Mobile phones & tablets thread

I didn't realise that iphones cost so much these days! :s I paid £99 for mine a couple a years ago but in hindsight should have paid a bit more for a bigger memory size. I was just looking up the cost on the O2 website and it appears that the iphone 4 white version has recently been released. Well I presume its just been released seeing as I managed to find a page telling me the availability at stores in the UK at at noon today and also telling me the page will be updated at 5pm. Theres a big part of me that has to admire Apple for releasing the same product in a different colour almost 11 months after it released the original version and there still being an apparent rush to buy its product. :D I only assume there is a rush to buy it from the availability webpage I found. Please note that this remark can not be substantiated as I have absolutely no confirmation that people are rushing out to buy Iphone 4 whites although O2 would have you believe that you need to get in quick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

My wife was of the same view, £200 then £30 per month was too much. So instead of getting the iPhone 4 she got an iPhone 3GS which was just £30 a month and no upfront fee. Having not used one before, only my iPhone 4 I've been quite impressed that despite it's lower resolution display etc it performs just as my much more expensive version does!

---

I went with the even cheaper option of getting a second hand 3G off eBay. This means I can be PAYG and if I top up for £10 each month I get 300 free texts and 'unlimited' internet (think it's actually 500mb). Whatever it is seems to serve me well as I quite often have £8+ at the end of each month (where what has been spent is just whenever I've actually phone someone).

Daniel, GOOD NEWS!
There is now a WP7 geocaching app: http://www.geocaching.com/wp7/default.aspx Enjoy :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

Daniel, GOOD NEWS!
There is now a WP7 geocaching app: http://www.geocaching.com/wp7/default.aspx Enjoy :D

---

I'm sure he's rushing to download it as we speak. :p

There has been a wp7 geocaching app for months......

And how are you getting on with it? :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyRAC

However, you have to hand it to Apple......they know how to market a product..

---

Shame they don't know how to make one with decent battery life. This (apart from the overall build quality of my MacBook) is my sole real gripe about any, for which read all, of my Apple products.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

And how are you getting on with it? [img]images/smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

---

</p>


*</p>
It's installed as a trial on my phone but I've not user it as geocaching is rather a waste of time :p

WP7 looking like a lame duck now is it? ;)

http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/09/m...l-be-previewe/
http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/10/m...becomes-offici


WP7 + MANGO (see link above) + NOKIA + SKYPE = WIN

They just need to announce some slightly more interesting handsets and it's game on.

No one finds that just a tiny bit interesting?

Let's wait and see what they actually come up with. At the moment we're being asked to wait until 2011 for the new Nokias, so I certainly wouldn't buy a Nokia before then and I probably wouldn't buy another Windows phone before then either before I see what their offerings are.

I have a BlackBerry 9800 and it has been brilliant. I'm not much of a nerd when it comes to the type of phone I have so I don't get what everyone is raving about with regards to the new iPhones etc. I've had over a dozen Nokia's and not one has ever given me trouble. The 9800 does have better features though and I am enjoying it immensly.

Just for interest sake:

Apple iPhone manufacture cost = $ 179
Retail price = $ 500
Profit = $ 321

Thats a rip off if ever there was one Apple!

So no taking into account the cost of the software, which is the major component of the phone? Of the $321 profit they have to pay back the money they invested in developing the thing in the first place. Having said that, yes, it is overpriced - I agree!

Of course this isn't even Apples main revenue stream, think how much they get from apps etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

So no taking into account the cost of the software, which is the major component of the phone? Of the $321 profit they have to pay back the money they invested in developing the thing in the first place. Having said that, yes, it is overpriced - I agree!

Of course this isn't even Apples main revenue stream, think how much they get from apps etc.

---

Well they probably developed the software a few years ago and are steadily just unlocking features :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

So no taking into account the cost of the software, which is the major component of the phone? Of the $321 profit they have to pay back the money they invested in developing the thing in the first place. Having said that, yes, it is overpriced - I agree!

Of course this isn't even Apples main revenue stream, think how much they get from apps etc.

---

That's the production cost for the new IPhone 4 itself. Not sure what the development costs are/were.

Money is always in the software, not the hardware, so the margins there must be even bigger!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Well they probably developed the software a few years ago and are steadily just unlocking features :p

---

You are probably right. People don't realise that tommorrow's computers & computed systems have already been developed, the "upgrades" are just released slowly especially as loose components such as hard drives,graphics cards, software updates etc so you buy stuff to make your computer & computed system better at a higher price. Smart business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

Let's wait and see what they actually come up with. At the moment we're being asked to wait until 2011 for the new Nokias, so I certainly wouldn't buy a Nokia before then and I probably wouldn't buy another Windows phone before then either before I see what their offerings are.

---

I can only see the Nokia WP7 devices being release in 2012 being very good. Nokia's hardware has always been good, Microsoft is being very strict with hardware requirements and the OS is coming on in leaps and bounds.

Personally I'm not all that bothered about specs.

My phone is quick
Has 3g
The OS is good
The camera is decent enough
The screen is bright enough, is fantastic in terms of colours and blacks.
It's not a brick

Personally I think too much importance is placed on specs these days above price. Sometimes with Apple, a new phone simply ends up being slimmer or with something slightly bigger, faster or whatever and IMHO that's not reason enough for buying myself a new phone.

I'd disagree with Nokia's hardware always being good. They have a tendancy to underspec their phones with too little CPU power and too little memory for the task at hand. Then N97 being a case in point. However as you say Microsoft lay down strict rules on these things to make sure they aren't associated with under powered phones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

I'd disagree with Nokia's hardware always being good. They have a tendancy to underspec their phones with too little CPU power and too little memory for the task at hand. Then N97 being a case in point. However as you say Microsoft lay down strict rules on these things to make sure they aren't associated with under powered phones.

---

I think the problem there was the OS and how it allocated memory and processor resources. Caroline has the same issue with her 5800 where she can have nothing open yet it's out of memory. I've had (Nokia) phones where all I did was send text messages and play music and they were running out of memory. IMHO that's a Symbian issue.

Yes, I had it with my N97 and Karen had it with her phone - which is why she ditched it for an iPhone. It was/is a fundamental flaw in the OS design and unbelievable that they'd not only ship phones in that condition but they'd have the same problem on multiple models.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

Yes, I had it with my N97 and Karen had it with her phone - which is why she ditched it for an iPhone. It was/is a fundamental flaw in the OS design and unbelievable that they'd not only ship phones in that condition but they'd have the same problem on multiple models.

---

Like I said, Nokia make good hardware :)

Apart from the under specced processors and poor build quality of the likes of the N96.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

I have a BlackBerry 9800 and it has been brilliant. I'm not much of a nerd when it comes to the type of phone I have so I don't get what everyone is raving about with regards to the new iPhones etc. I've had over a dozen Nokia's and not one has ever given me trouble. The 9800 does have better features though and I am enjoying it immensly.

Just for interest sake:

Apple iPhone manufacture cost = $ 179
Retail price = $ 500
Profit = $ 321

Thats a rip off if ever there was one Apple!

---

RIM Blackberry Torch Slider manufacture cost = $183
Retail Price (MSRP) = $699.99
"Profit" = $516.99

According to this data, it looks like RIM is "ripping off" people worse than Apple. :D But with that said, I don't buy into the notion of "acceptable" profit levels on nonessential products.

The market determines value/fair price. If a product is (truly) "overpriced", then either it will not sell or it will not sell in sufficient enough numbers to justify its continued production. For years, Microsoft lost money on every Xbox unit that it sold. But I didn't hear any stories about consumers sending Microsoft checks to make up for that deficit. I believe the gaming division, and the associated devices, now make a profit. How much of a profit margin there is, I don't know. But again, especially when discussing nonessential products with an elastic demand, market demand quickly determines whether the product is overpriced or not. At least in the U.S., carriers get the phones at a discount from the MSRP and then sell them at a subsidized price. So if AT&T is selling the iPhone 4 for more than the Blackberry Torch (I don't know if they are or not), then it's because customer demand for the iPhone outstrips that for the Torch... because the data seems to suggest that the iPhone is cheaper to produce and also sells for less (at retail) than the Torch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

No one finds that just a tiny bit interesting?

---

Yep, I think it's pretty interesting.

I got a chance to read a few stories about the Microsoft/Skype deal last night. Most seem to think that this was a "must do" strategic move by Microsoft to counter Google and Facebook. It's difficult to see how Microsoft will make its money back on the deal, as the price paid was "rich", to say the least. Skype was set to do an IPO, and if I remember correctly, the involved investment banks had valued the company at around $3.5 billion. Google and Facebook seemed to have had an interest in acquiring it for around that price (3-4 billion) too. But Microsoft swooped in and paid what looks like a 100%+ premium to the assumed fair market value... and thus far, the market has given the deal a thumbs down (on the financials alone). From when the deal was announced through today's trading, MSFT is down more than the overall market.

On the flipside, some analysts are saying that it was more important for MSFT (longer term) to keep Skype away from Google or Facbook, even if they can't get the money losing Skype back to profitability, or they can't justify the price based on Skype's future performance. So Skype is a knife that Microsoft may not be able to make the best use of, but in the hands of Google or Facebook, it might have been used to stab them in the heart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

Yep, I think it's pretty interesting.

I got a chance to read a few stories about the Microsoft/Skype deal last night. Most seem to think that this was a "must do" strategic move by Microsoft to counter Google and Facebook. It's difficult to see how Microsoft will make its money back on the deal, as the price paid was "rich", to say the least. Skype was set to do an IPO, and if I remember correctly, the involved investment banks had valued the company at around $3.5 billion. Google and Facebook seemed to have had an interest in acquiring it for around that price (3-4 billion) too. But Microsoft swooped in and paid what looks like a 100%+ premium to the assumed fair market value... and thus far, the market has given the deal a thumbs down (on the financials alone). From when the deal was announced through today's trading, MSFT is down more than the overall market.

On the flipside, some analysts are saying that it was more important for MSFT (longer term) to keep Skype away from Google or Facbook, even if they can't get the money losing Skype back to profitability, or they can't justify the price based on Skype's future performance. So Skype is a knife that Microsoft may not be able to make the best use of, but in the hands of Google or Facebook, it might have been used to stab them in the heart.

---

A lot of people are talking about the 2nd dot com bubble building up. Now of course the purchase of Skype was to block Google, but it's still a way out offer, but it's still a way out crazy valuation.

Have you seen how much Apple is worth these days? Mewonders how long this little golden age is going to last before the bubble gets popped. Lets just hope you've not put all your AAPL's in one basket :)

That's not a dig at Apple either, I just think that the bubble has been getting bigger for a long time and we all know what happens to bubbles :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

A lot of people are talking about the 2nd dot com bubble building up. Now of course the purchase of Skype was to block Google, but it's still a way out offer, but it's still a way out crazy valuation.

Have you seen how much Apple is worth these days? Mewonders how long this little golden age is going to last before the bubble gets popped. Lets just hope you've not put all your AAPL's in one basket :)

That's not a dig at Apple either, I just think that the bubble has been getting bigger for a long time and we all know what happens to bubbles :D

---

I think you're right: a second dotcom bubble is forming. As for Apple, it trades at a (roughly) 16.5 P/E ratio. While Microsoft trades at somewhere around 10. But P/E's tend to be higher for companies with higher future earnings growth potential, and AAPL's earnings are growing faster than MSFT's. Google, for instance, trades at about a 19.5 P/E, while slower growing HP trades at about 10.5. The companies that boggle my mind are the ones like LinkedIn and Facebook, to name two. At a $50 billion valuation, Facebook's P/E ratio would be 125!!! See, that just makes no sense whatsoever to me.

