5 ms·

>This year I spent $10 a month extra to get the best possible screen and camera on a device I use hours every day. Not because it’s a status symbol. And very ha

>This year I spent $10 a month extra to get the best possible screen and camera on a device I use hours every day. Not because it’s a status symbol. And very happy with my purchase. And this is how they get people. You didn't spend an extra $10/month, you spent an extra $400 compared to getting the 8. I don't blame you, I think it's worth it, but that's a terrible way to think about prices.

econnors 9y ago
I think it's a different way to think about prices, but I think the terribleness of it is subjective (assuming one understands the pricing model).
baddox 9y ago
Why is that a terrible way to think about prices? Most people earn money at a predictable rate per month, so it’s perfectly reasonable to talk about these phone payment plans in the same terms. Obviously this isn’t true for things like credit card or mortgage payments, where interest is likely a significant factor, but AFAIK these cell phone payment plans are interest free.
- lostlogin 9y ago
  It’s terrible because any difference between carrier prices is a large multiple of what the sticker/brochure says. Most plans here (New Zealand) are over 2 years, so any difference in price is 24x greater at the end of the contract. And no one here is paid per month, that’s seen as completely antiquated and they are paid per week or per fortnight.
  - orf 9y ago
    Really? Nobody is paid per month? Coming from the UK that is unexpected. Are jobs wages advertised per week? What are the real advantages? Surely it's a bit harder to pay for larger purchases as it requires more controlled saving and spending?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - lostlogin 9y ago
      I’m sure someone is paid per month but I’ve never come across it. The advantage is fairly obvious - you get to have your money. How much interest are you missing out on? Having your employer in debt to you for up to a month per pay is fairly primitive.
  - abraae 9y ago
    I live in NZ and I would have said that virtually every salaried worker is paid monthly.
    - lostlogin 9y ago
      Have spent years on salary and so have most people I know, paid fortnightly. Seems like we need some real data.
- michaelmrose 9y ago
  It's an intellectually dishonest way to de-emphasise how much it costs in total by showing you the smaller monthly amount. You are basically using a marketing trick on yourself to justify the money spent.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    It also hides the opportunity cost. $10/month doesn't sound like much, but $400 could buy something else nice.
    - valuearb 9y ago
      There is no lost opportunity cost. Apple or the service providers are proving zero interest purchase plans. My iPhone X costs around $42 a month for two years, then I own a phone that is likely still worth about $500.
      - touristtam 9y ago
        It is only true because there is a second hand market that trust this is the correct price. Seeing how those devices need to move technically with their time (more powerful hardware), I fail to see the attraction of a device that would be well passed its prime, specially with a battery that isn't replaceable.
      - valuearb 9y ago
        Whether you see the value or not, there is a robust secondary market whose history shows that there is strong demand for used devices and that their entire value doesn't evaporate in a few years. And if I'm wrong about 50% depreciation being typical over 2 years, I'm not wrong by much. There is not a huge difference between 70% depreciation and 50% in your monthly cost of ownership. Undamaged 64GB iPhone 6s are selling for between $230 and $310 on eBay, so that's 60-70% depreciation. On average the 6s cost about $20 per month.
      - michaelmrose 9y ago
        The 6S Plus was $750 for the most basic model at launch and now ebays for about $200 which squares with losing about half the value per year which is pretty normal. Consider also the fact that the battery life will be substantially decreased from new and that most people wont be able to replace it themselves. Something that is overprice is actually more likely to decline because 2 years from now its just a comparatively slow device that no longer serves as a status symbol.
valuearb 9y ago
Edited for more accurate depreciation estimates. No, it's the absolutely correct way to think about buying things. I didn't spend $1,000 to get a great phone to use this month, then throw it away next month. In business, you buy equipment, you typically account for it's cost over it's useful life, i.e. amortizing and depreciation. In your personal life, it's no different, you need the right framework to correctly evaluate these decisions. And secondly, I didn't pay $400 extra over an iPhone 8. I'll own this phone at least two years. Historically an iPhone is worth roughly 30-50% (edit) of purchase price in two years. So my two years cost of owning an iPhone X is going to be (roughly) $300-500, and an iPhone 8 roughly $200-325, only a little more than a $200 average difference. A cheap Android phone only costs $200 but might only be worth $50 in two years, so it's only about $450 cheaper than my iPhone X. Note that I'm ignoring service costs, because they should be the same no matter what phone I choose. While this is the economically accurate way to view your actual costs, it can be used in a bad way to think is if you don't quantify your economic benefits. If there aren't any economic benefits, admit you are paying for the badge/prestige. And ask yourself if that's worth it. In the case of the iPhone X, it's the fastest phone with the best screen, and best camera. Am I going to get $10 a month or so of benefits from them? I think so. Would it be worth $40 a month more? Probably not.

econnors 9y ago

I think it's a different way to think about prices, but I think the terribleness of it is subjective (assuming one understands the pricing model).

baddox 9y ago

Why is that a terrible way to think about prices? Most people earn money at a predictable rate per month, so it’s perfectly reasonable to talk about these phone payment plans in the same terms. Obviously this isn’t true for things like credit card or mortgage payments, where interest is likely a significant factor, but AFAIK these cell phone payment plans are interest free.

lostlogin 9y ago
It’s terrible because any difference between carrier prices is a large multiple of what the sticker/brochure says. Most plans here (New Zealand) are over 2 years, so any difference in price is 24x greater at the end of the contract. And no one here is paid per month, that’s seen as completely antiquated and they are paid per week or per fortnight.
- orf 9y ago
  Really? Nobody is paid per month? Coming from the UK that is unexpected. Are jobs wages advertised per week? What are the real advantages? Surely it's a bit harder to pay for larger purchases as it requires more controlled saving and spending?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - lostlogin 9y ago
    I’m sure someone is paid per month but I’ve never come across it. The advantage is fairly obvious - you get to have your money. How much interest are you missing out on? Having your employer in debt to you for up to a month per pay is fairly primitive.
- abraae 9y ago
  I live in NZ and I would have said that virtually every salaried worker is paid monthly.
  - lostlogin 9y ago
    Have spent years on salary and so have most people I know, paid fortnightly. Seems like we need some real data.
michaelmrose 9y ago
It's an intellectually dishonest way to de-emphasise how much it costs in total by showing you the smaller monthly amount. You are basically using a marketing trick on yourself to justify the money spent.
- rayiner 9y ago
  It also hides the opportunity cost. $10/month doesn't sound like much, but $400 could buy something else nice.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    There is no lost opportunity cost. Apple or the service providers are proving zero interest purchase plans. My iPhone X costs around $42 a month for two years, then I own a phone that is likely still worth about $500.
    - touristtam 9y ago
      It is only true because there is a second hand market that trust this is the correct price. Seeing how those devices need to move technically with their time (more powerful hardware), I fail to see the attraction of a device that would be well passed its prime, specially with a battery that isn't replaceable.
    - valuearb 9y ago
      Whether you see the value or not, there is a robust secondary market whose history shows that there is strong demand for used devices and that their entire value doesn't evaporate in a few years. And if I'm wrong about 50% depreciation being typical over 2 years, I'm not wrong by much. There is not a huge difference between 70% depreciation and 50% in your monthly cost of ownership. Undamaged 64GB iPhone 6s are selling for between $230 and $310 on eBay, so that's 60-70% depreciation. On average the 6s cost about $20 per month.
    - michaelmrose 9y ago
      The 6S Plus was $750 for the most basic model at launch and now ebays for about $200 which squares with losing about half the value per year which is pretty normal. Consider also the fact that the battery life will be substantially decreased from new and that most people wont be able to replace it themselves. Something that is overprice is actually more likely to decline because 2 years from now its just a comparatively slow device that no longer serves as a status symbol.

valuearb 9y ago

Edited for more accurate depreciation estimates. No, it's the absolutely correct way to think about buying things. I didn't spend $1,000 to get a great phone to use this month, then throw it away next month. In business, you buy equipment, you typically account for it's cost over it's useful life, i.e. amortizing and depreciation. In your personal life, it's no different, you need the right framework to correctly evaluate these decisions. And secondly, I didn't pay $400 extra over an iPhone 8. I'll own this phone at least two years. Historically an iPhone is worth roughly 30-50% (edit) of purchase price in two years. So my two years cost of owning an iPhone X is going to be (roughly) $300-500, and an iPhone 8 roughly $200-325, only a little more than a $200 average difference. A cheap Android phone only costs $200 but might only be worth $50 in two years, so it's only about $450 cheaper than my iPhone X. Note that I'm ignoring service costs, because they should be the same no matter what phone I choose. While this is the economically accurate way to view your actual costs, it can be used in a bad way to think is if you don't quantify your economic benefits. If there aren't any economic benefits, admit you are paying for the badge/prestige. And ask yourself if that's worth it. In the case of the iPhone X, it's the fastest phone with the best screen, and best camera. Am I going to get $10 a month or so of benefits from them? I think so. Would it be worth $40 a month more? Probably not.