Nexus 5x - Nexus never again.

[VEGETA]

For repairing, you could always buy Chinese spare parts which are so cheap. I got Nexus 4 screen (complete unit) for 24$ delivered to Irbid! while LG told me it would cost me at least around 160$ or so for the genuine one.

I didn't test it yet but the one who delivered it to repair and got it back told me the everything seems Ok. Paying lots of money for a cell phone is just wasting money and resources regardless of anything. Phones job is making calls and connecting with contacts, now it has other stuff like maps and so on... all 200-300$ phones are more than capable for this.

[Mr. Scram]

Sure.

But that's like saying the cost of a service on a Maserati costs the same as a Great Wall off the showroom floor. Apples and oranges.
To me, while $300 is something I would have much rather spent on something else, it was a fraction of the cost of the device itself and a cost I can easily absorb in my budget. For $300, Samsung essentially replaced every component in the phone except for the motherboard, not bad.

I chose to buy the Samsung S8 after careful consideration. $250 phones simply didn't meet my desired specifications or requirements.

Except that the difference isn't that distinct. It's oranges and slightly bigger oranges, but commonly with less juice. A few years back you definitely had a point, but the advantage of high end phones over quality budget phones has steadily evaporated. It's remarkable that high end phones are even sold nowadays, though it seems that cultural factors play a fair role in that. Having an expensive phone or having the latest and greatest is a way to disginguish yourself in certain groups.

[Zucca]

For repairing, you could always buy Chinese spare parts which are so cheap. I got Nexus 4 screen (complete unit) for 24$ delivered to Irbid! while LG told me it would cost me at least around 160$ or so for the genuine one.

I didn't test it yet but the one who delivered it to repair and got it back told me the everything seems Ok. Paying lots of money for a cell phone is just wasting money and resources regardless of anything. Phones job is making calls and connecting with contacts, now it has other stuff like maps and so on... all 200-300$ phones are more than capable for this.

Interesting, I think 99% of mobile parts are coming from china anyway. What is somehow blocking me is the idea of replacing the glue (sealing) which is holding everything togheter.
I mean lot of phones out there need a  hot air gun to open it up. My problem is to find a good product which can then hold everything togheter after the rebuild. I don't think double side tape will do the trick.

PS: I saw lots of youtube video with LOKI glue and replacing just the glass. To me it is not worth to go in that rabbit hole. If you are a shop repair maybe it makes sense, if not just buy a complete screen with digitizer.

[Kjelt]

Don't laugh but I still own a "stupid" phone.
Made in 2006 from Nokia, it fell more than 10 times, charges one time a week and still works on the original battery for over a week before recharging and can't be hacked.
Somehow they should not call it phones anymore since people are not using them primarily as phones.
It should be named a "fragile tinypad with phone capability"

[Mr. Scram]

Don't laugh but I still own a "stupid" phone.
Made in 2006 from Nokia, it fell more than 10 times, charges one time a week and still works on the original battery for over a week before recharging and can't be hacked.
Somehow they should not call it phones anymore since people are not using them primarily as phones.
It should be named a "fragile tinypad with phone capability"

Feature phones can be hacked too. Especially the baseband chipset seems to be as vulnerable as those found in smartphones. There does seem to be much less attack surface in regards to the OS and saying they're safer doesn't seem unfair.

That being said, I've regularly contemplated going back to a feature phone or even to ditch the mobile phone completely.

[Halcyon]

Sure.

But that's like saying the cost of a service on a Maserati costs the same as a Great Wall off the showroom floor. Apples and oranges.
To me, while $300 is something I would have much rather spent on something else, it was a fraction of the cost of the device itself and a cost I can easily absorb in my budget. For $300, Samsung essentially replaced every component in the phone except for the motherboard, not bad.

I chose to buy the Samsung S8 after careful consideration. $250 phones simply didn't meet my desired specifications or requirements.

Except that the difference isn't that distinct. It's oranges and slightly bigger oranges, but commonly with less juice. A few years back you definitely had a point, but the advantage of high end phones over quality budget phones has steadily evaporated. It's remarkable that high end phones are even sold nowadays, though it seems that cultural factors play a fair role in that. Having an expensive phone or having the latest and greatest is a way to disginguish yourself in certain groups.

I guess we see things differently. For me, it's about security. Anyone with a laptop and a bit of knowledge can suck the data right out of those cheap phones without any dramas. Something I would rather not risk if for some reason it was lost or stolen. But it's not just that, it's the larger battery, it's the ability to still have a usable connection in remote areas well after other phones fail to even see a base station, it's the faster access to the LTE network, it's easy same-day service/repairs if I need it without voiding the warranty by doing it myself (and being able to keep all my data intact).

A cheap $250 Android handset doesn't even begin to compare against a later model Samsung, except that it's cheaper. It fails in every other way I can think of. Is $800+ a lot of money to spend on a phone? Of course it is, but it's something I use heavily every single day and I cannot afford to have it fail. Not to mention a significant portion of the cost is tax deductible (for me), so in reality, it costs me far less in the long run.

