13 ms·

I am not sure if I was suddenly without money, the iPhone would be what I would want to give up. The utility of the device is incredible: Mapping. Phone. Inter

I am not sure if I was suddenly without money, the iPhone would be what I would want to give up. The utility of the device is incredible: Mapping. Phone. Internet. Email. Alarm Clock. Calendaring. Photography. If anything we should work to get smart phones in the hands of the poor. It would be a great way to improve their lives for a somewhat modest cost. I am not sure it is all for looks. Maybe we could quibble about whether they should have an iPhone or some cheaper smartphone. I am just saying, it could be more for utility than image.

bwindels 11y ago
I know I would, Mapping. Phone. Internet. Email. Alarm Clock. Calendaring are also my primary use cases, but there are devices that cost a lot less than an iPhone that do those things just as good or even better.
jwoah12 11y ago
You just described the functionality of every single phone on the market, though. Almost all of which are much less expensive than the iPhone.
- Retric 11y ago
  A SE is $399, sure you can get an ok phone for less than that. But, ED: even if that's significantly more than a 'cheap' phone it's not that expensive compared to a cellphone plan. People look at things as symptoms, but it's mostly ongoing costs that are real issues.
  - falcolas 11y ago
    Cheap phones are actually in the $60 price range. http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Galaxy-Prevail-White-Mobile/dp/B00SHZJ6BO http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Galaxy-Prevail-White-Mobile/dp... http://www.amazon.com/Nokia-Lumia-640-Annual-Contract/dp/B012CKVZ18 http://www.amazon.com/Nokia-Lumia-640-Annual-Contract/dp/B01...
    - Retric 11y ago
      I thought those where locked/discounted phones. First is: Boost (67.99), or Sprint prepaid (104$) Second is: AT&T Go Phone only. But, it looks like you can get a new unlocked smartphone for 60$. http://www.amazon.com/BLU-Advance-5-0-Unlocked-Smartphone/dp/B018IZ0VLQ/ http://www.amazon.com/BLU-Advance-5-0-Unlocked-Smartphone/dp...
      - falcolas 11y ago
        Gotta love regional pricing. I see Galaxy phone as $57, the Lumia is $44. That they are locked to a particular provider makes them not really any different than your average phone. They do have the advantage of not locking you into a 2+ year contract. Nice find on the BLU though.
      - andrewpi 11y ago
        I bought a prepaid Moto E for $39.99 and activated it on Ringplus (a Sprint MVNO that offers free data/text/minutes every month) as a backup phone.
      - cableshaft 11y ago
        I got the Lumia 635 for $30 last year as a temporary replacement for my Nexus 5 that I walked into a lake on accident, and it's worked out so well I still have it with no plans to upgrade. I've gotten cheap Android phones that have felt sluggish and super buggy after a mere 6 months (not the Nexus 5, though, that just had a crap battery life, but I also spent ~$450 on it, so it wasn't cheap), but this one still operates as slick and smooth as the day I bought it, with a battery that lasts a day and a half. Anyone looking for a cheap phone, I highly recommend the Lumia 635 (640 is just as cheap, but it doesn't support LTE, supposedly).
        Retric 11y ago
        It's a good deal, but I think it's subsided. http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/mobile/phone/lumia635/offers?cont=S&opp=1&curp=1&color=ANY&partners=&contracts=&cost=NaN&srt=phoneCost:n:11:true http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/mobile/phone/lumia635/offers?... Amazon lists: $131.11 and Cricket has it for 20$. Still, as long as your not locked into a contract and can buy replacements at that cost it's not a problem. PS: Windows does seem to beat Android on low end phones.
- zanny 11y ago
  Was going to say this. If you are legitimately poor, you can get a used Moto G 2013 for $35 and activate it on Freedompop for some free data each month and use wifi wherever possible. That would be a phone on a budget. iphones are absolutely just for prestige, the same way Macbooks in universities are.
  - vollmond 11y ago
    I was going to say you could get a similar level iPhone for a similar price -- most people seem to compare top-of-the-line iPhones with low- or mid-range Android devices. But then I looked up the iPhone 4s (2013's low-range) on eBay and didn't see one for less than $70. I'm honestly surprised by that.
    - zanny 11y ago
      I'm a huge advocate of using refurbished two or so year old phones for anyone I have influence on the purchasing decisions of, because while there was a period of extremely rapid feature growth (2009-2014) since then phones have been "good enough" in the same way notebooks and desktops have been "good enough" since about 2007. There is a price floor I find on any older phone. They generally won't fall below $50, and I always find the Moto G 2013 exceptional in how you can get them really cheap. A great example is that I am always watching S series phone prices on Swappa, but in my experience (pre-S7, usually this list shifts down a price tier when the new phone comes out): S2 for $80, S3 for $100, S4 for $150, S5 for $225, S6 for $300. When the S7 comes out, the S3 will probably drop to S2 range and S4 might drop to S3 range, but I expect less of a decline than that because since the S3/4 the feature differences have diminished substantially. An S4 is still a beast phone today - 1080p 5" screen, quad core CPU, 13MP camera.
