> With your phone, if all you care about is texting and making calls, yeah, you're not getting any added value paying more.

If all you care about is texting, making calls, playing the occasional game[1], browsing the web, doing mobile banking, listening to music, watching videos, using social media, responding to work emails, viewing the occasional PDF, word processed document or spreadsheet sent over email, screencasting to a TV, using the device as a mobile hotspot, testing software you write for phones ... and a few more less frequent things (Like using employers paging app, employers internal systems) ... then you don't get any additional value spending more than $400 on a phone.

Don't ask me what you can do with a phone that costs more, because I haven't yet seen anyone do something on their phone that my <$400 phone cannot do.

[1] Wordle, for example, is insanely popular right now.

I read on my phone that has 525 dpi and it seems to make a difference (I only found myself comfortable reading all books on my phone on my previous one which had similar dpi without noticing). Your $400 phone likely has half the dpi, worse screen in general and worse camera for a start. Just because you don't benefit from a better phone it doesn't mean nobody does.

And if you are bringing up games, wordle is an odd choice given that it's among the lightest popular games. My counter example is diablo immortal which just came out and I played some to check it out. I'm not convinced it would run well on your phone.

I've played Diablo Immortal on my phone. As far as I can tell, it worked fine.

I used Wordle as an example of a game played by the masses. There are orders of magnitude more people who play things like Wordle than things like Diablo Immortal, hence my reason for using it as an example.

But still, gaming was poorly specified on my part; I should've mentioned that a $400 phone can play AAA titles, not that a $400 phone can play casual games.

Regarding the 525 dpi, you're correct, no $400 phone will have that. People who have trouble viewing a 300 dpi screen will have to pony up for a more expensive phone.

Where we've apparently landed is that $400 will let you play even AAA titles, but will not buy you 525 dpi.

I usually buy a generation older phone. Currently on a oneplus 8 pro I bought for $300 that has essentially that DPI (513) and 120hz screen. I would never want to go back to a lower quality screen.

Yes, if you want crazy hight DPI and a SOTA camera you pay more than $400.

I don't play AAA games and I need a camera good enough that I can read text I've taken a picture of with. I haven't spent over $200 on a phone in about 10 years (I think it was the NA version of the HTC One X).

I bought a $400 phone and it is pretty much one of the fastest android phones. I never need its performance.

My main phone is an Xs Max that I bought around 15 months old. I just replaced the screen on it because I finally got unlucky on a drop that broke it. (I replaced the battery as well while I had it apart.)

The only real reason I’d consider upgrading is for the better camera on the newer phones. I think I paid $400-450 for that phone 2.5 years ago and just spent $125 on a screen and battery for a phone that will likely be great for another 1.5 years. Under $600 for 4 years seems pretty good.

While I was waiting on the screen to arrive, I bought a 2020 iPhone SE for $150. It’s perfectly usable and in some situations, I prefer the smaller form factor. (I hate the loss of FaceID.)

My wife’s 13 is better for sure, but only really noticeably in the camera.

Agreed. I'm using a pixel 4a that I bought in 2020 probably, after someone stole the Oneplus 3 that I bought used on Craigslist. The screen is cracker down the middle, but otherwise I literally haven't thought about what I'd pay more for. In fact, by paying more for an ostensibly better phone within the same lineup, it would be bigger and more annoying to use, have no headphone jack, have potentially worse battery life, and cost me a couple hundred more. I knew when I purchased it that there was a high likelihood of the screen getting cracked within the first 2 years, or stolen, and therefore my risk is lower by buying the cheapest viable current variant.

Did you skip the second half of my second paragraph? I discuss this and it seems you agree with me. Several users have responded this way now so I'm a bit confused. Should I have put in a break to clarify? Was it just too long to people skip?

Two things that change between phones that are still relevant are screen and camera quality. There is loosely a correlation between those and the total phone price.

iMessage is a legitimate significant value add to my life. Such a high percentage of my associates have iPhones that having an android is a legitimate harm for interactions (makes you less likely to be added to group chats)

I’m speaking as someone who has used both full time as well

Sure, but that's a network cost, not a phone cost, same as maintaining a membership to a golf club.

For many people the cost of remaining in an iPhone-exclusive network may be worth the extra money, for others they don't have any opportunity cost to leaving the iPhone-exclusive network.

Anecdotally, I also thought that my iMessage contacts were worth the extra money, until I found out all the people in the network used whatsapp far more frequently.

Turned out, the important conversations weren't happening on iMessage anyway, which was a surprise to me at the time.

You can get an iMessage capable phone for $429 (the iPhone SE). And for much cheaper than that if you're willing to buy second hand (I'm currently using an iPhone 6S that cost me £100 a couple of years ago will still run the latest version of iOS until September when iOS 16 comes out)

what it gets you is iOS and hence access to the iOS/apple only apps.

I see so many people talk about the Boots theory, and while I don't disagree, there's another side to the story. What if you buy a really nice pair of boots that will last a lifetime and then a couple years later you move to a beach town where you wear sandals all day? Or what if you get paralyzed and have no need for durable shoes? The point is that life is unpredictable and both your circumstances and preferences can change quickly. Also, to extend the analogy further, imagine you have a dog that decides that your boots are a good chew toy. A dog can tear a hole in a pair of $50 boots almost as easily as a pair of $10 boots. I t doesn't matter if the boots last a lifetime of normal use if they get destroyed in six months by an abnormal event.

You've perfectly described one half of what makes me uneasy about "boots theory" which is the added risk of making fewer, larger purchases. The other half is that I find that often the more expensive choice does not have as much quality as needed. Boots theory depends on finding product choices where quality (ie durability, ie expected lifetime) increases faster than price. But my personal experience is that quality increases slower than price. I worry that most boots that cost say 5x the baseline budget boot might have less than 5x the "quality" and therefore expected lifetime. I'd guess my last boots were 5x price, 3x quality, so buying them cost me 2x the cost of the budget boot in terms of lost lifetime value. Finding that boot that has >5x quality is difficult and requires all sorts of extra work working out what reviews to trust etc, and risky because if you make a mistake you could be out of pocket for many multiples of the budget choice cost.

Boots theory is attractive because it's pretty obvious that more expensive products are nearly always better quality. But what actually matters is whether the increase in quality is greater than the increase in price, which I think is much less obvious.

I have heard the advice to ‘buy twice’. The first time you buy a tool (e.g. boots), you’re really just trying it out, so buy a reasonably priced type. If you end up using the tool so often that you want a better one, then go ahead and buy the best type you can afford.

Yes, I was told the same. Lots of us have bought e.g. expensive power tools or electronics gadgets that we have hardly ever used!

It makes more sense if you look at it from the manufacturer/seller perspective. When customers are extremely price sensitive, what do you cut from your product?

There are plenty of answers to the question. But one approach is to make sure it looks as good and works as well for the return period, but doesn't last as long. E.g., you use less material, short the structure in favor of the surface, use lower-quality material, invest less in production quality, or offer shorter warranties.

For example, think of a raincoat. On one end of the spectrum we have the $0.99 disposable poncho, which is basically a garbage bag with a different cut. Up from there are all sorts of methods of improvement: https://www.rei.com/learn/expert-advice/rainwear.html

The better raincoats tend to be correlated with price because if a feature doesn't require additional expense, low-end manufacturers will just add it. And also because while many consumers aren't discerning about quality, many are, and will pay extra for it. Places like Wirecutter and Consumer Reports do the sort of testing that helps keep people honest.

That said, you're very right that there are many other things that influence price. A Burberry raincoat will be 10x the price of REI's favorite raincoats, but it won't last 10x as long. So Boots Theory, which is about good pairs of boots being more expensive than shoddy ones, is correct. But you can't work it the other way and claim that expensive things are always good in the way a night watchman thinks about his work boots.

> Or what if you get paralyzed and have no need for durable shoes?

While this is possible, I don't think that's really something you can go about with your life. Shit luck does happen. But you can keep your boots away from your dog.

You should acknowledge black swans, but you shouldn't plan your entire life around accounting for them.

This is a risk perspective (and a correct one). But the risk is quantifiable. It's generally probability x severity.

So what's my probability of moving to a beach town and never needing boots again? Probably very low, since I will be unlikely to move and even if I did I would still use my boots for things like hiking, working around the house, etc. The risk is therefore very small as well. The same can be applied to your other scenarios. Uncertainty makes us uncomfortable, but it can often be reasonably quantified.

The boots theory also falls flat in regards to style. I've never seen a single person wear boots older than maybe 10 years. Paying 3x-5x on anything with the "once a lifetime" ideology only works for timeless stuff like wrenches, measuring cups, or anything that hasn't remotely changed since 1945. Which is a very small list.

I know someone with vintage Doc Martens from the 90s that they still wear. I personally find Doc Martens uncomfortable, but I am happy to introduce you to them so you can confirm that old boots do get worn.

I have a pair of dress shoes that are approaching ten years old. I spent more than I ever had on any pair of shoes but they continue to be comfortable and are easy enough to resole, clean, etc.

There are enough items in the world of apparel (I hesitate to use the word "fashion") that are timeless, at least on the scale of a human lifetime. My belt is twenty years old. My watch (due for service) is over twenty years old.

A good shirt will last longer than a cheap shirt. If you buy carefully (i.e. not just what's in "fashion" that season), it can work for a long time.

I had a US-made dress shirt that lasted me close to 15 years and I think I spent less than $40 on it. It's a shame those mills are long gone because few shirts last that long and I'm not willing to find out if spending $400 on a shirt gets me the same quality.

At some point clothes become a Veblen good. The idea is to spend on quality, not on marketing or details that don't add to the durability of the item.

Style only matters if part of your value proposition is the status an item confers. Using the earlier example, a $400 phone won't get you any cool kid points, but I'm assuming the OP is basing their decision on functionality more than form/status.

Utilitarian boots that can be resoled/repaired can absolutely last a very long time. I have a custom made pair of hiking boots that are a good 20 years old or more. If you're referring to fashion wear, you're quite right.

The boots theory is questionable because the difference between shoes isn't that big. What the story actually talks about is that poor people barely have enough to cover their daily needs. The rich have more than enough and they use the surplus for truly "durable goods" like education.

Additionally, what if all you carry is a swiss army knife? It does everything you need and want it to do. Yet, when you lose or break that SAK, you're left with nothing to do your tasks with.

If my laptop, tablet, Garmin GPS or phone break, I am inconvenienced. As opposed to, completely dead in the water.

> With your phone, if all you care about is texting and making calls, yeah, you're not getting any added value paying more.

If that's all you care about, paying $400 like I do is silly - you can get it much cheaper.

The $400 phone I get takes fairly good photos (it's one of my main criteria in deciding on phones). Sure, if I want great photos, I'll have to pay more. I've decided that an extra $1100 over 3 years is not worth it for the marginal improvements in photo quality. But I know for some people it is, and that's fine.

Regarding the boots, we're both saying the same thing, which I think is not what the author is saying: You're fixing a time interval (e.g. 30 years), and calculating that it's cheaper to get the expensive boots vs the cumulative cost of cheap shoes in that time period.

When you fix the time interval (e.g. 30 years), comparing rates vs comparing absolute totals is equivalent.[3] What I typically see is that people take this equivalence and begin to compare against different time intervals (option X is for 2 years, option Y is for 5 years). This is what leads to so many silly blog posts saying you'll never get a better investment than your employer's ESPP benefit, because you get a huge return.[1][2]

In any case, the author isn't using the Boots Theory. He's looking at cost per use - and not utility/cost as a whole.

[1] https://thefinancebuff.com/employee-stock-purchase-plan-espp...

[2] I'm pro ESPP - but looking at those claimed return numbers is almost useless. It's trivial to make more money with, say, a mere 5% annualized return.

[3] When comparing investments, you also need the same input. It starts getting messy - which is why the standard advice is to convert to absolute dollars and compare.

I’m not sure I follow your argument about ESPP.

It’s almost always the case that maxing out your ESPP contribution is a good idea instead of getting the money earlier and investing it in something else. It might even be worth getting a loan and still maxing out the contribution should you require more cashflow (because 10% loan is still cheaper than missing out on ~90% return). But the t return is limited to your max contribution percentage * your salary, therefore you still need to think about what to do with rest of your money.

How making more money in absolute terms in some other investment invalidate the above?

Yeah, the standard ESPP I’ve seen (twice now) is essentially a series of call options (at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months in the future). If the option is not 15% in the money at vesting, the plan resets and it is replaced by one that is in the money.

Look at the price for actual call options at these intervals and you will have an approximate idea of the value of this financial instrument. It’s probably substantial, almost certainly more so than the opportunity cost on your money (unless you must meet critical expenses or pay off credit card debt). And if you always sell the same day you buy, the risk is quite low (if the plan is at its bottom and the stock price falls 15%, basically, but most ESPP dates are just after earnings which limits the types of surprises you’re in for).

> It’s almost always the case that maxing out your ESPP contribution is a good idea

I completely agree. I did say I'm pro-ESPP.

The key point you miss is that the amount you can make is somewhat capped - and for many companies, the cap is 5% of your salary. It's almost always nice, free money, but most of the times it's a relatively small amount of money. It should not rank high in your whole investment scheme.

To take things to an absurd level, I can offer you a deal: You give me $1 (and cannot give more), and 6 months later I'll give you $10. That's a 9000% rate of return. Fantastic deal, right? But is it a big part of your investment strategy? I hope not.

> How making more money in absolute terms in some other investment invalidate the above?

It doesn't invalidate it. The trouble is when people focus on the rate of return more than the absolute amount, and decide to pick ESPP instead of investments that will make more money. When you look at absolute amounts, it's clear that ESPP, even though is good, is inferior.

If you do both, then it's not a problem.