[mduell]

Gizmodo has the details. Minutes and SMS included seem very low, but I'm used to plans in the US.

[richwig83]

3g?????

[analogika]

3G and 16GB.
After the huge fiasco that were the UMTS Auction Wars, the telecom companies have had to hype UMTS like crazy in desperate hope of getting their investment back before WiMax kills them all. In consequence, trying to sell a smartphone without UMTS would be suicide, regardless of how much more useful EDGE is.

mduell: Europeans don't pay for *receiving* calls (unless we're abroad, when we're gouged with international roaming fees). We pay for *making* calls.

[Nexus5]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Gizmodo has the details. Minutes and SMS included seem very low, but I'm used to plans in the US.

Fake.

nexus5.

[Koralatov]

Originally Posted by analogika 

duell: Europeans don't pay for *receiving* calls (unless we're abroad, when we're gouged with international roaming fees). We pay for *making* calls.

You're kidding, right? In the US, you have to pay to receive calls on your mobile/cellphone?

And 'gouged' is the right word for the international roaming fees we're charged. That's why I leave my mobile at home when I go overseas.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Nexus5 

Fake.

You're the guy *working* for Telekom, right?

IIRC, that is.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Koralatov 

You're kidding, right? In the US, you have to pay to receive calls on your mobile/cellphone?

And 'gouged' is the right word for the international roaming fees we're charged. That's why I leave my mobile at home when I go overseas.

Yep, it's the biggest scam the cell phone carriers have going.

[analogika]

What is - paying for some telemarketer moron to call you, or roaming charges (oh yeah, same thing)?

[::maroma::]

Why does it say "Apple iPod 16 GB"?

[icruise]

Yeah, you don't pay to receive calls in Japan either, as far as I can recall. Paying to receive calls is stupid, because (aside from the fact that both parties on a call are paying, which goes against how normal phones work), it means that calling someone can actually be kind of rude -- you're using up their minutes, after all.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by analogika 

mduell: Europeans don't pay for *receiving* calls (unless we're abroad, when we're gouged with international roaming fees). We pay for *making* calls.

Oops, forgot about that.

Originally Posted by Koralatov 

You're kidding, right? In the US, you have to pay to receive calls on your mobile/cellphone?

It doesn't matter who initiates the call, if you're speaking on your cell phone it comes out of your minutes. But a $40/mo plan includes 1000 peak minutes (nights/weekends are free), which is ten times what this ad shows Europeans getting.

Originally Posted by icruise 

Yeah, you don't pay to receive calls in Japan either, as far as I can recall. Paying to receive calls is stupid, because (aside from the fact that both parties on a call are paying, which goes against how normal phones work), it means that calling someone can actually be kind of rude -- you're using up their minutes, after all.

It's compensated for by having plans with more minutes at the same price. I don't understand how not paying to receive a call makes sense, since you're still using the same resources as if you had initiated the call.

[icruise]

Um, the $40 plan comes with 450 anytime minutes. (If we're talking about AT&T anyway.) Oh, and nights and weekends are most definitely NOT free (but you do get a much larger quota of minutes to use on nights and weekends.)

[richwig83]

It's compensated for by having plans with more minutes at the same price. I don't understand how not paying to receive a call makes sense, since you're still using the same resources as if you had initiated the call.

It doesnt make sense.... but

Surly the difference is this....

UK person A phones person B = person A pays £X per minute
US person A phones person B = both pay half as much per minute

if thats not how it works that the US system is madness (using your inclusive minutes to recieve a call defo wont catch on in the UK), like icruise said the initiator of a landline call takes the charge not both parties, so why should it be the case with a mobile?

[frdmfghtr]

Not all US carriers charge for incoming calls.

For example, US Cellular has plans that have unlimited "Call Me" minutes. Sprint also has some plans with unlimited incoming minutes.

With Caller ID and voicemail included in nearly every plan in existence, it's easy to ignore unwanted calls, so you don't burn minutes on incoming telemarketers (whom I believe aren't allowed to call cellphones anyway, regardless of any Do Not Call list) or other unwanted incoming calls. If you don't recognize the number, let it go to voicemail; I don't think checking voicemail burns minutes.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by mduell 

It's compensated for by having plans with more minutes at the same price. I don't understand how not paying to receive a call makes sense, since you're still using the same resources as if you had initiated the call.

How is it acceptable for MY decision to CALL YOU to cost YOU money?

At what point did reverse-charge become not only norm, but *default*?

[icruise]

Originally Posted by frdmfghtr 

I don't think checking voicemail burns minutes.

It does, actually (although not on the iPhone, assuming you use virtual voicemail and not the normal voicemail system where you call in.)

[Moonray]

Back on topic. Can we?

On the bottom of that pic I read “MacBidouille”, so it appears to come from http://www.macbidouille.com/news/2007-09-08/#14915 or http://www.hardmac.com/news/2007-09-08/#7158.

Aside that it’s called “iPod” there, the spacing of the ...T... dots seems to be too tight compared to those on http://www.t-mobile.de/.

Just my two grains of salt.

-

[analogika]

Egads, you're right! - The branding is off!

Okay, fake then.

Welp, we'll keep waiting.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by analogika 

What is - paying for some telemarketer moron to call you, or roaming charges (oh yeah, same thing)?

In the US, you never get telemarketing calls on a cell phone. This is because it is illegal for a telemarketer to call a cell phone, precisely because of the fact that it would cause the receiver to have to pay for the telemarketing call. Junk faxes are also illegal for the same reason - you're costing the receiver money in toner and paper costs.

It is for this reason that I am entirely in favor of the US system staying the way it is WRT non-free incoming calls.

Originally Posted by mduell 

It doesn't matter who initiates the call, if you're speaking on your cell phone it comes out of your minutes. But a $40/mo plan includes 1000 peak minutes (nights/weekends are free), which is ten times what this ad shows Europeans getting.

Where on earth did you find a deal like that? Even T-Mobile only gives you 600 minutes for $40 a month with free nights and weekends (although you can get 1000 per month for $40 if you give up the free nights/weekends).

Originally Posted by frdmfghtr 

With Caller ID and voicemail included in nearly every plan in existence, it's easy to ignore unwanted calls, so you don't burn minutes on incoming telemarketers (whom I believe aren't allowed to call cellphones anyway, regardless of any Do Not Call list) or other unwanted incoming calls. If you don't recognize the number, let it go to voicemail; I don't think checking voicemail burns minutes.

Actually, checking voicemail does burn minutes, but if you're smart about it, you can check your voicemail after 9:00 (or whenever your night minutes start) and do it for free that way.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Egads, you're right! - The branding is off!

Okay, fake then.

Welp, we'll keep waiting.

It seems odd that someone wanting to fake something like this would go to the trouble of making a new T-mobile logo that's slightly off when they could have just copied it from the web site. I don't think this necessarily means that it's fake.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

In the US, you never get telemarketing calls on a cell phone. This is because it is illegal for a telemarketer to call a cell phone, precisely because of the fact that it would cause the receiver to have to pay for the telemarketing call. Junk faxes are also illegal for the same reason - you're costing the receiver money in toner and paper costs.

It is for this reason that I am entirely in favor of the US system staying the way it is WRT non-free incoming calls.

I've never had a telemarketer call me on the mobile, and I'm not sure it's allowed. Junk faxes definitely are prohibited.

[Moonray]

Some of the text on the display seems to be translated, but I don’t think it would make sense to show 73° on the Weather icon in Europe.

-

[stwain2003]

You only pay for received calls in the US if you pick up the phone.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by analogika 

I've never had a telemarketer call me on the mobile, and I'm not sure it's allowed.

Ah, I assumed that you did from your earlier statement about telemarketing calls costing you money.

Regardless, I'm pretty positive that it is illegal over here, and it's always been my understanding that the reason is that it would cost people money. Therefore, if we moved to free incoming calls in the US, that could conceivably change.

Junk faxes definitely are prohibited.

Well, yeah, because that's always going to cost you in toner and paper no matter what phone plan you're on.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Moonray 

Some of the text on the display seems to be translated, but I don’t think it would make sense to show 73° on the Weather icon in Europe.

-

That would be typical for Apple. They don't provide localized product images. Or translate much of their website. E. g.:

http://www.apple.com/de/ipodtouch/features.html

But the flyer is fake regardless. It calls the iPhone "Apple iPod". And I doubt they would print them two months in advance.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Ah, I assumed that you did from your earlier statement about telemarketing calls costing you money.

