oh they make profits from the sale of new phones in signed contracts. remove the incentive of a new phone and what reason does one have to renew. i could shut off any or all of my accounts anytime I choose, and your attitude of defending their position is negative thinking when it has obviously become apparent that the consumer has to initiate methods that effect their pockets to get the bean counters back into proper perspective.
No they don't. Where's the proof? It's already been proven in 1998 that manufacturers set the prices, and Carriers subsidize the phones to lock people into contracts to recoup the subsidization and to make profit.
They do not make money on the sale of the device as you assume they do.
Ok, I have a question. I was looking at the Galaxy 5 mp3 player, which basically looks like every other Android phone, except obviously it's unable to make calls:
It's list price is about $200, which, amazingly enough, is about what we pay for phones. Can you really tell me that the additional circuitry they add to this device to make phone calls adds $500 to the phone? Cuz I'm not buying it.
There's also other things that plays a role like design, battery, licensing, and different parts. You will also have to include developmental and testing costs which cost more to the FCC as well. there's a much larger hidden costs people fail to assume. Also have to consider overhead costs if the device doesn't sell well.
The tab 5 is about the same as the first generation S device without a radio. The developmental costs have already been paid for by the success of the first 2 generation and use of surplus parts already approved years ago by the FCC.
I have been through the development process more than once throughout my military career and seen a lot of the hidden costs.
Oh FYI if someone brings up Apple with their surplus cash. Majority of that money comes from their iTunes store, and not the sale of their devices.
apparently your confusing profits from the sale of phones with profits generated by signed contracts. the phones are simply a incentive to the consumer to renew their contract, which is necessary to fulfill verizons future market. fewer signed contracts will have a very unstable future to their marketing forcing verizon to reevaluate their customers needs. the obvious here is that you are not an advocate for the consumer, so don\t bother reposting another offer in defence of a company that has completely lost sight of responsible customer support. i know i was lied to when i purchased my rezound, and even though it is a good phone doesn\t make it accepable to fruadulently market a third parties product with unfulfilled promises. If you want to bring up the posted hogwash of they didn't lie, save it. i know i got lied to. i\m 55 yrs old and been paying for a mobile phone since the days when batteries were the size of a car battery. this ain\t my first rodeo.
Actually this is your first rodeo. You have yet to develop a device from the ground up to understand production costs and overhead. Using a device and making a device are two different things. If you can do it cheaper and better please do so so all of us can benefit and you could be the richest man in the world.
Also The supreme court has documentation that Verizon doesn't make money on the sale of devices, but the services they provide. Hence it's called subsidization as they make money from another source and not the sale of the device. This misplaced blame allows manufacturers time to not do what you paid them for. What you are doing is no different than than blaming Walmart for your TV breaking.