>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 smartpho

>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.