Since Verizon no longer offer contracts, is it free to increase prices whenever they feel like it?

[Sam_Gs7]

Since Verizon no longer offer contracts, is it free to increase prices
whenever they feel like it? (for customers who are no longer in a
current contract)

Scrap an Unpopular 2yrs contract sounds-Attractive for million
of users: Forcing other carriers to doSo in Canada and
abroad n' viewed as fair decision. Raising the prices
is inevitable, with contract or without. but Verizon
could increase users with this..Wait for results

 

[petes03]

This is only for the cost of the material. It doesn't include the cost of assembling the phone.

 

[trucksmoveamerica#AC]

This is only for the cost of the material. It doesn't include the cost of assembling the phone.

Yes, I said that in the comments above the picture

 

[Jason Fournier1]

This is only for the cost of the material. It doesn't include the cost of assembling the phone.

Or designing it, software maintenance, warranty, yield, testing, marketing...

 

[dpham00]

I don't know who makes all the money either, but someone, some company does. I googled the cost of making the Samsung S7, $255, the most expensive part is the snap Dragon processor at $62.

I don't think contracts cost the carriers to much money, not as much as they would have us believe anyway. I realize there's other costs involved, shipping, packaging and commissions.


Link

http://wccftech.com/samsung-galaxy-s7-255/


//uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170222/6d43f3bd8f7f3976e3c19547b86c7462.jpg

The high priced phones from Samsung, Apple and the like are sold for around the same price or higher even in areas of the world where they are not sold through carriers.

I read that the carriers pay Apple around 10-15% less than what they sell the iPhones for a while back.

Bom is only one aspect... There's r&d,overhead, marketing, transportation,licensing. They also have to invest in plants to make phones and components. For reference, Samsung is investing $14 billion into a new large manufacturing complex . There are lots of costs involved. I know that this is an older article but it indicates that Samsung profit margin is around 15% and dropped to 7.1%.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.forb...es-to-follow-apples-juicy-profit-margins/amp/


Also Verizon profit margin is 10.42%.

 

[Ry]

I don't know who makes all the money either, but someone, some company does. I googled the cost of making the Samsung S7, $255, the most expensive part is the snap Dragon processor at $62.

I don't think contracts cost the carriers to much money, not as much as they would have us believe anyway. I realize there's other costs involved, shipping, packaging and commissions.


Link

The Samsung Galaxy S7 Is One Cheap Smartphone; Teardown Shows $255 Of Material Costs


//uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170222/6d43f3bd8f7f3976e3c19547b86c7462.jpg

I hate these types of articles and reports because it influences people to believe that devices should only cost the parts used to make it. No money for R&D. No money for marketing. No profit to make other stuff.

 

[Aquila]

I hate these types of articles and reports because it influences people to believe that devices should only cost the parts used to make it. No money for R&D. No money for marketing. No profit to make other stuff.

Marketing is a huge expense, let's also throw in the parts and whatnot required to support exchanges, insurance claims, warranty work, etc. Say it's even 1 out of 20 that are being returned or repaired in that manner, that's still a 5% add to the BOM that we don't see. Marketing we consider sunk costs, but as an example, Google spent over $3 million on marketing the first couple of weeks on one phone. That's somewhere around $0.25 per device per week (if the campaign carried on that heavily).

 

[trucksmoveamerica#AC]

It very clearly says for materials at bottom of picture. If you read the article it also states materials, there other costs involved. I even said there's other costs. The article is being very clear, some people just see what they want to sometimes.

 

[Aquila]

Right, it's obvious that the BOM is the Bill of Materials - but the BOM is likely less than half of the expense put into each device when other sunk costs are spread across applicable devices.

 

[Ry]

It very clearly says for materials at bottom of picture. If you read the article it also states materials, there other costs involved. I even said there's other costs. The article is being very clear, some people just see what they want to sometimes.

Clear to me.

But I'm referring to the people not smart enough to realize these are for-profit companies.

 

[trucksmoveamerica#AC]

Clear to me.

But I'm referring to the people not smart enough to realize these are for-profit companies.

True.