Christian Dior / ModeLabs pop out another absurdly overpriced handset

If Christian Dior's $5,000 handset just wasn't rich enough for your blood, hopefully the crocodile skinned, Swarovski-covered iteration will put a sizable enough hole in your bank account to make you feel sufficiently important. Reportedly dubbed Lady Dior, the ModeLabs-created mobile features a 2.6-inch QVGA display, 2-megapixel camera, 640 Swarovski stones and absolutely nothing really worth the price tag. Speaking of which, said sticker is right around €18,000 ($28,360). Laughable, no?

[Via CNET]

[LondonConsultant @ Jun 7th 2008 2:49PM]

I wonder if they'd take an old T68i in part-exchange...

[rems @ Jun 7th 2008 2:55PM]

Not a significant part of the population will get to use this one.

[Saad Rabia @ Jun 7th 2008 2:57PM]

What a stupid world we live in!

[happy_penguin @ Jun 7th 2008 4:12PM]

People who buy things like this phone live in their own little world.

[Saad Rabia @ Jun 7th 2008 4:16PM]

@ happy_penguin: Hahaha, can't agree more!

[asha @ Jun 7th 2008 4:26PM]

I know!!! Who needs a f*cking $28K cell phone??? Who ever buys this kind of crap simply has too much money.

[R Nair @ Jun 7th 2008 4:30PM]

It is common for these companies to sell purse and clothes for thousands of dollars. At least this one can make calls!!

I guess that all of us spend to our limits and those less fortunate might think that our spending is irrational (PS3, N95, F150, 46inch TV, etc.)

[loosely_coupled @ Jun 7th 2008 7:35PM]

Does anyone know why some of these companies don't at least match their absurdly over priced "luxury fashion" phones with unique highend technology??? I mean for god sakes, a QVGA screen? And no built in memory?

Where are the $25,000 phones that use prototype ultra-high quality WVGA OLEDS or polymer-based flexible displays that roll up or fold? It doesn't even have to necessarily be display technology; they can showcase any next-gen hardware and/or software technology that is in early (expensive) stages of development.

This is the perfect market for companies like Sony, Toshiba, Phillips, etc to showcase next-gen prototype technology in small runs of a couple hundred units or even less. The owners don't care if the phones last long, and price is no object. They don't even have to make much money of them, they can be part of technology and production testing and development.
what do you guys think? any next-gen tech you would like to see incorporated in one?

[Saad Rabia @ Jun 7th 2008 7:47PM]

Just check this out. Let us say that they sold this POS to 40,000 people around the world; 40,000 wanabe, empty headed people out of 7 billion human being in this earth; it is a very reasonable number of shit heads.

So, if they sold 40,000 of these craps, guess how much money they make?

Over $1 billion!

Holly freaking dead peacock! All this money for that crap! Oh good lord.

[andy @ Jun 7th 2008 9:23PM]

well if they were "empty header" i doubt they could build up the fortune that they have..sure some have inheirted the money but many of them have worked hard for their money so its their choice how to spend it

[andy @ Jun 7th 2008 9:24PM]

*headed

[James @ Jun 7th 2008 9:44PM]

one day our children will look at the history books, and ask themselves...

Why...?

[James @ Jun 7th 2008 9:56PM]

Rather than make this an "upscale" phone, they should just take a brick from the early 90's, and market it as "eco-friendly" because it's recycled...

QVGA is overrated... 3G? How about 1/2G. They don't need it...

[Skullgrl @ Jun 7th 2008 10:21PM]

1,134,400,000
Exactly...
Well, by the U.S. conversion of the price in euros engadget gave multiplied by your estimate of 40,000 (I'm only using commas in the numbers for my own distinguishing purposes.)

With that price I'd want a 300 megapixel camera. It's a decent design but I prefer curved lines on a phone. Especially if I have it in my pocket. I was carrying my Mom's Razor for her once and ... it was painful.

[DavidR @ Jun 7th 2008 10:46PM]

@ R Nair: People spend thousands of dollars on handbags and apparel because they are made of quality materials and made by people who actually receive a proper salary for their hard work. This is not a crazy thing to do, it is the HUMANE thing to do. By the way, quality garments and handbags are ART, not just some piece of shit that you can buy from Target.

On a side note, these people who can afford such products work hard for their money and they should be able to spend it any damn well way that they please to. And if they inherited their money, so what; it is still their money to spend.

