AT&T, Verizon will charge $10 per month for Apple Watch Series 3 cellular data plans [ux2]...

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 57
    My question is can I ditch my phone plan get the series 3 with cellular and pay just ten dollars a month for a plan. Or does it need to be tethered with an actual phone plan?  I want to use the watch for calls and the phone only on wifi and only pay ten bucks a month
    adm1 said:
    My question is can I ditch my phone plan get the series 3 with cellular and pay just ten dollars a month for a plan. Or does it need to be tethered with an actual phone plan?  I want to use the watch for calls and the phone only on wifi and only pay ten bucks a month
    this is interesting, I wouldn't mind having the data connection on my watch and have for example an ipod touch or ipad tethered to the watch connection. gotta investigate this :astonished: 
    If you people think that cell phone carriers in the US will let you get away with $10/month (plus fees/taxes) and not pay anything else then you're crazy. And thinking you'll get data with that too? Even crazier.
  • Reply 42 of 57
    I know AT&T says they will add it for $10 a month, but they have been trying for years to push me off my old grandfathered unlimited plan.  I wonder if they will let me pay $10 a month and add this watch or if they will force me to one of these new rip off plans where I pay more for less data.  
  • Reply 43 of 57
    rezwits said:
    $10/month for how little data the watch will stream is a crime. Won't do it. I'll jump to T-Mobile in a second if it is free.
    IDK Being able to jump in my car with just slick no pocket shorts and just an Watch and getting McDonalds in under 10 minutes flat paid with ApplePay is going to be fun 3 times a month... It's too bad other Fast Food places just don't support ApplePay yet (LAZY), cause that's the real crime!
    Why would you EVER have to carry your phone (unless you needed the larger screen for something like games, FaceBook, maps, etc?

    As for other fast food places not taking Apple Pay -- while I don't eat fast food, I avoid anyplace that doesn't take ApplePay:   All my food comes from either Trader Joes or Whole Foods, gas from Sheetz, and drugstore stuff comes from Walgreens.   And, oh!   Phones & stuff come from the Apple Store!
  • Reply 44 of 57
    tmay said:
    So, let's look at purchasing an iPhone X, AirPods, Apple Series 3 with LTE, protect all of those with AppleCare, and add an Apple Music subscription, and an iCloud subscription, for your photos and videos, tv and films,  plus your carrier service, and the Apple Watch add on. Why not throw in Netflix as well

    How much are we looking at a month, assuming that the iPhone X is on a payment plan, and what would be the initial outlay?

    I'd guess, about $700 initial outlay and $120 a month. 

    I'm guessing that their are people who do this, albeit not all at once. Is it worth $4 a day to be so well connected?

    I'm thinking that the answer is yes, but not if they actually think about it that way.

    It wouldn't be very difficult for any of the Carriers to create a bundle like that at a small discount to the customer, with less cash up front, as a way to drive customer "churn",
    Conversely:  a $249 Apple Watch Series One + a $349 iPhone SE will do the all the same things for only a one-time $598....
    ...  The difference is not in WHAT they do, but how they do it.
  • Reply 45 of 57
    adm1 said:
    My question is can I ditch my phone plan get the series 3 with cellular and pay just ten dollars a month for a plan. Or does it need to be tethered with an actual phone plan?  I want to use the watch for calls and the phone only on wifi and only pay ten bucks a month
    this is interesting, I wouldn't mind having the data connection on my watch and have for example an ipod touch or ipad tethered to the watch connection. gotta investigate this :astonished: 
    It's gotta be an iPhone 6 or later.
  • Reply 46 of 57
    GG1GG1 Posts: 126member
    ksec said:
    The only thing I am thinking of, why are there such limited number of carriers? This shouldn't be hard to add for any LTE based Network.
    Could it be Apple will have some form of rebate from those monthly connection? Like when iPhone were introduced?
    I seem to recall that the eSIM met a lot of resistance by the carriers when Apple and Samsung first introduced the eSIM years ago. Probably due to political (carriers don't want to give up control that the physical SIM affords them) and technical (needs a method of secure provisioning).

    Don't the iPad Pro's have an eSIM? That product should have paved the way with the carriers, assuming they support it.
  • Reply 47 of 57
    All the non-aluminum Apple Watch Series 3s include cellular connectivity unfortunately. Anybody have any idea if they will nag you if you don't get (or need) the wireless service? Like the 'no-sim' nag on the iPhones.


  • Reply 48 of 57
    Here is the content of a chat I just had with verizon confirming $5/mo for the watch

    Verizon: Thank you for contacting the Verizon Wireless Chat Team regarding your account. How can we help you today?
    You: Will the new apple watch series 3 be able to use the current $5/mo number share plan as the samsung watch does
    RAVEN: Hello there! I hope you're having a great day so far. May I ask who I have the pleasure of chatting with today?
    You: Art
    RAVEN: Thank you Art! I can certainly understand your concerns with the watch and pricing as I know I would as well. The device will still be the same price as the current line access.
    You: Does that mean $5 to use number share?
    RAVEN: Yes
    You: Thank you
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 49 of 57
    If you buy the LTE version do you HAVE TO activate?  Would like to have the option if the $10 fee is ever reduced or eliminated. 
  • Reply 50 of 57
    tmay said:
    So, let's look at purchasing an iPhone X, AirPods, Apple Series 3 with LTE, protect all of those with AppleCare, and add an Apple Music subscription, and an iCloud subscription, for your photos and videos, tv and films,  plus your carrier service, and the Apple Watch add on. Why not throw in Netflix as well

    How much are we looking at a month, assuming that the iPhone X is on a payment plan, and what would be the initial outlay?

    I'd guess, about $700 initial outlay and $120 a month. 

    I'm guessing that their are people who do this, albeit not all at once. Is it worth $4 a day to be so well connected?

    I'm thinking that the answer is yes, but not if they actually think about it that way.

    It wouldn't be very difficult for any of the Carriers to create a bundle like that at a small discount to the customer, with less cash up front, as a way to drive customer "churn",
    Conversely:  a $249 Apple Watch Series One + a $349 iPhone SE will do the all the same things for only a one-time $598....
    ...  The difference is not in WHAT they do, but how they do it.
    one time fee?  How are you going to get data onto that iPhone SE?  
  • Reply 51 of 57
    If you buy the LTE version do you HAVE TO activate?  Would like to have the option if the $10 fee is ever reduced or eliminated. 
    It's my understanding that unless you get some sort of carrier subsidy, the data plan is contract-free. The fine print on AT&T's plan, for example, notes that the three months of service are reimbursed after you hit three months. After that, do as you please.
  • Reply 52 of 57
    dgp1dgp1 Posts: 1unconfirmed, member
    Soli said:
    But you're not paying $10 month for data. You're paying $10 a month for having it always connected to their cellular infrastructure. How much do you think a flip phone would cost to add to Verizon that doesn't use any data?
    @Soli - some counterpoints. $10 is the same amount they charge for an iPad, which will usually be connected 24/7 and can even hotspot. By comparison, unlike an iPad, a Watch is using NumberSync so doesn't even waste a phone number, and it's only going to connect to LTE when you're away from your phone (it would be a battery killer to do otherwise, it's simply out of the question). So for most people that's, let's be generous and say they spend 1 hour in the gym every day and one 2-hour paddle boarding trip per weekend. So that's 8h paddle boarding and 30 hours at the gym. So a Watch is connected to AT&T's infrastructure for about 38 hours at the absolute maximum possible usage. There are about 720 hours in a month so that's 5%. Someone who maximizes their usage in that way is "only" paying about 25 cents an hour for the privilege, but the typical person who maybe goes on a 30 minute jog 5 times a week is using LTE for about 10 hours so that's $1 an hour. Of course pricing is 100% disconnected from cost and only based on how much the cell phone oligopoly can gouge us, so I know it's AT&T's right to price it that high and get what must be at least a 98% margin. But it's an absolute shite deal for the customer compared to the same dollar amount they charge for an iPad.
  • Reply 53 of 57
    dgp1 said:
    Soli said:
    But you're not paying $10 month for data. You're paying $10 a month for having it always connected to their cellular infrastructure. How much do you think a flip phone would cost to add to Verizon that doesn't use any data?
    @Soli - some counterpoints. $10 is the same amount they charge for an iPad, which will usually be connected 24/7 and can even hotspot. By comparison, unlike an iPad, a Watch is using NumberSync so doesn't even waste a phone number, and it's only going to connect to LTE when you're away from your phone (it would be a battery killer to do otherwise, it's simply out of the question). So for most people that's, let's be generous and say they spend 1 hour in the gym every day and one 2-hour paddle boarding trip per weekend. So that's 8h paddle boarding and 30 hours at the gym. So a Watch is connected to AT&T's infrastructure for about 38 hours at the absolute maximum possible usage. There are about 720 hours in a month so that's 5%. Someone who maximizes their usage in that way is "only" paying about 25 cents an hour for the privilege, but the typical person who maybe goes on a 30 minute jog 5 times a week is using LTE for about 10 hours so that's $1 an hour. Of course pricing is 100% disconnected from cost and only based on how much the cell phone oligopoly can gouge us, so I know it's AT&T's right to price it that high and get what must be at least a 98% margin. But it's an absolute shite deal for the customer compared to the same dollar amount they charge for an iPad.
    Look, folks... they'll charge whatever the market will bear. If no one takes the bait at $10/month, you can pretty much guarantee they'll soon drop the price.
    redraider11
  • Reply 54 of 57
    SoliSoli Posts: 6,196member
    dgp1 said:
    Soli said:
    But you're not paying $10 month for data. You're paying $10 a month for having it always connected to their cellular infrastructure. How much do you think a flip phone would cost to add to Verizon that doesn't use any data?
    @Soli - some counterpoints. $10 is the same amount they charge for an iPad, which will usually be connected 24/7 and can even hotspot. By comparison, unlike an iPad, a Watch is using NumberSync so doesn't even waste a phone number, and it's only going to connect to LTE when you're away from your phone (it would be a battery killer to do otherwise, it's simply out of the question). So for most people that's, let's be generous and say they spend 1 hour in the gym every day and one 2-hour paddle boarding trip per weekend. So that's 8h paddle boarding and 30 hours at the gym. So a Watch is connected to AT&T's infrastructure for about 38 hours at the absolute maximum possible usage. There are about 720 hours in a month so that's 5%. Someone who maximizes their usage in that way is "only" paying about 25 cents an hour for the privilege, but the typical person who maybe goes on a 30 minute jog 5 times a week is using LTE for about 10 hours so that's $1 an hour. Of course pricing is 100% disconnected from cost and only based on how much the cell phone oligopoly can gouge us, so I know it's AT&T's right to price it that high and get what must be at least a 98% margin. But it's an absolute shite deal for the customer compared to the same dollar amount they charge for an iPad.
    1) Watch is also connected 24/7. It's also actively connected for phone calls where as the iPad is just data and more likely passive when not in use. You're also wearing the Watch a lot more than you'll ever likely to use an iPad in any given day but the Watch has to be able to take and make calls, and send and receive data in lieu of an iPhone in your hand or on your person? For fucks sake, you people have been saying Apple needs to have this and then they finally do and you bitch that there's a cost for connecting to a cellular network that matches the node fee of a dumb phone that can't even use data.

    2) Your numbers don't even make sense. Even ignoring the high capacity node fee, you can stream music from the Watch all day long but you're not going to have your iPad around you all day so you can steam audio. This moves that burden from the iPhone to the Watch for most users.

    3) I almost always used WiFi with my iPad+Cellular connection but my monthly charge was the same. Should I cry that my connection fee should be less because I use it less than someone else or should I understand that I have the opportunity to use the fucking device whenever I damn well please… just like the conveniently placed Watch.
    edited September 2017
  • Reply 55 of 57
    I have one phone on my account. Can I add another for $10? Ok, throw in a one-time activation fee, but is an additional phone for $10? 

    It's a separate 'line', as in a separate number, and it can be used to make a call while my other phone is in use. I can't do any of that with the Watch. Along with everybody else who didn't suggest otherwise, I don't want a separate number for the Watch.

    I don't believe for a second that this monthly fee is justified by any hoops att has to jump through on our behalf. A one-time activation fee, sure. 

    But the monthly fee is no different than BYOP, pay the activation fee, buy a data plan, and pay a monthly access (privilege) fee.

    It's not very much different than when Ma Bell charged us additional fee for having an extension phone that we paid for and not a rental from Ma. Without a functional ringer they would never know there was an extension, such was the impact on their infrastructure. It took a very long time for that to change and it wasn't because Ma relented. Also with landlines, beyond our monthly service we only paid/pay for calls we made/make, not calls we receive(d).

    Agreed, it's free market capitalism, but very little beyond that.


  • Reply 56 of 57

    ...verizon confirming $5/mo for the watch

    I hope that's the case. When these things first roll out, often first tier representatives (what the kool kidz need to call— drones) often/sometimes don't have the right info. I've had this happen to me a few times, but it never cost me money. Just time and protests to another rep, and they sometimes did not end in my favor.

    So if that's the real deal, as an att customer, I envy Verizon peeps.
    edited September 2017
  • Reply 57 of 57
    macgui said:
    I have one phone on my account. Can I add another for $10? Ok, throw in a one-time activation fee, but is an additional phone for $10? 

    It's a separate 'line', as in a separate number, and it can be used to make a call while my other phone is in use. I can't do any of that with the Watch. Along with everybody else who didn't suggest otherwise, I don't want a separate number for the Watch.
    Actually, I think it may very well be possible to use both the Watch and the phone at the same time, and that calls coming in do ring both the Watch and the phone. It’s two separate lines and a convenience that the telcos are routing one number to both lines which is what you want.
    macgui said:
    It's not very much different than when Ma Bell charged us additional fee for having an extension phone that we paid for and not a rental from Ma. Without a functional ringer they would never know there was an extension, such was the impact on their infrastructure. It took a very long time for that to change and it wasn't because Ma relented. Also with landlines, beyond our monthly service we only paid/pay for calls we made/make, not calls we receive(d).
    Actually it is much different than what you state. The equivalent would be that you had 2 separate lines running back from your house to 2 switches back in the switching office (instead of a shared line for 2 devices) and you would definitely be charged full price for 2 lines PLUS an extra fee for routing them both to the same number. There is some savings on the telco end now since software does a much more efficient job of switching the connections between multiple devices allowing for more capacity but just because this is for personal use, it doesn’t mean that the telco doesn’t need to allocate the same amount of resources just because it is a watch instead of a phone. The data is only a portion of cost, it is the need to continually ping a device to confirm it needs to be on the network that needs to be accounted for.
    Soli
Sign In or Register to comment.