[marvin]

I'm going to take your cue and call the hypothetical iPhone/iTouch hybrid an iPhone Mini.
 
Quote:

Well, it's not arbitrary. It's the actual industry accepted definition of a feature phone.

 
 
Industry accepted doesn't mean it's not arbitrary.

DoMoCo featurephones have long had high spec hardware, high end mobile gaming, third party application support, and various forms of alternate connectivity. Brew MP featurephones, like the HTC Freestyle, have full HTML browsers, an application store, and specs mostly in line with the original iPhone and early Android phones. There's a lot of crossover in terms of features, and more than a few existing featurephones with smartphone characteristics. That number will increase in the near future as Brew MP phones and low end Android phones from ZTE and Huawei start replacing existing feature phones.
 
Arbitrary doesn't mean useless though. Just makes talking about products in the gray area difficult. Thinking about it though, "does it have WiFi?" would be a pretty good differentiator. Can't think of any featurephones that have WiFi.
 
 
Quote:

Also, just so we're clear, most phones are subsidized under contract. That's why you can get a free phone with a 2-year contract. Granted, the subsidy is often only $50 to $100 but it's still a subsidy.

 
I'm saying it's the size of the smartphone subsidy that allows high smartphone profits. The average smartphone subsidy is in the ~ $350 range, significantly more than the average cellphone subsidy.
 
 
Quote:

They would be taking away features and now having to support four variations of iOS where three of them are radically different.

 
I doubt supporting a variant with disabled mobile data, which they already have a user accessible control for, would be a major effort.
 
 
Quote:

As for the MSRP, there are a number of factors you may not be counting. Phones take a relatively decent technological jump every year or two. There is a great deal of R&D that goes into this and each company is, more or less, doing it on their own. In contrast, Blu-ray players, TVs and the like don't actually change that much and all use a lot of the same technology, technology that is shared in other sectors.

 
 
Apple's R&D expenditure is ~ 3-4% of revenue these days. A couple billion is quite a bit of R&D, but doesn't account for much of the per unit cost.

In any case, products of similar technological complexity to smartphones have nowhere near the MSRP/BOM ratio of smartphones. Tablets are ~ 1.5-2x. Notebooks are ~ 1.2-1.5x. Smartphones are ~ 3x. It's also pretty obvious that an iPhone doesn't cost twice as much to make as an iTouch, but that's where pricing is with "what the market will bear" pricing. Market can (and does) bear a whole lot more when consumers are paying for hardware on an installment plan.
 
 
Quote:

Again, if we're talking about people who are looking for a device that's as capable as, say, an iPod Touch they're still going to want the mobile data. You can say you don't think that's the case, and with a certain segment of the population you're right. But the majority do want mobile data, it's why they go for a smartphone in the first place.

 
 
Here's the market segment I'm talking about:

1. Don't want required dataplan @ $300/year for 2 years
2. Don't want required text plan @ $60/year for 2 years
3. Want phone that doesn't suck
4. Have $200

 
I think that's a pretty large underserved market segment. I think that ~ $350 MSRP ($200 upfront + $150 2-year contract subsidy) is enough for iTouch class device capability and user experience. You may disagree.
 
 
Quote:

Beyond that, what about Apple's business strategy makes you think they'd care about such a low-end market? They barely make computers that cost less than $1,000. The only areas where they are truly, really competitive in price are the iPad, iPhone, iPod Touch and the Apple TV (oddly enough).

 
 
Apple sells the Shuffle. Doesn't get more low end than < $50 consumer electronics. They also sell the $599 Mac Mini, which may not be the best value but is affordably priced.
 
 
Quote:

If Apple created a device that cost $100 and offered a subset of the features the iPhone 4 offered, and assuming people stopped buying the iPhone 4 and bought the iPhone Mini or whatever instead, where's that smart for Apple?

 
You've just described the iPhone 3GS. People didn't stop buying the iPhone 4.
 
The iPhone Mini would be situated even further away from the 4 in terms of marketspace than the 3GS currently is and would allow Apple to capture a market where it currently has no presence.

 

[DougofTheAbaci]

iPods are dying, by the way. I did mention that. They're a bad example. Most people are using their smartphones instead.
 
And yes, I described the 3GS, a device that requires a dataplan, texting...
 
Look, EVERYTHING SINGLE THING you're talking about HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PHONE and everything to do the telecoms. iPhones do not require anything at all to work. They will work no matter what you do with them. However, in order to use it on their network most telecoms require you buy a data plan.
 
Yes, in order to get the subsidy you need to go on contract but if it wasn't subsidized it would be an extremely expensive device. More expensive than an iPod Touch. Why? Because it would need to have the cell components as well as wifi components. Heck, that doesn't even consider GPS which the majority of phones have now.
 
You make it sound like there's no reason it shouldn't be simple and there are loads of them. Saying, "But it shouldn't!" doesn't work.

 

[marvin]

 
Quote:

iPods are dying, by the way. I did mention that. They're a bad example. Most people are using their smartphones instead.

Bad example of what? You're being quite cryptic there. 
 
 
Quote:

And yes, I described the 3GS, a device that requires a dataplan, texting...

