And that is the point. That's why T-mobile's new plan does make sense. If they do bring the cost down accordingly, ofcourse.
How much does a person pay for 2 years of iPhone and usage in the US? I pay $1211.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
T-Mobile USA to Cease Offering Subsidized Device Pricing Options in 2013
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And that is the point. That's why T-mobile's new plan does make sense. If they do bring the cost down accordingly, ofcourse.
How much does a person pay for 2 years of iPhone and usage in the US? I pay $1211.
Didn't they do this once before? I seem to remember them trying something along those lines.
with tmobile's plan, the customer won't need $500 upfront. It will be a small amount upfront, and they spread out the remaining balance over 20 months or so. the plus side is that after 20 months, the monthly rate goes down since the phone payment is done. right now, the carriers continue to charge the same rate even after the contract has expired (when the phone is supposedly paid already).
You get throttled down to 2G speeds after the first 100MB.
$60 per month gets you 2GB of 4G, and $70 gets you 5GB.
So it's just like the grandfathered AT&T unlimited plans, you get "unlimited data", just at reduced speeds once you hit a certain amount.
With straight talk you pay even less than tmobile and have better internet
Been with tmobile for 10 years now I know better
Seems like a move in the right direction. Here in the UK I have not had a contract for a few years, I bought the iPhone 4S when it was released for around $800, and I pay $18/month for unlimited data and 250 mins.
Works out better for me, and can change network or change phone at anytime.
Works out better for me, and can change network or change phone at anytime.
Tmobile has many loyal customers from the old days of just dumb phones. The company only has itself to blame with series of miscalculation in adoption of bandwidth and frequencies, which i won't go there. What's the point of this offering where the problem of LTE is dedicated channels that 98% of consumers are not aware of. One might be much better off buying a unlocked iphone, one that is hardware compatible with 7 LTE bands, then choose which carrier to go. Buying a TMobile stamped iphone limits usage to only LTE channels that TMobile uses. So beware!
Whhhaaaaatttt, that is cheap! Man, we get ripped off here in the States.
The current AT&T iPhone 5 would work on T-Mobile's planned LTE.
It's so complicated, it's almost worth $500 every two years not to have to think about it.
Yeah, it does sound good compared with the offerings by the other big companies, e.g., at&t and verizon, but the network currently sucks, even in major cities in the bay area. While it's doubtless getting better, the coverage is sorely lacking.
More focused on this topic concerning the pay it upfront instead of relying on the subsidized prices model of the major carriers, this could be beneficial and maybe even attract some frugal-minded people willing and able to pay the upfront cost for the phone instead of being spanked by the "hidden" costs of the phone companies (even/especially after) your two-year contract is up. It could work.
But I'm dubious whether this model will actually take hold for a couple of reasons. The key one is that most people just don't do the math regarding these things, or, if they do, they just don't have the available cash to afford to pay the upfront costs to even consider participating in such a potentially over the long run cash-saving investment instead of the costly alternative, which is unfortunate. Most people aren't informed of the fact that with subsidization there are sometimes very steep costs (sometimes intractable ones since you're usually stuck in a minimum two-year contract, which pretty much, if you cancel early, costs you ~200 to get out of it. Most of the time, the two-year contract penalty for early termination seems obviously just a cheap psychological ploy to get people to stick with them while, in the meantime, the customer just hemorrhages money. The upfront cost is steep enough to convince most people to just grin and bear it until some future time when their particular contract expires.).
What should be done away with is the two-year contract and cancellation fee. Maybe this will happen as a result of t-mobile's shift--might be too early to tell. Also, and this may already exist, individualized plans should exist by now. Why don't cellphone carries let you know when the plan your paying for just doesn't fit you right, that is, if you're not using that much data, why pay for it? If you fall below a certain amount of data in a given month but pay for a higher amount of data typically, why don't you get money back or a decreased bill at the end of the month? It doesn't make sense to me. It's in the cell phone company's best interest not to let you know these things, and, if you're like me, it's a burden to check and most times you get lazy and just forget to--certainly people are often sloppy when it comes to these matters and people who aren't well-versed in these topics often get taken advantage of. Anyway, point is: I'm sort of surprised that consumer advocacy groups haven't been more vocal in cell phone company issues like these, which are tailored chiefly to suck money from people and prey on those who can't afford to opt out of their policies.
So yeah, dubious if this works. I think it'll work for a very small percentage of people. I think that the percentage of people who can afford to pay upfront just won't want to because they just won't want to switch from at&t or verizon or sprint. I think it's more likely that the other big three will just adopt some form of this service or add it as an option eventually and t-mobile, at least from my naive perspective, would again be a fourth place phone company in the U.S. relative to the other three.
More focused on this topic concerning the pay it upfront instead of relying on the subsidized prices model of the major carriers, this could be beneficial and maybe even attract some frugal-minded people willing and able to pay the upfront cost for the phone instead of being spanked by the "hidden" costs of the phone companies (even/especially after) your two-year contract is up. It could work.
But I'm dubious whether this model will actually take hold for a couple of reasons. The key one is that most people just don't do the math regarding these things, or, if they do, they just don't have the available cash to afford to pay the upfront costs to even consider participating in such a potentially over the long run cash-saving investment instead of the costly alternative, which is unfortunate. Most people aren't informed of the fact that with subsidization there are sometimes very steep costs (sometimes intractable ones since you're usually stuck in a minimum two-year contract, which pretty much, if you cancel early, costs you ~200 to get out of it. Most of the time, the two-year contract penalty for early termination seems obviously just a cheap psychological ploy to get people to stick with them while, in the meantime, the customer just hemorrhages money. The upfront cost is steep enough to convince most people to just grin and bear it until some future time when their particular contract expires.).
What should be done away with is the two-year contract and cancellation fee. Maybe this will happen as a result of t-mobile's shift--might be too early to tell. Also, and this may already exist, individualized plans should exist by now. Why don't cellphone carries let you know when the plan your paying for just doesn't fit you right, that is, if you're not using that much data, why pay for it? If you fall below a certain amount of data in a given month but pay for a higher amount of data typically, why don't you get money back or a decreased bill at the end of the month? It doesn't make sense to me. It's in the cell phone company's best interest not to let you know these things, and, if you're like me, it's a burden to check and most times you get lazy and just forget to--certainly people are often sloppy when it comes to these matters and people who aren't well-versed in these topics often get taken advantage of. Anyway, point is: I'm sort of surprised that consumer advocacy groups haven't been more vocal in cell phone company issues like these, which are tailored chiefly to suck money from people and prey on those who can't afford to opt out of their policies.
So yeah, dubious if this works. I think it'll work for a very small percentage of people. I think that the percentage of people who can afford to pay upfront just won't want to because they just won't want to switch from at&t or verizon or sprint. I think it's more likely that the other big three will just adopt some form of this service or add it as an option eventually and t-mobile, at least from my naive perspective, would again be a fourth place phone company in the U.S. relative to the other three.
It is rather annoying. Hopefully tmobile pushes things in the states more towards the euro model. They don't seem to have as much fine print.
Do we know how much data the *average* person uses?
There are always a few people on these tech forums who use 10GB a month... but what about moms and dads and other non-techie people?
Even if there is a 2GB cap... only a tiny percentage of people come close to using the full 2GB.
If every customer used the full 2GB... I bet the network would collapse.
A $50 a month plan and buying your own phone does not sound like an incentive at all to switch. Unlimited LTE data/voice and text for $40 a month would be more likely to succeed. Let's face it, voice and text cost virtually nothing, probably no more that $5 a month total, so $35 a month for unlimited data would be more than fair. Even better if they just sell a $35 a month data plan only, and allow me to use SKYPE, or whatever for voice and texts.
You guys asking why your price/mo doesn't go down on AT&T or Verizon after 24 months...it's because they obviously want you to get a new phone which locks you up for another 24 months. Yes, they "lose" the $20/mo or whatever that you'd be overpaying for months 25 and beyond. However, the security of having you locked up is most likely preferable to them as it gives higher visibility and predictability into future revenues.
Did you see any of the details of the failed AT&T takeover? T-Mobile is pretty flush with cash.
Canada would need to adopt this model for your statement to be true. Telecommunications companys in Canada are even worse than in USA.
We already made the switch to a value plan, it worked out at about half the price of our old plan, including the cost of the devices. Once the devices are paid for, our bill will drop a lot.
We have 5 lines and it works out to about $34 per line, including the equipment purchase. We have two lines with unlimited talk, text & web and the rest all have 500 anytime minutes, unlimited mobile to mobile, unlimited texting and two of the other lines have unlimited data. So, all in all, it works out pretty cheap. Not as low as I think they could make it and be profitable, but still pretty good.
Didn't most of that money go back to Deutsche Telekom?
Deutsche Telekom was ready to sell T-Mobile USA... do you really think they're now pumping all that money into it?
Aren't Sprint users (however much their plan costs) experiencing this problem now?
No, it didn't go back to Deutsche Telekom. They've put the money into rolling out their LTE network and buying MetroPCS to help with that process. The money plus sharing agreements for the deal not going through has allowed them to try to get with the times (T-Mobile's LTE rollout is supposed to be end of 2013; late to the party, but not too late, since they have pretty good fake 4G speeds in a lot of areas now)
The big change.....no need to sign a two year - or any contract. You may come and go as you please. No penalties for leaving early.
I would hope this would create an atmosphere for the carriers to focus on quality of service and customer service to keep your business since they won't have you locked in for two years.
Sounds good to me. Basically you're paying for your phone over a time period and then you have a reasonable voice/data plan. They're almost acting like a prepaid carrier. I'm guessing if you pay for it all up front you get the lower plan price day 1.