Hacker News Reader

Comment by jwoah12 | Hacker News Reader

You just described the functionality of every single phone on the market, though. Almost all of which are much less expensive than the iPhone.

View on HN

Was going to say this. If you are legitimately poor, you can get a used Moto G 2013 for $35 and activate it on Freedompop for some free data each month and use wifi wherever possible.

That would be a phone on a budget. iphones are absolutely just for prestige, the same way Macbooks in universities are.

I was going to say you could get a similar level iPhone for a similar price -- most people seem to compare top-of-the-line iPhones with low- or mid-range Android devices.

But then I looked up the iPhone 4s (2013's low-range) on eBay and didn't see one for less than $70. I'm honestly surprised by that.

I'm a huge advocate of using refurbished two or so year old phones for anyone I have influence on the purchasing decisions of, because while there was a period of extremely rapid feature growth (2009-2014) since then phones have been "good enough" in the same way notebooks and desktops have been "good enough" since about 2007.

There is a price floor I find on any older phone. They generally won't fall below $50, and I always find the Moto G 2013 exceptional in how you can get them really cheap. A great example is that I am always watching S series phone prices on Swappa, but in my experience (pre-S7, usually this list shifts down a price tier when the new phone comes out):

S2 for $80, S3 for $100, S4 for $150, S5 for $225, S6 for $300. When the S7 comes out, the S3 will probably drop to S2 range and S4 might drop to S3 range, but I expect less of a decline than that because since the S3/4 the feature differences have diminished substantially. An S4 is still a beast phone today - 1080p 5" screen, quad core CPU, 13MP camera.

iphones are absolutely just for prestige

I have an iPhone 6S (and previously an iPhone 5) on Verizon, through my employer. Personally, my wife has a Nexus 4 and my daugther a Moto G, both on T-Mobile pre-paid. Both of them tell me about crappy network coverage, poor camera image quality, and so forth.

I'm not saying these aren't perfectly acceptable alternatives when you're on a budget or are frugal or these just aren't things you care about, but the iPhone and using a better carrier are not just for prestige. For many people, they are a better product and provide a better experience.

And I'll point out: usually spending more money gets you a better product. Whether or not it's better in ways you care about is obviosly a personal decision.

edit: so you disagree? What in my argument here is wrong?

edit 2: this comment was directed only at the assertion that buying an iphone is just about prestige. I completely agree with the original article.

Network coverage has little to do with the phone (it can, but it's minimal). Poor camera and image quality are not purely Apple solvable. The Sony xperia range have brilliant cameras and image quality (unfortunately the Sony UI is sub-optimal in other areas).

Also, An iPhone 6S would be more reasonably compared to a Nexus 6P, not a Nexus 4.

The iPhone doesn't have a monopoly on quality,

> Network coverage has little to do with the phone

The network coverage part of my comment was in reference to freedompop. Not sure who freedompop contracts with, but I went with T-Mobile because at the time they were much cheaper than Verizon. Their coverage is also much worse in my area.

> The iPhone doesn't have a monopoly on quality

I didn't claimed that it does. They were examples of devices I have direct experience with. The iPhone 5 was a similar generation to the Nexus 4 and Moto G and was a better (but more expensive) device. The Sony xperia devices similarly cost more than a Moto G, do they not? And you just wrote they have a suboptimal UI, so for someone who cares about that, that might rule out those devices.

My argument is not that iPhones are the only quality devices. It's that spending more usually gets you a better product, not just a more prestigious one.

I agree the lowest tier of phones cameras are not as good as an extremely expensive phone camera. Besides the whole I want to actually own computers in my possession part, part of the reason I have an S4 is for camera fidelity. My grandmother has a Note 4, predominantly for its good camera.

But we are not talking about luxurious features. A Moto G camera still takes better photos than almost any consumer camera from before 2003 that most people had (I'm talking the old disposable point and shoots or a a bulky film camera). If you need to take pictures, an entry level phone like the Moto G does more than enough of a good job - you can easily take photos of anything, you have flash, and they will be reasonable pictures. You will know what it is a picture of and discern light detail. It does the job.

> It does the job.

Certainly. Again, was just addressing it's not only prestige. Look, I own a Nutribullet. It does the job. But it's a complete frustration to use on a daily basis. I'm replacing it with a Vitamix at like 3X the cost, because I'm tired of dealing with the Nutribullet's quirks. And that's just a fricken blender. :-)

If you're poor and don't want everyone around you to know it, why would you buy the phone that screams "hey, I'm poor and got the cheapest possible phone!" Everyone has something they do to stand out from the people that surround them. It's cruel to suggest that folks living in poverty can only be deserving of assistance if they embrace their poverty and advertise it to the world. There are real costs to appearing poor in our society. Is it a surprise that people would spend what little extra money they have on things that help them appear not quite as poor as they actually are?

> It's cruel to suggest that folks living in poverty can only be deserving of assistance if they embrace their poverty and advertise it to the world. There are real costs to appearing poor in our society.

Can you offer an alternative? I can't see anything else being workable and not insanely expensive.

And you will remain poor and some people will continue to say it is everyone else's fault.

I've been there (before smart phones). Watching people wait for payday so they can go drinking. Everyone had a nicer car than necessary. Clothes or shoes to look like the situation is improving instead actually improving their situation.

Yes there is a marginal improvement in lifestyle. But there is always a marginal improvement available so that you can be in the bottom of that next group of Joneses.

I'm 45 and this is now making me remember some of the conversations I had with people who lived through the great depression. That generation was stamped with a frugality and practicality that just isn't being passed along anymore.

I think you're raising the phone to a much higher level of importance than it truly holds. The fact of the matter is that if someone can afford a brand new iPhone6, they don't deserve any help buying food because they spend a huge chunk of available food money on an expensive luxury. It must be torturous to use a phone you can actually afford!

>It's cruel to suggest that folks living in poverty can only be deserving of assistance if they embrace their poverty and advertise it to the world.

When I'm getting buyer on something cheaper than an iPhone, why should I help someone else get a full price iPhone? If they want to put the work in finding a second hand one at a cheap price, good for them. But why should I help them pay for shinier equipment than I even get for myself?

thats totally irrelevant here.

I am not poor and have a beat up Moto E bought for $99. I don't think anybody thinks I am poor either. A phone (and $300 sneakers) are very bad devices for signaling status.

I am not poor yet I have a Moto E that I bought from Best Buy last black Friday for $10. I love it. Anybody that would judge me based on my choice of phone would promptly get their face laughed in.

You can get a new one for that price when it is on sale at Best Buy. I picked up a Boost Mobile one that I use as a jogging companion due to its size. It may be from 2013, but it functions really well.

> You just described the functionality of every single phone on the market, though. Almost all of which are much less expensive than the iPhone.

This is true. In fact I've personally used mapping tools on Sony Ericsson feature phones which are around 10 years old now. You don't need a smartphone to do any of the aforementioned, let alone a market leading one.

edit: Would the people who downvoted me please explain how I didn't use mapping tools on my feature phone? I'd be interested to know how people who have never met me remember my life better than I do ;)

Off topic, but I do think HN should have a rule that you're not allowed to downvote without leaving a counterargument. That would help kerb the abuse of negative karma to demote comments which a reader disagrees with just due to personal preferences / biases. Which we're increasingly seeing these days. Particularly in threads that have potential flamewar subjects like trendy technologies or companies.

A SE is $399, sure you can get an ok phone for less than that. But, ED: even if that's significantly more than a 'cheap' phone it's not that expensive compared to a cellphone plan. People look at things as symptoms, but it's mostly ongoing costs that are real issues.

Cheap phones are actually in the $60 price range.

http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Galaxy-Prevail-White-Mobile/dp...

http://www.amazon.com/Nokia-Lumia-640-Annual-Contract/dp/B01...

I thought those where locked/discounted phones.

First is: Boost (67.99), or Sprint prepaid (104$)

Second is: AT&T Go Phone only.

But, it looks like you can get a new unlocked smartphone for 60$. http://www.amazon.com/BLU-Advance-5-0-Unlocked-Smartphone/dp...

Gotta love regional pricing. I see Galaxy phone as $57, the Lumia is $44. That they are locked to a particular provider makes them not really any different than your average phone. They do have the advantage of not locking you into a 2+ year contract.

Nice find on the BLU though.

I bought a prepaid Moto E for $39.99 and activated it on Ringplus (a Sprint MVNO that offers free data/text/minutes every month) as a backup phone.

I got the Lumia 635 for $30 last year as a temporary replacement for my Nexus 5 that I walked into a lake on accident, and it's worked out so well I still have it with no plans to upgrade.

I've gotten cheap Android phones that have felt sluggish and super buggy after a mere 6 months (not the Nexus 5, though, that just had a crap battery life, but I also spent ~$450 on it, so it wasn't cheap), but this one still operates as slick and smooth as the day I bought it, with a battery that lasts a day and a half.

Anyone looking for a cheap phone, I highly recommend the Lumia 635 (640 is just as cheap, but it doesn't support LTE, supposedly).

It's a good deal, but I think it's subsided.

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/mobile/phone/lumia635/offers?...

Amazon lists: $131.11 and Cricket has it for 20$. Still, as long as your not locked into a contract and can buy replacements at that cost it's not a problem.

PS: Windows does seem to beat Android on low end phones.

You're right, I did catch it on sale at Best Buy, marked down from $100 the week I just happened to be looking for the phone, but it seems like the Lumias often get marked down, and regardless I paid $140 for a HTC One V as my 'cheap phone' that turned awful after only six months.

My first smartphone was the first Samsung Galaxy S that cost me $200 with a two year contract. It lasted just over a year before the radio stopped functioning and it became unusable as a phone.

Then I replaced it with a Motorola something-or-other that cost me $140 with a two year contract. That one lasted just under a year before the SIM card reader stopped working, and it was good for emergency calls only.

I replaced that with a Nokia Lumia something-or-other that cost $90 with no contract. After three years, it still works to this day.

However, I did feel the need for a hardware upgrade, so in November I replaced it with a Microsoft Lumia 640 LTE, which cost me $40, again with no contract.

I've been very happy with the Lumias. The UI is very fluid and responsive, and it does everything I want it to do and then some. The build quality is also an order of magnitude better than a cheap Android phone, and the battery lasts longer. The only drawback is that there aren't a hell of a lot of third party apps. That's manageable because the ones I care about are available: Web browser, e-mail, Facebook, Twitter, Uber, Skype, Weather, maps, navigation, a PDF reader, Kindle, a Reddit client, an SSH terminal, emulators for retro game consoles, and a guitar tuner. It also comes with a fully functional mobile version of Microsoft Office, and OneNote was a game-changer for me. I can also enable Internet sharing, so if I'm somewhere with no wifi, I can enable a hotspot on my phone and connect from my laptop (things may be different now, but on my Android phones that was only possible by using a custom ROM, e.g. Cyanogenmod).

The developer experience for Windows Phone is also great. Visual Studio beats the pants off of Xcode, and C# is a much nicer language than both Objective-C and Java (though not quite as nice as Swift, I must say).

The only thing I miss from Android is a file browser. Apps are completely sandboxed and can only access their own files, which makes a general file browser impossible on Windows Phone. But I've been living without it for over 3 years now, so it's not that big of a deal.

Despite the low price, they really are quality phones. As long as Microsoft keeps it up, I intend to stick with the Lumia indefinitely.

If you're willing to order from places like AliExpress, try <$40 for low end Android phones (unlocked).

E.g. here's one that ships to the UK for $31.58: http://www.aliexpress.com/item/Original-Blackview-BV2000S-Mo...

Ok, does this make you not poor? I think not.

The cost separation between a cheap phone and a nice one, spread across a contract, is probably not very significant. An iPhone isn't like having a Rolex; it (like many of the other higher end, new phones) offers significant functionality and performance benefits. Which is to say -- its easy to look at a poor person carrying an iPhone and say they only chose that particular phone to not look poor. But i'd personally wager that they chose (what they perceived as) the best phone, because the cost difference was not a significant factor.

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.

> 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com