No offence to frequent upgraders, but if it weren't for all the PR dollars, I wouldn't have noticed S|P's coming nor its going.
It's easy to see that carriers who have to pay phone subsidies too often face a significant financial hit. Yes, the thousand-plus dollars a year in revenue per customer has room to offer some "pay-back", but annual or even biennial smart-device upgrades probably represent a concession that is unsustainably far into the double-digits. And that's not counting the costs when customers trade phones they were relatively happy with for buggy new ones that create dissatisfaction and/or a support burden. What's more, those of us who make purchases at a more deliberate pace, rewarding the carrier more than the equipment manufacturers, have gotten and continue to get the short end of the stick.
As a customer who has been a Sprint (PCS) customer in some way for around twenty years across two states - Sprint currently gets a very large but incomplete fraction of our wireless budget, here's what I'm trying to find:
Bottom line, Sprint needs to show more signs it can think like the kinds of customers they want to attract, retain, and enlist as advocates.
I’m Desiree with Sprint’s Premier Team.
I would like to thank you for coming to the forum to share your concerns and ideas with us. Providing such useful feedback is something that we can always benefit from. I assure you that your message has been heard and your feedback has been submitted. Sprint will continue to invest in customer priorities and to investigate new ways to meet customers’ needs in the future. Thank you once again for your constructive input and continued loyalty with Sprint.