Re: Theory 1: only 30% of the cost of the N900 is "real" cost
 

So a 5MP camera should not cost $200 because it the N900 have a 5MP camera + gps + that cpu/ram + that screen + 32GB memory + all the other things and all those together can not cost $500 if just the camera part cost $200?

Re: Theory 1: only 30% of the cost of the N900 is "real" cost
 

put that in to a pocket-able form factor then we can talk :o

Re: Theory 1: only 30% of the cost of the N900 is "real" cost
 

The problem with these arguments is they don't take into account R&D, employee salaries, rent, lawyers, all that stuff. An iPod costs like 20$ to make tops, go complain about that on the Apple forums.

Re: Theory 1: only 30% of the cost of the N900 is "real" cost
 

I think the OP should put together an N900 KILLER and sell it at cost to us.

ps: and by 'cost' I meant just the combined price of all the parts in that product ;)

Re: Theory 1: only 30% of the cost of the N900 is "real" cost
 

Production and R&D costs, short term ROI, and market forces dictate device price. When the iPhone costs $699, and most other high end models hover in that same area, Nokia has the ability to match, or in this case, beat the competitors on price.

After the N900 is succeeded by a new model, the profit margin will decrease closer to the cost of the hardware, where Nokia could make $200-300 profit instead of$400, possibly even less. Look at how much the N95 8gb and Motorola Razr cost at launch vs. today.

Re: Theory 1: only 30% of the cost of the N900 is "real" cost
 

So the $500 laptop doesn't have the R&D, employee salaries etc. covered? BTW I never did and will own an Apple product - out of principle.

Re: Theory 1: only 30% of the cost of the N900 is "real" cost
 

The linear slope toward decreasing size just does not always directly correlate to linear reduction in cost, and there's good reasons for it.

Reduction in size while maintaining function (let's say shrinking a notebook to an N900) introduces problems of physics for one. Heat is more difficult to cordon off and shed in a pocketable computer. No fans in the N900 fellas.

And do the math in reverse. Forget products in different market spaces-- look at like products. Do LCD monitors, for example, increase in cost proportionally as they increase in screen size? Nope. There's a bottom that's hard to get below, a flattening of the cost curve as you get closer to the midrange, and then another sharp uptick as you get into the Really Big Realm.

So again-- can we get past these silly comparisons?

Now that's just flat disingenuous.

Master's degree? Consulting firm??

Re: Theory 1: only 30% of the cost of the N900 is "real" cost
 

I never implied that, they both do.

Computer parts don't cost less even though they're smaller.

Re: Theory 1: only 30% of the cost of the N900 is "real" cost
 

These discussions always seem to end up with this argument from the OP. "Oh, you naive consumers/fanboys/etc who will buy anything at any price..."

The reality just is that we make our decisions: is it worth the price for us or not. If it is, we'll buy it and if it's not, then we won't buy it. Of course I would love to pay less, but only choice I was able to make was either to buy it with current price or not to buy.

You can discuss these issues 'till end of the world but in the end, only way to affect these things is not to buy the product. And it seems that these phones are selling currently well enough with these prices so I doubt that manufacturers are lowering their prices. Markets at work.

And also, as people here have stated, the component costs are just one part of costs for the product. EVERY cost item (including direct and indirect, like general administration etc) a company has has to be covered by the products it sells and then they can add the premium there to get some profits. Only Nokia can know how much the costs would be after assigning all the indirect costs to product but I'd bet it would be completely different number than just the component price.

Re: Theory 1: only 30% of the cost of the N900 is "real" cost
 

That is not the (whole) point. The development costs are shared between many companies, like Intel, AMD etc. Different manufacturers share identical parts like motherboards and chipsets. Intels centrino platform has sold hundreds of millions units.

Also as already mentioned after certain point making something smaller really makes things more difficult. Or what could be the reason we don't have 500$ laptops with 10" screen, 10 hour battery, 2 webcams, GSM radio, GPS, touchscreen and Phenom II processor and on top of that 32Gb of flash memory?

I tell you why, because that would be extremely difficult to do. You can put most of those to the same 10" frame relatively easy, but you end up making some compromises, be it battery life, screen size, gps, gsm, processing power or something else missing - or you have to make it really expensive.