Paul’s technology budget theories: $1000 Phone VS $1000 PC


Many times Paul makes the case that it makes more sense for people to spend $1,000 on a phone and $500 on a computer or tablet or whatever because you use it more, and derive more value from it. Most recently he said this on GFQ but I’ve heard him say it many times:


This logic doesn’t make sense to me at all. So, you should spend more money on a device you use more often, even if spending more money on it doesn’t return more value to you?


For example. I can go buy a 32GB iPhone 6s for $549 or I could go buy a 256GB iPhone 7 for $849. When it comes down to my return on investment, they have nearly the exact same return with one requiring a much larger investment. The iPhone 7 might be a bit faster and obviously has more storage, but in all my time using my iPhone I’ve never needed more than 32GB thanks to the cloud.


Furthermore, both devices are great build quality, good warranty, great customer support, and on and on. When buying a PC that is not the case. A $300 HP stream does not have the same level of build quality as a $1500 HP x360. Also for the additional price you get a more flexible device, which pen and touch support, more ports, faster ports, better quality screens, and of course faster components.


It seems like the justification for spending $1000 on a laptop far outweighs the justification for spending $1000 on an iPhone.


What do you think? Did I miss Paul’s point? Do you agree/disagree with Paul? How do you decide how to allocate your tech budget?

Post Reply