Live data from Hacker News

Cost of iPhone X in 1957

bradford-delong.com

91–100 of 173 posts

Re: Cost of iPhone X in 1957

#91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I think is also important to consider is median income and net worth of US citizens at that time. In the early 50s, much pf Europe and Asia was still rebuilding from war, and the US held an effective monopoly on multiple industries. From the data I could find for 1952 in the US, a house was 5 years of income and a new car was half a year's income. For many people in the US today, a new car (post tax dollars) is…

My family were not nearly millionaires when we bought a $1500 equivalent computer in 1982, but this phone costs less than that. And a iPhone X isn't a phone, it's a computer. I agree you do need to be in an upper tier economically to afford one, but only speaking globally. People bought plenty of laptops when they averaged well over $1000. The way phones are financed makes them much more attainable, also. The way peo…

Yea, I bought an Atari St 1200 I believe in 1983 for college.

It did seem like a big purchase initially. I used it for 6 years of college. I mainly used it for word processing. It never skipped a beat.

Once every two years, I would need to re-ink the ribbon with ink myself. Just dipped the ribbon into the bottle, and rewind. I was too cheap to buy a new ribbon.

Besides the initial outlay, I spent $2.00 days on ink in six years.

If I had foresight, I never would have thrown away a great computer. I miss the word processor program. I definetly miss that dot matrix printer. (I never told anyone at school about my about my computer. I felt like I was cheating. Not one professor noticed the dot matrix print type.

What people miss about old hardware from the days was everything was built like tanks.

The thought of buying a new computer every two years was unthinkable. In my world, it's still unthinkable.

I really believe we have been duped by the industry--on all levels.

Re: Cost of iPhone X in 1957

#92
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OT: thank you for not saying "But that begs the question." Two reasons: (1) it would have been incorrect, and (2) the correct use of the expression "beg the question" is doomed, and we should put it out of its misery.

I prefer the "improper" usage. It makes more sense and is more commonly understood. It begs the question: why doesn't everyone just use it that way?

[deleted]

Re: Cost of iPhone X in 1957

#93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I think is also important to consider is median income and net worth of US citizens at that time. In the early 50s, much pf Europe and Asia was still rebuilding from war, and the US held an effective monopoly on multiple industries. From the data I could find for 1952 in the US, a house was 5 years of income and a new car was half a year's income. For many people in the US today, a new car (post tax dollars) is…

My family were not nearly millionaires when we bought a $1500 equivalent computer in 1982, but this phone costs less than that. And a iPhone X isn't a phone, it's a computer. I agree you do need to be in an upper tier economically to afford one, but only speaking globally. People bought plenty of laptops when they averaged well over $1000. The way phones are financed makes them much more attainable, also. The way peo…

Also people pay and have paid $1000 for iPhones for years now, there's absolutely nothing new here and people think this is some sort of a new era beginning. It's absolutely not.

Re: Cost of iPhone X in 1957

#96
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a free market, there doesn't need to be a "justification" for the price of anything. The price is what someone is willing to pay.

Then that justification for the price is the justification for being willing to pay that price; same thing. Also, "free market" is kind of a joke as a mantra. For example, "without interference" kind of would require a whole lot of marketing people stopping what they're doing. As it is now, many companies themselves are doing their best to interfere with the decisions of consumers and workers, in some cases even get…

I use the phrase 'Potemkin Markets' to describe a lot of this stuff.

Re: Cost of iPhone X in 1957

#97

Having a billion transistors is not 10 times as useful as 100 million transistors. The diminishing return kicked in even before that. Unless a killer application needs a billion transistors, the value created over a previous iPhone is incremental. I think a better way to measure value is invention's cost effectiveness = price / (time * improvement to well-being) The denominator is how much the invention makes our lif…

> Having a billion transistors is not 10 times as useful as 100 million transistors. The diminishing return kicked in even before that. I think this is far more difficult to evaluate than your comment admits. More transistors -> more software that can do more things, written by developers with a wider range of skills, in a society with increased tech permeation, and so on...

The trade off is usually ~same functionality but better graphics. Compare Office 1997 with Office 2017 and the average user sees a very modest improvement relative to how much better of a computer you need.

Re: Cost of iPhone X in 1957

#98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having a billion transistors is not 10 times as useful as 100 million transistors. The diminishing return kicked in even before that. I think this is far more difficult to evaluate than your comment admits. More transistors -> more software that can do more things, written by developers with a wider range of skills, in a society with increased tech permeation, and so on...

I don't think that's entirely clear. At least for cpus, less transistors in practice means you get rid of super-scalar architectures, and over-engineered microcode decoding and branch-prediction units. This leads to a modest reduction in processing speed with far larger gains in battery life for mobile devices (think X86 versus Arm). Client side applications are mostly unaffected in terms of end-user functionality.

First change is smaller cache, then fewer cores. Pentium 4 Willamett had 44 million transistors and a long pipeline etc.

8 core Ryzen on the other hand is 4,800 million.

Post reply on HN