T-Mobile's Phone Selection

[Telekom]

Originally Posted by scotsboyuk

Revenue and cost per user doesn't necessarily have to be better in the UK. For one thing it's an extremely competitive market, arguably the most competitive in Europe, with five national networks, and various MVNOs. Penetration is around 130%. In other words competition is such that the networks really have to work to poach and, arguably more importantly, retain customers. As a result they have to spend a great deal of money to offer incentives to customers e.g. handset subsidies, reduced prices, free gifts, etc.

I was once offered an upgrade deal from O2 that, if I had stayed within my allowance of minutes, would have actually made me money given that they were offering me money and a free phone worth £300 to take it. Presumably they would have been hoping I wouldn't have stuck to my allowance so they could actually make some money out of it! u

Network quality is very important and the networks generally try to make sure they have a good standard of coverage, not least because the government mandates that they must cover a certain proportion of the population within a given timeframe. The networks also share masts to reduce costs.

Handset subsidies don't necessarily come from reduced network spending, but rather from it being the established business model in my opinion. The networks have to offer subsidies simply because that is how it is done here. If they didn't customers would go to the competition. I disagree that it is useless to compare phone costs because I think one can see that T-Mobile USA does offer some subsidy of the handset, but not enough to make it free. It would be different if the business model was entirely different in that no subsidy at all was being offered.

T-Mobile USA does offer some handsets free in exchange for a commitment of a two year contract period. All carrier offer some sort of free handset for signing up with them. It was only Apple's iPhone who were the first to require a contract with no subsidy. Now that model will supposedly be changing when the V. 2 is released next month.

[spleck]

Originally Posted by scotsboyuk

For one thing it's an extremely competitive market, arguably the most competitive in Europe, with five national networks, and various MVNOs. Penetration is around 130%. In other words competition is such that the networks really have to work to poach and, arguably more importantly, retain customers. As a result they have to spend a great deal of money to offer incentives to customers e.g. handset subsidies, reduced prices, free gifts, etc.

So you answered the issue yourself. The US market is less competitive and so T-Mobile spends less money subsidizing handsets. MetroPCS is doing fine and they appear to actually MAKE money off handset sales.

[scotsboyuk]

Originally Posted by Telekom

T-Mobile USA does offer some handsets free in exchange for a commitment of a two year contract period. All carrier offer some sort of free handset for signing up with them. It was only Apple's iPhone who were the first to require a contract with no subsidy. Now that model will supposedly be changing when the V. 2 is released next month.

They do offer some handsets free, but my point was that I think it's a very poor showing for them to be charging people for very basic handsets with a contract. If they are going to charge for handsets it would make more sense to charge for the more expensive and better featured handsets.

[scotsboyuk]

Originally Posted by spleck

So you answered the issue yourself. The US market is less competitive and so T-Mobile spends less money subsidizing handsets. MetroPCS is doing fine and they appear to actually MAKE money off handset sales.

That's specious reasoning. The U.S. market is not necessarily less competitive than the British market, and in fact I never said that it was. Whether it is or not doesn't necessarily mean that T-Mobile USA will spend more or less on handset subsidies than it's foreign counterparts. Out of interest, does anyone know what T-Mobile USA spends on handset subsidies? All that we can say is that T-Mobile USA chooses not to completely subsidise some of its handsets for whatever reason, probably only known to themselves. It could be because they don't have the budget for complete subsidies or it could be because they simply choose not to or it could be something else entirely.

[spleck]

Originally Posted by scotsboyuk

That's specious reasoning.

Oh boy, I didn't know this was the debate team. Blah blah. Stop picking apart my wording and make a point.

You said that T-Mobile should not be charging for their low end phones and then gave us some story about how a British carrier wanted to pay you to take a nice phone. And what? Why does that mean T-Mobile is charging too much for their handsets?

T-Mobile has good organic growth despite facing large incumbents with better spectrum and 3G services. They've obviously taken a lower cost approach, and despite a lower ARPU than the other big 3, they're still making money. Why should they charge less for their handsets? Because they do in Europe? What's the logic in that?

[Telekom]

Originally Posted by scotsboyuk

They do offer some handsets free, but my point was that I think it's a very poor showing for them to be charging people for very basic handsets with a contract. If they are going to charge for handsets it would make more sense to charge for the more expensive and better featured handsets.

Until the time comes when Nokia, Motorola, LG, Sony-Ericsson and others give away handsets to the operators the operators are going to want to make that money back. To make it back they ask for a commitment. If you want the freebie you opt for a contract.

No matter how many times you compare the business model for mobile in Europe/the UK and North America it will continue to be different. It's even different in Canada. Many agreements in Canada are for three years now. And Canada's even less competitive than the US since there's for all intents and purposes only one national GSM operator.

[scotsboyuk]

Originally Posted by spleck

Oh boy, I didn't know this was the debate team. Blah blah. Stop picking apart my wording and make a point.

