While thats nice....I still think its pure BS for carriers to charge for a watch to be added to the plan. Its the same line, not a different phone number. For this reason alone I will not get an LTE Apple Watch. I already pay out the wazooo for my cell phone...I don't appreciate being nickel and dime'd by these greedy carriers.
It's a new line. You're just a greedy customer that thinks you deserve an entirely new node connected to a cellular network 24 hours a day with unlimited access free of charge. You haven't considered that having your iPhone's phone number (a logic number, not the physical access to the cellular network which is what makes it a line) jump between devices instead intelligently instead having you use two phone numbers which people need to guess which one to call you on. If that were the case I'm sure you'd be complaining about that inconvenience, but instead you complain that extra effort is made to make the experience seamless and you bizarrely want that for free because you feel taken advantage of for not getting a 2nd logic number. Fucking brilliant¡
macexpress is not being greedy, the carriers are..sprint even has the audacity to charge $15/month...
The fee in any form is a deal breaker. I was pondering an upgrade, as I really like my original AW. An upgrade for my wife's one too would have been a nifty holiday present. But not at $240/yr. Nope nope nope.
You know they make Series 3 watches WITHOUT LTE. But in any even your 'deal breaker' will be a 'deal maker' for millions.
While thats nice....I still think its pure BS for carriers to charge for a watch to be added to the plan. Its the same line, not a different phone number. For this reason alone I will not get an LTE Apple Watch. I already pay out the wazooo for my cell phone...I don't appreciate being nickel and dime'd by these greedy carriers.
It's a new line. You're just a greedy customer that thinks you deserve an entirely new node connected to a cellular network 24 hours a day with unlimited access free of charge. You haven't considered that having your iPhone's phone number (a logic number, not the physical access to the cellular network which is what makes it a line) jump between devices instead intelligently instead having you use two phone numbers which people need to guess which one to call you on. If that were the case I'm sure you'd be complaining about that inconvenience, but instead you complain that extra effort is made to make the experience seamless and you bizarrely want that for free because you feel taken advantage of for not getting a 2nd logic number. Fucking brilliant¡
For the record...I don't have unlimited data and no, I'm not a greedy customer. Carriers treat their customers like shit and this just another example. They're no better than the cable company. What's next, unlimited data plans with only 15GB of data? Yes, that sounds stupid doesn't it...about as stupid as charging for something else to connect to your phone's plan that you already pay for. Sorry, but I totally and completely disagree with your comment and I think a lot of others here will as well judging by the amount of likes I got on both of my posts.
You are being greedy and irrational for not expecting a node fee to have any cost.
If I have unlimited data on a plan and I add a dozen iPhones to that account, by your own logic of "as stupid as charging for something else to connect to your phone's plan that you already pay for" I should be able to let unlimited iPhone connect to my plan, each creating a 24/7 link to their network without then expecting anything for that service. And yet, you've already known that adding devices to a network has a per device charge. You do understand that this isn't the same as turning your iPhone into a WiFi hotspot, right?
No one is saying that cheaper wouldn't be better. They certainly charge less for LTE-M devices that do actually trickle data and can't make calls, but this isn't that. If this is a problem then save $70 and just get an Apple Watch with GPS. I wonder how many of the whiners were ever Series 3 customers.
He's not talking about a dozen devices. You're exaggerating, and in the process, your argument loses credibility.
I'm pointing out the fallacy of his clam (and now yours) that adding device to your account in no way affects the network and therefore should be completely free to the customer. We've always had to pay to have a device connected to the network but now greedy asshats are claiming it should be free because they're not use to a watch needing high-speed cellular connectivity even though you damn well know that if you bought a flip phone to keep on your account you'd be charged a monthly fee for it.
The fee in any form is a deal breaker. I was pondering an upgrade, as I really like my original AW. An upgrade for my wife's one too would have been a nifty holiday present. But not at $240/yr. Nope nope nope.
Couldn’t agree more. Same “line”, same bill, should be same data allowance, regardless of device on that line.
Very cool tech by Apple shot in the foot by gouging carriers.
It's been puzzling reading this thread. I'm in the UK and we don't have to register a new device to use with a service. And I can't see why you need to. Forgetting the 'dozens of devices' comment earlier, surely, you have a phone contract with a data package. All your devices ( if you choose) go through that package, you're not using up extra bandwidth. I bought my partner an AW recently and just paired it with her iPhone. She uses either/or with no problem (be kind of tricky to use both together I guess!).
I know it works a bit differently in the US (our phones work anywhere/everywhere no matter the provider) but wtf?
Don't forget the $25 activation fee --as if it takes a human 90 minutes of labor to update the IMEI onto their towers lol.
Due to the economy of scale, they should be able to offer special pricing (well below $10/mo) for AW3. That's the kind of thing that Jobs would have paid attention too, as he always focused on the end user experience. (Then again, I doubt he would have gone for a watch as opposed to a fitness-first device, but who knows.)
While thats nice....I still think its pure BS for carriers to charge for a watch to be added to the plan. Its the same line, not a different phone number. For this reason alone I will not get an LTE Apple Watch. I already pay out the wazooo for my cell phone...I don't appreciate being nickel and dime'd by these greedy carriers.
Every device added to a network consumes resources. If one person has: (1) one phone, (2) one tablet, and (3) one watch... that's 3 device slots occupied for that one user. It has an impact on the network's ability to accommodate more users, thus impacting the carrier's profit potential. So it makes sense that the carrier charge a small fee for the additional devices.
I really thought there was a good chance T-Mobile would just use the Apple Watch LTE as a form of stickiness to their service by charging nothing or a nominal $1-$2per month. As the wearable has to be attached to an existing account, this would encourage switchers to come to T-Mobile and entice existing customers to stick with them as a service provider. It appears carriers are not taking a “big picture” view of the wearables-on-cellular market.
It's hilarious those of you here, based in the US, in an environment where we have always had to pay to simply add more devices to our account (not including data!), that you're complaining that adding another device costs $10 including LTE data. The new Apple Watch does not need to connect to the internet through your phone anymore.
The reality is that no one here has any idea what the costs are to add another device to a network or the R&D in developing support for multiple devices to one number. Maybe it's minimal, maybe it's not, but I'm certain that being able to set up wifi at home and using BitTorrent doesn't qualify anyone to know the cost.
I personally believe it should be cheaper, but I'm not going to moan and complain about it as if something weird and usual was happening.
The fee in any form is a deal breaker. I was pondering an upgrade, as I really like my original AW. An upgrade for my wife's one too would have been a nifty holiday present. But not at $240/yr. Nope nope nope.
You know they make Series 3 watches WITHOUT LTE. But in any even your 'deal breaker' will be a 'deal maker' for millions.
I do know that. But then there is less "upgrade." Others may feel value, and they are welcome to it. Meanwhile my original is just fine.
I do expect discounts some time in the future. Or some sort of bundle. I might jump then. Might. Or not. For now, it is a deal killer for me.
Actually, the cost of your plan should go DOWN if you are using an AW, since the bandwidth is a tiny fraction of what you would be using on an iPhone. Charging anything extra except for a one time sign-up fee is a total rip-off.
My mind is blown at the number of people that think an additional device connected to a cellular network should be free. You don't have to get a cellular plan with it if you don't want to pay for one.
As for the LTE, limiting it to 3G probably had more to do with keeping extra devices off of the LTE frequencies. Just because its connected to the LTE network, doesn't mean its going to be any faster.
The fee in any form is a deal breaker. I was pondering an upgrade, as I really like my original AW. An upgrade for my wife's one too would have been a nifty holiday present. But not at $240/yr. Nope nope nope.
Couldn’t agree more. Same “line”, same bill, should be same data allowance, regardless of device on that line.
Very cool tech by Apple shot in the foot by gouging carriers.
So don't buy the Series 3 LTE and tell all your friends not to buy it either. Stand your ground, cry from the rooftops that YOU will not be 'gouged' by evil Apple and its evil cohorts the carriers. Then just shut your trap and make no more comments about the watch and its features, how good it is or isn't since it no longer exists in your personal universe. Let the rest of us enjoy it and the satisfaction it provides us. And we are certainly within our rights to pay the $10/mo if we find the value in that.
And by the way, I'm betting no one in these forums understands how the mobile network actually works or why a carrier might decide to limit bandwidth or price a feature. Nope, it's always greed and price gouging in your eyes.
I always have my iPhone with me, except when I'm running or swimming. At these times, I would love my watch to send and receive texts. This would be primarily for emergency purposes, else making plans for when I get home to my family. My bandwidth requirements are zero, so how can I justify $10 per mo? I can't do it out of principle. All that said, it would be nice to stream my Apple Music too, but I don't need to since the watch stores a ton of music already for my runs with my AirPods.
While thats nice....I still think its pure BS for carriers to charge for a watch to be added to the plan. Its the same line, not a different phone number. For this reason alone I will not get an LTE Apple Watch. I already pay out the wazooo for my cell phone...I don't appreciate being nickel and dime'd by these greedy carriers.
Every device added to a network consumes resources. If one person has: (1) one phone, (2) one tablet, and (3) one watch... that's 3 device slots occupied for that one user. It has an impact on the network's ability to accommodate more users, thus impacting the carrier's profit potential. So it makes sense that the carrier charge a small fee for the additional devices.
Sure except $10 per device is not small. $5 would be terrific
My firm pays for my phone plan as it's BYOD (device), so they took control of my line and phone number. How can I possibly add my AW with LTE connectivity since my company owns my line? I think this is going to be a huge problem.
Two things:
1) it makes no sense to have high speed connectivity with LTE watch. Why do they need such high speed connectivity? It's just a few bits of data that can be transmitted like voice or JSON or images. You don't need high speed for that.
2) why does it have to cost extra to add a device to the existing plan? How does it make a difference if it's just data? Why can't any additional devices be counted against the data plan?
1) It makes perfect sense to include LTE.
Again, you're missing the point. I am asking WHY we need to provide high speed connectivity, not why we need to provide LTE. The 512Kbps is nothing to be concerned but people are complaining over a non-issue.
2) Before Tuesday it cost money to even add a data-less flip phone to your account as of Tuesday it now doesn't make any sense for unlimited additional nodes to be supported on their network? That's what doesn't make sense.
Adding nodes cost pennies. $10 is unreasonable. I can see how they would like to add a charge for each "device" but $10 is clearly ridiculous. I mean, do you have a network router? And you know that you can add up to 250 devices and it costs you nothing?
3) "JSON" isn't going to cut it for Apple Music and referring to the data used by Apple Music as simply "voice" as if phone calls are the same quality and transmission type as streaming music is woefully disingenuous.
LTE uses data for voice. And even with that in mind, it's far less bandwidth intensive compared to video. It takes only 40Kbps or less. Apple Music takes about 128 Kbps. So, again, ask me why we need more than 512KBps?
4) Apple was smart to remove 2G and some 3G cellular technologies from the device. This cuts down on size and cost which is probably why it's only $70. Hopefully we see that happen with the iPad+Cellular and hopefully notice a drop in future iPhones as Apple designs cellular chips and removes deprecated cellular technologies.
I really thought there was a good chance T-Mobile would just use the Apple Watch LTE as a form of stickiness to their service by charging nothing or a nominal $1-$2per month. As the wearable has to be attached to an existing account, this would encourage switchers to come to T-Mobile and entice existing customers to stick with them as a service provider. It appears carriers are not taking a “big picture” view of the wearables-on-cellular market.
Actually I am pretty sure that T-Mobile is having a struggle even keeping up with increasing their slots for their subscriber base that is growing from switchers. Pretty sure the AW3 has its own IMEI which would require registering even more devices on the network. Does the technology even exist for the carriers to discriminate between an IMEI on a watch and on a phone?
For current AW use and for tablets tethered to a cell phone, they are still only using 1 device IMEI since they all connect through the cellphone. The AW3 connects directly to the cellular network and needs to be managed regardless of whether you are using your cell phone at the same time or not. I think the prices are a bit high for adding an AW3 service, but it really isn’t true to think there is no added cost to the carriers.
Comments
Actually only the aluminum models can be ordered w/o LTE
Very cool tech by Apple shot in the foot by gouging carriers.
I know it works a bit differently in the US (our phones work anywhere/everywhere no matter the provider) but wtf?
Due to the economy of scale, they should be able to offer special pricing (well below $10/mo) for AW3. That's the kind of thing that Jobs would have paid attention too, as he always focused on the end user experience. (Then again, I doubt he would have gone for a watch as opposed to a fitness-first device, but who knows.)
Every device added to a network consumes resources. If one person has: (1) one phone, (2) one tablet, and (3) one watch... that's 3 device slots occupied for that one user. It has an impact on the network's ability to accommodate more users, thus impacting the carrier's profit potential. So it makes sense that the carrier charge a small fee for the additional devices.
The reality is that no one here has any idea what the costs are to add another device to a network or the R&D in developing support for multiple devices to one number. Maybe it's minimal, maybe it's not, but I'm certain that being able to set up wifi at home and using BitTorrent doesn't qualify anyone to know the cost.
I personally believe it should be cheaper, but I'm not going to moan and complain about it as if something weird and usual was happening.
I do expect discounts some time in the future. Or some sort of bundle. I might jump then. Might. Or not. For now, it is a deal killer for me.
As for the LTE, limiting it to 3G probably had more to do with keeping extra devices off of the LTE frequencies. Just because its connected to the LTE network, doesn't mean its going to be any faster.
And by the way, I'm betting no one in these forums understands how the mobile network actually works or why a carrier might decide to limit bandwidth or price a feature. Nope, it's always greed and price gouging in your eyes.
For current AW use and for tablets tethered to a cell phone, they are still only using 1 device IMEI since they all connect through the cellphone. The AW3 connects directly to the cellular network and needs to be managed regardless of whether you are using your cell phone at the same time or not. I think the prices are a bit high for adding an AW3 service, but it really isn’t true to think there is no added cost to the carriers.