PDA

View Full Version : Amazon & Google pricing models = dangerous territory for manufacturers




MacRumorUser
Nov 3, 2012, 02:21 PM
Very interesting article on Engadget regarding pricing model for the google and amazon tablets. How skipping profit on devices for profit in content sales may work well for them (google & amazon), but for third party manufactuers it creates a problem in that it installs a false value in consumers, and makes it near impossible or third party's to compete in the market.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/03/editorial-amazon-and-google-are-undermining-mobile-pricing/

Editorial: Amazon and Google are undermining mobile pricing, and that may hurt everyone
By Jon Fingas posted Nov 3rd 2012 1:00PM
Editorial


When Google unveiled the Nexus 4, Nexus 10 and a refreshed Nexus 7 in October, the moment was arguably the crescendo of a change in the Android ecosystem that had been building ever since Amazon's Kindle Fire first braved the marketplace in 2011. Along with a widely expanded Amazon lineup that includes multiple Kindle Fire HD models and a price-cut tweak to the original Fire, two of the largest players in the mobile world now have top-to-bottom device businesses built around selling at break-even prices and recouping their money through content. That might sound good on the surface, but it's a bad omen for competitors that genuinely can't respond in kind -- and it could erode some of the values of diversity and innovation that we're supposed to hold dear as technology fans.

Customers have no reason to complain on some levels. How do you beat a $199 Nexus 7 that has a healthy amount of storage, a high-resolution screen and a recent OS? A $299 unlocked Nexus 4 that costs just over half as much as anything comparable, or a $159 Kindle Fire? If price is a vital factor, you don't. Parents who want to give each of their kids a tablet, or smartphone newcomers to whom the Nexus 4's price means avoiding two-year-old hardware and software, may not have much choice. Amazon and Google may well be doing us a favor by democratizing mobile technology.



That bargain-basement pricing is setting some decidedly unrealistic expectations, however. We're now to the point where there is a vocal contingent of tablet buyers who think that any 7-inch WiFi tablet costing above $249 is "overpriced," even when few if any hardware-centric companies could match that price-to-performance ratio and expect to stay above water. Acer got flak over its $230 Iconia Tab A110 not matching Amazon or Google's features, despite it being virtually self-evident from the design that the producer couldn't go much lower without taking a loss. And the iPad mini is virtually a persona tabula non grata among that crowd -- regardless of possible differences in build quality, camera quality, screen size or the absence of ads. Even Apple's lowered profit margin on the $329 price is considered an unforgivable sin for this group, in part because there's a profit margin in the first place.

The strategy... trains a legion of customers to think that such a jump in value is completely normal and sustainable by most of the industry.

You can see what problems this might create in the long term. The strategy effectively skips a whole cycle of traditional price drops as manufacturing gets more efficient, but trains a legion of customers to think that such a jump in value is completely normal and sustainable by most of the industry. It's not, and you can see the arbitrariness through the pricing for devices that were launched just a few months ago. Imagine how Samsung feels when the Nexus 10 it makes is superior to the Galaxy Note 10.1 in some ways, but has to cost $100 less. If it weren't for the Nexus 10's currently non-existent retail presence, Samsung would have trouble justifying the Note 10.1's otherwise very competitive $499 price. Yes, ASUS is making a tidy income alongside its Google deal, but the fact that it's shipping a million Nexus 7 tablets a month leaves little doubt that higher-end (and higher-margin) tablets like the Transformer Pad Infinity are being overshadowed. Competition in mobile is difficult enough when most top-tier buyers automatically pick a Galaxy S III or iPad. It's tougher still when many of the remaining people demand that companies sell at prices they can't realistically offer.

A year of following this strategy of pursuing price above all else may well have had a withering effect on competition. At least until this summer, Amazon became the de facto leader of the Android tablet market while electronics heavyweights like Samsung couldn't break much ground. HTC and LG quit the category mostly due to their lackluster offerings, but it's hard to see the two of them finding a safe zone between the high-end and a cutthroat low-end. RIM barely had any time to discount the BlackBerry PlayBook to near-fire sale prices before the Kindle Fire arrived (originally made in the PlayBook's own factory) and demand stalled once again. Most of those who are left exist at the extremes, such as Barnes & Noble's Nook line in the budget realm or Samsung's Galaxy Note 10.1 at the top. In smartphones, the Nexus 4 is admittedly less likely to rock the boat when carriers like T-Mobile can dictate pricing and access. Still, we haven't seen sustained sales of a cutting-edge Nexus phone at a low-end price, and it may be harder to say that LTE and extra storage are worth more on an Optimus G or its immediate competition.



Those exits and strategy shifts, in turn, impact innovation over the long run. It's not just the effects of fewer companies remaining involved; it's the amount of resources the survivors can pour back into future development. If profits thin out as the only real success comes from extra-cheap devices like the Nexus 7, there's fewer opportunities to gamble on technology research that might not pan out. Samsung safely developed a tablet with a 2,560 x 1,600 display and a cutting-edge processor under present conditions. Could it weather the risks as easily with lower profits? Not necessarily. To some extent, we've seen this effect in the traditional PC world, too. Before tablets and Ultrabooks took hold, many PC vendors were engaged in a race to the bottom where competition was only possible through ever cheaper parts, not breakthrough design. Prioritizing low prices above all else cost Acer both market share and money until it turned around and focused more on quality. We don't want Amazon, ASUS, LG or Samsung facing a similar dilemma in mobile.

Concepts like choice and quality, which we're supposed to love as gadget junkies, only survive if we let them.
Asking Amazon and Google to just stop making Kindle Fire and Nexus devices to "rescue" the industry would be more than a little naive, not to mention a disservice to those who really need the prices or software. But there's a sense that both the companies and we, as customers, need to back away from the edge. Tablet makers selling a complete range at that break-even level could ultimately whittle down the market to those who either produced a winning formula at the right time (Apple) or have deep enough content stores and bank accounts to willingly give up large parts of their potential hardware profit (Amazon and Google). The subsidized approach may even be volatile -- it's only successful as long as overall business is successful, which isn't very reassuring when Amazon has lately faced a few rough quarters. As for us shoppers? We need to have fewer knee-jerk reactions to certain price points. A $50 or even $100 premium isn't the end of the world if it's what any normal company would charge to stay in business, particularly when there are more features included at the same time.

That's not to excuse prices that are genuinely too high, and devices like the iPad mini might still fall into that camp. But when even budget-focused companies like Acer can't participate without being roasted by critics, it's time to reevaluate our priorities. Concepts like choice and quality, which we're supposed to love as gadget junkies, only survive if we let them. Rather than foster a culture that only allows for either the very cheap or very expensive, we ought to relax and buy what's genuinely good as long as we can afford it, even if it's not in the bargain bin. If phone and tablet makers can expect to compete on a truly level playing field, we're all better off.



VulchR
Nov 3, 2012, 02:39 PM
Not sure if it was really necessary to quote the entire article. In any case I read this and I am not convinced that there is much of a threat. However, it would be interesting to see how much Google makes of each Android device by selling information about the user to businesses that use it for targeting advertisements.

MacRumorUser
Nov 3, 2012, 02:41 PM
I quoted the entire article so that people viewing on apps like tapatalk don't have to leave the thread to read the article.

Rodster
Nov 3, 2012, 03:54 PM
That's why Amazon prefers to sell their tablets at cost. The hook is they think you'll buy Amazon Prime and other stuff from them once you buy a Kindle Fire. It worked for me. I'm now hooked on Prime. :)

Oletros
Nov 3, 2012, 03:56 PM
by selling information about the user to businesses that use it for targeting advertisements.

Google does not sell user information

ugahairydawgs
Nov 3, 2012, 04:25 PM
Google does not sell user information

Not directly, but they sell you (the anonymous you) to advertisers based on your data and usage patterns.

Oletros
Nov 3, 2012, 04:37 PM
Not directly, but they sell you (the anonymous you) to advertisers based on your data and usage patterns.

False, they don't sell you, anonymous or not.

----------

And regarding the Engadget editorial, I don't think that it is a real threat to other manufacturers

VulchR
Nov 3, 2012, 04:38 PM
False, they don't sell you, anonymous or not.

I am not sure whether you do not understand how Google makes profits off of Android, or whether have some lawyerly definition of 'selling' that no other reasonable human being would accept, or whether you're just trolling. Frankly, I don't care which. Read this link (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/how-much-money-does-google-make-from-mobile/15539) and then try to justify what you wrote.

linkgx1
Nov 3, 2012, 04:45 PM
So basically only Mercedes Benz should make cars?

Oletros
Nov 3, 2012, 05:14 PM
I am not sure whether you do not understand how Google makes profits off of Android, or whether have some lawyerly definition of 'selling' that no other reasonable human being would accept, or whether you're just trolling. Frankly, I don't care which. Read this link (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/how-much-money-does-google-make-from-mobile/15539) and then try to justify what you wrote.

Perhaps the one trolling is you because your link doesn't say nothing about selling you or your information.

Perhaps the one that doesn't understand how Google makes profit off of Android and has to is you because Google doesn't make money selling you or your information.

Perhaps the one that has to read that link and the justify what you wrote is you.

onthecouchagain
Nov 3, 2012, 05:33 PM
Read the comments in that article. A lot of people have very good reasons to disagree with the article.

Google has struck a very fine balance of affordability with good hardware and specs, and obviously great software.

When that happens, the consumer wins.

Apollo 13
Nov 3, 2012, 06:43 PM
The ppl in the comment section are freaking idiots. This has nothing to do with Apple. I think the guy just through Apple name in the article to make fanboys happy but it backfired. This is hurting companies like ASUS, Toshiba and the other tablet makers on android. These companies can't go that low in price because they don't sell software. If they go low they will lose money on their hardware. People need to stop looking at this as a Apple vs Android thing. I see the only choice for these manufactures is to start making Windows 8 devices, cuz I sure don't see MS making hardware and selling it cheap.

MacRumorUser
Nov 3, 2012, 06:54 PM
The ppl in the comment section are freaking idiots. This has nothing to do with Apple. I think the guy just through Apple name in the article to make fanboys happy but it backfired. This is hurting companies like ASUS, Toshiba and the other tablet makers on android. These companies can't go that low in price because they don't sell software. If they go low they will lose money on their hardware. People need to stop looking at this as a Apple vs Android thing. I see the only choice for these manufactures is to start making Windows 8 devices, cuz I sure don't see MS making hardware and selling it cheap.

Exactly my take on the article. Why does everything have to be apple v android, when its not. It's clearly just economics. Lets face it Samsung were the only ones who could feasibly make the Nexus 10 (they manufactured the screen, memory, chipset) and even then it looks like its being sold very close to the bottom line in order to get Android nexus device its foot firmly in the door and make its mark.

I imagine it will be the top selling Android 10" device without doubt.

So with the bottom filled with high spec device, then you have to question why should Toshiba, Phillips or LG even try to compete because they can not offer the same machine / hardware for $399 as the profit margin would be too close to the bottom line to make the research and development, marketing and justify the advertising costs, making it worth while.

It likewise seems to have caused an expectation of very high specs and bottom end pricing within consumers.

It's a fallous reality one that may not be sustainable to third party manufacturers who can not subsidise bottom end pricing by selling content on the device.

Dolorian
Nov 3, 2012, 07:21 PM
how much Google makes of each Android device by selling information about the user to businesses that use it for targeting advertisements.

This is a common misconception which is sadly repeated too often, but in truth Google does not sells your personal data to anyone.

ChrisTX
Nov 3, 2012, 07:47 PM
A lot of people that don't grasp the general idea of business don't understand why it's not feasible for a majority of the tech companies out there to sell at a loss. People see Amazon, and Google selling at a loss, and think everyone else is ripping them off because they're trying to make a profit. Amazons primary business isn't tablets, and e-readers so they can probably keep it up longer, so long as people buy content from them. Google makes money off of advertising through their search engine so they probably don't care as much either. However companies like Asus, Apple, Samsung, and others rely on hardware sales. Granted Apple makes a ton of money off of software sold through the various iTunes stores. People eventually will start to think $200 tablets are the norm.

Night Spring
Nov 3, 2012, 08:15 PM
This is a common misconception which is sadly repeated too often, but in truth Google does not sells your personal data to anyone.

Google may not sell your personal data, but they do use larger patterns from your usage habits to target ads. For instance, if you visit MacRumors regularly, you might see more ads related to Apple products and accessories. It's not a direct sale of user data, but nonetheless, they are leveraging user data to (hopefully) gain more revenue.

Dolorian
Nov 3, 2012, 08:30 PM
Google may not sell your personal data, but they do use larger patterns from your usage habits to target ads. For instance, if you visit MacRumors regularly, you might see more ads related to Apple products and accessories. It's not a direct sale of user data, but nonetheless, they are leveraging user data to (hopefully) gain more revenue.

Yes, this would be a fair description of what Google actually does and is a far cry from the "Google sells your personal data to advertisers" line that is so often repeated. They don't pass along your personal data to anyone, they keep it to themselves and leverage this data to improve their products and services and to also offer better placements for ads. If Google actually sold your personal data or gave it to someone else, it would actually be harmful to their business.

This is a good short article on the subject:

http://www.pcmech.com/article/does-google-sell-your-personal-information/

It gives an accurate description of what Google does with the data they collect.

onthecouchagain
Nov 3, 2012, 08:33 PM
EDIT:
Ah, I see some answers are already provided. Thanks.


False, they don't sell you, anonymous or not.



What does Google do, exactly? I'm not sure.

----------

This is a common misconception which is sadly repeated too often, but in truth Google does not sells your personal data to anyone.

Pardon my ignorance as I was under this impression too. What does Google actually do?

onthecouchagain
Nov 3, 2012, 08:47 PM
More rumblings that Microsoft may start producing their own smartphone: http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/2/3589212/microsoft-smartphone-testing-windows-phone-wsj

I honestly don't see why they wouldn't. And if MS should price them competitively too, especially if Windows 8 doesn't take off and they have to entice people with lower price points? For better or worse, the model may be changing...

F123D
Nov 3, 2012, 08:48 PM
Without competition, we just end up with companies like Verizon and AT&T where the consumer loses.

Tarzanman
Nov 3, 2012, 09:06 PM
Very interesting article on Engadget regarding pricing model for the google and amazon tablets. How skipping profit on devices for profit in content sales may work well for them (google & amazon), but for third party manufactuers it creates a problem in that it installs a false value in consumers, and makes it near impossible or third party's to compete in the market.

BS argument is BS.

ipad ruled the roost even when competitors brought out cheaper tablets that weren't as powerful. Compare the original Galaxy Tab to the Ipad 1 or the Xoom to the Ipad 2. No one was complaining then about cheaper alternatives creating a 'false sense of value'.

But then someone figures out how to turn a profit by selling a still-not-quite-equal-but-pretty-darn-good product at an even lower price and all of a sudden the sky is falling and oh-my-gosh-some-of-these-companies-might-lose-money if they can't maintain their price point.

There isn't anything keeping these cash-rich, profit-margin-leading manufacturers from competing (except for inertia perhaps). Are you trying to tell me that Apple's vaunted hardware pipeline and legendary negotiation tactics with suppliers are just not up to the task?

Well, then maybe they should do what their competitors have done.... taken a good hard look at the market and figured out their where they can make money, and changed their business model/strategy accordingly.

SlCKB0Y
Nov 3, 2012, 09:17 PM
by selling information about the user to businesses that use it for targeting advertisements.

What information about users do you think Google discloses to third parties?

roxxette
Nov 3, 2012, 09:20 PM
What information do you think Google disclose to third parties?

Dont bother with those comments, most do it because they dont know better or saw some idiot saying that google blah blah and the heard followed.

KentuckyHouse
Nov 3, 2012, 09:37 PM
What this feels like to me is fear. Fear that people might be losing the allusion that you need to spend $500+ on a tablet or $700+ on a phone to get the very best. And yes, I'm talking about Apple.

The worst case scenario for Apple is the public-at-large realizing they can get just as much phone or tablet for HALF the price.

IMO, Google has done a very smart thing here. Pull back the curtain and show consumers that you don't have to take out a second mortgage to afford a top of the line phone or tablet.

I'd love to see Apple take note and drop their prices some, but I doubt we'll ever see that happen.

sarcosis
Nov 3, 2012, 09:55 PM
What this feels like to me is fear. Fear that people might be losing the allusion that you need to spend $500+ on a tablet or $700+ on a phone to get the very best. And yes, I'm talking about Apple.

The worst case scenario for Apple is the public-at-large realizing they can get just as much phone or tablet for HALF the price.

IMO, Google has done a very smart thing here. Pull back the curtain and show consumers that you don't have to take out a second mortgage to afford a top of the line phone or tablet.

I'd love to see Apple take note and drop their prices some, but I doubt we'll ever see that happen.

I have to say, I would love to see cheaper new tablets and smartphones from Apple, but it's not going to happen. You will see, however, the model that was last years sell for cheaper. That's the model that they have chosen to use. This way, it keeps manufacturing costs down and profits high. Apple is a premium company which sells a premium product that provides a premium service. It's kind of like Lexus, you buy a reliable car, but will get great service along with it. But enough about Apple, the much more interesting thing is about Android Tablets.

From what I could tell from the article, i did read all of it, but started to glaze over from all of the whining, is that Google and Amazon are using a different business model than Samsung, Acer, Toshiba, etc. They make money off of ads and content they sell. Samsung and the other device manufacturers make their money off of the hardware they sell. The problem is that they overpriced the tablet for what you get. Google and Amazon brought in that hardware and software and sold it at a more reasonable price for them and for the consumer. It's what you call the beauty of capitalism and great for the consumer. The Nexus partners get paid by Google and Google makes their money back by the amount they serve you ads and the money from the store. Imagine what the wireless industry would look like if we could have this kind of competition...

Phokus
Nov 3, 2012, 11:03 PM
The 'race to the bottom' in the PC industry is why i can build a great gaming rig for like $500. I welcome this 'race to the bottom'.

tjl3
Nov 3, 2012, 11:06 PM
What this feels like to me is fear. Fear that people might be losing the allusion that you need to spend $500+ on a tablet or $700+ on a phone to get the very best. And yes, I'm talking about Apple.

The worst case scenario for Apple is the public-at-large realizing they can get just as much phone or tablet for HALF the price.

IMO, Google has done a very smart thing here. Pull back the curtain and show consumers that you don't have to take out a second mortgage to afford a top of the line phone or tablet.

I'd love to see Apple take note and drop their prices some, but I doubt we'll ever see that happen.

There is this misconception that you cannot buy an iPhone for less than $699, and iPad's are marked much higher than the unreleased Nexus 10...

The general public subsidizes their iPhone with their choice of carrier starting at $199. The Nexus 10 is a mere $100 more expensive than the newest iPad. And when you consider where iOS is content wise for iPad versus Android for tablets, it is a fair $100 investment.

Sure, the Nexus 4 is a great off contract/unlocked value. But it comes with compromises. Specifically with carriers, it is only on GSM networks. There is no LTE. It is $399 (I quote this price b/c iPhone and GS3 start at 16 gb) if you want it on AT&T at the moment and $199 on T-Mo.

The point of the article is missed. Google and Amazon are in the software business. For Google it doesn't matter how many Nexus devices are sold as long as people are buying Android. For Amazon, as it was stated before they make their money off of their online content.

Apple is in the hardware business, and they have a monopoly on devices that run iOS. Money is everything, and Apple being the most profitable company is not going to give free handouts.

SlCKB0Y
Nov 3, 2012, 11:11 PM
Good thing i'm not a manufacturer then!
;)

ChazUK
Nov 4, 2012, 04:32 AM
There is this misconception that you cannot buy an iPhone for less than $699, and iPad's are marked much higher than the unreleased Nexus 10...

The general public subsidizes their iPhone with their choice of carrier starting at $199.
But what about those of us that end up paying for things we don't use? I get far more talk time than I'd ever need (but it's offset with the unlimited data plan that I do use extensively - we're talking around 60 to 100Gb a month tethering).

Look at the value of these setups for my circumstances:

iPhone 5 16GB with unlimited data on Three (subsidiesed and SIM locked to the carrier).
79 upfront cost for the handset.
36 per month for 24 months.
Total cost of ownership: 943

This includes 2000 cross network minutes and 5000 three to three minutes - far more than I need.

iPhone 5 purchased from Apple with a sim only plan and unlimited data.
529 upfront cost for the handset.
15.90 per month on a 1 month rolling contract (cancel any time within a 1 month period.
Total cost of ownership over a 24 month period: 910.60

Nexus 4 16GB purchased from Google with a sim only plan and unlimited data.
279 upfront cost for the handset.
15.90 per month on a 1 month rolling contract (cancel any time within a 1 month period.
Total cost of ownership over a 24 month period: 660.60 (Reduced to 620.60 with the 8GB model).

The greatest things about the last two options is the fact you aren't locked in to a set timeframe, nor is your handset locked to a single carrier so if a better price plan comes along, you are only a phonecall away from cancelling your current plan and moving to a cheaper one.

As a consumer, I know which way I'll prefer to do things.

thewitt
Nov 4, 2012, 04:40 AM
There are profit models in every business, and the Amazon model has yet to be proven. If the additional content is really worth Amazon selling their hardware for no profit, we should see a steady rise in Amazon profits and stock price.

The fact they had to start selling advertising on the Fire leads me to believe it was not as profitable a model as they had hoped.

Google knows how to make money selling ads, and they have extended that model to their Android store pretty successfully so far.

Apple makes money of the hardware with good margins, makes money in the App Store, iTunes selling books and music, textbook sales, and advertising.

Seems like a pretty good, working strategy to me. Their hardware sales don't seem to be suffering.

MacRumorUser
Nov 4, 2012, 04:50 AM
BS argument is BS.

There isn't anything keeping these cash-rich, profit-margin-leading manufacturers from competing (except for inertia perhaps). Are you trying to tell me that Apple's vaunted hardware pipeline and legendary negotiation tactics with suppliers are just not up to the task?.

Did i mention ANYTHING about Apple ?

You seemed to have missed the entire point of the article, and seemed to have turned it into something to do with Apple which it clearly wasn't, and why are you arguing with me for I didn't write the article...

And drop the potty mouth "BS argument is BS' nonsense.

:rolleyes:

Tarzanman
Nov 4, 2012, 06:46 AM
Did i mention ANYTHING about Apple ?

You seemed to have missed the entire point of the article, and seemed to have turned it into something to do with Apple which it clearly wasn't, and why are you arguing with me for I didn't write the article...

And drop the potty mouth "BS argument is BS' nonsense.

:rolleyes:

Neither you (nor the article) have to mention them by name. Samsung has a $250 tablet, as do Amazon and Barnes&Noble..... so their degree of hurt is limited. That basically leaves Apple, Motorola and Lenovo. The latter two have barely sold tablets.

tjl3
Nov 4, 2012, 09:43 AM
But what about those of us that end up paying for things we don't use? I get far more talk time than I'd ever need (but it's offset with the unlimited data plan that I do use extensively - we're talking around 60 to 100Gb a month tethering).

Look at the value of these setups for my circumstances:

iPhone 5 16GB with unlimited data on Three (subsidiesed and SIM locked to the carrier).
79 upfront cost for the handset.
36 per month for 24 months.
Total cost of ownership: 943

This includes 2000 cross network minutes and 5000 three to three minutes - far more than I need.

iPhone 5 purchased from Apple with a sim only plan and unlimited data.
529 upfront cost for the handset.
15.90 per month on a 1 month rolling contract (cancel any time within a 1 month period.
Total cost of ownership over a 24 month period: 910.60

Nexus 4 16GB purchased from Google with a sim only plan and unlimited data.
279 upfront cost for the handset.
15.90 per month on a 1 month rolling contract (cancel any time within a 1 month period.
Total cost of ownership over a 24 month period: 660.60 (Reduced to 620.60 with the 8GB model).

The greatest things about the last two options is the fact you aren't locked in to a set timeframe, nor is your handset locked to a single carrier so if a better price plan comes along, you are only a phonecall away from cancelling your current plan and moving to a cheaper one.

As a consumer, I know which way I'll prefer to do things.

I agree with you on those points. When you have a situation that fits your needs that is definitely a competitive advantage. And I guess I don't know too much about the mobile carriers outside the US, so I apologize for generalizing our situation in the US.

But in the US the situation is quite different. With pay as you go plans (T-Mobile) the situation comes at a great compromise in the form of talk, text, and coverage. Sure their plans may fit some people, but the general public still wants those advantages covered by other carriers.

And while price is definitely one consideration, it's not the only. In many cases it is worth the 2 year investment for better coverage, 4G, more minutes and text, etc. With some of the drawbacks being the price, lack of early termination, etc. But definitely if you have found something that works for you, that is great.

Neither you (nor the article) have to mention them by name. Samsung has a $250 tablet, as do Amazon and Barnes&Noble..... so their degree of hurt is limited. That basically leaves Apple, Motorola and Lenovo. The latter two have barely sold tablets.

I agree w/ the OP. Sure the Nexus device and Kindle sales might eat in to Apple's profits. But it is the other Android device makers that really feel the brunt of this move.

Like I said before, Apple has a monopoly on iOS devices. The 'degree of hurt' is felt when two hardware companies release their device that do identical things, running identical software. Google has a different agenda, and that does affect its hardware partners. Apple profitw off of running iOS and marketing iOS as an attractive alternative.

ChazUK
Nov 4, 2012, 10:32 AM
I agree with you on those points. When you have a situation that fits your needs that is definitely a competitive advantage. And I guess I don't know too much about the mobile carriers outside the US, so I apologize for generalizing our situation in the US.

I'm just as guilty of generalizing the situation in Europe to be honest. :p Thanks for the reply.

I really doubt even at the low entry cost that the Nexus 4 will impact on contract prices here in the UK at least as lots of people will see the free phone (initially) and just pay into a contract month after month.

HTC seems to be offering competitive smartphones over here too with the likes of the HTC 8x only going for around 225. Yes it's midrange but it does look great for the money! http://www.mobilefun.co.uk/sim-free-htc-8s-black-white-p36368.htm

There does seem to be a price war brewing which may do more harm than good, we'll have to wait and see how it all pans out.

VulchR
Nov 4, 2012, 11:22 AM
What information about users do you think Google discloses to third parties?

It doesn't disclose information explicitly. However, but directing users to personalized ads, advertisers can use information about which ads a given user was directed to as a basis for making inferences about the characteristics of the user. It is a little naive to think otherwise.

This is a common misconception which is sadly repeated too often, but in truth Google does not sells your personal data to anyone.

In a very narrow sense you are correct. Google gets paid for allowing advertisers to exploit Google's knowledge about you to personalize ads. IMO this is functionally the same thing as selling the information outright, and until somebody can convince me that Google's true customers cannot make inferences about the user based on which personalized ad was shown, I have very little confidence in Google's reassurances about privacy.

Perhaps the one trolling is you because your link doesn't say nothing about selling you or your information.

