iPhone 7/7+ Verge Review

[Dabombinable]

32 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

your argument is predicated on the fact that streaming is more expensive than not due to data costs and what not. Well, people ALREADY stream. So the cost of the service, that they're ALREADY paying for, is moot. 

 

No, you don't NEED wireless to stream though. There are also advantages to having audio go over a port which can provide power and data for other functionality, not to mention allow for headphones with superior DACs. And again, no there are plenty of good non-truly wireless bluetooth headphones which are good and cheaper (Jaybird X2, BackBeat Go Pro 2, etc... -- many of which are in the $50-$100 range), then you also have the cheap chinese knockoffs that are $15-$20. 

 

And that is also ignoring the fact that there is a good chance anyone who bought a different phone would end up with wireless headphones anyway, so again, no you can't add that to the cost. 

Ah, yes those factors can be added into the cost.

[GoodBytes]

14 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

your argument is predicated on the fact that streaming is more expensive than not due to data costs and what not. Well, people ALREADY stream. So the cost of the service, that they're ALREADY paying for, is moot. 

If you take pictures and store on the cloud, on the go, you use both: your iCloud storage (or whatever your cloud storage service is), and your data plan.

If you get more cloud storage, that means that you probably plan to use it a lot, say for storing pictures, and as a result, you'll use more of your data plan, passing what you initally needed as a plan that fitted your needs.

 

So for example, say I have 3GB per month. I use ~2.5-2.7GB per month on average. Great! I have the perfect plan for my needs. Right?

Ok, now I want more storage... so I get iCloud.. say 50GB, but now I need more data.. so I need to get the next plan option which is 6 or 8GB per month.

So because I need more storage, I need not only to pay for more storage on my cloud service, but also my internet provider.

 

If you were paying for 8GB, and only using 1GB per month, then you were wasting your money, (unless you have this incredible offer where it is cheaper than the 1GB option, somehow, which isn't realistic of the North American market).

 

That is my point. You can't forget that things adds up. Look, my ISP provided me, with my plan at home 150GB per month, and that was enougth for me. Great! I am happy.

Then I got Netflix, now, I pass my limit, so I need to get more monthly quota. In my case, I pay an extra 15$ for unlimited on my plan.

So getting Netflix has cost me: Netflix + unlimited plan.

 

Now, if I get other online services, my 'cost for Netflix' reduces, in the sense that I pay Netflix + PART of unlimited plan + Second service + Remainder of unlimited plan. Dropping the cost of "Netflix", but in total costing more, as I have the other service, and my unlimited plan remains the same (15$), as I just split the amount in 2 at some point.. so say my second service is streaming music... I can split:

 

9$ (Netflix) + 12$ (part of unlimited plan), + 8.33$ (per month yearly subscription to streaming music) + 3$ (remainder of unlimited plan) = 32.33$

 

 

14 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

No, you don't NEED wireless to stream though. There are also advantages to having audio go over a port which can provide power and data for other functionality, not to mention allow for headphones with superior DACs. And again, no there are plenty of good non-truly wireless bluetooth headphones which are good and cheaper (Jaybird X2, BackBeat Go Pro 2, etc... -- many of which are in the $50-$100 range), then you also have the cheap chinese knockoffs that are $15-$20. 

Again, you need to pay for the DAC and the rest of the hardware from the headphones.

So:

150$ pair of headphone, where (for sakes of simplicity say that the manufacture makes 0 profits), 125$ goes to the headphone speakers, and 25$ goes on the comfy frame and all that. Is wired and uses 3.5mm plug.

 

OR

 

150$ pair of headphones, where, 80$ goes on the headphone speakers, plus 45$ goes on the DAC, vol buttons, wiring, QC added cost, added R&D cost, etc.,and 25$ goes on the comfy frame and all that. Is wired but uses lighting cable or USB Type-C (which ever your phone has)

 

Which pair will have the superior sound? Assuming that the DAC and sound component in the phone isn't total crap (and it better not be for the price of the phone) it is obvious that  the wired 150$ wired 3.5mm jack headphone will provide you a superior sound.

 

And of course, assume that both headphones are from the same manufacture, and they use the latest technology available.

 

14 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

And that is also ignoring the fact that there is a good chance anyone who bought a different phone would end up with wireless headphones anyway, so again, no you can't add that to the cost. 

Those wireless headphones is will be part of the cost. It doesn't matter when you buy it, it is part of the cost. That cost should be: wireless version - wired version, where both are the same headphones/earphones, and you add the cost of going wireless from the wireless model.

[79wjd]

14 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

-snip there are other factors than just the cost of iCloud-

 

-snip pretending that headphones are actually expensive to manufacture-

 

Those wireless headphones is will be part of the cost. It doesn't matter when you buy it, it is part of the cost. That cost should be: wireless version - wired version, where both are the same headphones/earphones, and you add the cost of going wireless from the wireless model.

Except most additional iCloud syncing would happen over wifi, with the occassional viewing of pictures/videos on iCloud (which uses very little data). Unless you would now like to argue that the average consumer doesn't have access to wifi at least once a day. The only time I'm not on Wifi is during my commute and/or when I go out (and that's true for most people). And still, the bulk of anyone's data usage will come from streaming media, which they would do regardless of iCloud and regardless of the amount of space on the device. 

 

Let's take your headphone argument and be realistic for a second....How much do you actually think a pair of headphones costs relative to the sale price? Beats, for example, cost what...$20 to make? So that $125 pair of headphones actually costs about $20 to make, the rest is all marketing, R&D, and profit. Now if an entire headphone costs $20, how much do you think a decent DAC would cost? Again, ignoring pertinent facts to blow things out of proportions. 

 

Then you can also add the cost of wireless headphones to literally any other phone on the market. Wireless headphones aren't exclusively used with iPhones. Thereby, again, rendering your point moot. 

[Magnetorheological]

At least they were visibly disappointed with this release and made a pretty fair review for it instead of doling out their usually Apple-biased reviews.

[atrash]

I may not get the phone myself (no point upgrading from 6S anyway) but I certainly won't call others idiot or retard for getting one themselves. It's their money,their choice... Why so salty if the phone is not for you? Not like it's the only phone in the market.. Plenty more to choose from the android side. No earphone jack? If they manage to get the iphone 7 still, then they'll adjust. 

 

People these days...getting rages and salty for anything and everything.

[dtaflorida]

4 hours ago, o0Martin said:

Well that is a 6 year old device, and if by using it as a digital clock you mean it sits there with the display on and only shows the clock, then it's no wonder an old AMOLED panel would suffer burn in and a non OLED iPad would not

I don't know if IPS screens are better against screen burn in, but the iPad is the same year as the Galaxy S. Even within a tech there are better and worse. We'll see what becomes of my Android tablets when it comes time to hang them on the wall  

[GoodBytes]

1 hour ago, djdwosk97 said:

Except most additional iCloud syncing would happen over wifi, with the occassional viewing of pictures/videos on iCloud (which uses very little data). Unless you would now like to argue that the average consumer doesn't have access to wifi at least once a day. The only time I'm not on Wifi is during my commute and/or when I go out (and that's true for most people). And still, the bulk of anyone's data usage will come from streaming media, which they would do regardless of iCloud and regardless of the amount of space on the device. 

So that means, you don't have additional space, because you need it on your phone. So basically, you need space on your phone for the images/video that you capture, reducing the amount of music, videos, app, games that you have on the device, so that you wait until you return home to be on WiFi to sync them, and remove them locally on your phone, if it doesn't do that automatically.

 

1 hour ago, djdwosk97 said:

Let's take your headphone argument and be realistic for a second....How much do you actually think a pair of headphones costs relative to the sale price? Beats, for example, cost what...$20 to make? So that $125 pair of headphones actually costs about $20 to make, the rest is all marketing, R&D, and profit. Now if an entire headphone costs $20, how much do you think a decent DAC would cost? Again, ignoring pertinent facts to blow things out of proportions. 

It doesn't matter, you add profit to the equation, and marketing cost (which is huge for Beats). Product margins remains. This is a business, not a charity. The whole point is to make money. So it is all about how to maximize profits with a price that sales, keeping with the target market. And at the same time, you ignore R&D as well, which is a money pit.

You know that GeForce 1080, you know how much the GPU itself cost? 45$... but guess what, Nvidia makes little profits on the cards. Margins are thin. Why? because a large part is eaten by R&D, then the rest by marketing, administration, and other operational costs which are fairly minor.