  - js2 11y ago
    iphones are absolutely just for prestige I have an iPhone 6S (and previously an iPhone 5) on Verizon, through my employer. Personally, my wife has a Nexus 4 and my daugther a Moto G, both on T-Mobile pre-paid. Both of them tell me about crappy network coverage, poor camera image quality, and so forth. I'm not saying these aren't perfectly acceptable alternatives when you're on a budget or are frugal or these just aren't things you care about, but the iPhone and using a better carrier are not just for prestige. For many people, they are a better product and provide a better experience. And I'll point out: usually spending more money gets you a better product. Whether or not it's better in ways you care about is obviosly a personal decision. edit: so you disagree? What in my argument here is wrong? edit 2: this comment was directed only at the assertion that buying an iphone is just about prestige. I completely agree with the original article.
- cloverich 11y ago
  The cost separation between a cheap phone and a nice one, spread across a contract, is probably not very significant. An iPhone isn't like having a Rolex; it (like many of the other higher end, new phones) offers significant functionality and performance benefits. Which is to say -- its easy to look at a poor person carrying an iPhone and say they only chose that particular phone to not look poor. But i'd personally wager that they chose (what they perceived as) the best phone, because the cost difference was not a significant factor.
  - laumars 11y ago
    If you're on a tight budget, then £20 a month matters. It might be loose change to people like us, but unfortunately there are people who have to budget the meals they eat to bring costs down. And to use your watch analogy, you wouldn't expect people on tight incomes to buy a Rolex when a <£15 watch works the same.
    - cloverich 11y ago
      > And to use your watch analogy, you wouldn't expect people on tight incomes to buy a Rolex when a <£15 watch works the same. That is the point of my analogy -- you can justify a high end phone based on more than just its "status", and the cost difference is extremely small (the opposite cases of the Rolex and a normal watch). I'm not making an argument about what poor people in general should do; nor am I saying status plays no factor. I just think the argument that they are buying the newest phone based 100% on social status seems a bit thin.
    - sbuk 11y ago
      The advice I give to anyone buying any tech is to buy the best that you can afford, then what you prefer (i.e. Android, iOS, Windows, Mac etc.). If someone on a 'tight budget' determines that an iPhone or an S7 is a priority, who are you to judge?
      - foldr 11y ago
        For people who have the luxury of some non-trivial amount of disposable income, there's not really any such thing as "the best you can afford". I could afford to get an iPhone 6S in the sense that I have enough money, but on the other hand, there are other things I might want that I could buy if I got a cheaper phone instead. Unless having a high end phone is a big priority for me, it makes no sense for me to get the best phone I can afford.
- laumars 11y ago
  > You just described the functionality of every single phone on the market, though. Almost all of which are much less expensive than the iPhone. This is true. In fact I've personally used mapping tools on Sony Ericsson feature phones which are around 10 years old now. You don't need a smartphone to do any of the aforementioned, let alone a market leading one. edit: Would the people who downvoted me please explain how I didn't use mapping tools on my feature phone? I'd be interested to know how people who have never met me remember my life better than I do ;) Off topic, but I do think HN should have a rule that you're not allowed to downvote without leaving a counterargument. That would help kerb the abuse of negative karma to demote comments which a reader disagrees with just due to personal preferences / biases. Which we're increasingly seeing these days. Particularly in threads that have potential flamewar subjects like trendy technologies or companies.
- yclept 11y ago
  Ok, does this make you not poor? I think not.
merpnderp 11y ago
Especially when the iPhone's cost is calculated over the lifetime of the device and the quality of the hardware. Apple's latest iOS version 9.3 just dropped. And the 5 year old iPhone 4s along with every iPad except the original just got that update. What other device would be safe to use with personal information and be just as usable after 5 years? At the original full price that comes to around $80/year. With the additional street cred of owning an iPhone?
- tdkl 11y ago
  Sorry, but claiming 4 year old devices are usable with iOS 9 is a joke. The rule of a thumb with iPhones is that you update n+1 version your phone shipped with. Anything more kills the performance to almost a standstill. I won't go into the debate if it's intentionally or not, but as sure isn't with much added value.
  - merpnderp 11y ago
    You say that, but the guy sitting right behind me happily used his 4s until last month. And he's a heavy app user, installing all sorts of stuff, from flight tracking, weird weather apps, bird watching, whatever. I'm not sure if that counts as a joke from where I'm from.
    - tdkl 11y ago
      There, a test on the 4S : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J6R0NnqOzc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J6R0NnqOzc If you look at it this way - all that's changed are "clients", the data displayed is the same for both. But only on one phone the system experience is enjoyable. I guess Schiller forgot about that they once had a good optimized mobile OS.
- sz4kerto 11y ago
  One of my friend is not particularly well off, to say the least. Until a month or so ago he had been using a HTC Desire that he got for free from somebody. He used email, mapping, alarm clock, calendar, instant messaging. On a 5 year old phone.
noxToken 11y ago
>I am not sure if I was suddenly without money, the iPhone would be what I would want to give up. If you have an iPhone and then become poor, sure. You probably won't get ahead much by getting rid of your iPhone. If you're already poor, then an iPhone (not a smartphone) is definitely a luxury. There are capable smartphones for much cheaper then an iPhone that could get the job done. That's what GP was likely getting at. >If anything we should work to get smart phones in the hands of the poor. I am not aware of a socialized plan to put phone in the hands of poor people, but they are getting increasingly cheaper. You can get Samsung Galaxy line (not the flagship model) phones from cheap, prepaid carriers. Wi-Fi is becoming increasingly available, which makes the limited data plans not that bad of a drawback.
- JohnBooty 11y ago
  > If you're already poor, then an iPhone (not a smartphone) is definitely a luxury. It's not wrong, nor necessarily economically irresponsible, for "poor" people to have a few nice things. Assuming a lifespan of 3 years, the cost difference between a $600 phone and a $300 phone is barely more than $0.25 per day - and probably even less, considering that iPhones have a higher resale value. Maybe that "poor person" carrying an iPhone just forgoes $0.25 or $0.50 of other niceties per day so they can afford that iPhone and those $100 shoes - or maybe they just work in a city, because you can literally find that much money on the ground every day if you keep your eyes peeled. If a person routinely made such purchases, to the detriment of their well-being, certainly that could be a problem. But unless we know somebody's full financial picture we should not presume to make such a judgement.
  - em3rgent0rdr 11y ago
    I don't think the OP's criticism is on the "poor person", but rather on the fact that Apple's business model and marketing scheme is premised on a false need to buy some new "revolutionary" iThing which actually offers little or no functional benefit over a perfectly fine older PC or less-powerful android.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
throwanem 11y ago
With a little forethought and initial investment, you don't have to decide between giving up an iPhone and continuing to pay three figures monthly for the privilege of using it. Consider: Sprint - ostensibly free phone, $120/mo for a 2-year contract: $2880 all told, and you don't have a choice but to pay all of it Ting - $500 up front for 64G iPhone SE, avg. $27.50/mo for the same period: $1160 all told, and you can stop service any time if things get bad enough that you have to Sure, if you can't make the initial nut, it's not an option - but you're talking about being suddenly broke or close to it, which is the situation in which I found myself last year, and which motivated me to put some thought into better options for mobile service. The more I look at it, the more it seems to me that mobile contracts, at least in the US and at least for single phones, are every bit as much for suckers as rent-to-own shops are.
- uptown 11y ago
  Buy pre-used phone (~$50 for an older-gen device). Use pre-paid phone service. (~$40/month). Doesn't need to be expensive if you're willing to forgo the latest and 'greatest'. I use pre-paid Verizon anyway since it's the best deal for my usage pattern.
- raisedbyninjas 11y ago
  Project Fi is a prepaid service and allows you to finance the phone. Currently the cheapest is $200 for the Nexus 5x.
- goldbrick 11y ago
  Or, if you live in a city with ubiquitous wifi, buy an iPod touch and use Google Voice/Hangouts. $200 up front, free/mo thereafter.
andrepd 11y ago
A <100$ smartphone can do all of those things.
matthewaveryusa 11y ago
