It's around a year ago, but I don't think technology has gotten cheap enough in that span of time for even a $4 dumb phone now. This one is pretty close though:
You won't be getting this for $4 next year. The margin of profit is already so small, no body is going build phones and sell them for profits of a chewing gum.
But you can bet a $100 phone will be available for $30 very soon.
Clearly, $4 is far below the cost of the components listed. Assuming this is a legit offer - how are they doing it? One possible explanation - maybe it is supported by ads. They are counting on revenues generated by ads within the various applications - inlcuding search. If you notice the Search screen does not show a Google logo - it looks like a reskinned version of Google's home page. So presumably it could generate revenue via Adsense. Not sure if this is allowed as per Android Licensing terms for OEMs though but it could be an explanation.
EDIT: I was unaware of the issues of the Nexus 7. Seeing that they are not related to the phone's specs, my previous statements no longer hold.
Also, this has very similar specs to the 2012 Nexus 7 which is basically unusable with Android 5.1
Unusable meaning up to 20 seconds delay between a tap and the expected app opening up or the keyboard showing. Random hangs with the question if you want to kill the offending app.
I don't expect a $4 phone to be fast but unless there are some major differences, I think you'd just get $4 worth of frustration.
Interestingly, I have a $99 smartphone with quadcore 1.3GHz cpu, 1GB of RAM and a 720p 5" screen, and it works marvelously. No lag, keyboard works as it should, can play 1080p video without any issues, 2100mAh battery lasts for a day. I don't think that 2012 phones are the same as 2015/16 phones. As a x86 dual core 1.6GHz cpu from today and 4 years ago is not the same.
AFAIK your issues with the 2012 Nexus 7 are well known to be caused by the storage memory of the device, it degrades really rapidly. Upgrading to 5.1 just makes it more pronounced. Other devices of the same age don't suffer from it.
I have a cheap Asus tablet with a quad core 1.3 ghz mediatek CPU and 1 gb of ram that is perfectly usable. It is not as smooth as my iPhone and there are delays but nothing like you describe.
My Nexus 7 (2012) was exactly the same... Lost my phone last week and needed a device to use in the meantime. Installed Cyanogenmod 12.1 on the Nexus and it's measures of magnitude better!
I bought a pretty great Android cellphone, brand new, contract free, with a SIM card for $10 only 3 months ago with free shipping.
It was discussed on Hacker News and other tech news sites at the time. In various threads people and even some tech journalists claimed it was a scam, would end up costing more, wasn't really $10, would not work just as a wifi device if you didn't activate it, or that developer tools would somehow be disabled. Some of the articles got hostile with anyone that reported it actually worked fine and really did cost only $10.
Well here it is several months later and not only is my total investment still $10, but I've got it set up with free texting, a free telephone plan, and I am using it to target for Android development with no problems. And it works very well as a nice mp3 player with high quality sound, internet browser, voice recorder, and bluetooth robot controller as well. What it doesn't have is a good camera, the camera is OK outdoors and very poor indoors. But good optics cost money so that is not surprising.
I'm done arguing with people though, especially the tech journalists that didn't know what they were talking about, arguing and making accusations against those who were reporting actual first hand experience. Crazy stuff.
For one, advertised components are not always in the actual phone. Two, licensing fees are probably not paid, given that they are ~7$ for a 3G handset.
Still, $4 is undoable. Cheapest Spreadtrum 2G SOC with WiFi/BT/Sim holder/camera will go over that amount.
I'm not up to date on leading edge hardware, but this seems impressive especially for that price. Is there some sort of catch? This would be great to root and mess around with.
Seems there must be. I'm assuming this is with some kind of plan or contract. The price is below the cost of the components it seems to me. The quad core 1.3GHz ARM processor alone is probably worth more than $4. The display panel and flash probably are also each worth $4 or more.
If these cellphones can really be bought for $4, then I want to buy 100 and network them into a cluster.
These phones need to start becoming recyclable, not just electronics recyclable, but plastic lot recyclable.
Screens are difficult to be made of plastic right now, but someone is working on a replacement to LED lights that uses plastic instead. So there is promise here.
That leaves the battery. I cannot think of a recyclable material (plastic or aluminum metal) to replace the battery. When that happens, I think such $4 smartphones will not be damaging to the environment.
Why? Phones are very small, so the amount of material in them is small, too. Compared to most other things one could do for the environment, this seems like it would be a waste of effort.
On the contrary, it seems it's doing what the article suggested.
i.e. instead of trying to be the next Samsung, doing R&D and manufacturing of your own new smartphone tech and reinventing the wheel, they're just importing low-cost (maybe ± $40) existing phones from China and subsidising them to be dirt cheap ($4). Exactly like the article you linked to suggests:
> To bridge the digital divide — an avowed goal — it could have simply contracted a company in Taiwan and imported the tablets and sold it at subsidized rates to students. The cost would have been nominal — after all, the Indian government is subsidizing the cost of Aakash 1, which costs $50 to produce — and the tablets would have reached students sooner.
Unlike Datawind, this doesn't seem to have announced any Government affiliation. If government has subsided any of its costs then government is in a lot of trouble as transparency is the key to democracy and nothing about such a project was ever announced.
It is probably a loss leader to create a splash. It does not seem to be supported by the Govt. Likely, only a few will be in stock at that price. Later the price will increase or the model will be discontinued.
Those aren't subsidized, they are loss leaders instead. You're supposed to buy more of something else or they're dumping ancient hardware nobody wants for low prices.
