News - Reader comments

Samsung Galaxy S4 production cost estimated at $244

20 March, 2013 | Read the news | Post your comment
Samsung Galaxy S4 production cost estimated at $244 - read the full textIn its usual fashion, IHS iSupply has posted its virtual teardown of the Galaxy S4 revealing an estimate of its bill of materials (BOM). The company believes that the materials for the HSPA+ version of the Galaxy S4 costs $236, which when added to the manufacturing cost, give a total production...


Sort by:

> In reply to why so serious.. @ 2013-03-20 17:19 from XMYk - click to readSo... only thing off that list i care about is build quality. And it dont have to be premimum, all i care about is whats in it and that means software and hardware to support it. All other things from that list uve made dont matter for me.

Software is nothing? Cant agree with you. Had a phone few years ago, hardware was top of the tops but... it was running on symbian and that was the problem... software... hardware was great. Metal rubberized back, metal front, really good 8mpix cam... but software ruined everything good in that phone. (And it was a samsung)

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 19:31
  • JGw{

> In reply to why so serious.. @ 2013-03-20 17:19 from XMYk - click to readExplain why then, without catering to people's wants as you have listed, how Samsung made record sales and all other manufacturers are having difficult times breaking even. You will realize your idea of what people want is really different than what people really want. To put it simple, you have no idea what you're talking about.

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 19:18
  • qbYR

> In reply to why so serious.. @ 2013-03-20 17:28 from XMYk - click to readand did you know that crApple was declared life threatening as the Maps on it sucked a big time, the fire dept. in UK were not able to reach the destination on time to help people when they used these maps. At least Samsung is not like that, & FYI Samsung is the official Electronics supplier for the Queens Palace in UK. So that pretty much answers all the comments posted here. If it wouldn't have been the best the Palace wouldn't have signed samsung as their official equipment supplier.

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 18:22
  • XNtq

> In reply to [deleted post]Your comments will not reduce the pricing of the phone so just let it be, & be gone with your hilarious thoughts.

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 18:13
  • XNtq

> In reply to Regedit @ 2013-03-20 17:08 from PTij - click to readCorrect, also they came out with all features that people already knew about for past 2 years & call it as innovation & boast it saying Biggest thing to happen....hah jerks

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 18:00
  • XNtq

now let`s all get a bag of components worth $244 instead of an insanely overpriced $650 phone...

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 17:54
  • MXWL

samsung are not stupid.the plastic it self in s4 doesn't mean that the handset is'nt durable

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 17:44
  • fm{%

> In reply to [deleted post]Used money for what??? Or from what????

Just to pay the silly salary to the copycats samsung worker...

And still million of people look samsung software are useless to the money they paid for the junk.?

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 17:42
  • XMYk

> In reply to Regedit @ 2013-03-20 17:15 from PTij - click to little bit agree with you...about apple bad pricing..

But...actual is...people hate apple becouse of just1 single reason...
While in the same time....million of people hate samsung due to tons of reason.....

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 17:28
  • XMYk

IPhone 5 cost only $207 to make, because they use old technology parts and recycled aluminium soda cans. While the S4 use all the latest technology parts and materials, that why the cost increased to $244.

Around the world you can buy the iPhone 5 for an average $850 price, while S4 cost you much less. So which company is greedier?

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 17:25
  • jesI

> In reply to AJ @ 2013-03-20 17:00 from XNtq - click to readYou again......huh.....

At least rubber is much better than the chinese plastic crap.
For your information.....sofware feature doesn t relates with a gimmick for human life....
What real consumer wanted are-
4.kevlar unibody
6.high quality speaker like stereo
And many other hardware feature is just a zero cost r.n.d....u knowwhat ...its just a softwares ....just a softwares ...
Nothin wow about it.....

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 17:19
  • XMYk

> In reply to Eikcam @ 2013-03-20 15:57 from mHc9 - click to readCorrect, also there are country specific taxes that shall leveraged.

Samsung has 2 points in their favour
1. Every samsung flagship's price is reduced over a period of time (consider a sim-free phone and its price is reduced within 6 months at around 20%, apple does it only after a new device is released)
2. Samsung adjusts the price of the mobile based on the market/country's currency performance w.r.t to dollar. calculate the price of S3 in ANZ, india/china , middle east and US/Europe.

Apple does not do none of the above, thats the reason it faced questions from Autralian Parliament

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 17:15
  • PTij

> In reply to iphonefan @ 2013-03-20 16:47 from IaDh - click to readApple claims to be superior, boasts at petty things and annoys others with their 'revoultionary' 'amazing' 'for the first time' attitude. Not to mention bullies competitors

People hate for that.

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 17:08
  • PTij

> In reply to alipk52 @ 2013-03-20 16:38 from tt8d - click to readWe need to understand one thing, of course even i would like this phone to be cheaper, but the fact remains that samsung has bought many new software features with SIV that they have invested a lot in, so they will definitely recover the cost towards that, patenting them also costs so it will be expensive as SIII was initially & the price will come down. And whereas the premium feel is concerned as someone just said, people use plastic & rubber made cases to even cover their phones Metal body, so its pointless for us to discuss the price coz its not gonna change soon.

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 17:00
  • XNtq

Everyone hates apple because they make such a big profit on each iPhon, but this report show's Samsung are no better.

Actually Samsung are worse than Apple. They use Cheap plasic parts on the phone and terrible working conditions for staff in Korea factories!

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 16:47
  • IaDh

Well i must say Samsung should have used high quality materials in place of plastic, because they're already earning huge...btw i don't have any problem with sammy's profit margin at all, they have to run business, but they must provide premium body for its phones, i don't think it'll going to affect their margin, i just want handset which feels expensive, if we buy it in such hefty price tag, still i'll prefer buying it after waiting 4 months since launch, and investigate about user experience, and also to get it in little lower price by then.

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 16:38
  • tt8d

I understand that BOM is only part of total manufacturing price per unit but this is too much. Even with all the taxes, R&D, marketing costs etc. it shouldn't cost more than 300$ to produce one unit. With that in mind everything above 450$ as retail price is too high. And why do people here keep using Apple as an excuse. If Apple rip their customers even more, that doesn't mean Samsung should do it too.

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 16:34
  • AL{p

The pricing depends on the demand and the cost of the device of CIF value, for instance if there isn't demand for this phone, like most other electronics items fall, it should be properly priced at around $400.00, this shows a healthy profit considering r&d advertising and other concerns, this shows how there profit margins surpassed 50 Billion dollars, by fooling the general market and surpassing demand, they know they could only earn by the Mobile phone market, so hence so many other manufacturers prefer to spend millions to make billions, its a small form factor, lower costs, make it a perfect device to earn a huge profit. if there is no demand and less people buying them you could see them selling it at less than $400.00, stupid people!

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 16:15
  • teu7

> In reply to why so serious.. @ 2013-03-20 16:02 from vV5G - click to readThats again you speaking about yourself, look what others think about you man. At this pace you are heading no where.

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 16:05
  • XNtq

> In reply to AJ @ 2013-03-20 15:55 from XNtq - click to readPeople like me with the good sense in term of customer satisfactory doesn t interested to get involve with company brand selling crap product...
What people labeled as crap like chinese nights market goods.

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 16:02
  • vV5G

Note: Sponsored advertising links are in green.