[sam_b77]

Unfortunately in India we have to pay the full price for the devices.
The iPhone 4s just launched here for $1200 for the 64 gb.
I got my 9900 for $750. So its not as if we don't care about future compatibility.
But it is what it is.
Maybe our views diverge because of the cultural divide. I spent $750 for the 9900 and I will get $450 if I sell it next year, so my upgrade to BBX will only cost me $200 approx.
I know you guys in America get locked into your plan and it would cost you a lot more if you upgrade before your plan allows.

[moiselles]

^ If I had no other choice but to pay $600+ for a cell phone, I'm sure I could probably make it work, but I'd keep it a lot longer if that was the case!

[sam_b77]

^ If I had no other choice but to pay $600+ for a cell phone, I'm sure I could probably make it work, but I'd keep it a lot longer if that was the case!

You would get less for it in the second hand market the longer you kept it.
The top BB models are usually around the $750 mark. So it makes better sense to sell every year and get the latest, than to sell after two yrs and then put in $500 to get the latest.

I can now appreciate the whole thing about upgradeability from you point of view.
I don't care as much because for me its $200 a year no matter if I keep my phone for one year or two years.
I choose to spend $200 each year and get the latest, instead of spending $400 every two yrs. It turns out the same for me.
But its obviously different for you guys.

[moiselles]

You would get less for it in the second hand market the longer you kept it.
The top BB models are usually around the $750 mark. So it makes better sense to sell every year and get the latest, than to sell after two yrs and then put in $500 to get the latest.

I can now appreciate the whole thing about upgradeability from you point of view.
I don't care as much because for me its $200 a year no matter if I keep my phone for one year or two years.
I choose to spend $200 each year and get the latest, instead of spending $400 every two yrs. It turns out the same for me.
But its obviously different for you guys.

I'm glad I'm not in Canada where the contracts for cell phone plans are three years. Two years here in the US is do-able. I think three years is more than I prefer to hold on to a cell phone. Though, my husband had his last cell phone for three years.

I'm tricky though, I keep an extra line on my plan just so I can have the option to upgrade every year. Though I think we'll be getting rid of that extra line when it's contract runs out next fall.

[_StephenBB81]

I agree and disagree.
OS6 devices were badly needed as my Storm was making me climb walls. Another wait would have been bad for the RIM bottom line and possibly the more fickle amongst us. The first Torch actually did very well and cannot be conceivably considered a bad move IMHO.
OS7 devices were an equally necessary refresh to give the BBX platform time to mature whilst we have something to hang onto. Again they are hardly disasters.
As customers (that's everyone else) and fanboys (thats me) we are caught up in the painful period of a transition to a new OS. This invariably brings in impatience as we daily wonder what the new goods will be like, we subconsciously hype them up and a few months suddenly seem like three years.
It will come to pass. The promise of OS 2.0 tells us they are chipping away at them.

the Torch was launched with a Processor capable of 800Mhz, the only thing it Lacked was the accelerated graphics, which I truly feel they could have had in that device for a December/January launch, the 2011 year would have been far better with a 9800 launched with a 25% spec increase over the Bold 9700, then using the same idea under the 9780, they would have taken far less slack.

The Torch Launching when it did was good for me personally had the torch not launched when it did I know 2 people I never would have had the pleasure of knowing, but I still think it was a mistake to launch the 9800 and 9780 without hardware accelerated graphics

[Tre Lawrence]

Interesting perspective, Sam. Never thought of it that way.

This is where iOS has the advantage in the States. Resale value. People sneer at iPhone users upgrading each year, but I know someone who sells his devices each year at a profit. Apple phones have insane resale value.

Even with my EVO, I could sell it rooted today and make a little profit. That is a consideration I have to have, as I cannot afford to purchase devices outright.

[tack]

I'd hope you wouldn't call me a troll regardless. I have not once said anything bad about BlackBerry or RIM or bashed them. Everyone is welcome to search through my 800+ posts.

just to note, saying something negative about BB or RIM does not make you a troll.

[Tre Lawrence]

just to note, saying something negative about BB or RIM does not make you a troll.

Depends on who you ask.

Lately, some people even get frothy at the mouth when forum staffers deign to say something that is not 100% cheery about RIM.

[Rootbrian]

RIM can do right. If you don't like what you see and aren't satisfied, switch. Nothing is keeping you from doing so.
Just my two cents.

[nyplaya610]

RIM can do right. If you don't like what you see and aren't satisfied, switch. Nothing is keeping you from doing so.
Just my two cents.

I'm sure money is stopping a lot of people from switching.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[sam_b77]

I'm sure money is stopping a lot of people from switching.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

I want to buy a Ferrari, but money is stopping me from buying it. What's your point?

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[nyplaya610]

Lol im saying, people is stopping people from switching. Phones are not cheap. People will wait for there contracts to be over so they can get a discounted price (here in the USA atleast)

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[howarmat]

most consumers in the US dont drop 600 on a new phone. Many wont even spend 100 on one. Some will wait for the "free" or "1 cent" stuff many times.

