After reading all the stories, lots of comments on blogs and forums, I have had enough of the BS about how $530 is over priced and way too much and blah blah blah. You guys want the latest and greatest but aren't willing to pay any more than $5 for it.
Every single phone worth money for years has had an unsubsidized price of at least $550 with a few exceptions of course (G1 is only $400, but it is a generation old hardware). An iPhone 3GS 32gb retails for $699 straight up. The HTC HD2 is $899 on Amazon. Good phones aren't cheap as I am sure a lot of you know. So in this respect, $530 is actually a pretty good deal; especially when you compare it to the HD2 which has the same processor and similar hardware. You are getting a next-gen phone with the best screen to ever be on a phone, double the ram of most high end phones, and double the resolution of most high end phones. You expected the best of the best to be cheap? Pfft...
Also, my current T-Mobile plan is superior to what is going to be offered. It will be cheaper and easier in the long run to just buy the phone straight up.
What I am seeing from people is they see $530 and freak the hell out because they have the $180 to compare it against. Sure, there is a big difference there, but you are locked in to a contract for 2 years. $80 * 24 months + $180 = $2100 over 2 years! AND you only have 500 minutes. If you bought the phone straight up and went with Even More Plus for $80/mo, you get unlimited everything. $80 * 24 months + $530 = $2450. Yes, this is more expensive, HOWEVER, how many times will you go over your 500 minutes in the next 2 years? If this is not a problem for you, by all means, go right ahead and get the contract deal since it suits you. But for me, and I suspect most people, 500 minutes is not enough. For the additional $350 over 2 years, or $14.58 and change every month, it is worth having those unlimited minutes.
Does anybody else agree with me on this? All of my phone junkies I talk to agree that $530 is reasonable. Sure, we all would love a less expensive phone, but lets get real here...
Oh, and if this "leak" turns out to be false, than what an awesome waste of time and all of this is moot! LOL
Agree with you on this. My current plan is dirt cheep for unlimited data and no 2 year contract, so I'll shell out the $530 if that's all official after the 5th!
people are trippin over $530 for a phone like this? I paid $550 for my unlocked fuze last year, $800 for unbranded touch pro 2 in April, unlocked motorola droid(milestone) is $800! Al least this phone has some kind of US 3G support, unlike most unbranded phones that come state side. I think I'm a get it day 1, and then get the Bravo when it come out later this year if Sense UI cant be import on the Nexus.
I agree with you guys wholeheartedly. To be honest though, I think it's most telling to compare plans in an apples to apples manner. I'm a dork with a background in finance, so yes, I created a spreadsheet to calculate all the costs incrementally to see where changes in costs were coming from in my comparison.
After running through the numbers and calculating total costs over a 24 month term, for the 500 minute EM and EM+ plans, with the respective phone costs, the total cost over 24 months if I bought the phone unlocked would be $1970. If I purchased it on contract for $180, the total I'd spend over 24 months would be $2100.
There's NO WAY that you'll spend more over the long term with the EM+ plan UNLESS you're eligible for a corporate discount on the EM plan (which I happily am). With my discount, the total for the EM plan comes to $1811, but that doesn't apply to everyone.
The problem here is that most people are spoiled by the subsidized prices of phones. What they're not realizing is that they're paying for that subsidy in the form of more expensive plans...and then some, as my illustration above clearly proves. If T-mobile allows us to finance unsubsidized phones for 20 months on EM+ plans, then this works out to be more manageable for consumers. Either way, though... people need to consider total cost of ownership (TCO)... not just monthly cost and initial cash outlay for the device.
Exactly! Thanks for doing that. People just don't look for future savings and would rather have instant gratification. They are excited by a cheap up front cost and monthly service fee be damned!
I totally agree with you. it is by far the best phone in terms of specifications and price compared to its competitors (iphone 3gs, HD2).
Thanks for explaining this to people.
T-Mo Unlimited Voice/Web/Text $79.99/mo x 24 months = $1,920
Phone: $530.00
====
Total: $2,450.00
IPhone Plan
AT&T Unlimited Voice/Web/Text $149.99/mo for 24 months = $3,600
Phone: $200.00
====
Total: $3,800.00
-No contract for the T-Mobile plan
-No texts? AT&T without any text message plan still comes to $3,320
I was hoping for unlocked-only availability. It would keep certain... um... people... from buying the phone and then flooding the forums with questions, tacky themes, etc.
Dont really care about the price. It's actually not too bad, but if they only offer a 3g for Tmobile version here in the states then why bother selling it from google? Now...if they offer a few versions that can do 3g on several of the networks, or the final device gives us 3g on AT&T and Tmobile (and perhaps they do a verizon version too!)...that would be an awesome sale.
lordmaxx said:
Dont really care about the price. It's actually not too bad, but if they only offer a 3g for Tmobile version here in the states then why bother selling it from google? Now...if they offer a few versions that can do 3g on several of the networks, or the final device gives us 3g on AT&T and Tmobile (and perhaps they do a verizon version too!)...that would be an awesome sale.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I imagine that Google will be releasing high-end phones for all carriers this year. I think they started with T-mobile for a variety of possible reasons. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that they felt that T-mo should get preference because they were the first carrier to carry the Android torch to market. I also wouldn't be surprised if Google had planned this all along and that T-mobile was promised to get the first "Google phone". Obviously this is all conjecture, but it makes sense from a business perspective.
uansari1 said:
I imagine that Google will be releasing high-end phones for all carriers this year. I think they started with T-mobile for a variety of possible reasons. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that they felt that T-mo should get preference because they were the first carrier to carry the Android torch to market. I also wouldn't be surprised if Google had planned this all along and that T-mobile was promised to get the first "Google phone". Obviously this is all conjecture, but it makes sense from a business perspective.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But the problem with getting the first of anything is it will be ancient by the time other carriers receive their Android devices
Not necessarily. Given the specs of this phone, I can't see it becoming obsolete as quickly as the G1 did. I could be wrong, but how soon would you think a phone would come out with over 1ghz processor and over 512 ram and rom?
uansari1 said:
Not necessarily. Given the specs of this phone, I can't see it becoming obsolete as quickly as the G1 did. I could be wrong, but how soon would you think a phone would come out with over 1ghz processor and over 512 ram and rom?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Aren't there already two other snapdragon devices out? What about the rumors of another iphone being released later this year?
I think the g1 may have been just as big when it came out. Times change, so does technology. The N1 may seem like the hottest new device, but it's the Nexus ONE just as the Dream was the Gee ONE. Look at where we are now. With at least half a dozen android capable devices out in about a year and 50+ rumored by 2012.
andythefan said:
Aren't there already two other snapdragon devices out? What about the rumors of another iphone being released later this year?
I think the g1 may have been just as big when it came out. Times change, so does technology. The N1 may seem like the hottest new device, but it's the Nexus ONE just as the Dream was the Gee ONE. Look at where we are now. With at least half a dozen android capable devices out in about a year and 50+ rumored by 2012.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your points are well taken. No one's saying that this is THE ultimate phone of all time. It's simply the greatest Android phone to be released yet, and based on its specs, it seems to be a very significant advance forward in hardware as compared to other devices, aside from Droid.
uansari1 said:
Your points are well taken. No one's saying that this is THE ultimate phone of all time. It's simply the greatest Android phone to be released yet, and based on its specs, it seems to be a very significant advance forward in hardware as compared to other devices, aside from Droid.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Before the Droid all the Android devices were mostly similar (form factor, screen resolution/size, cpu, etc). This is just like the Droid. It was supposed to be the greatest Android device until the next phone showed up a few months later. How do we know a device with similar or better specs won't show up soon? HTC's leaked roadmap has a lot of impressive devices scheduled for this year.
The marketplace is only going to fragment even more Developers aren't happy coding for all these different devices.
IDK if you all are missing the point or if maybe im just redirecting it but here goes
This does not fit into how google normally does things. Correct me if im wrong but the formula usually goes
Take good service/software and make it better + dirt cheap or free+data mining = profit$$
If they aren't subsidizing any of the cost, why should we let them have our data?
esincho said:
people are trippin over $530 for a phone like this? I paid $550 for my unlocked fuze last year, $800 for unbranded touch pro 2 in April, unlocked motorola droid(milestone) is $800! Al least this phone has some kind of US 3G support, unlike most unbranded phones that come state side. I think I'm a get it day 1, and then get the Bravo when it come out later this year if Sense UI cant be import on the Nexus.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am fully agree with your statement that at least this phone has some sort of US 3G support which many unlocked phones lacked or manufacturers are too slow to release the US 3G version (read: Nokia N95 NAM edition).
I think this angry attitude is a manifestation of our credit-driven lifestyle. Many people don't realize that paying cheaper price for a phone alongside mandatory 2 years contract (and ETFs if we decided to cancel) is more expensive. Even if they do, the fact that they can OWN the product NOW (regardless whether you can afford the whole price or not) is what makes it desirable in this part of the world.
Regarding the fact that it doesn't support AT&T 3G bands, well suck it up because iPhone didn't support T-Mobile 3G either and I'm sure there are many Tmob subscribers are interested to get that capabilities too. Until US cleared up these 3G band fragmentation (which probably won't happen), we are at the mercy of these manufacturers to step up their game and put in Quad Band UMTS as opposed to cherry picking 3 UMTS bands to be put into their phones.
Only thing making me think twice is when will a keyboard version of the hardware come out.
burton14e7 said:
Only thing making me think twice is when will a keyboard version of the hardware come out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The keyboard phone with these specs would be the next G1, most likely to come out just in time for the early G1 adopters to renew their contracts.
uansari1 said:
I agree with you guys wholeheartedly. To be honest though, I think it's most telling to compare plans in an apples to apples manner. I'm a dork with a background in finance, so yes, I created a spreadsheet to calculate all the costs incrementally to see where changes in costs were coming from in my comparison.
After running through the numbers and calculating total costs over a 24 month term, for the 500 minute EM and EM+ plans, with the respective phone costs, the total cost over 24 months if I bought the phone unlocked would be $1970. If I purchased it on contract for $180, the total I'd spend over 24 months would be $2100.
There's NO WAY that you'll spend more over the long term with the EM+ plan UNLESS you're eligible for a corporate discount on the EM plan (which I happily am). With my discount, the total for the EM plan comes to $1811, but that doesn't apply to everyone.
The problem here is that most people are spoiled by the subsidized prices of phones. What they're not realizing is that they're paying for that subsidy in the form of more expensive plans...and then some, as my illustration above clearly proves. If T-mobile allows us to finance unsubsidized phones for 20 months on EM+ plans, then this works out to be more manageable for consumers. Either way, though... people need to consider total cost of ownership (TCO)... not just monthly cost and initial cash outlay for the device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Expanding on this and assuming no discounts...
Option A) Buy the phone for $180 subsidized and the 500-minute plan for $80/mo, signing a contract to pay $2100 total over 24 mos.
Option B) Buy the phone for $530 unsubsidized and unlocked and choose the comparable 500-minute plus unlimited text/data Even More Plus plan for $60/mo for a total cost of $1970 over 24 mos with no contract.
So over two years of the phone and contract, you save $130 by going with option B.
But will you really last two years? Let's see what happens if you want to change phones after one year, which is entirely possible given the rate at which mobile technology is moving.
Option A) Early reports indicate a $350 early termination fee imposed by T-Mobile during the first 120 days, but no details have been learned about the fee past that window. Let's assume it reduces linearly to zero over the remaining life of the contract, meaning your fee for leaving early would be $210 at the one year mark. This puts you at $1350 to get out free and clear from the phone and contract.
Option B) You have no ETF, so you'll have paid $1250 at the end of one year.
So, even after just a year you still spend $100 less buying unsubsidized. Further, your phone will already be unlocked and unbranded, ready for quick sale on E-bay.
Pretty simple choice for me. Less money & easy to move on = no-brainer.
Related
Sick to my stomach
http://www.tmonews.com/2010/06/walmart-selling-htc-hd2-for-48-88/
amazon
Amazon price: $49.99 (with new service plan)
I would have done this, except I couldn't add a line through amazon.
I wonder if the outright purchase price has dropped any? At this pricing it would have been worthwhile for me to renew my contract and get roped into the $30 a month data plan.
I outright purchased my HD2 since over the course of the 2 years that my contract would have been extended, the extra $10 a month for the data would have eaten up the savings of getting the HD2 subsidized.
Just the cost of being an early adopter
What the hell.
dropped $150 in what, 2 months?
rickyoon.vegas said:
What the hell.
dropped $150 in what, 2 months?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's quite sad really. Majority of the people who get the HD2 in the USA are not people who know what Windows Mobile is, and for the most part, get frustrated when they treat it as a phone, instead of a personal computer (SENSE's imperfections is partly to blame for this, which is why I never recommend SENSE to people). I can honestly vouch that the majority of people who got this phone got it because the screen is bigger than the iPhone (and that it is supposed to be T-Mobile's iPhone). That's about it.
Because of this, I"m pretty sure TMobile is experiencing so many returns/complaints from people who have little to know knowledge about Windows Mobile. Therefore, I'm getting the feeling that T-Mobile is starting to think that it's not worth it and is deciding to just push the stock out ASAP (lock whoever they can for the next 2 years), or what's left of it, keep a couple of thousand in stock for return/repair/warranty issues, and call it quits soon (which might lend proof to the upcoming rumor that T-Mobile is ending HD2 soon in July).
It's really sad, because the T-Mobile's HD2 is one of the most solid phones I have ever held in my hand which no cracks, crease, or squeaks. It is a hardware marvel in so many respects it puts a lot of other phones to shame.
Windows Mobile is an OS that is for a very niche market, because it requires a certain finesse and tolerance that a majority of users simply do not have (I give credit to Apple for making a device that works well for the features that it has). Windows Mobile phones are part phone, part personal computer, and part software-gadgetry-hobby for the tech enthusiast.
rickyoon.vegas said:
What the hell.
dropped $150 in what, 2 months?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
as above said, its probably because it is becoming a headache for them. I bet they've had hundreds of returns because people have come here, flashed the wrong thing and bricked it, plus thousands more who simply dont get the phone, and have no clue how to start to understand it.
As a line of phones its probably somewhere between a great moneymaker and a support nightmare for tmo.
Sheesh, cut the price I paid in HALF! The nerve....
($99 from Wirefly at release)
As for why, well, I noticed a lot of HD2 commercials from HTC leading up to the release of Evo, then haven't seen any HD2 ones at all after that. Understandable for HTC, but bad for TMO, and it's affiliates. Perhaps lower prices are trying to pull the interest back to the "older" phone.
I got mine at launch at wal-mart - it was $149, so this is a $100 price drop
Shame those of us who paid 350+ can't get some of that cash back lol.
Not to mention that the resale values on eBay will DIVE when we want to sell ours in a year and possibly upgrade. Prices people are paying for used Nexus One's and Apple 3G's is insane! Fortunately paid about 75 in May through Letstalk.com with a coupon so I can definately get that back in a year. At the time Tmobile was charging 199 with a new service agreement. Their return rate must have been like a tidal wave. Amazing that a month ago people couldn't even get this phone as it was constantly on backorder! Guess a software/radio upgrade from Tmobile is now going to be out of the question?!!!
