Lasts Longer (2.0) | Hacker News Reader

Lasts Longer (2.0)

asymco.com

21 pointszdw23 comments

Skimming through the numbers in the article[1] linked to from here, it's very interesting to see the dynamic that Apple has managed to create around depreciation.

A 2 year old iPhone can still be traded-in at roughly 50% of the value (whether to Apple or a third-party). The effect that this creates is that it becomes quite reasonable to buy the latest iPhone every two years after trade-in. I'm sure this has a big impact on new device sales, one of the factors as to why Apple beats records every year.

On the flip-side, I believe the reason they are able to do this, as the article here notes, is that their phones just last long (hardware/software). My iPhone 8 is not very old, but I'm not planning to stop using it for another 2-3 years at least (unless it shatters). In some ways, this reminds me of ThinkPads, just in terms of how long they can serve their purpose.

I'm honestly getting kind of "bored" of Apple devices, but I fear Android devices may not have the same solid 5 - 7 years of support, and as is evident from this article, trade-in value.

[1] https://www.bankmycell.com/blog/cell-phone-depreciation-repo...

The major android phones (including Google's) only have 2-3 years of support usually. I'm not sure if that also follows with Android One devices. That said, if you're careful with your selection, you can get a repackaged AOSP (e.g. LineageOS) for your hardware and get extended support out of that (unfortunately my Samsung Galaxy S6 is a particular blend of components that never seems to be supported).

I actually wouldn't be adverse to buying yearly support for my phone through something like LineageOS if it was available, in case someone thinks they can make a go of that business. There's a lot of older Android phones out there that are really only missing good support to be usable. Especially the o es that support easy battery replacement.

Also worth noting that the pixel 3, the phone with the highest drops, had extremely deep discounts associated with Google Fi. At one point you could get one for free. That surely affected the prices on the used market. Of course, the fact that Android phones age less well is probably a factor too.

There's also the factor that Google subsidizes Android phones because they profit from you using the phone to view ads (and buy apps). Apple of court profits from you buying apps. Apple users buy more apps. Not sure which users view/click more ads.

Why is Android subsedize but iOS boy? When is the last time someone paid for iOS or an update to it? The play store functions to make money for Google exactly the same way the app store does for Apple.

Apple makes more money from their app store (about twice as much it seems[1]), but it's not correct to imply Apple makes money from their app store but Google doesn't.

1; https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/10/11/as-usual-apples-ap...

Hell I’m still using an iPhone 6s that I got a bit before the 8 came out.

Now I have decent Bluetooth headphones, but if AT&T hadn’t been pissing me off with billing issues it might have been end of the year before I got a new one. Battery is holding on better than any of my previous ones.

If not for the apocalypse I figure this would have been about the weekend I finally headed over to the TMO store.

Android devices are EOL (security updates cease) 3 years (Pixel) or less (some others) after launch date (not purchase date).

The older I get, the more appealing a “boring” OS sounds.

Looking at the Apple's showcase for their newest OSX version, Catalina [1], you see it's mostly about some consumer subscription services and integrating with other Apple devices. Also some pretty cynical data lock-in helper applications. There's nothing in there that is relevant for me, doing professional work or doing music stuff as a hobby.

1: https://www.apple.com/macos/catalina/

People commonly misunderstand the value proposition of smartphones. They spend $500 a year for service, but view spending $1,000 for a top of line phone that maximizes the value of that service as excessive, even when that phone only costs $250 a year in depreciation. So instead they buy a $500 phone, costing $150 a year in depreciation, with a worse screen, camera, cpu, etc that they use for hours every single day.

At the end of the day, depending on what kind of a person you are, a phone is either just another tool, or that and a status symbol. You could easily make the same analogy for, say, cars for people who use one for commuting. There is no right or wrong in whether you spend $5000, $50,000 or $500,000 on one, but clearly there's a point of reasonable returns somewhere for most people. It's entirely fine if you find value in the higher price point options, doesn't mean it's a reasonable thing to expect everyone to do so.

> with a worse screen, camera, cpu, etc that they use for hours every single day.

I'm not sure I agree that people are necessarily making poor decisions. "Worse" is a contextual parameter.

