Why pay premium prices for lesser specs?

cp2_4eva

New member
Mar 19, 2012
755
0
0
Visit site
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 Why are we buying into this allowing the companies to make big bucks off of totally outdated specs?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
 

bush715

New member
Jan 29, 2012
77
0
0
Visit site
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
 

cp2_4eva

New member
Mar 19, 2012
755
0
0
Visit site
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
 

willied

New member
Jul 30, 2011
785
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

fatclue_98

Retired Moderator
Apr 1, 2012
9,146
1
38
Visit site
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.
 

cp2_4eva

New member
Mar 19, 2012
755
0
0
Visit site
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
 

cluberti

New member
Mar 31, 2012
133
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

ninjaap

New member
Dec 10, 2008
2,512
2
0
Visit site
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.
 

sentimentGX4

New member
Feb 23, 2012
247
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

cp2_4eva

New member
Mar 19, 2012
755
0
0
Visit site
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
 

Reflexx

New member
Dec 30, 2010
4,484
4
0
Visit site
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.
 

scottcraft

Active member
Aug 1, 2011
2,401
0
36
Visit site
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.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
322,915
Messages
2,242,889
Members
428,004
Latest member
hetb