OK, you don't calculate net profit of selling a device based on the bill of materials. What that buys you is a pile of parts, not a finished product. Net profit requires taking out a lot of expenses that aren't part of the BOM, and those expenses are a little harder to estimate. I also wonder how much faith they really have putting the BOM total out to five significant figures, we never see the original report, so we don't know how confident they are, I wouldn't be surprised if they were off as much as 5% on the total on occasion, I think they probably should not have the coinage in the final figure, round to the nearest dollar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booga
Only inasmuch as any smartphone or properly working laptop is a "luxury device". Most of the planet can't afford such a thing, and there are a lot of cheap knockoffs that you can cajole into some level of usefulness. But to call Apple products "luxury devices" imply an insensitivity to a cost/benefit analysis, which I don't think is valid.
I think it's fair to call any smartphone a luxury device unless it's bought for business use, then it might be a necessity. I think it's not just about cost/benefit, it's about whether it is really necessary to have one.
Laptops aren't necessarily so, you can buy a decent laptop in the range of the cost of an unsubsidized smart phone and can be a lot more productive than with a smartphone, the main significant drawbacks being less portable and shorter battery life.
I love seeing tear down costs like this. For all companies.
I then like to compare it to the price of the device "off contract".
And then I question "Why exactly do I let the telecom companies take all this money for the lousy services they provide?"
Seriously, can any one give me a GOOD reason as to why the "off contract" prices are so very different from the build prices? I can understand margins of the devices, but this is something else altogether.
Also, I'm all in favor of NOT locking handsets to a particular carrier. Choose your handset SEPARATE of your carrier, would make competition better, and the actual service better. Most commercials I see for VZW,ATT,Sprint,T-Mobile, are for the handsets, not their services! Something is VERY wrong with this picture.
it could be margins. smartphone market is still immature and in the 1990's Dell had some nice margins due to their logistics pipeline.
second possibility is that there are a log of other costs other than price of the parts. build cost, development, etc. cell phones aren't built by robots like cars. still need human hands to stuff all the parts in there
and look at the price of a 15" MBP compared to a Dell with similar specs. it's twice as much, because people are willing to pay it. yet all the apple fanboys think that's OK
and look at the price of a 15" MBP compared to a Dell with similar specs. it's twice as much, because people are willing to pay it. yet all the apple fanboys think that's OK
im waiting for the reply with "but its a much better value" comment for this.
in all serious, is anyone surprised by the cost of the components in the nexus? im not. thats close to what i estimated it'd be when i first saw the phone.
For more on the Nexus One and how it stacks up against Apple's iPhone 3GS, see an in-depth comparison from someone who has never seen one in the flesh.
im waiting for the reply with "but its a much better value" comment for this.
in all serious, is anyone surprised by the cost of the components in the nexus? im not. thats close to what i estimated it'd be when i first saw the phone.
not really surprised at all, thats what i assumed it would cost (was thinking 180s myself) but the snapdragon and amoled screen really add to the price tag, as well as using a wifi-n chip without supporting i officially.
Having removable media is a love hate thing. You'd hate it when you have to buy it, but if you switch phones, or use more than one, you can keep all your digital stuff without missing a beat (jumped from a Storm to a Bold, took all of 10 seconds to move my stuff over) if you stay on the same platform.
it could be margins. smartphone market is still immature and in the 1990's Dell had some nice margins due to their logistics pipeline.
second possibility is that there are a log of other costs other than price of the parts. build cost, development, etc. cell phones aren't built by robots like cars. still need human hands to stuff all the parts in there
and look at the price of a 15" MBP compared to a Dell with similar specs. it's twice as much, because people are willing to pay it. yet all the apple fanboys think that's OK
My only argument, is the iPod Touch. The device which (minus a camera, microphone and cell phone chipset) is really close to the iPhone, then why does it cost so much less? I'm not saying that the iPhone is solely to blame in terms of exorbitant handset costs, but at least we have something to compare it to in the non-cell phone world.
My only reason would be, is the iPod Touch a loss leader? But it still has a decent margin!
Lets assume Apple is figuring on replacing each iPhone once under warranty plus shipping, so that's $200/$200 and the last $200 is profit.
So if the iPhone works correctly under warranty, that's $400 profit.
