Home  ›  News  ›

Sprint: Smartphone Users Need to Pay $10 More

Article Comments  

all discussions

show all 29 replies

This is actually a -good- thing

ScribeD

Jan 18, 2011, 12:17 PM
Everyone, relax. This isn't ending the world. This was a necessity, plain and simple.

The thing is, Sprint has been in the red for some time now. Some will argue that this has been a "on paper only" discussion, but, regardless, the effects are present. Their only options were to find a way to raise arpu or a way to decrease costs. Being CDMA without the clout backing of Verizon's 93 million customer base makes it difficult for them to achieve competitive handset prices. They have had a great deal of requisition charges resulting from previous quarter net loss (churn bites companies in the arse here. Layoffs, at this point, were not an option. They did reduce some overhead by "selling" their cell site infrastructure, but this wasn't...
(continues)
...
T Bone

Jan 18, 2011, 12:20 PM
I agree...mostly....

Prices go up, it happens, but the price increase only affects new customers and upgrade, it is not retroactive, people need to grow up here.

Sprint can continue this charade that they are the 'nice' carrier that gives everything away for only so long....eventually they need to turn a profit.
...
Azeron

Jan 18, 2011, 12:24 PM
How about Sprint dispense with the bull*Bleep* and just copy Verizon's prices like Stan Sigman did for AT&T six years ago. Don't talk out of both sides of your neck, Sprint.
...
T Bone

Jan 18, 2011, 12:26 PM
You don't have much knowledge of business or economics do you?
...
Azeron

Jan 18, 2011, 12:28 PM
Apparently neither does Sprint.
...
ScribeD

Jan 18, 2011, 12:30 PM
Honestly? Because price is the main thing Sprint has right now. Look at their advertisements. They talk about their simply everything plans.

AT&T and Verizon
69.99 = Unlimited Talk

Sprint
69.99=
Unlimited Text
Unlimited Email and Internet
Unlimited Mobile to Any Mobile
450 Anytime minutes
(I always found this to be a bit ironic. Simply Everything isn't simply everything... but still, a good deal for most)

They have a cross branded commercial with HTC for their Evo phones.

That's it.

This is much akin to saying, "We don't have a product to sell you, but we sure do have it for the cheap!"

So... they still had to keep a way to keep the advertised price low. This is their position in the market. If they raised ...
(continues)
...
Azeron

Jan 18, 2011, 12:35 PM
What do you think this is going to do?

"We're not as expensive as the other guys...but we are still raising our rates a smidgen. We still aren't as expensive as the other guys. We'll sneak another price increase in six months from now though."
...
ScribeD

Jan 18, 2011, 12:37 PM
Possibly. But would you rather have had to switch to Verizon or AT&T in two years when Sprint goes into Chapter 11 because the Nextel papers come due?

I don't like Sprint, personally. However, I like having them in the conversation because it keeps the Big Two at least somewhat restrained.
...
Azeron

Jan 18, 2011, 12:40 PM
I love Sprint...the way they were. If they're going to be hyporcites...not so much.
...
xxmxxmxxmxxm

Jan 18, 2011, 3:07 PM
tmobile is bigger than at&t and verizon
...
T Bone

Jan 18, 2011, 12:53 PM
Do you believe any price can last forever? I for one have never been under the impression that Sprint was promising that its advertised prices would remain the same from now until the heat death of the universe.

I just bought a can of soda from a vending machine....it's now 85 cents....bastards raised the price again....

Prices go up, it's a part of life.
...
epik

Jan 18, 2011, 1:00 PM
While that works in general, it's not always a given. In the electronics business, most things have reduced in price. What I paid many years ago for a basic 32" 720p HDTV is more than what I would pay for a 40" 1080p HDTV today. My sound system from five years ago was $300 less than the same system the year before. I can build a decent computer for $100. When I worked in the computer business ten years ago, a decent system back then would run at least $500.
...
Azeron

Jan 18, 2011, 1:01 PM
You just don't get it. Instead of playing silly games I am advocating Sprint coming out of the closet and placing their product toe-to-toe with VZW and AT&T. Don't hide behind a data plan increase. Network as good or better than the duopoly? Evo and Epic as good as anything that Verizon and AT&T offer? Really? Change the price structure. Obviously, being the value carrier isn't working. Still losing money? Then here's an idea...STOP trying to be the value carrier. I know. Not going to happen. Rather steal an extra ten dollars like a pick pocket than be honest about the price.
...
T Bone

Jan 18, 2011, 12:38 PM
Economically, the goal is to search for the ideal price, the one who maximizes profits....this is not necessarily to be accomplished just by setting the price as high as possible...

What needs to be weighed is, how many customers do they lose by a price increase, or how many switch to a phone which requires a cheaper plan...they need to set the price point at a place where any increase in revenue offsets the ineviatable churn resulting from the price increase, so they need to increase the price but not increase it so much that they end up losing more money than they save...

It's difficutlt to find that 'ideal price' but for Sprint it almost certainly ISN'T to be found by matching Verizon/AT&T prices
...
Cosmic Spiderman

Jan 18, 2011, 12:40 PM
Who are they going to lose them to? If they have the same prices as "Big Blue" or "Big Red", are they gonna run to Big Pink? Nope. They will stay and say, "well, at least I still have the highest rated phone." or, "At least I still have unlimited data"
...
epik

Jan 18, 2011, 12:35 PM
Sprint and its proponents have been pushing their price advantage (granted, it's still there) for some time now. They've opened themselves to criticism the second Sprint did anything to raise their prices. I get the necessity, trust me. Does that mean any of you (or even me) should be happy about it? I shouldn't have to be.

Interestingly, this reasoning can be applied to Verizon's recent changes in upgrade discounting. It was a necessity, plain and simple. Instead of charging more per month, Verizon decided to discount less per year. It's all a tactic to fight loss. But when Verizon made this change, everyone and their cousin pointed out how Verizon was the devil. When Sprint does something similarly the apologists start telling ...
(continues)
...
Azeron

Jan 18, 2011, 12:38 PM
...
epik

Jan 18, 2011, 12:42 PM
What I find most interesting is the fact that the perks go to those on price plans higher than the ones they push the most.
...
Azeron

Jan 18, 2011, 12:43 PM
Exactly! If you're going to mimic the big boys then go full bore!
...
acdc1a

Jan 18, 2011, 12:39 PM
Sprint has been ratcheting up the fees for the last couple of years. First there was the $0.99 "Administrative Charge." Then they took away my corporate discount on additional features. Then it was taken away on additional lines of service. That was the last straw. It's when I saw the light and stopped taking it.
...
Cosmic Spiderman

Jan 18, 2011, 12:44 PM
Well put. Is everyone forgetting that ALL of the companies have to make money to stay in business? Both instances are out of neccessity. Personaly, I wish that EVERYONE would change their prices to the same as Verizon and allow all phone to be able to switch to any carrier. Let the customer service battle begin!
...
epik

Jan 18, 2011, 12:53 PM
True innovation in this industry will come when I can buy a phone like I can with most any non-phone electronic device and take it where I please. There are a ton of aspects to making that kind of change, first of which would be the manufacturer making a standard profit on wireless phone rather than the hyper-inflated super margins they currently make.
...
acdc1a

Jan 18, 2011, 1:16 PM
I'm going to say this is not necessary. Is Sprint in the red? Yes. Is it because the service plans are not profitable? NO!

Poor business decisions from many years past are the reason that Sprint is not profitable.

Look to a company like Metro. They serve approximately 7.9 million subscribers with ARPU of $39.69. They manage to turn a profit.

Perhaps bankruptcy wouldn't be a bad thing.
...
T Bone

Jan 18, 2011, 1:21 PM
Their lack of profitability might not be due to prices being too low, nevertheless they need to find some way to increase revenue to make the necessary network upgrades and the like that will help to turn it around, and prices increases are the easiest way to increase revenue.
...
acdc1a

Jan 18, 2011, 1:26 PM
It's not. If you lose customers or fail to attract new customers, you're not going to raise revenue.
...
T Bone

Jan 18, 2011, 2:26 PM
I have to assume that a company as big as Sprint has already done the cost/benefit analysis...companies invest billions in that kind of research, it's not like Dan Hesse just woke up one day and said 'hey, you know what, let's raise prices'
...
acdc1a

Jan 18, 2011, 2:36 PM
This is the same company, albeit under different leadership, that thought the Nextel purchase was a good thing.
...
T Bone

Jan 18, 2011, 3:01 PM
Ouch! Touche! 🤣

And then spent years trying to make two obviously incompatible technologies compatible before finally admitting it was hopeless.
...
acdc1a

Jan 18, 2011, 3:05 PM
I was with them through all of it...until they tried to nickel and dime me for the last time.
...
Azeron

Jan 18, 2011, 4:29 PM
This circuitous method of raising prices is nefarious. They should have just raised prices on their price plans. Charging $40 for a smartphone email and web plan? That is not justified on a Curve. This is Verizon all over again. Despicable.
...

This forum is closed.

Please log in to report a message to the moderator.

This forum is closed.


all discussions

Subscribe to Phone Scoop News with RSS Follow @phonescoop on Threads Follow @phonescoop on Mastodon Phone Scoop on Facebook Follow on Instagram

 

Playwire

All content Copyright 2001-2024 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.