Or maybe people just like iPhones?
"the debate" in a general sense certainly is about the software/hardware features and architecture.
Right, I'm saying that it's not as much about the actual features or capabilities of the phones, but just that iPhones are cooler.
Nearly all owners of brand X believe it has a more favorable value proposition than brand Y. Instead of concluding that they value different things, they often assume that the majority of owners of Y products must be buying on something other than value. When someone says people only buy Apple products to look cool, that’s what they are doing.
I totally buy that Apple has a very strong brand with teens, I just don't see smartwatches as being must-haves for teens. I'd guess more teens would want to put the extra $$ into a newer smartphone (faster & with a better camera) instead of a secondary device.
I don't want to give in and buy her an iPhone, but she had tears in her eyes when I told her $800 wasn't the greatest use of funds.
People with androids (green messages) will not be added to group chats because it turns everyone else's messages green. When making plans they will usually get texted individually but it can unintentionally lead to exclusion.
Texting someone with an android is much less convenient than using an iPhone and anecdotally this is one reason kids choose iPhones over Android.
Does anyone consider the possibility that she prefers the overall Porsche experience, and is not choosing it to be cool? ...
It's the same thing. She got a functioning smartphone but not the more expensive one she wanted.
There's a great example of what its like to wear the wrong thing in Atlanta Season 2 episode 10, which centers around a Fubu t-shirt.
Does she have experience with both platforms, to be able to prefer one over the other?
One need look no further than asking lifelong Windows owners if they would be happy with their next computer being a Mac. They’ll likely tell you hell no, whether they have used one before or not.
In fact, as a teenager, most of my friends had cell phones, but I didn't. And it was completely okay. When I went to college, I purchased my own cell phone and plan, which I paid for with the job I got while going to school. My family wasn't poor, my parents just didn't think I needed a cell phone, and they were right.
I'll probably get my kids a phone when they hit their teens, but it's definitely not going to be top of the line. If they want a fancy phone, they can earn it themselves. It's completely optional at that age, even if they don't think so.
Maybe she feels the same way? No need to buy here an $800 model either, you can get really good iPhomes for a fraction of that price.
People hate the green bubbles. To see for yourself, just search Twitter for "green bubbles" - https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=%22green%20bubbles%2...
Treating young people like they are less savvy or reasoned about the decisions is always a mistake. Likewise you can't just treat hundreds of millions of people as thought they are one homogenous hivemind.
I am not sure it is always a mistake. People have made billions of dollars by doing. Look at how sneakers are advertised and sold. On a more sinister note, take a look at the whole Joe Camel cigarette advertising campaign.
Likewise bringing up cigarette is ridiculous since it ignores the fact that they are highly addictive.
To be addictive you need to start, and the cigarette companies knew that if you made it out of your teenage years without smoking, there was almost no chance you would start smoking. All of that marketing worked on teenagers specifically due to peer pressure and desire to fit in/be cool. And it's repeating itself with Juul. Virtually no 20+ year old non-smokers wake up one day and think "I want to start a vaping habit."
There's a reason people buy Supreme.
In another comment you refer to "exclusivity" with fashion. Why, then, is it such a ridiculous proposition that the exclusivity of having a blue text message bubble could have an impact as a status symbol, in it of itself?
One other point, I ran a major outdoor event this weekend and rented iPads for square transactions. There was no question in my mind that we would rent iPads instead of Android tablets. Why? Because all of our ticketing people we're already familiar with the platform.
Android and iOS platforms are not yet interchangeable from a user experience perspective, and I think that's what drives the kids to the iPhone. It's what everyone else has and if I have one, I'm fully interoperable.
Only in the US.
I would say that the importance of the model is much higher in poorer areas (I know very well a few parents from "the suburbs" (les banlieues), which in France mean unpriviledged zones).
The children of parents who are very well off would have an older phone, sometimes with a broken screen.
It's hard to assess these results without knowing: 1. how many of those teens had any choice; 2. how many teens had an informed choice; 3. how many teens reported having no phone.
Kids want to be cool in front of their peer groups (I think all of you have experienced that period in your lives, don't bring up yourself as an exception, it's not contributing to the discussion).
Kids want to be part of social clans and groups.
It's hard to dispute the above 2 statements, so the conclusion that iPhones are the preferred choice due to
a. Coolness factor
b. Everyone else is using it / walled garden / iMessage
is hardly a surprise.
I would love to see the discussion project onwards to the future -- what implications does this have for when these 13 somethings become 23 somethings with a job and have to buy a phone.
Are they going to switch to Android at some point?
Does majority of the growing population get used to iPhone at an early age, which means we will see an uptick in iPhone adoption in the coming decade?
I find these questions far more fascinating.
Plus, iMessage is a huge draw. Android has what, 5 messaging apps?
You can't discount that their products are very fashionable (Apple markets well, they look great, everyone else has one).
2) Then in the next sentence. Make an opinion based on an assumption.
Google's signature successes, Search and Mail, have wildly different success criteria for user satisfaction than an operating system. Apple's signature successes all have operating systems and then there is the iPod which is a bit different.
The iPhone is differentiated by much more than Apple's marketing. Everybody markets their product.
Disclaimer is that I live in Europe and nobody here uses iMessage. Its mostly FB Messenger or WhatsApp.
In what way?
I mean a better question at this point is perhaps why Apple engineering hasn't been able to implement RCS.
We actually have to thank the “walled garden” for the lack of spam on iMessage.
While I’d like Apple to also support RCS, I still want iMessage to remain the default for communicating with iOS users.
All the backend is controlled by Google. All the risks, none of the gains.
RCS its a open cellular standard thats being deployed worldwide. Google does offer a backend for carriers to use (when you want to push your cloud offerings and have tons of engineers with nothing else to do just like AWS) but it's not required and carriers are rolling their own. The protocol itself is meant for inter-carrier communication and phones.
It's not because Google is doing a bad job, it's because Apple is doing a _great_ job.
Apple's framing of iOS as a luxury brand is why the "blue vs. green bubbles" type of sentiment has real impact within younger social circles.
Some kids may act like those with green bubbles are not part of the in group, but this is done in jest. Kids do that with everything. My generation did it with video game consoles and sports teams. You had Sega people and Nintendo people. Nike vs Adidas. It wasn’t about status.
I think the incompatibility is a bigger deal than you think it is. There is a need for a proper messaging app.
And of course fragmentation-- Even if Talk, Signal, Whatsapp and Telegram all support discovery and upgrade, the network effects (or lack of them) kills it in practice.
And why not? The mythical man-month is getting on 50 years old now and still relevant.
> Google is literally 10x beyond any software company that existed in the 90s in terms of resources both human and financial
That is fair. (And, as per a recent HN post, most should strive not to do what google does, since most don't have to crawl the entire web.)