Agreed. As crazy as their sales are now, I can only imagine what it will be like when iPhone 5 debuts as they continue to sell the 4 for $99. I know my wife is one person that has been waiting for this happen, so she can get a 4 more inexpensively. Can't imagine she's alone.
Yeah a $99 model would sell quite handily but they would be selling at a huge loss.
Apple is on to something and I think they'll follow through. They have a handset that consumers will swap carriers to get. IF they can pull off building a version that works on the major 3 (US), I'll be first in line to pay full price and then bargain between the carriers in my usage areas for a voice, MSG and data plan that doesn't include paying the subsidy and signing a contract. My question is, will any others in the U.S. do the same? Apple will hand control back to the consumer and let the market decide. I'm sure other manufacturers will follow.
Of course you can buy any phone off contract. What law could prohibit it.
Of course you can buy any phone off contract. What law could prohibit it.
Those prices show how expensive the iPhone is.
I didn't mean to imply law. Phone makers making handsets for single carriers with features exclusive to that carrier and the carrier being able to block access to services outside their network has impeded the market (IMHO). There has been an unholy alliance between CEs and carriers. Apple is bucking that system.
The difference is there's no service price difference for a subsidized phone and one that's not. I'm beyond my 2 year commit with my carrier and they didn't drop my monthly. Why would I want bring a $700 handset to AT&T or Verizon or Sprint and pay the same monthly as the next guy who is paying his $500 subsidized phone off over time in that same monthly?
Apple is on to something and I think they'll follow through. They have a handset that consumers will swap carriers to get. IF they can pull off building a version that works on the major 3 (US), I'll be first in line to pay full price and then bargain between the carriers in my usage areas for a voice, MSG and data plan that doesn't include paying the subsidy and signing a contract. My question is, will any others in the U.S. do the same? Apple will hand control back to the consumer and let the market decide. I'm sure other manufacturers will follow.
Good luck finding a representative of any cell company who is able and willing to bargain with you.
The difference is there's no service price difference for a subsidized phone and one that's not. I'm beyond my 2 year commit with my carrier and they didn't drop my monthly. Why would I want bring a $700 handset to AT&T or Verizon or Sprint and pay the same monthly as the next guy who is paying his $500 subsidized phone off over time in that same monthly?
You're 100% right but the carriers do not offer a plan that excludes the subsidy repayment. Sorry. It'd be nice, but as it is, the system is set up to punish people who pay full price for a phone and reward people who take the subsidy.
The smart user recaptures the difference by selling their old phone when they get the new one. That old iphone can generally be sold for $300+, or roughly $30 per month for the year that you had it. It's unlikely you're expecting to save more than $30 a month even in the best case.
Except voice is even less distinctive than fingerprints, and what CSI never tells you is that there are many people in a given (large) city with essentially the same fingerprints.
I remember as a senior in high school we had a class where we learned how to match prints or whatever and we were all given a set and asked to match it against a pool of everyone's prints.
I matched with the wrong person not because I sucked but because this girls index print was virtually identical to this guys pinky print.
You're 100% right but the carriers do not offer a plan that excludes the subsidy repayment. Sorry. It'd be nice, but as it is, the system is set up to punish people who pay full price for a phone and reward people who take the subsidy.
The smart user recaptures the difference by selling their old phone when they get the new one. That old iphone can generally be sold for $300+, or roughly $30 per month for the year that you had it. It's unlikely you're expecting to save more than $30 a month even in the best case.
Yet. Combine the iPhone or Android with the carriers all standardizing on LTE regardless of the past incompatibilities and we are close to unfettered competition. Some will be content with just being a pipe, others bundle services (home voice, mobile voice, voice mail, email, internet, cloud, satellite tv, cable'ish TV) to compete, others say price is the difference, others speed, reliability, and sexy voices on the phone when you call to complain.
Wireless carriers are going to have to fight against being just a data transport pipe. Benefit the consumer, finally. Will the consumer be smart enough? Frankly, I think no, in the US. Sorry.
Is US$90 a month standard practice in the US? If so consumers are getting royally forked.
Carriers thrive on less than US$30 a month (excluding the cost of the phone) elsewhere in the world
Back up that statement with some facts. Explain to us how a 48 contiguous states about the size of Europe, and Hawaii in the middle of the Pacific Ocean 2390 miles from California, cost carriers the same as every other country in the world for the same service? From what I'm seeing there is no other country in the world that has to deal with that much data over that large an area for a culture that drives excessively which does not limit them to small specific population bundles.
The difference is there's no service price difference for a subsidized phone and one that's not. I'm beyond my 2 year commit with my carrier and they didn't drop my monthly.
In a normal market that should mean that any carrier with a lower prescriber base should be willing to poach customers from the others just by not screwing the customer for an arbitrary service fee (for a service that is not provided). I'd say that's evidence of cartel behaviour/criminal price collusion between the carriers.
Back up that statement with some facts. Explain to us how a 48 contiguous states about the size of Europe, and Hawaii in the middle of the Pacific Ocean 2390 miles from California, cost carriers the same as every other country in the world for the same service? From what I'm seeing there is no other country in the world that has to deal with that much data over that large an area for a culture that drives excessively which does not limit them to small specific population bundles.
The phone network in Australia covers similar ground distances, consists of fewer carriers (potential for less competition) and exponentially fewer subscribers. Economies of scale mean we should be at a disadvantage.
Plus our main internet connection routes through Denver!
The phone network in Australia covers similar ground distances, consists of fewer carriers (potential for less competition) and exponentially fewer subscribers. Economies of scale mean we should be at a disadvantage.
Plus our main internet connection routes through Denver!
First of all, according to Telstra, Australia's largest MNO, they have significantly less coverage than MNOs in the US.
Secondly, your assumption that if all other things being equal that Australia's paltry subscriber numbers compared to any US MNO means it's more costly is baseless. You haven't considered shared towers, shared bandwidth, or the glaring fact that not all towers are created equal in (for starters) terms of bandwidth needs for a particular area.
Finally, Telstra pricing plans for the iPhone are not the $30/month plans you claim and even state a minimum cost for the phone and contract approaching two-grand. For $79/month you get a whopping 2GB data. That sounds pretty damn similar to the US.
PS: Again, where are all these countries elsewhere in the world that are $30/month for the same services offered in the US?
The point is economies of scale. Significantly less coverage, but exponentially less subscribers. The American population might be uniquely distributed. But I would expect this extra infrastructure cost to be reflected in other industries such as freight and supermarkets where the US is clearly more price competitive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Finally, Telstra pricing ... $79/month you get a whopping 2GB data. That sounds pretty damn similar to the US.
You’re quoting a contracted plan that includes handset costs. My comment was in relation to the cost of the actual service - best reflected in pay-as-you-go call plans, which are typically are $30 per month and as little as $12 - even on the Telstra network http://www.thinkmobile.com.au/plans/
My point is locking iPhone users (who have bought the handset outright) into a one size fits all $90 a month, when all they need is a basic phone service, is an unjustifiable rort.
My point is locking iPhone users (who have bought the handset outright) into a one size fits all $90 a month, when all they need is a basic phone service, is an unjustifiable rort.
Then you're misinformed. iPhone users who have bought the handset outright (and those who get the subsidy) are not locked into any one size fits all plan.
Before you call something an outrage, it's smart to go ahead and confirm what you're outraged about.
In a normal market that should mean that any carrier with a lower prescriber base should be willing to poach customers from the others just by not screwing the customer for an arbitrary service fee (for a service that is not provided). I'd say that's evidence of cartel behaviour/criminal price collusion between the carriers.
Why are people not rioting over this?
