5 ms·

This comparison seems fairly fantastical and irrelevant. Something from within the history of consumer electronics would be more useful to consider, in my opini

This comparison seems fairly fantastical and irrelevant. Something from within the history of consumer electronics would be more useful to consider, in my opinion. For example, in 1982, the wildly popular low-end home entertainment computer, the Commodore 64, was released at $595, or about $1500 after inflation adjustment. On release in 1977, the Apple II was $1298, or over $5000 in today's terms. You could pay $400 per 4k of ram, so $6000 if you wanted one with 12k ram. If the iPhone X came out in 1985 for this price, it would have been $400 in 1982 dollars, or 40% of the C64 - with over 4 million times the storage capacity, to say nothing of the other capabilities. That our modern mobile devices are popularly called 'phones' misses the point that they are used as general purpose computing devices, not primarily phones or even necessarily primarily for communication. They are also GPS navigators, cameras, calculators, recipe files, photo albums, alarm clocks, book readers, walkmans, home stereos, encyclopedias, wallets, and a lot more. People used to frequently pay decent sums to buy dedicated devices to perform many of those services.

quuquuquu 9y ago
What I think is also important to consider is median income and net worth of US citizens at that time. In the early 50s, much pf Europe and Asia was still rebuilding from war, and the US held an effective monopoly on multiple industries. From the data I could find for 1952 in the US, a house was 5 years of income and a new car was half a year's income. For many people in the US today, a new car (post tax dollars) is either completely unattainable (multiple years of income) or a complete joke (one month's income). The numbers are different for 1982, but still closer to the 1952 US situation than today's 2017 situation. So, I guess what I am trying to say is that $1,000 for a phone is still fabulously expensive for 99.3% of the world today who aren't millionares. EDIT : Thank you for your insight :) I am thinking that maybe I am just very different from most consumers, or that our definition of "afford" is very hazy. I am writing to you either from my $50 cracked screen wifi only iphone 5c, or my $40 2009 lenovo thinkpad running lubuntu. What is strange to me is that I'm not buying this because I am price sensitive, but rather because "it is enough for what I want to do". I have a hard time believing that a large percentage of the US market will buy an iphone X. Or if they are buying it, then they don't fit my definition of "affording it". Here's why: Just 36.8% of US adults have a networth of over 100k. That means 63% of US adults would be spending more than 1% on a mobile computer (phone) that is not very much different from a $300 phone. How many of these users will Apple capture? Additionally, many people's net worth in the USA is tied up in real estate or retirement accounts. So these funds are not available to be spent, and it manifests itself in the following stat: In 2016, 63% of Americans said they could not come up with $500 to cover an emergency purchase. So, tons of americans can't even afford basic expenses, let alone luxury phones. That is why I feel this is a millionaire's phone only.
- code_duck 9y ago
  My family were not nearly millionaires when we bought a $1500 equivalent computer in 1982, but this phone costs less than that. And a iPhone X isn't a phone, it's a computer. I agree you do need to be in an upper tier economically to afford one, but only speaking globally. People bought plenty of laptops when they averaged well over $1000. The way phones are financed makes them much more attainable, also. The way people will get that $1000 phone today is paying $2-400, and then $35 a month, folded into their phone bill, for 2 years. That's reasonable for anyone with decent enough credit to get standard wireless service. Not most of the US population, perhaps, but definitely the same demographic as the people already buying $800 Samsungs or previous iPhones, which is tens of millions of people.
  - pasta 9y ago
    I like to note that a smartphone is indeed a computer with one huge difference: the phone does break more often. It's no fun dropping a $1000 phone in the toilet or down the stairs. A lot of people forget this.
    - code_duck 9y ago
      I If I tried to carry a desktop computer and monitor around with me all day, it would probably get broken. Thankfully mobile device are... mobile. I'm glad it ever fits in my pocket! You can mitigate the issues you detail with a heavy duty case, waterproof phone, and/or insurance.
    - dexterdog 9y ago
      Also it is a hard thing to share so you're not just buying one for a family.
    - ajdlinux 9y ago
      Alas, this is why "smartphone insurance" is now a market segment
  - icantdrive55 9y ago
    Yea, I bought an Atari St 1200 I believe in 1983 for college. It did seem like a big purchase initially. I used it for 6 years of college. I mainly used it for word processing. It never skipped a beat. Once every two years, I would need to re-ink the ribbon with ink myself. Just dipped the ribbon into the bottle, and rewind. I was too cheap to buy a new ribbon. Besides the initial outlay, I spent $2.00 days on ink in six years. If I had foresight, I never would have thrown away a great computer. I miss the word processor program. I definetly miss that dot matrix printer. (I never told anyone at school about my about my computer. I felt like I was cheating. Not one professor noticed the dot matrix print type. What people miss about old hardware from the days was everything was built like tanks. The thought of buying a new computer every two years was unthinkable. In my world, it's still unthinkable. I really believe we have been duped by the industry--on all levels.
goelakash 9y ago
I am not an iPhone user, or ever bought one. But from the perspective of novelty, I would prefer to buy an iPhone x over an iPhone 8, for the exclusive features. Otherwise I'd stick to an affordable and feature-filled Android.
- code_duck 9y ago
  That makes sense and I almost wonder if all of this talk about the price is somehow sneaky marketing. iPhone has traditionally been positioned as a moderate luxury phone... this price is only marginally more than the current top end phones. But if you're going to buy a phone for status, don't you want to buy the most expensive? And all of this talk in the media about how expensive the iPhone is service to cement that notion in peoples minds.
Spooky23 9y ago
I talked to a guy with a long career in emergency management. According to him, earth.nullschool.net, which is available to any anyone anywhere today for free, is superior to many classes of tools available to folks in the field for his entire career. His opinion was that a similar thing would literally be worth multiple billions to the Federal government in the 80s/90s. That's the thing -- not only are phones technology marvels in their own right... they open the door to capability with almost incalculable value.
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  Did he give you any ideas of how that tool is actually used by people in the field? It's a nifty visualization, but I'm struggling to come up with how it could be worth billions of dollars. What kinds of scenarios is it providing answers to that would otherwise be really difficult to get?
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    Wind speed at any given point. Situational awareness. I think his point was less about the tool as is, but the simplicity and ease of access to information.

