Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

iPhone 3G Finally Available In US Contract-Free

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:47 AM
from the long-time-coming dept.
Engadget is reporting that the iPhone 3G is finally available contract-free if you are willing to pay a much higher premium. Without a contract consumers are looking at $599 for an 8GB model and $699 for the 16GB. AT&T has the added restriction that you must be an existing AT&T customer, but Apple (retail stores only, sorry) will sell one to anyone willing to pay the premium. This change brings the model much closer to the prevailing European model where phones are sold as hardware and the plans are handled completely separately.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • European Model... (Score:4, Informative)

    by MLopat (848735) * on Friday March 27 2009, @11:47AM (#27359357) Homepage
    I love how marketers in North America continue to push the idea of "European". We've all seen the infomercials where they state "This is a best selling product in Europe..." or "In Europe this retails for $60 but..."

    The way that it really works in Europe is that you pay for your phone over the course of your contract. For example, if you want a phone that is $600 and you are on a 3 year agreement, you pay $16.67 as a line item on your monthly bill to pay for the cost of the phone. That's much better than the hidden subsidy cost that most (if not all) North American carriers provide.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      I'm not sure, but there is almost always someone in the US who will sell you something where you make monthly payments. Of course, there usually is an unreasonable interest rate.
    • by Nursie (632944) on Friday March 27 2009, @11:56AM (#27359487) Homepage

      The UK must not be in Europe then.

      In the UK the phone is "free" (or not) and then you get contracts that provide you with minutes/texts that do cover the cost of the phone, but it's still hidden.

      Most phones are available without a contract if you want to pay that much, and you can get contracts without phones that are considerably cheaper. But it's not necessarily the most economical way of doing it.

      No, the UK way is to have the phone covered by the contract but the contract only lasts a single year, after which the companies are obliged to SIM Unlock the phone for a nominal fee.

      Or of course just to use pay as you go, if that's your thing.

      • No, the UK way is to have the phone covered by the contract but the contract only lasts a single year, after which the companies are obliged to SIM Unlock the phone for a nominal fee.

        Or of course just to use pay as you go, if that's your thing.

        It ain't necessarily so. Last time I upgraded I had to take an 18-month contract to get the phone I wanted. And being obliged to unlock "for a nominal fee" is news to me -- I have been quoted unlocking fees that were higher than the contract-free price of the handset.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        The UK must not be in Europe then.

        Ask any British person, and they'll tell you it isn't.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Extensa30 (1150211)
      well, that is not true AT ALL. I've been living in 4 different countries so far, with mobile phones bought in the 4 of them (spain, france, england and germany so far). Pretty much each country does different: in some of them the higher the forfait you agree to pay monthly, the cheaper the phone is, in others there is not such an agreement (well, allways a 5 euros or so), but I've NEVER seen paying money just for the line (and with that I mean money that does not come, or can not be spent in calls) The pa
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by rmav (1149097)

      No, it does not work like that, at least not everywhere. There is one provider in Italy that does this, I know of no one in any other country.

      You can either:

      1. Buy a phone, then use the card you want; or

      2. You get a subsidised, locked phone with your contract - the preferred way in Germany, where people end up paying much more for the iPhone than the americans, even.

      In italy route 1 means that the iPhone is factory-unlocked, in Germany it will cost you more than in Italy and still netlocked to T-Mobile. I

    • I love how marketers in North America continue to push the idea of "European". We've all seen the infomercials where they state "This is a best selling product in Europe..." or "In Europe this retails for $60 but..."

      The way that it really works in Europe is that you pay for your phone over the course of your contract. For example, if you want a phone that is $600 and you are on a 3 year agreement, you pay $16.67 as a line item on your monthly bill to pay for the cost of the phone. That's much better than the hidden subsidy cost that most (if not all) North American carriers provide.

      So the same as everywhere else then.

      • if you want a phone that is $600 and you are on a 3 year agreement, you pay $16.67 as a line item on your monthly bill to pay for the cost of the phone.

        So the same as everywhere else then.

        The difference is that the networks in mainland Europe are more likely to itemize this charge, and they don't bill it to people who bring their own phone.

    • by rgviza (1303161) on Friday March 27 2009, @12:34PM (#27360163)

      Well you know that Sham-Wow is made in Germany and Germans always make great stuff!

  • by BigHungryJoe (737554) on Friday March 27 2009, @11:49AM (#27359375) Homepage

    The contracts WERE in order to subsidize the cost of the phone... and the whole time I thought it was so they could lock me in and deliver shitty service. But seeing that the phone is $400 more without a contract pretty much proves what the cell phone companies have been saying all along.

    • Re:So it's true (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cayenne8 (626475) on Friday March 27 2009, @12:02PM (#27359585) Homepage Journal
      I"m wondering when the NEW iPhone will come out? Still rumored to be in June?

      I wonder how much that will be.

      Or, are they maybe trying to sell the current phones they have on stock out now, and this is a ploy to sell them faster?

      • The next 'update' to the iPhone will be software and not hardware.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by cayenne8 (626475)
          "I don't know why they are so quick to push out new iPhones. "

          Well, this new iPhone hardware is rumored to have much greater processing power, larger memory (32G?), and I think about double the network speed of the current 3G phone.

          And upgrading hardware on about any tech gadget these days, is common....annual upgrades are pretty much the norm, lest you get stale and lose customers to the next..

          ....OOH...Shiny!! I want one of th.....

    • Re:So it's true (Score:5, Informative)

      by ausekilis (1513635) on Friday March 27 2009, @12:17PM (#27359869)
      Lets do a little math with AT&T's contract [att.com]
      • $36 activation fee for each new line
      • $175 early termination fee of contract
      • $199 8G iPhone w/2yr contract
      • $411 to get an iPhone via broken contract

      Or I could spend $599 for one without a contract, and still give AT&T a boatload of money.

      How exactly is this a good deal?

  • And it will then "just work" with T-Mobile?
  • Okay... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CSHARP123 (904951) on Friday March 27 2009, @11:56AM (#27359497)
    Does it work with other carriers? They may sell it but they never said it will work with other carriers.
  • by bogaboga (793279) on Friday March 27 2009, @11:57AM (#27359515)

    To me, this [cellphones.ca] product from Samsung is better in every way compared to the latest iphone.

    • by iluvcapra (782887) on Friday March 27 2009, @12:07PM (#27359665) Homepage

      Much lower screen rez, 240x440 versus 320x480. Also, the screen isn't multitouch and I've seen many phones with a Flash UI, and they're all uniformly miserable. No app store...

      Honestly, it looks more like they were trying to rip off the Storm than the iPhone.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ByrneArena (848313)
      My daughter has that samsung. That phone isn't in the same ballpark as the iPhone... in fact I am not sure it is in the same sport.
    • by akozakie (633875) on Friday March 27 2009, @12:35PM (#27360177)

      O-kay... Now WHY is parent modded as funny? Fanboy mods probably think that any comment suggesting that some product is better than iPhone must be tongue-in-cheek (with the possible exception of Android).

      Just like iPod never was the perfect MP3 player, iPhone is not and never will be the perfect phone. Sure, for many users, including a couple of my friends, the iPhone is great and nothing comes close, but "many" isn't the same as "all".

      I played a bit with the iPhone. It's fun. It's well designed. It's not for me. I definitely wouldn't exchange my Nokia E61i for it, and that's an old phone now, better ones are available. If I had a choice - get iPhone for free or buy E61, E71, or something like that - I'd reach for my wallet. For me it's far more functional.

      For example - I don't really like touchscreen interfaces, especially with small (<10") screens, multitouch doesn't change this. Typing an SMS or working with SSH is so much faster on a full qwerty keyboard, after you get used to it you can actually touch-type with your thumbs.

      Still, I read articles in newspapers and feel that I'm expected to want an iPhone. Even here on /. it's the same thing - it seems that I should want one. So many interesting designs on the market, but only iPhone and Android seem to get any attention.

      So, the parent was right in both the title and the comment. The iPhone is not for everyone and it is a bit irritating to see it mentioned everywhere and get weird looks from iPhone owners when they show it to you and you say "It's nice, but I prefer something else".

      Unless of course I missed the joke?

  • Do you still have to jail-break the phone yourself to use on another GSM carrier? If the phone is still locked into AT&T, then you aren't really gaining much here.

    If (and this is a big if), on the other hand, it was a fully-unlocked iPhone, that could operate on any GSM carrier straight out of the box, then it might be worth the money. After all, what warranty obligations does Apple have for a hacked iPhone from the current lots? My guess would be none.
    • Re:Jail-breaking (Score:5, Informative)

      by iluvcapra (782887) on Friday March 27 2009, @12:10PM (#27359713) Homepage

      Lets define our terms:

      • "Jailbreaking" is performing a procedure so that you can run any executable you wish, and not just those permitted by the App store.
      • "unlocking" is performing a procedure so that you can use the phone with a different carrier.

      This story would appear to be an instance of the second thing.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        In this case it's option three: Still locked, but simply not bound to a contract. You still can only use it on AT&T, but are not locked in to a specific monthly plan.
  • Pointless... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nweaver (113078) on Friday March 27 2009, @12:04PM (#27359613) Homepage

    Its cheaper to buy the phone and break the contract if you want a "no contract" iPhone, as its only $400 or so that way.

  • This is only $100 more than the original phone costs. I generally don't agree that Apple has excessive profit margins, but this seems to indicate that Apple was almost selling the original phone at scalper's prices. I can't imagine that production costs have fallen so much the original couldn't have been sold, with contract, at a much lower price point.

    In any case, I hope this will make all the people shut up about having to buy a contract. The iPhone is not the second coming, and if one does not want

  • by AnalPerfume (1356177) on Friday March 27 2009, @12:14PM (#27359809)

    Yes, the cost is subsidized over the length of the contract but that's an excuse for a locked phone, not a reason.

    If you sign a contract to pay $40 per month for 2 years and walk away with a free phone, it don't matter if you use it or not, or switch provider or not.....you STILL have to pay the $40 per month you agreed to, with all the usual debt collection / court hassles for defaulting.

    If you switch carriers and set up a separate contract with a separate sim card you need to pay for that in ADDITION to the contract you signed. Not only that, but your $40 per month contract would include free minutes / SMS as part of the deal which you wouldn't use. The propaganda they use would have you believe that if you switched the sim card and started using another carrier the contract you signed would be void and they wouldn't get paid. This is bullshit, and they need to be called on it.

    The only reasons I can think that you'd want to pay for both at the same time is if you either object morally to the contract company (in this case AT&T, or Apple's iPhone partner in the UK O2) or if you don't get a strong enough reception from them. You may have a long term deal through your employer, or even a number you've been using for a long time that all your contacts know....why should you be forced to change? Yes you can often bring your old number to the new phone but it's not the point.

    Locking you in is inexcusable. An unlocked phone would mean they have to actually compete to keep you. The point here is that a locked phone to enforce at least the cost of the phone on a contract is a red herring. It's even more of an insult to have a pre-pay phone locked to a carrier.

    Personally I live in an area where O2 is the only constant strong reception, so my carrier is dictated by signal strength. I refuse to buy any locked phone, even if it is locked to O2.

    Mobile phones should ALL be unlocked, sold as phones on their own at full price, or with a contract with the provider of your choice, with a selection of deals / prices / free stuff on offer, with an optional cheaper rate per month by buying the phone at the start or a subsidy at a higher rate per month. This is not rocket science.

  • by Timberwolf0122 (872207) on Friday March 27 2009, @12:14PM (#27359811) Journal
    Come on apple we all know it's just a freaking HCSD card in there and they do not cost that much.
  • Your only choice is to be with Rogers (nevermind Fido, they got bought by Rogers). Whatever new iPhone comes out and even if it were free, the monthly bill from Rogers is too expensive and too limited.

    I bet the iPod touch outsells the iPhone by a bigger margin than in the USA because of this.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kabuthunk (972557)

      Pay as you go, my friend... pay as you go.

