Jump to content

NateC

S4GRU Premier Sponsor
  • Posts

    103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by NateC

  1. If the rumors about Google paying Sprint/T-Mobile $2/GB were true, then their $10/GB rate + $20 base price seem like significant markup. Previously I was thinking Google wanted to undercut the competition, but instead it seems like they're going the route of charging a premium for the innovative network switching? It doesn't seem very competitive at the low, medium, or high end of data usage to me? For my case of using ~700 MB/month and on the $25/month Sprint Framily plan, Google Fi would be *close* at $27/month; but there's no motivation to switch. For heavy data users it will be far more expensive. Extremely low data users are probably better off with Ting. On the other hand, the international roaming support is a nice perk.
  2. Hmm. I'm not disputing your numbers since you seem to have some real information while I can only speculate. But this would imply that Ting's mark-ups are beyond what I would consider "reasonable". If they're paying $7/GB, it would imply around 119% margins on data! I would have assumed something closer to the 20% that gnoj estimated. But maybe 119% margins are actually "reasonable" in this industry relative to the others? I don't know. On the other hand, if we look at Republic Wireless's plans I can make some additional estimates: $10/month: Talk/text on cell only (data on WiFi only) $25/month: Talk/text + 5 GB of unthrottled 3G data and 25 MB of roaming data $40/month: Talk/text + 5 GB of unthrottled 4G data and 25 MB roaming data Republic Wireless has also stated that roaming data costs ~30x more than on-network data (https://community.republicwireless.com/blogs/republic/2014/09/10/an-update-to-our-data-roaming-policy) Additionally, this article states that T-Mobile paid 30 cents per MB for data roaming in 2013: http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/study-t-mobile-paid-average-30-centsmb-us-data-roaming-costs-2013/2014-10-31 30 cents per MB would be an insanely high $307.20 / GB. Assuming RW's roaming rates are similar to T-Mobile's, the RW's in-network data costs should be 1/30 of $307.20 / GB, or about $10 / GB. Breaking down the $25/month 3G plan: Assume ~$10/month goes toward general overhead, WiFi calling, talk/text on cellular 25 MB of roaming data costs RW about $7.50 if the 30 cents per MB figure is accurate. They probably subsidize this a bit because they know not all customers will use the full 25 MB each month. Maybe $5/month goes toward roaming data on average. That leaves $10/month for the 5 GB of unthrottled 3G data and RW's profit. If we conservatively say that only $2/month of that is RW's profit, that puts a ceiling of 3G data costs at $8 / 5 GB or $1.60 / GB. Doing the same thing with their $40/month 4G data plan, RW would be left with $25/month for 4G data and profit. Based on that it seems reasonable that 4G data costs RW between $4 and $6 / GB. My conclusion? Either Republic Wireless is getting a much better deal than Ting, or they're operating with razor thin margins comparatively.
  3. And I think there's very little chance that Google would go Android-only. They are not stupid enough to shun 40% of the US marketshare. They also support IOS for several mobile apps already. There may be aspects of the service that are better with an Android device simply because Google is able to integrate functionality into it more easily. The only reason I could see them restricting the service to Android devices is if they absolutely had to due to technical reasons (e.g., core OS changes required that Apple refuses to cooperate with).
  4. CNN Money is reporting that Google is expected to pay Sprint and T-Mobile $2 per gigabyte: http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/23/technology/mobile/google-wireless/ This sounds like a cheap rate to me. Not sure what the "fixed" costs per line would be (if any). I wonder what Republic Wireless and Ting pay.
  5. RW calls are VoIP on WiFi and "voice" on cellular connections (using a temporary Sprint phone number that's bridged to RW's backend). Though RW hasn't spoken out about how their handoffs work, presumably WiFi -> Cell call handoff works by custom firmware on the RW handset quietly initiating the cell call in the background when the WiFi signal gets weak, allowing them to quickly switch once the WiFi connection is disrupted.
  6. $25/month for a single line on a Framily plan, and about $30 after taxes/fees.
  7. They are both the issue. The weight of each one would depend on the particular workload you're using. And efficiency improvements to SoCs help offset it, but it's still true that if that same improved SoC worked with lower resolutions the battery life would be longer. It's an engineering trade-off either way.
  8. You can't ignore the additional processing power required to push more pixels through. That affects CPU/GPU power consumption.
  9. I'm curious too, since the size doesn't seem to line up with any existing LG device. Googling "LS996" does show references to a LG G Flex, but those were pages from 2013. So I suppose it could be a new G Flex.
  10. Out of curiosity, how did you arrive at XT1092 as the model number? I saw that mentioned in the S4GRU article, but I couldn't find any other evidence of that model number corresponding to IHDT56QA3 online. Is there some system/scheme involved for mapping them? Edit: Also, wouldn't it be possible that they're still using IHDT56QA3, but they just gave it a new model number (XT1094) to reflect the fact that Republic Wireless-specific firmware is used?
  11. New LG device supporting Sprint bands spotted in FCC OET filings today: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=308109&fcc_id=ZNFLS996 FCC ID: ZNFLS996 Model(s): LS996, LGLS996, LG-LS996 LTE bands supported: 4, 12, 25, 26, 41 Physical dimensions of overall device: 142 mm x 71.2 mm (5.6" x 2.8")
  12. According to a (supposed) Republic Wireless employee, they are in fact using the IHDT56QA3 variant. He said the model number was XT1094. http://www.reddit.com/r/republicwireless/comments/2nhcyd/new_moto_x_coming_to_republic/cmdqs7p?context=10000
  13. It's strange that this guy is reporting $699 retail for the 32 GB model. Both Motorola and Google's website show $650 for the 32 GB model and $699 for 64 GB. Either he's mistaken, Sprint's system isn't finalized yet, or Sprint is charging $50 more than it should.
  14. That's certainly debatable. http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/3/6097817/the-xperia-z3-compact-is-sonys-true-new-flagship-phone At the very least, you have to grant it "flagship-caliber" status since Sony didn't really change much between the two except for the size.
  15. The Sony Xperia Z3 Compact is the other exception to this rule. But that one (like the larger Z3) isn't available for Sprint.
  16. Bummer. First the 2014 Moto X, and now the Sony Z3 and Z3 Compact (Z3C) are in the late-and-maybe-never category for Sprint. I'm surprised we still see so many carrier exclusives today. I would think a handset manufacturer would want to avoid them. Not only do you drastically decrease the number of potential customers, but by the time you finally release the device to everyone else 3+ months later, there are already newer competitors on the market. Timing is everything in the smartphone world. For the most part there is a very short window of time where your device will be the leader in any particular category. Of course, we all know that carriers *pay* for these exclusive agreements in order to make up for the lost sales. But that must be a *lot* of money. I'd be really curious to see the numbers behind these deals.
  17. Yes. I'm annoyed by any deal that ties cell phone service/network related fees to what device you're using (other than, say, charging a different rate for a dumbphone incapable of data usage, or a tablet incapable of voice/text). Edit: I'm okay with such discrepancies for the leases case that bundles the device and service together. Because with leasing, the carrier is reselling the device after the lease ends, which changes the value of the service provided from the traditional model. Ideally they'd reflect that in a lease surcharge on top of a regular service charge rather than the way they do it now just so everything makes more sense; but that is probably nitpicking.
  18. I get what you're saying, and I don't disagree that this new pricing plan seems to be popular and may be successful in the end. And I admit I'm probably in the minority of the population criticizing it. But I'm a principled person, and I would argue against this kind of pricing discrimination whether it favored Android *OR* iOS. (personally, I'm on a Framily plan so the pricing doesn't affect me. But I still think the discrepancy is bad.)
  19. Exactly. I wouldn't complain at all if it were only part of a leasing plan, since in that case the device and service are pretty much bundled together. But allowing it with Easy Pay for the same rate basically means that a person buying a Android phone with Easy Pay and a person buying an iPhone with Easy Pay will pay different rates to receive the exact same service. Frankly, which device you use should largely be none of the carrier's business (aside from reasonable precautions to make sure the device doesn't harm the network in some way). The only thing the carrier should be concerned with is your network usage. Minutes are minutes and bytes are bytes.
  20. He's not trolling. I agree with his stance, and what he says seems so obviously right to me, to the point that my mind is blown that you guys continue to argue against it. Regarding your comparisons to other discounts: In a few pages back in one of my first posts on this, I argued that this isn't really like a veteran or student discount. Which smartphone OS you prefer is something that (roughly) divides the population. And in this case the discount isn't based on who the person is, but rather discounting a service based on which product you chose to buy. It makes the market muddy and clouded, and encourages handset manufacturers to play more games with carriers to win their favor.
  21. Please tell me you're not citing airline pricing, of all things, as a precedent of sanity in pricing models. [emoji32]
  22. The $50 offer is valid for non-lease plans too. Device value has no relevance for that case. If this were only for leases, then it would actually sound reasonable to me.
  23. On the other hand, if you don't want to discuss Sprint pricing changes in this extremely relevant thread on a Sprint-oriented message board, then maybe you should be the one leaving [emoji1] I guess nobody should bring up any points that might be critical of their policies, and we should just quietly leave? Sigh..
  24. But your analogy has the same flaw as utiz4321's that I mentioned before. They're not discounting the product in question directly, but rather discounting a service that goes along with it. That may seem like nitpicking, but it's actually a crucial difference and the crux of my argument. I'm not even personally affected by this since I don't use an unlimited plan, but I object to its principle.
  25. I'm not a consumer martyr and I'm not a Sprint basher. You also didn't address my counter-argument to yours at all. Also, your car analogy is flawed because it wouldn't be a discount on the car, it would be a discount on the gasoline you're using to drive it for the rest of the vehicle's life.
×
×
  • Create New...