9 ms·

Nobody looks at a top of the line PC with the best graphics card(s) and say it's crossing a threshold. Everybody understands it's for a certain demographic. Ac

Nobody looks at a top of the line PC with the best graphics card(s) and say it's crossing a threshold. Everybody understands it's for a certain demographic. According to rumors, they're still going to have various models and price points. Also, iPhones are extremely economical because no other phones receive OS updates for as long. My iPhone 6, which cost $749 at the time, is coming up to 3 years old. It's still flawless, no speed issues or any issues. The only thing bad is that the battery isn't as good as before, but I still get through the day just fine. I might upgrade this year just because "new & shiny", but I'll probably pass the iPhone 6 to family. And because it's still very good and receive updates, that means if I get 4 years of life out of it, its cost is actually only $375 when compared to other phones that stop getting updates 2 years in. That's really good!

morgante 9y ago
Seriously, I actually consider iPhones to be some of the most cost-effective purchases I make. My mom is still happily using my old iPhone 5, and my iPhone 4 functions as a pretty nice media controller.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Yetanfou 9y ago
I see your 3 year young iPhone and raise my 6 year old Motorola Defy. I bought it new in 2011 for about 1/4 of what the then-current iPhone would have cost. It still works flawlessly, the battery is fine as well (~5 days of normal use on a single charge or ~7 hours of screen time). If the battery were to fail I could just replace it, no tools required. Oh, the thing is waterproof and 'shock-proof' (although the latter is to be taken with a grain of salt, my wife managed to break the glass on hers after about three years). In other words, it does not take an expensive iPhone to last longer than a contract period. Well-built phones can last a long time, much longer than the 2 years which most people seem to consider as normal.
- thingerr 9y ago
  I'd be with you, except for Android's planned obsolescence. The reliance on third-parties to provide at most ~2/3 year security update paired with a dated and forked version of the Linux kernel gives me pause.
  - Yetanfou 9y ago
    That is what AOSP and its derivatives are for, to pick up development when the manufacturer gives up. The Defy did not get updated past 2.3.6 by Motorola, anything after that (currently running 4.4.4 which is as far as this device will go) comes from there. Since Android apps are generally backward compatible for a long time, older Android devices can still run current apps. This is actually one of the advantages Android has over iOS, older iDevices are generally stuck at older apps as soon as Apple stops supporting the device.
    - thingerr 9y ago
      First, you aren't talking about the average consumer anymore. If we're talking flashing operating systems, sideloading kernel updates and boot loaders in order to feel secure about your mobile device, then an older, vertically supported iOS device is probably a better bet. Secondly, AOSP isn't forever. After your carrier/device-manufacturer drops support, Google isn't that far behind. If you're not getting AOSP drops for your device that work with device drivers then it's probably dead. There are a few brave souls willing to port modern Android to no-longer-google supported devices, but I wouldn't call that sure-fire security. Thirdly, many AOSP derivatives and communities have niche motives that don't really align with the average user. New OS features, experimental "battery saving" kernel hacks and user-space root are commonplace where they really shouldn't be for the average, or arguably any, mobile user. Often devs get a new device and the community quietly moves on, dies, stops providing. Mobile software is really in a sore place right now overall and neither duopoly is 100%. The incentives aren't aligned to the consumer.
      - thrownblown 9y ago
nikofeyn 9y ago
> It's still flawless, no speed issues or any issues. The only thing bad is that the battery isn't as good as before. so, not flawless? i can replace the battery on my phone, which is very reassuring and also practical for times away from a charger.
- theshrike79 9y ago
  How often are you away from a charger or a portable power bank, really? We can all imagine theoretical situations where one would need to swap batteries, but they're just that - theoretical. In practice you can either find/borrow/buy/steal a charger or you carry an USB powerbank with you if running out of battery is an issue for you.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - nikofeyn 9y ago
