Let's Get Real About How Important Our Phones Are (daringfireball.net) 314
Samsung unveiled three flagship smartphones earlier this week. The phones pack the most powerful processor in any Android smartphone, boast an impressive set of camera sensors and offer a range of other features. Commenting on the new phones, a Washington Post columnist writes: "And with prices ranging from $1,000 to $1,400, either one is hard to justify as much more than a luxury." John Gruber of DaringFireball comments: This is the same nonsense we hear about Apple's phones, post-iPhone X. Yes, phones that cost $1,000 or more are expensive. Yes, that's outside the budget for most people. But why in the world would anyone argue this is "hard to justify"? Phones are, for most people, the most-used computing device in their lives. They are also their primary -- usually only -- camera. A good camera alone used to cost $500-600.
There are way more people on the planet who'd rather have a $1,400 phone and a $400 laptop than the other way around. But you'll never see a tech reviewer claim that $1,000-1,400 is "hard to justify" for a laptop. It's ridiculously out of touch to argue otherwise. And, the fact that top-of-the-line phones have reached these price points does not negate the fact that truly excellent phones are available at much lower prices.
There are way more people on the planet who'd rather have a $1,400 phone and a $400 laptop than the other way around. But you'll never see a tech reviewer claim that $1,000-1,400 is "hard to justify" for a laptop. It's ridiculously out of touch to argue otherwise. And, the fact that top-of-the-line phones have reached these price points does not negate the fact that truly excellent phones are available at much lower prices.
Still too much money (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no reason to even spend more than $250 for a phone. At the very least, I don't. Especially since they can't even close to the function that my computers have. Great devices for communications, listening to music, and watching videos. Sucks ass at pretty much everything else. Don't need a lot of horsepower to do that. Or at least you shouldn't
Re: Still too much money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement. A phone is much more than just a computing device. It's crammed full of sensors that extend its capabilities well beyond a laptop. Different form factors for different purposes (and I'm typing this on a laptop for good reason), but there's much more to life than slinging code, writing papers or doing graphic editing. There's:
- Taking photos and videos of your kids while they play in the snow
- Showing your boarding card at the airport
- Passing throug
Re: Still too much money (Score:4)
It's crammed full of sensors that extend its capabilities well beyond a laptop.
[a bunch of perfectly good uses for a phone snipped]
But all of those things can be done on a $250 (or less) phone, which is why it's so hard to justify much more than that for a phone. My last two phones are capable of doing all of those things, and they each costed me $186 on Amazon. And they take great pictures and play all the Android games, too. And incidentally, they are great for making and receiving phone calls.
Re: Still too much money (Score:5, Informative)
A photo taken on the top of the line phone is likely no better at all. It might have more pixels or other technical superioritys but the photo is the same snapshot.
I'm a photographer and your use of "snapshot" kills your argument.
A "snapshot," as the name implies, is simply a quick press of the shutter while the camera is pointed somewhere.
I'm reminded of 50 shots at a birthday party by an 8-year old.
A picture is a decently-framed image that includes mostly the subject.
A photograph is a composition that's adjusted on-camera for lighting and is a candidate for art.
--
For the first, we can use a disposable. For the second, a good photographer.
For the third, a good photographer with a good camera.
Re: (Score:3)
The funny thing is, I'm not mainly focused on price. I'm focused on value rather than appearances. There are a lot of pseudo posh hotels that in addition to high nightly rates nickel and dime you to death, yet the air conditioner rattles, the carpets everywhere but the lobby are threadbare, the food is not much more than tolerable. Then there's the more modest hotels. No chandelier in the lobby, the carpets are basic but in good repair. The A/C works quietly. The food is simple but good.
As for wine, that is
Re: Still too much money (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't write code on them, do graphic design or 3D modelling or CAD or game development. You can barely play action games on them. You certainly don't want to do large amounts of typing on them. You wouldn't write a book or even create a non-trivial spreadsheet on one. For all of those, a mouse and keyboard combined with one or more large monitors is *vastly* superior.
