Ask a question
Search in Wireless Forums

Wireless Forum

Reply
Posted Feb 13, 2011
8:29:26 PM
View profile
It's time for a shift in contract terms......

There was a time when a phone purchased under the two year contract was fine. Technology didn't grow as fast, nor did the demands of the customer, the network, etc.

But now the landscape of the wireless industry has completely changed, and continues to do so at an amazing pace. The rapid advancement of operating systems and related apps is also growing at the same pace. 

The older two year contracts are in fact obsolete when considering the extremely quick technology growth. Especially when combined with ATT's total lack of updates. Android 1.5 was released nearly two years ago, and most apps now wont work with it, not to mention the lack of flash and numerous other applications. It appears that android is progressing about three generations a year.

Where does that leave the customer? Those with iphones might be ok, at least the last generation was given the option to upgrade their os. WP7 will also get updates, but being a new os they're probably under more scruteny to 'get it right' than otherwise. The rest of us (android) are pretty much scr$w&# (I'll avoid the custom rom issue, since it technically voids the warranty and isn't an 'easy/simple' option for all).

A one year contract seems much more reasonable these days. I'd have no problem if my phone, which came with update promises (dell streak), saw them. As it is, I'm now stuck with an 18month old operating system that's at leat four generations behind, and can't do many of the things I'd like or need to do.

There was a time when a phone purchased under the two year contract was fine. Technology didn't grow as fast, nor did the demands of the customer, the network, etc.

But now the landscape of the wireless industry has completely changed, and continues to do so at an amazing pace. The rapid advancement of operating systems and related apps is also growing at the same pace. 

The older two year contracts are in fact obsolete when considering the extremely quick technology growth. Especially when combined with ATT's total lack of updates. Android 1.5 was released nearly two years ago, and most apps now wont work with it, not to mention the lack of flash and numerous other applications. It appears that android is progressing about three generations a year.

Where does that leave the customer? Those with iphones might be ok, at least the last generation was given the option to upgrade their os. WP7 will also get updates, but being a new os they're probably under more scruteny to 'get it right' than otherwise. The rest of us (android) are pretty much scr$w&# (I'll avoid the custom rom issue, since it technically voids the warranty and isn't an 'easy/simple' option for all).

A one year contract seems much more reasonable these days. I'd have no problem if my phone, which came with update promises (dell streak), saw them. As it is, I'm now stuck with an 18month old operating system that's at leat four generations behind, and can't do many of the things I'd like or need to do.

It's time for a shift in contract terms......

1,239 views
33 replies
(0) Me too
(0) Me too
Reply
View all replies
(33)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Feb 13, 2011 8:54:05 PM
0
(0)
Master

Your not going to see that.

 

The contract is for the subsidized phone.  If they were to shorten your contract down to one year then the only reasonable thing would be to make you pay more for the device itself (reduce the subsidy amount by half).

 

If your unhappy with the contract you can just purchase a phone outright and not have to be tied to a contract.  You can also get that phone unlocked/unbranded and have a better chance of receiving updates rather than hope AT&T releases something.

Your not going to see that.

 

The contract is for the subsidized phone.  If they were to shorten your contract down to one year then the only reasonable thing would be to make you pay more for the device itself (reduce the subsidy amount by half).

 

If your unhappy with the contract you can just purchase a phone outright and not have to be tied to a contract.  You can also get that phone unlocked/unbranded and have a better chance of receiving updates rather than hope AT&T releases something.

Re: It's time for a shift in contract terms......

2 of 34 (1,226 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Feb 14, 2011 2:05:20 AM
0
(0)
Scholar
Hes right about the technology growth.Ive said it here before. Theres no reason any and all updates shouldnt be released. The tech is comin so fast that theres no need for them to worry about their latest phones having the latest OS. Therell be another 2.3,4,5 etc here before u knowit. Comprende?
I once asked how much do u think carriers pay for the phones. Thatd go a long way in knowing if the its viable for the carriers to give us 1 year contracts.How much could they possibly lose by giving us 1 year contracts?That & an unlimited plan would keep a huge % of ATT custys loyal.
Hes right about the technology growth.Ive said it here before. Theres no reason any and all updates shouldnt be released. The tech is comin so fast that theres no need for them to worry about their latest phones having the latest OS. Therell be another 2.3,4,5 etc here before u knowit. Comprende?
I once asked how much do u think carriers pay for the phones. Thatd go a long way in knowing if the its viable for the carriers to give us 1 year contracts.How much could they possibly lose by giving us 1 year contracts?That & an unlimited plan would keep a huge % of ATT custys loyal.

Re: It's time for a shift in contract terms......

3 of 34 (1,199 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Feb 14, 2011 3:16:56 AM
0
(0)
Expert

Tilt-A-Rama wrote:
Hes right about the technology growth.Ive said it here before. Theres no reason any and all updates shouldnt be released. The tech is comin so fast that theres no need for them to worry about their latest phones having the latest OS. Therell be another 2.3,4,5 etc here before u knowit. Comprende?
I once asked how much do u think carriers pay for the phones. Thatd go a long way in knowing if the its viable for the carriers to give us 1 year contracts.How much could they possibly lose by giving us 1 year contracts?That & an unlimited plan would keep a huge % of ATT custys loyal.

Actually agree with both of you - best bet - drop the subsidized pricing / contracts on the phones, everyone pays full retail so they can change phones anytime they want. Want a 16GB iphone - 699.00, 32 GB - 799.00,  Sony Xperia - 599.00. This way everyone wins, no 2 year contract and you change phones as often as you like. The terms of service for the network would remain the same, required data plans, etc would all remain in affect, the only difference would be that you pay full retail and have no 2 year requirement.


Tilt-A-Rama wrote:
Hes right about the technology growth.Ive said it here before. Theres no reason any and all updates shouldnt be released. The tech is comin so fast that theres no need for them to worry about their latest phones having the latest OS. Therell be another 2.3,4,5 etc here before u knowit. Comprende?
I once asked how much do u think carriers pay for the phones. Thatd go a long way in knowing if the its viable for the carriers to give us 1 year contracts.How much could they possibly lose by giving us 1 year contracts?That & an unlimited plan would keep a huge % of ATT custys loyal.

Actually agree with both of you - best bet - drop the subsidized pricing / contracts on the phones, everyone pays full retail so they can change phones anytime they want. Want a 16GB iphone - 699.00, 32 GB - 799.00,  Sony Xperia - 599.00. This way everyone wins, no 2 year contract and you change phones as often as you like. The terms of service for the network would remain the same, required data plans, etc would all remain in affect, the only difference would be that you pay full retail and have no 2 year requirement.

Re: It's time for a shift in contract terms......

4 of 34 (1,192 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Feb 14, 2011 7:36:42 AM
0
(0)
Professor

I have thought for a while that I would be happy paying full price for a phone and not having a contract.  You can do that now.  I would, however, like to see at&t give a discount on service.  The reason for the 2 year contract is to make sure you will have service long enough to make up for the subsidised price for the phone.  If they are not going to subsidize the phone, we shouldn't have to pay the extra on our bills to pay for the subsidy. 

 

For phones with SIM cards, you could even start selling phones in retail stores independant of buying service, much like we buy our wired phones at any department store to access our landline carriers.

I have thought for a while that I would be happy paying full price for a phone and not having a contract.  You can do that now.  I would, however, like to see at&t give a discount on service.  The reason for the 2 year contract is to make sure you will have service long enough to make up for the subsidised price for the phone.  If they are not going to subsidize the phone, we shouldn't have to pay the extra on our bills to pay for the subsidy. 

 

For phones with SIM cards, you could even start selling phones in retail stores independant of buying service, much like we buy our wired phones at any department store to access our landline carriers.

Re: It's time for a shift in contract terms......

5 of 34 (1,162 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Feb 14, 2011 8:01:12 AM
0
(0)
Professor

I fully support this. Competitiveness would force the carriers to lower the cost of service. I believe the subsidizing is what is pushing many customers into smartphones when they really don't need one or can't afford to use one. Buying directly from the manufacturers or their sellers would allow users to get their updates directly from the manufacturers. However, I don't see this happening because of the desire from the carriers to limit the capabilities of the phones. No manufacturer is going to want a carrier telling them to add bloatware and dictate what features they can and can not make functional on their device if the carrier is not buying directly from them and then reselling. This would put it back at square one where the carriers would want a custom rom and custom updates and the manufacturers would have no reason to play that game, another stalemate. 

I fully support this. Competitiveness would force the carriers to lower the cost of service. I believe the subsidizing is what is pushing many customers into smartphones when they really don't need one or can't afford to use one. Buying directly from the manufacturers or their sellers would allow users to get their updates directly from the manufacturers. However, I don't see this happening because of the desire from the carriers to limit the capabilities of the phones. No manufacturer is going to want a carrier telling them to add bloatware and dictate what features they can and can not make functional on their device if the carrier is not buying directly from them and then reselling. This would put it back at square one where the carriers would want a custom rom and custom updates and the manufacturers would have no reason to play that game, another stalemate. 

Re: It's time for a shift in contract terms......

6 of 34 (1,153 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Feb 14, 2011 10:04:48 AM
0
(0)
Scholar

Maybe it's also time to fairly price some of ATT's services. $10 for a service that has comperable apps for $1.99 no longer makes sense......Perhaps it's like the music industry, a major change is needed in their market approach, change or fade

Maybe it's also time to fairly price some of ATT's services. $10 for a service that has comperable apps for $1.99 no longer makes sense......Perhaps it's like the music industry, a major change is needed in their market approach, change or fade

Re: It's time for a shift in contract terms......

7 of 34 (1,141 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Feb 14, 2011 10:08:33 AM
0
(0)
Scholar

 


Actually agree with both of you - best bet - drop the subsidized pricing / contracts on the phones, everyone pays full retail so they can change phones anytime they want. Want a 16GB iphone - 699.00, 32 GB - 799.00,  Sony Xperia - 599.00. This way everyone wins, no 2 year contract and you change phones as often as you like. The terms of service for the network would remain the same, required data plans, etc would all remain in affect, the only difference would be that you pay full retail and have no 2 year requirement.


My only problem with this is that the phones are far overprices as it is. Especially considering the lack of attention Samsung gives after release. Phones are 'like' small computers, but nowhere near them yet. And while the same seems to be said in a small way for the service plan pricing (text plans no longer make sense, just add it to data...but are probably a major cash cow), would prefer a subsidy. Removing that will only create a more expensive phones.

 

 


Actually agree with both of you - best bet - drop the subsidized pricing / contracts on the phones, everyone pays full retail so they can change phones anytime they want. Want a 16GB iphone - 699.00, 32 GB - 799.00,  Sony Xperia - 599.00. This way everyone wins, no 2 year contract and you change phones as often as you like. The terms of service for the network would remain the same, required data plans, etc would all remain in affect, the only difference would be that you pay full retail and have no 2 year requirement.


My only problem with this is that the phones are far overprices as it is. Especially considering the lack of attention Samsung gives after release. Phones are 'like' small computers, but nowhere near them yet. And while the same seems to be said in a small way for the service plan pricing (text plans no longer make sense, just add it to data...but are probably a major cash cow), would prefer a subsidy. Removing that will only create a more expensive phones.

 

Re: It's time for a shift in contract terms......

8 of 34 (1,135 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Feb 14, 2011 10:33:34 AM
0
(0)
Expert

diagoro wrote:

 


Actually agree with both of you - best bet - drop the subsidized pricing / contracts on the phones, everyone pays full retail so they can change phones anytime they want. Want a 16GB iphone - 699.00, 32 GB - 799.00,  Sony Xperia - 599.00. This way everyone wins, no 2 year contract and you change phones as often as you like. The terms of service for the network would remain the same, required data plans, etc would all remain in affect, the only difference would be that you pay full retail and have no 2 year requirement.


My only problem with this is that the phones are far overprices as it is. Especially considering the lack of attention Samsung gives after release. Phones are 'like' small computers, but nowhere near them yet. And while the same seems to be said in a small way for the service plan pricing (text plans no longer make sense, just add it to data...but are probably a major cash cow), would prefer a subsidy. Removing that will only create a more expensive phones.

 


one way or the other, don't want a contract, pay full price. All carriers have about the same pricing. ATT's "cash cow" of unlimited messaging for family plans of 69.99 or higher just became very reasonable with the additon of unlimited mobile to mobile calls to any carrier.

 

No removing the subsidy will not create more expensive phones, the end user will just see the true price, and it will add a additoinal level of competion in pricing by the manufacturer, since they will be competing at full retail cost rather then agreed on subsidized cost. Capitalism at it's best


diagoro wrote:

 


Actually agree with both of you - best bet - drop the subsidized pricing / contracts on the phones, everyone pays full retail so they can change phones anytime they want. Want a 16GB iphone - 699.00, 32 GB - 799.00,  Sony Xperia - 599.00. This way everyone wins, no 2 year contract and you change phones as often as you like. The terms of service for the network would remain the same, required data plans, etc would all remain in affect, the only difference would be that you pay full retail and have no 2 year requirement.


My only problem with this is that the phones are far overprices as it is. Especially considering the lack of attention Samsung gives after release. Phones are 'like' small computers, but nowhere near them yet. And while the same seems to be said in a small way for the service plan pricing (text plans no longer make sense, just add it to data...but are probably a major cash cow), would prefer a subsidy. Removing that will only create a more expensive phones.

 


one way or the other, don't want a contract, pay full price. All carriers have about the same pricing. ATT's "cash cow" of unlimited messaging for family plans of 69.99 or higher just became very reasonable with the additon of unlimited mobile to mobile calls to any carrier.

