Mchart
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,594
I just wanted to comment on the absurdity of someone in here complaining that their iPhone 7 isn't actively supported with iOS updates anymore.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Why does MacOS cost less in support in businesses than Windows
- Thread starter philb2
- Start date
Hey, it's "only" about 1 kilobuck to get a new iPhone. I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth and I don't have any aged rich uncles.
This is what sound a bit strange, that make sense, it is the other scenario of the all Macs shop deciding to go all windows and see the cost explode.... Reflex is that the all mac shop would not transition to windows if not for a special need (and said special need would probably explain the cost...)
And off those cost seem to be office 365, but that seem quite ortogonal (i..e something that you would run on mac if you wanted and that the alternative could not have been free before)
Why do you need to buy a new iPhone? You can get a used one that's only a couple of years old for a few hundred bucks and you'll get another 5-6 years of updates out of the phone. You being pissed that your 8 year old phone doesn't get updates is incredibly silly, especially considering that Apple supports phones longer than any other manufacturer. The average Android phone for the last decade has generally received only a year or two of updates. I can't imagine how angry you'd be over that. Only recently have Google and Samsung announced longer support for their phones, which still remains to be seen.
cjcox
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,976
Way offtopic, but I do miss my days of extending my 2yr phone contract and getting the latest and greatest flagship phone for a penny. There was a time when I practically never paid for a phone, and it was for the "good phones".
That seem just a semantic trick over the word paid... were you not simply paying them via the monthly contract amount ?
cjcox
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,976
Phone without "connection" isn't really a phone. Now, I suppose there were people jumping from contract to contract and incurring switching penalties and the like, but I figure, I came out on top with regards to total out of pocket.
There were people getting phone (those unlocked phone, not linked to a specific provider) contract without a phone for less moneys than the contract that came with fancier phone.
That price difference was the rental cost of your phone, historically the AT&T in the world did eat a large part of the phone cost (like they could pay the first $170 of a $900 phone and just past the rest to the clients), specially Apple one taht were able to get the provider to lose the most profit on them with their negotiating power, so maybe you got them at a good price, but not for free.
cjcox
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,976
Every year, usually around Christmas, you could renew your contract and get the latest flaship for 1 penny. I would buy phones for the whole household at that time. It was a different era.
yes but you do understand than the rental cost of that phone was included in the contract cost. At least in Canada and I must imagine, there was always cheaper data deals you could find for those that did not came with a phone. The full-on top flagship now are just too expensive to hide it to people in a 2 years contract.
t-mobile for example , 50GB of data is $50 a month if you bring your own phone, plan with a 2 years phone upgrade is at $90 month.
Mchart
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,594
While the latest iPhone is expensive - They do generally last a long time. You drop $1k but it'll last 5 years minimum if you want it to. Even most flagship Android are finally starting to get to the point where they last a while with OS updates.
This is unlike pre-iphone where you had to upgrade basically every year or two simply because the technology was changing so fast, and the phones were also targeting a lower price range.
This is unlike pre-iphone where you had to upgrade basically every year or two simply because the technology was changing so fast, and the phones were also targeting a lower price range.
Or the iPhones for a while, if you define flagships as the most expensive phone, it is now
In 2014 the most expensive Iphone would have been $300 + bigger hard drive extra type of price ? I imagine under $600.... if it loose half its value during 2 years, charging $12 a month (making less profit) for it in a data plan could have people thinking they have a free phone in their plan.
$2400 if it loose $1100 in value in 2 years,, $50 a month people understand the plan monthly price tag that the phone is not free with it.
Last edited:
Uh ... no. The maxed out iPhone 15 Pro Max is around $1750 after tax. I sell mine every year before the new phones come out and get about 80-85% of my money back, then I get the new one. It costs me about 250-350 bucks a year to have the latest flagship.
ah apple detected I was Canucks
Mchart
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,594
Which you don’t need to get the flagship phone. That’s just optional. You can get the pro for $1100 or a 15 for $800. The 15 is a ton of phone for 99% of people and will last for 6 years if you want it to.
Yes, that was my previous point. You can also get a used, year old flagship from somewhere like Swappa for half the price or even less than when it was new. If you go back two years, it'll be like a quarter of the price, and you'll still have about 5+ years left of support.
Last edited:
pendragon1
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2000
- Messages
- 53,089
maxed out its 2349 canuckistani pesos, insane.
but they were talking about flagships...
cjcox
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,976
Somewhat getting us back to "ontopic", when it comes to "old"... Mac hw tends to retain value better than generic Windows PCs. Like, significantly better. At least, that's my observation.
pendragon1
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2000
- Messages
- 53,089
only because they are seen as status symbols. the hardware does not warrant it.
Years ago, I worked at a small college that was almost exclusively Novell Netware based for our servers. We made extensive use of eDirectory, ZenWorks, and BorderManager firewall. As part of our license purchase, we also had McAfee Anti-Virus site licensed for all computer systems. Our finance and registrar system was using an IBM AS/400.
The college began a process to replace the AS/400 with a Windows AD based product. Knowing that we could bridge the two networks quite easily with some of the Novell services, I spent several months working on the integration process, as well as migrating our Linux based sendmail server to GroupWise email. I just needed to authorization to go live, and all would be working with minimal disruption. Then our new finance director called us into a meeting, where they explained that we would be replacing all of our Novell systems with Microsoft AD servers, and he had a lot of slides showing how much money the college would save by switching. The problem was, the Microsoft package only included the AD servers. It did not include any sort of device managment like ZenWorks, it did not include a firewall system with content filtering, it did not include an Exchange server for email, and it did not include the site license for any sort of anti-virus. I went back through our data on the costs of our licensing, and when all the extras from Novell were stripped down so that we would be purchasing the same level of technology we would be getting with the Microsoft purchase, it actually was cheaper. The college went ahead with the Microsoft deal anyway, because they had been convinced by Microsoft sales-people they needed to.
The moral of this story is that just because you can show on paper the financial differences of an implementation, this does not tell the whole picture. In the scenario that going with Microsoft costs more, or going with Apple costs less, it could very well be that going to Apple vs. Microsoft cuts out redundant services that could also easily be cut without switching platforms, simply because those services don't exist within the Apple ecosystem. You could also be giving up certain services that are useful, but don't exist in the Apple ecosystem.
The college began a process to replace the AS/400 with a Windows AD based product. Knowing that we could bridge the two networks quite easily with some of the Novell services, I spent several months working on the integration process, as well as migrating our Linux based sendmail server to GroupWise email. I just needed to authorization to go live, and all would be working with minimal disruption. Then our new finance director called us into a meeting, where they explained that we would be replacing all of our Novell systems with Microsoft AD servers, and he had a lot of slides showing how much money the college would save by switching. The problem was, the Microsoft package only included the AD servers. It did not include any sort of device managment like ZenWorks, it did not include a firewall system with content filtering, it did not include an Exchange server for email, and it did not include the site license for any sort of anti-virus. I went back through our data on the costs of our licensing, and when all the extras from Novell were stripped down so that we would be purchasing the same level of technology we would be getting with the Microsoft purchase, it actually was cheaper. The college went ahead with the Microsoft deal anyway, because they had been convinced by Microsoft sales-people they needed to.
The moral of this story is that just because you can show on paper the financial differences of an implementation, this does not tell the whole picture. In the scenario that going with Microsoft costs more, or going with Apple costs less, it could very well be that going to Apple vs. Microsoft cuts out redundant services that could also easily be cut without switching platforms, simply because those services don't exist within the Apple ecosystem. You could also be giving up certain services that are useful, but don't exist in the Apple ecosystem.
If you calculate purchase price (used or new) divided by years of security updates left you end up with used phones not being that much cheaper than new ones per year (unless you tend to break of lose your phone often).
Of course new flagship phones tend to get more expensive every year, which distorts things a bit when you want a flagship phone.
Yeah. I looked at certified used iPhones, and came to the same conclusion. Phones are cheaper on Swappa, but there is no recourse if you get a piece of crap
I don't. I just want something decent.
This is nonsense. The phone you receive has to work perfectly or you get a full refund. They have a checklist you need to do when you receive the phone. I've been buying and selling on Swappa for years. Their customer support is very good.