[phathead50]

When we choose to purchase a new computer, we are presented with numerous hardware options. When we choose to purchase a new TV, we are presented with numerous hardware options (even if they are not overtly prevalent).

Why is it there are not different hardware options for specific cell phones? Why is, say, my 9800 locked into one specific hardware configuration?

Would I pay a small premium for more system memory and a faster processor? Damn straight I would. Would the average use want the same? Most likely not.

I understand the subsidies involved and the fact that the market changes quickly. I also understand the need to have a tactile interaction with a phone prior to purchase and the idea of keeping more models on hand is tedious at best.

What I do not understand is why this has not been done yet. I know enough phone nerds who would love the option for a "premium" hardware phone and would be willing to pay a little more for it.

One could argue that the cost and production difficulties for the manufacturer would be immense, but would it really? There are already differing hardware specs being produced, so why not give the consumer options to choose what spec they wish to have? It is different, it is innovative, yet it is something that a company could use to make themselves stand out from a crowded marketplace. If it stays in house, they could ensure that all hardware works with the phone's OS, so that would mitigate any issues there.

Make it into a sort of "elite" category even if you will. It would make more sense not to have every store stock a large supply of these, for cost reasons, but more so to have them delivered to the consumer. Sure one would have to wait a day or two longer, but the company in question could turn it into a small event by, say, packaging it in a slightly fancier container.

Am I the only one who things this wouldn't be an utterly terrible idea?

[fernandez21]

I think its becausse of the minituration of components and economies of scale are the main reasons because of it.

[phathead50]

I think its becausse of the minituration of components and economies of scale are the main reasons because of it.

But if you do this across the board, those problems are minimized. Really all they would have to do is add an additional set of hardware components that would be interchangeable across a selection of phones.

I would think this is already the case with the current hardware sets to take advantage of economies of scale.

[kraski]

When we choose to purchase a new computer, we are presented with numerous hardware options. When we choose to purchase a new TV, we are presented with numerous hardware options (even if they are not overtly prevalent).

Why is it there are not different hardware options for specific cell phones? Why is, say, my 9800 locked into one specific hardware configuration?

Would I pay a small premium for more system memory and a faster processor? Damn straight I would. Would the average use want the same? Most likely not.

I understand the subsidies involved and the fact that the market changes quickly. I also understand the need to have a tactile interaction with a phone prior to purchase and the idea of keeping more models on hand is tedious at best.

What I do not understand is why this has not been done yet. I know enough phone nerds who would love the option for a "premium" hardware phone and would be willing to pay a little more for it.

One could argue that the cost and production difficulties for the manufacturer would be immense, but would it really? There are already differing hardware specs being produced, so why not give the consumer options to choose what spec they wish to have? It is different, it is innovative, yet it is something that a company could use to make themselves stand out from a crowded marketplace. If it stays in house, they could ensure that all hardware works with the phone's OS, so that would mitigate any issues there.

Make it into a sort of "elite" category even if you will. It would make more sense not to have every store stock a large supply of these, for cost reasons, but more so to have them delivered to the consumer. Sure one would have to wait a day or two longer, but the company in question could turn it into a small event by, say, packaging it in a slightly fancier container.

Am I the only one who things this wouldn't be an utterly terrible idea?

Interesting idea. But I can see some reasons why not.

You go to a computer store, choose the innards you want in your computer, maybe add a few extras like different connection options. Usually it's a small discount shop. You get what you want, get a lower price, take the computer home, you're happy, the shop owner is happy. Mostly only you now deal with using the computer.

You go to the phone store, choose your options...but wait! A custom phone isn't subsidized, so you pay full price plus whatever extra for the upgraded items. The store owner is happy, you may or may not be. Joe phoneuser sees you doing something special on your tricked out phone, you tell him where you got it but forget to mention price or that it's custom. Joe Phoneuser decides to switch from a perfectly usable iPhone to yours, goes to the store, buys a stock model with the subsidy. He's disappointed, can't do what he saw you doing, misses some features from his iPhone, returns the stock model to the store. The store owner isn't happy, now has to resell the phone at discount as "open box". Joe Phoneuser isn't happy, can't do that fancy stuff he saw you doing and probably wouldn't pay what you did to get that feature, publicly complains the phone can't do what he saw you doing. The phonemaker isn't happy, his reputation is tarnished by the fact that every Joe Phoneuser has been disappointed trying to come from whatever phone they had to whatever you're using.

You have to remember that any present customizations are carrier ordered. Look at the Galaxy SII. Every US carrier has its own variation, but all the carriers handle only one variation. It's not to give you a choice. It's intended to confuse users into thinking there are four different models and grab whoever wants a particular subset of features so they opt into a two year contract of overpriced monthly payments. That's all about locking a customer in, not making a customer happy.

[phathead50]

Interesting idea. But I can see some reasons why not.

You go to a computer store, choose the innards you want in your computer, maybe add a few extras like different connection options. Usually it's a small discount shop. You get what you want, get a lower price, take the computer home, you're happy, the shop owner is happy. Mostly only you now deal with using the computer.

You go to the phone store, choose your options...but wait! A custom phone isn't subsidized, so you pay full price plus whatever extra for the upgraded items. The store owner is happy, you may or may not be. Joe phoneuser sees you doing something special on your tricked out phone, you tell him where you got it but forget to mention price or that it's custom. Joe Phoneuser decides to switch from a perfectly usable iPhone to yours, goes to the store, buys a stock model with the subsidy. He's disappointed, can't do what he saw you doing, misses some features from his iPhone, returns the stock model to the store. The store owner isn't happy, now has to resell the phone at discount as "open box". Joe Phoneuser isn't happy, can't do that fancy stuff he saw you doing and probably wouldn't pay what you did to get that feature, publicly complains the phone can't do what he saw you doing. The phonemaker isn't happy, his reputation is tarnished by the fact that every Joe Phoneuser has been disappointed trying to come from whatever phone they had to whatever you're using.

You have to remember that any present customizations are carrier ordered. Look at the Galaxy SII. Every US carrier has its own variation, but all the carriers handle only one variation. It's not to give you a choice. It's intended to confuse users into thinking there are four different models and grab whoever wants a particular subset of features so they opt into a two year contract of overpriced monthly payments. That's all about locking a customer in, not making a customer happy.

I would think there would be a subsidy involved in some way if it went mainstream. Maybe not as much as a "stock" model, but there would still be some.

And the problem with Joe Phoneuser is this already happens all the time with iPhones. How many people have purchased, say, a 3GS, had it for a month and then take it back to get the new 4 when it came out? Or how many people "try" out iPhones for a month and bring them back? I would venture it is a far, far larger number than this would accrue.

I'm not suggesting it does "fancy" stuff, but more that it is suited to a poweruser. If you look at (again with the Apple reference) a Macbook vs. a Macbook Pro they can do virtually the same things... one just has better hardware to boot.

I realize it could be abused by carriers, who already routinely abuse users, but I still think it's a good option. One of the problem with manufactures outside of RIM/Apple is that they allow their phones to have multiple names across multiple platforms... the problem with that being you dilute the market value of that phone's name, something which could be vitally important if the phone is a hit.

But that is a whole separate discussion

[Sith_Apprentice]

RIM used to do this. 8300 - 8310 - 8320
Stock, +GPS, +WIFI

They moved away from that to offering different form factors. Now you have the Curve, Torch, and Bold series devices. There is your different hardware.

[montyl]

The reason you can't get a "custom" phone is not due to subsidy, it is because the various parts of your phone are not plug-ins. The motherboard of a phone has the memory soldered on, as is the processors, etc. And besides that if the components were changeable, the OS required to make all of the various options work, would end up being like Windoze (does alot but has lots of issues).
An OS written for a specific hardware configuration is much easier, look at Apple's Mac's very stable, not overly bloated because of the numerous configuration possible.

[phathead50]

RIM used to do this. 8300 - 8310 - 8320
Stock, +GPS, +WIFI

They moved away from that to offering different form factors. Now you have the Curve, Torch, and Bold series devices. There is your different hardware.

I'm not talking about adding GPS/WIFI, I'm talking about beefing up core hardware. I would be perfectly happy with my 9800 if it had double the system memory for instance as I consistently run low.

[phathead50]

The reason you can't get a "custom" phone is not due to subsidy, it is because the various parts of your phone are not plug-ins. The motherboard of a phone has the memory soldered on, as is the processors, etc. And besides that if the components were changeable, the OS required to make all of the various options work, would end up being like Windoze (does alot but has lots of issues).
An OS written for a specific hardware configuration is much easier, look at Apple's Mac's very stable, not overly bloated because of the numerous configuration possible.

Oh I realize that, I wasn't suggesting that the hardware was a plug-in-play type.

Your Mac notion actually reenforces my idea because yes there are not numerous configuration's, but there are some configurations.

I'm not suggesting it be setup similar to how PC building is, I'm saying have maybe a premium hardware model with a faster CPU/system memory etc. I would imagine they would use a chipset from the same manufacturer which would, theoretically, mean it has pretty similar architecture, just that it would be faster. I see no reason why the OS would have issues, considering it is already running under multiple hardware platforms across the different form factors.

[Sith_Apprentice]

I'm not talking about adding GPS/WIFI, I'm talking about beefing up core hardware. I would be perfectly happy with my 9800 if it had double the system memory for instance as I consistently run low.

That would simply be a new model (9810). These components are designed NOT to be swappable or in most cases removable. I understand what you are saying but in the world of handheld computing it simply doesn't make sense.

[phathead50]

That would simply be a new model (9810). These components are designed NOT to be swappable or in most cases removable. I understand what you are saying but in the world of handheld computing it simply doesn't make sense.

Again, not saying that it should be swappable or removable... after all you don't want the consumer breaking apart their phone to do their own upgrades.

And naturally it would be a new model, the thing is, especially in RIMs case, they already do this in a way so it's not that it doesn't make sense. They just repackage things in different form factors rather than giving you two or three options for a specific form factor.

Really the whole idea comes down to the fact that I, and I'm sure others, would gladly pay an extra cost to have a BB with a little extra oomph. Same reason why my PC at home is tailored to speed and efficiency... it's how I like things to run.

[TGR1]

Again, not saying that it should be swappable or removable... after all you don't want the consumer breaking apart their phone to do their own upgrades.

And naturally it would be a new model, the thing is, especially in RIMs case, they already do this in a way so it's not that it doesn't make sense. They just repackage things in different form factors rather than giving you two or three options for a specific form factor.

Really the whole idea comes down to the fact that I, and I'm sure others, would gladly pay an extra cost to have a BB with a little extra oomph. Same reason why my PC at home is tailored to speed and efficiency... it's how I like things to run.

1) How much oomph and what's your bar? Comparable to whatever is fastest out there? How quickly will you lose satisfaction with your "higher-powered" device?
2) Will all of you thinking along these lines be satisfied by the same extra capability?
3) How do your propose RIM keep up with very rapid changes in specs and how often and deal with inventory?
4) How much more are you willing to pay for what will likely be a premium, low volume product?

You want more "oomph" but that is a very nebulous and subjective description. It would be highly risky for RIM to act on that. The Android business model is something like you describe in terms of spec race and that is proving rocky for most vendors other than Samsung.

[phathead50]

1) How much oomph and what's your bar? Comparable to whatever is fastest out there? How quickly will you lose satisfaction with your "higher-powered" device?

I am not keen on having the "fastest device out there" but more a device that is fast enough to suit my needs. I would be very content with, say, an extra 500MB of system memory. As for CPU speed it would be nice if it were more inline with out devices, but I am not suggesting that RIM build an Alienware level phone for a niche market.

This is not about ego or the need to have the coolest phone on the market. I wouldn't "lose" satisfaction as you imply merely because I want something better, that's not how I operate.

2) Will all of you thinking along these lines be satisfied by the same extra capability?

I think so, it would provide an innovative business plan for RIM. When I made this post, I was not intending it to focus on RIM as a whole, but for the industry. Of course I can not speak for everyone, but again I think it would be an interesting endeavor for someone to try.

3) How do your propose RIM keep up with very rapid changes in specs and how often and deal with inventory?

I am not suggesting that specs be updated on-the-go. Maybe do what Apple does and lock in hardware selections for a year or two... which in reality isn't all that different from how RIM/Apple/Samsung/etc operate now. I am talking about adding maybe one or two different combined hardware sets... not a consistent variety of options. It is, in no way, different than what they are doing now, merely another option for the consumer.

4) How much more are you willing to pay for what will likely be a premium, low volume product?

Define low volume. I think, especially on the higher end devices like the 9900, 9800, etc, that the volume would be a bit more than one would think. I would be willing to pay quite a bit more to know that I am going to get a phone I want with the hardware to back it up.

Look at it this way, right now RIM has nothing that the public would consider flashy. As much as I hate the notion of catering to that ideal, it is something that needs to be done to pacify the consumer. The whole idea of a "premium hardware" phone option could prove enticing to consumers.... even if they do not need the extra benefits increased hardware provide.

It's why people drop two grand on a Macbook Pro when all they're doing is emailing and playing Farmville.

Honestly, I think the industry will eventually evolve, in someway, this direction, I'm just not sure why no one has really attempted it.

[aznrice]

When we choose to purchase a new computer, we are presented with numerous hardware options. When we choose to purchase a new TV, we are presented with numerous hardware options (even if they are not overtly prevalent).

Why is it there are not different hardware options for specific cell phones? Why is, say, my 9800 locked into one specific hardware configuration?