[phanbouy @ Jun 7th 2008 11:00PM]

skullgrl: mom's razor usually is painful to carry

[phanbouy @ Jun 7th 2008 11:02PM]

um way to generalize David... expensive necessarily = fair wages + value? GTFO! and do try to sound less douchy next time

[phanbouy @ Jun 7th 2008 11:04PM]

ok one more comment... did you actually use the word "humane"; in all caps at that? what kind of freak talks about overpriced status trash as "humane"? that's just fucked up

[happy_penguin @ Jun 8th 2008 2:25AM]

"Saad Rabia @ Jun 7th 2008 7:47PM
Holy freaking dead peacock!"

This is my new favorite saying. :D :D

[MastaFalse @ Jun 9th 2008 7:50AM]

Amen.

[raul @ Jun 7th 2008 3:03PM]

JUST IMAGINE if it happened like it happened to me last week when my phone felt into the toilet!!! now, that would be a waste haha!!!

[Josh L @ Jun 7th 2008 3:08PM]

iPhone killer!

[Schfelzerberg @ Jun 7th 2008 3:20PM]

For their sort of target market, they should have just done away with the camera and placed a WVGA screen instead, like the ones they use in many Japanese phones.

A sapphire scratch-resistance screen, titanium body with high-end leather, Quad-band and CDMA compability, HSDPA/UMTS and 1.3 Mp camera for video calling, at least a 1 Gb of internal memory for countless storing of messages, and of course a really long battery life for endless babbling just like those Philips Xenium phones with standby times of up to a month.

I doubt those rich people would bother with the phone's crappy 2.0 Mp camera unless it's for video calling, which I am unsure of.

[Jherez @ Jun 7th 2008 3:37PM]

Quick! To prove they're still smart people out there:

There are 7 girls in a bus.
Each girl has 7 backpacks.
In each backpack, there are 7 big cats.
For every big cat there are 7 little cats.
Question: How many legs are there in the bus?

[schmitty338 @ Jun 7th 2008 3:43PM]

....210? Or did I miss something stupid.....

[Jherez @ Jun 7th 2008 3:50PM]

Yea, you're kinda incorrect...remember, each girl has 7 bags and each cat has 4 legs.

[miikun @ Jun 7th 2008 5:42PM]

10991
14 from the girls
1372 from the big cats
9604 from the small cats
1 from the leg of the trip

[Jherez @ Jun 7th 2008 4:00PM]

You sir are correct...10990, although I don't know where you got the 1 from the leg of the trip, that isn't counted, but yes congrats.

[Ryan Trevisol @ Jun 7th 2008 4:01PM]

how many of the cats are 3-legged and named Lucky?

[Jherez @ Jun 7th 2008 4:04PM]

-12.5 of them.

[schmitty338 @ Jun 7th 2008 3:44PM]

Wow....i really am stupid....I think it's actually 1386....maybe there aren't any smart people left...

[happy_penguin @ Jun 7th 2008 3:49PM]

$28 grand for a goddamn phone? I wouldn't give them $28 for that POS.

[kevin_ho @ Jun 7th 2008 4:06PM]

Hmm.. that phone will be outdated in a week or so..

[phanbouy @ Jun 7th 2008 4:17PM]

does it have built-in perfume dispensing? it'd suck when that breaks and squirts it in your eyeballs

[Chris Johnston @ Jun 7th 2008 4:17PM]

This is what celebrities buy and then come on TV and complain that they are behind on their mortgage.

[Reader @ Jun 7th 2008 8:09PM]

I bet the GUI sucks.

[Jeve Stobs @ Jun 7th 2008 8:12PM]

Finally iPhone is cheap.

[MacroEQ @ Jun 7th 2008 9:06PM]

"Christian Dior / ModeLabs pop out another absurdly overpriced handset"

And the iPhone isn't?

[Kozzi @ Jun 7th 2008 11:35PM]

Which specie of crocodile's skin did they use in this one ?

[Darkroom @ Jun 8th 2008 10:15AM]

there is no way the dumb broads who get this phone will know how to use it.

[Ben @ Jun 8th 2008 11:41AM]

Hi Guys!

Not Swarovski crystals but REAL DIAMONDS! Hence the price...

[j.d.ripper @ Jun 8th 2008 5:58PM]

The original article says they are Swarovski stones :
ainsi que 640 pierres de 3251 carats (au total) de Swaroski

Unless Swarovski started making diamonds ?