For now, but none of us has the details of what I am sure are ongoing negotiations between ST and ATT. They may reach a deal and the ST ATT SIMs may become available again.
I don't know if this illegal, but at best, it's unethical.
- Thread starter I_AM_THE_ENTIRE_INTERNET
- Start date
That's not price gouging. Amazon can offer the bag at a lower cost due to it not having brick and mortar stores and all the expenses that come with them. Best Buy's price reflects its higher operating expenses. Many people would rather pay more for something if they can look at it in a store, particularly something like a laptop bag, and buy it right then so they can use it that day rather than wait for it to be shipped. And they are willing to pay more for the ability to do that.
If that weren't true, then no one would buy the $50 laptop bags at Best Buy and Best Buy would have to lower their price.
No one said anything like that and no one said anything random or pseudo-intellectual except for you. What I and the other posters were trying to teach you is merely Macroeconomics 101.
There are multiple sellers of these SIM cards on ebay. Also, keep in mind those who bought them took a risk that ST and ATT would resolve their contract issues and then their SIM cards would be worth no more than the price they paid for them.
The bottom line here is that you didn't do your research before you convinced your grandmother to hop on the smartphone train. You are lucky that you can even get one of these SIMs at any price right now.
Just pay the $90 and buy your grandmother the SIM off of ebay and consider the $75 difference the price of a lesson learned.
If people are willing to pay $90 for the sim, that doesn't mean the eBay sellers are gouging, it means that ST underpriced their sevice. Now, that could have been on purpose as a loss leader or it could have been a misreading of the market, but either way you can't fault the resellers.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Android Central Forums
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Android Central Forums
Good point. This is obviously true as the OP is willing to pay the $90 for a SIM in order to get $45 a month ATT service.
I think that is the root of the issue between ST and ATT, too - ATT underpriced their contract with ST allowing ST to underprice their service.
In the end, capitalism works better than any of the alternatives.
I'll break this down step by step for you so you can see the pointlessness in this type of Capitalism
1. Straight Talk sells their ATT SIM cards for 14.95
2. They have a contractual dispute with ATT and the creation of the ATT SIMs stop.
3. A few Ebay/Amazon power users get wind of this information, buy out ST's stock of ATT SIMS
4. Now those power users control the value of said SIM cards
The SIMs didn't increase in value for any natural, economic reason. They increased in value because shady people, with no regard for common decency, make their money taking advantage of a disputs between legitimate companies. Those cards could have absolutely been sold out at the original price. What these vultures did is one step above robbery. It's the most vile legal behavior I can think of. It may be hard to recognize how slimy this behavior is when looking at if from a distance, but if you could somehow see this situation take place right in front of you, you'd easily be able to recognize the people you'd never trust. .
dchawk81
Well-known member
- Sep 5, 2010
- 618
- 31
- 0
I'd be interested to know if this could be activated on ST's AT&T service, or due to the contract dispute if ST is only activating on Tmo's network.
...........anyway, I think there comes a point where the discussion becomes redundant. Even if there were price gougers and/or power sellers, I don't think it is that big of a problem. It is just one of the prices we pay to have no contract phones and sims available and to have secondary markets like ebay where regular people can buy and sell products. The power sellers will be intermixed but even they can time the market wrong and get stuck with a lot of worthless product. I think by this point in time micro sims would have been sold out anyway by natural stock depletion. I'd much rather have ebay available than not, and I wouldn't want to live in Mao's China or Stalin's Soviet Union.
I think what should be a larger concern to the community is the lack of carriers out there for no contract Nexus 4 owners. Other than Tmo and its MVNOs, and now I guess Net10, and maybe a few other AT&T MVNOs that I don't know about, it doesn't seem like there are all that many viable no contract options out there. If ST is not going to be an option anymore then we all get hurt.
I fully understand the facts of the situation. You are just refusing to accept or don't understand basic macroeconomic principals. You are angry because you missed out on a deal and now have to pay more. And instead of blaming yourself, you call people sinister, shady, sleazey, slimy vultures when they are not.
Call it a contract dispute in the broadest sense, but what it boils down to is trying to accurately determine the price the consumer is willing to pay for use of the ATT network. It's what business do every day - try to accurately price their services to maximize their profits. At least those businesses that have any hope of survival.