I'm with you on this one. I've never owned an iphone because I'm cheap, but when you see a poor person with an iphone it's not a phone they have in their hands -- it's _the_ only device they have to connect to the internet and communicate. That being said, you can get a motorola G lte for 100 bucks.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
smarx007 11y ago
First, let's get the internet part clear. Mobile internet is consistently more expensive that fixed line (in xUSSR at least). And as somebody with more than 1 degree, I can tell you that you don't need an iphone map, phone, alarm, or camera functionality to make your life better, while internet and email on a mobile device is counterproductive. If you really want to save money and get better, go buy a core 2 duo desktop pc for less than $100 and a simple internet connection. Turn on the pomodoro. Turn off your phone. Reply to all your emails. Get some quality study/work time.
- bryondowd 11y ago
  Well, I pay $5 for the limited data plan on my phone, here in the US (Walmart Family Mobile). That's on top of $25/mo primary line and $20/mo additional lines. The cheapest internet line for my home I could find was around $30 at a promotional rate, which bumped up to $45 after a year. Yes, I can get more data per dollar out of that $45 line, but aside from entertainment purposes, I can get by on my 1GB of data. Or I could bump it to 5GB for another $10 and that would get me by on everything short of regular streaming or large downloads. So, being frugal, it does make sense in some cases to just get a cheap phone with a data plan, even more so if you don't need a home PC, as many poor folk.
  - smarx007 11y ago
    I now live in EU and can relate to your experiences. But when I was referring to what struggling folk need, I meant what can really improve their position. And I hope you understand that it's not something like 9gag, but udacity. And udacity is a pain on a tablet (let alone phone) if you do the exercises.
    - bryondowd 11y ago
      Well, a phone is enough for many useful services. Putting in applications, gathering information, etc. Then there's tethering for a cheap internet solution if you can get a hold of a desktop/laptop. But really, if we're talking about improving one's lot through education, the best bet would probably be a local community college, which should have their own computer rooms. I don't know much about udacity and the like, but I'm not sure there's a route there for people in my neck of the woods, at least. Any local tech jobs want a Bachelor's degree.
xlm1717 11y ago
>If anything we should work to get smart phones in the hands of the poor. It sure as hell won't be iPhones we get into the hands of the poor. There are regional mvno's/prepaid carriers here who pretty much give away cheap android phones to get on their cheap plans.
akerro 11y ago
>Mapping. Phone. Internet. Email. Alarm Clock. Calendaring. Photography. Soo... It does exactly the same as my LG with Android 2.2 that costed me ~$70 2.5 years ago?
widowlark 11y ago
I think you're off base. There are plenty of devices out there (android, windows phone) which have all the utility of the iPhone, but cost half the price of the iPhone (or less). To suggest that an iPhone is the only device capable of these things and therefore is a fixed cost is incorrect, IMO
kbart 11y ago
" Mapping. Phone. Internet. Email. Alarm Clock. Calendaring. Photography." All these are easily available for a fraction of iPhone's/iPad's price.
rdtsc 11y ago
I have money and the utility of iPhone is what I don't want. Instead opted for a cheap Moto G basic model 4-5 years ago and still happy with it.
jinst8gmi 11y ago
> I am not sure if I was suddenly without money, the iPhone would be what I would want to give up. Poor is when you have to dig through other peoples' trash to find food (I see this every week). I'm pretty sure you you really ended up poor you wouldn't give a damn about your iPhone except to sell it to buy food.
spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
But can get a nice Motorola for £150 and a £7 month sim - you dont need a Iphone do do all that
chetanahuja 11y ago
"Mapping. Phone. Internet. Email. Alarm Clock. Calendaring. Photography." You realize those features are not unique to iPhone... right? "Maybe we could quibble about whether they should have an iPhone or some cheaper smartphone. I am just saying, it could be more for utility than image." The whole point is that buying an iPhone as opposed to an equally capable cheaper smartphone is done for branding and image.
virtualritz 11y ago
Why do you need an iPhone for that? A Moto G will do all of that, at a fraction of the price.
sametmax 11y ago
you can live with none of that. You can have internet at school on a needing basic. You don't need it in your pocket. You can live without mapping, a dumb phone with alarm clock and be done with it. If you live by the cent, no, the iPhone is not a priority. I didn't have a smartphone before 4 months ago, and it was fine. And if you are at school, then it's even easier. The biggest problem is the social isolation, since now a lot of kids interactions are going through apps.
tagrun 11y ago
A 50$ Android smartphone can do all of those, and more.

