208 replies to this topic

[garjones]

Yeah, I got my iPhone (admittedly a 3GS rather than a 4) for free with my contract, which is only £15 a month. It's actually cheaper to run than my old rubbish Samsung I had before.

US charges for these things are somehow very high. I did a comparison and what costs $69.99 from AT&T for an iPhone 4S (same data and phone plan) would cost me $28 from Digi, a local provider.

Chewy was maybe a bit hasty in comparing his own experience to Craggy in a different country.

[craggy]

Chewy was maybe a bit hasty in comparing his own experience to Craggy in a different country.

very much so. I'm hardly this girl's accountant or biographer, but am relatively certain she wouldn't be looking for a 2nd job if she was well off, or had parent types paying her way.

but y'know, lets just assume that a girl who works hard and budgets well is spoiled, because there's nothing that you should feel ashamed at yourself about in that.

[Chewy Sun]

Why do you assume that's the case? Like others have said, an iPhone is no more expensive to run than any other phone over here.

No more expensive to run other smart phones, but I am maintaining that a smart phone, very rarely, is a necessity and very often is a luxury.


And in regards to my comment, it is directly related to...

definitely Al, I know a girl who works part time, has rent and...i dunno...shoes and stuff....and can still afford one.

Chewy................................................................. plenty of people have luxuries they cannot afford, and it just seems the iPhone is the one luxury that too many people can't afford, but still have....

[craggy]

I probably spend more on takeaways or comics in a month than it'd cost to have an iPhone contract.

[brucegray666]

I probably spend more on takeaways or comics in a month than it'd cost to have an iPhone contract.

Yeah, same here. In fact, I'm spending pretty much the same on a contract as I did when I was on PAYG.

[craggy]

i don't have one of them high-falutin clever phones, but switching to contract got me a new handset and cheaper bills than being on PAYG a couple of years ago. i suppose these things just depend on how much you use the phone for.

[brucegray666]

See, I'm paying the same but I'm using my phone more (making more calls for sure seeing as I get 600 minutes free).

Having a phone that I can play Angry Birds on has also revolutionised my passing of the time while taking a shit.

[craggy]

That is the noggin being put to use. Noggin the Nog. Not Nog from Star Trek Deep Space Nine. They don't need mobiles in the future. But they also don't get wifi web access. So screw them.

[David Meadows]

I went in to the O2 shop at the weekend to get my monthly plan reduced to a SIM-only version that costs half of my old plan.

"You won't get a free new phone every year," explained the salesman helpfully.

I held up my phone. "I have had this for six years. It still works and does everything I want it to. Every year your people call me and tell me they are sending me a new phone. I try to talk them out of it. When the phone turns up, I ebay it."

To be fair to the guy, he doesn't look at me like I am an alien species. That doesn't happen until I get a text message and my phone goes "doo de doo doo".

"Christ," he says, "I haven't heard that sound in years."



Anyway, I'm now saving over £120 a year and still getting more free minutes than I ever use

[jamon g]

you're lucky, they only make phones to last 24 months.
My nokia was dying and i told my carrier i was leaving because they didn't have the phone i wanted on a plan i wanted. after 5 separate offers they finally gave me one i couldn't refuse, samsung galaxy s2 with $500 per month calls and 2 gig internet for $29 per month over 24 months, first two months free. total cost is $638 bucks lol. this was last year when it first came out and was only available for $60 per month plus $10 for the handset. when you come out of contract you can really hit them up.

[Chewy Sun]

I probably spend more on takeaways or comics in a month than it'd cost to have an iPhone contract.

I withdraw my previous comments, due to a mistake on my part in perceiving which country craggy was stating the part time worker was from.



Chewy................................................................i suspect that Nokia will drag down Microsoft, when Windows 8 has the functionality of a phone, and does not catch on with MS's bread and butter, the computer OS crowd.

[Arjan Dirkse]

My phone prior to my current one lasted a long time as well, at least 6 years. I lost it last year when I drove my bike into a lake...if that hadn't happened I might still be using that phone.

[Ogul]

I still don't have a smartphone either, I have a Samsung Sway that I love because it's small and it slides open. I love that because it has a mechanical open/answer rather than a touch-based one, but it isn't a flip phone which I find to be too unwieldy, having to pass through 180 degrees of movement to open and close it. It has a crap camera and can play music (but never does), and it can send and receive phone calls. It's also my alarm clock. It might be nice to be able to access Wikipedia anywhere I go, but honestly I'm very rarely that far away from wifi, and have perfectly good devices that can surf on that.

Oh, and the Chinese tasblet seems to be working out ok, we still can't find a compatible brower other than the generic "Browser" browser it came with, but we can download aps and such onto it.

[Steve Sensible]

My HTC is getting a bit long in the tooth now - I've had it about 3 years I think. I'm on a SIM only contract, so I only pay £15 a month and have loads of free texts and an unlimited data allowance. This thread has made me check out what kind of deal I could get on a new phone though, so I think I might head to my O2 shop soon and haggle a deal for a Samsung Galaxy S2...

[Robert B]

I have an Samsung Galaxy and I really like it, although the monthly charges are fairly expensive ($150 a month for two phones), although that's partly because I was mid-contract and desperately needed to upgrade to a smartphone so the company had me by the balls. The Android has minor, minor problems but I'm not really a "complain about my phone" kind of guy, the way some people are.

I do know people who can barely afford rent but have iphones. Actually, several. But for most of them the iphone is also their home internet, so what they would normally pay for internet (not cheap) goes to their phone bill. And it's a fashion accessory, which we can scoff at, but these are also people who spend more on clothes than most of us probably do, so it's clearly important to them. I don't subscribe to the Apple thing but I understand it.

Edited by Robert B, 21 February 2012 - 04:06 AM.

[garjones]

It might be nice to be able to access Wikipedia anywhere I go, but honestly I'm very rarely that far away from wifi, and have perfectly good devices that can surf on that.

Same reason I have a bog standard Nokia for making calls and texting. I'm usually at home or at work where I have great wifi access, I commute by car where I can't use a smartphone and if I do travel it's usually long distance - so it's airports and hotels that have wi-fi. I'm heading to the US on Saturday and I'll take my wi-fi only tablet with me and be fine.

It's a lot do with your lifestyle. I used to spend 90 minutes a day on a bus and train commute and if I were still doing that I'd buy a smartphone. As it is I've actually downgraded over the years although I do draw the line at one with a black and white screen.

[Ogul]

It's a lot do with your lifestyle. I used to spend 90 minutes a day on a bus and train commute and if I were still doing that I'd buy a smartphone. As it is I've actually downgraded over the years although I do draw the line at one with a black and white screen. ../../..//public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.png

And even many subways around the world are edging towards reliable wifi access. I'll be very interested to see how the world connects up in five, ten years. Will there be wifi hotspots pretty much everywhere? Will 3G, 4G, etc. catch on? I highly doubt that the existing cell-phone networks, at least with the pricing plans in the US, will be able to do the job. They need something much cheaper, and definitely with, if not infinite data plans, at the very least much higher ones than most offer at a reasonable cost. I think another big step will be in linking people's cable/internet/home phone accounts to cellular data plans. I imagine Comcast wants in on that somehow.

Really, I think I mentioned this before, but I think the way cell networks work really needs to change. It's still, like having a highway network in which each road is owned by a private company and your route is determined by which road companies you subscribe to. Instead of having Verizon and AT&T and TMobile towers all in a given area, they should all just share those towers, each paying a fee to some central entity based on their usage. Overall that should end up being cheaper for them all, since it would mean less redundancies and they could more intelligently place multiple towers to best cover an area.

That way, no matter which company you subscribed to, you would have the same coverage, and the same speed options, the only differences would be in pricing and customer service.

[David Meadows]

As it is I've actually downgraded over the years although I do draw the line at one with a black and white screen.

I wish I would get one with a black and white screen

Seriously... when all you need to do is type a text message, or see the name of the person who is calling you, what possible advantage does colour offer?

Really, I think I mentioned this before, but I think the way cell networks work really needs to change. It's still, like having a highway network in which each road is owned by a private company and your route is determined by which road companies you subscribe to. Instead of having Verizon and AT&T and TMobile towers all in a given area, they should all just share those towers, each paying a fee to some central entity based on their usage. Overall that should end up being cheaper for them all, since it would mean less redundancies and they could more intelligently place multiple towers to best cover an area.

That way, no matter which company you subscribed to, you would have the same coverage, and the same speed options, the only differences would be in pricing and customer service.

Orange and ... somebody, I think TalkTalk... have already taken a step towards that idea in the UK. They have a partnership deal where you can access either of their networks, and your phone works out whose mast you are closest to and automatically hops onto the other network -- you see no discontinuity of service.

[Ogul]

Orange and ... somebody, I think TalkTalk... have already taken a step towards that idea in the UK. They have a partnership deal where you can access either of their networks, and your phone works out whose mast you are closest to and automatically hops onto the other network -- you see no discontinuity of service.

See, that's excellent. That's the primary reason that AT&T claimed that they were trying to take over T-Mobile, that T-Mobile had access to certain towers in areas AT&T didn't, and apparently to entire regions of the broadcast spectrum or something, and the only path towards using those assets that AT&T could understand was to take them over, but really things would be so much simpler if they could just learn to share like good little three-year-olds.

[The Lorcan Nagle]

And even many subways around the world are edging towards reliable wifi access. I'll be very interested to see how the world connects up in five, ten years. Will there be wifi hotspots pretty much everywhere? Will 3G, 4G, etc. catch on? I highly doubt that the existing cell-phone networks, at least with the pricing plans in the US, will be able to do the job. They need something much cheaper, and definitely with, if not infinite data plans, at the very least much higher ones than most offer at a reasonable cost.

I think another big step will be in linking people's cable/internet/home phone accounts to cellular data plans. I imagine Comcast wants in on that somehow. Really, I think I mentioned this before, but I think the way cell networks work really needs to change. It's still, like having a highway network in which each road is owned by a private company and your route is determined by which road companies you subscribe to. Instead of having Verizon and AT&T and TMobile towers all in a given area, they should all just share those towers, each paying a fee to some central entity based on their usage. Overall that should end up being cheaper for them all, since it would mean less redundancies and they could more intelligently place multiple towers to best cover an area. That way, no matter which company you subscribed to, you would have the same coverage, and the same speed options, the only differences would be in pricing and customer service.

This is basically what a Wireless Mesh Network looks to solve, but by eliminating the phone service provider. Instead you just hop on other people's wireless networks to get a route back to your ISP, and you phone is handled by VoIP.