Related
Ok so I always get my phone from Bestbuy or directly from Verizon based on online deals or specials going on when contract is up. Since when was Bestbuy pricing 700$ out of contract compared to $569 of VZ? They always when I checked with is every few months very similar in price. Now I have $300 buyback from previous upgrade done few months ago but considering locking in a second line to 4g Unlimited plan before it is too late.
So just curious did the Retail price 3rd party can sell agreement with Verizon change I was under impression to be Authorized reseller unless you were running a valid promotion, special you had to be in similar price range to Verizon?
I wouldn't be complaining normally but to have to cough up $700 for a retail price over Verizon cost of already high $569 seems way out of wack. I know the phones are 4g and high end but man didn't realize 3rd party places that were once better options now don't even try to compete with Big Reds pricing.
Forgive me if there was some post detailing Bestbuy cost going up or possible changes to why Verizon offers lower cost then retailers selling same phones on their behalf.
If you raise enough hell, best buy will match the VZW price. You just have to prove that the corporate store is charging 569 outright.
BBY will price match VZW... Best buy inflates their retail pricing to negate customers from buying it wo a contract(that's where they make their $$)
They will price match the online price or CS price cause they are not the same not a huge difference I just want to know which price to fight for? Is this generally something they are going to be pricks about I mean I have bought the phone I am going to bring back for the Buy Back Credit and purchased Black Tie Protection I can't imagine they would be to stuborn. I just want equal price and have no problem paying 569-599 at all obviously would be minus 300 GC I would get from the Buyback program.
If you were to come into my store and ask for a price match (I work at best buy), and you planned on getting blacktie and buyback, we would match without question. Other stores may be different, but the margin would be made up with those two components.
Sorry I should of been more clear on the phone I am going to trade in I had Blacktie and Buyback. This phone is to lock in 4g plan before July 7th so I would get Blacktie but no Buyback this time and previous phone is 3ish month old Fascinate. I have 2 Pc's, 2 HDTV and like 5 previous phones and everything has been with Blacktie.
I just want to know if I would be better of having proof cause I have no idea what a storefront of Verizons here has for anything showing retail price, but if I have to go out of my way to prove it. Due to BB not matching "online" prices I will cause I sure am not paying extra 125$ for same phone lol.
Really thank you all for advice so far I usually get great people when I work with Best Buy and after all Zagg shields the mobile department has put on my rounds of bad Thunderbolts they know my acount before they even pull me up as to what I have for phones ect. I just know it was like pulling teeth to get them to replace my non-fuctional Incredible after 2 seperate repairs to get a new device and had to talk to store manager before I got it done without a 3rd repair shipment.
Just bring it in the retail pricing from the online (I work at BBY Mobile PT as well) and Id match it
find the kid who hates his job at best buy and he'll price match it without talking to a manager. i work at best buy and do it all the time.
hackabusa said:
If you were to come into my store and ask for a price match (I work at best buy), and you planned on getting blacktie and buyback, we would match without question. Other stores may be different, but the margin would be made up with those two components.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Word to the wise. Don't anyone ever get black tie. Its a scam.
I would generally agree to that last post but in my case because Best Buy has the lemon policy on repairing or attempting to fix issues. I went from Incredible that went 2.2 update came out dropped a packet and caused horrible call quality an hardware / software issues. Got me a $600 equal retail value Giftcard that put me into my Thunderbolt. Generally speaking insurance is never needed but I get it to be safe on my high end phones.
Also had to speak with a manager but the Buyback process and getting into the Charge was a painless experience and they gave it to me for $599 cause they know how much business I do there. Thanks for all the help.
Is it me or are the standard tablet prices way too high?
Just checked the pricing for Sony Tablet S (Wi-Fi only) £399/$499 (16GB) and £499/$599 (32GB) with the 3G version roughly 100 more.
Not blaming Sony for this as all companies seem to be inflated.
If all companies were to take a look at the recent HP Touchpad saga, can they not see the potential if the prices were lower? (Maybe not to that extent, but you catch my drift hopefully).
As consumers, if we were to all agree worldwide that we were not going to pay these prices for something we believe should be at least a couple of £/$100 cheaper. Wouldn't companies have to eventually reduce prices due the poor sales?
P.s. TO MODS - If this belongs in Q & A apologies.
I think that the tablet market is still preadolescence. I believe that this will be the case for at least one or two more years then we can expect the tablet market to become more competitive on high quality tablets.
Hell yeah. But these companies have to make a profit or at least break even on the hardware.
I got a Streak 7 for $150. Loved it. I'm looking to find a Xoom or Transformer now.
Its all about searching for deals I guess.
@MeInGatineau - The Touchpad industry being young in it's life cycle is true, but as it stands there is enough competition to drive prices down. Companies will only do this if we refuse to buy at the inflated prices.
@vetvito - The companies do not "need to" make profit/break even on hardware so early, they "want to". The combination of software sales, economies of scale and cheaper components etc. in the long run should make them more than enough profit.
Have a Nook cost 200 bucks
A Asus EE tablet 380.00
A Samsung 10.1 paid 480.00
and a 32 gig Touchpad Paid 230.00 for it.
Cost is driven more by hype and perception than by academic business models.
All the above are 100-300.00 more in the stores if you buy "off the shelf"retail.
Always NEVER do that unless you are rich.
Typically the way electronics work is : They R/D a design and get it to manufacture , once there, they figure the baseline amount needed to be sold @ a given price in order to break even (recoup all costs for the project) Then , after they pass that mark costs begin to decline.... unless it is a hot seller then they exploit the hype of the market for the extra profit benefit it brings for as long as it lasts.
Apple is better at keeping the hype up than most other people in the market today, which explains why they have a following, you get less and pay more for it, and think it is a deal. NOW! that's great marketing !!!
If you really want to know more on this and markets and how they work just look at the Intel chip market.
Yes tablets are expensive at the moment but I don't think this immediately points to greedy manufacturers with big profit margins. Developing the tablets are quite costly and they are probably just covering their costs. Once they gain experience and pick up, I'm sure scales of economy kick and and products will become cheaper. Exactly how the laptop market has gone.
Competition will always drive prices down but no manufacturer is going to sell the tablet at a loss unless they are able to re-coop that money from elsewhere. E.g. Amazon sell the Kindle at a loss as they make money on the ebooks. Carriers sell mobile phones at a loss as they make money on the tariffs and carrier services used.
HP were selling the TouchPad for a loss. They could do this because the alternative was probably a greater loss.
Just Me said:
@vetvito - The companies do not "need to" make profit/break even on hardware so early, they "want to". The combination of software sales, economies of scale and cheaper components etc. in the long run should make them more than enough profit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't see how software sales would make profit for a tablet manufacturer? Most tablet manufacturers opportunities for profit are with the tablet sales and official accessories for that tablet.
I would argue that manufacturers do need to make profit/break even as quickly as possible. Manufacturers cannot afford to have long drawn out periods for products to break even. They do not know how they will sell, what competition will do or any of the other million factors that affect economy.
This isn't to say pricing them high will get them to break even as quickly as possible. Because if they are too high then they will not get enough sales.
@oka1 - That is my partly my point. There are deals to be had if you shop around, but why are the prices not discounted in the first place. The person/company that you bought from, would have bought from 1-2 people before you and it is likely that they all made money from each item.
I also have a Touchpad but the 16GB version, which I paid £127. Above the insane price of £89, but now that I have it, I realise I might have paid £200, but the £350+ price tag was ridiculous imo.
Also, I get your R&D point to an extent, but then why bring out a newer model with only slightly better features in 6 to 12 months and price it at the same price, as the original. Surely the the R&D cost wouldn't have increased significantly for the new product
@Techno79 - I'm not in the industry, but I can't really see the development cost being high enough to justify such a high selling price. I know it's not as straight forward as this but, tablets are generally just big smart phones, some with less features (e.g. Wi-Fi only).
In comparison the laptops that you mention are probably more costly to build, but are cheaper and have a lot more functions.
My point is, I don't believe they have to sell them for as much as they do and if, as a society, simplified, we all turned around and said drop the price by a couple of 100 and we'll all buy one, they would.
My software sales point was more at certain companies that get a % of sales revenue for apps sold, but true it's probably not the case for all.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that companies don't need to survive, I'm just saying, they should give a little back to the consumer that buy their products and help them make the vast amounts of profit they do.
In reality, as long as people are giving up their money as easy as they do, companies will sell at a premium.
hi
hi. this is just a test message
Yeah, it's too bad that companies want to make a profit.
Sent from my Galaxy Tab using Tapatalk
hp tablets
i just heard they were getting rid of these for like $99 bucks for 16gb
not a bad deal, can anyone confirm?
dutchman22 said:
i just heard they were getting rid of these for like $99 bucks for 16gb
not a bad deal, can anyone confirm?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They sold millions in 2 days for that price and now they are sold out. I got mine off some guy who bought one and marked up 75 bucks
Just Me said:
@oka1
@Techno79 - I'm not in the industry, but I can't really see the development cost being high enough to justify such a high selling price. I know it's not as straight forward as this but, tablets are generally just big smart phones, some with less features (e.g. Wi-Fi only).
In comparison the laptops that you mention are probably more costly to build, but are cheaper and have a lot more functions.
My point is, I don't believe they have to sell them for as much as they do and if, as a society, simplified, we all turned around and said drop the price by a couple of 100 and we'll all buy one, they would.
My software sales point was more at certain companies that get a % of sales revenue for apps sold, but true it's probably not the case for all.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that companies don't need to survive, I'm just saying, they should give a little back to the consumer that buy their products and help them make the vast amounts of profit they do.
In reality, as long as people are giving up their money as easy as they do, companies will sell at a premium.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you breakdown the different parts of a tablet's cost then you'll have something like this:
Hardware costs
Retail mark up
Taxes
Manufacturing/production costs
Manufacturer's Profit
Manufacturer's profit first has to cover the huge costs of R&D, marketing and service/maintenance. These combined costs run up in the millions and will take a lot of sales before they break even. I would guess that they'd need to sell 100s of thousands before they get to break even point. So, until they reach those sales figures, I do believe they are justified in selling a high selling price. Obviously, I'm not saying I like high costs but I do think the current Android tablet price points are somewhat justified.
Tablets may be larger versions of mobile phones, but like I said before, mobile phones can be sold at a loss as they offset the loss against consumers signing up to 12/18/24 month carrier plans and using additional cost services with that carrier. Take a look at SIM free mobile phone costs if you really want to compare like for like. Top end mobile phones can cost nearly £500.
Also, some of R&D can be reused from previous generation of devices. Manufacturers are probably on their 100th generation of laptops where as Android tablets are at the most on their 3rd or 4th generation and thus still very new. I think for this reason, laptops are probably cheaper to produce.
Competition also drives prices down a lot and there is obviously more competition with laptops than there is with tablets. When laptops were fairly new, they would cost well over £1000 for a decent model which is far more than the tablets at the moment. It's only in the last few years that laptops have been fairly cheap. I'm sure tablets will get to that point a lot quicker but I doubt we'll see that before end of 2011.
Also, not all tablets will be a super seller. Some tablets will flop and never cover their R&D and marketing costs. It's down to profits from other tablets that cover these costs.
I'm all for lower tablet costs but from manufacturers perspective, I don't see anything wrong with the current price points of Android tablets given how new Android tablets are and the level of competition in the market. It's guaranteed that costs will eventually come down.
Very valid points. I fully understand that everything you said is pretty much true, but there are many counter arguments to your points, so I'll agree to disagree overall.
But going back to what should have probably been the first line in the thread and not the last (I can see why the thread went the way it did, instead of the way I wanted):
"As consumers, if we were to all agree worldwide that we were not going to pay these prices for something we believe should be at least a couple of £/$100 cheaper. Wouldn't companies have to eventually reduce prices due the poor sales?"
Would this work? Or would the tablet market slowly die out?
Just Me said:
Very valid points. I fully understand that everything you said is pretty much true, but there are many counter arguments to your points, so I'll agree to disagree overall.
But going back to what should have probably been the first line in the thread and not the last (I can see why the thread went the way it did, instead of the way I wanted):
"As consumers, if we were to all agree worldwide that we were not going to pay these prices for something we believe should be at least a couple of £/$100 cheaper. Wouldn't companies have to eventually reduce prices due the poor sales?"
Would this work? Or would the tablet market slowly die out?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I personally don't think this would work. There are many consumers who are extremely well off and are happy to pay the high price for early adoption. How would someone be able to co-ordinate such a consumer boycott. I think the current natural system works. If a manufacturer releases a product at too higher price, then less consumers will purchase it. As time goes on, and the product gets cheaper, more consumers are likely to jump on board to buy. However, if the product remains too high a price for the duration of the products life, then this will be seen with low total sales and low profit margins for the manufacturer (possibly even a loss). The manufacturer "should" learn their lesson and make the next product at a better price point.
If manufacturers can make more profit from selling 100k products at a high price than selling 1M products at a low price then they need some other incentive to sell at low price point.
Hypothetically speaking, if we could agree between all consumers to not buy the tablets at their high price to force manufacturers to release them at a low price then the profit margins could be so low that manufacturers give up on tablets as they realise they can get more profit from netbook/laptop and other consumer devices. So yes, I do think a global boycott for the high initial early adoption cost could kill the tablet market.
Practically, in here, yes they are. But comparatively with other devices/gadgets, the current tablet market is decently-priced.
Just like everything else the prices will drop after all the early adopters jump. There will be more choices and lower price points.
I thought about this and here is what I came up with:
Easy Problem
Person A wants to sell a phone for cash. Proper procedure is Person B sends the agreed price via Paypal as a goods/service transaction (never gift). Paypal is the judge/jury/executioner and there is recourse.
Hard Problem
Person A wants to trade commodity 1 for commodity 2 which could involve a combination of a cash amount and a non cash amount. This means that a portion of this transaction, or all of it will be unsecured.
Solution
Let us draw out a scenario.
[WTS/WTT] iPhone 5 ATT 128GB - nicksti
xdamember9 offers me a Samsung GS3 + $100 cash
Step 1 - both parties assign a dollar value on the phones. I believe you would have done this in order to agree on the deal in the first place. My phone is worth $500, yours is worth $400 so you need to throw in $100 cash.
Step 2 - xdamember paypals me $500 (goods) and I need to ship my iPhone 5.
IF I never get the paypal then I do not send the phone.
IF I get the paypal and I do not send the phone then xdamember9 files a claim.
IF I get the paypal and xdamember receives the phone THEN proceed to Step 3.
Step 3 - I pay xdamember9 $400 and he needs to ship the SGS3.
IF I do not send xdamember9 any money and disappear worst case is I got $500 (which was the agreed value) for my iPhone, you got the iPhone you wanted and you still have your SGS3 that you could then sell.
IF I send xdamember9 $400 and I receive no phone then I file a claim.
IF I send xdamember9 $400 and I receive the phone then that is the end.
In the old system people were either out totally, or only got the cash difference which does not cover the phone. The worst case scenario that I can think of is you will have two phones, one you paid an agreed price for. The agreed values of the phones will be very important! It is not perfect but to me the worst case is nowhere near as bad as what the worst case is now.
Any and all input welcomed.
I've started a Whitehouse.gov petition to fix the cell phone subsidy problems. The cost of early termination fees are out of control compared to the wholesale and retail cost of phones and I'd like to see the phone subsidy (or financing) billed separately from the service cost. This would make it extremely clear to all (even those who don't currently understand subsidies) how much the phones are truly costing them and hopefully improve pricing on the big carriers.
We need 150 signatures to get this to a public state where anyone can view it on the site. I'm requesting help from everyone to get these signatures to 150 and beyond. Please post on your Facebook and Google+ to get your friends and family to help out too.
Go here to view the Whitehouse.gov petition: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/require-fair-and-clear-pricing-wireless-services-and-wireless-devices/wf5hYdxd?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl
The petition is as follows:
The federally permitted duopoly of AT&T and Verizon Wireless has severely hurt competition and driven up prices in the wireless services industry. This has occurred while wireless service prices elsewhere have plummeted due to technological improvements reducing the cost to deliver service. A 3 point approach is required to protect consumers:
1. Require separation of the true cost to the consumer for the phone hardware and wireless service so that they are billed separately.
2. Prohibit early termination fees that exceed the remaining balance of the fair market value of the subsidized or financed wireless hardware.
3. Require all carriers to offer wireless service without any financial penatly or increased cost of service for using a customer owned device.
Now before anyone tells me to own my cell phone service, please note that I already have with a Nexus 4 (previously G'nex) and Straight Talk, SIMple Mobile, and Solavei. I'm pushing this petition for everyone who doesn't yet "own" their service and to improve the future market overall.
While I agree with you about how you feel about contract services, I'm not sure how I feel about needing this to be legally policed.
The thing with the phones being subsidized is that I don't see this as being a perfectly cookie-cutter direct relation to the monthly contract price. Why is it wrong for a business to offer an incentive for a customer to sign a contract ? People need to do research and have willpower - why should people have to be legally protected from making bad choices ? Casinos, liquor, and cigarettes are legal, after all.
The problem I see with point 2 is that it's not just about the hardware - it's about trying to leave a contract that you agreed to before the end of the term. Would you rather they take people to court over it ? It's like signing any contract and people should take it seriously instead of expecting to just get out of it if they want to - if you stop making car or rent payments the contract-holder isn't going to just say, "o, that's okay, I'll let you off free this time because you seem so nice". If you sign a non-disclosure or non-compete agreement, they aren't going to say, "o, you sound so nice over the phone and you're having a bad time, just go right on ahead and break the contract we won't pursue it".
The real "solution" here isn't legal action, it's public awareness. Awareness that a contract is a serious agreement - and that they have options and need to think about if a contract is best for them or not.
The solution is educating people on their other options - if people talk with their money, the companies will hear it (and at this point, they're already starting to listen).
You're preaching to the choir. A two year contract is a real commitment and shouldn't be taken lightly.
However, think about it in a little bit different light. The carriers are a legalized duopoly. This has significant benefits to us - remember when we only had regional carriers and we had to pay exorbitant per minute roaming rates? Now virtually every carrier includes roaming free, because they each have such a far reach with their existing network. We also have near seamless coverage wherever we're driving.
Despite these benefits of having only a couple major carriers, keep in mind that the carriers use public assets to provide service. Their spectrum is leased, not owned, and the spectrum is public property. Furthermore, they are in a unique position to take advantage of us, and they do. Think of the utilities that we use for our homes. You usually only have one choice for electricity and one choice for natural gas service to your home. Because if that, the utilities are regulated to protect the consumer. But, it really only makes sense to have one of each of these utilities in any area due to the high cost of the infrastructure.
I see cell carriers in the same way. Allow them to provide the benefits that they provide with their massive, high quality networks, but protect the consumer from abuse.
Let's take a look at typical discrepancies on a high end android phone subsidy.
Retail cost of phone: $500-600
Likely wholesale cost of phone to the carrier: $300-400
Cost to the consumer on contract: $200-300
Maximum amount of money to be recouped by the carrier due to subsidy: $200
Now lets look at the cost of the subsidy of two years:
Monthly contract cost: $90
Two year contract cost: $2160
Monthly prepaid plan (being conservative, they're typically lower): $55
Two year prepaid plan: $1320
You can't possibly look me in the eye and tell me that a $350 ETF is right or ethical. The carriers are recouping over over $800 to cover the cost of the phone in this scenario, and I'm erring on the low side. Remember when the ETF used to be $125-175? The carriers tell us that advanced devices cost more than feature phones did, but that's a pure lie. In the day of lower ETFs, feature phones had the same high retail pricing that smart phones do today.
You may or may not be surprised to know how many people I talk to about cell phones who don't understand phone subsidies. It's unfortunate, but not everyone understands it.
I'm on a personal mission the take as many people as possibly away from the major carriers and I've been very successful. Many people don't realize the prepaid options they have. But, we unfortunately need regulatory intervention to truly fix the problem.
I hate the fact that I don't have options right now because I'm locked into a contract until December. When I truly looked at how much I'd save over the two years, it made me sick.
If everyone just did a little bit of simple math they would leave Verizon and ATT. I am leaving to go to straight talk when my contract is up.
I think most people want what they want though. And that is the latest and fastest tech out there that's available to them and when they're offered it 5 to 6 months before they're contract is up at a "discount", then they jump at it. But we all know that in two years, your new tech will be way out dated and you will have paid twice what it's worth. It's rent-a-center for smartphones. It just doesn't make financial sense.
That's just my two cents.
Sent from my Droid X2 using Tapatalk 2
---------- Post added at 06:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:07 AM ----------
But I will have to disagree with you that we need regulatory measures. You would be taking away one's freedom to make choices. No one is forced to sign the contract just as no one is forced to buy a home or car that they can't afford to keep up. People need to be educated on how to live within their means by keeping a budget and sticking to it and learning to say no to themselves sometimes. Just because something is available to us or that we can afford the monthly payments, doesn't always mean we should buy it.
People no longer ask whether or not they should or shouldn't do this or buy that. They do everything they can to acquire the latest tech, gadget or possession thinking it will satisfy their unending desires. The problem is, they don't satisfy us.
Why do you think people are obsessed with rooting and constantly flashing roms? Because we get bored with our current os or how our phone looks and feels, so we think by flashing a different rom or mod, it will keep us happy and satisfied.
The only reason I'm saying this is because I'm just as guilty, but am learning how to be content with what I have. The moment I start becoming discontented with what I have, is when I buy into the lie that I just need to upgrade my phone and sign another contract to make me happy.
But to say that I need the government to tell me that I can't takes away freedoms and personal responsibility. Sometimes we need to make mistakes to realize that the decisions we made weren't so beneficial after all.
Sent from my Eclipsed Droid X2 using Tapatalk 2
If you read the petition, it's actually a pretty reasonable request. As a business owner myself, I am generally anti regulation.
My proposed regulations merely require separate billing of the subsidy and service and prohibits the carrier from recouping more than the value of the subsidized equipment in the event that you decide to end your contract early. It is my hope that showing people exactly how much the contract costs them might encourage people to make the right choice. I don't want the government telling people what they have to do, but I do want them to ensure that people are not lied to.
But I fully agree with you that people have lost the common sense to live within their means. I think it's particularly clear as a result of our economic crash related to the housing industry.
On the note of your contract through December, do the math. You may break even quicker than you think. I left Verizon in August, 11 months into my contract. I had a 6 month break even period, so it was a win in the end. I keep telling everyone that I know about the ROI of switching, and I've had pretty good success with friends and coworkers.
If my wife and I were to end our contracts right now, we'd save $90/month switching to straight talk. A couple of problems. The up front cost of early termination fees and buying GSM phones when both of ours are cdma only usable on Verizon. Pretty sure we'd more than break even over the course of the next 10 to 11 months. We don't have enough saved to pay up front. My wife loves her iPhone 4 and she could probably find someone on Craigslist who would trade a GSM for her cdma. I have a dx2 and could probably get 50-75 for mine. To buy a comparable GSM phone would cost me atleast 200. This all is off the top of my head. Any pointers or tips on the cheapest and best way to do this?
Sent from my Eclipsed Droid X2 using Tapatalk 2
Juice3250 said:
If my wife and I were to end our contracts right now, we'd save $90/month switching to straight talk. A couple of problems. The up front cost of early termination fees and buying GSM phones when both of ours are cdma only usable on Verizon. Pretty sure we'd more than break even over the course of the next 10 to 11 months. We don't have enough saved to pay up front. My wife loves her iPhone 4 and she could probably find someone on Craigslist who would trade a GSM for her cdma. I have a dx2 and could probably get 50-75 for mine. To buy a comparable GSM phone would cost me atleast 200. This all is off the top of my head. Any pointers or tips on the cheapest and best way to do this?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The aspect of having the financial resources to buy out your contract is a very common issue. Sometimes waiting out the contract is the best thing to do and obviously only you can ultimately make the right decision for your finanaces. If you make enough money, consider setting aside an extra amount of money every paycheck to get to the point where you can buy out your contracts. Maybe you can stop going out to eat for a month? Maybe you can skip the big trip with the kids over spring break? There's often a place to cut your budget if you feel it's the right priority.
I know that the Verizon iPhone 4 devices have GSM built in and it might even be unlocked already. However, unless jailbroken, I don't believe you can access the APN settings to use a different carrier. I'm not an iPhone expert, I'm all Android. I do think it's possible, and Verizon will likely give you a SIM unlock code if you need it and ask for it, just ask for the unlock code before you terminate your service.
I purchased a GSM Galaxy Nexus, unlocked when I switched. Then I bought a Nexus 4. Those are your best bets for going contract free, however there are other options. But the Nexus phones have the right bands to work with T-Mobile or AT&T, allowing you to hop MVNOs to chase the best price.
Start by reading this thread to get an understanding of prepaid smartphone service: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1455014
If you can't afford a Nexus phone, read this article for some ideas: http://androidandme.com/2012/12/reviews/best-unlocked-android-phone-for-any-budget-december-2012/
A great domestic source for a plethora of unlock phones: http://www.gsmnation.com/
Also, Amazon.com is a great source for unlocked phones.
Remember, you're paying less for service because you're not getting a phone subsidy. Expect to pay an exorbitant amount for your phone, but you will be rewarded by crazy cheap service!
Looking at the insurance options it seems to be between ATT, Samsung, and SquareTrade. For those who have insurace what did you pick and why?
from what I can see:
ATT:
Pros: Low Monthly ($8.99), Covers loss and theft, I believe you, I believe you are certain to get your original color?
Cons: Initial high deductible until it slides, not covered under the $89 screen repair
For ATT is it as simple as walking into a store, filing a claim, and walking out with a new one?
Samsung:
Pros: $99 deductible always, Someone comes to your house either same or next day I believe
Cons: High monthly payments ($11.99), Does not cover loss and theft, No guarantee of phone color
SquareTrade:
Pros: Low Monthly payments (I read someone said it was $7), Also read it was a low deductible like $70
Cons: Does not cover loss and theft. Too good to be true? Slow claims? I really dont know anything about this company so if someone has had experience with them it'd be helpful to know!
Guitarboarder28 said:
Looking at the insurance options it seems to be between ATT, Samsung, and SquareTrade. For those who have insurace what did you pick and why?
from what I can see:
ATT:
Pros: Low Monthly ($8.99), Covers loss and theft, I believe you, I believe you are certain to get your original color?
Cons: Initial high deductible until it slides, not covered under the $89 screen repair
For ATT is it as simple as walking into a store, filing a claim, and walking out with a new one?
Samsung:
Pros: $99 deductible always, Someone comes to your house either same or next day I believe
Cons: High monthly payments ($11.99), Does not cover loss and theft, No guarantee of phone color
SquareTrade:
Pros: Low Monthly payments (I read someone said it was $7), Also read it was a low deductible like $70
Cons: Does not cover loss and theft. Too good to be true? Slow claims? I really dont know anything about this company so if someone has had experience with them it'd be helpful to know!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just my two cents and I never used the protection plan before, just had a few phones break during the warranty period. Looks like at&t closed their device service centers, so everything is done by phone and shipped to you. I've had appointments on evenings and sundays to replace dead phones that was nice. Here's a something I put together if I decide to. at&t has extended their enrollment for the protection plans until the end of June if you missed out.
I need to update my signature too, M9 was about die....
Silverexp said:
Just my two cents and I never used the protection plan before, just had a few phones break during the warranty period. Looks like at&t closed their device service centers, so everything is done by phone and shipped to you. I've had appointments on evenings and sundays to replace dead phones that was nice. Here's a something I put together if I decide to. at&t has extended their enrollment for the protection plans until the end of June if you missed out.
I need to update my signature too, M9 was about die....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yea I ended up going with att. thats a good speadsheet though. thanks for the share!
I have used Square Trade for many years for all my family phones, laptops/PC's, even a Keurig machine. Have had to claim a couple of times and they are very reasonable & super fast. One family member's iPhone screen cracked, initiated a claim, took it to local Genius Bar (isn't that name just a hoot), and uploaded PDF copy of the receipt, had full reimbursement from Square Trade into my PayPal account in less than 24 hours. No problems using this service at all. If device can't be fixed, or if repair facility wants to replace rather than repair, Square Trade reimburses the full cost. Just have to look at which service level and desired deductible you want.
Sent from my SM-G955U using XDA Premium HD app
Subscribed. I'd love to hear more on this.
I have always purchased AppleCare+, Samsung Protection Plus or On-Guard by Assurant ect for my devices. I have enjoyed paying a one time fee and having coverage for 2 years and not being gouged with a reoccurring monthly fee. I've never had to make a claim but I feel great comfort in knowing I am covered.
I've never had carrier insurance such as AT&T's, mostly because I usually have several devices at any given time and swap my SIM often, and was told once ( most likely erroneously ) that once I swap my SIM into another phone the insurance is no longer valid for the original device.
Looking at what AT&T's insurance offers it seems outrageously expensive. I can't imagine anybody is actually paying for that. $229 deductible?!? Thats batshlt crazy!
I paid $129 for AppleCare+ for my iPhone 7 Plus. Deductible is only $29 for screen replacement and $99 for the entire device. Those are incredibly reasonable prices. My Note 5 was $129 with a $99 deductible.
When I purchased my Galaxy s8+ in store the AT&T sales associate was pushing the insurance really hard. I declined several times always planning on buying Samsung Protection Plus. I was pretty upset when I got home and saw that Samsung Protection Plus is not offered for the s8 and s8+. Instead we get Samsung Premium Care for $11.99 a month with no option to pay for the full 2 years. That means you are paying $306.03 I'm really not too happy about that.
I have several SuareTrade warranties. Have only had to make a claim once, on a 60" Plasma TV. They were super fast about accessing the situation remotely and ended up replacing it with a brand new, much nicer full array LED. I have to say I was pretty happy with how SquareTrade handled it. Maybe I'll give then a shot at my s8+. I'd rather do that than pay $306.03 to Samsung or a ridiculous $229 deductible with AT&T