Samsung Announces Galaxy S9 with super-slow-motion, available in March
Click here to post a comment for Samsung Announces Galaxy S9 with super-slow-motion, available in March on our message forum
Koniakki
Mr. Teacher from Mom and Dad? Is that you? 😛
Darkiee
Well, that is well said. I don´t argue with that.
But, perhaps it´s just my mind, what is finding my own comparisons. Never the less, you have a very solid points.
anthos
As a surgeon myself there was a very distinct reason why I made that comparison. Because you can't strip something down to its indivindual components and assert how much it should cost while completely disregarding a whole sheer of other factors. Costs of licensing and patents? Costs for the whole marketing divisions? Costs for the R&D divisions? Programmers? Graphic designers? And so on and so on. Without those you either have no phone or have a phone that no one knows it exists.
Aura89
As i said, i don't disagree they are overly expensive, however, the two links do not give you a good view of what it should cost, either.
The "labor" one from the first post is pure BS, not because it's wrong about what it specifically states, but because it does not take into consideration: What apple actually pays per phone labor. By that i mean, i can guarantee you that Apple is not paying the cost of the labor to have their phones manufactured there. The companies manufacturing the phones have to pay their workers, their higher end management, cost of tools, electricity, etc. etc. etc. and then add on their own mark up so they aren't just paying to keep the door open, they need profit as well. So "$30 per phone" is pure nonsense.
And the 2nd link doesn't take into consideration R&D, only costs of materials. R&D is a hard thing to put as a "cost" per phone since obviously whatever they set that price to will determine if R&D gets paid by how many phones are produced and sold.
To understand the cost of any device and what someone should sell their product for you have to figure out the costs of all of these factors:
Manufacturing costs (not materials, but rather manufacturers cost to make your device in their production facility. This is not only the specific labor)
Materials cost
R&D Costs (added per device is dependent on how many devices are expected to sell and then taking a "worst case scenario" to cover your bases)
Shipping and Handling costs (Will have multiple shipping and handling costs)
Tax costs (not retail tax that is paid by the consumer)
Their own company costs (not R&D, but rather to pay their non-R&D employees/boss'/buildings/electricity/etc.)
Retail stores markup (Stores are not going to carry your product if you force them to sell your product at cost)
And finally: Generally anywhere between 10-100% profits markup, differs by company as well as the product. more often then not, the cheap random $1 products usually have a 50% or higher markup, whereas the expensive products generally have less then 50% markup.
I can guarantee you that the all of these things taken into consideration before the final markup will cost more then $250.80, which is what your two links would like people to believe. It's more likely to range somewhere in the $400-500, but this is for a flagship phone, which most people really don't need.
Duke Nil
I was actually kinda interested but now I just don't want one.
xIcarus
No offense, but if you're gaming on 480p on a CRT it sounds to me like you may not be qualified to comment on high-Hz or high-res monitors since you likely haven't experienced any.
It's impossible for me to imagine someone willingly staying on 480p on different grounds other than lack of money or experience with higher resolutions.
Fox2232
Long time ago I played Elder Scrolls: Oblivion on old Gaming notebook 720x480. It was because I preferred effects quality and fps over resolution. As on 1280x800, it would not achieve high fps no matter how much I cut down textures/effects.
There are some advantages to it, but nothing what can be better than playing on decent HW:
- On Low resolution you do not notice poor animation quality
- On Low resolution you do not notice aliasing as much
- On Low resolution texture shimmering is non-existent as it is all kind of random 😀
- On Low resolution, effects look bit better, same goes for shaders
- On Low resolution things may even appear as photorealistic
(You can check some 4k game footage trailers downsized to something like 720x400, they look amazing. Viz. Vermintide 2 trailer.)
That's effect of shader code written for higher resolutions and calculated on higher resolution, then precisely downsampled to something much smaller.
But actual IQ of low res image will not beat IQ of high res. Low "cinematic" fps will never beat normal 60fps or higher.
With High refresh rate and fps, there is only one way things GO:
"I just got that new shiny 120Hz screen and I do not really see much of an difference."
"I had if for month and then I accidentally switched back to 60Hz, and it was awful."
That's thing every single person denying 120Hz screens told me. Same goes for higher refresh rate. You will adapt to recognize difference over time.
xIcarus
You do raise some good points about the low-res stuff. For example the original Starcraft looks pretty realistic to me even to this day. Especially the portraits, they are really really well done, those horizontal lines really trick my brain into believing them.
Quake 2 is another example where I feel like the rugged textures helped a lot - at least as long as you don't get very close to stuff like character/monster models.
With regards to 120+Hz screens, I concur with what you said but I noticed it also depends on the game genre the user is used to. I noticed that avid FPS players were much more impressed than say MOBA player, and rightfully so - I can play Dota on 60FPS but I absolutely cannot do the same with CS:GO or Quake Live/Champions. The more fast paced the game is, the more jarring it becomes playing at 60FPS.
D3M1G0D
Yup. I find it disappointing how Samsung continues to copy Apple. It seems that whenever Apple announces a new feature (Apple Pay, 64-bit, 3D Touch, Animojis) Samsung quickly copies it for their next phone (Samsung Pay, 64-bit, pressure-sensitive home button, AR Emojis). For all their technical know-how and manufacturing capabilities, they still look to Apple for design inspiration.
Speaking as a repeat Samsung customer (currently have a S8+, and a S6 before this), I really wish they would stop taking after Apple, especially when it comes to gimmicky features like 3D Touch and virtual emojis (the first was never needed on Android, and the latter is just a joke). Samsung could do so much more with their market dominance, but they seem afraid to deviate from Apple's path (thus we are stuck with thin, fragile phones with terrible battery life and gimmicky features that no one asked for).
As for the S9, I already have the S8+ so I'm good. Don't really see anything that appealing about the S9 that would justify an upgrade.
Denial
You say 'no one asked for' but like every teenager/millennial/'desperate housewife watching' person I know with an iPhone loves that gimmicky emoji garbage. They sit there all day sending them back and forth to one another. I don't get it, I'll never get it - but when you have a market of these people wanting it and Apple gives it to them and now someone is on the fence on what to buy and Samsung doesn't offer it.. while their friends sit there spewing augmented rainbow unicorn dildos from their mouths or whatever, they'll end up buying the iPhone.
I remember when Swiftkey first added themes and all the themes were the most gaudy garbage ever, themes that I couldn't possibly comprehend from a design perspective - those ended up being the best selling because there is a market for it and it's actually a large market. You just don't see people asking for it because the people that want it aren't the types that post on forums.
On the flipside Samsung has definitely pushed a number of innovative features (both good and bad) that Apple has copied. Large screen size being the most obvious one but now wireless charging as well and a bunch others - or in some cases they simply kept features like the headphone jack, while Google/Apple/Lenovo and whomever are removing them.
D3M1G0D
Perhaps, but I don't remember a single person saying they wanted animated emojis of their face before Apple introduced it (I think it's largely because they introduced it that it became a thing). On the other hand, I know plenty of people who wanted a longer battery life. The thing is, if the Galaxy S9 came with a massive increase in battery capacity (5000 mAh or more) then I would buy it in a heartbeat, even if it meant the phone was thicker than my current phone (the battery life on my S8+ is pretty solid, but I would love to have more). I'm also willing to bet most (if not all) iPhone users would love to have a larger battery, even if it meant the phone was a bit thicker. Apple's obsession over thinness makes this an impossibility though, and Samsung copies Apple on that front. This is one of the things that really frustrates me, as a bigger battery is something that most users want and would practically guarantee a home-run - yet they focus on things like animated emojis 🙁
