The Realities of a $50 Smartphone
An anonymous reader writes: Google recently reiterated their commitment to the goal of a $50 smartphone in India, and a new article breaks down exactly what that means for the phone's hardware. A budget display will eat up about about $8 of that budget — it's actually somewhat amazing that so little money can still buy a 4-4.5" panel running at 854x480. For another $10, you can get a cheap SoC — something in the range of 1.3Ghz and quad-core, complete with Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and GPS radios. A gigabyte of RAM and 4 gigabytes of storage can be had for another $10 or so. Throw in a $2.10, 1,600 mAh battery and a $5 camera unit, and you've got most of a phone. That leaves about $9 to play with for basic stuff like a casing, and then packaging/marketing costs (some of which could be given freely, like the design work.) Profit margins will be nonexistent, but that's less of an issue for Google, who simply wants to spread the reach of Android.
I'm actually using a $50 smart phone right now. A Microsoft Lumia 635 that I picked up on Amazon for $49.99 off-contract. Specs are about right - 4.5" 854x480 screen, 512MB ram, 8GB storage, no front camera, 5MP rear camera. It does have a quad-core Snapdragon instead of a Mediatek or Allwinner, but clocked at 1.2GHz, and actually does have an LTE radio and Gorilla glass (the two reasons I bought this instead of the 535, which is newer and has 1GB of RAM).
Know what? It's a perfectly serviceable phone. I bought it as a spare to use while I get the screen on my Moto G replaced, and in a lot of ways I actually like it better. Windows Phone actually runs surprisingly well on modest hardware.
Google wants to make money off advertising. Plus, if they can become the standard in a huge emerging market, that's playing the long game.
That BOM missed the $60 for patent licensing from the 3G pool.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
And updates.
Oh wait, they don't even get delivered to $500 phones in time.
And few people care.
I bet the car-industry has wet dreams about the status-quo of security in the mobile handset industry:
No more recalls, no more consumer-advocate groups calling them out. No law-suits.
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
Possibly these $50 phones will get better security update support than most $500 phones-with-hardware-vendor-goo. Simply because the operating system on these will be provided directly by the operating system manufacturer (Google) and by contract no vendor-goo will be allowed.
My phone got pretty much every update between 4.0 and <current release> and I expect to receive updates promptly for quite some years to come. By the way (if you didn't get enough hints), this phone (and my phone of choice) is a Nexus...
There is only one other significant party in the smartphone market that has the same edge... but the phones they make are too locked down for my personal taste. So I only use those when I have to... at work for testing purposes. (I write app software for both iOS and Android.)
In the 3rd world of USA Walmart! The Lumia 635 is usually less than $50 and quite a decent smartphone, in fact, the only one I use until the 640 came out which is $20 higher and has a display polarizer for sunlight, larger display and a front camera. Did I mention the 635 and 640 are both quad core, LTE devices? Oh yeah, they are.
It doesn't matter if it comes with 4GB ROM or if you pay to upgrade to 8GB ROM. Without flash storage, your phone is useless.
As an original developer for the Kindle, I can say with some authority that I know how zero and negative margin mobile devices work.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I agree. Microsoft got Windows Phone right. The OS is excellent
They were just years late to the party, decided to go home and change their underwear the moment they got to the party (the WP7 vs WP8 fiasco), found out they didn't actually have any friends (app developers) at the party, and they brought a prostitute (Nokia) as their date.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?