iPhone 12 lineup pricing identical across carriers after blowback over $30 difference

Posted:
in iPhone
The Apple Store originally listed any iPhone 12 model not made for Verizon or AT&T as $30 more expensive, but on pre-order day prices are the same across all models.

iPhone 12 pricing identical across carriers
iPhone 12 pricing identical across carriers


The iPhone 12 and iPhone 12 Pro are now available for pre-order, and they are priced the same regardless of character. Apple was thought to have made a special deal with Verizon and AT&T for the pricing to be subsidized, which caused a lot of backlash amongst fans.

If Apple had followed through with the new pricing, it would have appeared that the iPhone 12 and iPhone 12 mini were priced $30 higher when not on those two carriers. Strangely this did not affect the iPhone 12 Pro or iPhone 12 Pro Max pricing.

Whatever the reasoning for the pricing and the change back to identical prices across the line, customers can now rest easy knowing they don't have to be on a specific carrier for special pricing.

The iPhone 12 mini and iPhone 12 Pro Max are available for pre-order on November 6 and will ship on November 13. The iPhone 12 and iPhone 12 Pro are now on sale and shipping as soon as October 23.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 22
    My receipt has a Verizon discount and on it. 
  • Reply 2 of 22
    tjwolftjwolf Posts: 424member
    The SIM-free version is still $30 more expensive :-(
    neillwdDogpersonpulseimagesdm3
  • Reply 3 of 22
    tjwolf said:
    The SIM-free version is still $30 more expensive :-(
    Based on that, I suspect what really happened is that the other 2 carriers sucked it up and also subsidized the $30.
    razorpitdm3jdb8167watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 22
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,094member
    The "blowback" was about Apple not being honest about the price when it stated $799 during the event, and then posted $799 with an asterisk on its website, when in fact, those prices required an account with certain carriers.  And it continues to advertise $799 even though the price is still $829.
    edited October 2020 razorpitelijahgpulseimageschemengin1CloudTalkindm3spock1234bulk001
  • Reply 5 of 22
    Isn't the $30 discount really just to "make you feel better" about the $30 upgrade fee that the carriers charge?  The price really went up $30 as others have said, so in the end you pay the same amount as last year:
    2019: $999 + $30 AT&T upgrade fee = $1029
    2020: $1029 - $30 "Discount" + $30 AT&T upgrade fee = $1029

    The $30 fee is crazy because they never touch the phone and aren't really involved in the "upgrade" of a device.
    hammeroftruthpulseimagesrandominternetpersondm3bulk001watto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 22
    aross99 said:
    Isn't the $30 discount really just to "make you feel better" about the $30 upgrade fee that the carriers charge?  The price really went up $30 as others have said, so in the end you pay the same amount as last year:
    2019: $999 + $30 AT&T upgrade fee = $1029
    2020: $1029 - $30 "Discount" + $30 AT&T upgrade fee = $1029

    The $30 fee is crazy because they never touch the phone and aren't really involved in the "upgrade" of a device.
    I call my carrier every year and ask them to waive their fee which they did. However last year they split the difference with me.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 22
    I charge a convenience fee to open my wallet and keep it closed when they don't waive theirs.
    pulseimagesDogpersonrazorpitdm3spock1234watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 22
    dewmedewme Posts: 4,307member
    flydog said:
    The "blowback" was about Apple not being honest about the price when it stated $799 during the event, and then posted $799 with an asterisk on its website, when in fact, those prices required an account with certain carriers.  And it continues to advertise $799 even though the price is still $829.
    In Apple's defense, they have always said "starting at" which is a very common and universally applied advertising ploy for most any purchase. That gives them the discretion to have higher priced configurations as long as at least one of them does actually "start at" the advertised price. It's all part of the silly little game that's been played since the dawn of salesmanship and something all adults should be very familiar with and have an immunity to. It's no different than using "x99" in pricing to make you think you're not buying an $800 phone because it's advertised as $799, use of the term "up to" when describing payouts, use of asterisks, and "limited quantities at this price" sorts of things.

    Are these advertising ploys just part of a silly game that I'd rather not play? Sure, but do they convey dishonesty, i.e., a deeply concerning character flaw? I don't think so.
    edited October 2020 randominternetpersonStrangeDaysrazorpitpscooter63watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 22
    designrdesignr Posts: 718member
    aross99 said:
    Isn't the $30 discount really just to "make you feel better" about the $30 upgrade fee that the carriers charge?  The price really went up $30 as others have said, so in the end you pay the same amount as last year:
    2019: $999 + $30 AT&T upgrade fee = $1029
    2020: $1029 - $30 "Discount" + $30 AT&T upgrade fee = $1029

    The $30 fee is crazy because they never touch the phone and aren't really involved in the "upgrade" of a device.
    I think this is exactly it. The $30 activation fee by the carriers is kind of a sham. Sounds like most people who try can just get it waived by the carrier.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 22
    designr said:
    aross99 said:
    Isn't the $30 discount really just to "make you feel better" about the $30 upgrade fee that the carriers charge?  The price really went up $30 as others have said, so in the end you pay the same amount as last year:
    2019: $999 + $30 AT&T upgrade fee = $1029
    2020: $1029 - $30 "Discount" + $30 AT&T upgrade fee = $1029

    The $30 fee is crazy because they never touch the phone and aren't really involved in the "upgrade" of a device.
    I think this is exactly it. The $30 activation fee by the carriers is kind of a sham. Sounds like most people who try can just get it waived by the carrier.
    Activation fee's are added to the bill, not to the price of the phone. This sounds like the price of the device went up, which is inline with the articles stating the reason for discontinuing packaged charger and headphones was a cost cutting measure. 
    dm3
  • Reply 11 of 22
    bonobobbonobob Posts: 331member
    I didn’t know about this activation fee.  I always by the phone SIMless and put the old SIM in the new phone.  No fee is involved. 
    dm3watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 22
    bonobob said:
    I didn’t know about this activation fee.  I always by the phone SIMless and put the old SIM in the new phone.  No fee is involved. 
    Right, but in this case, for the first time in recent years "simless" costs $30 more than carrier-associated.  Bummer.
    Dogpersondm3spock1234
  • Reply 13 of 22
    dewme said:
    flydog said:
    The "blowback" was about Apple not being honest about the price when it stated $799 during the event, and then posted $799 with an asterisk on its website, when in fact, those prices required an account with certain carriers.  And it continues to advertise $799 even though the price is still $829.
    In Apple's defense, they have always said "starting at" which is a very common and universally applied advertising ploy for most any purchase. That gives them the discretion to have higher priced configurations as long as at least one of them does actually "start at" the advertised price. It's all part of the silly little game that's been played since the dawn of salesmanship and something all adults should be very familiar with and have an immunity to. It's no different than using "x99" in pricing to make you think you're not buying an $800 phone because it's advertised as $799, use of the term "up to" when describing payouts, use of asterisks, and "limited quantities at this price" sorts of things.

    Are these advertising ploys just part of a silly game that I'd rather not play? Sure, but do they convey dishonesty, i.e., a deeply concerning character flaw? I don't think so.
    That's a defense, yes.  Though not a defense for the particular issue addressed in the quote by @flydog .  You're right, for the longest time "starting at" has denoted the higher priced configurations.  Still does.  Pretty sure most people already know this.  Apple even goes so far as to subsequently denote pricing for each config.  Full transparency.  "Starting at" has not denoted higher price for simply choosing a specific carrier.  No context of "starting at" would lead anyone to assume carrier specific pricing for the same configs.  

    Trying to conflate the two together doesn't work.  They are not similar at all.
    edited October 2020 muthuk_vanalingamdm3spock1234bulk001
  • Reply 14 of 22
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,114member
    dewme said:
    flydog said:
    The "blowback" was about Apple not being honest about the price when it stated $799 during the event, and then posted $799 with an asterisk on its website, when in fact, those prices required an account with certain carriers.  And it continues to advertise $799 even though the price is still $829.
    In Apple's defense, they have always said "starting at" which is a very common and universally applied advertising ploy for most any purchase. That gives them the discretion to have higher priced configurations as long as at least one of them does actually "start at" the advertised price. It's all part of the silly little game that's been played since the dawn of salesmanship and something all adults should be very familiar with and have an immunity to. It's no different than using "x99" in pricing to make you think you're not buying an $800 phone because it's advertised as $799, use of the term "up to" when describing payouts, use of asterisks, and "limited quantities at this price" sorts of things.

    Are these advertising ploys just part of a silly game that I'd rather not play? Sure, but do they convey dishonesty, i.e., a deeply concerning character flaw? I don't think so.
    No we must be outraged! Rawr!
  • Reply 15 of 22
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,114member

    bonobob said:
    I didn’t know about this activation fee.  I always by the phone SIMless and put the old SIM in the new phone.  No fee is involved. 
    I saw that SIM-less option this year but wasn't sure about it. Could one really just buy that version, swap the SIM cards, and not have to let the carriers know whatsoever and save 30 bucks for the scam carrier fee? That would be surprising. 
    edited October 2020 watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 22

    bonobob said:
    I didn’t know about this activation fee.  I always by the phone SIMless and put the old SIM in the new phone.  No fee is involved. 
    I saw that SIM-less option this year but wasn't sure about it. Could one really just buy that version, swap the SIM cards, and not have to let the carriers know whatsoever and save 30 bucks for the scam carrier fee? That would be surprising. 
    That’s what I’m doing with T-mobile, every time I get a new iPhone I just pop the SIM in. Only time I have to pay them is if my phone was stolen and I need a new SIM which I think is like $15 or something, though they waived that once. I do not miss AT&T at all since I switched years ago. 
    bulk001watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 22
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member

    bonobob said:
    I didn’t know about this activation fee.  I always by the phone SIMless and put the old SIM in the new phone.  No fee is involved. 
    I saw that SIM-less option this year but wasn't sure about it. Could one really just buy that version, swap the SIM cards, and not have to let the carriers know whatsoever and save 30 bucks for the scam carrier fee? That would be surprising. 
    That’s what I’m doing with T-mobile, every time I get a new iPhone I just pop the SIM in. Only time I have to pay them is if my phone was stolen and I need a new SIM which I think is like $15 or something, though they waived that once. I do not miss AT&T at all since I switched years ago. 
    We switched from AT&T to T-Mobile this past Tuesday and I couldn’t be happier. I’m saving $50/month on 3 phones and 2 watches. And I can finally send/receive text messages when I’m in my basement.
    edited October 2020 bulk001watto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 22
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 2,582member
    dewme said:
    flydog said:
    The "blowback" was about Apple not being honest about the price when it stated $799 during the event, and then posted $799 with an asterisk on its website, when in fact, those prices required an account with certain carriers.  And it continues to advertise $799 even though the price is still $829.
    In Apple's defense, they have always said "starting at" which is a very common and universally applied advertising ploy for most any purchase. That gives them the discretion to have higher priced configurations as long as at least one of them does actually "start at" the advertised price. It's all part of the silly little game that's been played since the dawn of salesmanship and something all adults should be very familiar with and have an immunity to. It's no different than using "x99" in pricing to make you think you're not buying an $800 phone because it's advertised as $799, use of the term "up to" when describing payouts, use of asterisks, and "limited quantities at this price" sorts of things.

    Are these advertising ploys just part of a silly game that I'd rather not play? Sure, but do they convey dishonesty, i.e., a deeply concerning character flaw? I don't think so.
    That's a defense, yes.  Though not a defense for the particular issue addressed in the quote by @flydog .  You're right, for the longest time "starting at" has denoted the higher priced configurations.  Still does.  Pretty sure most people already know this.  Apple even goes so far as to subsequently denote pricing for each config.  Full transparency.  "Starting at" has not denoted higher price for simply choosing a specific carrier.  No context of "starting at" would lead anyone to assume carrier specific pricing for the same configs.  

    Trying to conflate the two together doesn't work.  They are not similar at all.
    Or for that matter choosing a phone on-contract or off-contract 
  • Reply 19 of 22
    flydog said:
    The "blowback" was about Apple not being honest about the price when it stated $799 during the event, and then posted $799 with an asterisk on its website, when in fact, those prices required an account with certain carriers.  And it continues to advertise $799 even though the price is still $829.
    I don't get it ... does this mean if you buy at $799 that you're under contract again?

    That would certainly suck.
  • Reply 20 of 22
    idreyidrey Posts: 647member
    I been buying through Apple and getting the Verizon version which is unlock and I just switch the sim and don’t pay any activation fee. But I buy the pro max so i guess it makes no difference. I actually had no idea there was a price difference. 
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.