|15/04/12 - 18.37|
I overheard a youngish Canadian couple on a flight the other day. They are browsing the International Herald Tribune and spotted a mention of David Pogue’s Lumina 900 review on the front cover. Flicking to the page the woman read aloud:
“It’s the Lumia 900. It’s beautiful, fast and powerful, and it’s only $100 (with a two-year AT&T contract). That’s half the price of an iPhone or a comparable Android phone — but you’re still getting a top-of-the-line machine.”
The woman went on to say:
“Maybe that’s what I should get – I’ve been wanting to get a smartphone soon – and only $100″
I think this sort of customer is exactly what Microsoft and Nokia are aiming at. In Europe Nokia still have a decent chunk of people who use Nokia non-smartphones who will soon be thinking about getting their first smartphone. This could be enough to get the user base required for application developers to not dismiss the platform.
What I don’t understand is why people are fooled by the upfront price of a smartphone. The vast majority of the cost of any of these smartphones is of course in the ongoing monthly cost. $100 vs $200 is no where near half of the overall price. Obviously though people are fooled by it – which makes it a great marketing strategy.
Although Pogue rightly mentions the contract immediately after he cites the price in parentheses the next sentence begins “That’s half the price of an iPhone…” which just reinforces the myth that smartphones cost in the region of a couple of hundred dollars.