Re: (Score:3)
Blah, blah, blah, mobile phones over $1,000 they are selling exclusivity and ego, as in poseur status wank, ohh ahh, I have a $1,500 phone that I barely know how to use, see how special I am. They called disabled kids special to make them feel better, pretty much the same concept. Same goes for many other products, crap tasting $1,000 bottle's of wine, it is about the exclusivity of the price, not the qualities of the wine. Exclusive fashions, yeah the labels made in the west, whilst the clothes made in asi
Re: (Score:2)
I respectfully disagree where phones can "do a ton more than laptops". Yeah phones are super portable and generally fit in your pocket (Phablets aside), but I don't see using a phone to sling some code, write a 30 page paper, or graphic editing/creation.
That's more and more an interface/software problem though. You can look at something like Samsung DeX [plugable.com] and you have a keyboard, mouse and big screen. With the latest Galaxy S20 Ultra topping out at 16GB RAM, 512GB storage and more CPU/GPU power than your desktop had in 2010 it seems entirely adequate for most work. Of course it's not a PC or Mac, but with an RDP client you could probably connect to one. It's mostly that phone+desktop is a weird combo, you want an easy fold-up solution so then a laptop is pre
Re: (Score:3)
See, this might actually be exciting. If I could just hook up my phone to a portable monitor, keyboard, and mouse and get a laptop experience that would be great. But nobody seems to be trying to make this a mainstream use of phones. Samsung at least makes it possible with DeX, but I would question if even 10% of their userbase knows the functionality exists. And of the phone really does have the power to give a proper desktop experience, why aren't they pushing it more?
Re: (Score:2)
2. They are a lot more app on computers than phones. Pick an OS and it will still be true.
3. You can setup computers to always be on. My wakes up in about 5 secs so that really isn't an issue.
Still doesn't justify why phone need to be this expensive. Or need this much power.
Media consumption device. Doesn't excel at doing anything but that.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe you're using it wrong.
The fact that you don't care about something doesn't mean that it isn't useful to someone, or even useful to a lot of people. I don't drive a car—I sold it years ago—but that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge that it's a useful machine for millions. For me, it was a money sink that was more hassle than it was worth, since I live in a big city with limited parking and a whole lot of snow 3-4 months of the year. Most cars are far more powerful than anyone legitimately ne
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I disagree. Phones have lousy speakers and the screens are too small, so it's not a great media consumption device.
And current phones are even less good as phones than they were before smartphones showed up. The advance is that they record phone numbers you've called, and they've a nearly adequate appointment calendar (I give it a D+).
Just because the things that used to do the job well have disappeared doesn't make the replacement better. What we have here is a gadget that replaces a huge number of sepa
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I still find it a lot easier to run my own code on a computer than on a phone.
Re: Still too much money (Score:5, Insightful)
> open my car door from a website
This is truly a very useful function, that totally justifies paying 1500 USD for a phone. Not that you can do that with a cheaper phone, or using your car key
I can't wait for my phone to be able to flush my toilet
Re: (Score:3)
In the meantime, it can already help you flush cash down the toilet.
Re: Still too much money (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are talking about features not about what you can "do". A phone is crammed full of features. It has a large breadth of capability, but all of that lacks any kind of depth.
Sure I can use AR on a phone, but I can't develop an AR application on that phone. I can use the camera in that phone, but it is the laptop or desktop which would then be used to touch up the picture if the picture is at all important (i.e. not just your drunk selfie destined for Facebook).
My phone is ultimately just a toy. A toy which
Re: (Score:2)
but it is the laptop or desktop which would then be used to touch up the picture
Actually, recent smartphones and tablets are at least as good at "touching up pictures" as a computer. This app https://play.google.com/store/... [google.com], for instance, can do much more than a casual edit, and the touch interface makes using it a lot easier than all those gimps and photoshops for rather advanced editing work.
