4 ms·

This is making an implicit assumption that iPhones are symbols of wealth where other smartphones are not. The real cost of smartphone ownership is in the contr

This is making an implicit assumption that iPhones are symbols of wealth where other smartphones are not. The real cost of smartphone ownership is in the contract. The ~$100 savings you could get in buying an Android phone (not always there - when S3 was introduced, it cost the same as the iPhone - $200) doesn't mean much when you consider $100+/month over two years. There shouldn't be a real difference in the wealth of Android owners and iPhone owners.

ajross 13y ago
Not everyone has a Galaxy S{2,3,4}. "Android" phones are pretty routinely available free-with-contract and with limited plans these days. This isn't mapping high end smartphone users with iPhone-equivalent handsets. It's showing you that Apple has nothing to sell into poorer demographics, but that those demographics still want smartphones.
- superuser2 13y ago
  >with limited plans I'm just pointing out that $2600 for an iPhone over 2 years (Verizon Share Everything, 2GB data) is only 8% more expensive than a "free" low-quality Android handset on the same plan ($2400). Limited and prepaid plans would explain the class difference. If it weren't for the shitty suburban/rural coverage, I'd strongly consider Nexus 4 on T-Mobile.
  - ajross 13y ago
    But again: the ability to amortize a big upfront payment over a two year contract is also a characteristic of "rich" consumers. Not everyone has $200 in the bank when they need a new phone. These people end up with Gingerbread handsets.
Steko 13y ago
"This is making an implicit assumption that iPhones are symbols of wealth " It's hardly being assumed, he's comparing a map of usage with known wealthy areas and drawing that as a conclusion. Further wealthy people can have and use things that are not symbols of wealth. They might prefer pepsi to coke moreso than the rest of the populace but that neither assumes or implies that pepsi is a symbol of wealth.

ajross 13y ago

Not everyone has a Galaxy S{2,3,4}. "Android" phones are pretty routinely available free-with-contract and with limited plans these days. This isn't mapping high end smartphone users with iPhone-equivalent handsets. It's showing you that Apple has nothing to sell into poorer demographics, but that those demographics still want smartphones.

superuser2 13y ago
>with limited plans I'm just pointing out that $2600 for an iPhone over 2 years (Verizon Share Everything, 2GB data) is only 8% more expensive than a "free" low-quality Android handset on the same plan ($2400). Limited and prepaid plans would explain the class difference. If it weren't for the shitty suburban/rural coverage, I'd strongly consider Nexus 4 on T-Mobile.
- ajross 13y ago
  But again: the ability to amortize a big upfront payment over a two year contract is also a characteristic of "rich" consumers. Not everyone has $200 in the bank when they need a new phone. These people end up with Gingerbread handsets.

Steko 13y ago

"This is making an implicit assumption that iPhones are symbols of wealth " It's hardly being assumed, he's comparing a map of usage with known wealthy areas and drawing that as a conclusion. Further wealthy people can have and use things that are not symbols of wealth. They might prefer pepsi to coke moreso than the rest of the populace but that neither assumes or implies that pepsi is a symbol of wealth.