 
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
 ·Comcast
1 edit | I agree.. A lot of people bought the iPhone from AT&T at the subsidized price of $199. Then they paid the ETF of $175, then turned around and sold the iPhone on ebay or craigslist for $600+.
So yea, I think they are doubling the ETF to prevent this from happening with the Droid.
Bad move, IMO.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us | |
|
 | 
snipper_cr
join:2002-01-22
Wheaton, IL
clubs:
| Re: I agree.. said by Rob  :A lot of people bought the iPhone from AT&T at the subsidized price of $199. Then they paid the ETF of $175, then turned around and sold the iPhone on ebay or craigslist for $600+. So yea, I think they are doubling the ETF to prevent this from happening with the Droid. Bad move, IMO. I never thought of it that way... It still sucks that there is an ETF and that they are doubling it. People who are buying smart phones are paying a premium on data services so Verizon is already making extra off them.
--
The early bird catches the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
CPL:IA;ASEL/AMEL. CFI:ASE/AME; IA | |
|
| | 
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ | Re: I agree.. If someone owns a phone for 1 month, Verizon doesn't make a hefty premium on them.
To me it would seem to be the other way around - i.e. the ETF is necessary so that they don't lose that upcharge over the duration of the contract. | |
|
| | 
CurGeorge8
join:2005-05-02
Pittsburgh, PA
| said by snipper_cr :said by Rob :A lot of people bought the iPhone from AT&T at the subsidized price of $199. Then they paid the ETF of $175, then turned around and sold the iPhone on ebay or craigslist for $600+. So yea, I think they are doubling the ETF to prevent this from happening with the Droid. Bad move, IMO. I never thought of it that way... It still sucks that there is an ETF and that they are doubling it. People who are buying smart phones are paying a premium on data services so Verizon is already making extra off them. Not if the user cancels and pays the ETF within the first few months, which is what this is designed to prevent. | |
|
| 
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX
| It's the wrong move. If you cancel the contract you must return the phone or pay the balance up to the full retail cost of the phone.
Pay 200 + 200 ETF and the phone is 600 full retail. You owe 200 more.
It's even more ironclad, you get the phone back, refurb and resell. | |
|
| | 
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| Re: I agree.. said by NOCMan :It's the wrong move. If you cancel the contract you must return the phone or pay the balance up to the full retail cost of the phone. Pay 200 + 200 ETF and the phone is 600 full retail. You owe 200 more. It's even more ironclad, you get the phone back, refurb and resell. Who says you must return the phone? Is this in the contract? Obviously, people are doing it so it must not be. | |
|
| | |
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX
| Re: I agree.. I worded that wrong. I meant to say if you cancel the line, then you should be required to return the phone. It completely eliminates the scam. Though people will cry foul about their personal information being on the phone.
Still if you cancel and want to keep the phone, pony up the full retail cost.
I'm against ETF's generally, especially for things like cable contracts where you return the equipment. I can understand a reasonable processing fee, but nailing people for money because they're leaving your service because of whatever issues is just plain wrong. | |
|
| | | |
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| Re: I agree.. said by NOCMan :I worded that wrong. I meant to say if you cancel the line, then you should be required to return the phone. It completely eliminates the scam. Though people will cry foul about their personal information being on the phone. Still if you cancel and want to keep the phone, pony up the full retail cost. I'm against ETF's generally, especially for things like cable contracts where you return the equipment. I can understand a reasonable processing fee, but nailing people for money because they're leaving your service because of whatever issues is just plain wrong. Agreed on all points. | |
|
| | | | 
vzdollars
@qwest.net
| said by NOCMan :Still if you cancel and want to keep the phone, pony up the full retail cost. The retail "cost" is inflated. Most items sold in stores are sold at twice the price, often more, that the store paid for them. And many online stores manage to sell at half the suggested retail price and still turn a profit. | |
|
| 
C0deZer0
Oc'D To Rhythm And Police
Premium
join:2001-10-03
Davenport, FL
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Except that the iPhone is sold as a GSM phone, which meant it could be unlocked and used on another carrier, or even another account with AT&T.
You have no such benefit on CDMA networks like Verizon's.
--
Front Line Force Fortress Forever | |
|
| |
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| Lease only I'm suprised they don't do what Toyota/Lexus is doing with the LFA, only "selling" it at the end of the lease.
It's better for the phone companies to charge for the cell plan, an extra fee for data, more for unlimited texting, a monthly lease, then in the end make them pay even more for the phone. | |
|
| hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | Re: Lease only Wasn't there a company on here a while back that leased cell phones?
Does anyone remember the name of them? | |
|
ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
clubs: | Great timing.... With the Droid right around the corner I would imagine that is why they did this. ETF's should be going down, not up. | |
|
| 
Pathfinder
Dazed Confused
Premium
join:2000-03-26
Mount Vernon, NY | Re: Great timing.... Agreed. Charge $599 for the phone and no ETF. | |
|
| | milrtime83
join:2009-11-04
Stafford, TX | Re: Great timing.... What does that accomplish? It essentially charges the ETF up front and raises the total price that most people would end up paying over the life of the phone. | |
|
| | |
Pathfinder
Dazed Confused
Premium
join:2000-03-26
Mount Vernon, NY | Re: Great timing.... The bitch here is that most posters don't want to be tied to a contract. So if they pay full price up front they are free to leave whenever they want. | |
|
| dfxmatt
join:2007-08-21
Evanston, IL
| wasn't there serious legal battles surrounding ETF's, if I recall correctly?
meanwhile, that droid is in no way worth 350$, it's like a $175 actual retail value phone. The new processor actually is cheaper to make than the old one, not more expensive. This is like switching something that costs you $10 for something that costs you $5, but charging $20. | |
|
Mike_
join:2003-06-24
Fort Lauderdale, FL | Lame Lmao, talk about being scared of people leaving? What do they expect people are actually not going to like "the network".. How could that be?
/sarcasm
--
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Unless you know what you're doing. | |
|
| 
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Lame said by Mike_ :Lmao, talk about being scared of people leaving? What do they expect people are actually not going to like "the network".. How could that be? /sarcasm It is more about protecting against fraudsters looking to make a quick buck by flipping the phone and selling at a profit and not REAL customers who will stay or go based on service quality.
»I agree..
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
|
| |
ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
clubs:
 ·VOIPo
·Metrocast Communic..
 ·AT&T DSL Service
·ViaTalk
| Re: Lame said by TKJunkMail :said by Mike_ :Lmao, talk about being scared of people leaving? What do they expect people are actually not going to like "the network".. How could that be? /sarcasm It is more about protecting against fraudsters looking to make a quick buck by flipping the phone and selling at a profit and not REAL customers who will stay or go based on service quality. » I agree.. VZ gets their initial fees, and they get an ETF. I don't see they really "hurting" in that situation, subsidized phone or not.
--
"So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org | |
|
| | | dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| Re: Lame said by ptrowski :VZ gets their initial fees, and they get an ETF. I don't see they really "hurting" in that situation, subsidized phone or not. The non-subsidized price for the droid is $600 but they're selling for $200 after rebate and subsidy. If the $200 price + the old $175 ETF didn't cover the wholesale cost of the phone, they'd be losing money to people selling them on e-bay to make money.
