Slashdot Mirror
T-Mobile Exec Calls For End To Cell Phone Subsidies
MojoKid writes "T-Mobile's Chief Marketing Officer Cole Brodman has an interesting idea for revamping the mobile industry, and it involves killing the subsidy plans that have driven smartphone adoption over the past five years. Asked what one thing he'd change if he had the power to do so, Brodman pointed to subsidy programs. 'It [device subsidies] actually distorts what devices actually cost and it causes OEMs, carriers — everybody to compete on different playing fields ...' Brodman isn't kidding about an irregular playing field. The HTC Titan is the most subsidized device in the chart seen here (unsubsidized at $549, $0.01 on contract). Microsoft is obviously desperate to gain market share in mobile but both the iPhone 4S and the Galaxy Note carry $400+ discounts too. The cheapest smartphone AT&T offers without a subsidy is the thoroughly mediocre HTC Status, for $349. To add insult to injury, it's only available in mauve. It's an interesting idea, but practically unworkable as far as the mass market is concerned. Carriers have built a market structure in which consumers gladly accept a new bauble every 18 months in exchange for paying for text messaging (which literally costs carriers nothing) and overage charges in which 300MB of data for $20 is a fair market value."
The carriers won't agree, because it would eliminate or restrict the ability to get people to sign two-year contracts.
Don't know why you'd give particularly extra credit to Apple, gTalk, AIM, skype, et al already give people little incentive to consider anything particularly extra for SMS. I fail to see what 'iMessage' gives that these do not. SMS use in the face of all those is generally amongst people who aren't about to change their ways, most of who now have plans where messaging really doesn't impact them one way or another (for example I don't use SMS yet I couldn't get a plan with the features I wanted without unlimited SMS).
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
One problem with subsidies in the US is that if you pay full price for your phone, your monthly bill isn't reduced to compensate for not having the subsidy.
In other countries when you buy a phone subsidy-free you pay less per month. This is common sense, yet the US providers don't do it. I'd rather pay full price for my phone and pay less per month. Basically if you keep your phone for longer than 2-3 years, you are now losing financially because you're monthly cost includes a subsidy you're not taking advantage of.
Is they will get us to pay the full price for the phone and then raise the charges right back to where they are or charge for some other made up service, none of these corporations are interested in giving consumers a deal, they are interested in their bottom line which translate to crap networks, slower speeds than the rest of the World and high prices.
Get rid of contracts or at least offer a 3 month window for consumers to bail out of their plans, stop the growing monopoly and then when they have to compete with each other the consumers will benefit.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
That's how it comes across to me. Furthermore, wouldn't this come too close to being an illegal restraint of trade?
What's interesting is that we have 2 classes of subsidies, one from the TELCOS, and the other from the handset (including handset software) makers. Does Mr Brodman include both classes of subsidies in his proposal? How far would this go, would this also preclude 'limited time offers' or 'for the first year' discounts?
Yeah, you had to understand what they mean by "subsidy" when they refer to it.
Subsidizing something does not automatically mean the government is doing it.
It is odd he would choose this word... wait... election year... recession, no... no it isnt.
Virgin Mobile or Walmart Mobile. 30-35/month for 2.5GB data, can't remember the texts (like 300), and 650 talk time. Yes I can't get the latest and greatest (nor Apple) and the best phones they have require upfront cash the difference in cost (versus similar speced phones from traditional carriers) is made up in 6 months tops and I have no contract either. No way I pay 70+ for a cel/data plan when I can get that price.... No top tier iDevice or Android phone (plan) is worth it.
Why do I suspect that under this interesting new vision, the above would all still be true with the addition of a hefty cost for the bauble. The carriers will give up their long term lock-ins and overpriced data/text when you pry them from their cold, dead hands.
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
Here's how it works here in Finland:
You either
a) buy the phone yourself (HTC Titan is ~590 EUR ~= 773 USD), and then have a plan without a phone. Example plans:
0.66e / month, 0.066e / min, 0.066e / sms
3.90e / month, includes 3000min in-network calls, others 0.069e/min, 0.069e/sms
38.90e / month, 3000 min to all networks, 3000 sms messages.
Unlimited non-NATted incoming-ports-open mobile broadband (HSPA+, max 15Mbps) is 13.90e / month (other speed classes exist), or 20.85e / month total for an extra SIM card ("MultiSIM") + USB modem (i.e. you get unlimited broadband in both your phone and computer for that price).
These contract are normally non-fixed-term, so you can cancel/switch operators anytime. Note that in Finland only outgoing calls are paid by the mobile user, incoming calls are paid by the caller (mobile numbers have a separate number block).
or b) buy a plan with a phone. This is a bit different from the US subsidies in that you pay *nothing* up-front, and the plans are actually the same as in (a) above, but there is an additional separate monthly cost for the phone. However, the "subsidy" is very small, only a few percents (e.g. HTC Titan total additional cost is 576 EUR, just 2.5% below normal market price). These are generally 2 year contracts. AFAIK these kind of bundling contracts are generally not allowed, but a special time-limited law was enacted in 2006 allowing such contracts to be made for 3G phones only, and it has been extended at least once since.
The prices above are for Saunalahti, but other carriers have very similar pricing and plans.
At least my impression from all this is that we seem to pay more for the phones, but our plans are otherwise way cheaper (when compared to the US)...
You DO know iMessage is just XMPP, right?
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Here in Canada there are plenty of mobile carriers that give you the option to buy the phone outright. But most people don't do this, as the usage cost is the same (but there is no contract).
So would prices seriously come down in the new situation? Errrr didn't we just read that all mobile networks are heavily congested and that is why there are no more unlimited data plans? So how are we going to see drastic price decreases on scarce goods?
It would also be interesting to see how the financing works; what does a carrier get now cash-in-hand per handset vs. what will they be getting in the new situation (incl. discounts they get vs. what they charge the end consumer).
I bought my Nexus S unsubsidized for a reasonable price. It is unlocked and portable. I even bought from a different mobile provider, and dropped in the chip from my current provider. My plan is minimalist but very cheap ($20/month). My provider does sell phones on what amounts to a payment plan...you are charged the full price, and then every month you pay a certain amount off your tab...there is no contract tying you to the provider, except that if you leave you must pay off your tab. It is a much more honest way of showing the true price of the phone.
The summary asserts that changing the way the market functions is unworkable. If consumers knew that their paltry $500 discount on their smartphone actually cost them $1500 in extra billing over three years, I would expect that would be a little less willing to fall for the tricks. What it will take is one company to take the plunge, possibly on the model I described above. Allow customers to get their "free" phone, but make it clear they are actually making payments on it.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
iMessage gives you ease of use - I don't have to care whether the person I am messaging has iMessage or not, the messaging app works it out for me without any input from me at all on the matter. This way, I don't have to treat one block of contacts different to any other, it just happens.
The subsidies are a contractual agreement. They're not really the issue. The bigger issue is that the majority of carriers no longer provide any real discount for bringing a already paid for device to their network. The iPhone being the perfect example, I can buy it unlocked for full price. AT&T doesn't lower the bill one bit for this. T-Mobile will (from what I've heard) but can't support the device in most cases as a actual 3G device (This is changing slowly in some areas).
What we need isn't about the subsidies, it's that this country needs to require phones being sold now to support all the frequencies (the chips certainly can now) and to go -unlocked- at the end of the subsidy period, or to be unlocked if full price was paid. No exceptions. If people could take their phone and move to another provider, we might actually have some competition.
A fourth operator just entered the market two months ago in France and has caused a hell of an uproar. The French market has been traditionally dominated by Orange (of France Telecom, former monopoly), SFR, and Bouygues. Two months ago Free finally launched their offer after years of the government and the other telecoms trying to stop them. Their offer: 20€ a month for unlimited calls and texts (even internationally to many countries), with 3GB of data for whatever you want to do (meaning tethering, etc.), and 16€ if you have their internet package as Free is traditionally an ISP. They also have a plan for 60 minutes and 60 texts for 2€ a month. This is a huge change from the 85€+ a plan like this would traditionally cost. And they don't offer a subsidized phone with it, so you either buy the phone separately in full (but at good prices), or pay for it monthly in your choice of months (12 or 24). Or, you just use the phone you already have.
To be frank, the other telecoms have flipped their shit over this and have lost about 2 million subscribers in 2 months. They've brought out their attacks on Free and said that people have become violent in their stores because of Free saying that people have been screwed by the Big 3 for years (they were actually fined half a billion dollars in 2005 or 2006). It's caused a huge stir in the mobile market and the traditional operators have followed suit and (in anticipation) launched their so-called low cost offers online without a subsidized phone. I think it would be very interesting to see someone do the same thing in the US, especially someone established like T-Mobile and force telecoms to compete on services and plans (unlimited texts, "we'll give you more data than the competition", etc.).
