Hacker News Reader

Comment by code_duck | Hacker News Reader

Apple's other products are expensive. iPhones tend to sell for 1-2 hundred with a contract, exactly the same as Android phones.

View on HN

A very limited, US-centric view. Yes, in the US (and Canada) people buy subsidized phones and even here that hasn't stopped Android.

In much of the rest of the world, people would be expected to pay 2-3 monthly salaries for an unsubsidized iPhone. Or they could pay 1/2 or 1/3rd for a decent Android phone and do the same things. Now do you understand the point of the article?

Which countries are you referring to, exactly? In Australia for instance, an iPhone is about $630 AU, a Droid 2, $650. I think it makes sense to compare phones of similar capabilities.

> Which countries are you referring to, exactly?

The answer to that is the GP's: "In much of the rest of the world". Australia is considered to be a rich, "Western" nation. Much of the rest of the world is poor, not rich. They do not have Apple stores or, in many cases, fast wired Internet connections. You've got to break out of your mind's box where thinking that Western countries dominate; in terms of population, they don't. At all.

> I think it makes sense to compare phones of similar capabilities.

What about in places where the iPhone isn't for sale, directly? What will you do then? If you would like an example, take Tanzania. They have wireless networks, but (to my knowledge) no iPhone.

The vast majority of the world cannot afford iPhones, but they are able to connect to wireless networks.

Okay, Android phones are definitely more expensive than phones that aren't available.

I never said, implied or referenced any sort of idea that Western countries dominate in terms of population. Thanks for clearing this up, though.

India, China, Eastern Europe, Latin America... take your pick.

When I go shopping for a phone this year, I'll be comparing the iPhone5 with the latest dual-core 4+" 1280x760 Android monstrosity, then drop 600+ on either. When the newly minted middle class in those countries goes shopping for a phone this year, they'll look at a reasonable 3.5" 480x320 Android for $150-200, compare it with some aging Nokia dinosaur and make their pick. The iPhone is not going to be figuring into their thoughts very much.

Anyway, you asked me 'now do you understand the point of the article'.

I think I already did, thanks, and as far as I can tell, Android being at a particularly advantage overseas vs. iOS is neither the point of FW's post or the article he linked to. In fact, all he said is '. And many of these devices will be running Android, not iOS'. As far as I can tell, HN has seemed to turn this into "Android will be devastating iOS because people in Kiribati can't afford an iPhone!!". Okay, but that isn't what either article was asserting.

Well, if you follow the link in Fred Wilson's blog post, the title is "2011 will be the year Android explodes". FW is merely agreeing with that original point.

I think Fred's point was that it's an entirely new market opening up. As you say, a middle-class value-conscious market. It will be a huge market, so businesses need to get out in front of it. But replicatorblog's point (as I understand it) is that iOS will still own the high-end of that market, and that segment is worth more $$$ than its number's suggest. If you're in control of the high-end, you can exert undue influence on consumer mind-share and developers. That matters for something.

Anyway, IMO this is not an iOS-vs-Android issue. New markets are going to open up, Android will be there. iOS will still be a cash-cow. Win-win, everybody celebrate (except Microsoft)

I understood the point of the article, but I have trouble believing that Android manufacturers will be able to build something people will want to buy for $100 that Apple won't be willing to match.

No, it's only exactly the same as the high end Android phones.

Here's a list that shows the huge variation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Android_devices

I have a phone that's at the same price point as the iPhone (Samsung Galaxy S) but there are lots of phones at the other end of the price spectrum such as the HTC Magic, Dream or Tattoo or maybe the Motorola Quench or Backflip. All phones that are half the price or less than the iPhone/Galaxy S.

That's not really my point, though. You're looking at 2010 prices. The discussion is about the future of the market. Since Apple controls the entire ecosystem of their products, including the price, if you want an iPhone you have to pay Apple's price. If you want an Android phone, you can hunt around for a really cheap one.

I get that the prices are very close right now. But since the can only be 1 or 2 models of iPhone out at any time and there can be thousands of Android phones, it is inevitable that Apple's iPhone will be more expensive than the cheaper Android models. Of course, the iPhone will probably be cheaper than high-end Android phones. It goes both ways. But since there is choice, Android will offer the cheaper option.

True, if you're comparing 'an Android phone' to an iPhone, the Android phones are cheaper. For phones of similar capabilities, they're more expensive. As you have to pay $70 a month minimum for two years to get one of these phones, though, I don't see that $80 for the phone is very different than $180.

> As you have to pay $70 a month minimum for two years to get one of these phones, though, I don't see that $80 for the phone is very different than $180.

That only happens in the USA and Canada. Maybe that happens a bit in other countries, but really, not much. No more than 10% of the world buys phones like that. The USA is not a model for the rest of the world in the mobile space; they're quite backwards actually.

Android phones sell for $200 without a contract in most countries.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com