Slashdot Mirror
Google's Nexus One, a Steal At $49 Unlocked?
gjt writes "I initially posted a piece ragging on the Nexus One. But then a commenter pointed out a problem with my initial logic, and after doing some math I concluded that the $529 unlocked/unsubsidized Google Nexus One gPhone is much cheaper than it appears to be. In fact it's only $49 over two years — and that's unlocked! Google likes to say that the Nexus One represents 'Our new approach to buying a mobile phone.' But it actually seems as though T-Mobile deserves most of the credit by providing a $20/month discount to customers who purchase an unsubsidized phone, a fact that didn't seem to get much attention when T-Mobile created the plan last October."
So, the real cost of an unlimited everything plan is $99.99/mo for subsidized phone buyers. Compare that to the $79.99/mo plan for unsubsidized buyers and that’s a $20/mo savings. Over two years, that’s a whopping $480 savings.
So, $529 – $480 yields a final purchase price of just $49!
Except that the phone is still $529! You're just buying the most expensive package available and think you're saving money, which makes no sense.
Everything in Europe has been traditionally unlocked and unsubsidized phones. You buy the phone and then you get a subscription from your favorite operator. They have added the subsidized option but almost no one buys his/her phone like that. It's just stupid, which the article writer seems to have "discovered" here.
$49 as in "$529 + $1680 is only $2160 +$49."
That's not quite $49, and not even getting into the issue of NPV (net present value).
Dear poster,
Your math is unlike my math. I have concluded that your math sounds like something a statistician would produce to justify something completely ass backwards.
Sincerely,
John Q Public
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
The fool doesn't understand the point of getting an "unlocked" phone.
On the other hand, there are only two choices in the US - AT&T and T-Mobile - so perhaps he's not such an idiot after all...
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
For a long time, I didn't even understand why /. is so hung up about phone plans. "Why don't you just buy a prepay one?"
I'm pretty sure it has a lot to do with the fact that Slashdot is hosted and operated in the United States for the primary benefit of readers in the United States. The handsets sold in big-box stores in the United States for use with prepaid plans in the United States are still locked to one provider, and they're feature phones rather than smartphones. Feature phones tend to have fewer apps because 1. there isn't a lot of CPU power, and 2. BREW is even more restrictive than Apple's App Store.
What was that about not being evil again?
On the other hand one can buy the phone and the same two year cost will be about the same. This would be the reasonable thing to do as you would not incur the wrath of the Google termination fee.
I don't even know why anyone would by a Nexus 1, since one can get a no contract phone from T-Mobile for much less and have the same fee.
I wonder if Google is setting such high prices to keep the cell companies happy, or if they are actually so inefficient that they can't market the phone for less.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
someone carried a story yesterday that Google has sold only 80,000 so far. 20,000 were sold at launch. even apple sold more of the original iphone 2G.
fact is that Google has to rely on it's Android partners to advance the platform and they can't be successful in selling their own handset since no one wants to help a competitor.
they already probably have enough problems with their partners who are competitors coding new features in secret and only releasing the code after the product is released. Android has been fairly successful as a platform, but it's only the cheapest manufacturers making the phones for it. Samsung, HTC and LG who make dozens of new handsets every year, each one sells a few and the marketing departments are overworked trying to find new names for next years models. it's almost like they only company it's hurting is Microsoft. Apple and Blackberry don't seem hurt by Android.
Google getting desperate and subtly spamming slashdot now? Hey, perhaps people just don't want a phone made by the "maybeyou shouldn't be doing it in the first place" guys?
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
You flipped the monthly rates there, the monthly plan is, unsurprisingly, cheaper with the unsubsidized phone, not the subsidized phone.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Are they really charging *more* for the same service if you bring your own phone?
That is utterly insane BS, although about what I would expect from my past dealings with US mobile phone companies. Why in the hell do people put up with that?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
I think you have the Unsubsidized and Subsidized prices backwards. The subsidized price is $99.99 and the unsubsidized price is $79.99. $20 discount for not getting the initial phone purchase subsidized.
google's release of the Nexus One is more of a raising the bar for other android hardware makers and in turn they didn't expect to sell tons of units or set the world on fire. rather, they are making other android handset makers step up their game to compete. plus, they can also test their device on a smaller carrier prior to unleashing it into the large boys like verizon and at&t.
just my .02 like always (cuz you know with the interwebz, we all have our .02, hehe).
oh yea, the fewer people that have the Nexus One, the better for me. makes me feel special. j/k.. i think we'll see the nexus one take off when it hits a bigger carrier like verizon later this spring.