Steady on old boy there is no need for frustration. It's a forum, which means that there will be discussion and debate,. As for making a point, if you read my posts you will see my point.

You said that T-Mobile should not be charging for their low end phones and then gave us some story about how a British carrier wanted to pay you to take a nice phone. And what? Why does that mean T-Mobile is charging too much for their handsets?

If one network can do it then so can others if they want to. I would rather see consumers given a good deal and not have to pay for what are really rather basic handsets. Market conditions in different countries will of course differ, but since T-Mobile USA is already offering some subsidies I think it is a perfectly legitimate question to ask why they are charging customers for what must now be rather cheap handsets, in terms of the cost to acquire them, when the customer is being asked to make a long term commitment of a regular monthly charge, that will more than pay for the handset at the cost T-Mobile bought it for, even more so if one takes into account extra charges for usage out with the customer's allowances.

Thus, I think T-Mobile USA are charging too much for some of their handsets and would like to see the consumer given a better deal.

T-Mobile has good organic growth despite facing large incumbents with better spectrum and 3G services. They've obviously taken a lower cost approach, and despite a lower ARPU than the other big 3, they're still making money. Why should they charge less for their handsets? Because they do in Europe? What's the logic in that?

I would have thought one would like to see lower prices, but that aside I am not suggesting that T-Mobile should do something simply because another network is doing so. Rather I am saying that making handsets free with a contract is a business model that works and thus one imagines T-Mobile USA could implement such a policy if it choose to do so. That it doesn't strikes me as being bad for consumers because they are being asked to pay for a low-end handset that in all likelihood costs T-Mobile relatively little to purchase, and which they are certain to recoup the cost of anyway through a contract.

[scotsboyuk]

Originally Posted by Telekom

Until the time comes when Nokia, Motorola, LG, Sony-Ericsson and others give away handsets to the operators the operators are going to want to make that money back. To make it back they ask for a commitment. If you want the freebie you opt for a contract.

No matter how many times you compare the business model for mobile in Europe/the UK and North America it will continue to be different. It's even different in Canada. Many agreements in Canada are for three years now. And Canada's even less competitive than the US since there's for all intents and purposes only one national GSM operator.

As I said before I agree that there are differences between different markets, which makes direct comparisons difficult at best. However, if one signs up to a contract, which will allow the network to recoup the cost of the handset why should one have to pay for the handset, especially when the handset is a basic model? The only reason i can see is the network wanting to squeeze some extra cash out of the customer in addition to the revenue they will get over the course of the contract, which will pay for the handset anyway. Personally I would rather see the consumer allowed to keep that money, even if it is only $30.

[spleck]

Originally Posted by scotsboyuk

Thus, I think T-Mobile USA are charging too much for some of their handsets and would like to see the consumer given a better deal.

That was clearer, thank you. I agree that it would be nicer for the consumer if the prices were lower, but in my opinion, the market is not at a point to drive those costs down. Perhaps with the iPhone at $199, people won't be so willing to pay $50 for a basic flip-phone.

On a side note (way off topic), why do British people often consider teams, companies, and other groups a plural word? ie Arsenal are going to win it all next year. In the US, its proper to use the singular, Arsenal IS going to win it all. Since Arsenal is a single team, the substitution would be The team IS going to win it all, where as the Arsenal players are going to win it all. I'm wondering if everyone else notices it, or am I the only one? I usually notice it when I'm reading some phone review, since they're often from the UK if they're in English. Is that the correct way over there, or is it just a common thing like ain't or "the car needs [to be] washed"?

[Telekom]

There's no argument since if you're getting new service with T-Mobile you will have to commit to a term of at least one year anyway so people may as well take the giveaway phone. If they want something better they can pay extra. And again, don't compare what they're doing in the UK, France, the Netherlands or anywhere else in Europe. The US is not Europe and the business model is not the same. Competition is not the same. Mobile penetration is not the same either.

Originally Posted by scotsboyuk

Steady on old boy there is no need for frustration. It's a forum, which means that there will be discussion and debate,. As for making a point, if you read my posts you will see my point.



If one network can do it then so can others if they want to. I would rather see consumers given a good deal and not have to pay for what are really rather basic handsets. Market conditions in different countries will of course differ, but since T-Mobile USA is already offering some subsidies I think it is a perfectly legitimate question to ask why they are charging customers for what must now be rather cheap handsets, in terms of the cost to acquire them, when the customer is being asked to make a long term commitment of a regular monthly charge, that will more than pay for the handset at the cost T-Mobile bought it for, even more so if one takes into account extra charges for usage out with the customer's allowances.

Thus, I think T-Mobile USA are charging too much for some of their handsets and would like to see the consumer given a better deal.



I would have thought one would like to see lower prices, but that aside I am not suggesting that T-Mobile should do something simply because another network is doing so. Rather I am saying that making handsets free with a contract is a business model that works and thus one imagines T-Mobile USA could implement such a policy if it choose to do so. That it doesn't strikes me as being bad for consumers because they are being asked to pay for a low-end handset that in all likelihood costs T-Mobile relatively little to purchase, and which they are certain to recoup the cost of anyway through a contract.