As noted above you are correct in a very strict sense. Thus, the second option I listed in my post applies to you: your definition of selling is so narrow as to constitute splitting of hairs. I used to work in telemarketing. Sad, but true. :o I would sell leads to the proper sales people based on how close they matched their criterion for a good prospect. So, I didn't 'sell' personal information about potential customers per se, by the sales people could pretty much infer who they were targeting. The same applies to Google - they sell leads. However, as I said above, don't be naive. It is in the interest of Google's advertiser customers to extract as much information about you as they can. Google's online policy about privacy (which I have read) is not very reassuring about this: Nothing in their policy states that personalized ads cannot be used by advertisers to infer various characteristics about you.

Having said that, I recognize that the type of information that Google allows their advertiser customers to exploit or infer is limited (gender, age, interests, previous search queries etc.). Many people have no problem about that, for they're going to get bombarded with advertising no matter what information is collected about them. In my view however, Google's business model seems very strange. I prefer working with companies that view me as a customer rather than a product or lead to be auctioned to the highest bidder, even if I have to pay a little bit more.

Oletros
Nov 4, 2012, 11:29 AM
In a very narrow sense you are correct. Google gets paid for allowing advertisers to exploit Google's knowledge about you to personalize ads.

You're still confused, advertisers doesn't exploit nothing, it is Google who targets ads with advertisers requests

VulchR
Nov 4, 2012, 11:40 AM
You're still confused, advertisers doesn't exploit nothing, it is Google who targets ads with advertisers requests

Sigh. So what do you think Google's true customers - advertisers - are paying billions for?

Oletros
Nov 4, 2012, 11:47 AM
Sigh. So what do you think Google's true customers - advertisers - are paying billions for?

Sigh, they pay for target advertisement, they don't know who Google shows the ads nor they know nothing about the target people.

ChazUK
Nov 4, 2012, 11:52 AM
Sigh. So what do you think Google's true customers - advertisers - are paying billions for?

The same thing that advertisers in magazines, on the radio and the TV pay for. My eyes and attention?

Football game on TV? Beer, cars or cologne.
Gaming magazine? Latest hardware and games with some tech on the side.
Pop hour on the radio? Justin Bieber and Lady GaGa's latest albums.
Browsing a holiday review site? Here are some ads for flights, weekend breaks and places to go.
Playing a racing game on your iPhone? Here are some iAds associated with the car brand.

Targeted advertising happens across all media spectrums.

ChrisTX
Nov 4, 2012, 12:39 PM
I believe it was the hugely popular fire sale HP TouchPad that sold at $99 that got everyone to realize that the only way to get a non iPad tablet to sell was to undercut Apple on price. Even if none of these tablets are as good as the iPad they will come close, and ultimately beat Apple in price. Because think about it, every other tablet that wasn't iPad crashed, and burned outside of the Touch Pad. No one bought the Touch Pad because it was good, people bought it because it was cheap, and it offered similar functionality as the iPad. Remember, no one wanted a Touch Pad at the regular $699 price.

tjl3
Nov 4, 2012, 12:51 PM
I believe it was the hugely popular fire sale HP TouchPad that sold at $99 that got everyone to realize that the only way to get a non iPad tablet to sell was to undercut Apple on price. Even if none of these tablets are as good as the iPad they will come close, and ultimately beat Apple in price. Because think about it, every other tablet that wasn't iPad crashed, and burned outside of the Touch Pad. No one bought the Touch Pad because it was good, people bought it because it was cheap, and it offered similar functionality as the iPad. Remember, no one wanted a Touch Pad at the regular $699 price.

Uh, you're comparing a product that has sold less than 1 million (mostly due to the drastic drop in price) to another product that has sold over 84 million...

Look, there is always a market for free or nearly free. The TouchPad failed b/c HP lost money selling it... that's surely a nice business model to beat Apple... And HP only dropped the price on the TouchPad b/c retailers refused to buy anymore and HP needed to sell off their stock pile of TouchPads.

ChrisTX
Nov 4, 2012, 08:24 PM
Uh, you're comparing a product that has sold less than 1 million (mostly due to the drastic drop in price) to another product that has sold over 84 million...

Look, there is always a market for free or nearly free. The TouchPad failed b/c HP lost money selling it... that's surely a nice business model to beat Apple... And HP only dropped the price on the TouchPad b/c retailers refused to buy anymore and HP needed to sell off their stock pile of TouchPads.

Granted no one was buying the TouchPad at full retail, HP only gave it 6 weeks on the market before they decided to shelve it, and sell it at a loss. How much of it is the lack of consumer demand vs. the change in CEO with a focus on the cloud, and services vs. hardware is a different one. The point I am trying to make is that no one was buying all of the other Android tablets out there at full retail. I believe it took the TouchPad firesale and the frenzy HP drummed up for Amazon, and Google to realize that if they were going to move any tablets, they were going to have to price them REALLY cheap! Heck look at all of the other full sized Android tablets that are out on the market today. I think it's quite fair to say that no one is really buying those either.

So the question I'll ask is this: Do you believe people are buying the Nexus 7, and Kindle Fire because of their low price point, or because of their feature set? No one should be faulting Apple because they don't want to give their iPads away at cost. If it weren't for the iPad in the first place, these other tablets wouldn't even exist.

Rodster
Nov 4, 2012, 08:31 PM
I believe it took the TouchPad firesale and the frenzy HP drummed up for Amazon, and Google to realize that if they were going to move any tablets, they were going to have to price them REALLY cheap!

I totally agree with this and it was discuss amongst the press that in order for any tablet other than an iPad to succeed it would have to be priced much lower than the iPad. In fact the HP TouchPad was used as an example.

The difference for Amazon and Google is they can make up for it buy selling content. That's the luxury both companies have.

tjl3
Nov 4, 2012, 09:04 PM
So the question I'll ask is this: Do you believe people are buying the Nexus 7, and Kindle Fire because of their low price point, or because of their feature set? No one should be faulting Apple because they don't want to give their iPads away at cost. If it weren't for the iPad in the first place, these other tablets wouldn't even exist.

I agree w/ you about what you say about the Touchpad. And yes, it is the price point which consumers like most in the Nexus 7 and Kindle Fire, no doubt about it.

I forget what I was trying to argue earlier, but despite the price tag on iPad, it will always have a strong market until something better (in both hardware and software) comes along. Where Google and Amazon's pricing hurts is in Google's hardware partners. There is no way any of those companies can be profitable at a break even price.

I wonder what Android tablet makers plan on doing to compete with the Nexus 10 to be honest. One can argue no LTE, no CDMA as disadvantages to a Nexus 4. But in the tablet market, the other Android counterparts to Nexus 10 are going to have to be better spec and priced between a Nexus 7 and Nexus 10 to be competitive.

SlCKB0Y
Nov 4, 2012, 10:04 PM
It doesn't disclose information explicitly. However, but directing users to personalized ads, advertisers can use information about which ads a given user was directed to as a basis for making inferences about the characteristics of the user. It is a little naive to think otherwise.


Of course they do this, but i felt you were implying that Google hands over our personal data, and this is not true.

However, it would be interesting to see how much Google makes of each Android device by selling information about the user to businesses that use it for targeting advertisements.

