News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:That awkward moment when Apple mocked good hardware and p... by laumars on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @09:53AM (#11344412)
If you're on a tight budget, then £20 a month matters. It might be loose change to people like us, but unfortunately there are people who have to budget the meals they eat to bring costs down.

And to use your watch analogy, you wouldn't expect people on tight incomes to buy a Rolex when a <£15 watch works the same.

Re:That awkward moment when Apple mocked good hardware and p... by cloverich on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @10:06AM (#11344536)
> And to use your watch analogy, you wouldn't expect people on tight incomes to buy a Rolex when a <£15 watch works the same.

That is the point of my analogy -- you can justify a high end phone based on more than just its "status", and the cost difference is extremely small (the opposite cases of the Rolex and a normal watch). I'm not making an argument about what poor people in general should do; nor am I saying status plays no factor. I just think the argument that they are buying the newest phone based 100% on social status seems a bit thin.

Re:That awkward moment when Apple mocked good hardware and p... by sbuk on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @10:10AM (#11344564)
The advice I give to anyone buying any tech is to buy the best that you can afford, then what you prefer (i.e. Android, iOS, Windows, Mac etc.). If someone on a 'tight budget' determines that an iPhone or an S7 is a priority, who are you to judge?
Re:That awkward moment when Apple mocked good hardware and p... by laumars on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @10:13AM (#11344593)
I'm not judging. I'm just saying £20/m is a lot to some people to counter the point made previously that the investment was only small.
Re:That awkward moment when Apple mocked good hardware and p... by cloverich on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @11:01AM (#11345077)
To be clear, I never intended to say that 20 Euro a month would be affordable for everyone. I"m only saying its an objectively small sum of money in a first world country, and we could reasonably imagine some otherwise poor people fitting it into their budget (unlike a Rolex, a nice car, etc.). Especially if we believe a person would consider it their most important possession -- they can have the (debatably, I use a Nexus) best version of their most desirable possession without going outside their budget. I've known plenty of hard-working budget conscious poor people who have saved up for possessions they very much wanted -- nobody ever said being poor means you can't have anything nice. It just means you can't have everything nice.
Re:That awkward moment when Apple mocked good hardware and p... by foldr on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @10:46AM (#11344926)
For people who have the luxury of some non-trivial amount of disposable income, there's not really any such thing as "the best you can afford". I could afford to get an iPhone 6S in the sense that I have enough money, but on the other hand, there are other things I might want that I could buy if I got a cheaper phone instead. Unless having a high end phone is a big priority for me, it makes no sense for me to get the best phone I can afford.
Re:That awkward moment when Apple mocked good hardware and p... by sbuk on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @02:56PM (#11347220)
Mine is merely advise to those that ask. YMMV goes without saying really. With any technology; car, bike, phone, computer, washing machine etc. you should buy the best that you can afford. That doesn't mean spend all your money. It doesn't mean buy the most expensive. Best is very subjective. It could be 'best suits my needs' or it could be 'best on the market'. Nothing to do with priorities.