Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
My guess is the extra 10 is to help Sprint build their 4G infrastructure. Pretty much the same reason the bump was there for the 2G iPhone to the 3G iPhone. They needed to build up their infrastructure to support more devices and need the money to do that. They can't build the towers to cover the users without the money. I don't blame either company for that.

Also, At&t AND Sprint didn't call the extra $10 fees for either of their plans for "3G" or for "4G" respectively because neither wanted to refund people who were out of coverage areas.

As for bleeding dry...

Cheapest AT&T iPhone 3Gs plan with unlimited messaging:
$39.99/Month 450 Min + Unlimited At&t to At&t
$30/Month iPhone 3G Data
$20/Month Unlimited Messaging
Total: $89.99/Month

Cheapest EVO 4G data plan on Sprint:
$69.99/Month Everything Data Plan 450Min + Unlimited Any Mobile to Any Mobile
$10/Month EVO Data
Total: $79.99

Coming from an iPhone I don't see how this is an issue... Even with the extra $10 it's still cheaper. Now, if you don't get the unlimited messaging, which to me I don't care, it ends up being up to a $10 swing the other way. For me I also get a larger corporate discount with Sprint than At&t so I still come out ahead.

Nobody is ripping anyone off here. You're getting what you pay for.

Well, the difference here is that Sprint's CEO lied and said 4G would be free. If he had NEVER said that, I would not have that much of a problem with the fee....Although I find the fee justifiability arguments stupid.

On a single plan Sprint is cheaper, on a family plan, they are now the same as ATT. If you have two lines on the family plan with ATT at their cheapest rate it's 149.99. If you have two lines on Sprints cheapest family plan, with two EVOs, it's 149.99....
 
I think it's worth pointing out that when iPhone 3G came out ATT had 3G coverage in over 80% of their coverage area/markets they were in. So there were SIGNIFICANTLY less people who payed for the extra speed boost who were not able to take advantage of it. Currently 4G is in less than 10% of Sprint's coverage area... That's a HUGE difference. There is a different between 20% of your customers getting shafted than 90% of your customers getting shafted... Factually ATT and Sprint did the same thing... They upped prices even for people who saw no advantage. Also factual though, Sprints decision adversely affects 70% more of it's customers than ATT decisions...
I'm not an apologist, I'm a realist. Facts are only useful when looked at from all sides.
 
bubble burst

yeah i was riding the evo bubble, high as a kite

now not so sure: $10 a month just to have the evo, $30 a month to tether...... ughhhh

i am not going to switch to sprint just to move the fleecing to another company

i may have to rethink everything. i just won't pay so much for cell service anymore.

i am also going to ditch direct tv. it is all just a joke

my goal, one provider for cell, home internet, home phone, pay less than $200 a month for 5 lines. that was what I was going to be getting with Sprint, but not anymore
 
I think it's worth pointing out that when iPhone 3G came out ATT had 3G coverage in over 80% of their coverage area/markets they were in. So there were SIGNIFICANTLY less people who payed for the extra speed boost who were not able to take advantage of it. Currently 4G is in less than 10% of Sprint's coverage area... That's a HUGE difference. There is a different between 20% of your customers getting shafted than 90% of your customers getting shafted... Factually ATT and Sprint did the same thing... They upped prices even for people who saw no advantage. Also factual though, Sprints decision adversely affects 70% more of it's customers than ATT decisions...
I'm not an apologist, I'm a realist. Facts are only useful when looked at from all sides.

Finally - someone with a brain. Even though I tried to make that point, people failed to make the connection unless someone SPELLS IT OUT.
 

I like the last comment on that video.

Sprint's 4G/WiMax operates at 2.5 or 2.6ghz. Since higher frequencies can't travel as far, and can't penetrate solid objects (walls!) as well, they're likely to have signal propagation issues and will need MORE TOWERS per square foot/mile/etc, than their current CDMA/EVDO network which operates at 800/1900Mhz. And will likely have in-building coverage issues because of it. More towers = more cost to build, and the hurdles of acquiring new locations for the additional towers.

That is a BIG challenge for Sprint/Clear.

AT&T, VZW and T-mobile have all agreed to LTE using the 700Mhz spectrum. Lower frequency... travels farther, penetrates walls/buildings better. So less towers needed (sprint needs about 3x more than AT&T/VZW/T-Mobile will for the same coverage their networks give).
 
I think it's worth pointing out that when iPhone 3G came out ATT had 3G coverage in over 80% of their coverage area/markets they were in. So there were SIGNIFICANTLY less people who payed for the extra speed boost who were not able to take advantage of it. Currently 4G is in less than 10% of Sprint's coverage area... That's a HUGE difference. There is a different between 20% of your customers getting shafted than 90% of your customers getting shafted... Factually ATT and Sprint did the same thing... They upped prices even for people who saw no advantage. Also factual though, Sprints decision adversely affects 70% more of it's customers than ATT decisions...
I'm not an apologist, I'm a realist. Facts are only useful when looked at from all sides.

Hey, don’t start bringing facts into this. :D
 
They already did... its was called the Iphone 3g... when they went from the SLOWER 2g to the FASTER 3g... they upped the price $10. Can you dispute that?

They UPPED the price whether you were in a 3G are or NOT.

This is a poor argument because the circumstances are incorrect and not all the information is being presented. iPhone users did not pay more for the "extra speed boost" with 3G, they paid more because the original iPhone and the iPhone 3G followed different price models.

In 2007, AT&T charged $30 per month for unlimited data services, 3G or not, for all their mobile phones at the time.

The iPhone, however, was released through a special profit-sharing agreement with Apple. The device was not subsidized, but in exchange, Apple was given a percentage of the monthly wireless subscription cost. The agreement provided for a wireless service bundle that was unique to the iPhone. It was called the iPhone package and was an all-or-nothing bundle of minutes, 200 text messages, and unlimited data services.

Now, if you compared the iPhone package to the standard AT&T services, users got 200 text messages free and umlimited data services for $10 less. In other words, if you had a blackberry at the time with identical service, you'd have paid $5 more per month for text messaging and $10 more per month for unlimited data. The discounted rates for comparable service comes from the special un-subsidized profit-sharing agreement with Apple.

When the 3G was launched, all of that went out the window because it followed the same subsidized model as every other phone on AT&T's network.

The price for iPhone data was not increased by $10 per month for 3G speeds, it was increased because the special profit-sharing handset model was discontinued. At that point, the cost for unlimited data for the iPhone matched the standard data package for any phone on AT&T, which was and has been $30 per month (3G or not).
 
I think it's worth pointing out that when iPhone 3G came out ATT had 3G coverage in over 80% of their coverage area/markets they were in. So there were SIGNIFICANTLY less people who payed for the extra speed boost who were not able to take advantage of it. Currently 4G is in less than 10% of Sprint's coverage area... That's a HUGE difference. There is a different between 20% of your customers getting shafted than 90% of your customers getting shafted... Factually ATT and Sprint did the same thing... They upped prices even for people who saw no advantage. Also factual though, Sprints decision adversely affects 70% more of it's customers than ATT decisions...
I'm not an apologist, I'm a realist. Facts are only useful when looked at from all sides.

Do you have proof that it was in fact 80% in July 2008?? Or are you just talking out of your butt?
 

As one of the Android community members put it:

This is expected due to Android being switched to a JIT-compiler. Java byte-code is compiled to native code once before execution, as opposed to interpreting the byte-code every time that part of the code is run. It has exactly this kind of effect on Java applications. Note that it doesn't effect the speed native code is run at. Apps which already use native libraries for heavy calculations will only see improvements in the small parts that are run in Java.

see for example http://androidandme.com/2010/02/news/jit-compiler-coming-to-android-sooner-than-you-think/


context is everything :)
 
I like the last comment on that video.

Sprint's 4G/WiMax operates at 2.5 or 2.6ghz. Since higher frequencies can't travel as far, and can't penetrate solid objects (walls!) as well, they're likely to have signal propagation issues and will need MORE TOWERS per square foot/mile/etc, than their current CDMA/EVDO network which operates at 800/1900Mhz. And will likely have in-building coverage issues because of it. More towers = more cost to build, and the hurdles of acquiring new locations for the additional towers.

That is a BIG challenge for Sprint/Clear.

AT&T, VZW and T-mobile have all agreed to LTE using the 700Mhz spectrum. Lower frequency... travels farther, penetrates walls/buildings better. So less towers needed (sprint needs about 3x more than AT&T/VZW/T-Mobile will for the same coverage their networks give

Data is incorrect. WiMax tech is double the range. A normal cell tower can usually cover a 30 square mile radius. WiMax covers 60 miles.

Don't know about wall penetration. Sounds like nonsense.
 

As for family plans...
1 EVO ($80) vs 1 iPhone ($90)
2 EVO ($150) vs 2 iPhone ($150)
3 EVO ($180) vs 3 iPhone ($190)
Etc...

For every addtional EVO it would be +$30 while any additional iPhone is +$40

So if you're getting only 2, then you have the same price on both carriers, else you save $10/additional phone past 2

As for Sprint's 4G network... Who cares if LTE is going to be better. A contract with Sprint will only be 2 years. If At&t has LTE and Apple has an LTE phone then maybe I'll do that. There's no point in sitting on a 3G network while waiting for 4G when I can sit on the 4G network now and wait for a better one.

I am one of the lucky ones who will be in a 4G coverage area.

Also, the EVO will have a much higher data useage than any other phone on Sprints network. Just like the iPhone did. So I don't really see the issue with them charging extra for it. It makes sense to me. As for the CEO saying they won't charge for 4G... Yea. That's because they aren't technically. For the reasons I stated before, they would then have to waive the fee for those outside the 4G coverage.

Also, who cares what CEO's say before things are official? Remember when Apple sold me an iPhone 3G that was supposed to have Push Messaging? Remember all the months that Tethering and MMS were supposed to be enabled? These are big companies. Don't expect any honesty from any of them.
 
I too am looking to decide between the Evo and the new iphone, both of which are due out next month.

The fact that the iphone does NOT support Adobe Flash might be the deciding factor for me to go with it instead of the Evo. All those freakin' bouncing, jumping, vibrating, shaking, flashing ads are run on Adobe Flash. I run a 64bit OS which contains both 32bit and 64bit browsers. I use the 32bit to view youtube or whatever, and the 64bit to read news, stories, articles, etc. as Flash is not supported for 64bit. It's awesome to actually be able to read without all those ads desperately trying to get my attention, and I certainly don't want them on my phone.

Maybe Steve Jobs feels the same way which could explain why he doesn't want Flash either, lol.

Oh, and on a side note, there's a youtube vid of Sprint's CEO introducing the Evo. Apparently he's kind of new to the internet as he kept referring to a well known search engine closely partnered with the Android phones, as "Goggle" (no, that's not a typo, he kept pronouncing it "gog-el.")
 
I too am looking to decide between the Evo and the new iphone, both of which are due out next month.

The fact that the iphone does NOT support Adobe Flash might be the deciding factor for me to go with it instead of the Evo. All those freakin' bouncing, jumping, vibrating, shaking, flashing ads are run on Adobe Flash. I run a 64bit OS which contains both 32bit and 64bit browsers. I use the 32bit to view youtube or whatever, and the 64bit to read news, stories, articles, etc. as Flash is not supported for 64bit. It's awesome to actually be able to read without all those ads desperately trying to get my attention, and I certainly don't want them on my phone.

Maybe Steve Jobs feels the same way which could explain why he doesn't want Flash either, lol.

You don't HAVE to enable flash on any device. On your computer you can disable the flash plugin instead of running different browsers. I run Flash on all my browsers on my x64 Snow Leopard and x64 Ubuntu. In Firefox I use AddBlock+ or FlashBlocker on my netbook with Click4Flash.

Having the option is better than not having the option. I don't see you coming here praising Steve Jobs' anti flash sentiment is related to the EVO in particular at all. If you like the rest of the phone, flash should be a non-issue.
 
I am one of the lucky ones who will be in a 4G coverage area.

There ya go. Wish I was.

Also, the EVO will have a much higher data useage than any other phone on Sprints network. Just like the iPhone did. So I don't really see the issue with them charging extra for it. It makes sense to me. As for the CEO saying they won't charge for 4G... Yea. That's because they aren't technically. For the reasons I stated before, they would then have to waive the fee for those outside the 4G coverage.

Well it will use a lot more data...but on 4G... On 3G it will use the same as the Hero etc.

Also, who cares what CEO's say before things are official? Remember when Apple sold me an iPhone 3G that was supposed to have Push Messaging? Remember all the months that Tethering and MMS were supposed to be enabled? These are big companies. Don't expect any honesty from any of them.

I don't but normally they try to hide their lies through vague speech. He was pretty clear and confident. Sprint has a very bad rep and in conjunction with this recent debacle, it's worse.
 
Lol, I think some of you need a priest more than you need a forum. :p Lots of people looking for justification.

It would be nice if there was 1 standard and many people selling for that standard. Would make things a helluva lot easier.
 
You don't HAVE to enable flash on any device. On your computer you can disable the flash plugin instead of running different browsers. I run Flash on all my browsers on my x64 Snow Leopard and x64 Ubuntu. In Firefox I use AddBlock+ or FlashBlocker on my netbook with Click4Flash.

Yeah, that extra mouse click to open another browser is so strenuous I have to take a nap afterwards.
 
It would be nice if there was 1 standard and many people selling for that standard. Would make things a helluva lot easier.

Back in the day we used to have just one standard. It was called Ma'Bell. Thankfully those days are long gone.
 
Perhaps, except he made a reference to doing a search for wine and getting info on everything related to wine.

Mmmm wine... I like a nice tasty Merlot with my dinner. Ohhh you mean whine!

At this point there is no justifying the 10 fee unless the new iPhone gets charged for cam use over 3g....
 
Mmmm wine... I like a nice tasty Merlot with my dinner. Ohhh you mean whine!

At this point there is no justifying the 10 fee unless the new iPhone gets charged for cam use over 3g....

Justifying? I don't see how it's not justified. That's just the cost they set. They set costs for things all the time. Is there any "justifying" the $500 cost of the iPad? How about the cost of your Merlot? How is that "justified".

Companies set costs for things all the time. You can chose to buy or not buy. It's not like the added the cost after people were already stuck.
 
Justifying? I don't see how it's not justified. That's just the cost they set. They set costs for things all the time. Is there any "justifying" the $500 cost of the iPad? How about the cost of your Merlot? How is that "justified".

Companies set costs for things all the time. You can chose to buy or not buy. It's not like the added the cost after people were already stuck.

Here's the problem, I would be paying 10 bucks for NOTHING. The examples you listed allow me to get drunk and google silly stuff on my iPad all night...naked...It's just my style.

You live in a 4G area. You are getting something for the 10 bucks with the EVO. If I was you ( and I wish I was ) I would get this phone. It's a great phone. I wish I had 4G and could take advantage of it's features.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.