    many times: hiking, on a boat, riding my motorcycle, on vacation in general. during these times i don't want to be unnecessarily tied to a portable charger. what's the point of having a portable phone at that point. simply changing out a battery is far more convenient. so it's not theoretical at all. the person i replied to literally listed a reason why it's nice to be able to swap out a battery: their battery no longer works correctly.
delazeur 9y ago
> Also, iPhones are extremely economical. My iPhone 6, which cost $749 at the time, is coming up to 3 years old. Uh, what? I'm on my second ~$70 Android smart phone in eight years. It's a tad slow, but we're talking about literally a few seconds of waiting, nothing truly inconvenient. I have honestly never been impressed by anything a $600+ iPhone can do beyond what my phone can. The only drawback is that it isn't compatible with Apple group texts, but that is more than made up for by the fact that I truly don't care if my phone gets lost or breaks (I back up my files, so I'm only out 70 bucks). I have no idea why people spend so much money on phones.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  > It's a tad slow, but weren't talking about literally a few seconds of waiting, nothing truly inconvenient. A few seconds of waiting is not "truly inconvenient"? I suppose you're either a zen master, or not doing much with the phone (possibly because it's "a tad slow"). For me, the phone is something I use constantly during the day, in lots of brief bursts. Few seconds of lag may be the difference between me staying in or leaving the flow. It would often make a significant fraction of the length of a single interaction with a phone. Those kinds of frustrations add up for me over time. Avoiding all of that is worth the $700, if I can afford it.
  - delazeur 9y ago
    If two to three seconds of waiting (that's on the high end, and only for certain apps) is breaking your flow, you need to work on your attention span. That's ADHD territory. Edit: For that matter, interacting with your phone for a few seconds at a time is probably an attention deficit issue in and of itself. I admit that it's common, but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem.
    - tekklloneer 9y ago
      Or, you're using snapchat, or instagram, or signal.
      - 9y ago
yodsanklai 9y ago
> Also, iPhones are extremely economical because no other phones receive OS updates for as long. Good point. Also they sell extremely well on the second-hand market.
- cjsuk 9y ago
  This is how I roll. Buy iPhone. Get AppleCare. When the AppleCare is done, sell it and buy a new one. Resale covers the AppleCare. If I break it, I pay the excess and walk away with a new handset the same day. This feeds the scond hand market. If I bust an android phone I lose it for three to four weeks, have to buy a stopgap phone and tend to end up with a botched repair from a 3rd party repairer the vendor have hired. On top of that the OS updates usually stop after a year and roll out about a month after they are announced unless I buy a Nexus which is completely non repairable anyway.
_Codemonkeyism 9y ago
So your last generation iPhone still gets updates? I would not call that a excellent benchmark in my book. The trouble with iOS devices is that they stop being usable the moment you can no longer update the OS in the way that most applications only support the newest OS (happened to several iPads here with e.g. Amazon app, Twitter, Youtube) - because updates roll out to the majority of users so fast compared to Android. "stop getting updates 2 years in." With Android most applications still support 4.X when Oreo comes out.
- Gaelan 9y ago
  6 is almost 3 generations ago. The 7S/8 (we're not sure) comes out tomorrow. You can buy a 7 now. The 6S was released 2 years ago. The 6 was released 3 years ago.
  - lucaspiller 9y ago
    I have a 5S and it still gets updates and works the same as the other poster described. I haven't even replaced the battery and still get a days usage.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- spike021 9y ago
  I have an iPhone 6 (not 6s) and can still use pretty much "most applications that only support the newest OS". The only things I can't do involve hardware-based features for things I don't have in my phone.
- steevdave 9y ago
  It takes only one slip up to screw your security. One targeted attack that you don't notice because you're in a rush. I love my MotoX 2013, but it never got updates (Sprint model, Sprint blamed Motorola, Motorola blamed Sprint); it's succeptible to Stagefright so I can't use it anymore. And it will never receive an update for it. As much as we use our phones and as much personal information is on them, security updates should be first and foremost. Yes, AOSP exists for some devices, but 9 times out of 10, something breaks when using it. When Android moves to a new way of doing audio or video, drivers stop working, and some people try to come up with shims, but as others point out. The developer of it gets a new phone and the project dies. My Nexus 5 (November 2013) hasn't gotten a security update since October 2016. My iPhone 5 (September 2012) just got an update to 10.3.3 in July. Android devices are notorious for being slow to get updates, if you ever get them at all. Yeah it can be cheaper to get an Android device, and I have quite a few, but they simply aren't up to the same standards that iPhones are.
