Dear reader,
If you read tech reviews, you may have encountered the phrase: “The best option for most people” or one of its variants. While the aim is to provide a recommendation that should fit the needs of the majority, pushing people towards a specific product can sometimes lose sight of the needs that an average person has for technology. The more affordable option can often meet these needs, even if that means recommending the more boring product.
The iPhone 17 is a great example, as it has become the universal recommendation for the average person among tech sites. They have a solid argument going for them. It brought many features to the base iPhone that had only been available on the Pro phones. For example, its display now supports both the always-on display and 120Hz refresh rate. But the thing is, as great as the iPhone 17 is, there is nothing wrong with getting the iPhone 17e instead. This is especially the case if your needs are those of an average person, and there’s been more than two years since your last upgrade. However, tech sites don’t want to give nuanced recommendations for whatever reason.
The way The Verge reviewer Allison Johnson described the iPhone 17e is a great example of this. With the title: “The iPhone 17E is good, but you probably shouldn’t buy it,” the article begins as follows:
The iPhone 17E is a better value than the 16E was when it arrived, but that should matter to basically nobody. The main thing to know about the 17E is that the iPhone 17 exists, it costs $200 more — or maybe more significantly, an extra $9 per month on a two-year payment plan not including whatever discount your carrier offers — and it comes with a long list of upgrades. And if it’s within your means to put down that extra money, you should.
In this case, the recommendation comes across as privileged. Not everyone can afford to spend the extra $200 for a phone, but she makes it sound as a must when that’s not the case for the vast majority of everyday users.
If I think of the people in my family, I don’t think a single one of them would be disappointed with the iPhone 17e. That’s because they mostly care about three things: storage space, good battery life, and a camera that takes great photos. That’s it. They aren’t interested in features like the 120Hz display, as cool as it might seem for the more tech-savvy user.
U.S. centrism is another issue with many reviews, where they don’t stop to consider that the prices could be significantly different in other parts of the world. Rodrigo Ghedin has also written about this in his blog post regarding the iPhone 16e.
When I bought the 16e, the 17 would have cost me 500 euros more. Even as a person who enjoys technology, it just didn’t make sense to get the 17, even if that meant I had to let go of certain features. Have I regretted my decision? Not really. It has everything I need, and while a 120Hz display would be nice to have, it’s not a feature I’m constantly thinking about.
All this to say, people have different needs for tech, and reviewers should better acknowledge that instead of aggressively pushing people towards one option. I’m not saying that reviewers shouldn’t state their opinions, but I’m not a big fan of framing opinions as definite facts. Sometimes you need to recommend the more boring option to meet the needs of the regular person instead of the tech enthusiast. 🌔