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.
AT&T CEO: Carriers Can't Afford Big Subsidies for Devices Any Longer
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You can do that with T-Mobile / MetroPCS.
Buy your own phone.
Choose a plan from T-Mobile / Metro PCS.
It can be as inexpensive as $25 a month per line if you have 4 lines.
Or $30 a month per line if you have 3 lines.
If you want just 1 line, MetroPCS has $40 a month for unlimited talk, text, data.
Since it's no contract, you can CANCEL anytime with no penalty.
So which handset makers are making a decent profit selling cheap phones?
Last quarter Google reported a $248M loss for Motorola.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/17/4849472/google-earnings-q3-2013
And HTC reported a $100M loss.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/3/4800914/htc-q3-2013-unaudited-earnings
Nokia posted a $162M profit, but the piece of the business that Microsoft bought actually posted a $118M loss.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/29/5041528/nokia-q3-2013-financial-report
LG missed its 3rd quarter estimates and it's handset division posted an 80 billion won ($84M) loss.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/24/us-lgelectronics-earnings-idUSBRE99N05F20131024
Keep pushing for a race to the bottom and pretty soon only a few companies (that can afford to subsidize cheap hardware) will be in the business.
Last quarter Google reported a $248M loss for Motorola.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/17/4849472/google-earnings-q3-2013
And HTC reported a $100M loss.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/3/4800914/htc-q3-2013-unaudited-earnings
Nokia posted a $162M profit, but the piece of the business that Microsoft bought actually posted a $118M loss.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/29/5041528/nokia-q3-2013-financial-report
LG missed its 3rd quarter estimates and it's handset division posted an 80 billion won ($84M) loss.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/24/us-lgelectronics-earnings-idUSBRE99N05F20131024
Keep pushing for a race to the bottom and pretty soon only a few companies (that can afford to subsidize cheap hardware) will be in the business.
Greedy Bastardz
AT$T is trading at $34.40 a share, a P/E ratio of 25.14, and a market capitalization of 181.28 billion.
I have ZERO sympathy for them, and zero sympathy for the other greedy carriers and their overpaid, under-performing executives.
AT$T is trading at $34.40 a share, a P/E ratio of 25.14, and a market capitalization of 181.28 billion.
I have ZERO sympathy for them, and zero sympathy for the other greedy carriers and their overpaid, under-performing executives.
They will jump on the bandwagon soon enough, they will all follow T-Mobile. I wouldn'tgo to Sprint no matter what, service is horrible, besides I will just keep my iPhone a lot longer. When Apple starts selling less because people can not get credit to finance phones this may cause phones to drop. $650 for a phone that costs Apple less than $200 to make has a lot of wiggle room. I do not mind keeping a phone 2-3 years maybe longer.
Lol good luck with that. Until att starts bleeding customers they won't charge less. Likely they will raise prices. That's how these fat cats work
The only "value" in this plan is for AT&T shareholders. Add up that $15/month over the minimum life of the contract, and it pales in comparison to the value of the subsidy. One might argue that's AT&T's point, but other carriers offer discounts much greater than $15/month for unsubsidized pricing.
Yep. They're either trying to get Apple to lower the bulk price for AT&T and/or signaling to other carriers that they want the playing field changed again. i.e., we're going to do this to get more money out of our customers and if you do something similar at the same time, all carriers win.
Screw 'em. I'm very close to moving my three lines to T-mobile.
I know, but the everyone should do it this way. No more crapware on your phone. True smartphone prices would be revealed to the masses, finally forcing competition on price.
The problem with your logic is that you incorrectly assuming "doing away" with the subsidy means you'll basically get all that money back in lower monthly rates. AT&T's already signaled that's not going to happen. You'll get only a fraction of it backmeaning that you are ultimately screwed.
Today, if you're an AT&T or Verizon customer in the U.S., the only economically savvy option is to upgrade every two years. Resale values for old phones, assuming you stick with base models, make this basically a free upgrade.
I'd love to see the pricing reduced to where one doesn't "need" to upgrade or face getting screwed, but there's no way AT&T or Verizon are going to let the customer keep the difference.
Smart phones are loosing value
Not that I care about AT&T, but I see the reason for this. Smart phones tend to lose value much quicker nowadays than they used to two years ago. iPhone is still the champ in terms of best resale value, but Windows Phone for example drop 80% in one year, and Android phones aren't doing that much better. This is only natural, as there are plenty of smartphones in the market, more importantly some manufacturers figured out a way to create a decent phone for $200 with no contract
Race to the bottom.
Not that I care about AT&T, but I see the reason for this. Smart phones tend to lose value much quicker nowadays than they used to two years ago. iPhone is still the champ in terms of best resale value, but Windows Phone for example drop 80% in one year, and Android phones aren't doing that much better. This is only natural, as there are plenty of smartphones in the market, more importantly some manufacturers figured out a way to create a decent phone for $200 with no contract
Race to the bottom.
3 months ago I moved from att to T-mobile, best move ever. Even with my 19% att corporate discount I was paying $75/month for 400 mins, unlimited text and data (up to 5gb)
I now pay $30*/month on t-mobile prepaid plan that gets me 100mins (last month I used 49! as I also use VoIP applications), unlimited text and data (up to 5gb 4g)
My data speeds are also significantly faster in NYC where att was just pure crap on 3g (I never got the new lte phone)
I'm scratching my head as to why I didn't move to that plan earlier! (Although it was a bit of pain as it's walmart/online exclusive plan, not well advertised, and I went through t-mobile store to get it activated even though they aren't supposed to do that!)
Oh by the way, I switched my girlfriend too. We're together saving easy $80-90 a month and enjoy our service.
*corrected price; it's 32.33 with tax in NY
I now pay $30*/month on t-mobile prepaid plan that gets me 100mins (last month I used 49! as I also use VoIP applications), unlimited text and data (up to 5gb 4g)
My data speeds are also significantly faster in NYC where att was just pure crap on 3g (I never got the new lte phone)
I'm scratching my head as to why I didn't move to that plan earlier! (Although it was a bit of pain as it's walmart/online exclusive plan, not well advertised, and I went through t-mobile store to get it activated even though they aren't supposed to do that!)
Oh by the way, I switched my girlfriend too. We're together saving easy $80-90 a month and enjoy our service.
*corrected price; it's 32.33 with tax in NY
Last edited:
correction, it's $30 a month for 100 minutes, unlimited text, and 5GB of LTE (throttled to 2G after the 5GB)
AKA....THE BEST WIRELESS DEAL IN THE USA (if you don't use a lot of minutes)
http://prepaid-phones.t-mobile.com/prepaid-plans
Don't worry....you won't be able to use too many minute with T-Mobile on the back of their crappy network alone.
You realize they all do that. The Samsung Galaxy Note 3 is about the same as the iPhone unlocked. It's not only Apple, it's all of them.
Am I the only one that caught this? If they have largely solved their data capacity issues then quit throttling my service!
How many minutes do you need to use? Are you a 14yo girl?
But seriously, in big cities t-mobile is the plan as their network is solid. The only problem I've ha traveling is data as it's usually 2g outside major cities. Voice is just fine, it also roams to ... Att in those poor t-mobile coverage areas (only for voice though)
I don't see how this new "model" is better from the old model from the carriers point of view.
The old model was charge $80-$100 a month for service plus free phone. That rate stayed the same regardless of how long the user had the same device.
That comes out to $1920-$2400 for the 2 years, and continues after the 2 years regardless if the customer upgrades the phone or not. The customer is locked into that 2 year contract with a hefty $250-$350 fee if they break.
This new model is pay $40-$50 a month for the service plan, an upfront cost of $100-$150 for the device and then "finance" the remaining amount over a period of 2 years, which comes out to about $20-$30 a month. The carrier is doing the financing so they are getting all that money. And the customer can pay off the phone at any point.
That brings a 2 year duration to $960 to $1200 for the service, plus another $500-$800 for the device. And the customer can leave at any time, only having to fully pay off the device.
How is scenario 2 better for the carrier?????
The $40-$50 per month offered "access to data", but not a specified/included data plan. Cheapest data probably would be $15-$20 more.
According to my studies (*coughGoogle) it costs Bayer $0.0015 to make one pill. Let's not forget what costs are before manufacturing.
Billions in profit
Largest monthly bills
Can't afford to subsidize phone
Scumbag carrier
It's still cheaper to buy your phone at full price and use it on a carrier like Straight Talk. You save like $300 a year doing it.
Largest monthly bills
Can't afford to subsidize phone
Scumbag carrier
It's still cheaper to buy your phone at full price and use it on a carrier like Straight Talk. You save like $300 a year doing it.
I didn't say the human race was going to change because of the US market. I merely stated that the US market is one of the wealthiest in the world therefore it's a bigger target for companies than other countries with populations that have lower per capita and disposable income.
My point is that everything is relative to the market customs but that the bottom line people outlay is about the same worldwide... it's just that some pay in higher taxes while other pay in higher rates.
Huh? What FUD am I spreading? Please enlighten me.
Is it not fact that the U.S. is among the wealthiest in the world?
And flag waving? I think you are the xenophobic one here. You don't even know where I live.
But let's assume I'm not Canadian. Where did I say that U.S. rocks and rules the world? I only stated a factual statement and qualified it with among the wealthiest in the world... not that is was the wealthiest in the world. I also said NOTHING of England or any other country specifically. That's is your bizarre inference.
And let's talk about competition. You see I've traveled the world too. And reality is most prices for hard goods are much more expensive outside the U.S. than inside, even for products made in that country. High end Italian leather goods, for example, are more affordable in the U.S. than in Rome, even outside normal tourist areas. So please put down the competition rocks slogans.
Last edited: