• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Are we the depressed and downtrodden?

zuben el genub

zuben el genub

Extreme Android User
'Android is for poor people'

Kaat can comment, would be interesting.

They should have done the study on the carriers - don't most like Net 10 use Android prepaid? Years ago it would have been Symbian. Some TMO customers got a better deal switching from post to prepaid.
 
Eh? Me?

Edit: a pretty nearsighted view this article has... Android devices come in many prices, and they are mobile! Ergo: who says these figures are about where these devices live?
Income differences are logical, since market prices and monthly costs vary as well. It would be more fair to compare a list of monthly buys and bills.
 
On a related note, I only use prepaid phone service because I have crappy credit and struggle to pay my bills.

Oh, and naturally I use Android.

/sarcasm
 
I will say, with a lot of Latino workers I've worked with, they all use Android. Is it because they love the OS? No. It's because it's cheaper and many are on pre-paid plans.
I know quite a few folks who use iPhones. Is it because they have more money? Maybe; but perhaps cause that's what they thing is "de rigueur".

You can spend a ton on an Android phone and an iPhone. Doesn't make much of a difference.
 
I'd just say the people in NJ were being sensible. Getting what they could afford - since it happens to be Android prepaid, so be it. The whole article just proves how stupid surveys can be.

Would have been more believable had they somehow figured out who had to use prepaid and budget carriers and who used prepaid by choice and didn't try to tie it to being disadvantaged. Some start older relatives on prepaid - the seniors don't use the phone much, but it's a safety net when out and about. Saw the new Jitterbug - doesn't look half bad.

And will someone please make me an ascii salt shaker?
 
So poor people have better phones than rich people? I don't have a problem with that.:p
 
I feel about Android vs iOS for phones the same way I feel about Linux vs window$ for computers: I pick the OS that not only is superior [in my not always terribly humble opinion], but is also freer in ways such as not being proprietary and not locking me in to planned obsolescence.

The fact that Linux and its software are free is irrelevant to me--I donate regularly to my favorite Linux distro and to the software projects I rely on--and I really don't care what outsiders looking in think. Ditto for what people think about Android users. :rolleyes:
 
Where I am, it's much more like "iPhone is for rich people.". Really because average incomes are much lower here than in the US, there's no carrier subsidies available, and so have to pay full retail prices for phones. The iPhone is still very much a status symbol, along with a Gucci handbag or a Rolex watch. Although Samsung has gone that way as well with their flagship phones, like the S5 and Note 3, still not as expensive as Apple though.
 
It's hardly a surprise that iToys are used more by the rich: that's who they're aimed at :rolleyes:

There's also the minor quibble that this whole thing is mathematical nonsense: Android has the vast bulk of market share. Since the rich are only 1% of the population, Android HAS to be bigger with the poor.

Also, as has been pointed out above, Android is vast, going from the ultra-high to the ultra-low. Seeing it as a hetergenous market is nonsense: the S5 buyer and the 'landfill android' buyer are worlds apart.

Part of Android success is that it can run on really cheap kit. So cheap, even soon-to-be-Microsoft Nokia now use it on their bottom of the line models.

Having said that, at the level just above landfill, WP is now making some inroads - there are a number of European markets where WP now has a bigger market share than iOS. Almost entirely due to the Nokia 520.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom