Poll: Did Sprint drop the ball on pricing??

Did they drop the ball?


  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .

Aero

Well-known member
Jun 21, 2010
238
18
0
Visit site
This is not a $600 device. It is a $200-$250ish device. That is what Sprint pays for it when they buy from Samsung.

I can tell you have never seen a balance sheet concerning Sprint, ATT or Verizon, never read any of the trade press on the industry or handset producers, and haven't the SLIGHTEST idea what you re talking about.

Thees phones are all sold subsidized at massive loses.
 

ben7337

Well-known member
Jul 23, 2010
48
2
0
Visit site
I can tell you have never seen a balance sheet concerning Sprint, ATT or Verizon, never read any of the trade press on the industry or handset producers, and haven't the SLIGHTEST idea what you re talking about.

Thees phones are all sold subsidized at massive loses.

This is very true. The phone in PARTS might cost Samsung $200-$250 to make. However you have to realize samsung put R&D into the device, and the actual manufacturing process costs money. I'd bet that they sell this phone to sprint for $450-$500. Granted I don't know much either and am just making my assumptions. Since sprint won't let the phone go for $500 without being tied to a contract though, there is a chance even that price is selling it at a loss for them, or at the very least, no profit.
 

drizek

Well-known member
Jul 2, 2010
434
2
0
Visit site
I can tell you have never seen a balance sheet concerning Sprint, ATT or Verizon, never read any of the trade press on the industry or handset producers, and haven't the SLIGHTEST idea what you re talking about.

Thees phones are all sold subsidized at massive loses.

I know sprint loses money every quarter, and I know they take an up front hit when they give most phones away for less than a hundred and fifty bucks or so. But none of that justifies the price of the epic.

They do not take a loss when they sell it for $500, and whatever they lose by selling it for $250 they more than make up for in bs fees right off the bat. Activation, upgrade, and 4G.
 

Ilmater

Active member
Jun 6, 2010
33
0
0
Visit site
The ipad is $500. The ipod touch is $200. There is no way that the epic costs $700. $250 is a good estimate IMO, but Keith says that it is actually a bit more. Keep in mind that Apple makes money selling them at these prices.

Sent From My Samsung Intercept
Drizek, you're the cockiest, rudest poster in this whole thread, which is hilarious when you're so clearly ignorant.

First, you say that the Epic can't cost $700 when the iPad is $500. Why not? Do you know how much a Super AMOLED screen costs? Do you know how much of a MASSIVE volume discount Apple gets for its products because it can order several million units from the outset? Sprint will sell a fraction as many Epics, so obviously Samsung will charge more per device. Plus, as someone else said, there's a 4G chip in it, which Samsung not only has to buy, but also build into the software.

Second, you mention that Apple makes a profit on their iPad as if they're the only one. Are you not clear that Samsung will charge a premium as well? They have to make FAR MORE per device than Apple does because they make more devices and sell fewer of each one, therefore costs are higher for every device.

You're so arrogant and sarcastic, and yet you fail to see the many things that completely contradict your flawed logic.
 

Ilmater

Active member
Jun 6, 2010
33
0
0
Visit site
The hummingbird is better, but not by much. We're talking about a few dollars difference in manufacturing costs.

The ipad has amazing hardware and build quality. Huge battery, huge, really nice IPS display, and the glass and aluminum casing.

Moreover, Samsung manufactures many of the parts themselves, so they can get them at low prices.



Sent From My Samsung Intercept
Again, not true. First off, build quality costs nothing. It's simply a matter of making the right decisions on which parts to buy. Normally, retooling a machine to churn out the frame of a phone or tablet is a big part of the cost. The raw materials are cheap. Samsung comes in and says, "Well, we'll order a few hundred thousand, and then we'll come back when we need more." Apple walks in and says, "We can guarantee that this entire factory will produce nothing but iPad backs for a year, and if they're solid, you'll get the contract for the next one as well, so your R&D costs are almost nothing." HUGE, HUGE advantage in costs there.

As for many parts being Samsung parts, yes, you're right. But let's look at the display for example. They spent months or years on the technology behind it, they spent lots of man-hours getting the manufacturing of those parts just right, and now they need to make x amount of money on them to recoup what they spent, knowing that technologies like that are always changing. It's a brand new device, so even if it might be cheaper later, the first versions of it will be expensive. Same goes for the CPU. They made them, and they can give themselves a good deal on them, but each part has to be profitable on its own. They're not going to come up with a cost for the device as a whole that includes no profit for their chip department and their screen department.

As for the iPad, IPS displays have been around forever, very little R&D costs to recoup for those. Much cheaper than a Super AMOLED display. Aluminum isn't that expensive, and again, if you can guarantee massive production runs, the margins from the manufacturer can be low, and the cost to Apple is very low.
 

Ilmater

Active member
Jun 6, 2010
33
0
0
Visit site
They do not take a loss when they sell it for $500, and whatever they lose by selling it for $250 they more than make up for in bs fees right off the bat. Activation, upgrade, and 4G.
This is my last comment as you're not worth the time to type.

If you believe that part I bolded above, then you obviously don't understand handset pricing, and should consider learning how the industry works before commenting.
 

Darth Pooh#CB

Well-known member
Oct 22, 2009
507
2
0
Visit site
Sprint STILL takes a loss at $500. Why? Because they are probably paying in the $600 dollar range per device... now you ask why would Sprint STILL subsidize a non-contracted device?

Simple: They know after X amount of months they made up their small subsidy; regardless of whether the device made it to the gray market or not (especially now with the 4G fee).

I don't have numbers and never will. However, people who say the device costs Samsung $130 to manufacture is only looking at websites like teardown where you get RAW information of parts. As stated TIME AND TIME again... R&D is the real cost here. Sprint is paying for it, not us. FYI, Samsung is also making AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon pick up their R&D costs, so they really are making a killing here.

Can we try to keep this thread a little more civil? It's not going to get far simply because minds aren't going to be moved / changed; people will hold on to falsehoods tightly. Getting angry about them will only make it worse.
 

Aero

Well-known member
Jun 21, 2010
238
18
0
Visit site
They do not take a loss when they sell it for $500, and whatever they lose by selling it for $250 they more than make up for in bs fees right off the bat. Activation, upgrade, and 4G.

have you aNY idea how laughable your post is?

They make it up "off the bat?" You mean the $18 activation fee, whcih since almost no one pays for probably amounts to $2 per hone makes up for the $300 to $250 subsidies? $250=$2?

So none of the 4G fee goes to building a 4g network? where is that money coming from?

You don't want to pay the 10% more for the phone or the 3% more it really costs you over your contract ? Don't buy it. It will outsell the epic by a mile.
 

frontrunner11

Member
Jun 19, 2010
14
0
0
Visit site
it sucks that sprint cares more about making it easier to afford for people to switch over from another carrier, rather than making it more affordable for the customers they already have (esp. premier customers). but if people don't like the price, i say wait and pray that that ridiculous price drops down in a few months. no one NEEDS this phone so badly that they can't wait for it.
 

mikachu

Well-known member
Jul 30, 2010
109
1
0
Visit site
it sucks that sprint cares more about making it easier to afford for people to switch over from another carrier, rather than making it more affordable for the customers they already have (esp. premier customers). but if people don't like the price, i say wait and pray that that ridiculous price drops down in a few months. no one NEEDS this phone so badly that they can't wait for it.

Actually I think most of the people on this subforum cant wait. Heck, they are having trouble waiting 2 weeks till release day :)
 

Aero

Well-known member
Jun 21, 2010
238
18
0
Visit site
it sucks that sprint cares more about making it easier to afford for people to switch over from another carrier, rather than making it more affordable for the customers they already have (esp. premier customers). but if people don't like the price, i say wait and pray that that ridiculous price drops down in a few months. no one NEEDS this phone so badly that they can't wait for it.

If you work for a company where there is a 27% discount as a new customer you get a massively better deal than a person who has had sprint and paid their bill for 10 years if yo don't know how to work sprint escalations.

Sprint has changed its corporate culture from rewarding existing customers to penalizing them over the past three or four years.

So I don't get the focus on the most trivial aspect, +/- $50 on $1700 worth of handset and service most are concentrating on here. handset priecs have always been a distraction for rubes from the big picture.

Even the one beads to the indians sprint touts, Premier customer, is bogus. The epic "premier benefit" is a perfect example. the secret "special" Epic preorder sign up for Premier email occurred AFTER the anybody and their sister sign up!
 

turtleparadise

Well-known member
Jul 13, 2010
78
1
0
Visit site
My brother is not a huge tech person and has never owned a smartphone, but on my suggestion he decided to go for the Epic 4g despite the extra $50 that a lot of people are complaining about. He said that he would rather pay an extra $50 for a better phone. For him the extra cost up front did not stop him from pre-ordering this phone.
That brings me to today. He went to Best Buy to pre-order the Epic and he was the first one to do so at that location. He lives in a 4g city, so I'm torn on whether or not the price is a big deal.
 

Ilmater

Active member
Jun 6, 2010
33
0
0
Visit site
it sucks that sprint cares more about making it easier to afford for people to switch over from another carrier, rather than making it more affordable for the customers they already have (esp. premier customers). but if people don't like the price, i say wait and pray that that ridiculous price drops down in a few months. no one NEEDS this phone so badly that they can't wait for it.
Sprint has done more (to your point, Premier) than any other carrier in the industry to try and make deals as good for current customers as they are for new customers. However, because Sprint pays 3rd party retailers a commission for bringing in new customers, some of them pass on a part of that money to the customer in the form of a lower handset price. That's great of them to do, but there's no way Sprint can possibly start giving commission on upgrades to current customers.

So I think saying that Sprint "cares more about making it more affordable for the customers they already have" is unfair, and untrue. I challenge you to tell me how to make the economics work of paying 3rd party retailers commission on handset upgrades. Verizon said last month that they upgrade almost 9% of their base every month, which means they sell a handset upgrade to a current customer more than twice as often as they get a new customer. Do you think they could suddenly start paying $100 more (it's more than that, I'm being conservative) for over 2 million upgrades ($2.4B per year) and not charge customers more? Nothing is telling you that you can't upgrade every two years and move carriers every time, but for the carrier, the math just can't work.
 

Ilmater

Active member
Jun 6, 2010
33
0
0
Visit site
If you work for a company where there is a 27% discount as a new customer you get a massively better deal than a person who has had sprint and paid their bill for 10 years if yo don't know how to work sprint escalations.

Sprint has changed its corporate culture from rewarding existing customers to penalizing them over the past three or four years.

So I don't get the focus on the most trivial aspect, +/- $50 on $1700 worth of handset and service most are concentrating on here. handset priecs have always been a distraction for rubes from the big picture.

Even the one beads to the indians sprint touts, Premier customer, is bogus. The epic "premier benefit" is a perfect example. the secret "special" Epic preorder sign up for Premier email occurred AFTER the anybody and their sister sign up!
Sprint has the best loyalty program in the industry, and I remember 4 years ago there used to be different (more expensive) pricing for current customers vs. new customers. To say that Sprint is worse now than then is just untrue. Premier launched about a year and a half ago (if memory serves), and that certainly was a big move to be more friendly to current customers over new ones.
 

Darth Pooh#CB

Well-known member
Oct 22, 2009
507
2
0
Visit site
Sprint has done more (to your point, Premier) than any other carrier in the industry to try and make deals as good for current customers as they are for new customers. However, because Sprint pays 3rd party retailers a commission for bringing in new customers, some of them pass on a part of that money to the customer in the form of a lower handset price. That's great of them to do, but there's no way Sprint can possibly start giving commission on upgrades to current customers.

