"The iPhone is obviously superior at one thing. Ask your wallet."
-WaPo
https://wapo.st/45Ya1CH

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

Alan Browne quoted:

> "The iPhone is obviously superior at one thing. Ask your wallet."
> https://wapo.st/45Ya1CH

Re-sale value is unimportant to me.

Of all my android phones, I keep the most recent as a viable spare, have
given three to family members, one was destroyed by washing machine and
I keep the oldest one for nostalgia reasons.

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
> "The iPhone is obviously superior at one thing. Ask your wallet."
> -WaPo
> https://wapo.st/45Ya1CH
>

Do you actually resale your phone or does it go in the drawer as a spare?
I’m leery of buying used phones unless they’re coming from someone I know.
And the times I do buy a phone it’s because the one I have is broken or too
old. They end up in the drawer or given to recycle programs. I guess some
people buy a new phone every year just to boast about it.

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Alan Browne quoted:
>
> > "The iPhone is obviously superior at one thing. Ask your wallet."
> > https://wapo.st/45Ya1CH
>
> Re-sale value is unimportant to me.
>
> Of all my android phones, I keep the most recent as a viable spare, have
> given three to family members, one was destroyed by washing machine and
> I keep the oldest one for nostalgia reasons.

As you say, I think very few people actually resell their old phone.
Some might trade it in, but that's not the same as reselling.

Many (most?) - also iPhone users - will do what you describe.

Anyway, AFAIC, even if the resale/trade-in value of my phone would be
zero, the *cost* is still much less than even the cheapest iPhone minus
resale/trade-in. So if you'd ask *my* wallet, ...

Apple users here often claim that iPhones are not expensive, by which
they *mean* that in their *perception*, they're good value for money.

However in the real world (and the dictionary), the term 'expensive'
also means 'costs a lot of money'. IME, Android users tend to go by
*both* definitions (of 'not expensive').

On 2023-11-04 08:52, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> Alan Browne quoted:
>>
>>> "The iPhone is obviously superior at one thing. Ask your wallet."
>>> https://wapo.st/45Ya1CH
>>
>> Re-sale value is unimportant to me.
>>
>> Of all my android phones, I keep the most recent as a viable spare, have
>> given three to family members, one was destroyed by washing machine and
>> I keep the oldest one for nostalgia reasons.
>
> As you say, I think very few people actually resell their old phone.
> Some might trade it in, but that's not the same as reselling.

"very few" is a huge underestimate.

> Many (most?) - also iPhone users - will do what you describe.

"Many" is a huge overestimate.

>
> Anyway, AFAIC, even if the resale/trade-in value of my phone would be
> zero, the *cost* is still much less than even the cheapest iPhone minus
> resale/trade-in. So if you'd ask *my* wallet, ...

Apples and oranges. The comparison is for like spec iPhones v. Android.
You can't compare a value Android to a flagship iPhone (or v-v).

> Apple users here often claim that iPhones are not expensive, by which
> they *mean* that in their *perception*, they're good value for money.

Whoosh - for comparable spec, the prices are similar between iPhone and
Android. The main difference is that Apple offer little at the bottom
spec end.

> However in the real world (and the dictionary), the term 'expensive'
> also means 'costs a lot of money'. IME, Android users tend to go by
> *both* definitions (of 'not expensive').

Android users can pay just as high for high end phones - and the point
of the article is that Android phones depreciate quicker.

In part because there is a strong secondary market for iPhones -
Android, less.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2023-11-04 08:52, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> >> Alan Browne quoted:
> >>
> >>> "The iPhone is obviously superior at one thing. Ask your wallet."
> >>> https://wapo.st/45Ya1CH
> >>
> >> Re-sale value is unimportant to me.
> >>
> >> Of all my android phones, I keep the most recent as a viable spare, have
> >> given three to family members, one was destroyed by washing machine and
> >> I keep the oldest one for nostalgia reasons.
> >
> > As you say, I think very few people actually resell their old phone.
> > Some might trade it in, but that's not the same as reselling.
>
> "very few" is a huge underestimate.

Your guess is as good as mine.

> > Many (most?) - also iPhone users - will do what you describe.
>
> "Many" is a huge overestimate.

Your guess is as good as mine.

> > Anyway, AFAIC, even if the resale/trade-in value of my phone would be
> > zero, the *cost* is still much less than even the cheapest iPhone minus
> > resale/trade-in. So if you'd ask *my* wallet, ...
>
> Apples and oranges. The comparison is for like spec iPhones v. Android.
> You can't compare a value Android to a flagship iPhone (or v-v).

Nope. That's what Apple fans like to *pretend*, but that's not always
the case. In my case, documented here at the time, the closest iPhone
was twice as expensive, had half the storage and a lower resolution
camera. So it was indeed Apple to orange, because the Apple was *more*
expensive for *lesser* specs. Yes, it is just an example, but - as much
as the Apple fans 'hate' it - it's not the only example. So as I said:
*My* wallet says *my* *cost* is lower.

> > Apple users here often claim that iPhones are not expensive, by which
> > they *mean* that in their *perception*, they're good value for money.
>
> Whoosh - for comparable spec, the prices are similar between iPhone and
> Android. The main difference is that Apple offer little at the bottom
> spec end.

Whoosh yourself, see above. That's *exactly* the point: What Apple
users *claim*, versus reality. But yes, at the (very) high end, the
differences are often relatively smaller.

> > However in the real world (and the dictionary), the term 'expensive'
> > also means 'costs a lot of money'. IME, Android users tend to go by
> > *both* definitions (of 'not expensive').
>
> Android users can pay just as high for high end phones - and the point
> of the article is that Android phones depreciate quicker.

And - as Andy and I (and others) explain - the "depreciation" is a
rather fictituous concept, because it does affect few people and few
cases. (Again, don't confuse resale with trade-in.)

> In part because there is a strong secondary market for iPhones -
> Android, less.

Because we just keep using them! :-)

But yes, there is a strong secondary market for iPhones, probably
mainly due to the long support cycle. That might change because Android
support cycles are getting much longer (than before) rather quickly.
We'll have to wait and see how that pans out.

On Sun, 05 Nov 2023 03:10:18 +1100, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-11-04 08:52, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> > Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> >> Alan Browne quoted:
>> >>
>> >>> "The iPhone is obviously superior at one thing. Ask your wallet."
>> >>> https://wapo.st/45Ya1CH
>> >>
>> >> Re-sale value is unimportant to me.
>> >>
>> >> Of all my android phones, I keep the most recent as a viable spare,
>> have
>> >> given three to family members, one was destroyed by washing machine
>> and
>> >> I keep the oldest one for nostalgia reasons.
>> >
>> > As you say, I think very few people actually resell their old
>> phone.
>> > Some might trade it in, but that's not the same as reselling.
>>
>> "very few" is a huge underestimate.
>
> Your guess is as good as mine.
>
>> > Many (most?) - also iPhone users - will do what you describe.
>>
>> "Many" is a huge overestimate.
>
> Your guess is as good as mine.
>
>> > Anyway, AFAIC, even if the resale/trade-in value of my phone would
>> be
>> > zero, the *cost* is still much less than even the cheapest iPhone
>> minus
>> > resale/trade-in. So if you'd ask *my* wallet, ...
>>
>> Apples and oranges. The comparison is for like spec iPhones v. Android.
>> You can't compare a value Android to a flagship iPhone (or v-v).

> Nope. That's what Apple fans like to *pretend*, but that's not always
> the case. In my case, documented here at the time, the closest iPhone
> was twice as expensive, had half the storage and a lower resolution
> camera. So it was indeed Apple to orange, because the Apple was *more*
> expensive for *lesser* specs.

But did you compare the price of a brand new from apple
of one of the iphone that is no longer the current model ?
I just dont believe that that would have been twice the price.

> Yes, it is just an example, but - as much
> as the Apple fans 'hate' it - it's not the only example. So as I said:
> *My* wallet says *my* *cost* is lower.

But not half the price.

>> > Apple users here often claim that iPhones are not expensive, by
>> which
>> > they *mean* that in their *perception*, they're good value for money.
>>
>> Whoosh - for comparable spec, the prices are similar between iPhone and
>> Android. The main difference is that Apple offer little at the bottom
>> spec end.
>
> Whoosh yourself, see above. That's *exactly* the point: What Apple
> users *claim*, versus reality. But yes, at the (very) high end, the
> differences are often relatively smaller.
>
>> > However in the real world (and the dictionary), the term
>> 'expensive'
>> > also means 'costs a lot of money'. IME, Android users tend to go by
>> > *both* definitions (of 'not expensive').
>>
>> Android users can pay just as high for high end phones - and the point
>> of the article is that Android phones depreciate quicker.
>
> And - as Andy and I (and others) explain - the "depreciation" is a
> rather fictituous concept, because it does affect few people and few
> cases. (Again, don't confuse resale with trade-in.)
>
>> In part because there is a strong secondary market for iPhones -
>> Android, less.
>
> Because we just keep using them! :-)
>
> But yes, there is a strong secondary market for iPhones, probably
> mainly due to the long support cycle. That might change because Android
> support cycles are getting much longer (than before) rather quickly.
> We'll have to wait and see how that pans out.

On 2023-11-04 12:10, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-11-04 08:52, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>>> Alan Browne quoted:
>>>>
>>>>> "The iPhone is obviously superior at one thing. Ask your wallet."
>>>>> https://wapo.st/45Ya1CH
>>>>
>>>> Re-sale value is unimportant to me.
>>>>
>>>> Of all my android phones, I keep the most recent as a viable spare, have
>>>> given three to family members, one was destroyed by washing machine and
>>>> I keep the oldest one for nostalgia reasons.
>>>
>>> As you say, I think very few people actually resell their old phone.
>>> Some might trade it in, but that's not the same as reselling.
>>
>> "very few" is a huge underestimate.
>
> Your guess is as good as mine.
>
>>> Many (most?) - also iPhone users - will do what you describe.
>>
>> "Many" is a huge overestimate.
>
> Your guess is as good as mine.

Your guess is useless.

Fact is people sell or trade in their phones and this is a major
sub-industry in itself.

>
>>> Anyway, AFAIC, even if the resale/trade-in value of my phone would be
>>> zero, the *cost* is still much less than even the cheapest iPhone minus
>>> resale/trade-in. So if you'd ask *my* wallet, ...
>>
>> Apples and oranges. The comparison is for like spec iPhones v. Android.
>> You can't compare a value Android to a flagship iPhone (or v-v).
>
> Nope. That's what Apple fans like to *pretend*, but that's not always
> the case. In my case, documented here at the time, the closest iPhone
> was twice as expensive, had half the storage and a lower resolution
> camera. So it was indeed Apple to orange, because the Apple was *more*
> expensive for *lesser* specs. Yes, it is just an example, but - as much
> as the Apple fans 'hate' it - it's not the only example. So as I said:
> *My* wallet says *my* *cost* is lower.

Yes - this is what Android fans do. Cherry pick a case and pretend it is
the genera case.

Par.

>
>>> Apple users here often claim that iPhones are not expensive, by which
>>> they *mean* that in their *perception*, they're good value for money.
>>
>> Whoosh - for comparable spec, the prices are similar between iPhone and
>> Android. The main difference is that Apple offer little at the bottom
>> spec end.
>
> Whoosh yourself, see above. That's *exactly* the point: What Apple
> users *claim*, versus reality. But yes, at the (very) high end, the
> differences are often relatively smaller.

Not at. Whoosh on you. Comparisons are made where they can be. Where
they can't be it is invalid data.

>
>>> However in the real world (and the dictionary), the term 'expensive'
>>> also means 'costs a lot of money'. IME, Android users tend to go by
>>> *both* definitions (of 'not expensive').
>>
>> Android users can pay just as high for high end phones - and the point
>> of the article is that Android phones depreciate quicker.
>
> And - as Andy and I (and others) explain - the "depreciation" is a
> rather fictituous concept, because it does affect few people and few
> cases. (Again, don't confuse resale with trade-in.)

Yes, don't. Go to those who actually do this - centres that re-purpose
phones that are traded in (one price level) and the one-to-one market -
another level. In both cases, Androids devalue more than iPhones over a
given period.

Sad reality.

>
>> In part because there is a strong secondary market for iPhones -
>> Android, less.
>
> Because we just keep using them! :-)

Most people I know keep their iPhones about 5 years. While there remain
the 'junkies' out there who can't go 2 years (sometimes 1), that is
becoming less and less common as the incremental performance is not
worth the cost. (Android or iPhone).

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2023-11-04 12:10, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> >> On 2023-11-04 08:52, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> >>>> Alan Browne quoted:
> >>>>
> >>>>> "The iPhone is obviously superior at one thing. Ask your wallet."
> >>>>> https://wapo.st/45Ya1CH
> >>>>
> >>>> Re-sale value is unimportant to me.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of all my android phones, I keep the most recent as a viable spare, have
> >>>> given three to family members, one was destroyed by washing machine and
> >>>> I keep the oldest one for nostalgia reasons.
> >>>
> >>> As you say, I think very few people actually resell their old phone.
> >>> Some might trade it in, but that's not the same as reselling.
> >>
> >> "very few" is a huge underestimate.
> >
> > Your guess is as good as mine.
> >
> >>> Many (most?) - also iPhone users - will do what you describe.
> >>
> >> "Many" is a huge overestimate.
> >
> > Your guess is as good as mine.
>
> Your guess is useless.
>
> Fact is people sell or trade in their phones and this is a major
> sub-industry in itself.

Trade-in yes, resell not so much. (*Buying* a *refurb* is a different
thing alltogether.)

> >>> Anyway, AFAIC, even if the resale/trade-in value of my phone would be
> >>> zero, the *cost* is still much less than even the cheapest iPhone minus
> >>> resale/trade-in. So if you'd ask *my* wallet, ...
> >>
> >> Apples and oranges. The comparison is for like spec iPhones v. Android.
> >> You can't compare a value Android to a flagship iPhone (or v-v).
> >
> > Nope. That's what Apple fans like to *pretend*, but that's not always
> > the case. In my case, documented here at the time, the closest iPhone
> > was twice as expensive, had half the storage and a lower resolution
> > camera. So it was indeed Apple to orange, because the Apple was *more*
> > expensive for *lesser* specs. Yes, it is just an example, but - as much
> > as the Apple fans 'hate' it - it's not the only example. So as I said:
> > *My* wallet says *my* *cost* is lower.
>
> Yes - this is what Android fans do. Cherry pick a case and pretend it is
> the genera case.

Its not cherry picking, it's *my* example/case, nothing more, nothing
less. And I didn't say it's the general case, I said it's not the only
example. Try to read for comprehension.

> Par.

Nope.