And one can do even better.
Re: (Score:2)
thegarbz opined:
My phone is ultimately just a toy. A toy which can "do" many things. But not a device which I use to do anything big or remotely important. /Disclosure: Posted on a laptop, because holy crap typing something like this on a phone sucks.
I regard my own phone - a rooted Nexus 6 - as a tool, not a toy.
Yes, I do use it for entertainment, as an e-reader (I have a half-dozen games installed, but it's been at least 6 months since I played one of them), because I spend a lot of time in waiting rooms these days. But I most frequently use it as a phone (yes, I'm a dinosaur who hates texting). To me, that makes it a tool, as does employing it for wayfinding (which is sometimes problematic in rural areas, like Ross County, where I liv
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this a joke?! It's definitely the leading candidate for stupidest comment of the day. apt-cache search whateveryouwant, bitches.
Wrong. To be fair, the phone is my alarm clock, and my camera. I sometimes even use it as a phone. No denying that. But checking email, especially in the morning when it's several hours of accumulation? Are you fucking nuts?!
Re: (Score:2)
I have been technical for 40 years. I have an absolute powerhouse of a PC at home. But when I wake up in the morning, I check email and I skim the news... on my phone.
I do not understand you at all. Does your email arrive in un-wrappable, un-rotatable widescreen in a fixed 6 point font?
Re: Still too much money (Score:5, Insightful)
Phone SoCs are nowhere near catching up to laptop CPUs. You're probably thinking of benchmarks which show Apple's A* SoC giving general purpose CPUs from Intel and AMD a run for the money. The problem with those benchmarks is how they weight individual functions [geekbench.com] that are measured. So for example, the general purpose processing power of the SoC isn't fast enough to do AES in real-time. So they're forced to add a hardware AES encoder/decoder. OTOH the general purpose Intel CPU is fast enough to do AES in a reasonable amount of time when needed, so no hardware AES is added (that's why the A12 is 6 billion transistors, vs about 2 billion for Intel). When you do the benchmarks of specific functions, the SoC ends up being much faster at AES as a result - it's got specialized hardware for doing that specific function really quickly. And when you add together a bunch of these benchmarks without properly weighting how (in)frequently they actually show up in real-world tasks, it looks like the SoC is approaching the general-purpose CPU in your benchmark.
The reason phones are approaching laptops in functionality is because raw processing power isn't that important anymore. We reached a point around the mid-2000s where even a budget CPU was "fast enough" for the tasks 99% of people typically used them for. The speed gains by Intel and AMD since then have been to cater to extremist users (e.g. gamers, video editors) and niche markets (scientific simulations, business data crunching, etc). The vast majority of people are now perfectly fine with a low-end CPU. Which is why Intel and AMD have been focusing on reducing power consumption instead. Which put them on a path to convergence (for the vast majority of users) with mobile SoCs.
It's an interesting twist in the CISC (x86, amd64) versus RISC (ARM) race that's been going on for decades. In previous decades the focus was on max performance, and CISC always ended up beating out RISC by that metric. But performance is now so high that 99% of users no longer care about max performance. And thus far RISC has been beating out CISC at accomplishing the same tasks (albeit slower) with lower power consumption. Which definitely gives it an advantage in mobile applications. (It's also a bit of a reversal in terms of physical size. CISC chips used to be bigger than RISC chips because they supported more software instructions (RISC = reduced instruction set ccomputer). But now the RISC chips are becoming bigger than CISC because they have more dedicated hardware functions.)
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree that $1000+ is way out of line, I do use my older iPhone for a number of useful tasks, such as managing my calendar, tracking hours and expenses
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I've never spent more than $80 on a phone. Since I refuse to do phone contracts AND refuse to pay the exorbitant prices for ANY new phone, I buy used phones, such as Nexus and Pixels on eBay. My carrier is Ting, an MVNO on Sprint/Tmobile where you pay only for what you used at the end of the month and NO contract, and my current phone is a 1st generation PixelXL, which I paid $80 for on eBay...
Others can spend upwards of $1000 for a phone and a LOT more than my $40 average monthly phone bill from Ting...
Re: (Score:2)
I can do more with a beatup $1000 pickup than what ever $1000 would buy me in Porsche.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes (Score:3)
That's the correct ratio for the average person.
For an evil, femmebot-fucking, orbital space laser doom ray-wielding, Linux-toting supervillain like myself, it makes more sense to spend the money on a Beowulf cluster of Natalie Portman's hot grits.
All kidding aside...
Once you've got enough speed locally, it's more about what ports and IO devices you can connect to be productive. If the box fits in my pocket and doesn't require 46k dongles, so much the better. I've done development on my phone before, with a Bluetooth keyboard/mouse; and you could mirror/cast the screen to a TV or monitor.
Re: (Score:3)
And I guess that TV or monitor was free? Or does that cost get on top of the 1400 for the phone?
Re: (Score:2)
It's the second monitor in both cases, to make the correct comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
>And I guess that TV or monitor was free?
If you already have it for unrelated reasons? Yes, for all practical purposes, in context, it is free.
Now, if you're someone who otherwise wouldn't own a TV, or would end up buying a second TV to watch while you're using the first one as a monitor, then yeah, the cost of the TV should be factored in. Otherwise it's already a sunk cost and you're just increasing its practical value.
Of course, for $1400, or even $700, I would demand a headphone jack and proper 4k
FYI (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Because there are great phones for 1/3rd the price (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm currently a super happy Pixel 3a user, which I got on sale for $350 on Amazon. A $1000 or $1400 is hard to justify when there are amazing phones at a fraction of the cost. As a longtime Motorola user (Moto X, Moto G5s), you can get amazing phones for cheap. They aren't waterproof or have wireless charging or a 120hz refresh rate or whatever nonsense, but they are still great.
The added features on these Samsung phones (128 gb storage? nice display?) aren't worth $1000 more than a Pixel 3a. Especially not because phones get damaged, the batteries wear out, you don't get operating system or security fixes. Which means you're going to replace it every 2 or 3 years.
Re:Because there are great phones for 1/3rd the pr (Score:5, Informative)
If you value a status symbol that impresses nobody, then by all means buy a $1400 phone.
Well, if we could tell which Chinese companies ... (Score:2)
... are just nice guys trying to bring a good product to market, and which are government spy fronts and sleazy rip-offs,
Then a phone that does everything that you need can be had for $200-100.
I know because I can't afford more and had no choice.
Frankly, do away with all the stupid blind and spying and condescending behavior and other nonsense that only exists for marketing purposes, and if the company was a non-profit, then you could likely get what you need for $50-10.
Utility (Score:2)
I just upgraded from an iPhone 5 to an iPhone 11. The two main reasons were the better camera (it usually takes as good, or better shots than my Sony mirrorless) and that a TFA app I need for work wasn't going to work on it anymore. I got 5 years of use out of my last phone. If I get another 5 out of the 11, that's roughly $200/year, which is what about what I paid for my desktop that I also use daily.
Compared to how much utility I get out of the phone, I think it's a decent price.
There are PLENTY of good options on phones, the 3a (Score:3)
I'm currently a super happy Pixel 3a user, which I got on sale for $350 on Amazon. A $1000 or $1400 is hard to justify when there are amazing phones at a fraction of the cost. As a longtime Motorola user (Moto X, Moto G5s), you can get amazing phones for cheap. They aren't waterproof or have wireless charging or a 120hz refresh rate or whatever nonsense, but they are still great.
The added features on these Samsung phones (128 gb storage? nice display?) aren't worth $1000 more than a Pixel 3a. Especially not because phones get damaged, the batteries wear out, you don't get operating system or security fixes. Which means you're going to replace it every 2 or 3 years.
I got my teenage daughter a Pixel3a for Xmas and she loved it! She has had a few decent Moto phones prior to that.
Hate to tell you... I got it off of CL lightly used for $150! It was some Apple guy who decided to try Android and didn't like it. So I am sure he thought I was a hobo for only paying $150 for a phone.
Hell, I have a Umidigi F1 Play, and it was only $200 new. The camera isn't stellar but works fine. (I put Camera MX on it, the stock was blew chunks). 64GB of storage, 6GB of RAM, and with a
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, I'd dump my current phone this moment if there is one offered with decent specs and a replaceable battery!
Re:Counter-point (Score:4, Insightful)
The point is not swapping the battery when it's drained. For that problem, there's power packs. But batteries age. And they don't hold as much juice as they did when they were new. This problem is still not sensibly solved even today. Yes, they last a few years, but that's the point: I'd like to be able to use my phone longer than just two years.
Re: (Score:2)
The camera and software on my kid's iPhone (Score:2)
Seriously, she can take photos with that thing that look like what pros did 10-15 years ago. It's nuts what you can do with modern software and hardware.
Just wait a year or two. (Score:2)
They are just behind a bit.
It's not like they'll never get them.
Also, you did not mention the massive cost, in terms of privacy, lock-in, and other horrible thigs that come with ot, on top of the price that is literally the crime called usury.
Re: (Score:2)
In what world is a $300 LG more respectful of your privacy than an iPhone?
Re: The camera and software on my kid's iPhone (Score:2)
And yet, if you buy a $500 camera, it will be better than the iPhone and it will last a decade at least.
Re: (Score:2)
You answer your own question (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You answer your own question (Score:5, Interesting)
Define what it is you want excellence in. We've been down this road before. I stopped recommending $500 laptops to people as well. You ultimately still get what you pay for, and while someone will reply to this with things: i.e. "my cheap phone has a headphone jack and still has a screen," they invariably fail to actually delve into the features which may identify, yeah it has a screen, but does the digitiser work flawlessly with gloves on? Is the resolution high? Can you read it* perfectly fine in full sunlight?
When you consider total performance those "excellent" phones leave a lot to be desired.
*This is also true of upgraded generations. The Galaxy S9 has an identically spec'd screen to the S8 in terms of resolution DPI and size. But holy crap is it a better screen to read outdoors.
Really? (Score:2)
Of course it's hard to justify.
A phone goes rapidly "obsolete" (either the manufacturer, I'm looking at you Apple, refuses to support it, or the battery stops holding a charge)
is fragile, very hard to do content creation on and let's be honest here shall we? A 200$ phone will do everything a 1400$ phone will. it just lacks the Apple logo.
Must be nice to be able to drop 1400$ on a toy every few years.
Re: (Score:2)
$200 phone probably won't survive a dunk in the toilet, likely won't have convenient tap and pay features, and indoor pictures won't be as nice.
Now, $400 phone starts to become harder to distinguish. Especially if that $400 phone was last years $1000 phone.
Re: (Score:2)
That!
Once all the hype and newness wears off that's *exactly* what today's $1,000 phone will be.
Just because it's important doesn't justify more $ (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Just because it's important doesn't justify mor (Score:4, Interesting)
We have long arrived at "good enough", that level that computers hit about 2 decades ago. Phones, like computers back then, have now enough power to run most of the things you want them to run even at low specs, so the need to have that ultimate high-end, top of the line phone simply isn't there.
The only thing phones still have in their favor when it comes to selling compared to computers is that they get obsolete much faster. You have to buy a phone much sooner than you had to do with a computer because when the phone's battery starts crapping out, you can't just continue using it with the power adapter attached all the time. That's not really an option for a cellphone. Also, the chance to drop your computer and shatter its screen to a nice spiderweb pattern was heaps lower.
Aside of that, there's not really a compelling reason to replace your phone every other year. Other than the manufacturer certainly not providing any kind of update past the mandated warranty period.
Re: (Score:3)
Hard to justify answered in 3rd sentence (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The trend" (Score:2)
And on what planet would that be the case?
Planet Minimalism of Self-Harm system in the Anxiety galaxy? ;) ;)
Where people sleep in thin bamboo mats on the floor, only wear gray things, everyone owns a brakeless fixie and eats nothing but pure tofu, and the general goal is to cripple your own existence until you de-facto stop existing?
Aka Hipster Nostalgi-Zen
The article confuses wants and needs (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry - I've seen the difference in photo quality between a $200 phone and a recent iPhone. Not even in the same league.
If all you're doing is snapping selfies or pictures of your lunch, then sure, no big difference. But if you're looking to actually take proper photographs that you might want to print page-sized, or have looked at on a large monitor to assess cosmetic product quality? A $200 smartphone camera won't cut it, while a high-end smartphone camera rivals professional digital cameras from not t
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you include "professional photography" as a mandatory feature of a smartphone? Does anyone who does photography for living would use a smartphone to take pictures (I don't know, just asking) ?
Apples and oranges? (Score:2)
You're seriously comparing a laptop to a phone? Well, while I can in theory use a laptop to make a phone call, care to show me how you try to write anything longer than a Twitter message (like, say, a report) on a phone? Or do any meaningful work that involves either a spreadsheet, database organization or a sensible video conference with more than 2 people and someone sharing a screen?
What sets phones apart from laptops is keyboards and even more so screen real estate. And now take a wild guess what's the
Re: (Score:3)
Bluetooth keyboards and mice are easy to use with most phones (well, aside from the connecting issues), and you could easily drive a 4k monitor through an appropriate USB-C jack. (or screencast, if performance doesn't matter)
Personally I'd love to have a phone designed to function as a desktop (OS included) when the proper peripherals are plugged in. It's well within current hardware capability of even a midrange phone - just add a USB-C breakout (docking) box with HDMI, USB hub, headphone jack, etc. Leave
Re: Apples and oranges? (Score:2)
I don't know what a pico projector is, but physics is telling me the power consumption would be prohibitively high for a phone.
Re: (Score:3)
well physics better get the hell on board, we have exciting new products to release and market!
Re: (Score:2)
Tiny laser projector, smaller than your pinky, with no need for lenses or focussing, which means it can project a screen of any size (though brightness obviously fades with area)
And yeah, it'd probably drain your battery pretty quick to project a screen of any size at a reasonable brightness, but that's what power cords are for. Plugging in the charger to turn my phone into a desktop would be a small price to pay.
Lifespan (Score:3)
Every phone seems to suffer across the board degradation after around 2-years. Performance is worse, battery life is a lot worse, etc. The price of the device needs to reflect not only useful it may be but also how long it will last, consider laptops didn't become mainstream devices until the price came down and had a longer lifespan
Further, if you really consider how you use cell phones the - the vast majority of usage is for time wasting pursuits and for communications which don't need to be immediate. So the actual value you get is much smaller than the frequency of use.
Duh (Score:3)
This is the same situation with cars. Sure, you can buy a $50k+ luxury or sports car, but in most cases a Honda Fit will do the job just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you can get 99% of the same functionality out of a phone that's only like $200. This is the same situation with cars. Sure, you can buy a $50k+ luxury or sports car, but in most cases a Honda Fit will do the job just fine.
And yet only 0.2% of the cars sold in the US last year was a Honda Fit. It's a bit like trying to understand the clothing market by physical function, if you just want to hide your naughty bits and not freeze to death there's very cheap options available. Most people will opt for something nicer though, without thinking it's a luxury. But that's typically a judgement based on your relative wealth, if you make $20k/year then $200 is a lot too. If you're making $200k/year, eh why are you looking in the bargai
You don't need a phone (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, you are all addicts. Yes, you have all given up all of your privacy in exchange for "convenience".
Re: You don't need a phone (Score:2)
How long do you think many of the techies on here would keep their jobs if their boss can't get a hold of them when something goes wrong?
Sure, you can get your employer to pay for the phone, but you absolutely need it to do many jobs in tech.
Re: (Score:3)
No you do not.
I mean... (Score:2)
If they gave me a full fledged OS instead of Android and a hardware keyboard (after all since the fold, I certainly will laugh in anyone's face who brings the argument that it would be too thick) and the ability to change the battery, THEN and ONLY then I might be interested.
At the moment, I'd go so far as to say that I might prefer a mini laptop and an old candybar phone provided that could to wlan hotspot and was 4g.
My personal sweetspot in functionality and versatility certainly hasn't been met so far.
Co
I pay $200 for my phones (Score:3)
wrt camera (Score:4, Insightful)
A good camera should last you more than 24 months. And you can't change the battery, or bring an extra battery. So no, it's not really a permanent camera replacement.
To each their own (Score:2)
Except... (Score:3)
My Last laptop lasted 9 years. Phones, especially now we're not allowed to replace batteries are lucky to make a third of that.
Luxury (Score:3)
So you can pay a lot for a top end phone, but you can also get something that's not only adequate but is really good, for much cheaper.
Isn't that pretty much the definition of a luxury? I think Gruber is getting old.
Kinda (Score:2)
Let's get really real. (Score:4)
It's hard to justify (Score:2)
It's hard to justify spending $1000 on a phone that fundamentally doesn't do anything my 10 year old device did.
The whole phone market is crap. Innovation died years ago, form factors are becoming fewer, DRM more onerous, UI more cluttered, harder to find quality apps among the drivel, ...
Why would I spend $1000 to have a shitty phone like everyone else has when I can spend much less for a shitty phone.
Why spend $1000 when you can get the SAME PHONE (Score:2)
Why spend $1000 when you can get the SAME PHONE for much less.
I got my Galaxy S10e for $CAD 310 + tax. And it included Galaxy Buds which I sold to bring that cost even lower.
The only thing is that I had to wait 3-4 months after launch to get that discount.
The original asking price was $CAD 1125 + tax.
Overpriced Brand Flagship Nonsense. (Score:2)
All that extra money for flagship phones just goes to:
I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
A good camera maybe cost $500-600 (though most popular models were $200-300 at most) but would last 15 years.
People are keeping their phone for 2-5 years, making that $1000 payment harder to justify.
Also, most people would be far better off with a $400 or less phone. They will do the exact same thing (Facebook, emails, calls, pictures) as on a $1400 phone.
A good laptop (maybe $1400 is too much, $800 should be enough for the average joe) will also last you a lot longer than a phone. You are also much less likely to drop or loose your laptop than your phone.
And finally phones depreciate much more quickly than laptops.
So yes, $1400 is VERY hard to justify for most people.
Re: (Score:3)
A good camera maybe cost $500-600 (though most popular models were $200-300 at most) but would last 15 years.
I have a roughly 15-year-old camera. It's got a nice zoom lens on it, but the sensors and electronics have gotten so much better that my phone takes better pictures in nearly every scenario I care about. But if I want a better camera for the remaining use cases, I'm not going to use a high-end phone to do it.
I didn't even pay that much (Score:2)
Laptop: approx $200 ..and I had the phone for couple years now.
Phone: $250
Neither are top of the line, but I get by with them just fine.
I understand paying $1000+ for a laptop because people often need the extra horsepower and other benefits that come with an expensive laptop, but $1000 for a phone? What extraordinary tasks are they doing that requires such an expensive phone? High end gaming? Phones are on the bottom of the list. The camera? My $250 phone takes pictures just fine and I never had a
No phone is $1000-good. (Score:2)
My car is my most frequently used transport. (Score:2)
Doesn't mean I *need* a Ferrari. In fact, a Corolla might well be a more practical choice for me.
Anything over 500 is too expensive (Score:2)
Yes, let's get real (Score:4, Insightful)
How much did you pay for that zombie controller - I mean, you *are* a zombie. When was the last time you looked up at the real world?
Watch videos on a phone? You really enjoy watching something made to be seen on 24" or wider on that? That's like the time I saw parts of Thor, on a cross-country flight, on the 8" screen above the head of the person in front of me, with sunlight fading the screen.
But then, too many of you shouldn't be on a computer anyway... or we'd not see such a flood of stupid posts.
High end buyers and economies of scale. (Score:2)
As with video cards the high end buyers subsidize tech making it cheaper for everyone else later on. I don't rant about expensive phones because I buy them AFTER the price drops.
IDGAF what the rich or foolish do because it's all about me and just as I benefit from gamers buying fast CPUs and video cards I benefit from others buying expensive phones. Economies of scale serve me. High end buyers pay to make them happen.
It is a TELEPHONE, not a LIFESTYLE! (Score:2)
Tell you what: I got saddled with an iPhone 7+ for my job, and you know what? I fucking hate the thing even more than I thought I would. It's a pain in the ass to use. I tried putting Firefox on it, thinking I could load extensions and add-ons like on my Linux desktop? LOL, non-starter that, you can't do anything of the sort! So Firefox on a smartphone is just a
Useful life (Score:2)
The big problem with phones is that they are temporary devices. Probably due to the constant jostling, phones don't last long - I just replaced my bought in late 2015 phone when it started randomly rebooting. The author is right that a high quality camera used to cost up to a thousand dollars, but you could keep that camera for a decade or more. Comparing something like that to a phone you will keep for 3 or 4 years is disingenuous.
Not to mention the phone might have a high quality camera, but not everyone
Moving the goal posts (Score:2)
Yes, phones that cost $1,000 or more are expensive. Yes, that's outside the budget for most people. But why in the world would anyone argue this is "hard to justify"?
And, the fact that top-of-the-line phones have reached these price points does not negate the fact that truly excellent phones are available at much lower prices.
He answers his own question by moving the goal post. A $1000+ phone is a luxury for most people because they can accomplish most everything they need to do with a $100-300 phone.
The Wisdom of George Carlin (Score:5, Insightful)
"Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?"
Threads like this are primarily composed of myopic, self-important morons who think that just because they do not get the point of something it must mean there is no point to get.
Is this author serious? (Score:3)
Because you can get a phone for 1/5 the price that is able to do all the same tasks AND has a removable battery, 3.5mm jack, and usually other desirable features or traits? Like, is he serious? "Why is it hard to justify throwing away money pointlessly?" I wish I had that kind of money to throw around. Must be nice.
Re: (Score:2)
* There isn't $100 of work in them!
No there's not. A typical $1000 phone has a raw bill of materials of around $400-$600. But I guess you think everything should be given away for free and then expect warranty on top of that as well right?
Another ignorant comment brought to us by BAReFO0t
Re: (Score:3)
They truly, deeply, suck at what we want them for. Because of marketing nonsense like (an anorexia term), lack of ports, touchscreen-only input, etc.
What do you expect your phone to do? I’m not creating mission critical programs requiring multiple monitors, mouse, and a keyboard. I listen to podcasts on the way to work. I text and email people during the day. I watch movie on planes. Sometimes I buy things online. For anything heavier, I use a laptop.
Frankly, you're the majority. (Score:2)
At least around here, among the people interact with.
Only pathetic posers buy anything more expensive. ... or their trashy pimp bling if they are the poser version 1.0 ... and laugh even more. :)
We literally laugh at them. Until we see their obligatory fixies or remote-control robot antenna ("wireless headphones")