7 ms·

iPhones are luxury smartphones. There are other smartphones that fulfill the same purposes (that you outlined above) which are much cheaper. If someone in pov

by Banthum 10y ago

iPhones are luxury smartphones. There are other smartphones that fulfill the same purposes (that you outlined above) which are much cheaper. If someone in poverty buys an iPhone instead of a budget alternative, it's an indicator that they lack a basic ability to evaluate a handful of economic choices and choose the most appropriate (and thrifty) one. It's the smartphone equivalent of getting chrome rims on your car wheels. EDIT: I was disappointed but not surprised that the article didn't even acknowledge this fact, nor really make a case at all for what it was saying. I couldn't find any attempt to convince at all in what was written; it was simply a declaration of how right the author's view is and how obviously stupidly wrong the concept of someone being responsible for their own outcomes is.

M_Grey 10y ago
You make it sound like "iPhone" must mean "Brand new, cutting edge iPhone!" It could also be... old, refurbished, or "The iPhone I won" or "the iPhone I got on the best sale, " or "The iPhone I still have from when I had a home, and stuff. It's my connection to the world so I can't sell it off." It isn't just a failure of empathy, but creativity, to miss these points.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Or the iphone that was handed down to me by someone else.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    Exactly. You can be poor as dirt and still have people who throw you a bone.
- Banthum 10y ago
  The things you're stating would explain a small number of iPhones among a given group of poor people. The observation is that the things are damn near universal and often quite new. It isn't just a failure of intelligence, but cognitive discipline, to miss these points.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    By all means, show me the evidence that these "things are damn near universal, and often quite new."
  - eganist 10y ago
    > The things you're stating would explain a small number of iPhones among a given group of poor people. May you please source this assertion?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Besides the fairly obvious jealousy permeating your comment one has to wonder: Were you physically present every time a homeless person came into the possession of a phone? No? Then how do you know what caused them to be able to afford it? It could be: - a gift from a family member - still the property of someone else, but they get to use it (possibly including a plan) - a refurbished device and so on. It's a failure of intelligence to assume that just because someone has the use of something that they should not be able to afford that they are somehow making bad decisions. You could easily argue that for some yuppie buying a car on credit but for a homeless person their phone pretty much is the only expensive thing they will own.
  - resfirestar 10y ago
    "damn near universal" is the biggest myth going around, implicitly and explicitly, in this thread. The data is clear, even in 2014, when cheap android phones were damn near universally terrible. https://gigaom.com/2014/02/20/npd-confirms-it-apples-iphone-is-the-affluent-consumers-device-in-the-us/ https://gigaom.com/2014/02/20/npd-confirms-it-apples-iphone-...
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      I think it's safe to assume, from the total radio silence on the multiple requests to back up that claim, that the original poster probably knew that going in.
- vilmosi 10y ago
  The quote literally said "that NEW iPhone".
  - parenthephobia 10y ago
    That has no bearing on the truth of the claim. It's disingenuous (and insulting) to suggest that the reason poor people can't afford expensive health insurance is that they all have brand new iPhones, or some other unnecessary luxury. It is a valid rebuttal of that argument that poor people don't all spend their money on brand new iPhones, or the like. One cannot rebut that rebuttal by repeating the original claim.
    - vilmosi 10y ago
      I'm just replying to the comment above, not the article.
kevingadd 10y ago
At various points of time you've been able to get a new (not used) iPhone for $99. Cut the bullshit. You can get an Android phone for cheaper than an iPhone, but you pay for it in lost time (not to mention the low quality of budget Android phones) iPhones are iPhones. There are luxury priced ones, of course, and they were never 'budget', but having access to the internet isn't a luxury anymore. It's a requirement.
- exergy 10y ago
  Huh? By then same logic, you can get a used Android phone for cheap as chips too. I'm not entirely sure if he's the one bullshitting or if it's you. Lost time? What does that even mean? An iphone makes you more productive? THAT much more? And the "all androids are cheap and useless" trope is so trite at this point.
