I don't usually get excited about these things but I think ATT is missing a great opportunity here. While they are within their rights to enforce the contract agreements that customers signed last year with the subsidized phones, if they just take moment to "listen" to their customers, they have a chance to build customer loyalty and attract new customers just as Apple is doing with pricing on their new OS (Snow Leopard). Its just smart business and a great PR move. Sacrifice a bit of profit for long term gain. Think outside the box! Isn't making 40 million users happy worth it? Apple "sees the light" with a cheaper OS and lower pricing for its new hardware, why not ATT?
Because AT&T watches their churn numbers and knows that very few people are actually going to jump ship just because they didn't get a big off-contract discount on a phone they want (especially knowing that the other carriers don't give big discounts on popular phones, either).
"Happy customers" only means something insofar as it causes you to not lose business, otherwise it's a wasted expense. This isn't the relationship between a small town hardware salesman and his small town clientele; cell phone customers are no more "loyal" than the next shiny thing that catches their eye, and the carriers know that.
I'm reminded of Albert Brooks' speech to the casino owner after his wife gambles away the "nest egg" in "Lost in America"-- "You can give us our money back! Think of the publicity! You'll be the nice casino!"
1) As stated numerous times on here, the 2G phone was not subsidized. AT&T made $0 and lost $0 on those who purchased it. The customer paid the full cost of the phone. When these people upgraded EARLY when the new 3G came out, they did not pay full price and AT&T subsidized the hundreds of dollars difference. = no right to complain
2) I think the point being missed in this entire thread is that upgrading your phone is a privilege not a right. TO ALL WHO BOUGHT THE IPHONE 3G: You signed a 2 year contract with AT&T. They agreed to sell you the 3G for $199/$299 (subsidized) and they agreed to pay the remainder of the phones cost and provide you with service. They do this with the comittment from you that you are going to retain service for 24 months. Period. End of story. If they let you upgrade at 12/18 month's time, you should feel privileged and appreciative.
I think what has happened is that we have all come to expect these upgrades, but in reality they are not a guarantee. This is why they are not in the contract and the policy is not public. You cannot argue that point.
I did not miss the point, and I did not claim it was a "right". Actually, you really supported my point that people have come to expect that they can break the contract because they have done it before and because some are able to do it now.
I do not deny there is a contract or even that there may have been different reasons last year. My point is that by having precedents and exceptions it only serves to fuel this perception that the contracts are only somewhat binding. And this is fueling a lot of ill will.
You are over playing this argument quite a bit. For one its not really breaking your contract. Being able to break your contract without paying a penalty is not at all a common practice.
When AT&T feels they reasonably profited from their subsidization, and as a reward for being a good customer, they will allow you to purchase a new subsidized phone before the end of the contract. As has been stated before this is a privilege they are extending its not a right.
Because everyone's situation is different, AT&T retains the right to extend this privilege in the way they choose. They are not obligated to extend it at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilgunther
I did not miss the point, and I did not claim it was a "right". Actually, you really supported my point that people have come to expect that they can break the contract because they have done it before and because some are able to do it now.
I do not deny there is a contract or even that there may have been different reasons last year. My point is that by having precedents and exceptions it only serves to fuel this perception that the contracts are only somewhat binding. And this is fueling a lot of ill will.
I did not miss the point, and I did not claim it was a "right". Actually, you really supported my point that people have come to expect that they can break the contract because they have done it before and because some are able to do it now.
I do not deny there is a contract or even that there may have been different reasons last year. My point is that by having precedents and exceptions it only serves to fuel this perception that the contracts are only somewhat binding. And this is fueling a lot of ill will.
Actually, you seem to have slide from "outrageous abuse by AT&T" to "we must all fight the man" to "all I'm looking for is a little consistency."
I get that you want to get a new iPhone, now, without having to pay more than a new subscriber, but it doesn't seem like you have a coherent argument to make beyond that.
Which is fine; I'd want that as well. But when you, uh, evolve your line of thought this way it comes off as rationalization.
I don't usually get excited about these things but I think ATT is missing a great opportunity here. While they are within their rights to enforce the contract agreements that customers signed last year with the subsidized phones, if they just take moment to "listen" to their customers, they have a chance to build customer loyalty and attract new customers just as Apple is doing with pricing on their new OS (Snow Leopard). Its just smart business and a great PR move. Sacrifice a bit of profit for long term gain. Think outside the box! Isn't making 40 million users happy worth it? Apple "sees the light" with a cheaper OS and lower pricing for its new hardware, why not ATT?