With a $375 ETF plus the $200 price, they're coming in close to the retail price of the phone. Can't really blame them- why should they subsidize profits for people just out to sell the phone? | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| Re: Lame said by ptrowski :So that is the price VZ is getting them for? Doubtful. I don't know what they're paying for them, but it's no doubt less than $600. It's not at all hard to believe that they might be paying more than $375 though. | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ | Re: Lame It doesn't matter what they pay wholesale for the phone. What matters is their expected revenue over the contract period. If ebay flippers are substantially decreasing that then there's the rationale behind the increased ETF. | |
|
| | | | 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| said by dynodb :said by ptrowski :VZ gets their initial fees, and they get an ETF. I don't see they really "hurting" in that situation, subsidized phone or not. The non-subsidized price for the droid is $600 but they're selling for $200 after rebate and subsidy. If the $200 price + the old $175 ETF didn't cover the wholesale cost of the phone, they'd be losing money to people selling them on e-bay to make money. With a $375 ETF plus the $200 price, they're coming in close to the retail price of the phone. Can't really blame them- why should they subsidize profits for people just out to sell the phone? If the non-subsidized cost is $600 and the subsidized and rebated cost is $200 (with a 2 year contract) with a $375 EFT, the monthly reduction should be $15.65 not just $10 (ie: It should go down based on how long you have paid under the contract so the EFT is fully paid off at the end of the contract - At $10 a month, you still owe $145 after 23 months). The supposed reason for an EFT is to pay back the unearned subsidized discount you got by not buying at the full price. | |
|
| | | Chaldo
join:2008-03-18
West Bloomfield, MI
| said by ptrowski :said by TKJunkMail :said by Mike_ :Lmao, talk about being scared of people leaving? What do they expect people are actually not going to like "the network".. How could that be? /sarcasm It is more about protecting against fraudsters looking to make a quick buck by flipping the phone and selling at a profit and not REAL customers who will stay or go based on service quality. » I agree.. VZ gets their initial fees, and they get an ETF. I don't see they really "hurting" in that situation, subsidized phone or not. It's because Verizon can't stand it when ANYONE makes a single buck of them. They want to rule your money, and give you nothing in advantages besides service in return. This type of stuff is way easier on GSM and happens so much more with GSM carriers, then Verizon. Trust me Verizon does not have a big issue with this. Yes I know GSM is used way more then CDMA. The problem is they can control it better on CDMA. Verizon closes any holes that are an advantage to customers, that's just how they roll. | |
|
| | 
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05 | How is paying an activation fee, paying for a phone, then paying an early termination fee being fraudulent? Perhaps it's gaming the system a little, but those who are clever enough to do so should not be punished for it. | |
|
| | | dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| Re: Lame said by NOVA_Guy :How is paying an activation fee, paying for a phone, then paying an early termination fee being fraudulent? Perhaps it's gaming the system a little, but those who are clever enough to do so should not be punished for it. How is it not fradulent if someone signs a contract with no intention of honoring the terms?
Wireless providers sell subsidized phones at a loss in exchange for making the money back on subscription payments. It's unrealistic to expect them to sell (or give away) a phone at less than cost yet have no recourse against someone who doesn't honor the contract. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | |
See 11 replies to this post |
|
| | | |
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
·VOIPo
| Both parties to the contract have honored its terms. Verizon provides the phone and service, and the consumer pays for the phone, service, and early termination fee. Everyone is happy... at least until now, when Verizon decides to get even greedier.
--
To all liberals: I am NOT one of your parents, so get the heck out of my wallet. It's time for you to grow up and take some personal responsibility for taking care of yourselves, which means not relying on the government to give it all to you. | |
|
| | | | 
jhboricua
ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN
clubs:
1 edit | said by dynodb :How is it not fradulent if someone signs a contract with no intention of honoring the terms? The terms called for an ETF. The ETF was paid. The terms of the contract were met. Thus there's no fraud.
said by dynodb :Wireless providers sell subsidized phones at a loss in exchange for making the money back on subscription payments. You assume they are selling subsidized smartphones at a loss. I've yet to see independent data that proves this. The fact that even if you pay the full price for a smartphone you are still require to sign a contract cast doubts on the whole 'subsidized phone' claims by the cell carriers.
said by dynodb :It's unrealistic to expect them to sell (or give away) a phone at less than cost yet have no recourse against someone who doesn't honor the contract. It's unrealistic to think they are actually giving away the smartphones in the first place.