  - kevingadd 10y ago
    Not "by the same logic". He called iPhones "luxury smartphones". They're not. There are cheap ones and expensive ones, just like how the alternative platform - Android - comes with cheap and expensive phones. Lost time because typically Android phones require more maintenance and produce more hassles for novice users, and a budget Android phone is going to have more problems (and probably stop getting updates). FTR, I haven't owned an iPhone since the original one came out. All Android since. I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who's owned multiple different Android handsets and given them as gifts to family (I've since learned my lesson about that one).
    - exergy 10y ago
      Christ. Sorry for continuing to belabour this, but that's another tired old cliche of iPhones being somehow "simpler". The settings menu of an iPhone is idiotic, the API is more restrictive, meaning that there are things you can do on Android that are impossible on an iPhone, and the asinine arrangement of back buttons/hamburger menus being stacked on the top left of the screen is such poor UI design. On the other hand, the Android of 2017 is crisp, modern and just as capable of handling things stored on it. What exactly is _simpler_ about iPhones specifically? I also really disagree with iPhones somehow having fewer issues than Android phones. You're never just "holding it wrong"? Or being unable to even Copy and Paste? Or having to lug around dongles? Of course, Android has it's own share of stupidities, but to argue that iPhone is vastly superior is being less than accurate. Edit: to add, the bottomline I'm suggesting is that the differences are minor enough that, if an iphone from a couple generations ago is costing you the same as an Android from the same time, it's not clear that an iphone is better. I have an ipad that has aged just as horribly as older androids.
macintux 10y ago
Yet you can pick up an iPhone 5s for less than $200 off-contract at Walmart. So, no, your argument fails to hold water. Maybe their circle also uses iPhones. Maybe they want robust hardware and software for a device that will help determine whether they get and keep a job, and rightly or wrongly they feel an iPhone provides that robustness.
- brookside 10y ago
  I walk through public housing on the way to subway every day, have not observed older than an iPhone 6 in the past couple years, including schoolkids. Not a political judgement, just a data point. I don't think poor folks buying older or used iPhones is prevalent, in NYC at least.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - dvtv75 10y ago
    Making an assumption like that ("I don't think poor folks buying older or used iPhones is prevalent") is a bit foolish given the vastly incomplete "data point" you cite. Until you can tell us how many smartphones you see, what percentage of them are iPhones, how often you see them, how the iPhone was acquired, and the apparent class of the person carrying it, you're just saying things that reinforce your viewpoint without any way of disproving it. Might also help if you can admit any bias you have to start with - do you really think that poor people are poor because they can't budget, spend unwisely, and are lazy?
  - michaelmrose 10y ago
    Did you quiz them on where they live, how much they earn and what exact model of phone they have?
- jimmaswell 10y ago
  Robust? No, just more shiny. iPhones have had tons of hardware problems I've never heard of Androids having.
davexunit 10y ago
This is a pretty ignorant comment. Not surprised to see this libertarian, blame the poor for being poor, mindset here on HN.
- oculusthrift 10y ago
  beware the green commenters. it usually means they were banned before and created a new account.
  - davexunit 10y ago
    Didn't know that. Thanks for the tip!
    - steveklabnik 10y ago
      Strictly speaking, it means "new account." The above is speculation.
- Banthum 10y ago
  You're not doing much to add information to the situation. If you wanted to actually, you know, make a point or offer some info that'd be useful though.
  - davexunit 10y ago
    I have no desire to argue with people like you.
    - Banthum 10y ago
      Well, you're not doing much for the discussion. But the strategy of defining disagreement as evil, and then stating that the other person is so morally below you as to be not worth communicating with, is a great way to ensure you'll never have to question or change your beliefs. Cognitive dissonance: solved! So I guess you got that.
    - 10y ago
oxide 10y ago
>It's the smartphone equivalent of getting chrome rims on your car wheels. which people in poverty do all the time. even on shitty cars. what is your point?
- M_Grey 10y ago
  As JayZ once explained... Rap critics that say he's "Money Cash Hoes" I'm from the hood, stupid? What type of facts are those? If you grew up with holes in your zapatos You'd celebrate the minute you was having dough.
  - exergy 10y ago
    And that's not problematic? I'm from India, and in general, the Indian attitude towards money is "you only spend it if you have it" and even then, essentials came first and then money saved in a shoebox for a rainy day. There is no concept of borrowing money as a "personal loan" to afford a new MacBook or new Chrome wheels. In my very limited, east coast experience, this was not the attitude of the American poor.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      Of course it's a problem, and one you solve by educating people, not scolding them from behind lace hankies.
    - oxide 10y ago
      Poor people can't get a personal loan in America. Maybe in 2006, but not in 2017. Maybe from some kind of loanshark, but no bank is going to give someone a loan, especially if they don't have the means to make the payments, to go out and buy a new MacBook.
    - kenjackson 10y ago
      Borrow the money when you'll enjoy it. I can't get my dad to spend his money. He's older and he's happy with what he has. I want him to spend it, but he says its just a waste now. I honestly wish he could have loaned some of his money to his younger self. He's legitimately happy now spending almost nothing, and has by far more money than he has ever had in his life.
brookside 10y ago
Came here to say this. An argument could be made several years ago that an iPhone was a savvy purchase as they truely worked significantly both better and for longer, than the competition. Now it is quite possible to get a quality smartphone for $200 ( http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-budget-android-phone/ http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-budget-android-phone/ ) instead of almost 1k. Agree to grandparent's points about smartphones being almost indispensable tools for those without computers and landlines.
- unprepare 10y ago
  iphone SE starts at 399$ brand new iphone 5s starts at 130$ used iphone 6 starts at 235$ used iphone 6s 299$ used iphone 6 plus 330$ used Youre right, theres plenty of phones for less than 1k, and theres plenty of iphones under 1k too. https://swappa.com/buy/devices/verizon https://swappa.com/buy/devices/verizon
- acchow 10y ago
  As a long-time Android user who converted to iPhone last year, I disagree with the claim that a non-iPhone can work as well as an iPhone.
  - khedoros1 10y ago
    As a current user of both, I disagree with your disagreement. The iPhone's more polished, but the Android's more flexible.
netfire 10y ago
I'll add that the article doesn't seem to add the monthly cell phone costs (minutes, text and data -- especially data) into their calculation. Dependending on how much data you are using, that could be significant. Also, I imagine most phone are bought using installment plans, which increases the monthly costs, and makes it hard to save and make better investments in your future. (What you think you can afford today, may not be what you can afford tomorrow).
- kevingadd 10y ago
  "makes it hard to save and make better investments in your future" definitely applies to cell plans, even though it pales in comparison to the cost of health insurance these days. Even when it comes to smartphone ownership, the poor get screwed. You get better pricing if you have good credit, and if you're going with prepaid or non-credit plans, they charge you even more for subpar service (some features are entirely unavailable). So even if you skimp and buy a cheapo smartphone, you're still getting less value for your money than a middle-class buyer.
eganist 10y ago
> iPhones are luxury smartphones. Used iPhones and year-old iPhones (likewise for Galaxy S-model phones and others on the top end) still perform better than "mid-tier" phones. Given this, an iPhone and "a budget alternative" are not mutually exclusive terms. Keep in mind that for most people today, a phone might well be the closest they can get to having any form of decent connectivity, so it becomes an investment in one's future to buy a device with years of life ahead of it. A _new_ iPhone might be mutually exclusive with "a budget alternative," but that's not what's being argued.
- AstralStorm 10y ago
  I wouldn't be so sure, recent mid-tier phones have started to finally surpass a flagship phone from a few years back... (when it depreciates to same price point) Durability is also improved. I'm talking about newest of Samsung A and J series compared to older S models here. You also get the vastly updated software which will be hard to get on the old device.
CydeWeys 10y ago
The article addresses this exact form of argument in a manner that I find compelling: > There’s one final problem with these kinds of arguments, and that is the implication that we should be worried by the possibility of poor people buying the occasional steak, lottery ticket or, yes, even an iPhone. Set aside the fact that a better cut of meat may be more nutritious than a meal Chaffetz would approve of, or the fact that a smartphone may be your only access to email, job notices, benefit applications, school work and so on. Why do we begrudge people struggling to get by the occasional indulgence? Why do we so little value pleasure and joy? Why do we insist that if you are poor, you should also be miserable? Why do we require penitence?
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Or even simpler: why do people whose net worth is likely >> $100K begrudge someone whose net worth is < $1000 their only expensive item?
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    I think it offends them on a basic level... after all it makes their silly purchases so much more obviously silly. It probably explains why at high income levels, people still collect so much useless shit just for the sake of having it. It's also why there's a $10,000 iPhone, or ones you get crusted with jewels. The aristocracy is always seeking to distinguish themselves from the "Nouveau", and far more so from the "peasants". That's not a nice thing to think though, so it's rapidly sent through cognitive/ideological/religious filters and produces a more agreeable output for the thinker.
- Banthum 10y ago
  Doesn't work, though. An iPhone is not an "occasional indulgence". Fancy chocolates, or a meal at a mid-tier restaurant are an "occasional indulgence". An iPhone is a massive class-signaling purchase that requires expensive ongoing payments to use.
  - scaryspooky 10y ago
xyzzy123 10y ago
Where I live, rent starts at 24 top of the line iphones a year for a family.
seppin 10y ago
An iphone 3 or 4 is less than most androids
pixelbill 10y ago
Are you serious with this? You are just as clueless as these idiot politicians. More often than not people are NOT responsible for their outcome. It is a genetic lottery. Will you be born into money? Then you're set for life. Not born into money? You're going to struggle and have to work much harder just to survive, let alone get ahead. That's unlikely to happen. So a big old FRAK YOU to the arrogant assholes who claim poor people just need to work harder and be smarter, when I promise you they work much harder than yourself. Friends with that piece of human garbage Jason Chaffetz? He tells people they need to stop wasting their money (that they don't have) while he gets everything in his entire life paid for by rich donors who control his vote. Fuck. You.
spinchange 10y ago
>it's an indicator that they lack a basic ability to evaluate a handful of economic choices and choose the most appropriate (and thrifty) one. It's the smartphone equivalent of getting chrome rims on your car wheels. You act like an iPhone is a Rolls Royce to an Android being like a Kia. It's absolutely not that materially different in cost, and most decent Android devices worth their salt cost as much, or almost as much as an iPhone. Nearly all of these device (irrespective of platform) are bought on time/installments as part of one's monthly bill anyway! Another thing to consider is that if someone of limited means needed a device and was trying to buy a cheaper unlocked Android, that actually might be harder for their cash flow since the monthly installment plans are lower and easier to manage from a cash flow standpoint than dropping $200-$300 at once for a more economical (but already inferior!) model. These seem like small trivial things, but they're the kinds of decisions people need to make, and again a lot of pople have to have some kind of net/web connected device for more than leisure. Ultimately, it just does not follow to me that people who need a decent and reliable smart phone in 2017 would have better healthcare outcomes if only they skipped having one, or bought a flip phone or even an Android phone instead of an iPhone. Medical procedures run into the thousands or tens of thousands. Premiums on family medical coverage are like 2 iPhones _per month_, so getting that less robust model device really isn't going to make much difference and it may not last as long, costing more in the end, anyway. FWIW, I use an Android device, I just don't think iPhones are the culprit or an automatic indicator that the person of limited means using one is irresponsible or incapable of making good financial decisions. That seem like a harsh judgment.
dabbledash 10y ago
I think this is based on a misunderstanding of the kind of "economic choices" a person with little or no income will face. If a person can't afford to pay for housing or food, it's probably not because they're blowing lots of cash on phones. If you buy a $100 smartphone instead of a new iPhone, you'll save maybe $650 over a period of years, which won't cover even a month of expenses in most cities. For many middle class and upper middle class people, being financially responsible is a matter of being thrifty with the adequate resources they have; for a person who is truly poor the issue is more likely to be a straight up lack of income, and no amount of pinching pennies is going to result in enough money to pay rent.

