iPhone 5 for the long term

Creibold said:

If you don't upgrade every 2 years, your throwing away money. The subsidized price of the phone is built into the enormous amount of money the major cell phone companies ( Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint) charge per month. If you don't upgrade, your overpaying for a service without the benefit of using a new, subsidized phone.

Click to expand...

Yep exactly. I got my family on 5 iPhone lines recently with Verizon. When we are all due for upgrades, whoever doesn't want/care to upgrade I plan to buy the newest iPhone model and sell it.

On the longevity of the iPhone 5, I think it will be fine to use for at least 3 years. It already has the latest cellular data technology in LTE and this will likely be the standard for the next 5 years as most carriers are still expanding their initial LTE network rollouts. Apple is known for supporting devices that are up to 3 generations old so you'll probably still get regular updates well into 2015. The screen is perfectly sized and it has a very fast processor, GPU, and significant RAM. I plan to keep mine at least 2 years as it seems most smartphones these days are just bumping up specs rather than new killer must have features. If I upgrade before then it will just be because of the tech geek in me itching to have the latest device.

sulpfiction said:

My treo 650 is what got me hooked on smartphones. I loved that phone. I was just looking & laughing at the tomtom navigation kit for the treo that I still have in my office.
Seems like so long ago that I was using it. But it was only like 6 years ago. It's crazy because we are only at the birth of these devices. In another 4 or 5 years we are going to look back at the iPhone 5 and be slightly amazed that it was so "cool".

Click to expand...

really? phones seem to have stalled. I look back at iphone 4s, 4, 3gs... im not amazed at how far weve come. Not like looking way back to the dumb phone days, that was 6-7 years ago. I don't think were going to evolve much from where were too now.

iphone can't get any thinner, the bendgate is proof of that, the resolution can't get any higher than retina, no point. The camera can't get much better, physical size limits that. Processors don't need to get anybetter, too hard on battery life.

Only place they can improve on, and this will be great but won't get anybody excited is battery life. They can definately improve batterylife to two days with lower voltage chips, better display tech and better battery tech. But the R&D won't payoff in the end unfortunately. People are content with 8-10 hour battery life.

walmartmartyr said:

really? phones seem to have stalled. I look back at iphone 4s, 4, 3gs... im not amazed at how far weve come. Not like looking way back to the dumb phone days, that was 6-7 years ago. I don't think were going to evolve much from where were too now.

iphone can't get any thinner, the bendgate is proof of that, the resolution can't get any higher than retina, no point. The camera can't get much better, physical size limits that. Processors don't need to get anybetter, too hard on battery life.

Only place they can improve on, and this will be great but won't get anybody excited is battery life. They can definately improve batterylife to two days with lower voltage chips, better display tech and better battery tech. But the R&D won't payoff in the end unfortunately. People are content with 8-10 hour battery life.

Click to expand...

It may seem that things have stalled a bit, but they haven't. This is the infancy of smart phones. We ain't seen nothing yet.

corvus32 said:

Verizon iPhone 5 16GB with 2GB data plan and 2-year contract:
$199 + ($100 x 24 months) = $2599

Unlocked iPhone 5 with Net10 over two years:
$650 + ($45 x 24 months) = $1730

That's a difference of $870 saved every two years.

Multiply that over 10 years and it adds up to a savings of $4350.

Subsidized phones and expensive monthly plans are the equivalent of high interest rate loans, and the irony is people had to have good credit to get the phone at the subsidized price because of the contract involved. That's what is silly.

It makes much more sense to buy the device outright and take it wherever you want.

Click to expand...

Comparisons imply similar features and coverage. No prepaid offers that, LTE for one, if those features are not important that's fine.

corvus32 said:

Verizon iPhone 5 16GB with 2GB data plan and 2-year contract:
$199 + ($100 x 24 months) = $2599

Unlocked iPhone 5 with Net10 over two years:
$650 + ($45 x 24 months) = $1730

That's a difference of $870 saved every two years.

Multiply that over 10 years and it adds up to a savings of $4350.

Subsidized phones and expensive monthly plans are the equivalent of high interest rate loans, and the irony is people had to have good credit to get the phone at the subsidized price because of the contract involved. That's what is silly.

It makes much more sense to buy the device outright and take it wherever you want.

Click to expand...

As noted, you imply similar levels of service which is definitely not the case. Forgetting LTE speeds or not, MVO's are treated as second class citizens on the primary carriers networks. For many people it's well worth $36/month to maximize the reliability of their phone service.

zhenya said:

As noted, you imply similar levels of service which is definitely not the case. Forgetting LTE speeds or not, MVO's are treated as second class citizens on the primary carriers networks. For many people it's well worth $36/month to maximize the reliability of their phone service.

Click to expand...

Everything on my iPhone 5 works just like it did on AT&T, including MMS and FaceTime over cellular.

The only feature missing is LTE, but no customer should be force to pay extra for it.

corvus32 said:

Everything on my iPhone 5 works just like it did on AT&T, including MMS and FaceTime over cellular.

The only feature missing is LTE, but no customer should be force to pay extra for it.

Click to expand...

I pay extra to have 30x5 Mbps on my home connection rather than 20x1, why shouldn't it cost extra to have 25x10+ rather than 5x2 on a phone?

Again, the level of service on an MVNO is not the same as with the primary carrier - the carriers themselves ensure this - and if you find yourself on a congested network, you will see the results for yourself. For many people this is fine - but for others, whose livelihood depends on a reliable phone service, and/or who travel internationally regularly, the small amount of extra cost is really trivial.

zhenya said:

I pay extra to have 30x5 Mbps on my home connection rather than 20x1, why shouldn't it cost extra to have 25x10+ rather than 5x2 on a phone?.

Click to expand...

If you want to pay an extra $500+ per year for LTE that's great, but like I said no one should be forced to.

Again, the level of service on an MVNO is not the same as with the primary carrier - the carriers themselves ensure this - and if you find yourself on a congested network, you will see the results for yourself.

Click to expand...

Dude, anyone that's in an area that congested will feel it. That goes for AT&T users paying extra for LTE.

corvus32 said:

Dude, anyone that's in an area that congested will feel it. That goes for AT&T users paying extra for LTE.

Click to expand...

You are missing the point that it will be felt far worse by MVNO users whose traffic is classified as second-tier. The primary networks owners customers get priority - that's not an opinion, that's how it works.

You really think AT&T and Verizon are giving the same access to MVNO's as their own customers at a fraction of the rate? No, what they do is they sell those operators access to their lines because it allows them to maximize the traffic that their networks are carrying. This is fine most of the time because there is often excess capacity. Who do you think gets bumped first though when the cell becomes congested? The AT&T customer with a $200/month bill or the discount operators who are there only to fill excess capacity when available?

"fingerprint reader". lol

zhenya said:

You are missing the point that it will be felt far worse by MVNO users whose traffic is classified as second-tier. The primary networks owners customers get priority - that's not an opinion, that's how it works.

You really think AT&T and Verizon are giving the same access to MVNO's as their own customers at a fraction of the rate? No, what they do is they sell those operators access to their lines because it allows them to maximize the traffic that their networks are carrying. This is fine most of the time because there is often excess capacity. Who do you think gets bumped first though when the cell becomes congested? The AT&T customer with a $200/month bill or the discount operators who are there only to fill excess capacity when available?

Click to expand...

lol

Nice scare tactic; however, people on ST or Net10 use zero LTE bandwidth from AT&T.

When that network chokes and reliability tanks your $200/month phone bill won't save you.