Solution for those who would rather pay up front.

[slapguts]

So you'd rather pay the full price of the 3G iPhone upfront instead of an extra $10-$15 a month? Here's the solution:

Get the phone at the regular price, and when your first bill arrives, add $300 to the check. AT&T will credit your account. Then just pay the lesser amount every month.

Ta-da.

 

[elbirth]

yeah, that basically makes no sense, seeing as how you're still paying the higher amount in the long run

 

[26139]

Not exactly

yeah, that basically makes no sense, seeing as how you're still paying the higher amount in the long run

No, his solution was for people who wanted to pay the full amount up front, not save money.

 

[elbirth]

No, his solution was for people who wanted to pay the full amount up front, not save money.

No... he said "instead of an extra $10-$15 a month"

that means he's saying that by doing this you're not having to pay an extra $10-$15 per month. This simply is not the case.

 

[26139]

actually...

No... he said "instead of an extra $10-$15 a month"

that means he's saying that by doing this you're not having to pay an extra $10-$15 per month. This simply is not the case.

Technically, the OP is still correct. Every month you would be charged your full monthly bill. Let's say that's $75 (not correct, but go with me). You'd only send in $60.

So each month, you'd be paying less than what you have to, because the extra $15 you owe would slowly be deducted from the $300 credit.

Now, technically, you could not pay AT&T until your $300 credit ran out, because you wouldn't have a balance DUE, but that's not the point here.

Not saying I'd do it, but the math works.

 

[citron230]

isn't AT&T going to offer the 3G iPhone at either subsidized or full price? I don't know, I am just assuming.

 

[elbirth]

Technically, the OP is still correct. Every month you would be charged your full monthly bill. Let's say that's $75 (not correct, but go with me). You'd only send in $60.

So each month, you'd be paying less than what you have to, because the extra $15 you owe would slowly be deducted from the $300 credit.

Now, technically, you could not pay AT&T until your $300 credit ran out, because you wouldn't have a balance DUE, but that's not the point here.

Not saying I'd do it, but the math works.

It's still irrelevant, because at the end of the 2 year contract, you've still paid the same amount. You're not saving any money doing this.

 

[rolex54]

It's still irrelevant, because at the end of the 2 year contract, you've still paid the same amount. You're not saving any money doing this.

your right, but some people think the world is gonna end if they spend 10 more dollars a month

 

[MBHockey]

It's still irrelevant, because at the end of the 2 year contract, you've still paid the same amount. You're not saving any money doing this.

The OP is not claiming this will save you money...you are missing the point.

 

[26139]

Wow....

It's still irrelevant, because at the end of the 2 year contract, you've still paid the same amount. You're not saving any money doing this.

Who said anything about saving money? Reread the post. Twice.

It's a simple trick to make it SEEM like you're paying less over the long run.

 

[elbirth]

I've read the post. I understand what he's getting at. You, however, do not understand what I'm getting at. I'm saying his solution is not relevant for who he's aiming it at.

I don't think you understand the reason why people are saying they'd rather pay the higher price up front. The people that say this are the people that are saying they want to have a lower monthly fee and thus an overall lower price. The original iPhone was, let's say, $400. Then they paid $60/month. Now it's $199 and $70/$75 per month. Thus, people say hey... if I could have paid a higher amount up front (like they did with the original iPhone) in order to pay a lower monthly fee so that it comes out with an overall lower total cost over 2 years, then I'd gladly do that.
These people are concerned with saving money in the long run.

The OP said this was a SOLUTION for those people. Those people want to save money. They don't want to only SEEM like they're saving money, they want to ACTUALLY save money. This method does not provide that. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

 

[theRick119]

or a person with an extra $300 laying around could not be an idiot and instead put the money in an interest-bearing account for two years and pay the $10 monthly and come out $30 to $50 ahead at the end of two years.

i'd rather not use AT&T as my bank...

 

[WhySoSerious]

here's another solution.......get a better paying job so you can afford the extra $10.

geeez....

 

[madlymocha]

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. No one is forcing any of us to buy the iPhone. Either you can afford it or you can't. There are alot of things in my life that I want and can't afford, the iPhone doesn't happen to be one of them for me, so I'm getting one. In the end, complaining about the cost is not going to do anything to change it.

 

[slapguts]

Yes, of course it is more expensive in the long run. 3G is faster.

DSL and Cable connections cost more than dial-up. Fiber Optic costs more than DSL. Why? They're faster.

Sorry if my original smart-ass post didn't come across as such.

 

[joekun]

Yes, of course it is more expensive in the long run. 3G is faster.

DSL and Cable connections cost more than dial-up. Fiber Optic costs more than DSL. Why? They're faster.

In the case of your example, if you don't NEED the highest speed you have lower priced options. If you want an iphone at this point you're stuck with paying for the new plan regardless of whether 3G is available in your area or whether you want or need the new higher bandwidth.

It amazes me that some people have no concept of value, if you don't like the price it must mean that you "can't afford it" or some nonsense. Just because you can afford something doesn't mean that it's a good value. I can afford to fill my gas tank at $80, but that doesn't mean I have to be happy about the price.

 

[frosse]

Oh thou mighty AT&T, give us an unsubsidized iphone sent from above.

AT&T, hear my prayers!

 

[26139]

Nope

I've read the post. I understand what he's getting at. You, however, do not understand what I'm getting at. I'm saying his solution is not relevant for who he's aiming it at.

The OP said this was a SOLUTION for those people. Those people want to save money. They don't want to only SEEM like they're saving money, they want to ACTUALLY save money. This method does not provide that. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

No, he did not. He said this:

So you'd rather pay the full price of the 3G iPhone upfront instead of an extra $10-$15 a month? Here's the solution:

Get the phone at the regular price, and when your first bill arrives, add $300 to the check. AT&T will credit your account. Then just pay the lesser amount every month.

Ta-da.

Please find the part in there about saving money.

 

[Small White Car]

No... he said "instead of an extra $10-$15 a month"

that means he's saying that by doing this you're not having to pay an extra $10-$15 per month. This simply is not the case.

Yes, it IS the case. If I pay it up front then I'm not paying it "per month."

What he said was perfectly clear. Pay now or pay later. That's it.
I don't know why you're trying to pretend it's confusing.

 

[firewood]

It amazes me that some people have no concept of value...

That's true, even of highly educated professionals making decisions in their field of "expertise". Read up on Tversky and Kahneman's prospect theory. The brain wasn't designed to do automatic NPV calculations in real time. Pay now feels different from pay later to most people, even if the NPV's calculate out the wrong way.

 

[Small White Car]

That's true, even of highly educated professionals making decisions in their field of "expertise". Read up on Tversky and Kahneman's prospect theory. The brain wasn't designed to do automatic NPV calculations in real time. Pay now feels different from pay later to most people, even if the NPV's calculate out the wrong way.

The problem is, a lot of people's income is sporadic.

I have a "real job" now, but I was self employed for a year or so after college. Some months I would make a lot of money, and others hardly anything at all.

I would often have enough money to buy an expensive computer or something, but then other months I'd have to lay low and spend very little to get by.

In that situation it makes a lot of sense to try and spend money when you have it and not commit yourself to spending it in the future. Because doing THAT can lead to taking on debt using credit cards. If I've promised to pay you $10 next month, and I don't have that money, I have to do it on credit. If I just pay you what I owe you when I have it, then it doesn't matter what happens next month...I can just stay home and eat soup for dinner and wait for my next job.

When I was self employed I was able to stay debt free BECAUSE I didn't make commitments to paying for things in the future. And avoiding credit card debt is the best thing you can do, so I absolutely understand people's desire for this type of plan. You can go on about NPVs and investment-plans and whatnot, but all of that pales in comparison to taking on credit-card debt. Paying up front helps people with un-even income achieve that goal. And that's really all that matters in their situation.

 

[elbirth]

No, he did not. He said this:
Please find the part in there about saving money.

Yes, it IS the case. If I pay it up front then I'm not paying it "per month."

What he said was perfectly clear. Pay now or pay later. That's it.
I don't know why you're trying to pretend it's confusing.

You both still totally missed the concept. Maybe you're not reading my posts or I'm just going too far over your heads? Until you can understand it, I'm not going to keep wasting my time trying to explain it better to you.

 

[26139]

No...

You both still totally missed the concept. Maybe you're not reading my posts or I'm just going too far over your heads? Until you can understand it, I'm not going to keep wasting my time trying to explain it better to you.

No, you're over complicating it. But feel free to confuse someone else instead of us. I don't need it explained to me, because I completely understand what I'm talking about.

 

[firewood]

You both still totally missed the concept.

And you're still missing the concept that equal NPV calculations do not make two different cash flows equal psychologically, or even under more advance financial analysis (risk, interest rate fluctuations, etc. etc.)

 

[Small White Car]

You both still totally missed the concept. Maybe you're not reading my posts or I'm just going too far over your heads? Until you can understand it, I'm not going to keep wasting my time trying to explain it better to you.

Your point is this:

Whether you pay it all now or pay it each month, it's the same amount of money.

Is that your point? Tell me if I've got that right.