by Banthum 10y ago

M_Grey 10y ago

You make it sound like "iPhone" must mean "Brand new, cutting edge iPhone!" It could also be... old, refurbished, or "The iPhone I won" or "the iPhone I got on the best sale, " or "The iPhone I still have from when I had a home, and stuff. It's my connection to the world so I can't sell it off." It isn't just a failure of empathy, but creativity, to miss these points.

jacquesm 10y ago
Or the iphone that was handed down to me by someone else.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  Exactly. You can be poor as dirt and still have people who throw you a bone.
Banthum 10y ago
The things you're stating would explain a small number of iPhones among a given group of poor people. The observation is that the things are damn near universal and often quite new. It isn't just a failure of intelligence, but cognitive discipline, to miss these points.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  By all means, show me the evidence that these "things are damn near universal, and often quite new."
- eganist 10y ago
  > The things you're stating would explain a small number of iPhones among a given group of poor people. May you please source this assertion?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Besides the fairly obvious jealousy permeating your comment one has to wonder: Were you physically present every time a homeless person came into the possession of a phone? No? Then how do you know what caused them to be able to afford it? It could be: - a gift from a family member - still the property of someone else, but they get to use it (possibly including a plan) - a refurbished device and so on. It's a failure of intelligence to assume that just because someone has the use of something that they should not be able to afford that they are somehow making bad decisions. You could easily argue that for some yuppie buying a car on credit but for a homeless person their phone pretty much is the only expensive thing they will own.
- resfirestar 10y ago
  "damn near universal" is the biggest myth going around, implicitly and explicitly, in this thread. The data is clear, even in 2014, when cheap android phones were damn near universally terrible. https://gigaom.com/2014/02/20/npd-confirms-it-apples-iphone-is-the-affluent-consumers-device-in-the-us/ https://gigaom.com/2014/02/20/npd-confirms-it-apples-iphone-...
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    I think it's safe to assume, from the total radio silence on the multiple requests to back up that claim, that the original poster probably knew that going in.
vilmosi 10y ago
The quote literally said "that NEW iPhone".
- parenthephobia 10y ago
  That has no bearing on the truth of the claim. It's disingenuous (and insulting) to suggest that the reason poor people can't afford expensive health insurance is that they all have brand new iPhones, or some other unnecessary luxury. It is a valid rebuttal of that argument that poor people don't all spend their money on brand new iPhones, or the like. One cannot rebut that rebuttal by repeating the original claim.
  - vilmosi 10y ago
    I'm just replying to the comment above, not the article.

kevingadd 10y ago

At various points of time you've been able to get a new (not used) iPhone for $99. Cut the bullshit. You can get an Android phone for cheaper than an iPhone, but you pay for it in lost time (not to mention the low quality of budget Android phones) iPhones are iPhones. There are luxury priced ones, of course, and they were never 'budget', but having access to the internet isn't a luxury anymore. It's a requirement.

exergy 10y ago
Huh? By then same logic, you can get a used Android phone for cheap as chips too. I'm not entirely sure if he's the one bullshitting or if it's you. Lost time? What does that even mean? An iphone makes you more productive? THAT much more? And the "all androids are cheap and useless" trope is so trite at this point.
- kevingadd 10y ago
  Not "by the same logic". He called iPhones "luxury smartphones". They're not. There are cheap ones and expensive ones, just like how the alternative platform - Android - comes with cheap and expensive phones. Lost time because typically Android phones require more maintenance and produce more hassles for novice users, and a budget Android phone is going to have more problems (and probably stop getting updates). FTR, I haven't owned an iPhone since the original one came out. All Android since. I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who's owned multiple different Android handsets and given them as gifts to family (I've since learned my lesson about that one).
  - exergy 10y ago
    Christ. Sorry for continuing to belabour this, but that's another tired old cliche of iPhones being somehow "simpler". The settings menu of an iPhone is idiotic, the API is more restrictive, meaning that there are things you can do on Android that are impossible on an iPhone, and the asinine arrangement of back buttons/hamburger menus being stacked on the top left of the screen is such poor UI design. On the other hand, the Android of 2017 is crisp, modern and just as capable of handling things stored on it. What exactly is _simpler_ about iPhones specifically? I also really disagree with iPhones somehow having fewer issues than Android phones. You're never just "holding it wrong"? Or being unable to even Copy and Paste? Or having to lug around dongles? Of course, Android has it's own share of stupidities, but to argue that iPhone is vastly superior is being less than accurate. Edit: to add, the bottomline I'm suggesting is that the differences are minor enough that, if an iphone from a couple generations ago is costing you the same as an Android from the same time, it's not clear that an iphone is better. I have an ipad that has aged just as horribly as older androids.

macintux 10y ago

Yet you can pick up an iPhone 5s for less than $200 off-contract at Walmart. So, no, your argument fails to hold water. Maybe their circle also uses iPhones. Maybe they want robust hardware and software for a device that will help determine whether they get and keep a job, and rightly or wrongly they feel an iPhone provides that robustness.

brookside 10y ago
I walk through public housing on the way to subway every day, have not observed older than an iPhone 6 in the past couple years, including schoolkids. Not a political judgement, just a data point. I don't think poor folks buying older or used iPhones is prevalent, in NYC at least.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- dvtv75 10y ago
  Making an assumption like that ("I don't think poor folks buying older or used iPhones is prevalent") is a bit foolish given the vastly incomplete "data point" you cite. Until you can tell us how many smartphones you see, what percentage of them are iPhones, how often you see them, how the iPhone was acquired, and the apparent class of the person carrying it, you're just saying things that reinforce your viewpoint without any way of disproving it. Might also help if you can admit any bias you have to start with - do you really think that poor people are poor because they can't budget, spend unwisely, and are lazy?
- michaelmrose 10y ago
  Did you quiz them on where they live, how much they earn and what exact model of phone they have?
jimmaswell 10y ago
Robust? No, just more shiny. iPhones have had tons of hardware problems I've never heard of Androids having.

davexunit 10y ago

This is a pretty ignorant comment. Not surprised to see this libertarian, blame the poor for being poor, mindset here on HN.

oculusthrift 10y ago
beware the green commenters. it usually means they were banned before and created a new account.
- davexunit 10y ago
  Didn't know that. Thanks for the tip!
  - steveklabnik 10y ago
    Strictly speaking, it means "new account." The above is speculation.
Banthum 10y ago
You're not doing much to add information to the situation. If you wanted to actually, you know, make a point or offer some info that'd be useful though.
- davexunit 10y ago
  I have no desire to argue with people like you.
  - Banthum 10y ago
    Well, you're not doing much for the discussion. But the strategy of defining disagreement as evil, and then stating that the other person is so morally below you as to be not worth communicating with, is a great way to ensure you'll never have to question or change your beliefs. Cognitive dissonance: solved! So I guess you got that.
  - 10y ago

oxide 10y ago

>It's the smartphone equivalent of getting chrome rims on your car wheels. which people in poverty do all the time. even on shitty cars. what is your point?

