|
loksze
Jul 11, 2008 2:38 PM
|
As much as I like the iPhone, the plans are still a bit too much. Too bad 3 wasn't included as one of the mobile carriers to compete in the Apple iPhones, otherwise it would definitely be interesting in terms of the current prices. Like I have said in the other posts, I can certainly wait till other alternatives comes in and lowers the competition of iphones and plans.
Comment made about the PC Authority article:
iPhone Plan Picker: Best deals for Light, Medium and Heavy users?
To go with Telstra, or not to go with Telstra? Weigh up the decision with our full analysis of the best deals in three scenarios, as well as the best overall iPhone 3G plans from Optus, Vodafone, and Telstra.
What do you think? Join the discussion. |
|
ray73864
Jul 11, 2008 6:00 PM
|
To go with Telstra, or not to go with Telstra? It really depends on where you live. Vodafone, Optus, the others, most of those are useless in a lot of areas of Western Australia unless you live close to a city or regional city. Where i live for instance, Optus is next to useless, and a town that i go through on occasions the only mobile carrier that gets reception is Telstra NextG (albeit with a 1bar reception).
The problem with this article, is that it only compares the contracts, what about the prepaid??? which Telco has the iPhone cheaper for prepaid? |
|
mongee
Jul 12, 2008 1:14 PM
|
I guess the best thing to do right now is wait. iPhone is still new and prices will eventually get lower. I'll wait till it comes out on Prepaid and maybe Three would carry it. |
|
.:Cyb3rGlitch:.
Jul 12, 2008 1:33 PM
|
I have a feeling that the iPhone will stay expensive for a long time. |
|
ggf9191
Jul 13, 2008 3:34 AM
|
I think all the phone companies have got the wrong idea. The main thing about the iphone is that it is far better at data download than any other phone to date. The balance of the plans is all wrong there needs to be a much higher proportion of data to voice than any of the plans on offer. the iphone changes the game the phone companies just don't get it |
|
tefu
Jul 14, 2008 9:51 AM
|
I don't know what's the hype with iphone? there is really nothing special about it except the touch screen though. There are other phone probably has the same function unless this iphone is price competitive against them. |
|
bbjai
Jul 14, 2008 11:57 AM
|
The applications are quickly becoming a competitive difference for the iPhone. I don't see any other phone out there with a facebook app. |
|
Chaps
Jul 14, 2008 1:06 PM
|
There are at least 2 Facebook Apps for WinMo devices that I can think of straight away, Snap2Face and Friendmobilizer.. and i can shoose which one to use or even write one myself...
I like what the iPhone will do to the Mobile & Telco industry ( like the banks to offer mobile account-balance checking) but i would never get one.. they are, like every Apple product, far to limited and controlled. I want to personalise my phone, install what i Like, when i like and if i find a gap in the products available i can choose towrite an app with no contraints. |
|
bbjai
Jul 14, 2008 1:20 PM
|
yes but who here has acutally heard of the facebook apps for Windows Mobile? Within 2 days of the facebook app releasing on the iPhone millions of people heard about it. Its just the way Apple is able to promote and make apps mainstream. Its good marketing and they are rightly rewarded with good sales.
Im not saying the products are good or bad, but good marketing and strategy deserves sales. You look at all the MP3 players out there that crap on the Nano and Classic in features. They just don't have the aura, style, or desirability that a Apple product or even a Sony product will have. They will have a market, just it will never reach the levels that they deserve. Slick cool, ease of use and satisfying the basic needs will always sell more units.
Just check out the D2 Cyber showed in another thread. Will it replace the Nano anytime soon? Not really, it doesn't look anywhere cool as the first Nano or the Touch for that matter. Its all a matter of perception not features. |
|
totoaus
Jul 15, 2008 9:34 PM
|
While Telstra bashing is very popular, and this article seems have a strong element of that, I am not sure it is well-founded here. Less than 3 months ago, I compared the coverage of Telstra, Optus & Vodafone for my state (Tasmania). People on Hobart & Launceston can choose from all three carriers, but the rest of the state is only served by Telstra. From memory, I'd say Telstra covered almost 50 times the area of Tasmania compared to its competitors, and expansion plans did not change that. I often feel that the Telstra bashers are blinded by multi-nationals who want full access to the Telstra network as though it were still a government agency, without paying anything for access. I should know, I used to be a big fan of Optus in the early 1990s when they were Telstra's biggest customer. Technically it sounded great that Optus would need only one exchange in the ACT, but it didn't take long to realize they were dependent on every Telstra exchange. A couple of years later, I lost my faith in Optus due to poor mobile coverage in rural areas, and their constant complaints about Telstra. I have also been a Vodafone customer, and they also rarely had coverage in rural areas. In contrast: I, at least, have never found fault with Telstra's service landline, or mobile; capital city or rural backwater. |
|
butterz
Aug 21, 2008 11:54 AM
|
ive enjoyed vodaphone as my service provider on my phone, they give nice deals and extra's, telstra is what i use for work as its more reliable and optus, ohh dont get me started they are soi unfriendly and they have very expensive plans. But from this test i think its still a bit too much, hope 3 will be included soon! |