bwindels 11y ago

I know I would, Mapping. Phone. Internet. Email. Alarm Clock. Calendaring are also my primary use cases, but there are devices that cost a lot less than an iPhone that do those things just as good or even better.

jwoah12 11y ago

You just described the functionality of every single phone on the market, though. Almost all of which are much less expensive than the iPhone.

Retric 11y ago
A SE is $399, sure you can get an ok phone for less than that. But, ED: even if that's significantly more than a 'cheap' phone it's not that expensive compared to a cellphone plan. People look at things as symptoms, but it's mostly ongoing costs that are real issues.
- falcolas 11y ago
  Cheap phones are actually in the $60 price range. http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Galaxy-Prevail-White-Mobile/dp/B00SHZJ6BO http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Galaxy-Prevail-White-Mobile/dp... http://www.amazon.com/Nokia-Lumia-640-Annual-Contract/dp/B012CKVZ18 http://www.amazon.com/Nokia-Lumia-640-Annual-Contract/dp/B01...
  - Retric 11y ago
    I thought those where locked/discounted phones. First is: Boost (67.99), or Sprint prepaid (104$) Second is: AT&T Go Phone only. But, it looks like you can get a new unlocked smartphone for 60$. http://www.amazon.com/BLU-Advance-5-0-Unlocked-Smartphone/dp/B018IZ0VLQ/ http://www.amazon.com/BLU-Advance-5-0-Unlocked-Smartphone/dp...
    - falcolas 11y ago
      Gotta love regional pricing. I see Galaxy phone as $57, the Lumia is $44. That they are locked to a particular provider makes them not really any different than your average phone. They do have the advantage of not locking you into a 2+ year contract. Nice find on the BLU though.
    - andrewpi 11y ago
      I bought a prepaid Moto E for $39.99 and activated it on Ringplus (a Sprint MVNO that offers free data/text/minutes every month) as a backup phone.
    - cableshaft 11y ago
      I got the Lumia 635 for $30 last year as a temporary replacement for my Nexus 5 that I walked into a lake on accident, and it's worked out so well I still have it with no plans to upgrade. I've gotten cheap Android phones that have felt sluggish and super buggy after a mere 6 months (not the Nexus 5, though, that just had a crap battery life, but I also spent ~$450 on it, so it wasn't cheap), but this one still operates as slick and smooth as the day I bought it, with a battery that lasts a day and a half. Anyone looking for a cheap phone, I highly recommend the Lumia 635 (640 is just as cheap, but it doesn't support LTE, supposedly).
      - Retric 11y ago
        It's a good deal, but I think it's subsided. http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/mobile/phone/lumia635/offers?cont=S&opp=1&curp=1&color=ANY&partners=&contracts=&cost=NaN&srt=phoneCost:n:11:true http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/mobile/phone/lumia635/offers?... Amazon lists: $131.11 and Cricket has it for 20$. Still, as long as your not locked into a contract and can buy replacements at that cost it's not a problem. PS: Windows does seem to beat Android on low end phones.
zanny 11y ago
Was going to say this. If you are legitimately poor, you can get a used Moto G 2013 for $35 and activate it on Freedompop for some free data each month and use wifi wherever possible. That would be a phone on a budget. iphones are absolutely just for prestige, the same way Macbooks in universities are.
- vollmond 11y ago
  I was going to say you could get a similar level iPhone for a similar price -- most people seem to compare top-of-the-line iPhones with low- or mid-range Android devices. But then I looked up the iPhone 4s (2013's low-range) on eBay and didn't see one for less than $70. I'm honestly surprised by that.
  - zanny 11y ago
    I'm a huge advocate of using refurbished two or so year old phones for anyone I have influence on the purchasing decisions of, because while there was a period of extremely rapid feature growth (2009-2014) since then phones have been "good enough" in the same way notebooks and desktops have been "good enough" since about 2007. There is a price floor I find on any older phone. They generally won't fall below $50, and I always find the Moto G 2013 exceptional in how you can get them really cheap. A great example is that I am always watching S series phone prices on Swappa, but in my experience (pre-S7, usually this list shifts down a price tier when the new phone comes out): S2 for $80, S3 for $100, S4 for $150, S5 for $225, S6 for $300. When the S7 comes out, the S3 will probably drop to S2 range and S4 might drop to S3 range, but I expect less of a decline than that because since the S3/4 the feature differences have diminished substantially. An S4 is still a beast phone today - 1080p 5" screen, quad core CPU, 13MP camera.
