Why do mobile phone companies want us to upgrade?

Dinarius

No doubt the reason is obvious, but it's beyond me!

1. We're already their customers and we already have a phone.

2. Upgrades typically start at no cost at all and go up from there. Yet the phone costs a lot of money to make, so that has to be recouped first.

3. They usually throw in other sweetners such as a few hundred free texts.

Any ideas?

D.

Pacifico

Cos you've to sign a new 12 month contract.....

aidan_walsh

Extra services offered too. Why have people only on SMS when they can be charged for MMS? Why have no internet when you can be charged for all the lovely (expensive) benefits of WAP or GPRS?

Sponge Bob

24 month contracts even

20 Times 20 Times

new 18 month contract with vodafone

jrey1981

Yep it is to contractually tie you in for another 12 - 24 months (mostly in Europe) so you do not change to another network.

O2 seems to be bucking the trend and sticking with 12 monthly I notice, in their UK and Irish markets - not sure about O2 Germany.

vinnyfitz

Why do they want us to upgrade? Because, there actually is (some) competition in the market. If, e.g. O2, stopped offering upgrades vodafone would lure people away pretty quickly by offering sexy new phones.

In fact the cartel on voice, SMS and other data pricing re-enforces the upgrade contest as it is one of the best ways for the operators to try and boost market share.

skywalker

Sarge wrote:

new 18 month contract with vodafone

Is this as standard, or just with top end handsets or something?

Dinarius

Since I've never upgraded, I didn't know about the contract issue.

Given that it seems a no-brainer (I couldn't be bothered changing network) I may as well do it.

Not really relevant to the thread title but............is mobile phone insurance worth having?

I seem to have paid for a new phone about 40 times over! ;-)

If they're that cheap now, should I bother with it? After all, if it got lost or stolen, couldn't I just upgrade? Or do you have to hand in a phone when you do so?

Thanks.

D.

daywalker

Dinarius wrote:

Not really relevant to the thread title but............is mobile phone insurance worth having?

I seem to have paid for a new phone about 40 times over! ;-)

If they're that cheap now, should I bother with it? After all, if it got lost or stolen, couldn't I just upgrade? Or do you have to hand in a phone when you do so?

Thanks.

D.

Mobile insurance is overpriced, 1. you can only make 2 claims a year, they do provide a loan phone for normal repairs alright, i had mobile insurance for a year @ about €6 a month, never had to use it im usually careful with my phone.

You dont have to hand in old phone, but you're old sim is used in the upgrade, not sure what they do in case of lost/stolen phone?

englander

I am considering an o2 upgrade.

I have a speakeasy agreement with no contract.

They seem to be offering it to speakeasy customers as well.

I suppse if you are coming to renew your phone, like me, you may start looking at different providers for the best deal which I would have done if there wasn't an upgrade option with o2.

dudara

Have the contracts gone to 18 months. My old 12- month contract with Vodafone has just expired and I'm looking to 3 for a better deal. But I'd have to buy a 3G enabled phone to use their network.

bullrunner

Dinarius wrote:

Since I've never upgraded, I didn't know about the contract issue.

Given that it seems a no-brainer (I couldn't be bothered changing network) I may as well do it.

Not really relevant to the thread title but............is mobile phone insurance worth having?

I seem to have paid for a new phone about 40 times over! ;-)

If they're that cheap now, should I bother with it? After all, if it got lost or stolen, couldn't I just upgrade? Or do you have to hand in a phone when you do so?

Thanks.

D.

not really...if you were still under a min contract term (ie inside 12/18 mths since last upgrade) then you aren't entitled to the upgrade ...so new phone could cost you full whack.

as for the insurance itself...its basically a scam..they say they cover your phone for calls made when the phone is stolen..but the cover is only valid from when you report your phone stolen (they automatically cancel your phone then so that nobody can make calls...ie you are paying for insurance that you can never claim off!)

i dont think theres any point in getting insurance unless you are very careless with your phone!

colm_c

On a side note, new phones (say in the last 2-3 years) generally only have a lifespan of about 2-3 years before something goes.

The reasoning behind this is that if they made a phone last for like 10-12 years (some of those old nokias are still in really good nick) then they won't sell any more phones

This goes along the same prinicples as to why they don't make a matchstick that you can keep lighting over and over again -- because once you buy one -- you'll never buy another one! (This was a rumour about 5-6 years ago)

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

dahamsta

Due respect Dave, planned obsolescence is far from a conspiracy theory.

adam

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

dahamsta

Don't you think you're stretching the example just a tad there Dave, from 10-12 years in the OP's post to 40 years in yours? Serious cred loss there guy, that's how people like Cork argue.

And are you seriously trying to tell me that the quality of handsets hasn't degraded in recent years? I gave my niece a 6210 yesterday because her phone, which couldn't be more than a year or two old, was falling apart at the seams. Of course some of that comes from cost-cutting, but imho it's very naive to assume that that's the only factor.

Next you'll be telling me that corporations are cuddly darling things that just want to give us all hugs all day long. :rolleyes:

Corporations are greedy, period. Denying that is... well, it's kinda pathetic tbh.

adam

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

dahamsta

I wasn't suggesting a period of time or anything else by linking to Wikipedia Dave, just pointing to a resource where people could read about what is, imho, a very real activity.

I do think the majority (i.e. the mainstream) of phones are of worse quality these days than they were 5-10 years ago. Even the (relatively) cheaper phones back then, like the Nokia 1100 and 2100 series, were built solid as a rock, virtually unbreakable. These days you can drop a high-end phone from a height and you won't do a scrap of damage to it, but do it with a low-end phone and it'll fall to bits.

There's no doubt that other factors come into play here, like the constant battle to make phones lighter and smaller and cheaper. And yes, it's a bit much to call it a conspiracy, but I don't think that's what the OP meant anyway (although I can't read their mind). I think they simply meant that planned obsolescence is a factor in the design process, and I agree with them.

I think the odds are pretty high that orders come from on-high pretty regularly to use cheaper materials, and planned obsolescence will be one of the factors going through their head when they make that decision. It mightn't be explicit, but it'll be there. IMHO.

adam

Kinetic^

Sarge wrote:

new 18 month contract with vodafone

I can't wait to get rid of my bill phone coz there's no way I'm signing up to 18 months.

Cork Boy

Ok, they charge you 100 for the new phone/upgrade and give you €80 free credit with it so you think they're only getting 20 for the phone?

Ah, that €80 credit probably costs them bout €2 in total

parsi

Well the 6110 was a rocksolid phone, the 6210 was a little less solid - many probs with battery catches and unexplained power downs and the 6310i is generally solid too but a number of people with over 2yr old phones are reporing shutdowns...

Dinarius

I have a three year old 6510 which I have dropped at least 50 times onto every surface you can imagine.

The cover is still the orignal, now with cracked glass and scratched and chipped all over.

But, the phone works perfectly.

The only problem I ever have is an occasional 'Insert SIM Card' message. When this happens the signal goes dead. No idea why.

I only use a phone for:

calls - obviously, though mostly to be contacted rather than making calls

texts - a lot, though I use the O2 online free texting service if I'm at my computer

clock - I don't wear a watch. One flaw with this phone is that you can't set the clock to full screen, so you have to squint to see it.

radio - when I'm working. I use it quite a bit.

stopwatch - also very useful for my work.

memo - I occasionally set this to remind me of something.

That's it. These features are bog standard and that's all I would look for in an upgrade.

Look at it this way....any up to date phone with a load of bells and whistles would have broken by now given the number of times I would have dropped it.

What's the current equivalent of the 6510?

D.

dahamsta

The battery catch is certainly a problem with the 6210. Only problem I ever had with them though.

adam

Dinarius

Came across http://www.mobile-phones-uk.org.uk/nokia-6510.htm site.........

The review of my phone seems to confirm my opinion of it.

Certainly, the readers' reviews do! ;-)

D.

GreeBo

colm_c wrote:

This goes along the same prinicples as to why they don't make a matchstick that you can keep lighting over and over again -- because once you buy one -- you'll never buy another one! (This was a rumour about 5-6 years ago)

In China you can get a "matchstick" that is basically a parrafin soaked wick attached to a metal stick, you strike it off a length of flint on the side of the "matchbox"
Costs about a euro and will last a good long time

Master and commander

GreeBo wrote: »

In China you can get a "matchstick" that is basically a parrafin soaked wick attached to a metal stick, you strike it off a length of flint on the side of the "matchbox"
Costs about a euro and will last a good long time

Ahhh.... the blissfull utopia of the planned economy, free from planned obsolecesce.

keithclancy

dahamsta wrote: »

Don't you think you're stretching the example just a tad there Dave, from 10-12 years in the OP's post to 40 years in yours? Serious cred loss there guy, that's how people like Cork argue.

And are you seriously trying to tell me that the quality of handsets hasn't degraded in recent years? I gave my niece a 6210 yesterday because her phone, which couldn't be more than a year or two old, was falling apart at the seams. Of course some of that comes from cost-cutting, but imho it's very naive to assume that that's the only factor.

Next you'll be telling me that corporations are cuddly darling things that just want to give us all hugs all day long. :rolleyes:

Corporations are greedy, period. Denying that is... well, it's kinda pathetic tbh.

adam

In fairness if you see Nokias testing methods:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxEVnZKnxyg

Nokia do test their phones.

There was crap 10 years ago and theres crap now, no difference.

The Motorola Startac for example was a piece of Junk, The NEC P100 was great but the battery life was terrible, also had issues with the buttons sticking.

People think that everything these days should last forever, well back in the day it didnt last forever either.

Computers still broke (in fact it was more likely you'd get a defective product as quality control has come on in leaps and bounds)

There were sh*t cars (Anyone remember the Datsun Sunny, fell to bits with rust)

dudara

This thread is 6 years old!!

dudara