> >>> Apple users here often claim that iPhones are not expensive, by which
> >>> they *mean* that in their *perception*, they're good value for money.
> >>
> >> Whoosh - for comparable spec, the prices are similar between iPhone and
> >> Android. The main difference is that Apple offer little at the bottom
> >> spec end.
> >
> > Whoosh yourself, see above. That's *exactly* the point: What Apple
> > users *claim*, versus reality. But yes, at the (very) high end, the
> > differences are often relatively smaller.
>
> Not at. Whoosh on you. Comparisons are made where they can be. Where
> they can't be it is invalid data.

Tell that ("it is invalid data") to your 'mates'.

> >>> However in the real world (and the dictionary), the term 'expensive'
> >>> also means 'costs a lot of money'. IME, Android users tend to go by
> >>> *both* definitions (of 'not expensive').
> >>
> >> Android users can pay just as high for high end phones - and the point
> >> of the article is that Android phones depreciate quicker.
> >
> > And - as Andy and I (and others) explain - the "depreciation" is a
> > rather fictituous concept, because it does affect few people and few
> > cases. (Again, don't confuse resale with trade-in.)
>
> Yes, don't. Go to those who actually do this - centres that re-purpose
> phones that are traded in (one price level) and the one-to-one market -
> another level. In both cases, Androids devalue more than iPhones over a
> given period.
>
> Sad reality.

Earth to Alan: We don't care! When our *cost* is lower, "devaluation"
is irrelevant.

> >> In part because there is a strong secondary market for iPhones -
> >> Android, less.
> >
> > Because we just keep using them! :-)
>
> Most people I know keep their iPhones about 5 years. While there remain
> the 'junkies' out there who can't go 2 years (sometimes 1), that is
> becoming less and less common as the incremental performance is not
> worth the cost. (Android or iPhone).

At least *that* we can agree on! :-)

AFAIC, EOD. There's just no point.

On 2023-11-04 14:14, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-11-04 12:10, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2023-11-04 08:52, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> Alan Browne quoted:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The iPhone is obviously superior at one thing. Ask your wallet."
>>>>>>> https://wapo.st/45Ya1CH
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Re-sale value is unimportant to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of all my android phones, I keep the most recent as a viable spare, have
>>>>>> given three to family members, one was destroyed by washing machine and
>>>>>> I keep the oldest one for nostalgia reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>> As you say, I think very few people actually resell their old phone.
>>>>> Some might trade it in, but that's not the same as reselling.
>>>>
>>>> "very few" is a huge underestimate.
>>>
>>> Your guess is as good as mine.
>>>
>>>>> Many (most?) - also iPhone users - will do what you describe.
>>>>
>>>> "Many" is a huge overestimate.
>>>
>>> Your guess is as good as mine.
>>
>> Your guess is useless.
>>
>> Fact is people sell or trade in their phones and this is a major
>> sub-industry in itself.
>
> Trade-in yes, resell not so much. (*Buying* a *refurb* is a different
> thing alltogether.)

Muddying the waters (badly). The point of the article was how much the
seller could get for a phone v. what he paid for it.

Period.

>
>>>>> Anyway, AFAIC, even if the resale/trade-in value of my phone would be
>>>>> zero, the *cost* is still much less than even the cheapest iPhone minus
>>>>> resale/trade-in. So if you'd ask *my* wallet, ...
>>>>
>>>> Apples and oranges. The comparison is for like spec iPhones v. Android.
>>>> You can't compare a value Android to a flagship iPhone (or v-v).
>>>
>>> Nope. That's what Apple fans like to *pretend*, but that's not always
>>> the case. In my case, documented here at the time, the closest iPhone
>>> was twice as expensive, had half the storage and a lower resolution
>>> camera. So it was indeed Apple to orange, because the Apple was *more*
>>> expensive for *lesser* specs. Yes, it is just an example, but - as much
>>> as the Apple fans 'hate' it - it's not the only example. So as I said:
>>> *My* wallet says *my* *cost* is lower.
>>
>> Yes - this is what Android fans do. Cherry pick a case and pretend it is
>> the genera case.
>
> Its not cherry picking, it's *my* example/case, nothing more, nothing

The essence of cherry picking since you used it as a valid comparison
against a generalized case. Sheesh!

> less. And I didn't say it's the general case, I said it's not the only
> example. Try to read for comprehension.

Don't bother with one-offs in a general comparison.

>
>> Par.
>
> Nope.

A lot.

>
>>>>> Apple users here often claim that iPhones are not expensive, by which
>>>>> they *mean* that in their *perception*, they're good value for money.
>>>>
>>>> Whoosh - for comparable spec, the prices are similar between iPhone and
>>>> Android. The main difference is that Apple offer little at the bottom
>>>> spec end.
>>>
>>> Whoosh yourself, see above. That's *exactly* the point: What Apple
>>> users *claim*, versus reality. But yes, at the (very) high end, the
>>> differences are often relatively smaller.
>>
>> Not at. Whoosh on you. Comparisons are made where they can be. Where
>> they can't be it is invalid data.
>
> Tell that ("it is invalid data") to your 'mates'.

Not sure what you're on about.

Point is, for Androids range of quality levels 1..10, Apple only make
phones in the 4 .. 10 range. So, the Androids in the 1..3 range can't
be compared (values above are illustrative).

>
>>>>> However in the real world (and the dictionary), the term 'expensive'
>>>>> also means 'costs a lot of money'. IME, Android users tend to go by
>>>>> *both* definitions (of 'not expensive').
>>>>
>>>> Android users can pay just as high for high end phones - and the point
>>>> of the article is that Android phones depreciate quicker.
>>>
>>> And - as Andy and I (and others) explain - the "depreciation" is a
>>> rather fictituous concept, because it does affect few people and few
>>> cases. (Again, don't confuse resale with trade-in.)
>>
>> Yes, don't. Go to those who actually do this - centres that re-purpose
>> phones that are traded in (one price level) and the one-to-one market -
>> another level. In both cases, Androids devalue more than iPhones over a
>> given period.
>>
>> Sad reality.
>
> Earth to Alan: We don't care! When our *cost* is lower, "devaluation"
> is irrelevant.

But it isn't across the range - and that is what the article is about,
not your narrow use case.

>
>>>> In part because there is a strong secondary market for iPhones -
>>>> Android, less.
>>>
>>> Because we just keep using them! :-)
>>
>> Most people I know keep their iPhones about 5 years. While there remain
>> the 'junkies' out there who can't go 2 years (sometimes 1), that is
>> becoming less and less common as the incremental performance is not
>> worth the cost. (Android or iPhone).
>
> At least *that* we can agree on! :-)

:-)

>
> AFAIC, EOD. There's just no point.

Agreed - except where we disagree!
--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2023-11-04 17:10, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-11-04 08:52, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

>>> However in the real world (and the dictionary), the term 'expensive'
>>> also means 'costs a lot of money'. IME, Android users tend to go by
>>> *both* definitions (of 'not expensive').
>>
>> Android users can pay just as high for high end phones - and the point
>> of the article is that Android phones depreciate quicker.
>
> And - as Andy and I (and others) explain - the "depreciation" is a
> rather fictituous concept, because it does affect few people and few
> cases. (Again, don't confuse resale with trade-in.)
>
>> In part because there is a strong secondary market for iPhones -
>> Android, less.
>
> Because we just keep using them! :-)
>
> But yes, there is a strong secondary market for iPhones, probably
> mainly due to the long support cycle. That might change because Android
> support cycles are getting much longer (than before) rather quickly.
> We'll have to wait and see how that pans out.

There are people that love to have the latest. These people may try to
sell their previous phone before their natural end of life, and they
still have value.

Other people keep their phone till they no longer work for them for some
reason. Few of the old can be resold, they have little value — after
all, they don't "work" for some meaning of the word.

Others simply reuse older phones. Secondary phone, spare, handmedowns...

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Judst clarifying some loose ends.]

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2023-11-04 14:14, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> >> On 2023-11-04 12:10, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 2023-11-04 08:52, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>>>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> >>>>>> Alan Browne quoted:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "The iPhone is obviously superior at one thing. Ask your wallet."
> >>>>>>> https://wapo.st/45Ya1CH
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Re-sale value is unimportant to me.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Of all my android phones, I keep the most recent as a viable
> >>>>>> spare, have given three to family members, one was destroyed by
> >>>>>> washing machine and I keep the oldest one for nostalgia
> >>>>>> reasons.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As you say, I think very few people actually resell their
> >>>>> old phone. Some might trade it in, but that's not the same as
> >>>>> reselling.
> >>>>
> >>>> "very few" is a huge underestimate.
> >>>
> >>> Your guess is as good as mine.
> >>>
> >>>>> Many (most?) - also iPhone users - will do what you describe.
> >>>>
> >>>> "Many" is a huge overestimate.
> >>>
> >>> Your guess is as good as mine.
> >>
> >> Your guess is useless.
> >>
> >> Fact is people sell or trade in their phones and this is a major
> >> sub-industry in itself.
> >
> > Trade-in yes, resell not so much. (*Buying* a *refurb* is a different
> > thing alltogether.)
>
> Muddying the waters (badly). The point of the article was how much the
> seller could get for a phone v. what he paid for it.

Fair enough. I went by the Subject of your post. I don't follow shady
looking URLs. If you'd said it was a pointer to a The Washington Post
article, I would have gone there.

> Period.

Agreed (in hindsight).

> >>>>> Anyway, AFAIC, even if the resale/trade-in value of my
> >>>>> phone would be zero, the *cost* is still much less than even the
> >>>>> cheapest iPhone minus resale/trade-in. So if you'd ask *my*
> >>>>> wallet, ...
> >>>>
> >>>> Apples and oranges. The comparison is for like spec iPhones v. Android.
> >>>> You can't compare a value Android to a flagship iPhone (or v-v).
> >>>
> >>> Nope. That's what Apple fans like to *pretend*, but that's not always
> >>> the case. In my case, documented here at the time, the closest iPhone
> >>> was twice as expensive, had half the storage and a lower resolution
> >>> camera. So it was indeed Apple to orange, because the Apple was *more*
> >>> expensive for *lesser* specs. Yes, it is just an example, but - as much
> >>> as the Apple fans 'hate' it - it's not the only example. So as I said:
> >>> *My* wallet says *my* *cost* is lower.
> >>
> >> Yes - this is what Android fans do. Cherry pick a case and pretend it is
> >> the genera case.
> >
> > Its not cherry picking, it's *my* example/case, nothing more, nothing
>
> The essence of cherry picking since you used it as a valid comparison
> against a generalized case. Sheesh!
>
> > less. And I didn't say it's the general case, I said it's not the only
> > example. Try to read for comprehension.
>
> Don't bother with one-offs in a general comparison.

Mine was a specific case from the start, hence my use of "my"
(twice)). That you tried to make it into a generalization is not my
problem.

[...]

> > Earth to Alan: We don't care! When our *cost* is lower, "devaluation"
> > is irrelevant.
>
> But it isn't across the range - and that is what the article is about,
> not your narrow use case.

The article is about "high-end smartphones", "a fancy device", etc.,
where - as I said/agreed - the (new) price differences are smaller and
hence the lower relative devaluation for iPhones is indeed important.
But *I* and others are *not* just talking about the high-end. Hence I
gave my example where the devaluation was irrelevant.

[...]

> > AFAIC, EOD. There's just no point.
>
> Agreed - except where we disagree!

Thanks. Till another time.

In comp.mobile.android, on 4 Nov 2023 16:10:18 GMT, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

>
>> In part because there is a strong secondary market for iPhones -
>> Android, less.
>
> Because we just keep using them! :-)
>
> But yes, there is a strong secondary market for iPhones, probably
>mainly due to the long support cycle. That might change because Android
>support cycles are getting much longer (than before) rather quickly.
>We'll have to wait and see how that pans out.

There is suppport for my Android phone!?

In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 4 Nov 2023 14:35:22 -0400, Alan Browne
<bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:

>On 2023-11-04 14:14, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>> On 2023-11-04 12:10, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-11-04 08:52, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan Browne quoted:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The iPhone is obviously superior at one thing. Ask your wallet."
>>>>>>>> https://wapo.st/45Ya1CH
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Re-sale value is unimportant to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of all my android phones, I keep the most recent as a viable spare, have
>>>>>>> given three to family members, one was destroyed by washing machine and
>>>>>>> I keep the oldest one for nostalgia reasons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you say, I think very few people actually resell their old phone.
>>>>>> Some might trade it in, but that's not the same as reselling.
>>>>>
>>>>> "very few" is a huge underestimate.
>>>>
>>>> Your guess is as good as mine.
>>>>
>>>>>> Many (most?) - also iPhone users - will do what you describe.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Many" is a huge overestimate.
>>>>
>>>> Your guess is as good as mine.
>>>
>>> Your guess is useless.
>>>
>>> Fact is people sell or trade in their phones and this is a major
>>> sub-industry in itself.
>>
>> Trade-in yes, resell not so much. (*Buying* a *refurb* is a different
>> thing alltogether.)
>
>Muddying the waters (badly). The point of the article was how much the
>seller could get for a phone v. what he paid for it.
>
>Period.
>
>
>>
>>>>>> Anyway, AFAIC, even if the resale/trade-in value of my phone would be
>>>>>> zero, the *cost* is still much less than even the cheapest iPhone minus
>>>>>> resale/trade-in. So if you'd ask *my* wallet, ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Apples and oranges. The comparison is for like spec iPhones v. Android.
>>>>> You can't compare a value Android to a flagship iPhone (or v-v).
>>>>
>>>> Nope. That's what Apple fans like to *pretend*, but that's not always
>>>> the case. In my case, documented here at the time, the closest iPhone
>>>> was twice as expensive, had half the storage and a lower resolution
>>>> camera. So it was indeed Apple to orange, because the Apple was *more*
>>>> expensive for *lesser* specs. Yes, it is just an example, but - as much
>>>> as the Apple fans 'hate' it - it's not the only example. So as I said:
>>>> *My* wallet says *my* *cost* is lower.
>>>
>>> Yes - this is what Android fans do. Cherry pick a case and pretend it is
>>> the genera case.
>>
>> Its not cherry picking, it's *my* example/case, nothing more, nothing
>
>The essence of cherry picking since you used it as a valid comparison
>against a generalized case. Sheesh!
>
>
>> less. And I didn't say it's the general case, I said it's not the only
>> example. Try to read for comprehension.
>
>Don't bother with one-offs in a general comparison.
>
>>
>>> Par.
>>
>> Nope.
>
>A lot.
>
>>
>>>>>> Apple users here often claim that iPhones are not expensive, by which
>>>>>> they *mean* that in their *perception*, they're good value for money.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whoosh - for comparable spec, the prices are similar between iPhone and
>>>>> Android. The main difference is that Apple offer little at the bottom
>>>>> spec end.
>>>>
>>>> Whoosh yourself, see above. That's *exactly* the point: What Apple
>>>> users *claim*, versus reality. But yes, at the (very) high end, the
>>>> differences are often relatively smaller.
>>>
>>> Not at. Whoosh on you. Comparisons are made where they can be. Where
>>> they can't be it is invalid data.
>>
>> Tell that ("it is invalid data") to your 'mates'.
>
>Not sure what you're on about.
>
>Point is, for Androids range of quality levels 1..10, Apple only make
>phones in the 4 .. 10 range. So, the Androids in the 1..3 range can't
>be compared (values above are illustrative).
>
>>
>>>>>> However in the real world (and the dictionary), the term 'expensive'
>>>>>> also means 'costs a lot of money'. IME, Android users tend to go by
>>>>>> *both* definitions (of 'not expensive').
>>>>>
>>>>> Android users can pay just as high for high end phones - and the point
>>>>> of the article is that Android phones depreciate quicker.
>>>>
>>>> And - as Andy and I (and others) explain - the "depreciation" is a
>>>> rather fictituous concept, because it does affect few people and few
>>>> cases. (Again, don't confuse resale with trade-in.)
>>>
>>> Yes, don't. Go to those who actually do this - centres that re-purpose
>>> phones that are traded in (one price level) and the one-to-one market -
>>> another level. In both cases, Androids devalue more than iPhones over a
>>> given period.
>>>
>>> Sad reality.
>>
>> Earth to Alan: We don't care! When our *cost* is lower, "devaluation"
>> is irrelevant.
>
>But it isn't across the range - and that is what the article is about,
>not your narrow use case.
>
>>
>>>>> In part because there is a strong secondary market for iPhones -
>>>>> Android, less.
>>>>
>>>> Because we just keep using them! :-)
>>>
>>> Most people I know keep their iPhones about 5 years. While there remain
>>> the 'junkies' out there who can't go 2 years (sometimes 1), that is
>>> becoming less and less common as the incremental performance is not
>>> worth the cost. (Android or iPhone).
>>
>> At least *that* we can agree on! :-)
>
>:-)
>
>>
>> AFAIC, EOD. There's just no point.
>
>Agreed - except where we disagree!

I can't stand this bickering. It reminds me of growing up.

I'm going to buy a Windows phone.

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android, on 4 Nov 2023 16:10:18 GMT, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> >
> >> In part because there is a strong secondary market for iPhones -
> >> Android, less.
> >
> > Because we just keep using them! :-)
> >
> > But yes, there is a strong secondary market for iPhones, probably
> >mainly due to the long support cycle. That might change because Android
> >support cycles are getting much longer (than before) rather quickly.
> >We'll have to wait and see how that pans out.
>
> There is suppport for my Android phone!?

Of course there is! Is it floating in the air? No? So there is some
kind of support for it!

Elementary, dear Watson!

On 2023-11-04 21:02, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> [Judst clarifying some loose ends.]
>
> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:

....

>> Muddying the waters (badly). The point of the article was how much the
>> seller could get for a phone v. what he paid for it.
>
> Fair enough. I went by the Subject of your post. I don't follow shady
> looking URLs. If you'd said it was a pointer to a The Washington Post
> article, I would have gone there.

Same here.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-11-04 16:22, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2023-11-04 21:02, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> [Judst clarifying some loose ends.]
>>
>> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>> Muddying the waters (badly). The point of the article was how much the
>>> seller could get for a phone v. what he paid for it.
>>
>>    Fair enough. I went by the Subject of your post. I don't follow shady
>> looking URLs. If you'd said it was a pointer to a The Washington Post
>> article, I would have gone there.
>
> Same here.
>

"WaPo" has been shorthand for The Washington Post since ... well a long
freaking time.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2023-11-04 12:19:51 +0000, Andy Burns said:
> Alan Browne quoted:
>>
>> "The iPhone is obviously superior at one thing. Ask your wallet."
>> https://wapo.st/45Ya1CH
>
> Re-sale value is unimportant to me.
>
> Of all my android phones, I keep the most recent as a viable spare,
> have given three to family members, one was destroyed by washing
> machine and I keep the oldest one for nostalgia reasons.

If you keep them sealed in the box, then you might get a lot more
"resale value" for them. :-)

An Original, Factory-Sealed, 4GB iPhone
Just Sold at Auction for Over US$190,000

<https://gizmodo.com/original-sealed-iphone-sells-auction-190-000-dollars-1850647037>

On 2023-11-04 20:09:41 +0000, micky said:
> In comp.mobile.android, on 4 Nov 2023 16:10:18 GMT, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> In part because there is a strong secondary market for iPhones -
>>> Android, less.
>>
>> Because we just keep using them! :-)
>>
>> But yes, there is a strong secondary market for iPhones, probably
>> mainly due to the long support cycle. That might change because Android
>> support cycles are getting much longer (than before) rather quickly.
>> We'll have to wait and see how that pans out.
>
> There is suppport for my Android phone!?

Even if the makers still support the OS (which despite claims is not
true for old versions of Android either), the phone companies don't
keep supporting them forever - 3G networks are being turned off, 4G and
5G networks will also eventually be turned off as newer systems come
along. Your device may well still work, but it will be useless as a
phone / text-messenger.

On 11/4/23 2:11 PM, Your Name wrote:
> On 2023-11-04 12:19:51 +0000, Andy Burns said:
>> Alan Browne quoted:
>>>
>>> "The iPhone is obviously superior at one thing. Ask your wallet."
>>> https://wapo.st/45Ya1CH
>>
>> Re-sale value is unimportant to me.
>>
>> Of all my android phones, I keep the most recent as a viable spare,
>> have given three to family members, one was destroyed by washing
>> machine and I keep the oldest one for nostalgia reasons.
>
> If you keep them sealed in the box, then you might get a lot more
> "resale value" for them. :-)

Not necessarily. I have two genuine Xerox acoustic modems unused in
their original boxes which I doubt have any value at all.

> An Original, Factory-Sealed, 4GB iPhone
> Just Sold at Auction for Over US$190,000
>
> <https://gizmodo.com/original-sealed-iphone-sells-auction-190-000-dollars-1850647037>

--
Cheers, Bev
"When I was in college, the only job I could get was
shitting on people's lawns. Sure, the owners complained,
but it was honest work and it kept me off welfare..."
-- M. Tabnik in mcfl (paraphrased)

On 2023-11-04 17:41, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 11/4/23 2:11 PM, Your Name wrote:
>> On 2023-11-04 12:19:51 +0000, Andy Burns said:
>>> Alan Browne quoted:
>>>>
>>>> "The iPhone is obviously superior at one thing. Ask your wallet."
>>>> https://wapo.st/45Ya1CH
>>>
>>> Re-sale value is unimportant to me.
>>>
>>> Of all my android phones, I keep the most recent as a viable spare,
>>> have given three to family members, one was destroyed by washing
>>> machine and I keep the oldest one for nostalgia reasons.
>>
>> If you keep them sealed in the box, then you might get a lot more
>> "resale value" for them.  :-)
>
> Not necessarily.  I have two genuine Xerox acoustic modems unused in
> their original boxes which I doubt have any value at all.

Funny, people used to camp outside the Xerox store, around the block,
for 2 days before a new version came out...

Call Hollywood - you never know - they might rent them from you...

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2023-11-04 21:38, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2023-11-04 16:22, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2023-11-04 21:02, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> [Judst clarifying some loose ends.]
>>>
>>> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> Muddying the waters (badly). The point of the article was how much the
>>>> seller could get for a phone v. what he paid for it.
>>>
>>>    Fair enough. I went by the Subject of your post. I don't follow shady
>>> looking URLs. If you'd said it was a pointer to a The Washington Post
>>> article, I would have gone there.
>>
>> Same here.
>>
>
> "WaPo" has been shorthand for The Washington Post since ... well a long
> freaking time.

And I should know that because... ?

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 11/4/23 3:00 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2023-11-04 21:38, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2023-11-04 16:22, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>> On 2023-11-04 21:02, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>> [Judst clarifying some loose ends.]
>>>>
>>>> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>> Muddying the waters (badly). The point of the article was how much the
>>>>> seller could get for a phone v. what he paid for it.
>>>>
>>>>    Fair enough. I went by the Subject of your post. I don't follow shady
>>>> looking URLs. If you'd said it was a pointer to a The Washington Post
>>>> article, I would have gone there.
>>>
>>> Same here.
>>>
>>
>> "WaPo" has been shorthand for The Washington Post since ... well a long
>> freaking time.
>
> And I should know that because... ?

:-)

It's a well-known abbreviation all over the world. I thought that ALL
literate people knew that. <sigh> They did bring down (Woodward &
Bernstein), with Judge Sirica's help, of course, our President Nixon.

A cool thing -- we actually met Sirica in his office a few days after
Nixon resigned. Nice guy.

--
Cheers, Bev
"We're from the Government. We're here to help."

On 2023-11-04 18:52, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 11/4/23 3:00 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2023-11-04 21:38, Alan Browne wrote:

>>> "WaPo" has been shorthand for The Washington Post since ... well a
>>> long freaking time.
>>
>> And I should know that because... ?
>
> :-)
>
> It's a well-known abbreviation all over the world.  I thought that ALL
> literate people knew that.

Well, ...

> <sigh>  They did bring down (Woodward &
> Bernstein), with Judge Sirica's help, of course, our President Nixon.

Watched "All the President's Men" a couple weeks ago. Good slow burn movie.

>
> A cool thing -- we actually met Sirica in his office a few days after
> Nixon resigned.  Nice guy.

That is cool!

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

Alan Browne wrote:

> "WaPo" has been shorthand for The Washington Post since ... well a long
> freaking time.

But that's only clear *after* you've gone there, before that who knows
where it'll lead?