3 ms·
This article is right about one thing: people do seem to put too much importance on the upfront cost. I see things like the latest gen iPhone is $99 upfront and
by jmduke 14y ago
This article is right about one thing: people do seem to put too much importance on the upfront cost. I see things like the latest gen iPhone is $99 upfront and the previous generation is $49. For $50 you get older hardware that will be obsolete a year earlier... for something that'll probably cost you up to $2000 (or more) over 2 years anyway.
I think your conclusion is valid but that particular anecdote is pointless. If a customer is willing to pay $50 less up front for a cell phone, then chances are any hardware obsolescence isn't going to be particularly noticable.
- kalininalex 14y agoI think the issue is people think they pay $50 for an older version instead of $300 for the latest, thus saving massive 80% or so. In reality, it's $1,970 vs. $2,220 (assuming $80/mo for two years). The difference is only 11%. If people realized that, many could reconsider accepting significantly outdated hardware for 11% savings over 2-year period.
- jmduke 14y agoI understand your point, but I think 'significant outdated hardware' is a misnomer; with the exception of things like Retina Display breaking backwards compatability, its pretty rare that the difference between two phone generations is that important for non-power users.