6 ms·

One of the biggest reasons I'm happy with the increasing competition in the budget segments is that they're starting to make the 'right' sacrifices, slightly ne

One of the biggest reasons I'm happy with the increasing competition in the budget segments is that they're starting to make the 'right' sacrifices, slightly negating the distinctive features and advantages of flagship phones. Flagship phones will either have to adapt (introducing more useful features and not extra camera-bloat), or people will just keep buying the cheaper ones.

TremendousJudge 6y ago
350 dollars is "budget"?
- KerrickStaley 6y ago
  Yes. The Pixel 4's launch price was $800 for the basic configuration, the S10 launched at $900, and the iPhone 11 (which is actually more mid-range in Apple's lineup than "flagship") launched at $700.
  - Krasnol 6y ago
    Only because there are more expensive phones and where the high price is even part of the marketing, doesn't make that one "budget". There are also many cheaper phones. China is full of them.
- acdha 6y ago
  For something most people use many times a day with a multi-year lifespan? There’s a fascinating economics lesson in how many people are concerned by the cost of a phone but never mention the service plans which almost always cost more.
  - nordsieck 6y ago
    > There’s a fascinating economics lesson in how many people are concerned by the cost of a phone but never mention the service plans which almost always cost more. This is the reason why "free phone" plans are so popular. IMO, it's always lower TCO to unbundle these "deals", but so many people only care about their maximum monthly cost.
    - acdha 6y ago
      Yes – it's just interesting to see how effective it is, even when people who are trying to be rational are explicitly thinking about costs.
  - xenocyon 6y ago
    "Multi-year" is technically correct but a little rosy: Google cuts off software updates including security updates after 3 years, by which time one can also expect the hard-to-replace battery to be degraded, and increased probability of screen damage. Phones aren't really designed to be durable objects. That said, I do appreciate Google's "a" variant of their recent phones for the emphasis on practicality and usability (headphone jack, battery capacity), and the $349 price tag doesn't seem extravagant for what you're getting. Mostly, I just wish they came in a smaller size.
    - acdha 6y ago
      Okay, so ignoring the fact that the iPhone SE exists, do the math even on the shorter lifetime: that's between $2-4 per week. That's not nothing but I would not think it precludes a “budget” label, especially given how much value people get out of their phones.
    - mtgx 6y ago
      Don't worry, by the time those 3 years pass the Pixel 4A's 3,000 mAh battery will feel like a 2,000 or 1,500 mAh battery, especially with Google still not getting a clue about giving Android an option to disable fast charging on the spot, when you want to. It's also one of the reasons phones with larger batteries will last more (second best thing if we can't get replaceable batteries anymore).
    - ehsankia 6y ago
      2+ years is by definition multi-year. At 350$, if you use it for 3 years (which is the minimum number of years it gets updates for), you would basically be paying more for your Netflix subscription than for your phone. And I'd wager most people use their phone much more than they do their Netflix.
  - jldugger 6y ago
    Service plans have really gotten cheap over time. Google Fi is like 24 bucks a month, and they're not even the cheap plan anymore.
    - bussierem 6y ago
      That kind of proves the point though even at 24 a month if you have the phone for 2 years then the plan was $576 while the phone was only 350. The phone would come out to $14 a month. Do you value your phone as worth less to you than Netflix?
      - djhworld 6y ago
        the 350 isn't factoring in the costs of calls/data etc. it depends on how long you want to keep the phone for. I bought my phone in 2017 ago for £400 and I pay £8 a month to a carrier to get an allowance of data + calls every month (not a contract, I'm free to cancel any time) so it's worked out at about £18 a month if you amortise the initial outlay. obviously contracts are more expensive, and can sometimes, albeit rarely, be cheaper, you just need to do the maths. the bigger advantage to buying a phone outright is you're free to switch network/carrier as the phones are unlocked, at least in the UK anyway.
        bussierem 6y ago
        I mean sure it's not factoring in cost of calls data but that's not specific to a phone so if you're comparing phone prices (and not plan prices) then the data and calls are irrelevant to the conversation
- xeromal 6y ago
  For a device that keeps you in touch with the world while providing quality camera features and music capabilities for 2 years or more, yeah, $350 is a fine price.
- askafriend 6y ago
  Absolutely. My phone pays for itself many times over. I don't even consider the cost these days. It's more valuable than my car (to me).
- rattray 6y ago
  Given that flagship phones are $800-$1000, yes, that's the high end of budget or the low end of mid-range.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- JohnTHaller 6y ago
  $349 for a phone that will get full OS updates for 3 years works out to $9.69 per month. That's pretty solid. The competing Apple variant (lower res HDish screen but much faster CPU) is the iPhone SE 128GB for $449. It will probably get OS updates for 5 years which works out to $7.48 per month.
  - ako 6y ago
    Bought my son a Nokia 5.3 for 180 euros, completely surprised by how well it works. If I had to buy my own phone (currently have a company iPhone 11) I would seriously consider the Nokia 5.3 for myself.
    - kumarharsh 6y ago
      Got my mother a Nokia 7.3 - it's a very good phone priced competitively, with a nearly pure Android experience and on time updates with Android one. Peace of mind!
    - noelsusman 6y ago
      The 5.3 is a great phone. The Pixel 4a has a better screen and better camera (kinda), but at $200 in the US it's a fantastic value for what you get.
    - jdhawk 6y ago
      so in Nokia-land, the major version is the "class" of phone, while the minor version is the date revision? 5.3 being newer than the 7.2, but down one class in "feature set"?
      - bilger 6y ago
        That is roughly correct, although the 6.X series exists for Nokia devices.
    - rand49an 6y ago
      Had a Nokia 7.1 for a few years now. Really nice phone, still very quick and the battery easily last 2 days (still). Cost £190 when new. Not sure why people pay more really.
- triceratops 6y ago
  For adults with jobs in developed countries. You're right that it would be considered mid-range or pricey in developing countries.
- AdrianB1 6y ago
  It is relative. For people comparing to $1000 phones this is very "budget", compared to my Asus $250 phone that lives on average 3 days between changes, it is not. Compared to my previous phone, the Nexus 5X I bought for $350, it's in the same range, just newer. I see you are downvoted a lot, I disagree with this reaction.

