Isn't it safe to assume that everybody is already paying something like $100/month for whatever smartphone they're already using?

Don't get me wrong, I think it would be great if we lived in a world where the cost of EVERY product was expressed more completely. Not just yearly cost of operation but eventual costs for maintenance and disposal.

But this would not make marketers very happy... they're the ones trying to make it seem like an SUV costs me pennies a day to buy!

Marketing.

Great taste, less filling.

Double your flavor, double your fun.

It's the real thing.

More bars in more places.

Tempest in a Teapot.

Claiming that the iPhone is "half the price" is fundamentally dishonest. I cannot afford an iPhone with the AT&T plan, and I resent Apple trying to trick me into thinking that I can. Thanks for doing the math and for publicizing the real cost.

This whole exercise strikes me as petulant, to say the least. ZOMG Apple isn't doing my job as a consumer for me!

Apple sells iPhones, not wireless services. Why the hell would they base their advertising on the cost to operate? That's not what they sell.

Neither Apple not AT&T are charitable enterprises. They both have revenue models driving their pricing. They don't hit those revenue targets by encouraging people to worry about the cost of the widgets / services that they sell.

As far as I'm concerned, the difference between Apple and AT&T (aside from enabling government surveillance, of course) is that Apple tries to get people to buy into their revenue model, and AT&T doesn't give a shit once you've signed on the dotted line.

If this is the new standard for assessing products, I eagerly await your complaint that the Smart Car that you've been lent has a price that doesn't factor in depreciation, gas usage, new tires, parking tickets, body shop repairs, etc., etc.

When Apple starts advertising an iPhone with lower total cost of ownership, this would be a worthwhile complaint. In the meantime, welcome to consumer advertising and sales.

Your claim that Apple isn't in the business of "encouraging people to worry about the cost of the widgets" would ring truer if the company were not making price its main marketing message. In his keynote, Jobs cited "affordability" as a key concern for iPhone non-purchases so far, and pointed to the new phone as a remedy to that problem, a reason everyone should buy it -- which also looks like "encouraging people to worry about the cost of the widgets," no?

Is it unfair to look at total cost of ownership for a phone? Not if you are *forced to agree* to those future costs at time of purchase, in writing, sealed with a hefty cancellation cost. If the Smart car forced you to sign a contract agreeing to buy gas from a single station for a pre-determined price over two years *at time of purchase*, you'd certainly factor that into your pricing decision, wouldn't you?

The price of the 8GB phone that Apple will be selling is $199 - vs. the $399 I paid for my now-old 8GB iPhone. That is what their ads tout, and that is what Apple sells. That to me looks like half the price.

Unless you buy one of those "pay as you go" phones, *every* phone requires a service contract of some sort - especially for smart phones, whose service contracts - no matter the provider - are very expensive.

Until Motorola, Samsung, Nokia, Sony, LG, et al begin advertising so-called "true cost of ownership" when they sell their phones, I think Apple's marketing is 100% spot on.

If this is the new standard for assessing products, I eagerly await your complaint that the Smart Car that you've been lent has a price that doesn't factor in depreciation, gas usage, new tires, parking tickets, body shop repairs, etc., etc.

The difference is that all those costs associated with the Smart Car, with the exception of depreciation, are to largely in your control-- you can use more or less gas, you can shop around for the best price on tires, you can chose not to get bodywork done. You aren't locked into a single vendor for these services, you aren't forced to pay a fixed monthly fee. You could buy a Smart Car, then park it in your garage and never pay another dime for it. But if you buy an iPhone, you have to sign the contract with AT&T, and even if you leave your phone on a shelf and never use it, you would still have to shell out more money every month.

There are costs that accrue as a natural result of the use of a product. But if the product itself, simply by purchasing it, comes with a contractual requirement that you will continue to pay for that product, then yes, I think it is completely fair to count the total cost of paying out the contract as part of the price of the product, and to question whether said product is in fact as cheap as it is being advertised to be.

And yes, it is all "marketing," but that doesn't mean that we as consumers should just bend over and accept it. If we don't push back and expose their tactics, it will only encourage them on to more blatant and egregious deceptions.

I, for one, am grateful for this analysis. It definitely changes my mental equations on whether or not to get an iPhone, and is something I would share with anyone I know thinking of buying one.

when you buy a new TV, do you factor in the cost of cable? when i buy a car, i may consider gas mileage, but do i figure those costs into the price of the car? no. but you seem to want to do that with the iphone.

the fact is that g3 service costs more than edge speed service on whatever phone you have. at&t is not charging extra to make up for the cost of the phone, they have always charged $30 a month for g3, whatever phone you have.