I think you've got the plans backwards. Tmobile is discounting the unsubsidized plans $20 (basically, you are making up the subsidy in $20 increments over the life of the contract).
$179 + $99.99 * 24 = $179 + 2399.76 = $2578.76 Subsidized
$529 + $79.99 * 24 = $529 + $1919.76 = $2448.76 Unsubsidized
Difference is $130 in favor of the unsubsidized.
The Nexus One (like all Android phones) is data-hungry. It wants a 3G signal to perform well. EDGE sucks so bad you woild give the phone back.
Since there may not be ANY phone sold in the US that does 3G on both AT&T and T-Mobile, your choice of Android phone pretty much determines which carrier you use - you don't want to buy a Nexus One for use on AT&T, since it will be a slow data phone. Ditto for buying an iPhone 3G or 3GS to use on T-Mobile. It will be slow and disappointing.
Locking GSM data-intensive phones in the US is pointless, and a complete lie. If you want a 3G phone, your carrier determines which phone you buy. For now, anyways.
Now, when there is a 3G 'smartphone', Android or not, that can handle both A&T and T-Mobile 3G, then locking becomes important again. But for now, Android GSM phones need not be locked, and smart people at the carriers know this. They just go along as they always have, cause it makes sense to most of us.
On the CDMA side, it's more interesting.
In Europe, it seems GSM is pretty compatible. And locking is not a viable business model there.
So if you buy a locked Android phone, you know at least one party doesn't get it.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Not possible. T-Mobile is a cellphone company and therefor irredeemably evil. They cannot possibly deserve any credit for anything. I'm sure someone will explain how it is all really a plot to deprive you of your inalienable human right to unlimited free downloads and uncapped infinite bandwidth.
The RIAA is behind it. Mark my words.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
You also run into the fact that truly money savvy people can take that "extra" $350 and make more than $130 in 2 years. Opportunity cost is present as well. And that's the reason why not paying up front can be better in the long run for some people. At least on a small scale, it should be reasonable. (now taking $35000 and making $13000 more might be a little harder to come by, and I won't argue against that).
You can pay a $530 up front and save $480 equalling $50 or pay $180 up front and then another $480 over two years equalling $660.
Which is a better deal? $50 or $660 w/ contract?
Yes Europe's cell phone system is better, but that is not the argument at hand and most Americans don't really care as we can do little to nothing about it.
British football joke.
... even here at SlashDot, society is infested with the innumerates! Arrrrh!
A DISCOUNT cannot be applied to a purchase price until/unless it is clear of other conditions. In this case, a 24 month service "contract".
The $20/mo can only be considered if the contract price is fully competitive with the offer you would otherwise take. Personally, I consider $60-75/mo utterly outrageous. The $20/mo makes them slightly less outrageous, but still usurous. I have a nice grandfathered sweet deal at $2-4/mo, but more than $40 is just plain extortion.
Aren't you guys tired of reading all the time the same big-brother phone-add "news" on slashdot? Since when this site started covering a 4 months old price as a news? What exactly do we learn here? Are moderators sold to google? Aren't the adds on google itself enough? If this was mobile phone dot com why not, but I (and I believe, the vast majority of readers here) are reading to learn about new stuffs in the IT world.
I'm getting sick of so much promotion for a device that doesn't deserves it and that is taking so much space and time on the web.
Most people really aren't that money savvy though. And buying subsidized binds you into a 2 year contract replete with 2 ETFs for at least a couple of months.
You can usually make your SO happy by saying something in the lines of "I think we've saved enough percentages for today, honey"
WTF logic are you using? The kind made up in your own head with no grounds in real life? That's the only kind of logic I could see saying that. Now, in your opinion, ok. But then don't go saying stupid bullshit like "Logic says [whatever]" when it has nothing to do with logic. You're a piece of shit.
Boost mobile. $50 a month, tax included most places, prepay, pick up the cards anyplace for cash. Unlimited talk, text, data, PTT walkie talkie. You get everything at that price, and they have some branded cheap phones to some snazzier feature phones, and you can make a variety of nextel i series smart phones work on the network as well iden network), just buy one of those if you must have a more powerful phone, then get an activation SIM card. Google is your friend there. Data cable to your PC or bluetooth synch. Surfs just fine, I used mine today for about an hour. Not the fastest, but similar to old dialup speeds, still useful enough. In some markets now they have CDMA phones as well, so you can get even better data speed.
Seriously, I never understood the whole "you have to spend money to save money" mentality that so many people have. When you spend money that you don't need to spend, that's a loss in my book, even if the discount is 99%. But hey, kudos to the guy for pointing out that you don't need to be tied to the service if you're going to buy the phone anyways, you may as well get the unlocked version and do some crazy custom modding, which will cost you more time, and arguably more money.
So. Who kicked in the free phone for you to change your mind? Google or t-mobile?
the same logic that says you don't know value when you see it.
Geez, when you add it all up, doesn't it seem like a lot of money to you just for an opportunity to use the phone?
It sounds like it would apply to any unlocked phone?
So subsidizing is basically T-mobile giving you a $350 loan where you pay back $20 per month for 24 months.
If I'm not wrong the interest rate on this loan is 32.4% ?
http://coverage.t-mobile.com/default.aspx?MapType=Data If you are happy with 2-3 times the speed of dialup then go for it. T-Mobile only has 3G in a few select large cities. Cripples the phone in my opinion. Even AT&T has much much better 3G coverage. And Verizon throws Rev-A (3G) on all their towers which is why they have been winning the "map wars" recently.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" Franklin
Shouldn't we calculate the price in the same way as iPhone prices are usually calculated?
According to the FTA, he is paying $529 for the phone, plus $80 per month for an unlimited plan = $1920 over two years, total = $2449. That is the cost of the phone.
Is he saying that because a subsidised Nexus 1 + contract is $49 more than an unsubsidised Nexus 1 + contract, they're selling the phone for $49? I think his maths is backwards. Either that or the phone would be $1 if T-Mobile increased their subsidised contract price by $2 per month.
Aren't you guys tired of reading all the time the same big-brother phone-ad "news" on slashdot?
I'm not.
I'm in fact really happy that there were good discussions about the Nokia N900 phone---otherwise I wouldn't have known about the existence of a smartphone which (supposedly) delivers exactly what I want: a pocket computer I can tinker with.
Being told that the thing I've been wanting for ten years finally exists is something I'm actually happy about. Was Nokia involved behind the scenes? Were they trying to push their product? Why would I care---I want the product at the price it's offered at.
Just like the other day where I was shopping for a scarf. The sales clerk notified me they had socks for sale. I tried a pair on, liked it, found the price reasonable, and I needed more socks, so I bought some. Yes, he applied a sales technique on me, and it worked. So what? His pitch didn't artificially inflate my need for socks, it told me "you can get what you want, and here's how: [...]".
And a while back I was looking for some stickers for my Rubik's cube. One of Google's advertisers had exactly what I wanted, at a price I liked.
Advertisements aren't that bad. It's just that 99% give all the good ones a bad name ;-)
That is to say: yeah, I see a lot of ads I'd rather be without. But every once in a while, someone seeks me out wanting to sell me something, and it just so happens that I, before engaging with them, have a desire to buy what I then discover they sell.
If I like the transaction, why shouldn't I like being brought in contact with the other side of it?
And hey, if you don't like the headlines, you don't have to read the summary. And if you don't like the summary, you don't have to read the discussion. And you never have to read the article (see, I'm not new here).
This is bullshit. Not only do consumers prefer to pay later, fucking accountants prefer to pay later. Corporations prefer to pay later.
Apple tried this with the iPhone, too. The original iPhone was unsubsidized. People HATED it.
The subsidy is great because it makes it possible to buy an iPhone for $99 instead of a crappy feature phone. The extra $20 per month on the contract is offset by the fact that you're using a smartphone, it pays for itself. You make more sales or get a better job or save time or money compared to when you didn't have a smartphone.
STOP APOLOGIZING FOR ANDROID. It sucks and it won't get better until the people who use it demand that it get better. Google bought Android in 2005. Where are the results? iPad is going to ship with a $15 data plan and Skype calls, that is what was promised from the Google Phone. And iPad with 3G and 16GB is only $50 more than Nexus One.
"Not only do consumers prefer to pay later"
Says who? I always pay now instead of later so that I can avoid any debts that I may not be able to pay off. Paying later is what got us into the whole economical crisis in the first place.
Good Grid! Does this guy actually think I am going to try to follow this spaghetti of weird math? "If you think about it, subtracting THIS amount if you get THAT option is almost like you could think of it as though you were saving THIS much beyond the discount with THIS OTHER option..."
Give me an effin' break!
Here is a hint for the author of TFA: when comparing costs, you don't need to subract ANYTHING. All you do is add.
Show me a simple chart:
Phone A with plan A costs THIS MUCH over two years. (Upfront cost + monthly charge over 2 years = total. No need to get any fancier.)
Phone B with plan A costs THIS MUCH over two years.
Phone A with plan B costs THIS MUCH over two years.
Phone B with plan B costs THIS MUCH over two years.
And so on. That's all it takes. I don't need to subract anything from anything and I don't need to "think of it as though" I were saving anything. I can just look at the damned chart and see what everything costs.
Jesus. Is this guy some kind of professional writer? Can I have his job?
The real savings is if you decide for some reason to cancel your service and go elsewhere. The draconian charges for cancellation make the idea of just buying the phone up front the only option I'd consider.
This article is symptomatic of the mobile phone business greed.
The pricing plans are so convoluted, someone claiming to be an expert cannot even get the math right.
So you really have a choice.
The rate is probably 15.9%, compounding monthly (really the rate is somewhat higher than that as I am not dealing with the shrinking principle, but it is close enough).
That's not way out of whack with other unsecured loans.
Compounding annually, it is about 17.1%.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
My apologies, you were correct and I was spouting nonsense.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
I think we have the innate feeling to not part with more resources that we have to because deep down we know we know we'll get screwed somehow.
Gotta call you out though:
Google: $530 + (80 x 24) = $2,450
vs.
Apple (3GS please, no skewing results with the 3G): $199 + (120 x 24) = $3,079
By going the Google route, it's $629 over 2 years for unlimited talk/text/web plans. And that's just for 2 years. That's saving $1,258 over 4, and $2,516 over 8 years. So no, paying over contract isn't better. And you get the benefit of leaving anytime without an ETF.
And Android doesn't suck. Go read a review. For people who actually don't believe the kool-aid and desire a superior phone, Nexus One is it. And what does the IPad have to do with a phone? It has no microphone, and even if it did, have you ever attempted to call somebody with Skype on a cellular data plan? Hint: good luck. The 2 aren't even in the same league.
Apple douches--"We don't hate Apple, we hate its customers."
The author fails to mention than T-Mobile has one of the worst networks in the country, Add to that the fact that this phone (like most smartphones) have really crappy battery life--especially if you get a lot of e-mail on it like I do and use a bluetooth headset. I have to charge my BB at least twice a day; and my boss has an iPhone that he charges 2-3 times a day. The Droid phones in use in the company are just as bad. My laptop battery actually outlasts my phone. That's just wrong.
In America today you can murder land for private profit. You can leave the corpse for all to see, and nobody calls the c
Actually, according to my quick calculation, it's 17.1% p.a.
(sqrt(480/350)-1)*100 | (difference of the payment to the amount loaned, to the 1/nth power of years the loan was given, minus one and times a 100 to give a percentage)
You're suggesting that women seek money from a relationship. Actually, women seek security* in a relationship.
* Security is a fancy word for "money."
Damping absorbs vibrations. Dampening is caused by moisture.
Thankfully sensible people *do* exist.
Nexus One vs iPhone, Droid & Palm Pre
This is important: Don't forget that along with that $20/month extra that you pay with a subsidized version, you also have to pay roughly $4 more in taxes and fees. Most Americans won't have to do anything like that with the Nexus One itself.
Do the Math: $529 retail price - (24 months * (20 dollars/mmonth + $4 taxes&feees/month))
The end result is that the unlocked Nexus One is a steal at -47 USD!
BTW, you can do something similar with AT&T smartphones. I bought an unlocked Nokia 5800 XpressMusic for $270 (you can get it for a lot less often now.) I only have to pay $15/month (before taxes and fees) on a data plan, rather than $30 like all phones purchased from AT&T require (presumably when the phone is purchased at a subsidized price.)
So the result is that instead of paying roughly $100 for my phone, I pay $270 retail price - (24 months * (15 dollars/month + $3 taxes&fees/month)). This equals -162 USD!
Try to figure out why accountants prefer to pay later and see how that doesn't apply to your consumer products purchases.
Then you are leaving money on the table.
It's not so much that you are wrong is that you are too extreme.
Never acquire interest charges if you can help it. That's the only key to credit.
Regards.
I have concluded that your math sounds like something a salesman/shill would produce to justify selling you something.
There. Fixed it.
Deleted
Apple tried this with the iPhone, too. The original iPhone was unsubsidized. People HATED it.
WRONG. The original iPhone was subsidized, with Apple essentially pocketing the subsidy instead of passing it on to the consumer.
Wait, are you saying that a device 2-3 times bigger than a cellphone is more expensive for hardware? Are you saying that miniaturizing devices doesn't cost more?
Are you also saying that you're going to haul around the iPad as a cellphone? Shouldn't you be comparing this to say, the iPhone (that's $100-200 more)?
It's more like you took a $529 loan, since you didn't put in any money up front, and paid $130 in interest over two years. I think that works out to something more in the ballpark of 12% a year.
Not great but nowhere near as bad as 32.4%.
So it's basically a 5% savings, which is hardly worth a /. article. Also, given Google's model, people neglect the fact that the 5% difference is still worthwhile to T-Mo to keep subscribers off AT&T. Although since Google cleverly made the phone only capable of 3G on T-Mo, it's effectively locked to them (in the US).
I'm really baffled at all of the noise about the Nexus, it's got a couple of nice features, but nothing you would call revolutionary, it's priced the same, and has the same kinds of usage restrictions. It's not surprising that its sales have been much lower than iPhone or Droid in the same immediate post-launch period. The real question is what Google actually thought it was trying to achieve here, apart from practicing selling and supporting a mobile phone.
It also makes you healthier, smarter, sexier and cooler while making you rich and famous. It also makes you better in bed
Where TF can you try on socks?
That is gross!
Think of a wife as an PCIx16 slot. You give it resources, it makes things look pretty, takes care of a lot of ridiculous details that you wouldn't otherwise care that much about, and occasionally overheats and gets bitchy about your configuration.
Some really high-end cards allow you to spawn whole new processes, and that's worth the price of the upgrade.
PAINFULLY nerdy! Score 5? I think I might have to stop visiting Slashdot now. I wouldn't want anyone to discover that I'd read something like this.
I always pay now instead of later so that I can avoid any debts that I may not be able to pay off.
I don't. I always put charges on my credit cards when possible, and pay it all off on exactly the day the bill is due.
I could pay it off my card earlier - say, the moment my bill appears in my mailbox. Instead, I pay it off my bills as late as possible without incurring additional expenses, using the principle that cash in my hand is more valuable to me than cash in someone else's hand.
Doesn't your observation about our current situation provide good support for the assertion which you were attempting to refute? It's not a solid proof as there are other possible reasons for the current economic situation, but it is a good hypothesis. There's probably some evolutionary reason for this behavior that would explain it better, but it does appear to make a good deal of sense that most people would prefer to pay later, especially if they wouldn't otherwise have the ability to pay up front in full.
You seem like the exception, rather than the rule. That your reasoning is sane and logical doesn't make it normal for most humans.
Better than having one running on Vesa local bus .. Managing the family would be so a drag.
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
I understand you're disappointed the latest toy doesn't have every feature you'd wish for.
But if you think that is what Evil is, you have a lot of rough days ahead of you...
They are obviously idiots. The blog posts were full of specious logic and breathless fanboyism.
i get sick of hearing all of this apple fanboy crap on how the nexus one isn't that great. let me ask you this. have you used one?? yea, shut the fuck up. i do own an iPhone 3G and a 2G, macbook air a while back.
i'll take my open Android nexus one anyday. the only way the iPhone competed w/my nexus was when i jaibroke it. unjailbroken, i didn't have any weather widgets or custom status bar notifications. i couldn't use it on any other carrier. i was a slave to apple and at&t.
did at&t finally let skype work on the iPhone over 3G? /sarcasm
I'm pretty sure that if you are good enough to make $130 on $350 in two years you can make $13000 on $35000. In fact, it's probably easier to do the latter than the former given that you can diversify $35000 and protect your assets better.
Even if it's cheaper in the long run, I'm working part time, I cannot afford the upfront expense of that. Only way would be to put it on a credit card and pay it off over a few months and hope the interest doesn't add up to what I'm saving. It's a risk I'm not taking right now.
It's only a deal if you need/want the premium service.
The USA used to be at the fore-front.
Not for many years now.
Completion, which was SUPPOSED to let the "best" products win, has not functioned that way since we adopted NTSC TV encoding.
Cellphones have SIMs so that you can port from phone to phone compnay--a feature immediately killed in practice for this country by providers which found other ways to lock the phones.
The iPhone, which created(s) a lot of noise here, was and is aeveral years behind the rest of the world--not to mention the problems and waste entailed in running multiple sets of towers.
And Why are we paying for both sides of a conversation? And why aren't we able to just pay for what we use, like POT landlines?
And cable companies won't offer ala carte services "because the public hasn't demanded it---since the public almost never demands something they've never seen, could it be that selling bundles is more profitable?
Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty. - Ronald Reagan
The real savings is if you decide for some reason to cancel your service and go elsewhere. The draconian charges for cancellation make the idea of just buying the phone up front the only option I'd consider.
Except apparently (from the article) the phone will not work with AT&T, the other GSM carrier in the US. So, then I suppose your recourse to get your money back on the phone is to try and sell it?
Really you are just talking about making the wrong choice based entirely on price. None of your examples are about "buying too cheap". They're two different things.
A high-end point and shoot camera is not "cheap", it's just a different category which has different strengths and weaknesses than a DSLR. You could have bought an expensive and capable DSLR and found out it's a bitch to fly and lug around a heavy box with a couple lenses and change them in the middle of the shoot.
Now, if you said you bought a cheap "Panafonic" camera with heavy vignetting and noise at base ISO etc etc, that would be buying cheap.
On the other hand buying an Oppo BluRay player instead of the luxury model based on it is buying smart, as spending more money on the luxury model would get you very little, if nothing, in return.
I blogged about this with a slightly different way of analyzing price, and came to the same conclusion -- see the following page: http://lukehutch.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/the-cheap-way-to-pay-for-a-nexus-one-think-tco/
shit. at that point I might as well take a loan out with the bank so I can get the best of both worlds.
I'm reminded of it anytime I hear how much money you can save by not doing something arbitrarily more expensive:
There was a man who, having unfortunately left his watch at home, arrived a few minutes late at the bus stop and only just saw the tail lights of the bus as it drove around the corner. He was in good shape and determined to try running after the bus and catching it at the next stop. (This can actually be done, provided the stops are close together, the bus has a string of red lights and traffic is slow.) However, the man failed to catch the bus at the next stop, or the stop after that, but being persistent, ran after the bus the whole way home.
He realized how stupid (if invigorating) this had been, and was desperate to put a positive spin on what he'd tell his wife. So when he got home, he said: "Guess what honey! I just saved $4 on my car insu^W^W bus ticket by running after the bus on the way home,"
And she looked at him levelly and then said: "You poor fool, why didn't you run after a taxi? That way you could have saved $20!"
"Not only do consumers prefer to pay later"
Sheeps like yourself and retards maybe but since you are making a general consumer statement, citation needed.
First, I have to agree with other posters that it's a bit twisted to say the phone costs $49 (though it is true you save money by buying the phone outright then taking the $20/mo discount).
But, let's apply the original article author's 'math' to my used G1 which I bought from craigslist for $100 outright, and then got T-Mo's $20/mo discount (and let's assume I keep the phone and discounted plan for 4 years instead of 2 [which might be a bit, err, optimistic since there's no guarantee I can keep the same pricing discount from T-Mo that long - in a year or two they might scrap the whole plan structure]):
100 - (20 * 12 * 4) = -$860. Wow, my phone costs me NEGATIVE $860 dollars!!!11!1
Seriously, though, it's true that I would *save* $860 over the course of 4 years (again, assuming I get to keep the same pricing plan for 4 years, which is doubtful), which I'm perfectly happy with (the $20/mo discount without contract is really what sold me on T-Mo), but it's ridiculous to then state that the phone costs me negative hundreds of dollars - I'm paying less to T-Mo, not getting payed by T-Mo.