Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

People use iPhones because they are the best phones. High iMessage usage is the effect, not the cause. I personally don't know any iPhone user who doesn't also have an alternate messaging app installed on their device.

Remember that there was a time when Blackberry had 100% platform lock-in with BBM. I myself got one (including a pricey service plan) just to be able to message my friends in college. Yet everyone left the app (and ecosystem) overnight because there was a better device available.

There was a time when ICQ was unbeatable, and it seemed like people would be using it forever, because how do you move off of a platform that everyone you know is on? Then came AIM. Then MSN Messenger. Then Skype. The Google Talk. Then Facebook Messenger. Then WhatsApp and iMessage. It will be something else tomorrow. There is no such thing as network lock-in for messaging apps, simply because costs to switch to a new one are negligible, and you can use as many of them as you want at the same time.



But the critical mistake you're making there is calling iMessage a messaging app when iMessage is actually the default texting application. AOL instant Messenger just was AOL instant Messenger. Same as MSN. Skype let you make phone calls. Google talk let you do some things but it was pretty much just Google talk...

There are non-technical people who use iMessage because it's the default texting application and it's not a messaging platform it is something that Apple has perverted and customized into something that is deliberately incompatible with other anything.


And how is that going for MS Edge marketshare? It is the default browser on Windows.


> I personally don't know any iPhone user who doesn't also have an alternate messaging app installed on their device.

90% of the people I know with iPhones don't have any messaging apps other than iMessage. I've tried to get them on Signal or WhatsApp, complete refusal.


You don’t know anyone with Snapchat or Facebook? They’re both used pretty heavily for messaging.


Facebook uses a separate app that most people don’t have. Snapchat isn’t really for having conversations since it disappears so quickly.


The Facebook messenger app is ranked higher in the iOS App Store than WhatsApp or Snapchat.

I don’t believe I know anyone who doesn’t have it, even people who don’t use FB like myself have it.

You can also message through the Fb app without using the Messenger app.


Sounds highly unlikely. You surveyed these people? “90%…”


I ask most people I text to use signal or whatsApp. None of them have it.


I think you seriously underestimate the status factor.

It's not the best phone for the buck, has never been and that's not the goal either.


Tough to say. I’m still using my 2016 SE, which received iOS 15 just a few months ago and updated to the latest release within the last couple of weeks, the same day as the iPhone 13. This phone cost $400. I highly doubt there are many phones out there that beat this “bang for the buck”.


I think the Nexus 5 and S2 were unbeatable if you look at "bang for the buck" over time ( ~200 €).

Unfortunately, it seems that, since then, almost all phones have raised their "lowerbound-prices" thanks to the iPhone.

( probably not a popular opinion, considering popularity of the iPhone in the US :p)


You're not wrong. iPhones caused everyone to hike their prices up to $1000 for true flagships the minute the iPhone X came out. And when the 7 came out, everyone soon ditched the headphone jack and introduced their own wireless earbuds for $200. And when the 4 came out, everyone suddenly sacrificed battery life to crank display PPI up past 400 and even 500 to beat "retina" quality. Same for removable batteries and SD cards, which iPhones eschewed from the beginning. I'm definitely forgetting a few iPhone trendsetting moments, too.

It's a damned shame we don't have a counterweight to Apple to force them to rethink consumer-hostile decisions like these. Imagine if there was a viable alternative who kept the headphone jack. Or small phones. Or fingerprint sensors. Or cheap prices. Instead, everyone just does what Apple did last year. And unless I want to buy a phone with crappy US cellular band connectivity, I'm stuck with... Samsung, Google, and Apple.


S2 as in Samsung Galaxy?

That cost far more than 200 € new, AFAICR.


?

I bought it for 250 or so at the time.

https://phonesdata.com/en/smartphones/samsung/galaxy-s2-1140...

I've never bought a phone north of 350€, well, until work pays for it :p

Galaxy these days are more expensive, sure. But not at the time.


I didn't pay for mine, it was my first touchscreen phone provided by work. But I checked prices out of curiosity, and as I recall it was north of 400 € -- around 450-480, I think. At the time, it was the hottest new thing on the market, so I'm sure it got cheaper after a while; perhaps you got yours a bit later? Or maybe it was just more expensive here in Finland than elsewhere; pretty much everything seems to be.


Weird, it could be yeah: https://tweakers.net/pricewatch/277723/samsung-galaxy-s-ii-i...

I did think i bought it pretty fast after release and 250€ seemed a good price. But now, I'm not so sure anymore ( how fast i bought it, I'm sure it was 250)


Best as per specs (Like megapixels and camers zoom and RAM and speed) or best as well integrated, good defaults and reliable?


Best for buck isn’t the same as best.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: