There is a certain 'rub' when people compare two pieces of technology.
While it's certainly true that the cpu/memory are faster or better than an iphone was 8 years ago.. and at such a low price.. when people compare specifications they always lose perspective on build quality.
It's very hard to quantify that from a product data sheet, but if this thing was built like a early 00's Nokia, then it would be worth a lot.
But for $10, do you need a smartphone at all? why not grab one of those "burners" that have a battery life of 2 months which additionally can survive some abuse?
I understand that for $10 people should curb their expectations, but the title is comparing apples to oranges.
"$400 smartphone from 8 years ago with high build quality vs $10 phone now with unknown build quality"
While it's certainly true that the cpu/memory are faster or better than an iphone was 8 years ago.. and at such a low price.. when people compare specifications they always lose perspective on build quality.
It's very hard to quantify that from a product data sheet, but if this thing was built like a early 00's Nokia, then it would be worth a lot.
But for $10, do you need a smartphone at all? why not grab one of those "burners" that have a battery life of 2 months which additionally can survive some abuse?
I understand that for $10 people should curb their expectations, but the title is comparing apples to oranges.
"$400 smartphone from 8 years ago with high build quality vs $10 phone now with unknown build quality"