I suspect your plan is amortized too and not subsidized. The alternative you describe is worse for sure but, if you calculate the minimum you must pay over the term of your contract (not forgetting the $200), it is very likely you could buy the device and get a prepaid plan for less or about the same.
I don't get the whole subsidized versus financed distinction. In the subsidized scenario, don't you just pay a higher monthly rate for your plan to make up for the reduced phone price? And in the financed option, you pay a lower monthly rate for the plan, but they just tack on monthly cost of the phone amortized over the term of the financing, right? So, while it is technically different, the customer ends up paying a similar amount right?
For example:
Subsidized: Pay $200 for a phone (normally worth $600) and $80/mo for the plan. Total after 2 years is $2,120 ($200 + ($80 x 24)).
Financed: Pay $600 for the phone spread out over 24 months, so $25 per month ($600 / 24). Then the provider just lowers your plan rate by a bit, say, for example $15. Now you are paying $65 per month plus the $25 per month for the phone. $90 per month for 24 months is $2,160.
OK. Great. So, what's the difference? Couldn't they adjust whatever variable they want in either scenario to reach whatever number they want for the total commitment after 24 months? If so, and it's just a matter of how they characterize it, is this all just a way of packaging it to make the customer feel better? I don't get it.
I don't get the whole subsidized versus financed distinction. In the subsidized scenario, don't you just pay a higher monthly rate for your plan to make up for the reduced phone price? And in the financed option, you pay a lower monthly rate for the plan, but they just tack on monthly cost of the phone amortized over the term of the financing, right? So, while it is technically different, the customer ends up paying a similar amount right?
For example:
Subsidized: Pay $200 for a phone (normally worth $600) and $80/mo for the plan. Total after 2 years is $2,120 ($200 + ($80 x 24)).
Financed: Pay $600 for the phone spread out over 24 months, so $25 per month ($600 / 24). Then the provider just lowers your plan rate by a bit, say, for example $15. Now you are paying $65 per month plus the $25 per month for the phone. $90 per month for 24 months is $2,160.
OK. Great. So, what's the difference? Couldn't they adjust whatever variable they want in either scenario to reach whatever number they want for the total commitment after 24 months? If so, and it's just a matter of how they characterize it, is this all just a way of packaging it to make the customer feel better? I don't get it.
I went in and asked about the note 4 for me and my wife since we're both disappointed over the s6 and it would have cost us 94 bucks more a month, paying around 170 now. Gonna stick with the subsidized for now. I just hope they'll be a root method by in 2 months when I'm ready for it.
I went in and asked about the note 4 for me and my wife since we're both disappointed over the s6 and it would have cost us 94 bucks more a month, paying around 170 now. Gonna stick with the subsidized for now. I just hope they'll be a root method by in 2 months when I'm ready for it.
So, I'm gathering from what I'm reading that phones are just financed now. Meaning, the total cost of the phone (e.g., $600) is just evenly split over, say, 24 months, and once you pay that monthly rate (e.g., $25) for the financing term (e.g., 24 months), you own the phone. So, is there any benefit to financing it other than simply reducing your immediate spend?
So, I'm gathering from what I'm reading that phones are just financed now. Meaning, the total cost of the phone (e.g., $600) is just evenly split over, say, 24 months, and once you pay that monthly rate (e.g., $25) for the financing term (e.g., 24 months), you own the phone. So, is there any benefit to financing it other than simply reducing your immediate spend?
Not for the note 4, they said it's a little more than the other models. I also wanted to take advantage of getting a 2 free tablets with both upgrades but we would have had to switch to the next program, which is the financing. I'd also lose my unlimited data doing that.
I came to the s5 from a droid RAZR m because of the reason for a SD card that's the one thing I need in a phone is lots of storage the non removable battery I could careless about but with my s5 I have a 7500mah battery I bought to replace the stock one because i play alot of games and use my phone alot so i need to go long periods of time without charging but no SD card I'm done with Samsung until they bring it back yes there is the note but I don't want that big of a phone
I think I am with Samsung with regards to it's new design philosophy and I cannot see why there should be a problem, when every other company has been doing so for ages.
I maybe living under a rock, but I never knew that the replaceable battery was one of the Unique selling points of Galaxy-S line-up. Not for me and probably 99% of the people around.
Considering the years of criticism Samsung has faced for having a plastic-shell in it's flagship phones, this U-turn was coming and I would say it should have come with the S5.
Yes, one can argue w.r.t lack of SD card slot, but If Samsung can provide the 32gb model at same price-point as S5.........then I think 99.99% people buying the S6 would be happy with that.
If we look away from these 2 small changes, we must applaud Samsung for turning away from their tried and tested design philosophy and doing a 360 degree u-turn to address the criticism.
Also, the other changes like with quick-charging/improved-camera/trimmed touchwiz are very noteworthy improvements.
If we look away from these 2 small changes, we must applaud Samsung for turning away from their tried and tested design philosophy and doing a 360 degree u-turn to address the criticism.
Disappointed that there will probably be no option to buy unlocked non carrier model directly from Samsung US store. Instead have to buy the useless carrier model or import the international version hoping the three have north american LTE bands.
I don't get the whole subsidized versus financed distinction. In the subsidized scenario, don't you just pay a higher monthly rate for your plan to make up for the reduced phone price? And in the financed option, you pay a lower monthly rate for the plan, but they just tack on monthly cost of the phone amortized over the term of the financing, right? So, while it is technically different, the customer ends up paying a similar amount right?
For example:
Subsidized: Pay $200 for a phone (normally worth $600) and $80/mo for the plan. Total after 2 years is $2,120 ($200 + ($80 x 24)).
Financed: Pay $600 for the phone spread out over 24 months, so $25 per month ($600 / 24). Then the provider just lowers your plan rate by a bit, say, for example $15. Now you are paying $65 per month plus the $25 per month for the phone. $90 per month for 24 months is $2,160.
OK. Great. So, what's the difference? Couldn't they adjust whatever variable they want in either scenario to reach whatever number they want for the total commitment after 24 months? If so, and it's just a matter of how they characterize it, is this all just a way of packaging it to make the customer feel better? I don't get it.
The distinction is artificial. The only question I ask is: Is this good value for me?
Take the lowest of your minimum spends over 24 months above. If one buys the phone outright for $600, that leaves another $1520 that is charged for the cell service over 24 months i.e. $63.33 per month. Depending on one's needs, one can typically find cheaper cell service with prepaid plans etc.
And since the phone can be used for as long as one wants without that inbuilt $600 penalty, the saving is even greater in subsequent terms.
Charging is not an issue for me. I would say that the biggest concern I have the microusb. But I guess I do have a lot of cloud based stuff. I'm planning on getting this phone. Don't really have that much of a concern.
I'm still horribly badly disappointed.
I hope not, that the Note 5 even gets more disadvantages.
I mentioned all Note 4 Sofware+Hardware disadvantages in it's thread, but the S6 is a true nightmare.
Well, Samsung makes very good phone, but if a piece of Crâp, like the Galaxy S6 causes them to run bankrupt (or get Financial Trouble), they'll learn and take a lesson of it, what unneccesarry and easily-avoidable disadvantages cause.
If the 30-Second Chargable Battery Dies After 2 Year's, you'll have Trouble.
Non-Replacebale Batteries Suck, but the Charging Speed and the Robustity of the S6 is pretty fine - but the Battery has even less capacity than S4.
I don't like that the battery is poor. On the s5 was better, but I love the rest of the phone. Yo fix the battery problem, I'll buy the battery case of Zerolemon. I tried the one they made to the s4 and was useful... And with a good price
i think the worst of the worst that some people havent completly factored in is that face that this is exynos chipset and that aosp development on the exynos chipset is limited without COMPLETE OPEN SOURCE!!!!. That alone when i heard killed my thoughts of owning one. Samsung really is hoping to sell off LOOKS, well good luck, consumer will show u looks arent everything, they want the functionality and convenience too! They better take their "SIX APPEAL" somewhere else!
I actually loved what they did with the S6. I had the S3 and S4, completely ignored the S5, but now Samsung has my attention again. I've never needed a microSD card and if battery life can last me 24 hours, that's really all I need. I have to say, I am very impressed overall with the S6.
I am really disappointed @ #Samsung !!! what have they done to the S6!! No removable battery, no water resistance, and worst of all NO MICRO SD card!! #thenextbigflop. Samsung is going down hill, what a shame. One step forward and 3 steps back....i was really looking forward to it, i owned the S1, S2, S3, S4 and skipped the S5 figuring ide wait for the S6...now after the wait i'm really disappointed, i'de figure they would add some improvements, not remove the previous improvements.... Anyone else feel the same way? List those reason, maybe Samsung will listen, although it may be too little to late, they will lose major market share in premium handsets because of this move.
All of you people complaining make me sick... You do realize their are like a million other phones on the market. Why make a thread to complain about why you ARE NOT EVEN GETTING THIS PHONE?! Are ya'll 10yrs old or something and just like to b**** and moan?
I don't like the fact that it is no longer waterproof.
I have an S5 and although I don't dunk it in water, I do like the fact that I don't have to worry if I'm out and about in wet weather. From a simple mechanical engineering perspective, I would have thought the S6 would be easier to make waterproof than the S5 - smaller (USB2) port, sealed back, etc.
R.I.P.† Samsung ﴾Tragedy Phone S6﴿
