Slashdot Mirror
Google Reduces Its Nexus One Termination Fee
CWmike writes "The only smartphone Linus Torvalds doesn't hate is that much less unlikable now that Google has quietly chopped $200 off its early termination fee on the Nexus One. Customers who cancel the service had been on the hook for $550, including a $350 Google cancellation charge. Google has reduced their fee to $150 — but users are still liable for a $200 ETF from T-Mobile. Users have a 14-day grace period during which they do not have to pay either charge, although they may be hit with a restocking fee. The $350 total fee matches one of the highest in the industry, charged by Verizon. Google did not announce the change but simply altered its online terms-of-service document." The price cut could add momentum to a phone that, by one reckoning, costs only $49 unlocked.
Linking to an article mentioning Linus and an older advertisement, with a tiny bit of new information (a 200$ cut because of an about-to-be ruling by the FCC), that overall shows Google in a positive light. With clumsy maths at the end.
Slashdot at its best!
Nexuses are retired, not terminated.
Just saying...
-- Roy Batty
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Is this a new form of slashvertisement?
You seem to be misinformed. These days, government is run by corporations and special interests. (And don't even get me started on that recent Supreme Court decision.)
The price cut could add momentum to a phone that, by one reckoning, costs only $49 unlocked.
And, by another reckoning, it actually saves you $5,000 and rescues your cat from a tree. Incidentally, both reckonings are fallacious.
That (1) makes you look stupid, and (2) repeats advertising.
Of course, this is pretty much the default with kdawson.
Evil? Well with these fees maybe just a little bit evil. But seriously this is google, how much more money do they need?
Personally, I am waiting for the phone that is subsidized by non-obtrusive, relevant advertising.
There are two kinds of fool. One says, This is old, and therefore good. And one says, This is new, and therefore better.
When they screw us they use lube!
I was trying to teach that cat a lesson. How will he learn if the phone keeps rescuing him?
meep
So I just upgraded my phone on Verizon over the weekend, and though everyone is making a big deal about having 2 ETFs with the N1 (one on from Google, the other from T-Mobile), I believe the same thing is in place for ATT & VZW. See, you can upgrade your phones through a few 3rd party services (one being Amazon). In the fine print you have 6 months that you cannot change which plan a phone is on. If you do, Amazon will charge you the full device price for the phone. This is Amazon now, not VZW. If you also canceled your contract, VZW would also charge you an ETF, even though you paid Amazon for your phone. There you go, 2 ETFs. ATT, Sprint, and even TMobile all say the same thing when you upgrade through 3rd parties (of which Google would be one)
It's one thing to have a story/advertisement, it's another to blatantly lie in it.
The bullshit statistic of the $49 dollar unlocked version was ably debunked in the comments of the last story where this was claimed.
Please stop doing it. When you're caught in a blatant lie, you don't repeat it unless you are also an idiot.
How else do you expect it to work? If you want subsidised phones, early termination fees are a necessary evil. If you could just cancel your contract one month in with no penalty, then everyone would just sign up, get the phone, and cancel.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
Initial ETF for iPhone 3G in my country (Latvia) is what would be around $570
Looking at the Google site, the phone costs $179 if you sign up with a T-Mobile plan. So if you cancel, you're out the $179 + $150 from Google, + $200 from T-Mobile... which brings the price to $529, which coincidentally, is the unlocked price of the phone. You are at a loss, however, of how many months you had the service before canceling (with T-Mobile's current discount for not subsidizing the device).
In November we got a bunch of G1s and then decided at the last minute we wanted to get the Droid instead. The restocking fee from T-Mobile was quite reasonable, I think around $10/phone. Then a few months later we got a bill for $50/line for the activation fee. I'm not really unhappy with the cost of canceling the service, we like the Droid much better than the G1 (it's just a much newer phone). It was just kind of surprising to get another $350 bill after I thought it was all taken care of.