- js2 11y ago
  iphones are absolutely just for prestige I have an iPhone 6S (and previously an iPhone 5) on Verizon, through my employer. Personally, my wife has a Nexus 4 and my daugther a Moto G, both on T-Mobile pre-paid. Both of them tell me about crappy network coverage, poor camera image quality, and so forth. I'm not saying these aren't perfectly acceptable alternatives when you're on a budget or are frugal or these just aren't things you care about, but the iPhone and using a better carrier are not just for prestige. For many people, they are a better product and provide a better experience. And I'll point out: usually spending more money gets you a better product. Whether or not it's better in ways you care about is obviosly a personal decision. edit: so you disagree? What in my argument here is wrong? edit 2: this comment was directed only at the assertion that buying an iphone is just about prestige. I completely agree with the original article.
cloverich 11y ago
The cost separation between a cheap phone and a nice one, spread across a contract, is probably not very significant. An iPhone isn't like having a Rolex; it (like many of the other higher end, new phones) offers significant functionality and performance benefits. Which is to say -- its easy to look at a poor person carrying an iPhone and say they only chose that particular phone to not look poor. But i'd personally wager that they chose (what they perceived as) the best phone, because the cost difference was not a significant factor.
- laumars 11y ago
  If you're on a tight budget, then £20 a month matters. It might be loose change to people like us, but unfortunately there are people who have to budget the meals they eat to bring costs down. And to use your watch analogy, you wouldn't expect people on tight incomes to buy a Rolex when a <£15 watch works the same.
  - cloverich 11y ago
    > And to use your watch analogy, you wouldn't expect people on tight incomes to buy a Rolex when a <£15 watch works the same. That is the point of my analogy -- you can justify a high end phone based on more than just its "status", and the cost difference is extremely small (the opposite cases of the Rolex and a normal watch). I'm not making an argument about what poor people in general should do; nor am I saying status plays no factor. I just think the argument that they are buying the newest phone based 100% on social status seems a bit thin.
  - sbuk 11y ago
    The advice I give to anyone buying any tech is to buy the best that you can afford, then what you prefer (i.e. Android, iOS, Windows, Mac etc.). If someone on a 'tight budget' determines that an iPhone or an S7 is a priority, who are you to judge?
    - foldr 11y ago
      For people who have the luxury of some non-trivial amount of disposable income, there's not really any such thing as "the best you can afford". I could afford to get an iPhone 6S in the sense that I have enough money, but on the other hand, there are other things I might want that I could buy if I got a cheaper phone instead. Unless having a high end phone is a big priority for me, it makes no sense for me to get the best phone I can afford.
laumars 11y ago
> You just described the functionality of every single phone on the market, though. Almost all of which are much less expensive than the iPhone. This is true. In fact I've personally used mapping tools on Sony Ericsson feature phones which are around 10 years old now. You don't need a smartphone to do any of the aforementioned, let alone a market leading one. edit: Would the people who downvoted me please explain how I didn't use mapping tools on my feature phone? I'd be interested to know how people who have never met me remember my life better than I do ;) Off topic, but I do think HN should have a rule that you're not allowed to downvote without leaving a counterargument. That would help kerb the abuse of negative karma to demote comments which a reader disagrees with just due to personal preferences / biases. Which we're increasingly seeing these days. Particularly in threads that have potential flamewar subjects like trendy technologies or companies.
yclept 11y ago
Ok, does this make you not poor? I think not.

merpnderp 11y ago

Especially when the iPhone's cost is calculated over the lifetime of the device and the quality of the hardware. Apple's latest iOS version 9.3 just dropped. And the 5 year old iPhone 4s along with every iPad except the original just got that update. What other device would be safe to use with personal information and be just as usable after 5 years? At the original full price that comes to around $80/year. With the additional street cred of owning an iPhone?

