From Star Trek to E90 - Getting the right Bang per Buck

[slitchfield]

Attempting to analyse the smartphone market, from HTC's diminutive Star Trek design to Nokia's all-embracing E90 communicator, was never going to be easy. I've had a crack at it, with the help of a few coloured pens - are we getting enough smartphone bang for our buck?

Read on in the full article.

[natanlevine]

Very nice to know. It actually makes sense as the smartphone market is so extremely competitive at the moment, no one can afford to overcharge even a little. What I'd find interesting though is what would happen if you added the iphone to your chart. It may cost a lot to manufacture but as far as pure functionality is concerned I doubt its price is an accurate portrayal.

[krisse]

Apple has never really been that great at functionality, the iPod still doesn't have an FM tuner for example, and it took a long time to even get video compared to its rivals.

On the other hand you could argue that Apple's high iPod sales prove that simple design with a few key functions is more commercial than more complex devices. The Nintendo DS is another successful device with restricted functionality.

[Bassey]

I'd say (with regards the iPhone, iPod etc) it depends on how one defines functionality. Steve seems to have gone for feature count. I suspect Apple might argue that, as the features of the iPhone are (in Steve Jobs' opinion) easier to find and use than a S60 device, it has greater functionality. After all, there has been a lot of talk recently of how many of the more advanced S60 features are hidden away in obscure menu's. I think few people would argue that, of the 100 Million s60 handset sold so far, only few percent are actually used to anywhere near their potential.

Apple have always touted functionality over features. I don't go for it myself, but I suspect that would be their justification.

[krisse]

"I suspect Apple might argue that, as the features of the iPhone are (in Steve Jobs' opinion) easier to find and use than a S60 device, it has greater functionality"

I think we're getting into arguing over language here rather than reality. :-)

For the sake of this discussion, let's define "number of features" as the number of features, and "ease-of-use" as how easy it is to use the device's features. It doesn't really matter what terms we use, as long as we use the same terms to mean the same things. If "functionality" means different things to different people, then it's best that we don't use the word.

Apple's recent products seem to value ease-of-use and stylish physical design over the number of features, to the extent that they miss out basic features such as a radio tuner which all their rivals include.

The problem with this approach in the phone world is that different people use phones for different things, and while some may appreciate multimedia features others would give priority to communication features or durability. Fashionable phone designs are similarly splintered: some want an intricate and brightly coloured device, others want minimalist brushed steel or chunky black plastic.

Phones are just so much bigger than music players, there's now over a billion phones a year sold. It's not the kind of specific demographic that Apple is used to catering for.

I suspect that Apple will go for a niche rather than mass market, partly because niche markets are where you make the highest profits, and because going mass market would require them to do stuff they have little experience of. Apple is used to selling products that cost hundreds of dollars, but the average phone retails for under $100.

[marcol]

Interesting way of looking at it. Not sure I quite agree with drawing a straight line through that lot though. Seems more like it curves off and you get less bang for your buck as the price goes up. I expect you could straighten it out a bit with a few judicious alterations to the weightings on the grid. For instance, is web browsing on the E90 really less than 50% better than on the E61. With all those extra pixels? Surely more!