I want the better camera and larger screen, but I do not want to pay full price. Verizon won’t subsidize it for me because I am still “paying off” the “free” iPhone 13 they gave me when I traded in my pretty new iPhone 11. The “free” consists of them billing me $22 a month, and them paying that charge themselves on the same bill. I’m sure there are explanations for how this benefits them, but I struggle to understand this Rube Goldberg billing strategy.
This information reflects the current contract terms Verizon offers to everyone.
iPhone is $899 + tax. Verizon pays Apple what you pay for the iPhone. You sign a contract for 36 months that states you’ll pay Verizon a monthly installment without interest.
As for the “free” phone, it really can be free. Based on their own internal metrics is what makes you eligible. Accounts the system has flagged for fear of losing (retention), good standing (no missed payments), long time customers (loyalty), new customers, or when there is an abundance of stock and a new model is set to release. The catch is that you’re on the hook for the price of the phone if you upgrade early or want to cancel your line. The average rep is not letting you upgrade because the system says no. A manager can override but if they do, you lose the credit. Your next bill will include the price of the phone. They’re still making money off you in the long term whether or not the phone is free. It’s calculated business.
Telecos make minimal amounts on the hardware - its all in the batshit insane service costs. To give an (out of date ) example, back when ATT was getting rid of contracts I talked with some people who knew the ins and outs. On the contract model, the first 6 months paid for the device subsidy and the network, the last 18 months was pure profit. They where all super excited about the financial gains of no longer needing to do phone subsidies, but still have the customer locked in for 2+ years.
It could be a tax thing, move some of their expenses to a different year? Or they were able to negotiate leasing from the supplier, instead of paying up front they use the money to invest in the company or invest it / stock buybacks.
I’m not a finance guy or have any special knowledge. Above is pure speculation.
I want the better camera and larger screen, but I do not want to pay full price. Verizon won’t subsidize it for me because I am still “paying off” the “free” iPhone 13 they gave me when I traded in my pretty new iPhone 11. The “free” consists of them billing me $22 a month, and them paying that charge themselves on the same bill. I’m sure there are explanations for how this benefits them, but I struggle to understand this Rube Goldberg billing strategy.
You should read contracts before you sign them.
This information reflects the current contract terms Verizon offers to everyone.
iPhone is $899 + tax. Verizon pays Apple what you pay for the iPhone. You sign a contract for 36 months that states you’ll pay Verizon a monthly installment without interest.
As for the “free” phone, it really can be free. Based on their own internal metrics is what makes you eligible. Accounts the system has flagged for fear of losing (retention), good standing (no missed payments), long time customers (loyalty), new customers, or when there is an abundance of stock and a new model is set to release. The catch is that you’re on the hook for the price of the phone if you upgrade early or want to cancel your line. The average rep is not letting you upgrade because the system says no. A manager can override but if they do, you lose the credit. Your next bill will include the price of the phone. They’re still making money off you in the long term whether or not the phone is free. It’s calculated business.
Telecos make minimal amounts on the hardware - its all in the batshit insane service costs. To give an (out of date ) example, back when ATT was getting rid of contracts I talked with some people who knew the ins and outs. On the contract model, the first 6 months paid for the device subsidy and the network, the last 18 months was pure profit. They where all super excited about the financial gains of no longer needing to do phone subsidies, but still have the customer locked in for 2+ years.
It could be a tax thing, move some of their expenses to a different year? Or they were able to negotiate leasing from the supplier, instead of paying up front they use the money to invest in the company or invest it / stock buybacks.
I’m not a finance guy or have any special knowledge. Above is pure speculation.