And then there’s dual SIM (or even quad SIM). It’s a feature
that’s really popular in Asia and Latin America where people
might use one network for a local call and another for an
international one. That’s largely something MediaTek drove,
but now it’s in the Moto E, which also has a feature called
SmartCalling to help people set up and swap between SIM
preferences and automatically configure access point names.
You know what would be cool? If your phone knew how much
bandwidth from each carrier cost, and could switch between
them on the fly, depending on which one was cheapest, like a
multi-SIM phone that didn't suck.
Not having it on Western markets? Are you sure you're not confusing US with Western? Here in our very western European country they're common and often advertised. Both my previous phone (crappy Samsung) as well as my current cheap Android were dual sim.
What country in western Europe ? Never heard about anyone talking about a dual-sim telephones in France. But there is not much point of having two subscription to two companies that prices are aligned.
Wiko Mobile is a big name in France (#3 in 2013) and (almost?) all the smartphone they sell are dual sim:
http://world.wikomobile.com/p-Wiko-Smartphones
they are sold in supermarket as well (Auchan etc..)
Portugal. The reason I have one is because I have a company-issued SIM card, besides my personal one. But here prices are not actually aligned, since some providers have free, unlimited calls between members of the same plan, but not between members of different providers.
Well, let's just say there are different reasons necessitating different levels of operational security, and some are not as demanding as others.
Cheating on your wife with some cheap floozy? Dual SIM phone with a burner chip on a temporary number is fine for that. Spring break? What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas? Sure.
But drug dealers, probably not. Bank robbers, probably not. Anything that's probably somewhat gangster, probably not.
Indeed. I work for clients in two main countries. Having a dedicated mobile number in both countries coming into the same mobile phone would be useful. Currently I carry around two phones.
>Dual SIM is such a cool feature and so common in asia that not having it in Western markets almost seems like a conspiracy.
When the phone market is dominated by the carriers they don't supply dual-sim phones because they don't want people to easily switch or complement their networks. I know of at least one carrier-named phone sourced from ZTE, whose only difference from the original ZTE model is the removal of the second SIM slot.
You can buy all sorts of Chinese phones (with dual SIM) directly from China online on sites like Aliexpress.com. The thing is, US uses weird 3G frequencies or something from the rest of the world.
I bought my 3G MTK phone a year ago on Aliexpress.com. It worked fine perfectly while I was living in Europe. Then I came over and now I'm always on Edge network and network speed is significantly slower.
Carriers don't like to sell multi-sim phones because they are interested in selling you the ultimate expensive plan with a new phone for it. So you have to look at retailers that don't offer voice and data plans.
Out of curiosity - How does dual SIM work? Does the phone register with both networks, or does it switch allow you to quickly switch over before making an outgoing call?
It depends on the type of dual SIM exactly; it could mean anything from not more than being able to switch between two SIMs, to being able to use both of them simultaneously.
The Mediatek dual SIM phones do register to both networks at a time, they have two IMEIs as well.
afaik there are two different ways of operating: DSDS (Dual Sim Dual Standby) e DSFA (Dual Sim Full Active).
The most common is the first one, where the phones are both registered but when you're communicating with one sim the second one is unreachable (as there's only one radio circuit, one antenna, one processor etc..).
The second one, as the name says, allow you to use them both but it's more expensive of course because of the presence of two circuits of everything (at least radio-wise, it's like having two different phones in one) so it's far less common.
As far as I know almost all the "chinese" dualsim phones fall in the first category.
I'm not sure how well this would work in reality, for starters most dual SIM phones only provide 3G service onone of the SIMs, you have to physically swap then over if you want it on the other.
Such an app would also need to keep track of the credit on each SIM, bearing in mind there is no standard way to do so among all operators. It would also need to deal with differences between the phones reported data usage and the operators measured.
Often, the word 'cheap' carries a negative connotation. Talking specifically about Moto G & Moto E, I'd say they are phones that are priced correctly. Before we start talking about lack of features or compromises, just look at how much they charge for incremental memory. Just $20 for 8GB extra. Smartphones makers are slowly accepting commodity pricing and I hope they realize that skinning Android isn't always a value add.
Cool new features like fingerprint reader sure catch the fancy of those waiting to upgrade their phone. But expecting to price the phone at more than twice what they are worth when you add an evolutionary feature may not work for too long. The difference in build quality between Android & iOS phones is way smaller than Windows & Mac laptops.
"But expecting to price the phone at more than twice what they are worth "
Apple has a gross margin of 39%, which is pretty good, but presuming the minimum gross margin an electronics manufacturer requires for a sustainable business is 20% - It's the difference between charging $560 for a $400 BOM vs $480.
Even if you don't value Apple's Operating System, Ecosystem of Developers, content, support, quality, design - let's say that all has absolutely zero value - Apple is still charging about 16% more than what their phones are "worth."
Where Apple really cleans up is in the 32/64 GB iPhones - They really take their customers to the cleaners for the extra 16/48 GB of flash ($100 and $200 respectively)
They are making money from the ecosystem of developers & content separately. Why should it be counted in the price of the phone? Secondly, I didn't discount the quality/design from the phone price.
Apple doesn't just overcharge for additional flash, they overcharge at every possible item in your phone. Example : $30 cables/connectors/chargers. On top of that, they sell you last years model at a premium too. Up until a few months, they were selling iPad 2 at some ridiculous price. The BOM cost goes down significantly with new rev of components coming out, be it the camera module, the previous generation app processor, the foundry charges, the low res LCD,...
I was just trying to point out, that if you purchased an iphone for the hardware only that it was (for the basic iphone) only about 16% more than a fair price of what you would normally expect from another vendor.
And, a lot of people purchase iPhones because they like the genius bar, design, access to new applications which are likely to come , etc..
No arguments from me on the overpriced accessories from Apple though.
Note that the HP Touchpad charger is rated slightly higher than Apple's charger, but it's not cheap either. Right now Amazon lists the HP charger for $17.99 and the Apple 12w iPad charger for $19.00. Not much difference in price.
The $2.00 chargers are gambling with your device (and maybe even your life).
I knew someone was going to post that link. There's no price justification in that link other than saying $2 chargers are bad & so are $19 ones. So, does that mean $30 is the price point. Ofcourse not.
You are missing the point. I'm not saying $2 chargers are the right price. I'm saying, Apple overprices everything, include headphone cables, phone cases and what not. Their retail price is BOM + Retail_Markup + R&D + Apple_Markup. That last component is what I'm talking about.
The link that you posted is an excellent comparison BUT no evidence that "$30" is the right price point for a good charger. The iPhone charger has poor rating on current sag. The ipad charger has poor rating on voltage sag.
Actually, the Apple chargers in that link displayed the expected behavior for the USB 2.0 "extended power" (can't think of the actual title) specification. The author has a fancy oscilloscope, but that doesn't mean he/she knows everything.
I really like the Moto-G, and the Moto E looks like a solid phone as well. I'm interested to watch what it does to the App market, that much more volume and even a small fraction of a huge market, is a worthwhile thing.
The other thing I'm wondering about is Apple's response, if any.
As an app developer I can tell you that the problem is that these people don't spend money (on software). So even though there are now many more android users than iOS ones (world wide) it's still not a very lucrative market.
I wonder what percentage of app developers are really that sensitive to app sales. Ad-supported and underpants gnome supported seem to be bigger categories.
Users directly paying for mobile apps is like users directly paying for web apps, a smallish part of the overall game.
IMO, the bones of the business case (beyond the sheer number of these devices) is here:
“for a vast number of people in a vast number of countries, the cheap handset will be the first screen, and the only screen.”
If you want to show these people what movies are playing, sell them flights, let them share videos, shop online, etc. Targeting these “low end” machines is the way to do it.
App sales are a small part of the overall picture.
Do any of the App Stores allow regional prices? E.g., I can imagine that it is attractive to charge e.g. $3.99 for a game in the EU and US, but perhaps $.50 in China and India. The scale could make up for the difference.
Besides that, I think the ad market for such regions should not be understated. Especially in emerging economies, lots of companies will be competing for mindshare, both national and international.
Also, with respect to the Apple comment of the grandparent: I think that Apple has to do something at some point. Because it's not only that there are good budget smartphones now, but you can also get excellent cutting edge smartphones around $300-400, such as the Nexus 5 and the Moto X.
An anecdote: but I was an iPhone user for 5 years, but when replacing my iPhone 4, the Nexus 4 was so much cheaper (299 Euro) than a new iPhone. And I don't feel I lost any functionality. In fact, I can do a lot of things I couldn't do before (attaching files from the e-mail app, forward notifications to desktop per PushBullet, assign different notification LED colors to different apps, etc.)
Yep in google play you can set exact prices for each currency (or let it do currency conversion automatically for you - your choice).
On iOS you don't set a price directly but a price tier (e.g. Tier 1 $0.99, tier 2 is $1.99 etc) and apple controls the exact price of each tier in each country.
That's because a huge % of devs produce really bad apps (like all those clones of flappy bird and 2048). Like web apps in '99 we've had this media propagated "app millionaire" myth bringing in loads of bandwagon jumpers trying (and mostly failing) to make a quick buck.
Of course it really depends on what you're making as you say, but I can tell you from personal experience as well as from a lot of other people I know in the industry that there is a certain class of apps (e.g. High priced, high quality niche games) that are fairly lucrative for independent developers like myself and for which all these huge amounts of people using lowest end android devices are of little to no consequence.
If you're making "whatsapp" it's a different story.
Sure there are still people making money but the successful indie dev is an increasingly endangered species and no longer plays a large enough role in the ecosystem to drive platform decisions.
I say this as someone that would much rather see indie devs thrive.
Mobile expanded like crazy these past few years, so yes while you are right that f2p generates somewhere well above %90 of revenue the remainder is still a lot of money, most likely more than the whole paid market was before f2p dominated.
For an independent dev trying to "just" make a good living that can be more than enough, even if it's utterly uninteresting to the zyngas and kings do the world.
Both are based on a platform from MediaTek, a Taiwanese giant you've never heard of. It makes white label handsets that operators can customize for local markets.
Technically this isn't the case; MTK don't make handsets themselves, they're fabless and only provide reference designs based on their chipsets. It's the innumerable Chinese OEMs that use these reference designs to make handsets. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaTek#.282013-present.29 for a non-exhaustive list of smartphones that contain them.) Because it's a reference design, most of them have very similar features, since OEMs don't have to expend much effort to add features themselves. In fact I'd say it's unusual to not have e.g. dual-SIM, expandable storage, FM radio, or removable battery in a MTK smartphone; they're pretty much standard. The variation between models is mostly in ROM/RAM, camera and screen sizes, and case styling (there are models with small screens but the fastest SoC, for example.) Also, the MT6589 platform does not have 4G, it's 3G.
MTK is certainly relatively unknown in North America but in Asia the situation is very different - you'll find far more mention and phones using them, hardware-level repair/modding information is common, and they also cost significantly less than the flagships from Samsung, LG, and the other big companies.
> Also, the MT6589 platform does not have 4G, it's 3G.
The confusion probably comes from the fact that US carriers were branding HSDPA as "4G" to fool the US public that they were keeping up with the rest of the world.
The US has actually been on the leading edge of LTE deployment. Compare the map [1] to [2]. Then take a look back at 2012 to see how far along the US was even in 2012 (relatively far) [3] [4]. Then check out a more recent look (less than a year ago) [5].
And that's not counting WiMax, for whatever it's worth.
> after Verizon and Sprint started using setting up their LTE networks and touting speeds of up to 14.4, AT&T started to sat that their HSPA+ networks also “4G”
They even got Apple to make the iPhone show 4G in the status bar when you were on HSDPA.
Problem is, too many cheap phones are still shipping with Android 2.3 because the manufacturers just don't care.
Android 4.4 is a boon to cheap phone manufacturers because of low memory mode while retaining all the modern features. A $99 phone that isn't shit that runs Android 4.4 and has BLE would enable so much stuff that the rest of us take for granted.
Android 4.4 is a boon to cheap phone manufacturers because of low memory mode while retaining all the modern features. A $99 phone that isn't shit that runs Android 4.4 and has BLE would enable so much stuff that the rest of us take for granted.
But the prices have gone down so much that you can get a low-cost smartphone with Kit Kat. The Moto E is $129, has decent specs (even Gorilla Glass) and runs Kit Kat. It's only a matter of time before such phones dive below $99.
Android 4.4's low memory mode really isn't.
I'm running Android 2.3 on a 256mb system comfortably and on a 128mb system with some minor hacks. 4.4's "low memory" mode still wants 512MB.
While you won't see many new 256 or even 128mb systems out there anymore, 2.3 provides more usable memory to applications on an (otherwise) identical configuration.
