badgolferman wrote:

> https://9to5mac.com/2023/04/06/iphone-14-depreciation-vs-galaxy-s23-google-pixel-7/

Hi badgolferman,

C'mon... Let's be realistic. :)

Firstly, you have to consider the "premium" market isn't cost sensitive.

So a resale-value comparison in a market that isn't sensitive to costs, is
kind of a ridiculous endeavor, don't you think?

Hence, the article is not making a realistic comparison to "Android".
As an iPhone will (almost) always cost more to own than an Android phone.

On average.

What that article did was severely limit the Android phones under test.
It's not iPhone-to-Android so much as iPhone-to-non-cost-sensitive Android.

There's much more to total phone ownership costs other than resale value,
e.g., Apple uses non-standard connectors, for example, but even if we
concentration only on the phone itself, bear in mind I paid only the ~$20
sales tax on my ~$200 Samsung Galaxy A32-5G which, let's be very clear,
will outlast any iPhone ever made, & which runs more powerful software than
any iPhone ever made (and you know both to be true statements because the
battery capacity is huge & the iPhone is crippled in app functionality).

Even ignoring that all iPhones are lacking basic hardware and software
functionality, just looking at resale value of the select few Android
models which aren't cost sensitive provides a skewed outlook.

I'm not saying their statistics are wrong.
I'm saying their statistics are skewed by comparing only 2 Android models.
Two Android models whose market isn't cost sensitive in the first place.

And, let's be clear, since all Android phones have more power and far more
functionality than any iPhone ever built, it's not a fair fight.

But allow me to look at the numbers as I haven't read the article yet.
I'm just telling you the entire premise is ridiculous from the start.

You don't buy premium phones for total ownership cost reasons, and hence,
the numbers are basically almost meaningless in terms of comparison given
they're measuring something that most of the owners don't even care about.

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> I'm just telling you the entire premise is ridiculous from the start.
>
> You don't buy premium phones for total ownership cost reasons, and hence,
> the numbers are basically almost meaningless in terms of comparison given
> they're measuring something that most of the owners don't even care about.

Hi badgolferman,

OK. Now I'm looking at the article, even though the premise is ridiculous.
We're talking thousand dollar phones here... they're NOT price sensitive!

Worse, we're talking only _two months_ for God's sake. That's ludicrous.
<https://9to5mac.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2023/04/iphone-14-depreciation-vs-galaxy-and-pixel-2.jpg>

The premise (and the so-called 'study') are patently ridiculous, not the
least because they used only two months and not the least because Android
phones rarely, if ever, sell at MSRP and not the least because a thousand
dollar phone isn't a market that gives a shit about resale value, etc.

There are so many obvious flaws in that study, that it's just a sales tool.

Since iKooks are on this newsgroup, and since iKooks don't own basic adult
cognitive skills, I'll outline, for them more than for you, the process.

Statement #1:
"Like in the past, the current iPhone lineup retained the most value
with Samsung�s new S23 lineup averaging 40% lower resale prices
and Google Pixel 7 devices 48% weaker than the iPhone 14 average prices."

Note that is a meaningless metric for a bunch of obvious reasons.
For one, if we don't know the initial costs of all three devices, including
the costs of basic accessories and sales tax. For another, we don't know
which market they resold their old phone in, where premium Android owners
are far less likely to resell their phone than iPhone owners because, they
could buy the Android from anyone but they only got the iPhone from Apple.

Statement #2:
"The new report comes from sellcell."
<https://www.sellcell.com/blog/samsung-galaxy-s23-depreciation-vs-iphone-14-vs-google-pixel-7/>

Note that we really should look there first, but let's finish this article.

Statement #3:
"While the iPhone 14 and Pixel 7 devices have been available for
about half a year, the one and two-month depreciation timeframes
were picked as the Samsung Galaxy S23 series just arrived in February."

Note that throws a wrench in the works as the comparison is between only
the first 1/3rd of the depreciation period for the S23 so it may affect
results (depending on how much that 2/3rds shorter period matters).

Statement #4:
Two month depreciation from MSRP (which almost no Android phone sells at).
<https://9to5mac.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2023/04/iphone-14-depreciation-vs-galaxy-and-pixel.jpg>

Note, not surprisingly for only premium phones, the curves are linear,
with an astoundingly acute deflection point at _one month_, which is
surprising, even to me, but given Androids are often steeply discounted,
it would seem the curves aren't different enough to have much meaning.

In summary, the flaws in that so-called 'study' are fatal, in that
a. The whole premise for a thousand dollar phone is ridiculous
b. The thousand-dollar phone market is clearly not price sensitive
c. Since you can get a five hundred dollar Android that's damn good
d. And they cherry picked the devices for the least cost sensitive
e. And, almost nobody buys an Android phone at the MSRP anyway
f. And they didn't look at total costs - only MSRP to resale
g. And it's not clear _how_ they determined resale value (yet)
h. They (apparently) only looked at two months - WTF? Ludicrous
i. The curves are, surprising, not all that different anyway
j. The shape is very steep, so it's easily subject to manipulation

That's ten fatal flaws and I didn't even get to the actual study data.
I don't know if I should waste my time, but this study is bogus (IMHO).
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to faithfully assess what the study actually did.

On 2023-04-07 10:24, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Andy Burnelli wrote:
>
>> I'm just telling you the entire premise is ridiculous from the start.
>>
>> You don't buy premium phones for total ownership cost reasons, and hence,
>> the numbers are basically almost meaningless in terms of comparison given
>> they're measuring something that most of the owners don't even care
>> about.
>
> Hi badgolferman,
>
> OK. Now I'm looking at the article, even though the premise is ridiculous

Because you don't like the answer doesn't make something ridiculous.