But how is a $548.99 subsidy not illegal dumping?
Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.
I have an interesting to save money... pay as you go.
I assumed they used the phone subsidies to keep me on a contract. I'll definitely be pay as you go when they stop giving me phones. No malice or anything, but the free phone is the only thing keeping me on contracts.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
The cheapest smartphone AT&T offers without a subsidy is the thoroughly mediocre HTC Status, for $349. To add insult to injury, it's only available in mauve.
But, but but..... you mean it doesn't actually have more RAM?
...have a down payment on the phone, and a $20/mo charge, administered by the cellular carrier (because they can disconnect service for not paying your phone purchase bill).
There, it functions just like subsidies, but reflects the true purchase price of the phone better.
I also think that phone manufacturers should try that approach themselves, if they're selling a phone that a carrier doesn't want to sell themselves - rather than sell it for $600, sell it for $150 plus $20/mo for 24 months.
(emphasis in the quote is mine)
...paying for text messaging (which literally costs carriers nothing)...
You are using that word and I literally do not think you know what it means.
I do plan to buy my next phone outright. Although it is galling that most of the carriers in the US charge the same for their monthly "plan" regardless of whether you are on a subsidized or "bring your own" phone. However, I think they miss the boat pretty badly when they say that ending subsidies would make the manufacturers issue updates. Either way, the manufacturer has sold a phone. Generally, to the carrier - and the customer buys it from the carrier. Yes, with non-subsidized phones there are other places to buy, but usually not direct from the manufacturer. Since either way the manufacturer has sold a phone and is now working on the next one - tell me again how this will make them update more often? Right, it won't. In general, I'm averse to more regulation. However, what we have here is a pretty messed up market that was created by spectrum "sales" and is not competitive at all. I'd actually, grudgingly accept some regulation here. Perhaps:
1) You can sell subsidized phones if you want but the subsidy must be part of the monthly billing. As a corollary, said subsidy cannot be part of the billing for a non-subsidized phone: the monthly plan must be cheaper for these. If you chose to offer subsidized phones, you must offer the same phones on both subsidized and non-subsidized plans and the two plans must be given equal billing on advertisements, price sheets, etc. Over the life of the subsidized contract, the cost of the subsidized plan will be at minimum equal to the non-subsidized plan plus the retail price of the phone. The subsidized plan can be higher than this to reflect interest.
2) You cannot prevent or restrict phones from being on your network when there is no hard technical reason that they cannot be (for example you can prevent them if the radios are not the right frequency). So you cannot be in the business of "this phone has tethering and I don't like it so it can't be on my network" or "this doesn't have the absolute shit software I foist on people so it can't be on my network".
I'm sure there are some other regulations that may make sense in this decidedly jacked up market.
I'm not entirely sure that matters one bit - it's the fact that it works seamlessly that makes it effective, not the underlying transport mechanism. Again, implementation is what has set it apart from the other alternatives tried.
T-Mobile has always had plans where you save money by not subsidizing the phone. It used to be called the Even More Plus plan (yeah horrible name), and is now Monthy4G no annual contract plan (which does have price tiers without data plans despite the name). If they want to push this transition, they ought to start listing phone subsidy as a separate line item on their with-contract bills, and then later eliminate the distinction between the two plans and just have a (contract requirement) phone payment plan as a line item on any of their no-contract plans.
I have never seen a word other than 'subsidized' used to describe a cell phone's cost being included in the plan.
What other word would you suggest they use?
...US telecom is one X-normous pinball machine. Consumers, balls-in-play are holding traps, channel surfers, network managed nodes and billing bungled dupes all for a pitance EntryFee guaranteeing a couple years of fun for all
Also-ran CEO of a non-competiting carrier wants successful carriers to stop doing the things that have contributed to their market position. Also: "nyah nyah," and "I want a nap."
That's exactly what I was going to say.
I read his whole rant as "We can't get as good a deal on phones as the other guys."
I've been an (Omni-Point, Voice-Stream, now) T-Mo customer for over a decade, the last subsidized phone I bought was in 2005. A couple years ago T-Mo plans with subsidized phones were $10/month more than w/o. I've bought my last few phones grey-market - they were an N8, an N900, N85, N73, the latter couple 'SmartPhones' which pre-date the iPhone, most of them having decent OS software, equal music, and cameras far superior to the pedestrian Apple competitors. Best part is, I've got an ancient T-Mo 'Unlimited' Data Plan for $20/month and the difference to their current more expensive 'SmartPhone' data plans readily pays for the unsubsidized phones!!!
I agree that text messaging is a huge cash cow for carriers, but it's not fair to say they don't pay a dime to provide it. There is some cost associated with it. Developers had to write the code several years ago and someone still has to maintain it. The carriers had to license that software from their equipment vendors. There's processing cycles and temporary storage (between the time the message is received from the source and delivered to the destination) either on the phone switch directly or some computer that's closely tied into the phone switch for every text message that's sent. In the end, their costs to provide the service are quite small compared to the gigantic pile of cash the service generates.
Charging $7.99 a month for calling number identification is a similar situation.
A restaurant charing $2.50 for a glass of Coke or tea isn't quite as bad, but it's close. :(
It works seamlessly to those using an iPhone. To everyone else, it seems really stupid that you are sending text messages that show up as multimedia files. To anyone on an android phone, you are sending a picture of your text message. It is typical that an iPhone user would not know that though.
Have gnu, will travel.
Everybody has SMS and I think most prefer not to demand that people install Yet Another Instant Messaging Program just to talk to them
Text messaging from an iPad/iPod Touch, even a Wifi models (for the iPad) is a really good enabler. Skype is cool and all but it has to load up, find the person then wait for them to come online. iMessages is more sublime than that.
Jonathanjk.com
On the Apple Website, a contract-free (although not carrier- unlocked) 8GB iPhone 3GS is priced at $375.
A 8GB iPod Touch 4G is priced at $199.
The entire iPhone 3GS carries a Bill of Materials and manufacturing costestimated at $178.96.
The iPod touch 4g has a better screen (960x640 px at 326 PPI vs 480x320 at 163 ppi) and and a faster processor (1GHz A8 vs 600MHz A8) than the iPhone 3GS. There is research online indicating that Apple generally prices its iDevices at double the cost of the BOM and manufacturing cost. That seems fair to me. They have an ungodly amount of R&D costs for that great iOS software, hundred of millions in marketing, the cost of the iStores with the 50 blue-shirted employees -- it's expensive. But...is it realistic to suggest that the iPod Touch 4G that has a better screen, faster processor, and more RAM than the 3GS has a BOM and assembly cost of $78.96 less?
I find it hard to believe that the cost of a cellular modem, ear piece, microphone, and larger battery accounts for that $78.96? I don't think so...
No, you didn't "FTFM" at all, you put your own bias on my words and nothing more. I don't use iMessage because of marketing, I use it because it seamlessly worked on my iPhone - I didn't have to set any contacts to use it, I didn't have to configure anything, it just worked. Thats got nothing to do with the transport mechanism, and everything to do with the implementation - no alternative has that. The implementation works out how to deliver the message, not the transport mechanism.
If something else had seamlessly worked, I would be saying the same thing for that.
Subsidies sound so good, like there was somebody else actually paying for it. Except it's not, you're paying it all back it's just a "hidden" loan payable over your contract. If this drives smartphone sales it's only because people are stupid, not because it actually gives people better value for money. In fact, quite probably worse as credit risk and premiums tend to be much higher for consumption loans than your mortgage.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Offer both subsidized plans and unsubsidized plans, and let the consumer decide which is best. Some people wil bring their own phones and pay less for service, and others will keep their free phones and pay a lot more for service. Win-win. There would need to be a restriction that would only allow NEW users to take advantage of the unsubsidized plan to prevent someone from getting a free phone and immediately switching to the unsubsidized plan, but it would cause a flood of new customers to jump from the other carriers.
On the Apple Website, a contract-free (although not carrier- unlocked) 8GB iPhone 3GS is priced at $375. [apple.com]
Indeed, it is carrier-unlocked. My mistake!
Sublime?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I think devices and plans should be two separated items. Otherwise, a user with an unlocked phone will be subsidizing the last iphone / nexus / whatever for the spoiled children.
And of course, to increase competition, devices shouldn't be sold locked. That would be the best scenario for consumers....not for companies.
In this scenario, would be perfectly fine to buy a phone from company A, and then, while still paying for it, use company B for voice/data/etc.
In ye olden days, ma bell would rent you a phone for $5/month. Why would you pay $20 for a phone at walmart if ma bell would give you one "for free"? This had two effects:
1) Ma Bell ancient telephones were indestructible and reliable because any problems meant the manufacturer faught with one of the worlds largest corporations, not some individual peon. Thats why a 1960s phone worked great and lasted forever, and you can only buy garbage now. The days of a mobile phone lasting more than a couple months are going to go away if cell phone subsidies go away... why shouldn't they?
2) Ma Bell made fat stacks of cash on the ghetto rent to own model. You'd laugh at a guy in the lowly socioeconomic circumstance of paying rent-to-own for a couch or TV, but supposedly that biz model is what the cool kids use when they get phones... You can't seriously think the telco is acting as an intermediary out of the goodness of their heart, can you? Basically, they're in the loanshark / payday loan biz, if you're too ghetto to front a couple hundred, they'll do it for you, at a long term cost of thousands. They have shareholders to support... this is a profitable operation, if competently run (which might be asking too much).
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
iMessage hides it from you. You just text somebody, and if they have an iPhone the text gets sent using cheap data instead of expensive SMS. The only distinction is what colour background the text has. Apple instantly made a chunk of carrier text revenue disappear without any effort on the part of the user: no getting your friends to sign up, no downloading an app, no remembering who has Skype accounts and who doesn't.
Blackberry figured out the built-in, just-like-texting thing first, but BBM used silly PIN numbers and didn't fail over to regular texts.
What a terrible "fix" attempt. Shouldn't you have fixed the first sentence as well since you claim first that its seamless implementation is what makes it effective then you fixed the second sentence to say it's only marketing. FAIL.
No. Transparent failover to SMS and using phone numbers as IDs are what set it apart. The user has to do NOTHING to use it. ANY other IM program at least requires you to get your friends to sign up. The point is that there's no marketing necessary. If you've got an i-device you use it automatically, transparently. If you were colour blind your first indication would probably be that your phone bill was smaller.
High-interest loan would be more accurate. I did some calculations a while ago with my carrier's 'free' and 'subsidised' phones. Taking the difference between the SIM-only contract and the one with the bundled phone, and subtracting the cost of buying the phone new, it worked out that the 'subsidy' was a loan at around 20-50% APR. In other words, pick a random credit card offer with a crappy interest rate, buy the phone, and get a SIM-only deal, and even with the extortionate interest you get from the credit card, you'll be better off after a year. You also would have a shorter contract term, so you could switch more easily.
Note that I was assuming that the price I could get the phone for retail was the same as the price that the network paid. In reality, they are likely to pay significantly less. Want to kill this kind of bundling? Make it a requirement to show the interest as a separate line item...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
As an adjective sure it is.
Jonathanjk.com
I read it as "we still want to trap you in contracts and lock your phone, but we'd prefer not to pay for it."
Business types use the term Discount, Coupon, and Rebate. The use of the word Subsidy was aimed at the Elderly Embittered Ones(EEO) of the audience. I have found that EEO's don't understand the use of Subsidies, but it bothers them.
I have one question though. Did Cole-B just finish reading one of Lyman Frank Baum works, and thought that the Wizard living in the city of Oz had a great business model? And wasn't the Wizard a salesman from the mid west?
That's not what happens at all. If an iPhone user sends you a message, the iPhone checks with Apple's server. If the recipient's number is registered as an iOS device it gets transmitted as an iMessage. If not, it gets sent as a plain old text message.
If you're getting unreadable multimedia files from iPhone users it's likely that it's a contact card (VCF) attachment or map data.
It doesn't show up as a multimedia file. If the person you are chatting with doesn't have iMessage, it sends as a regular sms or mms.
I chat with my gf all the same. She has an iPhone,with iMessage, and I have a droid.
Really? Because every message I send that goes to a non-iMessage capable recipient goes as a normal text message. My mother has an Android phone, and I've seen the messages she receives from me and they are normal text messages. My boss gets normal text messages from me. My wife got normal text messages from me until she got an iPhone. I got normal text messages from my iMessage using friend while I was on an Android phone prior to buying my iPhone.
In other words I have no idea what you are talking about.
I don't think I'll ever use a subsidized phone again. The last contract phone I got was some shitty Motorola that, believe it or not, was completely incapable of reliably ringing the alarm clock every day, on its preset time. And I could easily crash that worthless garbage simply by adding a recurring calendar entry for several years in advance (the dumb thing apparently creates an individual calendar entry for each date, and runs out of its pitifully small internal memory very quickly). Googling around, I was not the only one, but it was too late to return that POS. That was the last time I allowed myself to be locked into a contract in exchange for some piece of crap.
My current Nokia, bought at retail, is the best phone I ever had. I just popped in T-mobile's SIM, and that was the end of it. Although it's a smart phone, I don't need, and I don't pay for, an overpriced data plan, I just use it with Wi-fi. Works fine, and without any hassles from either the phone, or T-mobile. Too bad that looks like this will be the last good phone that Nokia will ever make, now that they've sold their soul to Microsoft.
T-mobile used to have some pretty sweet discounted plans, on a contract-free, bring-your-own-GSM-phone basis They still do, but just as not as good as they used to be.
Um, according to merriam webster, it appears to be a valid use to me. As an adjective, "of outstanding spiritual, intellectual, or moral worth." Or "tending to inspire awe usually because of elevated quality."
No, I didn't. The cool thing is that I don't have to. If it comes to my phone, it gets delivered via my Google Voice number as a text message (or to iMessage if someone iMessages my email address). It goes to my wife's textfree number (or, again, via iMessage if someone uses her email address). My daughter's itouch gets iMessage no matter what.
It's one of those things that "just works" and if it had come around earlier I wouldn't have had to get a text free or google voice number to get free sms on my phone.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
It's a high-interest loan. You pay it back within 6-12 months. Check it yourself by attributing the monthly Post-Paid Plan cost premium over equivalent pre-paid plans on the same provider.
All major cell phone providers offer no-contract, Pre-Paid plans. Buy your phone outright and use one of those.
ANY other IM program at least requires you to get your friends to sign up.
Ok.... Most everyone has an AIM or google account, and all android users have a google account. For me getting someone's google account is easier than phone number, they rattle off a human readable name rather than me having to jot or type down a number. Point taken though that there is a networking effect and iMessages used phone number as one sort of id for easier correlation between phone and im mechanism.
If you've got an i-device you use it automatically, transparently.
I think getting your friends to buy an iDevice is a *tad* more burdensome than getting them to use their free gmail acount....
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
It works seamlessly to those using an iPhone. To everyone else, it seems really stupid that you are sending text messages that show up as multimedia files. To anyone on an android phone, you are sending a picture of your text message. It is typical that an iPhone user would not know that though.
I don't care.
;-)
A close family member of mine worked for AT&T Wireless since it was called Cingular. He would tell you that that business model would fail spectacularly here in the US. People here don't shop for plans, they shop for phones. They especially shop for phones they can't actually afford. Worse, they don't shop with money they've saved up. They shop with whatever flexibility they have in their monthly expenses. "What?! You don't offer a phone with that? See ya!!"
We are a month to month culture. Buying something for 500 bucks is a huge decision for most people. Adding 40 bucks a month (or whatever) is just another bill.
Pay 500 dollars now to save 40 or 60 bucks per month doesn't work for you if you ***don't have 500 dollars***. But your phone is dead and you need a new one. So what do you do? You could buy a super cheap one and get a low end phone plan. If you want that get a disposable or pre-paid phone. Otherwise you're going for the fancy smartphone without the 500 bucks. This is what most people want.
So say you did the math and you have the 500 bucks... Offering you an unsubsidized smart phone is a losing option. They make too much money subsidizing your phone and most of their customers like it that way, so why should they make less while giving away the option for you to change carriers at the drop of a hat? Easier to collude with the other carriers and make sure you can't do that.
It doesn't help the carriers until it helps them compete. There's not enough real demand to give up the lock-ins in favor of attracting a few new customers. It'll take critical mass and a lot more people demanding the unsubsidized option before it makes business sense to offer it. It's a cart and horse thing. So It'll never happen unless it's regulated to happen. Cole Brodman is correct that such regulation would vastly improve the market for consumers.
Operator, give me the number for 911!
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2718223&pid=39311743#39312313
the text gets sent using cheap data instead of expensive SMS.
Expensive SMS? Every tariff I've seen recently includes thousands of texts a month, bundled into the monthly fee. Maybe if you are on PAYG *and* can find a cheap data tariff *and* you already pay some expensive per-SMS fee, then it's might to be useful, but for the vast majority of people on contracts it will make absolutely no difference to their bills.
If a contact is messaged through iMessage doesn't also have iMessage and it goes through SMS does that count against your monthly text allotment or otherwise make it onto your bill? Thanks.
"I think getting your friends to buy an iDevice is a *tad* more burdensome than getting them to use their free gmail acount...."
No, you've missed the point. If the person you're texting has an idevice, your message will be sent through iMessage. If he doesn't, it will be sent via conventional SMS. Completely transparently. You don't have to get your friends to buy idevices. The only reason people use SMS is that everyone has it. iMessage capitalizes on that by using SMS as a transparent failover while all the other text/IM programs try to replace it. It's also always on, just like SMS, and unlike IM programs.
I have What's App, Skype, GTalk, MSN, Yahoo, generic Jabber, and a few other accounts (only a couple people I know have AIM accounts). I even have an app that ties most of them together. Those are great for longer, arranged conversations, usually typing on the computer, but almost never get used for the same things as SMS.
My banged up Nokia is 5 years old. It still holds a charge and makes phone calls just fine. It can send/receive texts. There might be a limit but I've never come anywhere near it. Ditto with the minutes. I also haven't bumped into a stranger on the sidewalk or totaled my car in the last 5 years.
Oh... I'm not a "consumer". I'm a person. Nevermind.
In Israel, the government made a valiant effort attempt at fixing this distortion. First, they forbid the carriers from signing customers up on binding contracts (i.e. - any contract can be terminated by the client at any point). They also forced the carriers to allow clients to take their phone number with them when they switch carrier. Last, if you buy a phone shipped by a carrier at an outside shop, the carrier is required, again, by law, to give you the same subsidies it would give you if you bought the phone from the carrier (which means that for, e.g., the Galaxy SII, the carrier winds up over a period of three years paying you about twice what you paid for the phone yourself).
Guess what? Roughly 95% of the people still buy their phones from the carriers, and still stick with the same carrier.
Shachar
T-Mo is doing that. Their $30/mo prepaid plan is pretty sweet. 100 minutes, unlimited text, unlimited data. The only catch is the first 5GB is at 4G speeds. After that, you may be throttled to EDGE. So there's only 100 minutes... who needs minutes with an android + free calls with Google voice?
As far as I'm concerned, it's the best thing to happen to the price of internet access since AOL's $19.95/mo flat rate.
A slightly broader reading of US price fixing laws would find that it's already illegal.
Yeah, but how many of their accounts go to collections because of this business model?
It sould be so tragic to have a customer base that actually paid their bills.
Given how the phone is already rolled it, it would be nice if it was broken out as a separate line item. A lot fewer phones would get tossed if you had start paying another ~$20-30/month once you swapped. Folks are fools if they don't upgrade every two years, as they pay for it anyway.
Having phone standards be more open so that it would be easier to switch carriers without buying new phones, and get contracts more Ala Carte would be great. Sadly we all know that We The People don't really matter to the regulators these days.
The ATT plans for iPhone (and maybe others) does not include SMS, and since last year or so you can only get the $20 unlimited plan or pay per message
It is determined whether or not the recipient is iMessage capable before you ever send the message, as the button and colour changes - if the recipient doesn't have iMessage capability then you fall back to SMS or whatever, but it never goes over iMessage. Therefor it gets treated as a normal SMS or message by your carrier.
At least that's my experience - someone else in the thread was trying to claim that something weird goes on and images or photos get sent instead of an SMS to non-iMessage recipients, but that's not been my experience with iMessage at all, either when I was receiving messages from iPhone users who had iMessage capability (prior to this iPhone I had a HTC Desire) or sending to non-iMessage capable recipients from my iPhone.
Messages to a single person seem to come through as normal text messages. Try sending to a group of people.
No, you really really didn't. Now fuck off.
"Vast majority" may apply where you are, it doesn't apply everywhere.
Canada has some of the stupidest carrier plans in the world. You think 2-year contracts are bad, here all smartphones by default are 3 year contracts. A couple carriers offer 2- and even 1-year plans, but they aren't properly pro-rated (example: typical smartphone with 3-year contract, $99. 2-year, $399. 1-year, $449. No contract (but still locked to carrier), $499. WTF??).
They nickel-and-dime you everything. Some plans include unlimited text, but even my own smartphone plan only has 250 texts, which I easily blew past over the Christmas/new year billing period. And it's $0.20 per outgoing message over the limit.
With iMessage and other 3rd party data messaging apps, carriers are claiming they "lost" billions of dollars (in the same way piracy "loses" the recording and movie industries billions every year). If it's impacting carrier's bottom lines that much (taken with a full bag of salt, of course), one can easily say it's making a huge difference on many people's bills.
Just tried it, same result - no issues, no weird messages received, those with iMessage got an iMessage message, those without got normal SMS messages.
That might be correct for other carriers, but T-Mobile does offer plans that are cheaper if they don't involve them "giving" you a new phone. Bring your own phone to them and you can get a lower rate. Do that with the other carriers and you get the same rate. If you get a subsidized phone you can switch to the cheaper plan when you're out of contract.
Apple tried to change the whole "free phone" mentality when the first iPhones were offered at full price, but that didn't last long. The G1 and Nexus One Android phones were also sold for full price. This didn't turn out to be popular as consumers were hooked on the 'free" or cheap phone prices.
They shop with whatever flexibility they have in their monthly expenses. "What?! You don't offer a phone with that? See ya!!"
The obvious way to solve this is by offering a payment plan for the phones. Then you can get whatever phone you want, no up front cost, based on how high a monthly fee you can afford.
But the subsidy goes away, because if you want to buy your phone outright, you get a much lower monthly bill. And if you want to buy a cheaper phone, you get a much lower phone payment.
It's probably even worse than it sounds. Here in the US we use up minutes for both incoming and outgoing calls.
Let's then also sell handsets at a fair price instead of a grossly-inflated one, charge fair prices for text and data plans, stop throttling altogether, have options to cut off service in case of overages to eliminate bill shock, completely eliminate ETFs, and allow multiple devices to share a single data plan.
What's that? You can't bank billions if you have to start treating your customers fairly and honestly? You don't say...
Very interesting observation, since I got 3 Galaxy S II smartphone from T-Mobile on February 13 for $0 with my 24-month contract.
For me getting someone's google account is easier than phone number, they rattle off a human readable name rather than me having to jot or type down a number.
From The Simpsons 'A Tale of Two Springfields':
Phoney McRingring: "... even monkeys can memorize 10 numbers. Are you stupider than a monkey?"
Chief Wiggum: "Uh...how big of a monkey?"
I can remember using a java messenger back in 2005 that did more than just connect to all IM networks.
And that was high dumbphone era when traffic costs were measured by KB...
-- no sig today
the text gets sent using cheap data instead of expensive SMS.
Expensive SMS? Every tariff I've seen recently includes thousands of texts a month, bundled into the monthly fee. Maybe if you are on PAYG *and* can find a cheap data tariff *and* you already pay some expensive per-SMS fee, then it's might to be useful, but for the vast majority of people on contracts it will make absolutely no difference to their bills.
Tariff? Are you a brit? The maximum size of an SMS is 140 8-bit characters which means that a plan offering 200 text messages for 5 dollars per month. If you convert that into kilobytes, that means that you are paying around 18.5 cents per kilobyte. That is really expensive compared to a data plan for say 30 bucks for 6GB of data. You do not realize that while your texting plan might not be visibly separate from your "plan", they are still making a killing from your for those "texts" compared with what it costs them to transmit even if you don't go over your limit of texts.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
So 'unworkable' my ass.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
second place is just first loser...
So, it's not killing texts, but just making texts and iMessages look the same *to you*. What you just said is it doesn't matter how it's sent, the application works it out.. that's great and all, except all your friends without iMessage and/or smartphones are receiving text messages... the very item you claim this application is going to kill.
Junta is absolutely correct with gTalk, AIM, etc. You *could* count iMessage if you don't count any portions that send the messages as texts. The other clients/messengers don't use texts, only sending via their protocols over data. *That* is what will kill text messaging (except for the fact carriers put crazy prices on data plans, so either way you're kind of screwed)
Ahh we have an Apple hater with mod points...
There is also the simple fact that Apple not only loaded it on a hundred million iPhone users through an OS Update, but they enabled said service automatically using your phone number as your "contact name", thereby immediately sidestepping the carriers, even on existing devices.
Someone needs to make a conscious decision to use Skype on their devices and to share their Skype contact information with you... The same can not be said about iMessage.
Thirty four characters live here.
T-Mobile is the single company doing this unilaterally.
They're the only American major carrier to offer cheaper plans if you bring your own phone.
Their most impressive cheaper plan for those of us that don't do a lot of talking on our smartphones anymore is an impressive attempt to bring European-style bring-your-own-smartphone plans to America. $30 a month, no additional taxes or fees, no contract for 5GB of HSPA+ 4G, unlimited 2G, unlimited text, and 100 minutes. That's not many minutes, but you can go pretty heavily over on minutes and still have it be a great deal. It doesn't take a long time on $30/month for your smartphone to start saving over a traditional American carrier smartphone plan.
You do realize that you are linking a ridiculous caricaturisation based on a delusion in support of a comment that is technically incorrect, right? It's ironic that the spirit of your comment is how stupid iPhone users are...
Just a note, but I never said anything about iMessage killing anything - I am not the thread parent, I just replied to someone in the thread with my opinion based on their post.
The benefit to me is that I don't have to care about it - I get a message, it displays in the same way and the only indication I get on how it came in is the colour and the same for sending, in that I just send a message to someone and I dont have to select how it's sent, it just is.
Now, not everyone has access to iMessage, that's true, which makes the fact that it's seamless to me even more important - it happens when it can, otherwise it falls back to something that works.
With the other apps you mention, the lack of seamless fallback is a negative for me - not only do I need to use another app, but I need to make sure I have the contact setup for gTalk, AIM or whatever, and I have to make sure that they can receive the message. Others I have to manually fall back to sending them an SMS. That is where iMessage is superior for me. When and if those apps have seamless fallback, then the situation is the same (or better, as gTalk et al are more open than iMessage).
To be fair, even if the phone would actually use exactly the same data sending or not sending text, there is still a cost associated with supporting texting. They need to create, maintain and upgrade systems that report texts, track texts, record them. They need to have customer support helping people who can't figure out how to use it on their phone. They need to write up materials dealing with texting, policies regarding how texts can be handled, read, stored, reported to the gov etc. None of these costs exist is the phone is just sending 'out 140 characters of gibberish.'
Will charge the same $1000 for all devices regardless.
It doesn't actually cost the post office 45c to deliver one letter more than they otherwise would be, yet they charge that much for something which is essentially free. The nerve!
Once you have a cellular phone network built, and you've paid for the spectrum and towers and so on then a text message is essentially free. The nerve of charging for such a thing!
One thing I miss about my WebOS device is any/all such IM accounts were 'always on'. Now only gtalk seems to have that distinction on my android device.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
So if you send a message to an iPhone, you end up using expensive data, instead of free text messages. and worse yet, if you send a message to a non-iphone, you use BOTH the expensive data (to check if you can use data vs text), and then send a text message anyway...
Wow... this sounds like the worst possible way of sending text messages!
No wonder iPhones are blamed for using more data than any other phone, for each text she sends you it has to check with the server to see if it can send it over data instead, and then when it determines that it can't, it reverts to text messages.
In a country where data is insanely expensive, and almost everyone has an unlimited text plan, I'd hate to end up accidentally using a program like that!
SMS is in no-way free. $20 unlimited or 20cents/message is the standard in the U.S.
T-Mobile execs are in the perfect position to stop doing it themselves.
So why don't they? We already know that. They more than make back that subsidy by charging their customers inflated fees for service that pay them back in a few months but lock their customers in for much longer at that inflated rate. It's a corrupt scheme. If T-Mobile wants to quit screwing its customers over they're more than welcome to stop doing it any time.
What they're looking for (so they suggest) is for somebody to force their hand . Only the government can do that.
Unfortunately subsidized is more accurate for most plans... or maybe "forced purchase" because I've never seen a carrier in my country that gives you any discount at all for a "sim only" or "bring your own phone" plan. If I have to pay the same either way, I might as well take the "free" phone while I'm at it.
This bundling will end only if carriers are forced to separate the phones from the plans (Something I really wish would happen!)
If your phone is dead and you signed a 2 year contract a year ago, you still need to pony up $500 for a new smartphone. They won't let you sign a new contract unless they're feeling nice (or make you go for a more expensive one you never needed).
Would be nice if the prices for text messaging is reduced. I'm deaf, and therefore, have absolutely no need for voice minutes. ATT, Sprint, and verizon all offers a deaf access plan, but they're all over 30 (40 if i wanted 4G) a month, which is more than i'm currently paying for ATT's family plan = $10 a month access + $20 a month unlimited texting (10 for me and 10 for the wife), which brings my cost per month to just $20. I didn't include t-mobile because 1) I'm not sure if they offer such a plan. 2) their pre-paid 100 minutes/unlimited text/data for 30 a month doesn't have documentary requirements (ATT, sprint and verizon requires me to prove I'm deaf before they'd even consider adding me to those special plans). So obviously, paying $20+ a month just to send and receive text messages is.. well, enough said. Reading comments about imessaging, i was lead to believe that the ipod touch 4g (damn you!) was a cellular capable music player but turns out it isn't. If i wanted a cellular capable non voicing device, I'd have to get an ipad, but honestly, I don't want to walk around town with a big tablet just in case my wife needs to text me to pick up bread and milk. Would be nice if the ipod did this though.
That's completely what it is. Why would a "chief marketing officer" suggest something unless it were advantageous to his company? We all know his motivation is not to take in *less* money from customers...
Junta is absolutely correct with gTalk, AIM, etc. You *could* count iMessage if you don't count any portions that send the messages as texts. The other clients/messengers don't use texts, only sending via their protocols over data. *That* is what will kill text messaging (except for the fact carriers put crazy prices on data plans, so either way you're kind of screwed)
In the US, and from a few carriers still stuck in the stone age elsewhere in the world, maybe. In the civilized world, text messages are dirt cheap. I pay $5/mo for unlimited global texting on my phone. Unlimited incoming (regardless of where it comes from, included with the base plan), and a list of over 100 countries I can text to, completely unlimited, without using any of my data. Some of the providers in this country (Canada) haven't woken up to this fact, but texting is as cheap or cheaper with many of them (the carrier I'm on is owned by one of the national networks, so I don't have to worry about coverage zones). Several providers don't charge at all for texts, and include unlimited texting with the base package. The USA is pretty much the only place in the world where texting is expensive, and even there, it's really only with the big three... most of the smaller carriers and MVNO's don't charge for texting at all.
Why on earth would I pay/use data for something that costs me next to nothing? Beyond that, why force me to buy a smart phone if I don't want one? (I have one, but I know a lot of people who don't want one).
I've been on the receiving end of this with my Android, and some teammates' iPhones. It does happen, but not always. I had no idea why I was getting these MMSes, and the senders assured me they had sent normal multi-recipient texts. The iPhone users didn't see anything unusual. I suppose it could have been some other cause, but iMessage certainly sounds like the culprit.
I've also suspected AT&T is doing something wonky. I sometimes have a lot of trouble opening MMS pictures on my Android, both with the stock ROM and CyanogenMod.
They nickel-and-dime you everything. Some plans include unlimited text, but even my own smartphone plan only has 250 texts, which I easily blew past over the Christmas/new year billing period. And it's $0.20 per outgoing message over the limit.
You're with the wrong company, clearly.
I pay $40/mo to Koodo. That gets me 150 anytime minutes, 5pm evenings/weekends, unlimited nation-wide long distance, call display, voicemail, unlimited text (global, more than 100 countries, and that's an addon that only costs $5/mo), and data. It's not a lot of data, but it's a flex plan, and my usage falls within the $5/25MB tier. The flex plan goes up to $30/3GB, depending on your needs. And it's without a contract. They do subsidize phones through the "tab", and you can get mid-level smart phones for free with them (higher end phones do cost more, though). And they're on Telus' network, so it works basically everywhere. Even if you're on Rogers or Bell, and would be stuck with a $20/mo (up to $400) early termination fee, perhaps you should consider switching, as it'll save you money in the long run. You can even unlock your existing phone and take it with you so you won't have to buy a new one.
And while they still sell locked phones, they will unlock them for you if your account is in good standing.
And if you lived in a big city like Toronto, Ottawa, Calgary, or Vancouver, I'd suggest you look at Wind or Mobilicity. In Quebec, look at Videotron. The only reason I'm with Koodo and not Mobilicity is that while I work in Ottawa, I live outside of the city limits, well outside of Wind and Mobilicity's coverage zone. That same $40/mo could get me a much better plan with either carrier, but I'd be paying roaming half the time.
$5 per month gets me unlimited global texting.
Convert that to kilobytes, and get back to me on whether that's expensive compared to paying for smartphone data. :)
Personally, I think it's great that carriers rip people off for SMS. I probably average 2 or 3 texts a month, and that only to respond to a very few people who text me. I'm happy that there's millions of other people out there forking over obscene amounts of money to the telcos to subsidize my voice and data usage.
