Twice the speed, half the price*
The disclaimer aims to buff up the speed claims rather than the price. I don't think anybody is arguing that 3G isn't twice the speed. But clearly the 3G iPhone isn't half the price if you take into account increased data plans. The disclaimer should refer to the cost, not the price. The irony :-)
Comments
clearly the 3G iPhone isn't half the price if you take into account increased data plans.
That's not to do with Apple though. If the image is from a phone network page then I agree it shouldn't say that.
The disclaimer should refer to the cost, not the price. The irony :-)
I think that last bit refers to the price (i.e half the price is based on the 3G 8GB iphone vs the first generation 8GB iphone) so ideally they'd have two stars or a numbered footer but it would mess with the design.
if i buy a $60k car that requires regular unleaded or a $30k car that requires premium, the price of the car is still half. the additional expenses in running the car don't affect the initial price.
You were not "forced" to sign a contract with the car dealer to put a certain amount of petrol into your car every month now or did you?
You were not "forced" to sign a contract with the car dealer to put a certain amount of petrol into your car every month now or did you?
Actually "yes" some cars require premium fuel.
Also in the Uk the contract rates have remained the same, no increase to the data plans.
So in the UK the phone and the contract have fallen in price quite significantly.
In fact they have announced a cheaper contract with less minutes and SMS, BUT with unlimited data just the same as all the other tariffs.
This has no enabled people to save £170 on the cost of the 16GB iPhone and cheaper contract, £60 less a year.
So you can now own and operate an iPhone in the UK for £230 ($460) less than you could before. Quite significant I think.
Plus we are only tied to 18 month contracts.
As someone else mentioned, it could be possible to break the contract and make a saving. But given the other news about Apple going in for new secure technology to prevent hackers from unlocking iPhones, we wont know if the device is usable after being hacked. In anycase, the next six months will be interesting.
What are the most creative ways of breaking the contract with at&t, yet keeping the iPhone 3G?
- Report the "death" of the phone owner
- Claiming a stolen identity or credit card
- Faking a dramatic illness
....
What are the most creative ways of breaking the contract with at&t, yet keeping the iPhone 3G?
- Report the "death" of the phone owner
- Claiming a stolen identity or credit card
- Faking a dramatic illness
....
Go to prison for fraud!
Go to prison for fraud!
Disclaimer: For the humor-impaired, these are not real suggestions.
Disclaimer: For the humor-impaired, these are not real suggestions.
I was so obviously funny - NOT
I was so obviously funny - NOT
We'll you're a square.
Anyways...
The only way to get out of a contact legally are:
– You're called up for military duty
– Service is not provided or very poor at your home location.
– You're moving to an area of no or limited coverage.
We'll you're a square.
Anyways...
The only way to get out of a contact legally are:
? You're called up for military duty
? Service is not provided or very poor at your home location.
? You're moving to an area of no or limited coverage.
- AT&T changes the terms of the contract by raising fees (although I think they have some legalese allowances in there now).
Actually "yes" some cars require premium fuel.
I said a certain amount of fuel, not certain type of fuel. The phone contract has a minimum charge per month. Where as in a car, you can drive as much or as little as you see fit.
Anyways, Im still holding out on the details of the O2 pay as you go price plan. But they are probably gona sell it locked, and charges £200 as unlocking fee or something.
You were not "forced" to sign a contract with the car dealer to put a certain amount of petrol into your car every month now or did you?
no, not for fuel, but i am "forced" to have insurance for my vehicles. some vehicles have higher insurance rates than others. that doesn't mean the vehicle has a higher price because of the higher insurance rate, it just means that i have a higher total cost of ownership. the price is the same but i have to pay a monthly fee for owning that car that might be higher than the monthly fee for an alternative.
why don't we just use the proper term "total cost of ownership" rather than trying to convince people that the term "price" means something that it doesn't?
no, not for fuel, but i am "forced" to have insurance for my vehicles. some vehicles have higher insurance rates than others. that doesn't mean the vehicle has a higher price because of the higher insurance rate, it just means that i have a higher total cost of ownership. the price is the same but i have to pay a monthly fee for owning that car that might be higher than the monthly fee for an alternative.
why don't we just use the proper term "total cost of ownership" rather than trying to convince people that the term "price" means something that it doesn't?
Don't be silly. You are only ever forced to get minimum liability insurance. Only if you CHOOSE to get extra insurance (i.e. collision) do you have to pay more. And that makes sense. If I crash my Ford Pinto and it's totaled, that doesn't represent a very significant cost for the insurance company. Whereas if I were to crash my Bentley Continental GT, the insurance company would be shelling out a hell of a lot of money. And when I say my, I speak hypothetically as I own neither.
In addition, your car analogy fails again. A car's total cost of ownership includes many external factors such as how often you use it, how often and what breaks, etc.
Don't be silly. You are only ever forced to get minimum liability insurance. Only if you CHOOSE to get extra insurance (i.e. collision) do you have to pay more. And that makes sense. If I crash my Ford Pinto and it's totaled, that doesn't represent a very significant cost for the insurance company. Whereas if I were to crash my Bentley Continental GT, the insurance company would be shelling out a hell of a lot of money. And when I say my, I speak hypothetically as I own neither.
In addition, your car analogy fails again. A car's total cost of ownership includes many external factors such as how often you use it, how often and what breaks, etc.
if you're not buying a car outright you often have to buy more than minimum liability. i wasn't saying that a payment and insurance is the tco, but the tco for the iphone includes service. why call it "price" when it's really "tco". the price of the iphone is what it is. it's defined as the retail price. does it *cost* more than before? yes. but the price isn't higher.
i reckon you have it exactly backwards in your first post. it's not half the cost but it is half the price.
I was so obviously funny - NOT
No you weren't.
if you're not buying a car outright you often have to buy more than minimum liability. i wasn't saying that a payment and insurance is the tco, but the tco for the iphone includes service. why call it "price" when it's really "tco". the price of the iphone is what it is. it's defined as the retail price. does it *cost* more than before? yes. but the price isn't higher.
i reckon you have it exactly backwards in your first post. it's not half the cost but it is half the price.
Cost versus price is just semantics. The fact is, if you own and iPhone in the U.S., providing you're using it according to the terms and conditions, you WILL be paying $10 per month more in data costs than with previous iPhone contracts. If I was talking about total cost of ownership, I would have factored in the entire cost of the data package and plan. But I'm talking about the cost per month increase, or rather, the amount that I'm guaranteed I'll have to pay more.
The disclaimer aims to buff up the speed claims rather than the price. I don't think anybody is arguing that 3G isn't twice the speed. But clearly the 3G iPhone isn't half the price if you take into account increased data plans. The disclaimer should refer to the cost, not the price. The irony :-)
Wrong, it is clearly referring to the price of the handset.
Wrong, it is clearly referring to the price of the handset.
Yes it is.
But it is half off in comparison with the old iPhone which did not require you to pay the extra $10 per month for service.
All they would have had to do was to asterick a note that says "with 2 year contract"... otherwise I consider this to be deceptive advertising.