They won't be attracting loyal customers, they'll be attracting customers who are willing to bolt the second ATT asks them to honor the agreement they made. Why would any business fight to keep such fair weather friends?
Wrong- Verizon has complete coverage in continental US and is able to better provide it due to CDMA technology.
That's funny - my clients this morning were lusting over my iPhone, and they were shocked when my phone rang. They asked what service it was on (these are senior citizen types, so they had no clue) and I was surprised when they said that there service was on Verizon, and that it didn't work until they went about 1/2 mile down the street.
This is inside the beltway in the DC area, in a nice part of VA.
Actually, you seem to have slide from "outrageous abuse by AT&T" to "we must all fight the man" to "all I'm looking for is a little consistency."
I get that you want to get a new iPhone, now, without having to pay more than a new subscriber, but it doesn't seem like you have a coherent argument to make beyond that.
Which is fine; I'd want that as well. But when you, uh, evolve your line of thought this way it comes off as rationalization.
Yep, and just like almost all the crybabies on this thread, his thinking will continue to evolve until he walks into an ATT store and slides his credit card across the counter for the asking price. Because in the end, like a child, his wants will overtake his "principles" (cheapness).
And in 12 more months, he'll do it all over again.
Yep, and just like almost all the crybabies on this thread, his thinking will continue to evolve until he walks into an ATT store and slides his credit card across the counter for the asking price. Because in the end, like a child, his wants will overtake his "principles" (cheapness).
And in 12 more months, he'll do it all over again.
In all fairness, you didn't notice that for a lot of people it's an extra six months.
Okay, that's fair. However, I'm not exactly an Apple freak or anything and I knew that there was a good chance that an updated phone would be coming out this summer. So I waited...still, I get that some are frustrated. I guess I'm just surprised at the sheer level of outrage.
I bought the original 4GB iPhone the day it shipped. Had to move from T-Mobile to AT&T.
A year later I sold my old 4GB phone and bought the 8 GB iPhone 3G the week it was released (had to extend my contract, etc).
Later that summer I moved my wife to a 16GB iPhone 3G from a RAZR (T-Mobile) and got a family plan with AT&T for both our iPhone 3G's.
Im a loyal customer.
Now, I want to sell my "old" 16GB iPhone 3G and get a 32GB iPhone 3GS (I can get $100 to $200 minimum Im sure - did it before and it sold on eBay in 5 minutes. Got $300 bucks for my unlocked 4GB first-gen iPhone. Crazy.)
I just called AT&T. My upgrade options:
I am not eligible until Jan 15th 2010 for AT&Ts full upgrade rates. IF I were to wait until 01-15-10, my rates are as follows:
16GB = $199 (2 year)
32GB = $299 (2 year)
If I dont wait until Jan 15th 2010 and upgrade NOW (after June 19th), I qualify for an "Early Upgrade":
16GB = $399 (2 year)
32GB = $499 (2 year)
Both require an $18 upgrade fee (???)
If I were to by the same iPhones 3GS under a "non-commit price":
And what is your point? You just described what 90% of the people this thread have already said, or are you just summarizing?
Please define "loyal customer". Apparently, your definition means an individual who switches to a carrier for the sole purpose of obtaining their exclusive product and remains a customer for 2 years in order to continue to use exclusive products. I have to inform you that you are wrong there buddy.
Now, myself, have been a customer since 8/16/2003 (6 years this year). I would think that I may be considered loyal, but not you sir.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstranathan
I bought the original 4GB iPhone the day it shipped. Had to move from T-Mobile to AT&T.
A year later I sold my old 4GB phone and bought the 8 GB iPhone 3G the week it was released (had to extend my contract, etc).
Later that summer I moved my wife to a 16GB iPhone 3G from a RAZR (T-Mobile) and got a family plan with AT&T for both our iPhone 3G's.
Im a loyal customer.
Now, I want to sell my "old" 16GB iPhone 3G and get a 32GB iPhone 3GS (I can get $100 to $200 minimum Im sure - did it before and it sold on eBay in 5 minutes. Got $300 bucks for my unlocked 4GB first-gen iPhone. Crazy.)
I just called AT&T. My upgrade options:
I am not eligible until Jan 15th 2010 for AT&Ts full upgrade rates. IF I were to wait until 01-15-10, my rates are as follows:
16GB = $199 (2 year)
32GB = $299 (2 year)
If I dont wait until Jan 15th 2010 and upgrade NOW (after June 19th), I qualify for an "Early Upgrade":
16GB = $399 (2 year)
32GB = $499 (2 year)
Both require an $18 upgrade fee (???)
