CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?

July 25, 2006 9:21 AM

Most. Expensive. Cellphone. Evar. (It's Jaren Goh Design's $300,000USD "Black Diamond" phone.)
posted by Extopalopaketle (63 comments total)

anyone who owns one of these needs to be sterilized so their genes don't pollute future generations.
posted by jonmc at 9:27 AM on July 25, 2006

Most. Meh. FPP. Evar.
posted by scblackman at 9:31 AM on July 25, 2006

I'd pay more for a phone if I could get a goddamn signal. This thing better be able to work on the moon.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:32 AM on July 25, 2006

What kind of asshole buys a $300,000 cellphone? Probably the same asshole who would also buy this.
posted by OverlappingElvis at 9:32 AM on July 25, 2006

why is it so expensive? because there's only five of them?
posted by fungible at 9:32 AM on July 25, 2006

More than sterilized, they need to be executed on public television stations around the world, and their estates liquidated with all proceeds going to clothe, feed and shelter the world's poor.
posted by the_savage_mind at 9:35 AM on July 25, 2006

why is it so expensive?

So you can feel like a total douche when you leave it in the back of a cab?
posted by Optamystic at 9:35 AM on July 25, 2006

Dave Chappelle on excessive consumerism, Cribs style:

"These here are African statues and I don't really fuck with Africa because people are starving to death and that's not really baller to me."
posted by geoff. at 9:36 AM on July 25, 2006

it does look kind of awesome though. Plus, i guarantee there'll be a guy selling like 10 of them off a cart on the street 18 minutes after it hits the market. "Legitimate!"
posted by indiebass at 9:36 AM on July 25, 2006

At least the Yacht-Sub's price tag makes more sense.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 9:37 AM on July 25, 2006

Mr. Spacey, may I borrow your phone?
posted by Optamystic at 9:44 AM on July 25, 2006

Thing is that's not even the worlds most expensive cellphone.
This Is
posted by grex at 9:50 AM on July 25, 2006

Maybe they're rigged with poison or explosives, and this is just a plot to eliminate the world's five biggest jackasses.
posted by brain_drain at 9:52 AM on July 25, 2006

Isn't it time we reconsidered communism?
posted by Mayor Curley at 9:53 AM on July 25, 2006 [1 favorite]

That submarine yacht is pretty sweet, though.
posted by brain_drain at 9:55 AM on July 25, 2006

And they still can't make a reliable phone call from inside of their multimillion dollar homes.

There's also Vertu and their diamond encrusted phones. (Warning: site has Flash) - Gweneyth Paltrow was on their customer list. Cuz, y'know, everyone in Hollywood needs a diamond cell phone.

Then there's Paris Hilton who goes down to the T-Mobile store and buys a Sidekick and starts a new fashion trend.
posted by drstein at 9:55 AM on July 25, 2006

I still can't figure out why it's so expensive.
posted by OmieWise at 9:58 AM on July 25, 2006

$300,000? For a Razr with a diamond hotglued on to it?
posted by Iridic at 9:58 AM on July 25, 2006

$300K to run Windows Mobile? I don't run Windows anything unless I'm paid to.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:02 AM on July 25, 2006

I could use this phone while I'm shitting in my golden toilet on my luxury yacht submarine.
posted by jefbla at 10:07 AM on July 25, 2006

Save $200,000, buy something actually cool instead.

Last night Tesla Motors unveiled their uber-chic Roadster, a powerful electric vehicle that looks, feels and drives like many other high-end sports cars. The main difference is the noise. Powered by a 3-phase, 4-pole AC induction motor, the Roadster can go 130 mph and does 0-60 in about 4 seconds, all completely silent.

Tonight's unveiling was also an invitation to purchase the Roadster when it is released in mid-2007 (for about $80,000-$120,000).

posted by Firas at 10:09 AM on July 25, 2006

It's quite striking. Except for the Windows Mobile (ew), I could see myself paying $500 for something like that.

Though I think the Nokia 7380 wins for sheer eccentricity/form over function.
posted by Zozo at 10:09 AM on July 25, 2006

Hopefully, there's an option for Nextel service with this phone - the constant walkie-talkie action on top of owning a $300,000 phone will definitely let you let everyone else know exactly what type of asshole you really are!
posted by jivadravya at 10:09 AM on July 25, 2006

George_Spiggott: "$300K to run Windows Mobile? I don't run Windows anything unless I'm paid to."

