Database Users

Samsung Vibrant to only cost $330 OFF CONTRACT?

Its seems that the fine folks at phandroid have stumbled across this little nugget of info tucked neatly away in the fine print of the Samsung Vibrant's shop page.
†On approved credit. $82.50 down payment, plus 3 monthly payments of $82.50, required. 0% APR. Taxes & fees additional. Available only at T-Mobile-owned retail stores; see store for details.
phandroid.com/2010/06/30/samsung-vibrant-to-cost-330-off-contract-galaxy-s-fine-print/
If u do the math that equates to $330. I hope T-Mobile plays it smart and doesn't change the price before launch, because I definitely assumed the off contract price would be $450-$550
In any event, there also seems to be a "REAL" screen cap of the actual price tag on the page before TMO decided to remove it. Here's the link to that also...
androidforums.com/samsung-galaxy-s/112106-no-secret-vibrant-full-price-329-99-a.html#post1041189
DO RIGHT BY US LOYAL, DOWNTRODDEN CUSTOMERS TMO!!

ShawtyKING said:
Its seems that the fine folks at phandroid have stumbled across this little nugget of info tucked neatly away in the fine print of the Samsung Vibrant's shop page.
†On approved credit. $82.50 down payment, plus 3 monthly payments of $82.50, required. 0% APR. Taxes & fees additional. Available only at T-Mobile-owned retail stores; see store for details.
phandroid.com/2010/06/30/samsung-vibrant-to-cost-330-off-contract-galaxy-s-fine-print/
If u do the math that equates to $330. I hope T-Mobile plays it smart and doesn't change the price before launch, because I definitely assumed the off contract price would be $450-$550
In any event, there also seems to be a "REAL" screen cap of the actual price tag on the page before TMO decided to remove it. Here's the link to that also...
androidforums.com/samsung-galaxy-s/112106-no-secret-vibrant-full-price-329-99-a.html#post1041189
DO RIGHT BY US LOYAL, DOWNTRODDEN CUSTOMERS TMO!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Jesus Christ. Do you seriously think that the Nexus One retails for $529 but THIS phone - which is better in every.single.way is going to retail for $330?
That's quite literally one of the stupidest things I think i've read in a long, long time.

Personally, Im pretty sure the phone is going to cost $500+ because the on contract price vs. this supposed on contract price doesn't make sense and this also bucks the trend of previous costs associated with phones of this level.
However, it would be a nice (and courageous) move on TMO's part with this slightly, in comparison, paired down galaxy s model to move units.
Anyway, I thought I would share this sliver of hope with the TMO faithful lol.

This just reminds me of the entire "Project Dark" / EM+ debacle where some blogs reported errors/rumors as facts of an upcoming program. So when EM+ came out, the news wasn't that TMO cut their pricing, it was that they didn't live up to the hype that some bloggers posted about false pricing info.
Same damn thing now. People ARE going to be disappointed if they think that in any reality (normal or alternate) TMO is going to sell this phone for $330 without a contract to recoup the cost of the device.
also, this phone is a $750 phone unlocked:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-list...w?ie=UTF8&qid=1277908710&sr=8-1&condition=new

If you look at the T-mobile site now it says "125 down, with 3 monthly payments of 125" thus making the phone in the $500 range

as you said, that price has been pulled down, and curently at the bottom of the page is of the info screen (when you go to their web and shop for phones, and then for samsung phones) it shows:
"†On approved credit. $125 down payment, plus 3 monthly payments of $125, required. 0% APR. Taxes & fees additional. Available only at T-Mobile-owned retail stores; see store for details...."
others have reported off contract pricing at $439 / $439 and some at $499
we'll see this week

I was told by tmo to call on tuesday to find out the pricing of the phone

gothdroid said:
I was told by tmo to call on tuesday to find out the pricing of the phone
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Im going to try that to find out how much it cost with the Equipment Installment Plan

Store rep told me that it'd be at the lowest, similar priced to the HD2 or about 479. She said it won't go any lower than that.

reuthermonkey said:
Jesus Christ. Do you seriously think that the Nexus One retails for $529 but THIS phone - which is better in every.single.way is going to retail for $330?
That's quite literally one of the stupidest things I think i've read in a long, long time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Vibrant is defiantly NOT better in every single way.
The Nexus one Has a Bluetooth car dock, No word about anything like that for the Galaxy S phones.
The Nexus One is made out of much much better materials, The vibrant feels cheap in the hand and the body looks cheap, the only thing on the Vibrant that looks better is the screen.
The Vibrant has no FLASH, How some one could make a High end Android phone without a flash is beyond me, but oh well.

siberslug said:
The Vibrant is defiantly NOT better in every single way.
The Nexus one Has a Bluetooth car dock, No word about anything like that for the Galaxy S phones.
The Nexus One is made out of much much better materials, The vibrant feels cheap in the hand and the body looks cheap, the only thing on the Vibrant that looks better is the screen.
The Vibrant has no FLASH, How some one could make a High end Android phone without a flash is beyond me, but oh well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
looks like someones a little insecure

siberslug you mad?

Mad, No, I come off as mad ?
I'm just saying it's not better in every way, overall I think it's better in terms of hardware like the GPU, Screen and it's file sharing capabilities.
I would agree with him if the Vibrant was built from better material and had a flash, hell I would call it a Droid and EVO killer if it had a front facing camera in addition to the flash and better material but there is too much missing to call it that.
I just bought this to hold me over until project Emerald comes out in November

chaoscentral said:
looks like someones a little insecure
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL
You got me.
I like big Bad @$$ things to compensate for my short comings lol
A bit disappointed but no not insecure. I will still rub this phone into all the Iphone fanboys faces and be proud to do so !! even though I don't have a flash or front facing camera or an exquisite finish that I could roll around naked on

New info on release date for US version

Sprint
http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2010...print-for-399/comment-page-2/#comment-1040561
T-Mobile
http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/09/samsung-galaxy-tab-stars-in-leaked-slide-t-mobile-version-to-co/

Getting close . I'm still banging my head to find out when my network is going to have them ready for order.
I'd like to take this occasion to point out that $599 price point. That would be... wait for it *drum roll* ...
Cheaper than the equivalent (16GB +3G) iPad.
That would mean that the Wifi version should cost less than a stock galaxy.
That would mean that the Tab is priced even more competitively than I've been preaching about for a month *looks smug*

I'd like to point out the contract-price.. $399 with 24 month contract... IF that would be just simply converted to euros (about 290€) I'd buy TWO
Unfortunately, knowing where I live, it's probably close to 599€ with 24 month contract... (I'll still buy on )

In all honesty, assuming the US hardware is identical and the price here in the UK is higher, I might even import me a US one and flash it onto the euro ROM.
Only reason I've been thinking of buying on contract was because I figured I might need to cover the costs. But £375 for an unlocked GSM version I can happily do upfront, even with a bit extra in tax and shipping, particularly if british retailers stick with the £599 price point (which I've always thought was crazy, but they might).
Then I can just swap my SIM from my galaxy into it.
Either way, thats a damn fine price.
Edit- Oh and I'm with you on buying two at that price. Could sell one still boxed and make a tidy profit, or an awesome christmas gift for my fiancee.

i find your maths interesting.
also a leaked tmobile slide is stating $649.99, which is more than the larger screened ipad with 3g.
i dont look smug though as i never wanted this thing to cost more than the Apple product. i think if you really want to get a Tab, then i would seriously wait until after christmas, as there is no way its going to sell well at this price so its got to come down.
Samsung are kidding themselves if they think they have the same blind support that Apple enjoy.
p.s. i dont know how it works in the US, but the tmobile slide also states the $649.99 as 'dealer price'. dealer price in the UK would be the price the reseller pays the manufacturer, before they add on their margin, its not the price to the end consumer. it may work different in the US though

johnnewhouse said:
i find your maths interesting.
also a leaked tmobile slide is stating $649.99, which is more than the larger screened ipad with 3g.
i dont look smug though as i never wanted this thing to cost more than the Apple product. i think if you really want to get a Tab, then i would seriously wait until after christmas, as there is no way its going to sell well at this price so its got to come down.
Samsung are kidding themselves if they think they have the same blind support that Apple enjoy.
p.s. i dont know how it works in the US, but the tmobile slide also states the $649.99 as 'dealer price'. dealer price in the UK would be the price the reseller pays the manufacturer, before they add on their margin, its not the price to the end consumer. it may work different in the US though
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My math was done from the BGR report (the t-mo slide was edited in later) where it says $599 is the full retail price. I ran $599 through XE.com and got £375. Don't know what else I can say... Full retail price = the price.
Also, Engadget is heavily pro apple. They never criticize their pricing and always say iProducts are 'better', even getting specs wrong on the competitors and not changing opinions when shown they're wrong.

Only cost $205 to make Galaxy Tab

As much as I love the device but the true cost to make the tab is $205. I bought it around $650+tax (AT&T). Feeling guilty... Yes, you have to make profit but that's a lot of profit...3x time the cost.
Why can't Samsung sell the device directly to us (without going through carrier)?

quattr0 said:
As much as I love the device but the true cost to make the tab is $205. I bought it around $650+tax (AT&T). Feeling guilty... Yes, you have to make profit but that's a lot of profit...3x time the cost.
Why can't Samsung sell the device directly to us (without going through carrier)?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That may well be the cost of outright manufacturing, but it is the cost of development and testing that they have to make up, therefore charging such a retail mark-up.

That price only includes the cost of materials. What about the cost of labor or design or the cost of the manufacturing process? How much does that add to the final price?

That may be the cost of the hardware side of it, but as you know hardware just doesn't cut it with the Tab the need to tinker with the software and whatnot to make it work in some way.
So for argument sake lets say:
Hardware: $205
Software: $205
Right there is $410. Then lets say that samsung actually wants to make some profit so:
Main price: $410
Profit: $100
so thats $510, then the 4 major carriers have to make money somehow on top of that.
P.S. - Sorry if this was a log post; I got caught up in the moment.

Even If the price is $205 it is well worth it. After using it i can that it is a solid device.

Many forget shipping, duties for electronics, marketing, R&D, and others. It adds up quick.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App

quattr0 said:
As much as I love the device but the true cost to make the tab is $205. I bought it around $650+tax (AT&T). Feeling guilty... Yes, you have to make profit but that's a lot of profit...3x time the cost.
Why can't Samsung sell the device directly to us (without going through carrier)?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Typically cost of materials constitutes only about 20-30% of sale price. The rest is marketing, distribution, support, software development and updates, etc.
Returned devices are another contributer to the sale price.
It looks to me that Samsung selling it on the edge of profitablility. Comparison with iPad should account for extra profits that Apple gets from software sales. My guess it is covering a good portion of that marketing/distribution expenses.

quattr0 said:
As much as I love the device but the true cost to make the tab is $205. I bought it around $650+tax (AT&T). Feeling guilty... Yes, you have to make profit but that's a lot of profit...3x time the cost.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's already been said, but this is a real bug bear of mine, so I feel the need to post!
Companies like iSuppli provide details of the cost of "bill of materials" (BOM), which is a list the components that go into making a device. Whilst iSuppli themselves make it clear that they are talking about the BOM, the media just looks at the cost, compares it to retail, so that consumer can draw the erroneous conclusion that they are being ripped off.
In reality, the actual component cost is often way less than 50% of the total cost to actual manufacture, market, distribute, sell, and support a product.
I don't know for sure of course, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Samsungs profit on a $650 Tab is less than $100. The carriers themselves are probably making next to nothing per Tab, because they are hoping that each Tab sale either involves a lengthy contract, or that you'll be spending a lot of money on prepaid data.
Regards,
Dave

No offence, but this thread is irrelevant. Every device costs next to nothing these days.
If you wanna talk about overcharging, talk about football players wages.
Sent from my GT-P1000

just be glad you dont smoke ciggarettes, those are like 2cents a pack to make. and cost 10 dollars to the consumer.
Your tab wont give you cancer either , yet.

These threads crack me up because they show how little business knowledge most tech people have.
Sure you could make a tab for $205 if you stole the design, and software. Oh yeah, you would also have to buy the components in bulk lots of several million to get those kind of prices.
The truth is that even if it does only cost Samsung $205 to manufacture the Tab, they will loose money on every unit sold until they hit their break even which will be in the multi-millions of units sold.
R&D is the biggest expense in the technology business. Marketing and distribution are not cheap either. The raw parts are often the cheapest part of the equation.

