5 ms·

One of the things that makes a phone developer-friendly is how accessible it is from a price perspective, i.e. not a £599 price tag.

mankyd 10y ago
Is that true? Usually developer friendly means not-carrier-locked, which has always commanded a _higher_ price tag. Meanwhile, iPhones have no cheap developer option either. When has developer equated with cheap?
- archiepeach 10y ago
  You're right, not being carrier-locked is another attribute of a developer-friendly phone. I wasn't saying developer equates with cheap, but typically "developer" phones are secondary devices that people feel comfortable hacking on without risking destroying their daily driver. Therefore it wouldn't make a huge amount of sense to pay for a top-of-the-range phone when it will likely be a secondary device.
VikingCoder 10y ago
$27 a month is pretty dang accessible for a developer, in my opinion.
- apocalyptic0n3 10y ago
  That's on contract. As a developer at a small agency, getting a $650 purchase approved can take months or even longer because every expense is larger than you think.
  - VikingCoder 10y ago
    That's not on contract with a carrier. That's direct through Google. "From $649 or $27.04/month for 24 months with Google Store Financing*" https://store.google.com/config/pixel_phone https://store.google.com/config/pixel_phone
pasbesoin 10y ago
Ah. I did think a bit of that. Agree. Not that I'm defending it, but it looks like Google is moving from being a platform provider to a (for profit) device provider. Given the endless bullshit surrounding third party vendor foot dragging, abandonment, etc., I'm not sure they had any other choice. For my part, I'm done with anything Android that isn't directly from Google (or maybe Samsung, for a phone). And even Google, I distrust, after they left Motorola and my Moto X to "rust" before I was even done with its contract/payments term.
- paublyrne 10y ago
  And even Google, I distrust, after they left Motorola and my Moto X to "rust" before I was even done with its contract/payments term. The Moto X is still getting prompt updates, regardless of the sale, no? My Moto G does at least. Certainly no rust on it.
  - pasbesoin 10y ago
    My 2013 Moto X, bought in early 2014, got left by Google/Moto/Verizon on the 5.whatever that doesn't fix Stagefright. Until I switch away from Verizon, I stuck my already activated SIM into a Nexus 5x -- the first Nexus to work on Verizon's network. That Nexus 5x just got the upgrade to Android 7. Because the update is shipped directly from Google and Verizon has no control over it with respect to my independently acquired Nexus 5x. At the time I bought the Moto X, from a Motorola then owned by Google, Google/Motorola/Verizon was promising that this new ownership/alliance would ensure timely updates. Yeah... so much for that. Updates came slower, and all too soon choked out.
hesarenu 10y ago
In India you can get a Marshmallow devices for low as $100. Performance is acceptable for the price.

mankyd 10y ago

Is that true? Usually developer friendly means not-carrier-locked, which has always commanded a _higher_ price tag. Meanwhile, iPhones have no cheap developer option either. When has developer equated with cheap?

archiepeach 10y ago
You're right, not being carrier-locked is another attribute of a developer-friendly phone. I wasn't saying developer equates with cheap, but typically "developer" phones are secondary devices that people feel comfortable hacking on without risking destroying their daily driver. Therefore it wouldn't make a huge amount of sense to pay for a top-of-the-range phone when it will likely be a secondary device.

VikingCoder 10y ago

$27 a month is pretty dang accessible for a developer, in my opinion.

apocalyptic0n3 10y ago
That's on contract. As a developer at a small agency, getting a $650 purchase approved can take months or even longer because every expense is larger than you think.
- VikingCoder 10y ago
  That's not on contract with a carrier. That's direct through Google. "From $649 or $27.04/month for 24 months with Google Store Financing*" https://store.google.com/config/pixel_phone https://store.google.com/config/pixel_phone

pasbesoin 10y ago

Ah. I did think a bit of that. Agree. Not that I'm defending it, but it looks like Google is moving from being a platform provider to a (for profit) device provider. Given the endless bullshit surrounding third party vendor foot dragging, abandonment, etc., I'm not sure they had any other choice. For my part, I'm done with anything Android that isn't directly from Google (or maybe Samsung, for a phone). And even Google, I distrust, after they left Motorola and my Moto X to "rust" before I was even done with its contract/payments term.

paublyrne 10y ago
And even Google, I distrust, after they left Motorola and my Moto X to "rust" before I was even done with its contract/payments term. The Moto X is still getting prompt updates, regardless of the sale, no? My Moto G does at least. Certainly no rust on it.
- pasbesoin 10y ago
  My 2013 Moto X, bought in early 2014, got left by Google/Moto/Verizon on the 5.whatever that doesn't fix Stagefright. Until I switch away from Verizon, I stuck my already activated SIM into a Nexus 5x -- the first Nexus to work on Verizon's network. That Nexus 5x just got the upgrade to Android 7. Because the update is shipped directly from Google and Verizon has no control over it with respect to my independently acquired Nexus 5x. At the time I bought the Moto X, from a Motorola then owned by Google, Google/Motorola/Verizon was promising that this new ownership/alliance would ensure timely updates. Yeah... so much for that. Updates came slower, and all too soon choked out.

hesarenu 10y ago

In India you can get a Marshmallow devices for low as $100. Performance is acceptable for the price.