That explains the price tag, though. It's a hundred grand each for the three tech support personnel that have to follow you around to keep the thing working.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:11 AM on July 25, 2006

Nokia has been making some very beautiful phones lately. And while the razr is 'slick' motorolla phones are the worst crap in the world. OTOH, nokias are rock solid.

Anyway, this phone is stupid. 4mp phone? The only thing that's special about it is a huge diamond stuck into the back. Idiotic.
posted by delmoi at 10:24 AM on July 25, 2006

I don't understand all this hate for money. I honestly don't. If someone has worked hard, really hard, why can't they splash on anything they damn well please? Why is there this expectation that someone who makes a few million or few hundred million is required to give all or most of their wealth to charity? I mean people who would buy something like this, the telsa roadster or even the submarine pay too many fucking taxes already without every getting a penny in benefits and its progressive taxation, so its not like they are short changing anyone in the process. Somebody, please explain to me.
posted by trol at 10:36 AM on July 25, 2006

$300,000? For a fucking phone? For that kind of green, I could buy my home twice and have cash left over to put a car in both of the garages.
posted by Thorzdad at 10:45 AM on July 25, 2006

I don't understand all this hate for money.

Who's hating on money? I like nice things, even luxurious ones. But this is ridiculous. This is a functional item dressed up for no other reason than to pump up the price tag so somebody can say 'let them eat payphones."

If someone has worked hard, really hard, why can't they splash on anything they damn well please?

They can. and we can ridicule those choices mercilessly. Freedom rocks.

I mean people who would buy something like this, the telsa roadster or even the submarine pay too many fucking taxes already

Boo fucking hoo for the billionaires.
posted by jonmc at 10:47 AM on July 25, 2006

It's hard out there for a Trump.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:49 AM on July 25, 2006

You know why people are irritated by this? Because the phone will be obsolete in a few months anyway! So, really, it's just a goddamn stupid desicion.

And, honestly, I think possession of this phone just gives permission for a mugging with subsequent beatdown.
posted by Talanvor at 11:00 AM on July 25, 2006

posted by trol at 10:36 AM PST on July 25 [+fave] [!]

you don't say...
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 11:02 AM on July 25, 2006

Somebody, please explain to me.

I think it has a little to do with the idea that in North America / Western culture, we're supposed to be the 'grown ups' of capitalism, and materialism and conspicuous consumption is something for the capitalist-cultural underdeveloped -- eg new-capitalisms, teenagers.

We're supposed to be above all this excess uselessness. (Remember the 80's and cra$$?)
posted by Extopalopaketle at 11:07 AM on July 25, 2006

As far as phone designs, I really like me new Samsung D600 slider. It's solid and really simple looking. I also find the audio quality on it to be quite nice. Other Samsung sliders look nice too.l
posted by vansly at 11:07 AM on July 25, 2006

Hey, howzabout the new Panasonic 103-inch plasma TV set? Damn, I gotta get me one of those.
posted by blucevalo at 11:15 AM on July 25, 2006

Oh go ahead and buy the 300,000 dollar phone, just remember when I'm rich enough I'm going to take my spare 300 large and pay Carlos the Jackal to kidnap you and stuff you full of C-4 and mescaline tabs and Krugerrands and push you off the Empire State building and detonate you on the way down like the rich meaty pinatta you so clearly wish to be.
posted by Divine_Wino at 11:33 AM on July 25, 2006 [3 favorites]

If someone has worked hard, really hard, why can't they splash on anything they damn well please?

And that's the problem. The person who works really, really hard is a lot more likely to be a construction worker or a janitor than a multimillionaire. The way you get that rich is by making connections and screwing people over. You don't get an extra $300G laying around to spend on a phone because you're a hard worker. You got it because you're a backstabber or a parasite. Thus the hate.
posted by 1adam12 at 11:55 AM on July 25, 2006

Apparently, $300,000 will buy a whole lot of self-righteous indignation.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:03 PM on July 25, 2006

Um, in other words you guys have a problem with the person who would spend $300K on a phone, so shouldn't you in fact be happy that there's a phone that costs that much and takes their money from them? Basic premise of redistribution of wealth...
posted by esoterica at 12:40 PM on July 25, 2006

