# Why do cell phones cost almost as much as laptops?



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

Something seems off about that. You'd think they'd be about the same price as netbooks ($200-300) maybe.

https://ting.com/devices/buy

http://www.virginmobileusa.com/shop/cell-phones/#/sort_love/view_grid/feature_4glte/

http://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phones/4g.html

http://www.metropcs.com/metro/category/PhonesandMore/Phones/cat170019


----------



## Diacetylmorphine (Mar 9, 2011)

Some are cheaper than netbooks?


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

The samsung galaxy s4 is $600 on tmobile and ting!!


----------



## ineverwipe (Jun 16, 2013)

Yea lol I paid 360 for my laptop but my Galaxy S4 cost 560.

You get what you pay for. I mean a large hd screen, lots of ram, and a quad core processor that still fits it your pocket.

Making tech small comes with a price


----------



## WineKitty (Nov 26, 2004)

They charge that because people will pay it. I have the Galaxy S 2 that I got when they were rolling out the S3. I am still happy with my phone and have no need to buy another one. Some people seem to be more than happy to pay hundreds of dollars to have the latest phone but I just don't have that desire in me.


----------



## Diacetylmorphine (Mar 9, 2011)

It might be a supply/demand thing, idk. It's kind of expected to pay top $$$ for the latest higher end devices. My iphone was about $400 cheaper than my laptop.

I've seen some smartphones go for about $100, but they're probably very slow/;laggy and don't support many apps. Decent for basic phone usage though?


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

I hope the galaxy S4 goes down to $300 when the S5 comes out.


----------



## lisbeth (May 18, 2012)

Who buys phones outright these days?

Just get a cheap contract. Much more sensible imo. I pay £12/month for my Galaxy S3 and get unlimited texts and 600 minutes, which does me very well.


----------



## jsmith92 (Dec 30, 2013)

Because iPhone and all apple products are generally overpriced


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

lisbeth said:


> Who buys phones outright these days?
> 
> Just get a cheap contract. Much more sensible imo. I pay £12/month for my Galaxy S3 and get unlimited texts and 600 minutes, which does me very well.


You don't use data?

You end up paying the same if you don't buy them outright because they will charge you more per month.


----------



## s2panda (Dec 8, 2013)

lisbeth said:


> Who buys phones outright these days?
> 
> Just get a cheap contract. Much more sensible imo. I pay £12/month for my Galaxy S3 and get unlimited texts and 600 minutes, which does me very well.


Maybe if you lived in a country with competition instead of an oligopoly. In Canada, it's much less expensive to buy a Moto G for $200 or Nexus 5 for $350 than to say sign a two year contract for $70+ a month to get a Galaxy S4 or LG G2 for $0.

As for why cellphones are more expensive than laptops. It's because of FCC validation, radios, patents, R&D, etc.. all of which laptops don't require or don't require as much as cellphones.


----------



## lisbeth (May 18, 2012)

komorikun said:


> You don't use data?
> 
> You end up paying the same if you don't buy them outright because they will charge you more per month.


I only have 250mb of data per month, because I mainly use wifi, so I rarely go over. I use data a lot for Snapchat and Whatsapp when I'm out and about, but they don't take much data. For anything more data-heavy, like actual internet browsing, I only use wifi. My university campus has wifi almost everywhere, so it's not an issue for me really.

Over the course of my 24-month contract, I'm paying £288. My phone was free at the outset. Given that at the time of signing up to my contract, the phone alone would've cost me £250 IIRC (obviously it's dropped in price since), without minutes/texts/etc, I think that's a really good deal. I guess it just depends on what kind of deal you can pick up.



s2panda said:


> Maybe if you lived in a country with competition instead of an oligopoly. In Canada, it's much less expensive to buy a Moto G for $200 or Nexus 5 for $350 than to say sign a two year contract for $70+ a month to get a Galaxy S4 or LG G2 for $0.
> 
> As for why cellphones are more expensive than laptops. It's because of FCC validation, radios, patents, R&D, etc.. all of which laptops don't require or don't require as much as cellphones.


