Tag Archives | AT&T

Waiting in line for an iPhone is a wonderful experience. You get to be one of the first people on the planet to own a hot new toy. You meet your fellow gadget enthusiasts. Apple has been known to dole out free Starbucks and bottled water, and even the occasional T-shirt. Did I mention the fresh air and opportunity to see the sun rise?

Of course there are some downsides: You may need to wake up before some people go to bed. Sitting on the pavement isn’t exactly comfy. Random strangers may mock you. And it’s hard to do anything else while you’re in line (including visiting the restroom).

All of which is by way of inviting you to join me tomorrow morning as I wait in line at my local Apple Store to buy an iPhone 3G S in what I’ve come to think of as the iLine. I’ll do the standing around, and will report on anything interesting that happens; you can read about it and look at any photos I take from the comfort of your own home.

The Apple Store opens at 7am PT. It’s hard to say just how crazy the lines will be–in theory, they may not be that bad for a third-generation phone, but I plan to err on the side of expecting the worst. So I’ll show up at the store at 3am or thereabouts just to see what’s going on. (It’s five minutes from here, so I can always go home and catch some additional ZZZs if there’s nobody there.)

If by chance you plan to be in line at your local Apple Store or AT&T shop, lemme know–I’d love to hear reports from around the country.

(Update: Here’s my first report.)

Finally, news involving AT&T and iPhones that won’t cause anyone to become violently angry! Faced with widespread grumbling by iPhone 3G owners who thought that they deserved to be able to upgrade to the iPhone 3G S for the same price as new customers, the company has rethought its pricing plan. Some customers–ones who spend more on service plans, apparently–will qualify to get the 3G S for the new-customer two-year-contract prices ($199 for 16GB, $299 for 32GB). That’s $200 less than the price AT&T had planned to charge, and $400 less than the unsubsidized, no-contract price.

Those lucky customers are the ones who AT&T has been telling would qualify for the cheaper upgrade at any point prior to September 30th of this year. My eligibility date is July 12th; the AT&T site is still telling me I’ll have to pay $499 for a 32GB phone, but I’m assuming I’m good. I’m also assuming that I’ll get the lower price even though I plan to buy my 3G S at an Apple Store, not an AT&T shop. (I guess I’ll find out bright and early on Friday.)

No word yet on what AT&T will do for anyone who pre-ordered and paid for a phone already, but one hopes that they’ll simply rebate the $200 without having to be asked.

I’ve written that I didn’t think AT&T was obligated to offer the steepest discount to people who had already gotten a subsidized price on an iPhone 3G and were still under contract. But it’s a classy move on its part to do so–and a smart one. After a week and a half of some of the most intense negative coverage I can remember for a tech company, it just did something that will tickle some of its most loyal customers. Especially those who’d already decided to pay the higher price and will now end up with $200 back in their pockets.

I said that this news wouldn’t upset anyone, but I could be wrong–does anyone want to contend that every iPhone 3G owner should qualify for the full price break? (I’m glad that my upgrade qualification date wasn’t October 1st…)

Wow. My post contending that AT&T’s upgrade pricing for iPhone 3G owners who want to buy an iPhone 3G S is fair has prompted dozens of comments, pro and con. Some of the feedback is from people who bought the original iPhone, which reminds me that they’re in an entirely different situation than 3G owners like me.

The first iPhone was sold under unique and unreasonable policies: The first folks who bought it paid the extremely unsubsidized price of $599, yet were required to sign up for a two-year AT&T contract, just as if they’d gotten a price break. That’s one of the most consumer-unfriendly moves in the history of the cell phone business, which is saying something.

AT&T did at least acknowledge the unique situation by letting owners of first-generation iPhones buy the 3G at the fully-subsidized price. But the fact that those folks were under any contractual obligation to AT&T at all remains pretty darn ridiculous.

It’s one of a number of examples of policies relating to the iPhone being less reasonable than those for garden-variety phones. Another one: I’ve repeatedly bought cell phones from AT&T at unsubsidized prices and found that the company would cheerfully unlock them for me. But it took months before it offered a contract-free iPhone at all, and as far as I know, there are no circumstances under which it will unlock an iPhone for you.

The iPhone is an exceptional product–probably the most important cell phone in the history of cell phones, and an amazing gadget in spite of some significant flaws. But at the end of the day, it’s just a phone. And carrier policies relating to it should be the same as for any other phone they sell.

If you ask Apple or AT&T how much the iPhone 3G S costs, they’ll emphasize two prices: $199 for the 16GB version and $299 for the 32GB one, as Apple does here. It’s only in the fine print and disclaimers that they’ll explain that only new customers and those who aren’t on a contract (or nearing the end of one, at least) qualify for those deals. Which means that all of us who bought AT&T iPhone 3Gs upon their release a little under a year ago don’t qualify–we’ll pay $399 for the 16GB model or $499 for the 32GB one, assuming we’re willing to extend our contracts for another two years. Which still represents a discount off the no-commitment pricing: $599 for 16GB and $699 for 32GB.

Some folks are irate at this turn of events, arguing that the pricing punishes loyal AT&T customers. Nope. What it does is prevent customers who got a steep discount on an iPhone a year ago in return for signing up for a two-year contract to get an equally steep discount this year for signing up for another two-year contract. Which strikes me as perfectly reasonable, given that this scenario involves you only being under contract to AT&T for a total of three years. You can still get a discount on a new iPhone–just not one that’s as steep as someone who commits to AT&T for a total of four years.

Come to think of it, the math is perfectly logical: You get a total of $400 in discounts (on one phone) for two years of commitment, $600 in discounts (on two phones) for three years of commitment, and $800 in discounts (on two phones) for four years of commitment. That’s a $200 discount per year of contract you fulfill.

(Why doesn’t AT&T let iPhone 3G owners get a $199 iPhone 3G S today in return for agreeing to fulfill their original two-year contract and extend it for an additional two years? I’m not sure. But I’m wary of long-term commitments to any wireless character, and therefore wouldn’t endorse a scenario which involves agreeing to marry AT&T until at least 2012 in order to get a discount on a phone.)

If there’s a problem here, it’s the way phones are usually sold in America, via subsidies that encourage us to think that phones cost less than they really do, and which tie us up with a carrier and prevent us from moving a phone we’ve bought to another carrier (even temporarily, when we’re overseas). A top-of-the-line iPhone really costs $699, which is not a crazy price given its capabilities; it’s just that very few of us ever pay that price or even realize it exists. We’re conditioned to think of those subsidized prices as the prices, in part because phone manufacturers and carriers stress them above all else.

So no, I’m not that sympathetic towards iPhone 3G owners who want AT&T to sell them the iPhone 3G S at the same sweetheart price as someone who didn’t buy an iPhone 3G last year. You agreed to fulfill a two-year contract with AT&T in return for the discount you got last year. AT&T is willing to renegotiate it and give you a proportionate discount on a 3G in return for another year of commitment. Explain to me again what’s offensive about that?