Boy I would like to be ailing like T-Mobile. Give me that profit. T-Mobile is losing subscribers for the same reason Sprint is losing subscribers. AT&T and Verizon have the most desirable phones. Bring the iPhone to T-Mobile and it will be easier to grow subscribers.
T-Mobile is willing to sell itself to AT&T because AT&T is willing to overpay knowing it will recoup the cost from raising prices for the T-Mobile customers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
I don't think you understand that Deutsche Telekom itself offered to sell T-Mobile to AT&T. Because T-Mobile is an ailing company.
T-Mobile played by this same game to their benefit when the had the Danger Sidekick and would not allow any one else to have it. For a brief time the Sidekick was one of the most desirable phones you speak of and T-Mobile had it all to themselves.
AT&T took a chance with the iPhone and Apple's stringent rules for control over the iPhone ecosystem in a way that no other mobile phone provider would have done at the time. That gamble has paid off and AT&T has been rewarded for its faith in Apple.
No one else can be blamed for T-Mobile or Sprint's business decisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Not doing well is relative. T-Mobile is profitable, making billions in profit yearly. T-Mobile's problem is it doesn't have access to desirable phones. If the iPhone was on T-Mobile it wouldn't' be losing subscribers. If you are going to be stuck with a phone for two years on contract, you want one you like.
AT&T and Verizon currently have a lock on some of the most desirable phones, including the iPhone.
This is BS. People are leaving Sprint because Sprint doesn't have competitive phones because Verizon and AT&T have to date have had the lock on such phones. Bring the iPhone to Sprint and the tide will reverse. Same with T-Mobile. I have an unlocked iPhone on T-Mobile not only because of the competive plan prices but because I have had horrible customer service experiences with AT&T and Verizon. I also get better reception with the iPhone then my friends on AT&T (although I understand reception is an area specific issue).
the EVO is 3rd behind iPhone 3Gs and IP4......If T-Mobile is so good then why is the parent company shopping them around to everyone that will listen to them? Beacuse they are losing money! You even posted this fact on posts #12 and #22! If they were great then they would not be losing money....plain and simple...... Your call reception/experience with T-Mobile might not be indictitive of the rest of the country. Verizon and AT&T continue to add customers at the expense of Sprint and T-Mobile....
EDIT:
The link you refenced says NOTHING about call quality. It centered around BUYING experiences...not whether they were happy with the call quality or service.
Is it too much to ask that journalists actually write a complete sentence? I doubt the DOJ released a press statement with the express intent to release a fragmented statement.
A journalist would have no problem writing a complete sentence. Unfortunately, most of them have been replaced with reporters...
If they go bust the wireless spectrum and all of T-Mobile's infrastructure would be sold to a new company who hopefully will do a better job and shake up the market.
or Google...I think Google has expressed interest in such a deal...
I do however think Apple would handle it better....but I feel Google would be a better fit as far as prices and the fact that Google would be more inclined to share the spectrum.
Then again I really don't know how these things would work.
or Google...I think Google has expressed interest in such a deal...
I do however think Apple would handle it better....but I feel Google would be a better fit as far as prices and the fact that Google would be more inclined to share the spectrum.
"Share the spectrum?" Google's history seems more inclined to share what belongs to others than sharing out what they themselves own.
Let's see how Google handles the intricacies of a hardware company first, before we let the little darlings that can't cook their own meals try to run a wireless company.
You act like the playing field is level. I am not blaming AT&T for its deal with Apple. It hardly took a chance though. It had a five year lock in, which wouldn't hurt AT&T if the phone flopped. Apple bore the cost for bringing the phone to the market. Further, I do not know about Sprint, but T-Mobile also fought for the iPhone. It lost out because AT&T had the larger Network, and Jobs knew AT&T's CEO personally. Trying to land the iPhone doesn't seem like a bad business decision to me.
Moreover, you miss the point. Just because T-Mobile is playing the game, doesn't mean the game is fair or more importantly benefits consumers. The benefitting consumers should be a priority since it is our airwaves the companies are using.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
T-Mobile played by this same game to their benefit when the had the
Danger Sidekick and would not allow any one else to have it. For a brief time the Sidekick was one of the most desirable phones you speak of and T-Mobile had it all to themselves.
AT&T took a chance with the iPhone and Apple's stringent rules for control over the iPhone ecosystem in a way that no other mobile phone provider would have done at the time. That gamble has paid off and AT&T has been rewarded for its faith in Apple.
No one else can be blamed for T-Mobile or Sprint's business decisions.
I haven't read anything that suggests T-Mobile was shopping itself around before the AT&T deal. Further, T-Mobile is NOT losing money. It is profitable. It's revenue is declining, which in the future could point to profitability problems. However, T-Mobile even says the bulk of its problem has to do with not having the iPhone. It also says it is profitable.
Further, saying Sprint has the top third best selling phone is meaningless without numbers. HP currently has the second best selling Tablet, yet it is losing millions and its sales are close to a percentage point of Apple's iPad total sales. However, saying you have the second best selling Tablet sounds impressive doesn't it?
The article linked to 1) doesn't give the total number of phone sales, and 2) the break down of who won those sales. If fifty phones were sold, and Apple won 40 of those sales, and the Sprint sold HTC EVO won 5 sales, and everybody else shared five sales, that would make the Sprint HTC EVO the second best selling phone. That also doesn't really seem very impressive either. In my example, 40 of those 50 people likely aren't even considering Sprint or T-Mobile because of the lack of iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad
Go back and read the thread again...people already posted facts that contradict what you said. Sprint has the #3 selling phone:
the EVO is 3rd behind iPhone 3Gs and IP4......If T-Mobile is so good then why is the parent company shopping them around to everyone that will listen to them? Beacuse they are losing money! You even posted this fact on posts #12 and #22! If they were great then they would not be losing money....plain and simple...... Your call reception/experience with T-Mobile might not be indictitive of the rest of the country. Verizon and AT&T continue to add customers at the expense of Sprint and T-Mobile....
EDIT:
The link you refenced says NOTHING about call quality. It centered around BUYING experiences...not whether they were happy with the call quality or service.
But we are still getting screwed. How? Because supposedly part of what we pay each month on that contract is to pay back the $400 that the carrier pitched in for the iPhone, yes. so assuming one stays the whole 24 months, approx $16.50 is 'device cost recovery' yes. So then at the end of 24 months I get $16.50 dropped off my bill because I paid off my phone, right. Or if I walk in with a full price phone I pay $16.50 less than the guy on contract, right. WRONG. I pay the same amount no matter what. Free money for the carriers. And it's totally legal. If the US Gov't really carried about consumers they would change the rules that allow such pricing
Actually, there's one carrier that has plans exactly like what you want. Once the $15 payments have paid off the price of the phone, your bill goes down by $15. If you bring your own phone, your bill is $15 less off the bat. Can you guess which carrier this might be?
Yup, T-Mobile. Get one of their plans locked in now, before AT&T shuts them off.
When you buy a phone on contract, a portion of your monthly bill goes to pay for the phone... suposedly.
If that's the case, then why is it when you buy a phone out of contract, your monthly rates aren't reduced since you aren't receiving the subsidy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
You don't have to sign a contract. The point of the contract is to buy a new phone for a cheaper price. You have the option to pay full price with no contract.
Over all you've only complained about what you don't like about the US. You did not at all describe what so better about Europe.
The two are so very different situations it can be difficult to compare.
"Share the spectrum?" Google's history seems more inclined to share what belongs to others than sharing out what they themselves own.
Let's see how Google handles the intricacies of a hardware company first, before we let the little darlings that can't cook their own meals try to run a wireless company.
yea because Google is such a failing company...note...not everyone who isn't at Apple levels is a failure...that's like saying Lebron sucks because he's no Michael Jordan.
The playing field has been level. You now have the luxury of knowing how it all worked out. When AT&T initially made this deal with Apple no one had any idea the iPhone would be this successful.
Both Sprint and T-Mobile have made their own acquisitions and business alliances that they hoped would work out. The fact that Sprint's acquisition of Nextel turned out to be a bust doesn't lower the playing field. It was a bad business decision that has done nothing to help Sprint.
The playing field appears uneven today because AT&T made a better deal than Sprint or T-Mobile have ever made. You are now calling that unfair.
Quote:
I am not blaming AT&T for its deal with Apple. It hardly took a chance though. It had a five year lock in, which wouldn't hurt AT&T if the phone flopped. Apple bore the cost for bringing the phone to the market. Further, I do not know about Sprint, but T-Mobile also fought for the iPhone. It lost out because AT&T had the larger Network, and Jobs knew AT&T's CEO personally. Trying to land the iPhone doesn't seem like a bad business decision to me.
Again you now have the luxury of knowing something that AT&T executives did not know when they initially made this deal. Today it seems like a no-brainer but that wasn't true before Apple proved it true.
AT&T was taking a big risk. As Apple was asking for unprecedented control of their phone. Prior to the iPhone the mobile phone carriers had all of the power and hardware manufacturers had to acquiesce to their demands.
With no track record in mobile phone sales. Apple flipped that power dynamic around and negotiated full control of the iPhone, cost of the service, and the phone's ecosystem. Something that no other hardware manufacturer dared ask.
For AT&T to grant that power was a huge risk.
Quote:
Moreover, you miss the point. Just because T-Mobile is playing the game, doesn't mean the game is fair or more importantly benefits consumers. The benefitting consumers should be a priority since it is our airwaves the companies are using.
Your definition of fairness really makes little sense to me. Sprint and T-Mobile have had as much of a chance to develop their phone platforms as any other mobile carrier has had.
AT&T simply made a better business choice and has won big. What is unfair about that?
The point of a contract has nothing to do with the price of your service.
The point of the contract is to allow the service carrier to subsidize the price of your phone while guaranteeing you won't take that cheaper phone and move to another service carrier. Unless you pay back the cost of the subsidy.
If you buy a phone at full price without contract, you are free to take that phone to which ever service carrier you choose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtm135
That option is bullshit.
When you buy a phone on contract, a portion of your monthly bill goes to pay for the phone... suposedly.
If that's the case, then why is it when you buy a phone out of contract, your monthly rates aren't reduced since you aren't receiving the subsidy?
If you bring your own phone to a mobile phone carrier and sign yourself to a two year contract, boy have they gotten over on you. A contract is not required for service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
After which time, you're locked into a two year contract once you actually pick a carrier?
If you bring your own phone to a mobile phone carrier and sign yourself to a two year contract, boy have they gotten over on you. A contract is not required for service.
For the iPhone it is. Isn't this what we're talking about?
No, a contract is not required to use an iPhone. On AT&T you can take any GSM iPhone and plug an active AT&T SIM card in and the phone is up and running.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
For the iPhone it is. Isn't this what we're talking about?
No, a contract is not required to use an iPhone. On AT&T you can take any GSM iPhone and plug an active AT&T SIM card in and the phone is up and running.
Until they find out you're running an iPhone and move you to an iPhone plan against your will.
Comments
T-Mobile is willing to sell itself to AT&T because AT&T is willing to overpay knowing it will recoup the cost from raising prices for the T-Mobile customers.
I don't think you understand that Deutsche Telekom itself offered to sell T-Mobile to AT&T. Because T-Mobile is an ailing company.
Deutsche Telekom Quarterly Profit Declines on T-Mobile USA
What then happens to T-Mobile's customers?
AT&T took a chance with the iPhone and Apple's stringent rules for control over the iPhone ecosystem in a way that no other mobile phone provider would have done at the time. That gamble has paid off and AT&T has been rewarded for its faith in Apple.
No one else can be blamed for T-Mobile or Sprint's business decisions.
Not doing well is relative. T-Mobile is profitable, making billions in profit yearly. T-Mobile's problem is it doesn't have access to desirable phones. If the iPhone was on T-Mobile it wouldn't' be losing subscribers. If you are going to be stuck with a phone for two years on contract, you want one you like.
AT&T and Verizon currently have a lock on some of the most desirable phones, including the iPhone.
This is BS. People are leaving Sprint because Sprint doesn't have competitive phones because Verizon and AT&T have to date have had the lock on such phones. Bring the iPhone to Sprint and the tide will reverse. Same with T-Mobile. I have an unlocked iPhone on T-Mobile not only because of the competive plan prices but because I have had horrible customer service experiences with AT&T and Verizon. I also get better reception with the iPhone then my friends on AT&T (although I understand reception is an area specific issue).
Further, T-Mobile has consistently ranked top in customer satisfaction. Recently T-Moble and Sprint tied for best.
Go back and read the thread again...people already posted facts that contradict what you said. Sprint has the #3 selling phone:
http://www.cultofmac.com/the-iphone-...-report/109849
the EVO is 3rd behind iPhone 3Gs and IP4......If T-Mobile is so good then why is the parent company shopping them around to everyone that will listen to them? Beacuse they are losing money! You even posted this fact on posts #12 and #22! If they were great then they would not be losing money....plain and simple...... Your call reception/experience with T-Mobile might not be indictitive of the rest of the country. Verizon and AT&T continue to add customers at the expense of Sprint and T-Mobile....
EDIT:
The link you refenced says NOTHING about call quality. It centered around BUYING experiences...not whether they were happy with the call quality or service.
Is it too much to ask that journalists actually write a complete sentence? I doubt the DOJ released a press statement with the express intent to release a fragmented statement.
A journalist would have no problem writing a complete sentence. Unfortunately, most of them have been replaced with reporters...
If they go bust the wireless spectrum and all of T-Mobile's infrastructure would be sold to a new company who hopefully will do a better job and shake up the market.
apple???
apple???
or Google...I think Google has expressed interest in such a deal...
I do however think Apple would handle it better....but I feel Google would be a better fit as far as prices and the fact that Google would be more inclined to share the spectrum.
Then again I really don't know how these things would work.
or Google...I think Google has expressed interest in such a deal...
I do however think Apple would handle it better....but I feel Google would be a better fit as far as prices and the fact that Google would be more inclined to share the spectrum.
"Share the spectrum?" Google's history seems more inclined to share what belongs to others than sharing out what they themselves own.
Let's see how Google handles the intricacies of a hardware company first, before we let the little darlings that can't cook their own meals try to run a wireless company.
Moreover, you miss the point. Just because T-Mobile is playing the game, doesn't mean the game is fair or more importantly benefits consumers. The benefitting consumers should be a priority since it is our airwaves the companies are using.
T-Mobile played by this same game to their benefit when the had the
Danger Sidekick and would not allow any one else to have it. For a brief time the Sidekick was one of the most desirable phones you speak of and T-Mobile had it all to themselves.
AT&T took a chance with the iPhone and Apple's stringent rules for control over the iPhone ecosystem in a way that no other mobile phone provider would have done at the time. That gamble has paid off and AT&T has been rewarded for its faith in Apple.
No one else can be blamed for T-Mobile or Sprint's business decisions.
Further, saying Sprint has the top third best selling phone is meaningless without numbers. HP currently has the second best selling Tablet, yet it is losing millions and its sales are close to a percentage point of Apple's iPad total sales. However, saying you have the second best selling Tablet sounds impressive doesn't it?
The article linked to 1) doesn't give the total number of phone sales, and 2) the break down of who won those sales. If fifty phones were sold, and Apple won 40 of those sales, and the Sprint sold HTC EVO won 5 sales, and everybody else shared five sales, that would make the Sprint HTC EVO the second best selling phone. That also doesn't really seem very impressive either. In my example, 40 of those 50 people likely aren't even considering Sprint or T-Mobile because of the lack of iPhone.
Go back and read the thread again...people already posted facts that contradict what you said. Sprint has the #3 selling phone:
http://www.cultofmac.com/the-iphone-...-report/109849
the EVO is 3rd behind iPhone 3Gs and IP4......If T-Mobile is so good then why is the parent company shopping them around to everyone that will listen to them? Beacuse they are losing money! You even posted this fact on posts #12 and #22! If they were great then they would not be losing money....plain and simple...... Your call reception/experience with T-Mobile might not be indictitive of the rest of the country. Verizon and AT&T continue to add customers at the expense of Sprint and T-Mobile....
EDIT:
The link you refenced says NOTHING about call quality. It centered around BUYING experiences...not whether they were happy with the call quality or service.
But we are still getting screwed. How? Because supposedly part of what we pay each month on that contract is to pay back the $400 that the carrier pitched in for the iPhone, yes. so assuming one stays the whole 24 months, approx $16.50 is 'device cost recovery' yes. So then at the end of 24 months I get $16.50 dropped off my bill because I paid off my phone, right. Or if I walk in with a full price phone I pay $16.50 less than the guy on contract, right. WRONG. I pay the same amount no matter what. Free money for the carriers. And it's totally legal. If the US Gov't really carried about consumers they would change the rules that allow such pricing
Actually, there's one carrier that has plans exactly like what you want. Once the $15 payments have paid off the price of the phone, your bill goes down by $15. If you bring your own phone, your bill is $15 less off the bat. Can you guess which carrier this might be?
Yup, T-Mobile. Get one of their plans locked in now, before AT&T shuts them off.
When you buy a phone on contract, a portion of your monthly bill goes to pay for the phone... suposedly.
If that's the case, then why is it when you buy a phone out of contract, your monthly rates aren't reduced since you aren't receiving the subsidy?
You don't have to sign a contract. The point of the contract is to buy a new phone for a cheaper price. You have the option to pay full price with no contract.
Over all you've only complained about what you don't like about the US. You did not at all describe what so better about Europe.
The two are so very different situations it can be difficult to compare.
"Share the spectrum?" Google's history seems more inclined to share what belongs to others than sharing out what they themselves own.
Let's see how Google handles the intricacies of a hardware company first, before we let the little darlings that can't cook their own meals try to run a wireless company.
yea because Google is such a failing company...note...not everyone who isn't at Apple levels is a failure...that's like saying Lebron sucks because he's no Michael Jordan.
You act like the playing field is level.
The playing field has been level. You now have the luxury of knowing how it all worked out. When AT&T initially made this deal with Apple no one had any idea the iPhone would be this successful.
Both Sprint and T-Mobile have made their own acquisitions and business alliances that they hoped would work out. The fact that Sprint's acquisition of Nextel turned out to be a bust doesn't lower the playing field. It was a bad business decision that has done nothing to help Sprint.
The playing field appears uneven today because AT&T made a better deal than Sprint or T-Mobile have ever made. You are now calling that unfair.
I am not blaming AT&T for its deal with Apple. It hardly took a chance though. It had a five year lock in, which wouldn't hurt AT&T if the phone flopped. Apple bore the cost for bringing the phone to the market. Further, I do not know about Sprint, but T-Mobile also fought for the iPhone. It lost out because AT&T had the larger Network, and Jobs knew AT&T's CEO personally. Trying to land the iPhone doesn't seem like a bad business decision to me.
Again you now have the luxury of knowing something that AT&T executives did not know when they initially made this deal. Today it seems like a no-brainer but that wasn't true before Apple proved it true.
AT&T was taking a big risk. As Apple was asking for unprecedented control of their phone. Prior to the iPhone the mobile phone carriers had all of the power and hardware manufacturers had to acquiesce to their demands.
With no track record in mobile phone sales. Apple flipped that power dynamic around and negotiated full control of the iPhone, cost of the service, and the phone's ecosystem. Something that no other hardware manufacturer dared ask.
For AT&T to grant that power was a huge risk.
Moreover, you miss the point. Just because T-Mobile is playing the game, doesn't mean the game is fair or more importantly benefits consumers. The benefitting consumers should be a priority since it is our airwaves the companies are using.
Your definition of fairness really makes little sense to me. Sprint and T-Mobile have had as much of a chance to develop their phone platforms as any other mobile carrier has had.
AT&T simply made a better business choice and has won big. What is unfair about that?
The point of the contract is to allow the service carrier to subsidize the price of your phone while guaranteeing you won't take that cheaper phone and move to another service carrier. Unless you pay back the cost of the subsidy.
If you buy a phone at full price without contract, you are free to take that phone to which ever service carrier you choose.
That option is bullshit.
When you buy a phone on contract, a portion of your monthly bill goes to pay for the phone... suposedly.
If that's the case, then why is it when you buy a phone out of contract, your monthly rates aren't reduced since you aren't receiving the subsidy?
If you buy a phone at full price without contract, you are free to take that phone to which ever service carrier you choose.
After which time, you're locked into a two year contract once you actually pick a carrier?
After which time, you're locked into a two year contract once you actually pick a carrier?
If you bring your own phone to a mobile phone carrier and sign yourself to a two year contract, boy have they gotten over on you. A contract is not required for service.
For the iPhone it is. Isn't this what we're talking about?
For the iPhone it is. Isn't this what we're talking about?
No, a contract is not required to use an iPhone. On AT&T you can take any GSM iPhone and plug an active AT&T SIM card in and the phone is up and running.
Until they find out you're running an iPhone and move you to an iPhone plan against your will.
Until they find out you're running an iPhone and move you to an iPhone plan against your will.