Sean
Are you trying to defend a consumer-unfriendly business model that should not need to exist in the first place? Of course, consumers *should* understand that you don't get something (cheap subsidized phone) without paying for it somehow (early termination fees). But that doesn't seem to be the case now, does it?
Subsidized phones have only recently been available here in Finland, but they are the rare exception rather than the rule. As an educated consumer, I would rather buy a phone and have the freedom to do what I want with it, rather than be locked into a long-term contract with termination fees. It's why I can buy my phone from *anyone* I want, and use it with *any* service provider I choose. At any time. Without termination fees. Without contracts. Just swap the SIM card. Easy, simple, convenient.
This idea has not caught on in the US yet. Unfortunately, US consumers are not protected like they are in many other countries. The lack of any real news sources in the US compounds the issue, many Americans do not know what happens outside the US and could care less. I should know, as an American living abroad for 10 years. I'm glad I live in the EU where at least there is some sanity and common sense in protecting consumers from abuse by large corps. Agreements and contracts have to be written in easy-to-understand language that is clearly understood by the average consumer. Hiding fees deep in contracts or deliberately obscuring them in legalese is illegal here. All fees have to be presented up front, and clearly, to the consumer.
Consumers must stand up for themselves, rather than letting the corps run the show. They are only working in their own interest to line their pockets with your money. If you, as consumers, let them that is. Stand up for your rights and don't let them run over you.
I'm in the UK, and here you can buy pretty much any phone you want either unlocked at full price, or subsidised with a contract. Sometimes you pay less on a subsidised contract than you would just for the phone, if you understand the fact you are buying in for a time, why shouldn't you have the option of doing it that way? Sometimes it's a better deal for the customer.
I agree that people should always have the unlocked option, but people should be allowed to do it other ways if they want.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
The market has shown that many people actually want the option of giving up some freedom in exchange for a few hundred dollars. it's a tradeoff you're not willing to make, and I'm not willing to make, but some people are, and we should respect their choice. It's not corporate oppression, the customers signed up willingly, they're getting exactly what they want.
I apologise in advance if this has already been discussed in previous stories: An early termination fee is for the early termination of a contract. Now I only skim the contract that I signed when I just bought my smart phone (HTC Eris) with Verizon a few months ago but I don't recall a contract with google or HTC. Only Verizon. How can Google charge an ETF when I don't have a contract with them?
Just buy a lot of Nexi Ones for 49$, and sell them for material price! I am going to be rich!
I didn't expect google of all companies to be braindead enough to subsidize unlocked phones...
You go into a T-Mobile store, you soak up half an hour of their employees time and then turn around and want ~all~ of your money back five days later, where you will then soak up another thirty minutes of their time. Not to mention paper, a device that now has to be cleared out, contacting headquarters so someone can cutoff your stuff, etc. And you want them to do this for "free?" This isn't Walmart, stop being selfish. If you cancel your service, you should owe them something, at least to cover their time and operating costs.
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
And why does he keep posting nonsense (like the $49 cost for the Nexus, seems kdawson uses the same accounting methods as wall-street) and gets approved for posting (two time in two days about the same nonsense)??? I know of lots of people (inc. myself) who proposed stories that were much less non-sensical than to claim that the phone costs $49 and these stories were not posted. Who is reviewing these stories? Is kdawson a slashdot insider? Hell, if nonsense stories get approved like this, please cancel my "subscription" to slashdot!!!!!!
It'd be nice if the summary told us who Linus Torvalds is, rather than just assuming we know everyone in the tech world.
iphone: $199 + $79 * 24 = $2095 (AT&T, subsidized iphone)
n1: $530 + $59 * 24 = $1946 (T-mo, no contract)
nexus one savings over 2 years: $2095 - $1946 = $149
not having a contract is a big plus, but i don't see where the nexus one is much cheaper.
when the words 'termination fee' appear
beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
Not to appealing to get a contract, that is still quite a lot of money for early termination. The unlocked version seems like the monkey to go for as it looks a better deal. (Or have I missed something here?).