My visit to a T-Mobile retail store

[Imustacheyouaquestion]

.

[ketchup]

Cell phone stores are scary places.  Almost as bad as car dealers.  Congrats for getting out alive.

[Travis]

I see everyone with those headphones.  I can't swivel my head without running into someone tuned out to the world wearing those things.  Aside from the ridiculous price tag, they're huge.  I'm trying to picture a 6 year old comfortably wearing them without his head tipping over.

[Artemis67]

Another reason people pay cash for purchases like that is because they have a lot of undeclared cash income rolling in that they can't deposit in a bank account (don't ask me how I know this [*cough*]). So they make a lot of cash purchases, and if there's enough of it rolling in, and all of the other bills are getting paid, it can be really easy to throw it away on frivolous shit, rather than find more productive things to spend it on. 

[space]

Well, I wouldn't suspect random people of being drug dealers.... :P

Back to topic: I'm actually kinda surprised - T-Mobile has been generally making it very clear recently that the phone isn't "free" or heavily subsidized by contract. You'd think that would make people buy fewer phones, and especially fewer phones of that class. I've run a few very quick calculations before, and generally, it comes down to something like: the phones that may actually be a decent idea to finance on EIP (like the Galaxy Avant, which for some reason are always sold out...) are generally too cheap to make it worth your while to do so, while the expensive flagships are generally a bad purchase with or without EIP simply due to being overpriced for the hardware.

[eyePod]

I see everyone with those headphones.  I can't swivel my head without running into someone tuned out to the world wearing those things.

Every single person on a college campus wearing ear buds reminds me of Fahrenheit 451. Crazy stuff.

[k-vette]

There was a recent article on headphone quality.  They looked for audio quality for a selection of known brands and compared them.  Beats was one of the most expensive, but surprisingly one of the worst on audio quality.  A less than $20 pair (Panasonic or something) beat it by a huge margin.

[MgoSam]

There was a recent article on headphone quality.  They looked for audio quality for a selection of known brands and compared them.  Beats was one of the most expensive, but surprisingly one of the worst on audio quality.  A less than $20 pair (Panasonic or something) beat it by a huge margin.

There's a reason some companies advertise the shit out of their product, manytimes it's because the product is shit and wouldn't sell unless everyone thought it was COOL.

[gimp]

Every single person on a college campus wearing ear buds reminds me of Fahrenheit 451. Crazy stuff.

Laying it on kinda thick, aren't you?

There was a recent article on headphone quality.  They looked for audio quality for a selection of known brands and compared them.  Beats was one of the most expensive, but surprisingly one of the worst on audio quality.  A less than $20 pair (Panasonic or something) beat it by a huge margin.

There's a reason some companies advertise the shit out of their product, manytimes it's because the product is shit and wouldn't sell unless everyone thought it was COOL.

Beats have a "sound" which is not about the best possible reproduction of sound. That sounds like bullshit, so let me elaborate. I can design speakers that amplify the bass and add some bass distortion and slightly shift low frequencies towards the bass. That would, as far as accurate reproduction goes, make the headphones terrible. However, that "sound" could be exactly what some people want to hear; to them, it sounds better. Not more accurate, not mathematically better, but better to their ears with the music to which they listen. This would be analogous to cranking up saturation/clarity on a photo; it doesn't look like it did in real life, but some people will like it more. This is pretty different from, say, a blurry out-of-focus photo that's objectively shitty, or headphones that have a bunch of noise and make crackling sounds and are weaker on one side due to corrosion which have objectively shitty audio quality.

More importantly, using math to argue against a luxury item, a fashion statement, an "experience" is not really going to change anyone's mind. But of course it's okay to laugh at those people, but I'm just saying, you're using the wrong argument/criteria if you use math.

I just bought a pair of headphones on a fairly massive sale. Nothing fancy, no fashion statement, and no advertisement that I've ever seen. I wanted good sound, but I didn't ask around to find the most accurate reproduction, I just wanted good sound. The same company makes headphones in the $500+ range which I am sure are objectively better, but would I necessarily enjoy them more?

[BlueMR2]

There was a recent article on headphone quality.  They looked for audio quality for a selection of known brands and compared them.  Beats was one of the most expensive, but surprisingly one of the worst on audio quality.  A less than $20 pair (Panasonic or something) beat it by a huge margin.

I haven't tried Beats, but the audio guys at work say they're terrible if you like clean sound.  All bass, nothing else they say?  Dunno, last time I bought headphones was years ago and even then I found $20 models that sounded just as clean and nice as the top end stuff.

[MgoSam]

There was a recent article on headphone quality.  They looked for audio quality for a selection of known brands and compared them.  Beats was one of the most expensive, but surprisingly one of the worst on audio quality.  A less than $20 pair (Panasonic or something) beat it by a huge margin.

I haven't tried Beats, but the audio guys at work say they're terrible if you like clean sound.  All bass, nothing else they say?  Dunno, last time I bought headphones was years ago and even then I found $20 models that sounded just as clean and nice as the top end stuff.

I've heard this as well, and I use my headphones mostly to listen to audiobooks and podcasts, so I'll stick with some $18 headphones.

[Scandium]

There was a recent article on headphone quality.  They looked for audio quality for a selection of known brands and compared them.  Beats was one of the most expensive, but surprisingly one of the worst on audio quality.  A less than $20 pair (Panasonic or something) beat it by a huge margin.

I haven't tried Beats, but the audio guys at work say they're terrible if you like clean sound.  All bass, nothing else they say?  Dunno, last time I bought headphones was years ago and even then I found $20 models that sounded just as clean and nice as the top end stuff.

I've heard this as well, and I use my headphones mostly to listen to audiobooks and podcasts, so I'll stick with some $18 headphones.

Pah! $18 is a ripoff! I got these $7 ones and they sound fine!
http://www.monoprice.com/Category?c_id=108&cp_id=10823&cs_id=1082303

[MandalayVA]

There was a recent article on headphone quality.  They looked for audio quality for a selection of known brands and compared them.  Beats was one of the most expensive, but surprisingly one of the worst on audio quality.  A less than $20 pair (Panasonic or something) beat it by a huge margin.

I haven't tried Beats, but the audio guys at work say they're terrible if you like clean sound.  All bass, nothing else they say?  Dunno, last time I bought headphones was years ago and even then I found $20 models that sounded just as clean and nice as the top end stuff.

I have a pair of Beats (gift from Mr. Mandalay--unsolicited, I might add).  They suck.  The sound is terribly muddy, the noise-cancelling doesn't work worth a damn, and they eat batteries like it's their job.  As a bonus, unlike other noise-cancelling headphones they won't work on their own.  In contrast, my $50 Sony noise-cancelling headphones are awesome, as are my Sony cordless 'phones.

[Nothlit]

The most surprising part of this thread is the assertion that the brand new iPhone didn't come with earbuds... I've owned several iPhones over the years (including an iPhone 6) and they all come with Apple earbuds in the box. Are you sure she just didn't look hard enough?

[dang1]

the 2013 Moto X is a great phone. Bought mine used, off-contract and flawless, off of eBay for $200 from Gazelle.

[MgoSam]

I bet the salesmen was very happy with this sale.

[Jack]

Pah! $18 is a ripoff! I got these $7 ones and they sound fine!
http://www.monoprice.com/Category?c_id=108&cp_id=10823&cs_id=1082303

Pah! $7 is a ripoff! I got mine at a store called "Five Below" (because everything is $5 or less), and they didn't even cost the maximum allowed price! (They were $3, I think.)

In contrast, my $50 Sony noise-cancelling headphones are awesome, as are my Sony cordless 'phones.

Sony is evil. (Off-topic, I know, but I can't not say it.)

[gimp]

I will never forget sony installing rootkits on customers' computers.

I applaud every bad thing that happens to them, legal or not.

[wild wendella]

I hope that iphone 6 didn't only cost $300, because I recently bought a used 5s (64 gig) for $400.  :(

Just to defend one thing here, the pre-paid plans at T-mobile actually cost less than the regular plans.  I have no idea why that is, but I recently moved to T-Mobile and was going to do their $50/month regular plan.  At the last minute, the saleslady mentioned that the pre-paid plan charged less in taxes and fees, so I went with that.  It's just a few dollars a month savings, but... 

Of course, I pre-pay on a card that gives me 2% cash back, not in cash at the store, and I don't buy anything new from phone stores.  But the pre-paid plan part of the woman's story actually seems to be a cheaper option.