Related
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
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.
I had to upgrade to my Evo before the April 1 deadline because of the Premier Program changes and I was able to jump in the best buy buyback program for free. And since I don't think I am the only one around here I was wondering.
When I look at what the retail price for phones on bb.com compared to sprint's retail prices, bestbuy is almost $100-200 more. (e.g. sprint Evo $450/ BB Evo $600) Has anyone tried to get them to pricematch sprint when buying a phone at retail price? If you go to bestbuy's pricematch policy the first FAQ is
"What is considered a local retail competitor? "
and the answer is ....
"A retail store located in the same market area as your local Best Buy store."
The reason I ask is this. On the same web page there is a link for a New York Price Match Class Action lawsuit about a similar situation where an individual bought a camera from Best Buy then found the same camera at a "local" camera retail shop for less, and BB wouldn't price match it. And this individual won. (Reference the Decision and Order Document. The conclusion is on the bottom of page 31)
Note : There is more to the story, but this is what started the wheel turning in the lawsuit. I recommend reading that specific document thoroughly so you can see how scandalous retail can be.
I can understand not matching contract prices, although in the past they have for me. But in this case we are talking "retail" price. I have up til August to get 50% for my Evo ($300) and I was thinking for future sake how i would attack the upgrade. I could either do an ETF (about $180) and lose my mobile #, but pay contract price ,or I could just cash in the Evo for the program and buy phone at retail.
Has anyone had any experience with this situation with BB?
Typed on my CyanoSavaged SuperEvo.
I'm not sure why you'd want to sell your phone to best buy when you can get more for it on here, craigslist, or ebay. There is a reason they want to buy it back from you at that price.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App
I had to purchase my Evo at full retail price and i looked into this too. I was inclined to purchase it at Best Buy because they actually had it in stock where as the sprint stores near me put me on a waiting list (this was during the 2 week wait list stuff)
I hoped to price match because i knew people there from working there 3 years beforehand
They wouldn't price match for me either
I ended up getting my Evo at Radioshack after walking in randomly to see if they had them in stock. It was like 25 bucks more, but after being on a wait list for over a month i decided 25 bucks more than Sprints retail price was worth it
A little off topic, but on the price match subject at Best Buy. I just bought a new high end refrigerator from best buy, and before she rang it up she went online and checked all the major appliance sellers for the product and Lowes had it for $159 cheaper so they matched that price with out even asking. Of course, I had already shopped around and new of the lower price and was planning on making them price match. I prefer shopping at best buy for big purchases to maximize my reward points.
OneStepAhead said:
I'm not sure why you'd want to sell your phone to best buy when you can get more for it on here, craigslist, or ebay. There is a reason they want to buy it back from you at that price.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
$300 for an EVO which is nearly 2 generations old hardware is a VERY good amount to receive for it.
They only fetch $200-250 average on craigslist, and that's begging the buyer to pay more.
I have purchased a phone from best buy at retail price and they matched the price to sprint for me. I don't know why they would not. That seems kind of stupid.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
princessakiki said:
I have purchased a phone from best buy at retail price and they matched the price to sprint for me. I don't know why they would not. That seems kind of stupid.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A lot of times it depends on the sales person. Same thing when you walk into a Sprint store for an upgrade, exchanges, or just service.
OneStepAhead said:
I'm not sure why you'd want to sell your phone to best buy when you can get more for it on here, craigslist, or ebay. There is a reason they want to buy it back from you at that price.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Evo's go for about $200-$250 here in the Phoenix area, you will occasionally see the $300, but I doubt that is where the negotiating settles at.
I have purchased a phone from best buy at retail price and they matched the price to sprint for me. I don't know why they would not. That seems kind of stupid.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Obviously you didn't read the Class Action I referenced. In the reading the customer was told he could not price match because the identical camera was sold at a local retailer that specifically sold photography equipment, not an electronics chain store like Ultimate Electronics or Circuit City for example. Also they were practicing within the Best Buy chain that they would not price match it it was not cost effective, like a percentage of profit over cost.
Now I know from being a part time manager in the past at an Autozone store that we were not allowed to price match oil/antifreeze products against Wal-Mart, Target, etc., specifically for the reason they were big box stores. But we "could" pricematch other auto part retailers (Checkers, Napa, etc.) This is why I asked the question, because I was wondering if Best Buy has ever said that when buying a phone retail. Because I could see something said along the lines of, "Well they have lower retail because they receive your monthly payment."
In a "for profit" business, I don't think it would be stupid on their end not to price match as they give back considerably higher buy back on phones over Sprint. Also Best Buy may not buy as many phones as Sprint so their bottom line could be slightly higher.
The best buy buy back program is a scam. I'm glad you got it for free; its like saying hey you pay me $250 upfront to purchase this $1000 laptop, and when you trade it back you only get 500. This is stupid and Best buy wins. I used to shop at best buy all the time until realizing that their markup on everything is like 30% higher than normal retail value. I purchased my heroc on launch day at best buy and paid 100 bucks for it with upgrade. I believe at the time sprint had it for 199 with upgrade. I think their full retail price is much higher on phones because they just cancel out the rebates. I purchased my evo at radio shack for 99.88 but their full retail price was also much higher than sprint's as well. Hmmm
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
Yeah, there is no way I would have purchased it.
However, the situation was at the time was that I had an upgrade that I was going to lose in April whether I used it or not. So now with the EVO3D and the Nexus S coming out, I would like to take advantage of it if necessary.
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.
So last night, I decided to go to an AT&T store to buy an LTE Note 8.0 only to find that the first three of the corporate stores I called didn't have any in stock. Finally, the fourth store I called had two left. So I went over there fully expecting to pay the full unlocked $499 price. To me, it didn't make sense to lock myself in for two years when I'd only save $100 over full retail.
When I walked in, though, I was helped by the store manager. He gets the tablet for me and then goes to look up my account info so he could convert my plan to a MobileShare. He saw that I bought a Galaxy S4 about 40 days ago and, much to my surprise, offered me the smartphone bundle promotion, which meant I could get the tablet on contract for $199. I knew about the promotion but just assumed I wouldn't qualify since I bought the phone before the Note 8.0 even launched.
Needless to say, saving $300 over full retail WAS enough to get me to go contract. There's great customer service and then there's the service I received last night. The manager totally didn't have to do that for me but offered without me even asking. :good:
Awesome! Gratz to hear about your saving. Att never did me wrong, even when they rep accidentally took away my unlimited data, I just call customer service and they just me back on unlimited data.
I had a similar experience. I purchased an S4 but the Note 8 available when I purchased it. When it was to be released by AT&T my AT&T Sales person called me to let me know it would be available on the morrow and they had 5 in the store and further that even though I had purchased my S4 16 days previous AT&T would give me the promo bundle price of $199.00. That is stellar service in my opinion.
Bruce
cataloochee said:
I had a similar experience. I purchased an S4 but the Note 8 available when I purchased it. When it was to be released by AT&T my AT&T Sales person called me to let me know it would be available on the morrow and they had 5 in the store and further that even though I had purchased my S4 16 days previous AT&T would give me the promo bundle price of $199.00. That is stellar service in my opinion.
Bruce
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol. Dealers do this all the time. They get people into promotions (most which they can find a way to make happen so long as its not too far outside the box).
The dealer did not do it to be helpful, which is the sad thing. Dealers, including managers, make more commission off contracts than they do off devices. So he would have made more commission still with that contract than having you spend money on devices. They do this because the company makes more money having you pay the monthly service cost than by having you buy a full cost phone or tablet.
In essence, it takes a company 18-24 months to make back the subsidized cost of a device. That means that 199 bucks you paid, you will pay back the missing 300 bucks on the plan after typically 18 months. Then they get 6 months of profit. So you do actually pay for the device for full cost anyways.,,,and they just extended out how long between upgrades and by the time you get around to actually being eligible for upgrade they may be extending it out further. The current discussions in the industry are talking about 3 year contracts and 2+ year upgrades.
