Because it's carrier specific and they make money on the device when it's activated over a certain period of time.
It's okay that you don't understand the cellular business but it's also a good idea to get informed before calling people out online.
It should also give you an indication of how much companies still make even with 2 year agreements.
thank you. There are rational informed voices like yours and on the other side a whole BUNCH of noise from people who:
a) are obviously are new to Sprint (hence the absurd claims Sprint hasn't sold smartphones recently for over $200!)
b) never read an article or trade media discussion about phone pricing and subsidy
c) have no idea that the e mare 10% ($50) increase in Epic of EVO is justified by objective improvements (GPU, Super AmoLED, keyboard, more costly high efficiency processor), ( which also incidentally increase battery life the big complaint on EV);
d) cant get their head around the 10% increase from other galaxies is easily rationalized by 4g and front facing camera
e) don't get Samung which has
easily sold 10 times as many Galaxy as EVO in a shorter period of time maybe charging Sprint $50 or $100 more than HTC simply because they can
f) that Sprint may hav judge it a mistake to sell the Evo for $200 and now may have data saying they woudl have moved just as many units at $250
g) maybe looking at a price increase or a permanent or very long term shortage from HTC for evo
As far as you guys saying $250 is too high, hey I am buying THREE. I don't want to pay $150 more. But my purchase is RATIONAL, it is included the fact that I know I am really paying $500 a pop (and this is provable by my ability to simply sell any handset I want, keep my old ones and recover $200 to $250 easily).
I would rather pay 3% more over two years with sprint for the Epic than the Evo.