People are keeping their cell phones a lot longer(axios.com)
axios.com
People are keeping their cell phones a lot longer
https://www.axios.com/people-are-keeping-their-cell-phones-a-lot-longer-2504972354.html
60 comments
Similarly, I look at it as "what new thing does this enable me to do?" Performance increases are great if they can better race to sleep and improve battery life. But otherwise, better screen / camera / speakers don't enable anything that I couldn't otherwise do with a 7 year old phone.
i think it's also that the technology has been around long enough that consumers just aren't excited by this 'new thing'. Thinking of apps, when smartphones came out there was for a few years excitement about apps and what they could do, camera apps with filters, games, social media, nerd utilities. Every business and every schoolboy's aunt made an app for their service. I can't even remember the last time I went to the app store.
The excitement died, the brilliance faded and now I just want a headphone socket and a music player that isn't trying to sell me a paid service I don't want.
The excitement died, the brilliance faded and now I just want a headphone socket and a music player that isn't trying to sell me a paid service I don't want.
I'm waaaay behind the latest phone at this point and don't care either. All I need is text and a web browser.
Talked to a guy who worked for [a large tech company] and he said that the company doesn't allow phones to connect to the network if they are more than 1 month behind security updates.
Unfortunately of the Android vendors only Google actually guarantees (let alone actually follows though with) regular security updates for a specific time (2 years of version updates, plus another year of just security).
So he and many of his workmates had Google (or Apple) phones. Although since Google phased out their mid-range Nexus line having to pay 3x as much for a Pixel isn't as appealing.
Unfortunately of the Android vendors only Google actually guarantees (let alone actually follows though with) regular security updates for a specific time (2 years of version updates, plus another year of just security).
So he and many of his workmates had Google (or Apple) phones. Although since Google phased out their mid-range Nexus line having to pay 3x as much for a Pixel isn't as appealing.
A large tech company allowing cellphones on their internal network sounds extremely bizarre.
Cellphones should be on an untrusted/guest wireless connection, if they need access to corporate resources they should access them over the internet or VPN just like they would if they were anywhere else with their phones.
Cellphones should be on an untrusted/guest wireless connection, if they need access to corporate resources they should access them over the internet or VPN just like they would if they were anywhere else with their phones.
That sounds terrible.
That is a crazy amount of bandwidth usage to VPN out and then back into the the network through the same pipe is a waste. Not counting the licenses and even the ability to maintain that many connections at a given time. Going off of the use cases I have actually done.
It not hard to setup WPA2 Enterprise with assigned VLAN access, heck you can even assign it based on the device, meaning Joe signs in on his laptop and he gets internal access but when he signs in on his cellphone it goes straight out. Each connection is assigned based on need and checked by the IT department.
The OP doesn't even say they are given internal access just network access, which could be straight out to the internet. The majority of cellphones used in my company are VLAN straight to the internet but there are cases where tablets and cellphones need access to server and shares that they are assigned to a VLAN they are on.
That is a crazy amount of bandwidth usage to VPN out and then back into the the network through the same pipe is a waste. Not counting the licenses and even the ability to maintain that many connections at a given time. Going off of the use cases I have actually done.
It not hard to setup WPA2 Enterprise with assigned VLAN access, heck you can even assign it based on the device, meaning Joe signs in on his laptop and he gets internal access but when he signs in on his cellphone it goes straight out. Each connection is assigned based on need and checked by the IT department.
The OP doesn't even say they are given internal access just network access, which could be straight out to the internet. The majority of cellphones used in my company are VLAN straight to the internet but there are cases where tablets and cellphones need access to server and shares that they are assigned to a VLAN they are on.
I regret mentioning VPN. Most people don't VPN with their phones, it's possible, but most people don't. They use their phone to access their company e-mail and sometimes other services which are open on the internet already. It's a small amount of traffic compared to the cost of trying to maintain an entire separate network just for some one-off use cases, forcing people to sign-in, register their devices, maintain the network, etc.
Of course there are special cases for tablets and such, but you'd treat those differently than someone's personal phone.
If they were given a connection "straight out to the internet" then it's even more bizarre to require strict regulations about their phones.
I see no advantages to letting people's personal phones on a corporate network.
Of course there are special cases for tablets and such, but you'd treat those differently than someone's personal phone.
If they were given a connection "straight out to the internet" then it's even more bizarre to require strict regulations about their phones.
I see no advantages to letting people's personal phones on a corporate network.
Sounds like bad Infosec policies at work. I doubt they have VLANs, everything can likely access everything internally.
I love the egotistical assumption that they have a bad Infosec policy and don't have VLANs based on basically one sentence.
Here is one: "They connected computers to their network" The assumed security risk are endless and 100% of companies do it!! Such idiots, to connect a computer to a network!