Maybe people get snippy because (US numbers to follow) the median household income is only $43,057 annually (source), and $23,535 per household member (source). The average person would have to work over twelve years to earn the amount of $$ that that phone costs.
posted by raedyn at 1:11 PM on July 25, 2006

I'm not upset or resentful at all, I just want to use my little slice of the American dream to rain human chunks, South African embargoed gold coins and hallucinogens on 34th st.
posted by Divine_Wino at 1:57 PM on July 25, 2006 [1 favorite]

If I had an arbitrarily large amount of money to blow on something stupid, I'd probably embark on a rigorous program of training, including all technological means possible, to become a monstrous killing-machine of a man. Large scale steroid use, sure. Implants designed to increase my strength or speed up my reflexes, sure. Truly vast drug intake until I begin to have outright precognition. I'd be a gigantor lightning-quick mutant-strong ninja death machine fueled by nuclear fire and powered by the souls of my victims.

Then I'd show that bear who's the fucking boss.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:09 PM on July 25, 2006 [1 favorite]

"Then I'd show that bear who's the fucking boss"


i'd like to donate $$$s to this endeavor. awesome, just awesome
posted by Gaius Gracchus at 2:56 PM on July 25, 2006

> The person who works really, really hard is a lot more likely to be a construction worker or a janitor than a multimillionaire

Uhm, I hear this type of crap all the time... so apparently you value physical labor over mental labor? Where the @)#$ do you think the Western world would be without innovation? Do laborers innovate? NO THEY DO NOT. There are many reasons the rich are rich. I don't want to argue about all the advantages given to them by the government and the thousands of years of property ownership that have been of vast benefit, but let's just say that moving forward in the world requires alot more than sweeping the floor or pounding nails. Heck, there wouldn't even be brooms OR nails if some guy hadn't used his head more than his muscles. I'm surprised that people on here are so bitchy about the sweat expended by the wealthy vs the working class when most probably sit around in air-conditioned offices all day.

For everyone who bitches and moans about their lot in life & how crappy everyone in the US gets paid, are you actually trying to aggressively earn more money or are you just complaining? The person who takes a step back and looks at what it takes to make money and then tries some of these methods tends to lose money, try again, lose money, try again, maybe make a little money (but not without some serious heartbreak & blood/sweat/tears), try again, make a tad more money, try again, make some sorta real money, try again, make some real money, try again, make some major money, etc etc etc.... it doesn't happen overnight and there is far more stress involved than any of you haters would care to admit, because apparently none of you have ever tried, or if you did, you gave up before you succeeded.

> The average person would have to work over twelve years to earn the amount of $$ that that phone costs.

Great, so Joe Sixpack is the measuring stick? Who gives a flying @#(& about the average person? The average do not advance society, either in arts, culture, technology or anything else.
If you want to work for someone else your entire life and need 12 years to just MAKE $300k (much less SAVE $300k), that's your call... or you do something to better yourself (like finishing school & making career progress BEFORE having kids), then go on to take some major financial risks on a business idea, and perhaps fail, or perhaps be able to hire a bunch of people and create prosperity for far more people than just yourself.
posted by paraxod at 3:04 PM on July 25, 2006

paraxod, you flailing dimwit, pointing out that wealth is not purely a function of virtue (i.e. of hard work) is not an attack on the basis of capital value in a scare economy!

It's just pointing out that 'the rich are better people' or 'she is richer than him because she works 'harder' than him" is a ridiculous notion. And it's especially widespread in the USA alongside the whole 'we have more social mobility here than anyone anywhere!' myth (the 'American Dream').

By the way, such cynicism regarding the American Dream usually comes from people who happen to have completed their education etc. before having kids. You know, white collar liberal types. Not every person who's better off thinks of the worse off as a bunch of shmucks.
posted by Firas at 3:19 PM on July 25, 2006

I bought one, but was really annoyed that four other people had the exact same model, so I stuck a stamp on the other side and now its worth $300,002
posted by Sparx at 3:21 PM on July 25, 2006

Look, if Jeff Bezos or the Google guys or anyone who'se actually built or innovated something wants to buy this phone, fine. They actually did earn their cash. My hate is generally reserved for people who "earned" their money by being born from a rich vagina, like Hilton and people who "earned" their money by exploiting family connections like Bush.
posted by Grimgrin at 3:26 PM on July 25, 2006

> By the way, such cynicism regarding the American Dream usually comes from people who happen to have completed their education etc. before having kids.

