Re:How Google's Android Could Finally Crush Apple's iPhone
by stephenr on Saturday November 16, 2013 @10:38AM
(#6745079)
Non american here. Can someone help me make sense of the premise for this article?
By “month to month” is the author refering to a post-paid service (i.e. you get a bill to pay at the end of each month, which may or may not be more than your monthly minimum depending on usage), or “pre-paid/pay as you go” accounts (where you buy “credit” or “top up" every month/when it runs out?)
The author suggests “month to month” is better value than the contracts to the tune of $40/month, but I’ve never heard of any telecom anywhere offering worse value for money on any kind of post-paid account, compared to a pre-paid/pay-as-you-go account.
Im aware the majority of americans have long been suckling at the teat of carried locked/carrier specific phones (i.e. pick your network then see what phones are available) but is paying $600 vs paying $200 really that much of an inconvenience, if the difference is $40 a MONTH!?
Please, someone explain this crazy industry you have - I grew up in Australia - when I got an iPhone 4, it was a small amount upfront, and the “device payment” added about $10 or $15 a month (on a 2 year contract) to the monthly cost - at that rate, the phone cost me about $400, for what was > $1K outright purchase.
I’m now living in Thailand, where even with a contract, smartphones are not subsidised, but sometimes a slightly better contract (which can generally be broken without penalty as I understand it) is available if you purchase a phone via the telecom.
Can someone shed some light on the US sitation that this guy is talking about?
By “month to month” is the author refering to a post-paid service (i.e. you get a bill to pay at the end of each month, which may or may not be more than your monthly minimum depending on usage), or “pre-paid/pay as you go” accounts (where you buy “credit” or “top up" every month/when it runs out?)
The author suggests “month to month” is better value than the contracts to the tune of $40/month, but I’ve never heard of any telecom anywhere offering worse value for money on any kind of post-paid account, compared to a pre-paid/pay-as-you-go account.
Im aware the majority of americans have long been suckling at the teat of carried locked/carrier specific phones (i.e. pick your network then see what phones are available) but is paying $600 vs paying $200 really that much of an inconvenience, if the difference is $40 a MONTH!?
Please, someone explain this crazy industry you have - I grew up in Australia - when I got an iPhone 4, it was a small amount upfront, and the “device payment” added about $10 or $15 a month (on a 2 year contract) to the monthly cost - at that rate, the phone cost me about $400, for what was > $1K outright purchase.
I’m now living in Thailand, where even with a contract, smartphones are not subsidised, but sometimes a slightly better contract (which can generally be broken without penalty as I understand it) is available if you purchase a phone via the telecom.
Can someone shed some light on the US sitation that this guy is talking about?