If I were to by the same iPhones 3GS under a "non-commit price":
Yeah, I upgraded my original iPhone to 3G last July, and I can upgrade to 3GS on July 25th.
Can someone explain why, if I bought my iphone (new AT&T customer) in 08/08, the Apple site says I won't be eligible for an upgrade until 04/10?? Not one year, not two, but some odd in-between date!
When the touch pro 2 comes out with Sprint (it will come out for AT&T and Verizon as well) I plan on either renewing my contract for new user price, or paying full price in order to continue to end my 2 year contract at the same date as before. This is fair.
So please clarify for me, because what I've read in the article and with what people are complaining about is a little confusing. If I were an AT&T user who bought an iPhone 3G last year, it wouldn't matter if I wanted to renew my contract, I'd still have to pay $200 to get it vs the new users? Sorry, but this is UN fair. Perhaps I'm simply spoiled by how Sprint, TMobile, and Verizon did things, but this isn't normal. Every carrier I've ever been with allowed me to pay new user costs, provided I renew my contract.
This is greed plain and simple. Are you people really surprised by this with AT&T and APPLE of all companies? These are the two main reasons I don't have an iPhone! lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj
That's funny - my clients this morning were lusting over my iPhone, and they were shocked when my phone rang. They asked what service it was on (these are senior citizen types, so they had no clue) and I was surprised when they said that there service was on Verizon, and that it didn't work until they went about 1/2 mile down the street.
This is inside the beltway in the DC area, in a nice part of VA.
Can someone explain why, if I bought my iphone (new AT&T customer) in 08/08, the Apple site says I won't be eligible for an upgrade until 04/10?? Not one year, not two, but some odd in-between date!
Isn't the phrase you're looking for not "won't be eligible until" but "eligible as soon as"?
Maybe what AT&T should do is stop extending early upgrade eligibility to customers who have spent more over their contract period and just hold fast to two years, no matter what.
Since apparently doing so is a source of rage and horror from their "loyal customers."
Other than the fact that I suspect AT&T has a lot of people logged in here making comments about honoring contracts, etc. (There can't possibly be this many righteously indignant disinterested persons, unless they just get their kicks from telling people to, "suck it up," which would be pretty sad.) I think this is an issue of AT&T and Apple having their business interests and marketing strategies at cross purposes.
Quite simply, for Apple, the more iPhones they can sell each year, the the more money they make, end of story.
AT&T also wants to maximize the money they make, but their business model is completely different than Apple's: they want to lock people into contracts for as little incentive as possible, for as long as possible. So naturally, they don't want to allow people to upgrade to the 3Gs without wringing some extra cash out of them. In other words, AT&T doesn't care how many iPhones are sold, except to new customers, and, in their eyes, they have no incentive to cut anyone an upgrade deal.
What this points to is that the business model of the wireless industry is extremely consumer unfriendly. It's all about locking people in and generally limiting consumer options as much as possible. (The example of how long and hard they fought against number portability is a perfect example of this. The way phones are "locked" and the way they have, historically, completely controlled what can be done with those phones is another example.)
The outcry against these business practices that has been provoked by the release of the iPhone 3Gs is the predictable backlash and consumer rage against the wireless companies that has been incubating for years. Consumers hate this business model, but, because of what is effectively collusion among the wireless providers and phone suppliers, they basically have little choice in the matter. (Oh, and please don't drag out the pathetic example of pay-as-you-go wireless service unless you can point to one that offers the iPhone.)
My hope is that, given an administration that is at least not consumer hostile, this current brouhaha will stimulate investigations, congressional and antitrust (similar to the current Silicon Valley investigation over hiring practices and the effective collusion allegedly involved there), into the wireless industry and force reform that will result in more consumer friendly terms of service across the board.
So, instead of just complaining, write or call your congressional representatives and let them know that you want legislation that guarantees more consumer choice in wireless service, and an end to contractual lock-ins and locked phones. Yes, you may have to pay more for phones up front, but at least you'll know exactly what you're getting into and you'll actually have choices to make, and in the long run the availability of those choices will let you have the latest iPhone, along with service that actually supports its features, and for less money overall than you are paying now.
If AT&T and the rest of the wireless industry were smart, they would take steps now to reduce the pressure for that legislative reform, but I doubt they will until it is forced on them.
The trouble with this line of reasoning is that it's predicated on a misreading of the situation.