This is what works for me. Your mileage may differ.

[Mr. Scram]

I guess we see things differently. For me, it's about security. Anyone with a laptop and a bit of knowledge can suck the data right out of those cheap phones without any dramas. Something I would rather not risk if for some reason it was lost or stolen. But it's not just that, it's the larger battery, it's the ability to still have a usable connection in remote areas well after other phones fail to even see a base station, it's the faster access to the LTE network, it's easy same-day service/repairs if I need it without voiding the warranty by doing it myself (and being able to keep all my data intact).

A cheap $250 Android handset doesn't even begin to compare against a later model Samsung, except that it's cheaper. It fails in every other way I can think of. Is $800+ a lot of money to spend on a phone? Of course it is, but it's something I use heavily every single day and I cannot afford to have it fail. Not to mention a significant portion of the cost is tax deductible (for me), so in reality, it costs me far less in the long run.

This is what works for me. Your mileage may differ.

The problem is that a lot of expensive phones do not have better security. Except for a notable few, security tends to be fairly shoddy accross the board. Very few manufacturers have decent and guaranteed update schemes. Cheaper phones also tend to have larger batteries and do longer with those batteries, as there's more leeways when it comes to the form factor and they have chipsets that don't have to perform to the hilt. The same applies to connectivity. There's no evidence to support the notion that cheaper phones wouldn't have equally sound connectivity and manufacturers pushing the edge on high end form factors often means a bigger chance of something going wrong there. It's harder to stuff a proper antenna in the tiniest housing possible.

It sounds like you've fallen into the "it's more expensive so it's better" trap. Of course people want to believe that when they spend an arm and a leg on something. High end phones tend to push the envelope in regards to performance and that means they usually run hotter, are less frugal, have more issues with less proven construction techniques, are more fragile when it comes to drops et cetera. If you want something that just works you buy technology that's further down the curve without ending up at the cheap end. You could even buy a phone and a spare in case something happens for less than the price of a single high end phone.

I'm not saying high end phones are without merits, but they haven't done better in regards to the basics for years now. That was true about a decade ago, but those days have long gone.

[Kjelt]

The profit margin on high end smartphones are a staggering 60-75% 

https://www.techwalls.com/production-costs-of-smartphones/

[Mr. Scram]

The profit margin on high end smartphones are a staggering 60-75% 

https://www.techwalls.com/production-costs-of-smartphones/

It's probably a lot less. The article notes "Notice that we don’t take into account other costs like marketing, research and development, distribution, staff or packaging, so the manufacturers wouldn’t earn that much profit from their products." Typically, about one third of the cost of a product is the production cost, so it actually seems fairly typical. Obviously, that isn't such a juicy article.

People are noting as much beneath the article.

[Kjelt]

Apple and marketing, last commercial I remember is for the MacIntosh .
But yeah SW development is a huge cost.

[Halcyon]

The problem is that a lot of expensive phones do not have better security. Except for a notable few, security tends to be fairly shoddy accross the board.
Very few manufacturers have decent and guaranteed update schemes.

This is where my experience differs. The cheap phone manufacturers have a lax view towards security. A lot of R&D time goes into making devices secure and even more R&D goes into cracking that security. Security isn't generally a priority for cheap and nasty phones, which often makes retrieving data from them a trivial task. Sometimes even to the point where the passcode is there for show rather than an actual security measure.

Apple is one example where an expensive phone isn't necessarily secure, but they do implement some elements of their design in a secure way.

Cheaper phones also tend to have larger batteries and do longer with those batteries

Can you provide some examples? My phone has a 3000mAh battery and generally get about 2 days of usage out of it before requiring a charge.

There's no evidence to support the notion that cheaper phones wouldn't have equally sound connectivity and manufacturers pushing the edge on high end form factors often means a bigger chance of something going wrong there. It's harder to stuff a proper antenna in the tiniest housing possible.

Are you just making things up now? To the contrary, you'll find the higher end phones do have better connectivity. My phone will support up to LTE-A Cat 16, which has a maxmium downstream rate of 1 Gbps. The newest phones are now coming out with support for Cat 18 and above (1.2 Gbps downstream). You might ask are the telcos geared up for that sort of thing? You bet they are! (At least in some parts of the world). The Samsung Galaxy S8 one of the thinnest phones out there, has also been recommended for rural coverage in Australia due to the higher gain internal antenna, something very few phones are capable of.

It sounds like you've fallen into the "it's more expensive so it's better" trap. Of course people want to believe that when they spend an arm and a leg on something. High end phones tend to push the envelope in regards to performance and that means they usually run hotter, are less frugal, have more issues with less proven construction techniques, are more fragile when it comes to drops et cetera. If you want something that just works you buy technology that's further down the curve without ending up at the cheap end. You could even buy a phone and a spare in case something happens for less than the price of a single high end phone.