How about if I use an analogy to another non-necessity? Let's say a famous artist, Mr X, dies. While alive he was able to get $5000 for a painting and so prices the paintings in his art gallery at $5000 each. Once he dies, an art collector realizes that Mr. X won't be producing any more paintings and buys all of the paintings in Mr. X's art gallery for $5000 each. The art collector then turns around and offers the paintings for sale for $10,000 each. Is the art collector a sinister, shady, sleazy, slimy vulture?
You are angry because you didn't act fast enough and missed out on a deal that no longer exists. That is what is going on here.
And since people will buy them off of ebay at $90 a pop, that means ST underpriced their SIM cards given the value of their monthly fees.
Contractual dispute understates the issue. It sounds like what happened here is that ATT saw the large influx of ST users due to Google underpricing the Nexus 4 and realized that they were underpricing their network capacity and upped the price they charge ST. ST then looked at their costs and decided it wasn't profitable enough for them at that price to continue to take on new subscribers who wanted to use the ATT network.
Call it a contract dispute in the broadest sense, but what it boils down to is trying to accurately determine the price the consumer is willing to pay for use of the ATT network. It's what business do every day - try to accurately price their services to maximize their profits. At least those businesses that have any hope of survival.
Actually, the consumers of those cards control the price. If no one would buy the ST SIMs at $90, the sellers would have to lower the price of the ST SIMs. Moreover, the reason you are willing to pay $90 for the SIM is because $45 a month for the ATT network is underpriced. It is not like ST ATT service is a basic necessity of life that you will die if you can't have. You want it and you have a price that you will pay for it and that price is $45/month + $299 for a Nexus 4 + $90 for a SIM card.
How about if I use an analogy to another non-necessity? Let's say a famous artist, Mr X, dies. While alive he was able to get $5000 for a painting and so prices the paintings in his art gallery at $5000 each. Once he dies, an art collector realizes that Mr. X won't be producing any more paintings and buys all of the paintings in Mr. X's art gallery for $5000 each. The art collector then turns around and offers the paintings for sale for $10,000 each. Is the art collector a sinister, shady, sleazy, slimy vulture?
They increased in value because their supply became limited. That is about as basic of an economic reason as you can get. Doesn't get any more basic than that when it comes to economics.
Obviously you have never taken a college Macroeconomics 101 class. If you had, you would realize how ridiculous this statement is.
You are angry because you didn't act fast enough and missed out on a deal that no longer exists. That is what is going on here.
It's far from pointless. It is how the market forces interact to determine price.
Last edited:
Another possibility that nobody has mentioned. ST might not have even run out of stock. ST simply may have STOPPED selling existing stock when the contract dispute arose. If that is the case, then the ebay sellers are performing a vital service by keeping stock available.
Agreed. The fewer the carriers, the more we are stuck with oligopoly pricing. But it takes Congress and the Administration through the DOJ to act on this. I think the problem is that you can get low cost telephone/text services. The issue is getting low cost, fast speed, unlimited wireless data service, and no one (except maybe the OP) sees it as a travesty of justice that low cost, fast speed, unlimited wireless data services is not widely available to all who want it.
dchawk81
Well-known member
- Sep 5, 2010
- 618
- 31
- 0
It's an AT&T SIM to replace a bad AT&T SIM.
Now that I think about it, that probably made me an exception...ie already owning a card.
But what about this awesome free-market you were talking about? Surely AT&T and Verizon will do what's best? I do see it as a travesty of justice. Especially when the infrastructure required for telecommunication can't exactly be rebuilt. The companies that own the United States' telecommunication infrastructure answer to no one. Even if some other company wants to build a more efficient, mobile broadband network, they can't. That space is already owned. So unfortunately we are stuck with the same companies we have had for eons. The companies that somehow put limits on "unlimited data." The same companies that use bullish tactics to force out potential competitors. The same companies that refuse to offer reasonable contracts and any contract they do offer comes married with a early termination fee.
Things can be better. Google has shown us that an iPhone-quality (I'm speaking of the iPhone's build; its solidness) smartphone doesn't have to be $700. Mobile broadband technology can improve faster and the only thing in its way are a few companies with too much control of the infrastructure.
dchawk81
Well-known member
- Sep 5, 2010
- 618
- 31
- 0
You can always go with AT&T direct.
No one owes you cheap service. You keep confusing justice with entitlement.
Oligopoly pricing prevents free market forces from acting properly. It is considered a market failure and is a valid reason for regulating a market. If you had taken Macroeconomics 101 you would know that.
SOLGarion
Well-known member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 221
- 0
- 16
OP came on here to be told he was right and the resellers are wrong. He was told he was wrong and arguments commenced. Due to these 8 pages of discussion it is clear
1) The OP doesn't understand business ethics, or economics. I don't think those words mean what he thinks they mean.
2) Just because you didn't get what you wanted and are annoyed doesn't make it illegal, or even unethical. I agree it is annoying, but it is a large leap to decree it should be illegal.
3) Just saying it used to be 15, now people are selling for 90, does not make it unethical. Annoying yes, unethical no. If something was going for $90 bucks for whatever reason and somebody sold it for less, that isn't ethical, it's bad business. If you had a sealed copy of a rare Nintendo game that wasn't available anymore would it be unethical to sell it for $200? I mean it was only $50 when toys r us sold it. The ST AT&T Sim is not sold anymore.
4) Taking advantage of publically available information to make a profit is not unethical, even if you missed that same information.
5) Just because you assume something, stock of Sim cards, chance of restocking, any deal between ST, AT&T, and Walmart, doesn't make you right.
6) Despite which generation invented what part of the smartphone, chances are OP had nothing to do with it and wants credit for his generations accomplishments, which obviously is a debate unto itself.
7) When someone tells you you are wrong, and then tells you why, calling them a pseudo-intellectual is not a good defense/counterpoint. When someone takes the time to explain in a logical manner and that is your response it comes off as less than intelligent.
8) Everyone had the same chance to buy a product that is now discontinued as the sellers you are complaining about did. Sounds fair.
9) Because they are no longer made the Sims would always eventually run out and price would rise. Just because they sold out before you could buy them doesn't make it unethical. Finite number. No matter what they would sell out and the price would rise on eBay as long as demand was there. Economics. You felt wrong due to some entitlement and thus see a business decision as unethical. Not what that word means.
Just someone who wanted people to be mad at sellers with them because they misinformed their grandmother. Nothing to see here.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Android Central Forums
1) The OP doesn't understand business ethics, or economics. I don't think those words mean what he thinks they mean.
2) Just because you didn't get what you wanted and are annoyed doesn't make it illegal, or even unethical. I agree it is annoying, but it is a large leap to decree it should be illegal.
3) Just saying it used to be 15, now people are selling for 90, does not make it unethical. Annoying yes, unethical no. If something was going for $90 bucks for whatever reason and somebody sold it for less, that isn't ethical, it's bad business. If you had a sealed copy of a rare Nintendo game that wasn't available anymore would it be unethical to sell it for $200? I mean it was only $50 when toys r us sold it. The ST AT&T Sim is not sold anymore.
4) Taking advantage of publically available information to make a profit is not unethical, even if you missed that same information.
5) Just because you assume something, stock of Sim cards, chance of restocking, any deal between ST, AT&T, and Walmart, doesn't make you right.
6) Despite which generation invented what part of the smartphone, chances are OP had nothing to do with it and wants credit for his generations accomplishments, which obviously is a debate unto itself.
7) When someone tells you you are wrong, and then tells you why, calling them a pseudo-intellectual is not a good defense/counterpoint. When someone takes the time to explain in a logical manner and that is your response it comes off as less than intelligent.
8) Everyone had the same chance to buy a product that is now discontinued as the sellers you are complaining about did. Sounds fair.
9) Because they are no longer made the Sims would always eventually run out and price would rise. Just because they sold out before you could buy them doesn't make it unethical. Finite number. No matter what they would sell out and the price would rise on eBay as long as demand was there. Economics. You felt wrong due to some entitlement and thus see a business decision as unethical. Not what that word means.
Just someone who wanted people to be mad at sellers with them because they misinformed their grandmother. Nothing to see here.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Android Central Forums
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram