Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Unmaking Motorola's Q

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the under-the-hood dept.

conq writes "BusinessWeek has a breakdown of Motorola's Q Phone, looking at the cost of each of its components. From the article: 'It costs Motorola about $158 to build the phone. That includes components and assembly but excludes other expenses such as marketing, distribution, and licensing fees to Microsoft, which makes the phone's Windows Mobile operating system.' By comparaison, the BlackBerry 8700, only costs $123 according to the article. The difference between the two, the BlackBerry 'doesn't play video or music, and unlike the Q, it doesn't have a camera.'"

7 of 144 comments (clear)

  1. 158$ to make a cell phone? by tomstdenis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My god....mon dieu!! etc... 158$ must turn into what? 500$ retail? Have fun losing that phone.

    Of course it'd be nice if cell companies both offered this monstrocity of a money pit and the el-cheapo phones that companies like Moto make as well. You know, that whole "free market" thingy...

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  2. Flawed Analysis? by 1zenerdiode · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm always a little shocked when I see things like this.

    It's quite difficult to gauge the true cost of a consumer device when you don't know:
    - Component purchase volumes and associated discounts
    - Overhead (R&D, administrative costs)
    - IP licensing - both for the finished good and associated components (patent fees, etc.)
    - Who manufactured certain key components (the LCD is mentioned)
    - Locus of manufacture (which country?)
    - Test and rework costs (what defect rates are expected of raw components and finished assemblies, what quality standard?)

    1. Re:Flawed Analysis? by 1zenerdiode · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The rub is the range of variation in the output (cost per unit) that can occur with relatively minimal changes in inputs (extra $1 per baseband processor, for instance) can severely hinder the analysis. I'm also suspicious because the estimate is reported to such a high degree of precision (down to the dollar) without any discussion of uncertainty. It implies a degree of accuracy that is not possible without proprietary information. I would have expected, even with a very good estimate, to see a range "Q could reasonably be expected to be produced in the range of $140-160 using scale assumptions corresponding to other cellular devices" or something along those lines. I checked out the website of the company in question, and they list an impressive number of large electronics mfr's - I'm left wondering if the mfr's participate in cost estimation efforts in the same manner as salary surveys where they are allowing their data to be aggregated anonymously to improve the accuracy of the estimates?

  3. Features or Cost? by foxylad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Am I alone in not being attracted by all these bells and whistles phones have these days? I want a phone to be a phone - I already have a digital camera to take pictures, and a music player to play music. Why try to cram all these features into a mobile phone, which just complicates the user interface and adds cost?

    And don't get me started on email on phones - several of our managers have Blackberries, and despite their bigger keypads, it is still painfully obvious a message was created on one. Plus they tend to be sent at 10:30pm...

    We have a new joke going around the office - have you heard about the new crime wave of Blackberry muggings? Crazed people accost you, force their Blackberry on you, and scarper.

    --
    Do as you would be done to.
    1. Re:Features or Cost? by east+coast · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Am I alone in not being attracted by all these bells and whistles phones have these days? I want a phone to be a phone - I already have a digital camera to take pictures, and a music player to play music. Why try to cram all these features into a mobile phone, which just complicates the user interface and adds cost?

      Perhaps you are. Ultimately, why bitch about it? They make plain old cell phones for people like you. It's not like these gadgets are being thrust on you. As for the rest; somehow I feel OK having a phone that has internet access, a camera and music playing abilities. It makes it so that if I need these things they're all right here in a simple small package without having to carry at least three other devices. Maybe you feel good about carrying this crap around or you think it makes you look "geek" in some fashion but I'd rather not have to deal with leaving hundreds of dollars worth of hardware (actually thousands if you count my laptop for internet access, and I still need the cell in that case!) in my car or worse taking this stuff around in a mall or store where it can be lost or I can have security bothering me over why I feel the need to carry a 300 dollar camera around randomly.

      We have a new joke going around the office - have you heard about the new crime wave of Blackberry muggings? Crazed people accost you, force their Blackberry on you, and scarper.

      Wow, that's uh... yeah... funny... i guess. Actually it marks a problem with how people think in relation to technology. OK, so you don't want the latest and greatest, you don't want the camera, the email, the text messages. Fine, don't buy into it. Too many people I know bitch and moan about being able to be contacted on their cell phones. Turn them the fuck off or don't buy one in the first place. That's my solution. Blackberry is normally an evil tool of the office but I see more and more people using them for personal reasons. This doesn't mean that you need to own one nor should you feel compelled to. Don't act like technology is forcing itself into your home, if that's the way you feel about the technology that you own perhaps you should seek professional help.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  4. With open standards you do have choices. by Art+Popp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Granted, the customers are the carriers, but the carriers put in a considerable effort to please the customers with their phone choices.

    The problems that limit choice are the combinatorial effect of:
            Most users not being geeks.
            Each power-user handset having a considerable cost in training Customer Care folk.
            Many geeks want their toys for the cost of the parts, never for the MSRP (the cheapskate factor).

    So the carriers pick limited set of power-phones and the rest "as cool as they can get their hands on." What outsells the marvelous powerful sophisticated Treo650 by an enormous margin? The Razr.

    This will be hard for the /. crowd to believe but the carriers push their phone offerings toward the geeky side of the curve and away from the center of mass for their customers' level of tech savvy. Really they do. For the noble, pure and altruistic purpose of marketing more expensive techy services like MMS and GPRS/EDGE/UMTS etc.

    If you pick from among carriers that use open standards you do have choices. My favorite carrier doesn't sell the SonyEricsson 910, the Nokia 6680 or the Treo650, but I was able to slip my SIM into each of them and give them a good college try. This, because GSM is an open standard. Fighting my own cheapskate daemons, I went out to PalmOne and purchased the Unlocked (unsubsidized) Treo650 and haven't ever regretted it.

  5. Re:The Q, hmmm... by SchwarzeReiter · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I was thinking of James Bond's Q- overly complicated and doesn't work.

    Ever seen a James Bond movie?