Actually, all I have is a highschool education, yet I somehow have managed to reach the top few percent in the USA income strata before turning 30. I didn't hit any IPO jackpot (far from it), and my networking skills are practically non-existent. I work my fricking ASS off, look hard for opportunities, and take considerable risks. All I'm saying is that you don't get ahead by following the same path as everyone else or trying to have a fulfilling life in the "traditional" sense. You have to give many things up (at least temporarily) to make it.

> It's just pointing out that 'the rich are better people'

That is something I did not say nor do I agree with. However, I *do* have more respect for people who contribute something to society (be it music, art, literature, jobs, capital) other than their meager daily individual work & 2.5 kids. The people who are making 25k/yr are *most of the time* not really generating anything useful other than their labor.
posted by paraxod at 3:44 PM on July 25, 2006

Grimgrin, to be fair, Paris Hilton is probably more entrepreneurial in some respects than many of her silver-spoon'd peers.

paraxod: There are whole swaths of middle management out there who may command less of my respect for 'what they do' than builders and the like. But whatever. I don't usually peg the innate value of a human being is in the the salary they get or the nature of their job.

I think we basically agree on whatever we're arguing about. Do people who take more risks or spend more time getting skill and experience in certain areas deserve more money for their labour? It's basically a moot point. They certainly get more, the market system definitely accords them more. It's a pretty basic law of resource allocation, if you want something few people have you'll need to pay them more for it or somebody else will.
posted by Firas at 3:59 PM on July 25, 2006

Not to mention, if you start legislating who deserves more you cut into the freedom issue.
posted by Firas at 4:04 PM on July 25, 2006

paraxod, did you sign up today just to get into this thread? just curious.
posted by glycolized at 4:09 PM on July 25, 2006

glycolized, HAHA, yeah, I did just create this account today. It always gets my goat when I hear people whining about how expensive some luxury product is and how little work the people who can afford it have to do, because from my experience, nearly everyone I know who has money has worked incredibly hard (& smart) for what they have. That work may not have been physical labor, but it was work nonetheless (when I say work, I mean anything you do that creates money... be it talking on the phone all day making deals, or coming up with some new arbitrage technique, developing a new product & trying to convince someone to buy it, or policing neighborhoods or fighting fires, whatever, it all takes massive amounts of time that could otherwise be spent on leisure activities... whether or not you are swimming in sweat when you're done with the day is irrelevant, IMHO ).
posted by paraxod at 4:25 PM on July 25, 2006

i'll be sure to work hard and work smart the next time i feel like saving for a $300,000 phone.
posted by jimmy at 4:31 PM on July 25, 2006

"who "earned" their money by being born from a rich vagina, like Hilton"

but.. Paris Hilton is the one with the Sidekick! The average joe can actually afford a Sidekick.

And the Sidekick probably gets better reception. At least it comes with some fun games.
posted by drstein at 4:36 PM on July 25, 2006

Paris Hilton is the one with the Sidekick!

you mean Nicole Ritchie?
posted by jonmc at 4:44 PM on July 25, 2006

I don't give a shit whether someone worked hard or not for their millions/billions/whatever. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether there's any ethical defense for wasting a million and a half on a Bugatti or 300 grand on a cell phone when there are people starving and worse.

I come from a family of workaholics. I don't know a human being who's worked more than my dad. He has a successful company because of his insane work ethic and his ability to make a better and cheaper product than his competitors. I've frequently worked 100-120 hr weeks. And that's not a lie or an exaggeration. I didn't like it, but it had to be done so I did it so that the family business wouldn't suffer. My father has provided work for a lot of people. He believes in capitalism. More than I do. And yet he's the guy I learned my absolute revulsion for something like that cell phone from. He cares about the people who work for him, to the point that he's been taken advantage a hell of a lot. And that doesn't phase him a bit, which makes him a better man than I.