You think this is some kind of grassroots uprising against consumer unfriendly cell carrier practices, when it pretty obviously is a very specific bit of crankiness from people who apparently have never upgraded a cell phone before and don't understand how it works, and just want what they want for less money, principles and common sense be damned.
You'd think AT&T had managed some kind of barely legal and wildly unethical hoax, when in fact they're just doing what they've always done-- typcially without any kind of widespread rage.
Yoking cell phone industry reform to a mass case of some kind of baseless sense of entitlement is foolish, and unlikely to lead to anything benificial for consumers-- because it's evident to anyone who's paying attenttion that lofty notions of general reform are the merest fig leaf for plain old whining, and singularly inchoherent whining at that.
Or did you think that if AT&T started to hand out early upgrade pricing all those happy new iPhone owners would continue to work for cell industry reform? It's about getting what they want, now, the end. The "politics" of a four year old.
The trouble with this line of reasoning is that it's predicated on a misreading of the situation.
You think this is some kind of grassroots uprising against consumer unfriendly cell carrier practices, when it pretty obviously is a very specific bit of crankiness from people who apparently have never upgraded a cell phone before and don't understand how it works, and just want what they want for less money, principles and common sense be damned.
No, I'm saying there OUGHT TO BE a, "grassroots uprising against consumer unfriendly cell carrier practices."
And I disagree that this is about, "a very specific bit of crankiness." As I said, I think this is a long bottled up outpouring of rage, possibly a tipping point, against practices that are based on collusion and a thousand small monopolies, plus a few big ones. And what's wrong with consumers wanting things for less money? Nothing that I can see, but you seem to have a problem with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
You'd think AT&T had managed some kind of barely legal and wildly unethical hoax, when in fact they're just doing what they've always done-- typcially without any kind of widespread rage.
Hoax, no, Barely legal and unethical, yes. I do believe that wireless industry practices probably amount to violations of antitrust law, certainly in spirit if not the letter. No one is denying that they are doing what they have always done, but the iPhone, like it or not, is something new, something different from what people have had the ability to use before, and the culture of iPhone use, which is about freedom and choice, is in stark contrast to wireless industry culture, which is why we see this rage coming out now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Yoking cell phone industry reform to a mass case of some kind of baseless sense of entitlement is foolish, and unlikely to lead to anything benificial for consumers-- because it's evident to anyone who's paying attenttion that lofty notions of general reform are the merest fig leaf for plain old whining, and sinularly inchoherent whining at that.
It's not about entitlement, except in the sense that consumers ought to be entitled to freely choose products and services and not be forced into artificially straightjacketed choices as a result of monopoly practices. What you call whining, I call people being fed up with being led by the nose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Or did you think that if AT&T started to hand out early upgrade pricing all those happy new iPhone owners would continue to work for cell industry reform? It's about getting what they want, now, the end. The "politics" of a four year old.
Well, if AT&T and other wireless providers were giving them what they want, there really wouldn't be much need for reform, now would there? I hope AT&T doesn't give them what they want, because I think we'll all be much better off in the long run when there is reform and/or succesful antitrust litigation.
There's nothing wrong with wanting things to cost less. I want a 52" plasma for $500. Should I start movement? Is my cause righteous?
As I say, I have no affection for the cell industry or their business practices. I flatly reject the idea that this particular outcry is based on pent-up rage at those practices, or that it can be marshalled into a campaign for general reform.
I think there should be a campaign for general reform, I don't think it should be crippled out of the gate by being based on bullshit claims of abuse arising out of a bunch of people wanting a special deal on their damn new iPhone.
Have you not been paying attention? The people complaining are most assuredly not saying "I think the cell phone industry policy of selling hardware at below cost in exchange for recovering those cost with a two year contract, and charging more for a new phone than the original subsidized price if you elect to purchase that new phone before the originally agreed upon two year period is over is anti-consumer and leads to anti-competitive lock-in."
They are saying "WTF, AT&T, you larcenous bastards, I want a new iPhone and it's going to cost me more than someone who's just signing up, even thought I'm a loyal customer? So what if I'm only 1 year into my service contract, I wnat that damn iPhone for cheap!"
These two things are not the same. One leads to working for change, the other leads to fulminating on the internet and starting toothless online "petitions" and generally getting to work the rightous indignation muscles for a while.
As I say, I have no affection for the cell industry or their business practices. I flatly reject the idea that this particular outcry is based on pent-up rage at those practices, or that it can be marshalled into a campaign for general reform.
I think there should be a campaign for general reform, I don't think it should be crippled out of the gate by being based on bullshit claims of abuse arising out of a bunch of people wanting a special deal on their damn new iPhone.