[+] [-] userbinator|10 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9568004
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9558854
It's around a year ago, but I don't think technology has gotten cheap enough in that span of time for even a $4 dumb phone now. This one is pretty close though:
http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?page_id=3107
Edit: why does it look so iPhone-ish?
[+] [-] amelius|10 years ago|reply
But it has a color display, bluetooth, is capable of playing mp3. What if they removed that?
[+] [-] teekert|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kamaal|10 years ago|reply
You underestimate how far we have come, here is $30 phone : http://www.walmart.com/ip/44465710
You won't be getting this for $4 next year. The margin of profit is already so small, no body is going build phones and sell them for profits of a chewing gum.
But you can bet a $100 phone will be available for $30 very soon.
[+] [-] slantaclaus|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] donbox|10 years ago|reply
Specifications at a glance:
-- Android Lollipop 5.1
-- 4 inch qHD display
-- 1.3 Ghz Quadcore processor
-- 1 GB RAM
-- 8 GB internal memory, expandable to 32 GB
-- 1450 mAh battery
-- 3.2 MP AF Rear camera, .3 MP Front
[+] [-] nitin_flanker|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AstralStorm|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pedalpete|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pitchups|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ck2|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skbohra123|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dotdi|10 years ago|reply
Also, this has very similar specs to the 2012 Nexus 7 which is basically unusable with Android 5.1
Unusable meaning up to 20 seconds delay between a tap and the expected app opening up or the keyboard showing. Random hangs with the question if you want to kill the offending app.
I don't expect a $4 phone to be fast but unless there are some major differences, I think you'd just get $4 worth of frustration.
[+] [-] milankragujevic|10 years ago|reply
edit: cpu 1.6 to 1.3 ghz
[+] [-] puranjay|10 years ago|reply
Ah, but frustration arises when you know there's something better.
If you've never used ANY computing device before, you'd think the 20 second delay was normal.
This phone is targeting people who've never used any computing device other than a dumb phone. Some haven't even used dumb phones.
I can't believe people are knocking this phone here for its "eh, it's slow". You are NOT the target market. You are so, so not the target market.
[+] [-] joonoro|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bcraven|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] msh|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] keir-rex|10 years ago|reply
Now to fix the rubbish WiFi reception.
[+] [-] 77pt77|10 years ago|reply
Really?
The 2013 works with no real issues.
[+] [-] anotheryou|10 years ago|reply
https://gadgets360.com/shop/adcom-ikon-4-gold-8-gb-3738342d3...
[+] [-] droithomme|10 years ago|reply
It was discussed on Hacker News and other tech news sites at the time. In various threads people and even some tech journalists claimed it was a scam, would end up costing more, wasn't really $10, would not work just as a wifi device if you didn't activate it, or that developer tools would somehow be disabled. Some of the articles got hostile with anyone that reported it actually worked fine and really did cost only $10.
Well here it is several months later and not only is my total investment still $10, but I've got it set up with free texting, a free telephone plan, and I am using it to target for Android development with no problems. And it works very well as a nice mp3 player with high quality sound, internet browser, voice recorder, and bluetooth robot controller as well. What it doesn't have is a good camera, the camera is OK outdoors and very poor indoors. But good optics cost money so that is not surprising.
I'm done arguing with people though, especially the tech journalists that didn't know what they were talking about, arguing and making accusations against those who were reporting actual first hand experience. Crazy stuff.
[+] [-] frogpelt|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pmontra|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] janjongboom|10 years ago|reply
Still, $4 is undoable. Cheapest Spreadtrum 2G SOC with WiFi/BT/Sim holder/camera will go over that amount.
[+] [-] b169118|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nitin_flanker|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lossolo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AstralStorm|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hanniabu|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tachyonbeam|10 years ago|reply
If these cellphones can really be bought for $4, then I want to buy 100 and network them into a cluster.
[+] [-] geoah|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nashashmi|10 years ago|reply
Screens are difficult to be made of plastic right now, but someone is working on a replacement to LED lights that uses plastic instead. So there is promise here.
That leaves the battery. I cannot think of a recyclable material (plastic or aluminum metal) to replace the battery. When that happens, I think such $4 smartphones will not be damaging to the environment.
[+] [-] jimrandomh|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] edent|10 years ago|reply
A company over-promises, the Government over-funds, and the product under-delivers.
[+] [-] IkmoIkmo|10 years ago|reply
i.e. instead of trying to be the next Samsung, doing R&D and manufacturing of your own new smartphone tech and reinventing the wheel, they're just importing low-cost (maybe ± $40) existing phones from China and subsidising them to be dirt cheap ($4). Exactly like the article you linked to suggests:
> To bridge the digital divide — an avowed goal — it could have simply contracted a company in Taiwan and imported the tablets and sold it at subsidized rates to students. The cost would have been nominal — after all, the Indian government is subsidizing the cost of Aakash 1, which costs $50 to produce — and the tablets would have reached students sooner.
[+] [-] vidyesh|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mychaelangelo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seek|10 years ago|reply
https://medium.com/@seekshiva/reasons-why-i-think-freedom-25...
[+] [-] Yaggo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] goldenkey|10 years ago|reply
"Indians like to shit on streets -- no doubt. They would rather spend monies on Iphones that get themselves a toilet."
[1] http://theplanetd.com/india-is-filthy/
[2] http://veritas-lux.blogspot.com/2013/11/indians-and-their-sh...
[+] [-] duran12|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moron4hire|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ck2|10 years ago|reply
In fact they are almost exactly the same specs as the freedom one.
[+] [-] AstralStorm|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slaxman|10 years ago|reply