3 ms·

It's not similar to height distribution. At the population statistics level, human height is bimodal because humans either have a Y chromosome or they don't. Wh

by mrob 8y ago

It's not similar to height distribution. At the population statistics level, human height is bimodal because humans either have a Y chromosome or they don't. What is the equivalent binary variable for the phone market?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
coldtea 8y ago
Obviously income. Are you in the upper 20% that does great (or still fine), or in the 80% that's increasingly scrapping by?
- mrob 8y ago
  Except income is no longer bimodal. It was back in the 70s, but now there's just a single peak. See: https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/12/Global-inequality-in-1800-1975-and-2015.png https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/12/Global-inequality... However, growth in income is bimodal: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_changes_in_real_income_by_income_percentile_-_v1.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_changes_in_re... Could that affect the phone market indirectly, by consumer confidence? It's possible, but it's not nearly as clear-cut as human height.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Also account for wealth (we don't make the distinction between income and wealth much in my here parts).
- jnwatson 8y ago
  The interesting part about IPhones in particular is that they are status symbols. I've seen plenty of working class folks, especially women, flaunting IPhones. I'm sure part of the reason is that since most carriers (and Apple itself) will finance the phone cheaply, so the practical difference between the cheapest and most expensive phone is $30 a month.
in_cahoots 8y ago
I suspect there are (at least) two populations of phone buyers: those who see it as a cool gadget with the latest technology, and those who just want a device to browse the web, take some pictures, and play some games. The former upgrade every year or two to the best phone they can afford; the latter are happy paying a few hundred bucks or less when their old phone breaks or no longer holds a charge.
wetpaws 8y ago
Caring about phones as status symbols vs not really. (Which is, again, sort of the point of the article)

by mrob 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

coldtea 8y ago

Obviously income. Are you in the upper 20% that does great (or still fine), or in the 80% that's increasingly scrapping by?

mrob 8y ago
Except income is no longer bimodal. It was back in the 70s, but now there's just a single peak. See: https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/12/Global-inequality-in-1800-1975-and-2015.png https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/12/Global-inequality... However, growth in income is bimodal: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_changes_in_real_income_by_income_percentile_-_v1.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_changes_in_re... Could that affect the phone market indirectly, by consumer confidence? It's possible, but it's not nearly as clear-cut as human height.
- coldtea 8y ago
  Also account for wealth (we don't make the distinction between income and wealth much in my here parts).
jnwatson 8y ago
The interesting part about IPhones in particular is that they are status symbols. I've seen plenty of working class folks, especially women, flaunting IPhones. I'm sure part of the reason is that since most carriers (and Apple itself) will finance the phone cheaply, so the practical difference between the cheapest and most expensive phone is $30 a month.

in_cahoots 8y ago

I suspect there are (at least) two populations of phone buyers: those who see it as a cool gadget with the latest technology, and those who just want a device to browse the web, take some pictures, and play some games. The former upgrade every year or two to the best phone they can afford; the latter are happy paying a few hundred bucks or less when their old phone breaks or no longer holds a charge.

wetpaws 8y ago

Caring about phones as status symbols vs not really. (Which is, again, sort of the point of the article)