BTW, using figures from the last fiscal year, if you valued AAPL with the same 10x sales/revenue valuation that apply to Microsoft's purchase of Skype, it would be priced at $650 per share! And if we used that same valuation for Microsoft, it would be priced at $625!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

I think you're right: a second dotcom bubble is forming. As for Apple, it trades at a (roughly) 16.5 P/E ratio. While Microsoft trades at somewhere around 10. But P/E's tend to be higher for companies with higher future earnings growth potential, and AAPL's earnings are growing faster than MSFT's. Google, for instance, trades at about a 19.5 P/E, while slower growing HP trades at about 10.5. The companies that boggle my mind are the ones like LinkedIn and Facebook, to name two. At a $50 billion valuation, Facebook's P/E ratio would be 125!!! See, that just makes no sense whatsoever to me.

BTW, using figures from the last fiscal year, if you valued AAPL with the same 10x sales/revenue valuation that apply to Microsoft's purchase of Skype, it would be priced at $650 per share! And if we used that same valuation for Microsoft, it would be priced at $625!

---

The thing about Apple is that Apple products are by and large, luxury products and their market sector is always getting invaded so they're constantly having to make a new product which no one else is perceived to match and I don't see that continuing on forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

On the flipside, some analysts are saying that it was more important for MSFT (longer term) to keep Skype away from Google or Facebook, .

---

I think that's the key point here. Skype would have been a very good fit for facebook.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

I think that's the key point here. Skype would have been a very good fit for facebook.

---

People forget though that Microsoft owns a portion of Facebook :)

1.3% which of course of a company that size is substantial, but not something they are going to base business decisions upon.

Ah, I just assumed it was more :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

The thing about Apple is that Apple products are by and large, luxury products and their market sector is always getting invaded so they're constantly having to make a new product which no one else is perceived to match and I don't see that continuing on forever.

---

That is a concern. But I would put it more as, what happens to Apple's ability to put a spin on its products once Steve Jobs is either gone or unable to publicly "perform"? Jobs isn't so much a brilliant engineer (he doesn't even have an engineering degree), but he is a visionary. And he also has the ability to captivate an audience. Much like Donald Trump was in the late 80's, Jobs can make people believe that what he's about to offer is something that you really want to have... the price be damned. And yeah, that is a legitimate reason to criticize him. But if other CEO's had that ability, (Ballmer, for instance) they'd be able to launch products and find a successful path easier than they do. Michael Dell also had that charismatic ability. But then he dropped out of the game for awhile (too long) and the Dell brand sank like a rock. Do you remember about ten years ago when the slogan "Dude, I'm gettin' a Dell!!!" was on everybody's lips? It was a popular ad campaign here... I don't know about Europe. But that's what it's all about: making products that can support your brand. So I question whether Apple will be like Ferrari and Rolex: being able to maintain "the brand" for decades. As of 2010, the Apple brand was actually ranked higher than Ferrari and Rolex, so will they be able to stay near the top? Or will it be like Porsche: temporarily losing its way (assuming we don't count how Apple fell after Jobs left)? Or will it be like Dell, and just fall on hard times and not seem to know the way back? I'm not a marketing guy. But one thing I have learned is that once you allow your product to become ubiquitous or a commodity, it loses value in the eyes of consumers. That's why I could sell my 25 year old Mac Plus and still get some nice coin out of it. But I'd be hard pressed to give someone my 10 year old Windows 98 HP machine. It's like comparing a 25 year old Porsche to a 10 year old Chevy.

But anyway, I think we're living in very exciting times on the computing front. This intense competition is forcing these companies to work their butts off trying to out think and out do each other. And as an occasional purchaser of computing devices and a sorta/kinda geek, I'm loving it! If I live to see it, I think what we'll have in 5-10 years is going to make what we have now seem like the Stone Age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

People forget though that Microsoft owns a portion of Facebook :)

---

Yeah, but I think it's something like 1.5%+/-. And unless they've sold it, Microsoft also owns a portion of Apple - also a very small amount (less than $200 million, if memory serves me), but that investment came at a key time for Apple.

It's difficult to say really.