And when I check with my provider you have your choice when signing up to get either double your minutes, or unlimited text/picture/video messaging, or a "fave 5" plan, on any of the plans (starting as cheap as $30/month including all taxes and fees)
If you chose one of the choices that doesn't give you the unlimited text messages, it's $15/mo to add unlimited text/video/picture messaging, voicemail, and call display. (And that's the full retail price, I negotiated $5/mo for those 3 features combined)
Once iMessage has determined that the recipient doesn't also have iMessage, it sends the message as either SMS or MMS, depending on the length and content. Most dumb phones support MMS but a few, like my old Nokia, don't. So I randomly fail to receive messages from iMessage.
For me (and some friends), we just leave our messaging (MSN, Gtalk, etc.) applications running on our phones (and yes, some phones are "i"s) and desktops. No big deal. When someone sends a message, it shows up ridiculously similar to a text message (on all platforms involved) and it will respond using the same platform that it was sent (unless you specifically choose otherwise). The notification comes across the top of the screen, you click it, then you reply back via the method they sent you. Same like your method. Who cares where it came from? They behave exactly the same way for an arranged chat session or otherwise -- and the advantage is that you KNOW if they're busy / away (or if they want to be undisturbed, offline). My friend's used MSN for quick messages all the time because she knew I would likely be at my desktop at the time. Didn't bother her any, and she's using an i*. Sending a message is equally easy: Open app. Find contact, send message.
With your method, you MUST buy a text messaging package because it *WILL* use a text message at some point (to regular phones) unless you're always paying attention to the color of a bar. Using a separate messaging program has a completely different look (but similar feel).
None of the dollar amounts you listed qualify as "free".
Actually, Imessage will turn into a text message and charge the receiver(or take it off of their text package) if they are not using an iphone. But it still takes off of their data plan, which apple gets a piece of. Also, you cannot block imessages.... Not smart thinking at apple.
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
In the US, MVNO's such as Ting (and Republic Wireless if they ever get out of Beta) who use the "buy your phone, no contracts" model will likely force the "big guys" to offer this model in the end. I think the resulting transparency is attractive to many, though not all, customers.
Innovation in smartphones has been rapid in the past few years and people tend to want newer/faster/shinier more frequently in such an environment. However, as the feature/performance innovation curve flattens out a bit, I think people will be quite annoyed at effectively being "forced" into a new phone (since, once they are out of contract, they usually keep paying the same rate even though the phone subsidy is paid off) and a new contract when they are still quite happy with their existing phone -- especially because they usually still have to pay a substantial amount up front to get a new smartphone. I expect that many of these people will be quite receptive to looking for alternatives that prevent them from being trapped yet again.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
> That might be correct for other carriers, but T-Mobile does offer plans that are cheaper if they don't involve them "giving" you a new phone. Bring your own phone to them and you can get a lower rate.
True, but you still have to sign up to a 2 year contract, with a connection fee of 35 $ (what for? there is no engine to come round to connect your line) and an early termination fee of 200 $. As long as they do that, they cannot complain about a distorted market and lack of customer freedom. Go an fix your own house first before you complain about the neighbours...
iMessage gives you ease of use - I don't have to care whether the person I am messaging has iMessage or not, the messaging app works it out for me without any input from me at all on the matter. This way, I don't have to treat one block of contacts different to any other, it just happens.
No, you only have to care whether they have an iOS 5 device or not. I suppose if every last one of your friends and family fall into that category then you're right. On the other hand, if they aren't all die hard Apple people and have non-Apple devices your logic and simplicity go right out the window.
Or you use gtalk which is available on all devices.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
I think mauve has the most RAM.
SMS's aren't particularly cheap. Also note that the message will travel over wireless 802.11 when available. It's cost effective, since I can sign up for a fairly minimal SMS plan and know that most of my messages are being carried by my devices' Internet access. It also means that I can receive messages even when I don't have cellular service but do have wireless Internet access.
iMessage gives you ease of use - I don't have to care whether the person I am messaging has iMessage or not, the messaging app works it out for me without any input from me at all on the matter. This way, I don't have to treat one block of contacts different to any other, it just happens.
You mean like Google Voice and several other third party applications on Android that can do the exact same thing (assuming you're wiling to let them take over control of your standard sms inbox)?
May be, that's the problem. You have an iPhone and I have an Android phone. I guess the iPhone probably didn't allow full programmatic access to the default SMS functionality and notifications to third party developers (like Android does).
Has Apple fixed the issue where you or a friend switch from an iPhone don't receive text messages as it still sends through iMessage?
Android does the same thing, except it did it long before 2011.
Google Voice for instance can do data sms, but it can also intercept standard sms messages that arrive on your phone -- thereby centralizing every type of SMS you send or receive through one single unified interface. And it's not just Google Voice that can do this, any third party app on the Android Market can do the same on Android.
There is also the simple fact that Apple not only loaded it on a hundred million iPhone users through an OS Update, but they enabled said service automatically using your phone number as your "contact name", thereby immediately sidestepping the carriers, even on existing devices.
And on Android, the same kind of integration is done on the Address book level, but not just from gmail contacts, or your phone address book, but facebook contacts, linkedin contacts, etc. Texting someone on Android is super easy. The person receiving the text doesn't even need a mobile phone. Worst case scenario, it will just call the person up, and a robotic voice will read the text outloud to him/her. And the reverse is also true, someone can just call my phone number from a landline, leave a voice mail and Google Voice can just SMS/email me a transcript of what was said.
Sure didn't happen to find it's way onto my LG Optimus 2X, or my HTC Thunderbolt...
Both of which require downloading Google Voice from the Android Marketplace and setting them up, let alone going into Settings to have it use "Google Voice" by default... Let alone the simple fact that it is *yet another number* that I need to give out to people.
If someone sends a text to my *phone* number, than it *does not* utilize Google Voice, and ends up on my phone bill. My point is that Apple has at least gotten the vast majority of their user base to use iMessage... I do not believe that you could make the same claim with regards to Google Voice.
Thirty four characters live here.
It's not killing text messaging plans on AT&T. They currently have 2 text plans: 1. Unlimited for $20, 2. No plan at all and pay $0.50 for each MMS and $0.25 for each SMS (sending and receiving counts at two texts). That means without a text plan, 80 SMS messages breaks even with the unlimited plan! Last month (even with iMessage) I used 172 messages, so I need some kind of text plan, might as well get unlimited.
Fortunately I am grandfathered into the 1000 Msgs/month for $10, I feel bad for new customers. They are getting raped by AT&T sms/mms plan.
Oakgoof's caught stalking by ac posts, again yesterday (he was caught doing it before, see below) and, after he was exposed doing that, he also ran from a technical question also (several of them in fact).
Answer it 'smart guy', lol http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2717169&cid=39310043 ("see penguin noob/ac stalker run" everyone, lol, BIG amusement).
Hairyfeet, another well-known member here, would be GLAD to verify that you stalk him by anonymous coward posts as well like you were caught doing here before also -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2559120&cid=38298896
Yet MORE evidences of this fool OakGOOF trolling/stalking/harassing by ac replies:
A.) Oakgrove trolling ac 1st n later caught using his reg'd acct http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2584140&cid=38448496
B.) Then signing off as his normal account here http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2584140&cid=38451650 .
C.) Posting ac and signing off as Oakgrove (same style apk uses but apk doesn't register here @ all, OakGoof does).
Talk about stupid - same mistakes, same being caught, but this time? We're exposing you SICKO!
Yes - We "have the cure" & it's called embarassing you for your reprehensible antics in stalking/harassing others here with your ac posts, as well as exposing your technically weak b.s. in computing by running away from a tech question that's way over your limited head, and questions about Linux that you ran from 25 times or more, lol!
Oakgoof's caught stalking by ac posts, again yesterday (he was caught doing it before, see below) and, after he was exposed doing that, he also ran from a technical question also (several of them in fact).
Answer it 'smart guy', lol http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2717169&cid=39310043 ("see penguin noob/ac stalker run" everyone, lol, BIG amusement).
Hairyfeet, another well-known member here, would be GLAD to verify that you stalk him by anonymous coward posts as well like you were caught doing here before also -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2559120&cid=38298896
Yet MORE evidences of this fool OakGOOF trolling/stalking/harassing by ac replies:
A.) Oakgrove trolling ac 1st n later caught using his reg'd acct http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2584140&cid=38448496
B.) Then signing off as his normal account here http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2584140&cid=38451650 .
C.) Posting ac and signing off as Oakgrove (same style apk uses but apk doesn't register here @ all, OakGoof does).
Talk about stupid - same mistakes, same being caught, but this time? We're exposing you SICKO!
Yes - We "have the cure" & it's called embarassing you for your reprehensible antics in stalking/harassing others here with your ac posts, as well as exposing your technically weak b.s. in computing by running away from a tech question that's way over your limited head, and questions about Linux that you ran from 25 times or more, lol!
Why is something that is plainly untrue marked as informative? What the hell is wrong with the moderators?
You don't get it do you? Nothing about my usage pattern has changed at all, and yet some messages go over iMessage for free and others go over standard SMS. I didn't have to change anything about how I send messages, or treat any recipients differently - it just happens.
So no, I don't have to care what device the recipient has - that's the entire fucking point. If they have an iMessage capable device, my iPhone sends them an iMessage. If they don't, it sends them an SMS. That's it.
How hard is that to understand? I don't need to know what the recipient has, the system works it out without any intervention from me - I'm not choosing one or the other, the system does, and my messages still get delivered.
So your entire point is invalid - it doesn't matter what device the recipient has, because they still get a message compatible with that device. And I don't have to configure or force that in any way.
Understand now?
That's fantastic. However, you miss the basic point - I didn't have to change *anything* about the way I use the phone. I didn't have to change apps, configure anything or do anything differently.
Now, Google could have made Google Voice the default SMS app on Android and achieved the same thing, but they didn't, so you have to use a different app to achieve it.
True, but you still have to sign up to a 2 year contract, with a connection fee of 35 $
Or you can sign up for a prepaid plan with no term bullshit.
Sounds like T-Mobile doesn't do so well around where you live, but it's great where I live. Mobile service quality rankings is pretty heavily dependent on location.
I get voice coverage everywhere I've gone, 5-10mbps down, and I think around 3 up. Fast enough for my mobile uses.
I'm also happy enough with their 5GB 4G unlimited 2G cap I get in return for my $30 a month.
The really simple solution would be to make it exceedingly clear what a "subsidized plan" actually is. And the way to do so is to force the carriers to treat it as a loan, which is precisely what it is. So it should be a separate arrangement from actual phone purchase, and also a separate arrangement from your service contract, even if the same company provides you all three. If you want to terminate your service contract early, you should be able to do that so long as you keep paying out the loan you've taken to purchase your device.
We already have just that kind of arrangement with cars - most people take a loan to buy one, and the loan is usually arranged right there at the car dealership, and often they even have their own finance department that handles the loans themselves. But even so, the loan is clearly separate from the purchase, and both are clearly separate from the service.
I think the counter is that some of us would be less comfortable if SMS messages cost money and we didn't know if the message we are about to send is going to cost money or not. If SMS doesn't cost us or our conversation partner incremental money, then we wouldn't care about the iMessage benefit. If SMS does cost incremental money, we'd rather go with a strategy guaranteed not to incur nor inflict any particular incremental charge and avoid any possibility of SMS.
Given, among the population there are people getting gouged by carriers on SMS and taking no measures to manage that expense, and Apple is helping them out in mitigating the damage they are doing to themselves, but a lot of us like a bit more predictability in our expenses and elect a channel that isn't bound by archaic phone numbers and is guaranteed to be no additional charge.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I'm sorry, none of us commenting here realized that your cranky family member had veto power over what we Americans should and shouldn't be able to do. I'm sure this T-Mo exec hadn't been informed that your uncle or whoever worked at AT&T for like, totally a long time, like it was totally Cingular when he started. If he had known that at the time I'm sure he wouldn't have bothered opening his mouth and none of us would dare imagine that human beings in the United States could one day hope to purchase their phones like Europeans.
Loans are eventually paid off. Subsidies are forced payments from one party to enable another to perform a venture at a cost below what the market would bear. Cellphone plans do not drop off when the "loan" is "repaid" at the end of the contract—if you keep your phone longer than two years, you continue to subsidize the carrier.
MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
Is it because you foolishly bought CDMA phones from a lock down carrier so you cannot move to another with your shiny toy? Or is it just your self-described fear of losing your "good deal"?
Suck it up, man, and buy a couple of used Android phones of the same generation or newer than your Verizon jail. Two Straight Talk SIMs matching the native network/UMTS frequencies of the AT&T or Tmo phones, for 1-time $15 each. $45/mo + couple bucks tax each for unlimited voice, web, SMS, MMS at your phone's full 3G/quasi-4G HSPA+ speed. Voice/text/2G across the combine Tmo and AT&T network regardless of which SIM you buy. It will prefer its native net but work on both as the Straight Talk GSM "Home" network.
BTW Simple Mobile only works on native non-roaming Tmo and the $40 3G plan is throttled to 116kbps. Not a good deal.
I am with TPG mobile (and bought my last phone, a Nokia N900, outright from a 3rd party).
I pay $19.99 per month (actually $14.99 because I have ADSL internet with TPG) and get $300 of value that I can use towards voice, data, SMS and MMS and some other things.
I also get 1000 minutes per month to use on calls to other mobiles on the same carrier between 8pm and midnight and 1GB of data included.
The only things I cant use my cap on is:
International Calls
Premium rate numbers and premium rate SMS
Premium content
and international roaming.
The costs I pay (which come out of my cap until the cap is run out then I just pay on top of that)
40c per 30 seconds with 35c flagfall for voice calls (landline and mobile)
25.3c for a SMS
50c for MMS
0.2c for 10KB of data (once I use up my free 1gb of data that is)
Plus various rates for international calls, SMS and MMS and some other things like voicemail and call connect.
The carrier is a reseller for the Optus network (second largest in terms of coverage) which supports GSM on 900/1800 and UMTS on 900/2100 and TPG will let me use any phone that supports those frequencies that isn't locked to another carrier (including an unlocked iPhone)
They dont care if I use my data (be it my included 1GB, my included cap value or otherwise) for tethering.
You don't get it do you? Nothing about my usage pattern has changed at all, and yet some messages go over iMessage for free and others go over standard SMS. I didn't have to change anything about how I send messages, or treat any recipients differently - it just happens.
So no, I don't have to care what device the recipient has - that's the entire fucking point. If they have an iMessage capable device, my iPhone sends them an iMessage. If they don't, it sends them an SMS. That's it.
How hard is that to understand? I don't need to know what the recipient has, the system works it out without any intervention from me - I'm not choosing one or the other, the system does, and my messages still get delivered.
So your entire point is invalid - it doesn't matter what device the recipient has, because they still get a message compatible with that device. And I don't have to configure or force that in any way.
Understand now?
I understood in the first place. However, all the benefits are only present if both parties are using an iOS 5 device. Otherwise, one party is getting relatively expensive text message.
Or to put it another way, it's awesome for you (because as you said you don't have to do anything special) but could end up sucking hard for your recipient. I say sucking hard as I imagine that, in general, people who are sending messages for free are more likely to use the system more like chat and less like relatively expensive SMS. Speaking for myself, I know that's exactly how I treat google voice messages, even though they are supposed to be more like SMS and less like standard chat.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Transport mechanism matters when it's spliced apart against the plan you've purchased. You're implying that iMessage is the same as SMS, MMS, etc.. If iMessage is being transmitted as IP traffic, which as XMPP it is, it sure as hell isn't MMS or SMS traffic which is processed differently at the Co-Lo.
Yup, I'd go with that and go a step further. It would be legal to offer phone service plans, and it would be legal to offer phone device payment plans, but it would not be legal to bundle them or set limits on quantities. So, you could buy a phone without a plan, or a plan without a phone. If AT&T offers a phone for 1 cent per month, they'd have to honor anybody who walks in and asks for 1000 of them with no plans/etc to go with them.
It would be better still if the phones were interoperable across services. I'm not sure I'd require that upfront, but I'd seriously consider transitioning to a regulatory framework where only specific protocols/bands were allowed, and all phones would have to support all of them (with no vendor locking) to be FCC licensed. Suddenly phones have to complete against phones, and service against service, and I'm sure the competition would easily save consumers far more than the extra $1 for the phone's modem chip.
contracts, SIM locks, and carrier crapware?
Those words don't mean the same thing.
Cell phones are subsidized, in that the carrier covers a chunk of the cost, providing the phone to the buyer at below the carrier's cost, which is paid for by jacking up the monthly fees to subsidize the initial purchase. The subsidy coming from the monthly fees is slightly hidden, in that the carriers (in the US) charge the same fees for users with subsidized and non-subsidized fees, but the subsidy is quite obvious when you're buying the phone, and you get different prices depending on the length of the contract you're locked into.
A discount is simply a lower price, such as run for a promotion. There's no added charge to customers to pay for a straight discount.
A rebate is money send to purchasers later, if they do the right paperwork. This is usually a con in that people mentally subtract the rebate from the purchase price, but often fail to do the paperwork, or the rebate doesn't get sent (the rebate servicing companies are always extremely slow, and require consumer persistence to get the rebate actually paid). For example, if you buy something for $100 with a $20 rebate, you think you paid $80, but actually you paid $100 unless you file the paperwork, wait 2 months, and make a few phone calls to the rebate servicing company. And since most people give up, they're not really saving the $20. Like a discount, there's no added cost elsewhere to pay for the rebate.
A coupon is when the buyer is issued a discount, which is taken off at purchase time. So it's more fair than a rebate (which often doesn't arrive). Oddly, however, people often clip and collect coupons, then buy things that they have coupons for, but don't actually use the coupons. So couponing turns out to be fairly effective as a marketing tool that doesn't cost much at all. Like a discount or rebate, there's no added cost elsewhere to subsidize the coupon.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
WebOS on the original Palm Pre did this in 2009. It combined GChat, SMS, and a few other chat services into the built-in chat client.
Yes, people ignore genuine cultural differences.
The stereotypical American needs to establish their position in the pecking order with what they own: a fancy-looking house, a fancy-looking car, a fancy-looking phone, fancy-looking clothes, a fancy-looking spouse, fancy-looking children in a blue-ribbon school.
If somebody is stupid enough to give you a loan, you take it. You need to be accepted by your so-called friends now. Nobody gives you points for being frugal and sensible and living according to your means. A loser is a loser.
It's not like an Israeli can sign up with C-spire in the USA and expect to have service in Israel.
Really? It's been years since I got a phone along with a plan, but when I did after the contract period expired they gave me the choice of either getting a new phone or having a discount on my plan.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
"A close family member of mine worked for AT&T Wireless since it was called Cingular. He would tell you that that business model would fail spectacularly here in the US."
Orange was saying much the same thing in France. They're currently bleeding customers so fast they're desperate. It currently works this way in the US, because that's the only choice for most people, suddenly give people a choice and the early adopters go for it. Assuming it doesn't fall over from the load, word of mouth quickly spreads, and everyone starts doing it this way, because they don't want to admit to their friends that they got ripped off
There is a good reason for subsidy.
1) The quality of people's experience is heavily dependent on the quality of their phone.
2) As the experience gets better people are willing to spend more per month on the total package (phone + carrier charges). So the carrier can make more money on customers with better phones even if they just have to pass through the cost.
3) Customers are much more willing to pay a prorated cost than an upfront cost.
4) Customers underestimate how much the quality of the phone impacts their total experience.
Given those parameters heavy subsidy makes sense.
We need to simply make the subsidy transparent, so the consumer sees exactly what it cost, interest, how much is left, and receives a lower bill once it is paid off.
- Require carriers to show the subsidy and interest on the bill
- Require the bill to drop by the amount of the subsidy once the device is paid off.
- Require carriers to unlock devices for a small fee once paid off.
- Require a small contract termination fee ($25?), plus the cost of the unpaid device to cancel any contract.
- Require carriers to use devices brought to them, as long as they will operate correctly on their network.
- Require carriers to sell the phone outright to anyone for what they sell to customers (to keep them from cheating on price).
Put the consumers back in control.
T-Mobile has plans in the US that do not include phone subsidies, called "Value Plans". Besides better coverage in our area than Verizon or AT&T, it was THE reason we switched to T-Mobile.
We have two unlocked iPhones with unlimited everything (but stuck at edge speed), and 2 messaging phones with unlimited text, 500 voice, and no data. Total monthly bill for all 4 phones with tax is $112.
You can buy a Samsung Exibit II 4g SGH-T679 for less than $200.00, great phone. Its a t-mobile prepaid phone but you just stick ayour regular t-mobile of walmart family mobile sim card in it and your ready to go! I rooted mine and got rid of all the trash, its wonderful, I even bought one for my wife.
Price for non-contract device is exactly the same as what you pay on contract, which is what the market will bear. The only difference is whether you pay it all upfront, or with a series of monthly payments that are folded into your service bill.
How many people do you know that buy unlocked non-contract iPhone's? Practically no one. People buy unlocked non-contract phones, just not iPhones. My argument is that the price of the unlocked, non-contract iPhone's is higher than the market will bear to discourage people from buying the device through AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon -- companies with whom Apple has lucrative distribution and marketing agreements. I'm speculating that those agreements require Apple to sell the iPhone for a higher-than-market-value price.
It doesn't show up as a multimedia file. If the person you are chatting with doesn't have iMessage, it sends as a regular sms or mms.
I think the mm in MMS stands for multimedia. This has to be downloaded and is indeed a picture of an SMS message. It is white text on a black background. I ONLY get this when the iPhone is sending to multiple senders. Otherwise, I get a plain text message. The bad part is when the group is big, it is hard to keep up with the messages as it take the phone a while to download the MMS messages.
I knew /. had certain technologies that can't be criticized but it is strange to see the truth modded to flamebait.
Don't you just hate it when there's a simple solution that's not actually being done?
What T-Mobile should do is make EVERY (that means no exceptions whatsoever) phone they offer available in a full-price, unsubsidized, and UNLOCKED, form. Then offer their phone service on month-to-month basis (prepaid for those lacking credit or refusing to allow a credit check) ... with pricing for calls, messages, and data just the same as their subsidized plans.
Some people actually want the subsidized plans. I'm not one of them, but I don't want to deny it to someone else if that's what they want and someone wants to provide it to them. But this diversity of offering at least can provide me with what I want. And it would be a means to let the market say what it wants.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
"Actually, Imessage will turn into a text message and charge the receiver(or take it off of their text package) if they are not using an iPhone."
Yes, that's what I said.
"But it still takes off of their data plan."
Which, even at the worst overage rates is essentially free.
And higher usage costs.
I think I pay something like $20 a month for a bunch of extras that I never use, but it's the only way I can get the texting plan, which is something like 1000 texts. That's two cents a text. A text message is 160 characters, which, as far as the end user is concerned, is 160 bytes, so that's $131 / MB. Kind of expensive, even on the plan, hey? Now, I only notice a difference in price if I can cancel the texting plan. It's getting very close.
I sure as hell notice the difference when I travel outside the country though. Instead of paying $0.50 - $1.00 per text it's about a hundredth of a cent per text, even with the extortionate data roaming fees, or free if I'm using wifi.
I'm on T-Mo "Walmart plan". That's prepaid, $30/month for unlimited text + unlimited data (throttled to EDGE at 5Gb) + 100 min voice. It's the best deal I could find on any operator, pre-paid or post-paid.
How many people do you know that buy unlocked non-contract iPhone's? Practically no one. People buy unlocked non-contract phones, just not iPhones.
Anyway, the reason why it actually makes sense to buy contract in US is because if you buy an unlocked device and bring it to the carrier, you'll still be paying the same monthly price as the guy who got "subsidized" phone from them. In other words, you're still paying back the loan, even though you didn't actually take it. So buying unlocked is considerably more expensive, but the expense is not hidden in price of the device - it's hidden in your service bill.
Coincidentally, the only operator that discounts the service if you bring your own device is T-Mo, and running iPhone there is kinda pointless because of lack of 3G.
(emphasis in the quote is mine)
...paying for text messaging (which literally costs carriers nothing)...
You are using that word and I literally do not think you know what it means.
Perhaps he should have said "literally" next to nothing as once you have the infrastructure in place the cost of sending text messages through it is negligible, so you only have the initial cost of installing infrastructure. It doesn't cost your phone company A$0.25 per message (A$0.09 on a plan), it costs them A$0.00, as more messages are sent over existing infrastructure the cost of installing the infrastructure approaches zero.
In Thailand and the Philipines, having 100 THB (or just 1 PHP in the Phils) on a prepaid SIM gives you unlimited texts, in Australia they do this for A$45 per moth including other services such as voice calls and data (1.5-3 GB). So text messaging really does literally cost next to nothing but if you're on pre-paid in Australia you pay up to A$0.30 for it.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I have a regular non-prepaid, no-contract plan with T-Mobile, and I also have a non-subsidized phone (Samsung Galaxy S 4G). I don't have any early termination fee.
If only "common" sense was actually that common...
1. In the rest of the world, the calling party pays for calling a mobile number. That's why incoming usage is "free".
2. Depending on your plan, mobile to mobile calling can be free. Sprint offers free calling to any mobile carrier, and AT&T might, too. Vz and Tmo I think have free calling between their own customers.
3. Calling after a certain time and on weekends is generally not billable to either party.
If you were to ask me, I like the US deal better. I hardly use any airtime because hardly anybody I know uses landlines anymore.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock