Hacker News Reader

Comment by frant-hartm | Hacker News Reader

When I was a teenager and mobile phones became widely available everyone had Nokia, Siemens or Sony-Ericsson, depending on how well-off the family was, it was either the old or new model. But we customized the phones as much as we could - custom ring melodies, screensavers, custom covers, if the phone didn't allow that then at least some stickers. Everyone wanted to be unique, go against the social norm.

Android phones are arguably equivalent in terms of functionality for what today's teenagers use (whatsapp, tiktok and camera), but offer much wider variety and a chance to stand out.

Why do the current US teenagers follow the herd in this regard?

View on HN

Messaging network effects, if you're in an iMessage conversation and an Android user joins, suddenly the conversation becomes SMS only with photo and video sending being crippled.

Its the same as a social network, if all your friends use it, you almost have to in order to communicate with them.

They don't use FB Messenger, Discord, Telegram, Whatsapp? People are really out here using the default sms app? lmao

Not a thing here, but we do love to ape america so its comming. Its gonna be one shows ppl whatch and then its over.

This always comes up when non-Americans talk about US messaging systems. The simple fact is SMS was good enough (being pretty cheap or even free for many years) that people didn't care to switch. In contrast, many other countries had much more expensive SMS so free messaging systems were built and widely used.

Yes.

Pretty much every iPhone user in the US uses exclusively iMessage.

> People are really out here using the default sms app?

Well no, they're using the iMessage app and not communicating with people who don't have iPhones.

the experience on all those is way worse. telegram is pretty good but still not there. others arent even close.

snap is the least awful alternative.

Because owning an Android means you‘re poor.

I think the common take on the "Apple tax" is a false impression. A sort of knee-jerk reflex when seeing the price tag, without any further thought. Every brand has a premium product segment with premium price tags. The difference is that Apple doesn't have a budget segment with budget price tags.

They have the iPhone SE which they explicitly market as a budget option.

Which is still not a budget option. Not in hardware quality, not in customer/product support, not in price. It's a premium product in every way.

What is a budget option, then? The reality is that most people get these phones for free with trade ins to AT&T or Verizon.

The budget option is the phone I can get for 150€ without plan, and then combine it with a separate 5€/month plan from my carrier.

I think you have to seriously consider if there is any market for that. Any $150 Android phone is going to be worthless for modern use.

There's quite a few good Android Go and Xiaomi phones in that price segment.

As you might recall, when the first Moto G was released in that price segment, within of a year it became the most sold phone in several countries.

That's a massive market.

It's only the US, Scandinavia and Japan where upmarket Apple devices are so popular.

I think Apple have a pretty big range these days. There are older models and the se. There’s also a pretty vibrant second hand / refurbished market. Perhaps one issue is that devices can still be somewhat expensive secondhand but that’s because they are still good quality and expected to last (eg being supported and getting updates) for a long time – the alternative would surely be the kind of complaints about planned obsolescence or poor resale value that seem more fitting for the typical androids device (I’m not sure about premium. Maybe typical android devices get more updates these days).

> The difference is that Apple doesn't have a budget segment with budget price tags.

Right... hence the status signal the GP is referring to, when you own an affordable phone "you're poor"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com