Unmaking Motorola's Q
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.'"
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?)
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.