The future of Android smartphones and their manufacturers. This is what I think about.

[TechnoV]

Google has become an independent phenomenon of our reality. This financial corporation no longer serves humanity, but the interests of its owners.
Smartphone buyers want reliable, simple devices that can be repaired and serviced.
A smartphone should only be able to do what is needed. For photos there is a camera, for example. Multimedia harvesters in your pocket? Are you seriously?
I'm talking about sharing information. These are SMS, telephony, e-mail, browser, messengers and calls via the Internet.

Universal flagships. Do you know at least one that is worth the money? Me not.

Google is trying to make a universal operating system for smartphones. But this is impossible. Because all people are different, and 80% of the inhabitants of this planet will never buy a smartphone for more than $ 200.
Motorola makes interesting and reliable, durable, inexpensive smartphones. I respect them for that.

But I see that world capitalism does not like it. Merchants want the consumer to be a slave. The consumer is a drug addict, on the hook for purchases and new technological innovations. This is a bad way, this is vampirism. This is not good.

Android is moving towards increasing the power of smartphones. But is it necessary? Do you need games on a 7-inch display? I'm not sure if this is really needed in a smartphone. For this there are tablets to read and play on the road, or while lying in bed.

I think Google needs to think more carefully about smartphone buyers. Otherwise, we end up in the digital GooLag of capitalism.

 

[hallux]

Smartphone buyers want reliable, simple devices that can be repaired and serviced.

Is this really the case? iPhones are no more repairable than Android-based devices yet they don't ever seem to have enough stock on launch day.

 

[B. Diddy]

I think the majority of smartphone users keep their phones for about 2 years on average before they upgrade (especially iPhone users), so it's almost like a lease.

Yes, they want their phones to be reliable. But in order for a phone to be easily repaired/serviced, that often means making the phone less sleek and compact. Considering the hoopla that everyone raises about how sexy a phone looks, I doubt manufacturers are too keen on that.

 

[TechnoV]

I think the majority of smartphone users keep their phones for about 2 years on average before they upgrade (especially iPhone users), so it's almost like a lease.

Yes, they want their phones to be reliable. But in order for a phone to be easily repaired/serviced, that often means making the phone less sleek and compact. Considering the hoopla that everyone raises about how sexy a phone looks, I doubt manufacturers are too keen on that.

---

1. Paying $ 1000 for a new phone every 2 years? Perhaps in the United States it is, but not in other countries of the world.

2. You say that "everyone wants" that a smartphone should look sexy, sleek and ... compact?
Does the smartphone look compact with a screen diagonal approaching 7 inches? In fact, this is a Lenovo 4G tablet. Which costs $ 200. ))
I understood. Are you saying that smartphone manufacturers want to have super-profits, forcing buyers to change smartphones every 2 years, like changing lovers? But this is raising the herd, and not for the better.
I know what I'm talking about. After all, there was a study where the iPhone was disassembled, and it turned out that the cost of its spare parts is extremely low, and Apple's corporation has profits that are hundreds (!!) times higher than the cost of the iPhone itself.

 

[Mike Dee]

---

1. Paying $ 1000 for a new phone every 2 years? Perhaps in the United States it is, but not in other countries of the world.

2. You say that "everyone wants" that a smartphone should look sexy, sleek and ... compact?
Does the smartphone look compact with a screen diagonal approaching 7 inches? In fact, this is a Lenovo 4G tablet. Which costs $ 200. ))
I understood. Are you saying that smartphone manufacturers want to have super-profits, forcing buyers to change smartphones every 2 years, like changing lovers? But this is raising the herd, and not for the better.
I know what I'm talking about. After all, there was a study where the iPhone was disassembled, and it turned out that the cost of its spare parts is extremely low, and Apple's corporation has profits that are hundreds (!!) times higher than the cost of the iPhone itself.

Parts are small cost of producing a smart phone or any other product for that matter. No one has to buy an expensive device so there are options.

 

[B. Diddy]

1. Paying $ 1000 for a new phone every 2 years?

They're not actually paying a full $1000 every 1-2 years -- they're usually trading their old phone in, for credit ranging from around $100 to $500, depending on the phone and its condition. There are also a lot of people who still get their phones on installment from a carrier, and the carrier will allow them to upgrade before the phone is fully paid off.

2. You say that "everyone wants" that a smartphone should look sexy, sleek and ... compact?

By compact, I mean thin. I was addressing your statement that you think people want their phones to be easy to repair and service. Although that's a commendable goal, I doubt the average consumer has this front and center in their minds when they're shopping for a new phone (at least, not in the US). In order to make a phone super-thin, components have to be crammed together with absolute precision -- but when you do that, it makes it harder to repair. Unibody construction also contributes to that difficulty. Given the choice between a sleek thin metal/glass unibody design and a chunkier plastic design with a lot of seams that allow for removing a battery, I'd say the average consumer would go for the former.

Are you saying that smartphone manufacturers want to have super-profits, forcing buyers to change smartphones every 2 years

This is certainly part of the equation. But they're not forcing consumers to do anything; they're playing to the market.

I'm not saying that the trend towards superexpensive phones is a good thing. My point is that it's not the companies that have been forcing this upon the consumer -- but rather, the consumer has shaped this trend. It's now up to the consumer to reject that trend, which we're hopefully starting to see, as the big phone manufacturers are starting to emphasize their midrange phones more -- the iPhone 11, Pixel 3a/4a, OnePlus Nord, Samsung Galaxy A series, LG Velvet, etc.

 

[Mooncatt]

Given the choice between a sleek thin metal/glass unibody design and a chunkier plastic design with a lot of seams that allow for removing a battery, I'd say the average consumer would go for the former.

I'd actually like to see this put to the test. A manufacture that offers two phones identical in spec and performance, with the only difference being sealed glass body or removable battery with a plastic or metal body, and priced fairly for the given construction. Advertise them together so neither one gets an unfair advantage, then compare the sales numbers.

 

[Elky64]

I'd actually like to see this put to the test. A manufacture that offers two phones identical in spec and performance, with the only difference being sealed glass body or removable battery with a plastic or metal body, and priced fairly for the given construction. Advertise them together so neither one gets an unfair advantage, then compare the sales numbers.

I doubt you'd see enough of a cost savings to warrant the device with the lesser aesthetics, as in the smartphone world user's have become infatuated with the beauty end of things... Even if they adorne their device in a case.

 

[Elky64]

What I think about most...

1) How ridiculous pricing for some smartphones has gotten.

2) Device support (updates) on the Android front which is STILL very much hit-n-miss with many OEM's.

3) New devices - too often too many.

 

[Mooncatt]

When it comes to pricing, the MSRP is only part of the equation. Much of that is due to artificial inflation (do you really think you are getting $150 in Samsung credits and other "freebies" for nothing?). As was already mentioned, those buying new phones yearly or every other year either trade in for a discount or sell their old one outright. There's also all the carrier deals for starting new lines of service. Those people are only paying about half the cost of the actual phone when it's all said and done.

Those paying full price (myself included) are likely ones to keep a phone until it's simply worn out, replacing it at 4 years or more.

But whatever the case, no one is forcing anyone to buy the phones, much less the stupid expensive flagship phones. People will buy what they want to buy at a price they can afford. I don't like the high cost of the Note 20. So guess what, I didn't buy the Note 20. I don't care if someone else wants to buy one. It's their money.

 

[B. Diddy]

I'd actually like to see this put to the test. A manufacture that offers two phones identical in spec and performance, with the only difference being sealed glass body or removable battery with a plastic or metal body, and priced fairly for the given construction. Advertise them together so neither one gets an unfair advantage, then compare the sales numbers.

I'd like to see reviewers stop overpraising or trashing a device based on their aesthetics. The latter always annoyed me about reviews about Pixel phones.

 

[Mike Dee]

When it comes to pricing, the MSRP is only part of the equation. Much of that is due to artificial inflation (do you really think you are getting $150 in Samsung credits and other "freebies" for nothing?). As was already mentioned, those buying new phones yearly or every other year either trade in for a discount or sell their old one outright. There's also all the carrier deals for starting new lines of service. Those people are only paying about half the cost of the actual phone when it's all said and done.

Those paying full price (myself included) are likely ones to keep a phone until it's simply worn out, replacing it at 4 years or more.

But whatever the case, no one is forcing anyone to buy the phones, much less the stupid expensive flagship phones. People will buy what they want to buy at a price they can afford. I don't like the high cost of the Note 20. So guess what, I didn't buy the Note 20. I don't care if someone else wants to buy one. It's their money.

I don't know if it's still going but some of the carrier deals end up making you pay extra in line access fees so in the end you paid full price. Verizon was one of them

 

[Mooncatt]

I don't know if it's still going but some of the carrier deals end up making you pay extra in line access fees so in the end you paid full price. Verizon was one of them

I'm on Verizon and the only offer even close to that I have seen was their BOGO offers requiring a new line of service for the "free" phone. Great if you actually wanted a new line, wasted money if you didn't.

Which offer are you referring to?

 

[Mike Dee]

I'm on Verizon and the only offer even close to that I have seen was their BOGO offers requiring a new line of service for the "free" phone. Great if you actually wanted a new line, wasted money if you didn't.

Which offer are you referring to?

Nothing specific, but the last time I bought a subsidized iphone for my wife. I noticed her line access fee got bumped up compared to mine and my daughter's line. It possible they don't do that anymore. This was when you bought as an example a 700 dollar device for 200. Now they seem to do payments that equal the price of the device so maybe it's changed. I don't buy from Verizon anymore.

 

[L0n3N1nja]

I don't know if it's still going but some of the carrier deals end up making you pay extra in line access fees so in the end you paid full price. Verizon was one of them

When Verizon had contracts line access was the same whether you got a new phone or not, when they switched to device payments the line access was reduced to offset paying for your own device. If you kept your device longer than 2 years you were saving money. Their current deals include bill credits to further reduce the cost. Saved $400 on my Note 9 buying from Verizon instead of unlocked. I'll deal with bloat when it's 40% cheaper.

 

[Mike Dee]

When Verizon had contracts line access was the same whether you got a new phone or not, when they switched to device payments the line access was reduced to offset paying for your own device. If you kept your device longer than 2 years you were saving money. Their current deals include bill credits to further reduce the cost. Saved $400 on my Note 9 buying from Verizon instead of unlocked. I'll deal with bloat when it's 40% cheaper.

That's not what I was referring to. My prior plan had a 10 dollar line access fee per line. If you bought a subsidized device on contract they increased the the line access fee.

 

[Mooncatt]

That's not what I was referring to. My prior plan had a 10 dollar line access fee per line. If you bought a subsidized device on contract they increased the the line access fee.

I think I remember something like that a few years ago, but it was laughable. The subsidized phone had a higher line access fee, but they then offered a monthly discount on the phone payment that offset it. Theoretically when the phone was paid off, you lost the discount and the access fee went back up, but you could call and get them to give you a paid off device discount to bring it right back down.

 

[msm0511]

I think I remember something like that a few years ago, but it was laughable. The subsidized phone had a higher line access fee, but they then offered a monthly discount on the phone payment that offset it. Theoretically when the phone was paid off, you lost the discount and the access fee went back up, but you could call and get them to give you a paid off device discount to bring it right back down.

And at one point AT&T was charging different line access fees depending on which unlimited plan you were on, and how many lines you had. I was thinking of switching carriers at one point and was shopping pricing. I was surprised they even had access fees still, much less they varied.