The only reliable consistent comparison is OEM prices for OEM parts.
Especially as OEM parts are ALWAYs what comes with a phone in the box.

For Apple phones, people should price Apple OEM parts.
For Samsung phones, people should price Samsung OEM parts.

Anything else is their personal chimerical ever changing fictitious scam.

It's so simple to calculate cost of ownership that it's worrisome when
people don't know how to add up OEM costs for OEM parts for a phone.

They should add a 3 foot cable, a 6 foot cable & a 10 foot cable which
is what many people use since one cable will NEVER do unless people are
permanently in a hospital room strapped to their bed their entire lives.

Only if the manufacturer doesn't sell the OEM cable should people price an
off-OEM cable, and even then, they must note a substituted non-OEM part.

It's a fictitious scam unless your own spreadsheet includes real costs.

Pick the real location YOU live in.
Pick the real carrier YOU use.
Pick the real store of that real carrier in the real location you live in.

Go to that real store and pick two real phones.
An iPhone.
And a similar Samsung phone.

Price it out at that real carrier store in the real location you live.
Add the cost at that real store for an OEM case & OEM screen.
Add the cost at that real store of a 3 foot, 6 foot & 10 foot OEM cable
unless those three cables already come with the phone & we know they don't.

Add the cost at that real store of an OEM charger designed for that phone.
Again, if the OEM charger comes with the phone, then omit that cost, but do
NOT compare an OEM charger that comes with one phone to the non-OEM
dollar-store charger that you have to buy for the other phone.

That is the hallmark of a scammer who is fluffing the numbers on purpose.

Add the real tax at that real store for the phone & accessories you bought.
That will be a total price out the door but it's still NOT believable yet.

For total cost of ownership, you have to assume a percentage of phones will
be repaired. If you think it's half the phones, then pick a typical repair
cost at that same real carrier store where YOU live and divide in half.

If you think the repair only happens to every third phone, then divide by 3
and if you think a repair happens to every fourth phone, then divide by 4.

But to completely ignore that repairs happen is yet another of the bogus
deceptive assumptions you are making expressly to skew results your way.

Repairs happen.

If you want, you add the cost of insurance for the three years used for
total costs (pick any single depreciation time frame you want but to claim
all iPhones last x months longer than all Android phones is pure fiction).]

The hardware lasts about the same time frame.
And the software is supported about the same time frame.

Any argument otherwise is a hallmark of a scam artist using forged numbers.

It's the same math for tradein/resale residual value where you know more
than two thirds of people never bother with the inconvenient wrangling.

If your spreadsheet is to be considered reliable, you must take that into
account, which is easily done by multiplying resale by those percentages.

That is how you calculate a realistic believable total cost of ownership.

JAB wrote:

>The only reliable consistent comparison is OEM prices for OEM parts.
>Especially as OEM parts are ALWAYs what comes with a phone in the box.
>
>For Apple phones, people should price Apple OEM parts.
>For Samsung phones, people should price Samsung OEM parts.
>
>Anything else is their personal chimerical ever changing fictitious
>scam.
>
>It's so simple to calculate cost of ownership that it's worrisome when
>people don't know how to add up OEM costs for OEM parts for a phone.
>
>They should add a 3 foot cable, a 6 foot cable & a 10 foot cable
>which is what many people use since one cable will NEVER do unless
>people are permanently in a hospital room strapped to their bed their
>entire lives.
>
>Only if the manufacturer doesn't sell the OEM cable should people
>price an off-OEM cable, and even then, they must note a substituted
>non-OEM part.
>
>It's a fictitious scam unless your own spreadsheet includes real
>costs.
>
>Pick the real location YOU live in.
>Pick the real carrier YOU use.
>Pick the real store of that real carrier in the real location you
>live in.
>
>Go to that real store and pick two real phones.
>An iPhone.
>And a similar Samsung phone.
>
>Price it out at that real carrier store in the real location you live.
>Add the cost at that real store for an OEM case & OEM screen.
>Add the cost at that real store of a 3 foot, 6 foot & 10 foot OEM
>cable unless those three cables already come with the phone & we know
>they don't.
>
>Add the cost at that real store of an OEM charger designed for that
>phone. Again, if the OEM charger comes with the phone, then omit
>that cost, but do NOT compare an OEM charger that comes with one
>phone to the non-OEM dollar-store charger that you have to buy for
>the other phone.
>
>That is the hallmark of a scammer who is fluffing the numbers on
>purpose.
>
>Add the real tax at that real store for the phone & accessories you
>bought. That will be a total price out the door but it's still NOT
>believable yet.
>
>For total cost of ownership, you have to assume a percentage of
>phones will be repaired. If you think it's half the phones, then pick
>a typical repair cost at that same real carrier store where YOU live
>and divide in half.
>
>If you think the repair only happens to every third phone, then
>divide by 3 and if you think a repair happens to every fourth phone,
>then divide by 4.
>
>But to completely ignore that repairs happen is yet another of the
>bogus deceptive assumptions you are making expressly to skew results
>your way.
>
>Repairs happen.
>
>If you want, you add the cost of insurance for the three years used
>for total costs (pick any single depreciation time frame you want but
>to claim all iPhones last x months longer than all Android phones is
>pure fiction).]
>
>The hardware lasts about the same time frame.
>And the software is supported about the same time frame.
>
>Any argument otherwise is a hallmark of a scam artist using forged
>numbers.
>
>It's the same math for tradein/resale residual value where you know
>more than two thirds of people never bother with the inconvenient
>wrangling.
>
>If your spreadsheet is to be considered reliable, you must take that
>into account, which is easily done by multiplying resale by those
>percentages.
>
>That is how you calculate a realistic believable total cost of
>ownership.

Maybe it would be helpful if you provided those numbers for people to
compare.

On 1/13/2023 10:26 AM, badgolferman wrote:

<snip>

> Maybe it would be helpful if you provided those numbers for people to
> compare.

Do you really think that someone that thinks that a SIM card costs $20
is going to be able to provide any factual data?!

The reality is that if you're buying accessories from the carrier, or
from the manufacturer, the costs are comparable. As I pointed out in the
TCO document "If you want to buy accessories from the manufacturer,
prices are comparable. A Samsung 25W USB-C PD wired charger is $19.99.
An Apple 20W USB-C PD wired charger is $19.00. Google charges $25 for a
30W charger." These are all straight from the Samsung, Apple, and Google
Pixel web sites.

It was interesting that Verizon charges more for the Apple 20W USB-C
charger than Apple charges
(<https://www.verizon.com/products/apple-20w-usb-c-power-adapter-iphone/>
vs.
<https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MHJA3AM/A/20w-usb-c-power-adapter>),
$24.99 versus $19.00. They don't sell the Samsung 25W charger or the
Google 30W charger.

Where there can be some savings is for common iPhone accessories that
are sold at discount stores, as I noted. You don't get that savings on
Android devices. OTOH, if you're buying extra cables, beyond what comes
in the box, Good quality USB-C to Lightning cables are more expensive
than USB-C to USB-C cables because of the MFi royalties.

Sales tax is the same percentage no matter which device you buy, ranging
from 0% (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire Oregon) to nearly 10%
(in some California cities), so there's no reason to try to include it.

The TCO table I provided is based on referenced data. The resale values
and trade-in values are based on what carriers and reputable resale
sites show.

The reality is that iPhone TCO is helped by the fact that iPhones have
very high trade-in and resale values (whether those high values are
justified is another story entirely). Pixel TCO is helped by the fact
that Google has been offering big discounts and high trade-in values to
try to boost Pixel sales.

"JAB" needs to learn to look at the big picture.

On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 18:26:39 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

> Maybe it would be helpful if you provided those numbers for people to
> compare.

I was wondering what the crazies wouldn't like about my post because it was
so cogently sensible that I was pondering how they'd deprecate the logic.

At least you didn't attempt to say that it wasn't a method to obtain TOC.

I'll take you up on that do-the-comparison offer, but bear in mind it's a
tremendous amount of effort on my part, and I need You do to your part.

Let's do this together, where you make the fundamental choices first, so
that it removes me from being accused of skewing the results beforehand.

1. You pick a location in the United States please (a zip code will do).
2. You pick the carrier you want me to research (pick one of the top 3).
3. Then you pick the iPhone and the Samsung phone that YOU want compared.
4. Since this is TOC, you must also pick an OLD iPhone/Samsung to trade in!

I would suggest you choose a bought period for both those old phones, which
should be what? Three years ago? Four years ago? You pick how old the phone
is but both phones need to have been 'current' in that previous timeframe.

(If I choose them, I can cherry pick them, and you don't want that.)

Then I can pick the real store in that real zip code to compare phones.
Notice I am asking YOU for that simple stuff to ensure reliable results.

I will attempt to use all OEM parts for the comparison at that store.

If that stores does not have OEM parts, then I will have to find the
next nearest store, and if none have it, then the OEM's web site.

Only if OEM parts do not exist, should we look to aftermarket because
once we go aftermarket, the numbers instantly become less reproduceable.

And precision is just as important as accuracy since it does nobody any
good if I use dollar store prices from around the world instead of OEM.

Does that sound like a fair start to the overall comparison?

Furthermore, do we agree on a parts list as described in the opening post?
For example, should we add earphones?

Should we assume three OEM cables, 3 feet, 6 feet & 10 feet or some other
set of three OEM cables?

Should we assume every phone is repaired once, or should we assume some
other value such as every third phone or every fifth phone, or what?

Should we assume OEM repair insurance is purchased at the store or not?
Should we assume that the hardware & support lasts about the same time?

What about resale value and trade in value? Should we use the values that
are valid at THAT real carrier TODAY for example?

That will be a problem because we won't have those numbers.
That's why I want you to also pick the traded-in/resold phone too.

With the old phone, we can use TODAY's resale/tradein prices at that store.

We still need to decide how much of a percentage of people trade in their
phones or sell them, so what do you think about using 1/3rd as that value?

I want YOU to answer those questions so that the results are believable.
Then I can do the work involved, which let's be clear, is appreciable.

In article <tps8vt$1m1ce$3@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Where there can be some savings is for common iPhone accessories that
> are sold at discount stores, as I noted. You don't get that savings on
> Android devices.

false. discounted accessories are available for popular devices,
regardless of platform, from a variety of stores and other venues.

> OTOH, if you're buying extra cables, beyond what comes
> in the box, Good quality USB-C to Lightning cables are more expensive
> than USB-C to USB-C cables because of the MFi royalties.

false. prices are similar for similar quality. you're also ignoring usb
licensing fees.

On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 10:47:25 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>> Maybe it would be helpful if you provided those numbers for people to
>> compare.
>
> Do you really think that someone that thinks that a SIM card costs $20
> is going to be able to provide any factual data?!

You responded to badgolferman, so let's ask badgolferman to call 611 and
ask his carrier (or his local store) how much a SIM card would cost him.

We have to assume he's not a longstanding customer as they often gift the
small charges - so he'd have to ask what their PUBLISHED prices are.

To badgolferman: On YOUR carrier - what is their published new SIM price?
(if all you did was ask them for a new SIM card for a different phone)

> The reality is that if you're buying accessories from the carrier, or
> from the manufacturer, the costs are comparable. As I pointed out in the
> TCO document "If you want to buy accessories from the manufacturer,
> prices are comparable. A Samsung 25W USB-C PD wired charger is $19.99.
> An Apple 20W USB-C PD wired charger is $19.00. Google charges $25 for a
> 30W charger." These are all straight from the Samsung, Apple, and Google
> Pixel web sites.

I wonder if you realize that you just said your own numbers are a sham.
You purposefully skewed all the figures to fit your preconceived notions.

> Where there can be some savings is for common iPhone accessories that
> are sold at discount stores, as I noted. You don't get that savings on
> Android devices. OTOH, if you're buying extra cables, beyond what comes
> in the box, Good quality USB-C to Lightning cables are more expensive
> than USB-C to USB-C cables because of the MFi royalties.

Everything you are saying is showing that your figures are all forged.

> Sales tax is the same percentage no matter which device you buy, ranging
> from 0% (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire Oregon) to nearly 10%
> (in some California cities), so there's no reason to try to include it.

It's YOUR spreadsheet!

Why can't you own up to your own numbers instead of being crooked about it.

Pick the sales tax in the specific town, county, & state that YOU live in.
Anything else is deceitful and dishonorable on your part as it's YOUR data.

>
> The TCO table I provided is based on referenced data. The resale values
> and trade-in values are based on what carriers and reputable resale
> sites show.

You don't seem to be able to comprehend your own figures since you showed
yourself that about two thirds of the phones are NOT traded in or resold.

By not accounting using your own statistics, you're trying to bamboozle us.

> The reality is that iPhone TCO is helped by the fact that iPhones have
> very high trade-in and resale values (whether those high values are
> justified is another story entirely). Pixel TCO is helped by the fact
> that Google has been offering big discounts and high trade-in values to
> try to boost Pixel sales.

Every choice you made "helped" the iPhone TCO, such as comparing dollar
store missing components for the iPhone to OEM components for Android.

You are trying to dupe us with dollar store prices for iPhone accessories.

Your assumption of dollar store components being comparative to OEM quality
is a wantonly deceitful sham which you are attempting to perpetuate on us.

>
> "JAB" needs to learn to look at the big picture.

No. I wrote the big picture. If I do the appreciable amount of work that
badgolferman asked of me, and if HE choose the phones and accessories,
and even the location and carrier - then the results will be believable.

Your chimerical fanciful results are deceitful and thoroughly dishonest.

If badgolferman makes the half dozen choices asked of him, I will try to
get believable OEM prices for what it costs over the ownership lifetime.

But it's an appreciable amount of effort so it will take some time.
However, the goal is for a believable realistic TOC comparative result.]]

Unlike your deceitfully synthetic sham.

JAB wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 18:26:39 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman
><REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Maybe it would be helpful if you provided those numbers for people
>>to compare.
>
>I was wondering what the crazies wouldn't like about my post because
>it was so cogently sensible that I was pondering how they'd deprecate
>the logic.
>
>At least you didn't attempt to say that it wasn't a method to obtain
>TOC.
>
>I'll take you up on that do-the-comparison offer, but bear in mind
>it's a tremendous amount of effort on my part, and I need You do to
>your part.
>
>Let's do this together, where you make the fundamental choices first,
>so that it removes me from being accused of skewing the results
>beforehand.

Fair enough.

>1. You pick a location in the United States please (a zip code will
>do).

Naples, FL 34102

2. You pick the carrier you want me to research (pick one of
>the top 3).

T-Mobile

3. Then you pick the iPhone and the Samsung phone that
>YOU want compared.

Apple iPhone 14 standard model vs Samsung Galaxy S22 standard model

4. Since this is TOC, you must also pick an OLD
>iPhone/Samsung to trade in!

Apple iPhone 11 standard model vs Samsung Galaxy S20 standard model

>I would suggest you choose a bought period for both those old phones,
>which should be what? Three years ago? Four years ago? You pick how
>old the phone is but both phones need to have been 'current' in that
>previous timeframe.

Three years

>(If I choose them, I can cherry pick them, and you don't want that.)
>
>Then I can pick the real store in that real zip code to compare
>phones. Notice I am asking YOU for that simple stuff to ensure
>reliable results.

T-Mobile 1836 Tamiami Trail N L0011, Naples, FL 34102

>I will attempt to use all OEM parts for the comparison at that store.
>
>If that stores does not have OEM parts, then I will have to find the
>next nearest store, and if none have it, then the OEM's web site.
>
>Only if OEM parts do not exist, should we look to aftermarket because
>once we go aftermarket, the numbers instantly become less
>reproduceable.
>
>And precision is just as important as accuracy since it does nobody
>any good if I use dollar store prices from around the world instead
>of OEM.
>
>Does that sound like a fair start to the overall comparison?
>
>Furthermore, do we agree on a parts list as described in the opening
>post? For example, should we add earphones?

No earphones.

>Should we assume three OEM cables, 3 feet, 6 feet & 10 feet or some
>other set of three OEM cables?

3 foot (2), 6 foot (1)

>Should we assume every phone is repaired once, or should we assume
>some other value such as every third phone or every fifth phone, or
>what?

No repairs.

>Should we assume OEM repair insurance is purchased at the store or
>not? Should we assume that the hardware & support lasts about the
>same time?

Yes.

>What about resale value and trade in value? Should we use the values
>that are valid at THAT real carrier TODAY for example?

If possible.

>That will be a problem because we won't have those numbers.
>That's why I want you to also pick the traded-in/resold phone too.
>
>With the old phone, we can use TODAY's resale/tradein prices at that
>store.
>
>We still need to decide how much of a percentage of people trade in
>their phones or sell them, so what do you think about using 1/3rd as
>that value?

Yes.

>I want YOU to answer those questions so that the results are
>believable. Then I can do the work involved, which let's be clear,
>is appreciable.

Understood.

On 1/13/2023 10:26 AM, badgolferman wrote:

<snip>

> Maybe it would be helpful if you provided those numbers for people to
> compare.

I checked the Verizon prices for each of the three models in the
flagship table.

All three devices were more expensive when purchased from Verizon (for
Apple it was only $0.99 more, for the S22 Ultra and the Pixel 7 Pro it
was considerably more).

I added a line to the flagship table with the price for each phone if
purchased from Verizon rather than direct from the manufacturer.

Not sure why anyone would choose to buy the phone and pay more if
purchasing the phone outright.

If financing the phone, and going under (defacto) contract, then buying
from the carrier can make sense since they offer substantial discounts,
i.e. "Get up to $1000 off this device when you trade in. New line
required. And get your trade-in promo credit over 36 months."

On 1/13/2023 12:17 PM, sms wrote:
> On 1/13/2023 10:26 AM, badgolferman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Maybe it would be helpful if you provided those numbers for people to
>> compare.
>
> I checked the Verizon prices for each of the three models in the
> flagship table.
>
> All three devices were more expensive when purchased from Verizon (for
> Apple it was only $0.99 more, for the S22 Ultra and the Pixel 7 Pro it
> was considerably more).
>
> I added a line to the flagship table with the price for each phone if
> purchased from Verizon rather than direct from the manufacturer.

Also note that when purchased from Verizon the devices are locked for 60
days after activation. So you also have the cost of one month of service
required for activation, besides paying higher prices.

Of course almost no one would buy a phone outright from a postpaid
carrier and lose the monthly discounts, and other incentives, that are
offered when financing the device.

On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 12:17:12 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> I checked the Verizon prices for each of the three models in the
> flagship table.
>
> All three devices were more expensive when purchased from Verizon (for
> Apple it was only $0.99 more, for the S22 Ultra and the Pixel 7 Pro it
> was considerably more).

Were those prices for 1/48th payments or 100% payments by the carriers?

What the carriers often do is charge an extra amount for the phone, say,
around $50, but in return they give an "interest-free" loan of either 2 or
3 years for the total price of the phone, which you only pay in 1/48
increments (if it's two years) or 1/72 increments for 3 year terms.

You must pay the remaining price if you leave the carrier before then.

> I added a line to the flagship table with the price for each phone if
> purchased from Verizon rather than direct from the manufacturer.

Make sure that's purchased outright and not 1/48th style purchases.
Otherwise you're being deceitful by faking the numbers in your favor.

> Not sure why anyone would choose to buy the phone and pay more if
> purchasing the phone outright.

See above. You can get a flagship phone in your hands for 1/48th the price,
(over three years) but you pay full tax on the MSRP + the $50 for the "no
interest" loan upcharge. :->

For a thousand dollar phone, getting it for $22/month seems cheap to some.

> If financing the phone, and going under (defacto) contract, then buying
> from the carrier can make sense since they offer substantial discounts,
> i.e. "Get up to $1000 off this device when you trade in. New line
> required. And get your trade-in promo credit over 36 months."

Example: $1,000 phone outright costs $1,000 + $50 in tax for a 5% location.
$1050 financed phone is $52.50 in tax up front & about $22 per month.
After 48 months, you finally own the phone, just in time to buy a new one.

A lot of people get their flagship phones that way because monthly cost is
around $22 which is affordable whereas a sudden $1,050 hit hurts them more.

Make sure you make a note which type of sale that Verizon sale is, as every
other number you've used has been deceitfully stated rather dishonestly.

You have no shame.

On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 12:52:43 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>> I added a line to the flagship table with the price for each phone if
>> purchased from Verizon rather than direct from the manufacturer.
>
> Also note that when purchased from Verizon the devices are locked for 60
> days after activation. So you also have the cost of one month of service
> required for activation, besides paying higher prices.
>
> Of course almost no one would buy a phone outright from a postpaid
> carrier and lose the monthly discounts, and other incentives, that are
> offered when financing the device.

I probably should have picked a different tax amount in my example because
there were two fifty dollar charges which are different in that example.

If I choose a 10% tax, the numbers are easier to see how it works.

A $1,000 phone outright, plus tax, costs $1,100 at a 10% tax location.

If you finance that phone with a "no interest" loan from the carrier, they
often bump up the price, so let's say they bump it up by $50 so you now pay
that 10% sales tax on $1,050 which is $105 tax that you pay upfront.

Then you pay 1/48th the price of the phone each month, which is about $22
per month (rounded to dollars) which, to some people, is a good deal.

What some people do is pay that extra $22 every month for two years (it
would be about $15 per month over three years) and then, when the phone is
paid off, they pick up the next flagship phone at about the same numbers.

But that's DIFFERENT from buying the phone outright from the carrier.

The carriers love it because it keeps you on their plan and they actually
gave you a loan with interest because they added to the price of the phone.

While you believe I don't know how to make cost calculations, what I am
asking you to do is just have some shame in that your spreadsheet has to
note what type of pricing is actually being described in your tables.

Is this an up-front one-time price or a loan with the interest as described
above (even as the loan is described as having no interest - it exists).

If you don't say which type it is, you're being deceitfully manipulative.
Have some common decency please.

On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 19:21:30 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Let's do this together, where you make the fundamental choices first,
>>so that it removes me from being accused of skewing the results
>>beforehand.
>
> Fair enough.

OK. Good. We want this to be a believably reliable calculation.
No funny business.

Trust. But verify.

Here's the deal.

I compare total costs of ownership using values from these phones:
old iPhone = Apple iPhone 11 standard model
old Android = Samsung Galaxy S20 standard model
new iPhone = Apple iPhone 14 standard model
new Android = Samsung Galaxy S22 standard model

Picking up as much OEM equipment as possible today (this week actually, as
it may take a few days) from the T-Mobile store at 1836 Tamiami Trail N
L0011, Naples, FL 34102 after trading in (Apple:Apple & Samsung:Samsung is
presumed) or reselling the old phones at that store (if possible).

Any calculations on monthly cost are assuming 3 years of ownership,
where we can assume hardware & support last at least that long for both.

Any tradein/resale adjustment assumes 1/3rd of the people do that.

Any OEM accessories not in the box will be purchased at that store
(if possible, and if not possible, we'll seek a nearby store).

That's going to be the hardest metric to make believably reliable because
if we have to shop around, we can cherry pick and I'm trying to design this
experiment to NOT enable me to cherry pick those values.

We may have to revisit how to let YOU pick those values for me, but let's
see what we can buy at the store since that's their business after all.

Here's what I'll "buy" (and tradein/resell) at that store:
Phone
OEM case (I probably should choose the cheapest, do you agree?)
OEM screen (again, I probably should choose their lowest level, ok?)
Two 3-foot OEM cables & one 6-foot OEM cable (if not supplied in the box)
OEM charger (with a maximum output at least equal to that of the phone)
No earphones
No repairs (so can we assume no insurance plan like Apple Care?)
Local sales tax (which Google says is 7.0% in Naples, Florida)

Is that the deal?
If not, just adjust it accordingly so I can start the research.

In article <tpsis0$1db8$1@gioia.aioe.org>, JAB <here@is.invalid> wrote:

> I probably should have picked a different

nym

On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 17:06:02 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> nym

If you'd grow up, you could help us hone the calculations by helping
determine realistic conditions which we are to use to calculate TOC.

JAB <here@is.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 19:21:30 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman
> <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Let's do this together, where you make the fundamental choices first,
>>> so that it removes me from being accused of skewing the results
>>> beforehand.
>>
>> Fair enough.
>
> OK. Good. We want this to be a believably reliable calculation.
> No funny business.
>
> Trust. But verify.
>
> Here's the deal.
>
> I compare total costs of ownership using values from these phones:
> old iPhone = Apple iPhone 11 standard model
> old Android = Samsung Galaxy S20 standard model
> new iPhone = Apple iPhone 14 standard model
> new Android = Samsung Galaxy S22 standard model
>
> Picking up as much OEM equipment as possible today (this week actually, as
> it may take a few days) from the T-Mobile store at 1836 Tamiami Trail N
> L0011, Naples, FL 34102 after trading in (Apple:Apple & Samsung:Samsung is
> presumed) or reselling the old phones at that store (if possible).
>
> Any calculations on monthly cost are assuming 3 years of ownership,
> where we can assume hardware & support last at least that long for both.
>
> Any tradein/resale adjustment assumes 1/3rd of the people do that.
>
> Any OEM accessories not in the box will be purchased at that store
> (if possible, and if not possible, we'll seek a nearby store).
>
> That's going to be the hardest metric to make believably reliable because
> if we have to shop around, we can cherry pick and I'm trying to design this
> experiment to NOT enable me to cherry pick those values.
>
> We may have to revisit how to let YOU pick those values for me, but let's
> see what we can buy at the store since that's their business after all.
>
> Here's what I'll "buy" (and tradein/resell) at that store:
> Phone
> OEM case (I probably should choose the cheapest, do you agree?)
> OEM screen (again, I probably should choose their lowest level, ok?)
> Two 3-foot OEM cables & one 6-foot OEM cable (if not supplied in the box)
> OEM charger (with a maximum output at least equal to that of the phone)
> No earphones
> No repairs (so can we assume no insurance plan like Apple Care?)
> Local sales tax (which Google says is 7.0% in Naples, Florida)
>
> Is that the deal?
> If not, just adjust it accordingly so I can start the research.
>

Please proceed.

On 1/13/2023 2:25 PM, badgolferman wrote:

<snip>

> Please proceed.

LOL, I don't think that you understand. You're supposed to go out to the
stores and do that work.

Meanwhile, I've provided as accurate a TCO as possible, based on actual
costs, complete with extensive citations.

My goal was to compare the cost of buying different Android and iPhone
devices.

In the document I created:

1. Sales tax rates are the same no matter which device you buy, and vary
by location. There's no point in including them.

2. No one can comprehend where "JAB" came up with $20 for a SIM card,
since they are almost always free or in some cases cost $1-2, but in any
case, the cost would be the same for iPhones and Android devices.

3. Chargers don't vary much in cost. Apple charges $19. Samsung about
$20. Google about $25. So okay, Apple is $1 less than Samsung and $6
less than Google, but of course by this time most people won't need to
buy additional chargers, nor will they need extra cables beyond what is
included and beyond what they already own.

4. Trade-in values came direct from manufacturer's web sites.

5. Resale values came from Swappa for mint condition, unlocked, used,
devices with the same amount of storage.

As always, it's important to look at the big picture. The only reason I
created the TCO document was because you sometimes see highly misleading
assertions that an iPhone is monstrously more expensive than an Android
phone because a low-end Samsung Galaxy A03s costs $59.99 and an iPhone
14 Pro Max costs $1099.

The reality is that there is not much differences when you compare
apples to apples (no pun intended), but some people like comparing
apples to basketballs.

On 2023-01-13 16:28:33 +0000, sms said:

> 2. No one can comprehend where "JAB" came up with $20 for a SIM card,
> since they are almost always free or in some cases cost $1-2, but in any
> case, the cost would be the same for iPhones and Android devices.

Why are you always an idiot?

https://community.t-mobile.com/accounts-services-4/25-sim-card-charge-times-two-9563

On 1/13/2023 6:39 PM, gtr wrote:
> On 2023-01-13 16:28:33 +0000, sms said:
>
>> 2. No one can comprehend where "JAB" came up with $20 for a SIM card,
>> since they are almost always free or in some cases cost $1-2, but in
>> any case, the cost would be the same for iPhones and Android devices.
>
> Why are you always an idiot?
>
> https://community.t-mobile.com/accounts-services-4/25-sim-card-charge-times-two-9563

You're posting a link to a four year old article!

Here's reality: <https://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phone/t-mobile-sim-card>

Both eSIM and physical SIM cards are free.

However if you are bringing your own phone, and signing up for T-Mobile
prepaid, they will charge you $10 when you activate service.

On 14-01-2023 09:25 sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> However if you are bringing your own phone, and signing up for T-Mobile
> prepaid, they will charge you $10 when you activate service.

T-mobile will also charge 20 dollars anytime a store employee has to do
something to your phone if you could have done it on the Internet instead.

mike wrote:

>> However if you are bringing your own phone, and signing up for T-Mobile
>> prepaid, they will charge you $10 when you activate service.
>
> T-mobile will also charge 20 dollars anytime a store employee has to do
> something to your phone if you could have done it on the Internet instead.

Depends on what you ask tmobile to do but that in store fee could be as
high as $30 as it climbs every few years five dollars at a time it seems.

https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/News/t-mobile-introducing-new--assisted-service-fee
https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/l8v4rx/20_fee_for_any_store_transaction/
https://thedesk.net/2022/05/t-mobile-raising-support-fees/

On 1/13/2023 8:27 PM, mike wrote:
> On 14-01-2023 09:25 sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> However if you are bringing your own phone, and signing up for
>> T-Mobile prepaid, they will charge you $10 when you activate service.
>
> T-mobile will also charge 20 dollars anytime a store employee has to do
> something to your phone if you could have done it on the Internet instead.

And don't forget how all the U.S. postpaid carriers are now charging
high "activation fees" even on phone upgrades.

I guess this kind of covers the cost of the free SIM cards.

On 1/13/2023 8:32 PM, Nic wrote:
> mike wrote:
>
>>> However if you are bringing your own phone, and signing up for T-Mobile
>>> prepaid, they will charge you $10 when you activate service.
>>
>> T-mobile will also charge 20 dollars anytime a store employee has to do
>> something to your phone if you could have done it on the Internet instead.
>
> Depends on what you ask tmobile to do but that in store fee could be as
> high as $30 as it climbs every few years five dollars at a time it seems.
>
> https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/News/t-mobile-introducing-new--assisted-service-fee
> https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/l8v4rx/20_fee_for_any_store_transaction/
> https://thedesk.net/2022/05/t-mobile-raising-support-fees/

Adding on strange fees is a great way to raise prices.
One pizza place near me adds an 8% "online ordering fee."
Another location of the same chain adds a 5% "technology fee."

Hoping that Elon Musk can buy Ticketmaster.

On 1/14/2023 7:12 AM, sms wrote:

> Adding on strange fees is a great way to raise prices.
> One pizza place near me adds an 8% "online ordering fee."

Many of the fast food places near me now ask for tips on the credit card
machine...

On 1/14/2023 7:12 AM, sms wrote:

<snip>

> Another location of the same chain adds a 5% "technology fee."

Sorry, they call it a "Support Local Fee" with the explanation being
"This small fee helps us develop the new tech and services that keeps
pizzerias thriving."

Not sure if it's a fixed fee or a percentage.

On 1/14/2023 9:56 AM, AJL wrote:
> On 1/14/2023 7:12 AM, sms wrote:
>
>> Adding on strange fees is a great way to raise prices.
>> One pizza place near me adds an 8% "online ordering fee."
>
> Many of the fast food places near me now ask for tips on the credit card
> machine...

Yes, and some fast food place ask for tips on online orders as well.

It's a way for some businesses to pay below minimum wage because the
tips, but some states requires employers to pay tipped employees full
state minimum wage before tips.

As long as the money actually goes to the employees I guess it's okay,
but I'd rather put cash into a tip jar which is more likely to make it
to the employees. I think that the minimum wage amount makes a
difference too. If I were in a place where it's $7.25 per hour I'd tip a
higher amount.

One thing that's annoying is restaurants that calculate a suggested tip
on the total bill, including sales tax. I've got no problem with a
15-20% tip when dining in a restaurant but it should be on the pre-tax
total.