What you have to consider is the lifetime cost of service and the device. They want you to buy a tablet. It makes you pay for their service, instead of just tethering your phone to the tablet. Tethering is cheaper, not contracts, and you wind up paying A LOT LESS even if you pay full cost for the device.
Truth is that ATT customers typically pay close to 1-2K more than many of the carriers that charge full cost for a device. Basically that 300 bucks you saved cost you at least a grand more in the end, and the manager who was "helping" you basically just weasled you into a contract where you will pay more for a separate plan for the tablet instead of just using cheaper tethering options (considering you still share data regardless) and he just got a good commission out of you.
Sad but true. You just got suckered.
How do I know? Nearly 7 years working in the wireless industry. Some of that time with AT&T and a great deal of that time with retail agents and retail policy.
I'm not trying to be a downer, but I hate AT&T dealers. After working for them for so long, Ive come to find that just about every single dealer if about as underhanded as a used car salesman trying to sell you a lemon and convince you its a ferrari. I used to see the dealers in my home town and my normal reaction to them is equivalent to the thought of "you sick bastard."
I do not know how many "deals" a dealer has done that I have had to fix, but typically even if their promises are kept they still use you and screw you over.
Ive even heard dealer chatter. How they talk about customers and think of customers as no more than a mark to be scammed so they can get their next commission. Ive seen more respect for their "victims" from the criminals on "to catch a predator."
phoenixbennu said:
lol. Dealers do this all the time. They get people into promotions (most which they can find a way to make happen so long as its not too far outside the box).
The dealer did not do it to be helpful, which is the sad thing. Dealers, including managers, make more commission off contracts than they do off devices. So he would have made more commission still with that contract than having you spend money on devices. They do this because the company makes more money having you pay the monthly service cost than by having you buy a full cost phone or tablet.
In essence, it takes a company 18-24 months to make back the subsidized cost of a device. That means that 199 bucks you paid, you will pay back the missing 300 bucks on the plan after typically 18 months. Then they get 6 months of profit. So you do actually pay for the device for full cost anyways.,,,and they just extended out how long between upgrades and by the time you get around to actually being eligible for upgrade they may be extending it out further. The current discussions in the industry are talking about 3 year contracts and 2+ year upgrades.
What you have to consider is the lifetime cost of service and the device. They want you to buy a tablet. It makes you pay for their service, instead of just tethering your phone to the tablet. Tethering is cheaper, not contracts, and you wind up paying A LOT LESS even if you pay full cost for the device.
Truth is that ATT customers typically pay close to 1-2K more than many of the carriers that charge full cost for a device. Basically that 300 bucks you saved cost you at least a grand more in the end, and the manager who was "helping" you basically just weasled you into a contract where you will pay more for a separate plan for the tablet instead of just using cheaper tethering options (considering you still share data regardless) and he just got a good commission out of you.
Sad but true. You just got suckered.
How do I know? Nearly 7 years working in the wireless industry. Some of that time with AT&T and a great deal of that time with retail agents and retail policy.
I'm not trying to be a downer, but I hate AT&T dealers. After working for them for so long, Ive come to find that just about every single dealer if about as underhanded as a used car salesman trying to sell you a lemon and convince you its a ferrari. I used to see the dealers in my home town and my normal reaction to them is equivalent to the thought of "you sick bastard."
I do not know how many "deals" a dealer has done that I have had to fix, but typically even if their promises are kept they still use you and screw you over.
Ive even heard dealer chatter. How they talk about customers and think of customers as no more than a mark to be scammed so they can get their next commission. Ive seen more respect for their "victims" from the criminals on "to catch a predator."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While your statements are true they are not necessarily accurate. The only way a person would have been "suckered" is if he didn't know what you describe. But almost all consumers realize that there is no free lunch and that the choice of purchasing outright or monthly result in the full price of the device being paid. The only difference is when payment accrues and how much the final cost will be. No different than purchasing a vehicle or a home.
