Dear Apple and Samsung, $1,000 is way too much for a smartphone, consumers say

I agree, but I don't really see it as an issue when you can get a decent Android phone for well under $200. It's not as if you have to buy an expensive phone.

 

Haven't read the article, but I agree. I would never pay over 400 euro for a stupid smartphone. Can't believe that people actually do, so no wonder that Apple and Samsung are keep asking these prices. They take advantage of idiots, but that's my opinion, no offense.

 

But would folks pay $1000 for a fast, powerful, portable computer that lets them text, make phone calls, pay bills, shop, surf the Internet, control their home automation/security, video chat with kids/grandkids, take hi-res photos and videos and more?

I sure am not defending those high prices. I think they are ridiculous. I would love to see how much it actually costs Apple and Samsung to develop and produce those phones, i.e, how much profit do they actually make per phone? We (consumers) will never know.

I have seen studies that suggest at least 100% markup over component and manufacturing costs. But that does not include R&D which is likely substantial, but impossible to determine without Apple or Samsung revealing those costs - which they don't.

The problem is, there are still a lot of people willing to pay those exorbitant prices. That said, that is good for the rest of us! That's keeps R&D funded and that means, eventually, those premium features will trickle down to the less expensive models we are willing to buy.

 

I don't know for samsung but Apple is just ripping consumers off, just compare the hardware, it is at minimum twice or triple the normal price.

My Huawei Nova 3i or my Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra (350-400$ when released) perform as good or even better than the IPhoneX of my girlfriend which cost triple lol.

 

Quite true. My Samsung (Pie OS) cost ~ $170.

 

And my Nokia 1 - Android One (Go Edition), with Android 9 Pie cost just US$59 [Amazon].
Now that I'm winning the low price war I would just like to add a +++ to the post by Bill_Bright who provided the answer that should have finished this conversation.

 

If I'm not wrong Warren Buffet once said that the iPhone was grossly underpriced?

 

As long as companies aren't getting stuck with tens of thousands of unsold items (like iwatches). It can make sense to sell less but charge more.

Same or more money = less product = win for companies.

 

the consumers should have said:

.
for my money, apple products are well worth the price.

 

Part of the problem, at least for android phones, is that you usually only get proper updates support for the expensive flagship phones. Samsung for example is one of the manufacturers with better security support, but even it's most expensive flagship phones usually only get 3 years of security updates, and as a consumer, you can only enjoy the full 3 years if you buy it right after it get's released. Cheaper phones usually have less years of support and also only quarterly security updates instead of monthly.

 

Some smartphone models are part of Android One program. These should get full 3 years of updates.

 

He did, but it needs to be put in the proper context. His comment actually applies to smart-phones in general, not just the $1000 iPhone. But he (as Berkshire Hathaway CEO) owns and buys a lot of Apple so he said the iPhone specifically.

And he is NOT saying the hardware is under-priced. He is saying the "in terms of its utility to people" the value the smart phone provides people is worth a lot more than $1000. His example was just one important business dinner could cost that much. Yet the iPhone is used many times a day, day after day, to conduct business and run peoples lives. So he is just saying the "value" many users who "practically live their lives" by smart phones is worth a lot more than the $1000 people pay for them.

He does NOT think the prices for the iPhone should actually be raised - mainly due to the competition from Samsung/Android.

For the record, Warren Buffett does not own a smartphone. He's a bit of Luddite and still owns an old flip-phone for things like, what do you call them? Oh yeah - phone calls.

 

When I think about who really needs a smartphone, i see only ITs and other field technicians (basically you have a tool equivalent of a laptop of the size of a hand), others it is just a gadget to show off.

 

Nah! Not true at all. There are many who don't need or want a PC or even a notebook but want something truly portable they can put in their pocket or purse and still do their on-line banking, emails, texting, surfing, calendar/scheduling and more. And for that, you need a smartphone. They sure don't need a $1000 smart phone - but a nice one just the same. And I say nice because speed, memory capacity, and features still matter.

 

He gave that interview to B.K. on CNBC.
Supposedly Buffet prefers to use a Samsung flip phone.
As already stated in this thead, he is reported to have invested in a large
amount of Apple shares.

Personally I think Apple products are way overpriced.

 

Nice to see there's still some people that call these things stupid. Anything that has smart in front of it, isn't for smart people and I agree - way overpriced.

 

Some would argue if you think that way, you are not smart enough to have or use one.

If you are in Walmart and you want to research the price of something, can you do it with a flip-phone that is not a smart phone? That's all that means.

So no, the intelligence of the user is not what "smart" means here. "Smart" in this sense was just a marketing term that stuck. A "smart" device has "intelligence" - circuitry, ICs and coding designed to interact with the user. It could apply to a smart refrigerator, smart watch, smart TV - devices that do more than keep food cold, display the time or let you watch TV via an antenna or cable connection.

Smartphones are not stupid. Users who have smartphones are not stupid. Suggesting smart phones are not for smart people is failing to understand what a smart phone is or does.

Many would call people who spend $500+ on a graphics card, "stupid" - especially if that card is used primarily to play games.

Is it being stupid to spend $140 on a nice Fractal Design computer case when a fully functional, and totally adequate $50 DeepCool will work just fine?

Many would think spending money on RGB lighting is stupid - especially since it does absolutely nothing for performance and it detracts from what's happening on the monitor.

How somebody spends their hard earned money is not being stupid if they are not neglecting their other financial responsibilities.

Things need to be put into perspective. If a person does not understand, or worse, refuses to accept the value to others when it is put into perspective, then who's being stupid?

 

+1. to each their own.

 

Smart phones aren't really doing anything they didn't do 7 years ago for 20% of the cost. The only justification they could have for charging 4 digits for a phone is that people will pay 4 digits for a phone. I for one will not.

 

One thing that drives the "need" for more powerful phones with newer OS's are APPS specifically designed to use MORE system resources on purpose. And apps for no good reason dropping support of older OS's.

These and & more ways are designed to sell new phones that wouldn't otherwise be a "necessary" purchase.

 

Most Android apps, don't require a recent version of Android to run Android 10 (Q) will be released soon, but there are still lots of apps that will work with Android 4.4 (released in 2013) or Android 5 (released in 2014). It seems that iOS apps, tend to need more recent versions of the OS. However, iPhones usually get OS updates for much longer than Android phones do, so this is probably not really an issue.

I think it's more a case of apps making use of better hardware specs. My early Android phones had absolutely terrible specs compared to my current budget phone. Aside from that, you don't need to have a current phone. My wife just bought a five year old phone - a Samsung Galaxy S5 and is happy with it.

 

@Bill_Bright, I understand them enough to agree with the term stupid, so to answer your question, no, it's not me who's being stupid.

 

I'd bet at least 1/3 of the most popular apps including mytwitface don't support Marshmallow 6 & lower.

 

That's no true.

I just had a look at the requirements for some of the most popular Android apps, and the minimum requirements are as follows.

WhatsApp - Android 4.0.3 (2011)
Facebook - Android 4.1 (2012)
Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter - Android 4.4 (2013)
Skype - Android 6 (2015)

As you can see, while Skype requires Android 6, the rest work on versions of Android between 6 and 8 years old.