Thanks for your input. Now I know that someone paid 0. Your help with this discussion is outstanding!
just as much as urs
Thanks for your input. Now I know that someone paid 0. Your help with this discussion is outstanding!
Well, first, I guess we have different ideas on the meaning of evil. I think it's a little strong to describe a phone company, but I don't want to split semantic hairs - so we'll just leave the word "evil" alone.
As far as "doing right for the consumer" - companies are in the business of making money. (I am not decrying or defending this, just stating a fact). You're suggesting that there are nice ways of doing this, and rude ways of doing this. But at the end of the day - they exist to take money and provide goods or services. I'm not sure I agree that making me feel good about giving up my money is anything more than an effective marketing tactic - but,IMO, it is no more good or evil than a company that just takes the money without any such concerns. In the confidence game it's called "cooling the mark". After conning somebody out of their money, they make mark feel like they haven't been hustled. It's the car salesman telling you that you just made a great deal - you feel good, but they still got your money.
People actually believe this phone costs nothing or 99¢.
This phone is only 99¢ upfront with a high monthly cost + a plan locked in. Marketing at it's best.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)
I work at AT&T, This is being done to help prevent fraud as the .99 cents cannot be billed to your bill. It must be charged to a credit or bank issued debt card. Fraudsters are using stolen identities to steal these handsets ....been an issue since they went free
The problem would be most severe for the Apple phone because it has more negotiable value on the grey and black markets - some may head overseas to be used as an unlocked instrument (tho' that's becoming a bit more common here). So who's going to personally risk a fraud charge to obtain "free droids" (one at a time at that, and you have to have some stolen info to qualify as someone with an existing account) when there's so many hundreds of crappy models out there? What do you think you can fence one of those for??You don't have this problem with any other $0 handsets?
Update: MacRumors forum user Metcury46l had one possible explanation for the price change: I work at AT&T, this is being done to help prevent fraud as the 99 cents cannot be billed to your bill. It must be charged to a credit or bank issued debt card. Fraudsters are using stolen identities to steal these handsets ... been an issue since they went free.
Anyone who is not wealthy that spends thousands of dollars over a 2 year contract on a phone is a complete idiot. If he was not an idiot, he would deposit that $100 a month into a retirement fund and realize that at retirement in 35 years, assuming an annual return of 6.5%, he would have $168,000 in his account. Or he could be clever like you and get the 4s instead of the idiot who got the 3g, and have zero in his account, but such fond memories of pinching and scrolling!
What I would like to know is how much the Sales taxes are on it. my 32gig 4S was $299.00 but $365.00 out the door.
The demographic that this is targeted at are really those that shouldn't be signing up for a data-plan to begin with since they can't afford. You get a "free" phone but then pay $30 a month for 2 years to cover that cost.
Its big corporations like Apple that are contributing to America's huge debt problem. What they are doing is very similar to "you pay zero down" scams that caused the housing crisis... not on the same scale ofcourse, but I am sure even the Apple FBs can see the similarity.
[url=http://cdn2.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png]Image[/url]
Image
In a curious move, AT&T has raised the subsidized price of its cheapest iPhone to $0.99, up from free.
When the iPhone 4S was announced in October, Apple specifically mentioned in its press release that the iPhone 4 and iPhone 3GS would be available in 8GB capacities for subsidized pricing of US$99 and for free, respectively.
During AT&T's Q3 2011 earnings call with analysts on October 20th, AT&T Mobility CEO Ralph de la Vega twice mentioned the iPhone 3GS's $0 price point, saying during the introductory remarks:
De la Vega again mentions the 3GS during question-and-answer portion:
Image
It is unclear why AT&T has elected to raise the price of the iPhone 3GS by a negligible but still notable amount a month and a half after it became free on contract, particularly given the fact that both Apple PR and AT&T Mobility's CEO had specifically touted the free nature of the device. In response to a request for comment on the price increase, AT&T declined to offer a specific reason:
For its part, Apple continues to offer the iPhone 3GS, subsidized on AT&T's network, for $0.00 on the Apple Online Store.
Update: MacRumors forum user Metcury46l had one possible explanation for the price change: I work at AT&T, this is being done to help prevent fraud as the 99 cents cannot be billed to your bill. It must be charged to a credit or bank issued debt card. Fraudsters are using stolen identities to steal these handsets ... been an issue since they went free.
(Image courtesy Flickr/MrVJTod)
Article Link: AT&T Raises Subsidized iPhone 3GS Price to $0.99