I added some more data to the “Realistic Total Cost of Ownership”
document at
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BUZuX-i1set7ktS4lbfGBmzdiCLAoOKfqp0ZSOrZlhk>

The new data compares cost of ownership for similarly featured monthly
plans from Verizon postpaid versus Visible by Verizon Prepaid.

One interesting thing that I found was that for Verizon postpaid, the
plan that you choose greatly affects the trade-in value you receive. On
the 5G Play More plan Verizon credits you $800 for a 64GB iPhone 11. On
the Welcome Unlimited plan they credit you $134 for the iPhone 11. The
extra $15 per month for the 5G Play More plan works out to an extra $540
over 36 months but you get $666 more in trade-in value.

Over 36 months, Visible+ is $1271.50 less than Verizon Play More 5G.
Visible is $1870.87 less than Verizon Welcome Unlimited (but Welcome
Unlimited ends up costing more than Verizon Play More 5G so you would
not choose it).

I did not look at other carriers to see if they had the same huge
difference in trade-in value based on the monthly plan you choose. In my
area, Verizon has the best coverage by a significant margin, and nearly
everyone I know is on Verizon.

What you don’t get with Visible the ability to pay for extra-cost
international roaming. But Visible now has a plan with priority network
access (QCI8) and all Visible prepaid plans now include the same
off-network domestic roaming as Verizon postpaid plans.

Also, I did see some non-iPhone cases at local Japanese “dollar store”
Daiso. They have a case for the Sharp Aquos Sense 3/Aquos Sense 3 lite,
two phones that have never been sold in the U.S., (reminds me of when
Daiso was selling Woods tire valve repair kits in the U.S., even though
no cars or bicycles in the U.S. use those valves). But they also had a
case for the Sony Xperia 5/Xperia 8. The Xperia 5 was sold in the U.S.
in 2019.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 16:08:17 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> I did not look at other carriers to see if they had the same huge
> difference in trade-in value based on the monthly plan you choose.

I did.

When I called the T-Mobile store that badgolferman proposed for our
realistic (not ficticious) total cost of ownership data, two different
store personnel (Christian & Nicole and at different times) said that
T-Mobile gives you the $400 for the selected iPhone no matter anything.

T-Mobile will even give you the same amount if you're not on any plan.
They don't care.

It's a $400 tradein no matter what the circumstances are on your current plan.

On 1/28/2023 7:08 PM, sms wrote:

> I added some more data to the �Realistic Total Cost of Ownership�
> document at
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BUZuX-i1set7ktS4lbfGBmzdiCLAoOKfqp0ZSOrZlhk>
>
> The new data compares cost of ownership for similarly featured monthly
> plans from Verizon postpaid versus Visible by Verizon Prepaid.
>
> One interesting thing that I found was that for Verizon postpaid, the
> plan that you choose greatly affects the trade-in value you receive. On
> the 5G Play More plan Verizon credits you $800 for a 64GB iPhone 11. On
> the Welcome Unlimited plan they credit you $134 for the iPhone 11. The
> extra $15 per month for the 5G Play More plan works out to an extra $540
> over 36 months but you get $666 more in trade-in value.
>
> Over 36 months, Visible+ is $1271.50 less than Verizon Play More 5G.
> Visible is $1870.87 less than Verizon Welcome Unlimited (but Welcome
> Unlimited ends up costing more than Verizon Play More 5G so you would
> not choose it).
>
> I did not look at other carriers to see if they had the same huge
> difference in trade-in value based on the monthly plan you choose. In my
> area, Verizon has the best coverage by a significant margin, and nearly
> everyone I know is on Verizon.
>
> What you don�t get with Visible the ability to pay for extra-cost
> international roaming. But Visible now has a plan with priority network
> access (QCI8) and all Visible prepaid plans now include the same
> off-network domestic roaming as Verizon postpaid plans.
>
> Also, I did see some non-iPhone cases at local Japanese �dollar store�
> Daiso. They have a case for the Sharp Aquos Sense 3/Aquos Sense 3 lite,
> two phones that have never been sold in the U.S., (reminds me of when
> Daiso was selling Woods tire valve repair kits in the U.S., even though
> no cars or bicycles in the U.S. use those valves). But they also had a
> case for the Sony Xperia 5/Xperia 8. The Xperia 5 was sold in the U.S.
> in 2019.

You don't understand why the carriers do the tradein trick for old phones.
You are fooled by a marketing trick into thinking the phone has value.

That old phone is completely worthless to the carriers.
It costs them more to just touch it than it's actually worth.

If the carrier gets twenty bucks for that old phone it would be surprising.

I don't know how much they actually get, but no carrier is reselling those
traded in phones because that old phone is worth nothing to the carrier.

The trade in trick is just a marketing gimmick like paper coupons are.

Do you really think they need to have a paper coupon to give you the sale
price on eggs for a dollar a dozen? Same with that old worthless phone.

The old phone trade in trick is an age old marketing gimmick, like clipping
a paper coupon is where the goal is to keep you from going somewhere else.

Also they often lock you into a contract when they give you any trade in
value for the old phone but I don't know offhand as every gimmick differs.

But they don't want the paper coupon and they certainly don't want that old
phone. They likely sell them in bulk to a company for a penny on the dollar
because it costs them more money every time they handle that old phone.

The old phone is worthless to the carrier.

If they get twenty bucks for those old phones it would be a surprise
as it needs a few hundred dollars in labor inspection & repair costs and
warranty hassles and shipping and sales and marketing, and so on.

What they do is sell them to a refurbisher for around twenty bucks a phone.

The refurbisher is equipped to make his twenty dollars per phone,
which, since they buy them in bulk, is a sweet enough deal for them.

The carriers don't want that old phone.
They want you as a customer.

The refurbisher is equipped to make about twenty bucks on that old phone
that he bought for twenty bucks but which costs him more to test and fix
and market and warrantee and ship and do all the things it takes to sell it
on ebay or wherever that refurbisher is set up to sell that old phone.

Am 29.01.23 um 01:08 schrieb sms:
> I added some more data to the “Realistic Total Cost of Ownership”
> document at
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BUZuX-i1set7ktS4lbfGBmzdiCLAoOKfqp0ZSOrZlhk>
>
> The new data compares cost of ownership for similarly featured monthly
> plans from Verizon postpaid versus Visible by Verizon Prepaid.
>
> One interesting thing that I found was that for Verizon postpaid, the
> plan that you choose greatly affects the trade-in value you receive.

This so called TCO-considerations are completely OT in both groups and
IMHO very childish.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

On 2023-01-28 23:45, knuttle wrote:

> You don't understand why the carriers do the tradein trick for old phones.
> You are fooled by a marketing trick into thinking the phone has value.
>
> That old phone is completely worthless to the carriers.
> It costs them more to just touch it than it's actually worth.
>
> If the carrier gets twenty bucks for that old phone it would be surprising.
>
> I don't know how much they actually get, but no carrier is reselling those
> traded in phones because that old phone is worth nothing to the carrier.

Actually they are "gathered" and sold by the pallet load by brokers who
find secondary markets for them, esp. in SE Asia and Africa. A fairly
efficient process at "this" end and a tedious one for whoever buys the
pallet (sorting and re-marketing) at the far end. But profitable for
the latter guy at the expense of some toil. The "rejects" in the pile
end up being re-cycled (at least one hopes so) - though in some cases
it's been noted that very poor villagers spend a lot of effort trying to
extract gold with very toxic methods ...

Does the carrier here make his $20 (whatever) on that alone? Probably
not. But locking in customer contracts is obviously the lucrative part.

> The trade in trick is just a marketing gimmick like paper coupons are.

The paper coupon is to get people to physically visit the store - a
"lost leader". A strategy that goes back in some form or another for
thousands of years.

<repetitive crud deleted>
>
> What they do is sell them to a refurbisher for around twenty bucks a phone.
>
> The refurbisher is equipped to make his twenty dollars per phone, which,
> since they buy them in bulk, is a sweet enough deal for them.
>
> The carriers don't want that old phone. They want you as a customer.

Took you long enough to get to the point.

>
> The refurbisher is equipped to make about twenty bucks on that old phone
> that he bought for twenty bucks but which costs him more to test and fix
> and market and warrantee and ship and do all the things it takes to sell it
> on ebay or wherever that refurbisher is set up to sell that old phone.

No. See above. There is a much more efficient way of getting rid of
the phones that can even be considered "green" in the re-use sense.

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

On 2023-01-29 01:51, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

>
> This so called TCO-considerations are completely OT in both groups and
> IMHO very childish.

Useless more than childish as practically no individual buyer considers
TCO in their purchase decision, least of all as a choice between iPhone
and Android.

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

On 1/29/2023 10:59 AM, Alan Browne wrote:

>> I don't know how much they actually get, but no carrier is reselling those
>> traded in phones because that old phone is worth nothing to the carrier.
>
> Actually they are "gathered" and sold by the pallet load by brokers who
> find secondary markets for them, esp. in SE Asia and Africa. A fairly
> efficient process at "this" end and a tedious one for whoever buys the
> pallet (sorting and re-marketing) at the far end. But profitable for
> the latter guy at the expense of some toil. The "rejects" in the pile
> end up being re-cycled (at least one hopes so) - though in some cases
> it's been noted that very poor villagers spend a lot of effort trying to
> extract gold with very toxic methods ...
>
> Does the carrier here make his $20 (whatever) on that alone? Probably
> not. But locking in customer contracts is obviously the lucrative part.

The op is being fooled into thinking a marketing trick is real value.

I agree with everything you said which is that the carrier touches that
phone as little as possible because just touching it costs them money
they'll never get back since they aren't going to test & fix that phone.

The only outfits who can make any money on that phone have to set up an
efficient process for bulk testing and bulk refurbishing and bulk handling
and bulk marketing and bulk sales and bulk shipping & bulk warrantys.

Like you said, that won't be in the USA where labor costs are higher than
in the third world where they probably get the phones from everywhere.

The customer thinks that coupon is valuable. But they're being fooled.

It's worthless to the carrier other than as a paper coupon to lock you in.
Besides these carrier marketing tricks change every moment of every day.

Always changing and very temporary marketing tricks don't belong in a true
total cost of ownership document because nobody will get them but the op.

And even the op won't get them tomorrow because how many times can you
change plans and carriers anyway?

On Jan 29, 2023, Alan Browne wrote (in article
<news:vsvBL.523636$vBI8.520271@fx15.iad>):

>> This so called TCO-considerations are completely OT in both groups and
>> IMHO very childish.
>
> Useless more than childish as practically no individual buyer considers
> TCO in their purchase decision, least of all as a choice between iPhone
> and Android.

the original poster is trying to justify /his/ choice between Android & iOS
but as you said, nobody else thinks about TCO when buying flagship phones.

On 2023-01-29 11:45, knuttle wrote:
> On 1/29/2023 10:59 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> I don't know how much they actually get, but no carrier is reselling
>>> those
>>> traded in phones because that old phone is worth nothing to the carrier.
>>
>> Actually they are "gathered" and sold by the pallet load by brokers
>> who find secondary markets for them, esp. in SE Asia and Africa.  A
>> fairly efficient process at "this" end and a tedious one for whoever
>> buys the pallet (sorting and re-marketing) at the far end.  But
>> profitable for the latter guy at the expense of some toil.  The
>> "rejects" in the pile end up being re-cycled (at least one hopes so) -
>> though in some cases it's been noted that very poor villagers spend a
>> lot of effort trying to extract gold with very toxic methods ...
>>
>> Does the carrier here make his $20 (whatever) on that alone?  Probably
>> not.  But locking in customer contracts is obviously the lucrative part.
>
> The op is being fooled into thinking a marketing trick is real value.

Not necessarily since he is possibly comparing that against similar
offers from other companies - so the astute buyer measures as best he
can and picks the best value for him.

So: The word "trick" can be replaced by the "client
acquisition/retention strategy" of the company.

Once you "break the code" of each company you can decide which returns
the best value to you.

And attempting to define a "one best offer to rule them all" is silly as
everyone's use case is different.

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

On 2023-01-29 12:35, Bill W wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2023, Alan Browne wrote (in article
> <news:vsvBL.523636$vBI8.520271@fx15.iad>):
>
>>> This so called TCO-considerations are completely OT in both groups and
>>> IMHO very childish.
>>
>> Useless more than childish as practically no individual buyer considers
>> TCO in their purchase decision, least of all as a choice between iPhone
>> and Android.
>
> the original poster is trying to justify /his/ choice between Android & iOS
> but as you said, nobody else thinks about TCO when buying flagship phones.

Or any phones.

IMO the original poster is desperately attempting to find a way to make
the one he chose shine with an arbitrarily complex process masked as a
business case.

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

On 1/28/2023 7:15 PM, JAB wrote:

<snip>

> It's a $400 tradein no matter what the circumstances are on your current plan.

Online, at T-Mobile, the trade-in value for the iPhone 11 64GB on an
iPhone 14 Pro Max is $105 plus a $28.96 monthly bill credit for 24
months, equaling $800 total (net value the same as Verizon).

While the monthly cost is identical between T-Mobile and Verizon for the
top plan, T-Mobile is for 24 months while Verizon is 36 months, a huge
difference. So at T-Mobile, presumably after 24 months you can get the
same sort of deal again, plus the trade-in will be 12 months newer than
the trade-in on Verizon.

If it's true that there's such a huge difference in trade-in value
between T-Mobile stores and T-Mobile online then that's a good reason to
buy online! But I suspect that when you called the store they were
low-balling you and that the cost was negotiable if you asked for the
same deal as online.

I also added the $35 activation fee where applicable.

The spreadsheet on Google Sheets is shared at
<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zKPraK5-Li2vHsTG8O3K2molVV-Gwr_wsOSMSmgHi8I/edit?usp=sharing>.

The "Realistic Total Cost of Ownership—iPhone Versus Android" document
is at
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BUZuX-i1set7ktS4lbfGBmzdiCLAoOKfqp0ZSOrZlhk>.
This includes an image of the spreadsheet.

On 1/29/2023 9:35 AM, Bill W wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2023, Alan Browne wrote (in article
> <news:vsvBL.523636$vBI8.520271@fx15.iad>):
>
>>> This so called TCO-considerations are completely OT in both groups and
>>> IMHO very childish.
>>
>> Useless more than childish as practically no individual buyer considers
>> TCO in their purchase decision, least of all as a choice between iPhone
>> and Android.
>
> the original poster is trying to justify /his/ choice between Android & iOS
> but as you said, nobody else thinks about TCO when buying flagship phones.

Nope, I have both iPhones and Android phones.

What I explain in the document is that despite the fact that some
Android flagships sell for less than the closest iPhone flagship, when
you look at the total cost of ownership, the difference in cost is not
significant. This is mainly because the trade-in value and resale value
of iPhones is much higher than that of Android devices.

It's important to look at the big picture when making purchases of
consumer products.

Most consumers consider the monthly cost of products and services when
making a purchasing decision.

In article <tr6cff$2s4ac$2@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Nope, I have both iPhones and Android phones.

you supposedly have only one iphone. not plural.

you also don't know what it can actually do.

On 1/28/2023 8:45 PM, knuttle wrote:

<snip>

> You don't understand why the carriers do the tradein trick for old phones.

LOL, of course I understand!

It’s immaterial why carriers offer trade-in values far beyond the actual
value of the trade-in.

The reality is that if you don’t take full advantage of the trade-ins
you’re leaving money on the table. In many cases you’d save money buying
a phone just to trade it in because the trade-in value is so much higher
than the cost. I.e., you can buy a new iPhone 11 for under $300 and get
$800 credit.

You’re also misinformed about what happens to the phones that are traded
in. The older models are bundled up and sent to third-party refurbishers
who ends up reselling them, usually in less affluent countries. The
newer models are retained by the carrier or manufacturer, refurbished if
necessary, and either used as warranty replacement devices or are sold
as refurbished.

It's a big benefit to the manufacturer to offer these high trade-in
values since they keep selling consumers new products.

On 1/29/2023 8:45 AM, knuttle wrote:

<snip>

> Always changing and very temporary marketing tricks don't belong in a true
> total cost of ownership document because nobody will get them but the op.

LOL, Apple rolled out it's trade-in program in 2013. It's not a
temporary program!

You don't understand why the manufacturers and carriers offer these high
trade in values. The carriers want to lock you into a multi-year
commitment of paying monthly plan charges. These charges offset the cost
of the phone subsidies. The manufacturers want you to keep buying new
phones instead of keeping your perfectly good existing phone, especially
recently since new phone sales have been falling. Apple only saw a 4%
decline from 2021 to 2022 while overall the decline was over 11%.

It would be foolish to not take advantage of these offers, and that's wy
so many iPhone users do exactly that.

On 2023-01-29, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2023-01-29 12:35, Bill W wrote:
>> On Jan 29, 2023, Alan Browne wrote (in article
>> <news:vsvBL.523636$vBI8.520271@fx15.iad>):
>>
>>>> This so called TCO-considerations are completely OT in both groups
>>>> and IMHO very childish.
>>>
>>> Useless more than childish as practically no individual buyer
>>> considers TCO in their purchase decision, least of all as a choice
>>> between iPhone and Android.
>>
>> the original poster is trying to justify /his/ choice between Android
>> & iOS but as you said, nobody else thinks about TCO when buying
>> flagship phones.
>
> Or any phones.
>
> IMO the original poster is desperately attempting to find a way to
> make the one he chose shine with an arbitrarily complex process masked
> as a business case.

That's been crystal clear from the very first post. You'd have to be
pretty gullible to just now figuring this out.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Am 29.01.23 um 15:32 schrieb Alan Browne:
> On 2023-01-29 01:51, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>
>>
>> This so called TCO-considerations are completely OT in both groups and
>> IMHO very childish.
>
> Useless more than childish as practically no individual buyer considers
> TCO in their purchase decision, least of all as a choice between iPhone
> and Android.

My words exactly.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

Am 29.01.23 um 18:35 schrieb Bill W:
> On Jan 29, 2023, Alan Browne wrote (in article
> <news:vsvBL.523636$vBI8.520271@fx15.iad>):
>
>>> This so called TCO-considerations are completely OT in both groups and
>>> IMHO very childish.
>>
>> Useless more than childish as practically no individual buyer considers
>> TCO in their purchase decision, least of all as a choice between iPhone
>> and Android.
>
> the original poster is trying to justify /his/ choice between Android & iOS
> but as you said, nobody else thinks about TCO when buying flagship phones.

+1

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

Am 29.01.23 um 19:04 schrieb sms:
> On 1/29/2023 9:35 AM, Bill W wrote:
>> On Jan 29, 2023, Alan Browne wrote (in article
>> <news:vsvBL.523636$vBI8.520271@fx15.iad>):
>>
>>>> This so called TCO-considerations are completely OT in both groups and
>>>> IMHO very childish.
>>>
>>> Useless more than childish as practically no individual buyer considers
>>> TCO in their purchase decision, least of all as a choice between iPhone
>>> and Android.
>>
>> the original poster is trying to justify /his/ choice between Android & iOS
>> but as you said, nobody else thinks about TCO when buying flagship phones.
>
> Nope, I have both iPhones and Android phones.

Sweetie, you are not alone ...

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

On 1/29/2023 9:55 AM, sms wrote:

<snip>

I also added AT&T, Cricket, and Boost to the spreadsheet.

The spreadsheet on Google Sheets is shared at
<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zKPraK5-Li2vHsTG8O3K2molVV-Gwr_wsOSMSmgHi8I>.

If you see any errors please let me know.

The "Realistic Total Cost of Ownership—iPhone Versus Android" document
is at
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BUZuX-i1set7ktS4lbfGBmzdiCLAoOKfqp0ZSOrZlhk>.
This includes an image of the spreadsheet.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 09:55:46 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> If it's true that there's such a huge difference in trade-in value
> between T-Mobile stores and T-Mobile online then that's a good reason to
> buy online! But I suspect that when you called the store they were
> low-balling you and that the cost was negotiable if you asked for the
> same deal as online.

What you just said is an outrageous affront to all people who care about
cost of ownership since all you did was say I am a liar when I'm not.

We're done with you calling me a liar unless you apologize right now.

You called me a liar just now even as I gave you the phone number to the
T-Mobile store and you could have called them yourself - but you didn't.

You'd rather call me a liar than call badgolferman's T-Mobile store.
Nobody else called me a liar.
Just you.

Guess what?

I called just now (239) 213-1229 and they STILL have the iPhone $400 promo!
old iPhone = Apple iPhone 11 standard model
new iPhone = Apple iPhone 14 standard model
$400 promo on tradein is still current today!
But they no longer have that Galaxy promo (they changed it to another).

Are you going to call me a liar again just because they change their promo?
Are you going to claim iPhones are better because they changed their promo?

Apologize to me and everyone for you calling me a liar when badgolferman
and I am not liars just because YOU want to make a claim that isn't true.

Badgolferman - why do you put up with him calling us both liars?

On 1/29/2023 11:57 AM, JAB wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 09:55:46 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> If it's true that there's such a huge difference in trade-in value
>> between T-Mobile stores and T-Mobile online then that's a good reason to
>> buy online! But I suspect that when you called the store they were
>> low-balling you and that the cost was negotiable if you asked for the
>> same deal as online.
>
> What you just said is an outrageous affront to all people who care about
> cost of ownership since all you did was say I am a liar when I'm not.

Not the intention at all. I just wanted to present accurate information.
As I stated, it's possible that the retail stores have higher prices
than buying from the T-Mobile web site.

What you have to understand is that the three nationwide carriers will
always try to match each other's offers.

On 1/29/2023 12:49 PM, Alan Browne wrote:

>> The op is being fooled into thinking a marketing trick is real value.
>
> Not necessarily since he is possibly comparing that against similar
> offers from other companies - so the astute buyer measures as best he
> can and picks the best value for him.

Isn't the op's Google document static while these offers change every day?

On 1/29/2023 1:36 PM, sms wrote:

> It would be foolish to not take advantage of these offers, and that's wy
> so many iPhone users do exactly that.

Certainly some do but if you're telling me that most peoples stoop to trade
in their old iPhone then you better show stats showing >50% trade them in.

On 1/29/2023 1:19 PM, sms wrote:

> The
> newer models are retained by the carrier or manufacturer, refurbished if
> necessary, and either used as warranty replacement devices or are sold
> as refurbished.

There are only three main carriers in the USA so which are you saying sell
old beatup previously traded in or fixed broken iPhones to their customers?

AT&T?
T-Mobile?
Verizon?