Agree that is a great phone with some minor software flaws but the hardware has been flawless. Look over at the EVO forum and many are have issues with screen delams, bleeding of backlight, badly grounded screens that repond even when touching the kickstand. My HD2 has been perfect - no flexing, dead pixels or button problems.
hd2
i didnt even pay for mine yet. tmobile billed me 130 and i have to pay two payments of 25 bucks so 200 total but they credited me 50 so it was only 150 now i havent had a fone in about month cuz i thought id be paying 25 extra for 6 months and now the fone is cheaper then i got it for with an extra 50, i think im going to call them and try to get my price adjusted !! its going for a third of what i am supposed to pay i might threaten to leave tmobile again or something
just be happy you all got it so much cheaper than the rest of the world to start with. An extra 100 dollars is chicken feed.
Lawl. I would love that the HD2 gets discontinued. It'll make us remaining T-Mobile HD2 owners stand like the few and the proud.
PoisonWolf said:
Lawl. I would love that the HD2 gets discontinued. It'll make us remaining T-Mobile HD2 owners stand like the few and the proud.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HA! That's what I think as well! It'll be like the "Hard to get your hands on" phone.
Really? The Few, The Proud, The HD2 Owner.
It's still just a phone at the end of the day. I just hope that I will now be able to pick up a second HD2 cheap to experiment with when an Android port becomes available.
RiffyDivine said:
Shame those of us who paid 350+ can't get some of that cash back lol.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Got that right. I just paid $400 less than a month ago without any plans
toygixxer69 said:
Got that right. I just paid $400 less than a month ago without any plans
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I paid $450 the first week of April for mine. But I don't have a contract to worry about and I am still using my t-zones service for $5.99 a month. So still worth it to me.
PoisonWolf said:
It's quite sad really. Majority of the people who get the HD2 in the USA are not people who know what Windows Mobile is, and for the most part, get frustrated when they treat it as a phone, instead of a personal computer (SENSE's imperfections is partly to blame for this, which is why I never recommend SENSE to people). I can honestly vouch that the majority of people who got this phone got it because the screen is bigger than the iPhone (and that it is supposed to be T-Mobile's iPhone). That's about it.
Because of this, I"m pretty sure TMobile is experiencing so many returns/complaints from people who have little to know knowledge about Windows Mobile. Therefore, I'm getting the feeling that T-Mobile is starting to think that it's not worth it and is deciding to just push the stock out ASAP (lock whoever they can for the next 2 years), or what's left of it, keep a couple of thousand in stock for return/repair/warranty issues, and call it quits soon (which might lend proof to the upcoming rumor that T-Mobile is ending HD2 soon in July).
It's really sad, because the T-Mobile's HD2 is one of the most solid phones I have ever held in my hand which no cracks, crease, or squeaks. It is a hardware marvel in so many respects it puts a lot of other phones to shame.
Windows Mobile is an OS that is for a very niche market, because it requires a certain finesse and tolerance that a majority of users simply do not have (I give credit to Apple for making a device that works well for the features that it has). Windows Mobile phones are part phone, part personal computer, and part software-gadgetry-hobby for the tech enthusiast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Man u said what i would have
ouch
wow that hurts..i paid $250.00 for mines but it sucks how the price dropped. but i am happy i got it and because of the hd2 i was able to learn so much more on this website about how everything works and...thats priceless
Paten said:
I paid $450 the first week of April for mine. But I don't have a contract to worry about and I am still using my t-zones service for $5.99 a month. So still worth it to me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am just curious but i was thinking, I have a droid incredible, I think it is one of the better android phones out. I played with Samsung fascinate, droid, droid pro, moto x. So what i am curious about is if a company release a new version why don't they offer it at a discounted rate?
Yes i know a company such as HTC needs to make money on the device, but they would keep me as a customer and i would still pay for the phone, just upgrading. The Verizon discounted rate is a joke.
Or offer the phone as an upgrade from the manufacturer 2 weeks after initial release??
signed
wanting an upgrade
I agree, but it just won't happen. They know that people will go out and by the latest and greatest based off of hype, and pay whatever to have it. If that wasn't the case, you'd see the prices come down. You can purchase the phone outright, but for like $500 - $600 and do a month to month contract.
I don't think that the phone manufacturer's set the contract prices, that's the cell companies.
ssandler77 said:
Or offer the phone as an upgrade from the manufacturer 2 weeks after initial release??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I do not understand what you mean by this. Upgrade from the manufacturer 2 weeks after initial release?
Carriers don't make much off of phone sales; all their profit is from voice/data plans in turn why you can get a larger discount when you pickup a new phone along w/ renewing your ending contract.
Wozzie said:
I do not understand what you mean by this. Upgrade from the manufacturer 2 weeks after initial release?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was saying instead of the crazy markup by Verizon or other carriers the discount should come from the manufacturer. The 2 weeks would let the manufacturer make their money with a higher price, and then offer to their current customers the upgrade at a discounted price.
Sorry if this was confusing, I sometimes write things down and don't think all the way through. I really was being selfish and wanted a new phone without paying. (or paying very little)
I totally understand this wouldn't happen based on prices, the phone market, carriers, etc. I would just like a new updated phone for cheap.
notwen said:
Carriers don't make much off of phone sales; all their profit is from voice/data plans in turn why you can get a larger discount when you pickup a new phone along w/ renewing your ending contract.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I get it, i was just saying they should just give me (or anyone else) a new phone. I know it would never happen.
Qualcomm announced the next generation in Snapdragon – the S4 series scheduled for 2012. This new chipset brings the manufacturing process from 45nm to 28nm...... this is a big improvement. Clock speeds can go from 1.5GHz to 2.5GHz.
Here is the link if you want to read Phandroid's write up :
http://phandroid.com/2011/10/10/qualcomms-snapdragon-s4-chips-look-to-amaze-consumers-in-2012/
Here is the PDF from Qualcom for you techies:
Damn I wish smartphones were cheaper so I could buy a new one like every 6 months. 200 unsubsidized every six months would be perfect, but 500-600 is too much.
No reason for smartphones to cost 600 bucks when you can buy an Ivy Bridge laptop for 500 bucks.
It's the carriers fault, the carrier and their contracts gives no reason for manufacturers to lower prices on full retail pricing, not when you have the carrier paying you full price. Ahhhhh
I want the nexus prime then 6 months later I want a phone with this chipset!
SamsungVibrant said:
Damn I wish smartphones were cheaper so I could buy a new one like every 6 months. 200 unsubsidized every six months would be perfect, but 500-600 is too much.
No reason for smartphones to cost 600 bucks when you can buy an Ivy Bridge laptop for 500 bucks.
It's the carriers fault, the carrier and their contracts gives no reason for manufacturers to lower prices on full retail pricing, not when you have the carrier paying you full price. Ahhhhh
I want the nexus prime then 6 months later I want a phone with this chipset!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly!
Sent from my SGH-T959 using xda premium
I agree phones cost too much, but then...that's capitalism..... I am going to get an S2 in a couple of days and then get Prime after that........ I wouldn't worry about the S4 chip-set too much probably will not be out until this time next year. I save my change every day and on average at the end of a year I have about 700 bucks, I then use that to get my android toys or whatever. This year is a short year I just weighed my quarters (1Lb =18.60) a Little over 32 lbs or 600 bucks....... but now I will have no money for parking.........
Well, the iPhone and most Android phones cost the manufacturer's $190-$250 to produce. Then they sell them to your carrier and make their profit. After that, your carrier subsidizes the cost of the phone to you for what, $199-$299?
Let's review. If it costs a manufacturer, say $200 to make their device, and they sell it to a carrier for $300 and that carrier sells it to you for $249 with a 2 year contract, how much money did the carrier make on the sale of the phone?
I can understand the pricing for non-contract phones. I can understand ETF's. If a customer buys a subsidized phone and jumps ship with no ETF/Penalty, the carrier is literally losing money.
I don't do contracts. I plan for what I want to buy, save for it, and bite the bullet. I paid full price from my Vibrant on day 1. Is it expensive? Yeah, sure, but there's this notion that smart phones cost $20 to make and the rest is an eleventy billion percent mark up, and that's not true. Do carriers jump that price WAY up? Yeah, absolutely, but it's a business move to try and get the consumer to sign a contract. If a customer is on contract, there's incentive for them to stay and the opportunity to make additional profit through the cost of the plan and any overage charges, accessory purchases.
KWKSLVR said:
Well, the iPhone and most Android phones cost the manufacturer's $190-$250 to produce. Then they sell them to your carrier and make their profit. After that, your carrier subsidizes the cost of the phone to you for what, $199-$299?
Let's review. If it costs a manufacturer, say $200 to make their device, and they sell it to a carrier for $300 and that carrier sells it to you for $249 with a 2 year contract, how much money did the carrier make on the sale of the phone?
I can understand the pricing for non-contract phones. I can understand ETF's. If a customer buys a subsidized phone and jumps ship with no ETF/Penalty, the carrier is literally losing money.
I don't do contracts. I plan for what I want to buy, save for it, and bite the bullet. I paid full price from my Vibrant on day 1. Is it expensive? Yeah, sure, but there's this notion that smart phones cost $20 to make and the rest is an eleventy billion percent mark up, and that's not true. Do carriers jump that price WAY up? Yeah, absolutely, but it's a business move to try and get the consumer to sign a contract. If a customer is on contract, there's incentive for them to stay and the opportunity to make additional profit through the cost of the plan and any overage charges, accessory purchases.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Totally agree and that's why I have not been under contract either I pay full price (minus my negotiating skill discount) over 2 years it is actually cheaper.
The other thing people may want to know say you have a brother/friend etc who doesn't over use their plan. If all the stars line up and work out right, you put him on your plan (20-30 extra per month) and you get the phone for 1/2 price even if you are on a non contract plan. If you brother/friend turns out to be a flake and never pays you after a year you dump him and you paid about 20 bucks less for the phone overall...........if he pays you say 50 bucks a month over a year you end up with the phone essentially free...... but remember a saving like this in this scenario is highly reliant all things working as the should perfectly....... and you know how often that happens ................
I used to try and get a good price, and through all my years at T-Mobile, I actually have in the past on more than one occasion. These days, it's harder to get a manager to come off of a phone. I really think that once they got bought out the last time corporate policy put the clamps down on it some.
I'm not a wasteful person anyway so paying full price for a smart phone every 18-24 months is one of the few things I splurge on. It's definitely cheaper in the long run on T-Mobile since your plan is cheaper. Shoot, I'm still on an EM+ plan. Sadly, I'll probably have to bite the bullet and move to VZW soon since I need a larger network and that's where the real raping begins.
I was thinking about it and its one of 2 things imo. I think they are using the extra bucks for the future LTE expansion, building towers and whatnot. But most likely they are a bunch of grubby pricks that want to nickel and dime us
Sent from my HTC Sensation using XDA
I've read through a lot of the huge thread, and a lot of people were saying that t-mobile tends to offer the new, hip device for an outrageous cost for the first few weeks.
If you are a current customer you might have luck calling customer service and passively threatening to switch carriers. Many people here have had luck getting $200 off the phone and a few other perks. The last 10 pages of so of the big thread are full of those stories.
I bought the phone outright. The value plan I'm on is sweet- I'm saving $450 over 2 years.
Lets hope for the first and realize this phone is actually a phone that I might keep for the 2 years for a 1st haha. There is no real reason I don't think except the fact that T-Mobile has the cheaper of the plans when it comes to the competing 3, so the 80$ more that I have to spend to get the phone compared to the 25-50$ a month I save (comparing to my friends who have Verizon and At&t I'm okay with the difference... But still wish it wasn't the case.
I'm rocking the Motorola Cliq. This phone is going to seem so amazingly quick. If I can get 2 1/2 years out of a pos phone like the Cliq I can get 2 years out of this sexy phone.
I'm just happy that I am still out of contract.
mhuckins said:
I'm rocking the Motorola Cliq. This phone is going to seem so amazingly quick. If I can get 2 1/2 years out of a pos phone like the Cliq I can get 2 years out of this sexy phone.
I'm just happy that I am still out of contract.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
GOOOooo should've went to the G1 haha.
mt3g said:
GOOOooo should've went to the G1 haha.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I almost did! I didn't want to move away from the qwerty keyboard. I've spent so much time on the computer in the last year I couldn't justify another partial upgrade. I was so close to buying an iPhone (they get upgrades, my cliq is like 1.8 or some lousy shiat) and then the SGSIII came along. I haven't slept in weeks. It's like the raspberry pi all over again.
MacTheRipperr said:
I was thinking about it and its one of 2 things imo. I think they are using the extra bucks for the future LTE expansion, building towers and whatnot. But most likely they are a bunch of grubby pricks that want to nickel and dime us
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Spit-balling...
T-Mobile's Value plan is supposed to encourage customer's to avoid the recent spate of aggressive phone upgrades, and they are realizing that smartphone users are unaffected by the economic argument as the situation stands.
The phones actually are more expensive than we tend to think, and even "no-commitment" pricing has been subsidized.
The worldwide currency shifts have affected the cost of phones, and most carriers have been reluctant to reflect reality in a highly competitive market.
High demand and low supply resulted in either a money-grab or an attempt to prevent people from buying up the limited supply and selling on eBay (the latter being, admittedly, unlikely given the nature of the mobile market).
Executives have started to notice that the "free phone" weekends have been eating into profits and T-Mobile is attempting to capitalize on eager buyers that clearly aren't willing to wait until the inevitable deal comes along.
The unusual modem and/or overall lower volume of T-Mobile's sales meant that they weren't able to negotiate a deal as aggressive as the larger players.
T-Mobile has an interest in seeing HTC succeed and are attempting to subtly curb the Goliath that is Samsung in an attempt to keep their leverage going.
Pricing is not related to anything other than an attempt to place devices into tiers (with the S2 at $550, the One S at $600, and the S3 as the perceived-best phone), and they didn't expect a backlash against the better phones costing more money.
T-Mobile is attempting to expand its image as the "value" service by leaving room for negotiation so that bargain-conscious customers talk them up.
Don't take any of the above too seriously. It is kind of late, I haven't put much thought into it, and I've had a lot to drink.
In any case, relative value is relative value. I don't care that Redbox is losing money renting to me for $0.70, it makes me unwilling to pay for Blockbuster Express at $3. I don't care that an album costs $7 at my preferred service of Amazon MP3, I am unwilling to buy because Google Music has it $4. At the end of the day, the (vocal) minority of us that hang it forums like this will sweat the price difference because we spend all of our time comparing like items.
It isn't even remotely fair to T-Mobile (or whomever), but it is human.
Voltage Spike said:
Spit-balling...
T-Mobile's Value plan is supposed to encourage customer's to avoid the recent spate of aggressive phone upgrades, and they are realizing that smartphone users are unaffected by the economic argument as the situation stands.
The phones actually are more expensive than we tend to think, and even "no-commitment" pricing has been subsidized.
The worldwide currency shifts have affected the cost of phones, and most carriers have been reluctant to reflect reality in a highly competitive market.
High demand and low supply resulted in either a money-grab or an attempt to prevent people from buying up the limited supply and selling on eBay (the latter being, admittedly, unlikely given the nature of the mobile market).
Executives have started to notice that the "free phone" weekends have been eating into profits and T-Mobile is attempting to capitalize on eager buyers that clearly aren't willing to wait until the inevitable deal comes along.
The unusual modem and/or overall lower volume of T-Mobile's sales meant that they weren't able to negotiate a deal as aggressive as the larger players.
T-Mobile has an interest in seeing HTC succeed and are attempting to subtly curb the Goliath that is Samsung in an attempt to keep their leverage going.
Pricing is not related to anything other than an attempt to place devices into tiers (with the S2 at $550, the One S at $600, and the S3 as the perceived-best phone), and they didn't expect a backlash against the better phones costing more money.
T-Mobile is attempting to expand its image as the "value" service by leaving room for negotiation so that bargain-conscious customers talk them up.
Don't take any of the above too seriously. It is kind of late, I haven't put much thought into it, and I've had a lot to drink.
In any case, relative value is relative value. I don't care that Redbox is losing money renting to me for $0.70, it makes me unwilling to pay for Blockbuster Express at $3. I don't care that an album costs $7 at my preferred service of Amazon MP3, I am unwilling to buy because Google Music has it $4. At the end of the day, the (vocal) minority of us that hang it forums like this will sweat the price difference because we spend all of our time comparing like items.
It isn't even remotely fair to T-Mobile (or whomever), but it is human.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wish I could write so eloquently when drunk. What's your fark handle?
It's sort of amazing to see people complaining about the "high" price without factoring in the total price of the contract or looking at the ETF. Worrisome.
Last year the GS2 and Amaze 4G were priced in the mid $200s so this seems pretty normal for T-mobile. T-mobile has also mused about contract pricing and how it is affecting their competitiveness and bottomline. Since the phone is untouched mostly there were probably other concessions that T-mobile wanted with Samsung on pricing. Then of course this phone is even more feature packed than the last, and you can't remove components once you place it in your previous flagship model (the GS2) so they are getting more and more expensive.
I don't think ETF factors much, unless you are some crazy person who likes to break contracts all the time and can't wait out the 2 years. T-mobile contract prices are lower, sure, but not by much.
Why doesn't anyone incorporate how much the plans cost prior to complaining about the cost of the phone?
I remember reading somewhere that stated studies show customers are more prone to sign with a carrier based on the price of the phone instead of the rate plan.
Let's wise up, fellas. Don't be a poor consumer.
tmobile is the only company selling the phone at this point, and in limited markets at that. I am wondering if they're selling the phone at such a high price in the beggining because they know they can. Look at the overwhelming demand coupled with such a limited supply. It's an easy cash cow. Im wondering if I should wait out and see if the price will go down in the next few weeks. ATT and Sprint are both selling 32gb at 600 and tmobile is selling them at 670 but like I said before Tmobile is the only one selling them at this point and they're pretty much done in Manhattan (i called a bunch of stores already).
ttngu234 said:
Why doesn't anyone incorporate how much the plans cost prior to complaining about the cost of the phone?
I remember reading somewhere that stated studies show customers are more prone to sign with a carrier based on the price of the phone instead of the rate plan.
Let's wise up, fellas. Don't be a poor consumer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The purchase of the phone is the only time they have to fork out a bunch of money so it makes sense that the cost will drive many consumers. For the most part, the rate plan costs are similar across the market. Yes, Verizon is the most expensive but they have a reputation for offering the best network and that allows them to charge a premium.
Sergent D said:
The purchase of the phone is the only time they have to fork out a bunch of money so it makes sense that the cost will drive many consumers. For the most part, the rate plan costs are similar across the market. Yes, Verizon is the most expensive but they have a reputation for offering the best network and that allows them to charge a premium.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really. AT&T and Verizon are both equally expensive, and while Sprint is a bit cheaper (comparable unlimited talk/text plans closest to T-Mobile's 5GB web/tethering in this case), you're still paying a substantially bigger amount over the 2 years even with a cheaper phone.
At $300 for 8GB of storage and $350 for 16 GB of storage, the Nexus 4 is an incredible piece of technology for a very reasonable price. Compare this to the unlocked Galaxy S4 at $650 or the HTC One at $600, also available from Google Play. The hardware differences in the more expensive phones are:
- Super AMOLD LCD (vs. IPS LCD on Nexus 4)
- Polycarbonate body (vs. glass on Nexus 4)
- More built in storage (32 GB on S4, 16 GB on HTC One, although you can get a 16 GB N4 for $50 more)
- Better camera on the S4 (13 megapixels while HTC One and N4 have 8)
- MicroSD slot (no MicroSD slot on N4)
- Stereo speakers on the HTC One
- LTE 4G on S4
I don't see how the above list could explain nearly the nearly double price difference from the Nexus 4 to the S4 or the HTC One. Sure, the MicroSD slot, extra memory, and probably the polycarbonate certainly account for some of the price difference, but not double. I'm also skeptical that any custom software/skins on the S4 or HTC One would make up the difference.
Maybe Google is undercutting the others in its own store to drive customers to its own device. Or maybe Samsung and HTC purposely "enforce" a high retail price to work with carriers who offer subsidized phones with two year contracts. Do all S4 and HTC Ones come with radios for both GSM and CDMA? I can see the radios being an expensive piece of hardware, so maybe only including a GSM radio is helping to keep costs low.
I'm pretty sure that the production cost of these phones are quite similar. Probably around the $200 range.
So is Google taking a loss at selling the N4 at $299/$349? Probably not. They're probably not making much profit per device compared to Samsung or HTC though.
Is LG taking a loss by manufacturing the N4? Definitely not. LG has no reason to effectively give Google a phone to sell at a loss. They definitely have some sort of contract in place such that LG profits from this relationship. Besides, outside of Google Play, the price of the N4 is marked up.
How do we justify the cost of the Google edition S4 and HTC1 versus the N4?
Easy. The prices are simply marked up by Samsung and HTC. They happen to want more profit per device than the N4. So at the end of the day, is the S4 or HTC1 $300 better than the N4? Definitely not. It's just a matter of Samsung and HTC wanting more of your money.
HTC One is now $49 from AT&T with 2 year contracts.
lopri said:
HTC One is now $49 from AT&T with 2 year contracts.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's a pretty solid deal for the One. However I don't believe it's Google's stock edition. That can only be found on the play store.
It's really do believe that they are selling it close to a loss, if not at a loss. There's just so much hardware there.
The thing you need to ask yourself is why. Why would Google sell such a great phone for SO cheap? Well, for one, it's not doing it solely for the profits like the other guys so the prices aren't insanely inflated. They do it to promote development on Android, to show what pure AOSP looks like (now the Google Edition phones also do this), and also to bring more end users into the Android environment. Make a high-end, affordable smartphone and more people will be willing to switch OS's. Plus, they don't spend millions upon millions promoting this phone like those other competitors do.
There are many reasons why it's cheaper and why Google continues to sell it. I just hope they continue with the Nexus line. Those new Google Edition phones have me worried about the future of the Nexus line. I hope it's not an indicator that they will stop making Nexii (?) in a few generations.
Economic Yourern
Johmama said:
They do it to promote development on Android, to show what pure AOSP looks like (now the Google Edition phones also do this), and also to bring more end users into the Android environment. Make a high-end, affordable smartphone and more people will be willing to switch OS's. Plus, they don't spend millions upon millions promoting this phone like those other competitors do.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed! This is what I was thinking about this morning as well. The price is compelling enough to even have iOS fan boys and developers to give it a try. And yeah, their advertising is much less. I probably wouldn't have heard of the Nexus 4 if one of my friends hadn't told me all about it. Google probably isn't taking a loss, but the margin can't be all that great either.
I'm just happy there is an affordable unlocked phone on the market with great hardware. I've never been a fan of the subsidized two-year contract. What other service locks you in for two years? With the affordable yet powerful Nexus 4 and T-Mobile (one of the "Big 4" carriers) doing away with contracts, the other carriers will be forced to adapt sooner or later.
Google doesn't need the money from selling Nexus devices. They can make it back from advertising.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
In demand smart phones have historically garnered lots of money from subsidies. It is the main reason why they are a major cash cow for Samsung and Apple. Their other products have no where near the margins of an iPhone or S3/4. As long as people keep paying $100/month cell phone bills in order to get their next to free flagship phone every two years, I doubt this will change.
Kudos to folks like Google, T-Mobile, and a number of MVNO's that are trying to bring more fair pricing to consumers than the AT&T's and Verizon's of the world, but the reality is that most folks are still paying way too much for devices and service.
Solutions Etcetera said:
In demand smart phones have historically garnered lots of money from subsidies. It is the main reason why they are a major cash cow for Samsung and Apple. Their other products have no where near the margins of an iPhone or S3/4. As long as people keep paying $100/month cell phone bills in order to get their next to free flagship phone every two years, I doubt this will change.
Kudos to folks like Google, T-Mobile, and a number of MVNO's that are trying to bring more fair pricing to consumers than the AT&T's and Verizon's of the world, but the reality is that most folks are still paying way too much for devices and service.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Is $100/month a genuine possibility or an exaggeration? Either way, the US carrier monopoly is extremely messed up. Over here in the UK you won't find very many carrier exclusive/branded phones at all, and the same goes for most other parts of the world. I feel sorry for anyone who has to carry around a device with a Verizon, AT&T or Sprint logo placed anywhere on their devices. The entire idea of it just seems stupid to me.
Nigeldg said:
Is $100/month a genuine possibility or an exaggeration?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Heh heh... it is not an exaggeration. Most EU member agencies are far more consumer oriented than the US, who pretty much just lets capitalism reign supreme. The FCC is a joke when it comes to Cable and Cell providers (my cable/internet bill is $160/month... I watch three channels, ESPN, ESPN2, and GOLF from their lineup that I can't get OTA, but to have HD I have to sign for a hundred+ channel package).
Solutions Etcetera said:
Heh heh... it is not an exaggeration. Most EU member agencies are far more consumer oriented than the US, who pretty much just lets capitalism reign supreme. The FCC is a joke when it comes to Cable and Cell providers (my cable/internet bill is $160/month... I watch three channels, ESPN, ESPN2, and GOLF from their lineup that I can't get OTA, but to have HD I have to sign for a hundred+ channel package).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow, $100/month for a phone comes out to twice what it would here in the UK. My dad got a GS3 when it was new for free on a £35/month ($50/month) contract, and even that's a bad deal to me. I'm currently paying £10/month ($15) for 250 mins, unlimited texts and 1GB of data which is pretty damn good compared to what you can get in the US. I'd assume the $100/month contracts at least have unlimited everything right?
Oh and OP sorry for the off-topic
Nigeldg said:
I'd assume the $100/month contracts at least have unlimited everything right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Minutes yes, data no (unless you have one of the coveted grandfathered data plans from before the point where the big three decided unlimited was a bad idea). Now a days, "unlimited" data plans mean vague "fair use" policies and throttling once you hit their cap. Sure you have "unlimited" data, but what use is it when they throttle it down to 3G or even 2G once you reach a given point.