 

The DAC, and other audio components are not free. And there is R&D that need to paid on that, not to mention that the company making them wants profit as well.

 

But regardless, even if your headphones cost 25$ for wired, and 26$ for wireless. that 1$ can be put in better speakers. And yes, that 1$ can bring things far.

 

1 hour ago, djdwosk97 said:

Then you can also add the cost of wireless headphones to literally any other phone on the market. Wireless headphones aren't exclusively used with iPhones. Thereby, again, rendering your point moot. 

I didn't mention wireless headphones. I mentioned headphones that need to use lighting cable. The headphones gets the audio in digital format. The headphone needs to process it, and convert it to analogue signal.

[dtaflorida]

If iPhone had expandable storage, it'd probably need to be formatted hfs+ or something I wouldn't/couldn't use outside of the phone anyways. May as well build it into the phone and save space of the mounting mechanism. They have a 256GB version... good enough for this generation.

 

 

[79wjd]

14 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

So that means, you don't have additional space, because you need it on your phone. So basically, you need space on your phone for the images/video that you capture, reducing the amount of music, videos, app, games that you have on the device, so that you wait until you return home to be on WiFi to sync them, and remove them locally on your phone, if it doesn't do that automatically.

 

It doesn't matter, you add profit to the equation, and marketing cost (which is huge for Beats). Product margins remains. This is a business, not a charity. The whole point is to make money. So it is all about how to maximize profits with a price that sales, keeping with the target market. And at the same time, you ignore R&D as well, which is a money pit.

You know that GeForce 1080, you know how much the GPU itself cost? 45$... but guess what, Nvidia makes little profits on the cards. Margins are thin. Why? because a large part is eaten by R&D, then the rest by marketing, administration, and other operational costs which are fairly minor.

 

The DAC, and other audio components are not free. And there is R&D that need to paid on that, not to mention that the company making them wants profit as well.

 

But regardless, even if your headphones cost 25$ for wired, and 26$ for wireless. that 1$ can be put in better speakers. And yes, that 1$ can bring things far.

 

I didn't mention wireless headphones. I mentioned headphones that need to use lighting cable. The headphones gets the audio in digital format. The headphone needs to process it, and convert it to analogue signal.

iCloud will automatically sync everything, and again...how many people are taking 25gb~ of video a day? A quarter of a percent....maybe? 

 

I didn't exclude R&D, I mentioned it, but my point is, that a having to include a DAC isn't going to change the cost of R&D or the BOM cost any meaningful amount. So you're $125 headphones will be akin to $120 headphones, not $85 headphones. 

 

Good thing lightning headphones are included. So if the included earbuds aren't good enough for you, then you would be buying another pair of headphones anyway. So the money you spent on lightning headphones would otherwise be spent on another pair of 3.5mm headphones. 

[GoodBytes]

6 minutes ago, dtaflorida said:

If iPhone had expandable storage, it'd probably need to be formatted hfs+ or something I wouldn't/couldn't use outside of the phone anyways. May as well build it into the phone and save space of the mounting mechanism. They have a 256GB version... good enough for this generation.

 

The idea is that you add storage space. Not transfer file. You plug your phone for that, or transfer your data in a different way.

Yes, there is a 256GB phone model, but not everyone is rich as you.

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

The idea is that you add storage space. Not transfer file. You plug your phone for that, or transfer your data in a different way.

Yes, there is a 256GB phone model, but not everyone is rich as you.

I'm paying $60/month for service and over $650 on a flagship phone. If that extra $200 is unaffordable, then you need to reevaluate your entire buying decisions. 

[Belgarathian]

10 hours ago, Ridska said:

- snip -

I love my Macbook...

 

I'm also really looking forward to my iPhone 7 Plus... 

 

I know it's not for everyone, but just because the 3.5mm jack is important for you doesn't mean that it can't be removed from a phone and not perform well in the market. 

[GoodBytes]

2 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

I'm paying $60/month for service and over $650 on a flagship phone. If that extra $200 is unaffordable, then you need to reevaluate your entire buying decisions. 

LOL! Someone too rich here.

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, GoodBytes said:

LOL! Someone too rich here.

That applies to quite a large percentage of the population in the US then as flagships sell very well. 

[GoodBytes]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

If you consider the majority of America too rich, then yeah, sure. 

Being in debt or living pay check by pay check, isn't rich... it is because they spend money they don't have. So you are either filled with too much money, or you don't know how to do a budget.

[79wjd]

Just now, GoodBytes said:

Being in debt or living pay check by pay check, isn't rich... it is because they spend money they don't have. So you are either filled with too much money, or you don't know how to do a budget.

And I quote: 

5 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

I'm paying $60/month for service and over $650 on a flagship phone. If that extra $200 is unaffordable, then you need to reevaluate your entire buying decisions. 

The extra $200 isn't going to make the difference. 

[dtaflorida]

12 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

That applies to quite a lot of people in the US then as flagships sell very well

The point at which the argument is 'ad hominem' is when I start ignoring further comments from someone. It's like arguing with someone about their Faith. Not worth it.

[GoodBytes]

10 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

The extra $200 isn't going to make the difference. 

Well 200$ can get you:

 - Ability to purchase higher quality, less full of crap produce.

 - Buy other products or services like if you aim to be more healthy, you have gym membership or sports equipment (like an outdoor bike0, or play soccer/tennis

 - Put it in a savings such as: money to be able to move out, or kids, or emergency funds

and more.. there is a lot you can do with that amount of money.

[79wjd]

8 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Well 200$ can get you:

 - Ability to purchase higher quality, less full of crap produce.

 - Buy other products or services like if you aim to be more healthy, you have gym membership or sports equipment (like an outdoor bike0, or play soccer/tennis

 - Put it in a savings such as: money to be able to move out, or kids, or emergency funds

and more.. there is a lot you can do with that amount of money.

I agree, there is a lot that you can do with $200....however, your argument was based on the extra $200 being unaffordable. There is no situation where a 32gb iPhone 7 is affordable but a 256gb iPhone 7 is not. If you can swing the money to buy one, then you can sure as shit swing an extra $200.

 

Not to mention the fact that you can easily pay the device off over a 24 month period anyway (without paying any interest). So you're talking $850 ($36/month) for the 256gb iPhone 7 vs. $650 ($27/month) for the 32gb. So it's $200 spread out over a 24 month period, so my point is even further validated....if $9/month is too much then you need to reevalute some decisions. 

[dtaflorida]

2 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

There is no situation where a 32gb iPhone 7 is affordable but a 256gb iPhone 7 is not. 

And this is why I have an iPhone SE which I spent $300 for this year. Man all that savings, good thing Whole Foods takes Apple Pay. Using all those savings buying organic lunches  

[79wjd]

Just now, dtaflorida said:

And this is why I have an iPhone SE which I spent $300 for this year. Man all that savings, good thing Whole Foods takes Apple Pay. Using all those savings buying organic lunches  

You mean an organic lunch. 

[dtaflorida]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

You mean an organic lunch.

Well organic food is expensive, but not THAT expensive . I eat there about twice a week. 

[o0Martin]

51 minutes ago, dtaflorida said:

I don't know if IPS screens are better against screen burn in, but the iPad is the same year as the Galaxy S. Even within a tech there are better and worse. We'll see what becomes of my Android tablets when it comes time to hang them on the wall  

IPS is just a technology for LCD Panels, so yeah it wont be prone to burn in like OLED's can be (especially older panels). 

Thankfully though the negatives of OLEDs in modern panels are negligible and not worth considering when it comes to mobile devices; unfortunately the same can't be said about monitors yet, but all flagship phone screens including the iPhone are certainly going to be going towards OLED & HDR certification in the coming years.

[suicidalfranco]

51 minutes ago, dtaflorida said:

If iPhone had expandable storage, it'd probably need to be formatted hfs+ or something I wouldn't/couldn't use outside of the phone anyways. May as well build it into the phone and save space of the mounting mechanism. They have a 256GB version... good enough for this generation.

 

 

iOS has support for fat

[dtaflorida]

8 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

iOS has support for fat

I'd much rather they have support for NTFS. So glad Android does, as many video files these days do go over 2GB, and my Shield tablets don't do exfat, nor does my XBone. With the hassles of file system compatibility, I'm glad the iPhone doesn't have expandable space. I hate being everyone's tech support.