The iPhone is girly--Verizon says

[Consultant]

come on now, they have the superior network

Then why did Verizon double the early contract termination fee of their "advanced devices"?

If their network / phone / services are so good, then no one would leave. If no one leaves the ETF should be $0. Instead, Verizon ETF changed to $350 this fall.

AT&T $175
T-Mobile $200
Sprint $200
Verizon $350

I wonder which carrier is losing their top subscribers?

Verizon management is not very bright with this one. I thought their map commercials were good, but this is a mistake.

Also I feel sorry for them having to market the ridiculous name "droid".

Yeah, this Verizon ad FAILED on so many levels.

=)

 

[thegoldenmackid]

Consultant, they raised it because they could?

I don't think that it's a matter of people switching now, if not they would have done it before the release of the iPhone originally. If anything, iThink this further shows that the iPhone will not be going to Verizon.

 

[anjinha]

Then why did Verizon double the early contract termination fee of their "advanced devices"?

If their network / phone / services are so good, then no one would leave. If no one leaves the ETF should be $0. Instead, Verizon ETF changed to $350 this fall.

If the ETF was $0 people could buy phones that cost $400-$600 for the $200 subsidized price, cancel their contracts without being penalized and sell them on eBay for profit, while the carriers would be losing money on every phone they sold.

Yeah, that's a good business decision for the carriers.

 

[thegoldenmackid]

If the ETF was $0 people could buy phones that cost $400-$600 for the $200 subsidized price, cancel their contracts without being penalized and sell them on eBay for profit, while the carriers would be losing money on every phone they sold.

Yeah, that's a good business decision for the carriers.

While I agree that $0 is not option, but Consultant's point was the sudden raise in prices. Alternatively it could suggest that Verizon was concerned that people were going to start selling unlocked Droids like candy? Yeah, that probably wasn't going to happen.

 

[anjinha]

While I agree that $0 is not option, but Consultant's point was the sudden raise in prices. Alternatively it could suggest that Verizon was concerned that people were going to start selling unlocked Droids like candy? Yeah, that probably wasn't going to happen.

They raised the price because people were buying subsidized phones, paying the $175 ETF and selling them on eBay for profit. Since their "advanced devices" are subsidized for $300-$400 they were losing money by allowing that to happen.

I wouldn't be surprised if the other carriers raise their ETFs too.

 

[thegoldenmackid]

They raised the price because people were buying subsidized phones, paying the $175 ETF and selling them on eBay for profit. Since their "advanced devices" are subsidized for $300-$400 they were losing money by allowing that to happen.

I wouldn't be surprised if the other carriers raise their ETFs too.

Yes, that leads me to believe that they thought that people were going to attempt to do this in mass with the Droid, which seems not so true...

 

[Applejuiced]

They raised the price because people were buying subsidized phones, paying the $175 ETF and selling them on eBay for profit. Since their "advanced devices" are subsidized for $300-$400 they were losing money by allowing that to happen.

I wouldn't be surprised if the other carriers raise their ETFs too.

Dont fall for that cheap excuse.
Cell carriers are like banks-they feel entitled to charge you for everything.
Even if the FCC limits the termination fee cost, the carriers will find a new way to keep the tables balanced in their favor.
Dont try to make it sound like they're fair towards their consumers.

 

[thegoldenmackid]

Dont fall for that cheap excuse.
Cell carriers are like banks-they feel entitled to charge you for everything.
Even if the FCC limits the termination fee cost, the carriers will find a new way to keep the tables balanced in their favor.
Dont try to make it sound like they're fair towards their consumers.

I'm not sure that's what she was getting at. Consultant suggested that it should be $0 if no one leaves, that seemed ridiculous for so many reasons. Further it was suggested that Verizon raised it because they had the most people leaving, that also doesn't seem true, that argument seems two years delayed.

 

[anjinha]

Yes, that leads me to believe that they thought that people were going to attempt to do this in mass with the Droid, which seems not so true...

A lot of people did that with the Blackberry BOGO promo.

 

[Applejuiced]

I hear you, if the ETF was $0 then they wouldnt subsidize your device at all
What would be fair is for the ETF to be the amount the carrier pays for your particular device. And we know all cellphones dont cost the same and sure as hell cellphone companys dont buy them for the full MSRP.
The ETF should decrease linearly each month, by 1/24th (or 1/however many months) until it reaches zero at the end of the contract.
A $120 penalty for backing out 30 days early on a two year contract?

I'm not sure that's what she was getting at. Consultant suggested that it should be $0 if no one leaves, that seemed ridiculous for so many reasons. Further it was suggested that Verizon raised it because they had the most people leaving, that also doesn't seem true, that argument seems two years delayed.

 

[thegoldenmackid]

A lot of people did that with the Blackberry BOGO promo.

Meh. My comment was more towards Verizon's foolishness with the Droid. I suppose Sprint users want it, I whole heartedly agree with you that Verizon was doing something smart.

I hear you, if the ETF was $0 then they wouldnt subsidize your device at all
What would be fair is for the ETF to be the amount the carrier pays for your particular device. And we know all cellphones dont cost the same and sure as hell cellphone companys dont buy them for the full MSRP.
The ETF should decrease linearly each month, by 1/24th (or 1/however many months) until it reaches zero at the end of the contract.
A $120 penalty for backing out 30 days early on a two year contract?

I could care less, I'm for: people should live with contracts and quit whining.

 

[Applejuiced]

Lol
I could care less too, Im not with Verizon and not planning to either.
Just making conversation and throwing out thoughts thats all.

Meh. My comment was more towards Verizon's foolishness with the Droid. I suppose Sprint users want it, I whole heartedly agree with you that Verizon was doing something smart.


I could care less, I'm for: people should live with contracts and quit whining.

 

[daihard]

A lot of people did that with the Blackberry BOGO promo.

I am sure some customers have done (and will do) that, but quite honestly, what do you think is the percentage of the Verizon smartphone customers who actually take the trouble of doing that? I'd be surprised if it was more than one percent of them. I'm willing to bet the rest of them have never put anything for sale on eBay (or other online auction sites). Not enough to dent Verizon's bottom line.

 

[anjinha]

I am sure some customers have done (and will do) that, but quite honestly, what do you think is the percentage of the Verizon smartphone customers who actually take the trouble of doing that? I'd be surprised if it was more than one percent of them. I'm willing to bet the rest of them have never put anything for sale on eBay (or other online auction sites). Not enough to dent Verizon's bottom line.

Apparently this was a big deal. There were even sites that taught you how to take advantage of that situation so you could sell your phone for the most profit.

I hear you, if the ETF was $0 then they wouldnt subsidize your device at all
What would be fair is for the ETF to be the amount the carrier pays for your particular device. And we know all cellphones dont cost the same and sure as hell cellphone companys dont buy them for the full MSRP.

The new ETF, which is not $350, it's "up to $350" + the subsidized price of the phones should make it around the unsubsidized price of the phones. Verizon is a business so of course they're not going to sell them for the price they pay for them, they have to make a profit.

The ETF should decrease linearly each month, by 1/24th (or 1/however many months) until it reaches zero at the end of the contract.
A $120 penalty for backing out 30 days early on a two year contract?

That I agree, it's silly.

 

[kdarling]

Re: raising the ETF so phones can't be bought and sold for a profit right away:

1) It's not just the Droid, and the Blackberry BOGOs. The Eris, Omnia, HTC Touch Pro and Imagio are hot selling phones as well. The HTCs are also dual mode GSM+CDMA, which Verizon will unlock upon request. Which means they're usable anywhere, including ATT, according to reports on xda-developers.

2) The ETF for dumbphones is still $175. (They don't have ~$360 subsidies like the Droid.)

3) Owing money at the 23rd month has always been true. Normal ETFs of $175 are still $60 near the end, since they only drop $5 a month.

In any case, wait one more month and you owe nothing. Or pay full price at the beginning.

4) At least the ETF is pro-rated. Verizon was the first US carrier to start the practice. ATT followed a year later, and Sprint a year after that. It seems likely they'll also follow the higher ETF rate.

PS. I personally want to know why we don't have a choice on any carrier of a subsidized-or-not rate. If I buy a phone off eBay, then by golly my bill should be $5 to $15 less a month than those who are paying back a subsidized phone.

 

[Applejuiced]

PS. I personally want to know why we don't have a choice on any carrier of a subsidized-or-not rate. If I buy a phone off eBay, then by golly my bill should be $5 to $15 less a month than those who are paying back a subsidized phone.

