Yes you can, you can either buy a used iPhone or pay the full $700 price for a new out of contract iPhone and use it without a data plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aross99
Does the price of the handset really matter anymore? I see the cost of the data plans being the thing that is holding the mainstream buyer back. Apple needs an iPhone you can purchase without a data plan, for the huge number of people who won't pay for data and would be happy to use the phone in WiFi.
Once they switch to LTE, data and voice will be the same thing. So its likely we will only be paying for a tiered data plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpr1
I agree. I don't want to pay $360/yr. for a data plan. I don't want an iPhone -- I want a WiPhone. And maybe, like the iPad, give me the option of a month-to-month data plan (in case I'm on the road for an extended period).
If there were a wifi only iPhone me and my wife would already have them. The $30-$60 extra in data is something we just haven't accepted. We need phones, but we do not need internet everywhere we go. wifi is pretty much everywhere, and would be good enough for me.
Get a used, unlocked iPhone and just use it with a voice plan only. Presto, you have your WiFi phone.
Do the carriers charge you any less when your contract expires? No until they offer a reduced plan for people who own their phone all you are going to save is $200. Everyone know the real cost of having a cell phone is the minutes, data plan and txt, not so much the cost of the phone.
Some carriers do, although it is usually left to the customer to ask to change the plan to something that suits their needs.
eg Vodafone Australia offers SIM only plans, similar to the contract plans $20 ~= $29, $35 ~=$49 and $55 ~= $79, with slight variations in the amount of data, calls etc.
I'm sure Apple is experimenting with many ideas and strategies to stay ahead of competitors. Its good for them to develop ideas like this in case they need to put it into action.
But the reality is that Android is a mess that will be stunted under its own weight.
Apple won't need to go contract free to compete directly against Android.
Surely a smaller screen would mean a whole new UI? You couldn't keep the current UI controls with a smaller screen. What about 3rd party app compatibility?
Just take the iPod nano and turn it into a flip-phone. But base it on the previous generation nano with the larger screen, address book, calendar, and camera that the current generation removed.
I still think there is a market for non-smart phones that Apple could clean up in with a phone that let's you easily sync your contacts, events, and media (all the content the previous nano could handle). It's the syncing part that all of today's non-smart phone's suck at, forcing you to use the carrier's crap tools or enter all your contacts manually. Apple already knows how to do that via iTunes for iPods and iPhones.
Some people just want a nice, small, easy to use phone.
BONUS: Add in wi-fi hot spot sharing to allow me to choose if my "data device" is an iPod touch, iPad, laptop, etc. That way I can just take the phone if that's all I want to carry. Or I can also take whatever data device is appropriate for what I want to accomplish while I'm out and about. So basically, an iPhone nano with a built-in mifi option. That would be my ideal device. And it would be a good way for Apple to lock the low-end phone users into the Apple ecosystem with the potential to later upgrade them to a tethered iOS device and/or the full-fledged iPhone.
apple going for the jugular, I like it! so this is that cheaper world phone we were hearing so many rumors about last year. it makes sense.. like a smaller version of the 3GS without the retina display, along with an improved UI that moves things out of the way that aren't necessary. I think it will be great for cash strapped people, third world nations, and girls who don't care much about the apps or performance but still want a great (slim) phone. I have a feeling it will be 'delayed' at least a couple months from the iPhone 5 launch though
The way this most makes sense to me is if Apple is pursuing an Apple MVNO business. They could offer this as a $0 subsidized phone in return for a contract. Like most MVNOs, they make their money of the difference between the price they pay for minutes and what they charge their customers.
This doesn't make any sense. What happens to the scaling of the icons, game graphics, etc. The new screen would have to be an extreme retina display, otherwise all the graphics would be pixelated...
I think an MVNO business would make more sense when most of the worlds major markets have launched LTE. At that point everything will be consolidated.
Right now everything is in a messy transition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted
The way this most makes sense to me is if Apple is pursuing an Apple MVNO business. They could offer this as a $0 subsidized phone in return for a contract. Like most MVNOs, they make their money of the difference between the price they pay for minutes and what they charge their customers.
But if they had to compete on price, they also would have to compete on the amount of subsidy they pay. As long as they can charge what they want, they have no real pressure to reduce the subsidy.
Doesn't it make more sense that if they were competing, "on the amount of subsidy they pay," that the subsidy would go up? Maybe you can explain why you think competition (i.e., more than none) would drive the subsidy amount down.
If there's any company out there that can shake up telecommunications any further with a contract-free phone, it's Apple. I could be interested in an iPhone that has the basics: phone, contacts, iCal. And if Safari is added, maybe some kind of limited data plan could be in the works. Speaking of which, wonder what Apple is really doing with that massive data center in North Carolina. Apple iPhone nano, anyone?
The data plans are so expensive because U.S. carriers don't compete on price. It doesn't have anything to do with "the subsidy".
It is still a lot better than most other countries --- where the carriers don't compete at all.
What are you going to do in Norway --- they have 2 carriers. France --- 3 carriers.
What are you going to do in Japan --- where docomo owns more than 50% of their wireless market. What are you going to do in Korea --- where SK Telecom owns more than 50% of their wireless market.
Why would Apple care whether their customers were signing a two year contract? Apple gets $600 per phone as a result. The alternative situation, proposed by this article, is that Apple would rather sell a $200 iPhone that customers can keep when going from one carrier to another rather than selling a $600 iPhone that must be scrapped (or resold) when they want to move from CDMA to GSM. How does this help Apple? Apple is not a cell provider, so what does Apple care if it has "more control" over customers?
Do the carriers charge you any less when your contract expires? No until they offer a reduced plan for people who own their phone all you are going to save is $200. Everyone know the real cost of having a cell phone is the minutes, data plan and txt, not so much the cost of the phone.
Come here to the UK, got your own phone, check out "Sim Only" plans, £10-15 for a package thats roughly equivalent to those twice that when a handset is supplied.
If there were a wifi only iPhone me and my wife would already have them. The $30-$60 extra in data is something we just haven't accepted. We need phones, but we do not need internet everywhere we go. wifi is pretty much everywhere, and would be good enough for me.
So for me we've been using the shittiest dumb phone's we could find supplemented with itouch's
I went the shitty dumb phone (plus iTouch) route for a couple of years. Then I got an iPhone and I realized I was blowing smoke up my own ass. You can't compare so just save yourself the aggravation. First of all, shitty phones are an aggravation onto themselves. The gift that gives on giving.
And think about it. $15/month for 3G everywhere you go is not bad. You don't have wifi in your car, or on a bus, or most places on the street. Even when you do find it, more and more want to charge you than they used to. Also, when you are somewhere without wifi, or your cable internet is down, you have a back up. Comcast has been working in our neighborhood for the last 2 months and our wired internet has been down for hours at a time on quite a few days. It's nice to still be able to get email, check the web, etc. (my wife and I work from home so it's more than a luxury). $15 doesn't buy much nowadays so it works for me. YMMV
I know alot of people will say this is crazy and "who would buy an iPhone without data?", but I think we are in the minority. Compare the number of people who have text plans and the number who have data - huge difference.
Terrible logic. Most of those feature phone users had their feature phone before there was an option for something better. Back when gasoline powered cars came out someone could have said "who needs a car without a horse? Compare the number of stagecoaches out there with the small number of cars!"
The fact is an iPhone without data is like the car in Borat's home town - pulled by a horse, you lose the critical element that makes it useful.
If there were a wifi only iPhone me and my wife would already have them. The $30-$60 extra in data is something we just haven't accepted. We need phones, but we do not need internet everywhere we go. wifi is pretty much everywhere, and would be good enough for me.
So for me we've been using the shittiest dumb phone's we could find supplemented with itouch's
I don't understand. Why don't you just buy an iPhone at retail (or secondhand for $400) and slide in a SIM card without a data plan? You know you can do this, right? Something tells me you don't want to pay $700 for an iPhone. You want a $200 iPhone AND not have to pay ATT back for the subsidy.
"Apple has considered selling the new iPhone for about $200, without obligating users to sign a two-year service contract, said the person who has seen it,"
Unlikely as it would undercut the $229 iPod Touch while having more functionality. I would love to see a software sim and unsubsidised phones to put an end to the unreasonable contracts and service offered by carriers though. One model is still better, not a budget model on top. Although they could make a lower end one with no cameras, 4GB storage, 256MB RAM etc, which would cut some costs and still allow pretty much the full iPhone experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
it was also rumored that Apple was forced to abandon those plans after carriers allegedly threatened to stop offering subsidies for the iPhone.
I don't get why that would matter. Surely if Apple price hardware with reasonable profit margins then it makes no difference what the carriers do.
Apple stepped up the game in mobile phone hardware and there needs to be a change in the way mobile services are delivered no matter how hard those deploying them expectedly fight against it. But then people might observe that Apple would be requiring service providers to compete on a level they themselves aren't willing to compete on. Why for example should the carriers not be allowed to lock a customer onto a single network service when iOS users are locked into purchasing from a single store?
Comments
Does the price of the handset really matter anymore? I see the cost of the data plans being the thing that is holding the mainstream buyer back. Apple needs an iPhone you can purchase without a data plan, for the huge number of people who won't pay for data and would be happy to use the phone in WiFi.
I agree. I don't want to pay $360/yr. for a data plan. I don't want an iPhone -- I want a WiPhone. And maybe, like the iPad, give me the option of a month-to-month data plan (in case I'm on the road for an extended period).
If there were a wifi only iPhone me and my wife would already have them. The $30-$60 extra in data is something we just haven't accepted. We need phones, but we do not need internet everywhere we go. wifi is pretty much everywhere, and would be good enough for me.
Get a used, unlocked iPhone and just use it with a voice plan only. Presto, you have your WiFi phone.
Do the carriers charge you any less when your contract expires? No until they offer a reduced plan for people who own their phone all you are going to save is $200. Everyone know the real cost of having a cell phone is the minutes, data plan and txt, not so much the cost of the phone.
Some carriers do, although it is usually left to the customer to ask to change the plan to something that suits their needs.
eg Vodafone Australia offers SIM only plans, similar to the contract plans $20 ~= $29, $35 ~=$49 and $55 ~= $79, with slight variations in the amount of data, calls etc.
But the reality is that Android is a mess that will be stunted under its own weight.
Apple won't need to go contract free to compete directly against Android.
I still think there is a market for non-smart phones that Apple could clean up in with a phone that let's you easily sync your contacts, events, and media (all the content the previous nano could handle). It's the syncing part that all of today's non-smart phone's suck at, forcing you to use the carrier's crap tools or enter all your contacts manually. Apple already knows how to do that via iTunes for iPods and iPhones.
Some people just want a nice, small, easy to use phone.
BONUS: Add in wi-fi hot spot sharing to allow me to choose if my "data device" is an iPod touch, iPad, laptop, etc. That way I can just take the phone if that's all I want to carry. Or I can also take whatever data device is appropriate for what I want to accomplish while I'm out and about. So basically, an iPhone nano with a built-in mifi option. That would be my ideal device. And it would be a good way for Apple to lock the low-end phone users into the Apple ecosystem with the potential to later upgrade them to a tethered iOS device and/or the full-fledged iPhone.
Right now everything is in a messy transition.
The way this most makes sense to me is if Apple is pursuing an Apple MVNO business. They could offer this as a $0 subsidized phone in return for a contract. Like most MVNOs, they make their money of the difference between the price they pay for minutes and what they charge their customers.
But if they had to compete on price, they also would have to compete on the amount of subsidy they pay. As long as they can charge what they want, they have no real pressure to reduce the subsidy.
Doesn't it make more sense that if they were competing, "on the amount of subsidy they pay," that the subsidy would go up? Maybe you can explain why you think competition (i.e., more than none) would drive the subsidy amount down.
The data plans are so expensive because U.S. carriers don't compete on price. It doesn't have anything to do with "the subsidy".
It is still a lot better than most other countries --- where the carriers don't compete at all.
What are you going to do in Norway --- they have 2 carriers. France --- 3 carriers.
What are you going to do in Japan --- where docomo owns more than 50% of their wireless market. What are you going to do in Korea --- where SK Telecom owns more than 50% of their wireless market.
Why would Apple care whether their customers were signing a two year contract? Apple gets $600 per phone as a result. The alternative situation, proposed by this article, is that Apple would rather sell a $200 iPhone that customers can keep when going from one carrier to another rather than selling a $600 iPhone that must be scrapped (or resold) when they want to move from CDMA to GSM. How does this help Apple? Apple is not a cell provider, so what does Apple care if it has "more control" over customers?
Do the carriers charge you any less when your contract expires? No until they offer a reduced plan for people who own their phone all you are going to save is $200. Everyone know the real cost of having a cell phone is the minutes, data plan and txt, not so much the cost of the phone.
Come here to the UK, got your own phone, check out "Sim Only" plans, £10-15 for a package thats roughly equivalent to those twice that when a handset is supplied.
If there were a wifi only iPhone me and my wife would already have them. The $30-$60 extra in data is something we just haven't accepted. We need phones, but we do not need internet everywhere we go. wifi is pretty much everywhere, and would be good enough for me.
So for me we've been using the shittiest dumb phone's we could find supplemented with itouch's
I went the shitty dumb phone (plus iTouch) route for a couple of years. Then I got an iPhone and I realized I was blowing smoke up my own ass. You can't compare so just save yourself the aggravation. First of all, shitty phones are an aggravation onto themselves. The gift that gives on giving.
And think about it. $15/month for 3G everywhere you go is not bad. You don't have wifi in your car, or on a bus, or most places on the street. Even when you do find it, more and more want to charge you than they used to. Also, when you are somewhere without wifi, or your cable internet is down, you have a back up. Comcast has been working in our neighborhood for the last 2 months and our wired internet has been down for hours at a time on quite a few days. It's nice to still be able to get email, check the web, etc. (my wife and I work from home so it's more than a luxury). $15 doesn't buy much nowadays so it works for me. YMMV
I know alot of people will say this is crazy and "who would buy an iPhone without data?", but I think we are in the minority. Compare the number of people who have text plans and the number who have data - huge difference.
Terrible logic. Most of those feature phone users had their feature phone before there was an option for something better. Back when gasoline powered cars came out someone could have said "who needs a car without a horse? Compare the number of stagecoaches out there with the small number of cars!"
The fact is an iPhone without data is like the car in Borat's home town - pulled by a horse, you lose the critical element that makes it useful.
If there were a wifi only iPhone me and my wife would already have them. The $30-$60 extra in data is something we just haven't accepted. We need phones, but we do not need internet everywhere we go. wifi is pretty much everywhere, and would be good enough for me.
So for me we've been using the shittiest dumb phone's we could find supplemented with itouch's
I don't understand. Why don't you just buy an iPhone at retail (or secondhand for $400) and slide in a SIM card without a data plan? You know you can do this, right? Something tells me you don't want to pay $700 for an iPhone. You want a $200 iPhone AND not have to pay ATT back for the subsidy.
Prove me wrong.
"Apple has considered selling the new iPhone for about $200, without obligating users to sign a two-year service contract, said the person who has seen it,"
Unlikely as it would undercut the $229 iPod Touch while having more functionality. I would love to see a software sim and unsubsidised phones to put an end to the unreasonable contracts and service offered by carriers though. One model is still better, not a budget model on top. Although they could make a lower end one with no cameras, 4GB storage, 256MB RAM etc, which would cut some costs and still allow pretty much the full iPhone experience.
it was also rumored that Apple was forced to abandon those plans after carriers allegedly threatened to stop offering subsidies for the iPhone.
I don't get why that would matter. Surely if Apple price hardware with reasonable profit margins then it makes no difference what the carriers do.
Apple stepped up the game in mobile phone hardware and there needs to be a change in the way mobile services are delivered no matter how hard those deploying them expectedly fight against it. But then people might observe that Apple would be requiring service providers to compete on a level they themselves aren't willing to compete on. Why for example should the carriers not be allowed to lock a customer onto a single network service when iOS users are locked into purchasing from a single store?