      I as well have a cellphone (albeit not an iphone... I hate them, personally) and am on the Rogers network. However, I just bought my phone outright from Wireless Wave (I'm sure anywhere that sells cellphones, you can get it non-contract), popped in my SIM card from my old POS nonworking phone, and off I went. I don't use it much, so I'm putting $15 a month on it tops. Helluva lot cheaper than any plan. Downside is I don't have voicemail and maybe some of the oth

  • It's a phone. I understand the iPhone is a cool toy. I've used one a lot that a friend has. Games are cool, video player is cool. But he's paying over $2000 for the phone and two years of service.

    Wow.

    My phone is from Net 10. I paid $60. It's decent, does what a phone should and has IM/SMS and can send/recv photos.

    I pay $15/MO. That is $360, after taxes, for 2 years of service and 150 minutes a month. 10c a minute for more minutes, 5c for messages.

    As much as I like gadgets, I just can't imagine p

    • by SydShamino (547793) on Friday March 27 2009, @12:55PM (#27360551)

      It's all relative. My phone was $6.50 refurbished from Virgin. I pay $90 pre-paid each November for a year of service. That's $186.50 for 2 years of service at about 75 minutes a month.

      As much as as I like gadgets, I just can't imagine paying $15/MO for a phone. I'd much rather put that money towards blackjack and hookers. In fact, forget the blackjack. Ah, screw the whole thing.

  • I'm still predicting and hoping that the iPhone will become more open as time goes on. I doubt they really wanted to be tied to a single carrier in the first place, but they had to make some deal with someone to get their foot in the door of a pretty closed-off industry. I suspect that some of the closed-off nature of the iPhone's development is a combination of deals that they have with AT&T and a tendency toward wanting to control a new product until it's more clear where things are going.

    Personall

  • by javacowboy (222023) on Friday March 27 2009, @12:47PM (#27360417) Homepage

    For all those Americans who think that AT&T offers a lousy deal, look to the Great White North:

    Mandatory 3 year contract. There's no option for an unlocked phone or a shorter contract.

    $60 + sales tax for 500 Mb
    $75 + sales tax for 1 Gb

    Pretty lousy, eh? There's not even an option for an unlimited plan. Rogers had a temporary 6 Gb plan for early adopters that's no longer available.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dadragon (177695)

      Give it a little time. SaskTel, Telus, MTS, Bell, Shaw, Yak, and I think a few others are all building GSM networks. Rogers didn't get offered iPhone exclusivity in Canada, so soon there will be several carriers with iPhone plans.

      Yay competition.

    • I think you are right about the iPod touch. In fact, I can see the iPod touch becoming the next PDA that sees wide scale adoption. I know of lots of people who don't want an AT&T contract that use an iPod touch as a PDA and portable internet tablet. I won't, but that is because I don't want to use iTunes,
    • Well, yes, they *can* give them away in Japan. The problem is that giving them away is the only way to reduce inventory.

      Got a source or a link for the low sales numbers? My impression is that it's selling rather well in Japan.

    • by 3247 (161794)

      No way.

      It just makes sense to combine a music player and a phone into one product. A phone already has most of the hardware required, you just have to add a headphone jack and a bit more memory (which is getting cheaper and cheaper).

      The iPod Touch is just the starter drug leading to an iPhone. You'll miss the mobile Internet pretty soon.

    • I think you're buying into too much news hype about how much of a failure it is. Most of the articles out there are just trying to generate ad revenue by being controversial. Finally, I can assure you that the iPhone is very very successful here in Belgium â" a quick look around my office shows that in a techy crowd it has about an 80% market share. In a non techy crowd I couldn't give any kind of numbers, but it's still fairly prominent.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by iluvcapra (782887)

      Since you did win it in a contest, you know that you could abandon it now at no cost to you and just use what you'd prefer, a Nokia, Blackberry, whatever. But it would appear that you get enough use out of this "hamstrung, nerfed piece of junk," (and Apple's been providing pretty decent support to you on it) that you haven't gotten rid of it.

      No snark, but how bad could the thing possibly be if you haven't replaced it? I have known some pieces of junk in my time... I do not think this term means what you