Well, we obviously disagree regarding the roots of this particular outcry, but as far as a campaign for legislation or antitrust litigation to change the way the wireless industry operates, I don't think it much matters what its origin is. There's a lot of noise about it right now, and a lot of attention being paid to it, and that, in my opinion is a good thing. Successful and needed reform often arises from unexpected circumstances.
Comments
I don't usually get excited about these things but I think ATT is missing a great opportunity here. While they are within their rights to enforce the contract agreements that customers signed last year with the subsidized phones, if they just take moment to "listen" to their customers, they have a chance to build customer loyalty and attract new customers just as Apple is doing with pricing on their new OS (Snow Leopard). Its just smart business and a great PR move. Sacrifice a bit of profit for long term gain. Think outside the box! Isn't making 40 million users happy worth it? Apple "sees the light" with a cheaper OS and lower pricing for its new hardware, why not ATT?
Because AT&T watches their churn numbers and knows that very few people are actually going to jump ship just because they didn't get a big off-contract discount on a phone they want (especially knowing that the other carriers don't give big discounts on popular phones, either).
"Happy customers" only means something insofar as it causes you to not lose business, otherwise it's a wasted expense. This isn't the relationship between a small town hardware salesman and his small town clientele; cell phone customers are no more "loyal" than the next shiny thing that catches their eye, and the carriers know that.
I'm reminded of Albert Brooks' speech to the casino owner after his wife gambles away the "nest egg" in "Lost in America"-- "You can give us our money back! Think of the publicity! You'll be the nice casino!"
1) As stated numerous times on here, the 2G phone was not subsidized. AT&T made $0 and lost $0 on those who purchased it. The customer paid the full cost of the phone. When these people upgraded EARLY when the new 3G came out, they did not pay full price and AT&T subsidized the hundreds of dollars difference. = no right to complain
2) I think the point being missed in this entire thread is that upgrading your phone is a privilege not a right. TO ALL WHO BOUGHT THE IPHONE 3G: You signed a 2 year contract with AT&T. They agreed to sell you the 3G for $199/$299 (subsidized) and they agreed to pay the remainder of the phones cost and provide you with service. They do this with the comittment from you that you are going to retain service for 24 months. Period. End of story. If they let you upgrade at 12/18 month's time, you should feel privileged and appreciative.
I think what has happened is that we have all come to expect these upgrades, but in reality they are not a guarantee. This is why they are not in the contract and the policy is not public. You cannot argue that point.
I did not miss the point, and I did not claim it was a "right". Actually, you really supported my point that people have come to expect that they can break the contract because they have done it before and because some are able to do it now.
I do not deny there is a contract or even that there may have been different reasons last year. My point is that by having precedents and exceptions it only serves to fuel this perception that the contracts are only somewhat binding. And this is fueling a lot of ill will.
When AT&T feels they reasonably profited from their subsidization, and as a reward for being a good customer, they will allow you to purchase a new subsidized phone before the end of the contract. As has been stated before this is a privilege they are extending its not a right.
Because everyone's situation is different, AT&T retains the right to extend this privilege in the way they choose. They are not obligated to extend it at all.
I did not miss the point, and I did not claim it was a "right". Actually, you really supported my point that people have come to expect that they can break the contract because they have done it before and because some are able to do it now.
I do not deny there is a contract or even that there may have been different reasons last year. My point is that by having precedents and exceptions it only serves to fuel this perception that the contracts are only somewhat binding. And this is fueling a lot of ill will.
I did not miss the point, and I did not claim it was a "right". Actually, you really supported my point that people have come to expect that they can break the contract because they have done it before and because some are able to do it now.
I do not deny there is a contract or even that there may have been different reasons last year. My point is that by having precedents and exceptions it only serves to fuel this perception that the contracts are only somewhat binding. And this is fueling a lot of ill will.
Actually, you seem to have slide from "outrageous abuse by AT&T" to "we must all fight the man" to "all I'm looking for is a little consistency."
I get that you want to get a new iPhone, now, without having to pay more than a new subscriber, but it doesn't seem like you have a coherent argument to make beyond that.
Which is fine; I'd want that as well. But when you, uh, evolve your line of thought this way it comes off as rationalization.
I don't usually get excited about these things but I think ATT is missing a great opportunity here. While they are within their rights to enforce the contract agreements that customers signed last year with the subsidized phones, if they just take moment to "listen" to their customers, they have a chance to build customer loyalty and attract new customers just as Apple is doing with pricing on their new OS (Snow Leopard). Its just smart business and a great PR move. Sacrifice a bit of profit for long term gain. Think outside the box! Isn't making 40 million users happy worth it? Apple "sees the light" with a cheaper OS and lower pricing for its new hardware, why not ATT?
They won't be attracting loyal customers, they'll be attracting customers who are willing to bolt the second ATT asks them to honor the agreement they made. Why would any business fight to keep such fair weather friends?
Wrong- Verizon has complete coverage in continental US and is able to better provide it due to CDMA technology.
That's funny - my clients this morning were lusting over my iPhone, and they were shocked when my phone rang. They asked what service it was on (these are senior citizen types, so they had no clue) and I was surprised when they said that there service was on Verizon, and that it didn't work until they went about 1/2 mile down the street.
This is inside the beltway in the DC area, in a nice part of VA.
Oops!
Your whining comes so natural to you. Who do you mean by they?
How sad, he missed the sarcasm.
Actually, you seem to have slide from "outrageous abuse by AT&T" to "we must all fight the man" to "all I'm looking for is a little consistency."
I get that you want to get a new iPhone, now, without having to pay more than a new subscriber, but it doesn't seem like you have a coherent argument to make beyond that.
Which is fine; I'd want that as well. But when you, uh, evolve your line of thought this way it comes off as rationalization.
Yep, and just like almost all the crybabies on this thread, his thinking will continue to evolve until he walks into an ATT store and slides his credit card across the counter for the asking price. Because in the end, like a child, his wants will overtake his "principles" (cheapness).
And in 12 more months, he'll do it all over again.
Yep, and just like almost all the crybabies on this thread, his thinking will continue to evolve until he walks into an ATT store and slides his credit card across the counter for the asking price. Because in the end, like a child, his wants will overtake his "principles" (cheapness).
And in 12 more months, he'll do it all over again.
Who appointed you group counselor?
In all fairness, you didn't notice that for a lot of people it's an extra six months.
Okay, that's fair. However, I'm not exactly an Apple freak or anything and I knew that there was a good chance that an updated phone would be coming out this summer. So I waited...still, I get that some are frustrated. I guess I'm just surprised at the sheer level of outrage.
A year later I sold my old 4GB phone and bought the 8 GB iPhone 3G the week it was released (had to extend my contract, etc).
Later that summer I moved my wife to a 16GB iPhone 3G from a RAZR (T-Mobile) and got a family plan with AT&T for both our iPhone 3G's.
Im a loyal customer.
Now, I want to sell my "old" 16GB iPhone 3G and get a 32GB iPhone 3GS (I can get $100 to $200 minimum Im sure - did it before and it sold on eBay in 5 minutes. Got $300 bucks for my unlocked 4GB first-gen iPhone. Crazy.)
I just called AT&T. My upgrade options:
I am not eligible until Jan 15th 2010 for AT&Ts full upgrade rates. IF I were to wait until 01-15-10, my rates are as follows:
16GB = $199 (2 year)
32GB = $299 (2 year)
If I dont wait until Jan 15th 2010 and upgrade NOW (after June 19th), I qualify for an "Early Upgrade":
16GB = $399 (2 year)
32GB = $499 (2 year)
Both require an $18 upgrade fee (???)
If I were to by the same iPhones 3GS under a "non-commit price":
16GB = $599
32GB = $699
Please define "loyal customer". Apparently, your definition means an individual who switches to a carrier for the sole purpose of obtaining their exclusive product and remains a customer for 2 years in order to continue to use exclusive products. I have to inform you that you are wrong there buddy.
Now, myself, have been a customer since 8/16/2003 (6 years this year). I would think that I may be considered loyal, but not you sir.
I bought the original 4GB iPhone the day it shipped. Had to move from T-Mobile to AT&T.
A year later I sold my old 4GB phone and bought the 8 GB iPhone 3G the week it was released (had to extend my contract, etc).
Later that summer I moved my wife to a 16GB iPhone 3G from a RAZR (T-Mobile) and got a family plan with AT&T for both our iPhone 3G's.
Im a loyal customer.
Now, I want to sell my "old" 16GB iPhone 3G and get a 32GB iPhone 3GS (I can get $100 to $200 minimum Im sure - did it before and it sold on eBay in 5 minutes. Got $300 bucks for my unlocked 4GB first-gen iPhone. Crazy.)
