Low-Income Users Latch On To iPhone 422
narramissic writes "The iPhone crowd is still dominated by affluent males between the ages of 18 and 35, but in a series of surveys ending in August, ComScore found that iPhone purchases grew fastest among people with annual household incomes between $25,000 and $50,000. The growth rate in this group was 48 percent, compared with just 16 percent among people with incomes above $100,000. And the down economy isn't going to turn this trend around, says ComScore Mobile analyst Jen Wu. 'I don't see there's going to be much of a slowdown, just because wireless devices are so much more of a necessity than they used to be,' Wu said."
In other iPhone news, an anonymous reader points out a NYTimes story about the rise in car-related applications and uses for the iPhone, which points out that programmers are just beginning to "appreciate just what can be done with an iPhone and other advanced cellphones that know where they are and just how quickly they are going someplace else." Another iPhone story mentions that "Opera's engineers have developed a version of Opera Mini that can run on an Apple iPhone, but Apple won't let the company release it because it competes with Apple's own Safari browser."
Antitrust? (Score:3, Insightful)
Antitrust lawsuit, anybody?
Re:Antitrust? (Score:4, Informative)
Antitrust lawsuit, anybody?
You can't have a successful antitrust suit against someone with a minuscule marketshare.
Re:Antitrust? (Score:4, Insightful)
Aha, but market share of what? The browser market? The mobile browser market? The iPhone browser market?
Re: (Score:2)
Aha, but market share of what? The browser market? The mobile browser market? The iPhone browser market?
The browser market, the mobile browser market as well as the mobile phone market.
not minuscule, 20-30%. (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought the same thing (minuscule market share), until I saw that in Q4 2007, the iPhone had a 30% market share of smartphones.
It's since dropped [cnet.com], but I have no idea what's happened since the 3G model came out. Point is...it's not remotely minuscule; they're second or third.
The other point: the market is pretty diversified between Palm, Windows Smartphones, Palm OS, Symbian, and others (like the Sidekick, running Hiptop OS.) If several companies colluded and blocked Opera, THAT would be an anti-trus
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Linksys never allowed or created any infrastructure to allow third party development for your router.
Apple on the other hand wants to reap the benefits of third party applications without actually competing with them.
It's as if you could only run IE on Windows or Safari on OS X.
Re:Antitrust? (Score:5, Informative)
Usually, linksys routers such as yours are incapable of running a standard linux router distribution.
It's like saying, "It's antitrust that I can't run Safari on my VIC-20."
It's a technical limitation, not a political/strategic one... which is the case with Opera on the iPhone.
I'm glad I bought an Android phone. :)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Replace "Linksys router" with "TiVo" and "openWRT/DD-WRT" with "modified software for TiVos" and then you'll have a good argument.
(Also replace "antitrust lawsuit" with "GPL violation (a.k.a. copyright infringement) lawsuit" in both cases.)
not Antitrust (Score:5, Insightful)
Antitrust lawsuit, anybody?
Jesus, no. Please go read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law [wikipedia.org]
Re:not Antitrust (Score:5, Funny)
No, no, no. If I wanted to RTFA I wouldn't be posting on Slashdot. I'm here to make wildly speculative statements on issues on which I have no expertise.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Antitrust? (Score:4, Informative)
At least on Nokia's S60 (Symbian) devices you can run what ever you like.
No, S60 is DRM'ed as well. (Score:4, Insightful)
No you can't. All software that wants to do something "dangerous" on you S60-mobile, like setting the clock, or accessing contact data, MUST be digitally signed. That's great (really, I do like the platform security), but the only Certificate Authority for this is... Symbian. So in the end SYMBIAN decides what may and may not run on YOUR phone.
Yes, Symbian has "open signed", a cheezy web-interface where you can sign unsigned freeware, so it can be installed on YOUR phone, but alas, Symbian is in control here as well.
Don't let the claims of "openess" and "open source" fool you!
Re:Antitrust? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody ever suggested you could run anything on an iPhone, and that makes it no different that most of the other cellular phone devices out there.
No, but the fact that Apple has both the capability and the will to control what they let their customers put on their phones doesn't mean that this isn't a very, very user-hostile move by Apple.
On every phone I've ever owned, I could run any compatible software I wanted.
Iphone is the only phone I've seen where the manufacturer say "Sorry. We will not allow you to run this software on your phone, even though it is compatible, useful and does no harm."
Re:Antitrust? (Score:4, Insightful)
re: Arbitrary? (Score:3, Funny)
Really, I don't see this at all? About the ONLY time an app for the iPhone was denied by Apple on what was obviously an "arbitrary" decision was that useless "Pull My Finger" app. (If you ask me, Apple's biggest mistake here might simply have been letting too many other "lame" apps through. Banning "Pull My Finger" makes sense to me, if they're thinking "Hey, this isn't something that shows off our product in a positive light. People are going to see this and think the quality of things you can buy in o
Re: Arbitrary? (Score:4, Interesting)
We're talking about Apple's rejection of applications which are deemed to "compete" with Apple's own functionality, or even planned functionality. Here's a (probably incomplete) list [boredzo.org] of higher profile apps that have been rejected by Apple, for various reasons.
Regarding Opera's rejection -- if Microsoft could have locked users into using only Internet Explorer on Windows, they would have. Once IE had killed Netscape, most internet-savvy people were even okay with using IE. Just because most of us are okay with Apple, and Safari doesn't suck, doesn't mean that Apple is justified in locking its users into its choice of software.
Re: (Score:3)
"antitrust investigation"
Just what monopoly does Apple have that they are unfairly competing in? They surely don't have a monopoly on phones... even smart phones.
There is no antitrust issue here until the _only_ viable phone you can buy runs OSX with Safari. As long as there are plenty of competitors in this space... you are free to go somewhere else with your dollars.
I'm not saying this is a good decision by Apple... but it is _their_ decision to make and the government has no say in it.
Friedmud
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? On my Sprint phones the only software available was what Sprint approved. If they didn't like it (say it competed with their wannabe-MP3 service or TV service) they wouldn't approve it.
Cell phone applications having to be approved is quite routine. Smartphones may be different, but with most phones the companies like to lock them down to prevent people from messing with their revenue streams. This is no different.
Re:Antitrust? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have never had any problems installing any apps I wanted on any of my Sprint phones, regardless of where I was getting them from. Sure, they're not in the Sprint App Store but hitting Google and then putting a URL into your cell browser isn't too tough.
Re:Antitrust? (Score:5, Insightful)
that's the carrier locking you in, not the handset manufacturer. this kind of blatantly anti-consumer policy may be routine in the cellular service industry, but Apple is setting a new precedent for it in the handset manufacturing industry. so now consumers have to put up with, not just being screwed over by their cell phone carrier, but also by their handset manufacturer? this seems like a new low in consumer rights/freedom. Apple seems bent on going in the exact opposite direction with the iPhone as Google is going with the Android platform.
hopefully with the rising popularity of municipal WiFi & WiMax, the growing movement behind open spectrums/networks, and the increased focus on wireless broadband technology, we'll eventually see closed/proprietary cellular networks replaced with VoIP over open wireless networks.
when ubiquitous open wifi access becomes a reality we'll start seeing wireless VoIP handsets replace conventional cell phones that have to be approved (and locked down) by cellular carriers. when that happens it'll only be handset makers who are able to deny users the freedom to install/run the applications that they want on their handsets. so if manufacturers go the Android route, users will have complete freedom & control over how they use their phones, whereas if Apple's attitude catches on user will be stuck in the same situation as before.
Re:Antitrust? (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? On what grounds could Apple be sued if a user modified their product in a way not approved by Apple?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
what does liability or support have to do with banning competing software?
are you saying that just because an application doesn't compete with one of Apple's native applications it won't cause any problems? or that just because Opera competes with Safari that Apple will be held responsible for problems with Opera?
that makes no sense whatsoever. the fact that all iPhone applications have to meet with their approval makes them more liable for damage done by these applications than if they let developers freel
Re:Antitrust? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody ever suggested you could run anything on Windows, and that makes it no different than most of the other OSes out there. It comes down to the simplest of playground rules:
My ball, my game.
There's a reason we're reminded of the 90's and Microsoft vs Netscape. But hey, at least Microsoft didn't stop Netscape from happening, they just competed unfairly. Apple is doing both -- they're bundling Safari (just like Microsoft bundled IE), and they're actively working to prevent Opera from even being sold on that platform.
The only reason I like Macs is that they tend to work. Apple has been more closed and more anticompetitive than Microsoft ever was -- and I'm not just talking about the iPhone.
Re:Antitrust? (Score:5, Insightful)
Opera is free. Apple are preventing a free and arguably better browser from appearing on their gadget. They bigger the market share apple pick up, particularly real people and not apple zealots, the more shit like this is going to come to ahead. Many people already regard apple as the new MS bastards.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe I'm just drawing a blank, but MS has never actually prevented development, they just packaged things and integrated things to leverage the field significantly in their favor.
You really should read my entire post before replying... I said exactly that two paragraphs down:
But hey, at least Microsoft didn't stop Netscape from happening, they just competed unfairly. Apple is doing both...
The high cost forced data plan + vioce plan is a.. (Score:4, Informative)
The high cost forced data plan + voice plan is a trun off me. I want to get S60 based phone running Symbian OS with WIFI and just use WIFI I have ATT DSL so I can use there hotspots for free as well as not being forced to use 1 app store I can get apps from any one with out the app lock in.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So get one?
What's holding you back.
No money? Just use a credit card! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just another sad example of the American tendency to live beyond one's means. This is another symptom of the disease that is eating this country: financial illiteracy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
... ComScore found that iPhone purchases grew fastest among people with annual household incomes between $25,000 and $50,000.
Poor people are poor because they're stupid with their money. If or when the Democrats get control next week, we can see more money going down the poor people money pit: sales of consumer electronics, junk food, fast food, Walmart junk, etc... will all increase. But yet, when something that would reduce conspicuous consumption among folks who really need to save and develop some sort of fiscal discipline, it is shot down as helping the "rich". By the way, most middle and upper class folks need to develop s
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No money? Just use a credit card! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's easy to be smart with money when you have a lot of it, you have more choices. Compare the price per ounce of orange soda vs orange juice sometime. Healthy food costs more than unhealthy food, that's why you see all those slender affluent women in the suburbs (plus they have the money and time to excercise) but when you head down to less affluent areas you see more overweight women. No money for healthy food, no money or time for regular pilates and yoga.
Did you know that the government requires "food stamp" (they're now debit cards though) recipients to take a class in how to spend their food dollars before they get their benefit? They say things like "buy healthy food, buy fresh fruits and vegetables, don't buy junk." but every recipient knows that if they followed that advice their benefit wouldn't last the month.
It's folks like you that cause politicians to talk about helping the forgotten middle class? How can the middle class be forgotten when everyone talks about them and wants to cater to them. It's the poor and lower class that are truly forgotten. When's the last time you ever heard a politician say, "hey let's index the minimum wage to inflation and the CPI and make it retroactive to 1980" or "Let's increase the "food stamp" benefit so that people can actually afford to follow the food buying advice we give them." or "Hey lets tighten up labor laws so we don't have grocery chains hiring teenagers because they can: pay them less, know they're less likely to unionize and are less likely to complain about sexual harassment or bad workplace conditions."
Re:No money? Just use a credit card! (Score:5, Insightful)
I had no problem eating well when I was a poor college student. For me it was easier to eat well when I was poor because all the pre-made frozen/boxed/canned meals were unaffordable. Now I have to work quite a bit harder to avoid the temptation to simply let Tombstone and friends do all my cooking for me.
The poor people I know who eat like crap don't do it because they can't afford better. They do it because they have no willpower. They not only eat junk food, they eat out for junk food. Nobody who can afford to eat regularly at McDonald's is going to have problems affording healthy food.
And really, I don't buy your argument at all. Eating healthy is harder if you're a lazy poor person. But potatoes, beans, and in-season vegetables are all cheaper than junk food.
Oh, and food stamps? I don't live in an area with a lot of food-stamp recipients. But the last time I saw someone use food stamps at my local grocery store, she was buying two large bottles of Odwalla juice, clocking in at something like $15 total for perhaps half a gallon of juice. Obviously she's having no trouble affording healthy food!
Re:No money? Just use a credit card! (Score:5, Funny)
My sister, her baby and her baby's daddy used to live with me back when I was first out of college. I asked her to help out by paying some rent and she told me that she was so broke that she had to eat at McDonalds. That statement almost caused me to choke on my ramen.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're guilty of extrapolating from one incident and assuming much about her lifestyle. Could have been a one time splurge you know. Would you want to eat beans and rice for every meal every day?
I would not, but I would never ever spend any money on anything made by Odwalla.
I make close to six figures and I would never even consider spending $15 on juice.
So I don't care if it's a one-time splurge or a regular thing. Either way it says nothing good about her. From the poor people I know, a lot of why they remain poor is because they frequently make "one-time" splurges. Years later they still have no money, and they wonder why....
Food stamps are paid for by tax money. That woman essentially spent fif
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And honestly, it pisses me off in the pit of my stomach that you somehow feel privileged enough to get to critique a poor person's purchasing decision just because you make more. But I understand it is ignorance.
Well then you have misinterpreted me. I'm not criticizing a poor person's purchasing decision just because I make more. I would criticize anyone who buys two jugs of Odwalla juice at $7+ each. It's a dumb decision made by dumb people. But in this case not only is it dumb but she demonstrably cannot afford it. And she is using my money, and the money of all other local taxpayers, to fund this rather ridiculous luxury.
My main point being, food stamps obviously help people out a lot. Eating right is cheaper th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fattier meat isn't a problem for eating healthy, you can often remove a lot of that depending on how you cook it, and even if you can't, simply use less. In the end, meat is completely optional anyway.
You're correct that juice is more expensive than soda, but water is cheaper than both. Juice is also completely optional. Tap water is completely serviceable, and even if our hypothetical poor people somehow live in a place where the tap water is undrinkable, filters or cheap store-brand bottled water bought i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh please. I cook from scratch constantly. And I do it for two reasons: first, I like to cook and I like the results. Second: it is vastly cheaper than buying everything pre-made.
I know what cheese costs per pound. About $4.50 when I buy it.
I wanted to inject some actual number into this, so I went to peapod.com and checked it out. They should be fairly representative, despite being a delivery service, as my impression is that they simply charge the same prices as the Giant stores which run the service.
The
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I know a few in that last category. Our household just barely falls into the lower middle class category, but because we're careful we're on track to retire at the age of 55 (comfortably). Save your money people, live cheaply. You'll be very thankful for it later.
Recommended reading: "Rich Dad, Poor Dad"
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! And as for this...
'I don't see there's going to be much of a slowdown, just because wireless devices are so much more of a necessity than they used to be,' Wu said.
Yeah, until a hard recession/depression redefines "necessity".
Re:No money? Just use a credit card! (Score:4, Insightful)
And who ever considered the iPhone to be a necessity?
I have a wireless device. It cost me $1 when it came with my plan.
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to all those wise people like me who lived well within our means and invested in stocks (!) and earned negative real returns on savings accounts? Yeah, that worked out real well for us, didn't it.
Re: (Score:2)
The value of your stocks may have gone down, but if you haven't sold them you've lost nothing. If they are worth more than when you bought them but less than they were a year ago, you've made a profit. I doubt you were complaining when the value of your portfolio was being artificially inflated in the bu
Re:No money? Just use a credit card! (Score:4, Interesting)
Normally, I'd wait for a non-AC to make the point, but since you're probably going to get modded up, I'll just have to snuff it out right here:
Are you retiring in the next year to two? If not, them you have nothing to worry about.
Right, because I wasn't planning on using the money in my savings account until I turn 65, is that it?
Okay, so let's just look at the "long-term" savings accounts. Given the recent downturn and the still-pathetic earnings yields, the stock market over -- yes, the long term -- will probably return 5% nominal, since it first has to make up the ~40% downturn. (The 10-year S&P fund return was 4.5%/year *before* the recent downturn, and even that isn't enough to cover the taxes+inflation+volatility. Even in a tax-advantaged account, that's not a good deal.)
So, in exchange for giving up most of my wealth when it's most valuable to me (at a young age), I get to have a whopping 1% inflation/tax/volatility-adjusted return by investing till 65.
If your personal time discount rate is more than 1% -- which it is for almost everyone -- it just doesn't make sense to save, I am now sadly forced to admit. So frankly, I can't really criticize people who took advantage of way-underprice interested rates to buy durable consumer items. Show me risk-free interest rates (money markets) of 8% real, and I will change my mind.
Btw, anyone notice how the reasoning I'm responding to is sounding more and more these days like, "oh, don't worry man, the roulette wheel can be kinda mean, just keep playing, you'll make up your losses, totally, the guys in suits have it all figured out."
Now before you get really down on the system, keep in mind, you'd be worse off (less money, less control, watching much of your money paying for shit you don't want, and money going to the politicians' buddies) if the Government took care of everything for you.
Relevance to what I actually posted, please?
Re: (Score:2)
One of the reason many poor stay that way (Score:5, Insightful)
Horrible decisions made from the financial standpoint.
Still I am curious, how many of these people in the income brackets live at home, did not list their spouse's income as part of it, or share a house/apartment which could minimize their income needs?
I know it seems heartless to some but a lot of people just don't get ahead because of their own actions. Go by an apartment complex and your bound to see many cars that make you shake your head. A great example is where I work. In our own support staff we have two guys with expensive cars, like a fairly current Mercedes or year old BMW 5 series. Throw in the cool cell phone and I just sigh and walk away when they bitch about not having sufficient money to do things other people do. Yet these same clueless individuals will buy into whatever politicians tell them, specifically that somehow its not their fault and its not fair. They really believe this to be true!
An article in the AJC earlier in the year was showing the plight of the homeless in Atlanta, the impact of the story fell on its face as all but two of those pictured had a cell phone - a few were using them when the picture was taken.
What it comes down to is that people fail to set proper priorities. They refuse to understand that they just can't have everything unless they have the real means to do so. Yet instead of spending that very same wasted money on improving their means they squander it forever setting themselves back. We used to be a society which tried to help each other out but that fell by the wayside when many began to demand that help without making any sacrifice themselves.
Re:One of the reason many poor stay that way (Score:4, Interesting)
Amen.
I heard an Ad Council ad on the radio a few years ago that dramatized a "Savers Anonymous" meeting.
"Hello, my name is Dave... and... I drive a car... that's SEVEN YEARS OLD!!! (*sob*)"
"Hi, I'm Dana, and last week... I couldn't help myself! I CLIPPED A COUPON!"
Etc.
The whole point was that in this world it is almost politically incorrect to be financially responsible.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm also going to throw out there that undergraduates are definitely in the poor brackets according to actual income. A low income bracket doesn't necessarily mean no disposable income. I am in this income bracket, and due to the way I live, would not have have any serious hardship imposed by having an iphone. Now, I happen to not want one, so it's not a problem, but statistics are always suspect until proven meaningful.
Besides, aren't the over $100k per year still addicted to blackberries? That only leaves
Re:One of the reason many poor stay that way (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, that makes two of us, then. I also make about $100k/yr and couldn't imagine coughing up hundreds for an iPhone. My 3 year old Razr works just fine, and it was almost free (well, completely subsidized) because I signed up for a 2 year contract (smallest they offered, but still way more minutes than I ever use) at something like $24/month.
For that matter, I also drive a 15 year old car every day (which I do nearly all the work on myself, and now has about 350k miles on it - that said, I have two newer
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One of the reason many poor stay that way (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a job, I work as a PA to the disabled. I made less than $16000 last year. Do you know why it pays so low? Because the majority of people who do it in the cities are african american women. And thusly the work is devalued.
No. The pay is so low because there's a greater supply of would-be PAs there there is a demand for them. Contrast with, say, an accountant: it's hard to become one, so the supply stays relatively low and they get more pay.
Drop the wanna-be victim crap. You chose to work in a low-skill job and can't expect to get paid a lot for it. I won't bother replying to your failed logic tying lesbians to social work.
Re:One of the reason many poor stay that way (Score:4, Insightful)
No. The pay is so low because there's a greater supply of would-be PAs there there is a demand for them. Contrast with, say, an accountant: it's hard to become one, so the supply stays relatively low and they get more pay.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Group homes for disabled folk are constantly understaffed because they can't hire people for the wages they pay, same goes for nursing homes. CIL's (Centers for indepentent living, agencies that advocate for disabled folks) are constantly trying to recruit PA's and match them to people who need them, and there aren't enough because it pays crap and the work is hard. Accountants sit in an air conditioned office all day hitting numbers on a keyboard and reading. Folks like me wipe your grannies or your relative with cerebral palsy's ass, lift them in and out of wheelchairs and keep them company so they don't get depressed. The job is a-fucking stressful, but it needs to be done.
It's not low skill, I have to keep an eye out for all sorts of medical issues, know about medications and keep track of all sorts of information. I don't see why what I do should be valued less. We as a society should be judged on how we treat our weakest and vulnerable members. As for lesbians and social work, you don't know too many social service types do you. Go visit social service agencies, you'll see. I know one thing you won't see much of, straight men.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Group homes for disabled folk are constantly understaffed because they can't hire people for the wages they pay, same goes for nursing homes. CIL's (Centers for indepentent living, agencies that advocate for disabled folks) are constantly trying to recruit PA's and match them to people who need them, and there aren't enough because it pays crap and the work is hard.
Economically speaking, there are enough. If there weren't, those places would pay more to hire more. There may not be as many as you'd like to help with your shift - and that's a perfectly valid complaint - but your employer has exactly as many as they're willing to pay for.
Folks like me wipe your grannies or your relative with cerebral palsy's ass, lift them in and out of wheelchairs and keep them company so they don't get depressed. [...] It's not low skill
Point, set, and match. But your fundamental misunderstanding is that "low skilled job" is economist jargon for "something the average person can be easily trained in". All of the mental labor aspects you list could be readily learned
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. "I'm" going to pay more to get someone else to do it. If "I" can't afford to, I wipe her ass myself. If I don't want to, grandma gets a disease and dies.
It starts paying better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just another sad example of the American tendency to live beyond one's means. This is another symptom of the disease that is eating this country: financial illiteracy.
You give them too much credit. Another problem is that people who are on welfare, who need help buying groceries, may be buying these phones. Well, we are buying these phones for them in essence. That symptom's disease can be described as "we deserve everything but we don't want to pay for it so let the government help us do everything". Maybe that would be considered financial ignorance or dependence?
Moderation test (Score:3, Funny)
The iPhone crowd is still dominated by affluent males between the ages of 18 and 35
Those of us who don't bask in the glow of all things Apple might say they're afflicted as well as affluent.
bling (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:bling (Score:5, Insightful)
Bingo. It's the same reason low-income people drive Beamers, Benzes, etc., especially amongst the low-income African Americans and hispanics. They might be livin' in da hood, but they wear more diamonds than anyone in the 'burbs.
Re:bling (Score:5, Funny)
'Black' is not a skin color, it's a state of mind. I grew up in Detroit -- the "D".
Re:bling (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why Jump To (Racist) Conclusions? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
:)
I need an iPhone Pro, then (Score:2, Funny)
I don't want the same phone that some poorie has. That's the reason I own a MacBook Pro and a Mac Pro. No poories allowed!
"Fastest Growing" (Score:4, Insightful)
Similarly, it could be the fastest growing because it 'grew' from 100 people to 148 people. Still a meager total, but explosive growth.
Low income means a lot of things (Score:3, Informative)
I'm a first year graduate student in physics, and about 1/3 of my class have iPhones. We're definitely low-income -- Teaching Assistant pay is ~$14k/year.
Usually when the phrase "low income" comes up, people think poor people in the inner city or whatnot. Here, I bet low income mostly means students and the likes. I think owning an iPhone is silly on our pay, but at least we have decent future income potential (better than most low income people), so it may not really be beyond our means.
Re:Low income means a lot of things (Score:4, Insightful)
And how many of you have some expenses subsidized by affluent parents?
Low income? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"food debit style card" doesn't have quite the same ring to it. Some people in the UK still call their state benefits a Giro (a kind of cheque you can cash at the post office), even though it gets paid directly into your bank account these days.
Because they are constrained by IT? (Score:2)
Maybe it's because low-income folk typically don't hold jobs that require a smartphone where said jobs have IT departments that say you can have a BlackBerry or a BlackBerry?
I do agree with a previous poster that a lot of it is probably the American habit of living beyond their means as well.
Opera on the iPhone (Score:5, Insightful)
I was asked about Opera not being allowed on the iPhone yesterday. My immediate gut reaction was that Apple was being a douche. All my instincts cry out that programmers should be able to put anything they want out there and let the market decide.
I got to thinking about it though. To the best of my knowledge, there is no global preference in place to set which apps respond to which data sources. What I mean is, when I click on a link in an email, Safari opens the page. When I click on a phone number in google maps, an email or a web page, the phone app opens it. Same thing for music, podcasts, videos, etc. You get the idea.
This keeps the phone simple, intuitive and predictable. All the other apps I install are all for doing some *other* specific task than what is provided by the core applications/functionality. What would happen then if I loaded Opera, Konqueror, Firefox, etc. on the phone. Which one would open my web links? Obviously the one specified in my preferences (which don't exist). What if I wanted to open this particular link with FireFox this time? I can't right-click and say open link with. Do I have to quit the program, open preferences and temporarily select Firefox?
I realize that it would be rather simple for Apple to address these issues and add this functionality, but once that camel's nose is under the tent you are now dealing with people demanding a preference and underlying mechanism for modifying the behavior of all the core functionalities. I want Skype to open when I touch a phone number in an email or on a web page (or in my address book), but I only want it to come up when I'm not connected to wireless. When I'm on wireless I want MyVOIP to make the calls. This also applies to which app you want sending emails, text messages, etc.
While the geek in me can get into this sort of configurability, I've already seen the whole other level of complexity added to the preference system with just the addition of push and Exchange connectivity. If users had to go through page after page of preferences just to find the right place to indicate which app they wanted to store their contacts in and have that tie into their Exchange push connection, it would be a nightmare.
I don't think the masses are ready for that or even really want it. That sort of complexity will make the iPhone just like every other smart phone out there. My coworker was bragging up his WinMobile-based smartphone at lunch the other day. He was saying it could do so much more than the iPhone. I don't doubt it, but my god, the gyrations he had to go through to tweak a setting to get it to do things. Just setting up a new wireless connection or a new IMAP email account seemed ridiculously complex. He said it was just due to the fact that he'd downloaded other email apps and tools and that each one had a different place to set up some of the preferences.
Is there a place for a mobile device that lets a geek configure every possible thing and choose exactly which software performed what tasks? Absolutely. That place should rightly be filled by Android and matched with the particular hardware design that that geek has chosen for their particular needs/fetish. I don't think the iPhone is where it belongs.
It may be the height of irony but I can see the iPhone becoming the phone people refer to when they say "Dammit, all I want in my smart-phone is to be able to make calls, surf the web, email, mapping, music, games and movies! I don't want to have to mess with all that other crap." in the same way purists today say "I just want a phone that makes calls."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Android actually indeed, from the ground up, allows applications to advertise to the system that they are willing and able to handle and display certain forms of data, or publish that they will allow the user to do certain things. [techsociotech.com] When an application makes a request to have a certain data-type handled (like "open this web page"), the OS selects which of the installed apps that can will get to handle the request.
But this need not create a lot of complexity. The failure you are describing is a usability failu
I want just a Phone= jPhone? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry, but technology doesn't always make life easier; don't need fluff I won't use.
"jPhone" or iPhone shuffle??
1 button phone: answer/hangup; hold for power
1 slide switch: silent mode; during conversation it turns on speaker mode
Voice recognition: RECITE numbers to dial them
Speaking interface: like voice mail menus- I never want to mess with options so its no big deal to wait for a talking interface whenever I want to setup speed dial or see the last call's number (it does have a tiny screen.)
simple ring sound; if custom just have it record your own with it's mic
Water resistant: sound quality often sucks anyhow
Simple small B&W display; wrist watch like; callerID
2 AAA NiMH batteries: new batteries shouldn't cost more than the phone! (I don't care if I have to swap batteries it doesn't have to charge them; I'm not that lazy...) /. is the wrong place to talk simple but I'm shocked nobody has made a phone that doesn't go in this direction.
At least this is more Star Trek: push button, speak name of person to speak to - and it calls them; perhaps using other people's tracking info you can ask it where somebody is and have it speak an answer as well? It could speak their name when they call (known people only.)
status symbol (Score:4, Interesting)
This story concurs with my own observation; I take the Broad Street line in Philly from Center City and go pretty far north every day; there are many apparently low-income people with iPhones and iPod Touches. It actually amazes me.
But unlike the article, I never thought the iPhone/Touch were chosen based on frugality; rather, I think they are status symbols, vulgar displays of wealth like knock-off designer clothes and cheap bling. There are much cheaper devices, or combination of devices, available.
The article is more like industrial cheer-leading, which apparently concludes that the iPhone has become a necessity. Please!
Re: (Score:2)
> But unlike the article, I never thought the iPhone/Touch were chosen
> based on frugality; rather, I think they are status symbols, vulgar
> displays of wealth like knock-off designer clothes and cheap bling.
> There are much cheaper devices, or combination of devices, available.
I think that I weigh far less than I really do.
So much for "thinking."
That's Medium, Not Low, Income (Score:5, Informative)
$25-50,000 annual income isn't "low income". It's middle income, since real median income is about $25-50,000 [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's "low" to your average tech geek.
Think about your average tech geek, they're white or asian, they grew up on the suburbs. maybe their dad got them a shell account on their workplaces Unix box, maybe they got a neo geo when they were kids. Their high school had a math team and a library right out of Shermer High School, they had an IBM PC when the things were $2000+. They could afford to take SAT/ACT preperation courses, their school had classes to prepare them to take the AP tests AND they could affor
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
here is where we run into problems. Everybody thinks they're middle class. I remember watching some documentary where they asked people what class they belonged to. Practially every one said some kind of middle class. They they asked the actual income. It turned out that they had people under the poverty line and millionaires claiming to be middle class.
here in america, no one wants to ad
How can they afford the monthly charges? (Score:2)
What!?! How can this group afford the monthly charges? I just checked the AT&T site http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/specials/iphone-info.jsp [att.com] and saw that the minimum monthly charge is $70/month, plus the $200 outlay for the phone itself. There is simply no way I could afford this while paying for taxes, mortgage, utilities, food, gas, clothing, college tuitions and hom
Re:How can they afford the monthly charges? (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps they don't have all of the costs you describe because they live within their means. $25k per year is over $2k per month. In my case, for example, I make $1900 per month, spend $850 on {mortgage, utilities, property taxes, maintenance} (I live in an expensive area), $400 on food, nothing on a car, nothing on gas, nothing on tuition, next to nothing on clothes, and minimal amounts on entertainment.
Which means each month of my $1900, I have $650 of overhead that either goes to savings, or electronics projects.
We don't all have your expenses. If I wanted to afford $70/month for a phone (I already pay $30/month for just a regular cell phone, so only a $40/month marginal increase, btw).
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and I carry a pay-as-you-go phone that costs me $0.80 (yes, 80 cents) per month as long as I don't use more than about 50 minutes per month.
Old adage (Score:3, Insightful)
"If you want to be rich, sell to the poor. If you want to be poor, sell to the rich."
My Karma Killer for Today (Score:2, Insightful)
Article- "Opera's engineers have developed a version of Opera Mini that can run on an Apple iPhone, but Apple won't let the company release it because it competes with Apple's own Safari browser"
Slashdot- "So what. It's their phone, they can do whatever they want. No one ever said the iPhone would run every app. Uncle Steve is just acting in our best interests"
But what if......
Article- "Opera's engineers have developed a version of O
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're right.
The iPhone platform is closed, Windows Mobile is much more open. The arbitrary way that Apple get to pick and choose really sucks.
However, iPhone wipes the floor with Windows Mobile on usability. Some slashdotters value openness more, some value UI more and are willing to overlook Apple's behaviour so far.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The average person does not give a damn about choice if the default offerings are good enough.
BTW. Have you tried Opera lately on any platform? I've noticed that it does not seem to really "fit" in with the UI or user experience of any of the platforms it's on. This is one of the reasons why opera is not allowed o
It's interesting what people spend their money on (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Opera (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Does that really apply?
That app would probably work on jailbroken phones, which is probably the closest analogy I can think of to that political revolution.
Apple does hold the keys to their app store, it seems silly to me to port a major app like that knowing full well what the contract is with respect to getting onto that app store.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's worked for bullshit vehicles like the Escalade, so I don't know why it wouldn't work for a bullshit smartphone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, your bullshit answer doesn't really fly with me. (How comparing an Escalade to an iPhone makes any kind of sense is beyond me? But it got modded +4 Insightful, so I'll bother responding.)
Almost all the satisfied iPhone owners I know who purchased one for PERSONAL use, vs. business use, fall into the wage category mentioned. ($25K - $50K salaries)
None of these folks are interested in driving big, flashy SUVs, though - nor could most of them even afford the gas or personal property taxes on one!
The p
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Umm, no.... The point is, if a person can afford to spend $60 for a console game, then they can obviously afford prices like 99 cents or even $4.99 for a piece of phone software.
My iPhone purchase was never about it being a "status symbol". I simply have owned several "smartphones" in the past, because I like the idea of my cellphone also being capable of doing web browsing and checking my email on the go. I don't need to see some full-blown "Flash enabled" web site. But I might want to look up info on
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I carry both a Blackberry for work and an iPhone for personal use. My iPhone is the furthest thing from a status symbol -- it's my life in my pocket. My Blackberry is just an annoyance.
I consider them roughly equivalent for email, largely because the Blackberry makes up for the awkwardness of its interface by having powerful filtering options and copy and paste.
For absolutely any other kind of use, from calendar to notes to Web usage to games to RSS, the iPhone blows the Blackberry away. Its screen is b
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:INTERIOR CROCODILE THEATRE (Score:4, Insightful)
There is always one of you in every argument. Honestly, do you actually see racism in that comment?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I just fucked my girlfriend bearback
I hope that was supposed to be "bareback", because otherwise your girlfriend is really fucking hairy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)