Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Rosa Golijan
Email | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Email
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Kyle VanHemert
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
The reason people (including myself) are pissed is because AT&T DID let original iPhone customers upgrade to the 3G at the subsidized price. Now they've decided not to let iPhone 3G customers upgrade to the 3GS. This blows goats, and is worth whining about IMO.
I could understand if people wanted to upgrade without renewing your contract. But come on! I'm willing to sign ANOTHER 2 year contract with the suckfest that is AT&T and pay them a minimum of $2,400 over the course of those 2 years, and they won't let me upgrade my phone? Screw that, and screw you for telling us not to whine about it.
:-p
06/09/09
That's not an argument. That makes no sense whatsoever. And, as linked in the article, you had to qualify for that upgrade and it was an exception.
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
I don't consider it unfair to charge "full price" for the phone, and I certainly agree that a contract is a contract, and those (like myself) who have the iPhone 3G knew that this was what would happen. And when it comes right down to it I don't even want the 3GS - I wouldn't pay to upgrade even if I could buy it at the subsidized price. It just doesn't interest me that much.
What I do object to is the absurd, monopolistic setting of the MSRP at such an absurd level that it shocks the conscience. $800 for a phone? Phones are no more complicated than a PDA or MP3 player costing $300-$400. But phone manufacturers and cellular network providers routinely collude to set artifically high prices for the devices for the purpose of locking people in to bigger contracts, and so they can reap incredibly high profits in the case of replacement in case of loss or damage. There are probably other reasons too, locked deep within the financial arrangements made between manufacturer and carrier.
I'm not just talking about the iPhone either - I'm talking about every network and every phone maker. They set these ridiculous prices that have no basis in reality.
It's not whining to say that what happens between carriers and manufacturers is collusion, and that they conspire to set artificially high MSRP because ultimately it helps both of them while hurting consumers. I personally think that there is a strong case to be made that the carriers and phone manufacturers have essentially formed a cartel, and that this practice is illegal.
06/09/09
06/09/09
Nope. The only reason that the phones have such a high list price is because they are almost never sold at list price. If companies were forced to sell their phones and plans separately there would be true competition. But that doesn't happen - in part because the cell networks are all running on different systems so it's hard to make one device at one price that runs on all of them, but mostly because the carriers control what devices are made for their networks and the phone manufacturers go along with it because they make a ton of money participating in a non-competitive marketplace.
06/09/09
Once carriers start doing implementing a discount (or conversely, a monthly "subsidy fee"), people will stop complaining because they'll feel like they have an informed choice, instead of feeling entitled, which everybody that is complaining is doing now.
06/09/09
06/09/09
The consumer/potential consumer has every right to bitch and moan about the price.
Sure Apple has every right to sell their phone at full price...but when they advertise and brag about the iPhone being sold at a certain price...never once mentioning the fine print...then it is disappointing.
If Apple say up front how the price system works then a lot of people wouldn't be so annoyed...annoyed that they can't afford one maybe but won't be so shocked.
Then of course when you see/realize how much it costs to make the iPhone then you'll see how much profit Apple really makes...as well as AT&T.
Stop bitching? Nah, people will always complain about everything and anything Apple pushes out why? because Apple isn't perfect.
06/09/09
06/09/09
Also, Apple and AT&T will market the new customer price just like every other phone on every other carrier has advertised.
06/09/09
That's crap dude...and bad business to boot. Minimal performance bump gives everyone another year to catch up -which means that by the time I AM eligible for the full discounted price, there will probably be something else out there for me.
The poll from yesterday showed that about 48% of people were still planning on getting the GS - plenty to make a ton of cash for apple - but can you imagine how many MORE they would sell if they offered 3G adopters, THEIR MOST LOYAL GROUP, the discount? I would expect that the 28 some odd percent who said they're sticking with the 3G would turn into an additional large group more than happy to throw 200 or 300 bucks at apple/AT&T for the new device.
I've spent over a thousand bucks on iphones for me and my wife over the previous two generations - and I'd be MORE than happy to drop another 400 on this generation - but 600 or 800? Bit steep for me for the new features being offered - I'll wait until next years "revolutionary rather than evolutionary" design (keep in mind, buy it now and you'll have the same problem next year when there may actually be something worth upgrading for)
06/09/09
06/09/09
I'm not just defending Apple, either, so you can choke on your Fanboi claims. How much do you think it costs to manufacture ANYTHING vs the price you end up paying for it??
Good grief. Don't be ignorant.
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
But how are 3g users getting screwed? Their phones don't stop working as soon as 3GS hits the market. No explosions, no drama.
You got the phone at a fraction of the price because ATT picked up the rest of the tab. As you haven't payed ATT back through services yet, they aren't willing to pick up the tab again as that means losing money.
Of all things, this should be clear enough to comprehend, even for the slow ones amongst us.
Sell your current 3g iPhone, buy a new one at the still slightly discounted rate and you'll end up with the same cost as the subsidized iPhone 3GS.
So WTF is the bloody problem?
06/09/09
IF you accept that the most loyal Apple customers probably have the iPhone 3G, then if you screw over all iPhone 3G users, you are screwing over all most loyal Apple customers.
Perhaps you need a diagram...
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
In the words of Tyler Durden: You are not your bank account. You are not the car you drive. You are not the clothes you wear. You are not your grande latte. You are NOT your fucking khakis.
Give up. Stop whining and carry on. Save money, don't get a new phone. Upgrade for fucking free to 3.0.
06/09/09
06/09/09
It's not like they're removing anything from what you've already purchased...
06/09/09
If iPhones were open or at least locked into a decent network like Verizon, where the full functionality of the phone could be unleashed, it would be worth the money. But not as long as you're tied into AT&T.
Yeah, I know, jailbreak, unlock, blah blah blah, but I'd rather not have to go to that trouble. I should be able to buy a phone anywhere I want and hook it up to any network I want just like a home phone.
Nothing like letting a service provider dictate what you can do with your hardware.
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
The first thing I thought of when I saw this article was you posting that link.
06/09/09
I understand your point, Jesus, but the problem lies in slapping the face of the loyal customer. This is not just AT&T, this is all cell phone providers. It's an ass-backwards notion similar to that of the credit card industry charging more interest to those who historically cannot afford it. (And believe me, I understand risk/reward.)
For that matter, a bad precedent was set in the last upgrade period, where people did have some benefits associated with upgrading.
Ultimately, Jesus, complaining about your situation in such a public forum only leads to further unnecessary and unfair empowerment on the part of the companies that establish these models not for the benefit of the consumer, but for the sake of profit. This is not to say that profit is wrong. Indeed it serves as the foundation of our society; but it is never okay to penalize customers who, willing or otherwise (based on exclusivity agreements), are simply paying their bills.
06/09/09
You signed a contract, agreeing that ATT could "penalize" you by not subsidizing a phone for 2 years. It is hardly "unnecessary and unfair" for them to enforce a contract you willfully, and knowingly, engaged in.
I'm sorry your mom didn't put fruit roll-ups in your lunch pale, but get over it.
06/09/09
06/09/09
My issue is not the contract. My issue is that whereas once users who owned a first-gen iPhone were given the opportunity to upgrade to second-gen 3G units, there are not being given the same opportunity. Subsidize away -- again, I understand that model -- the valid consideration for this new exchange would be a renewed two-year agreement.
To forgo taking money from willing customers is not necessarily a sound model, particularly when those customers are likely willing to sign no contracts. I'm not asking for something for nothing.
The slap in the face -- the "penalization" -- comes from the asinine logic that comes with essentially saying that you are going to grant new customers a certain value proposition, whereas the paying customers -- e.g. the ones the company no longer feels the need to incentivize -- are left in the dark.
From the company's standpoint, the rationale used to be that it was worth more to keep a customer than it was to gain a new one (it costs a lot more to gain a new one, a cost not reflected in the subsidy as exemplified by @bigbad's assertion that the subsidy is rolled into the life of the contract). Now, however, it's as though because those customers are locked into an agreement (willfully, as you remind us), the company could care less.
We will see how the model changes once the forms of contracts are no longer enforceable, particularly in states like California. Of course, subsidies might disappear, rendering this entire conversation moot. More importantly, you will see how AT&T scrambles to keep the customers it, as I've clearly demonstrated, so thoroughly slapped.
That you, Jesus, and the fellow above cannot see the detriment to the consumer just blows my mind. Generally, we're all this together. However, if you prefer being locked into contracts for the sake of a now ubiquitous commodity, so be it. I'm sure will make all the major companies quite happy.
And for the record, I do not like Fruit Roll-Ups. I much prefer actual fruit.
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/10/09
I assure you, AT&T would more than profit from three years of guaranteed subscription with two subsidies, and it would likely continue to profit handsomely moving forward with additional upgrades as the 4th, 5th ... gen iPhones find their way to the market.
06/10/09
06/10/09