http://www.kogan.com/au/buy/samsung-galaxy-s3-4g-i9305-black-16gb/ Kogan has the 4G version of the Samsung Galaxy S3, it costs $749 vs $499 for the 3G version. So you pay an extra $250 for 4G! If I was buying now I'd get the 3G version. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Russell Coker wrote:
http://www.kogan.com/au/buy/samsung-galaxy-s3-4g-i9305-black-16gb/
Kogan has the 4G version of the Samsung Galaxy S3, it costs $749 vs $499 for the 3G version. So you pay an extra $250 for 4G!
If I was buying now I'd get the 3G version.
Sounds like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_differentiation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_segmentation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damaged_good (not quite) Reminds me of Intel with their VT-x support, where AFAICT most of the CPUs had VT on die, they just disabled it on the cheap units. Obviously undesirable, but what do can you do?
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012, "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck@gmail.com> wrote:
Russell Coker wrote:
http://www.kogan.com/au/buy/samsung-galaxy-s3-4g-i9305-black-16gb/
Kogan has the 4G version of the Samsung Galaxy S3, it costs $749 vs $499 for the 3G version. So you pay an extra $250 for 4G!
If I was buying now I'd get the 3G version.
Sounds like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_differentiation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_segmentation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damaged_good (not quite)
Of course it could be that Samsung just manufactured millions of them before shipping any with LTE support. In that case the 3G ones are on sale cheaply because they are no longer the latest and greatest and Samsung might be getting the same per-unit price. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On 15/10/2012 3:24 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012, "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck@gmail.com> wrote:
Russell Coker wrote:
http://www.kogan.com/au/buy/samsung-galaxy-s3-4g-i9305-black-16gb/
Kogan has the 4G version of the Samsung Galaxy S3, it costs $749 vs $499 for the 3G version. So you pay an extra $250 for 4G!
If I was buying now I'd get the 3G version.
Also, beware of this: http://www.crn.com.au/News/318600,no-optus-4g-for-outright-galaxy-s-iii-4g-o... Although an update to the article says that some time soon, they'll have BYO options. Cheers A.
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
http://www.crn.com.au/News/318600,no-optus-4g-for-outright-galaxy-s-iii-4g- owners.aspx?eid=4&edate=20121010
Although an update to the article says that some time soon, they'll have BYO options.
As I previously mentioned the telco plans that involve "free" phones in Australia are unreasonably expensive. So the telcos try and force people to buy the bad plans instead of being competitive. Best to buy a phone from Kogan and then find a telco that will support it properly. The TIO is a good option if a telco doesn't do so. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On 15/10/2012 9:46 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
http://www.crn.com.au/News/318600,no-optus-4g-for-outright-galaxy-s-iii-4g- owners.aspx?eid=4&edate=20121010
Although an update to the article says that some time soon, they'll have BYO options.
As I previously mentioned the telco plans that involve "free" phones in Australia are unreasonably expensive. So the telcos try and force people to buy the bad plans instead of being competitive.
Yes, I agree to a point, but even Telcos need to make some money to keep building their networks -- the ones that you want or need to use....
Best to buy a phone from Kogan and then find a telco that will support it properly. The TIO is a good option if a telco doesn't do so.
I don't understand why you are so hell bent on pushing Kogan, do you have share in them ;) I definitely say "buyer beware", particularly if you are in a position where you choose to buy local and pay the normal taxes and where appropriate claim back GST accordingly. And for sure, I do wish that Samsung and other manufacturers would offer lower pricing for AU stock so that this doesn't need to be an issue for anyone. Cheers A.
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
As I previously mentioned the telco plans that involve "free" phones in Australia are unreasonably expensive. So the telcos try and force people to buy the bad plans instead of being competitive.
Yes, I agree to a point, but even Telcos need to make some money to keep building their networks -- the ones that you want or need to use....
Making money doesn't require giving users bad deals. One might argue that the confusing pricing models that they use are required because everyone does it (this is an argument in favor of regulated contracts), but offering so-called "free" phones that cost significantly more than buying them outright is pretty close to fraud.
Best to buy a phone from Kogan and then find a telco that will support it properly. The TIO is a good option if a telco doesn't do so.
I don't understand why you are so hell bent on pushing Kogan, do you have share in them ;)
If you know of a cheaper way of buying phones then please let us know. I'll keep using Kogan as the base line for comparing prices until I find another company that's cheap and convenient.
I definitely say "buyer beware", particularly if you are in a position where you choose to buy local and pay the normal taxes and where appropriate claim back GST accordingly.
The vast majority of people here can't claim back GST. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Russell Coker wrote:
Making money doesn't require giving users bad deals. One might argue that the confusing pricing models that they use are required [...]
Have you read http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2011/12/the-coming-retail-apocal... (Pretty much every article there is worth reading, IMO.)
On 16/10/2012 11:53 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
As I previously mentioned the telco plans that involve "free" phones in Australia are unreasonably expensive. So the telcos try and force people to buy the bad plans instead of being competitive.
Yes, I agree to a point, but even Telcos need to make some money to keep building their networks -- the ones that you want or need to use....
Making money doesn't require giving users bad deals. One might argue that the confusing pricing models that they use are required because everyone does it (this is an argument in favor of regulated contracts), but offering so-called "free" phones that cost significantly more than buying them outright is pretty close to fraud.
I agree, but I also don't understand why people pay extortionate prices for junk foods at the supermarket -- it's like "convenience store" pricing these days.
Best to buy a phone from Kogan and then find a telco that will support it properly. The TIO is a good option if a telco doesn't do so.
I don't understand why you are so hell bent on pushing Kogan, do you have share in them ;)
It depends on too many factors, your own choices may or may not suit others.... if others are in your same boat, then your advice will be fine for them; but not everyone is like you.
If you know of a cheaper way of buying phones then please let us know. I'll keep using Kogan as the base line for comparing prices until I find another company that's cheap and convenient.
I definitely say "buyer beware", particularly if you are in a position where you choose to buy local and pay the normal taxes and where appropriate claim back GST accordingly.
The vast majority of people here can't claim back GST.
How in the hell would you know that? Not from a Wikipedia survey, your favourite tool for "proof" .... sheesh. Cheers A.
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
Making money doesn't require giving users bad deals. One might argue that the confusing pricing models that they use are required because everyone does it (this is an argument in favor of regulated contracts), but offering so-called "free" phones that cost significantly more than buying them outright is pretty close to fraud.
I agree, but I also don't understand why people pay extortionate prices for junk foods at the supermarket -- it's like "convenience store" pricing these days.
People pay high prices for food that's convenient. They also pay high prices for phones that are convenient. The difference is that supermarkets don't try and claim that expensive food is "free".
The vast majority of people here can't claim back GST.
How in the hell would you know that? Not from a Wikipedia survey, your favourite tool for "proof" .... sheesh.
To claim back GST you need to run a business that's registered for GST and have issues GST invoices. The vast majority of the population are not in that situation, most people are employees and most people who aren't employees aren't registered for GST. It's always interesting the way people criticise Wikipedia and then make claims with no supporting evidence at all. You have previously claimed that "free" phones on a contract can compete with Kogan phones on total price but refused to do any investigation to support your claims. Wikipedia articles are supposed to have links to supporting evidence and they usually do so. Try to write messages that are of half the quality of an average Wikipedia article and then we can talk about quality of references. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On 16/10/2012 1:14 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
Making money doesn't require giving users bad deals. One might argue that the confusing pricing models that they use are required because everyone does it (this is an argument in favor of regulated contracts), but offering so-called "free" phones that cost significantly more than buying them outright is pretty close to fraud.
I agree, but I also don't understand why people pay extortionate prices for junk foods at the supermarket -- it's like "convenience store" pricing these days.
People pay high prices for food that's convenient. They also pay high prices for phones that are convenient. The difference is that supermarkets don't try and claim that expensive food is "free".
People pay high prices for food, because the supermarkets can get away with it and it seems that too many people these days either don't have the knowledge, skills or time to "manage" better and more efficiently, so they far over pay for convenience -- some people don't seem to care what something costs if they want it and it doesn't have to be much of a want for them either. A phone can be as good as free or at least low cost IF the phone plan OTHERWISE suits the requirements at a "fair" price. Just because a "total commitment" may be high, doesn't necessarily follow that the included phone cost is the main factor or even that the inclusion cannot be justified overall as part of the buying choice -- take around $500 off the total commitment and then see if the plan otherwise stacks up well enough or not. Again it depends on the individual case, each end user has their own requirements and those requirements can vary greatly. Those with or without GST considerations may have different choices and options available to them, whether or not GST helps or hinders that decision is another matter. Price is definitely one consideration and it is normally one of my greatest priorities when making a buying decision; price on principle ... however, price is just one buying consideration, other principles also need to be considered. And at times it is better to pay a "higher", perceived or otherwise, price than at other times for all sorts of possible reasons. Cheers A.
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
A phone can be as good as free or at least low cost IF the phone plan OTHERWISE suits the requirements at a "fair" price.
Provide an example. http://etbe.coker.com.au/2012/09/22/phone-prices-australia/ I've already analysed the prices and found that for the cheaper contracts (the ones for people who are trying to minimise costs) it's clearly not a good deal to get a phone bundled with the telco service. See the above URL. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Russell Coker wrote:
Wikipedia articles are supposed to have links to supporting evidence and they usually do so. Try to write messages that are of half the quality of an average Wikipedia article and then we can talk about quality of references.
If you spend twenty minutes hitting alt+x (the hotkey for /Special:Random), you will see that the *average* Wikipedia article is a stub article about a road, a football player, or an election :-)
Andrew McGlashan wrote:
How in the hell would you know that? Not from a Wikipedia survey, your favourite tool for "proof" .... sheesh.
Obligatory linkspam: WebMD is the only news source whose coverage of chemical risk is regarded as accurate by a majority (56 percent) of toxicologists, closely followed by Wikipedia's 45 percent accuracy rating. By contrast, only 15 percent describe as accurate the portrayals of chemical risk found in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_wikipedia And it's on WP so it *must* be true... ;-)
participants (3)
-
Andrew McGlashan -
Russell Coker -
Trent W. Buck