I just called AT&T. My upgrade options:
I am not eligible until Jan 15th 2010 for AT&Ts full upgrade rates. IF I were to wait until 01-15-10, my rates are as follows:
16GB = $199 (2 year)
32GB = $299 (2 year)
If I dont wait until Jan 15th 2010 and upgrade NOW (after June 19th), I qualify for an "Early Upgrade":
16GB = $399 (2 year)
32GB = $499 (2 year)
Both require an $18 upgrade fee (???)
If I were to by the same iPhones 3GS under a "non-commit price":
16GB = $599
32GB = $699
Yeah, I upgraded my original iPhone to 3G last July, and I can upgrade to 3GS on July 25th.
Can someone explain why, if I bought my iphone (new AT&T customer) in 08/08, the Apple site says I won't be eligible for an upgrade until 04/10?? Not one year, not two, but some odd in-between date!
So please clarify for me, because what I've read in the article and with what people are complaining about is a little confusing. If I were an AT&T user who bought an iPhone 3G last year, it wouldn't matter if I wanted to renew my contract, I'd still have to pay $200 to get it vs the new users? Sorry, but this is UN fair. Perhaps I'm simply spoiled by how Sprint, TMobile, and Verizon did things, but this isn't normal. Every carrier I've ever been with allowed me to pay new user costs, provided I renew my contract.
This is greed plain and simple. Are you people really surprised by this with AT&T and APPLE of all companies? These are the two main reasons I don't have an iPhone! lol.
That's funny - my clients this morning were lusting over my iPhone, and they were shocked when my phone rang. They asked what service it was on (these are senior citizen types, so they had no clue) and I was surprised when they said that there service was on Verizon, and that it didn't work until they went about 1/2 mile down the street.
This is inside the beltway in the DC area, in a nice part of VA.
Oops!
Hey I'm in Manassas! lol.
Can someone explain why, if I bought my iphone (new AT&T customer) in 08/08, the Apple site says I won't be eligible for an upgrade until 04/10?? Not one year, not two, but some odd in-between date!
Isn't the phrase you're looking for not "won't be eligible until" but "eligible as soon as"?
Maybe what AT&T should do is stop extending early upgrade eligibility to customers who have spent more over their contract period and just hold fast to two years, no matter what.
Since apparently doing so is a source of rage and horror from their "loyal customers."
Quite simply, for Apple, the more iPhones they can sell each year, the the more money they make, end of story.
AT&T also wants to maximize the money they make, but their business model is completely different than Apple's: they want to lock people into contracts for as little incentive as possible, for as long as possible. So naturally, they don't want to allow people to upgrade to the 3Gs without wringing some extra cash out of them. In other words, AT&T doesn't care how many iPhones are sold, except to new customers, and, in their eyes, they have no incentive to cut anyone an upgrade deal.
What this points to is that the business model of the wireless industry is extremely consumer unfriendly. It's all about locking people in and generally limiting consumer options as much as possible. (The example of how long and hard they fought against number portability is a perfect example of this. The way phones are "locked" and the way they have, historically, completely controlled what can be done with those phones is another example.)
The outcry against these business practices that has been provoked by the release of the iPhone 3Gs is the predictable backlash and consumer rage against the wireless companies that has been incubating for years. Consumers hate this business model, but, because of what is effectively collusion among the wireless providers and phone suppliers, they basically have little choice in the matter. (Oh, and please don't drag out the pathetic example of pay-as-you-go wireless service unless you can point to one that offers the iPhone.)
My hope is that, given an administration that is at least not consumer hostile, this current brouhaha will stimulate investigations, congressional and antitrust (similar to the current Silicon Valley investigation over hiring practices and the effective collusion allegedly involved there), into the wireless industry and force reform that will result in more consumer friendly terms of service across the board.
So, instead of just complaining, write or call your congressional representatives and let them know that you want legislation that guarantees more consumer choice in wireless service, and an end to contractual lock-ins and locked phones. Yes, you may have to pay more for phones up front, but at least you'll know exactly what you're getting into and you'll actually have choices to make, and in the long run the availability of those choices will let you have the latest iPhone, along with service that actually supports its features, and for less money overall than you are paying now.
If AT&T and the rest of the wireless industry were smart, they would take steps now to reduce the pressure for that legislative reform, but I doubt they will until it is forced on them.
You think this is some kind of grassroots uprising against consumer unfriendly cell carrier practices, when it pretty obviously is a very specific bit of crankiness from people who apparently have never upgraded a cell phone before and don't understand how it works, and just want what they want for less money, principles and common sense be damned.
You'd think AT&T had managed some kind of barely legal and wildly unethical hoax, when in fact they're just doing what they've always done-- typcially without any kind of widespread rage.
Yoking cell phone industry reform to a mass case of some kind of baseless sense of entitlement is foolish, and unlikely to lead to anything benificial for consumers-- because it's evident to anyone who's paying attenttion that lofty notions of general reform are the merest fig leaf for plain old whining, and singularly inchoherent whining at that.
Or did you think that if AT&T started to hand out early upgrade pricing all those happy new iPhone owners would continue to work for cell industry reform? It's about getting what they want, now, the end. The "politics" of a four year old.
The trouble with this line of reasoning is that it's predicated on a misreading of the situation.
You think this is some kind of grassroots uprising against consumer unfriendly cell carrier practices, when it pretty obviously is a very specific bit of crankiness from people who apparently have never upgraded a cell phone before and don't understand how it works, and just want what they want for less money, principles and common sense be damned.
No, I'm saying there OUGHT TO BE a, "grassroots uprising against consumer unfriendly cell carrier practices."
And I disagree that this is about, "a very specific bit of crankiness." As I said, I think this is a long bottled up outpouring of rage, possibly a tipping point, against practices that are based on collusion and a thousand small monopolies, plus a few big ones. And what's wrong with consumers wanting things for less money? Nothing that I can see, but you seem to have a problem with it.
You'd think AT&T had managed some kind of barely legal and wildly unethical hoax, when in fact they're just doing what they've always done-- typcially without any kind of widespread rage.
Hoax, no, Barely legal and unethical, yes. I do believe that wireless industry practices probably amount to violations of antitrust law, certainly in spirit if not the letter. No one is denying that they are doing what they have always done, but the iPhone, like it or not, is something new, something different from what people have had the ability to use before, and the culture of iPhone use, which is about freedom and choice, is in stark contrast to wireless industry culture, which is why we see this rage coming out now.
Yoking cell phone industry reform to a mass case of some kind of baseless sense of entitlement is foolish, and unlikely to lead to anything benificial for consumers-- because it's evident to anyone who's paying attenttion that lofty notions of general reform are the merest fig leaf for plain old whining, and sinularly inchoherent whining at that.
It's not about entitlement, except in the sense that consumers ought to be entitled to freely choose products and services and not be forced into artificially straightjacketed choices as a result of monopoly practices. What you call whining, I call people being fed up with being led by the nose.
Or did you think that if AT&T started to hand out early upgrade pricing all those happy new iPhone owners would continue to work for cell industry reform? It's about getting what they want, now, the end. The "politics" of a four year old.
Well, if AT&T and other wireless providers were giving them what they want, there really wouldn't be much need for reform, now would there? I hope AT&T doesn't give them what they want, because I think we'll all be much better off in the long run when there is reform and/or succesful antitrust litigation.
As I say, I have no affection for the cell industry or their business practices. I flatly reject the idea that this particular outcry is based on pent-up rage at those practices, or that it can be marshalled into a campaign for general reform.
I think there should be a campaign for general reform, I don't think it should be crippled out of the gate by being based on bullshit claims of abuse arising out of a bunch of people wanting a special deal on their damn new iPhone.
Have you not been paying attention? The people complaining are most assuredly not saying "I think the cell phone industry policy of selling hardware at below cost in exchange for recovering those cost with a two year contract, and charging more for a new phone than the original subsidized price if you elect to purchase that new phone before the originally agreed upon two year period is over is anti-consumer and leads to anti-competitive lock-in."
They are saying "WTF, AT&T, you larcenous bastards, I want a new iPhone and it's going to cost me more than someone who's just signing up, even thought I'm a loyal customer? So what if I'm only 1 year into my service contract, I wnat that damn iPhone for cheap!"
These two things are not the same. One leads to working for change, the other leads to fulminating on the internet and starting toothless online "petitions" and generally getting to work the rightous indignation muscles for a while.
As I say, I have no affection for the cell industry or their business practices. I flatly reject the idea that this particular outcry is based on pent-up rage at those practices, or that it can be marshalled into a campaign for general reform.
I think there should be a campaign for general reform, I don't think it should be crippled out of the gate by being based on bullshit claims of abuse arising out of a bunch of people wanting a special deal on their damn new iPhone.
Well, we obviously disagree regarding the roots of this particular outcry, but as far as a campaign for legislation or antitrust litigation to change the way the wireless industry operates, I don't think it much matters what its origin is. There's a lot of noise about it right now, and a lot of attention being paid to it, and that, in my opinion is a good thing. Successful and needed reform often arises from unexpected circumstances.