Here is one: "They connected computers to their network" The assumed security risk are endless and 100% of companies do it!! Such idiots, to connect a computer to a network!
I'm not sure which network they use at the office but I think he was mainly talking about reading email.
Innovation in mobile stopped years ago. Buying a new phone today won't bring you any new features.
So why bother buying a new device when the old one still works?
So why bother buying a new device when the old one still works?
It's even worse. Buying bleeding edge phone today will bring you less features than before. No headphone jack, need to use dongles, no home button and very convenient finger print reader for authentication, awkward gestures instead of user friendly and self explanatory button click, shorted battery life and the list goes on and on. Lack of those features will never be equalled with mostly useless new features like portrait mode or sliminess. I understand that I as a customer, supposedly, don't know what ,currently, non existing feature I will want but I think I know exactly what features I don't want to loose.
Exactly. Basically the same thing that happened in consumer desktop/laptop computers 8-10 years ago. People are now keeping them for 5-10 years instead of upgrading every 3 years.
Good point. I'd guess that if modern phones had replaceable batteries the upgrade cycle would be even longer.
If only OEMs responded to that and supported their phones for much longer, too. Even if people didn't "keep their phones" for more than 2 years, those phones still usually end-up being used by someone else, whether family members, friends, or someone else purchasing it as a second-hand product. So the lifecycle of a smartphone should be significantly longer than 1-2 years.
I'm hanging on to the old 6S until Apple bring back the headphone jack...
Well, you’ll probably have to hang on to it for a long time then, because Apple will not bring the headphone jack back. They never did that before for any port/hardware feature they removed afaik.
> Well, you’ll probably have to hang on to it for a long time then, because Apple will not bring the headphone jack back.
In the meantime the iPhone SE is a good phone, has a good form-factor and still has a headphone jack.
In the meantime the iPhone SE is a good phone, has a good form-factor and still has a headphone jack.
Yeah, its akin to holding out for wireless charging on a Pixel. Its dead and not gonna come back :c
I was going to hold onto mine for another year at least but the camera doesn't seem to work as of two weeks ago. I held out for 11.1 hoping it was a weird bug but that didn't do it. Must be hardware. Camera won't focus half the time and in video it won't stabilize at all.
I still use a Samsung S5 because of it's two radios - I can talk on a phone call and browse/charge a credit card/etc. at the same time.
The Camera on it started acting flaky about two weeks ago and it stopped getting pictures stored intact. So, I finally found a new open source camera app and it works perfect again. The default camera app seems to be buggy.
I wonder if a system update was engineered to 'encourage' a phone upgrade...
The Camera on it started acting flaky about two weeks ago and it stopped getting pictures stored intact. So, I finally found a new open source camera app and it works perfect again. The default camera app seems to be buggy.
I wonder if a system update was engineered to 'encourage' a phone upgrade...
I don't find this, people around always need to have the latest phone it seems, but for myself I bought the Note 4 back in 2014 and still have it today 3 years later. It's got a crack in the screen and apps open maybe a millisecond slower than I'd like, but otherwise it does everything I need. I look at newer models and it just seems like the law of diminishing returns in effect; higher cost for smaller amount of noticeable changes. I've yet to see anything groundbreaking that'll make me upgrade.
People that always have the latest phone seems to have a higher need to talk about what phone they got. Part of what they paid for, social recognition
there’s virtually no visible difference between iphone 6 and 8. Apart from dropping the jack and getting a waterproof design in return, which will increase the probable lifespan of the device if anything. So why upgrade?
While I agree there isn't a huge difference any more, the iPhone 6s is noticeably faster than a 6. The gap from the 6 to the 8 is presumably even larger.
I find it kind of depressing* , but people do use their phones constantly, so things like performance do make a difference.
* Yes, ok, I've been a mobile app developer most of my working life, so I shouldn't really complain.
I find it kind of depressing* , but people do use their phones constantly, so things like performance do make a difference.
* Yes, ok, I've been a mobile app developer most of my working life, so I shouldn't really complain.
No visible difference is true. How it works is dusk and noon. After using an 8 for a while, the 6 seems slow. It never seemed slow before.
I would say wireless charging and waterproof design are legitimate reasons to upgrade.
This is quite surprising, I tought that people would be much more susceptible to marketing. Reason for that trend is obvious, innovation now is very slow, most changes in iPhones for example are cosmetic, the only thing that get real upgrade is a price.
Also, i suspect people now are more aware how much they pay for "cheap" phone in contract.
So maybe simply people are now smarter.
Also, i suspect people now are more aware how much they pay for "cheap" phone in contract.
So maybe simply people are now smarter.
[deleted]
It's interesting that the curve shown in the article started to grow right after Steve Jobs died in 2011. (Too bad the previous years are not shown.)
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Sometime last year, I had an interaction with someone who was about to refurbish a two year contract with Sprint and managed to convince the person to ditch the contract and sign up for a competing service. Well, the person did, but Sprint wanted their phone back because according to them the customer had leased the phone for two years.
Until then I didnt know such arrangements existed, even worse was the fact that this person was paying $100+ for two years for nothing more than a few emails, sms and phone calls. I recommended a $50 SimpleMobile plan and a decent phone.
Some people cant justify why they need a new phone or renew their contract until theres an overriding conviction that its dumb to fall for the flashy ads and in store sales pitch.
Until then I didnt know such arrangements existed, even worse was the fact that this person was paying $100+ for two years for nothing more than a few emails, sms and phone calls. I recommended a $50 SimpleMobile plan and a decent phone.
Some people cant justify why they need a new phone or renew their contract until theres an overriding conviction that its dumb to fall for the flashy ads and in store sales pitch.
Eh, Simple Mobile isn't such a great deal. If your okay with T-Mobile (which is the network Simple Mobile resells), MintSIM at $25 a month for 10GB is almost certainly better. If you want better coverage, Total Wireless offers 5GB of LTE on Verizon for $35 a month, add 5GB more for $10 more.
Thanks I wasnt aware of mint.
$100 for 24 months isn't that expensive ($4.16/month), I certainly expect a free phone with a cheap plan like that.
I think he meant $100/mo.
While shorter upgrade cycles seems to the go to answer, it is mostly because people now have to pay full prices for upgrades. During the 2 year contract era it was possible to pay fraction of costs to upgrade to the next iteration.
Though I wonder how does this compare to the pre-2007, pre-smartphone era? Longer upgrade time should be true for most consumer electronics as they mature, isnt it?
Though I wonder how does this compare to the pre-2007, pre-smartphone era? Longer upgrade time should be true for most consumer electronics as they mature, isnt it?
A lot of these same companies abandoned/deprioritised the tablet market when it became clear it had a more PC-esque (replace it when it's useless) upgrade cycle than the phone (replace it when the contract expires) cycle, so it will be interesting how they react to the same in their primary market.
Maybe they will finally learn to provide updates, because people won't get new handsets anyway.
Why, what would they get out of it?
Nothing beyond some consumer happiness towards their brand, just some wishful thinking from my side, as I hardly believe it will ever change.
I'm always surprised when I go back to Europe and see so many people walking around with iPhone 4.
In Japan, where I live, a vast majority of people get their phones on a 24 months payment plan with a 2 years contract. The carrier gives you a generous discount of about 50% on the price of the phone but applies that discount not on the phone payments but on the data plan. So when the 24 months are done and you've finished paying for the phone, the discount goes away and you pay full price on the data plan and your total bill barely decreases.
In such a system, there is no advantage to keeping your old phone, you might as well just get the latest iPhone every 2 years and that's what 95% of people do.
In Japan, where I live, a vast majority of people get their phones on a 24 months payment plan with a 2 years contract. The carrier gives you a generous discount of about 50% on the price of the phone but applies that discount not on the phone payments but on the data plan. So when the 24 months are done and you've finished paying for the phone, the discount goes away and you pay full price on the data plan and your total bill barely decreases.
In such a system, there is no advantage to keeping your old phone, you might as well just get the latest iPhone every 2 years and that's what 95% of people do.
As someone from Europe, I would rather buy a prepaid SIM card and cash out a couple of hundreds of Euros once for a phone, than be tied to a specific carrier with a contract.
Exactly. Frequently it works out several hundred euros cheaper over 24 months to buy an unlocked phone and go SIM-only.
Not that I'm planning to upgrade my iPhone SE until flagship phones stop being the size of a paperback book.
Not that I'm planning to upgrade my iPhone SE until flagship phones stop being the size of a paperback book.
In Europe we love pre-pay and independence of mobile operators, not being chained to contracts.
Plus changing fully working phones every 2 years only contributes to electronic garbage.
Plus changing fully working phones every 2 years only contributes to electronic garbage.
It's interesting. Here in the US, the people I know who are single are almost universally on prepay, PAYG, or a la carte plans, and just buy our phones outright, because contract pricing works out severely in the carrier's favor. Meanwhile, those with families tend just as strongly toward family-plan contracts which come with a phone per person old enough to need one. I haven't sat down to characterize it in detail, but there seems to be an inflection point in line count past which contract pricing starts to make the most sense.
Family contracts are a huge savings over individual pay as you go plans.
Not so much, at most you'll save $5 to $10 a line compared to an MVNO. Postpaid carriers primarily make their money by locking you in on plans mis-sized for your needs, does every family member use unlimited data? Rarely.
Equipment protection plans and other similar features are also another profit center to beware of.
Equipment protection plans and other similar features are also another profit center to beware of.
All you gotta do is ensure that this 50% discount is tuned to be the actual realistic price, while the full price is secretly just a 200% cost of the real market rate.
That way, the customers pay exactly the same as they normally would, except now they are compelled to buy a new expensive product every 2 years.
That way, the customers pay exactly the same as they normally would, except now they are compelled to buy a new expensive product every 2 years.
Exactly. Greece does what Japan does too, except monthly bills here are "20/mo or 40/mo with an iPhone".
Of course, they tell you that the "real" price is 40/mo, but still give you the option to not take the phone and "discount" it down to 20 anyway.
Of course, they tell you that the "real" price is 40/mo, but still give you the option to not take the phone and "discount" it down to 20 anyway.
And ensure that all 3 major carriers agree behind closed do to have the exact same prices, just obscured with a bunch of different discounts and mandatory options that makes them look wildly different until you get the bill in the mail and the totals are the same...
The same happens with other aspects of phone plans. Comparing two providers in Australia:
One provider’s plan (typical of the model adhered to by most providers): $10/month including $200 of value, with phone calls 99¢/minute plus 40¢ flagfall.
Another provider (with a less common model): an “as you go” plan, with phone calls 15¢/minute. (Actually it’s still 12¢/minute, but the increase kicks in next week.)
My phone bill has been well under $1 every month except for last month where it got to $3.84 because of phone calls associated with buying a house and a couple of other things. Meanwhile, most providers would have been trying to charge me at least $10, more likely $30–$50 per month, or more on a long plan with an expensive phone included when I simply don’t need anything more than what a $150 phone provides.
Look me in the face and tell me that the first pricing model isn’t deliberately deceptive. They’re essentially using a different currency which for their own purposes of misdirection they call dollars. (And if you do get over that 200 units of their magic currency… oh, boy. You’re in for a massive bill.)
I’m inclined to believe that mobile telcos’ advertising practices are probably illegal, as deliberately misleading, and that the only reason they get away with it is because everyone does it and so customer expectations have been ruined.
Most providers wind up leading with “unlimited” plans; I suspect that a substantial fraction of their users would actually fare better with simple cost-per-call plans, but giving you that isn’t in the telcos’ best interests, and almost no providers even offer such a scheme—and the main one that I know of that does, doesn’t exactly advertise it obviously.
One provider’s plan (typical of the model adhered to by most providers): $10/month including $200 of value, with phone calls 99¢/minute plus 40¢ flagfall.
Another provider (with a less common model): an “as you go” plan, with phone calls 15¢/minute. (Actually it’s still 12¢/minute, but the increase kicks in next week.)
My phone bill has been well under $1 every month except for last month where it got to $3.84 because of phone calls associated with buying a house and a couple of other things. Meanwhile, most providers would have been trying to charge me at least $10, more likely $30–$50 per month, or more on a long plan with an expensive phone included when I simply don’t need anything more than what a $150 phone provides.
Look me in the face and tell me that the first pricing model isn’t deliberately deceptive. They’re essentially using a different currency which for their own purposes of misdirection they call dollars. (And if you do get over that 200 units of their magic currency… oh, boy. You’re in for a massive bill.)
I’m inclined to believe that mobile telcos’ advertising practices are probably illegal, as deliberately misleading, and that the only reason they get away with it is because everyone does it and so customer expectations have been ruined.
Most providers wind up leading with “unlimited” plans; I suspect that a substantial fraction of their users would actually fare better with simple cost-per-call plans, but giving you that isn’t in the telcos’ best interests, and almost no providers even offer such a scheme—and the main one that I know of that does, doesn’t exactly advertise it obviously.
With public and home/work WiFi everywhere, and data packages big enough for my needs available for a few pounds a month where I live, I've long since given up on expensive monthly contracts. SIM-free smart phones with all the features I care about are available for £200 or so, and amortised over their average lifetime in my hands (4 years), that's effectively about £5/month (phone) + £7/month (data/minutes/texts), i.e. much cheaper than standard "flagship phone" contracts and with the freedom to change provider or stop at any time.
I pay 15 euros a month for my plan (text call data). So buying a 300 euro iPhone SE was worth it because of the low monthly cost.
Like with many iterative products, when the next model is just around the corner, it somewhat undermines all their "Innovative, future is now, be your best self" fluff marketing. Why pay a premium to be on the bleeding edge when it only lasts 6 months at best?
Many people I knew just bought a Pixel instead of a Pixel 2. The new one didn't even offer enough to be a competitor it's own last model, so people just bought a Pixel 1 and saved themselves some money.
I keep thinking about the concept of peak comfort. Cars, houses, phones, computers. They're all pretty damn excellent right now. Even if you can't afford the brand new thing, they've been excellent for so long now that even the old things are likely to fulfil your needs just fine. Sometimes you can buy the old thing and it will be better than the budget model new thing.