Iphones stay good enough for at least 2-3 years, if you're not picky. $600/3 = $200. $17 per month, 0.56 cents per day.
It's not nothing. But it is nothing compared to what the iphone class spends on, say, coffee. There is the one-off hit from paying the $600 all at once, but credit cards reduce that pain somewhat.
Meanwhile, you're using the phone every day. If you have the money, you probably want a phone you really like, not one that is just good enough.
Don't get me wrong, I think these new "good enough" phones are going to capture a large part of the market. I just am not sure it will be the iphone part. Past a certain income level, $540 savings for years of daily annoyance isn't really a compelling saving.
Got my MBP for about €1400, aim to sell it for at least about €400 a few years down the road. That leaves a cost of about 20 euros per month.
Then I look at the fact that as an independent developer I'm earning a few thousand a month and this device basically like 90% of my office.
It means a device that costs $100 or $1000 or even $5000 doesn't really make a huge difference. It's like a writer's pencil costs $1 or $10 or $100, when it's a tiny percentage of his costs and a gigantic percentage of his usage.
That having been said, whether a purchase is justified in and of its own ignores the fact whether it's justified vs other purchases. After all, spending money supremely is a game of opportunity cost. And here spending an additional $500 starts to break down, and now we'd have to weigh the marginal benefit. Does a MBP vs a MBA for say a web developer who has a career in SEO, or say CSS, add much? Often the answer would be no, and compared to say $500 on a year at the gym, a romantic weekend, charity, is hard to defend. And with cheap phones hitting the essentials more and more (messaging, calls, basic snapshots, directions, quick info, a game of poker, dating etc), I'm already personally getting disinterested with new iterations of phones. The latest giants' 6 versions (samsung, apple) did nothing for me in terms of purchasing desire, despite thinking they're awesome devices.
I think the whole point of this discussion is we've reached a tipping point where the "low end" phones aren't annoying anymore. For many users, they're perfectly acceptable
I've had an iphone 4 until recently. I used a moto e while traveling. I now have an iphone six.
The moto e was great! It could do anything I want to do, and was very cheap. Meets all my needs.
But....using the iphone six is simply a smoother experience on a number of factors. So while the cheaper phone meets my needs, the more expensive version is ultimately worth it, given the considerations I outlined in the original post.
For a bunch of people who i. use their phones a lot, and ii. aren't THAT price sensitive, this will play out. Could apply to higher end android phones too.
I run a business, so that increases the use of having a smooth operating phone. I manage some work stuff using it.
Yes, it's not magically perfect. A coworker made fun of me because I have to dial in to a talking computer to listen to voice mail, for example. But how often do most people get a voice mail anyways? I can text, pictures, email, web and use basic apps, which is all I really need or want to do on such a small screen anyways.
So I'm very excited and happy with the improvements in the low-end phone line.
Oh definitely. It's incredible the amount of fairly smooth functionality you can get for $100 now. If I HAD to use a moto G, say, I'd still be pretty content.
I think the point where Google and consumers are misaligned would be their preference of Chrome OS over Android. Still, I don't see them throwing away their market power in a play to move users to Chrome OS. They'll just keep mixing them both together until there is no difference.