tdkl 11y ago
Sorry, but claiming 4 year old devices are usable with iOS 9 is a joke. The rule of a thumb with iPhones is that you update n+1 version your phone shipped with. Anything more kills the performance to almost a standstill. I won't go into the debate if it's intentionally or not, but as sure isn't with much added value.
- merpnderp 11y ago
  You say that, but the guy sitting right behind me happily used his 4s until last month. And he's a heavy app user, installing all sorts of stuff, from flight tracking, weird weather apps, bird watching, whatever. I'm not sure if that counts as a joke from where I'm from.
  - tdkl 11y ago
    There, a test on the 4S : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J6R0NnqOzc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J6R0NnqOzc If you look at it this way - all that's changed are "clients", the data displayed is the same for both. But only on one phone the system experience is enjoyable. I guess Schiller forgot about that they once had a good optimized mobile OS.
sz4kerto 11y ago
One of my friend is not particularly well off, to say the least. Until a month or so ago he had been using a HTC Desire that he got for free from somebody. He used email, mapping, alarm clock, calendar, instant messaging. On a 5 year old phone.

noxToken 11y ago

>I am not sure if I was suddenly without money, the iPhone would be what I would want to give up. If you have an iPhone and then become poor, sure. You probably won't get ahead much by getting rid of your iPhone. If you're already poor, then an iPhone (not a smartphone) is definitely a luxury. There are capable smartphones for much cheaper then an iPhone that could get the job done. That's what GP was likely getting at. >If anything we should work to get smart phones in the hands of the poor. I am not aware of a socialized plan to put phone in the hands of poor people, but they are getting increasingly cheaper. You can get Samsung Galaxy line (not the flagship model) phones from cheap, prepaid carriers. Wi-Fi is becoming increasingly available, which makes the limited data plans not that bad of a drawback.

JohnBooty 11y ago
> If you're already poor, then an iPhone (not a smartphone) is definitely a luxury. It's not wrong, nor necessarily economically irresponsible, for "poor" people to have a few nice things. Assuming a lifespan of 3 years, the cost difference between a $600 phone and a $300 phone is barely more than $0.25 per day - and probably even less, considering that iPhones have a higher resale value. Maybe that "poor person" carrying an iPhone just forgoes $0.25 or $0.50 of other niceties per day so they can afford that iPhone and those $100 shoes - or maybe they just work in a city, because you can literally find that much money on the ground every day if you keep your eyes peeled. If a person routinely made such purchases, to the detriment of their well-being, certainly that could be a problem. But unless we know somebody's full financial picture we should not presume to make such a judgement.
- em3rgent0rdr 11y ago
  I don't think the OP's criticism is on the "poor person", but rather on the fact that Apple's business model and marketing scheme is premised on a false need to buy some new "revolutionary" iThing which actually offers little or no functional benefit over a perfectly fine older PC or less-powerful android.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

throwanem 11y ago

With a little forethought and initial investment, you don't have to decide between giving up an iPhone and continuing to pay three figures monthly for the privilege of using it. Consider: Sprint - ostensibly free phone, $120/mo for a 2-year contract: $2880 all told, and you don't have a choice but to pay all of it Ting - $500 up front for 64G iPhone SE, avg. $27.50/mo for the same period: $1160 all told, and you can stop service any time if things get bad enough that you have to Sure, if you can't make the initial nut, it's not an option - but you're talking about being suddenly broke or close to it, which is the situation in which I found myself last year, and which motivated me to put some thought into better options for mobile service. The more I look at it, the more it seems to me that mobile contracts, at least in the US and at least for single phones, are every bit as much for suckers as rent-to-own shops are.

uptown 11y ago
Buy pre-used phone (~$50 for an older-gen device). Use pre-paid phone service. (~$40/month). Doesn't need to be expensive if you're willing to forgo the latest and 'greatest'. I use pre-paid Verizon anyway since it's the best deal for my usage pattern.
raisedbyninjas 11y ago
Project Fi is a prepaid service and allows you to finance the phone. Currently the cheapest is $200 for the Nexus 5x.
goldbrick 11y ago
Or, if you live in a city with ubiquitous wifi, buy an iPod touch and use Google Voice/Hangouts. $200 up front, free/mo thereafter.

andrepd 11y ago

A <100$ smartphone can do all of those things.

matthewaveryusa 11y ago

I'm with you on this one. I've never owned an iphone because I'm cheap, but when you see a poor person with an iphone it's not a phone they have in their hands -- it's _the_ only device they have to connect to the internet and communicate. That being said, you can get a motorola G lte for 100 bucks.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

smarx007 11y ago

First, let's get the internet part clear. Mobile internet is consistently more expensive that fixed line (in xUSSR at least). And as somebody with more than 1 degree, I can tell you that you don't need an iphone map, phone, alarm, or camera functionality to make your life better, while internet and email on a mobile device is counterproductive. If you really want to save money and get better, go buy a core 2 duo desktop pc for less than $100 and a simple internet connection. Turn on the pomodoro. Turn off your phone. Reply to all your emails. Get some quality study/work time.

bryondowd 11y ago
Well, I pay $5 for the limited data plan on my phone, here in the US (Walmart Family Mobile). That's on top of $25/mo primary line and $20/mo additional lines. The cheapest internet line for my home I could find was around $30 at a promotional rate, which bumped up to $45 after a year. Yes, I can get more data per dollar out of that $45 line, but aside from entertainment purposes, I can get by on my 1GB of data. Or I could bump it to 5GB for another $10 and that would get me by on everything short of regular streaming or large downloads. So, being frugal, it does make sense in some cases to just get a cheap phone with a data plan, even more so if you don't need a home PC, as many poor folk.
- smarx007 11y ago
  I now live in EU and can relate to your experiences. But when I was referring to what struggling folk need, I meant what can really improve their position. And I hope you understand that it's not something like 9gag, but udacity. And udacity is a pain on a tablet (let alone phone) if you do the exercises.
  - bryondowd 11y ago
    Well, a phone is enough for many useful services. Putting in applications, gathering information, etc. Then there's tethering for a cheap internet solution if you can get a hold of a desktop/laptop. But really, if we're talking about improving one's lot through education, the best bet would probably be a local community college, which should have their own computer rooms. I don't know much about udacity and the like, but I'm not sure there's a route there for people in my neck of the woods, at least. Any local tech jobs want a Bachelor's degree.

xlm1717 11y ago

>If anything we should work to get smart phones in the hands of the poor. It sure as hell won't be iPhones we get into the hands of the poor. There are regional mvno's/prepaid carriers here who pretty much give away cheap android phones to get on their cheap plans.

akerro 11y ago

>Mapping. Phone. Internet. Email. Alarm Clock. Calendaring. Photography. Soo... It does exactly the same as my LG with Android 2.2 that costed me ~$70 2.5 years ago?

widowlark 11y ago

I think you're off base. There are plenty of devices out there (android, windows phone) which have all the utility of the iPhone, but cost half the price of the iPhone (or less). To suggest that an iPhone is the only device capable of these things and therefore is a fixed cost is incorrect, IMO

kbart 11y ago

" Mapping. Phone. Internet. Email. Alarm Clock. Calendaring. Photography." All these are easily available for a fraction of iPhone's/iPad's price.

rdtsc 11y ago

I have money and the utility of iPhone is what I don't want. Instead opted for a cheap Moto G basic model 4-5 years ago and still happy with it.

jinst8gmi 11y ago

> I am not sure if I was suddenly without money, the iPhone would be what I would want to give up. Poor is when you have to dig through other peoples' trash to find food (I see this every week). I'm pretty sure you you really ended up poor you wouldn't give a damn about your iPhone except to sell it to buy food.

spacecowboy_lon 11y ago

But can get a nice Motorola for £150 and a £7 month sim - you dont need a Iphone do do all that

chetanahuja 11y ago

"Mapping. Phone. Internet. Email. Alarm Clock. Calendaring. Photography." You realize those features are not unique to iPhone... right? "Maybe we could quibble about whether they should have an iPhone or some cheaper smartphone. I am just saying, it could be more for utility than image." The whole point is that buying an iPhone as opposed to an equally capable cheaper smartphone is done for branding and image.

virtualritz 11y ago

Why do you need an iPhone for that? A Moto G will do all of that, at a fraction of the price.

sametmax 11y ago

you can live with none of that. You can have internet at school on a needing basic. You don't need it in your pocket. You can live without mapping, a dumb phone with alarm clock and be done with it. If you live by the cent, no, the iPhone is not a priority. I didn't have a smartphone before 4 months ago, and it was fine. And if you are at school, then it's even easier. The biggest problem is the social isolation, since now a lot of kids interactions are going through apps.

tagrun 11y ago

A 50$ Android smartphone can do all of those, and more.