To reinforce this point: advertisement's like the linked ones would be illegal in Australia, and the vendor would be heavily fined and/or forced to deliver the phones for free.
Ads here have to display the minimum cost over the terms of the contract, which makes it slightly easier to compare them.
Of course, this means that telcos do stuff like making plans that include "$300 of value for $30/month", which is an absurd claim when they set the calling costs too, and vary them depending on the plan.
The only sense I can make of people who continuously write this point, is that they will always be making some monthly payment for their phone. Therefore, they do not count that monthly payment, and only look at the upfront fee.
The monthly bills are different depending on the phone. Finding out the real price of the phone is not as easy as just looking at the subsidized price.
0$ phones are also not magically “free” in the US. You pay it with your monthly bills down the line. The subsidized price is never a meaningful metric for comparison, it is in itself not a reasonable metric for comparisons.
I have always been puzzled by this attitude which seems to be rampant with Americans. Don’t you notice something’s up when somebody offers you something for “free”?
> 0$ phones are also not magically “free” in the US.
Yes, they are -- the only benefit will be contract/no-contract. Pay full price and come back two years later and tell me it's not free.
> The subsidized price is never a meaningful metric for comparison
It's not subsidized when you pay the same monthly rate regardless (T-Mobile being the exception)
> I have always been puzzled by this attitude which seems to be rampant with Americans
It's not an attitude; it's an acceptance of reality. I'd like a discount with Verizon if I bring my own phone but I'm not counting on it anytime soon. Not sure what's puzzling about that.
Wow. You pay the same price even if you bring your own phone?! That’s just crazy. How is that even possible? You should get pitchforks!
The phones are obviously still subsidized, you just don’t get a phone for free. It’s just that they presumably also overcharge you if you bring your own phone. Wow! That wouldn’t fly in Europe.
I think it stems from incompatible networks (GSM vs CMDA).
Since you can't take an out-of-contract phone anywhere else (with some exceptions), signing a new contract for a free or reduced-priced phone is your best option. Other companies can't use reduced rates as an incentive to bring in newly-out-of-contract customers with a perfectly working phone.
It's created a consumer mentality where getting your phone from the carrier is just the way it's done and signing a contract is the best value.
> It’s just that they presumably also overcharge you if you bring your own phone.
Sure, you can look at it that way but the average consumer here has accepted that you get your phone from the carrier so the idea of being overcharged doesn't even cross their mind. They look at it as getting something in return for signing a contract and making a commitment.
Dear YooLi: That comment specifically addressed the misleading, US only, practice of advertising phones as free when they are no such thing.
That goes to the heart of this discussion. In the US, the iPhone is marketed as a premium product apparently because it isn't available "FREE". In fact, the total-cost-of-contact is pretty close between say an iPhone and an Android phone with similar specs.
I can get a "Free" iPhone 4 32GB on any carrier I like in Australia.
// This doesn't mean that Android isn't undercutting apple on price -- but that $0 / $50 / $200 upfront are not meaningful in any way