Sprint Wins at 2 Year Cost, No Contest 92
Wired has a handy guide [via bbg] up detailing all the spec differences between the top 4 smartphones catching most people's attention these days (I would have included the Touch Pro 2, but that's me). The Pre is definitely competitive (but that 30 app number really stings).
The Pre is the lightest, sure, but it's the comparison above that caught our eye. CrackBerry Kevin was more than right in our last Smartphone Experts Roundtable Podcast - when it comes to cost, forget about the what you have to lay down for the phone with contract. Just ignore any price differences under, say, 300 bucks. Your real cost is the 2 year plan cost and Sprint is more than $500 cheaper then the next closest competitor and $1400 bucks cheaper than the iPhone 3GS (and comes with Navigator, which costs and extra $10 a month on the iPhone).
This is more of a win for Sprint than it is for the Pre. Yet it's almost bittersweet because, well, we're fairly positive that many of you, like us, are agitating to pay those higher costs on other networks with a Pre.
92 Comments
Spint? (typo)
gah. I type faster than text fields can read, apparently. Thanks!
Dieter, any rumors on soon-upcoming firmware updates? Not urgent by any means, just curious.
Why is the phone facing away from the viewer, unlike the rest? Shame?
This may be but (as a Pre owner and Palm fanboy) I'm concerned that Pre owners might be punished by developers. I'm (wild) guessing that a "standard" collection of software for the iPhone, which costs a hypothetical $50 might set us Pre owners back $500.
I'm just going by the historic Palm OS software price points (averaging $10-$15 per app with some going for BIG $$$) while Apple has kept a tight reign on the cost of iPhone apps with the average price at $1 - $3.
It may be a bad example, but look at the cost of Classic for the Pre. That shows us a couple of things... 1) Palm is willing to pass along the responsibility for software functionality that should be free as a part of the Pre purchase; and 2) Palm has no trouble with the cost of one of the original 20 apps announced on launch day coming in at $30.
Still, my fingers are crossed that Apple's price-point example will be followed by developers and Classic is just an anomaly.
well as far as program pricing goes, I'm just speculating here, but I'd bet that the classic app requires some sort of palmos licensing.
I'm sure you're going to see a wide range of pricing for webos apps base on functionality and support.
many iphone apps are pretty much junkware. which is why they are priced at the lowest price allowed by the store. (un)fortunately I'm sure we are going to see similar apps out for the pre for about the same price. if it works for the iphoneim sure it'll work for the pre. I'm also sure we are going to see much more functional apps coming out for the pre than for the iphone just because palm is more open than the iphone.
remember a good app will solve a problem(s) or improve on an existing feature(s).
This article is completely misleading. I have been shopping for phones for my family. I have not experienced the cost differences I have read about. This article is comparing single phone plans with all the bells and whistles. Some folks have families. Some folks neither need or want bells and whistles.
Plan costs vary based on services one buys/needs. With Sprint's data plan one gets NFL.com, GPS directions, radio, and TV at no extra cost. That is great if you need/want them. But if you don't need them, you can save money by not adding to the AT&T plan where they are options.
Plans vary based on minutes. For example, one can get an AT&T family plan with 700 minutes; the minimum family plan with Sprint is 1500. If one adds the $17 per month for 7 PM free calling to the AT&T plan, one can save money if one's family does the bulk of long conversations after work or school. And, that is ignoring the benefit of roll over minutes.
Plan costs also vary depending on the number and type of phones one wants. Plans vary based on the number of smartphones versus texting phones versus speciality phones (iPhone and Pre).
I have priced two texting phones for my teenaged kids, an idiot's phone for my wife (something with almost no confusing buttons to push and big ones to help the elderly) and a Pre or iPhone. My monthly cost, prior to a discount for credit union members, was $167 for AT&T and $169 for Sprint. Who knew?
Please be careful of one size fits all, biased articles.
Harlan
I am not sure I understand your point. For $169 on sprint you get 1500 minutes for 4 people with more features (Nights/Weekends 7pm, text, GPS, NFL, etc). With AT&T you have less minutes and less features for a 2 dollar difference. I accept the rollover argument but with 700 minutes and 4 people (2 Teens!) I am not sure how much rollover you are getting.
Secondly. who cares that you get more features if it meets the needs and is not ridiculously more expensive (2 dollars). If you don't want to pay the $2 bucks for all the bells and whistles for everyone go with Sprints family messaging plan ($99 for 1500 minutes, unlimited message) and add the 4 lines ($119.97) and add unlimited data for yourself. You will STILL come out cheaper.
Please be careful of not doing your research and then gripping about articles.
"If you don't want to pay the $2 bucks for all the bells and whistles for everyone go with Sprints family messaging plan ($99 for 1500 minutes, unlimited message) and add the 4 lines ($119.97) and add unlimited data for yourself. You will STILL come out cheaper."
I agree with you that the $2 difference is certainlu worth it - hands down. But, the option you listed for everything messaging is not an allowed plan for the Pre. Sprint does not allow data add-on's for Pre or Instinct. I currently have the exact plan you describe for a base price of $135. To buy the Pre, it would cost us $35 more a month! Yes my wife and kids would have access to data, but they don't want/need it.
And yes, I have asked them! They would rather spend the $35 elsewhere.
(the minimum family plan with Sprint is 1500.)
@hlachman
Sprint has a 700 min family share plan........
Oh, I had forgotten to about my credit union membership discount... And, you never really laid out what plans you were comparing. Also, you should factor in what you plan on doing on you iPhone, for example, they don't give you turn-by-turn for free.
True, I got a 20% discount off my monthly plan for belonging to a state credit union. My bill is about $80, so I will save $16 a month! Not to mention my $50 credit for recycling my old phone - don't think other carriers do such things.
While this is true, it's only true at the top end of the features spectrum. It's basically comparing the most expensive plan on AT&T with the most expensive plan on Sprint. And Sprint wins that battle.
But when I was doing my analysis, I was interested in getting a smartphone for myself on a shared plan with a feature phone for my wife, at the cheapest rate possible. And in that case, AT&T is cheaper over 2 years. Here's the comparison:
Pre: $199.00 (after rebate, which in 2 years will be true)
My plan: $69.99/mo (Everything Data 450)
Wife's plan: $39.99/mo (Talk 450)
2year TCO: $2838.52
iPhone 3G: $79.99 (refurb)
Shared Plan: $59.99 (FamilyTalk 550)
iPhone Data: $30.00
2year TCO: $2258.76
I should mention that I bought a Pre - so please no accusations of being an Apple/AT&T fanboy. But my point is that at the top end of the price spectrum sprint wins. At the bottom end (where you try make as minimal a monthly cost as possible - even if it means giving up some features) AT&T wins.
I suppose I should mention that I get a corporate discount from both AT&T (20%) and Sprint (25%) through my employer.
After applying these discounts the 2year TCO becomes:
Sprint: $2178.64
AT&T: $1806.81
And I still bought the Pre.
Oh... and this is all before the taxes & fees. Which, I would include if I knew how to calculate them.
Your comparison is still flawed! You use Sprint's data plan which includes text messaging. But you do not add the ATT text unlimited messaging package to the ATT bill. ATTs data and text messaging have separate rates.
If you are going for outright minimum bill, of course ATT wins, only bc it requires no data or messaging plan. But then you have to pay for individual data KBs and texts, it will run you well over the plan prices!
And why are you comparing shared plans anyway? Less than 33% of carrier customers are on shared plans. Then you compared the price of a new Pre to refurb iPhone 3G, for some odd reason, like you expect that to be compatible.
When you compare apples to apples, Sprint wins in complete package pricing.
Of course I didn't add txt messaging. I don't use it. Why pay extra for something that isn't needed? I thought that I was pretty explicit in stating that I'm comparing the outright minimum bill.
As to why I'm comparing shared plans, I'll take you at your word that only 33% of customers are on them. Do you think that Sprint would gladly take all 33% of AT&T's shared plan users? Or vice versa? I do.
My point: this is a comparison that *many* customers are making. And it's overly simplistic to say that Sprint is cheaper over the life of the contract. In some cases it is. But not in all.
FWIW, an apples to apples comparison is not what most customers make when deciding on what product to get. What most customers do is figure out what they want/need. And then compare the cheapest options from multiple providers.
The point is you can't compare apples to oranges. The packages you are comparing from Sprint and from ATT aren't compatible. So your comparison is very misleading. The original author's comparison is not misleading. Smartphone users need unlimited data and text messaging, but they don't always need unlimited talk. But if the author used Sprint's cheaper talk/unlimited data plan then, the comparison would be unfair! So if you compare complete unlimited packages, Sprint's plan is the cheapest.
(Sorry for the repost: wanted this to be posted as a reply to parent.)
What I am comparing is the cheapest plans on each that meet my needs. And AT&T wins. That being said, I still bought the Pre, but it wasn't because the Sprint plan was the cheapest plan that met my needs. It wasn't.
And as far as comparing apples to oranges. I certainly can compare them. Here watch: I like the taste of oranges as compared to apples. But I like the fiber content of apples more than oranges.
That said, you're right that the two plans that I'm comparing don't contain the same features. But that's the point. Sprint plan forces me to purchase features that I don't need. As a result AT&T plan is the cheapest one that meets my needs.
I really don't get why anyone thinks I'm supposed to compare a plan that does what I want (AT&T's plan) with a plan that does more than I want for more money (Sprint's cheapest plan for the Pre).
Actually Sprint has an Basic Talk plan for with 200 minutes for $29.99. The 2 year TCO would then be $2598.52. Your main saving would be from the refurbished iPhone and $10/mo. But honestly, who doesn't text with an iPhone? I can see not needing $10 navigation but I don't know anyone who doesn't text with an iPhone. $5/mo minimum makes AT&T $2359.75. The $238.77 difference over two years is pretty close and a lot less than the $579.76 you stated.
I've had a smartphone since the Treo650. In that time I think I've used a total of 100 txt messages. I really really don't use it. Now that I'm paying for it anyway, I've been trying to figure out ways to use it more, but I still really really don't use it.
As far as the 29.99 plan from sprint that doesn't include mobile2mobile minutes. And my wife would probably use up the 250 minutes calling me. And then there's the 400 other minutes she'd use on top of that. Before I had the Pre (e.g. pre-Pre :) We were on a shared 550 minute plan. I typically used about 100 minutes and she used about 400 per month. So I think I got the right plan for her.
Harlan - though I understand what you're trying to say in your post, I do think that you misrepresent some things. Sprint service adds on GPS, Navigation, and texting all under one heading, data (which is pretty much what all of those functions use). Unlimited texting/ web surfing and the like all are covered under their Simply Everything plans. They're not really forcing those under things on you, they're basically just giving them to you along with your ability to have unlimited texting. If you do more than just talking on your phone, it does seem like their deals are pretty hard to beat.
Kind of hard when comparing apples and oranges here. Better to have a feature matrix and list all the assumptions being made. Like opting for the 32gb iphone? For a fair comparison wouldn't it be more useful to compare the 16gb version, the Pre only has 8gb. I have no doubt Sprint is cheaper but when you factor in ATT's rollover minutes that helps some.
I have an Verizon Centro for work and an ATT Treo 680 for personal use that has 5,000 rollover minutes saved up. Can't tell me that doesn't have a lot of value!
BTW... I'm a diehard Palm fanboy and have been buying garnet apps since the 650. I don't like my Centro's keyboard nearly as much as the 650/680. I understand that Pre's keyboard is a little more spread-out, but it still looks like a huge compromise compared to the BB Bold's or the new Nokia and HTC WM phones.
At this point I value a comfortable keyboard almost above all else since most all my fav apps are available on any platform. Don't get me wrong, synergy is a huge draw for the Pre... but I miss the days when I could quickly type a text/long-note/app-entry etc without having to focus so hard with those rubbery keys and correct so many key-presses. I don't use my smartphone as a smartphone as much as I used to and that's mostly because the data entry is more of a chore.
Call me old-fashioned, but that BB Tour's keyboard is looking more appealing with each text I fumble through on my Centro.
For Pre people who switched from the Centro, be honest with me, is the keyboard a lot easier to use, or just marginally so?
Depends on how you look at 5,000 rollover minutes. Might be value to you but could be overpaying to others.
Nathan,
I started using Palm OS devices with a Handspring (!) Visor years ago. I've had a 600, 650 and 700p, as well as a Sprint Treo Pro. My wife has a Centro, and I started using my Pre a few days ago.