[Telekom]

Originally Posted by scotsboyuk

As I said before I agree that there are differences between different markets, which makes direct comparisons difficult at best. However, if one signs up to a contract, which will allow the network to recoup the cost of the handset why should one have to pay for the handset, especially when the handset is a basic model? The only reason i can see is the network wanting to squeeze some extra cash out of the customer in addition to the revenue they will get over the course of the contract, which will pay for the handset anyway. Personally I would rather see the consumer allowed to keep that money, even if it is only $30.

Your argument is moot anyway since the carrier will give a basic handset in turn for signing the minimum term.

Even T-Mobile pay as you go gives essentially free handsets at times on promotion.

[spleck]

How about this? Fido fetches Nokia's simplistic 3500 - Engadget Mobile

$100 no contract, $90 2 year contract, $15 on 3 year contract.

[scotsboyuk]

Originally Posted by spleck

That was clearer, thank you. I agree that it would be nicer for the consumer if the prices were lower, but in my opinion, the market is not at a point to drive those costs down. Perhaps with the iPhone at $199, people won't be so willing to pay $50 for a basic flip-phone.

I can be something of a long winded gasbag at times, but I usually do manage to elucidate a point at some stage in the proceedings.

On a side note (way off topic), why do British people often consider teams, companies, and other groups a plural word? ie Arsenal are going to win it all next year. In the US, its proper to use the singular, Arsenal IS going to win it all. Since Arsenal is a single team, the substitution would be The team IS going to win it all, where as the Arsenal players are going to win it all. I'm wondering if everyone else notices it, or am I the only one? I usually notice it when I'm reading some phone review, since they're often from the UK if they're in English. Is that the correct way over there, or is it just a common thing like ain't or "the car needs [to be] washed"?

Hmmm ... that's a rather interesting question. I can't say that I had noticed this before, but now that I think of it people here may treat a team or company as a plurality. Having said that, I don't think it's at all uncommon for a team or company to be treated as a single entity either. I suppose it depends upon the individual.

British English can be rather complicated in its little rules and quirks when compared with American English, at least in my opinion. I find American English more direct and Americans often seem to say what they mean directly, even appearing quite forward, whereas British people might use softening terms to make their comments seem less direct (as an example look at what I just did! I used 'quite' in front of forward, and 'less direct' rather than confrontational. ) Often words will be used where they apparently make no sense, and they are often only used in part of the United Kingdom to make things even more confusing e.g. in England & Wales a private school is called a public school, but not in Northern Ireland or Scotland. In northern England and Scotland lunch is often called 'dinner' whilst your main evening meal is often called 'tea', which can also mean to take a high tea in the afternoon across the UK. On the other hand lunch is called lunch in southern England and your main evening meal might be called dinner or perhaps supper. You get the idea.

[scotsboyuk]

Originally Posted by Telekom

There's no argument since if you're getting new service with T-Mobile you will have to commit to a term of at least one year anyway so people may as well take the giveaway phone. If they want something better they can pay extra. And again, don't compare what they're doing in the UK, France, the Netherlands or anywhere else in Europe. The US is not Europe and the business model is not the same. Competition is not the same. Mobile penetration is not the same either.

I'll use this post to reply to both of your posts if I may, rather than making two separate posts.

I am not comparing different markets, not directly at any rate. Rather I am simply saying that since T-Mobile is already offering subsidies it is a legitimate question to ask why they do not go that extra little bit and completely subsidise basic handsets when the case, and model, has already been proven to work in different markets, and remember that the British, Dutch, German, etc markets are all different to one another too. Some European markets don't feature free handsets either and some don't have huge penetration rates e.g. France. If T-Mobile USA can subsidise a handset 90% of the way, why not go that extra 10% and give the customer a better deal when they know they are going to recoup the cost anyway and when the model for doing so has already been shown to work in disparate markets?

[aeroplane]

Well, I got an email from T-mo's customer service advising me the the Wing is a good alternative to the iphone

I found another forum, tmonews.com, where they claim 14+ new phones are coming to t-mobile in the near future Upcoming Phones for T-mobile USA
The ROKR E8 and BB Bold are the only desirable phones on the list.

Also, there is some speculation (supposedly from insiders) about an iphone killer coming up in Q3 of this year (see reply #6) T-Mobile touchscreen

[SmArTeStChIlD421]

no its definitely not.......the one thing that the Wing is is SLOW..........just like the full PDAs........like WM on HTC devices it is just laggy!!!

now from the sites listed by aeroplane.......the all touchscreen device should be here around oct/nov basically Q4 of this year.......probably HTC and definitely Android.......reps are saying that it will put the iPhone to shame..........HTC and WM is bad but how well will HTC handle Android??

[SmArTeStChIlD421]

btw i'm very intrigued by the Sidekick Gekko......anyone have specs on this??