Marcelo Claure, Town Hall Meetings, New Family Share Pack Plan, Unlimited Individual Plan, Discussion Thread

[joshuam]

The Fierce Wireless article doesn't list Framily as an option

[tybo31316]

Definitely makes me consider getting an iPhone now.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[uecker87]

Ummm..  If they had this option before I got my wife and I an iPhone 6, I definitely would have done this.  We are on a max discount Framily.  Her line would've only been $30 a month with the phone! (1GB), and I would've had umlimited for only $50!  (or $55 if they still allow the $5 bump for the 64 GB model).

 

Oh well.  These phones keep their resale value pretty well.

[Rocket87]

The $15 only comes off old contract plans like data 450, data share 1500 and my way. It brings them closer to the non contract plan prices.

Framily, family share and framily already are discounted to compensate for the lack of subsidy.

[JesusSm94602019]

Ummm..  If they had this option before I got my wife and I an iPhone 6, I definitely would have done this.  We are on a max discount Framily.  Her line would've only been $30 a month with the phone! (1GB), and I would've had umlimited for only $50!  (or $55 if they still allow the $5 bump for the 64 GB model).

 

Oh well.  These phones keep their resale value pretty well.

Why would you?  The math doesn't work out at all.

 

I assume you're on a subsidized plan. You buy an iPhone for $200 or $300 + taxes. After 2 years, you can sell the iPhones for $300 - $500 (depending on storage options), and you come out ahead $100 - $200 in your pocket.

With the lease, even at $5, you pay out of pocket $120 - $240 over 2 years, with nothing to show for it.

 

Why would anyone go this route???

[JesusSm94602019]

The $15 only comes off old contract plans like data 450, data share 1500 and my way. It brings them closer to the non contract plan prices.

Framily, family share and framily already are discounted to compensate for the lack of subsidy.

thanks for the information, but it seems that the leases in general are a far worse deal than the subsidized plans.

 

It's a lot like buy a car vs leasing a car.. no real financial benefits for most consumers.

[uecker87]

Why would you?  The math doesn't work out at all.

 

I assume you're on a subsidized plan. You buy an iPhone for $200 or $300 + taxes. After 2 years, you can sell the iPhones for $300 - $500 (depending on storage options), and you come out ahead $100 - $200 in your pocket.

With the lease, even at $5, you pay out of pocket $120 - $240 over 2 years, with nothing to show for it.

 

Why would anyone go this route???

 

I am not on a subsidized plan.  I have the Framily plan.  And it is moot anyway since Rocket87 clarified the terms.

 

If it was possible on the Framily plan then it would've worked like the following:

 

I currently pay $45 (unlimited) and $25 (1GB) for the talk, text, data part of my bill.  Then I pay the easypay payments of $27 and $31 for the two iPhones.  Total $128 a month plus taxes and fees.

 

If I could've done the leasing for $5 instead (but can't as clarified) it would've been $45 + $25 + $10 (64 GB model)+ $5 = $85 a month plus taxes and fees with a free upgrade in two years.

 

I don't really care since I can and will just sell the iPhones on Swappa or something whenever I want a new device.

[jamesinclair]

Re/Code is not impressed:

http://recode.net/2014/10/14/sprint-offers-360-credit-for-gullible-existing-customers/

 

Either they or I are confused.

 

Theyre looking at individual options only.

 

Say I have a ED1500 plan, with zero upgrades available. Can I opt into this plan and pay $5 a month ($120 total) for a new iphone? If so....it sounds too good to be true.

 

But if that works, it that would make more sense than buying the Sharp phone for $240 off contract, which is my current plan.

 

Can someone clarify?

[JesusSm94602019]

I am not on a subsidized plan.  I have the Framily plan.  And it is moot anyway since Rocket87 clarified the terms.

 

If it was possible on the Framily plan then it would've worked like the following:

 

I currently pay $45 (unlimited) and $25 (1GB) for the talk, text, data part of my bill.  Then I pay the easypay payments of $27 and $31 for the two iPhones.  Total $128 a month plus taxes and fees.

 

If I could've done the leasing for $5 instead (but can't as clarified) it would've been $45 + $25 + $10 (64 GB model)+ $5 = $85 a month plus taxes and fees with a free upgrade in two years.

 

I don't really care since I can and will just sell the iPhones on Swappa or something whenever I want a new device.

So it seems like this is only good for subsidized plans... where the math doesn't work out. Great job Sprint.

[Rocket87]

So it seems like this is only good for subsidized plans... where the math doesn't work out. Great job Sprint.

Well if the customers had any sense they would switch to the new plans if they were doing ip4l l.The math is made to get people to switch. Why would anyone pay 80-15=65 instead of $50 or 150-30=120 instead of $100( 2x$50 plan)? To get the discount you have to be on ip4l so why not switch to the plan meant for it and save.

 

 

Edit i could seeing the math work out for 3 lines on data share 1500 i guess.

[JesusSm94602019]

Well if the customers had any sense they would switch to the new plans if they were doing ip4l l.The math is made to get people to switch. Why would anyone pay 80-15=65 instead of $50 or 150-30=120 instead of $100( 2x$50 plan)? To get the discount you have to be on ip4l so why not switch to the plan meant for it and save.

 

 

Edit i could seeing the math work out for 3 lines on data share 1500 i guess.

I'll tell you why some don't switch.

 

1. Much more restricted roaming

2. Data is given lower priority than other plan users (this is a huge deal for me... I don't want to be de-prioritized like some pre-paid user)

3. Not cost effective for some on corporate discounts. For example someone on an Everything Data plan with a nice 20% + corporate discount would pay $60 - $75, but the plan would be subsidized versus the iPhone 4 life with no subsidy at $70.  In this case it makes sense to stick with traditional discounted plans.

Edited October 14, 2014 by JesusSm94602019

[jamesinclair]

So it seems like this is only good for subsidized plans... where the math doesn't work out. Great job Sprint.

 

Can you see if it works with my question above?

 

If it allows you to get a new phone when you dont have an upgrade it is a good deal.

[vnv01]

You guys pay for your brand new cars in cash?

 

This is not quite like leasing a car...different rate of depreciation, different limitations on usage...  I really don't see the problem, considering if fits most people's upgrade paths and most iphone users are selling their handsets to subsidize the new purchases anyway.  Considering the endangerment of the phone subsidies as we know them... this is not a bad alternative to paying retail prices outright every two years... 

[vnv01]

Well... just got off phone with a CSR who knew what they were talking about.. my SERO doesn't qualify for the service credit, which was the only thing that would've made the lease make sense...  "The loyalty service credit is not intended for SERO, but for those plans in which existing customers were paying much higher service rates..."

 

So, I still think it's a great move to get people out of of a crappy plan...but if you're sitting on a goldmine like SERO ....stay put...

[EvanA]

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/analysts-sprints-iphone-leasing-plan-boost-earnings-while-verizons-edge-cha/2014-10-16

[Dkoellerwx]

You guys pay for your brand new cars in cash?

 

Of course. 

[S4GRU]

I just bought my wife's replacement car in cash.  I don't have any debt and I live within my means.  And that means buying cars and phones that are within my budget.  Many people really cannot afford these expensive flagship smartphones, and companies have found ways to make you not realize how much you are paying beyond what you can actually afford.

[utiz4321]

I just bought my wife's replacement car in cash. I don't have any debt and I live within my means. And that means buying cars and phones that are within my budget. Many people really cannot afford these expensive flagship smartphones, and companies have found ways to make you not realize how much you are paying beyond what you can actually afford.

I hope you are not conflating debt with an ability to afford. If you can afford your bills that you rack up you can afford what you've bought. involuntary churn is rather low which would suggest that neither the carrier nor the consumers are getting phones into people's hands that they can not afford. All consumer debt does is push up consumption and the carrier 0 percent financing actually makes bargain.

[S4GRU]

I hope you are not conflating debt with an ability to afford. If you can afford your bills that you rack up you can afford what you've bought. involuntary churn is rather low which would suggest that neither the carrier nor the consumers are getting phones into people's hands that they can not afford. All consumer debt does is pish up consumption and the carrier 0 percent financing actually makes bargain.

 

No, I am saying I do not accrue debt buying things I cannot afford.  I pay cash price for virtually everything and use that cash as leverage to get a better price whenever I can.  I do not allow availability of easy credit to cloud my judgment in making purchases.  Sometimes it makes more sense fiscally to finance something.  So I'm always open to that possibility and do so occasionally.

 

However, when it comes to cell service in today's market conditions, especially with the discounts offered by Sprint and my current provider AT&T, it makes much more sense to purchase your phone and get the service for a reduced cost.  

 

I also think that the subsidy model pushes up prices because it drives people into more expensive flagship phones that they would not ordinarily purchase and they have no regard for the actual retail price.  Thwarting the whole business model that would lead to more competition and reduced prices.

[coorsleftfield]

No debt is the way to go. If you have to get a loan for a car, you can't afford the car. Same goes for.. Anything else.

 

If you have debt, follow the Dave Ramsey plan and get rid of it.

 

I paid cash for my used car. I. Could have afforded new but why? Used meant I didn't have to pay sales tax here in AZ, that saved $2500 alone not even counting the depreciation when you drive off the lot.

 

Same reason a lot of us are with Sprint and sero. We are cheapskates and proud of it

[jeffcarp]

Dave Ramsey is great but to follow him religiously makes one big assumption that isn't always the case. Not everyone cares about ensuring that every decision they make in life is financially optimal. People can be well positioned financially, without any unsecured debt at all, and still come to the conclusion that something like leasing a car is what they want to do. For them, they just might have a desire to get a new car every three years and don't want to spend the time and hassle of negotiating with a dealer for trade in value every 3 years. Whether that is the financially optimal way to drive a car or not is not their concern. Get over it and stop belittling their reasons for making that decision if they are financially successful.

 

One principle of wealth accumulation that Dave Ramsey does not buy into is the idea of using other people's money. If I can secure assets like a house or a car with a debt instrument with an interest rate of 3% or 4% I'm better off putting that money elsewhere in the market where it will return 8% or more to me then I am to tie up that cash in an asset.

 

Dave Ramsey seems to deal with people that have debt problems and associates debt of any kind with leading to an uncontrolled debt problem. That just isn't the case.

[Trip]

The only debt I carry is on my house, because in the DC area, rent is as high as a mortgage payment anyway, so I might as well be paying for something useful instead of throwing money away.

 

- Trip

[jamesinclair]

Dave Ramsey is great but to follow him religiously makes one big assumption that isn't always the case. Not everyone cares about ensuring that every decision they make in life is financially optimal. People can be well positioned financially, without any unsecured debt at all, and still come to the conclusion that something like leasing a car is what they want to do. For them, they just might have a desire to get a new car every three years and don't want to spend the time and hassle of negotiating with a dealer for trade in value every 3 years. Whether that is the financially optimal way to drive a car or not is not their concern. Get over it and stop belittling their reasons for making that decision if they are financially successful.

 

One principle of wealth accumulation that Dave Ramsey does not buy into is the idea of using other people's money. If I can secure assets like a house or a car with a debt instrument with an interest rate of 3% or 4% I'm better off putting that money elsewhere in the market where it will return 8% or more to me then I am to tie up that cash in an asset.

 

Dave Ramsey seems to deal with people that have debt problems and associates debt of any kind with leading to an uncontrolled debt problem. That just isn't the case.

 

Yup, thats why even companies raking in billions of profits still take out debt.

 

If you can borrow at 5%, and invest and get a return at 10%, it's silly not to take advantage of what is essentially free money.

[jeffcarp]

I'm not belittling the existence of consumer debt problems or people living beyond their means. It is a huge problem. We need to recognize though that Dave Ramsey represents an extreme view of the situation and that his advice is important for people that need his advice. But let's not pretend the entire world needs to live by his advice either.

[S4GRU]

Yup, thats why even companies raking in billions of profits still take out debt.

 

If you can borrow at 5%, and invest and get a return at 10%, it's silly not to take advantage of what is essentially free money.

But if you have the cash, you can earn a full 10% and not half. Plus, I don't think anyone should borrow money to make money if there is ANY risk in the making money part. Because you could lose money and still owe the debt.