--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Jose A. Hernandez * System Admin * MPLS, Minnesota, USA * | |
|
| | | | | dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| Re: Lame said by jhboricua :[You assume they are selling subsidized smartphones at a loss. I've yet to see independent data that proves this. The fact that even if you pay the full price for a smartphone you are still require to sign a contract cast doubts on the whole the 'subsidized phone' claims by the cell carriers. OK, maybe "fraud" isn't the right word- but it's close.
I suggest you check out the subsidized phone prices. Unless you believe that Verizon (for instance) is only paying $50 for the HTC Ozone (and less for other low-end smartphones), then it's pretty obvious the subsidized prices are far less than wholesale cost.
Surely you don't believe that the carriers pay nothing for the "free" phones they give away. Of course they're subsidized. | |
|
| | | | | |
jhboricua
ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN
clubs:
| Re: Lame said by dynodb :I suggest you check out the subsidized phone prices. Unless you believe that Verizon (for instance) is only paying $50 for the HTC Ozone (and less for other low-end smartphones), then it's pretty obvious the subsidized prices are far less than wholesale cost. What 'seems' obvious is irrelevant. There's no data to backup the carriers claims. You still have to sign a contract even if you pay full price for a smartphone.
said by dynodb :Surely you don't believe that the carriers pay nothing for the "free" phones they give away. Of course they're subsidized. If you're referring to the low end POS phones they give away for free with a contract, they prolly recoup the cost the first month of service alone.
--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Jose A. Hernandez * System Admin * MPLS, Minnesota, USA * | |
|
| | | | | slckusr
Premium
join:2003-03-17
Maumee, OH | you dont get a contract if you bring\buy (at full retail) your own equipment. 199.99 isnt full retail price. | |
|
| | | | dfxmatt
join:2007-08-21
Evanston, IL | It's not fraud if you cancel a plan per the terms of the service, which is what an ETF also includes. So I don't see your point.
These are not people doing something illegal or otherwise. | |
|
| |
Mike_
join:2003-06-24
Fort Lauderdale, FL
| That is not a "fraudster". There is nothing wrong with a customer no longer liking their service, canceling, paying their etf as required, and legally selling an asset that is no longer usable to make back what they spent on the services. Explain how that is "fraud" ? Also, how and in what way does that hurt poor old mr. Verizon who has no say in what an individual does after a contract is closed?
--
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Unless you know what you're doing. | |
|
| | sides14
join:2007-11-29
Glendale, AZ
| How is gaming the system (legally) fraud? Like the iPhone 3GS, it only costs $179 to make (»mytriniphone.com/blog/2009/06/co···3gs-179/). If Apple doubled the cost to ATT that is only $358. In addition, most wireless companies buy phones in the 10s of thousands and receive a substantial bulk discount. With ETFs, the only people making out are the wireless companies. | |
|
| | |
Pathfinder
Dazed Confused
Premium
join:2000-03-26
Mount Vernon, NY
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Lame According to your article
" These estimates do not include other charges, such as the costs to develop the iPhone’s software, shipping and distribution, packaging, royalty fees and miscellaneous accessories included with each iPhone."
$359 is not very unreasonable. It may be on the cheap side. | |
|
| | 
RickNY
Premium
join:2000-11-02
New York
| said by TKJunkMail :It is more about protecting against fraudsters looking to make a quick buck by flipping the phone and selling at a profit and not REAL customers who will stay or go based on service quality. What exactly is fraudulent about that? There is absolutely nothing fraudulent -- the original buyer performed in accordance with the legally binding contract -- where is the fraud? | |
|
tlkudo
Premium
join:2007-09-20
Fort Pierce, FL
| Business as usual If all they're worried about is people terminating and then selling the phone for profit, then why not give the option to return it and avoid paying an ETF?
Oh wait, that's right, this is really about pissing on customers and telling them it's raining.
I seem to remember that the ETFs were chopped across the industry as a way of saying "hey FCC, we're fixing everything on our own, see? No need for regulation. Everybody just move along." Now that the flavor of the day has moved on to something else, it's back to business as usual for ETFs. | |
|
| 
Niarlan
Excelsior
Premium
join:2002-11-09
Manville, NJ | Re: Business as usual So it would be better for the company to take back the phone after 4 months so they can do what? Sell it to another user as new?
Nia | |
|
| | tlkudo
Premium
join:2007-09-20
Fort Pierce, FL
| Re: Business as usual said by Niarlan :So it would be better for the company to take back the phone after 4 months so they can do what? Sell it to another user as new? Nia This would stop abuse of the current ETF, which is the reason cited for doubling it. So yes, it would be better for Verizon to take back the phone. Remember, if you're terminating after 4 months, it's usually because of a problem you have with the service.
Refurbish the phone, and sell it again. | |
|
| | | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Business as usual said by tlkudo :said by Niarlan :So it would be better for the company to take back the phone after 4 months so they can do what? Sell it to another user as new? Nia Remember, if you're terminating after 4 months, it's usually because of a problem you have with the service. Making money off unhappy subs.
isn't big business great!
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
rudnicke
Premium
join:2004-10-23
Rantoul, IL | Contract So it his a change in contract? Does this mean someone can escape from their contract without paying the ETF?
--
One Big Ass Mistake America | |
|
| |
Simba7
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
| What a ripoff.. So.. They're doubling the ETF rates? Why?
1. The technology is CDMA. Which means if the phone is blacklisted, it can't be used at all. I bumped into this on my first 6800, but the person was decent enough to replace it with one that does work.
..as for GSM, which you could unlock the phone and shove in a prepaid/contract SIM card.
2. Are they already screwing people for going over their 5GB cap? If the ETF ever went up, I'd expect that cap GONE.
This.. is yet another reason I will never switch over to Verizon.. I will keep Alltel until the towers get shut off.
--
Bresnan 15M/1M|MyWS[P4HT@4.01GHz,2GB RAM,2x1TB HDDs,Win7]|WifeWS[P4@2.4GHz,1GB RAM,60GB HDD,Win7]|Router[2xP3@1GHz,640MB RAM,18GB HDD,Allied Telesyn AT-2560FX,Kingston KNE100TX,2xDigital DE504,Compaq NC3131,iPro/1000DP,Blitz BWI715,Gentoo Linux] | |
|
|
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ | Re: What a ripoff.. You're worried about a 5GB cap? On a PHONE? If the cap was 5MB I'd be worried but not 5GB. | |
|
| |
Simba7
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Re: What a ripoff.. Obviously you don't use the amount of data I do. | |
|
| |
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
·VOIPo
| You obviously have not used some of these new smartphones. With streaming video and audio all day, one can go through 5GB in a month.
(I streamed audio through my iPhone all day at work when I was on AT&T to listen to music; now I do the same on Sprint with my Palm Pre.)
--
To all liberals: I am NOT one of your parents, so get the heck out of my wallet. It's time for you to grow up and take some personal responsibility for taking care of yourselves, which means not relying on the government to give it all to you. | |
|
| | | |
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| inflated pricing Smart phones should not be $600.. they are ripping the consumer off.. the cost of making these devices since the iphone (gen2) have been cut by neary 30% and yet they still love these wack-job gouging prices! A top of the line smart phone should be $450, tops (with every possible feature you could imagine).. not $600+ yet, there are millions of people who keep falling for the higher prices scam all the time.
Also, in an industry which is seeing that $99 price tag of unlimited everything wireless (a rarity now), Verizon is a last hold-out at this high pricing for post paid accounts**. Leave it to someone to point out that Verizon has a majority interest in its wireless licenses/technology standard and deployed network to try to justify higher pricing... good luck!
Prepaid is the biggest growth in the wireless industry because of it's low pricing, yet the quality of the phones are terrible-- many of the lower quality phones are nearly featureless (compared with smart phones). | |
|
| 
danclan
join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: inflated pricing simply free the phones from the providers....that is to say...let the phone makers sell phones and the carriers sell air time...
then the phone will either sell on its own or fail...the european way works just fine and everyone makes money and there is competition....but thats just crazy talk here in the us with just 3-4 real nationwide carriers... | |
|
| dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| We're not talking about a necessity here. The value of nearly any given item is what people are willing to pay for it. If enough people are buying at $600, then no, it's not a "scam", and it shouldn't be $450 "tops" regardless of what it cost to manufacture it. | |
|
| 
bjf123
We Want... A Shrubbery
Premium
join:2000-02-11
Cincinnati, OH
clubs:
·Cincinnati Bell
| said by tmc8080 :Smart phones should not be $600.. they are ripping the consumer off.. the cost of making these devices since the iphone (gen2) have been cut by neary 30% and yet they still love these wack-job gouging prices! A top of the line smart phone should be $450, tops (with every possible feature you could imagine).. not $600+ yet, there are millions of people who keep falling for the higher prices scam all the time. Other than making sure the cost to manufacture doesn't exceed the selling price (and there are time when companies will intentionally do that), the selling price has nothing to do with the cost to produce. Right now, I'm wearing a limited edition Tag Heuer watch. At home, I've got watches by Rolex, Breitling, Oris, Ebel, and two other Tags. I also have a Citizen. The higher end watches cost anywhere from 10 to 25 times the price of the Citizen. Do they cost that much more to manufacture? Doubt it. They can get the higher prices because of a perceived value. It's the same with cell phones. If you don't think a particular phone is worth a certain amount, don't buy it. That's like me saying that I want a new Mercedes E Class, but only want to pay $30,000 for it. Not gonna happen.
--
Golf is a relatively simple game, played by reasonably intelligent people, stupidly.|In a Roadster club? | |
|
obeythelaw
Premium
join:2003-04-16
Bayonne, NJ | why are people complaining? to all the verizon fanbois out there, you are never going to leave verizon anyway. if you are upset because now you can't make a profit off of the sale of your phone then find a new job! | |
|
| BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: why are people complaining? easy way to profit , buy the phones , ink a family share plan 4 or 5 lines get 5 androids , wait a week swap them for cheesy phones and sell the contract on ebay for low cost.
Sell off the phones.
Profit still ad pass on the bill to the next guy.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Increasing it is justified My provider has an ETF of $500 for my iPhone contract (3 years).
Know why I don't see a problem? Because the retail price of the phone is $500 more than I paid. If I had bought the phone outright with no contract, I'd have paid $500 more. If I terminate my contract, I'd have paid $500.
Although, my contract is pro-rated after 50% through, I believe. Would have preferred if it started at the beginning, but meh.
My point is, the telco charges at retail what Apple charges them; as far as I know, there isn't a markup. If you cancel and pay an ETF that doesn't let them recoup the cost (as in, buy it and cancel immediately and pay the ETF), then they're losing money. | |
|
atuarre
Here come the drums
Premium
join:2004-02-14
Lake Charles, LA
clubs:
| RE I applaud Verizon for making this move. I really think the Storm 2 started this. You can look on e-Bay and see people auctioning off Storm 2's for 400+ when you can get them from Verizon for 175 if your a regular customer signing a contract or a VIP customer for 125.
The carrier is the one getting screwed here, and I think it is about time that they made this move.
One poster mentioned giving the device back. I do think AT&T implemented this for the iPhone where if you cancelled the contract not only were you responsible for the ETF but also the FULL retail cost of the phone, as it should be. | |
|
| 
PGHammer
join:2003-06-09
Accokeek, MD
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: RE said by atuarre :I applaud Verizon for making this move. I really think the Storm 2 started this. You can look on e-Bay and see people auctioning off Storm 2's for 400+ when you can get them from Verizon for 175 if your a regular customer signing a contract or a VIP customer for 125. Actually, I think the deep discounts for the Original (Classic) Storm (and other BBs) started this.
There are six BlackBerries that are $50 or less with a two-year contract.
THere are *two* different Android phones (one from Motorola, and one from HTC), with the HTC model $100 with a two-year contract. (HTC DROID ERIS: »www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/stor···eId=5070)
There are those that want to break carrier-exclusivity (and make a tidy profit) by selling their subsidized handset on eBay or craigslist (or even in the local paper), and now they are mad that their scheme has been rather neatly derailed. VZW (nor any other carrier) doesn't do handset-exclusivity deals for the customer to rip them off, people. | |
|
cyclone_z
join:2006-06-19
Ames, IA
·Qwest.net
| Wrong again! You guys missed it, as usual. This has NOTHING to do with handset costs. I guarantee you that they wouldn't have had the ETF at $175 for so long if they were losing tons of money. Retail prices often have NOTHING to do with the actual price paid, especially for a big dog like Verizon. I would bet they are paying $250-$275 for the high-end handsets.
It has EVERYTHING to do with contracts. Verizon LOVES 2-year contracts. If you call up with a reception problem, their solution is a new handset and new 2-year contract. Fix the problem? HAHAHA! It's The Network (TM) -- how could there be a problem? A higher ETF keeps more people under contract -- right where Ivan wants you.
It wasn't until very recently that you could even start service without signing a contract EVEN IF YOU BROUGHT YOUR OWN VERIZON APPROVED HANDSET. The handset is how they lure people into the services they sell. It's like the free first hit. (and to many people a cell phone is crack). If you can buy a "compatible" handset on ebay, why sign a contract? You can start and stop service when you need/feel like it, or use it with a prepay and only use it when you need it. Prepaid/no-contract plans are growing in popularity and Verizon HATES that idea. | |
|
|
| cyclone_z
join:2006-06-19
Ames, IA
·Qwest.net
| Re: Cost of phone said by marcusj3000 :The cost is well past $450 to make a advance smart phone. You armchair amateurs need to take a course on business and manufacturing. What are you basing any of this on? I based my points on my experience in retail when I was younger. I was able to buy a limited amount of products "at cost" -- the cost of the store -- which was 1/2 the listed retail price. 100% markup is typical, although in some industries and with some products it is more.
I was able to find the HTC hero for sale in the UK for 321 british pounds, which converts to 532 US dollars. 1/2 of that is $266.
I found some analyst estimates that Apple has about $200 in parts in an iPhone. They also have software development and testing costs. As the number of devices sold increases, this cost decreases. Android makers have little software cost since Google provides Android for free. Yes, they have design and testing costs, but in the US there are few marketing costs since the carriers do most of the advertising. | |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ | So why? is the ETF only coming down $10/month instead of $14.58/month?
-
10 * 24 = 240[who's pocketing that extra $110?]
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
| cyclone_z
join:2006-06-19
Ames, IA
·Qwest.net
| Re: So why? said by dvd536 :is the ETF only coming down $10/month instead of $14.58/month? - 10 * 24 = 240[who's pocketing that extra $110?] Because it's about keeping customers under contract and profiting off ETFs, instead of just recovering costs. | |
|
manhole
join:2000-09-12
Modesto, CA
clubs:
| A more fair approach I think a more fair approach would have been to institute the following policy.
Leave the ETF at $175. But if you cancel your service within 6-months you must also pay back the difference between the price you paid for the phone and the retail price. I believe most of the online cell phone stores have had a policy like this for many years and they seem to work. | |
|
chinchan
@bsnl.in | verizon Ever heard of Cellswapper.com? It may be the only way out, | |
|
kurtaustin
join:2006-03-25
Chicago, IL | Change in ETF, can I opt out now without penalty? does this increase an ETF's qualify as a change in the contract, so I can opt-out with no penalty? | |
|
|
|
|
Verizon To Double Smartphone ETFs?
