Comment Re: $1,999 for a phone? (Score 1) 61
You mentioned in another comment IT folks are surprisingly fine with "clunkers" - But in my experience the simple explanation is, performance is not a metric by which most IT folks measure phones. The speed of a phone is utterly irrelevant. We have gaming rigs at home that would probably violate ITAR if taken out of the country; we have dedicated VMs at work with so much horsepower the underlying hardware must have cost a substantial fraction of our annual salary. Why do we also need a supercomputer in our pocket at all times?
I use my phone for email, SMS/IM, light web browsing to look something up in a pinch, GPS when I'm not in my car, and cheesy games while waiting for an appointment. Occasionally I watch a YouTube video or the like, and have yet to see a stutter not caused by the network itself. All of that works perfectly fine on a $100-200 phone. The primary metric I do care about is battery life (and maybe storage to a lesser extent); and on that axis, weaker (but still modern) CPUs often have significantly longer battery life.
Now, I realize I've given you an easy "must be nice to be you" here, and I'll admit that if everyone else is approaching this from the perspective of "this is my only computer", I can appreciate wanting somewhat beefier hardware. But again, we're talking about blowing $2k on one of these; just get a decent laptop and a cheap phone, and it'll still be an infinitely better user experience.