T-Mobile Drops iPhone Down Payment Price by $4, Increases Monthly Payment by $1

"$150 (...) to $145.99"

"T-Mobile Drops iPhone Down Payment Price By $5"

Maybe I don't understand it correctly, maybe my math is wrong, but that's not a $5 difference.

Tmobile USA is just as deceptive as the other carriers. This "uncarrier" branding may stop the bleeding of customers but won't gain them much more.

I think the FCC needs to force tmobile to reveal in big bold print the full cost of the phone as the primary headline than tmobile can put in smaller print the lower down payment.

This isn't a car lease where u have to retune the car. Dealers can promote low leases. But this is a full price of a phone consumers are responsible for.

Do you then also believe that AT&T and VZ should have to put their Early Termination Fees in big bold print as well as tell you that your phone plan will never get cheaper even after you have satisfied your contract?

T-Mobile's offering just sounds like an engineer trying to sell his formula to customers. Just sounds incredibly complicated. Just sell the phone at $649/$749/$849 and provide cheap service rates. Nice and simple!

So an entry level phone on the cheapest plan will run you $71/month (plus standard taxes and fees).

Or you just buy the iPhone directly from Apple and pop in a T-Mobile prepay SIM at $30/mo. (The $30 plans are in the smaller print at the bottom of the page.)

http://prepaid-phones.t-mobile.com/prepaid-plans

Unlike the big three, T-Mobile doesn't require a minimum plan to use an iPhone on their network. You have real choices based on your usage.

My take its not working well, people are probably buying the phones leaving for other carrier or its not helping because you can leave anytime.. No contract is killing them

You will get billed for the remainder cost of the phone. There's no customer benefit to getting a "discounted" iPhone to just take it to AT&T.

Nobody I know has a problem with a 2-year contracts either. It's been that way for decades in America... it's business as usual.

You could always pay the full retail price for a phone on any carrier... but most people just take the discount up front and stick around for 2 years.

If you're happy with the carrier... you shouldn't want to leave anyway. My family has been with Verizon since its beginning... and Bell Atlantic before that... for a total of over 15 years.

I don't think it's common to jump from carrier-to-carrier on a regular basis. Most people I know have been with their carrier for quite a long time. In fact... the 4 major carriers in the US have been around for so long... by now people should know the pros and cons of each. People could switch carriers every 2 years... but they don't.

That's why I don't think the "no contract" thing is such a big deal.

If you're happy, great! However your opinion and choice to spend a premium to show your Verizon brand loyalty does not change the facts that the American "post paid" system and tradition of phone subsidies means much more expensive cell phone service than anywhere else in the world.

The "no contract" thing is a big deal for many reasons and on many levels. It is slightly mitigated because of the aging underlying CDMA backbone for Verizon and Sprint which has allowed for effective segmenting of the markets by the big two (Verizon and AT&T) and was almost made complete by the buy-out of T-Mobile and the collapse of Sprint. One great thing about a "no contract" plan is you stop paying for the phone subsidy once your phone is paid off. Verizon will keep charging that premium rate ad infinitum.

I find the complaints about T-Mobile's lack of transparency hilarious. If you want to appreciate the effects of the cell phone oligopoly look at the pre-paid service rates. In the pre-paid world there is still a healthy amount of competition and the rates are LOWER than post-paid. It used to be the whole point of post-paid was to get a BETTER service rate because you had good credit and IF you signed a contract you got a discount on the phone. Now it is some weird middle-class tax because pre-paid is for teenagers and drug dealers.

I say all this as a Verizon contract signer. It was a mistake that has and will cost me several $1000's of dollars by the time my family contract is up but there weren't these options at launch. If you really, really NEED Verizon or AT&T for coverage then great, pay their premium. If you don't, and you really do plan on sticking with one carrier for 15 years, switch now. You will save money.

T-Mobile's offering just sounds like an engineer trying to sell his formula to customers. Just sounds incredibly complicated. Just sell the phone at $649/$749/$849 and provide cheap service rates. Nice and simple!

People will balk at the price since they're used to the "$200"-ish price for phones and are clueless to the actual price of phones.

T-Mobile's way is a great middle-of-the-road approach. Though I agree changes like this is kinda pathetic. Just set a price and stick with it. If they realized they should've charged more, just wait for the new iPhone to drop, and change the price with it. Looks much better that way.

T-Mobile will not unlock the phone immediately so now it's better to buy the iPhone unlocked at an Apple store and then subscribe to T-Mobile service.

You will save money on the plan and not the phone.

Drawbacks: Not as good coverage.
Poorer signal reception in buildings.

Advantages: Plan cost.

Those drawbacks really depend on your location, just like with all cellular service. I happen to live in an area with excellent T-Mobile coverage, including LTE. I'm ditching Verizon and saving about $60/month.

It worked for me ....

My workplace used to pay for our cellphones and issued me an iPhone 5 a while back. Now they've gone to a bring your own device model where they give us a monthly stipend to spend however we wish.

Since said stipend wasn't all that generous, it forced me to really scramble to find a suitable carrier in my budget. T-Mobile's plan was really the only option without resorting to the second-rate regional carriers like Cricket, MetroPCS, Virgin Mobile, etc.

So far, I agree that T-Mobile's coverage isn't as good as I had with AT&T. I definitely see weaker signals inside buildings and occasionally, even lose my signal if I'm standing in a bad spot indoors. But on the whole, it's still quite usable for me.

Like Sprint though, I think T-Mobile just has that reputation of only being "so so" in signal quality and coverage, and that hurts them. A lot of my co-workers still opted to pay out of pocket for the difference to stay on Verizon or AT&T -- claiming nothing else worked well enough where they live.

But I don't think the experiment with no contracts is "not working"? Nobody I know is saying they'd prefer the 2 year contract! T-Mo just needs to do a better job marketing what they offer, because I know I've already had to explain it to a number of my co-workers who had no idea about it.

Like the rest of the world does it!

But no... people in America are used to paying $199 for a phone in exchange for signing a contract for 2 years.

I applaud T-Mobile US for trying this experiment... but it doesn't look like it's working very well.

T-Mobile was always cheaper than the bigger carriers like Verizon and AT&T... so you'd think they'd have the most customers. But they don't.

Where I live... T-Mobile coverage isn't so great. I guess that's why people prefer the larger carriers.

In other words... T-Mobile branding themselves as the "uncarrier" with no contracts and telling people to "buy your own phone" isn't exactly bringing in the customers.