fehrm 9y ago
You must be from the valley if you think that a 1000 phone is economical. That is laughable.
- dijit 9y ago
  It's a defensible position, I live in the EU so proximity to heaps of expendable income is not as abundant than in the US middle-class. In the UK we had a saying "the poor man pays twice", meaning that if you buy a shitty rake and it breaks you have to go buy a new one. This is kinda the case with phones too, you can buy a $450 phone with 2 years of updates, or a $700 with 5 years. Which one is more economical over time?
  - RandVal30142 9y ago
    > you can buy a $450 phone with 2 years of updates, or a $700 with 5 years. > Which one is more economical over time? My sub-100USD android apparently. What the heck kind of math do you have going on for "economical?"
    - dijit 9y ago
      Talking in terms of years of support. $450 / 2 = $225/y of support. $700 / 5 = $140/y of support.
  - jmanderley 9y ago
    Plenty of cheap but great Androids in the $200-300 range, just take a look at the Moto G5 Plus, for example.
    - leadingthenet 9y ago
      Which, in the absolute best of cases, get security updates for one or two years, while the equivalent iPhone does for 4 or more. That's what he means by paying twice.
  - cableshaft 9y ago
    False dichotomy. I just bought an Android phone over the weekend for $35 (on sale from $50) -- the LG K3. It has an older Android OS (Marshmellow) a little slow, the screen resolution isn't great, and the keyboard input is a little more fiddly than my Nexus 5X (which bricked, which is why I needed to get a new temp phone), but otherwise it works just fine. Six years ago I paid $170 for an equivalent phone (older version of android than current, slower, less ram, space, etc). On sale. And used it for almost a year and a half. So the low-end has really gone down in price.
jdietrich 9y ago
Diminishing returns kick in at a remarkably low price point, especially outside the US. $250 gets you a Xiaomi Mi A1 - a phone with a 1080p display, a full metal body, 4GB of RAM, 64GB of flash, a fast 8-core processor and guaranteed software updates directly from Google. http://www.mi.com/in/mi-a1/ http://www.mi.com/in/mi-a1/ Is a $750 iPhone really three times better than that phone? Is it even 5% better? If I were an Apple shareholder, I'd be giving some serious thought to Apple's future in the growing middle-income economies. Apple are clearly going gangbusters right now, but I'm highly sceptical about their continued relevance.
- leadingthenet 9y ago
  > Is a $750 iPhone really three times better than that phone? Is it even 5% better? Yes, it is. Three times better might be an exaggeration, but it has unique features that basically no other phone has currently, and that's worth different things to different people.
- lotsofpulp 9y ago
  It is better. The MacOS/iMessage/Facetime/Time machine ecosystem is is pretty awesome, and if you don't want to spend your time and effort trying to fix Windows BS and removing their malware, then an extra thousand or two is worth it. Plus, if something goes wrong, you get great customer service at the Apple Store. I've done the Windows/Android thing, it's a pain in the ass to keep up with all the stuff. As I get older, I just need my things to work (especially smartphone and computer) and I'm willing to pay a premium. I don't even want to have to research what I'm buying, and Apple has been executing on that for quite a few years now.
  - freehunter 9y ago
    I'm in exactly the same boat. I've done IT for enough years, I do it as a job, when I come home I don't want to do it anymore. I refuse to fix the computer problems of anyone outside of my immediate family unless I'm getting paid, and no one pays me to do my own computer maintenance. I switched from a custom-built desktop PC to a laptop then to a Macbook a while back. I switched from an Android phone with super heavy customization and a flashed ROM to a Windows Phone (and after that platform died, an iPhone). Did I give up some flexibility? Yes. Did I spend more money? Yes. But I made a conscious choice to do so because I hate to be my own IT guy. If I need a new computer, I don't comparison shop to see if Lenovo or Asus or Acer or HP has the best features for the price or reliability scores or any of that. I buy the latest Macbook. If I need a new cell phone, I don't look up who the best is. I buy an iPhone. I pay a little bit more for peace of mind. It makes me happy.

morgante 9y ago

Seriously, I actually consider iPhones to be some of the most cost-effective purchases I make. My mom is still happily using my old iPhone 5, and my iPhone 4 functions as a pretty nice media controller.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Yetanfou 9y ago

I see your 3 year young iPhone and raise my 6 year old Motorola Defy. I bought it new in 2011 for about 1/4 of what the then-current iPhone would have cost. It still works flawlessly, the battery is fine as well (~5 days of normal use on a single charge or ~7 hours of screen time). If the battery were to fail I could just replace it, no tools required. Oh, the thing is waterproof and 'shock-proof' (although the latter is to be taken with a grain of salt, my wife managed to break the glass on hers after about three years). In other words, it does not take an expensive iPhone to last longer than a contract period. Well-built phones can last a long time, much longer than the 2 years which most people seem to consider as normal.

thingerr 9y ago
I'd be with you, except for Android's planned obsolescence. The reliance on third-parties to provide at most ~2/3 year security update paired with a dated and forked version of the Linux kernel gives me pause.
- Yetanfou 9y ago
  That is what AOSP and its derivatives are for, to pick up development when the manufacturer gives up. The Defy did not get updated past 2.3.6 by Motorola, anything after that (currently running 4.4.4 which is as far as this device will go) comes from there. Since Android apps are generally backward compatible for a long time, older Android devices can still run current apps. This is actually one of the advantages Android has over iOS, older iDevices are generally stuck at older apps as soon as Apple stops supporting the device.
  - thingerr 9y ago
    First, you aren't talking about the average consumer anymore. If we're talking flashing operating systems, sideloading kernel updates and boot loaders in order to feel secure about your mobile device, then an older, vertically supported iOS device is probably a better bet. Secondly, AOSP isn't forever. After your carrier/device-manufacturer drops support, Google isn't that far behind. If you're not getting AOSP drops for your device that work with device drivers then it's probably dead. There are a few brave souls willing to port modern Android to no-longer-google supported devices, but I wouldn't call that sure-fire security. Thirdly, many AOSP derivatives and communities have niche motives that don't really align with the average user. New OS features, experimental "battery saving" kernel hacks and user-space root are commonplace where they really shouldn't be for the average, or arguably any, mobile user. Often devs get a new device and the community quietly moves on, dies, stops providing. Mobile software is really in a sore place right now overall and neither duopoly is 100%. The incentives aren't aligned to the consumer.
    - thrownblown 9y ago

nikofeyn 9y ago

> It's still flawless, no speed issues or any issues. The only thing bad is that the battery isn't as good as before. so, not flawless? i can replace the battery on my phone, which is very reassuring and also practical for times away from a charger.

theshrike79 9y ago
How often are you away from a charger or a portable power bank, really? We can all imagine theoretical situations where one would need to swap batteries, but they're just that - theoretical. In practice you can either find/borrow/buy/steal a charger or you carry an USB powerbank with you if running out of battery is an issue for you.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- nikofeyn 9y ago
  many times: hiking, on a boat, riding my motorcycle, on vacation in general. during these times i don't want to be unnecessarily tied to a portable charger. what's the point of having a portable phone at that point. simply changing out a battery is far more convenient. so it's not theoretical at all. the person i replied to literally listed a reason why it's nice to be able to swap out a battery: their battery no longer works correctly.