$70 a month? Jeeeez. That's ridiculously expensive, especially as I don't think the S4 is even the latest any more. The people I know who pay £30-40 have extremely up-to-date phones and nearly unlimited data. Even that I don't think is worth it. It sounds like Canada is a bad place to get a phone.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

lisbeth said:


> $70 a month? Jeeeez. That's ridiculously expensive, especially as I don't think the S4 is even the latest any more. The people I know who pay £30-40 have extremely up-to-date phones and nearly unlimited data. Even that I don't think is worth it. It sounds like Canada is a bad place to get a phone.


Looking at tmobile site it would be:



> *
> $ 50 per month
> 
> Plus taxes, fees and monthly device payment
> ...


Plus $24 per month for 2 years in order to get the phone free initially.

So $75 per month before taxes and fees. Taxes and fees depend on what state you are in. Between 7-24%.

And people tell me that tmobile is cheap compared to AT&T and Verizon.


----------



## lisbeth (May 18, 2012)

komorikun said:


> Looking at tmobile site it would
> 
> Plus $24 per month for 2 years in order to get the phone free initially.
> 
> ...


Good lord. America is expensive.


----------



## jsmith92 (Dec 30, 2013)

I know.......the new AT&T and T-Mobile plans are designed so that they get more money from you if you don't bring your own phone with you..........they add a $20 charge onto your bill if you buy your phone from them and also get service


----------



## s2panda (Dec 8, 2013)

Canada has an oligopoly and the three companies are clearly colluding to some extent but our government is too blind to see it and/or won't do anything about it.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

I want to get a smartphone finally but I'm going through price shock right now. My inner scrooge is very upset. Doesn't help that my laptop is probably on its last days.


----------



## s2panda (Dec 8, 2013)

Maybe you should look at the Moto G than? It's roughly $150 off contract. Or the more expensive Nexus 5 or Moto X which are roughly $350 and $400 respectively off contract.

Moto G is excellent value if you don't care about features and all you want is to browse, facebook / instagram, text / call, and play your occasional Candy Crush.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

s2panda said:


> Maybe you should look at the Moto G than? It's roughly $150 off contract. Or the more expensive Nexus 5 or Moto X which are roughly $350 and $400 respectively off contract.
> 
> Moto G is excellent value if you don't care about features and all you want is to browse, facebook / instagram, text / call, and play your occasional Candy Crush.


What sort of features are you talking about? The main thing for me will be photos, call quality, being able to text easily, checking email, google maps and public transit sites.


----------



## gunner21 (Aug 4, 2012)

lisbeth said:


> $70 a month? Jeeeez. That's ridiculously expensive, especially as I don't think the S4 is even the latest any more. The people I know who pay £30-40 have extremely up-to-date phones and nearly unlimited data. Even that I don't think is worth it. It sounds like Canada is a bad place to get a phone.


----------



## lisbeth (May 18, 2012)

gunner21 said:


>












Bless your hearts. Your lives are terrible.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

OMG!!! I knew it!! We are being ripped off. F***ing ATT, Tmobile, Verizon, and Sprint are price rigging.

The Galaxy should be less than $200.


----------



## s2panda (Dec 8, 2013)

komorikun said:


> What sort of features are you talking about? The main thing for me will be photos, call quality, being able to text easily, checking email, google maps and public transit sites.


Moto G can do all of that but of course the photos won't be as good as the photos taken by flagship devices. The photo quality on the Moto G, Moto X, and Nexus 5 are all like bad to mediocre.. basically your daily instagram and facebook stuff.

Moto X's main features are Voiceless Control where you can get the phone to do something by saying Okay Google Now even when the screen is off and Active Notifications is where a portion of your display lights up with the time and your notifications when the sensor detects light / being taken out of the pocket. But there are some apps on the Play store that does the exact thing Active Notifications does.

Main appeal of the Nexus 5 is that it runs pure Android and that it gets its updates faster than any other phone. But Motorola runs near stock Android and their track record with updates for the G and X have been good so far.

LG G2 has KnockOn which is where you can just double tap the screen to turn it on. Also has Graphic RAM which saves battery life.

Note 3 has S-Pen support.

Galaxy S5 has fingerprint scanner, heart rate sensor, IP67, whatever they call that waving thing feature, and some other forgettable features. The large appeal of Samsung's Note and Galaxy series is the removeable battery and expandable storage. Of course their advertising is also leaps and bounds ahead of every Android manufacturer so there's a lot of mindless fanboys and girls that just buy / recommend Samsung nowadays.


----------



## ShatteredGlass (Oct 12, 2012)

s2panda said:


> Moto G can do all of that but of course the photos won't be as good as the photos taken by flagship devices. The photo quality on the Moto G, Moto X, and Nexus 5 are all like bad to mediocre.. basically your daily instagram and facebook stuff.
> 
> Moto X's main features are Voiceless Control where you can get the phone to do something by saying Okay Google Now even when the screen is off and Active Notifications is where a portion of your display lights up with the time and your notifications when the sensor detects light / being taken out of the pocket. But there are some apps on the Play store that does the exact thing Active Notifications does.
> 
> ...


The Moto G actually has a slightly better screen than the iPhone 5S in some ways. The specs are also excellent for the price. It has a quad core processor, and it's a decent one. not the quad core snapdragon 200, but the quad core snapdragon 400, which is a generation ahead.


----------



## nullptr (Sep 21, 2012)

lisbeth said:


> Good lord. America is expensive.


Everything here is more expensive


----------



## coldsorehighlighter (Jun 2, 2010)

They cost that much because that's the price they've determined they can sell at and make the most money. They employ smart people to determine that price. If they thought they'd sell more, at a cheaper price, and it was enough to have them make more money, they'd do that.


----------



## s2panda (Dec 8, 2013)

MadTroll153 said:


> The Moto G actually has a slightly better screen than the iPhone 5S in some ways. The specs are also excellent for the price. It has a quad core processor, and it's a decent one. not the quad core snapdragon 200, but the quad core snapdragon 400, which is a generation ahead.


Snapdragon 200, 400, 600, and 800 is just marketing. Moto G uses a lower Snapdragon 400 chip which uses the older ARM Cortex-A7 cores and not the newer Krait 200 or 300.

And I highly doubt that the screen is better than the iPhone 5s...


----------



## ShatteredGlass (Oct 12, 2012)

s2panda said:


> Snapdragon 200, 400, 600, and 800 is just marketing. Moto G uses a lower Snapdragon 400 chip which uses the older ARM Cortex-A7 cores and not the newer Krait 200 or 300.
> 
> And I highly doubt that the screen is better than the iPhone 5s...


It is not better in quality, it's better in size and resolution. The iPhone is 1136x640 at 4 Inches while the Moto G is 720p at 4.5 inches.

The Snapdragon 400 has 1.2 GHz Quad core Arm Cortex A7 while the Snapdragon 200 has the horribly slow Cortex A5 processor at 1.2 GHz. Plus the Snapdragon 400 has an Adreno 305 while the 200 has the 203.


----------



## s2panda (Dec 8, 2013)

Snapdragon 200, 400, 600, and 800 all encompasses various models. Snapdragon 200 encompasses both A5 and A7 while Snapdragon 400 encompasses A7, Krait 200, and Krait 300.

The correct term is bigger, not better. Resolution doesn't matter unless you're like a spec junky... Both displays have approx. the same PPI.


----------



## gorbulas (Feb 13, 2004)

Its that high because they have to pay for the R&D that got put into it. A lot of people work on getting a phone made and they all need to be paid.


----------



## TicklemeRingo (Jan 11, 2013)

They're made by elves. Heavily unionised elves.


