elehcdn

bbdroid said:

And even though the 680,000 number is small compared to Spotify's overall paid subscription base, it is by no means insignificant.  

I am trying to figure out how a small number compared to an overall paid subscription base is considered monopolistic.

macgui said:

I have one phone on my account. Can I add another for $10? Ok, throw in a one-time activation fee, but is an additional phone for $10? 

It's a separate 'line', as in a separate number, and it can be used to make a call while my other phone is in use. I can't do any of that with the Watch. Along with everybody else who didn't suggest otherwise, I don't want a separate number for the Watch.

Actually, I think it may very well be possible to use both the Watch and the phone at the same time, and that calls coming in do ring both the Watch and the phone. It’s two separate lines and a convenience that the telcos are routing one number to both lines which is what you want.

macgui said:

It's not very much different than when Ma Bell charged us additional fee for having an extension phone that we paid for and not a rental from Ma. Without a functional ringer they would never know there was an extension, such was the impact on their infrastructure. It took a very long time for that to change and it wasn't because Ma relented. Also with landlines, beyond our monthly service we only paid/pay for calls we made/make, not calls we receive(d).

Actually it is much different than what you state. The equivalent would be that you had 2 separate lines running back from your house to 2 switches back in the switching office (instead of a shared line for 2 devices) and you would definitely be charged full price for 2 lines PLUS an extra fee for routing them both to the same number. There is some savings on the telco end now since software does a much more efficient job of switching the connections between multiple devices allowing for more capacity but just because this is for personal use, it doesn’t mean that the telco doesn’t need to allocate the same amount of resources just because it is a watch instead of a phone. The data is only a portion of cost, it is the need to continually ping a device to confirm it needs to be on the network that needs to be accounted for.

macxpress said:

coolfactor said:

macxpress said:

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.

Except a watch isn't going to take up any resources in the grand scheme of things. This is what the carriers want you to think. Don't fall into their trap. 

It’s not going to be transferring as much data, but it will still continually ping the tower just as many times as other devices. The cell towers are already overloaded with traffic from devices just letting them know they are there -it’s not just about the amount of data that is transferred.

macgui said:

SendMcjak said:
but what am I paying $10/month for thereafter?  That's not rhetorical --does anyone know?  

I pay $dollars for a given data allocation / month.  Regardless of what I use to consume that data (iPhone, Apple Watch, tablet, etc.), I pay ... so what expense is the $10/month covering for AT&T, Verizon, etc.?

If you're asking why does att need the monthly $10, the answer is obviously— they don't. It's free money for them, and they want it. Texts were the same thing. Now unlimited texting is part of almost every plan and though they're not getting a separate fee for it, it's not costing them anything to provide it.

IF we all stopped using various features in protest, we could probably get them do drop fees for services that cost them nothing and get better deals for time, data, and family plans.

Hell, we're still paying for cellular calls we receive! That'll never change though it could. Convenience costs money. As long as we want it someone will charge for it. And most of us will pay it.

Each device connecting directly to a cell tower has an IMEI so it needs to be accounted for and does take up a slot on the cell towers. It would also need to be tracked in the database that connects the phone numbers to the IMEI., FWIW, considering your phone number is primarily a directory to the device, I think it is quite possible that you could use both devices simultaneously and I’ll bet that both devices ring on incoming calls. 

Not sure what the actual cost is to maintain the other device, but a lot of it is going to go towards the labor and tracking of a second device. $10 seems a little high, but it’s not the highway robbery so many people want to claim.

cyberzombie said:

On the high end, the stainless steel, Hermes and ceramic Edition Apple Watches come with cellular connectivity. Internally, they are the same as the $399 Apple Watch Series 3 with cellular. Simply put, these options are a personal decision based on budget and fashion. From a technical perspective, there is nothing unique

The higher end models have a sapphire crystal face. Definitely should be a consideration for those prone to hitting things...

As someone who has broken a watch face, I wonder if the better alternative is AppleCare and the possibility of a repair.