(no title)
fatfingerd | 2 years ago
No, they can pay less than $120 on a new phone in the budget tier which will be at least comparable in capabilities to a 5 year old phone in any tier and also have about 2 years of life.
fatfingerd | 2 years ago
No, they can pay less than $120 on a new phone in the budget tier which will be at least comparable in capabilities to a 5 year old phone in any tier and also have about 2 years of life.
deergomoo|2 years ago
Granted it might be faster (though looking at Geekbench scores between budget Android phones [0] and the 5-year-old iPhone XS [1] I’m not overly convinced of that either), but the price of manufacturing “nice” doesn’t drop nearly as fast as silicon.
Budget phones often compromise on build and camera and screen quality (even though the latter two often look great on spec sheets) and I think the average person would notice that far more than raw performance.
[0] https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/13300565
[1] https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/8426067
fatfingerd|2 years ago
https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/2900039
Aside from all the other problems a genuine pixel 3 (or iPhone XS) battery is bellow 3000 mah, so like replacing your redmi battery with a defective one.
GeekyBear|2 years ago
That works out to around fifty bucks per supported year, and you aren't creating a mountain of e-waste by throwing away a perfectly good phone every other year.
fatfingerd|2 years ago
I think its great that phones are being supported for 7 years but in a way it is a marketing chip based on consumer's using unrealistic linear depreciation.
Some consumers can pass down, repurpose, or only need very basic things, but most consumers need much of the relative performance they first bought, break screens, can't handle embedded battery replacement logistics, etc, so most probably have replaced something like the iPhone SE before 4 years is up and are paying more than they would have expected.