It's a defensible position, I live in the EU so proximity to heaps of expendable income is not as abundant than in the US middle-class. In the UK we had a saying "the poor man pays twice", meaning that if you buy a shitty rake and it breaks you have to go buy a new one.
This is kinda the case with phones too, you can buy a $450 phone with 2 years of updates, or a $700 with 5 years.
False dichotomy. I just bought an Android phone over the weekend for $35 (on sale from $50) -- the LG K3. It has an older Android OS (Marshmellow) a little slow, the screen resolution isn't great, and the keyboard input is a little more fiddly than my Nexus 5X (which bricked, which is why I needed to get a new temp phone), but otherwise it works just fine.
Six years ago I paid $170 for an equivalent phone (older version of android than current, slower, less ram, space, etc). On sale. And used it for almost a year and a half. So the low-end has really gone down in price.
I mean I just bought the new one last weekend so it's too soon to tell. Google Play Services got updated again this morning, though.
The previous phone I think it was most of the time I owned it, but I didn't get any major OS upgrades (nor did I expect to), just minor updates.
It got slower over time but it never bricked, unlike my fancy new Nexus 5X, which completely bricked after I owned it for a year and a few months. Who cares about security updates and software patches when your phone completely breaks in less than the average upgrade cycle (obviously I don't mean all of these phones do, but apparently it was a common problem with Nexus 5X, I found out after the fact. I have a coworker on his 3rd one in two years).
Which, in the absolute best of cases, get security updates for one or two years, while the equivalent iPhone does for 4 or more. That's what he means by paying twice.