They can and do poach using low priced phones, subsidized and then paid back over the course of the contract. This results in customers buying out of the contract or just waiting for a contract event to leave a carrier. But few phones will move with the customer because of incompatibility between the carrier networks. Sure I can take my iPhone to tMoble but there's no way in hell i'll be able to enjoy MLB.tv streaming unless I'm on wifi. But I can't take it to Verizon or Sprint or US Cellular, or [insert random regional here]
I don't see collusion between carriers rather the market evolving. The US didn't start with one national wireless carrier - the big 3 started life as lots more than 3 but through mergers and acquisitions became nationwide (for the most part) - as an example the current AT&T Wireless is more Cingular than AT&T. So many network standards were deployed and the one(s) that win end up where carriers have to converge. It's happening with LTE and soon to follow IPv6 all the way to the handset instead of hiding behind a carrier's proxy.
Back to my previous point, if there is a one handset to serve them all, the carriers will have less bind on the consumer. What's amazing is that the US consumer chose this by demanding cheap phones now which just deferred the cost and the pain down the line.
My point is locking iPhone users (who have bought the handset outright) into a one size fits all $90 a month, when all they need is a basic phone service, is an unjustifiable rort.
I don't like that my data doesn't roll over. I don't like that the minimum number of minutes I can buy from AT&T is 450 when I only about 50 per month. I don't like that SMS is so expensive for the amount of data and carrier-side server storage it cost. I don't like that my iPhone can't be unlocked after my contractual obligations are met. I don't like a great many things about the US cellular system when there is plenty of proof that other most other countries charge more for data than US carriers who only recently stopped offering unlimited data plans.
Comments
Agreed. As crazy as their sales are now, I can only imagine what it will be like when iPhone 5 debuts as they continue to sell the 4 for $99. I know my wife is one person that has been waiting for this happen, so she can get a 4 more inexpensively. Can't imagine she's alone.
Yeah a $99 model would sell quite handily but they would be selling at a huge loss.
Apple is on to something and I think they'll follow through. They have a handset that consumers will swap carriers to get. IF they can pull off building a version that works on the major 3 (US), I'll be first in line to pay full price and then bargain between the carriers in my usage areas for a voice, MSG and data plan that doesn't include paying the subsidy and signing a contract. My question is, will any others in the U.S. do the same? Apple will hand control back to the consumer and let the market decide. I'm sure other manufacturers will follow.
Of course you can buy any phone off contract. What law could prohibit it.
Those prices show how expensive the iPhone is.
Of course you can buy any phone off contract. What law could prohibit it.
Those prices show how expensive the iPhone is.
I didn't mean to imply law. Phone makers making handsets for single carriers with features exclusive to that carrier and the carrier being able to block access to services outside their network has impeded the market (IMHO). There has been an unholy alliance between CEs and carriers. Apple is bucking that system.
The difference is there's no service price difference for a subsidized phone and one that's not. I'm beyond my 2 year commit with my carrier and they didn't drop my monthly. Why would I want bring a $700 handset to AT&T or Verizon or Sprint and pay the same monthly as the next guy who is paying his $500 subsidized phone off over time in that same monthly?
Again, this is all my opinion.
Apple is on to something and I think they'll follow through. They have a handset that consumers will swap carriers to get. IF they can pull off building a version that works on the major 3 (US), I'll be first in line to pay full price and then bargain between the carriers in my usage areas for a voice, MSG and data plan that doesn't include paying the subsidy and signing a contract. My question is, will any others in the U.S. do the same? Apple will hand control back to the consumer and let the market decide. I'm sure other manufacturers will follow.
Good luck finding a representative of any cell company who is able and willing to bargain with you.
Yeah a $99 model would sell quite handily but they would be selling at a huge loss.
That's $99 subsidized, or roughly $500 cash to Apple.
The difference is there's no service price difference for a subsidized phone and one that's not. I'm beyond my 2 year commit with my carrier and they didn't drop my monthly. Why would I want bring a $700 handset to AT&T or Verizon or Sprint and pay the same monthly as the next guy who is paying his $500 subsidized phone off over time in that same monthly?
You're 100% right but the carriers do not offer a plan that excludes the subsidy repayment. Sorry. It'd be nice, but as it is, the system is set up to punish people who pay full price for a phone and reward people who take the subsidy.
The smart user recaptures the difference by selling their old phone when they get the new one. That old iphone can generally be sold for $300+, or roughly $30 per month for the year that you had it. It's unlikely you're expecting to save more than $30 a month even in the best case.
Nice
Except voice is even less distinctive than fingerprints, and what CSI never tells you is that there are many people in a given (large) city with essentially the same fingerprints.
I remember as a senior in high school we had a class where we learned how to match prints or whatever and we were all given a set and asked to match it against a pool of everyone's prints.
I matched with the wrong person not because I sucked but because this girls index print was virtually identical to this guys pinky print.
It was fascinating
You're 100% right but the carriers do not offer a plan that excludes the subsidy repayment. Sorry. It'd be nice, but as it is, the system is set up to punish people who pay full price for a phone and reward people who take the subsidy.
The smart user recaptures the difference by selling their old phone when they get the new one. That old iphone can generally be sold for $300+, or roughly $30 per month for the year that you had it. It's unlikely you're expecting to save more than $30 a month even in the best case.
Yet. Combine the iPhone or Android with the carriers all standardizing on LTE regardless of the past incompatibilities and we are close to unfettered competition. Some will be content with just being a pipe, others bundle services (home voice, mobile voice, voice mail, email, internet, cloud, satellite tv, cable'ish TV) to compete, others say price is the difference, others speed, reliability, and sexy voices on the phone when you call to complain.
Wireless carriers are going to have to fight against being just a data transport pipe. Benefit the consumer, finally. Will the consumer be smart enough? Frankly, I think no, in the US. Sorry.
...when you're paying $90 a month for service for 2 years
Is US$90 a month standard practice in the US? If so consumers are getting royally forked.
Carriers thrive on less than US$30 a month (excluding the cost of the phone) elsewhere in the world.
I?ve seen decent pay-as-you-go plans for as little as $12 a month.
If capitalism is supposed to give power to the consumer why are none of the carriers undercutting the competition?
Forcing carriers to release phone numbers and handsets for porting between networks would be a good first step (if this is not done already).
Is US$90 a month standard practice in the US? If so consumers are getting royally forked.
Carriers thrive on less than US$30 a month (excluding the cost of the phone) elsewhere in the world
Back up that statement with some facts. Explain to us how a 48 contiguous states about the size of Europe, and Hawaii in the middle of the Pacific Ocean 2390 miles from California, cost carriers the same as every other country in the world for the same service? From what I'm seeing there is no other country in the world that has to deal with that much data over that large an area for a culture that drives excessively which does not limit them to small specific population bundles.
The difference is there's no service price difference for a subsidized phone and one that's not. I'm beyond my 2 year commit with my carrier and they didn't drop my monthly.
In a normal market that should mean that any carrier with a lower prescriber base should be willing to poach customers from the others just by not screwing the customer for an arbitrary service fee (for a service that is not provided). I'd say that's evidence of cartel behaviour/criminal price collusion between the carriers.
Why are people not rioting over this?
Back up that statement with some facts. Explain to us how a 48 contiguous states about the size of Europe, and Hawaii in the middle of the Pacific Ocean 2390 miles from California, cost carriers the same as every other country in the world for the same service? From what I'm seeing there is no other country in the world that has to deal with that much data over that large an area for a culture that drives excessively which does not limit them to small specific population bundles.
The phone network in Australia covers similar ground distances, consists of fewer carriers (potential for less competition) and exponentially fewer subscribers. Economies of scale mean we should be at a disadvantage.
Plus our main internet connection routes through Denver!
The phone network in Australia covers similar ground distances, consists of fewer carriers (potential for less competition) and exponentially fewer subscribers. Economies of scale mean we should be at a disadvantage.
Plus our main internet connection routes through Denver!
First of all, according to Telstra, Australia's largest MNO, they have significantly less coverage than MNOs in the US.Secondly, your assumption that if all other things being equal that Australia's paltry subscriber numbers compared to any US MNO means it's more costly is baseless. You haven't considered shared towers, shared bandwidth, or the glaring fact that not all towers are created equal in (for starters) terms of bandwidth needs for a particular area.Finally, Telstra pricing plans for the iPhone are not the $30/month plans you claim and even state a minimum cost for the phone and contract approaching two-grand. For $79/month you get a whopping 2GB data. That sounds pretty damn similar to the US.
PS: Again, where are all these countries elsewhere in the world that are $30/month for the same services offered in the US?
First of all, according to Telstra, Australia's largest MNO, they have significantly less coverage than MNOs in the US.
The point is economies of scale. Significantly less coverage, but exponentially less subscribers. The American population might be uniquely distributed. But I would expect this extra infrastructure cost to be reflected in other industries such as freight and supermarkets where the US is clearly more price competitive.
Finally, Telstra pricing ... $79/month you get a whopping 2GB data. That sounds pretty damn similar to the US.
You’re quoting a contracted plan that includes handset costs. My comment was in relation to the cost of the actual service - best reflected in pay-as-you-go call plans, which are typically are $30 per month and as little as $12 - even on the Telstra network http://www.thinkmobile.com.au/plans/
My point is locking iPhone users (who have bought the handset outright) into a one size fits all $90 a month, when all they need is a basic phone service, is an unjustifiable rort.
My point is locking iPhone users (who have bought the handset outright) into a one size fits all $90 a month, when all they need is a basic phone service, is an unjustifiable rort.
Then you're misinformed. iPhone users who have bought the handset outright (and those who get the subsidy) are not locked into any one size fits all plan.
Before you call something an outrage, it's smart to go ahead and confirm what you're outraged about.
www.attwireless.com
www.verizonwireless.com
Enjoy!
In a normal market that should mean that any carrier with a lower prescriber base should be willing to poach customers from the others just by not screwing the customer for an arbitrary service fee (for a service that is not provided). I'd say that's evidence of cartel behaviour/criminal price collusion between the carriers.
Why are people not rioting over this?
They can and do poach using low priced phones, subsidized and then paid back over the course of the contract. This results in customers buying out of the contract or just waiting for a contract event to leave a carrier. But few phones will move with the customer because of incompatibility between the carrier networks. Sure I can take my iPhone to tMoble but there's no way in hell i'll be able to enjoy MLB.tv streaming unless I'm on wifi. But I can't take it to Verizon or Sprint or US Cellular, or [insert random regional here]
I don't see collusion between carriers rather the market evolving. The US didn't start with one national wireless carrier - the big 3 started life as lots more than 3 but through mergers and acquisitions became nationwide (for the most part) - as an example the current AT&T Wireless is more Cingular than AT&T. So many network standards were deployed and the one(s) that win end up where carriers have to converge. It's happening with LTE and soon to follow IPv6 all the way to the handset instead of hiding behind a carrier's proxy.
Back to my previous point, if there is a one handset to serve them all, the carriers will have less bind on the consumer. What's amazing is that the US consumer chose this by demanding cheap phones now which just deferred the cost and the pain down the line.
My point is locking iPhone users (who have bought the handset outright) into a one size fits all $90 a month, when all they need is a basic phone service, is an unjustifiable rort.
I don't like that my data doesn't roll over. I don't like that the minimum number of minutes I can buy from AT&T is 450 when I only about 50 per month. I don't like that SMS is so expensive for the amount of data and carrier-side server storage it cost. I don't like that my iPhone can't be unlocked after my contractual obligations are met. I don't like a great many things about the US cellular system when there is plenty of proof that other most other countries charge more for data than US carriers who only recently stopped offering unlimited data plans.