@amin @sotolf @dusnm

I mean, iPhones have support for what, seven years?

Most android phones now have at least five.

@rl_dane @sotolf @dusnm

They're still perfectly functional from a hardware perspective for a long time after that mark though. :P

@amin @rl_dane @sotolf @dusnm

My actual phone I actually make calls with is from 2009. Can confirm it doesn't have to be this way :P

@OpenComputeDesign @rl_dane @sotolf @dusnm

Yes, if I can find a nice portable camera to take with me I may attempt dumb-phone switching.

@OpenComputeDesign @rl_dane @sotolf @dusnm

I think you can get some cheap nokias here…

@amin @rl_dane @sotolf @dusnm

Even modern nokia dumb phones aren't as good as they used to be tbh

@OpenComputeDesign @amin @sotolf @dusnm

Not the same Nokia, for one thing.

I had a Nokia Android smartphone in 2018.

I was whelmed.

@rl_dane @dusnm @OpenComputeDesign @amin @sotolf

A large portion of iPhone users buy them because

We aren’t all assholes. Arguably not even the majority. Just the loud ones.

@alatartheblue @rl_dane @dusnm @OpenComputeDesign @sotolf

Free with an expensive data contract, you mean?

@sotolf @amin @alatartheblue @dusnm @OpenComputeDesign

I've never seen a free iPhone, to my knowledge. Only (I forget the term) price-reduced-but-you-pay-for-it-over-the-next-two-years.

@OpenComputeDesign @amin @rl_dane @dusnm @sotolf

The data contract price doesn’t change in the US regardless of the age of the phone - ie there’s no discount for BYOD.

My entire family is currently using free iPhones - free as in they charged me $1000 for the phone over 24 months, and give me bill credits for whatever that amount is (I’d have to look). It’s exactly the same as it has been for decades in the US - the phone is “free,” but you’re locked to the carrier for 2 years.

@alatartheblue @amin @rl_dane @dusnm @sotolf

My carrier at least, you can get pretty much as many voice sims as you want for almost no additional charge, but pay out the ass for every data sim. So since my family only have a single smart phone (that I'm in charge of, and _hate_) we only really have to pay for that, and all our dumb phones get free coverage. However, you also have to pay out the ass if you get a phone from them, so all our phones now are the cheapest BYOD we could find.

@OpenComputeDesign @amin @sotolf @rl_dane @dusnm

Your carrier sounds unusual.

On all the national carriers (and most of the regionals) you can add data lines for about $10/month.

That said, price of data line isn’t relevant to the “is the phone discounted” conversation - the price of the line is the same, regardless of if I’m buying the phone through the carrier or somewhere else. That’s been true since at least the 1990s - carriers would let you bring (compatible) phones onto their networks, but you definitely weren’t getting a discount vs. using the phone they gave you for “free” as part of your contract.

T-Mobile was the first to divorce the contract from the phone about 10 years ago, but really all that’s done is drive up the overall cost of phone plans, since they could charge you more for the plan and charge you for the phone. Now carriers are going back to “we’ll give you a free/cheap phone if you add a line” again, but it’s still as bill credits like I mentioned above instead of as a “free” phone.

For reference - I used about 1 TB of mobile data this month. I pay $20 for the unlimited 5G data part of my plan. That price doesn’t change if I use the iPhone they “gave” me, or a cheap thing I bought on eBay.

Your argument reads as “data costs more than voice, so people shouldn’t use data” - that’s not a relevant argument to the conversation, and completely ignores how people generally use phones in 2026 - in the US to an extent, but in the world much more largely, where most calling is VoIP and messaging is over data infrastructure like WhatsApp or telegram not sms.

@alatartheblue @amin @sotolf @rl_dane @dusnm

1TB of data?????

I have to pay like $100 for 4gb, with 64gb being the highest last I checked

@dusnm @OpenComputeDesign @rl_dane @amin @sotolf

In the US? You’re getting screwed.

@alatartheblue @dusnm @rl_dane @amin @sotolf

I've changed my plan a few times over the years, it's possible I'm remembering how much 16gb was. Either way, even if 1tb was physically possible, it would still cost more money than I'll ever see in my life.

But, at least I still get 3G, and don't have to use the dumpater fire that is VoLTE

@dusnm @sotolf @OpenComputeDesign @amin @rl_dane

I think you need to call any carrier and find out what current prices are. If you’re paying over $50/line with unlimited data on 4G or higher, something is drastically wrong.

@alatartheblue @dusnm @sotolf @OpenComputeDesign @amin

Do remember that he's rural. And we're talking about rural Alaska.

@rl_dane @dusnm @amin @OpenComputeDesign @sotolf

I knew rural - but is it AK for real, or hyperbole?

@alatartheblue @dusnm @amin @OpenComputeDesign @sotolf

AFAIK, yes.

@rl_dane @dusnm @amin @OpenComputeDesign @sotolf

Then I should amend my statement to be about CONUS. I’m not sure how Alaska pricing is.

@alatartheblue @rl_dane @dusnm @amin @sotolf

Up here in good ol' Akalaka, everything's more expensive. And even with 3G, coverage is still pretty poor. Shutting down the GOAT that was 2G was a total mistake.

Anyway, I'm still having genuine trouble imagining how any possible usecase could ever possibly use anywhere close to 1TB of cell data.

Also even when we used Verizon back in california, phones and modems weren't free, you had to pay them off extra.

@OpenComputeDesign @alatartheblue @dusnm @amin @sotolf

> Anyway, I'm still having genuine trouble imagining how any possible usecase could ever possibly use anywhere close to 1TB of cell data.

Let's see, 4 hours a day, 30 days per month viewing 6 mbps streams is... 316 gigabytes??

Yeah, 1TB is rather a lot. That would have to be no less than three very heavy media consumers.

That's kinda gross. XD

@sotolf @OpenComputeDesign @alatartheblue @dusnm @amin

Oof, I've used 300GiB so far this month.

Too much time on youtube on my couch. :P

@rl_dane @sotolf @alatartheblue @dusnm @amin

_JEEEZ_, all on youtube? What resolution??

@OpenComputeDesign @sotolf @alatartheblue @dusnm @amin

Well, my TV will schlorp down the highest resolution it can, up to 4k.

It's only limited by bandwidth (not usually a problem) and the native resolution of the video (usually 1080p or 4k)

Even VERTICAL videos are 4k, if you can imagine anything more cursed. XD

@rl_dane @sotolf @alatartheblue @dusnm @amin

This makes me glad our TV is "only" 1080P

~Even though DVDs actually still look fantastic compared to streaming~

@OpenComputeDesign @sotolf @alatartheblue @dusnm @amin

If streaming looks worse than DVDs then you've got a bandwidth problem.

Or you're on a crappy streaming platform.

Even on amazon prime streaming, 4k looks amazing. Even 1080p is pretty great. Way better than DVDs.

@rl_dane @sotolf @alatartheblue @dusnm @amin

HARD disagree.

Even Bluray looks about the same tbh. But like taking minutes to load instead of seconds, because bluray is such shit my family only ever bought three, and ended up rebuying them in DVD format because they're such unusable shit.

@OpenComputeDesign @sotolf @alatartheblue @dusnm @amin

Go find a reputable blu-ray vs dvd comparison online, and when you find one that looks the same, send me the link. :P

@rl_dane @OpenComputeDesign @sotolf @alatartheblue @dusnm

He’d have to download them at full resolution and have a display that shows off the difference well.

@amin @rl_dane @sotolf @alatartheblue @dusnm

Yeah, I've had to have this argument with people before. Going to a youtube video for picture quality comparisons just doesn't really work. About as unrepresentetive of how it actually looks as you can get

@OpenComputeDesign @amin @sotolf @alatartheblue @dusnm

Not youtube, STILLS. Trying to compare quality on youtube would be like trying to compare sennheiser to sony headphones by listening to samples on your phone speakers. XD

@rl_dane @amin @sotolf @alatartheblue @dusnm

Oh, well, all the _stills_ I found online _sucked_. And ironically, many were comparing HD-DVD with Bluray instead of normal DVD, and the HD-DVD masters just happened to look better than the Bluray masters XD

@OpenComputeDesign @amin @sotolf @alatartheblue @dusnm

That... shouldn't be. ;)

@rl_dane @amin @sotolf @alatartheblue @dusnm

I guess clearly the mastering matters more than the format ;)

(I mean, some people consider some LaserDisc releases better than Bluray just because mastering was often better)

@OpenComputeDesign @amin @sotolf @alatartheblue @dusnm

(I mean, some people consider some LaserDisc releases better than Bluray just because mastering was often better)

Yeah, but aren't those that say that vinyl sounds better than even 24-bit FLAC? XD

#OkBuddyCinephile #OkBuddyAudiophile

@rl_dane @amin @sotolf @alatartheblue @dusnm

Listen, just because something may have objectively higher metrics, like theoretical reproduction fidelity, doesn't mean it's _actually_ objectively better, if it's not actually the only metric that matters.

Just like "The most megapixels" is actually one of the _least_ important metrics when it comes to photo quality.