quuquuquu 9y ago

What I think is also important to consider is median income and net worth of US citizens at that time. In the early 50s, much pf Europe and Asia was still rebuilding from war, and the US held an effective monopoly on multiple industries. From the data I could find for 1952 in the US, a house was 5 years of income and a new car was half a year's income. For many people in the US today, a new car (post tax dollars) is either completely unattainable (multiple years of income) or a complete joke (one month's income). The numbers are different for 1982, but still closer to the 1952 US situation than today's 2017 situation. So, I guess what I am trying to say is that $1,000 for a phone is still fabulously expensive for 99.3% of the world today who aren't millionares. EDIT : Thank you for your insight :) I am thinking that maybe I am just very different from most consumers, or that our definition of "afford" is very hazy. I am writing to you either from my $50 cracked screen wifi only iphone 5c, or my $40 2009 lenovo thinkpad running lubuntu. What is strange to me is that I'm not buying this because I am price sensitive, but rather because "it is enough for what I want to do". I have a hard time believing that a large percentage of the US market will buy an iphone X. Or if they are buying it, then they don't fit my definition of "affording it". Here's why: Just 36.8% of US adults have a networth of over 100k. That means 63% of US adults would be spending more than 1% on a mobile computer (phone) that is not very much different from a $300 phone. How many of these users will Apple capture? Additionally, many people's net worth in the USA is tied up in real estate or retirement accounts. So these funds are not available to be spent, and it manifests itself in the following stat: In 2016, 63% of Americans said they could not come up with $500 to cover an emergency purchase. So, tons of americans can't even afford basic expenses, let alone luxury phones. That is why I feel this is a millionaire's phone only.

code_duck 9y ago
My family were not nearly millionaires when we bought a $1500 equivalent computer in 1982, but this phone costs less than that. And a iPhone X isn't a phone, it's a computer. I agree you do need to be in an upper tier economically to afford one, but only speaking globally. People bought plenty of laptops when they averaged well over $1000. The way phones are financed makes them much more attainable, also. The way people will get that $1000 phone today is paying $2-400, and then $35 a month, folded into their phone bill, for 2 years. That's reasonable for anyone with decent enough credit to get standard wireless service. Not most of the US population, perhaps, but definitely the same demographic as the people already buying $800 Samsungs or previous iPhones, which is tens of millions of people.
- pasta 9y ago
  I like to note that a smartphone is indeed a computer with one huge difference: the phone does break more often. It's no fun dropping a $1000 phone in the toilet or down the stairs. A lot of people forget this.
  - code_duck 9y ago
    I If I tried to carry a desktop computer and monitor around with me all day, it would probably get broken. Thankfully mobile device are... mobile. I'm glad it ever fits in my pocket! You can mitigate the issues you detail with a heavy duty case, waterproof phone, and/or insurance.
  - dexterdog 9y ago
    Also it is a hard thing to share so you're not just buying one for a family.
  - ajdlinux 9y ago
    Alas, this is why "smartphone insurance" is now a market segment
- icantdrive55 9y ago
  Yea, I bought an Atari St 1200 I believe in 1983 for college. It did seem like a big purchase initially. I used it for 6 years of college. I mainly used it for word processing. It never skipped a beat. Once every two years, I would need to re-ink the ribbon with ink myself. Just dipped the ribbon into the bottle, and rewind. I was too cheap to buy a new ribbon. Besides the initial outlay, I spent $2.00 days on ink in six years. If I had foresight, I never would have thrown away a great computer. I miss the word processor program. I definetly miss that dot matrix printer. (I never told anyone at school about my about my computer. I felt like I was cheating. Not one professor noticed the dot matrix print type. What people miss about old hardware from the days was everything was built like tanks. The thought of buying a new computer every two years was unthinkable. In my world, it's still unthinkable. I really believe we have been duped by the industry--on all levels.

goelakash 9y ago

I am not an iPhone user, or ever bought one. But from the perspective of novelty, I would prefer to buy an iPhone x over an iPhone 8, for the exclusive features. Otherwise I'd stick to an affordable and feature-filled Android.

code_duck 9y ago
That makes sense and I almost wonder if all of this talk about the price is somehow sneaky marketing. iPhone has traditionally been positioned as a moderate luxury phone... this price is only marginally more than the current top end phones. But if you're going to buy a phone for status, don't you want to buy the most expensive? And all of this talk in the media about how expensive the iPhone is service to cement that notion in peoples minds.

Spooky23 9y ago

I talked to a guy with a long career in emergency management. According to him, earth.nullschool.net, which is available to any anyone anywhere today for free, is superior to many classes of tools available to folks in the field for his entire career. His opinion was that a similar thing would literally be worth multiple billions to the Federal government in the 80s/90s. That's the thing -- not only are phones technology marvels in their own right... they open the door to capability with almost incalculable value.

CydeWeys 9y ago
Did he give you any ideas of how that tool is actually used by people in the field? It's a nifty visualization, but I'm struggling to come up with how it could be worth billions of dollars. What kinds of scenarios is it providing answers to that would otherwise be really difficult to get?
- Spooky23 9y ago
  Wind speed at any given point. Situational awareness. I think his point was less about the tool as is, but the simplicity and ease of access to information.