 

No removing the subsidy will not create more expensive phones, the end user will just see the true price, and it will add a additoinal level of competion in pricing by the manufacturer, since they will be competing at full retail cost rather then agreed on subsidized cost. Capitalism at it's best

Re: It's time for a shift in contract terms......

9 of 34 (1,121 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Feb 14, 2011 10:48:42 AM
0
(0)
Master

diagoro wrote:

My only problem with this is that the phones are far overprices as it is. Especially considering the lack of attention Samsung gives after release. Phones are 'like' small computers, but nowhere near them yet.


Your mixing hardware and software into the equation.  What your basically stating is the pricing would be fine if the manufactures supported the operating system more with updates and new features.

 

The price on the hardware is due to build complexities with size and how many units are being sold and software is not "much" of a factor.  Then added what the market will bear (all companies are there for a profit).

 


diagoro wrote:

And while the same seems to be said in a small way for the service plan pricing (text plans no longer make sense, just add it to data...but are probably a major cash cow), would prefer a subsidy. Removing that will only create a more expensive phones.


There is more to texting that is what is generally seen with the need for message centers.

 

As for change, Apple tried that by not including texting and instead wanted people to use free instant messaging (which would have even allowed computers to easily message handsets also) and it was the users who fought back complaining they wanted standard text messages back.

I'm sure they would love to add it to data but then everyone that had messaging would be forced to add a data plan.  You will have people that will complain about that also.

 

Also a change would been to be more global (not just a US thing) as texting is pretty standard around the world.  Just having a few carriers participate won't benefit the system overall.


diagoro wrote:

My only problem with this is that the phones are far overprices as it is. Especially considering the lack of attention Samsung gives after release. Phones are 'like' small computers, but nowhere near them yet.


Your mixing hardware and software into the equation.  What your basically stating is the pricing would be fine if the manufactures supported the operating system more with updates and new features.

 

The price on the hardware is due to build complexities with size and how many units are being sold and software is not "much" of a factor.  Then added what the market will bear (all companies are there for a profit).

 


diagoro wrote:

And while the same seems to be said in a small way for the service plan pricing (text plans no longer make sense, just add it to data...but are probably a major cash cow), would prefer a subsidy. Removing that will only create a more expensive phones.


There is more to texting that is what is generally seen with the need for message centers.

 

As for change, Apple tried that by not including texting and instead wanted people to use free instant messaging (which would have even allowed computers to easily message handsets also) and it was the users who fought back complaining they wanted standard text messages back.

I'm sure they would love to add it to data but then everyone that had messaging would be forced to add a data plan.  You will have people that will complain about that also.

 

Also a change would been to be more global (not just a US thing) as texting is pretty standard around the world.  Just having a few carriers participate won't benefit the system overall.

Re: It's time for a shift in contract terms......

10 of 34 (1,109 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Feb 14, 2011 3:34:55 PM
0
(0)
Scholar
You guys talkin about how the contracts are so ATT can get their money back onthe phones is nonsence. Drop the subsidies and just makeit full price? What ru talkin about? The cheap phone are only for gettin u into contract.Over 2 years u give ATT $2-3,000. depending on plans. When u buy 50,000 phones I know u aint payin more than $100.-$200. each. Tops. The no contract price is way too much. $700 for an iphone,$500 for an Atrix? Please.....
They make their $ from u being lockedin for 2 years. And some of us lockedin for 2 years....with an OUTDATED OS! Dont believeit? What Im gonna do with my Inspire when LTE comesout,Im not sure. Everyone who buys a new "4G" phone is gonna feel kinda outdated when LTE comesout this summer.And 2.3 + dualcore+ffc etc.Its called planned obsolesence. Its nothing new. So Im locked in to a phone for 2 years that wont be able to use LTE for 1-1.5 YEARS.
Sorry,but faster is always better. Ill miss those blazin DL speeds till 2013.
You guys talkin about how the contracts are so ATT can get their money back onthe phones is nonsence. Drop the subsidies and just makeit full price? What ru talkin about? The cheap phone are only for gettin u into contract.Over 2 years u give ATT $2-3,000. depending on plans. When u buy 50,000 phones I know u aint payin more than $100.-$200. each. Tops. The no contract price is way too much. $700 for an iphone,$500 for an Atrix? Please.....
They make their $ from u being lockedin for 2 years. And some of us lockedin for 2 years....with an OUTDATED OS! Dont believeit? What Im gonna do with my Inspire when LTE comesout,Im not sure. Everyone who buys a new "4G" phone is gonna feel kinda outdated when LTE comesout this summer.And 2.3 + dualcore+ffc etc.Its called planned obsolesence. Its nothing new. So Im locked in to a phone for 2 years that wont be able to use LTE for 1-1.5 YEARS.
Sorry,but faster is always better. Ill miss those blazin DL speeds till 2013.

Re: It's time for a shift in contract terms......

11 of 34 (568 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Feb 14, 2011 4:55:13 PM
0
(0)
Scholar

It's nice how they ask customers to be patient with their service issues, usually stating "we're in the progress of making major improvements to our network". What they don't tell you is that that 'new network' will probably be locked to new phones with the proper technology AND come at plan prices above what we're paying now (not to mention the obligatory loss of any unlimited plan).

It's a business plan to make the most money for their investors. Nothing wrong with that on it's surface, it's what the 'free-market' approach. But between questionable service quality, total lack of software updates, and contract plans that work 85% in the companies favor, perhaps it's time for big brother to step in and shake things up.

I'm not for the government taking control, but it does seem that wireless service in Europe and Asia is a much better deal for the customer (Where in I may receive the obligatory response of 'you can always take your service there'). 

It's nice how they ask customers to be patient with their service issues, usually stating "we're in the progress of making major improvements to our network". What they don't tell you is that that 'new network' will probably be locked to new phones with the proper technology AND come at plan prices above what we're paying now (not to mention the obligatory loss of any unlimited plan).

It's a business plan to make the most money for their investors. Nothing wrong with that on it's surface, it's what the 'free-market' approach. But between questionable service quality, total lack of software updates, and contract plans that work 85% in the companies favor, perhaps it's time for big brother to step in and shake things up.

I'm not for the government taking control, but it does seem that wireless service in Europe and Asia is a much better deal for the customer (Where in I may receive the obligatory response of 'you can always take your service there'). 

Re: It's time for a shift in contract terms......

12 of 34 (554 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Feb 20, 2011 8:07:24 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Master

wingrider01 wrote:
.........................

 

No removing the subsidy will not create more expensive phones, the end user will just see the true price, and it will add a additoinal level of competion in pricing by the manufacturer, since they will be competing at full retail cost rather then agreed on subsidized cost. Capitalism at it's best


 

I agree - the subsidy arrangement only serves to mask from the customer the true price they are paying for the equipment and for their service agreement.  Separate the two and then you'll get true competition in both pieces of the equation in terms of both pricing and quality.

 

I've often felt it is ironic that in the US we have the least "competitive" form of wireless service provision compared to that of Europe, etc.  And while I didn't purchase it when it first came out, IIRC I only paid somewhere in the $300 range for my non-branded/unlocked Nokia E70-2 (smartphone).  Not that significantly more (imho) than the $150 I would have ended up paying for a completely locked down, crippled, subsidized at&t branded Nokia E71x approx. six months after they were readily available (non-branded E71-2) at Best Buy B&M stores in the US.  Plus, if there is one thing the success of the original iPhone "proved" - again imho - it's that Americans will spend incredible sums for a device that actually meets their desires.  So the old argument that Americans don't want to pay large sums for their equipment is completely false - we'll apparently do it in droves for a piece of equipment that is both carrier locked and not very functional, just because we like it.  lol.  But isn't that what free market competition is really all about? Smiley Wink 

                                                                                                                         =^..^=
There must be a happy medium somewhere between being totally informed and blissfully unaware.

     - Doug Larson


wingrider01 wrote:
.........................

 

No removing the subsidy will not create more expensive phones, the end user will just see the true price, and it will add a additoinal level of competion in pricing by the manufacturer, since they will be competing at full retail cost rather then agreed on subsidized cost. Capitalism at it's best


 

I agree - the subsidy arrangement only serves to mask from the customer the true price they are paying for the equipment and for their service agreement.  Separate the two and then you'll get true competition in both pieces of the equation in terms of both pricing and quality.

 

I've often felt it is ironic that in the US we have the least "competitive" form of wireless service provision compared to that of Europe, etc.  And while I didn't purchase it when it first came out, IIRC I only paid somewhere in the $300 range for my non-branded/unlocked Nokia E70-2 (smartphone).  Not that significantly more (imho) than the $150 I would have ended up paying for a completely locked down, crippled, subsidized at&t branded Nokia E71x approx. six months after they were readily available (non-branded E71-2) at Best Buy B&M stores in the US.  Plus, if there is one thing the success of the original iPhone "proved" - again imho - it's that Americans will spend incredible sums for a device that actually meets their desires.  So the old argument that Americans don't want to pay large sums for their equipment is completely false - we'll apparently do it in droves for a piece of equipment that is both carrier locked and not very functional, just because we like it.  lol.  But isn't that what free market competition is really all about? Smiley Wink 

                                                                                                                         =^..^=
There must be a happy medium somewhere between being totally informed and blissfully unaware.

     - Doug Larson

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: It's time for a shift in contract terms......

13 of 34 (500 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Feb 20, 2011 3:11:31 PM
0
(0)
Scholar

Thinking more about this, I would never expect American carriers to follow this model. I'm sure the idea is to make the service AND phone seem the most appealing from the start. After that it's all gravy for them. More expensive phones upfront means more people go with feature phones, minus the heavy data plans (with major overages) and access to an app store.

I'm guessing this is a major reason smartphones have become such a staple of the industry. Not just for the tech advances, but they allow the carriers so many more options to fleese their flock.

Thinking more about this, I would never expect American carriers to follow this model. I'm sure the idea is to make the service AND phone seem the most appealing from the start. After that it's all gravy for them. More expensive phones upfront means more people go with feature phones, minus the heavy data plans (with major overages) and access to an app store.

I'm guessing this is a major reason smartphones have become such a staple of the industry. Not just for the tech advances, but they allow the carriers so many more options to fleese their flock.

Re: It's time for a shift in contract terms......

14 of 34 (481 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Feb 21, 2011 3:14:44 AM
0
(0)
Expert
Edited by wingrider01 on Feb 21, 2011 at 3:17:43 AM

diagoro wrote:

Thinking more about this, I would never expect American carriers to follow this model. I'm sure the idea is to make the service AND phone seem the most appealing from the start. After that it's all gravy for them. More expensive phones upfront means more people go with feature phones, minus the heavy data plans (with major overages) and access to an app store.

I'm guessing this is a major reason smartphones have become such a staple of the industry. Not just for the tech advances, but they allow the carriers so many more options to fleese their flock.


then there is no need to "shift the contract terms".  The removal of subsidized phone would provode the biggest shift in contract terms, the roi on anything else is not worth the effort by legal. Besides I suspect it would not be the company that would be reluctant to follow this model - they will win in the end, it will be the customer who realizes that their 199.00 Apple Iphone will now cost the 699.00 to have it you would the screams of anguish and the whines into the next galaxy


diagoro wrote:

Thinking more about this, I would never expect American carriers to follow this model. I'm sure the idea is to make the service AND phone seem the most appealing from the start. After that it's all gravy for them. More expensive phones upfront means more people go with feature phones, minus the heavy data plans (with major overages) and access to an app store.

I'm guessing this is a major reason smartphones have become such a staple of the industry. Not just for the tech advances, but they allow the carriers so many more options to fleese their flock.


then there is no need to "shift the contract terms".  The removal of subsidized phone would provode the biggest shift in contract terms, the roi on anything else is not worth the effort by legal. Besides I suspect it would not be the company that would be reluctant to follow this model - they will win in the end, it will be the customer who realizes that their 199.00 Apple Iphone will now cost the 699.00 to have it you would the screams of anguish and the whines into the next galaxy

Re: It's time for a shift in contract terms......

[ Edited ]
15 of 34 (458 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Feb 21, 2011 4:07:09 AM
0
(0)
Scholar
Flees their flock! I love!. The smartphone been a BIG $ maker. The shiftin contract should be to giveus phones at a non inflated price. No contract shouldn't be more than double contract price. $100. with,200 w/o.
They're not paying more than $100.-$200.per phone. MAX....
Flees their flock! I love!. The smartphone been a BIG $ maker. The shiftin contract should be to giveus phones at a non inflated price. No contract shouldn't be more than double contract price. $100. with,200 w/o.
They're not paying more than $100.-$200.per phone. MAX....

Re: It's time for a shift in contract terms......

16 of 34 (448 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Feb 21, 2011 6:19:06 AM
0
(0)
Professor

If we did away with contracts and the phones became available for sale in the general retail market (once again, like wired service phones), competition would drive the price of phones down.  Remeber when landline phones started being sold in department stores?  Prior to that, at&t would charge hundreds of dollars for a phone.  After they were sold in department stores, prices got so cheap that now landline phones are almost disposable.  Granted, I don't see cell phones getting that cheap, but I would not be surprised if the price cut in half.  Also, if not locked into contracts and available to change carriers easily, I would expect to see the cost of service go down.

If we did away with contracts and the phones became available for sale in the general retail market (once again, like wired service phones), competition would drive the price of phones down.  Remeber when landline phones started being sold in department stores?  Prior to that, at&t would charge hundreds of dollars for a phone.  After they were sold in department stores, prices got so cheap that now landline phones are almost disposable.  Granted, I don't see cell phones getting that cheap, but I would not be surprised if the price cut in half.  Also, if not locked into contracts and available to change carriers easily, I would expect to see the cost of service go down.

Re: It's time for a shift in contract terms......

17 of 34 (430 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Feb 21, 2011 8:49:17 AM
0
(0)
Expert

Tilt-A-Rama wrote:
Flees their flock! I love!. The smartphone been a BIG $ maker. The shiftin contract should be to giveus phones at a non inflated price. No contract shouldn't be more than double contract price. $100. with,200 w/o.
They're not paying more than $100.-$200.per phone. MAX....

And your proof is where, or is this just unfounded speculation / opinion


Tilt-A-Rama wrote:
Flees their flock! I love!. The smartphone been a BIG $ maker. The shiftin contract should be to giveus phones at a non inflated price. No contract shouldn't be more than double contract price. $100. with,200 w/o.
They're not paying more than $100.-$200.per phone. MAX....

And your proof is where, or is this just unfounded speculation / opinion

Re: It's time for a shift in contract terms......

18 of 34 (417 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Feb 21, 2011 8:56:35 AM
0
(0)
Expert

FredW wrote:

If we did away with contracts and the phones became available for sale in the general retail market (once again, like wired service phones), competition would drive the price of phones down.  Remeber when landline phones started being sold in department stores?  Prior to that, at&t would charge hundreds of dollars for a phone.  After they were sold in department stores, prices got so cheap that now landline phones are almost disposable.  Granted, I don't see cell phones getting that cheap, but I would not be surprised if the price cut in half.  Also, if not locked into contracts and available to change carriers easily, I would expect to see the cost of service go down.


You might see a 10 - 15 percent drop from the advertised retail price, considering that most, are specific to a type of carrier - GSM or CDMA and there will still be exlusive devices for a carrier. I doubt you will ever see a Atrix or a Iphone for a unsubsidized price that is near the subsidized price of the phone. back when the 3GS 8GB first released the price by VodaPhone in Italy was about 449 Euros or about 770 USD at that time,  O2's price was about 810 GBP or about 1,580.00 USD at the time.

 

Pricing for then was obtained here - which was published about the time the 3GS was announced on 06/09 

 

http://news.softpedia.com/news/iPhone-3G-Will-Actually-be-Expensive-in-Europe-87877.shtml


FredW wrote:

If we did away with contracts and the phones became available for sale in the general retail market (once again, like wired service phones), competition would drive the price of phones down.  Remeber when landline phones started being sold in department stores?  Prior to that, at&t would charge hundreds of dollars for a phone.  After they were sold in department stores, prices got so cheap that now landline phones are almost disposable.  Granted, I don't see cell phones getting that cheap, but I would not be surprised if the price cut in half.  Also, if not locked into contracts and available to change carriers easily, I would expect to see the cost of service go down.


You might see a 10 - 15 percent drop from the advertised retail price, considering that most, are specific to a type of carrier - GSM or CDMA and there will still be exlusive devices for a carrier. I doubt you will ever see a Atrix or a Iphone for a unsubsidized price that is near the subsidized price of the phone. back when the 3GS 8GB first released the price by VodaPhone in Italy was about 449 Euros or about 770 USD at that time,  O2's price was about 810 GBP or about 1,580.00 USD at the time.

 

Pricing for then was obtained here - which was published about the time the 3GS was announced on 06/09 

 

http://news.softpedia.com/news/iPhone-3G-Will-Actually-be-Expensive-in-Europe-87877.shtml

Re: It's time for a shift in contract terms......

19 of 34 (415 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Feb 21, 2011 11:24:35 AM
0
(0)
Professor

wingrider01 wrote:

FredW wrote:

If we did away with contracts and the phones became available for sale in the general retail market (once again, like wired service phones), competition would drive the price of phones down.  Remeber when landline phones started being sold in department stores?  Prior to that, at&t would charge hundreds of dollars for a phone.  After they were sold in department stores, prices got so cheap that now landline phones are almost disposable.  Granted, I don't see cell phones getting that cheap, but I would not be surprised if the price cut in half.  Also, if not locked into contracts and available to change carriers easily, I would expect to see the cost of service go down.


You might see a 10 - 15 percent drop from the advertised retail price, considering that most, are specific to a type of carrier - GSM or CDMA and there will still be exlusive devices for a carrier. I doubt you will ever see a Atrix or a Iphone for a unsubsidized price that is near the subsidized price of the phone. back when the 3GS 8GB first released the price by VodaPhone in Italy was about 449 Euros or about 770 USD at that time,  O2's price was about 810 GBP or about 1,580.00 USD at the time.

 

Pricing for then was obtained here - which was published about the time the 3GS was announced on 06/09 

 

http://news.softpedia.com/news/iPhone-3G-Will-Actually-be-Expensive-in-Europe-87877.shtml


If subsidized pricing goes away, the branding of and exclusivity of devices would need to go too. I don't believe it would cost any more for manufactures to start making devices that would run on CDMA with a SIM slot for GSM and the various bands required for all the carriers. The ability to streamline manufacturing and eliminate the development of different ROMS for different carriers would offset the costs of the added technology. I'm not saying it would happen quickly, but eventually due to all devices being operational with all the carriers, the competition would drive prices downward. Then the ability of a customer to leave when he wants and still use his/her device at  full capacity with another carrier would drive the cost of service down. Unfortunately, this is good old America where corporate greed and lobbying rule. The carriers would fight this all the way.


wingrider01 wrote:

FredW wrote:

If we did away with contracts and the phones became available for sale in the general retail market (once again, like wired service phones), competition would drive the price of phones down.  Remeber when landline phones started being sold in department stores?  Prior to that, at&t would charge hundreds of dollars for a phone.  After they were sold in department stores, prices got so cheap that now landline phones are almost disposable.  Granted, I don't see cell phones getting that cheap, but I would not be surprised if the price cut in half.  Also, if not locked into contracts and available to change carriers easily, I would expect to see the cost of service go down.


You might see a 10 - 15 percent drop from the advertised retail price, considering that most, are specific to a type of carrier - GSM or CDMA and there will still be exlusive devices for a carrier. I doubt you will ever see a Atrix or a Iphone for a unsubsidized price that is near the subsidized price of the phone. back when the 3GS 8GB first released the price by VodaPhone in Italy was about 449 Euros or about 770 USD at that time,  O2's price was about 810 GBP or about 1,580.00 USD at the time.

 

Pricing for then was obtained here - which was published about the time the 3GS was announced on 06/09 

 

http://news.softpedia.com/news/iPhone-3G-Will-Actually-be-Expensive-in-Europe-87877.shtml


If subsidized pricing goes away, the branding of and exclusivity of devices would need to go too. I don't believe it would cost any more for manufactures to start making devices that would run on CDMA with a SIM slot for GSM and the various bands required for all the carriers. The ability to streamline manufacturing and eliminate the development of different ROMS for different carriers would offset the costs of the added technology. I'm not saying it would happen quickly, but eventually due to all devices being operational with all the carriers, the competition would drive prices downward. Then the ability of a customer to leave when he wants and still use his/her device at  full capacity with another carrier would drive the cost of service down. Unfortunately, this is good old America where corporate greed and lobbying rule. The carriers would fight this all the way.

Re: It's time for a shift in contract terms......

20 of 34 (393 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Feb 21, 2011 11:30:16 AM
0
(0)
Professor

I would try to get away from exclusive contracts with phones too.  I would love to see use purchase phones and service separately, like we do for land lines.  You don't buy your TV from the cable company, light bulbs from the electric company, or water faucets from the water company.  Of course that would only work for the SIM card phones and not for the phones that need to be programmed by the carrier.  And, once LTE gets rolled out there will not be a need for network specific phones, since all carriers will be LTE.

I would try to get away from exclusive contracts with phones too.  I would love to see use purchase phones and service separately, like we do for land lines.  You don't buy your TV from the cable company, light bulbs from the electric company, or water faucets from the water company.  Of course that would only work for the SIM card phones and not for the phones that need to be programmed by the carrier.  And, once LTE gets rolled out there will not be a need for network specific phones, since all carriers will be LTE.

Re: It's time for a shift in contract terms......

21 of 34 (375 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Feb 21, 2011 1:49:07 PM
0
(0)
Expert

sitnsidewayz wrote:

wingrider01 wrote:

FredW wrote:

If we did away with contracts and the phones became available for sale in the general retail market (once again, like wired service phones), competition would drive the price of phones down.  Remeber when landline phones started being sold in department stores?  Prior to that, at&t would charge hundreds of dollars for a phone.  After they were sold in department stores, prices got so cheap that now landline phones are almost disposable.  Granted, I don't see cell phones getting that cheap, but I would not be surprised if the price cut in half.  Also, if not locked into contracts and available to change carriers easily, I would expect to see the cost of service go down.


You might see a 10 - 15 percent drop from the advertised retail price, considering that most, are specific to a type of carrier - GSM or CDMA and there will still be exlusive devices for a carrier. I doubt you will ever see a Atrix or a Iphone for a unsubsidized price that is near the subsidized price of the phone. back when the 3GS 8GB first released the price by VodaPhone in Italy was about 449 Euros or about 770 USD at that time,  O2's price was about 810 GBP or about 1,580.00 USD at the time.

 

Pricing for then was obtained here - which was published about the time the 3GS was announced on 06/09 

 

http://news.softpedia.com/news/iPhone-3G-Will-Actually-be-Expensive-in-Europe-87877.shtml


If subsidized pricing goes away, the branding of and exclusivity of devices would need to go too. I don't believe it would cost any more for manufactures to start making devices that would run on CDMA with a SIM slot for GSM and the various bands required for all the carriers. The ability to streamline manufacturing and eliminate the development of different ROMS for different carriers would offset the costs of the added technology. I'm not saying it would happen quickly, but eventually due to all devices being operational with all the carriers, the competition would drive prices downward. Then the ability of a customer to leave when he wants and still use his/her device at  full capacity with another carrier would drive the cost of service down. Unfortunately, this is good old America where corporate greed and lobbying rule. The carriers would fight this all the way.


Sorry I doubt te exclusivity will ever go away, the income from specialty ads are way to lucrative not to mention the "I WANT THAT ONE" draw of specific phones. Add to teh fact as per your statemend that manufacturers will start adding both GSM and CDMA capabilities down the road - maybe in 3 or 4 years after this happens give hardware development cycles that project planning, while there are world phones, not many are designed and certified for sale in the US and the units sold outside the US, FCC approval proceedures can be very time consuming and expensive to obtain also - each indiviudal model requires the certification.

 

As far as your comment about "corporate greed" it would be a no brainer for this type model - the profit made on what ever they sell the phone above the manufactuers charge to them would be just that - pure profit, add to the service since the phone designs and frequencies in use would still have them locked to specific carriers.  I love capitalism!


sitnsidewayz wrote:

wingrider01 wrote:

FredW wrote:

If we did away with contracts and the phones became available for sale in the general retail market (once again, like wired service phones), competition would drive the price of phones down.  Remeber when landline phones started being sold in department stores?  Prior to that, at&t would charge hundreds of dollars for a phone.  After they were sold in department stores, prices got so cheap that now landline phones are almost disposable.  Granted, I don't see cell phones getting that cheap, but I would not be surprised if the price cut in half.  Also, if not locked into contracts and available to change carriers easily, I would expect to see the cost of service go down.


You might see a 10 - 15 percent drop from the advertised retail price, considering that most, are specific to a type of carrier - GSM or CDMA and there will still be exlusive devices for a carrier. I doubt you will ever see a Atrix or a Iphone for a unsubsidized price that is near the subsidized price of the phone. back when the 3GS 8GB first released the price by VodaPhone in Italy was about 449 Euros or about 770 USD at that time,  O2's price was about 810 GBP or about 1,580.00 USD at the time.

 

Pricing for then was obtained here - which was published about the time the 3GS was announced on 06/09 

 

http://news.softpedia.com/news/iPhone-3G-Will-Actually-be-Expensive-in-Europe-87877.shtml


If subsidized pricing goes away, the branding of and exclusivity of devices would need to go too. I don't believe it would cost any more for manufactures to start making devices that would run on CDMA with a SIM slot for GSM and the various bands required for all the carriers. The ability to streamline manufacturing and eliminate the development of different ROMS for different carriers would offset the costs of the added technology. I'm not saying it would happen quickly, but eventually due to all devices being operational with all the carriers, the competition would drive prices downward. Then the ability of a customer to leave when he wants and still use his/her device at  full capacity with another carrier would drive the cost of service down. Unfortunately, this is good old America where corporate greed and lobbying rule. The carriers would fight this all the way.


Sorry I doubt te exclusivity will ever go away, the income from specialty ads are way to lucrative not to mention the "I WANT THAT ONE" draw of specific phones. Add to teh fact as per your statemend that manufacturers will start adding both GSM and CDMA capabilities down the road - maybe in 3 or 4 years after this happens give hardware development cycles that project planning, while there are world phones, not many are designed and certified for sale in the US and the units sold outside the US, FCC approval proceedures can be very time consuming and expensive to obtain also - each indiviudal model requires the certification.

 

As far as your comment about "corporate greed" it would be a no brainer for this type model - the profit made on what ever they sell the phone above the manufactuers charge to them would be just that - pure profit, add to the service since the phone designs and frequencies in use would still have them locked to specific carriers.  I love capitalism!

Re: It's time for a shift in contract terms......

22 of 34 (362 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Feb 21, 2011 4:49:09 PM
0
(0)
Scholar
Upcoming Snapdragon chips will support dual mode. GSM/CDMA & LTE. As we can see in the rest of the world,change is coming .......
Upcoming Snapdragon chips will support dual mode. GSM/CDMA & LTE. As we can see in the rest of the world,change is coming .......

Re: It's time for a shift in contract terms......

23 of 34 (342 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Feb 21, 2011 4:59:41 PM
0
(0)
Scholar
And where's your proof......everyone says this. Theres no proof. Pure speculation. If u buy 50,000 phones,how much do u think each phone is gonna cost? Proof? ......Puleez! Theres noway a no contract phone should cost $600-$700.
And where's your proof......everyone says this. Theres no proof. Pure speculation. If u buy 50,000 phones,how much do u think each phone is gonna cost? Proof? ......Puleez! Theres noway a no contract phone should cost $600-$700.

AndRe: It's time for a shift in contract terms......

24 of 34 (337 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Feb 21, 2011 5:53:07 PM
0
(0)
Professor

wingrider01 wrote:

sitnsidewayz wrote:

wingrider01 wrote:

FredW wrote:

If we did away with contracts and the phones became available for sale in the general retail market (once again, like wired service phones), competition would drive the price of phones down.  Remeber when landline phones started being sold in department stores?  Prior to that, at&t would charge hundreds of dollars for a phone.  After they were sold in department stores, prices got so cheap that now landline phones are almost disposable.  Granted, I don't see cell phones getting that cheap, but I would not be surprised if the price cut in half.  Also, if not locked into contracts and available to change carriers easily, I would expect to see the cost of service go down.


You might see a 10 - 15 percent drop from the advertised retail price, considering that most, are specific to a type of carrier - GSM or CDMA and there will still be exlusive devices for a carrier. I doubt you will ever see a Atrix or a Iphone for a unsubsidized price that is near the subsidized price of the phone. back when the 3GS 8GB first released the price by VodaPhone in Italy was about 449 Euros or about 770 USD at that time,  O2's price was about 810 GBP or about 1,580.00 USD at the time.

 

Pricing for then was obtained here - which was published about the time the 3GS was announced on 06/09 

 

http://news.softpedia.com/news/iPhone-3G-Will-Actually-be-Expensive-in-Europe-87877.shtml


If subsidized pricing goes away, the branding of and exclusivity of devices would need to go too. I don't believe it would cost any more for manufactures to start making devices that would run on CDMA with a SIM slot for GSM and the various bands required for all the carriers. The ability to streamline manufacturing and eliminate the development of different ROMS for different carriers would offset the costs of the added technology. I'm not saying it would happen quickly, but eventually due to all devices being operational with all the carriers, the competition would drive prices downward. Then the ability of a customer to leave when he wants and still use his/her device at  full capacity with another carrier would drive the cost of service down. Unfortunately, this is good old America where corporate greed and lobbying rule. The carriers would fight this all the way.


Sorry I doubt te exclusivity will ever go away, the income from specialty ads are way to lucrative not to mention the "I WANT THAT ONE" draw of specific phones. Add to teh fact as per your statemend that manufacturers will start adding both GSM and CDMA capabilities down the road - maybe in 3 or 4 years after this happens give hardware development cycles that project planning, while there are world phones, not many are designed and certified for sale in the US and the units sold outside the US, FCC approval proceedures can be very time consuming and expensive to obtain also - each indiviudal model requires the certification.

 

As far as your comment about "corporate greed" it would be a no brainer for this type model - the profit made on what ever they sell the phone above the manufactuers charge to them would be just that - pure profit, add to the service since the phone designs and frequencies in use would still have them locked to specific carriers.  I love capitalism!


You acknowledge the technology is there. Every device already requires FCC approval, nothing changes there. The only hold back is the business model that the carriers and manufacturers are clinging to. It's a boon for the carriers because they are subsidizing the devices at cost or for a small loss and locking in two years of profit on the service or selling the device at an over inflated price for non subsidized and locking in a nice profit that way. The manufacturers are more than willing to play along because the carriers do all the retail selling for them. It's easy money on their part. I do agree that it will be a tough business model to bust, mainly because to many consumers like it because it puts an over inflated expensive smartphone in their hands when normally they wouldn't be buying one. They are willing to trap themselves in TOS they may not agree with for that shiny new device and the carriers are eating it up. There are many articles to read where devices are torn down and priced by parts and manufacturing costs added in. The end result is the manufacturing costs of those fancy $500-$700 smartphones typically being in the $150-$250 range. Obviously the carriers here in the USA would hate to lose this business model. It's a major boon for them. Sure, they let you have service without a contract, but they have the manufacturers on their side, so they know the cost of moving to another carrier will still be costly due to devices being locked to and designed for specific carriers. I applaud Goggle for trying to break this model with the Nexus One, but their mistake was keeping the device over priced.

wingrider01 wrote:

sitnsidewayz wrote:

wingrider01 wrote:

FredW wrote:

If we did away with contracts and the phones became available for sale in the general retail market (once again, like wired service phones), competition would drive the price of phones down.  Remeber when landline phones started being sold in department stores?  Prior to that, at&t would charge hundreds of dollars for a phone.  After they were sold in department stores, prices got so cheap that now landline phones are almost disposable.  Granted, I don't see cell phones getting that cheap, but I would not be surprised if the price cut in half.  Also, if not locked into contracts and available to change carriers easily, I would expect to see the cost of service go down.


You might see a 10 - 15 percent drop from the advertised retail price, considering that most, are specific to a type of carrier - GSM or CDMA and there will still be exlusive devices for a carrier. I doubt you will ever see a Atrix or a Iphone for a unsubsidized price that is near the subsidized price of the phone. back when the 3GS 8GB first released the price by VodaPhone in Italy was about 449 Euros or about 770 USD at that time,  O2's price was about 810 GBP or about 1,580.00 USD at the time.

 

Pricing for then was obtained here - which was published about the time the 3GS was announced on 06/09 

 

http://news.softpedia.com/news/iPhone-3G-Will-Actually-be-Expensive-in-Europe-87877.shtml


If subsidized pricing goes away, the branding of and exclusivity of devices would need to go too. I don't believe it would cost any more for manufactures to start making devices that would run on CDMA with a SIM slot for GSM and the various bands required for all the carriers. The ability to streamline manufacturing and eliminate the development of different ROMS for different carriers would offset the costs of the added technology. I'm not saying it would happen quickly, but eventually due to all devices being operational with all the carriers, the competition would drive prices downward. Then the ability of a customer to leave when he wants and still use his/her device at  full capacity with another carrier would drive the cost of service down. Unfortunately, this is good old America where corporate greed and lobbying rule. The carriers would fight this all the way.


Sorry I doubt te exclusivity will ever go away, the income from specialty ads are way to lucrative not to mention the "I WANT THAT ONE" draw of specific phones. Add to teh fact as per your statemend that manufacturers will start adding both GSM and CDMA capabilities down the road - maybe in 3 or 4 years after this happens give hardware development cycles that project planning, while there are world phones, not many are designed and certified for sale in the US and the units sold outside the US, FCC approval proceedures can be very time consuming and expensive to obtain also - each indiviudal model requires the certification.

 

As far as your comment about "corporate greed" it would be a no brainer for this type model - the profit made on what ever they sell the phone above the manufactuers charge to them would be just that - pure profit, add to the service since the phone designs and frequencies in use would still have them locked to specific carriers.  I love capitalism!


You acknowledge the technology is there. Every device already requires FCC approval, nothing changes there. The only hold back is the business model that the carriers and manufacturers are clinging to. It's a boon for the carriers because they are subsidizing the devices at cost or for a small loss and locking in two years of profit on the service or selling the device at an over inflated price for non subsidized and locking in a nice profit that way. The manufacturers are more than willing to play along because the carriers do all the retail selling for them. It's easy money on their part. I do agree that it will be a tough business model to bust, mainly because to many consumers like it because it puts an over inflated expensive smartphone in their hands when normally they wouldn't be buying one. They are willing to trap themselves in TOS they may not agree with for that shiny new device and the carriers are eating it up. There are many articles to read where devices are torn down and priced by parts and manufacturing costs added in. The end result is the manufacturing costs of those fancy $500-$700 smartphones typically being in the $150-$250 range. Obviously the carriers here in the USA would hate to lose this business model. It's a major boon for them. Sure, they let you have service without a contract, but they have the manufacturers on their side, so they know the cost of moving to another carrier will still be costly due to devices being locked to and designed for specific carriers. I applaud Goggle for trying to break this model with the Nexus One, but their mistake was keeping the device over priced.

Re: It's time for a shift in contract terms......

25 of 34 (333 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Feb 22, 2011 6:09:33 AM
0
(0)
Professor

In the days of landline only, the FCC stepped in and made the phone companies accept phones from other sources, ending the at&t lock on landline headsets (you had to rent your phone from at&t).  Although you can bring any phone in and use it on at&t, it has to be unlocked and is discouraged.  I would not think it unreasonable to think that the FCC may set in at some time to open the phone market so that exclusivity and sales of phones with a contract would not be allowed.  They did it with landlines years ago.

In the days of landline only, the FCC stepped in and made the phone companies accept phones from other sources, ending the at&t lock on landline headsets (you had to rent your phone from at&t).  Although you can bring any phone in and use it on at&t, it has to be unlocked and is discouraged.  I would not think it unreasonable to think that the FCC may set in at some time to open the phone market so that exclusivity and sales of phones with a contract would not be allowed.  They did it with landlines years ago.

Re: It's time for a shift in contract terms......

26 of 34 (303 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Feb 23, 2011 2:13:43 PM
0
(0)
Guru

So you're saying you have no proof?  So are you saying that $35K Subaru is overpriced because the dealer isn't paying more than $15-20K by buying it at "wholesale" prices?  I think you vastly underestimate how much the carriers pay to the manufacturers even at wholesale prices.

 

 


Tilt-A-Rama wrote:
And where's your proof......everyone says this. Theres no proof. Pure speculation. If u buy 50,000 phones,how much do u think each phone is gonna cost? Proof? ......Puleez! Theres noway a no contract phone should cost $600-$700.

 

So you're saying you have no proof?  So are you saying that $35K Subaru is overpriced because the dealer isn't paying more than $15-20K by buying it at "wholesale" prices?  I think you vastly underestimate how much the carriers pay to the manufacturers even at wholesale prices.

 

 


Tilt-A-Rama wrote:
And where's your proof......everyone says this. Theres no proof. Pure speculation. If u buy 50,000 phones,how much do u think each phone is gonna cost? Proof? ......Puleez! Theres noway a no contract phone should cost $600-$700.

 

Re: AndRe: It's time for a shift in contract terms......

27 of 34 (272 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Feb 23, 2011 8:32:42 PM
0
(0)
Scholar
Edited by pamelaz on Feb 27, 2011 at 9:05:26 PM

NOT!......"vastly underestimate"? Ur dreaming. No phone costs ATT more than $200. Give or take +/-.....Proof? Everyone knows what time it is. {Please keep it courteous}

NOT!......"vastly underestimate"? Ur dreaming. No phone costs ATT more than $200. Give or take +/-.....Proof? Everyone knows what time it is. {Please keep it courteous}

Re: It's time for a shift in contract terms......

[ Edited ]
28 of 34 (261 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Feb 24, 2011 3:27:52 AM
0
(0)
Expert
Edited by pamelaz on Feb 27, 2011 at 9:05:45 PM

Tilt-A-Rama wrote:
NOT!......"vastly underestimate"? Ur dreaming. No phone costs ATT more than $200. Give or take +/-.....Proof? Everyone knows what time it is. {Please keep it courteous}

really "everyone knows what time it is"? Actually you are correct there again, anyone that has a watch or access to a mobile phone does know what time it is, that is a easy statement to "get a grip on". As far as wholesale cost of a telecommunications device, unless you are in the industry that deals with bulk pruchases of items you have no clue as to what a company pays for a device, nor the contractual terms regarding price and duration of contract that the buyer and seller have, outside of that you are making pure speculation.  It is easy to see this where you see 3rd party vendors that are selling unbranded phones for a lot more then the "$200" that you claim ATT is paying for them - that is unless you are accusing these 3rd party vendors of price fixing also.


Tilt-A-Rama wrote:
NOT!......"vastly underestimate"? Ur dreaming. No phone costs ATT more than $200. Give or take +/-.....Proof? Everyone knows what time it is. {Please keep it courteous}

really "everyone knows what time it is"? Actually you are correct there again, anyone that has a watch or access to a mobile phone does know what time it is, that is a easy statement to "get a grip on". As far as wholesale cost of a telecommunications device, unless you are in the industry that deals with bulk pruchases of items you have no clue as to what a company pays for a device, nor the contractual terms regarding price and duration of contract that the buyer and seller have, outside of that you are making pure speculation.  It is easy to see this where you see 3rd party vendors that are selling unbranded phones for a lot more then the "$200" that you claim ATT is paying for them - that is unless you are accusing these 3rd party vendors of price fixing also.

Re: It's time for a shift in contract terms......

[ Edited ]
29 of 34 (244 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Feb 24, 2011 5:05:27 AM
0
(0)
Scholar
Here wego again......speculation,proof? Give it up. I guess u never heard the expression,u know what time it is. Whatever ..... Ur sarcasm is misplaced. This is what time it is. The vendors will sell it at the same inflated price. Why?.....because that's what the market Will bear. Falls under supply & demand. U have heard of that? Comprende?
Here wego again......speculation,proof? Give it up. I guess u never heard the expression,u know what time it is. Whatever ..... Ur sarcasm is misplaced. This is what time it is. The vendors will sell it at the same inflated price. Why?.....because that's what the market Will bear. Falls under supply & demand. U have heard of that? Comprende?

Re: It's time for a shift in contract terms......

30 of 34 (235 Views)
Advanced
You must be signed in to add attachments
Share this post
Share this post