Comparison is inaccurate. iPhoneX has 256GB of Flash, not RAM. Vacuum tubes were used for RAM, while smaller and cheaper ferrite cores were used for permanent storage.
Cost of iPhone X in 1957
101–110 of 173 posts
Re: Cost of iPhone X in 1957
#102I think this post unnecessarily contributes to the overhyping of the iPhone. It could just as well be written for any other brand of phone.
Re: Cost of iPhone X in 1957
#103Earlier 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.
Ha, I didn't expect anyone to notice that. I was totally going to go with "begs the question", but wasn't sure if it was correct and was to lazy to look it up.
Raises the question sounds fine and usually is what people want to say.
Re: Cost of iPhone X in 1957
#104This comparison seems fairly fantastical and irrelevant. Something from within the history of consumer electronics would be more useful to consider, in my opinion. For example, in 1982, the wildly popular low-end home entertainment computer, the Commodore 64, was released at $595, or about $1500 after inflation adjustment. On release in 1977, the Apple II was $1298, or over $5000 in today's terms. You could pay $400…
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…
I don't earn insane SV money but I could buy an iPhone X tomorrow, I save approx 50% of my salary every month but then I don't drive, own a house or have any debts.
My total owed to everyone is I grew up poor though so my attitude to money is different to most people my age.
If I don't have a minimum of 6mths income in savings I feel vulnerable.
FWIW I won't be buying the iPhone X, my Moto G5 Plus is an ideal phone for me and only a few months old.
I did drop 1400 quid on a Thinkpad T470P though recently - I will spend money where it makes sense.
Re: Cost of iPhone X in 1957
#105This comparison seems fairly fantastical and irrelevant. Something from within the history of consumer electronics would be more useful to consider, in my opinion. For example, in 1982, the wildly popular low-end home entertainment computer, the Commodore 64, was released at $595, or about $1500 after inflation adjustment. On release in 1977, the Apple II was $1298, or over $5000 in today's terms. You could pay $400…
I am not an iPhone user, or ever bought one. But from the perspective of novelty, I would prefer to buy an iPhone x over an iPhone 8, for the exclusive features. Otherwise I'd stick to an affordable and feature-filled Android.
Re: Cost of iPhone X in 1957
#106The factor that many seem to have overlooked with the $1000 price of the iPhone X is that, if it proves successful, it sets a precedence for future smartphones. The spec improvements of the iPhone X do not line up with the accompanying price increase. Even by iPhone standards it's an expensive device. If you justify the price increases you're just telling Apple you're prepared to be short changed when the iPhone X's…
The name X (10) kinda reinforces this. As in, "Don't expect next year's standard priced iPhone (nominally the 9) to be as good as this."
Re: Cost of iPhone X in 1957
#107The factor that many seem to have overlooked with the $1000 price of the iPhone X is that, if it proves successful, it sets a precedence for future smartphones. The spec improvements of the iPhone X do not line up with the accompanying price increase. Even by iPhone standards it's an expensive device. If you justify the price increases you're just telling Apple you're prepared to be short changed when the iPhone X's…
The name X (10) kinda reinforces this. As in, "Don't expect next year's standard priced iPhone (nominally the 9) to be as good as this."
You misunderstand. The iPhone X is the new flagship line. Next year there's most likely to be an iPhone 9 and an iPhone X2, though considering Apple's naming strategy it'll probably be called something like 'the new iPhone X'.
Re: Cost of iPhone X in 1957
#108Trying to answer the following might be fun as well: How much is a 1000 USD from today in that era in terms of purchasing power? What could you have bought with the equivalent amount of money, and how many people could have afforded the iPhone equivalent then?
Yeah would be interesting with real estate. A labourer could purchase a house backed then that would require 1000 labourers now to afford it.
Re: Cost of iPhone X in 1957
#109Expected a figure after inflation adjustment and not a calculation of the parts' cost at that time. Still interesting.
Re: Cost of iPhone X in 1957
#110This comparison seems fairly fantastical and irrelevant. Something from within the history of consumer electronics would be more useful to consider, in my opinion. For example, in 1982, the wildly popular low-end home entertainment computer, the Commodore 64, was released at $595, or about $1500 after inflation adjustment. On release in 1977, the Apple II was $1298, or over $5000 in today's terms. You could pay $400…
I talked to a guy with a long career in emergency management. According to him, earth.nullschool.net, which is available to any anyone anywhere today for free, is superior to many classes of tools available to folks in the field for his entire career.
His opinion was that a similar thing would literally be worth multiple billions to the Federal government in the 80s/90s.
That's the thing -- not only are phones technology marvels in their own right... they open the door to capability with almost incalculable value.