They aren't selling information, they are selling advertising and any data the advertiser receives about respondents to those ads is anonymous, aggregated and not of a personal or identifying nature.

So, I didn't 'sell' personal information about potential customers per se, by the sales people could pretty much infer who they were targeting. The same applies to Google - they sell leads.

Umm, no, they sell advertising. In particular they sell advertising that is targeted....that is all. At no point does Google imply I might purchase something based on the advertising so it's not a lead.

It's like saying TV stations are selling leads to advertisers because I have a TV, The only difference is that Googles Ads are more targeted and as mentioned before, Google can provide feedback regarding click throughs.

The advertisers don't need to "infer" who they were targeting, they know who they were targeting because they told Google who they wanted to target,


don't be naive.


Don't be so paranoid.

Nothing in their policy states that personalized ads cannot be used by advertisers to infer various characteristics about you.


Explain to me how you think the advertisers do this?

It seems to me your trying to merge two completely different issues:

1. What data does Google disclose to advertisers about me, and;
2. How does Google target advertising at me.

They are mutually exclusive because the advertisers aren't aware of why I was targeted or who I am.

Think of it like this, the advertiser tells Google which demographic they want to target and then Google provides them information on the demographic that actually responded. It's a feedback loop to more finely target the advertising and it's nowhere near as sinister or invasive as you were previously trying to imply.

SlCKB0Y
Nov 4, 2012, 10:21 PM
The 'race to the bottom' in the PC industry is why i can build a great gaming rig for like $500. I welcome this 'race to the bottom'.

It's fantastic for consumers and given that I am in fact a consumer and not an investor, I couldn't agree more.

Dolorian
Nov 4, 2012, 10:24 PM
They aren't selling information, they are selling advertising and any data the advertiser receives about respondents to those ads is anonymous, aggregated and not of a personal or identifying nature.



Umm, no, they sell advertising. In particular they sell advertising that is targeted....that is all. At no point does Google imply I might purchase something based on the advertising so it's not a lead.

It's like saying TV stations are selling leads to advertisers because I have a TV, The only difference is that Googles Ads are more targeted and as mentioned before, Google can provide feedback regarding click throughs.

The advertisers don't need to "infer" who they were targeting, they know who they were targeting because they told Google who they wanted to target,


[...]

Think of it like this, the advertiser tells Google which demographic they want to target and then Google provides them information on the demographic that actually responded. It's a feedback loop to more finely target the advertising and it's nowhere near as sinister or invasive as you were previously trying to imply before your recent backtrack.

That's exactly it, well put. Google never hands over your personal data to anyone.

throAU
Nov 4, 2012, 10:27 PM
False, they don't sell you, anonymous or not.



They sell exposure to your screen, via intelligent targetting using your personal data.

Which for all intents and purposes, is close enough.


Make no mistake, google is a business, and your attention is the product.

kdarling
Nov 4, 2012, 10:55 PM
They sell exposure to your screen, via intelligent targetting using your personal data.

The data is not that personal. Ever go look at your Google advertising profile? (Which you can change, btw.)

It's made up of your probable age, sex, interests based on latest searches, etc. Pretty vague really, and as reporters have noted, sometimes it even guesses wrong about your age or sex. (It had me pegged as being 15 years younger, for example. I appreciated that! However, I deleted its mistaken idea that I was still looking for new car. I had gotten one and didn't want any more ads like that.)

Apple does the exact same thing with iAds, btw, except they probably have far more personal data at their disposal due to the requirement to have an iTunes account. Credit data, address, music / media / app sales history, even device purchases because of the need to activate through Apple.

It's amazing how many people worry about Google's ads, yet not give a single thought to Apple's iAds.

Neither company sells that personal info, though. They keep it quite secret and anonymous. Instead, they sell anonymous targeted ad views.

For example, a company might contract with Apple for ads targeted at 20-30 year olds with good income and who like football apps. Whenever someone like that uses an iOS app with an iAd in it, Apple sends down one of the ads that they've been given for that target audience. The advertiser only knows this has happened because of either a) Apple charging them for the view or b) you actually clicking on the ad.

throAU
Nov 5, 2012, 01:14 AM
I'm not so worried about the targeted advertising.

What concerns me more is the search bubble. If i search for something I want all viewpoints, not just stuff relevant to what google thinks I am.

Dolorian
Nov 5, 2012, 02:13 AM
What concerns me more is the search bubble. If i search for something I want all viewpoints, not just stuff relevant to what google thinks I am.

Not a problem, you can turn this feature off in the search settings if you want.

mehanika
Nov 5, 2012, 02:37 AM
Deleted

roxxette
Nov 5, 2012, 02:49 AM
Its pretty awesome how couple of months ago lte was hell nooooo around here but now its a must :)

SlCKB0Y
Nov 5, 2012, 05:28 AM
Nothing in their policy states that personalized ads cannot be used by advertisers to infer various characteristics about you.


Dont want any personalised ads?

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/keep-my-opt-outs/hhnjdplhmcnkiecampfdgfjilccfpfoe

http://www.aboutads.info/choices/

Check your ad profile: http://www.google.com/ads/preferences/

This is a non-issue that is frequently blown massively out of proportion. At least Google are transparent about what they are doing.

----------



The general public subsidizes their iPhone with their choice of carrier starting at $199.



Are you serious? You think that when you pay $199 for an iPhone on contract that it all you are paying? haha. The telcos are factoring these things into their price structure and you can be sure that one way or another, you are paying at least full price for your iPhone.

Some people just prefer to pay a bit more and not be stuck in 24 month contracts.


Google and Amazon are in the software business. For Google it doesn't matter how many Nexus devices are sold as long as people are buying Android.

No, Google is an advertising company. They may be very software oriented but almost all their money is from advertising, which is why their software is free.

----------

Its pretty awesome how couple of months ago lte was hell nooooo around here but now its a must :)

Yea, because before iPhone 5, LTE was unreasonably expensive, unnecessarily fast, had very limited coverage and chewed through battery.

Now, just a very short time after the release of iPhone 5, it is an essential feature and any device without it completely lacking.

:D

tjl3
Nov 5, 2012, 08:29 AM
Interesting. Your views seem very biased.

Who cares about GSM / LTE in the Nexus 4? This is not about ONE device. I'm sure the module for LTE is only a few bucks, and it will be found in the next model.

Apple is indeed in the software industry as well. They certainly try to make money of their software the EXACT same way that Google and Amazon does / will. But they just also produce the hardware, and have a interest in be able to sustain their economically eco-system going, even if people would never rent movies, buy music or purchase apps. It is nothing but a greedy POV. What Google is doing with the Nexus line-up is very far away from everything ever done to the mobile industry from a pricing POV, and i can assure you that Apple and (partially) Microsoft are scared s**tless of this agressive move.