Again, quite the contrary. I did my homework, researched phones which met my needs then went out and looked for the cheapest possible price I could buy that phone for. I didn't just blindly pick a Samsung because I'm some kind of fan boy (in fact, this is the first Samsung phone I've ever owned). Yes it's more fragile than my previous handsets, but a case fixed that. As for running hot, again, are you making things up again? Almost all smart phones will run at elevated temperatures when pushed, even the cheap and nasty ones. During normal usage, heat isn't noticeable.

I'm not saying high end phones are without merits, but they haven't done better in regards to the basics for years now. That was true about a decade ago, but those days have long gone.

It sounds like you've written them off without actually knowing a lot about them. I work with phones and mobile devices every single day. I spend a lot of time working in R&D and working on security aspects of the devices, that's my day job. I won't pretend to know every model of phone inside-out but I have a fair idea.

Security aside for a moment, if you can find me a reliable, cheap Android phone with a Cat 16 or higher modem, has a long-lasting internal battery, that supports the 700, 1800 and 2100 MHz bands, running the latest version of Android, I'll certainly take a look.

[Mr. Scram]

You're making the mistake of looking at "cheap and nasty" phones. You should look at just cheap or affordable phones. If you stay away from the bottom tier junk and do your homework you won't have issues. It's not just random luck. Cheaper phones tend to be much more popular in developing countries. These countries have less optimal telecom infrastructures with often sprawling countrysides. These phones are made to do well in those conditions.

As for the battery example: a 4000 mAh battery and up to two weeks of light use on a single charge, or three to four days of more involved use. That's progress, although feature phones still do better.

[Halcyon]

You're making the mistake of looking at "cheap and nasty" phones. You should look at just cheap or affordable phones. If you stay away from the bottom tier junk and do your homework you won't have issues. It's not just random luck. Cheaper phones tend to be much more popular in developing countries. These countries have less optimal telecom infrastructures with often sprawling countrysides. These phones are made to do well in those conditions.

As for the battery example: a 4000 mAh battery and up to two weeks of light use on a single charge, or three to four days of more involved use. That's progress, although feature phones still do better.

I consider most phones on the market at the time which has the specs I need, however the bottom tier stuff doesn't make my list at all. The quality is just awful generally.

Yes, feature phones are great for long battery life, but you forego a lot of features. It's a trade-off.

As I said, I did my homework and found a phone which was right for me and ticked all the boxes. To say that I over-spent and should have looked at a $250 phone instead is laughable. As I said, if you can find me a cheap phone that even comes close, I'll be happy to consider it.

To give you some kind of an idea, Telstra (Australia's largest telco) currently sells over 19 phones ranging from the iPhone to Android handsets like Samsung, Sony, Oppo and their own re-branded (LG or ZTE) handsets, only 9 of them have been tested and pass the standards suitable for what they call "Class C" coverage (fringe/rural/remote coverage areas). From what I understand, their testing is quite stringent. This video gives you a bit of an idea (by the way, Dave, a tour of this place would be awesome).

[Mr. Scram]

I consider most phones on the market at the time which has the specs I need, however the bottom tier stuff doesn't make my list at all. The quality is just awful generally.

Yes, feature phones are great for long battery life, but you forego a lot of features. It's a trade-off.

As I said, I did my homework and found a phone which was right for me and ticked all the boxes. To say that I over-spent and should have looked at a $250 phone instead is laughable. As I said, if you can find me a cheap phone that even comes close, I'll be happy to consider it.

To give you some kind of an idea, Telstra (Australia's largest telco) currently sells over 19 phones ranging from the iPhone to Android handsets like Samsung, Sony, Oppo and their own re-branded (LG or ZTE) handsets, only 9 of them have been tested and pass the standards suitable for what they call "Class C" coverage (fringe/rural/remote coverage areas). From what I understand, their testing is quite stringent. This video gives you a bit of an idea (by the way, Dave, a tour of this place would be awesome).

Again, I'm not saying that high end phones are without merits. I'm not really interested in my opinion being polarized into something it's not. I'm just saying that the difference with cheaper phones tends to be very minimal, negligible even when you look at how people are actually using them. There's a difference between a "nice to have" and something that impacts its effectiveness as a tool or even just the user experience. Most if not all differences fall in the "nice to have" category, at least for most people. And again, high end phones pushing certain limits also comes at a cost both in the literal and the practical sense. This is no different from computers, where something like a powerful laptop can be less convenient to live with.

Realistically, a lot of people buy high end phones because they want the latest and greatest for the sake of it, because it's a status symbol or because they want to play with a new toy. I don't think very many people can rationalize the choice with practical, actual advantages. And that's okay and totally fine, as long as we acknowledge it.

[Bassman59]

The profit margin on high end smartphones are a staggering 60-75% 

https://www.techwalls.com/production-costs-of-smartphones/

Yeah, another article that doesn’t understand anything about how consumer products are priced. A product that costs $389 to build and put into the retail package and sells for $1000? It costs too much to build.