IMNSHO, 128 and 256 just was never relevant for a smartphone, especially one that ran early Android. My original generation Kindle Fire tablet (came with a hacked up Amazon'd version of 2.3, I swapped out for CM, currently running Android 4.4) has 512mb of memory and was horridly slow with stock Amazon ROM. No cell phone radio, no microphone, no camera, decent for the time GPU, still slow.
It gets a little bit faster with every new version of Android that comes out, and with ART enabled it is noticeably faster in some apps. 128 and 256mb devices should just be scrapped, there is simply no reason to keep them around anymore.
So, I stand by what I say, even with low memory mode needing 512mb, it is far better than being stuck with Android 2.3.
My last phone was my first smartphone. It cost $80 and ran Android 4.0 very poorly with pauses and crashes.
My current one runs Android 4.1 and cost $60. It runs smoothly enough that I have no pressing reason to upgrade in the near future; but when I do I expect to get even more for less.
I have a Nexus 4 and my next phone is also probably going to be an Android phone but my shopping list now comes down to how well it takes a photo (N4 is horrible) and if it gets reasonable OS updates.
Cheap phones really are capable these days. I just got a 2nd hand Lumia 520 for ZAR1000 (about $100) and it can do everything my much more expensive iPhone 5 can. It's good enough to be my primary phone which is pretty amazing. Even has wifi internet tethering. Windows Phone 8.1 is a solid OS. The Lumia 630 with dual sim looks very appealing to me as soon as it's available.
Off topic, but I see you're in SA, I'll be living there for a year or two soon, I'd be really interested to get your perspective on the state of the technological landscape over there, things like ISPs, getting new electronics, tech jobs etc.
I agree with what you are implying, maybe it just came across as negative to whoever downvoted this. For devices that you upgrade every year or two, $130 (free with subsidy) is a good price. It feels cheap because Apple etc. have set the bar too high (on pricing).
the wired article gets one thing absolutely right - the excitement has gone out of the high-end smartphone market, but is palpably there in this one. ubiquitous cheap devices spreading everywhere and getting smarter and smarter is a lot closer to the world envisioned by gibson, sterling et al - the high end of the market has become more like a shopping mall than a cyberpunk bazaar.
I like to call it the "forbes law": relevance is inversely proportional to the number of ads / trackers on an average article page. Forbes regularly clocks in north of 40 on both Ghostery and Disconnect.
(Ghostery reports 19, disconnect reports 19 for wired.com)
FWITW, I stopped reading almost anything from wired because the website is excruciatingly slow on low-spec hardware and most of the times articles are just two paragraphs of text surrounded by a gazillion of links* and pictures that are too distracting for my taste.
* And I am under the impression that the character count of those unrelated links is higher than the character count of the article itself.
Think of some of the things the ad networks have to do: prevent click fraud, find out if their adverts actually made it above the fold, read their cookies on your computer, report back to base that the advert has been shown, personalise the advert to you, get some affiliate marketing code and actually go to some place if you actually click on the link.
To get that advert on your page you would obviously need another tracking service to manage the sale of that ad inventory to whomever the highest bidder is, so you can double up on the tracking codes right away.
Then you would need some independent metrics on how many people read the site and what socio-economic background they have, so a third tracker from yet another company is needed.
I jest, however, it is a bit like this, and, one really good HN article that needs to be written is an actual analysis of what is really going on with these pages and what all of the tracking does.
We need to stop calling them "smartphones" and call them what they really are - "personal computers." The previous personal computer is now a "work computer."
A smartphone's phone capability is now a small facet of its growing capabilities.
I had to write code for Androids, and so I 'used' them quite a bit while testing. To this day, every time I have to use an Android phone, I want to claw my eyes out, mainly over the lousy touch response, and somewhat-stupider UI. I fully understand they're still good iPhone knock-offs and more than adequate for many. But as someone who now uses my phone as my primary computer (and for me iOS is now only just barely adequate for this), I honestly don't know how y'all do it.
Cheap smartphones are going to change "everything?" HN still has a wired.com problem. I flag pretty much every single wired.com article that pops up past the new page. I really think wired.com is gaming the system they pop up so often.
I would be interested to know why wired.com articles have a HN problem?
The said article is not a deep dive analysis of the smartphone market, but it is interesting. Interesting enough to the HN crowd to get enough upvotes for it to appear on the front page.
