3 ms·

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

by fehrm 9y ago

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.
  - dijit 9y ago
    OK, but how long did you receive patches after the purchase? I'm talking mainly about phone support not whether it continues to function on a basic level or not.
    - cableshaft 9y ago
      I mean I just bought the new one last weekend so it's too soon to tell. Google Play Services got updated again this morning, though. The previous phone I think it was most of the time I owned it, but I didn't get any major OS upgrades (nor did I expect to), just minor updates. It got slower over time but it never bricked, unlike my fancy new Nexus 5X, which completely bricked after I owned it for a year and a few months. Who cares about security updates and software patches when your phone completely breaks in less than the average upgrade cycle (obviously I don't mean all of these phones do, but apparently it was a common problem with Nexus 5X, I found out after the fact. I have a coworker on his 3rd one in two years).

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

by fehrm 9y ago

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

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.
- dijit 9y ago
  OK, but how long did you receive patches after the purchase? I'm talking mainly about phone support not whether it continues to function on a basic level or not.
  - cableshaft 9y ago
    I mean I just bought the new one last weekend so it's too soon to tell. Google Play Services got updated again this morning, though. The previous phone I think it was most of the time I owned it, but I didn't get any major OS upgrades (nor did I expect to), just minor updates. It got slower over time but it never bricked, unlike my fancy new Nexus 5X, which completely bricked after I owned it for a year and a few months. Who cares about security updates and software patches when your phone completely breaks in less than the average upgrade cycle (obviously I don't mean all of these phones do, but apparently it was a common problem with Nexus 5X, I found out after the fact. I have a coworker on his 3rd one in two years).