M_Grey 10y ago
As JayZ once explained... Rap critics that say he's "Money Cash Hoes" I'm from the hood, stupid? What type of facts are those? If you grew up with holes in your zapatos You'd celebrate the minute you was having dough.
- exergy 10y ago
  And that's not problematic? I'm from India, and in general, the Indian attitude towards money is "you only spend it if you have it" and even then, essentials came first and then money saved in a shoebox for a rainy day. There is no concept of borrowing money as a "personal loan" to afford a new MacBook or new Chrome wheels. In my very limited, east coast experience, this was not the attitude of the American poor.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    Of course it's a problem, and one you solve by educating people, not scolding them from behind lace hankies.
  - oxide 10y ago
    Poor people can't get a personal loan in America. Maybe in 2006, but not in 2017. Maybe from some kind of loanshark, but no bank is going to give someone a loan, especially if they don't have the means to make the payments, to go out and buy a new MacBook.
  - kenjackson 10y ago
    Borrow the money when you'll enjoy it. I can't get my dad to spend his money. He's older and he's happy with what he has. I want him to spend it, but he says its just a waste now. I honestly wish he could have loaned some of his money to his younger self. He's legitimately happy now spending almost nothing, and has by far more money than he has ever had in his life.

brookside 10y ago

Came here to say this. An argument could be made several years ago that an iPhone was a savvy purchase as they truely worked significantly both better and for longer, than the competition. Now it is quite possible to get a quality smartphone for $200 ( http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-budget-android-phone/ http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-budget-android-phone/ ) instead of almost 1k. Agree to grandparent's points about smartphones being almost indispensable tools for those without computers and landlines.

unprepare 10y ago
iphone SE starts at 399$ brand new iphone 5s starts at 130$ used iphone 6 starts at 235$ used iphone 6s 299$ used iphone 6 plus 330$ used Youre right, theres plenty of phones for less than 1k, and theres plenty of iphones under 1k too. https://swappa.com/buy/devices/verizon https://swappa.com/buy/devices/verizon
acchow 10y ago
As a long-time Android user who converted to iPhone last year, I disagree with the claim that a non-iPhone can work as well as an iPhone.
- khedoros1 10y ago
  As a current user of both, I disagree with your disagreement. The iPhone's more polished, but the Android's more flexible.

netfire 10y ago

I'll add that the article doesn't seem to add the monthly cell phone costs (minutes, text and data -- especially data) into their calculation. Dependending on how much data you are using, that could be significant. Also, I imagine most phone are bought using installment plans, which increases the monthly costs, and makes it hard to save and make better investments in your future. (What you think you can afford today, may not be what you can afford tomorrow).

kevingadd 10y ago
"makes it hard to save and make better investments in your future" definitely applies to cell plans, even though it pales in comparison to the cost of health insurance these days. Even when it comes to smartphone ownership, the poor get screwed. You get better pricing if you have good credit, and if you're going with prepaid or non-credit plans, they charge you even more for subpar service (some features are entirely unavailable). So even if you skimp and buy a cheapo smartphone, you're still getting less value for your money than a middle-class buyer.

eganist 10y ago

> iPhones are luxury smartphones. Used iPhones and year-old iPhones (likewise for Galaxy S-model phones and others on the top end) still perform better than "mid-tier" phones. Given this, an iPhone and "a budget alternative" are not mutually exclusive terms. Keep in mind that for most people today, a phone might well be the closest they can get to having any form of decent connectivity, so it becomes an investment in one's future to buy a device with years of life ahead of it. A _new_ iPhone might be mutually exclusive with "a budget alternative," but that's not what's being argued.

AstralStorm 10y ago
I wouldn't be so sure, recent mid-tier phones have started to finally surpass a flagship phone from a few years back... (when it depreciates to same price point) Durability is also improved. I'm talking about newest of Samsung A and J series compared to older S models here. You also get the vastly updated software which will be hard to get on the old device.

CydeWeys 10y ago

The article addresses this exact form of argument in a manner that I find compelling: > There’s one final problem with these kinds of arguments, and that is the implication that we should be worried by the possibility of poor people buying the occasional steak, lottery ticket or, yes, even an iPhone. Set aside the fact that a better cut of meat may be more nutritious than a meal Chaffetz would approve of, or the fact that a smartphone may be your only access to email, job notices, benefit applications, school work and so on. Why do we begrudge people struggling to get by the occasional indulgence? Why do we so little value pleasure and joy? Why do we insist that if you are poor, you should also be miserable? Why do we require penitence?

jacquesm 10y ago
Or even simpler: why do people whose net worth is likely >> $100K begrudge someone whose net worth is < $1000 their only expensive item?
- M_Grey 10y ago
  I think it offends them on a basic level... after all it makes their silly purchases so much more obviously silly. It probably explains why at high income levels, people still collect so much useless shit just for the sake of having it. It's also why there's a $10,000 iPhone, or ones you get crusted with jewels. The aristocracy is always seeking to distinguish themselves from the "Nouveau", and far more so from the "peasants". That's not a nice thing to think though, so it's rapidly sent through cognitive/ideological/religious filters and produces a more agreeable output for the thinker.
Banthum 10y ago
Doesn't work, though. An iPhone is not an "occasional indulgence". Fancy chocolates, or a meal at a mid-tier restaurant are an "occasional indulgence". An iPhone is a massive class-signaling purchase that requires expensive ongoing payments to use.
- scaryspooky 10y ago

xyzzy123 10y ago

Where I live, rent starts at 24 top of the line iphones a year for a family.

seppin 10y ago

An iphone 3 or 4 is less than most androids

pixelbill 10y ago

Are you serious with this? You are just as clueless as these idiot politicians. More often than not people are NOT responsible for their outcome. It is a genetic lottery. Will you be born into money? Then you're set for life. Not born into money? You're going to struggle and have to work much harder just to survive, let alone get ahead. That's unlikely to happen. So a big old FRAK YOU to the arrogant assholes who claim poor people just need to work harder and be smarter, when I promise you they work much harder than yourself. Friends with that piece of human garbage Jason Chaffetz? He tells people they need to stop wasting their money (that they don't have) while he gets everything in his entire life paid for by rich donors who control his vote. Fuck. You.

spinchange 10y ago

>it's an indicator that they lack a basic ability to evaluate a handful of economic choices and choose the most appropriate (and thrifty) one. It's the smartphone equivalent of getting chrome rims on your car wheels. You act like an iPhone is a Rolls Royce to an Android being like a Kia. It's absolutely not that materially different in cost, and most decent Android devices worth their salt cost as much, or almost as much as an iPhone. Nearly all of these device (irrespective of platform) are bought on time/installments as part of one's monthly bill anyway! Another thing to consider is that if someone of limited means needed a device and was trying to buy a cheaper unlocked Android, that actually might be harder for their cash flow since the monthly installment plans are lower and easier to manage from a cash flow standpoint than dropping $200-$300 at once for a more economical (but already inferior!) model. These seem like small trivial things, but they're the kinds of decisions people need to make, and again a lot of pople have to have some kind of net/web connected device for more than leisure. Ultimately, it just does not follow to me that people who need a decent and reliable smart phone in 2017 would have better healthcare outcomes if only they skipped having one, or bought a flip phone or even an Android phone instead of an iPhone. Medical procedures run into the thousands or tens of thousands. Premiums on family medical coverage are like 2 iPhones _per month_, so getting that less robust model device really isn't going to make much difference and it may not last as long, costing more in the end, anyway. FWIW, I use an Android device, I just don't think iPhones are the culprit or an automatic indicator that the person of limited means using one is irresponsible or incapable of making good financial decisions. That seem like a harsh judgment.

dabbledash 10y ago

I think this is based on a misunderstanding of the kind of "economic choices" a person with little or no income will face. If a person can't afford to pay for housing or food, it's probably not because they're blowing lots of cash on phones. If you buy a $100 smartphone instead of a new iPhone, you'll save maybe $650 over a period of years, which won't cover even a month of expenses in most cities. For many middle class and upper middle class people, being financially responsible is a matter of being thrifty with the adequate resources they have; for a person who is truly poor the issue is more likely to be a straight up lack of income, and no amount of pinching pennies is going to result in enough money to pay rent.