 
... and fits the bill as a low end, low margin, direct competitor to the iPhone 4. One which hasn't cannibalized iPhone 4 to an extent that would cause Apple to pull it from market.
 
If cannibalization is a showstopper, it's difficult for me to see how a product even further removed from the iPhone 4's market can be a greater threat to iPhone 4 sales than the 3GS.
 
 
Quote:

Look, EVERYTHING SINGLE THING you're talking about HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PHONE and everything to do the telecoms.

 
 
I noted carrier issues with the idea as the nail in the coffin for a device like this in my first post on this subject.
 
The rest of this is just dicking around about whether or not it'd be technologically feasible to build a profitable no-data iPhone-like device at a < $400 price point and whether or not there'd be a market for it.
 
 
Quote:

Yes, in order to get the subsidy you need to go on contract but if it wasn't subsidized it would be an extremely expensive device. More expensive than an iPod Touch. Why? Because it would need to have the cell components as well as wifi components. Heck, that doesn't even consider GPS which the majority of phones have now.

Ever wonder about how much cellular components cost? Dumbphones commonly sell unlocked and off contract for $50 these days. They can do that because the cellular bits are < $30.
 
For how that translates into higher end retail prices, take the iPad. The MSRP pricing difference between the WiFi only and WiFi+3G is $130. Unsurprisingly, the cellular ICs on the iPad cellular module are nearly identical (only difference is updated GPS IC on the ATT variant) to the cellular section on the iPhone.
 
Add one ($229 for 8GB iTouch) to the other ($130 for cellular module) and you get $359. It ain't $350, but pretty close.
 
Adding GPS capability is trivial in terms of cost. The baseband processor in the Verizon module has it incorporated into the IC, while the ATT module uses a part in the $2 range.
 
 
Quote:

You make it sound like there's no reason it shouldn't be simple and there are loads of them. Saying, "But it shouldn't!" doesn't work.

If I said "But it shouldn't!" without explaining why it shouldn't, I'd like to know where so I can clarify. 

 

[DougofTheAbaci]

I'm not really being cryptic. I'm saying that what people what is something like an iPod Touch is a bad example as most people who are considering an iPod Touch buy an iPhone instead. It's actually a good example against the kind of device you're suggesting.
 
It's about cost per unit. Apple is losing out on iPod sales because people are buying iPhones. That's fine because Apple makes more on iPhones than iPods through subsidies. The 3GS does take business away from the iPhone 4 but there's still a strong subsidy and as far as I know, though I haven't verified it so I could easily be wrong, they sell more 4 than 3GS models. The issue is a product that was designed to be cheaper or offer fewer features than the 3GS would give Apple a smaller profit per device. Apple is happy with the situation now, it makes no sense for them to offer a device to grow market share when they're already doing that with a more expensive device.
 
It's definitely possible to build such a device, there's just little demand and less desire to create it. Apple isn't the only one in this space. No one else is bothering with such a device because it goes directly against the way the vast majority prefers to use their mobile phones.
 
To be honest, I don't know of any device that's a phone, does wifi but not 3G or some other form of mobile data that you can get on the major telecom networks. That doesn't mean such a device doesn't exist, just that I haven't heard of it.
 
I'm aware of how much things actually cost the telecoms. 4,000 text costing $0.25, for example. The iPhone 4 costs something around $188 to actually make. There's more to price than hardware costs but still.
 
Oh, and you can't just say, "Add this phone to this phone." That ignores a whole plethora of technical difficulties and considerations. Nothing is as simple as you're trying to imply.

 

[marvin]

 
Quote:

It's definitely possible to build such a device, there's just little demand and less desire to create it. Apple isn't the only one in this space. No one else is bothering with such a device because it goes directly against the way the vast majority prefers to use their mobile phones.
 
To be honest, I don't know of any device that's a phone, does wifi but not 3G or some other form of mobile data that you can get on the major telecom networks. That doesn't mean such a device doesn't exist, just that I haven't heard of it.

 
No one bothers with such a device since you can't get them on a major carrier's network. Not much more useless than a phone that can't make calls. ATT's Average Revenue Per User for postpaid customers with dataplans is 1.8x that of those without dataplans. Good luck convincing them that offering a quality phone on their networks that doesn't use cellular data is a good idea.
 
ATT and Verizon won't even let off-contract smartphones on their networks without a mandatory dataplan. ATT's got an automated routine to (a) detect smartphones that don't have dataplans, (b) sign them up for dataplans, and (c) send the owners a nicely worded letter explaining how ATT is doing them a favor by signing them up for dataplans they don't want. Verizon has an easier job as they merely force you to buy a dataplan whenever you register your smartphone's ESN/MEID for activation.

 
Quote:

Oh, and you can't just say, "Add this phone to this phone." That ignores a whole plethora of technical difficulties and considerations. Nothing is as simple as you're trying to imply.

 
Sure it is, least in the rigged case that I chose.
 
Combining the iTouch 4G with the iPad 1 cellular module will give you a logic board that looks suspiciously similiar to the iPhone 4 logic board. I dare say they'd be identical, since there's no reason to do the design work twice. Yay for the wonders of reuse and modular designs.

