burgman
macrumors 68030
Pretty much true of every product, the price is worth it if you use it, not worth it if you don't. I'm like you I use it so with no alternative it's cheap at $10 plus taxes.
The $10/month LTE cost
- Thread starter John-F
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think the point is - it's a little out of whack... given it's the EXACT same price for an iPad, which you do all of that, plus stream Netflix, Hulu, FaceTime, etc. Which is orders of magnitude more data than music and notifications.
The only reason it's $10 is some research showed that's what people would pay. So until people stop paying it, that's what it will be.
newellj
macrumors G3
This. If the annual cost were $60, or at least in two digits, I would probably not think about it. At $10/month, I think about it and keep deciding "no." I bet there are a lot of people who think the same way. I bet carrier sales would more than double if they cut the cost by half.
Wentzelg
macrumors member
I agree. my local cost with 911 fees and taxes bring it to $16 and some change. Too much for even me. I know I waste more than that a month, but not all at once and not something I use so little. It is a nice to have for me and I decided back when you could get an unlimited hotspot for $20 that I'd rather add a little and get that instead. Just too much. $5 I would jump on it.
jjk454ss
macrumors 601
If it’s not a new/different number I don't understand how they get away with the added fees. It should be $10, not $10 plus......
No web browsing on the phone. Small screen not ideal for media viewing. Limited storage which discourages local music playing. Using bluetooth earbuds on the watch uses up more battery. Music streaming requires Apple Music subscription. And like the other user said, you get charged the special fees associated with a cellular line. Thats why i’ll just carry my iPhone and use each device for what they do best instead of trying to make the apple watch do more tasks.
Lobwedgephil
macrumors 603
The price was $5/month for other smart watches before the Apple Watch, was just straight greed when they raised the price when the series 3 was released with LTE. Smart for them actually, data is tiny compared to most devices, yet still charge a premium.
johnnybeagle
macrumors member
LTE kills battery life and adds cost to the watch and a monthly expense
I'd rather just save that cash and trade in / upgrade every generation
I'd rather just save that cash and trade in / upgrade every generation
TScottTX
macrumors member
I had a Samsung Gear S3 the year before the Apple Watch S3 and it was the same $10 back then.
What is strange is the carriers compete on different data plans and options, but on the wearables they are all in lock step. All the same $10/month and from what I've checked they all give the same promotion - waive activation and 3 months free. The way AT&T does it after 3 months a $60 credit to cover the $30 activation and 3 months service (not including taxes and fees).
burgman
macrumors 68030
bla bla, I just wore my series 4 for a two hour hike on LTE with no phone. Listened to music, used workout outdoor app, used AirPods, took 2 calls. Not to mention hiking alone and the safety in a accident. Phone goes flying out of pocket. Started with 100% finished with 94%. I had good signal so areas of poor signal, like a phone eats battery. The cost is the cost, worth it or not it is for me. These “I’m smart you’re not because I don’t use something and you do” type of posts are so sad. If I had to choose between LTE watch service with everything it can offer, and a happy meal then I would be healthy and connected
It’s the same as a phone people. You don’t complain about that. Just because it bt connects to your phone doesn’t mean you can’t use it without if you want. Same way if you used WiFi all month on your phone they’d still charge you for data plan.
The thing that’s actually unreasonable is the upgrade fee.
Oh and if you’re not going to use the cellular part you can always get the non-cellular watch. Then you don’t even have to tell your phone company.
[doublepost=1538024303][/doublepost]
How are you paying $200 a month for six unlimited phones ? My bill for five would be something like 275. Am I doing something wrong?
The thing that’s actually unreasonable is the upgrade fee.
Oh and if you’re not going to use the cellular part you can always get the non-cellular watch. Then you don’t even have to tell your phone company.
[doublepost=1538024303][/doublepost]
How are you paying $200 a month for six unlimited phones ? My bill for five would be something like 275. Am I doing something wrong?
Farrellcollie
macrumors 6502a
What I find most irksome is that the watch does not have its own sim nor is it usable on mnvos in the u.s. -so basically there is no competition
Very true. I think the biggest upgrade Apple can make in the next generation watch is to make the battery last a lot longer. Battery life has barely changed since the watch rolled out and that is the biggest negative of their smart watch.
nrvna76
macrumors 65816
T-Mobile is just $10 I think since all taxes and fees are included.
Same in Canada - I’ve had it for $5/month from Bell for the past year. Surprised actually that we got it at such a price considering how terrible our carriers are.
Wentzelg
macrumors member
since is actually uses a number for number sync on att, and my GREEDY local 911 commission charges a county fee per number that's how they do it. It's actually $16.79 per month. That's 67% taxes. Too much.
I do believe $10 is excessive for a wearable. But that’s the price for the convenience of it. It should be $5 because these watches aren’t using massive amounts of data generally. But maybe the carriers fear they would with the streaming services and they love to charge for data in the US.
DontGetTheCheese
macrumors 6502
Is there an admin fee in there? Hint, that’s not a tax.
It costs more than $10 after fees.
[doublepost=1538058376][/doublepost]
Yes, the $10 is a lie from both Apple and ATT
[doublepost=1538058376][/doublepost]
Yes, the $10 is a lie from both Apple and ATT
Broken Hope
macrumors 68000
It’s only £5 a month including all taxes here in the UK.
anthonymoody
macrumors 68040
I'd happily pay $5/mo. I might even pay $10/mo. But, at $10 + taxes, fees, etc. that makes it more like $15-16/mo? That's excessive IMO.
This was the exact move that was so bothersome. There were a lot of us that were onboard with $5/month when the S3 was announced, or had at least talked ourselves into it. The greed is blatant and gives the entire feature a sour taste.
If we don’t fight back with our wallets they’ll keep it forever (or raise the fee more). Unless this becomes an absolutely necessary feature for my lifestyle (it won’t) I’ll be keeping my $120 a year.
I think the point is not that some people don't find LTE service useful -- it obviously is to some, for all the reasons you mentioned, but rather that it costs too much relative to what is being provided. Consider:
-- The overall amount of data consumed by watch customers is probably vanishingly small compared to what people consume on phones/tablets, even when adjusted for the differences in invoiced amounts. For example, most of what you mention requires very little data transfer.
-- Many people are likely to use make less use of LTE watch service than you indicate in your examples and therefore may be "on the fence" at $10/month plus fees/taxes. For those customers, the phone service providers are probably leaving money on the table.
-- Providing data to customers in the above pool would almost certainly reduce the average data per month consumed by watch users, as this would be an impulse buy for those who may not actually use the service for data-intensive applications. By contrast, those who do use lots of watch data (i.e., those who stream music without having their phones nearby) already know they will use this service and are therefore more likely to have it already.
Bottom line is that the U.S. cellular companies haven't figured this out yet. The $10/month point that has emerged as a "norm" is almost certainly higher than it should be -- both from a consumer and a corporate profit perspective.
ectospheno
macrumors regular
The watch charge makes far more sense than the ipad charge to me. My ipad has left my house exactly once and I had my phone so why would it need its own connection? My watch is by itself multiple times a week.