TremendousJudge 6y ago

350 dollars is "budget"?

KerrickStaley 6y ago
Yes. The Pixel 4's launch price was $800 for the basic configuration, the S10 launched at $900, and the iPhone 11 (which is actually more mid-range in Apple's lineup than "flagship") launched at $700.
- Krasnol 6y ago
  Only because there are more expensive phones and where the high price is even part of the marketing, doesn't make that one "budget". There are also many cheaper phones. China is full of them.
acdha 6y ago
For something most people use many times a day with a multi-year lifespan? There’s a fascinating economics lesson in how many people are concerned by the cost of a phone but never mention the service plans which almost always cost more.
- nordsieck 6y ago
  > There’s a fascinating economics lesson in how many people are concerned by the cost of a phone but never mention the service plans which almost always cost more. This is the reason why "free phone" plans are so popular. IMO, it's always lower TCO to unbundle these "deals", but so many people only care about their maximum monthly cost.
  - acdha 6y ago
    Yes – it's just interesting to see how effective it is, even when people who are trying to be rational are explicitly thinking about costs.
- xenocyon 6y ago
  "Multi-year" is technically correct but a little rosy: Google cuts off software updates including security updates after 3 years, by which time one can also expect the hard-to-replace battery to be degraded, and increased probability of screen damage. Phones aren't really designed to be durable objects. That said, I do appreciate Google's "a" variant of their recent phones for the emphasis on practicality and usability (headphone jack, battery capacity), and the $349 price tag doesn't seem extravagant for what you're getting. Mostly, I just wish they came in a smaller size.
  - acdha 6y ago
    Okay, so ignoring the fact that the iPhone SE exists, do the math even on the shorter lifetime: that's between $2-4 per week. That's not nothing but I would not think it precludes a “budget” label, especially given how much value people get out of their phones.
  - mtgx 6y ago
    Don't worry, by the time those 3 years pass the Pixel 4A's 3,000 mAh battery will feel like a 2,000 or 1,500 mAh battery, especially with Google still not getting a clue about giving Android an option to disable fast charging on the spot, when you want to. It's also one of the reasons phones with larger batteries will last more (second best thing if we can't get replaceable batteries anymore).
  - ehsankia 6y ago
    2+ years is by definition multi-year. At 350$, if you use it for 3 years (which is the minimum number of years it gets updates for), you would basically be paying more for your Netflix subscription than for your phone. And I'd wager most people use their phone much more than they do their Netflix.
- jldugger 6y ago
  Service plans have really gotten cheap over time. Google Fi is like 24 bucks a month, and they're not even the cheap plan anymore.
  - bussierem 6y ago
    That kind of proves the point though even at 24 a month if you have the phone for 2 years then the plan was $576 while the phone was only 350. The phone would come out to $14 a month. Do you value your phone as worth less to you than Netflix?
    - djhworld 6y ago
      the 350 isn't factoring in the costs of calls/data etc. it depends on how long you want to keep the phone for. I bought my phone in 2017 ago for £400 and I pay £8 a month to a carrier to get an allowance of data + calls every month (not a contract, I'm free to cancel any time) so it's worked out at about £18 a month if you amortise the initial outlay. obviously contracts are more expensive, and can sometimes, albeit rarely, be cheaper, you just need to do the maths. the bigger advantage to buying a phone outright is you're free to switch network/carrier as the phones are unlocked, at least in the UK anyway.
      - bussierem 6y ago
        I mean sure it's not factoring in cost of calls data but that's not specific to a phone so if you're comparing phone prices (and not plan prices) then the data and calls are irrelevant to the conversation
xeromal 6y ago
For a device that keeps you in touch with the world while providing quality camera features and music capabilities for 2 years or more, yeah, $350 is a fine price.
askafriend 6y ago
Absolutely. My phone pays for itself many times over. I don't even consider the cost these days. It's more valuable than my car (to me).
rattray 6y ago
Given that flagship phones are $800-$1000, yes, that's the high end of budget or the low end of mid-range.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
JohnTHaller 6y ago
$349 for a phone that will get full OS updates for 3 years works out to $9.69 per month. That's pretty solid. The competing Apple variant (lower res HDish screen but much faster CPU) is the iPhone SE 128GB for $449. It will probably get OS updates for 5 years which works out to $7.48 per month.
- ako 6y ago
  Bought my son a Nokia 5.3 for 180 euros, completely surprised by how well it works. If I had to buy my own phone (currently have a company iPhone 11) I would seriously consider the Nokia 5.3 for myself.
  - kumarharsh 6y ago
    Got my mother a Nokia 7.3 - it's a very good phone priced competitively, with a nearly pure Android experience and on time updates with Android one. Peace of mind!
  - noelsusman 6y ago
    The 5.3 is a great phone. The Pixel 4a has a better screen and better camera (kinda), but at $200 in the US it's a fantastic value for what you get.
  - jdhawk 6y ago
    so in Nokia-land, the major version is the "class" of phone, while the minor version is the date revision? 5.3 being newer than the 7.2, but down one class in "feature set"?
    - bilger 6y ago
      That is roughly correct, although the 6.X series exists for Nokia devices.
  - rand49an 6y ago
    Had a Nokia 7.1 for a few years now. Really nice phone, still very quick and the battery easily last 2 days (still). Cost £190 when new. Not sure why people pay more really.
triceratops 6y ago
For adults with jobs in developed countries. You're right that it would be considered mid-range or pricey in developing countries.
AdrianB1 6y ago
It is relative. For people comparing to $1000 phones this is very "budget", compared to my Asus $250 phone that lives on average 3 days between changes, it is not. Compared to my previous phone, the Nexus 5X I bought for $350, it's in the same range, just newer. I see you are downvoted a lot, I disagree with this reaction.