So I've used a bunch of different Palm Qwertys. The Pre's keys are better than the Treo Pro's. The spacing is better, and they're a bit firmer, which gives better feedback. It's *night and day better than the centro.* No comparison. I really disliked the centro's keyboard.
Now I'm a nail-typer so I actually think I like the Pre's keys best of all. Also they've done some smart things adjusting the button assignments. The period, comma, and @ symbol are all available without hitting the alt button, which speeds things up too.
Harlan... if you are talking about iPhone vs Pre... then you have to deal with the data plans they need. I see you talking about some other type of phone with big buttons, and it looks like you are talking apples to oranges.
Of course a plan is cheaper without data plans.
I agree with the 32GB issue. Palm needs to quickly release a Pre with 16GB and one with 32 GB at the appropriate price points..obviously cheaper ones than Apple...Apple has CRAZY high premiums for the extra storage space.
Quickly release? Why? Just because Apple has a 16GB and 32GB?
If anything, they could wait a while and release a Pre with an expandable memory miniSD card slot. I think that there are 8GB miniSD cards now, maybe bigger even.
Yes, the sizes of microSD cards are growing every month. They actually already have 32gb microSD cards. The problem with these cards is that they are rather expensive although they can be used in multiple devices as opposed to built in memory which is only good in one device. I agree though that Palm dropped the ball coming out with the 8GB Pre as opposed to a 16GB or even 32GB version. I think that a 16GB version would have been the way to go simply because at the time that size would have been competitive with the iPhone. I am looking forward to seeing what Palm has coming down the pipeline.
"I think that a 16GB version would have been the way to go simply because at the time that size would have been competitive with the iPhone."
But so what? Is the iPhone Pre's only competition? Why does Palm need to do what the competition does?
Although they are expensive, the microSD cards puts the choice in the hands of the consumer. If you only need 8GB, then buy no card. If you need an extra 8GB, then buy that size, and so on.
I also have been extremely frustrated because the comparisons don't take into account the needs/usage of a typical family. Because we have 4 lines but only need data on one, we would essentially be paying $50/month for data on the Pre. Here are my comparisons, please correct me if I have missed anything.
Sprint, (1) Pre and (3) regular phones (the kind my family wants) with the followings plan:
$130 - Shared Everything Data 1500
$40 - 2 additional lines
---
$170 - Total
$4080 - 2yrs
If I go with AT&T, I can get (1) iPhone and (3) regular phones with the following plan:
$70 - Nation 700 Family Talk with Rollover
$20 - 2 additional lines
$30 - Unlimited Messaging Family
$30 - iPhone Data (1 data)
---
$150 - Total
$3600 - 2yrs
Or with T-mobile, I can get (1) G1 and (3) regular phones with the following plan:
$70 - FamilyTime 1000
$20 - 2 additional lines
$25 - Unlimited Messaging Family
$25 - G1 Unlimited Web (1 data)
---
$140 - Total
$3360 - 2yrs
Again, we have plans here that are not compatible! You are comparing Sprint's 1500min Everthing Data Plan to Att's 700min plan with data and text. Wouldn't one expect that a 1500 min plan to be much more expensive than a 700min plan? Also, the 2 additional Sprint lines include data and text, where as Att's 2 additional lines do not (you said "$30 - iPhone Data (1 data)")! "Regualar" phones still are data intensive, because the have WAP browsers and the like, which any carrier surely would charge for, if there was no data plan.
Eventhough you have included much more in Sprint's shared plan (800 more shared mins, and data on the 2 additional lines) the total is only $20 more a month!
You have done the same with for T-mobile, using a non-comparative package with 500 less mins and only 1 data, and yet Sprint is only $30 more a month!
Right! That is the problem! Sprint is offering "all or nothing" plans that don't reflect the needs of families and then claiming they are good deals. I think the individual everything plans offered by Sprint are a steal! But the family plans leave a lot to be desired - they don't reflect family usage patterns. How many 11 year olds with the WAP capable phone that they like are going to need data access? How many parents want to pay to give their 11 year-old unmonitored data access from a cell phone?
Seriously? And why do I want to compare 1500 minutes on both plans when I don't need that many - especially with rollover or 5 always free numbers?
You use the phrase "non-comparative package" - but it IS comparative if it meets my family needs! That's like saying its unfair to compare the cost owning a school bus to a family car. "Who cares if it is more expensive when you can seat 30 kids!"
Tell me, who is typically going to be the most budget conscious customer - an single professional or a professional with a family? So why is Sprint offering the best deals to single professionals and neglecting professionals with families?
t
To quote another user on another forum:
Instead of the "Everything Data" Family Plan I am just going to wait for the "No you don't have to add Data to that lousy Razr to get the Pre in a Family Plan" Plan
http://forums.buzzaboutwireless.com/baw/board/message?board.id=OffTopicR...
I doubt people would have many rollover minutes with only 700 minutes for 4 people.
hmm - pre-teen girls. They txt - not talk. Let me share with you their usage details from last month:
13 year old:
Anytime Minutes 5
Text 842
11 year old:
Anytime Minutes 2
Text 205
EDIT:
Deleted my message due to totally wrong calculations. lol.
I was just about to reply too -
lol
HAHA. Yeah I figured the best deal you can get is actually still $35-$40 more than your current plan. I totally understand your reasoning though because when I get a Pre it'll be $35 more than my current plan. It's still worth it for me though rather than switching to AT&T for an iPhone. It would be $39 more per month than my current plan with them and I would be getting 450 less minutes. It really does depend on your family plans needs and discounts you can get.
Neglecting? Sprint offers a 1500 mins everything data plan for four person family for $130. But you think that a 700 min plan + $30 unlim. texting + 1 data phone for 4 people for the same price is more economical?? Seriously? Only a devout ATT loyalist would say so. You are going to share 700 mins/mo between 4 people, seriously? That's 175 mins/month! And you think you will have rollover minutes at the end of the month, seriously? If these numbers meet YOUR families needs, then your family is WAY, WAY out of the norm when it comes to cell usage! When you start offering up these figures, you can't say that ATT's cheaper when you aren't comparing the same stuff, just bc your family doesn't need some of the Sprint stuff! Also it doesn't matter if you want to pay for your kids' WAP services or not, if your kids use them, even if you tell them not to, you are going to get charged!
>"Sprint offers a 1500 mins everything data plan for four person family for $130."
WRONG! The lines get added at $20 per line. The cost for 4 lines is $170.