[Q] Pricing - throw in your wild speculation here

So as hawk2k8 has posted about, the Motorola site doesn't have the 'Buy Now' on their website right now (at least temporarily) and the speculation goes... it could be a price change, out of stock, or revamping the listing to add Flash and 4G info. So let's play out the price change part of it for a little fun!
My thoughts are that it seems a bit odd that they have the 3G/4G price at $800 and will put out the wifi version a full $200 below. I just can't imagine a vendor having that large of a separation between the models. And yes, I know their rep said it would be around the $600-ish mark, not debating that, just saying its a big difference for having 3G/4G. It would be an even bigger difference if the wifi sold at $539 as that 'Android 2.0 Homeycomb' sign showed.
So, what IF! What if they dropped the price of 3G to $599. Then the wifi model at $539 wouldn't sound so odd. Then maybe they give the early adopter buyers a $100 rebate so the pain of buying early wasn't so bad. Those that bought from stores like Costco would likely return it if the window was large enough and the wifi version came out during their return window. But my guess is most will be in the 14-30 day window and not return it. Or maybe Motorola will not give a rebate and just say that you paid for the experience of the XOOM as an early adopter.. who knows..
So let's stir up some fun speculation. I said FUN! Let's hear it! What's your wild speculation if they did change the price?

I'm certainly no marketing expert but I know my friends that have Apple products and those that have Android products are pretty much different when it comes to technology. Apple, its like no thinking involved, you want a movie or song plug it in and iTunes does all the work. Xoom, not so easy. Motorola/Google/Android really need something that simple. Apple, you don't think about encoding settings, and for the masses thats great. With the Xoom, there is so much confusion with "experts" trying to decide how to encode a movie; I don't use mine for movies so I don't follow it closely.
To answer your question with my two cents, if they want to compete with the iconic iPad, a great device (I have one), they need to get an iTunes like program. If they don't have that they'll never appeal to the average consumer with this type of device and will be on the fringes of the tablet market. Motorola Media Link got pretty good reviews (I never tried it with my Droid or DX) and why this isn't ready for the Xoom, Jha should hang his head in shame.
If you're shopping in Best Buy for a tablet, the ipad 2 is $600, what would it take to even consider the Xoom? I think the Xoom would have to be at least $75 south of a similar spec'd ipad to get someone that wants a tablet to take a good look at it.

So to be sure I stem the potential... I don't want this be an ipad v. xoom controversy. As they say, let's keep it to the facts m'am. Just want to hear ideas about pricing speculation. =)

@OP
I think Moto will stick to the original MSRP, at least for a while. Until April, the Xoom will still be the only HC tab in town.
Part of the high pricing is to establish brand position (i.e. Xoom "is a premium product") in consumers' mindset, and not so much about getting more money. Part of it is to protect the smartphone pricing model, given that Moto sell smartphones at ~$500 price point, and a tab is considered as "smartphone-plus", which should command $500+ pricing. If Moto/Samsung/HTC/et al sell tabs at the "laptop" pricing model, there would be considerable downward pressure on their present smartphone pricing.
For laptop vendors, eg Acer/MSI/et al, there is no such dilemma, and their HC tabs will start at around the $400 point. Asus and Dell have smartphone aspirations, and will stick with the "smartphone" pricing model.
The Apple iPad2 is the 800-lbs fly-in-the-ointment in all this. But in econ terms, the demand for either product (iPad2 or Xoom) is relatively price-inelastic, i.e. you aren't likely to buy either on the basis of pricing. Anyone who buys a Xoom at this point is an early adopter who wants to try Android's latest, and price isn't a significant factor. People who buys iPad are likely already partial to the iOS ecosystem, and at this point Apple's simply is more mature and user-friendly. So, while fodder for arguments, relative pricing is not a major factor.
@mgerbasio
Normal users don't do video transcoding, period. For that, the Xoom can be made as simple as Apple's if that's desired. All that's needed is a suitable preset. That's what the early adopters are hashing out. The same occurred for the Apple iPad.

If sales are as bad as the rumors indicate, then I would make the following decisions if I was Motorola:
1. Start a heavy marketing campaign. HEAVY-Hire an advertising firm that will blast the information about the Xoom everywhere. Spend some freaking money.
2. Sell the 3G/4G model at a $599 price point for the 3G/4G, would draw some interest.
3. Sell the WIFI version for $479.00 This $539 price we have seen is a marketing failure. Nobody prices a product at $539. This is simply a dumb, dumb move. $499.00 should be the Max price for the WIFI version.
4. Offer immediate credit to anyone who purchased the Xoom previously. Rebate?
5. Get Verizon to dump the $35, re-activation fee. That is stupid.
6. You need to make a killing on the accessories, and you can't do that without your main product selling. Selling the 3G/4G at cost isn't a bad move, and it certainly wouldn't hurt Motorola. Your not losing money at cost, your just not making any money on your main product. However, you should be making money on the WIFI version.

