larrya

dick applebaum said:

AppleInsider said:

In the past, iPhone owners upgraded roughly every two years, thanks to typical two-year service contract subsidies. 

In the past, carriers encouraged customers to upgrade their phones every two years by offering subsidies and discounts on new phones. Now, however, the plans reward customers who hold on to their phones and have paid them off in full.

"This motivator appears to outweigh the impact of any early upgrade options that carriers offer with the new financing plans, and the increased availability of trade-in programs and used phone purchase websites," the study reads.

The Apple iPhone Upgrade Program offers a better deal than AT&T subsidies ever did.   Lower initial cost, interest-free loan, lower monthly cost, AppleCare included -- and the ability to upgrade after 12 months.

In our household of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) we had 1 iPhone under subsidy when the Apple upgrade program was announces (the 4 other iPhones were old enough that their subsidies had finished).  We bought 5 new iPhone 6s under the iPhone upgrade program, so we all have the latest iPhones -- and we will, likely, all upgrade again to the next iPhone ...   No brainer, really!

It depends on which subsidy program you had. Maybe for you this better, but you are incorrect to say the new program is better than subsidies "ever were".   I pay less today for my grandfathered unlimited plan (2 iPhones, 1 flip phone) than I would for any modern mobile share plan with at least 5GB per iPhone (AT&T or Verizon).  After that sinks in, imagine next that I used to get $1,350 in subsidies every two years (I could move the flip phone upgrade eligibility to either iPhone).   So, clearly I am out an extra $1,350 without subsidies, and if I switch to a modern plan, there is no financing plan, which adds a monthly cost on top of a higher mobile share plan cost, that can possibly come out ahead. And, to get back on topic, I am changing my upgrade pattern directly as a result of the loss of subsidies. 

jonl said:

mac_128 said:

No they don't. They don't need to use any more power via the Lightning bus than the built in DAC and amp currently uses.

and wrong again about buying expensive headphones that only work with iOS devices. If you've been in the market for any headphones, you'd know they all mostly have removable cords now. Demand will not only reduce the price of digital headphones, but combo digital/analogue ports will allow one set of headphones to be used with any device a customer wants with the appropriate cable. 

I stand corrected about the charging requirement for Lightning-to-3.5, though these adapters may vary in their energy usage depending on the headphones they are able to drive.

I can already use traditional headphones anywhere, and they don't need built-in DACs/amps or removable cables for digital/analog operation or adapters. Worse still, others have set a small precedent with USB-C, while Apple will break away with its proprietary Lightning. So the present is simple, universal compability due to a standard, while the future is complexity, added cost, and incompatibility due to manufacturers going different ways.

You are correct. Also, I think a lot of the Apple apologists don't fully comprehend the impact of having to carry an adapter around. I had one for an old Windows Mobile phone, and the short answer is, you always leave it at home/never have it when you need it. 

He says he's different, but he's just another ignorant, blowhard, hypocritical politician (but I like Narcissist psychopath better).

Garmin just announced a new fitness band with GPS and HR (plus notifications), water resistant to 5ATM and 5 day battery (or 8 hours GPS).  How is Apple unable to do this?  The perfect device would provide music and GPS. Fingers crossed for Apple Watch 2.0. 

http://bit.ly/1OvIBGC

This is the right approach. If I need a puck or mat, it's no different from needing a cable.