[sam_b77]

most consumers in the US dont drop 600 on a new phone. Many wont even spend 100 on one. Some will wait for the "free" or "1 cent" stuff many times.

Point taken. But then if you have a 83xx series and don't want to spend the money for an upgrade then you have no reason to complain.

I don't know about the calculations, but I suspect it would be cheaper if you guys bought the phone off plan and paid a lower call charge.
I truly don't know how it works in USA, so I'm not in a position to comment. But seeing from your monthly outlays towards phone and data services, we in India hardly pay a third for our plans. And most people us only cell phones for our voice applications. I haven't used a landline in 5 yrs. My average monthly bill including voice and data is less than $30.
Of course we have to pay full price for our devices, which we can sell at 50% less in the second hand market a year later.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[Danf]

but I suspect it would be cheaper if you guys bought the phone off plan and paid a lower call charge. I truly don't know how it works in USA,

In the U.S. plans are fixed prices and it makes no difference whether you paid full price for your phone or you got a subsidized one. So there is no real incentive to pay full price for a phone.

[sam_b77]

In the U.S. plans are fixed prices and it makes no difference whether you paid full price for your phone or you got a subsidized one. So there is no real incentive to pay full price for a phone.

In that case how do the carriers benefit from providing you guys subsidised phones?

What's the business model here? I would assume that I would charge a bit higher on the plans for a subsidised handset per minth than I would for non handset subsidised plans.

If the networks make a profit even though they provide a handset, then the people paying full price for their handset are getting screwed. Makes no business sense. Or maybe the carriers are charging a lot from their customers with or without subsidised handsets. Either way the consumers are taking a hit.

Maybe that's why call charges are high, USA has a small market of only 360 million potential users. Maybe it all boils down to economies of scale. Less subscribers=higher cost per person to recover fixed costs.

I might be wrong here, so feel free to point out where I'm not understanding the business model.

[avt123]

In that case how do the carriers benefit from providing you guys subsidised phones?

What's the business model here? I would assume that I would charge a bit higher on the plans for a subsidised handset per minth than I would for non handset subsidised plans.

If the networks make a profit even though they provide a handset, then the people paying full price for their handset are getting screwed. Makes no business sense. Or maybe the carriers are charging a lot from their customers with or without subsidised handsets. Either way the consumers are taking a hit.

Maybe that's why call charges are high, USA has a small market of only 360 million potential users. Maybe it all boils down to economies of scale. Less subscribers=higher cost per person to recover fixed costs.

I might be wrong here, so feel free to point out where I'm not understanding the business model.

Over the course of two years, your plan + data plan covers the cost of the subsidy and then some, and if you try to break the contract you get charged a fee to compensate the carrier.

If you just buy a phone full retail and then use that phone for two years on a month to month contract, they make more money, but you are not locked in.

[sam_b77]

Over the course of two years, your plan + data plan covers the cost of the subsidy and then some, and if you try to break the contract you get charged a fee to compensate the carrier.

If you just buy a phone full retail and then use that phone for two years on a month to month contract, they make more money, but you are not locked in.

Sounds like a scam to me.

They are basically spreading the cost of subsidised phones on people who buy their own phones.

I would rather have lower monthly plans and the freedom to buy my own phone.

I can buy a $50 phone and benefit from lower plans than be forced to either be locked in or paying monthly charges that include subsidising the handsets of people who get locked plans handsets.

Think about it, there is no reason why a person who pays full price for a phone should be made to pay the same as a person who buys a subsidised handset. Just doesn't compute.

[howarmat]

just like pointed out above, if you buy a phone at full price you dont have to sign a contract and can pay month to month. You can leave and go to a different provider with no early contract termination fee. There are benefits to buying off contract at full price. Many americans will use a phone for 2 years though so paying the $100 for the phone instead of $600 and then using it for 2 years is completely fair.

[_StephenBB81]

Sounds like a scam to me.

They are basically spreading the cost of subsidised phones on people who buy their own phones.

I would rather have lower monthly plans and the freedom to buy my own phone.

I can buy a $50 phone and benefit from lower plans than be forced to either be locked in or paying monthly charges that include subsidising the handsets of people who get locked plans handsets.

Think about it, there is no reason why a person who pays full price for a phone should be made to pay the same as a person who buys a subsidised handset. Just doesn't compute.

The Business model was set up when Phones cost considerably more than they do today in the early 90's phones like the Motorola StarTAC launched at $1000, contract subsidies were the best way to get these phones into peoples hands (which worked I believe the StarTAC sold over 50 Million units, which was astronomical in the 90's)

today phones are "cheap" in comparison, and contract prices are much lower so buying phones out right is far more within reach.

Really contracts are good for the majority of users because most don't change carriers, I buy on contract every 3 years, and pay full price the 2 years in between

[avt123]

Sounds like a scam to me.

They are basically spreading the cost of subsidised phones on people who buy their own phones.

I would rather have lower monthly plans and the freedom to buy my own phone.

I can buy a $50 phone and benefit from lower plans than be forced to either be locked in or paying monthly charges that include subsidising the handsets of people who get locked plans handsets.

Think about it, there is no reason why a person who pays full price for a phone should be made to pay the same as a person who buys a subsidised handset. Just doesn't compute.

Call it whatever your like, but that's how it has been in the states for a while

One benefit so far has been grandfathered plans. My unlimited data plan is grandfathered even though it isn't available anymore. When I get my next device, my unlimited plan will still be there.

Like howarmat said, most people stick to their contracts anyways. So if they can save money initially on the device, they will take it. In the end, they save money by remaining a carriers customer.

I agree with you on people paying full retail paying cheaper for plans, but unfortunately and obviously that is just not the case in the US.

[TGR1]

In that case how do the carriers benefit from providing you guys subsidised phones?

What's the business model here? I would assume that I would charge a bit higher on the plans for a subsidised handset per minth than I would for non handset subsidised plans.

If the networks make a profit even though they provide a handset, then the people paying full price for their handset are getting screwed. Makes no business sense. Or maybe the carriers are charging a lot from their customers with or without subsidised handsets. Either way the consumers are taking a hit.

Yes, in the US you pay the same for being on contract (ie. subsidized) or not and so it is a strong inducement to get an expensive phone on contract. For many Americans it is in fact a decent option since they don't travel or don't have alternative carrier service anyway.

The carriers benefit by locking you in as a subscriber, not only guaranteeing a return for a fixed time but also for quite a bit longer with your next phone as the vast number of people don't jump to another carrier (a.k.a. churn). Keep an attractive mix of phones available, which is why the handset makers sell different looking versions of the same phone to different carriers.

Maybe that's why call charges are high, USA has a small market of only 360 million potential users. Maybe it all boils down to economies of scale. Less subscribers=higher cost per person to recover fixed costs.

I might be wrong here, so feel free to point out where I'm not understanding the business model.

I would agree that population density plays a factor. OTOH, ATT gets huge complaints about service in the big cities so they still aren't keeping up. Lack of competition and frankly a willingness of the population to ante up also plays into it.

I don't know that I would say "call charges" are high. You get massive inducements such as nationwide free calling to others on the network or your circle of family/friends. But I would agree that monthly rates tend to be high. Texting plans were particularly lucrative for the carriers but I understand that has been drying up recently which is why they are looking for alternative sources of revenue. Like data.

Carriers here are very powerful and handset makers did what they were told to do if they wanted the advertising power behind them. Still do, with one notable exception. That hurts RIM most, I think. They used to make up >95% of Verizon's smartphone stable and were dropped like a hot potato when Google offered a very sweet serving of whatever dessert Android was first called (the Droid campaign). They haven't recovered much of Verizon's favour since then and I am not certain they can since I have heard that Google offers quite a few perks to keep their platform heavily advertised. Hopefully when the QNX phones arrive they will get big signboards but I don't know that RIM can afford selling their left you-know-wut to pay the bribe ad fees.

[BlackStormRising]

Sounds like a scam to me.

They are basically spreading the cost of subsidised phones on people who buy their own phones.

I would rather have lower monthly plans and the freedom to buy my own phone.

I can buy a $50 phone and benefit from lower plans than be forced to either be locked in or paying monthly charges that include subsidising the handsets of people who get locked plans handsets.

Think about it, there is no reason why a person who pays full price for a phone should be made to pay the same as a person who buys a subsidised handset. Just doesn't compute.

It sounds like a scam, because it is one Sam. A well orchestrated one.

[sam_b77]

In India, they just started number portability about a year back. And the churn was less and constant across providers.
So the churn factor was kind of factored out.
Luckily we have a Telecom Regulatory Authority that keeps the service providers honest.

They have forced a number of things on to the service providers and the latest is nationwide free roaming.

Typical non data bills with heavy usage (read exclusive cell phone) are around the $18 mark/month and that includes the monthly fixed costs.

The subsidised phone model was tried but didnt work in India, as many folks have multiple ID's and they would just get the phone and chuck the plan with no way to trace them (India is not digitized to that extent).

In the end the carriers just concentrated on being service providers and stayed away from the retail side of hardware. I remember when RIM initially launched in India, it was through the major carriers, and people were not amused that they can't use another SIM card on their phones. It just didn't sit well with our psyche. We paid for it, and we can burn it if we choose.

Eventually RIM smartened up and sold unlocked phones through a dedicated distributor and the rest is history. With RIM in charge of their own advertising and incentive schemes to retailers, BBs are going from strength to strength and they don't need to "bribe" the carriers to sell their phones. FREE MARKET....that was America's concept initially. They have lost in somewhere.

[sam_b77]

Forgot to mention, that the subsidised phone system is abused and eventually the users are paying.

I don't know how they do it, but a huge number of AT&T and Verizon branded phones (BB, Apple, SE) find their way to the Indian black market and they are available for much less than from the legal channel. Obviously these trafficed phones are a loss to the carriers and they must have built it into the plans they offer their customers in USA. So basically you guys are subsidising the phones for the Indian black market.

As they say, there are no free lunches.