---
>"Only a devout ATT loyalist would say so."
Actually, I am a long time Sprint customer and have been very happy until recently. We currently have the 1500 shared messaging plan and with $15 data add-on for my line only.
I just can't see paying $50/month for data to get the Pre - which is what I would have to do - because they think we need/want it on all lines.
---
>"If these numbers meet YOUR families needs, then your family is WAY, WAY out of the norm when it comes to cell usage!"
Hmm, that's funny - cause there are a LOT of other users who express the exact same things on other forums - such as Sprint's own Buzz About Wireless. Why don't you take a minute to educate yourself by reading this one thread (of many):
PLEASE! Restructure the Shared Plans!
http://forums.buzzaboutwireless.com/baw/board/message?board.id=Suggestio...
---
>"When you start offering up these figures, you can't say that ATT's cheaper when you aren't comparing the same stuff, just bc your family doesn't need some of the Sprint stuff!"
No, but I can certainly say that I can easily find cheaper plans that more closely match my families needs - which is what I have done.
---
>"Also it doesn't matter if you want to pay for your kids' WAP services or not, if your kids use them, even if you tell them not to, you are going to get charged!"
Umm, well I guess I have especially obedient children because it has not been a problem for all the time I have been on the Everything messaging plan.
I really don't get why it's so important to you to say that Sprint is cheaper that AT&T in all cases. They aren't. At the bottom end of the feature spectrum, they simply aren't cheaper. Yes, you don't get the same features. But on AT&T you can opt out of features that you don't want. And yes, if you decide that you want those features later, it's going to make AT&T more expensive than Sprint.
But that doesn't change the fact that AT&T offers plans for the iPhone that are cheaper than what you can get for the Pre on Sprint.
Your last sentence should be:
AT&T only offers family plans for the iPhone that are cheaper than what you can get for the Pre on Sprint.
Sure. I could have said that. But your additions to my sentence don't change the truth value of my sentence. My sentence is still true without your additions.
Meanwhile, the statement that sprint's plans are cheaper is simply not true. Not all of Sprints plans are cheaper. And to suggest that, because some are cheaper, that all of them are is really bad reporting IMHO.
My additions make it more specific. Your sentence was too broad. Could you give me an individual plan for the iPhone or Storm that's better than one for the Pre? I don't think that's possible. Also, Sprint actually advertisements say COMPARABLE plans (in terms of feature equivalent) are cheaper and it's true. I don't see how its bad reporting if the articles are restating this.
AT&T does offer plans that beat Sprint's plans. That doesn't mean that *all* of the plans that AT&T offers beats all of Sprint's plans. But fine. If you think it's too broad, ok.
However, it's much *less* broad than "Sprint beats AT&T in TCO over the life of the contract". If you think that my statement is too broad then don't you have to agree that the comments that I'm complaining about are even worse?
And that is the *entire* point that I (and others) are trying to make. To say that Sprint beats AT&T in TCO is not true at the bottom end of the feature spectrum. That statement is too broad.
Okay I have to agree the article's headline should have been "Sprint Wins at 2 Year Cost When Comparing Unlimited Individual Plans, No Contest".
"... we're fairly positive that many of you, like us, are agitating to pay those higher costs on other networks with a Pre."
Why are you fairly positive about this? I can't wait to get away from Verizon. They are overpriced, and sneaky:
http://www.nytimes.com/external/readwriteweb/2009/03/07/07readwriteweb-v...
I don't want to give my money to a company that treats its customers like that. I've also been very unhappy with their Mobile Web.
This entire article/thread has been shot to hell with too many plan/device comparisons. Every one of them is probably spot on, too, making all of them meaningless.
I personally know about 20 iPhone users (18-28 years of age) and they all have unlimited texting. I have 3 lines and need ~1500 minutes for them and unlimited texting and data.
Here are the breakdowns for 3 lines with text and data (add-ons for AT&T, standard on Sprint)
Monthly
AT&T 1400 shared = $199.98
Sprint 1500 shared = $149.98 (plus I get a 27% disc)
2 year
AT&T = 4799.52
Sprint = 3599.52 (not including my discount)
In my area (southern California), AT&T's call quality is easily the worst, while Sprint and Verizon are the best. As for 3G, AT&T's is the worst, while Sprint's is the best. It should be a no-brainer here, but advertising and hype work pretty well. Just look at Transformers 2's box office numbers this weekend, which was easily the worst movie I have seen since the Love Guru.
What I really don't like about that graphic is that it makes the Pre look like the largest of the 4 phones, which is absolutely not true. :(
Boy, the fact this is even debated is ridiculous.
Sprint is by far cheaper. Period. End of Story.
AT&T is more expense, and you get nickeled and dimes, much like Verizon.
Even with family plans, it works out cheaper. People complaining about this, or saying Sprint is more expensive have really not paying attention/looking for the deal.
Unlimited talk, data, text, and GPS should be the comparison, as that is what a smartphone does and is used.
For those that just need just talk, prepaid would likely be better deals. For $2190, you can get unlimited talking, every day for two years from AT&T. Or 20,000 minutes on T-mobile.
If you REALLY want to get technical about it, the $30/month Sprint "deaf people" plan for smartphones, and a prepaid phone for talking, is the absolute cheapest route for most people. (Although the iPhone is close; AT&T offers a $40/month plan for hearing impaired).
What you fail to see/acknowledge is that many people (i.e. wives and children) don't want a smartphone and will therefore NEVER use all of the data features that Sprint is making a family pay for on ALL lines.
What you fail to see/acknowledge, if that you could have two different plans/accounts (with Sprint or other carriers) if you find the pricing to be too much. It makes no sense to have full data on phone that never use then, so get a plan/mix that works for you.
I have wife/kids/etc., so I know the needs - voice only, voice+text, etc. I also know there is no "typical" family, which you seem to assert as being a consistent model.
But even when you do that, Sprint is always cheaper (if you data in the mix; if going only voice, and text, MetroPCS or prepaid is the way to go). That is the fact.
Looking at your plan, you are comparing 3 phone, unlimited day, and 1500 min shared to an AT&T plan that is $20 less, but has 55% less minutes, and only data on one line. For T-Mobile, it's 30% less minutes. Apples to Oranges.
If three people can share 700 minutes and be okay, fine, but if you talk that little (8 minutes per day per person), you really should just go prepaid and say yourself the trouble (and it's cheaper/more controllable).
If you really want to get the best deal:
1.) "Deaf" Pre - $30 month
2.) MetroPCS - 4 phones, unlimited talk and text, $80.
Total: $110 month, $2220 for two years.
It's not always cheaper. Just check out terryg comments above. If someone has family members who mainly text (barely any voice and no need for data) AT&T and T-Mobile does have cheaper plans. Granted you get less minutes with them but again it's not needed if there are members who mainly text.
EDIT:
You do have a good point with the prepaid deal. However, the person with the Pre does lose out on not having mobile-to-mobile with MetroPCS.
I read Terry's comments. First, he/she has had the wrong plan for a long time if that's their usage model. But that's water under the bridge.
If you need just texting, the $30 Sprint plan is fine.
If I was to further analyze it, terry could save more:
Two daughters: $20 unlimited txt on AT&T GoPhone. Since there are few voice calls, it's just paying for text. ($40 total for the kiddies)
A Pre for him; $55/month if he uses discounts and such. He can add unlimited calling to a few numbers for free, so he could call the MetroPCS numbers for free)
That's $95/month...then give wife a prepaid t-mobile ofr an avg of $10 a month - she doesn't seem to chat much given they are looking at 700 min plan.
If he could hang with a second phone, the MetroPCS model comes out about the same.
>"I read Terry's comments. First, he/she has had the wrong plan for a long time if that's their usage model. But that's water under the bridge."
Um, how is that exactly? I currently have 1500 minutes to share (I would take less if it were offered), unlimited texting which 3 of the 4 lines use heavy and unlimited data on my line for $135/month base price.
This works pretty darn well for us and is a good price. Very competitive, in fact.
I am a VERY heavy data user - I am sure I use more data now than most Pre users - last month I used:
Sprint Data Unlimited 60487 (kB)
The only problem is that I can't get a Pre without purchasing data for EVERY line. This policy decision is (and not offering plans with less then 1500 minutes) is where they are failing to be competitive.
---
>"Two daughters: $20 unlimited txt on AT&T GoPhone. Since there are few voice calls, it's just paying for text. ($40 total for the kiddies)"
That's assuming they never talk - they just don't talk much our of network.
---
>"That's $95/month...then give wife a prepaid t-mobile ofr an avg of $10 a month - she doesn't seem to chat much given they are looking at 700 min plan."
Again, same mistake ...
---
The bottom line is that what I, and others, have tried to say and have been ripped to shreds for: Sprint does offer some really GREAT plans and they probably work great for many people. But by make broad usage assumptions, they fail to be competitive for many other people. The evidence bares this out if you are willing to look with an open mind.
Want more proof? Before the Pre launch, I posted a poll in the PreCentral forums. Will Service Plan Limitations Hurt Pre Success? I failed to ask my question clearly - many users didn't realize I was talking about an unlimited data add-on and so they answered no. But even with that misunderstanding, 28% of PreCentral readers who voted agreed that Sprint's plan limitations would have a negative effect on Pre sales. That is pretty staggering to me. So, I know I am not alone.
http://forums.precentral.net/palm-pre/181941-will-service-plan-limitatio...
>"What you fail to see/acknowledge, if that you could have two different plans/accounts (with Sprint or other carriers) if you find the pricing to be too much. It makes no sense to have full data on phone that never use then, so get a plan/mix that works for you."
Believe me, I have looked at all measure of combination's to try to get the Pre. I have been a Palm user since before they were phones. I showed you my daughters anytime minutes - but they do use mobile to mobile minutes because they talk to us. But as this is universal feature among carriers, it is a non-issue.
---
>"I have wife/kids/etc., so I know the needs - voice only, voice+text, etc. I also know there is no "typical" family, which you seem to assert as being a consistent model."
That is probably true, there is no typical family. But perhaps that is the most frustrating thing about Sprint's pricing. They assume family users will need to share 1500 minutes minimum and all have data. If that is the case, it is truly a GREAT deal. But if not, then you are paying for things that are not needed and that other carriers let you add
MetroPCS is available in all area, you just to have to pay 19/cents a minute if you are outside their coverage. ;-)
They cover all major areas except Seattle and DC, currently, so you must live fairly far from a large US city. But let's set that aside.
Again, as you missed in reading my follow-up replies, I noted you had 4 people on you plan.
If you have been with Sprint for a while, you would have know there are better plans. I had a fair and flexible plan that had unlimited text and data for 4 phone for $85 a month total. Of course, you have to switch plans if you move to the Pre (today at least; I think that restriction will go away in a few months).
You still missed my point - if you kids do only texting, then the best deal is an AT&T goPhone for $20 a month, unlimited texting.
You put yourself on a Pre plan for $55 bucks, which can be had (search the forums).
That's $95 total...so based on your current plans, or the proposed ones from AT&T and T-mobile, you have $45 to $75 left per month to figure out your wife's line.
You can save money out there, you just have to look for it.
>"They cover all major areas except Seattle and DC, currently, so you must live fairly far from a large US city. But let's set that aside."
Houston, TX - fourth largest city in the US - no coverage:
You have entered a zip code that is not within a MetroPCS service area.
---
>"fair and flexible plan"
Had it for years - loved it. Worked great until my daughters starting texting a lot. I switched to Everything Messaging when that happened.
---
>"You still missed my point - if you kids do only texting, then the best deal is an AT&T goPhone for $20 a month, unlimited texting."
You still missed my response. One of the only reasons we are willing to pay for them to have a phone is so that we can reach them. They don't call out of network very much at all, but they do talk to us and other family members. Going to separate networks is not an economical option.
Just to correct you on the MetroPCS thing, did you try putting Houston, TX instead of a zip code? There's definitely coverage there.
Cool - the map does show coverage. But it won't let me view pricing because it rejects the zip. I will spoof another zip into the box and see ...
I just tried looking for an MetroPCS store for you and there aren't any within 50 miles of 77001. The coverage is actually part of the MetroPCS Extended Home Area. So it sounds like its the free roaming area.
As has been pointed out, MetroPCS has coverage in Houston. Actually pretty good coverage, as I know a few folks down there and they give it a thumbs up (but I think they bought their phones in Dallas.)
Okay, so more details come out (I can only respond to what is posted). The kids text and talk to you and the wife a lot, but not other people. So you need the mobile to mobile option. Gotcha. That changes the equation a bit.