Why are the prices higher?

I was thinking about it and its one of 2 things imo. I think they are using the extra bucks for the future LTE expansion, building towers and whatnot. But most likely they are a bunch of grubby pricks that want to nickel and dime us
Sent from my HTC Sensation using XDA

I've read through a lot of the huge thread, and a lot of people were saying that t-mobile tends to offer the new, hip device for an outrageous cost for the first few weeks.
If you are a current customer you might have luck calling customer service and passively threatening to switch carriers. Many people here have had luck getting $200 off the phone and a few other perks. The last 10 pages of so of the big thread are full of those stories.
I bought the phone outright. The value plan I'm on is sweet- I'm saving $450 over 2 years.

Lets hope for the first and realize this phone is actually a phone that I might keep for the 2 years for a 1st haha. There is no real reason I don't think except the fact that T-Mobile has the cheaper of the plans when it comes to the competing 3, so the 80$ more that I have to spend to get the phone compared to the 25-50$ a month I save (comparing to my friends who have Verizon and At&t I'm okay with the difference... But still wish it wasn't the case.

I'm rocking the Motorola Cliq. This phone is going to seem so amazingly quick. If I can get 2 1/2 years out of a pos phone like the Cliq I can get 2 years out of this sexy phone.
I'm just happy that I am still out of contract.

mhuckins said:
I'm rocking the Motorola Cliq. This phone is going to seem so amazingly quick. If I can get 2 1/2 years out of a pos phone like the Cliq I can get 2 years out of this sexy phone.
I'm just happy that I am still out of contract.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
GOOOooo should've went to the G1 haha.

mt3g said:
GOOOooo should've went to the G1 haha.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I almost did! I didn't want to move away from the qwerty keyboard. I've spent so much time on the computer in the last year I couldn't justify another partial upgrade. I was so close to buying an iPhone (they get upgrades, my cliq is like 1.8 or some lousy shiat) and then the SGSIII came along. I haven't slept in weeks. It's like the raspberry pi all over again.

MacTheRipperr said:
I was thinking about it and its one of 2 things imo. I think they are using the extra bucks for the future LTE expansion, building towers and whatnot. But most likely they are a bunch of grubby pricks that want to nickel and dime us
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Spit-balling...
T-Mobile's Value plan is supposed to encourage customer's to avoid the recent spate of aggressive phone upgrades, and they are realizing that smartphone users are unaffected by the economic argument as the situation stands.
The phones actually are more expensive than we tend to think, and even "no-commitment" pricing has been subsidized.
The worldwide currency shifts have affected the cost of phones, and most carriers have been reluctant to reflect reality in a highly competitive market.
High demand and low supply resulted in either a money-grab or an attempt to prevent people from buying up the limited supply and selling on eBay (the latter being, admittedly, unlikely given the nature of the mobile market).
Executives have started to notice that the "free phone" weekends have been eating into profits and T-Mobile is attempting to capitalize on eager buyers that clearly aren't willing to wait until the inevitable deal comes along.
The unusual modem and/or overall lower volume of T-Mobile's sales meant that they weren't able to negotiate a deal as aggressive as the larger players.
T-Mobile has an interest in seeing HTC succeed and are attempting to subtly curb the Goliath that is Samsung in an attempt to keep their leverage going.
Pricing is not related to anything other than an attempt to place devices into tiers (with the S2 at $550, the One S at $600, and the S3 as the perceived-best phone), and they didn't expect a backlash against the better phones costing more money.
T-Mobile is attempting to expand its image as the "value" service by leaving room for negotiation so that bargain-conscious customers talk them up.
Don't take any of the above too seriously. It is kind of late, I haven't put much thought into it, and I've had a lot to drink.
In any case, relative value is relative value. I don't care that Redbox is losing money renting to me for $0.70, it makes me unwilling to pay for Blockbuster Express at $3. I don't care that an album costs $7 at my preferred service of Amazon MP3, I am unwilling to buy because Google Music has it $4. At the end of the day, the (vocal) minority of us that hang it forums like this will sweat the price difference because we spend all of our time comparing like items.
It isn't even remotely fair to T-Mobile (or whomever), but it is human.

Voltage Spike said:
Spit-balling...
T-Mobile's Value plan is supposed to encourage customer's to avoid the recent spate of aggressive phone upgrades, and they are realizing that smartphone users are unaffected by the economic argument as the situation stands.
The phones actually are more expensive than we tend to think, and even "no-commitment" pricing has been subsidized.
The worldwide currency shifts have affected the cost of phones, and most carriers have been reluctant to reflect reality in a highly competitive market.
High demand and low supply resulted in either a money-grab or an attempt to prevent people from buying up the limited supply and selling on eBay (the latter being, admittedly, unlikely given the nature of the mobile market).
Executives have started to notice that the "free phone" weekends have been eating into profits and T-Mobile is attempting to capitalize on eager buyers that clearly aren't willing to wait until the inevitable deal comes along.
The unusual modem and/or overall lower volume of T-Mobile's sales meant that they weren't able to negotiate a deal as aggressive as the larger players.
T-Mobile has an interest in seeing HTC succeed and are attempting to subtly curb the Goliath that is Samsung in an attempt to keep their leverage going.
Pricing is not related to anything other than an attempt to place devices into tiers (with the S2 at $550, the One S at $600, and the S3 as the perceived-best phone), and they didn't expect a backlash against the better phones costing more money.
T-Mobile is attempting to expand its image as the "value" service by leaving room for negotiation so that bargain-conscious customers talk them up.
Don't take any of the above too seriously. It is kind of late, I haven't put much thought into it, and I've had a lot to drink.
In any case, relative value is relative value. I don't care that Redbox is losing money renting to me for $0.70, it makes me unwilling to pay for Blockbuster Express at $3. I don't care that an album costs $7 at my preferred service of Amazon MP3, I am unwilling to buy because Google Music has it $4. At the end of the day, the (vocal) minority of us that hang it forums like this will sweat the price difference because we spend all of our time comparing like items.
It isn't even remotely fair to T-Mobile (or whomever), but it is human.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wish I could write so eloquently when drunk. What's your fark handle?

It's sort of amazing to see people complaining about the "high" price without factoring in the total price of the contract or looking at the ETF. Worrisome.

Last year the GS2 and Amaze 4G were priced in the mid $200s so this seems pretty normal for T-mobile. T-mobile has also mused about contract pricing and how it is affecting their competitiveness and bottomline. Since the phone is untouched mostly there were probably other concessions that T-mobile wanted with Samsung on pricing. Then of course this phone is even more feature packed than the last, and you can't remove components once you place it in your previous flagship model (the GS2) so they are getting more and more expensive.
I don't think ETF factors much, unless you are some crazy person who likes to break contracts all the time and can't wait out the 2 years. T-mobile contract prices are lower, sure, but not by much.

Why doesn't anyone incorporate how much the plans cost prior to complaining about the cost of the phone?
I remember reading somewhere that stated studies show customers are more prone to sign with a carrier based on the price of the phone instead of the rate plan.
Let's wise up, fellas. Don't be a poor consumer.

tmobile is the only company selling the phone at this point, and in limited markets at that. I am wondering if they're selling the phone at such a high price in the beggining because they know they can. Look at the overwhelming demand coupled with such a limited supply. It's an easy cash cow. Im wondering if I should wait out and see if the price will go down in the next few weeks. ATT and Sprint are both selling 32gb at 600 and tmobile is selling them at 670 but like I said before Tmobile is the only one selling them at this point and they're pretty much done in Manhattan (i called a bunch of stores already).

ttngu234 said:
Why doesn't anyone incorporate how much the plans cost prior to complaining about the cost of the phone?
I remember reading somewhere that stated studies show customers are more prone to sign with a carrier based on the price of the phone instead of the rate plan.
Let's wise up, fellas. Don't be a poor consumer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The purchase of the phone is the only time they have to fork out a bunch of money so it makes sense that the cost will drive many consumers. For the most part, the rate plan costs are similar across the market. Yes, Verizon is the most expensive but they have a reputation for offering the best network and that allows them to charge a premium.

Sergent D said:
The purchase of the phone is the only time they have to fork out a bunch of money so it makes sense that the cost will drive many consumers. For the most part, the rate plan costs are similar across the market. Yes, Verizon is the most expensive but they have a reputation for offering the best network and that allows them to charge a premium.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really. AT&T and Verizon are both equally expensive, and while Sprint is a bit cheaper (comparable unlimited talk/text plans closest to T-Mobile's 5GB web/tethering in this case), you're still paying a substantially bigger amount over the 2 years even with a cheaper phone.