Seriously, Dude? You?ve been here since May of last year. You should know that the BOM (Build of Materials) is not even close to everything that needs to be considered for the cost of the device to even equal a null profit on the device.
My only argument, is the iPod Touch. The device which (minus a camera, microphone and cell phone chipset) is really close to the iPhone, then why does it cost so much less? I'm not saying that the iPhone is solely to blame in terms of exorbitant handset costs, but at least we have something to compare it to in the non-cell phone world.
My only reason would be, is the iPod Touch a loss leader? But it still has a decent margin!
has it ever been confirmed that the iphone gives apple $600 - $700 per unit in revenue?
and the iphone also carries a higher royalty cost. you have to pay patent royalties to qualcomm, GSM consortium and i don't know who else.
has it ever been confirmed that the iphone gives apple $600 - $700 per unit in revenue?
and the iphone also carries a higher royalty cost. you have to pay patent royalties to qualcomm, GSM consortium and i don't know who else.
I should start working for Qualcomm or GSM or someone who all these companies pay these royalties to. Ah, the joys of licencing. Per hand set (all handsets, not just apples), that's a pretty scrap of cash.
The Nexus was probably made from less than a few dollars worth of rocks, oil and sand.
All you gotta do is find the right ones, dig them up, refine them and assemble them into phone components.
This is why these things are stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by camroidv27
I love seeing tear down costs like this. For all companies.
I then like to compare it to the price of the device "off contract".
And then I question "Why exactly do I let the telecom companies take all this money for the lousy services they provide?"
Seriously, can any one give me a GOOD reason as to why the "off contract" prices are so very different from the build prices? I can understand margins of the devices, but this is something else altogether.
Also, I'm all in favor of NOT locking handsets to a particular carrier. Choose your handset SEPARATE of your carrier, would make competition better, and the actual service better. Most commercials I see for VZW,ATT,Sprint,T-Mobile, are for the handsets, not their services! Something is VERY wrong with this picture.
im waiting for the reply with "but its [Apple Computers] a much better value" comment for this.
Actually, before I got my MBP I configured a dell studio laptop with close specs and features to that of the 15" low end MBP, dell was slightly more expensive.
Edit: I just put one together, only about 250$ cheaper than the 15"MBP, and even then, the MBP has some of the best engineering and reliability, plus OSX and the iLife suit.
Well, it would be interesting to see what the actual wholesale price of these phones is to Google, not just the cost of materials.
Does the cell phone market exercise the same markup rates as typical retail, which is 300%?
If Google really wanted to shake up the cell phone industry business model, this Nexus One is a very very small start, but a start nonetheless.
I think many folks expected Google to really give a good incentive to buy direct from them by offering the hardware at a low cost. It doesn't appear that they're doing that, but without knowing how much they're pocketing off each device, you can't really say one way or the other.
Actually, maybe they are. $530 off contract certainly isn't on the high-end of what you pay out of pocket for something like an iPhone or high end Crackberry or Nokia, is it? Problem is, it doesn't seem particularly cheaper either.
My only argument, is the iPod Touch. The device which (minus a camera, microphone and cell phone chipset) is really close to the iPhone, then why does it cost so much less? I'm not saying that the iPhone is solely to blame in terms of exorbitant handset costs, but at least we have something to compare it to in the non-cell phone world.
My only reason would be, is the iPod Touch a loss leader? But it still has a decent margin!
Apple sells nothing at a loss, word is they might for Apple TV to make it back in itunes sales, but i find that unlikely.
The iPhone costs like 170ish (16GB) as well to make, so the iPod is going to be cheaper because it doesnt need to utilize a radio chip. Also with no radio chips comes no royalties that need to be paid out to respective owners of the GSM people or Qualcomm (the CDMA folks everyone loves to hate) and it doesnt need to have as much R&D time because it doesnt need the extra work the iPhone needs to make sure everything plays with the network fine.
I'm not sure what the profit margin is on the iPod touch but im sure its probably around the usual 20-25%.
Well, it would be interesting to see what the actual wholesale price of these phones is to Google, not just the cost of materials.
Does the cell phone market exercise the same markup rates as typical retail, which is 300%?
If Google really wanted to shake up the cell phone industry business model, this Nexus One is a very very small start, but a start nonetheless.
I think many folks expected Google to really give a good incentive to buy direct from them by offering the hardware at a low cost. It doesn't appear that they're doing that, but without knowing how much they're pocketing off each device, you can't really say one way or the other.
Actually, maybe they are. $530 off contract certainly isn't on the high-end of what you pay out of pocket for something like an iPhone or high end Crackberry or Nokia, is it? Problem is, it doesn't seem particularly cheaper either.
Its higher than the iPhone and Blackberry and Nokia (i think...some of their phones are outrageous)
You would expect to be getting a cheaper price though. You cut out the middle man of having to go into a store and buy one. It would be more impressive if it were at 449 or something.
What was a big deal about Google selling an unlocked phone...isnt. T-Mo charges the same price for on contract service (500 mins, unlimited data/text) as it does for its flexpay, so unless your credit is screwed, there is ZERO point. If carriers start actually showing cheaper prices for service if you bring in your own phone, then it might be a bigger of a deal. Until then, ill sign a contract and only pay 200 out of pocket.
Its higher than the iPhone and Blackberry and Nokia (i think...some of their phones are outrageous)
You would expect to be getting a cheaper price though. You cut out the middle man of having to go into a store and buy one. It would be more impressive if it were at 449 or something.
What was a big deal about Google selling an unlocked phone...isnt. T-Mo charges the same price for on contract service (500 mins, unlimited data/text) as it does for its flexpay, so unless your credit is screwed, there is ZERO point. If carriers start actually showing cheaper prices for service if you bring in your own phone, then it might be a bigger of a deal. Until then, ill sign a contract and only pay 200 out of pocket.
According to my calculations, using the 500 minute plan, the cost of ownership over two years is $130 LESS if you buy the N1 off contract.
Contract rate: $179 + 24mos*$79 vs non-contract of $529+24mos*$59.
After 18 months you're break even on the initial outlay, so I guess how long you plan on sticking around with that phone and TMo, and what the cancellation fee is are the deciding factors.
By the way, did anyone else notice that Google's removed the link to the Nexus One purchase site from their home page today? Is that significant?
Seriously, Dude? You?ve been here since May of last year. You should know that the BOM (Build of Materials) is not even close to everything that needs to be considered for the cost of the device to even equal a null profit on the device.
No not seriously, just talking off the top of my head, but it makes good Apple discussion and I learned something too.
According to my calculations, using the 500 minute plan, the cost of ownership over two years is $130 LESS if you buy the N1 off contract.
Contract rate: $179 + 24mos*$79 vs non-contract of $529+24mos*$59.
After 18 months you're break even on the initial outlay, so I guess how long you plan on sticking around with that phone and TMo, and what the cancellation fee is are the deciding factors.
By the way, did anyone else notice that Google's removed the link to the Nexus One purchase site from their home page today? Is that significant?
I guess T-Mo charges less then unless its a BB then cause i pulled up 79 just for the basic 500 min and unlimited data/text plan if you bought the 9700 outright.
The Nexus was probably made from less than a few dollars worth of rocks, oil and sand.
All you gotta do is find the right ones, dig them up, refine them and assemble them into phone components.
This is why these things are stupid.
And the rocks, oil, and sand are just a bunch of protons, neutrons, and electrons. My $1 bottle of water probably has enough of those to make a couple of iPhones. Who cares that it would take several billion dollars and many years to rearrange the the particles into an iPhone. That's just manufacturing costs, which we don't count.
I guess T-Mo charges less then unless its a BB then cause i pulled up 79 just for the basic 500 min and unlimited data/text plan if you bought the 9700 outright.
I'm not sure if these links work for others, but at Google's Nexus page (https://www.google.com/phone/choose?locale=en_US&s7e=) pick the TMobile option an click the blue more to see this: "The Nexus One Phone with T-Mobile Even More individual 500 Plan. You must be eligible for service and accept a new two year contract to qualify for this pricing. Existing T-Mobile customers may qualify for upgrade pricing.
500 talk minutes. Unlimited nights and weekends. Unlimited T-Mobile to T-Mobile minutes. Unlimited domestic messaging including SMS, MMS, IM. Android Unlimited Web. $79.99 per month."
Crazy, huh? Usually you'd expect to get some kind of savings for signing a committment. That's how Time Warner Cable and Verizon FIOS works. Nothing about cellular service companies makes sense.
I didn't come up with the $20 saving on my own, I read that on one of the big blogs like Engadget, but did verify it myself as above.
The one thing I see that might be a snag is the "Android Unlimited Web" part of the Google page. I wonder if those of us doing these calculations are missing that Android has a higher rate. I doubt it.
Comments
Only inasmuch as any smartphone or properly working laptop is a "luxury device". Most of the planet can't afford such a thing, and there are a lot of cheap knockoffs that you can cajole into some level of usefulness. But to call Apple products "luxury devices" imply an insensitivity to a cost/benefit analysis, which I don't think is valid.
I think it's fair to call any smartphone a luxury device unless it's bought for business use, then it might be a necessity. I think it's not just about cost/benefit, it's about whether it is really necessary to have one.
Laptops aren't necessarily so, you can buy a decent laptop in the range of the cost of an unsubsidized smart phone and can be a lot more productive than with a smartphone, the main significant drawbacks being less portable and shorter battery life.
I love seeing tear down costs like this. For all companies.
I then like to compare it to the price of the device "off contract".
And then I question "Why exactly do I let the telecom companies take all this money for the lousy services they provide?"
Seriously, can any one give me a GOOD reason as to why the "off contract" prices are so very different from the build prices? I can understand margins of the devices, but this is something else altogether.
Also, I'm all in favor of NOT locking handsets to a particular carrier. Choose your handset SEPARATE of your carrier, would make competition better, and the actual service better. Most commercials I see for VZW,ATT,Sprint,T-Mobile, are for the handsets, not their services! Something is VERY wrong with this picture.
it could be margins. smartphone market is still immature and in the 1990's Dell had some nice margins due to their logistics pipeline.
second possibility is that there are a log of other costs other than price of the parts. build cost, development, etc. cell phones aren't built by robots like cars. still need human hands to stuff all the parts in there
and look at the price of a 15" MBP compared to a Dell with similar specs. it's twice as much, because people are willing to pay it. yet all the apple fanboys think that's OK
and look at the price of a 15" MBP compared to a Dell with similar specs. it's twice as much, because people are willing to pay it. yet all the apple fanboys think that's OK
im waiting for the reply with "but its a much better value" comment for this.
in all serious, is anyone surprised by the cost of the components in the nexus? im not. thats close to what i estimated it'd be when i first saw the phone.
For more on the Nexus One and how it stacks up against Apple's iPhone 3GS, see an in-depth comparison from someone who has never seen one in the flesh.
im waiting for the reply with "but its a much better value" comment for this.
in all serious, is anyone surprised by the cost of the components in the nexus? im not. thats close to what i estimated it'd be when i first saw the phone.
not really surprised at all, thats what i assumed it would cost (was thinking 180s myself) but the snapdragon and amoled screen really add to the price tag, as well as using a wifi-n chip without supporting i officially.
Having removable media is a love hate thing. You'd hate it when you have to buy it, but if you switch phones, or use more than one, you can keep all your digital stuff without missing a beat (jumped from a Storm to a Bold, took all of 10 seconds to move my stuff over) if you stay on the same platform.
it could be margins. smartphone market is still immature and in the 1990's Dell had some nice margins due to their logistics pipeline.
second possibility is that there are a log of other costs other than price of the parts. build cost, development, etc. cell phones aren't built by robots like cars. still need human hands to stuff all the parts in there
and look at the price of a 15" MBP compared to a Dell with similar specs. it's twice as much, because people are willing to pay it. yet all the apple fanboys think that's OK
My only argument, is the iPod Touch. The device which (minus a camera, microphone and cell phone chipset) is really close to the iPhone, then why does it cost so much less? I'm not saying that the iPhone is solely to blame in terms of exorbitant handset costs, but at least we have something to compare it to in the non-cell phone world.
My only reason would be, is the iPod Touch a loss leader? But it still has a decent margin!
Hmm, iPhone $600 - $179 = $421
Lets assume Apple is figuring on replacing each iPhone once under warranty plus shipping, so that's $200/$200 and the last $200 is profit.
So if the iPhone works correctly under warranty, that's $400 profit.
Seriously, Dude? You?ve been here since May of last year. You should know that the BOM (Build of Materials) is not even close to everything that needs to be considered for the cost of the device to even equal a null profit on the device.
My only argument, is the iPod Touch. The device which (minus a camera, microphone and cell phone chipset) is really close to the iPhone, then why does it cost so much less? I'm not saying that the iPhone is solely to blame in terms of exorbitant handset costs, but at least we have something to compare it to in the non-cell phone world.
My only reason would be, is the iPod Touch a loss leader? But it still has a decent margin!
has it ever been confirmed that the iphone gives apple $600 - $700 per unit in revenue?
and the iphone also carries a higher royalty cost. you have to pay patent royalties to qualcomm, GSM consortium and i don't know who else.
has it ever been confirmed that the iphone gives apple $600 - $700 per unit in revenue?
and the iphone also carries a higher royalty cost. you have to pay patent royalties to qualcomm, GSM consortium and i don't know who else.
I should start working for Qualcomm or GSM or someone who all these companies pay these royalties to. Ah, the joys of licencing. Per hand set (all handsets, not just apples), that's a pretty scrap of cash.
The Nexus was probably made from less than a few dollars worth of rocks, oil and sand.
All you gotta do is find the right ones, dig them up, refine them and assemble them into phone components.
This is why these things are stupid.
I love seeing tear down costs like this. For all companies.
I then like to compare it to the price of the device "off contract".
And then I question "Why exactly do I let the telecom companies take all this money for the lousy services they provide?"
Seriously, can any one give me a GOOD reason as to why the "off contract" prices are so very different from the build prices? I can understand margins of the devices, but this is something else altogether.
Also, I'm all in favor of NOT locking handsets to a particular carrier. Choose your handset SEPARATE of your carrier, would make competition better, and the actual service better. Most commercials I see for VZW,ATT,Sprint,T-Mobile, are for the handsets, not their services! Something is VERY wrong with this picture.
im waiting for the reply with "but its [Apple Computers] a much better value" comment for this.
Actually, before I got my MBP I configured a dell studio laptop with close specs and features to that of the 15" low end MBP, dell was slightly more expensive.
Edit: I just put one together, only about 250$ cheaper than the 15"MBP, and even then, the MBP has some of the best engineering and reliability, plus OSX and the iLife suit.
Does the cell phone market exercise the same markup rates as typical retail, which is 300%?
If Google really wanted to shake up the cell phone industry business model, this Nexus One is a very very small start, but a start nonetheless.
I think many folks expected Google to really give a good incentive to buy direct from them by offering the hardware at a low cost. It doesn't appear that they're doing that, but without knowing how much they're pocketing off each device, you can't really say one way or the other.
Actually, maybe they are. $530 off contract certainly isn't on the high-end of what you pay out of pocket for something like an iPhone or high end Crackberry or Nokia, is it? Problem is, it doesn't seem particularly cheaper either.
My only argument, is the iPod Touch. The device which (minus a camera, microphone and cell phone chipset) is really close to the iPhone, then why does it cost so much less? I'm not saying that the iPhone is solely to blame in terms of exorbitant handset costs, but at least we have something to compare it to in the non-cell phone world.
My only reason would be, is the iPod Touch a loss leader? But it still has a decent margin!
Apple sells nothing at a loss, word is they might for Apple TV to make it back in itunes sales, but i find that unlikely.
The iPhone costs like 170ish (16GB) as well to make, so the iPod is going to be cheaper because it doesnt need to utilize a radio chip. Also with no radio chips comes no royalties that need to be paid out to respective owners of the GSM people or Qualcomm (the CDMA folks everyone loves to hate) and it doesnt need to have as much R&D time because it doesnt need the extra work the iPhone needs to make sure everything plays with the network fine.
I'm not sure what the profit margin is on the iPod touch but im sure its probably around the usual 20-25%.
Well, it would be interesting to see what the actual wholesale price of these phones is to Google, not just the cost of materials.
Does the cell phone market exercise the same markup rates as typical retail, which is 300%?
If Google really wanted to shake up the cell phone industry business model, this Nexus One is a very very small start, but a start nonetheless.
I think many folks expected Google to really give a good incentive to buy direct from them by offering the hardware at a low cost. It doesn't appear that they're doing that, but without knowing how much they're pocketing off each device, you can't really say one way or the other.
Actually, maybe they are. $530 off contract certainly isn't on the high-end of what you pay out of pocket for something like an iPhone or high end Crackberry or Nokia, is it? Problem is, it doesn't seem particularly cheaper either.
