Sony Xperia Z for T-Mobile

[A895]

I'm thinking of picking up an Xperia next month because the plans are super good right now on T-Mobile. Does anyone have one, and if you do share your pros and coins of the device? I already have cases and battery cases planned out. Such as:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DRB0PZE...ag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=UUacUvbUpU2927995

Or:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DUT0VUW...ag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=UUacUvbUpU2927995

Posted via Android Central App

 

[jonathan2677]

I just got mine last night but I'm really loving it, and so far nothing neg to say,I also own a s4 (lagfest) and a HTC one (love it) but this eXperia z is nice for sure

Sent from my C6606 using Tapatalk 2

 

[E90 Commie]

I would recommend the C6602 instead. The T-Mobile version has a locked bootloader that can't be unlocked, which blocks custom kernels and limits the ROM selection to just stock based ROMs. I tried two T-Mobile Zs and find them completely inferior in all their branded "glory" compared to my unlocked C6602. The price of the TMO edition is high too, the C6602 direct from Sony Store is cheaper. I could see $579-609 for the TMO, the C6602 is going for $539. I would never pay MORE for a branded and locked version than for the unlocked and unbranded one.

 

[JHBThree]

I picked one up today and will be returning it tomorrow. It is a fantastically designed and really high quality device, but the screen is atrocious. It's got bright colors, but horrible contrast and viewing angles. I thought it wouldn't be as bad as the reviews said, but it is. The camera also isn't that great, especially in lower light conditions. Overall, I'm just really disappointed.

 

[A895]

I would recommend the C6602 instead. The T-Mobile version has a locked bootloader that can't be unlocked, which blocks custom kernels and limits the ROM selection to just stock based ROMs. I tried two T-Mobile Zs and find them completely inferior in all their branded "glory" compared to my unlocked C6602. The price of the TMO edition is high too, the C6602 direct from Sony Store is cheaper. I could see $579-609 for the TMO, the C6602 is going for $539. I would never pay MORE for a branded and locked version than for the unlocked and unbranded one.

First off I don't have the cash for an unlocked phone. Second, I don't root or ROM any phone I have. I don't care about locked boot loaders as well. That's way too much cash to just throw at a phone. I'm saving for college right now.

Posted via Android Central App

 

[A895]

I picked one up today and will be returning it tomorrow. It is a fantastically designed and really high quality device, but the screen is atrocious. It's got bright colors, but horrible contrast and viewing angles. I thought it wouldn't be as bad as the reviews said, but it is. The camera also isn't that great, especially in lower light conditions. Overall, I'm just really disappointed.

Im just curious why do people care about viewing angles? Its going to be in your face, you looking directly at it, so why do you care if you look at it off center, it gets less viewable? Wouldn't that be a plus, as you don't want people looking at what you are doing on your phone? I don't care for cameras in phones that much. I mean I have a RAZR M, the camera isn't that great.

Posted via Android Central App

 

[JHBThree]

Im just curious why do people care about viewing angles? Its going to be in your face, you looking directly at it, so why do you care if you look at it off center, it gets less viewable? Wouldn't that be a plus, as you don't want people looking at what you are doing on your phone? I don't care for cameras in phones that much. I mean I have a RAZR M, the camera isn't that great.

Posted via Android Central App

Its not just off center. If you are looking at it any way except straight head on its washed out.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

 

[A895]

Its not just off center. If you are looking at it any way except straight head on its washed out.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

That's fine with me really.

Posted via Android Central App

 

[E90 Commie]

Good that you have cash for a more expensive service plan then.

I pay $45 per month for service. How much do you pay with your plan? $90 ($70 + $20 installment)?

Instead of making the hilarious claim that it is "too expensive" to buy a phone outright and because of that, you select a carrier branded device: make a simple calculation.

Device + service cost x 12-24 months (postpaid) vs Device + service cost (prepaid, the device bought outright).

In my case, I save around $1000 over two years by buying my device outright and put a prepaid plan. I think the savings are good for the college.

 

[JHBThree]

Good that you have cash for a more expensive service plan then.

I pay $45 per month for service. How much do you pay with your plan? $90 ($70 + $20 installment)?

Instead of making the hilarious claim that it is "too expensive" to buy a phone outright and because of that, you select a carrier branded device: make a simple calculation.

Device + service cost x 12-24 months (postpaid) vs Device + service cost (prepaid, the device bought outright).

In my case, I save around $1000 over two years by buying my device outright and put a prepaid plan. I think the savings are good for the college.

There's one hugely crucial thing you miss: its easier for most customers to spread that cost over time instead of paying it right away. Most can't.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

 

[E90 Commie]

Last time I checked financing options, there were a lot of them. One of them is called "credit card". How do people finance OTHER purchases like TV sets and computers? If I am to believe the arguments about carriers in the US, people can't afford $500-600 with the result that they "need" to go for a carrier branded device. But the question is: if $500-600 is too much, what do they do when they want a TV set or a computer, two products that retail for that amount? I mean, there's no carriers involved there?

Joke aside, people has to learn basic device economical mathematics:

Device on contract: $0-299 + $100 x 24 = $2400-2699.

Device off contract: $100-600 + 45 x 24 = $1180-1680.

So the argument that a device is "cheaper on contract" is downright wrong. Regarding "spreading the payments" - it is very expensive payments per month we are talking about. If you can afford paying up to $299 in store, you can certainly afford paying up to $299 down and the rest on a credit card if you can't afford the whole sum in cash.

If you buy a Sony device, there are Sony Financing available.

It is also worth to mention - for those who believe in the "cheaper on contract/spreading the payment" arguments that the Sony Xperia Z can be bought in Sweden for 0-$199 down payment in store and then contract with 5-15 GB of data for between $41-70 per month (many other options are available). In Denmark, you can get it with 100 GB (yes, 100 GB) of data for $70 per month, $0 down payment in store.

So yes, it is necessary to compare prices in order to get a proper perspective.

And yes, buying a T-Mobile Xperia Z is a far worse option than buying the C6602 and put it on a decent prepaid plan.

And again: US consumers can buy TV sets, stereos, BD players, refrigerators, cars... you name it WITHOUT a cellular carrier involved subsidizing the products. The same credit card that works for the purchase of a new TV for $600 can be swiped in the same terminal when a mobile device for $600 is ringed up at the checkout counter (just to let people know).

So no, defending the carriers just doesn't fly too well.

Paying around $50 more per month (the price difference between postpaid and prepaid) on top of the down payment of $99-299 is a far worse deal than even the worst of the credit cards (interest perspective). Financing $300-600 on a credit card is certainly a better option - there are even offers about "interest free 12 month payments" in some cases.

It is just a very bad economic sense when you are paying up to $1200 MORE or DOUBLE the device cost to a carrier "in order to spread the cost over time".

I can buy THREE (3) flagship devices for the same total cost as the carrier affiliated population are paying for ONE device. Simple mathematics: I save $1000-1200 over two years with buying it outright so there are TWO additional devices I can buy beside the original one. So yes, buying outright is a completely SUPERIOR option - not only economically but also device wise. I can buy whenever I want (I got my Xperia Z back in March) and are free to choose whatever I want without being forced to wait for the carrier to bring it in.

To me, it is downright funny to see how the US consumers accept waiting for months for a device, just to get it branded and crippled - not to talk about the huge amount of devices that are NEVER to be sold here. The US cellular market is inspiring in the same way as Romanian grocery stores 30 years ago: very limited selection and a lack of 99% of the potential products.

Check the global market and see for yourself what the carriers doesn't allow you to get.

 

[A895]

There's one hugely crucial thing you miss: its easier for most customers to spread that cost over time instead of paying it right away. Most can't.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

Like I can't, not right now.

Posted via Droid RAZR M on the Android Central App

 

[A895]

Last time I checked financing options, there were a lot of them. One of them is called "credit card". How do people finance OTHER purchases like TV sets and computers? If I am to believe the arguments about carriers in the US, people can't afford $500-600 with the result that they "need" to go for a carrier branded device. But the question is: if $500-600 is too much, what do they do when they want a TV set or a computer, two products that retail for that amount? I mean, there's no carriers involved there?

Joke aside, people has to learn basic device economical mathematics:

Device on contract: $0-299 + $100 x 24 = $2400-2699.

Device off contract: $100-600 + 45 x 24 = $1180-1680.

So the argument that a device is "cheaper on contract" is downright wrong. Regarding "spreading the payments" - it is very expensive payments per month we are talking about. If you can afford paying up to $299 in store, you can certainly afford paying up to $299 down and the rest on a credit card if you can't afford the whole sum in cash.

If you buy a Sony device, there are Sony Financing available.

It is also worth to mention - for those who believe in the "cheaper on contract/spreading the payment" arguments that the Sony Xperia Z can be bought in Sweden for 0-$199 down payment in store and then contract with 5-15 GB of data for between $41-70 per month (many other options are available). In Denmark, you can get it with 100 GB (yes, 100 GB) of data for $70 per month, $0 down payment in store.

So yes, it is necessary to compare prices in order to get a proper perspective.

And yes, buying a T-Mobile Xperia Z is a far worse option than buying the C6602 and put it on a decent prepaid plan.

And again: US consumers can buy TV sets, stereos, BD players, refrigerators, cars... you name it WITHOUT a cellular carrier involved subsidizing the products. The same credit card that works for the purchase of a new TV for $600 can be swiped in the same terminal when a mobile device for $600 is ringed up at the checkout counter (just to let people know).

So no, defending the carriers just doesn't fly too well.

Paying around $50 more per month (the price difference between postpaid and prepaid) on top of the down payment of $99-299 is a far worse deal than even the worst of the credit cards (interest perspective). Financing $300-600 on a credit card is certainly a better option - there are even offers about "interest free 12 month payments" in some cases.

It is just a very bad economic sense when you are paying up to $1200 MORE or DOUBLE the device cost to a carrier "in order to spread the cost over time".

I can buy THREE (3) flagship devices for the same total cost as the carrier affiliated population are paying for ONE device. Simple mathematics: I save $1000-1200 over two years with buying it outright so there are TWO additional devices I can buy beside the original one. So yes, buying outright is a completely SUPERIOR option - not only economically but also device wise. I can buy whenever I want (I got my Xperia Z back in March) and are free to choose whatever I want without being forced to wait for the carrier to bring it in.

To me, it is downright funny to see how the US consumers accept waiting for months for a device, just to get it branded and crippled - not to talk about the huge amount of devices that are NEVER to be sold here. The US cellular market is inspiring in the same way as Romanian grocery stores 30 years ago: very limited selection and a lack of 99% of the potential products.

Check the global market and see for yourself what the carriers doesn't allow you to get.

1.) I don't have a credit card and my credit record is clean right now.

2.) I don't buy TVs and the like. I got them from the rents and I am taking then with me to college.

3.) I know about phones very well. I know about the phones that are never released in the U.S., I know a low about worldwide exclusives. I am a very tech oriented person. Its just the fact that paying upfront for a phone is out of the question. Especially when that amount of Monet can go to a laptop at that price. I gave thought about going prepaid, but to do that I have to look at phones sub $200. Not many good ones at that price. That's why I have been looking at T-Mobiles plans which are cheaper than the $250 a month for Verizon that is being paid for now.

4.) You talk about branded and crippled device when I don't care about that stuff. Rooting, Roming and unlocking are things I don't do.

Posted via Droid RAZR M on the Android Central App

 

[E90 Commie]

You are a good carrier customer.

Customers that don't care about what the carriers are doing with the devices are just great (for the carriers that is). I wish you good luck with your branded Xperia Z. I have tried the T-Mobile edition and find it a bad product in general - because of the branding and bloatware paired with the fact that they release it on 4.1.2 when 4.2.2 is out for the C6602 and C6603.

It is also great (for the carriers again) with customers that believe strongly in the idea of paying $50 extra per month (price difference again) for the plan just because there is a lower up front cost.

It is the same people that become crazy when an ad says "FREE!" I just says There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

Good also that you defend the carrier concept by claiming that you never buy TVs etc. That is great - don't buy a TV since there's no subsidy there.

 

[JHBThree]

You are a good carrier customer.

Customers that don't care about what the carriers are doing with the devices are just great (for the carriers that is). I wish you good luck with your branded Xperia Z. I have tried the T-Mobile edition and find it a bad product in general - because of the branding and bloatware paired with the fact that they release it on 4.1.2 when 4.2.2 is out for the C6602 and C6603.

It is also great (for the carriers again) with customers that believe strongly in the idea of paying $50 extra per month (price difference again) for the plan just because there is a lower up front cost.

It is the same people that become crazy when an ad says "FREE!" I just says There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

Good also that you defend the carrier concept by claiming that you never buy TVs etc. That is great - don't buy a TV since there's no subsidy there.

You really don't need to be as condescending and rude as you're being.

He understands perfectly well that he is still paying the full cost of the device, but on T-Mobile you actually get lower rates to begin with, and if you pay the phone off early your monthly costs are lower.

I'll say it again: not everyone can afford to plunk down $600 for a phone. Plans like T-Mobile's are better for most consumers than what you're trying to sell.


Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

 

[E90 Commie]

With other words: It is "better" for the consumer to pay $99-299 in store and then $100 per month for the phone compared to buying it outright and pay $30-45 per month.

If a person can afford $200 or even $300 in store, it is certainly BETTER to save the remaining $200-$300 (which takes 4-6 months if $50 is saved) toward the new device. Or use a credit card to pay the difference.

So no, carrier plans are NOT better even if the carriers obviously want to give that impression. Claiming that it is "better" to pay $100 for 24 months plus the device in store payment is just hilarious.

But if people want to give their carrier $1000-1200 extra - then the carrier can only be happy. In fact, really happy since that covers their subsidy and much more.

It is necessary to be ignorant about costs in order to claim that it is "better" to pay $2400 over 24 months ($100 x 24) compared to $1080 (45 x 24) or even $720 (T-Mobile $30 plan x 24). It is very simple mathematics and it doesn't favor the carriers. Not even the start cost, i.e. the device cost can justify paying that amount of money to a carrier.

But I know that the US market is very indoctrinated with the current system and way of thinking - "it has always been like this and there's no reason to change since the carriers offer devices for just $0-299".

I think it is funny when people defend the carriers without realizing that NO, those carriers ARE NOT giving you any kind of "free" device - everything they "give away" is recouped with a broad margin.

So yes, the C6602 is a better choice than the T-Mobile C6606. Period.

I think the US carriers and their devices are plain rubbish because of their behavior paired with branding, locked bootloaders, non-standardization, vendor lock-in (demanding customers to get a device from the carrier in order to get service etc) compared to other markets where the carriers offer standard products, lower pricing and proper financing options (monthly installments and not the T-Mobile way - I am now talking about getting a flagship on contract with installment for $50 per month etc).

So those that defends the US carrier way of doing business should compare with other countries and markets - followed by simple calculations and then ask the question: is the US model really a model worth to defend or is it a market problem?

My references are the markets in Czech Republic, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, France, India, Malaysia and Spain plus the US market. The latter is just in bad condition compared to the others and simply nothing to defend. "Traditions" or "people are used to this way" or "we have always done it this way" are just not valid excuses. The carriers are happy though, from their perspective, the US model is just right.

 

[JHBThree]

With other words: It is "better" for the consumer to pay $99-299 in store and then $100 per month for the phone compared to buying it outright and pay $30-45 per month.

If a person can afford $200 or even $300 in store, it is certainly BETTER to save the remaining $200-$300 (which takes 4-6 months if $50 is saved) toward the new device. Or use a credit card to pay the difference.

