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 Anonymous @ 2013-03-20 13:41 from m77L - click to readi bet you didn't read the entire XDA article... go back again and read it...

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 13:48
  • tUaI

> In reply to Damien Lord @ 2013-03-20 13:40 from tUaI - click to readDont try to convince the reader here by givin lame excuses.
All people are matured enough interm of electronic gadget pricing balancing to Finishing product.....

Can you explain here....why google can sell nexus4 for only just 349 us dollar??????

Again as i said before.... this article is 100% brave and accurate .......

Good job gsmarena auditor .......

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 13:47
  • vV5G

> In reply to Anonymous @ 2013-03-20 13:41 from m77L - click to readlol your so funny, was you beaten up by sammy or something. I think you find the sales tell another story to the one you think is correct. Chillout and move on

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 13:46
  • mXb5

If the global price of oil goes up due to geo-political tensions in the Korean peninsula we could expect productions to increase much further affecting global supply of this product.

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 13:44
  • mXPm

> In reply to TheMan @ 2013-03-20 13:33 from fqfM - click to readCheap plastic, laggy Android thanks to Touchwiz with dozens of useless so called "features" that people wow over once then never use again, roof tile design, and it has even been snubbed by XDA developers.

Samsungs days are over. HTC and Sony will overtake them from now on.

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 13:41
  • m77L

The BOM report is not true. It's just an excuse for Samsung to sell at higher price just like apple. They just wants to convince us in a hope that we will just accept their selling price as they know that will definitely be buying the phone since we don't have a choice.

I my country, there are other brands available in the market. Some good brands like ZTE, HUAWEI, LG, SONY reaches the market very slow. So when they do arrive, they are already outdated and less sought after. The locally produced smartphones here in my country are quite good but they are all stuck in a non upgradable version of the Andriod OS, so they are less popular.

Normally when the price of any good smartphone is announced especially a high price phones, I always ask myself "why are smaller smartphone expensive than bigger phone/phablet" when quantity used to produce smaller phones are much less compared to materials used in a big smartphones? Remember, same spec, same processor. The answer cannot be just portability and convenience.

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 13:41
  • tVuj

> In reply to [deleted post]You should keep in mind that manufacturing expenses don't include additional charges such as licensing and royalties.

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 13:40
  • tUaI

> In reply to TheMan @ 2013-03-20 13:02 from fqfM - click to readYou right man... Nokia is only 85$, iPhone 5 is not over 200$, much cheaper production price than Samsung phones. But, this BLIND crApple and LAmia fans not accept reality!

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 13:40
  • LdQb

There are parts missing from this list, and there are other cost beside these parts. First they pay Google for the android OS.and then there are other parents that needs to be paid for. And there is the body. You have to stop calling it cheap plastic, it's just STUPID.the material is great and made lots of stuff possible.
My friend's iphone is all scratched up while my GS3 is still new even though I got it much earlier.
Just imagine if Apple made this phone right now, how much they would charge you for it?

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 13:38
  • dNCe

More die hard arguments. Pathetic!

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 13:37
  • ShLQ

pretty sad that the LTE version is cheaper but samsung use to charge more for it.

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 13:34
  • Pn$W

> In reply to why so serious.. @ 2013-03-20 13:30 from vV5G - click to readWhat are you the joker in Batman!
You lied...
Why so serious...

You just don't want to admit it, Samsung is the best and the plastic they use it is the best! i dare you to show me an evidence for SIII plastic broke when it fall, like the ones in iPhone or Nokia...etc.

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 13:33
  • fqfM

> In reply to TheMan @ 2013-03-20 13:02 from fqfM - click to readYou lied.............

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 13:30
  • vV5G

Does nobody understand economics?
items do not sell for what they are worth, but rather they sell for what the market will pay for them. This means companies do their research and realise there are enough individuals out there that are willing to pay $600+ for this phone, at least initially.
This plays nicely into Apple's hand where they can manufacture a product cheaper and the market will allow them to sell at a higher price than competitors.

Of course, they could all reduce the sale price but this would mena smaller profit margins. This would then mean less R&D budget (remember the BOM price does not include R&D) which would mean less 'innovation' in future phone technologies.

If you don't like the price then wait a year and it will drop, or buy a lesser model of phone. I know I will be sticking with my S3 for another year or 2 as there is only so much power I need in my pocket ;-)

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 13:29
  • iF%h

> In reply to TheMan @ 2013-03-20 13:18 from fqfM - click to readWhen that im sayin nexus4 belong to lg??????????

So means you are so proud samsung sellin their $244plastic crap up to $640-700????or you feel rip off /cheat after reading this sincere news from gsmarena....

This article try to tell to the world that samsung is bad in term
Of pricing for their new flagship...

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 13:25
  • vV5G

> In reply to why so serious.. @ 2013-03-20 13:11 from vV5G - click to readThe only reason you are not comparing iCrap5 with SIV is coz u know you cant compare it, pls try comparing the outdated iCrap5 with SIV it will open your eyes. The Specs of the iCrap doesn't even come near SIII yet expensive that SIII. HAHAHAHAHAH, and if you still try persuading yourself here then that's not a sign of intelligence, is it?

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 13:23
  • XNtq

> In reply to why so serious.. @ 2013-03-20 13:11 from vV5G - click to readYou are completely wrong
Nexus is Google, its not LG!
Google sell them cheap to expand their market!
Look at Nexus 7 and Nexus 10 they both sold low in price.
Nexus 4 is Google 350$ and Optimus G 600$ and they both LG! Nexus 4 is cheaper because it belongs to Google.
If Nexus 5 will be as same as SIV, Google will release it at lower price for sure.

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

> In reply to why so serious.. @ 2013-03-20 12:49 from vV5G - click to readAnd Btw did you the the cheap plastic that u are talking about is even tougher than Aluminum bodies out there on other phones. Calling it as Crap Plastic shows lack of knowledge on your part.

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 13:15
  • XNtq

> In reply to TheMan @ 2013-03-20 13:02 from fqfM - click to read244 manufacturing cost doesnt reflect the satisfaction customer should look at other android brand like moto,sony,asus,lg and their price is epicly damn high...

Nexus4 349
S3. 499

Dont you see da different from last year flagship??????

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 13:11
  • vV5G

I work with BOM,s ROUTINGS and the Cost to Manufacture items for a large manufacturing company. We would never release something like this for public (and opposition) consumption. In this case I would venture to guess this BOM, is BULL

  • Reply
  • 2013-03-20 13:07
  • N9@y

Note: Sponsored advertising links are in green.