Don't give me any shitty generalizations about how it's those who complain about the rich who have no idea what work is like blah blah blah. That's bullshit. What we have in this country, and throughout most of the world (excepting a few socialized democracies) is the rich eating the poor. Most of the rich here didn't get rich through any innovation or work. A hell of a lot of them got rich through the insane illusion called the stock market, something that's killing the country. And it's only getting worse. Fuck anyone who buys that cellphone, and that comes from someone who definitely understands the value of hard work AND innovation.
posted by the_savage_mind at 5:13 PM on July 25, 2006 [1 favorite]

Its nice to see that there are plenty of people here willing to stick their neck out and defend those poor, persecuted rich folks. I mean, they never get a say in anything and dammit, the rest of the world would be shit without the contributions of Paris Hilton and her ilk.



jackasses.
posted by anansi at 5:43 PM on July 25, 2006

Get 'em up against the wall...
posted by Optamystic at 6:41 PM on July 25, 2006

"I don't understand all this hate for money...Somebody, please explain to me."

Well, okay, let me make it fairly simple for you. There's a moral equation that goes through many peoples' heads that says
"that guy has a diamond studded cellphone, and those people are starving and living in shacks... Maybe that's less than equitable."

It's a worldview that says that maybe there's something wrong with one guy accruing resources that are in great surplus of his material survival needs, while others go without, often through little fault of their own.

Some people find that disparity in resource availability unfair. Some in fact, feel that it's patently immoral for someone to continue to accrue a disproportionately large amount of wealth, at the expense of others.

Tack on the impractical and vain nature of this particular item, and distaste turns to disgust, and a certain measure of outrage.

I suggest you see the term "Conspicuous Consumption" for more details.
posted by stenseng at 8:44 PM on July 25, 2006

Uhm, I hear this type of crap all the time... so apparently you value physical labor over mental labor? Where the @)#$ do you think the Western world would be without innovation? Do laborers innovate? NO THEY DO NOT. There are many reasons the rich are rich. I don't want to argue about all the advantages given to them by the government and the thousands of years of property ownership that have been of vast benefit, but let's just say that moving forward in the world requires alot more than sweeping the floor or pounding nails. Heck, there wouldn't even be brooms OR nails if some guy hadn't used his head more than his muscles. I'm surprised that people on here are so bitchy about the sweat expended by the wealthy vs the working class when most probably sit around in air-conditioned offices all day.

For everyone who bitches and moans about their lot in life & how crappy everyone in the US gets paid, are you actually trying to aggressively earn more money or are you just complaining? The person who takes a step back and looks at what it takes to make money and then tries some of these methods tends to lose money, try again, lose money, try again, maybe make a little money (but not without some serious heartbreak & blood/sweat/tears), try again, make a tad more money, try again, make some sorta real money, try again, make some real money, try again, make some major money, etc etc etc.... it doesn't happen overnight and there is far more stress involved than any of you haters would care to admit, because apparently none of you have ever tried, or if you did, you gave up before you succeeded.

> The average person would have to work over twelve years to earn the amount of $$ that that phone costs.

Great, so Joe Sixpack is the measuring stick? Who gives a flying @#(& about the average person? The average do not advance society, either in arts, culture, technology or anything else.
If you want to work for someone else your entire life and need 12 years to just MAKE $300k (much less SAVE $300k), that's your call... or you do something to better yourself (like finishing school & making career progress BEFORE having kids), then go on to take some major financial risks on a business idea, and perhaps fail, or perhaps be able to hire a bunch of people and create prosperity for far more people than just yourself.

Mr. President? Is that you?
posted by stenseng at 8:47 PM on July 25, 2006

The average ARE SOCIETY, you Ayn Rand sucking shitbrick.
posted by stenseng at 8:48 PM on July 25, 2006

paraxod: "Who gives a flying @#(& about the average person?"

I totally want you to be our next president.

"The people who are making 25k/yr are *most of the time* not really generating anything useful other than their labor."

Yeah. While the millionaires are up in their offices trying to come up with the next great idea, it's these guys who are getting things done. Without them, society would grind to a halt.

No, really. Ever go grocery shopping? Ever eat at a restaurant? Ever order takeout? Ever buy something at a retail store? At an online store? Mail order store? Ever called a company and spoke to a human? Ever bought a computer? Furniture? Clothing?

You rely on people making in the $25k ballpark every single day of your life, so stop acting like their efforts are meaningless.
posted by CrayDrygu at 10:20 PM on July 25, 2006

out of all the expensive toys linked here, i would take the electric car and the yacht-submarine. ...what?! i like submarines!
posted by Doorstop at 6:42 AM on July 26, 2006

Don't you back-sassing plebes remember Worthington's Law?

MORE MONEY = BETTER THAN
posted by Iridic at 11:28 AM on July 26, 2006