----------



## arnie (Jan 24, 2012)

1. The parts are much smaller and miniaturization is hard.
2. Smartphones **are** computers. They have all the same components. The new ones have 2-3 GB of Ram, a quad core cpu, a fast GPU, a large amount of expensive flash memory just like the SSD on a computer and screen that actually has more pixels than your average laptop. In addition they have numerous other sensors that laptops don't like an accelerometer , 2 high definition cameras, magnetic compass, GPS unit...


----------



## Crimson Lotus (Jul 26, 2013)

"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it." - Publilius Syrus.


----------



## The Phantom Pain (Oct 6, 2010)

From what I've seen, most smartphones now have better processors than most budget line desktop PCs, so it's not like it's unfair pricing.

The tech in cells are just becoming way more advanced.


----------



## coldmorning (Jul 4, 2007)

You have a lot of things that you don't have in a computer like gps, accelerometers, compass, NFC chip, etc. Plus you have a lot of lawsuits over who owns an idea and that has to be factored into the cost. Tech patent lawyers make sick money.


----------



## s2panda (Dec 8, 2013)

The Phantom Pain said:


> From what I've seen, most smartphones now have better processors than most budget line desktop PCs, so it's not like it's unfair pricing.
> 
> The tech in cells are just becoming way more advanced.


This is far from true. Haswell, Ivybridge, Sandybridge, and even architectures from ten years ago like Core and K10 still runs circles around the latest Krait 400 found in your flagship mobile devices.


----------



## CopadoMexicano (Aug 21, 2004)

because theyre like computers


----------



## The Phantom Pain (Oct 6, 2010)

s2panda said:


> This is far from true. Haswell, Ivybridge, Sandybridge, and even architectures from ten years ago like Core and K10 still runs circles around the latest Krait 400 found in your flagship mobile devices.


Those do, but they'd also be a disaster on battery life. But that's not exactly what I'm talking about anyway.

I'm referring to something more like this. http://www.walmart.com/ip/Gateway-B...ndows-8-Operating-System-Monitor-Not/24766511

There are $99 smartphones that have better processors than that in it. and with quad core becoming the standard, it wouldn't even be close.


----------



## jsmith92 (Dec 30, 2013)

There's a special battery for my phone that gives it over 3 days idle time.....and with heavy use in one day it is only at 50% its an amazing battery .....its called a zerolemon......I am gonna get one hopefully this week


----------



## s2panda (Dec 8, 2013)

The Phantom Pain said:


> Those do, but they'd also be a disaster on battery life. But that's not exactly what I'm talking about anyway.
> 
> I'm referring to something more like this. http://www.walmart.com/ip/Gateway-B...ndows-8-Operating-System-Monitor-Not/24766511
> 
> There are $99 smartphones that have better processors than that in it. and with quad core becoming the standard, it wouldn't even be close.


The absolute low-end Bobcats and Atoms are still more powerful than Kraits and especially the ARM you find in $100 smartphones.

Quantity of cores doesn't mean a lot without context. A quad core can be significantly worse than a dual core.


----------



## The Phantom Pain (Oct 6, 2010)

s2panda said:


> The absolute low-end Bobcats and Atoms are still more powerful than Kraits and especially the ARM you find in $100 smartphones.
> 
> Quantity of cores doesn't mean a lot without context. A quad core can be significantly worse than a dual core.


I'd still rather have the 4 core processor in most current smartphones than the dual core in that one.

I think my current laptop that I'm currently stuck with makes me just naturally crave more cores though.

There's nothing worse than a single core and even worse if it clocks under 2Ghz.


----------



## prettyful (Mar 14, 2013)

My laptop actually cost more than my phone haha!


----------



## AussiePea (Mar 27, 2007)

A top of the line laptop is still ~$2000 and up while a top of the line phone is maybe $700. So yeah. Top of the line phones cost as much as a bottom line laptop and considering what phones are capable of these days that's not bad! Tablets are great value for money too comparatively.


----------

