Should Apple Be Deathly Afraid of This $50 Smartphone?

Google's (NASDAQ: GOOG  ) Android, which powers Samsung's flagship devices, has undoubtedly been a disruptive force in the smartphone and tablet market. Even free and open operating systems, however, have not been enough to dethrone Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL  ) from its grasp on the lion's share of profits in the smartphone and tablet market's Apple pioneered in the second Steve Jobs' era.

But what if Google was able to take this same low-cost and open approach for software and apply it to hardware? And what if this approach drove prices of formidable smartphones down to levels we never imagined? How would Apple hold up then?

Project Ara. Image source: Motorola official blog.

A potentially disruptive moonshot
When Google announced on Jan. 29 that it was selling Motorola to Lenovo, Google didn't give up its smartphone hardware efforts entirely. The online search giant decided to keep Motorola's boldest and wildest project. The effort is called Project Ara. What is Project Ara? An undertaking to pioneer an open and modular smartphone with a target price of $50. According to Time, Google hopes to launch Project Ara's $50 smartphone in about a year.

Time's Harry McCracken cites a lead executive on the effort who gives us a 10,000-foot look at the project:

The question was basically, could we do for hardware what Android and other platforms have done for software?' says Paul Eremenko, the DARPA alumnus who leads the effort. 'Which means lower the barrier to entry to such a degree that you could have tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of developers as opposed to just five or six big [manufacturers] that could participate in the hardware space.

Threat, or not?
A couple of years ago, Clay Christensen (author of Innovator's Dilemma and creator of modern disruption theory) expressed concerns about Apple: "The transition from proprietary architecture to open, modular architecture just happens over and over again." In the interview, Christensen followed that thought by citing Apple's history in the PC market as an example. Though the smartphone market has thus far unfolded in quite a different manner -- one that actually rewarded Apple for its proprietary approach -- Project Ara's role in the physical manifestation of Google's open approach in operating systems could take things to a whole new level. Modular hardware that inspires third-party innovation at the physical level could give Christensen's sound bite new traction.

Project Ara. Image source: Motorola official blog.

Predicting this early in the game that Google's moonshot efforts to open up hardware to third-party developers will meaningfully disrupt Apple's proven proprietary approach to high-end devices backed by a carefully planned and interdependent ecosystem of hardware, software, and services would be risky speculation. But the fundamental idea of Google's Project Ara is worth some consideration -- if an open and modular approach to mobile hardware took off successfully, there could be disruptive implications.

At this point, Google's Project Ara isn't enough to alter any investment thesis for companies in the smartphone space, but it's an effort investors should keep an eye on.

The Internet-of-things revolution could present incredible investment opportunities
Every investor wants to get in on revolutionary ideas before they hit it big -- like buying PC maker Dell in the late 1980s, before the consumer computing boom, or purchasing stock in e-commerce pioneer Amazon.com in the late 1990s, when it was nothing more than an upstart online bookstore. The problem is, most investors don't understand the key to investing in hypergrowth markets. The real trick is to find a small-cap "pure play" and then watch as it grows in explosive fashion within its industry. Our expert team of equity analysts has identified one stock that's poised to produce rocket-ship returns with the next $14.4 trillion industry. Click here to get the full story in this eye-opening report.

Social Security Smarts

I turned 62 a few months ago. As birthdays go, this one was nothing special (champagne doesn't flow for birthdays that end in 2). But it did represent one milestone: I'm now eligible for Social Security benefits.

See Also: Social Security Special Report

That doesn't mean I plan to retire anytime soon, nor do I expect to sign up early for Social Security. If I were to take benefits at 62, I'd have to accept a 25% reduction in the amount I'd receive at 66, my full retirement age, and I'd lose $1 of my benefit for every $2 I earn above $15,480 (in 2014).

Once I hit 66, I can make as much as I want without penalty, and for each year I delay signing up after that, I'll get an 8% increase in benefits, until age 70. For all those reasons, it makes sense for me, and for most people, to wait until full retirement age or longer to claim Social Security. (For more on getting the most out of your benefits, see www.kiplinger.socialsecuritysolutions.com.)

Fairness and loss. But what makes sense financially isn't necessarily the key factor in how people make this important decision. A sense of fairness and an aversion to loss can both play a role in deciding to claim early, according to a report by Suzanne Shu, of the University of Cali­fornia at Los Angeles, and John Payne, of Duke University. Some people may feel strongly that they earned the benefits and are entitled to them as soon as possible. Others believe that they'll lose out if they die before the break-even point (when the total payout you'd get by waiting until full retirement age to claim benefits equals the payout you'd receive by claiming at 62).

How you view life expectancy can also make a difference in your claiming decision. According to the Shu-Payne report, survey respondents who were asked the age they expected to die by estimated it to be ten years earlier than those asked the age they were expected to live to. The die-by group said they would claim earlier than the live-to respondents, probably because thinking about dying doesn't lend itself to planning for the future.

Being unhappy at work is another reason for taking early benefits. If a job seems unpleasant when you're 61, it can seem downright intolerable at 62, not because the job changed but because now you have the option of taking Social Security, according to a 2011 report on Social Security decision-making by Melissa A.Z. Knoll. Further, it's human nature to overestimate how happy you'll be in retirement compared with how happy you are now, and to underestimate the bad stuff that could happen later, such as high health care costs. Even personality matters. If you're impatient, you'll likely grab the money as early as you can.

Think it through. When you're dead, you won't care who came out ahead, you or Social Security. But you'll care a lot, says Shu, if you live to 70 and beyond and find yourself strapped because you took your benefits early. Similarly, says coauthor Payne, you're better off assuming you'll live to the outer limits of life expectancy—say, 90 or 95—than lowballing the age at which you'll die. "Think about being poor at 90," he says.

As for hating your job, look at your bottom line before deciding to ditch it for a reduced benefit. Finally, don't assume retirement will be clear sailing just because it's in the future. Stuff happens. (Preretirees, take note of these 5 Costly Retirement Surprises.)

My plan? As a member of a long-lived family, I'll wait until age 70 to claim Social Security and take money out of my retirement accounts to fill any income gap. If I die before 70, I should still have some savings to leave to my kids. But if I live until 70 or longer, I'll have more income—and a better chance of making my savings last.

As someone who's as patient as the next person but who also hates to lose, I'd say that's a win-win scenario.

Haven't yet filed for Social Security? Create a personalized strategy to maximize your lifetime income from Social Security. Order Kiplinger's Social Security Solutions today.