Android Smartphones Heading For Rock Bottom Prices

[cereal killer]

How would you like your Android Smartphone to come in at under $100.00? Assuming the Mayan calendar is incorrect, we could be seeing those kinds of prices as soon as 2014. Ovum Research analyst Tony Cripps, noted that during a research Note dated Feb. 29, Google's CEO Eric Schmidt talked about how Android smartphones would be getting cheaper and cheaper in the next couple years. Cripp noted:

Schmidt's expectation that Android smartphones will be available between $100-$150 by next year already looks inevitable and will begin to redefine the handset market as a whole. The eventual goal of seeing the price of Android devices brought down into the $70 range also looks realistic to us with the advancement of technology and huge economies of scale that are starting to drive the Android economy.

Will sub $100.00 smartphones annihilate the OEM's and carriers bottom line? According to analysts, no. "Nokia Symbian is already shipping phones at this level," Gartner analyst Ken Dulaney told eWEEK. "There will always be a variety with differing features. As long as consumers will spend $400 on Nike shoes then there will be people who spend $200 on phones. And they will market the high end ones because that is where the profit comes from, just like in shoes." Current Analysis analyst Avi Greengart, brought up the point that Nokia makes nice profits on its low priced featurephones and as that market slowly moves to smartphones, profits can still be made.

Of course, this is all great news for Google, they would love carriers to just give handsets away for free so more of them get into the hands of consumers.

Source: eWeek

 

[kodiak799]

In order to do that, they'll need to cut down on the number of models so they get efficiencies from longer runs. Otherwise, yeah, phones today could be profitably sold for $100 2 yrs from now. You're not getting the latest tech in there for $100, but many aren't going to need it. Akin to low and mid-tier laptops today which are more powerful than models costing $3000 5yrs ago.

 

[justin82]

i think as manufactures slow down making phones ( because the progress of dual/quad core phones peak ) they will drop in price but right now technology is moving so fast that they make new phone every 4 months or so . which will keep cost hi. just my .02

 

[pinoy_92]

i think manufacturers can still keep the prices high if they slow down on releasing new phones. instead of releasing 4-5 phones a year they should cut down and release new phones 2-3 times a year. in this way, they can support their old phones better and make true to their statements (talking about motorola). they can still keep the price high. and when they do release a new phone it should be considered revolutionary compared to its predecessors. iphone 4s is still pretty pricey because its the latest and greatest from apple, even though motorola, samsung and htc phones are already more advanced than iphone 4s.

now if they make a phone with a built-in cup holders that would be completely revolutionary!

 

[sb1831]

I think it is quite possible to see these prices in the near future. The only thing that I would NEVER be willing to lose in terms of functionality in my device these days is LTE connectivity. The ability to download, upload and transfer files at that rate is priceless. In MY opinion, NOTHING that came along over the years would be an absolute deal breaker for my next device except no LTE. To the users of this website that may sound like blasphemy, but it's true.

I don't need a retina display, or SuperAMOLED+ display. Honestly while they're nice to look at, in terms of functionality as a personal smart device, they really don't make that much of a difference to me. If a company came out with a phone that ran an OS that took a materialistic approach and did things like email, web browsing, messaging, voicemail, and maps/nav well and everything interacted seamlessly I'd buy it. Maybe it's because I'm a bit older, but I load the music I enjoy on my phone so that I don't have to listen to crap thats being streamed on a station playing music I'm supposed to like. I STILL hate camera's on cell phones. I'm not sure if any others can relate but there used to be a time when all of the top end phones came in two versions. One with a camera and one without. I was working in a field where cameras weren't permitted. I got used to not having a camera, and quite frankly I don't find myself saying "I wish a had a camera to take a picture of_____________"

I think once Android finally defines itself for whatever it is going to be, these $100 will appear. I think it will be similar to the approach Windows is taking now Win8. They're getting rid of the bloat and a 4 year old machine can run Win8. Once Android hits that point and get's to the point where the "less is more" approach, there will be a lot of phones on the market. OF COURSE you're going to have your super phones that will have the capability of installing whatever you want and running it silky smooth but a lot of people would go out and buy that same phone that did just the basics smoothly for less than the $300 premium.

 

[MissionImprobable]

As other said, when manufacturers minimize the number of devices they can better distribute the price over a large number of a few devices instead of having a ridiculous number of models. Guess we'll see if they get Accounting 101 down in the near future. Of course, Apple dinks you in the head despite the number of units sold just because they can.

 

[NeoandGeo]

Would be nice to have ~$250 premium phones without contract. That is much better than $70 phones on contract, imo.

 

[kodiak799]

Would be nice to have ~$250 premium phones without contract. That is much better than $70 phones on contract, imo.

Maybe....$180 more is still $180. I certainly don't need a new phone more than every 20 months. I can easily afford it, but I still recognize that's a waste of money. Probably why so many people live paycheck to paycheck.

Might make sense if the phones were unlocked and you could move freely between carriers on a monthly basis. That would really open-up competition, but I don't think there's enough major players to make much of a difference - the market is such that tacit collusion is almost forced because it's easy for them all to see that undercutting the competition quickly becomes lose-lose for everyone.