Why do profit-seeking companies keep making profitless Android phones?

I would have thought another lesson from Windows is that bloatware is hated and doesn't improve anything - although in the Windows world, the PC makers likely made money by including the bloatware on their machines.

Of course, none of this would solve the update issue as far as I can tell because the carriers are always involved in checking updates. Obviously, Apple bypasses this issue - but my question is why does it still exist for other phones? Carriers always say they need to check the phones - but why? And if so, why don't they need to check iPhone updates? My cynical assumption is that carriers want control and they add actually zero value but do this to maintain control.

Android provides an ecosystem for free*. Lately phone enhancements have been things like 0.2 ghz faster processor, larger screen, fingerprint reader. Reminds me a lot when HDTVs were offering higher refresh rates, gimmicks like 3D TV. Consumers decided they were not going to scrap their $2000 TV for another $2000 TV. Now those $2000 TVs are < $500.

So are consumers going to keep shelling out $600+ for a new phone every year or 2? Now in the USA they are more exposed to the price of the phone due to the elimination of contracts with phone subsidies. I suppose the fact that most phones are fragile causes them to break more and be replaced, but phones are commoditized now, and will continue to decrease in price and margin.

Every one I know have a super slim phone, then a case to prevent it to be broken and make the phone not slim anymore and then a second battery. So why not make a less slim phone with hardened chassis and a longer battery ? And market it as such (you want slim that last 8h and you can't plug your earphones, go Apple, you want solid that last 2 days and you can plug your earphones, buy Me)

And they also should embrace XDA community who work for free in advocating "a phone".

And they should also accept that a premium 4.5 /4.8 screen phone is also in demand, not just 5.5 and 6.0.

And give removable battery so we, paranoid, can really unplug the phone without having to put in the fridge.

1. every new smartphone bearing the company’s insignia serves as an engineering showcase for the various component businesses that comprise its vast conglomerate

2. LG believes it needs a smartphone to connect to its growing ecosystem of smart home, TV, and in-car gadgets, plus phones provide free and ubiquitous advertising

3. Others see smartphones as a conduit to generating profits elsewhere. Xiaomi is famous for selling phones at cost and then seeking to capitalize on a well-disposed user base by selling additional services and extras like luggage.

Of these 3, the only one that makes financial sense to me is 2. For companies that are so heavily invested in connected white goods and home automation, selling a smartphone that can control a home hub at cost is akin to giving away a free remote control for a TV. It helps bring users into the ecosystem and can help guide their fridge, TV, security network, etc. purchasing decisions.

They don't want to make phones a small as I like and they refuse to make true standalone smartwatches that can make and receive calls/texts and use GPS by themselves.

Why Apple succeeded? Because they did not allowed the carriers to interfere with their software and updates. Why all of those companies are in that position - because they did (honorable mention for WP7,7.5,8 and 10).

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Straight-Talk-LG-Prepaid-Destiny-L...

(it constantly comes back into stock and sells out again)

quad-core cpu, 1GB of ram, 854x480 screen, Lollipop 5.1

http://www.lg.com/us/cell-phones/lg-L21G-destiny

it's gsm but you'll never unlock a tracphone for other carriers

That or Stockholm syndrome.

This is similar to the "Tesla loses X thousand on each car" thing. There's two ways to interpret that, 1) the more cars they sell the more money they lose, 2) as they sell more cars, they bring in more profit, and their total loss (from investments in factories etc.) divided across total sales will decrease, until it becomes positive.

So which is the case in Android land? I've never seen anything close to a thorough investigation of this point. Back in the early days of Android, the switch to Android seemed to bring companies back from making loses, into rough equilibrium, which always suggested to me that there was profit being made.

They use smartphones and sometimes tablets for most tasks.

That might change once they get older, but maybe it wont. So I think it's a good idea for any company that was/is in the PC/laptop business to try and capture as much mobile computing marketshare as possible.

:(((

While I wouldn't deny that, as an app platform it doesn't hold a candle to iOS.