So I think saying that Sprint "cares more about making it more affordable for the customers they already have" is unfair, and untrue. I challenge you to tell me how to make the economics work of paying 3rd party retailers commission on handset upgrades. Verizon said last month that they upgrade almost 9% of their base every month, which means they sell a handset upgrade to a current customer more than twice as often as they get a new customer. Do you think they could suddenly start paying $100 more (it's more than that, I'm being conservative) for over 2 million upgrades ($2.4B per year) and not charge customers more? Nothing is telling you that you can't upgrade every two years and move carriers every time, but for the carrier, the math just can't work.

Misinformed post. Sprint DOES pay commission sales to upgrades (for customers out of contract); as a matter of fact, most 3rd party retailers will try harder to get a customer upgraded more than a new line of service sometimes. Why you ask? Simple... they are already a customer, so while the commission might be lower, they are a better guarantee of payment than a new line of service (which has that 30 days of fee-free to new customers, making it no risk to boot).
 

Aero

Well-known member
Jun 21, 2010
238
18
0
Visit site
Sprint has the best loyalty program in the industry, .
Simply untrue, they have the worst.

You missed my example on "premier" for epic whcih everyone can see on this very forum. Premier customers in fact get ZERO advantage. Itis a marketing scheme.

There is literally zero advantage to being an exiting customer with sprint for anything.
 

Aero

Well-known member
Jun 21, 2010
238
18
0
Visit site
I challenge you to tell me how to make the

whoa, sprint is FAMOUS for letting thrid parity sellers of new contracts get away with murder. much lower handset prices than avialable to existing customers (even under new customer pricing) and third party Sprint sellers are allowed routinely pitch and give ineligible plan discounts to new customers without any penalty from Sprint. Examples woudl be treo pro 2 for $199 from authorized 3d party sellers when out of contract renewing sprint Premier customers were paying $350 etc.
 

happasaiyan

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2010
428
0
0
Visit site
Simply untrue, they have the worst.

You missed my example on "premier" for epic whcih everyone can see on this very forum. Premier customers in fact get ZERO advantage. Itis a marketing scheme.

There is literally zero advantage to being an exiting customer with sprint for anything.
what other carrier provides full upgrade discounts after one year?
 

drizek

Well-known member
Jul 2, 2010
434
2
0
Visit site
Sprint STILL takes a loss at $500. Why? Because they are probably paying in the $600 dollar range per device... now you ask why would Sprint STILL subsidize a non-contracted device?

Simple: They know after X amount of months they made up their small subsidy; regardless of whether the device made it to the gray market or not (especially now with the 4G fee).

I don't have numbers and never will. However, people who say the device costs Samsung $130 to manufacture is only looking at websites like teardown where you get RAW information of parts. As stated TIME AND TIME again... R&D is the real cost here. Sprint is paying for it, not us. FYI, Samsung is also making AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon pick up their R&D costs, so they really are making a killing here.

Can we try to keep this thread a little more civil? It's not going to get far simply because minds aren't going to be moved / changed; people will hold on to falsehoods tightly. Getting angry about them will only make it worse.

I'm only interested in what sprint pays, not so much the manufacturing costs or R&D.

Does sprint pay R&D on the Epic customizations straight out of pocket to Samsung? I guess they pay money for ads, but they advertise the he'll out of the evo, so that can't account for the price difference on its own.

If so, I think everone at AT&T and TMobile should be fired instantly. They paid money to build a phone with fewer features than the standard model GS, all in some useless attempt to differentiate themselves. I'm assuming Samsung would have just shipped vanilla GS to all carriers.

Anyway, you wont/can't give numbers, so let's look at it by proxy. Let's look at the price of the galaxy S tablet. Then let's look at the price of an unlocked European GS. Ideally I would like to see sprint's actual pricing, but this info doesn't seem to leak very often.

By the way, I already bought the phone. I don't have too much of a problem with the price, all I'm saying is that Sprint would have sold a LOT more at $199, and that they could have made the numbers work. If I was samsung, I would be pretty pissed about the pricing, and especially pissed if the delay was sprints fault.

Sent From My Samsung Intercept
 

Trending Posts

Forum statistics

Threads
942,403
Messages
6,913,918
Members
3,158,398
Latest member
Chelrie