Its higher than the iPhone and Blackberry and Nokia (i think...some of their phones are outrageous)
You would expect to be getting a cheaper price though. You cut out the middle man of having to go into a store and buy one. It would be more impressive if it were at 449 or something.
What was a big deal about Google selling an unlocked phone...isnt. T-Mo charges the same price for on contract service (500 mins, unlimited data/text) as it does for its flexpay, so unless your credit is screwed, there is ZERO point. If carriers start actually showing cheaper prices for service if you bring in your own phone, then it might be a bigger of a deal. Until then, ill sign a contract and only pay 200 out of pocket.
Its higher than the iPhone and Blackberry and Nokia (i think...some of their phones are outrageous)
You would expect to be getting a cheaper price though. You cut out the middle man of having to go into a store and buy one. It would be more impressive if it were at 449 or something.
What was a big deal about Google selling an unlocked phone...isnt. T-Mo charges the same price for on contract service (500 mins, unlimited data/text) as it does for its flexpay, so unless your credit is screwed, there is ZERO point. If carriers start actually showing cheaper prices for service if you bring in your own phone, then it might be a bigger of a deal. Until then, ill sign a contract and only pay 200 out of pocket.
According to my calculations, using the 500 minute plan, the cost of ownership over two years is $130 LESS if you buy the N1 off contract.
Contract rate: $179 + 24mos*$79 vs non-contract of $529+24mos*$59.
After 18 months you're break even on the initial outlay, so I guess how long you plan on sticking around with that phone and TMo, and what the cancellation fee is are the deciding factors.
By the way, did anyone else notice that Google's removed the link to the Nexus One purchase site from their home page today? Is that significant?
Seriously, Dude? You?ve been here since May of last year. You should know that the BOM (Build of Materials) is not even close to everything that needs to be considered for the cost of the device to even equal a null profit on the device.
No not seriously, just talking off the top of my head, but it makes good Apple discussion and I learned something too.
According to my calculations, using the 500 minute plan, the cost of ownership over two years is $130 LESS if you buy the N1 off contract.
Contract rate: $179 + 24mos*$79 vs non-contract of $529+24mos*$59.
After 18 months you're break even on the initial outlay, so I guess how long you plan on sticking around with that phone and TMo, and what the cancellation fee is are the deciding factors.
By the way, did anyone else notice that Google's removed the link to the Nexus One purchase site from their home page today? Is that significant?
I guess T-Mo charges less then unless its a BB then cause i pulled up 79 just for the basic 500 min and unlimited data/text plan if you bought the 9700 outright.
Why stop at components?
The Nexus was probably made from less than a few dollars worth of rocks, oil and sand.
All you gotta do is find the right ones, dig them up, refine them and assemble them into phone components.
This is why these things are stupid.
And the rocks, oil, and sand are just a bunch of protons, neutrons, and electrons. My $1 bottle of water probably has enough of those to make a couple of iPhones. Who cares that it would take several billion dollars and many years to rearrange the the particles into an iPhone. That's just manufacturing costs, which we don't count.
I guess T-Mo charges less then unless its a BB then cause i pulled up 79 just for the basic 500 min and unlimited data/text plan if you bought the 9700 outright.
I'm not sure if these links work for others, but at Google's Nexus page (https://www.google.com/phone/choose?locale=en_US&s7e=) pick the TMobile option an click the blue more to see this: "The Nexus One Phone with T-Mobile Even More individual 500 Plan. You must be eligible for service and accept a new two year contract to qualify for this pricing. Existing T-Mobile customers may qualify for upgrade pricing.
500 talk minutes. Unlimited nights and weekends. Unlimited T-Mobile to T-Mobile minutes. Unlimited domestic messaging including SMS, MMS, IM. Android Unlimited Web. $79.99 per month."
On TMobile's page (http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/plans/C...s_evenmoreplus) check out the Even More Plus package for 500 minutes at $59.99.
$20 per month saving for being off contract.
Crazy, huh? Usually you'd expect to get some kind of savings for signing a committment. That's how Time Warner Cable and Verizon FIOS works. Nothing about cellular service companies makes sense.
I didn't come up with the $20 saving on my own, I read that on one of the big blogs like Engadget, but did verify it myself as above.
The one thing I see that might be a snag is the "Android Unlimited Web" part of the Google page. I wonder if those of us doing these calculations are missing that Android has a higher rate. I doubt it.