By all logic Apple shouldn't be so successful right now with or without Jobs so speculating as to whether Apple will still be as successful when Jobs croaks it is very much hit and miss. Would I keep my money in Apple if I were an investor? I don't know, would I put money in after the inevitable drop in share price after he croaks? Dunno :)

Fair questions.^^^

Without Jobs, will the Apple brand be degraded? And if so, how much? Will it become more of a commodity computer producer, like HP, Acer and Dell? Will AAPL begin trading at a 10 multiple instead of a 16? Open questions that only time can answer, I suppose. I've had a rather amazing ride with AAPL thus far, but when it's time to sell, I'll sell. I have no emotional attachment to stocks or companies when it comes to investing. Years ago, I shorted CART (MPH) as it began to swirl down, and I loved that racing series.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

Fair questions.^^^

Without Jobs, will the Apple brand be degraded? And if so, how much? Will it become more of a commodity computer producer, like HP, Acer and Dell? Will AAPL begin trading at a 10 multiple instead of a 16? Open questions that only time can answer, I suppose. I've had a rather amazing ride with AAPL thus far, but when it's time to sell, I'll sell. I have no emotional attachment to stocks or companies when it comes to investing. Years ago, I shorted CART (MPH) as it began to swirl down, and I loved that racing series.

---

It's all very hit and miss. Things are on a knife edge. If the iPhone hadn't been a runaway success despite missing things like a camera and 3g which almost all other phones at the time had, then I think Apple would be down in the dumps now.

Buying an Apple product somehow seems to empower people to be able to hold it up in the air and say "This is the best <whatver> that I could buy!" even if it's missing quite crucial features that other phones have. That is of course the reason why Apple products have been so successful.

That said I think there are a lot of owners of Apple products who aren't so easily fooled. A friend on Facebook has an iPod, an iPad and iPhone but he will not buy a Mac because he's intelligent enough to know that it's just a fancy looking PC. He's a web designer too and considering his Apple purchases, you'd think he was a prime candidate for a Mac. He posted a status update on facebook saying his homebuilt PC had died and that he'd fixed it and someone started preaching about how Mac's never crashed :laugh: He's very christian so there was no swearing but for an Apple fan he did slag Mac's off :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

RIM Blackberry Torch Slider manufacture cost = $183
Retail Price (MSRP) = $699.99
"Profit" = $516.99

According to this data, it looks like RIM is "ripping off" people worse than Apple. :D But with that said, I don't buy into the notion of "acceptable" profit levels on nonessential products.

The market determines value/fair price. If a product is (truly) "overpriced", then either it will not sell or it will not sell in sufficient enough numbers to justify its continued production. For years, Microsoft lost money on every Xbox unit that it sold. But I didn't hear any stories about consumers sending Microsoft checks to make up for that deficit. I believe the gaming division, and the associated devices, now make a profit. How much of a profit margin there is, I don't know. But again, especially when discussing nonessential products with an elastic demand, market demand quickly determines whether the product is overpriced or not. At least in the U.S., carriers get the phones at a discount from the MSRP and then sell them at a subsidized price. So if AT&T is selling the iPhone 4 for more than the Blackberry Torch (I don't know if they are or not), then it's because customer demand for the iPhone outstrips that for the Torch... because the data seems to suggest that the iPhone is cheaper to produce and also sells for less (at retail) than the Torch.

---

Lucky for me then that I get my phones for free :) I have never had to pay for a phone, I have a choice of any phone I want from my cell company every 18 months at no charge!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

Lucky for me then that I get my phones for free :) I have never had to pay for a phone, I have a choice of any phone I want from my cell company every 18 months at no charge!

---

You pay for it with your tarrif though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

You pay for it with your tarrif though.

---

Nope. I have a 16 year history with my service provider (and the same phone number for those 16 years) so I pay a lot less than the average Joe does for calls, and I get phones for free. 16 years of loyalty to them pays off slightly.

Less than you would with a SIM-only contract?

Yes. I pay about 40% of what the average person is charged.