Money is not everything, that is where many people fail to see the bigger picture. If you care to make money today only, sell at whatever price you can? Sure - price as high as humanly possible! Do you care about making sure that people returns - you have to think further ahead. How often can most people afford to upgrade their iphone/macbook/AppleTV/iPad? Every year? Probably? How long would they want to do so before they felt ********? Probably not very long! Just think of the people who bought "The new iPad", and not even 6 months after, there is a FASTER version of the exact same product? I'd say Apple are undermining their own business.

I wasn't trying to argue short term versus long term business goals. I agree with you there. But Apple is indeed a hardware company versus Google being a software company. To get into Apple's eco-system/software you must purchase their hardware. So while they churn out iOS and other software programs, they are very much in the hardware business, as that is where the majority of their profits come from. Google, while they generate all that profit off advertising, it is due to their software product. You can even argue that the Nexus 4 is an LG product, just as the GNex was a Samsung product, both just w/ Google's seal of approval.

As for singling out the Nexus 4, isn't this the argument when it comes to smartphone pricing? No other high end smartphone (GS3, Note, One X, Razr, Lumia) comes close, in fact as I tried to point out, they share the same 'premium' price. And price might be a factor, but there are others to consider b/c the lower cost of an unlocked phone comes w/ some compromises. LTE for 1, which might not matter to you but is heavily marketed in the US. And CDMA is another, which makes up 2 of the US' largest networks.

On your last note, every company refreshes their lineup yearly and at similar price points. Sure Apple did it twice this year on the iPad, but it is unreasonable to expect consumers to constantly get on this 1 year cycle no matter who the manufacturer is. Example, just as you argue how people can upgrade their $499 iPad yearly, people are just as unlikely to upgrade their $399 Nexus 10 yearly.


Are you serious? You think that when you pay $199 for an iPhone on contract that it all you are paying? haha. The telcos are factoring these things into their price structure and you can be sure that one way or another, you are paying at least full price for your iPhone.

Some people just prefer to pay a bit more and not be stuck in 24 month contracts.


If that works for you that is fine. Sure, not being stuck in a contract is one thing to consider, but there are compromises too. But my argument was that there is a false sense of only Apple charging its customers a premium.

To put into an example: I arrive at similar total costs when
1) purchasing a $199 iPhone w/ a $80/mo plan w/ AT&T > $2119 investment over 2 years;

2) purchasing a $399 Nexus 4 (I selected the 16gb to be in line with the 16 gb iPhone) w/ a $80/mo plan w/ AT&T > $2319 investment over 2 years.

Sure, that $200 difference gives me the benefit of being off contract, but at a compromise of say LTE. It is a great value for a great phone. But for LTE and $200 less over 2 years, I can go with iPhone as an alternative. I don't want to push the LTE button too much, while it's an important factor for me, I am just merely using it as an example. Also, yes, I know you can come up w/ some cheaper plans at greater compromises (T-Mo offers plenty) but I am putting into perspective the whole outlook on pricing.

anutharoundu
Nov 26, 2012, 03:51 AM
The thing that scares me is that google is already the king of content. By extending their advertising arm even further and digging up even more information on each person I feel that it's almost getting to the point of an invasion of privacy. There's not a whole lot you can do about of short of turning all the scripting off in your browser which would make half the sites on the internet useless.
http://self-confdence-coach.com/images/54.gif

Rogifan
Nov 26, 2012, 05:59 AM
I totally agree with this and it was discuss amongst the press that in order for any tablet other than an iPad to succeed it would have to be priced much lower than the iPad. In fact the HP TouchPad was used as an example.

The difference for Amazon and Google is they can make up for it buy selling content. That's the luxury both companies have.

How much $$ is Amazon making off content? If it was profitable they wouldn't need advertising on the Kindle's would they? Seems to me right now they can sell hardware at cost (or a loss) because Wall Street doesn't care if they make a profit or not. Last quarter they reported a loss and their stock jumped like 5% the next day.

k995
Nov 26, 2012, 06:17 AM
If that works for you that is fine. Sure, not being stuck in a contract is one thing to consider, but there are compromises too. But my argument was that there is a false sense of only Apple charging its customers a premium.

To put into an example: I arrive at similar total costs when
1) purchasing a $199 iPhone w/ a $80/mo plan w/ AT&T > $2119 investment over 2 years;

2) purchasing a $399 Nexus 4 (I selected the 16gb to be in line with the 16 gb iPhone) w/ a $80/mo plan w/ AT&T > $2319 investment over 2 years.

Sure, that $200 difference gives me the benefit of being off contract, but at a compromise of say LTE. It is a great value for a great phone. But for LTE and $200 less over 2 years, I can go with iPhone as an alternative. I don't want to push the LTE button too much, while it's an important factor for me, I am just merely using it as an example. Also, yes, I know you can come up w/ some cheaper plans at greater compromises (T-Mo offers plenty) but I am putting into perspective the whole outlook on pricing.

Iphone isnt 199 its 199 with a fixed contract . An iphone is 650 , you also can get simular contract for a lot less with at&t .making the cost of the iphone 5 a lot higher over those 2 years.

The Face
Nov 26, 2012, 06:23 AM
How much $$ is Amazon making off content? If it was profitable they wouldn't need advertising on the Kindle's would they? Seems to me right now they can sell hardware at cost (or a loss) because Wall Street doesn't care if they make a profit or not. Last quarter they reported a loss and their stock jumped like 5% the next day.Amazon can afford to make what looks like a loss because they pay little to no taxes, because they have all their money sent to overseas accounts. Whilst it may look like they make a loss, they're probably still making a bit of profit by tax evasion.

tjl3
Nov 27, 2012, 12:39 PM
Iphone isnt 199 its 199 with a fixed contract . An iphone is 650 , you also can get simular contract for a lot less with at&t .making the cost of the iphone 5 a lot higher over those 2 years.

You're missing the point. You can get an iPhone w/ a $199 down payment. $649 unlocked is merely another option, but it's not the only option. So to say that the Nexus unlocked is a better deal than any iPhone is a false statement. It is a great deal for an unlocked phone, no argument here. But I was offering a perspective on common ground (AT&T).

So my point was that it's not only the premium option ($649) for an iPhone. As a consumer (I guess I mistakenly used customer) the long term investment is roughly the same.

k995
Nov 28, 2012, 09:56 AM
You're missing the point. You can get an iPhone w/ a $199 down payment.
No you cant, you can get it for that price WITH a 2 year contract.

If you dont understand the rest of the rpice is in the more expensive contract ...



$649 unlocked is merely another option, but it's not the only option. So to say that the Nexus unlocked is a better deal than any iPhone is a false statement. It is a great deal for an unlocked phone, no argument here. But I was offering a perspective on common ground (AT&T).
And AT&t trough contract is more expensive then not trough contract.

Or do you think AT&T is so nice to just reduce the price and swallow the difference?

In most cases coupled with contract is usualy more expensive overal for simular priced phones. Let aloen for a phone that costs almost half.





So my point was that it's not only the premium option ($649) for an iPhone. As a consumer (I guess I mistakenly used customer) the long term investment is roughly the same.

No it isnt, because google/amazon focus more on revenue trough content the price gets shifted partially to that.

For google they pay because you use google, with apple they dont and you pay the full price because thats where the profit is for apple.


If you dont believe me, try it youself. A contract iphone with a simular non contract google phone .

tjl3
Nov 28, 2012, 02:04 PM
No you cant, you can get it for that price WITH a 2 year contract.

If you dont understand the rest of the rpice is in the more expensive contract ...



And AT&t trough contract is more expensive then not trough contract.

Or do you think AT&T is so nice to just reduce the price and swallow the difference?

In most cases coupled with contract is usualy more expensive overal for simular priced phones. Let aloen for a phone that costs almost half.






No it isnt, because google/amazon focus more on revenue trough content the price gets shifted partially to that.

For google they pay because you use google, with apple they dont and you pay the full price because thats where the profit is for apple.


If you dont believe me, try it youself. A contract iphone with a simular non contract google phone .

First, I pointed out the cost of a Nexus 4 over two years versus the cost of an iPhone 5 locked to the same priced contract. In that scenario, the iPhone 5 comes out $100 cheaper. Let me do the math for you ($199 + ($80 * 24) = $2119 investment over 2 years) or ($349 + ($80 * 24) = $2269). And this is a completely generic example that fits both phones.

Me personally, Nexus 4 is the least valuable phone on the market. I'd rather pay Verizon's prices for their locked contract for their service and 4G than have anything Nexus 4 offers.

Anyway, you completely missed the point that both sides come with compromises.

And your last point is redundant, if you bothered to read any of this old thread you'd know I already argued that Amazon and Google have a different agenda and that it is to get users on their product. Google doesn't care what Android phone it is as long as it is Android you're using. Apple has a different agenda and they're in the hardware business.

k995
Nov 29, 2012, 02:27 AM
First, I pointed out the cost of a Nexus 4 over two years versus the cost of an iPhone 5 locked to the same priced contract. In that scenario, the iPhone 5 comes out $100 cheaper. Let me do the math for you ($199 + ($80 * 24) = $2119 investment over 2 years) or ($349 + ($80 * 24) = $2269). And this is a completely generic example that fits both phones.



ANd someone must be really stupid to pay that, you dont NEED that 80$ contract with a nexus 4 . You DO need that with the iphone 5 as its coupled with the 199 price.

Because you dont seem to have a clue:

When you buy an iphone 5 from at&t tre cheapest plan is 40+45 = 85 $
"Mobile Share 1GB with Unlimited Talk & Text Includes
Unlimited Talk & Text
1GB Shared Data"

When I buy a nexus 4 loose I can take any of the plans offered by AT&T starting at 50$

The one the same as the iphone 5 plan is this one:

http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/plans/voice/sku6280283.html?source=IC95ATPLP00PPL00L&wtExtndSource=prepaidsp#fbid=XdY49Rsj4AW

65$/month for 1GB and the rest unlimited.

So the extra you pay for an iphone is 25$ a month for 24months or 600$ . Wich means an iphone is about 500$ MORE EXPENSIVE with a simular provider simular plan as the nexus 4 .


Me personally, Nexus 4 is the least valuable phone on the market. I'd rather pay Verizon's prices for their locked contract for their service and 4G than have anything Nexus 4 offers.
Its actually one of the best value phones out there. 4G for most is next to useless and it a high end phone for the price of mid end.

I dont know why you seem to dislike it so much.


And your last point is redundant, if you bothered to read any of this old thread you'd know I already argued that Amazon and Google have a different agenda and that it is to get users on their product. Google doesn't care what Android phone it is as long as it is Android you're using. Apple has a different agenda and they're in the hardware business.

And how would this matter to a consumer? He wants a great phone at low price, enter Nexus 4 .

Night Spring
Nov 29, 2012, 01:24 PM
4G for most is next to useless


By 4G, you mean LTE? And I don't understand why you say faster data connection is useless for anyone. I find my iPad and iPhone 5 on LTE very fast, and therefore useful.

tjl3
Nov 29, 2012, 01:38 PM
ANd someone must be really stupid to pay that, you dont NEED that 80$ contract with a nexus 4 . You DO need that with the iphone 5 as its coupled with the 199 price.

Because you dont seem to have a clue:

When you buy an iphone 5 from at&t tre cheapest plan is 40+45 = 85 $
"Mobile Share 1GB with Unlimited Talk & Text Includes
Unlimited Talk & Text
1GB Shared Data"


Thanks for playing 1GB plan versus 4GB...


Its actually one of the best value phones out there. 4G for most is next to useless and it a high end phone for the price of mid end.

I dont know why you seem to dislike it so much.


I was on AT&T w/ a Galaxy Nexus on HSPA+, no thanks. LTE isn't for everyone, but it's definitely a must for me and others.

I actually think the Nexus 4 is a great phone, I've mentioned this in other threads. I've only used it here and there when I stopped by a T-Mo store, but it is a great device. I'm not knocking it or prepaid plans, that original post I made was merely pointing out that both sides have compromises, and that at $299 there are compromises just like paying $199 for an iPhone.


And how would this matter to a consumer? He wants a great phone at low price, enter Nexus 4 .

Topic of this thread is about Amazon and Google pricing.

k995
Nov 30, 2012, 03:25 AM
By 4G, you mean LTE? And I don't understand why you say faster data connection is useless for anyone. I find my iPad and iPhone 5 on LTE very fast, and therefore useful.

Most people dont have coverage for 4g, or actually need the extra speed above hdspa+

Oh yes in a couple of years no doubt this wont be true, but then you will probably have a new phone already.

----------

Thanks for playing 1GB plan versus 4GB...

Euh do you see the "1 GB" with the iphone 5 85$ plan? You seem to think thats actually 4gb?

85$ plan IS 1GB of "shared data"

http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/plans/mobileshare.html

The 110$ plan is 4GB .




I was on AT&T w/ a Galaxy Nexus on HSPA+, no thanks. LTE isn't for everyone, but it's definitely a must for me and others.
Of course but as I said now for most I doubt they would notice so as an argument its perhaps for you valid, but not for most.


And still its not as if hsdpa+ is soo slow to make the phone unusable as you hinted .



I actually think the Nexus 4 is a great phone, I've mentioned this in other threads. I've only used it here and there when I stopped by a T-Mo store, but it is a great device. I'm not knocking it or prepaid plans, that original post I made was merely pointing out that both sides have compromises, and that at $299 there are compromises just like paying $199 for an iPhone.

Indeed, one is live without 4g, the other is stuck to an expensive 85$+ contract for 2 years. Smaller screen, less space ,ios vs android,...

Lots of differences that usualy require a person itself to make up his mind.


Topic of this thread is about Amazon and Google pricing.
So? Thats not an answer. Why do consumers care about the agenda of apple or google ? They want the best phone for them for the lowest price.