It's Time To Stop Subsidising Mobile Phones
trustedreviews.com
It's Time To Stop Subsidising Mobile Phones
1–10 of 25 posts
Re: It's Time To Stop Subsidising Mobile Phones
#2It's been time for about 10 years.
Re: It's Time To Stop Subsidising Mobile Phones
#3In India actually most people buy their phones separately -no 2-year lock-in contracts with the carrier. Even the iPhone was launched this way.
Re: It's Time To Stop Subsidising Mobile Phones
#4In India actually most people buy their phones separately -no 2-year lock-in contracts with the carrier. Even the iPhone was launched this way.
Surely someone must have studied the comparision of countries with and without this system and came to some conclusion about how it affects tariffs, the amount spent on phones, upgrade cycles etc.
Re: It's Time To Stop Subsidising Mobile Phones
#5I look at it as a pay now or pay later sort of situation. The charge for my iPhone was low enough that I was willing to get it for $200. I wasn't willing to get it for $800. I love my iPhone but not $800 worth of love.
I might pay that back over two years but I'd rather do that than put down $800 for a phone. I'm not even sure that I will pay it back because I am getting service in exchange for staying with AT&T for two years. I feel like I end up breaking even on this deal and if I lose a little then I'll live with it. I just can't put down $800 for an iPhone when I could get an iPad 3G for that.
Re: It's Time To Stop Subsidising Mobile Phones
#6I suspect human nature is in the way. Isn't buying a phone for "0€" equivalent to buying stuff by credit card? I hear in the US spending by credit card works to get consumers to buy all the time.
Re: It's Time To Stop Subsidising Mobile Phones
#7I look at it as a pay now or pay later sort of situation. The charge for my iPhone was low enough that I was willing to get it for $200. I wasn't willing to get it for $800. I love my iPhone but not $800 worth of love. I might pay that back over two years but I'd rather do that than put down $800 for a phone. I'm not even sure that I will pay it back because I am getting service in exchange for staying with AT&T for…
There seems to be some confusion on this in the linked comments too, even though the very first commenter hit the nail on the head, but:
You don't need to pay for anything, including phones, up front any longer. Credit is (too) easily available and basically guaranteed to be cheaper and more flexible if you unbundle it from the actual purchase. These disguised loans should really only be attractive to people with low incomes and terrible credit ratings, and they will be taken advantage of because they have no other options.
The fact that you seem to be repulsed by the idea of paying amount $X for a phone, but think that paying that exact same sum, plus interest, plus hidden markup is acceptable as long as it's made complicated and so hidden in plain view is mind-boggling to me.
Re: It's Time To Stop Subsidising Mobile Phones
#8In the USA, isn't the real issue that you can indeed buy your phone unsubsidized, it's just a hassle (or impossible) to get your new phone's fancy features working on a carrier? Why would someone want to pay $700 for an iphone/android and then have half of the features not work, because they can't get a compatible plan?
Re: It's Time To Stop Subsidising Mobile Phones
#9I look at it as a pay now or pay later sort of situation. The charge for my iPhone was low enough that I was willing to get it for $200. I wasn't willing to get it for $800. I love my iPhone but not $800 worth of love. I might pay that back over two years but I'd rather do that than put down $800 for a phone. I'm not even sure that I will pay it back because I am getting service in exchange for staying with AT&T for…
There seems to be some confusion on this in the linked comments too, even though the very first commenter hit the nail on the head, but: You don't need to pay for anything, including phones, up front any longer. Credit is (too) easily available and basically guaranteed to be cheaper and more flexible if you unbundle it from the actual purchase. These disguised loans should really only be attractive to people with low…
Though it's very bad for consumers, it's very advantageous for the carriers. By locking you to a particular plan they're making it hard for you to move to another carrier with cheaper plans.
Re: It's Time To Stop Subsidising Mobile Phones
#10I look at it as a pay now or pay later sort of situation. The charge for my iPhone was low enough that I was willing to get it for $200. I wasn't willing to get it for $800. I love my iPhone but not $800 worth of love. I might pay that back over two years but I'd rather do that than put down $800 for a phone. I'm not even sure that I will pay it back because I am getting service in exchange for staying with AT&T for…
As another poster just put - credit. We accept the concept of 'buying on credit' for just about every other aspect of our lives, but somehow phones are exempt.
We could probably get cars subsidized if we agreed to only purchase gas for a Ford from Mobil stations, and Toyotas could only by gas at BP stations. But why would we accept that?
More to the point, if phones/service was truly split up, and the majority of people bought there items separately, there would be more competition to drive phone prices down.
Local BestBuy here has a Spring Palm Pre - the older 8gb model - for (IIRC) $99 - but buying it without the 2 year service agreement, the 'suggested retail price' is $749. But it's still locked down - I can't buy it and use it on anything except Sprint, and I can't get any service from Sprint except for a 2 year service agreement anyway (IIRC).
What's also interesting is that the 'retail' price of the Pre seems to have gone up over time - last summer I could swear it was $599 or $649. It was $749 checking today.
Yes, Sprint may be a bad example here, but the gist is the same. If the voice service plans truly are subsidizing the cheap prices, give me an option to buy a full price phone and get service without the monthly service subsidy built in. My $39 voice plan should be $29 or $24 monthly if I'm not having to subsidize the phone price purchase.
In the Pre example, there's ostensibly a $650 'subsidy' for the Palm Pre, but I still can't get a used Pre and set it up with Sprint and get a cheaper 'unsubsidized' service plan. Over 2 years, I should be able to save $27/month without having to subsidize the original phone purchase price.
We're not given those options because the status quo is a combination which maximizes profit for the companies and presents the biggest barriers to people switching or canceling service.