What about your ex-girl-friend who hates you now and sends you dozens of SMS a day?

[SSharon]

I'm ok with the fact it uses my minutes when I answer a call since I am using the same services as if I was making the call. I also have the choice to ignore the call as mentioned. What drives me nuts is that I have to pay to receive text messages. There is no option to ignore message and pay nothing. Before I got the iphone with the included messages it drove me nuts to have to change my automatic bill payment by 10 cents just because an idiot friend on mine texted me when I always tell them not to.

[analogika]

I also get plenty of calls from phones without caller ID.

[Moonray]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

That would be typical for Apple. They don't provide localized product images. Or translate much of their website. E. g.:

http://www.apple.com/de/ipodtouch/features.html

Ouch that‘s poor. I hope they just forgot it. However that shouldn’t happen either.

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

But the flyer is fake regardless. It calls the iPhone "Apple iPod". And I doubt they would print them two months in advance.

Maybe that’s just the two months they need to do a proper localisation.

-

[mduell]

Originally Posted by icruise 

Um, the $40 plan comes with 450 anytime minutes. (If we're talking about AT&T anyway.) Oh, and nights and weekends are most definitely NOT free (but you do get a much larger quota of minutes to use on nights and weekends.)

I was referring to T-mobile, which is appropriate to compare to this ad. When I re-uped in June, it was 1000 peak+free nights/weekends for $40/mo.

Originally Posted by analogika 

How is it acceptable for MY decision to CALL YOU to cost YOU money?

How is it unacceptable for a call I choose to accept/participate in to cost me money?

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Where on earth did you find a deal like that? Even T-Mobile only gives you 600 minutes for $40 a month with free nights and weekends (although you can get 1000 per month for $40 if you give up the free nights/weekends).

T-mobile was 1000 peak min with free nights/weekends in June; I saw the ad in USA Today and called to re-up. Even at 600, that's six times as many as the plan in this ad (assuming data/sms is worth about $30).

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

What about your ex-girl-friend who hates you now and sends you dozens of SMS a day?

You can always have numbers blocked.

[icruise]

Even at 600, that's six times as many as the plan in this ad (assuming data/sms is worth about $30).

How is 600 six times as many as 200?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by mduell 

How is it unacceptable for a call I choose to accept/participate in to cost me money?

I dunno how it is in the states, but there's enough numbers here that don't have caller ID (it's optional). Or I don't recognize the number, and get billed for a "Sorry, wrong number."

That's just idiotic.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by mduell 

You can always have numbers blocked.

Yep. That costs about 12 dollars per number, or more, depending on your service.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

What about your ex-girl-friend who hates you now and sends you dozens of SMS a day?

SMS is a different issue. We were talking about calls. When talking about SMS, I actually agree, since 1) they can easily be sent in extremely large quantities for free using an IM client on a computer, and 2) there's no way to refuse to accept them. An angry ex would have a hard time running up my bill using regular telephone calls, since I'd just quit answering her calls. In fact, I'd probably just block her number, or failing that, I'd assign a silent ringtone to her address book entry and just ignore her (which wouldn't cost anything - well, assuming I'm not using an iPhone).

[TETENAL]

* *

[jokell82]

You're bumping a thread already at the top???

[mduell]

Originally Posted by icruise 

How is 600 six times as many as 200?

Only when you confuse the minutes and sms lines.

Originally Posted by analogika 

I dunno how it is in the states, but there's enough numbers here that don't have caller ID (it's optional). Or I don't recognize the number, and get billed for a "Sorry, wrong number."

That's just idiotic.

Yes, in exchange for three times the minutes, you do lose a handful each month to wrong numbers.

Originally Posted by analogika 

Yep. That costs about 12 dollars per number, or more, depending on your service.

At T-mobile it's free and actually quite powerful. You can block, forward (to email), or both filtered by to/from/subject based on included or excluded words.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Yes, in exchange for three times the minutes, you do lose a handful each month to wrong numbers.

Having to count our minutes in the first place is already pretty ridiculous...

[Moonray]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

But the flyer is fake regardless. It calls the iPhone "Apple iPod". And I doubt they would print them two months in advance.

It most likely is. However ... why shouldn’t they announce it a few months in advance like in the US?

-

[Simon]

Originally Posted by mduell 

How is it unacceptable for a call I choose to accept/participate in to cost me money?

Because it doesn't on a landline. So why should it all of a sudden cost on cell phones? It's a scam and I'm surprised so many people don't mind being suckered.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

But the flyer is fake regardless. It calls the iPhone "Apple iPod".

Even the guys that originally got the ad from an anonymous user think it's probably a hoax.

[Nexus5]

Originally Posted by Moonray 

Aside that it’s called “iPod” there, the spacing of the ...T... dots seems to be too tight compared to those on T-Mobile.

As I said: Fake. No need to *work* for Telekom to discover this.

Nexus5.

[Koralatov]

Originally Posted by analogika 

I dunno how it is in the states, but there's enough numbers here that don't have caller ID (it's optional). Or I don't recognize the number, and get billed for a "Sorry, wrong number."

That's just idiotic.

I agree. Charging you to answer a phone-call is a scam, period. When someone calls you on your landline, it doesn't cost you anything to answer it, so why should it be different on a mobile? To be honest, it's just a fantastic way of making money for the mobile operators; they either get paid when you answer the phone, or they get more money out of you by making you feel like you have to pay more per month for a contract with more 'inclusive' minutes.

Why this was ever accepted as a good way of doing things is beyond me. As I said, the only people to benefit are the telcos; the customer is just being shafted.

Originally Posted by Simon 

Because it doesn't on a landline. So why should it all of a sudden cost on cell phones? It's a scam and I'm surprised so many people don't mind being suckered.

I second that.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Koralatov 

I agree. Charging you to answer a phone-call is a scam, period. When someone calls you on your landline, it doesn't cost you anything to answer it, so why should it be different on a mobile?

Because they have different business models.

When you make a call to someone outside your local calling area on a landline, you have to pay long-distance fees by the minute, so why should you get included minutes and free nights/weekends on a mobile?

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

When you make a call to someone outside your local calling area on a landline, you have to pay long-distance fees by the minute

But again, the person receiving the call doesn't.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

But again, the person receiving the call doesn't.

Gee, thanks for pointing that out. I didn't realize that.

My point was that yes, receiving a call is free on a landline. But making a call while ignoring whether the number is in your local calling area or not, and making as many long-distance calls as you feel like at night or on the weekend, are most certainly not free on a landline.

It's a tradeoff.

[Koralatov]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Gee, thanks for pointing that out. I didn't realize that.

My point was that yes, receiving a call is free on a landline. But making a call while ignoring whether the number is in your local calling area or not, and making as many long-distance calls as you feel like at night or on the weekend, are most certainly not free on a landline.

It's a tradeoff.

In the UK, we don't get free local calls on a landline as standard. You can buy a package that gets you that, but the standard BT package costs 5p to call someone, and you can only call for an hour before you start getting charged by the minute. You can always hang-up and redial, and get another hour for 5p, but the principle remains that we don't get free local calls by default. That's something that America has, but the UK doesn't.

That said, I think all UK landlines have moved away from making a distinction between long-distance and local--I pay 5p for the first hour whether I call my neighbour or someone in London. In fairness, however, calling one end of the country from the other is a different matter in the UK--the UK isn't 3,000 miles across.

However, I feel that my original point still stands, long distance fees or not: paying to receive a call is total BS.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Because they have different business models.

When you make a call to someone outside your local calling area on a landline, you have to pay long-distance fees by the minute, so why should you get included minutes and free nights/weekends on a mobile?

Oddly, my landline gives me unlimited free landline-to-landline anywhere in Germany, and my mobile contract gives me unlimited mobile-to-landline anywhere in Germany, as well as unlimited mobile to mobile within the O2 network.

Saying that they charge differently because they have different business models is a tautology. It's absolutely true, and it explains nothing, and there is absolutely no inherent reason why it shouldn't be different.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

But the flyer is fake regardless. It calls the iPhone "Apple iPod".

I don't see why this would indicate that it is fake.. The ad doesn't really refer to the iPhone as an iPod, but rather that it includes an "iPod 16 GB". The music component of the iPhone is labelled iPod by Apple, so when talking about its storage, which is mostly for music, it makes sense to use "iPod" (the first of the features listed in the ad is in fact "integrated iPod with video player"...).

[analogika]

A minor marketing flyer cock-up is certainly not grounds to dismiss it - happens all the time.

The incorrect corporate branding is far more unlikely.