Thats a very good point.

 

[thetexan]

PS. I personally want to know why we don't have a choice on any carrier of a subsidized-or-not rate. If I buy a phone off eBay, then by golly my bill should be $5 to $15 less a month than those who are paying back a subsidized phone.

My guess is it becomes too confusing for the customer. They keep the cost of service separate from the cost of the device (equipment fee + ETF). Otherwise the carriers would get a bunch of "Well my friend Bob only pays $59.99 per month, why do I pay $79.99?). Not to mention if you fall out of contract and your monthly price falls nobody would want to upgrade, and for cell phone carriers upgrading / signing new contract is way more valuable than signing up a new customer. That's why Verizon selling 1,000,000 is great news for Verizon, even if most of that number are from upgrades and not new customers.

At least Verizon offers options, AT&T does not. I sold an old iPhone to a friend and he took it to an AT&T store to get activated, and they told him since it's an iPhone he has no choice but to sign a new 2-year contract even though he is buying no equipment from AT&T. He is now a Verizon customer and I had to sell my iPhone on eBay.

With Verizon you can get the Droid (and all other smartphones) for a 2-year contract and be part of the $350 ETF. For $70 more you can get the Droid and only be in a 1-year contract. Finally, you can buy the Droid full price and have no contract. Does AT&T allow those options? Nope. At least Verizon offers options, when AT&T increases the price of their ETF you're stuck with it.

 

[BergerFan]

why not be fast & pretty?
To me, the Droid is a muscle car, like:
A NASCAR Dodge Challenger: Crude looks, but gets the jobe done.

Whilst, the iPhone is an F1 Ferrari - the epitome of sophistication, with svelte lines.

 

[macster84]

i'll take an elegant "princess" phone over a duct-taped scud missile rocket phone or whatever they call it.

The ad also says "....digitally clueless...." couldn't be farther from the truth. The iPhone is the digital innovator, trendsetter, redefining phones that have been designed and sold by others for over a decade, etc.

Also, they forgot that some of the Scuds....were duds!
.

 

[bradl]

PS. I personally want to know why we don't have a choice on any carrier of a subsidized-or-not rate. If I buy a phone off eBay, then by golly my bill should be $5 to $15 less a month than those who are paying back a subsidized phone.

If all the carriers had standardized on a single network (like the rest of the world has, save China), we would have that choice. Europe, Japan, most of Asia, and Oceania have been that way for the past 10 years, as they all standardized on GSM. The phone maker sells you a phone, you take the phone to your wireless provider, and off you go.

The US is the only one that screwed up, by letting the providers control their network. So they build out their own, and try to pass that off as the standard. This is where CDMA, TDMA and others split off, making international comms a fair *****. Only TDMA phones (which became GSM) were able to send SMS messages to other carriers overseas. Anyone else was screwed.

Those same providers told the makers to make phones exclusively for their network (their standard). So when you bought the phone, you were tied to that network for as long as you used the phone. New network? new phone.

If Verizon had gone with the standard instead of rolling out CDMA, like Sprint, this would have been a non-issue. But guess which one was cheaper to roll out, and which one is dying off..

BL.

 

[daihard]

If all the carriers had standardized on a single network (like the rest of the world has, save China), we would have that choice. Europe, Japan, most of Asia, and Oceania have been that way for the past 10 years, as they all standardized on GSM. The phone maker sells you a phone, you take the phone to your wireless provider, and off you go.

Not really true about Japan, where the leading carriers (DoCoMo, au and Softbank) are divided with CDMA (au) and GSM/W-CDMA (DoCoMo and Softbank). Moreover, DoCoMo and Softbank do not share the same bandwidths. As the result, a phone designed for one carrier typically won't work for another. Not much better than in the U.S.

 

[daihard]

The ad also says "....digitally clueless...." couldn't be farther from the truth. The iPhone is the digital innovator, trendsetter, redefining phones that have been designed and sold by others for over a decade, etc.

Also, they forgot that some of the Scuds....were duds!
.

Ironic that I've just found this article.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10414356-71.html?tag=newsLatestHeadlinesArea.0

"Apple has launched a beautiful phone with a fantastic user interface that has had a number of technological shortcomings that many iPhone users have accepted and defended, despite those shortcomings resulting in limitations in iPhone users' daily lives."