I have a 6S+ from 2015 that I am still using and it works fine for me. I'm debating whether to replace the battery or buy a whole new phone in the fall. Camera quality long ago exceeded what I care about so I no longer even consider the camera when considering a phone, though I have friends for whom it's very important. Both of us are correct. Same applies to screen (my main reason for considering an upgrade), cpu etc. They are adequate for my needs.

OTOH I will be buying a close-to-top-of-the-line iPad Pro I can use for demos (just yank it out of my bag and go) that would actually run more slowly on my laptop! Yet the specs of such a machine are absurd for most people.

What am I misunderstanding about paying $100/yr less for something that serves my needs?

Does iPhone make my phone calls more phoney?

If all you do is make phone calls, then of course not. But for many people, their phone is their main general computing device. Everything from light photo editing to games to social media.

I am an Android user but I like buying products once and using them until they die. I have a pixel 2 that I got new less than 2 years ago that will be reaching EOL soon, which is really surreal. Buying an iPhone that can last 5+ years sounds like a real benefit -- and would actually save me a lot of money over the long term even though it costs more than 1.5x as much as my pixel. That sounds like a real benefit for me personally, and I may be switching to iPhone next, if only for their excellent history of long term support (I prefer Android's software)

It doesn't last 5 years if you drop it on concrete (maybe newer phones do) or wash it on laundry.

There are risk-resuction benefits to only expecting 2-3 years from your phone. Especially if you are a heavy user of your phone and subject to (cough) battery degradation and CPU throttling.

Pixel 2 is also $150 refurb in excellent condition, so thank you whoever is buying it new.

I spent around 500 for a one plus phone a couple years ago and have zero complaints even after using more expensive phones. I would go buy it again today. It also received the latest updates not too long ago. My point is, you can not spend 1000 on a phone and still have a premium experience.

I have a $250 7 inch phone with 2k resolution and 3 day battery life. Considering I don't use camera much, what can iPhone offer to justify extra $750?

A better camera for sure.

In my experience it’s often a competition between the second and third best option that has the best value proposition. Top is usually status only.

But most people buy the second or third from the bottom, which in a crowded catalog can be quite awful and need to be replaced prematurely.

I made the same mistake. I insisted that a phone with 50% of the price had 80% of the functionality. That is true but you shouldn't see it relative to other phones but relative to other purchases. Since a smartphone is amazing value for money (low $ per hour used) the rational thing is to buy a top of line model.

What if your quality of life is higher for not spending maximal possible time on phone?

There is a strong network effect for phones. This seems like a smart way for Apple to maintain its market positioning as a premium offering, while enabling growth of its market share amongst people who can’t afford their new phones, thus making their network more valuable.

There is a few important things to note here before people jumping into conclusions "Flagship ( or not Flagship ) Android dropped in value roughly twice as fast as Apple’s "

First thing being Android vendors Choose to devalue their phone faster. The Trade in "Value" is not only governed by the Market "perceived" value, but how much it was still wholesaling at the end of specific period of time. This is by and large a Vendor's decision.

If a Samsung S20 was Retailing $699 but wholesaling at $599 giving retail $100 profits, but at the end of the period drop the price to $599 but wholesaling at $449, giving additional profits ( $50+ ) to clear out stocks. No firm will buy your 2nd hand S20 for anywhere close to $449, despite its retail price is still going for $599.

Giving 2nd hand phone a 80% discount of Wholesale price, you end up with at best $360. ( Assuming perfect condition ), All of a sudden your phone only worth half of its price you bought it for.

( The above numbers are for illustration only )

Compared to Apple extremely stringent pricing and minimal margin to retailers. Apple prefer to give a package bonus if you achieve your sales target. Something Samsung has also been following in recent years. The wholesale pricing of iPhone hasn't drop much at all. And hence their 2nd hand value tends to be higher.

The question then obviously comes to why dont Android vendors keep their wholesaling price higher. For a few reasons, they need to give higher profits to retailer to help them push for sales. A sales will need higher commission. As far as I know, no Android Vendor command the same market power as Apple. Trying to keep Wholesaling price up is basically giving other Android Vendor opportunities for market share. Android can switch brands, iPhone users switch models.

Second being Apple's Supply Chain Management is a Just in Time operational marvel that no one has yet been able to copy. At the end of the cycle when it is hard to judge supply and demand, you will have Phone sitting in warehouse that either do not get sold and zero cash returns, or lower the wholesaling price and try to clear it out so you have better cash flow.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com