Would I pay a small premium for more system memory and a faster processor? Damn straight I would. Would the average use want the same? Most likely not.

I understand the subsidies involved and the fact that the market changes quickly. I also understand the need to have a tactile interaction with a phone prior to purchase and the idea of keeping more models on hand is tedious at best.

What I do not understand is why this has not been done yet. I know enough phone nerds who would love the option for a "premium" hardware phone and would be willing to pay a little more for it.

One could argue that the cost and production difficulties for the manufacturer would be immense, but would it really? There are already differing hardware specs being produced, so why not give the consumer options to choose what spec they wish to have? It is different, it is innovative, yet it is something that a company could use to make themselves stand out from a crowded marketplace. If it stays in house, they could ensure that all hardware works with the phone's OS, so that would mitigate any issues there.

Make it into a sort of "elite" category even if you will. It would make more sense not to have every store stock a large supply of these, for cost reasons, but more so to have them delivered to the consumer. Sure one would have to wait a day or two longer, but the company in question could turn it into a small event by, say, packaging it in a slightly fancier container.

Am I the only one who things this wouldn't be an utterly terrible idea?

mobile phone typically uses 32 bit microcontroller, which is whats called a "system on a chip". so think of it as a computer on a single chip. hence your theory will not work here, even if it was done, your cost will be sky high.

[phathead50]

mobile phone typically uses 32 bit microcontroller, which is whats called a "system on a chip". so think of it as a computer on a single chip. hence your theory will not work here, even if it was done, your cost will be sky high.

Did you read any of the replies?

I have said, multiple times now, that the overarching idea is different options for a hardware system setup as a whole.

It's no different than them offering a different hardware set for the lower end Curves versus the upper end Bolds.

[kbz1960]

So you want swapable motherboards?

[phathead50]

So you want swapable motherboards?

I suppose if you wanted to generalize it yes, but not at the consumer level.

[palmless]

Simple math.

How much more cost for the carrier, how much more revenue.

How much more cost... multiple metric tons of additional cost in design, production, FCC (or other) certification, etc.

How much more revenue... well, ask yourself. Would you pay a base $200 plus options charge for this benefit? That's $200 for custom configuration, PLUS a price for every option. Below that, this is an absolute negative proposition for the manufacturer.

Millions to run the program, negligible incremental sales.

No reason for a manufacturer to pursue this, the economics are just not there.

Plus there is no software to take advantage of the hardware. State of the art phones already have essentially perfect touchscreen tracking, apps run as fast as the network can deliver the data, etc. You could double the processor speed in an iPhone 4S and no one would know except the battery charger.

[kraski]

I would think there would be a subsidy involved in some way if it went mainstream. Maybe not as much as a "stock" model, but there would still be some.

Why would a carrier want to subsidize something that made more work for them? And little extra revenue to counterbalance that.

And the problem with Joe Phoneuser is this already happens all the time with iPhones. How many people have purchased, say, a 3GS, had it for a month and then take it back to get the new 4 when it came out? Or how many people "try" out iPhones for a month and bring them back? I would venture it is a far, far larger number than this would accrue.

So, you're saying that I can go to the Apple store, buy a 4S. Then, when the 5 comes out, I go in, swap them, no restocking fee, no extra cost for the 5? I doubt that. And your Apple example is sequential upgrades, not different custom versions of the same model.

Here's another problem with your Apple example. Even if there are no additional costs involved in the exchange, each model only comes one way. There may be color variations, but the hardware is the same for every phone of any given model. It's not custom. In almost any type of product line, if you order a custom version, you pay the extra cost and, except for defects, it's either nonreturnable or you pay extra beyond the normal restocking fee. To cover the sellers costs.

I'm not suggesting it does "fancy" stuff, but more that it is suited to a poweruser. If you look at (again with the Apple reference) a Macbook vs. a Macbook Pro they can do virtually the same things... one just has better hardware to boot.

You'll find lots of computer examples. But a Macbook and a Macbook Pro are not the same computer. They're not sold as being the same with different components. And, if you go with my PC built from components example, would you really want the techs in most carrier stores modding your phone hardware? I sure wouldn't.

[phathead50]

Why would a carrier want to subsidize something that made more work for them? And little extra revenue to counterbalance that.



So, you're saying that I can go to the Apple store, buy a 4S. Then, when the 5 comes out, I go in, swap them, no restocking fee, no extra cost for the 5? I doubt that.

Here's another problem with your Apple example. Even if there are no additional costs involved in the exchange, each model only comes one way. There may be color variations, but the hardware is the same for every phone of any given model. It's not custom. In almost any type of product line, if you order a custom version, you pay the extra cost and, except for defects, it's either nonreturnable or you pay extra beyond the normal restocking fee. To cover the sellers costs.



You'll find lots of computer examples. But a Macbook and a Macbook Pro are not the same computer. They're not sold as being the same with different components. And, if you go with my PC built from components example, would you really want the techs in most carrier stores modding your phone hardware? I sure wouldn't.

I think you are completely missing what I my point is.

Never once did I say custom, I said options. Earlier someone referred to it as being a different model, which would be an even better option. Call a beefed up 9800 the 9801 or something like that.

I also explained that I was referring to those iPhone users who go in and return their phone after a month or so (which does happen fairly often, especially near a new release). Of course you cannot just bring it back after several months for a new model.

And I never said the Macbook and Macbook Pro were identical. I used that as example with a Macbook being sort of the "base" laptop model if you will, while the Pro is the quicker, higher end one.

Lastly, where on Earth did you get the idea that they would be modded in a carrier store? That's ludicrous in it's own right.

[kraski]

I think you are completely missing what I my point is.

Never once did I say custom, I said options. Earlier someone referred to it as being a different model, which would be an even better option. Call a beefed up 9800 the 9801 or something like that.

In order for that to work, coming from the manufacturer, there'd have to be sizable runs of each variation. There'd need to be some indication that there really is enough demand to warrant the additional variations. And that the variations wouldn't dilute the brand for the stock model. Otherwise, you're talking custom.

Lastly, where on Earth did you get the idea that they would be modded in a carrier store? That's ludicrous in it's own right.

In order to have options, unless there was huge demand for a specific variation, it only becomes cost effective if you have techs modding existing phones. Probably whole board swapping, custom OS versions. Which would also take the customer out of the loop for any OS upgrades. And, if you look at any of the custom houses (especially for military grade hardware), the guts remain the same, the exterior gets ruggedized or redesigned.

[TheScionicMan]

To put it in technical terms, the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

[phathead50]

In order to have options, unless there was huge demand for a specific variation, it only becomes cost effective if you have techs modding existing phones. Probably whole board swapping, custom OS versions. Which would also take the customer out of the loop for any OS upgrades. And, if you look at any of the custom houses (especially for military grade hardware), the guts remain the same, the exterior gets ruggedized or redesigned.

I'm not saying have upgrades available for current phones, I'm saying as options to purchase new. It makes even less sense to have carrier techs doing so as it completely negates to marketing potential of it.

Was just an idea I was contemplating and clear I'm in the wrong, although not for the reasons you describe.

[palmless]

Blackberry "Fictitio" is the base model. RIM sells it for $500, $300 carrier subsidy which the carrier hopes to recoup $15/mo over 24 months. Costs $300 to build. Customer perceives it as a $200 phone, the upfront selling price with contract. RIM makes $200, carrier gets 24 months of data/voice revenue.

Blackberry "Fictitio Plus" is the upgraded model. Will sell one of these for every ten base models. To be perceived, performance will need to be 50% better at least. Costs $700 to build due to dramatically lower production volume. Carrier will still only offer $300 subsidy, since they can't command a monthly premium for the device. RIM still wants to make $200, so customer would perceive it as a $600 phone.

Customer would perceive this as three times the price for a 50% performance boost.

Not going to happen, and now you can see why it has never happened in the past. There is no market for the option unless RIM or the carrier wants to cut into their own margins to provide it to a slim, demanding, fickle market segment.

"Wouldn't it be cool" is not a business plan.

[phathead50]

Blackberry "Fictitio" is the base model. RIM sells it for $500, $300 carrier subsidy which the carrier hopes to recoup $15/mo over 24 months. Costs $300 to build. Customer perceives it as a $200 phone, the upfront selling price with contract. RIM makes $200, carrier gets 24 months of data/voice revenue.

Blackberry "Fictitio Plus" is the upgraded model. Will sell one of these for every ten base models. To be perceived, performance will need to be 50% better at least. Costs $700 to build due to dramatically lower production volume. Carrier will still only offer $300 subsidy, since they can't command a monthly premium for the device. RIM still wants to make $200, so customer would perceive it as a $600 phone.

Customer would perceive this as three times the price for a 50% performance boost.

Not going to happen, and now you can see why it has never happened in the past. There is no market for the option unless RIM or the carrier wants to cut into their own margins to provide it to a slim, demanding, fickle market segment.

"Wouldn't it be cool" is not a business plan.

Thank you, you at least get it.

I suppose I'm more curious as to what the market demand would actually be, I'm not sure it would be as low as one would think.