 

[DougofTheAbaci]

I'm sorry, but I'm going to stop my end of this discussion here. I don't agree, I don't see anything that supports your opinion and I don't think you're going to change your mind.

 

[koolkat]

In the opinion of this forumer, people are too getting too dependent on technology.
 
Did the iPhone and other smartphones really change the way humans go about with their life?
 
Yes. It connected the world. If someone were to remove all the iphone/smartphones in the world,
People would die, sadly. Why? No one can live without their facebook. In trains, you see people looking
down, tapping away at their phones.
 
What happened to normal cellulars, before iphone/smartphones came about? Whatever happened to
the basic functions of a phone, that is to call, receive calls and text? Taken for granted. Imo, all these
extras that a phone comes with, an 8.0 megapixel, a 4 inch LCD screen, 100000+ apps to download,
they're really just extras that we don't need.
 
Everyone's just looking down on their phones, too busy to notice the wonderful world around them.
Imo, this goes for digital cameras too. People snap away randomly, and then delete pics, or post them
up on facebook and forget about them. No more sentimental values in photographs. No more photo albums.
 

 
 
 
 

 

[flavouz]

This is why I print photos that have some special value for me, and write postcards to friends when on holiday.
 
Or maybe I'm just oldschool 

 
Quote:

In the opinion of this forumer, people are too getting too dependent on technology.
 
Did the iPhone and other smartphones really change the way humans go about with their life?
 
Yes. It connected the world. If someone were to remove all the iphone/smartphones in the world,
People would die, sadly. Why? No one can live without their facebook. In trains, you see people looking
down, tapping away at their phones.
 
What happened to normal cellulars, before iphone/smartphones came about? Whatever happened to
the basic functions of a phone, that is to call, receive calls and text? Taken for granted. Imo, all these
extras that a phone comes with, an 8.0 megapixel, a 4 inch LCD screen, 100000+ apps to download,
they're really just extras that we don't need.
 
Everyone's just looking down on their phones, too busy to notice the wonderful world around them.
Imo, this goes for digital cameras too. People snap away randomly, and then delete pics, or post them
up on facebook and forget about them. No more sentimental values in photographs. No more photo albums.
 

 
 
 
 

 

 

[kaixax555]

Got a Desire Z rooted with Cyanogenmod 7.0.3, android 2.3 

 

[kwkarth]

Picked up a couple of the HTC Sensation phones when they were released.  Nice phones.  Android 2.3, HTC Sense, 1.2GHz dual core processors, etc.

 

[DougofTheAbaci]

Yeah, I've been thinking Gallaxy S II or one of the HTC Google phones.
 
As for his comments, I did get the part that was we don't buy a phone just to be a phone anymore, but I didn't get the feeling it was because the phone part is crap. For all intents and purposes a smartphone is just as effective of a phone as my old Nokia and that phone's big feature was a color screen! The thing is, phones haven't improved and probably won't at this point. There is no need for them to. So we either make phones smaller (and thus harder to use) or fill up the extra space with added features.
 
The whole comment just felt very, "Back in my day..." or "The kids these days..." which is something The Daily Mail does very well.

 

[dirkpitt45]

Making something smaller and adding more features isn't an improvement?...

 

[DougofTheAbaci]

Technologically speaking, there's no reason you couldn't have a cell phone the size of a bluetooth headset. It would just be horrible to use because you'd either need an external interface or a voice-command system and I have yet to have a voice dial system I'd trust.

 

[raymond555]

just got SGS II and turned it back after 2 days.
the sound quality SUCKS!!! I use powerAMP and my old N1 kicks it out of the water,never realized and appreciated my N1 until I've heard the SGS.
the sound signature is very light and fake,mids are weak,bass is weak,highs are soft and cuts way to soon.
the N1 and I think HTC in general has WAY better bass,WAY better mids,and better highs.
Im not gonna replace my N1 until it dies.
I guess all that GSM Arena sound test worth nothing.
whats more,the SGS II get very hot on the earpiece area while surfing,especially while using wi-fi,call volume is low but clear,battery life is good,screen is amazing but UI is ugly,
very light and to much plastic,no real quality here. 
 

 

[cifani090]

Quote:

just got SGS II and turned it back after 2 days.
the sound quality SUCKS!!! I use powerAMP and my old N1 kicks it out of the water,never realized and appreciated my N1 until I've heard the SGS.
the sound signature is very light and fake,mids are weak,bass is weak,highs are soft and cuts way to soon.
the N1 and I think HTC in general has WAY better bass,WAY better mids,and better highs.
Im not gonna replace my N1 until it dies.
I guess all that GSM Arena sound test worth nothing.
whats more,the SGS II get very hot on the earpiece area while surfing,especially while using wi-fi,call volume is low but clear,battery life is good,screen is amazing but UI is ugly,
very light and to much plastic,no real quality here. 

It looks like with your setup(s) on Head-Fi, you are trying to stretch your dollar to get good sound out of your phone. Phones aren't going to/and wont ever have dedicated headphones amps unless you get a high end/ non regular consumer that can build and sell them.