no marketing, and it was still almost constantly sold out.

    Also, this one does have marketing. ;)
    11-02-2013 12:25 PM
  19. cckgz4's Avatar
    The general public will not know about this device. How many units did the 4 sell?

    Sent from my RM-915_nam_usa_228 using Tapatalk
    11-02-2013 12:44 PM
  20. a5cent's Avatar
    I wouldn't be surprised if Google is heavily subsidizing the cost of the phone. With the amount of money they have they can afford to do that. Other OEMs don't have that luxury.
    No. They aren't subsidizing the phone. Even the iP5S costs little over $200 to manufacture. Even after factoring in engineering expenses, Google is still not subsidizing the new Nexus. What Google isn't getting from this device are notable profits. However, as always, Google doesn't need money from consumers to make profits. Google makes profits selling the data these devices collect. Getting as many of these devices out as possible, at cost, is very much in their interest, and ultimately, very profitable for Google. They just don't need to earn money on device sales to do so.

    As far as I can tell their flagships do not sell in any meaningful quantity, offering disruptive price points could change that.
    I agree with your analysis, but not with your conclusion.

    I think Google has MS over the chopping block here. Apple even more so. It's just a matter of time before smartphones become cheap commodity products. Google will eventually drive prices to the point where competing in the market is only possible if you can rely on alternative revenue streams. The only thing holding Google back is their participation in the Open Handset Alliance, as Google can't have their hardware partners running off to support competitors, at least for now.

    Given this situation, there is no such thing as disruptive pricing. If MS/Nokia were to undercut Google with their WP devices, then Google could easily follow suit. In that competitive race towards rock bottom prices, MS/Nokia would be hurting themselves far more than Google. Such action is only disruptive if the competition can't or refuses to follow. Google can and would.

    As such, it is in MS'/Nokia's best interest to delay that race as much as possible. Market share is important, but sacrificing all your earnings just to reach your market share goals is a great way to kill a company.

    The L520 is well suited for chasing market share. The same will be true of its successor (whatever comes after the 525). That is what the cheap devices are for. The rest of the MS/Nokia line up should focus on other goals. I agree that MS/Nokia must quickly upgrade their mid range to better compete with the new Nexus, but undercutting them and attempting to compete on price in the mid-range won't solve anything. Using high-end devices to go after market share would be even worse, as that will quickly bring share holders down on MS/Nokia with a vengeance.

    I think MS'/Nokia's current marketing mix and product positioning is fine. That's not the problem. The problems are still the same as they've always been... an under featured OS, lack of developer support, and MS' continuing failure to leverage their other franchises and tie them all together into a single, integrated, simple and compelling ecosystem.
    Last edited by a5cent; 11-02-2013 at 01:14 PM. Reason: Spelling
    AngryNil and FinancialP like this.
    11-02-2013 12:45 PM
  21. a5cent's Avatar
    I've been reading about Android 4.4 and something I find interesting is it is optimized for lower end hardware. I think Google is trying to get their hand in the market that Nokia is doing so well in.
    Won't happen. At the point Google is with Android, there is only so much optimization they can do. They are in the same predicament Microsoft is in with Windows. Any of the big and very worthwhile things you could change to make it run better on low-end hardware, would break compatibility. That isn't an option. These types of engineering decisions need to be factored in at the get-go. For Android, that ship has sailed. That is precisely why Android has been relying almost exclusively on the bigger-faster-better hardware approach. It's really the only viable approach they have. High-end smartphone hardware is now at the point where it can cover up OS inefficiencies. In a few more years, low-end hardware will also reach that point, but the inefficiencies won't be gone... they'll just be out of sight.
    11-02-2013 01:02 PM
  22. luk3ja's Avatar
    Are you forgetting that Microsoft is purchasing Nokia? It absolutely can afford to play that game.
    Lol, everyone is still saying that Microsoft is purchasing Nokia. No they are not! They are simply buying the devices sector from Nokia. Nokia will not be owned by Microsoft and it will continue to exist as it's own company providing hardware for mobile phone networks and also continue it's amazing HERE services.
    11-02-2013 02:46 PM
  23. neo158's Avatar
    I agree. With KitKat it appears that Google is trying to combat the fragmentation. Obviously there are a lot of low end Android phones, but they run older versions of Android. KitKat is designed to run light enough for low end devices as well.
    Tell that to people who won't get Android 4.4. That's really helping fragmentation isn't it /s
    11-02-2013 03:02 PM
  24. realwarder's Avatar
    Google isn't selling this on the high street which is where 95% of people buy phones still. therefore it's not going to impact Nokia in any significant way.
    11-02-2013 03:32 PM
  25. iAdrian23's Avatar
    My guess is that Google is going to use the ads (all over the phone) to make profit. Am I right?

    Anyway, some of you are right. While other phones price's do drop, Nexus's line MERELY do.

    I'm still waiting for a mix between 925/920 and 1020. Please Microsoft, fulfill my dreams this summer :)
    11-02-2013 03:36 PM
91 1234

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-05-2013, 03:19 PM
  2. Phone calls using loud speaker
    By ollieollie93 in forum HTC 8X
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-02-2013, 09:37 AM
  3. 1GB Games on 512mb RAM Windows phones
    By daniloodaa in forum Applications
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-01-2013, 12:39 AM
  4. Help with contacts with multiple phone numbers
    By NutmegState in forum Applications
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-31-2013, 04:14 PM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-31-2013, 02:43 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD