Target Canada - iphone 5 $199 on a 2 YEAR!

Seems a rubbish price, objectively.

FYI Carrier is Rogers or Bell.

Nice to see a 2-year contract and not the usual 3.

[IMG]http://i50.tinypic.com/mwwhkz.png[/IMG]
with qualifying 2 year plans with data on rogers and bell

Not really a savings or even hot. Might appeal to someone who hates 3 years for whatever reason.

With Rogers I can upgrade after 2 years on my 3 year contract anyway.

Wish all carriers did 2 year deals instead of stacking the remaining year onto your upgrade.

Ummm, this is an AWESOME deal. People are STILL complaining that the hottest (subjective) phones on the market are going for a 2 year term LOL ETA: Would be an awesome deal if you can get a retention plan with it rather. Is this Canadawide?

Except, AFAIK, neither Bell nor Rogers have qualifying 2-year plans for the iPhone 5. So, I wonder if this is a typo. We'll see what happens though.

It's a typo.

LostInTruth wrote: ↑Ummm, this is an AWESOME deal. People are STILL complaining that the hottest (subjective) phones on the market are going for a 2 year term LOL

Considering how much we are gouged by the major carriers, I wouldn't blame them. Not an iPhone fan by any stretch, but with 5S around the corner, this doesn't look that great. Yeah, yeah, I know, there will always be something newer, but when you're about to lock yourself up for 2+ years, might as well get the latest heading into it.

^^ Prices have dropped significantly and a lot of progress has been made to the networks. People will not care until they pay peanuts for cell service. With such a small population, you have to make up the cost somehow, it takes money to build things and employee people, and maintain equipment, and appease investors, etc etc

LostInTruth wrote: ↑^^ Prices have dropped significantly and a lot of progress has been made to the networks. People will not care until they pay peanuts for cell service. With such a small population, you have to make up the cost somehow, it takes money to build things and employee people, and maintain equipment, and appease investors, etc etc

All true but not at all relevant to the extreme costs for wireless in Canada. There is one reason and it is simple. It doesn't require any excuses about low population density, etc. Canadian wireless carriers are the most profitable in the world. That's it. Simple. That's why we pay more.

x-batman wrote: ↑It's a typo.

I think it must be. Unless Target somehow made a special deal with both Rogers and Bell. On the otherhand, if it is a typo and it is $200 on a 3 year, then they are selling it for $20 more than both of those carriers are, so it is actually a very cold, cold deal.

kool1 wrote: ↑Not really a savings or even hot. Might appeal to someone who hates 3 years for whatever reason.

With Rogers I can upgrade after 2 years on my 3 year contract anyway.

With Bell, I was told by the brick-and-mortar sales person that on a 3 year contract, that I would be able to do a hardware upgrade in 24 months as long as I signed up for another 3 year term. Sometime later, they yanked that and changed it to 30 months. At least for Bell, nowhere in the contract terms did it state that I was eligible for a hardware upgrade in 24 months. It's that Bell at that time was routinely allowing for an upgrade in 24 months. They pulled that because the cost of the 'Super Smartphones' were so expensive and they supposedly couldn't afford it anymore.

kool1 wrote: ↑Not really a savings or even hot. Might appeal to someone who hates 3 years for whatever reason.

With Rogers I can upgrade after 2 years on my 3 year contract anyway.

Only if you are on a corporate account. Otherwise, it's been a long time since HUPs were allowed at 24 months.


That aside, if it is a 2 year instead of a 3 year, given the subsidy repayment is essentially a form of financing the product price, then a 2 year is 1/3 shorter financing term. That equates to much lower overall TCO.

ceredon wrote: ↑All true but not at all relevant to the extreme costs for wireless in Canada. There is one reason and it is simple. It doesn't require any excuses about low population density, etc. Canadian wireless carriers are the most profitable in the world. That's it. Simple. That's why we pay more.

With shrinking margins on traditional land-line services; most people just have a cell phone these days. When you consider the savings and convenience from not having a landline, you are still technically saving money as well. A company has to be profitable to be sustainable. Are we paying a lot? Yes, but not as much as before when you factor that these prices now include voice and data. Is it nearly as extreme as it is made out to be? I would disagree.

Thanks op for the info

LostInTruth wrote: ↑With shrinking margins on traditional land-line services; most people just have a cell phone these days. When you consider the savings and convenience from not having a landline, you are still technically saving money as well. A company has to be profitable to be sustainable. Are we paying a lot? Yes, but not as much as before when you factor that these prices now include voice and data. Is it nearly as extreme as it is made out to be? I would disagree.

I would agree that things are improving, mainly due to what little pressure the newbies were able to create. But again, profits are one thing, excessive profits and profiteering are another. Canadian carriers are the most profitable in the world. That is saying a lot. It isn't saying their costs are higher and therefore we have higher prices. It isn't saying they are profiting nicely in order to be sustainable. It does say that in a industry of giant profits, Canadian carriers take a large step beyond.

If we amended ownership rules and allowed the large American and foreign carriers to deliver services in Canada, prices would drop significantly, and contract options would increase.

There is no economically sound argument for the current system.

This has to be a typo. American ad agency involved or something.