People are keeping their cell phones a lot longer
axios.com
axios.com
Like with many iterative products, when the next model is just around the corner, it somewhat undermines all their "Innovative, future is now, be your best self" fluff marketing. Why pay a premium to be on the bleeding edge when it only lasts 6 months at best?
Many people I knew just bought a Pixel instead of a Pixel 2. The new one didn't even offer enough to be a competitor it's own last model, so people just bought a Pixel 1 and saved themselves some money.
I keep thinking about the concept of peak comfort. Cars, houses, phones, computers. They're all pretty damn excellent right now. Even if you can't afford the brand new thing, they've been excellent for so long now that even the old things are likely to fulfil your needs just fine. Sometimes you can buy the old thing and it will be better than the budget model new thing.
The excitement died, the brilliance faded and now I just want a headphone socket and a music player that isn't trying to sell me a paid service I don't want.
Until then I didnt know such arrangements existed, even worse was the fact that this person was paying $100+ for two years for nothing more than a few emails, sms and phone calls. I recommended a $50 SimpleMobile plan and a decent phone.
Some people cant justify why they need a new phone or renew their contract until theres an overriding conviction that its dumb to fall for the flashy ads and in store sales pitch.
Unfortunately of the Android vendors only Google actually guarantees (let alone actually follows though with) regular security updates for a specific time (2 years of version updates, plus another year of just security).
So he and many of his workmates had Google (or Apple) phones. Although since Google phased out their mid-range Nexus line having to pay 3x as much for a Pixel isn't as appealing.
Cellphones should be on an untrusted/guest wireless connection, if they need access to corporate resources they should access them over the internet or VPN just like they would if they were anywhere else with their phones.
That is a crazy amount of bandwidth usage to VPN out and then back into the the network through the same pipe is a waste. Not counting the licenses and even the ability to maintain that many connections at a given time. Going off of the use cases I have actually done.
It not hard to setup WPA2 Enterprise with assigned VLAN access, heck you can even assign it based on the device, meaning Joe signs in on his laptop and he gets internal access but when he signs in on his cellphone it goes straight out. Each connection is assigned based on need and checked by the IT department.
The OP doesn't even say they are given internal access just network access, which could be straight out to the internet. The majority of cellphones used in my company are VLAN straight to the internet but there are cases where tablets and cellphones need access to server and shares that they are assigned to a VLAN they are on.
Of course there are special cases for tablets and such, but you'd treat those differently than someone's personal phone.
If they were given a connection "straight out to the internet" then it's even more bizarre to require strict regulations about their phones.
I see no advantages to letting people's personal phones on a corporate network.
Here is one: "They connected computers to their network" The assumed security risk are endless and 100% of companies do it!! Such idiots, to connect a computer to a network!
So why bother buying a new device when the old one still works?
In the meantime the iPhone SE is a good phone, has a good form-factor and still has a headphone jack.
The Camera on it started acting flaky about two weeks ago and it stopped getting pictures stored intact. So, I finally found a new open source camera app and it works perfect again. The default camera app seems to be buggy.
I wonder if a system update was engineered to 'encourage' a phone upgrade...
In Japan, where I live, a vast majority of people get their phones on a 24 months payment plan with a 2 years contract. The carrier gives you a generous discount of about 50% on the price of the phone but applies that discount not on the phone payments but on the data plan. So when the 24 months are done and you've finished paying for the phone, the discount goes away and you pay full price on the data plan and your total bill barely decreases.
In such a system, there is no advantage to keeping your old phone, you might as well just get the latest iPhone every 2 years and that's what 95% of people do.
Not that I'm planning to upgrade my iPhone SE until flagship phones stop being the size of a paperback book.
Plus changing fully working phones every 2 years only contributes to electronic garbage.
Equipment protection plans and other similar features are also another profit center to beware of.
That way, the customers pay exactly the same as they normally would, except now they are compelled to buy a new expensive product every 2 years.
Of course, they tell you that the "real" price is 40/mo, but still give you the option to not take the phone and "discount" it down to 20 anyway.
One provider’s plan (typical of the model adhered to by most providers): $10/month including $200 of value, with phone calls 99¢/minute plus 40¢ flagfall.
Another provider (with a less common model): an “as you go” plan, with phone calls 15¢/minute. (Actually it’s still 12¢/minute, but the increase kicks in next week.)
My phone bill has been well under $1 every month except for last month where it got to $3.84 because of phone calls associated with buying a house and a couple of other things. Meanwhile, most providers would have been trying to charge me at least $10, more likely $30–$50 per month, or more on a long plan with an expensive phone included when I simply don’t need anything more than what a $150 phone provides.
Look me in the face and tell me that the first pricing model isn’t deliberately deceptive. They’re essentially using a different currency which for their own purposes of misdirection they call dollars. (And if you do get over that 200 units of their magic currency… oh, boy. You’re in for a massive bill.)
I’m inclined to believe that mobile telcos’ advertising practices are probably illegal, as deliberately misleading, and that the only reason they get away with it is because everyone does it and so customer expectations have been ruined.
Most providers wind up leading with “unlimited” plans; I suspect that a substantial fraction of their users would actually fare better with simple cost-per-call plans, but giving you that isn’t in the telcos’ best interests, and almost no providers even offer such a scheme—and the main one that I know of that does, doesn’t exactly advertise it obviously.
Though I wonder how does this compare to the pre-2007, pre-smartphone era? Longer upgrade time should be true for most consumer electronics as they mature, isnt it?
I find it kind of depressing* , but people do use their phones constantly, so things like performance do make a difference.
* Yes, ok, I've been a mobile app developer most of my working life, so I shouldn't really complain.
Also, i suspect people now are more aware how much they pay for "cheap" phone in contract.
So maybe simply people are now smarter.