It's not important that it's 7x better. It's important that the increase in productivity (or enjoyment, etc.) is enough to justify the $600 difference in price over a (perhaps) 24 month period (e.g., do you get ~$1/day more out of it).

Not to mention, a 2 year old iPhone will probably sell for $250-350, while a $100 smartphone will probably sell for $25 after 2 years. This makes the difference more like $300. So, "Do you get ~$0.50/day more out of an iPhone than you do out of a $100 smartphone?" becomes the new question.

If you have serious money problems, you can't spend the "extra" $600 you have on an iPhone, even if it supposedly pays for itself after 24 months.

You spend $600 on food and necessities. Because you need to survive.

I thought this thread was in the context of people who could not really afford an iPhone - or at least have to really think about their spending to be able to buy one. In that context the 0.50$ makes a huge difference.

To me it seems interesting that a lot of people here want to play up the excellence of iPhones.

> people who could not really afford an iPhone

Isn't it a bit strange to make the assumption that somebody who owns an iPhone can't afford to own an iPhone?

What I'm suggesting is that perhaps we'd be served better to not assume somebody "can't afford" something, and spend a bit more time learning why they decided they can afford that thing.