In addition, the accuracy of your claim of being suckered depends on whether the purchaser bought because of the lower initial price or because he wanted the device in any case. In my case I had already decided to purchase the Note 8 from AT&T and only awaited the availability of the Note 8 at AT&T as I wanted the LTE data option. Thus, my only decision was whether to pay full price or add a two year contract to my account. Since I would have to have a data plan from AT&T to use the LTE feature in any case I needed to have an additional phone line. So I was able to get the regular discounted price or pay full price plus the new line costs (these I would pay no matter how I purchased the device and would last as long as I wanted to use the device). With the additional bundle price I decided to purchase at $199 instead of $399. Of course I realize I will pay full price over the next 24 months including the premium for purchasing by installment. But I knew that, considered it, and choose to do it. Thus, I made a considered decision and was not "suckered".
And clearly the sales staff is trying to sell devices and services that bring them the greatest commission. That's what they do for a living. The consumer knows that too. Maybe the real "suckers" are those sales people that think that they are being really "sharp".
Bruce
cataloochee said:
While your statements are true they are not necessarily accurate. The only way a person would have been "suckered" is if he didn't know what you describe. But almost all consumers realize that there is no free lunch and that the choice of purchasing outright or monthly result in the full price of the device being paid. The only difference is when payment accrues and how much the final cost will be. No different than purchasing a vehicle or a home.
In addition, the accuracy of your claim of being suckered depends on whether the purchaser bought because of the lower initial price or because he wanted the device in any case. In my case I had already decided to purchase the Note 8 from AT&T and only awaited the availability of the Note 8 at AT&T as I wanted the LTE data option. Thus, my only decision was whether to pay full price or add a two year contract to my account. Since I would have to have a data plan from AT&T to use the LTE feature in any case I needed to have an additional phone line. So I was able to get the regular discounted price or pay full price plus the new line costs (these I would pay no matter how I purchased the device and would last as long as I wanted to use the device). With the additional bundle price I decided to purchase at $199 instead of $399. Of course I realize I will pay full price over the next 24 months including the premium for purchasing by installment. But I knew that, considered it, and choose to do it. Thus, I made a considered decision and was not "suckered".
And clearly the sales staff is trying to sell devices and services that bring them the greatest commission. That's what they do for a living. The consumer knows that too. Maybe the real "suckers" are those sales people that think that they are being really "sharp".
Bruce
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Same here. I don't feel suckered. I walked into the AT&T store fully planning on paying $499 full retail for the tablet. The contract price was $399 and it wasn't worth it to me to lock myself in for 2 years purely to save $100 off retail. However, when I was offered $199 for the tablet, now we're talking about saving $300 over retail up front and that WAS worth it to me as far as locking myself in for two years. I was able to put the $300 toward something else and I love having an LTE tablet. Win-win. It's only being "suckered" if you're led to believe one thing and something different actually happens. I knew what I was getting into.
oldblue910 said:
Same here. I don't feel suckered. I walked into the AT&T store fully planning on paying $499 full retail for the tablet. The contract price was $399 and it wasn't worth it to me to lock myself in for 2 years purely to save $100 off retail. However, when I was offered $199 for the tablet, now we're talking about saving $300 over retail up front and that WAS worth it to me as far as locking myself in for two years. I was able to put the $300 toward something else and I love having an LTE tablet. Win-win. It's only being "suckered" if you're led to believe one thing and something different actually happens. I knew what I was getting into.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"You can lead them to the water but you can't make them drink" Of course you know they will, because they're thirsty!!
Nice that's great that they took care of you.. In reality I think you came out on top because if they switched you to mobile share you are only payin $10 a month for that line being locked in for the next 2 years would be $240 so by being in contract you actually get the device for $60 less than full retail.. Great stuff had a similar experience and that's what pushed me over the edge to get it