backtop


Print 57 comment(s) - last by StrangerGuy.. on Dec 14 at 10:37 AM

He said carriers need to stop focusing on luring in new subscribers and instead set their sights on getting existing customers to use more of the network

AT&T's CEO recently said that carriers could no longer afford to pay subsidized prices for subscribers' new smartphone hardware.
 
According to a new report from CNET, AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson told an investor conference in New York City on Tuesday that subsidies for high-end smartphones must end.
 
More specifically, Stephenson sees smartphone market penetration at 75 percent in the U.S., and it's expected to climb to 90 percent "soon." This kind of growth, he said, means that carriers need to stop focusing on luring in new subscribers and instead set their sights on getting existing customers to use more of the network.
 
"When you're growing the business initially, you have to do aggressive device subsidies to get people on the network," said Stephenson. "But as you approach 90 percent penetration, you move into maintenance mode. That means more device upgrades. And the model has to change. You can't afford to subsidize devices like that." 
 
Before Apple's iPhone launched in 2007, wireless carriers placed their focus on bringing new subscribers in to the network. Once the iPhone was released, it was made exclusive to AT&T initially, where the carrier offered unlimited data plans through its 3G network as a way of drawing in data-hungry customers who wanted the new iDevice. 
 
In 2010, AT&T was the first carrier to eliminate the unlimited data model and move to tiered plans instead.
 


Randall Stephenson [SOURCE: phonearena.com]

But the goals have changed for AT&T. Now that the iPhone and other smartphones have flooded the market, it wants to move away from subsidized pricing as a way of building customer growth and instead help customers make better use of its network. 

One of the ways it has done this is through its Next plan. This allows customers to purchase a new handset with no money down and pay a monthly fee for 20 months as part of their wireless bill. After one year, the handset can be traded in for an upgrade to newer hardware. From there, a new 20-month cycle starts based on the price of the device.

"If you are a customer and you don't need to upgrade your device, you can get unlimited talk and text and access to the data network for $45 all-in," said Stephenson. "You can use your own device or finance it. I think this will be very powerful. It's where we see the market going."

AT&T also recently reduced off-contract prices and changed its base costs for each data tier. 

Stephenson added that AT&T will be looking more toward the lower end of the market now that capacity problems have been addressed for the high end (thanks to LTE). Part of the low-end strategy is utilizing its latest purchase of Leap Wireless, a prepaid carrier that AT&T purchased for $1.2 billion back in July of this year.

"You will see us go very aggressively in the prepaid market," said Stephenson.

It seems like AT&T has been watching T-Mobile's latest "UnCarrier" moves. T-Mobile eliminated contracts for reduced cell phone plans in March and was the first to introduce an early phone upgrade program in July. Then, in October, it started offering a free unlimited international text and data plan.

More recently, T-Mobile announced Tuesday that it would be dropping down payments for Apple's new iPhone 5S and iPhone 5C handsets, as well as certain iPad models. It's a limited holiday offer, though. 

Source: CNET



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By quiksilvr on 12/11/2013 11:22:40 AM , Rating: 5
No contract, low costing monthly fees and un-subsidized phones, carrier unlocked phones like the rest of the world.

This is how it should be.




By Flunk on 12/11/2013 11:26:51 AM , Rating: 5
Remember, this is AT&T we're talking about here. They'll probably just keep their prices the same and eliminate subsidies.


By ltfields on 12/11/2013 11:32:47 AM , Rating: 3
Exactly, poor AT&T only made $3.8 billion in profit last quarter... (http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=24925&cdvn=n...


By hpglow on 12/11/2013 12:01:22 PM , Rating: 3
Unfortunately this is one of the negative byproducts of any company that is publicly traded. They are responsible for growth and profit for their investors no matter what the cost. You would think there would be some regulation for companies like these (companies that provide services we can't easily live without). Saying you can't sub a phone when the cost of the service is so high is rediculous. Even if ATT were to get rid of subsidies I highly doubt they will lower the bill enough to matter. They will definatly come out on the winning side of the deal no matter what. What it comes down to is more people are taking advantage of these subsidies than ATT would like. They were relying on the people who don't upgrade often to pay for these phones. Simular to the way health insurance works mostly by the fact that a majority of the insured are young and healthy and really don't need insurance.


By Avatar28 on 12/12/2013 2:48:04 PM , Rating: 2
Of course they won't. I would be surprised if they lower it at all. Instead if you want a phone you will have to pay full price or use the Next program to pay for it. So instead of paying $75/mo or whatever like you are now with a subsidized phone and contract you will pay $70+25/mo for the loan on your phone.

What will happen is if you leave before your phone is paid off they will demand that you return it or give them the rest of the money in a lump sum. If you choose to give it back you would, of course, have to eat whatever you've already paid them.

If anything, what they will do is offer a deal like what the cable and satellite companies do. You want new service? We will give you a discounted rate of $25/mo off the normal price if you sign a two year contract. After one year the rates will increase to their normal amount. You're under contract still so you can't leave.

The other thing I see happening if all the carriers start doing this is seeing a big drop in the sales of flagship phones. People won't be able to afford a brand new iphone every year or two when they're having to pay $600+ out of pocket. Instead you will see a big increase in sales of low-mid tier devices. Given their knack for low-cost devices I forsee a huge surge in sales for companies like Nokia that get budget phones.


By dgingerich on 12/11/2013 12:32:14 PM , Rating: 2
Funny, that works out to over $1000 profit per customer last year, and yet they can't afford a $300 subsidy every other year? This complaint is from the same guy who has repeatedly insulted his customers. This guy is a jackass. He's the reason I quit AT&T and went to T-mobile. I didn't feel like being insulted for letting him profit from me.


By BifurcatedBoat on 12/11/2013 8:17:54 PM , Rating: 4
Math is a bit off. They have ~100 million customers, so $3.8 billion per quarter would total about $15.3 billion per year, which would work out to $153 per customer.


By vol7ron on 12/12/2013 12:55:24 PM , Rating: 2
They're already paying the $300 subsidy (or whatever it really is), so that $153/customer-yr is still profit. Taking the subsidy away would suggest that given the same customer-base, AT&T will double their profits annually ($300/2 + $153).

But we all should know that you can't do simple math like this - there are so many unknowns and so many things that affect profits, that this is purely misleading.

I don't think greed is the problem here. I think the issue is that many CEOs have narrow vision and can't see the benefits in a better world where they aren't nickel-and-diming their customers.


By synapse46 on 12/11/2013 3:57:47 PM , Rating: 2
Tmobile mostly did this, I was looking forward to their no-contract deals. The sum of their no-contract deals and the price of the phone is worse than the high contract rates(last I looked). The two benefits would be that you can cancel the service and payments would be smaller, but if you're looking to reduce your overall expense that wasn't it.


By Nutzo on 12/11/2013 6:36:50 PM , Rating: 2
T-Mobile has the best deal when it comes to family plans.

I went from an individual $70 T-Mobile plan (500 minutes, unlimited text, 2GB data) to a T-Mobile family plan with 3 lines, unlimited calls, unlimited text and 500MB for each line, for $90. Bought a couple Nexus 4 phones for $250 when Google had them on sale, so my payback compared to AT&T or Verizion plan is several months.

I'd rather get the lowest monthly price and buy my own phone.


By StrangerGuy on 12/14/2013 10:37:10 AM , Rating: 2
Ever heard of corporate America? The a-holes who exploit and abuse every system that they can get their hands in name of the "free market" but also among the very first to cry foul when the same thing they preach so much doesn't go in their favor.

Aww, look at how hard his life would be if he didn't earned that extra 8 digits by getting rid of phone subsidies to the entitled lazy Americans. Would somebody think of the poor CEOs please?


By Motoman on 12/11/2013 11:32:35 AM , Rating: 3
Subsidized phones should never have been legal in the first place...all it was was a mechanism for the cell providers to obfuscate the true cost to the consumer - and lock them in long-term contracts that severely eroded their consumer rights.

ALL cell phones should *only* be purchasable at a full retail price, with no strings attached. ALL cellular service should be at-will, without contract. It should ALL work EXACTLY like the landline industry: buy a phone. Arrange service from a provider. Change phones and providers whenever the f%ck you want.

Done.

Oh...and for the f%cktards who are honestly stupid enough to say something like "but...but...without the subsidized plans I could never afford the imPhoney 12 Special Poopstain Edition!": use a credit card. F%cktard.


By inighthawki on 12/11/2013 11:42:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh...and for the f%cktards who are honestly stupid enough to say something like "but...but...without the subsidized plans I could never afford the imPhoney 12 Special Poopstain Edition!": use a credit card. F%cktard.

