Prices Of Unsubsidized iPhone 3G's

[Edward Kirk]

<div id="inlinead" class="inlinead"><IFRAME src="http://adserver1.backbeatmedia.com/servlet/ajrotator/13894/222/viewHTML?pool=13886&type=3158&pos=20&zone=5000" width="300" height="250" align="middle" frameborder=0 marginwidth=0 marginheight=0 scrolling=no><script language="JavaScript" src="http://adserver1.backbeatmedia.com/servlet/ajrotator/13894/222/viewJScript?pool=13886&type=3158&pos=20&zone=5000"></script></IFRAME></div><div class="nodecontent"><img src="http://www.iphonealley.com/images/storyimages/unlocked.jpg" align="right" />

Stories of unlocking cell phones has been buzzing around in the news lately. Where commonly the practice of unlocking cellphones involves buying unsubsidized units cheaply, unlocking them, and selling them overseas in large numbers, iPhones are being purchased in an expensive unsubsidized state, and adding more value on top of them. <!--break-->

However, it appears that the iPhone 3G is largely immune to this practice for the cell phone companies that do offer unsubsidized iPhones. The fact is, in places like Massachusetts, taxes are paid on the unsubsidized price of the subsidized iPhones, meaning that the device costs $499 unsubsidized. However, companies are offering it "unsubsidized" and with no commitment for $699, 200 more than the other price. It is believed that this is both to help them turn a profit with no contract, and with people reselling them overseas.

[via <a href="http://www.tuaw.com/2008/07/14/unsubsidized-iphone-prices/" target="_blank">TUAW</a>]</div>

[saralsth]

Huh? I didn't get what you said in the second parah. Am I dumb?

[xxx]

It means some companies are charging crazy amounts of money for the phones not bound to a contract. This is to prevent overseas sales for profit and people buying mass amounts of phones, unlocking them, and sellin they unlocked in bulk.

[Manyou]

I'm from India where the iPhone's going to be launched by October, according the most press-releases, carriers have already started accepting 'bookings'.

India is a land of choice, you buy your handset. You may choose a carrier and a plan that you like, and go mobile. The concept of a n-year contract is something new, and is going to take some getting used to. For instance, most people I know don't find it that difficult to switch from a carrier because it's just the question of a couple of phone calls for a postpaid connection and simply not recharging the balance on the pre-paid card. (and there are a lot of those here!)
The iPhone's coming to India with the only choice here being the carriers: Vodafone and Airtel. And a contract! It be an unattractive option if all you wanted was the phone, and not the carrier. (Airtel's coverage beats Vodafone's by far!)

Cellular operators like Reliance Mobile here in India have tried selling phones under a contract agreement. They'd bundle cheap LG handsets for unbelievable prices and shove them down your throat for a 5-year contract period. The SIM couldn't be removed without breaking the phone into several different pieces. (which defeats the purpose anyway! Unlocked, not unbreakable!)

The question of service was something people never asked before they dived headlong into such deals, and before they knew it, they were hit with billing errors, unresolved queries, and huge bills that arose from cuts on the fine-print at the bottom of the ads that they'd been hooked onto.

Either way, it's all about making money. Cellular companies have invested a lot into the infratstructure, and it's a competitive business. To stay afloat, you have to make money. But to make money, do you have to piss customers off? Isn't there a better way to do things? There's a fine balance that carriers must find, profitability v/s customer satisfaction.

There more to customer satisfaction than just more signal bars. Giving the customer a feeling of having made a good choice is also something that carriers must do. I'd rather feel better about having made a choice of sticking with a carrier that's giving me crappy deal because I want to than feel compelled to be sucked into a carrier that was chosen for me. It's all about the choice.

$699 seems like a BIG price to pay for the choice! I'd rather pay full price on the hardware and also get the freedom of choice. If what is being said here is indeed true, then I have very good reasons to believe that the price of the iPhone where I live in India will be somewhere in the high end of the spectrum, if I know the way Blackberry's and other smartphones are being marketed.

[imagine engine]

Apple and the licensed wireless carriers (ie: AT&T, Rogers, O2, etc) are not selling the iPhone 3G unless the customer subscribes to a term commitment. So how are these other companies getting the iPhone to unlock and sell at a higher price? Are they going in to AT&T for example to buy the iPhone on a term commitment then breaking the term to sell it to a third party. That wouldn't make sense since carriers such as Rogers limit the purchase to 2 iPhone per customer and have a restriction that a customer can't open a new account on their network with in 60 days of canceling the old one. The reason for this is that they can resume the cancelled account up to 60 days and it's also to avoid spin activations.

[iswenson]

so is this article basically saying that the phone which should cost 499 costs 699 because the carrier bumps up the price? if so, lame.

[MacTom]

In Belgium the prize is
525 for 8gig
615 for 16gig

with no commitment with any provider

[WatersWest]

I wonder if, in approximately 18-21 months from now, when whatever 'next' iPhone comes out, if there will still be a world market for unlocked iPhones like there is now. In other words, when I fullfill my contract obligations on this iPhone and am ready to buy the next iPhone with a new contract, will I be able to unlock this iPhone and sell it on eBay for a premium like current 1st gen iPhone owners are doing? Or, will the iPhone be in so many markets by then that nobody will want an unlocked 3G??