delazeur 9y ago

> Also, iPhones are extremely economical. My iPhone 6, which cost $749 at the time, is coming up to 3 years old. Uh, what? I'm on my second ~$70 Android smart phone in eight years. It's a tad slow, but we're talking about literally a few seconds of waiting, nothing truly inconvenient. I have honestly never been impressed by anything a $600+ iPhone can do beyond what my phone can. The only drawback is that it isn't compatible with Apple group texts, but that is more than made up for by the fact that I truly don't care if my phone gets lost or breaks (I back up my files, so I'm only out 70 bucks). I have no idea why people spend so much money on phones.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
> It's a tad slow, but weren't talking about literally a few seconds of waiting, nothing truly inconvenient. A few seconds of waiting is not "truly inconvenient"? I suppose you're either a zen master, or not doing much with the phone (possibly because it's "a tad slow"). For me, the phone is something I use constantly during the day, in lots of brief bursts. Few seconds of lag may be the difference between me staying in or leaving the flow. It would often make a significant fraction of the length of a single interaction with a phone. Those kinds of frustrations add up for me over time. Avoiding all of that is worth the $700, if I can afford it.
- delazeur 9y ago
  If two to three seconds of waiting (that's on the high end, and only for certain apps) is breaking your flow, you need to work on your attention span. That's ADHD territory. Edit: For that matter, interacting with your phone for a few seconds at a time is probably an attention deficit issue in and of itself. I admit that it's common, but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem.
  - tekklloneer 9y ago
    Or, you're using snapchat, or instagram, or signal.
    - 9y ago

yodsanklai 9y ago

> Also, iPhones are extremely economical because no other phones receive OS updates for as long. Good point. Also they sell extremely well on the second-hand market.

cjsuk 9y ago
This is how I roll. Buy iPhone. Get AppleCare. When the AppleCare is done, sell it and buy a new one. Resale covers the AppleCare. If I break it, I pay the excess and walk away with a new handset the same day. This feeds the scond hand market. If I bust an android phone I lose it for three to four weeks, have to buy a stopgap phone and tend to end up with a botched repair from a 3rd party repairer the vendor have hired. On top of that the OS updates usually stop after a year and roll out about a month after they are announced unless I buy a Nexus which is completely non repairable anyway.

_Codemonkeyism 9y ago

So your last generation iPhone still gets updates? I would not call that a excellent benchmark in my book. The trouble with iOS devices is that they stop being usable the moment you can no longer update the OS in the way that most applications only support the newest OS (happened to several iPads here with e.g. Amazon app, Twitter, Youtube) - because updates roll out to the majority of users so fast compared to Android. "stop getting updates 2 years in." With Android most applications still support 4.X when Oreo comes out.

Gaelan 9y ago
6 is almost 3 generations ago. The 7S/8 (we're not sure) comes out tomorrow. You can buy a 7 now. The 6S was released 2 years ago. The 6 was released 3 years ago.
- lucaspiller 9y ago
  I have a 5S and it still gets updates and works the same as the other poster described. I haven't even replaced the battery and still get a days usage.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
spike021 9y ago
I have an iPhone 6 (not 6s) and can still use pretty much "most applications that only support the newest OS". The only things I can't do involve hardware-based features for things I don't have in my phone.
steevdave 9y ago
It takes only one slip up to screw your security. One targeted attack that you don't notice because you're in a rush. I love my MotoX 2013, but it never got updates (Sprint model, Sprint blamed Motorola, Motorola blamed Sprint); it's succeptible to Stagefright so I can't use it anymore. And it will never receive an update for it. As much as we use our phones and as much personal information is on them, security updates should be first and foremost. Yes, AOSP exists for some devices, but 9 times out of 10, something breaks when using it. When Android moves to a new way of doing audio or video, drivers stop working, and some people try to come up with shims, but as others point out. The developer of it gets a new phone and the project dies. My Nexus 5 (November 2013) hasn't gotten a security update since October 2016. My iPhone 5 (September 2012) just got an update to 10.3.3 in July. Android devices are notorious for being slow to get updates, if you ever get them at all. Yeah it can be cheaper to get an Android device, and I have quite a few, but they simply aren't up to the same standards that iPhones are.

fehrm 9y ago

You must be from the valley if you think that a 1000 phone is economical. That is laughable.

dijit 9y ago
It's a defensible position, I live in the EU so proximity to heaps of expendable income is not as abundant than in the US middle-class. In the UK we had a saying "the poor man pays twice", meaning that if you buy a shitty rake and it breaks you have to go buy a new one. This is kinda the case with phones too, you can buy a $450 phone with 2 years of updates, or a $700 with 5 years. Which one is more economical over time?
- RandVal30142 9y ago
  > you can buy a $450 phone with 2 years of updates, or a $700 with 5 years. > Which one is more economical over time? My sub-100USD android apparently. What the heck kind of math do you have going on for "economical?"
  - dijit 9y ago
    Talking in terms of years of support. $450 / 2 = $225/y of support. $700 / 5 = $140/y of support.
- jmanderley 9y ago
  Plenty of cheap but great Androids in the $200-300 range, just take a look at the Moto G5 Plus, for example.
  - leadingthenet 9y ago
    Which, in the absolute best of cases, get security updates for one or two years, while the equivalent iPhone does for 4 or more. That's what he means by paying twice.
- cableshaft 9y ago
  False dichotomy. I just bought an Android phone over the weekend for $35 (on sale from $50) -- the LG K3. It has an older Android OS (Marshmellow) a little slow, the screen resolution isn't great, and the keyboard input is a little more fiddly than my Nexus 5X (which bricked, which is why I needed to get a new temp phone), but otherwise it works just fine. Six years ago I paid $170 for an equivalent phone (older version of android than current, slower, less ram, space, etc). On sale. And used it for almost a year and a half. So the low-end has really gone down in price.

jdietrich 9y ago

Diminishing returns kick in at a remarkably low price point, especially outside the US. $250 gets you a Xiaomi Mi A1 - a phone with a 1080p display, a full metal body, 4GB of RAM, 64GB of flash, a fast 8-core processor and guaranteed software updates directly from Google. http://www.mi.com/in/mi-a1/ http://www.mi.com/in/mi-a1/ Is a $750 iPhone really three times better than that phone? Is it even 5% better? If I were an Apple shareholder, I'd be giving some serious thought to Apple's future in the growing middle-income economies. Apple are clearly going gangbusters right now, but I'm highly sceptical about their continued relevance.

leadingthenet 9y ago
> Is a $750 iPhone really three times better than that phone? Is it even 5% better? Yes, it is. Three times better might be an exaggeration, but it has unique features that basically no other phone has currently, and that's worth different things to different people.
lotsofpulp 9y ago
It is better. The MacOS/iMessage/Facetime/Time machine ecosystem is is pretty awesome, and if you don't want to spend your time and effort trying to fix Windows BS and removing their malware, then an extra thousand or two is worth it. Plus, if something goes wrong, you get great customer service at the Apple Store. I've done the Windows/Android thing, it's a pain in the ass to keep up with all the stuff. As I get older, I just need my things to work (especially smartphone and computer) and I'm willing to pay a premium. I don't even want to have to research what I'm buying, and Apple has been executing on that for quite a few years now.
- freehunter 9y ago
  I'm in exactly the same boat. I've done IT for enough years, I do it as a job, when I come home I don't want to do it anymore. I refuse to fix the computer problems of anyone outside of my immediate family unless I'm getting paid, and no one pays me to do my own computer maintenance. I switched from a custom-built desktop PC to a laptop then to a Macbook a while back. I switched from an Android phone with super heavy customization and a flashed ROM to a Windows Phone (and after that platform died, an iPhone). Did I give up some flexibility? Yes. Did I spend more money? Yes. But I made a conscious choice to do so because I hate to be my own IT guy. If I need a new computer, I don't comparison shop to see if Lenovo or Asus or Acer or HP has the best features for the price or reliability scores or any of that. I buy the latest Macbook. If I need a new cell phone, I don't look up who the best is. I buy an iPhone. I pay a little bit more for peace of mind. It makes me happy.