4 ms·

In the UK smartphones have been "free" for a while. You can get a "free" iphone4 or ipad2 on a 24 month contract, or not quite "free", but an iphone4 + ipad2 fo

by retube 15y ago

In the UK smartphones have been "free" for a while. You can get a "free" iphone4 or ipad2 on a 24 month contract, or not quite "free", but an iphone4 + ipad2 for just £99 !!!!!! <rant>The Advertising Standards Authority should ban this type of marketing. The phones are not free, the cost is just included in the monthly contract. People never multiply £40 by 24 and realise that actually they're going to be spending £960 over 2 years. And given that the same call plans are available sans phone for £10 - £20 they're not getting any kind of deal at all </rant> P.S oh yeah, that iphone4+ipad2 for £99 ? Try 99 + 24 x £65 (!!!) = £1,659

corin_ 15y ago
On Vodafone I have a contract that gets me free phones. If I switched to sim-only and bought my phones seperately, it would save me £10/month for the same number of included minutes/data/etc. Over 24 months that's a saving of £240. The phone I just upgraded to is currently selling at a retail price of £520. That's a pretty good deal as far as I'm concerned. As to the ASA, the first reason against this is: nobody has EVER signed up to a contract to get a free phone, without realising that they would have to pay a monthly fee. It might confuse some people, but it doesn't mislead. The second reason is that, even if everyone agreed that it was a good thing to do, it's pointless. Some (maybe all except the UK, I've no idea) European countries have banned this, and you know what adverts you see over there? "New iPhone, just €0.99!" Great, thank god they banned "free" phones, now people have to pay 99 cents
- retube 15y ago
  No. what i mean is the total cost of contract should be specified. If you're paying £30 / month for 2 years, they should have to say: this will cost you £720.
  - corin_ 15y ago
    It's a contract, and the contract cost doesn't just cover the phone, it covers a monthly service. People understand that.

by retube 15y ago

corin_ 15y ago

On Vodafone I have a contract that gets me free phones. If I switched to sim-only and bought my phones seperately, it would save me £10/month for the same number of included minutes/data/etc. Over 24 months that's a saving of £240. The phone I just upgraded to is currently selling at a retail price of £520. That's a pretty good deal as far as I'm concerned. As to the ASA, the first reason against this is: nobody has EVER signed up to a contract to get a free phone, without realising that they would have to pay a monthly fee. It might confuse some people, but it doesn't mislead. The second reason is that, even if everyone agreed that it was a good thing to do, it's pointless. Some (maybe all except the UK, I've no idea) European countries have banned this, and you know what adverts you see over there? "New iPhone, just €0.99!" Great, thank god they banned "free" phones, now people have to pay 99 cents

retube 15y ago
No. what i mean is the total cost of contract should be specified. If you're paying £30 / month for 2 years, they should have to say: this will cost you £720.
- corin_ 15y ago
  It's a contract, and the contract cost doesn't just cover the phone, it covers a monthly service. People understand that.