So you want:
Unlimited mobile-to-mobile
Unlimited Texting
Unlimited Data (on one line only)
Some number of minutes that are not mobile to mobile (700?)
Mike,
What is the point here anyway? Let's say we can scrap together 4 different plans for less money and lets even say we can even avoid using tin cans and string? How does this prove your earlier assertion:
"Sprint is by far cheaper. Period. End of Story."
I and those with similar posts have acknowledged that Sprint is by far the cheapest for individuals and for many others as well. Why is it so hard for you to admit that many people/families can find cheaper plans based upon their own personal usage?
The point is when comparing apple to apples, "Sprint is by far cheaper. Period. End of Story." This point has been proven over and over.
The further point is that, of course, when you start mixing and matching, or changing the requirements, if becomes a different ball game.
I never had any issue admitting that based on your particular scenario (which took quite a while to figure out, as your initial posts did not contain the full picture), there were cheaper solutions.
That was the the issue you began with (cost, which is absolutely fine), In fact, I gave you several solutions that had not been considered, which were non-Sprint.
"Sprint is by far cheaper. End of story. Period."
That is a false statement. No where does anyone who's reporting this same incorrect statement over and over, ever say, "with comparable plans". It's not reported above. It's not reported in the wired article.
But even if they said that. The statement quoted above is false. "end of story" and "period" imply that "sprint is by far cheaper" is true in every case. And it's not.
Again, in the comparison that Wired did (of the "regular" plan related to smartphones; voice, text, data, GPS), it's far cheaper.
It's not a false statement in context to the thread.
What you imply from my post if in your mind; I was responded to the thread, which was based on the Wired article.
(As I've said, a matrix of all scenarios would be useful and welcome. But again, the fact is, a "regular", individual smartphone user who does voice, data, text and GPS gets a much better deal with Sprint.)
I'm sorry you have a problem accepting that fact. But for some people, price is not a concern. For example, if you want an iPhone, you got to AT&T (or Jailbreak on T-Mobile). If you want a Pre, you go with Sprint. These are choices of devices that constrain the carrier choice. Wired was doing a comparison of the "big exclusive" that each of the four major US carriers has.
Not sure why this is befuddling to folks, but c'est la vie.
Ok, now I see it.
First of all:
>"(which took quite a while to figure out, as your initial posts did not contain the full picture)"
No, there was no reason for me initially to mention mobile-to-mobile minutes because that is a feature in common with ALL carriers. In order to evaluate the validity of your claim, we only need to look at plan differences. It was only when you (First) didn't believe my(our) stated usage patterns and (Second) tried to find mismash of service options (completely outside of our little disagreement), that these details became important.
Second, you claim we are comparing apples to oranges and that when an apples to apples comparison is done, Sprint is cheaper. If "apples" is the Sprint 1500 shared messaging plan, then sure, you are correct - as I have already stated.
But what about an orange to orange comparison? Why does the plan comparison have to start with a Sprint plan to be valid? Lets start with the other carriers. Lets say I need 4 lines and I only need 700 minutes and I only need data on one line but I need text messaging on all lines - like I can get on AT&T. I take that plan and try to find a Sprint plan that gives me the same thing? Oh look, I need the "orange" but I wind up with the more expensive "apple"!
You try to completely invalidate this comparison but you have no justification to do it. I am trying to compare oranges to oranges in this case and Sprint comes out more expensive because they don't offer an "orange".
Terry, all I am is saying is I can only respond to what is written. To say "there was not reason to mention mobile to mobile minutes" is incorrect, because you presented your texting girls as using basically no minutes - which was not true; they talk to you and your wife; therefore, you need a plan that supports that. Granted all carrier offer than on their subscription plans, but it's still relevant for alternative plans.
I never said I did not believe your usage patterns; you provided more elaboration as the thread went on (which is okay.)
As far as "orange to orange", that is basically "any one scenario to another similar scenario." That's fine. But that's not where it started.
Sprint does not have to be the starting point - you were the one who used it as the base. All I was saying is the comparison was disproportionate.
If an "orange" is not offered, you can't compare it (fairly). Not sure why you insist on trying to do so.
The bottom line is the Pre is more important to you than the cost of the overall plan, so you are locked to Sprint until your preference changes or another carrier has it. So the whole argument you are making is moot.
So then we have the root of the disagreement:
>"If an "orange" is not offered, you can't compare it (fairly). Not sure why you insist on trying to do so."
You think it is unfair to compare them. I think the data is incomplete if they are not compared.
Why?
Because the article heading and primary assertion is "Sprint Wins at 2 Year Cost, No Contest". But for many people, this is simply not true. 2 year cost are what it cost to actual people which will vary depending upon their needs. The only fair comparison is one that takes multiple scenarios into account.
The root of the disagreement is that in your specific, unique family plan, you do not see the savings that the article points out. But the article was not about you.
You say "for many people this is not true". What is your definition of "many" Numerical or Percentage?
It is in fact true for 100% of for those with individual plans for those devices, and even if we expand to other plans, a vast majority (80% or more) save more with Sprint than other carrier with multi-line plans. Again, there is always the exception (which proves the rule.)
The headline, in it's context is accurate. If you are going to start splitting hair on headlines, then you will have an issue with every single publication out there.
>"The root of the disagreement is that in your specific, unique family plan, you do not see the savings that the article points out. But the article was not about you."
The article was about "Sprint Wins at 2 Year Cost, No Contest" - therefore by implication, it is about me and every current or potential customer.
---
>"It is in fact true for 100% of for those with individual plans for those devices"
Agreed - numerous times.
---
>"and even if we expand to other plans, a vast majority (80% or more) save more with Sprint than other carrier with multi-line plans. Again, there is always the exception (which proves the rule.)"
And where are you drawing your figures? Even if you are correct (and I don't think you are), 20% of all of Sprint's current and potential family customers is a LOT! I think their current subscriber base is somewhere between 10 and 20 million customers. That is a lot of people to be wrong about.
---
>"The headline, in it's context is accurate."
I disagree.
---
>"If you are going to start splitting hair on headlines, then you will have an issue with every single publication out there."
Yes, articles make generalizations all the time. One of the primary purposes of the comment section of online articles is for readers to comment on the accuracy of these generalizations. Which I and others have done accurately in spite of heavy and undue criticism.