So no, carrier plans are NOT better even if the carriers obviously want to give that impression. Claiming that it is "better" to pay $100 for 24 months plus the device in store payment is just hilarious.

But if people want to give their carrier $1000-1200 extra - then the carrier can only be happy. In fact, really happy since that covers their subsidy and much more.

It is necessary to be ignorant about costs in order to claim that it is "better" to pay $2400 over 24 months ($100 x 24) compared to $1080 (45 x 24) or even $720 (T-Mobile $30 plan x 24). It is very simple mathematics and it doesn't favor the carriers. Not even the start cost, i.e. the device cost can justify paying that amount of money to a carrier.

But I know that the US market is very indoctrinated with the current system and way of thinking - "it has always been like this and there's no reason to change since the carriers offer devices for just $0-299".

I think it is funny when people defend the carriers without realizing that NO, those carriers ARE NOT giving you any kind of "free" device - everything they "give away" is recouped with a broad margin.

So yes, the C6602 is a better choice than the T-Mobile C6606. Period.

I think the US carriers and their devices are plain rubbish because of their behavior paired with branding, locked bootloaders, non-standardization, vendor lock-in (demanding customers to get a device from the carrier in order to get service etc) compared to other markets where the carriers offer standard products, lower pricing and proper financing options (monthly installments and not the T-Mobile way - I am now talking about getting a flagship on contract with installment for $50 per month etc).

So those that defends the US carrier way of doing business should compare with other countries and markets - followed by simple calculations and then ask the question: is the US model really a model worth to defend or is it a market problem?

My references are the markets in Czech Republic, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, France, India, Malaysia and Spain plus the US market. The latter is just in bad condition compared to the others and simply nothing to defend. "Traditions" or "people are used to this way" or "we have always done it this way" are just not valid excuses. The carriers are happy though, from their perspective, the US model is just right.

You just plain don't know what you're talking about. You also still need to drop your condescension and attitude.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

 

[A895]

You are a good carrier customer.

Customers that don't care about what the carriers are doing with the devices are just great (for the carriers that is). I wish you good luck with your branded Xperia Z. I have tried the T-Mobile edition and find it a bad product in general - because of the branding and bloatware paired with the fact that they release it on 4.1.2 when 4.2.2 is out for the C6602 and C6603.

It is also great (for the carriers again) with customers that believe strongly in the idea of paying $50 extra per month (price difference again) for the plan just because there is a lower up front cost.

It is the same people that become crazy when an ad says "FREE!" I just says There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

Good also that you defend the carrier concept by claiming that you never buy TVs etc. That is great - don't buy a TV since there's no subsidy there.

What the f*ck is wrong with you? Because my contract is ending soon with Verizon is why I posed the Xperia Z question. You make it sound like I don't know what the hell I am doing. I know full well I am doing. Paying $110 dollars up front then paying $90 a month for less than the 2 years because I am moving to their prepaid plan when I get to college, is actually pretty good.

Posted via Droid RAZR M on the Android Central App

 

[A895]

With other words: It is "better" for the consumer to pay $99-299 in store and then $100 per month for the phone compared to buying it outright and pay $30-45 per month.

If a person can afford $200 or even $300 in store, it is certainly BETTER to save the remaining $200-$300 (which takes 4-6 months if $50 is saved) toward the new device. Or use a credit card to pay the difference.

So no, carrier plans are NOT better even if the carriers obviously want to give that impression. Claiming that it is "better" to pay $100 for 24 months plus the device in store payment is just hilarious.

But if people want to give their carrier $1000-1200 extra - then the carrier can only be happy. In fact, really happy since that covers their subsidy and much more.

It is necessary to be ignorant about costs in order to claim that it is "better" to pay $2400 over 24 months ($100 x 24) compared to $1080 (45 x 24) or even $720 (T-Mobile $30 plan x 24). It is very simple mathematics and it doesn't favor the carriers. Not even the start cost, i.e. the device cost can justify paying that amount of money to a carrier.

But I know that the US market is very indoctrinated with the current system and way of thinking - "it has always been like this and there's no reason to change since the carriers offer devices for just $0-299".

I think it is funny when people defend the carriers without realizing that NO, those carriers ARE NOT giving you any kind of "free" device - everything they "give away" is recouped with a broad margin.

So yes, the C6602 is a better choice than the T-Mobile C6606. Period.

I think the US carriers and their devices are plain rubbish because of their behavior paired with branding, locked bootloaders, non-standardization, vendor lock-in (demanding customers to get a device from the carrier in order to get service etc) compared to other markets where the carriers offer standard products, lower pricing and proper financing options (monthly installments and not the T-Mobile way - I am now talking about getting a flagship on contract with installment for $50 per month etc).

So those that defends the US carrier way of doing business should compare with other countries and markets - followed by simple calculations and then ask the question: is the US model really a model worth to defend or is it a market problem?

My references are the markets in Czech Republic, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, France, India, Malaysia and Spain plus the US market. The latter is just in bad condition compared to the others and simply nothing to defend. "Traditions" or "people are used to this way" or "we have always done it this way" are just not valid excuses. The carriers are happy though, from their perspective, the US model is just right.

You condescending tone is annoying and the fact that people pay on contract in the U.S. being your concern sounds like a personal problem. No one besides those who have the cash flow for it are paying $500 plus for a phone. That's why there are carrier subsidies. But at least T-Mobile is transparent and its easy to switch to their prepaid from their postpaid plans.

Posted via Droid RAZR M on the Android Central App

 

[E90 Commie]

I know perfectly well what I am talking about: $99-299 + $100 x 24 vs $400-600 + $30-45 x 24. That is what I am talking about.

On the other hand, comments that I don't know what I am talking about indicates ignorance about the facts. It is a fact that the US cellular market is in a very bad condition from a price and also device point of view.

If you get the Z on T-Mobile and then pay it off quickly followed by a move from postpaid to prepaid - then I can agree that the T-Mobile deal could be good. For example if you pay the phone off within six months or something and then move over to a prepaid plan.

But staying for 24 months, paying $90 ($100 with taxes and fees) is not a good idea.

I am sorry for my tone - but I certainly think that people that defends the US carriers and their business practice should get references and check how it works in other, more developed markets.

It is a simple fact that smartphones are extremely expensive here in the US because of the carriers and that the devices itself are both branded and loaded with bloatware compared to many other markets. Denying this and claiming that the US carrier way of doing business is something "adequate" or "understandable" or "nothing wrong" (insert excuse of choice) is just denying reality.

The reason why the carriers are charging a lot for a smartphone is very simple: because people accept it - i.e. "because they can" and "they can get away with it". If people are used to pay $100 per month for their smartphone with service - then the carriers will continue charging that - on the other hand, if people use their consumer power and go for other options and clearly declare that they want freedom of choice (i.e. not a carrier that filters most devices out) - then the market can change to the better.

So the fact remains - there are much cheaper smartphone solutions (even with flagships) than the typical US contract.

For those who want a T-Mobile Xperia Z I say this: If you go that route, pay it off as quick as you can (either by paying more upfront or paying more each month for the installment) and change to a T-Mobile prepaid plan.

If you do that, then - it can make economic sense. What I don't recommend is to stay with the $20 per month installment and then pay slowly, all while being on a postpaid plan.

With a quick payment speed, the Xperia Z can be yours for a pretty decent price.

I have nothing against T-Mobile otherwise, their prepaid plans are good and the installment concept is basically sound - but they need to develop it further, offering more flexibility (including installment options where you can have a prepaid plan and then pay the installment as a "credit" (avoiding postpaid taxes and fees) and remove the branding from their devices.

Now, the installment plan is a half baked solution. It is a step closer to the better way of doing business but they need more improvement. It is still too "US" and to little "Europe". It must be more "Europe" in order to be really good.