Verizon has three options.
1 pay full cost up front, bill will be x.
2 pay full cost over 24 months + $2 power month. Bill will be x+(cost/24)+2 - financing
3 Pay subsidy price and sign contract, bill will be x
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
Nexus 4 vs S4
- Thread starter Zendroid1
- Start date
Verizon has three options.
1 pay full cost up front, bill will be x.
2 pay full cost over 24 months + $2 power month. Bill will be x+(cost/24)+2 - financing
3 Pay subsidy price and sign contract, bill will be x
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
I understand the excuses they are using. I do not agree with the excuses. Having used both types of phones, I do not see any significant performance differences with regards to storage. I think the main reason they removed it was to push their cloud crap, and I do not want to use the damn cloud.
I have seen zero legitimate reasons to remove SD support.
The point of option 3 is to cover the full cost of the phone. I have seen no evidence you will end up paying less for the phone...in fact you will probably end up paying more.
The monthly price of the bill isn't different if you have a contract or not with options 1 and 3. The only time your price is higher with a cheaper phone is in option 2, which is the same as the t-mobile plan you described. It sounds like T-mobile switched to a plan where they only have options 1 and 2, doing away with option 3.
- - - Updated - - -
That's true in some cases, but not on Verizon. Your bill doesn't change if you subsidize or pay outright. They aggregate subsidy costs over all consumers in their normal rate plans.
Uh huh
http://www.droid-life.com/2012/04/02/monday-poll-sd-card-slots-will-you-survice-without-them/
I do not know a single person with a phone with SD support that does not use it. And I know dozens of Android users. Any poll where you ask "would you rather have SD support" you will always see more people wanting it than not. In my years of experience with SD cards, I have never had a single problem with reliability...my desktop PC has been far less reliable.
I would argue this simply means Verizon is ripping you off, not that you are getting a break on the full cost of your phone.
If we use an example of a $65/month plan and a $500 device, and the down payment for a financed phone is $100 and the subsidized price is $150, the various options break down as follows:
1. Monthly bill is $65*24 months = $1560 + $500 device = $2060 $350 more expensive than subsidized phone, $48 less than the financed phone (because of $2 charge per month over 24 months)
2. Monthly bill is ($65+$2+$16.67)*24 = $2008 + $100 down = $2108 MOST expensive by $402
3. Monthly bill is $65*24 months = $1560 + $150 device = $1710 LEAST expensive, saves $350 from buying outright
As per above example, it's much cheaper to have a subsidized phone over 24 months than it is to buy it outright or finance the phone. You're right, it is a ripoff to those that buy it outright to pay the aggregated cost of those that do not, but it also makes things much more simple and encourages people to sign contracts, which is what Verizon wants. $350 is worth it to them to know that revenue will be there (minus predictable fallout). T-Mobile's plan is better in this way, because if you buy the phone outright, you're actually saving money ( in the case of the Nexus 4) and in every case your monthly recurring charges are lower. T-Mobile just did away with the part of the game where they'd pay for part of your device and made a more balanced system for their customers.
This is why I started by suggesting that you meant T-Mobile is financing your phone, not subsidizing it.
All I can say is, whatever you want to call it, T-Mobile's method will appeal to a lot more people IMO. Your contract is basically only as long as you want it to be, and you can still make payments on your phone.
For me, this means I am able to upgrade once a year instead of every two years. There is no easy way to do that on Verizon...you are trapped for the term of your contract, unless you bribe them to let you out.
For me, this means I am able to upgrade once a year instead of every two years. There is no easy way to do that on Verizon...you are trapped for the term of your contract, unless you bribe them to let you out.
This part I agree with, it's an awesome plan. I wish T-Mobile existed in more places to make it more available. The idea that your bill goes does when you're not paying for a phone is common sense.
Verizon implemented this in the same way, but left the subsidy with contract as an option as well. If you finance, you pay more for the device without extending your contract and once it's paid for, your bill goes down. If you subsidize, you have to sign a contract, your monthly bill remains the same when it expires and you save money equivalent to $10-$20 per month, but you're locked in to the contract in order to get that discount. Or you can buy it outright up front, does not extend your contract and you have the same bill you would have if you had a subsidized phone. I think having the subsidy appeals to some people, but like you I'd rather go with buying it outright or financing it, because I've never kept a phone for two full years.
Having more flexibility is awesome and T-Mobile led the way on this one; as far as I know only Sprint does not have the finance option available now.
Assuming that Verizon had the same phone, same rate plan, etc as T-Mobile (we know that's not true, but to make this oranges to oranges), the charts below show that there are only two differences. One, on T-Mobile, it doesn't cost you extra to finance like it does on Verizon. Two, T-Mobile no longer has a Subsidy option. This means the only way to save money with T-Mobile is to buy a device for cheaper than T-Mobile's device from somewhere else and bring it to their plan, such as the Nexus 4 being cheaper on the Play Store. On Verizon, you can save a similar or greater amount by signing a contract, but then you're locked in and are on a 2 year cycle, instead of a 6 or 12 month cycle like some people want.
Attachments
- Aug 22, 2011
- 2,087
- 6
- 0
Well I thought I was sold on getting the S4 Google Edition but I'm still second guessing myself.
I still love the look and vanilla goodness of the N4 (I think it's the most aesthetically pleasing phone out there), I love the screen and camera on the reg s4 in addition to a few of the Touchwiz features, but the vanilla goodness of the S4 GE is very appealing too.
I really do want updates and updates fast. Do you think updates will be available on the regular S4 quickly if you root? I know the S4 will probably get 4.3 a few months after the N4.
But then again I only plan to keep whatever phone I decide to get until the N5 comes out (if it does?).
Argghhhhh options are good and bad haha
I still love the look and vanilla goodness of the N4 (I think it's the most aesthetically pleasing phone out there), I love the screen and camera on the reg s4 in addition to a few of the Touchwiz features, but the vanilla goodness of the S4 GE is very appealing too.
I really do want updates and updates fast. Do you think updates will be available on the regular S4 quickly if you root? I know the S4 will probably get 4.3 a few months after the N4.
But then again I only plan to keep whatever phone I decide to get until the N5 comes out (if it does?).
Argghhhhh options are good and bad haha
I think it's very likely 3rd party developers will use updates to the ge to get fast aosp ROMs out to the regular versions extremely fast. If you want the true, "best of both worlds", I'd recommend regular, because you can always flash stock.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
It will get the latest android update according to Google.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
It's not that no one wants them, although most people don't know what they are... Its that there are or will be much better solutions. This is like being upset that your bluray player doesn't include vhs. Sure it could, and someone might make it... And if they do, people might buy it. Does it help technology evolve to do so?
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
The vast majority of people, if given a choice, would rather have it than not. Regardless of whether or not they use it. It is always seen as an asset. From an end-user perspective, there is no downside to having the option to expand storage.
So far I have not seen any better solutions.. There is no other expandable storage that is as cheap or ubiquitous as SD. Preventing us from having SD is a sloppy Apple-like solution.
Removing options will not make technology evolve. We should use SD until something better becomes available. Taking away our options is not going to make something better magically appear.
Last edited:
Something better does exist, and a myriad of options. There are OTG cables to use flash drives/thumbsticks, wireless external drives, cloud backup, etc. Any of these or a combination of these can provide a better experience. Really, who cares about a 32GB or 64GB SD card that can be destroyed by the phone because of buggy software, when you can have 3TB available that's just as portable? I don't need 3 TB, but some people might. Dollar for byte, this is MUCH cheaper than SD cards are.
With apps not being able to be put on SD (they can with root, 95% or more of users never root), it means it's a way to carry around music and photos. Google back's up your photos for free and gives you 20,000 free songs, of which you can pin or unpin an unlimited number of times to your devices. The cloud isn't there for everyone either, but it is for the vast majority of people who can upload/download on wifi without worrying about data plans.
Because there isn't a one size fit's all, I agree that larger internal storage should have been released first. As we've covered before, there is a reason we hadn't seen greater than 64, but with everyone buying phones that have SD cards, we're basically telling Sammy that they're band-aid is okay and we don't want them to innovate a better solution.
Think about batteries in the same light. Battery tech as announced last year can make phones that last for weeks. Last week they announced they could charge those batteries in under a minute. We keep asking for removable batteries. What's the incentive for the carriers to adopt this new (and probably expensive) tech? We're telling them that a battery that lasts 6 hours is okay as long as we can have 5 of them to get through a day.
Similar threads
Trending Posts
-
-
-
PERMANENTLY disable wifi to switch to mobile data on INFINIX phone
- Started by stonefruit
- Replies: 9
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram