NateC

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.

Ting almost certainly pays less than $12 per gigabyte. (My guess is around $7/gb) What Ting charges has very little to do with what they pay.

 

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.

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).

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.

How does rw handle it?

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.

$25/month for a single line on a Framily plan, and about $30 after taxes/fees.

Process shrinks, stopping gate leaks, better software to improve battery life, etc seem to offset the increased power.

 

The power required to light more pixels is the issue - see above

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.

I do not buy the explanation that pixel count greatly affects battery life on LCD screens.  Screen related, the largest power consumer should be the backlight.  For LCD screens, that backlight is either on or off -- regardless of screen resolution.

 

AMOLED screens, on the other hand, have no backlight.  Each pixel is an emitter.  And driving a greater number of smaller emitters -- while maintaining the same brightness level -- should cause increased power consumption.

 

AJ

You can't ignore the additional processing power required to push more pixels through.  That affects CPU/GPU power consumption.

A hair smaller than the G3...  Wonder what it could be...  A little early for the G4 isn't it?

 

Edit:  New LG G Flex?

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.

S4GRU staff could be incorrect, but that is not the model number we projected.  We paired the FCC ID IHDT56QA3 with the model number XT1092.  I would not be surprised if Republic is using a regional operator variant, not the originally expected Sprint variant.

 

AJ

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?

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

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

Sounds like Sprint will start selling it on the 14th. 32GB Midnight Blue only, $299 on contract (or $29/month), $699 retail. I was hoping they'd at least have the 64GB available online but the employee posting doesn't see any other SKUs in the system.

 

(Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Sprint/comments/2le9df/any_word_on_the_nexus_6_release_date/)

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.

The Z3 Compact isn't the flagship device. The Z3 is.

 

The same way the S5 Mini isn't a Flagship.

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.

You're not going to find any flagship device sub 5 inch screen anymore. Unless there is a tech culture change.

 

Edit: Minus iPhone.

The Sony Xperia Z3 Compact is the other exception to this rule.  But that one (like the larger Z3) isn't available for Sprint.

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.

So again if Samsung had the same deal. Would you be upset for htc users? Just curious

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

What surprises me is that there have been more Android users defending the iPhone discount than upset by it.  It seems to be relegated to a small minority.  I get why they don't like it.  I mean, who wants to find out they don't qualify for a discount that others do?  I get that.  However, it is available to them if they want to get a certain product.  I remember some people not happy that BlackBerrys did not have to pay the $10 Premium Data Fee, and that BlackBerrys had special plans that included some additional benefit.

 

It's a promotion.  For Sprint, it will have its pros and cons.  There is analysis going on now.  If it is really successful, they may even extend it.  They may even expand it to include other devices.  If it is costing them too much money and not working out like they plan, they may just let it expire and do nothing like it again.

 

This is something new for Sprint.  It seems wildly popular based on reports we are seeing and hearing.  What we are experiencing now is the first part of the story.  This could grow into oh so much more.  It may even drive down all plans to $50, eventually.  Stay tuned.

 

P.S. - it gets a lot of people into Triband devices quickly, which Sprint needs desperately.  Sprint needs to get people off Uniband and spread out onto Triband ASAP.

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.)

I can understand the $50 plan for choosing iPhone for life and leasing the device but it seems silly to also allow the discounted plan with easy pay or paid in full iPhone sales too. They should have done something similar to the service credit on mobile broadband plans for buying via easypay that anyone can get regardless of device purchased.

 

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

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.

At this point I can't tell if dedub is trolling for comments or just refuses to accept any possible explanation for the iPhone pricing.

 

"ITS A DISCOUNT ON THE SERVICE #!@#!@#!@!!@## ghjkghskdlfhjksdlf"

 

Why is this such a sticking point when people get all kinds of SERVICE discounts at Sprint for employer discounts, credit union discounts, student discounts, even union discounts. I think there are even discounts for retired teachers. 

 

I guess if you are looking for something to help salve the wound, iPhone users that want more than 16GB get to pay at least 100 more when most Android users can buy a cheap MicroSD card.

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.

Airlines do it all the time too. The person sitting next to you may have paid anywhere between $50 less to $500 more than you, for the exact same service. His price may be further lowered simply because he booked with a particular branded credit card. Same with hotel rates.

If Sprint offered the same plan for Android phones, they would have to charge more than $50. Because the phones would be worth less when they are turned back in. If Android phones were worth more after 2 years, they could do the same thing. Sprint is not going to additionally subsidize Android phones loss in value. It's not going to happen.

Enough!

 

If you want an Android and are pissed off at Sprint for charging you too much, find a better plan on another carrier and LEAVE!

 

If you want to pay less and stay on Sprint, get an iPhone!

 

This discussion has become ridiculous. Sprint is participating in a free market. They are free to set prices wherever they want. You are participating in a free market. You are free to buy whatever phone/plan that is your best fit. If it ain't on Sprint, so be it.

 

So stop whining. I have multiple Androids. Other family members have iPhones. We are all on Sprint. We are happy. We are tired of your bitching.

I guess nobody should bring up any points that might be critical of their policies, and we should just quietly leave? Sigh..

I think it would be more like Walmart offering a discount on BallPark franks but not Nathan's.  Maybe they are getting a better deal or more incentive with Ball Park.  This kind of stuff happens all the time.  It's a sale on one product.  Or like going to the Chevy dealer when you hear about the $5,000 factory rebate on all Chevys for model year closeout.  But you get there and find out it doesn't apply to Suburbans.  But you wanted a Suburban.  Such is life.

 

Sprint has an incentive to move more iPhones.  Also, since this is a lease deal, value on returned devices is critical.  And it is definitely true that iPhones hold their value more.  If Sprint can find a way to make money on expanding this plan to non iPhone devices, don't worry.  They'll do it.

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.

Bro I seriously don't know how any one can help you with this. You seemed determined to believe Sprint is some how penalizing you and that is not the case. The plan is 60 dollars, they are offering a promotional discount if you buy the phone they want you to buy. If you buy a different phone you pay the regular price of the plan. If the plan price was 50 and they charge you 60 (all else being equal) to go with the phone you want then you would have a case for being penalized but that is not what is happening. My car example is perfect, if the dealership is offering 1000 rebate off one model and not the other no one in their right mind would say the dealership is penalizing you for going with the car you want. They simply don't have the rebate offer on the car you want.

 

But hey I guess some people need to be consumer martyrs.

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.