Again, the "implication" is what you read into it. The headline is just the gist of the article - you read the article for the details. Your issue boils down to a headline?
So if you agree the article is accurate, then the headline is accurate as well - in context of the article.
Regardless of the percentage (be it 80, 70, or 51), my point is the business model supports the most profitable consumer, who tends to be single with a lot of disposable income - and this is very true of early adopters of technology and gadgets. They tend to have individual plans.
I'm not saying ignore family plans, etc., I'm just saying the target (most profitable) market for Pre sales is not families. Again, on most (majority) of multi-line plans, apples to apples, you save more with Sprint. You can disagree all day, but the fact remains that it is true.
Again, you can disagree on the headline being accurate in it's context, but you already agreed the article is correct, so the headline is therefore correct. So you are contradicting yourself. It can't be both ways.
The primary purpose of comments section is to discuss the article/information, not to debate the headline. You have a bit of a martyr complex if you think you have had "heavy and undue" criticism.
You disagree with the headline but not the article. That is contradictory, as you already said the article is accurate. That sums up your position.
Ok Mike, after you consistently mis-represent my statements, we will have to concede that we cannot come to terms on this issue. I will, however, defend the areas in which you have mis-represented me.
---
>"Again, the "implication" is what you read into it"
Wrong. Implication means what is 'implied' by the author. Inference is what is 'inferred' by the reader.
---
>"So if you agree the article is accurate, then the headline is accurate as well - in context of the article."
I have not once stated this. I have said, numerous times, ad nauseum, that I agree that Sprint has the best pricing for individual plans. This does NOT equal agreeing with the entire article.
---
>"my point is the business model supports the most profitable consumer, who tends to be single with a lot of disposable income - and this is very true of early adopters of technology and gadgets"
This is a valid point. However, the other target audience for this device is the mid-level professional. These come in all flavors - single, married, married with families. They also come in the free spending and budget conscious varieties. Sprint is ignoring this market segment at their peril.
---
>"but you already agreed the article is correct"
I have not done this, only that the article is partially correct.
---
>"The primary purpose of comments section is to discuss the article/information, not to debate the headline. You have a bit of a martyr complex if you think you have had "heavy and undue" criticism."
I did not even attempt to describe THE primary purpose of comments - as you have done. I said "One of the primary purposes ..." and I stand by that assertion. Please pay attention to modifying phrases such as "one of the" - they make all the difference in the world in determining the authors intended meaning.
---
>"You disagree with the headline but not the article. That is contradictory, as you already said the article is accurate. That sums up your position."
Not even close.
Terry, I have not misrepresented your statements. NOt sure why you make that accusation. Your statements speak for themselves.
Implication/inferred - you can skip the dictionary lesson - I was making a shorthand point in a blog forum, not a formal publication. "The implication the article made" is "what you inferred". And your inference is subject to your own interpretation, which was to believe the headline applied to you without the context of the article. It is intellectually dishonest to not acknowledge that.
Again, if you agree the tenet is the article is correct (about individual plans), the headline is correct, in it's context. Not sure why you can't understand that point.
As for "Sprint is ignoring this market segment at their peril", I think Sprint has done a lot besides that to be in peril. ;-) I don't think they ignore the segment; they have plans ans sell them. Maybe you feel ignored, but as your specific scenario is unique; you are not being ignored, but rather face the economic reality that your exact type of plan does not command a huge market share.
This like complaining to Starbucks that they don't sell 13 oz coffee, because that's what you like. They only do 12, 16, and 24. Is Starbucks ignoring you, or is it just their decision to focus on the 3 sizes for business reasons?
Again, the article is not partially correct - it's fully correct for comparing individual plans and the exclusive/flagship smartphones on each carrier. Again, not sure what the issue her with admitting that is.
Now you are debating "one" vs. "the". Come on. You are being silly. Your meaning is clear - you can't admit you are wrong.
Not a good trait to have in life, not even close.
I shouldn't even reply but somehow I can't resist. Our column is getting skinny, so I will answer in a new comment below.
I was wondering what happens when the reply run out of space... But I will jump below to your other comment.
Cannot resist urge to squeeze the margin...
Tight fit in here...
T
h
i
s
i
s
w
h
y
i
n
d
e
n
t
i
n
g
t
h
r
e
a
d
s
f
a
i
l
.
More testing ...
and more testing ...
Closing the loop on this one. At least for me.
Glad my post engendered so much discussion. Just wish I been able to write more clearly so that those who disagree with me could disagree with my point.
My point was and is that single person people all using all the features are not the only ones researching and buying smartphones. I see some folks tried to make a similar point and were clearer on their parameters and plans than I was.
Some people want all features. Some don't. If a company insists on packaging features or only offering plans with more minutes, that is the option one needs to consider, even if the features/minutes are not needed by a user. But, other plans and minutes that work, even those with fewer features or minutes can be fairly compared as long as the comparison chooses the least expensive option available that meets his/her/its need. That is not unfair or misleading. One can only consider what is offered.
So in my case, Palm was the more expensive plan (by two bucks a month). Or was it actually less since Sprint offered a 10% discount for credit unions. Confusing. Regardless, for our family, the difference between plans even with the credit was less than $15 per month, far less than $1,400 shown for a single user.
I found that original table misleading because it needlessly overemphasized price savings using the case that was most in Sprint's/Palm's favor.
I am not sneezing at $178 per year. But it is not $700 per year.
Someone mentioned that a table showing different needs might better address my point. I agree it would help but also acknowledge that there are likely too many types of users with different needs.
What I found amazing was the anger of some posters. Sorry.
Harlan
deleted comment (reposted above)
Harlan,
Not anger, just information. You called the article biased, which it was not (as an apples to apples comparison).
I would agree that a matrix/calculator of all the plans (that would support different scenarios) would be very useful. They used to have one years ago, but the complexity and constant changes by carriers made it difficult. Maybe it's time to revisit that.
Of course, Wired is sort of an ADD type magazine, so I don't think they would do that ;-)
Not to defend Sprint, but the reason they package the deals that way is that research has shown that consumers hate being nickeled and dimed (ask any Verizon user ;-) ), and would rather have consistency in the monthly bill. So they are playing to that market.
AT&T goes a bit ala carte and is trying to get the family folks, as they tend to be "stickier" and don't change out much.
Regardless, I think the industry will eventually move away from carrier "features" and focus on handset features. People want the background plumbing to work the same. Bit carriers will go kicking and screaming, as the cash cows they had (texting, data), become as expected to be as cheap as voice.
Wow, Mike. I don
(Double post, deleted).
I am not letting you get dragged back in; you just can't let go of the fact that your assertions about the article and title (in context) are wrong. The more you attempt to "prove" your point, the digger the hole gets.
I misrepresent nothing - you posted, I responded. There is no manipulation of your posts.
The article is about individual plans - the picture is individual plans - (the context being the flagship smartphone for each of the major US carriers). You agree this is true. Ergo, the article is true, and the headline is true (again, in context.) You seem not to understand "context".
Article = correct (which you agree)
Therefore, Headline = correct.
You claim headline =! correct, because you bring up your specific family scenario. You are trying to change the context, which is not part of the original article. this does not makes sense, and to argue it makes you seem silly.
This requires no misrepresentation by me - you are not making sense just fine by yourself.
No one is saying based on a particular family plan, you may find something cheaper than Sprint. But so what? What does that have to do with accuracy of the article? (nothing.)
You say "But there is nothing to limit the context of the article to individual plans as you claim."
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there's a PICTURE of ONE phone in the graphic. Moreover, the article talks about the phones in singular - "how they compare to one another".
You are upset that the article doesn't specifically call out
"does not include family plan". You are being silly.
The article does not need to "limit context" - the context is what is in the article! You can't expand it based on what is not there/what you want to project into it. Your reading comprehension is very odd.
You say " the IMPLICATION is every that Sprint is cheaper
Well Mike, the good news is that we are making some headway.
>I am not letting you get dragged back in;
Re: dragged in, you read to much into it; you obviously cannot let it go, for whatever reason.
Again, you have not shown me to misrepresent your statements. You claim that I have, but I have not, and you have no proof. Now, I have summarized you points, but they are not misrepresentations. Let's stay away from the big words; there's only truth, lies, fact, opinion, and context. I have not stated any lies about your opinions.
You keep waffling on the article - either it is true in it's context, or not. You agree that the main point is true (cheaper individual plans), but then say the author did not "qualify" it to exclude family plans. The author does not have to qualify it, as it is apparent in the article this is comparing a single phone/plan.
I am not "qualifying" the article for the author. I am reading the article as it, as would anyone with a reasonable grasp of reading comprehension. I am sorry, but it is your who are having a difficult time reading the article at face value.
You state the author used individual data, but then did not limit the scope to individual plans. Um, if the data is individual, the scope is individual. The author does not need to limit scope - this is an article in a blog, not an experimental design. Your expectation that he does is silly.
Moreover, stating that you "are not required" to use the graphic as part of the context of the article is so intellectually dishonest, it borders on being a troll. Really, you say you are "too old" for this, but you are acting silly trying to pass that kind of horse pucky. The graphic goes with the article and supports the article. It supports the point about the "scope" you are so zealous about. Just because it skewered your main argument is not a good reason to ignore it.
I apologize for saying "majority", because I did not qualify it related to "a majority of family plan owners..that shape the market". That was a mistake, and I should have said "significant".
As for apples to apples, it's very easy - the article did that. But when you want to got through every scenario, then it becomes a challenge - and that is outside the context of the article.
Again, the fact are very clear. The context of the article is clear. The graphic makes it clear.
Article = correct
You debating the scope = incorrect.
This is like a person ordering a bowl of tomato soup at a restaurant, and complaining that it's not made from organic beefsteak tomatoes, and cream from goat's milk, which is what you prefer. The menu says "tomato soup". Most reasonable people will this means "soup from some sort of tomato, and maybe some cream (dairy/cow).
But then you start arguing that the menu is "wrong" and "not limiting the scope".
If you can't see how silly you are being, I feel bad for you, because you must be disappointed quite often in life.
>you obviously cannot let it go, for whatever reason.
The character flaw is not that you don't like being misrepresented, but rather you can't believe that your opinion is not relevant to the article. So you attack the article, even though all the facts as presented are true.
Silly, silly, and more silly.
You said "I think the individual everything plans offered by Sprint are a steal!" That is the same point as the article. Therefore you agree with the article. To say otherwise the waffling to which I alluded.
BTW, your comments are rife with assertions that are not true. You claim to be a "VERY heavy" data user, with 60MB a month. That is not heavy. I use 100MB a month, and I would consider myself to be average to heavy. VERY heavy would be 1GB range. When you spoke about your daughter's use you said "Anytime Minutes 5", and then got on my case when I mentioned a texting only plan, you said they use Mobile-to-mobile minutes quite a bit to talk with you/wife.
Again, I can only respond to the information you provide...just like you can only respond to the article based on what it states.
Look, if you want to insulting my English skills, I think anyone reading this would say we are both literate. You just like to read things into things/take it out of context to fit your warped view of "being right" (my words, not yours). That is a character flaw, no doubt. I apologized for my (single) mistake, and yet you cannot even accept that, or show me a specific other. You are being petty.
You said "That the article is in a blog really has no bearing on the issue. Either it is correct or it isn't". Two things:
1.) it is true and 2.) you obviously don't understand what I meant by experimental design, which could be an indicator that never you went past high school. Nothing wrong with that, just that it explains why you don't understand what I am saying.
You wrote "if you look at the graphic, you can clearly see that the pictures are used to tell one phone from another. In fact, the bulk of the data has to do with phone specific features - not plan details. So I don't really see how you think this alone should limit the scope of the article."
Except that the three top lines of the matrix refer to cost!
This is the crux of your whole issue - cost. Ignoring this fact does not make it go away. It is getting tiresome to have to explain this over and over.
You said "I think it is clear, as you state, that author only considered individual plans. (Just to head of future 'errors' or 'summaries', this does not mean I agree with the article.) But that is the problem. I don't see how you can't see it. The data used was limited, but the article(s) failed to qualify the scope. This is what makes it inaccurate"
Once again, the scope is clear, as stated above. The article is accurate. You can disagree, but you are wrong. Your ego cannot accept it, which is starting to get funnier by the minute (albeit tiresome.)
Re: you Time example, you are really being stupid. There has never, ever been a auto review or comparison that does not show city and highway mileage. Really, this is getting quite trollish.
As David Warner said so well, you are so mercifully free of the ravages of intelligence.