Hacker News Reader

Comment by dijit | Hacker News Reader

There is a certain 'rub' when people compare two pieces of technology.

While it's certainly true that the cpu/memory are faster or better than an iphone was 8 years ago.. and at such a low price.. when people compare specifications they always lose perspective on build quality.

It's very hard to quantify that from a product data sheet, but if this thing was built like a early 00's Nokia, then it would be worth a lot.

But for $10, do you need a smartphone at all? why not grab one of those "burners" that have a battery life of 2 months which additionally can survive some abuse?

I understand that for $10 people should curb their expectations, but the title is comparing apples to oranges.

"$400 smartphone from 8 years ago with high build quality vs $10 phone now with unknown build quality"

View on HN

> when people compare specifications they always lose perspective on build quality

This isn't being sold as quality at all though, and I think that most people will be well aware of the build difference between this and an Apple product or similar.

That are talking about what it can do when working, not how long it will work for.

> But for $10, do you need a smartphone at all?

As has already been mentioned, for some a mobile phone is their only Internet access so a cheap device with something approaching modern smartphone features could be quite a boon for those in that economic category.

Also for the slightly better off they are a good choice for kids. It might keep from trying to grab your phone (though they'll still want your's for the better games a higher spec device can play), at the price it doesn't matter as much if they break the thing, and if you disable network access (or just don't put a SIM in at all) so they just use WiFi it'll not cost any extra beyond the initial price.

They would also be useful as an emergency spare, for when you need one (due to loss or damage of your main phone) and a less capable burner isn't sufficient.

>But for $10, do you need a smartphone at all?

For poorer people, a smartphone may be their only access to the Internet.

I guess non-profits that work with homeless people, at risk youth, domestic abuse victims, war zones etc will find creative uses for this. Another example would be Syrian refugees arriving in Europe.

One advantage would be for a market like inner city Detroit where a majority don't have smartphones and 40% lack broadband access at home.

http://detroitography.com/2015/11/13/map-detroits-digital-di...

Can't really take spec literally anyway. Even at equal build quality, that phone does not need to work in a 2007 environment. The original iPhone in 2008 could run everything that was available in the App store with almost the best experience. There is going to be more tradeoff with this phone which is also going to be compensated with an order of magnitude larger ecosystem.

It is still amazing that technology has evolved to the point of finding a similar phone 2 orders of magnitude cheaper. Especially when you think of all the stuff that were going on at the time of the iPhone like the OLPC. Good reference point also to compare with today expensive technologies that ship with subpar performance, like all those "smart appliances" that cost thousands and offer ridiculously small performance, or car entertainment systems that even in luxury cars can be beaten by a 10$ phone.

> But for $10, do you need a smartphone at all? why not grab one of those "burners" that have a battery life of 2 months which additionally can survive some abuse?

Sometimes you don't need a smartphone with decent specs, but you'd still like to use Whatsapp, Uber, etc.

At the same time, much of the value of a smartphone comes from connectivity and software. A first generation iPhone is a 2G device trapped at iOS 3. Fit and finish are nice, but if I had to use either of these two devices, I know which I'd choose.

Of course, this is fundamentally a "look how far we've come in a short time" article.

As for "why not grab a burner", many of the people who will buy this device won't have internet at home (assuming they have a home--a recent Harvard study showed that 40% of the homeless in Boston had a smartphone), so internet access through a smartphone has huge value.

http://www.socrative.com/

A colleague uses this site with a class set of iPods on the open College wifi (clean feed/walled garden).

A cheapo device of this nature would allow access to pdfs of lessons and socrative quizzes whenever for the minority of teenager students who do not get Internet access at home or have a device of their own. The 'slush fund' could stretch to one of these if they can use wifi.

However people set their expectations on the price paid in many cases. So while a direct feature by feature comparison will not work for those who are up on this type of technology the vast majority of potential customers won't care.

As ten bucks combined with prepaid cards this phone is astounding. If not a loss leader think of it this way, anyone could buy these with phone cards and hand them out like candy

I buy low end smartphones (~$25 off-contract) and I couldn't be happier with them AFA my own use. Sometimes you need whatsapp or what not to coordinate or want to run some other basic apps.

My only negative would be that the touch screen accuracy is sometimes subpar which is a real hindrance when trying to find a starter smartphone for tech curious retirees.

The title says the $10 phone has better specs than original iPhone, not better build quality, and I wouldn't presume people mistake specs for design tolerances.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com