how-to block ads
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | Re: The consumer can't afford cell phones said by insomniac84:Because of exclusivity deals subsidizing phones, the average consumer can't afford good phones. SIGH.... thats totally incorrect. The carrier subsidies are actually the only thing that DOES allow people to afford cell phones. What most people (that live in the US) dont understand is that non-subsidized phones, even the most basic ones, cost a few hundred dollars. "Smart" phones (such as Blackberries and iPhones) have retail prices of up to $1000.
said by insomniac84:All they do is remove any competition outside of getting contracts with carriers. And with most people getting phones with contracts a retail market for phones doesn't really exist. Phones basically carry supper high retail prices to make it seem like there is value in an exclusivity contract. The retail market for 'unlocked' cell phones doesnt really exist in the US because consumers dont want it to. The only reason every Tom, Dick, and Harry out there has an iPhone is because they were able to pick one up for $199. Look at Europe, most people pay full price for thier phones and (shockingly) pay full retail value. I have no problem with paying full retail for a locked phone, or even paying full retail just so I dont need to renew my contract that ended in 2005. Most people dont want that however, and this is the issue. If some law is put in place requiring people to buy thier phones at full retail price, Smart phone will disappear from the "average" consumers hands. 'Joe Smith' and friends will all start using the only phones they can afford (unsubsidized), which will be the cheapo, non 3G, candybar phone that might or might not have color screens.
said by insomniac84:Cell carriers should be banned from interfering with the retail phone market. That way people can afford goods phones without having to sign a contract. Good luck telling the average person to drop almost a half months' salary on a cell phone then.......
--
"The only morality they recognize, is what will further their cause"
-Ronald Reagan-
| |
| 
2 edits | Re: The consumer can't afford cell phones You know, you provide me with such joy sometimes. Right now I'm just in the mood to bash someone's posts.
"Smart" phones (such as Blackberries and iPhones) have retail prices of up to $1000.
Um..hm...well let's see. An absolute top of the line Samsung M8910 Pixon12 will retail for 639 euro, which comes out to $900. We're talking about a 12 MP camera phone capable of recording HD video at 30fps, with a 28mm wide-angle lens and Xenon flash for high-quality indoor shots. Of course it has WiFi and HSPA 3G, along with Bluetooth 2.1 and micro-USB (no proprietary garbage). This is the sort of thing the richest of the rich buy. The phones that are sold in the US don't hold a candle to EU phones, and wouldn't even make the display case in the shops.
"Good luck telling the average person to drop almost a half months' salary on a cell phone then......."
People in the US drop much more than that on their voice and data monthly charges, which happen to be much higher than in the EU and Asia.
"The retail market for 'unlocked' cell phones doesnt really exist in the US because consumers dont want it to."
That's like saying super high-speed broadband doesn't exist in most of the US because no one wants it. It's pure conjecture on your part, and is based on the assumption that US consumers are well-informed and have actively decided the EU and Asian way is misguided. The fact is they've never had the choice.
"If some law is put in place requiring people to buy thier phones at full retail price, Smart phone will disappear from the "average" consumers hands."
Well that's odd, considering the immense popularity of smartphones in the EU and Asia. Hmm, could it be that you're making false conjectures? Probably. | |
| | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | Re: The consumer can't afford cell phones said by sonicmerlin:Um..hm...well let's see. An absolute top of the line Samsung M8910 Pixon12 will retail for 639 euro, which comes out to $900. We're talking about a 12 MP camera phone capable of recording HD video at 30fps, with a 28mm wide-angle lens and Xenon flash for high-quality indoor shots. Of course it has WiFi and HSPA 3G, along with Bluetooth 2.1 and micro-USB (no proprietary garbage). This is the sort of thing the richest of the rich buy. The phones that are sold in the US don't hold a candle to EU phones, and wouldn't even make the display case in the shops. I am glad you decided to reply, as you will surely crawl away with you tail between your legs on this one. To begin, the phone you just mentioned is by no means the 'top of the line' phone. Lets just look at the humble iPhone shall we? An unlocked iPhone 3GS is available for a retail price of $1100 and $1300.
»www.expansys-usa.com/smartphone/apple-iphone
Furthermore, if you think a Samsung camera phone is what the "richest of the rich" buy then you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Have you ever heard of Vertu? Obviously you have not, so let me explain. They are a high end 'retail only' company that sells unlocked phones that START at around $5k. In fact, their prices go up to a few hundred thousand dollars. Below is a link to one of their phones for around $25k.
»www.plemix.com/phone-vertu-signature-phone
»www.vertu.com/
said by sonicmerlin:People in the US drop much more than that on their voice and data monthly charges, which happen to be much higher than in the EU and Asia. People in this country do not spend half their monthly salaries on voice and data via their wireless providers, thats ridiculous.
said by sonicmerlin:That's like saying super high-speed broadband doesn't exist in most of the US because no one wants it. It's pure conjecture on your part, and is based on the assumption that US consumers are well-informed and have actively decided the EU and Asian way is misguided. The fact is they've never had the choice. No, people in the US dont want to spend $1000 on cell phones and thats really the end of it. Its not like you go to Europe and all the high end unlocked phones are $50.
said by sonicmerlin:Well that's odd, considering the immense popularity of smartphones in the EU and Asia. Hmm, could it be that you're making false conjectures? Probably. No, people are just used to paying full price in other countries. People in the US would freak out if you told them their new phone will cost $600, 'we' expect everything for free.
--
"The only morality they recognize, is what will further their cause"
-Ronald Reagan-
| |
| | | | | Re: The consumer can't afford cell phones Nice cherry picked website. From an engadget article dated June 12th 2008 (that's over a year ago):
This morning we're getting a first look at unsubsidized prices for the iPhone 3G in Europe. Vodafone Italy has set an out-of-contract price for the iPhone 3G at 499/€569 ($773/$881) for the 8GB/16GB models, respectively. Subscription rates have not yet been announced. While steep, those prices are actually smartphone-reasonable in Italy (and around Europe) where an HTC Touch Cruise with its WiFi, tri-band HSDPA data, GPS, and touchscreen sells for €549. Capisce?
The iPhone especially is marked up in price. The hardware that powers the device is hardly top of the line. It's the software and Apple-specific applications that attracts people to it. Other phones with similar specs are priced significantly below that tier. Again, its high cost relative to its mediocre hardware is one of the reasons the iPhone isn't hugely popular in Asian countries.
The super high-priced phone you mentioned are not made for the mass-market. We can go even higher than that by talking about gold-plated, jewel encrusted phones made for Saudi Arabian oil barons. My point, while exuberant, is that Europeans consider phones in the $700-$900 price range to be extremely expensive.
You also seemed to misinterpret my comment about phone plans and their costs. Since you're incapable of reasoning it out for yourself, I was implying the thousands of dollars extra people pay for smartphone voice + data plans over the life of their subsidized contracts represents far more than they'd have to pay upfront for mid-range smart phones in the EU. Basically wireless telephony is cheaper in the EU and Asia because monthly plans are cheaper.
And finally, you keep on saying people in the US wouldn't be able to handle upfront costs. But what groups like Free Press want to do is ban *exclusivity* agreements. People will still be able to purchase subsidized phones with contracts provided by carriers if they like, but every phone will be available with every carrier (as long as the phone is compatible with the network the carrier uses) and consumers will have the option to use whatever phone with whatever carrier they'd like. | |
| | | | jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA | Re: The consumer can't afford cell phones The reason exclusivity agreements are so popular with carriers and phone makers is because they are the best proven method of funding the massive R&D investment needed to design, market and manufacture innovative smartphones like the iPhone.
While banning exclusivity deals wouldn't stop carriers from continuing to subsidize handsets, it would make it harder for phone makers like Apple to recoup the investment required to create devices like the iPhone. Why would AT&T pay Apple $17 per month per iPhone subscriber, as it currently does, if there were no guarantee that doing so would enable AT&T to pick up new subscribers? | |
| | | | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | said by sonicmerlin:Nice cherry picked website. From an engadget article dated June 12th 2008 (that's over a year ago): This morning we're getting a first look at unsubsidized prices for the iPhone 3G in Europe. Vodafone Italy has set an out-of-contract price for the iPhone 3G at 499/€569 ($773/$881) for the 8GB/16GB models, respectively. Subscription rates have not yet been announced. While steep, those prices are actually smartphone-reasonable in Italy (and around Europe) where an HTC Touch Cruise with its WiFi, tri-band HSDPA data, GPS, and touchscreen sells for €549. Capisce? You still dont get it. Those prices arent out of line with what other unsubsidized smart phones cost, and thats what we are talking about here. Check out Expansys and look at their other phones. They have an international site you can also look at to compare prices. Even if we can agree that the the average cost of an unsubsidized smart phone is $500 thats still far more than the average person is willing to pay. Did you pay $500 for your last phone? I didnt think so, and that IS the point.
--
"The only morality they recognize, is what will further their cause"
-Ronald Reagan-
| |
| | | | |
3 edits | Re: The consumer can't afford cell phones No, *you* don't get it. When phone manufacturers are allowed to avoid competing with each other there is no incentive for them to produce the highest quality and cheapest phones possible. That's why our phones are technologically behind the rest of the world.
Arbitrarily conjecturing Americans wouldn't put up with up-front costs and lower monthly bills as an excuse not to ban exclusivity agreements is duplicitous and mendacious. Providing consumers with choice is always better than forcing them to go down one path.
Yes, forcing consumers to buy subsidized phones tied to one carrier goes far in guaranteeing manufacturers will recoup their R&D costs, but guaranteeing their bottom line is NOT the purview of the free market. That some manufacturers will fail and some will succeed is the necessary consequence of a truly competitive market, and is what will guarantee consumers receive the highest quality products and service for the lowest price possible.
I could argue on a more philisophical basis about a consumer's right to do what they please with what they buy, but I'm getting sick of what amounts to arguing about the benefits of consumer choice. In the history of the free market, consumer choice has always led to positive results for the consumer. Large businesses always claim to have some future vision or sixth sense about what consumers "really want", which happens to coincide with their bottom line. This situation with exclusivity contracts is no different. | |
| | | | | | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | Re: The consumer can't afford cell phones said by sonicmerlin:No, *you* don't get it. When phone manufacturers are allowed to avoid competing with each other there is no incentive for them to produce the highest quality and cheapest phones possible. That's why our phones are technologically behind the rest of the world. We have the exact same phones as everyone else. What is your response to that?
said by sonicmerlin:Arbitrarily conjecturing Americans wouldn't put up with up-front costs and lower monthly bills as an excuse not to ban exclusivity agreements is duplicitous and mendacious. Providing consumers with choice is always better than forcing them to go down one path. Show me the consumer demand for unlocked phones and then we will talk.
said by sonicmerlin:Yes, forcing consumers to buy subsidized phones tied to one carrier goes far in guaranteeing manufacturers will recoup their R&D costs, but guaranteeing their bottom line is NOT the purvey of the free market. That some manufacturers will fail and some will succeed is the necessary consequence of a truly competitive market, and is what will guarantee consumers receive the highest quality products and service for the lowest price possible. I could argue on a more philisophical basis of a consumer's right to do what they please with what they buy, but I'm getting sick of what amounts to arguing about the benefits of consumer choice. In the history of the free market, consumer choice has always led to positive results for the consumer. Large businesses always claim to have some future vision or sixth sense about what consumers "really want", which happens to coincide with their bottom line. This situation with exclusivity contracts is no different. Lets look at the iphone as an example. This phone was exclusive to ATT and drove massive sales. People have had the option of purchasing an unlocked version (check my links) but have chosen not to. What do you make of that?
--
"The only morality they recognize, is what will further their cause"
-Ronald Reagan-
| |
| | | | | | |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: The consumer can't afford cell phones said by wifi4milez:said by sonicmerlin:No, *you* don't get it. When phone manufacturers are allowed to avoid competing with each other there is no incentive for them to produce the highest quality and cheapest phones possible. That's why our phones are technologically behind the rest of the world. We have the exact same phones as everyone else. What is your response to that? That you're wrong. I think the last time I looked for the very cool Diamond2, it was not available anywhere in the USA.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5 | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: The consumer can't afford cell phones said by funchords:said by wifi4milez:said by sonicmerlin:No, *you* don't get it. When phone manufacturers are allowed to avoid competing with each other there is no incentive for them to produce the highest quality and cheapest phones possible. That's why our phones are technologically behind the rest of the world. We have the exact same phones as everyone else. What is your response to that? That you're wrong. I think the last time I looked for the very cool Diamond2, it was not available anywhere in the USA. Diamond2 available unlocked at many mainstream stores. And can be used on T-Mobile network with a sim card from T-Mobile:
»www.google.com/products?q=Touch+···=en&aq=f
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | | | | | | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | said by funchords:said by wifi4milez:said by sonicmerlin:No, *you* don't get it. When phone manufacturers are allowed to avoid competing with each other there is no incentive for them to produce the highest quality and cheapest phones possible. That's why our phones are technologically behind the rest of the world. We have the exact same phones as everyone else. What is your response to that? That you're wrong. I think the last time I looked for the very cool Diamond2, it was not available anywhere in the USA. The internet is your friend! If you are feeling lazy, simply go to Amazon.com and have one shipped to your door.
»www.amazon.com/dp/B001AJ2FJE/ref···Code=asn
Alternatively, you can buy it at one of the MANY brick and mortar stores that sells them. For instance, a 3 second web search brings me to Vibe Cellular, a retailer right here in NYC. Since you imply that you are computer savvy, I will let you conduct the search from here. After spending a few minutes online you will no doubt find a store right near you that sells one. No need to thank me, I am just helping out!
--
"The only morality they recognize, is what will further their cause"
-Ronald Reagan-
| |
|
| | | | | |
3 edits | We don't have the exact same phones as everyone else. Seriously, what are you smoking? American phones are a generation behind the rest of the world. You can point to such and such phone that can be purchased online, but even if you buy one you still have to pay the "subsidized" monthly fees. Compare that to Europe.
In Europe there are two ways to purchase the iPhone. One is with a subsidized cost of *free* with a 2 year contract that includes HUGELY marked up monthly voice and data prices. The other is an upfront bill with no restrictions on which carrier to use it with, which consequently means you can use the MUCH CHEAPER monthly plans all carriers offer.
Why is the onus on ME to demonstrate consumer demand, when exclusivity contracts harm the consumer and are in essence anti-competitive?
That's like Australian ISPs asking consumer groups to "demonstrate demand" for bandwidth intensive applications when no one in Australia uses Youtube *because the high-speed connections are not available* in the first place.
Even if you buy an unsubsidized iPhone the phone is still locked to AT&T. How can demand form with that sort of restriction? How can demand form when consumers don't have the CHOICE? Banning exclusivity contracts simply provides consumers with choice. It doesn't ban subsidized contracts, it just provides consumers with the choice whether to enter into a contract with a carrier or not. And after that contract is up they can use the phone with any other carrier they want.
As it is in America right now carriers don't have to compete on price, coverage, and service. If consumers are given the choice of a subsidized iPhone with *hugely* marked up monthly plans with a 2 year contract *as is offered in Europe*, or an up-front cost with significantly cheaper monthly plans and no contract with any carrier, THEN we'll see what choice the consumer really makes.
And ultimately that's what it comes down to: giving the consumer the choice to do what they want with the product they legally purchased. | |
| | | | | | | | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | Re: The consumer can't afford cell phones said by sonicmerlin:We don't have the exact same phones as everyone else. Seriously, what are you smoking? American phones are a generation behind the rest of the world. Thats not true. With the exception of some phone produced in Japan, we have the same options as everyone else. The reason the Japanese phones are different is that they operate on a technologically different network. Its as different as GSM and CDMA.
said by sonicmerlin:In Europe there are two ways to purchase the iPhone. One is with a subsidized cost of *free* with a 2 year contract that includes HUGELY marked up monthly voice and data prices. The other is an upfront bill with no restrictions on which carrier to use it with, which consequently means you can use the MUCH CHEAPER monthly plans all carriers offer. Here in the US we also have the choice of using contract or prepaid plans. Assuming you have the necessary phone (unlocked), you are free to choose between either.
said by sonicmerlin:Why is the onus on ME to demonstrate consumer demand You are the one arguing that people want unlocked phones here.
said by sonicmerlin:Even if you buy an unsubsidized iPhone the phone is still locked to AT&T. Yes, however here in America we have a different situation that most other countries. To being with, we have competing technologies (GSM and CDMA) which physically prevent you from using a phone on another network. Futhermore, with regards to the iPhone ATT uses a different frequency for 3G, even among GSM providers.
said by sonicmerlin:And ultimately that's what it comes down to: giving the consumer the choice to do what they want with the product they legally purchased. There are fundamental flaws with your argument. As I already mentioned, we have competing technologies and even different frequencies in place among carriers utilizing the same technology. We have billions of dollars invested by different companies to support the current networks, so its not as simple as you are making it out to be.
--
"The only morality they recognize, is what will further their cause"
-Ronald Reagan-
| |
|
| jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA | If U.S. consumers are dying for unlocked phones, then why do so few firms offering them? There are 4 independent nationwide cellular companies and dozens of regional ones. Are companies just sitting by ignoring massive profit potential? | |
| | | | | Re: The consumer can't afford cell phones Because it's more profitable for the 4 carriers to avoid competing with each other by limiting consumer choice.
This is a classic case of big businesses trying to guarantee and pad their bottom line at the expense of the consumer.
But it is not the *right* of the carrier to force a consumer to do what the carrier wants with the consumer's legally purchased phone. Nor is it the carrier's *right* to force the consumer to purchase a subsidized phone and use it only on that carrier. | |
|
| | said by wifi4milez:Good luck telling the average person to drop almost a half months' salary on a cell phone then....... That is the point. The prices will be forced down to at least what you currently pay with a contract. | |
| | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | Re: The consumer can't afford cell phones said by insomniac84:said by wifi4milez:Good luck telling the average person to drop almost a half months' salary on a cell phone then....... That is the point. The prices will be forced down to at least what you currently pay with a contract. Why? That hasnt happened anywhere else in the world. Non subsidized phones cost the same here as the do in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. I used to have a side business selling unlocked phones on Ebay. Sure I marked them up a little because I bought in bulk, but they still cost me a few hundred dollars each. Check any overseas cell phone website and you can verify this yourself.
--
"The only morality they recognize, is what will further their cause"
-Ronald Reagan-
| |
| | |
1 edit | Re: The consumer can't afford cell phones Prices can't drop in europe if the american market is keeping prices up. | |
| | | | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
1 edit | Re: The consumer can't afford cell phones said by insomniac84:Prices can't drop in europe if the american market is keeping prices up. You do realize how ridiculous that statement is, dont you? The retail price of cell phones is already the same all over the world.
--
"The only morality they recognize, is what will further their cause"
-Ronald Reagan-
| |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by wifi4milez:said by insomniac84:Because of exclusivity deals subsidizing phones, the average consumer can't afford good phones. SIGH.... thats totally incorrect. The carrier subsidies are actually the only thing that DOES allow people to afford cell phones. What most people (that live in the US) dont understand is that non-subsidized phones, even the most basic ones, cost a few hundred dollars. "Smart" phones (such as Blackberries and iPhones) have retail prices of up to $1000. That's flat out false. On Verizon with my last handset (the i760), removing this middleman reduces non-contract handset prices by about a third right off the bat (from $600 to $400). And you can find several stores that will sell you a non-subsidized phone for $20 -- I bought one less than 6 months ago and lit it up on the T-Mobile network.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5 | |
| | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | Re: The consumer can't afford cell phones said by funchords:That's flat out false. On Verizon with my last handset (the i760), removing this middleman reduces non-contract handset prices by about a third right off the bat (from $600 to $400). How exactly is that false then? The subsidized version of that phone would have cost you under $200, possibly as low as $99. I never said buying direct from the carrier was the cheapest way to get non-subsidized phones.
said by funchords:And you can find several stores that will sell you a non-subsidized phone for $20 -- I bought one less than 6 months ago and lit it up on the T-Mobile network. Thats some good work on your part. Anyone can buy an old, refurbished, or 1999 era unlocked cell for $20, however we arent talking about that. Consumers in the US dont want that kind of phone, people want iPhones and they want them for between $100 and $200.
You certainly can buy a cheap unlocked phone. Here is a link to one that costs $30.
»www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a···75209167
However you should note that its 2 years old, doesnt come with a manufactures warranty, and suspiciously comes loaded with "9 African languages". The problem is that if we end carrier subsidized phones, then this is all people will be able to afford.
--
"The only morality they recognize, is what will further their cause"
-Ronald Reagan-
| |
| | | | | Re: The consumer can't afford cell phones Actually one of the criticisms of exclusive contracts in the US involves pointing out how little the low-end phones have advanced. Essentially they haven't changed in years, while in Asian markets even the low-end phones have progressed leaps and bounds. | |
|
 AlpinePremium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA | said by wifi4milez:SIGH.... thats totally incorrect. The carrier subsidies are actually the only thing that DOES allow people to afford cell phones. Give the man a prize. This is 100% correct.
A bottom-line example. If AT&T didn't subsidize the iPhone in return for a contract, everyone pays $500+ for it from Apple.
Simple as that. | |
| | | | Re: The consumer can't afford cell phones I'd rather pay $100 for an old, used iPhone EDGE and pay much cheaper, unsubsidized monthly plans for voice only, using the iPhone's internet connection solely on Wi-Fi. That would save me so much money maybe I could afford the insane prices my ISP charges. | |
|
| |
|