Correction: Don't buy one, or get a cheaper model. Most people are irresponsible with managing credit cards and buying way more than they need because they can "pay for it later." The last thing we need is everyone charging phones they cannot afford to credit cards.

The more responsible thing to do is to save your money and pay for a phone which you feel is best for your financial situation. If you cannot afford a brand new $700 monster of a smartphone, then go buy a cheaper $200 or less model and upgrade less often.


By Monkey's Uncle on 12/11/2013 3:49:58 PM , Rating: 2
Too much assumption if a level of financial responsibility out there that just does not exist in this thread.

Credit cards suck for sure. And let's face it - if a phone company will hand you the latest & greatest $700 phone for and only charge you an extra $5.00/month for it over that $200 phone, I'm pretty sure I know which option most people would jump on.


By Schrag4 on 12/12/2013 12:05:51 PM , Rating: 2
$5/month * 24 months = $120. That doesn't mean you're paying $200+$120=$320 for the $700 phone, it just means you're paying $700-$120=$580 for the $200 phone.

You mentioned financial responsibility in your post. I know I'm going to get totally flamed for saying this, but I'm continually amazed when I see friends or family member I know who are just starting out (or starting over) financially but they think it's a good idea to sign up for a 2 year contract that comes out to a couple thousand dollars, just for a phone. My brother, in particular, went through a rough patch where he was unemployed, had nothing basically, but he wanted a smartphone. I told him to do what my wife and I have done - buy a cheap phone and get pre-paid service (not even a monthly plan). We even offered to buy it for him, but he refused. I guess my point is, if people complain about how easy CC companies make it for people to be financially irresponsible, why don't they complain about cell providers?


By Monkey's Uncle on 12/12/2013 2:15:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I guess my point is, if people complain about how easy CC companies make it for people to be financially irresponsible, why don't they complain about cell providers?


Because at the end of that 2-year contract, the phone is paid for. For the financially irresponsible that means they are stuck for a max of 2 years. No more.

That is NOT the case of a credit card that you are paying only minimum payment on - that debt can run for decades and end up costing you double or even triple the full cost of the phone.

Which looks less dangerous in the long term to someone that has issues dealing with money?


By Schrag4 on 12/12/2013 5:25:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Which looks less dangerous in the long term to someone that has issues dealing with money?


Well, obviously it's less dangerous, but dangerous nonetheless. This is really no different than a Porsche dealer trying to tell me that it's only xxx dollars a month, which I probably could pay for somehow, and ignoring the fact that the car is $100K. I think if people really thought about (or were told upfront, perhaps) the fact that their new smartphone is going to cost them nearly $2000 of their hard-earned cash, they might reconsider. Instead, they see $80/month and don't realize what that adds up to.

It might sound like I'm ragging on owners of smartphones and Porsches, but I'm not. All I'm saying is if you have to finance something, perhaps you shouldn't be buying it unless it's absolutely necessary. I need a car to get to work. I don't need a Porsche. A strong argument can be made that everyone should have a cell phone, at the very least so that they don't get stranded somewhere. A family barely scraping by financally doesn't need to spend $1500 a year for cell phones (assuming more than one phone). Still on the CC theme, if a family can't really afford that 2 year plan then all the money they're paying for that phone ends up on their CC anyway, it's just less money they have to pay off their CC debt, so what's the difference?


By Wererat on 12/11/2013 7:59:53 PM , Rating: 2
The various providers and the hardware companies have helped people decide they 'need' the latest.

Buying the old model often means you are stuck with old versions of the OS and a limited selection of apps.

That and the rate plans based on subsidizing a $600 phone have strongly pushed people into phones more pricy than they'd otherwise want.


By kattanna on 12/11/2013 11:48:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
ALL cell phones should *only* be purchasable at a full retail price


why not both? or do you not like options?


By Motoman on 12/11/2013 12:01:47 PM , Rating: 2
If you feel the need to buy a phone you can't afford to pay for all at once, as noted, your option is to use a credit card.

Which is infinitely better because you still get to spread the cost of the phone over a period of time, but you don't get locked into a long-term contract with ETFs and such...you *own* your phone and you can do with it what you please.

No one's been denied any "option."

Although, as someone else pointed out, the better "option" is likely to just buy a phone you actually *can* afford.


By Mint on 12/11/2013 12:48:26 PM , Rating: 4
There's nothing wrong with financing. Why are you drawing the line at cell phones? What about cars and homes?

The problem is not that vendors are letting people avoid paying for phones all at once. The problem is, as you mentioned, the obfuscation of total price.

There should be a law where all contracts for all consumer products show the total commitment in a big font on the front page.

Something tells me that prices would be a little more competitive if AT&T iPhone contracts showed $2376 on them instead of $200.


By Motoman on 12/11/2013 1:31:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's nothing wrong with financing. Why are you drawing the line at cell phones? What about cars and homes?


Do you have to pay an ETF is you sell your car or home after a year? No? Huh. Guess you're not comparing apples and apples then, now are you?

Also, as noted, the obfuscation of the true cost is another unique issue. People financing a car or a house have 100% understanding of what their actual cost is. Traditional long-term cellphone contracts are deliberately constructed and marketed to obfuscate that actual cost.


By Accord99 on 12/11/2013 4:28:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you have to pay an ETF is you sell your car or home after a year? No? Huh. Guess you're not comparing apples and apples then, now are you?

You pay an ETF if you break your contract, try breaking a mortgage early.

quote:
Also, as noted, the obfuscation of the true cost is another unique issue. People financing a car or a house have 100% understanding of what their actual cost is.

The housing bubble and the proliferation of consumer leasing of cars says most people don't really know much more than the monthly payment.


By Motoman on 12/11/2013 4:42:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
try breaking a mortgage early.


I have. It's called selling your home. You think there's an ETF in there?


By Jeffk464 on 12/11/2013 1:36:37 PM , Rating: 2
Financed home yes, financed car no, finance daily spending absolutely not. Financing takes your spending income and drops it around 10-18%, it also puts you in deep do do if anything happens to your income.


By Monkey's Uncle on 12/11/2013 3:53:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's nothing wrong with financing. Why are you drawing the line at cell phones? What about cars and homes?


Finance phones, cars and homes? Are you MAD?

I buy my cars and houses for cash only. Finance them ... feh!


By Monkey's Uncle on 12/11/2013 3:55:13 PM , Rating: 2
(hit submit too quick)

Phones I get on contract!!


By JediJeb on 12/11/2013 5:36:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's nothing wrong with financing. Why are you drawing the line at cell phones? What about cars and homes? The problem is not that vendors are letting people avoid paying for phones all at once. The problem is, as you mentioned, the obfuscation of total price. There should be a law where all contracts for all consumer products show the total commitment in a big font on the front page. Something tells me that prices would be a little more competitive if AT&T iPhone contracts showed $2376 on them instead of $200.


What should be done is a requirement that the phone financing be separate from the service. Let the phone companies sell the phones, but make them sell them separately, that way you know just how much you are paying for service and how much you pay for phones.


By Monkey's Uncle on 12/11/2013 3:39:21 PM , Rating: 2
Problem with credit cards are these:

- Horrific interest rates - payday loans and credit cards to me are nothing more than legal loan sharks. It is extremely tough to find a credit card company that will give you a credit card with anywhere near a reasonable interest rate.

- Ability to pay a 'minimum' payment that barely covers interest. This has the potential causing financially irresponsible customers to pay up to 10 times the value of the phone. It is far too easy to get into a deep debt rut with a credit card - I hate the freaking things.

Using the carrier to finance the phone brings to the table a couple things:

- Buyers are FORCED to pay for the phone via his service charges (used to be 10% of your bill goes to the phone - may have changed with the new regs in place). That means the phone should be paid off in a couple years. Financial irresponsibility is removed from the picture because the phone users has to pay ALL his service charges. There is no such thing as a 'minimum' payment.

If the buyer leaves their contract, they are still required to pay the unpaid discount they were given on their phone - which conceivably could go on their credit card or other financial medium. But hopefully they had stayed with that carrier long enough for the normal attrition to reduce te amount remaining into something payable.

The only real gripe I have with cellular provider's discounting phones is that (at least in Canada) they give you no way to pay off the discount (called a 'Tab' here - much like a bar tab) except via a 10% monthly service cost attrition and lump payments when you leave the plan. They give you absolutely no other way to pay off that phone. This is a pain if you have half of the phone cost up front and want to pay it off in 6 months. Worse, some of the cell provider kiosks in malls or large stores like Best Buy refuse to sell you a phone outright. They insist that you MUST buy it on 'the tab' (to me this is sheer & utter BS).


By Accord99 on 12/11/2013 4:31:52 PM , Rating: 2
In Canada, if you have a Tab plan you can pay it off anytime you want and then ask for a BYOD discount. Or you simply cancel the plan or port out the number, and they'll bill the remainder of the subsidy plus a contract termination fee of between $0-$50 depending on the provider and the province you're in.


By Monkey's Uncle on 12/11/2013 6:28:39 PM , Rating: 2
Have you tried paying off a tab? I have - with both Bell and Telus.

The only way out of a Tab is:

1. Keep paying your monthly bill -- 10% goes to your tab.
2. End the contract.

Both told me in no uncertain terms that there is absolutely no way to make a lump sum payment to your TAB. The only way to pay it off are those that I have listed.

Here's another one for you. The independent operators (kiosks and big box stores) will not sell you a high-end phone outright. They will only sell you a phone on a monthly plan with a tab (they don't get as much commission on hardware-only sales so will refuse to sell you just the phone).


By Accord99 on 12/11/2013 10:45:02 PM , Rating: 2
Bell and Telus (or Rogers) don't have a Tab, they have the classical contract system whereby the device subsidy balance you received upfront is reduced by 1/24th of the initial subsidy each month (for the now maximum 2 year contracts). The only way to pay of the subsidy early is to cancel the plan, or to do an early renewal to get a new subsidized device.

A true Tab is like with Koodo which reduces the outstanding Tab by 15% of your monthly bill, can be paid off at any time and with current regulations, automatically zeroes out after 24 months.


By Monkey's Uncle on 12/12/2013 10:58:03 AM , Rating: 2
Virgin is a subsidiary of Bell. No early payoff of tab without cancelling the plan. Got that directly from their CS rep on the phone when I asked them how I can pay off the tab on SGS4. I was NOT amused. Even fired a note off to Richard Branson about it.

Koodo (sub of Telus) said the same thing to me when I wanted to pay off a tab on one of my SGS3s. I cancelled my contract with them, paid off my SGS3 and took that phone to Virgin.

Both said the only way to pay the tab is via the 10% reduction of with each monthly payment or by cancelling the plan. Period. No other options. I didn't want to cancel the plans as they were a really good value.


By Monkey's Uncle on 12/12/2013 11:01:51 AM , Rating: 2
I see you have "with current regulations".

Those "current regulations" to don't come into play unless your tab was started after those regulations came into effect. In both cases for me this was before these regulations were imposed in Canada. In short they have to be written into your agreement. If they were not, there is no early payout without terminating your plan.


By extide on 12/11/2013 6:01:28 PM , Rating: 2
Ok dude you need to realize there is a distinction between financing a phone and getting a subsidized phone with a service contract. The latter is the evil one, that one should go away, yes. HOWEVER, purely financing the phone is not a bad thing, this is how T-Mobile does it. Your service is entirely separate from your loan for your phone. If you want to cancel service 4 months in on T-Mobile, there is no cancellation fee. You do, however, need to pay the rest of the balance of the phone itself. And also, when you finish paying for your phone, if you choose not to upgrade, your monthly bill essentially goes down because you are no longer paying for the 'phone loan' portion.

It is quite short-sighted to make such a blanket statement as to say, "phones should only be available at full price." Especially without considering other good options.

Also there is no need for you to get all high and mighty about how it is not good to use credit cards and blah blah. People's personal finances are exactly that, PERSONAL. They can do what they want, and it's none of your damn business.


By hughlle on 12/11/2013 11:49:52 AM , Rating: 2
You're calling people those kind of names for not using a credit card? Ha.

It's to each their own though. I could have bought an htc one, and kept my sim only 30 day contract. Instead o got an htc one for free, and took on a 2 year contract. I will need a phone for those 2 years, regardless of contract type, so 30 day or 2 year, it doesn't really effect me. And after the 2 years i will have ended up saving almost £200 should i have bought a phone and a seperate plan.

I could have afforded what i needed either way, I'm more than happy to have saved that money :)


By Monkey's Uncle on 12/11/2013 3:43:29 PM , Rating: 2
Also you are not paying the double-digit interest rates the credit card company will charge you.

Makes perfect sense to me.


By Reclaimer77 on 12/11/2013 8:59:00 PM , Rating: 2
I think Motoman was once raped by a smartphone when he was a child.

This topic is apparently a huge emotional trigger for him.


By Monkey's Uncle on 12/12/2013 2:17:56 PM , Rating: 2
especially if that phone was turned sideways...


By CaedenV on 12/11/2013 11:53:28 AM , Rating: 2
The land line industry was not always compulsory. There were years of contracts for carriers, but as the market matured and more competition grew then they went away.

This is the same thing happening in the cell industry. When the infrastructure needed to be financed and growth was the big concern then they needed a guaranteed income in order to grow. For the last few years (or more) it has been all about profit, and not so much about financing infrastructure. This has allowed a whole host of smaller companies to come in and start eating away good business, and so now the large carriers need to compete again.

On the other side of things, we are finally seeing smartphones that are 'good enough' for most people's use, and the QC has finally gotten high enough where you phone just might last 3-5 years without needing to be replaced. I have to say that I largely feel that way about my Lumia 920, and something like the rumored 929 with a quad core CPU, expandable storage, 2-3GB of ram, and a larger screen would probably last me a very long time indeed. For those of us who do not need to replace their phone every year or two we will finally have affordable prepaid options through the major carriers, while those who must have the latest fad will still be able to have an expensive contract to take the large payment pain out of getting their devices.

This is all good news to me :D


By DanNeely on 12/11/2013 1:01:43 PM , Rating: 2
The landline industry had much lower ongoing capital expenses than the mobile industry does. They went decades between major backend upgrade over the last century they've done: human operators to electro-mechanical switching (relays), to digital switching, to IP telephony; with the latter still ongoing. The wireless industry needs to upgrade the RF hardware and backhaul data connections on its towers every couple of years in addition to still having to expand the tower density in sub/urban areas to keep up with the growth in data consumption.


By FITCamaro on 12/11/2013 12:34:53 PM , Rating: 4
Seriously? You lose your rights because you sign a contract and are expected to fulfill it? You never had to. You could always pay full price and not be locked in. People chose to be.

Landline phones don't cost $400-800 and require upgrade or replacement every 2-3 years.

And your advice is use a credit card? Yeah because America doesn't already have that problem enough.


By Dr of crap on 12/11/2013 12:51:28 PM , Rating: 2
So lets see,
What will happen is first $600 for the new iphone 5
Then in one year you want that NEW iphone that's out - another $600, now your card has $1200 charged on it and the payments, only $15 a month have only be reduced $200 at best, so then the next new iphone comes along and of course you have to have it at $700 (a inflation and increased pricing form Apple, they have to make a bigger profit!), and now you at almost $2000 and how much have you paid off - close to 400, leaving you about 1500 in debt.

Now use the current model, I pay $100 a month for 2 years and after that I re-up for the current new model, for almost no cost, and then go another 2 years, and my credit card has no increased charges!

I prefer the current model, thank you f%cktard!


By Motoman on 12/11/2013 1:30:15 PM , Rating: 2
You're comparing buying a new phone every year to re-upping a contract after 2 years...and on top of that, not factoring in the monthly payment for your subsidized option vs. the non-subsidized option.

Go look in the mirror. That's where the f%cktard is.

Math is hard.


By Dr of crap on 12/12/2013 12:31:41 PM , Rating: 2
AS I said, monthly $100 over paying interest on you credit card.

I rather pony up extra $20 each month for 24 months and get a new phone for free each re-up, rather than have to pay over $600 up front.

And here's the real way it will work.
Buy a new iphone for lets say $700. One year later get the next NEW iphone for another $700, and then in another year , $700 all while paying a reduced monthly charge. So if I pay $20 extra for those 24 months - its about a wash!

Really this new math is toooo hard!


By bankerdude on 12/12/2013 12:59:28 PM , Rating: 2
Something you are not considering in your example of upgrading the iphone twice a year is the resale value of the old one you are getting rid of. Apply the amount you can sell your old iphone for to the cost of the new one and the math will change.


By Jeffk464 on 12/11/2013 12:27:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No contract, low costing monthly fees and un-subsidized phones, carrier unlocked phones like the rest of the world.

This is how it should be.


I imagine this will also help to drop the price of smartphones.


By BSMonitor on 12/11/2013 2:20:56 PM , Rating: 2
Whatever they gotta do to keep my 5% dividend coming thru.


"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki