Thursday
Oct252012
Network logos
Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 9:55AM Take a look at the image below. What is wrong with it?
Verizon has stamped its logo on the home button, that is what's wrong with it. I am not a fan of network logos anyway because I think they cheapen the look of any phone (after all, no one is a fan of their network provider) and having them on the back is bad enough, but on the home button? Horrible... More at Phone Arena.
in All News
All News
Reader Comments (15)
Hopefully with a bit of elbow grease it will rub off. Awful.
If you don't like it, don't buy it from the network operator, then!
Yes, but it isn't always that easy if you are already on a contract and have the chance to upgrade. Putting a logo on a home button seems strange to me
Sure it is! Don't upgrade. Or sell the device you have and buy one from somewhere else.
It seems a bit like wanting the best of both worlds — relying on operator subsidy / quasi-credit facility, but not letting the operator promote itself.
Neil it's not a subsidy; the phone costs you significantly more than it would if you bought it outright. You're effectively buying it on HP and paying interest; they have no right to put advertising on it.
Also some key variants can't be obtained without a contract. The 32GB S3 and LTE S3 are just a couple of examples (I won't get into colours, although those do matter).
Ofcom and/or the FSA really ought to insist that customers are advised of the total cost of the phone when they get one on contract, i.e. how much more they're paying than they would on SIM-only.
Would you like to have the name of your mortgage lender emblazoned on your front door?
I agree with Shaun. It's not only awful, it also messes with the Samsung mark. If I were on a contract and in order to upgrade to this new device I probably would have to do it, but it would certainly cause a negative impact on me. Besides... one day if I want to give/sell the device it will have that awful logo always there! Maybe good for Samsung's business, but... on this I love Apple!
Always happy to be educated — do you have any numbers on this?
But the option is surely not to buy them?
I guess I don't see the upset here — it's not as if there are not options for getting a similar phone elsewhere?
I've just had a *very* quick look, to see whether I was off base or not, and my conclusion is "not really." Prices are based on the Vodafone website as available to 5 minutes ago.
iPhone 5: £169 on a 12 month contract at £59/month = £169 + £708 = £877
iPhone 5 from Apple store: £529
Vodafone total payment - Apple's price for iPhone = 877 - 529 = £348 difference
£348 spread across a 12 month tariff = 348/12 = £29/month
The closest SIM only tariff is £26/month, and offers more calls, but less data and less Wi-Fi — the difference is £3, and there is a slight difference in tariff, so I don't think it's fair to say either that the phone is subsided or that it costs significantly more in this case.
Samsung Galaxy Note II: £99 on a 12 month contract at £51/month = £99 + £612 = £711
Samsung Galaxy Note II from Amazon: £516 (from Clove, £512, so let's take £516)
Vodafone total payment - Clove's price for Note II = 711 - 516 = 195
£195 spread across as 12 month tariff = 195/12 = £16.25/month
The closest SIM only tariff is £15.50/month, and offers fewer minutes, less data and less Wi-Fi. For £0.75/month, one gets more minutes, more data and more Wi-Fi than on a SIM-only basis. Again, I don't think it's fair to say there's either a subsidy or a significant cost.
I can't claim this is anything more than it is — two popular phones, on a quick calculation here and now. I didn't cherry pick the phones, so others may be more or less...
I have my 4G Note II- can't wait till I get an EE sim.
I checked the iPhone 5 on Three-
64GB iPhone 5 is £109 + £40 / month over 24 months = £1069
iPhone 5 from Apple is £699. Add Three's £15.90 / month SIM free option with same minutes etc. and it comes to £1080.
Same price for both really. I agree that this could be called a quasi-credit facility and that the option is there to buy outright and lose no money because the differences are minimal depending on what tariff you go for.
However, I draw the line at sticking a logo on a home button!:)
"I guess I don't see the upset here — it's not as if there are not options for getting a similar phone elsewhere?"
Well in my case elsewhere was Germany, and it was still a Vodafone-branded 32GB S3 (nothing printed on it thankfully, just Vodafone bloatware installed).
When I did the same calculations as you for my gf's Note II it was significantly cheaper to buy the phone outright. I was specifically looking at the deals from Carphone Warehouse and comparing to the 12 month SIM-only deals (which are cheaper than the monthly rolling deals).
From memory comparing like-for-like it worked out to something like £160 extra over the 24 month contract; close to a third of the cost of the phone. That's less than £7pcm but it mounts up. To be fair I think there was a fair bit of variation though depending on minutes, data, carrier and so forth.
Neil bear in mind in your calculations a difference of £3pcm is £72 over the life of the contract. I know you weren't quite comparing like for like but it's a significant chunk of change.
Also bear in mind there are some extremely cheap (sub £7) SIM-only deals around now, although those weren't the ones I was looking at.
I always buy my phone outright, because even when part of the cost of the handset is offset by call cost in the associated plan, I know that I will never make enough calls to make that system cost-justifiable.
I'm surprised that there is a Telco that still bothers with brand stamping. Re-branding adds a delay to the release dates for hardware, where your potential customers could wander off to another brand while your stock is in a re-manufacturing plant getting "defaced".
I remember when the iPhone first showed up in Australia, and the Telcos were warned that if their brand showed up on an iPhones, they would have their dealership terminated. Samsung should have followed suit.
They were 12 month contracts, so £36 ;)
Yes, this was the comparator I used, as it is closer to the nature of a 12 month contract than a rolling monthly deal.
Sure - but then it's not close to a like-for-like comparison! You can't have your cake and eat it - if you buy from an operator on a contract, you have to factor in everything you get, which is airtime portion of the payment. If you don't want the same airtime, another approach (SIM-free + PAYT, for example) may be cheaper.
I'm really not sure either of our initial points are borne out by the figures!
Even £36 is almost 7% interest. That's certainly not subsidised and, returning to the original point, shouldn't allow the carrier to put their own advertising on it.
I'm quite impressed that you found a £26pcm SIM-only tariff, but most tend to be around the £10-15 mark. Certainly those are the ones I was looking at for my gf.
The sub £7 deals weren't actually that far from what my gf was already getting on her existing contract (and on the contract with phone that I was comparing to).
As I said there's a lot of variation; for what my gf was after it was a lot cheaper to buy outright.
Leaving aside the value of the credit arrangement in place (which I do think has value to it), it's certainly not as subsidised as I had thought, and so branding on the basis of subsidy is not a supportable argument :)