Any other Tmobile customers thinking of jumping ship?

[Los]

Again, people are ignoring the fact that the only reason why t-mobile can give you that value cause they don't have that many people on their network. It's not as expensive to maintain a network with 33 million people as it is to maintain one with 100+ million. Also, when your as big as Verizon and AT&T, you can't offer unlimited data to everyone cause too much people will over load the network. That's the reason AT&T and Verizon are pushing LTE as hard as they are. They are trying to get people off their overloaded 3G network. If T-Mobile ever reaches 100+ million people, let's see if they will have the same value

 

[rich4A1]

Having HD7 on T-Mobile network in a rural area, everyday (almost literally) I'm thinking about getting a Lumia 900 from AT&T, if only I win a lottery that covers the cost difference. Even dreamed about it last night. For my case the monthly cost will more than double, since I'm in a grandfather'd family plan from T-Mobile.

 

[sentimentGX4]

Los, you are spreading misconceptions regarding T-Mobile.

Again, people are ignoring the fact that the only reason why t-mobile can give you that value cause they don't have that many people on their network. It's not as expensive to maintain a network with 33 million people as it is to maintain one with 100+ million.

This is flat out UNTRUE. As a matter of fact, it's the exact OPPOSITE.

While it does cost more to build a larger network, there are also more paying customers; so AT&T receives proportionally more money for each person it serves. This is an extremely obvious fact.

Furthermore, there's a commonly known concept called "Economies of Scale". It's much cheaper to buy 100 bags of Doritos than 1 bag of Doritos. In the same matter, it is much cheaper (per customer) for AT&T to service 100 million individuals than it is for T-Mobile to service 33 million customers.

Sprint is a small carrier with service even WORSE than T-Mobile's (slower data despite "4G") and it charges roughly the same amount as the other carriers.

The reason that T-Mobile offers more competitive rates than AT&T despite it being more expensive in reality to provide service is because
1) It needs to attract customers to compete with the other 3 carriers
2) Its working on a fixed capital business model. They've already paid for the infrastructure. Now it costs them the exact same amount whether they're serving 1 or 100 million consumers.
3) It's flat out willing to accept a lower profit margin than the other carriers

ETA:
4)The other carriers are too busy subsidizing the iPhone. After the introduction of the Sprint iPhone, Sprint made revisions to its plans. The iPhone is a serious hole in the balance sheet.

They couldn't even sell the HD7. Most people I speak to who own a HD7 only got it cause T-Mobile was giving it away for free. That was the only way they were gonna get rid of them

This is wrong as well.

First, your phone is not "free". It's "free" w/ 2yr agreement, which is really $480+. (For T-Mobile, you can directly compare the rates that they charge you if you bring your own phone onto the network and if you sign an agreement. They're literally the exact same except the 2 year contract costs X dollars more.)

Second, all the carriers have free phone promotions all the time! This is not specific to the HD7. T-Mobile also does this for all their high end Android phones. If you honestly paid money for your smartphone (on any carrier), you are being ripped off. As a matter of fact, some carriers even PAY consumers to take a low end smartphone or they have promotions giving away a free low end phone after signing only one 2-yr agreement (BOGO).

That the HD7 was free with contract has absolutely no reflection on its sales performance.

 

[Los]

Seriously, listen to yourself. Do you really think T-Mobile would have went low end for 2nd gen phones if their 1st gen phones sold well? No, they'd have a reason to offer more high end Windows Phone's if they did. The fact is HD7 didn't sell well. They only got rid of them when they offered them for almost nothing. AT&T was the only carrier actually selling 1st gen phones, they even bragged about selling more WP phones than any other carrier and said they are the premiere WP carrier. That is the reason why AT&T is more confident than other carriers to offer more Windows Phones while the others are either still on the fence or not supporting it at all due to low 1st gen sales

As far AT&T's size and cost to operate, I still stand by what I said

 

[Los]

I respect t-mobile for not completely abandoning Windows Phone. At least they are offering Windows Phone even if it isn't high end cause at the end of the day, It's the low end casual users that's gonna get us the marketshare we need win over these developers

 

[snowmutt]

Wow.

Some bitter posts here. I do not get the "hate" for T-Mo, who has had very little support from their parent company and only a few months to recover from not being a part of AT&T. Yes, it is a budget carrier, but it has been a very good supporter of WP and has always had a couple of high end Androids. It is a decent carrier with decent devices. I would have zero problem moving to them, but as I live in a smaller area, service is not offered. Trust me: You all want the choices. Those of us with only one or two carrier options are truly the losers here.

WP will get high end devices on T-Mo. I can almost promise it. As a GSM carrier, they are compatable with the same tech which is dominate overseas, and therefore an easy sell to get devices. They have been supportive of WP their entire run.

As for if you should switch, Tbongo, I get the feeling you should wait things out. Your dislike of the devices you have is far outweighed by your desire to not spend a ton of money. (I respect that.) The summer buying season is close at hand, and T-Mo will restructure itself and work hard to get back into good graces with it's customer base. Without a couple of high end devices (maybe not cutting edge, but respectable) they will not be able to compete.

Give it a little more time. The other options will get better as well while you wait.

 

[N8ter]

But TMobile DOES offer the latest and greatest devices! It just came out with the HTC ONE S. Where's Verizon or Sprint's Krait device? This is literally the fastest phone available on the American market.

TMobile literally lags behind for a couple of months in terms of devices because it was in a deal with AT&T and now everyone is calling it cheap. -.-

Use cases differ. I've been very blunt and up front about where I think their service fails in comparison to AT&T and Verizon. They simply aren't reliable enough for people who travel. If you barely go anywhere or only go to places where their coverage is "perfect," then obviously the value is great for you.

For me, it's filled with frustration. I hate being on the Amtrak and seeing people with 4G connections in the middle of no where on their AT&T/Verizon devices when mine is basically useless and I can barely send SMS/MMS due to the signal quality.

The coverage gaps also lead to worse battery life than an equivalent device running on a better network, as well.

 

[N8ter]

Your points are horribly false

Based on what facts you provide?

1)Their coverage is expanding, especially since they're currently refarming their existing 3G/4G network to the PCS band, this will not only allow for any phone to be compatible but also exponentially expand coverage (eg GPRS/EDGE areas are now HSPA+ areas).

T-Mobile doesn't have the money to really expand their coverage. The spectrum deal with AT&T was a blessing to them. They've never had the money to expand their coverage for quite a while. Their retention rates are worse than Sprint these days (losing more customers) despite being super competitive price-wise and their profits don't even approach AT&T/Verizon, who make billions year over year. And please don't blame the iPhone for them losing customers we seen how "amazing" its launch on Verizon was last year, lulz...

T-Mobile coverage hasn't really been expanding at a competitive rate for over half a decade. AT&T put HSPA+ towers up in the rural area where I was living before here. Not even Verizon got 3G coverage there and T-Mobile got basically no signal (0-2 bars of GPRS Roaming flunctuating wildly, couldn't hold a call indoors). Without WiFi calling (which requires a UMA Blackberry or Android phone on their network) and your phone was useless. Why do you think even when I had my HD7 I kept the Vibrant for over a year and only just got rid of it? Cause I moved from Louisiana to Pennsylvannia and can at least make calls here without a WiFi connection, now. That's why.

By the time T-Mobile's 3G coverage approaches AT&T or Verizon's, those carriers will have the nation blanketed in LTE for years by then. Their coverage has always been an issue, as well as their overreliance on Roaming contracts for call coverage (which often give low-grade signal quality leading to dropped calls and bad call quality nevermind the drain on your battery those weak signals have).

2) I've never ever seen speeds below 1mbps while on 3G anywhere I've been so far (from Chicago to St Louis)

Go hijack another thread elsewhere

1. I've already provided screenshots of speed tests on this forum and another. The screenshots came from different devices, so the speeds are reliable. They're slow. I was getting 150-250k.

Secondly, you're not really that well traveled. I've been dealing with the Coverage gaps on T-Mobile from Louisiana to Chicago to Harrisburg (Pa) to Baltimore to Richmond, and other places. All of which I've been to in the past 8 months or so. Chicago to St Louis wow, I mean... You're Gulliver now man!!!

I already said their coverage is decent in metro areas since any carrier with a clue will make sure they double down in high population areas like that. Where they fail is the in betweens - areas that Verizon and AT&T are addressing but Sprint and T-Mobile are leaving neglected.

Why are you baiting me is a more apt observation to your post, though.

T-Mobile's prices are good - it's why I left AT&T for them to begin with, but it turned out to be not worth it for me. I use < 100 minutes a month. I require better data speeds and better data coverage, and they simply aren't even close to being competitive with Big Red/Blue for someone like me who travels between more than two metro cities.

It's best if you look at them as if they were a regional carrier, because their nationwide coverage gaps give that impression. Sprint is very similar in that respect. AT&T and Verizon are the only ones aggressively addressing their coverage gaps, especially AT&T. If they tell you a tower's going up in 6 months chances are it'll be there in 4. Just from my experience dealing with them.

The embarassing part about it is that they have stores in rather populous cities down south but even the phones in the store struggle to maintain 2 bars of GPRS in there. How do you expect to sell that service with those conditions?

 

[N8ter]

That the HD7 was free with contract has absolutely no reflection on its sales performance.

Nah, the HD7 released in October 2010, maybe November in the US, I'm unsure of hte actual date. By the second week of February it was free on contract.

Name 1 high end Android phone that released and was dropped to nothing so quickly?

The Vibrant released and when T-Mobile had their first BOGO promotion after release it was an exempt device and we had to pay full contract price ($249 + Tax) for the second one or pick a crap phone to get for free.

The Amaxe 4G is still like $149 on contract. The GSII isn't free, that's for sure - not on AT&T or T-Mobile (or Sprint). Typically the only devices that drop down to free so fast are mid-range devices (like the HTC Aria did on AT&T) and the HD7 was their only WP7 device with arguably better hardware than an HD2 (which at that time had just gone down to free, almost if not over a year after release).

That phone didn't perform well, and TBH it probably wasn't T-Mobile's fault, anyways.

WP7 launched after a huge wave of high end Android devices as well as the iPhone 4 and by the time the HD7 made it to market a ton of contracts/contract renewals were already taken by the Vibrant/MyTouch/G2 and other devices. There simply weren't enough customers buying phones at that time to really drive the sales to where they needed to be.

They dropped the price fast to get rid of them. Sales performance does matter. A carrier will never drop the price of a best-selling (or high-selling) device to $0 that fast. That's throwing money in the toilet for no reason other than "we can." No logic in that.

 

[fatclue_98]

Let's not forget the fact that T-Mob is the ONLY carrier that uses the 1700 band for UMTS. OEM's are not so willing to break up production lines to change components to satisfy a singular customer. Look at all phone models, regardless of carrier affiliation, and count how many have the 1700 band. AWS is simply not that popular among OEMs.

 

[sentimentGX4]

Nah, the HD7 released in October 2010, maybe November in the US, I'm unsure of hte actual date. By the second week of February it was free on contract.

Name 1 high end Android phone that released and was dropped to nothing so quickly?

I'm willing to accept this statement; but you're strawmanning my argument.

Los did not mention anything about the timeframe it took for the HD7 to get to "free on contract". He just said it was a poor sales performer and the proof was because it was "free on contract". All phones tend to become "free on contract" in relatively short time period (or least through promotion), so his argument is flawed.

I would also like to reiterate my point that the bulk of the phone's price actually comes from the increased monthly bill, so even if a phone becomes "free on contract", the discount is never meaningful. Even "free on contract", the HD7 is still actually very expensive without BOGO promotions, etc. "Free" is like <30% off.

Looking at the price of a phone with an agreement is largely pointless. Secondary market unlocked value is probably a better indicator of the phone's actual intrinsic value to consumers.

 

[N8ter]

You pay for the contract whether the phone is free or not. That means nothing. What exactly are you trying to say?

The carriers pay for the phone. If they sell it at a price they make more money. They won't give it away for free unless there's a reason to:

1. The phone is almost EOL and they're clearing inventory
2. The phone is not selling well and they need to move inventory to avoid a huge stockpile

That's the way it works. Not just for carriers, but for many industries. Wal-Mart does it. Grocery stores do it. Everyone does, and for largely the same reasons. Go look at the cheap as **** computers at best buy. They're cheap for a reason, MacBooks aren't going for $448, even with in some cases only marginally better hardware in them.

Whether the phone is free or not, you still have to pay your bill (the services). That has nothing to do with their decision to give the phone away on contract. You can buy off-contract and you'll still have to pay for service. T-Mobile has the chest ETF rates of the 4 Big Carriers ($200 to AT&T's ~$325) so that's not a huge issue (Getting the HD7 for free and ETFing in one month is cheaper than buying it for $199 on contract when it was released).

The phone went free way too fast because it wasn't moving. When WP7 launched I was going into the store for like an hour or more 3-4 days a week to play with it before I bought it and seen a metric ton of people walk in there to buy phones. Maybe 3-5 people even looked at it. Most of them walked in and specifically asked about Android phones (the G2 had launched not long before) and in most other cases the Rep either recommended an Android or talked them out of the HD7, anyways.

In any case, I don't think it really matters. I think that is just a symptom of the underlying issue which was that Microsoft launched their devices at a TERRIBLE time and they paid for it. They also didn't have CDMA devices until around NoDo time-frame, so they were hurt even MORE on Sprint (who could have used a good phone or two) or Verizon. AT&T was also ramping up Android pretty hard by then.

If they had come with WP7 in late 2009 (around HD2 launch time-frame), they'd be in a completely different market position than they are now. They simply waited too long to get it out, so now they have to fight much harder than they otherwise would have had to, and they have a lot more catching up to do.

They had the makings of a killer platform, provided they could get it out and iterate on it Google-style. Zune, SkyDrive, Windows Live, etc. all that stuff existed back then. They really blew a chance to be a bit of a pioneer in the smartphone market, IMO.

 

[maj71303]

Yep big issue with Microsoft is that they never have a good sense of timing when it came to releasing phone platforms. With T-Mobile the coverage is indeed killer with most people. Like the some of the post above me say that if you go from one major metro are to another major metro then you will always have good coverage but it's the places in between that do T-Mobile in. I go on long road trips all the time and see T-mobiles coverage for what it is.

In Louisiana the middle of the state you are roaming if you have T-Mobile service on to At&T on edge. The entire Middle of a state you have to roam... are you kidding me. So the southern part has T-Mobile service, the northern part of state has T-Mobile service, but you can't put one tower anywhere in the middle of the state. That's the way T-Mobile thinks when it comes to coverage. The holes everywhere approach.

When I travel all over the U.S. it sucks when you have a lot of dead spots or it roams and drops you down to edge. IF my service consist mostly of roaming where I go because you don't have coverage most time then why should I stay with such a carrier. As a carrier how can you claim to have a great network, better than you competitors network when you roam most times greatly on your competitors network.

If you travel to a good T-Mobile service area to another you won't ever realize the limits of t-mobiles network. The price is what brought me to T-Mobile and it was a great value. But I figured out the reason that Wi-Fi calling is on a lot of phones they sell and that there physical network is worst than sprints foot print. My travels exposed them for what that value really was which to me was now nothing. The price became irrelevant because the value became irrelevant. Took me and the wife's service to At&t because I value the coverage more than just a price.

The new Domestic Data roaming policy from T-Mobile made it iron clad I was leaving. They did that to help stem the cost people roaming to area they don't serve. That limits me and others that go to places they don't serve with coverage. I'm on vacation and the wife gets a text that she is over the data roaming limit while on vacation. I went right then and there and got AT&T service and new phones brought outright, so no contract.

Don't come with the argument they all have the same roaming limits because sprint doesn't enforce theirs that often. Verizon and AT&T have the coverage to back up that limit so you don't roam that often. I won't have my vacations dictated by where I will have coverage so T-Mobile had to go. This isn't hate on one carrier but telling you the limits of T-Mobile and my experience..... YMMV.

I've been with all 4 carriers and they have there pros and cons.


Previous Carriers And Phones:

T-Mobile

Amaze 4G
Sensation 4G
Dell Venue Pro
HTC HD7
Motorola Defy
Nokia Lumia 710

Verizon
Motorola Razr V6
HTC Droid Eris

Sprint

Motorola Photon 4G
Nexus S 4G

AT&T - Current Provider
HTC Titan II - Mine
Nokia Lumia 900 - Wife

 

[Los]

Microsoft timing had nothing to do with this. The fact is Apple and google STARTED at the right time

You can't compare Microsoft's situation to Apple and google. Microsoft had a platform almost 10 years before the iphone and android. So there was no need for change when WinMo was established, it seemed like that's what Microsoft was gonna ride on forever. There wasn't anything out raising the bar until the iphone came. That's when Microsoft had to change

Now the difference between apple/google and Microsoft, is Microsoft had to start all over to compete. Apple and google didn't have to start all over, they were completely new to the market. Just look at everyone else who had an established platform before iphone and android. They are all now having to start all over, struggling to compete. From Microsoft, RIM and Palm. It's not easy to start all over when you built on a platform for almost 10 years

So timing has nothing to do with anything cause WP wouldn't be what it is today if it wasn't for the iphone bringing real competition and raising the bar. We'd still all be using Windows Mobile right now and the market would look a lot different if the iphone didn't exist. But Apple and google didn't have 10 year old platforms they had to abandon, especially old platforms that could have hurt the company's rep like WinMo did

 

[eric12341]

Based on what facts you provide?

T-Mobile doesn't have the money to really expand their coverage. The spectrum deal with AT&T was a blessing to them. They've never had the money to expand their coverage for quite a while. Their retention rates are worse than Sprint these days (losing more customers) despite being super competitive price-wise and their profits don't even approach AT&T/Verizon, who make billions year over year. And please don't blame the iPhone for them losing customers we seen how "amazing" its launch on Verizon was last year, lulz...

T-Mobile coverage hasn't really been expanding at a competitive rate for over half a decade. AT&T put HSPA+ towers up in the rural area where I was living before here. Not even Verizon got 3G coverage there and T-Mobile got basically no signal (0-2 bars of GPRS Roaming flunctuating wildly, couldn't hold a call indoors). Without WiFi calling (which requires a UMA Blackberry or Android phone on their network) and your phone was useless. Why do you think even when I had my HD7 I kept the Vibrant for over a year and only just got rid of it? Cause I moved from Louisiana to Pennsylvannia and can at least make calls here without a WiFi connection, now. That's why.

By the time T-Mobile's 3G coverage approaches AT&T or Verizon's, those carriers will have the nation blanketed in LTE for years by then. Their coverage has always been an issue, as well as their overreliance on Roaming contracts for call coverage (which often give low-grade signal quality leading to dropped calls and bad call quality nevermind the drain on your battery those weak signals have).


1. I've already provided screenshots of speed tests on this forum and another. The screenshots came from different devices, so the speeds are reliable. They're slow. I was getting 150-250k.

Secondly, you're not really that well traveled. I've been dealing with the Coverage gaps on T-Mobile from Louisiana to Chicago to Harrisburg (Pa) to Baltimore to Richmond, and other places. All of which I've been to in the past 8 months or so. Chicago to St Louis wow, I mean... You're Gulliver now man!!!

I already said their coverage is decent in metro areas since any carrier with a clue will make sure they double down in high population areas like that. Where they fail is the in betweens - areas that Verizon and AT&T are addressing but Sprint and T-Mobile are leaving neglected.

Why are you baiting me is a more apt observation to your post, though.

T-Mobile's prices are good - it's why I left AT&T for them to begin with, but it turned out to be not worth it for me. I use < 100 minutes a month. I require better data speeds and better data coverage, and they simply aren't even close to being competitive with Big Red/Blue for someone like me who travels between more than two metro cities.

It's best if you look at them as if they were a regional carrier, because their nationwide coverage gaps give that impression. Sprint is very similar in that respect. AT&T and Verizon are the only ones aggressively addressing their coverage gaps, especially AT&T. If they tell you a tower's going up in 6 months chances are it'll be there in 4. Just from my experience dealing with them.

The embarassing part about it is that they have stores in rather populous cities down south but even the phones in the store struggle to maintain 2 bars of GPRS in there. How do you expect to sell that service with those conditions?

It's like you didn't even read my post. T-mobile was planning to expand their coverage even before the AT&T buyout occurred. That put alot of things on hold and even hurt them as a company which I will admit. Now they're moving beyond that and will continue with their previous plans to expand coverage and refarm,obviously you aren't aware of any of these because you don't goto Tmonews or phonearena. Your experience with the speeds definitely isn't typical, rootmetrics,PCWorld and PCMag all have proven that T-mobiles network is very fast in speeds and even stand ground against Verizon LTE in some areas. When T-mobile gets LTE (next year by the way) it will be more efficient and be of a higher release than AT&T and certainly VZ LTE which goes out at least twice a month. So their coverage won't stay the way it is forever and just the past few months I've noticed some coverage improvements. My house for example used to be a 4G-Available area now it's a 4G-good area and in WI there used to be just 3G and small 2G spots in places, those have been replaced with 4G and 3G spots.

 

[N8ter]

It's like you didn't even read my post. T-mobile was planning to expand their coverage even before the AT&T buyout occurred. That put alot of things on hold and even hurt them as a company which I will admit. Now they're moving beyond that and will continue with their previous plans to expand coverage and refarm,obviously you aren't aware of any of these because you don't goto Tmonews or phonearena. Your experience with the speeds definitely isn't typical, rootmetrics,PCWorld and PCMag all have proven that T-mobiles network is very fast in speeds and even stand ground against Verizon LTE in some areas. When T-mobile gets LTE (next year by the way) it will be more efficient and be of a higher release than AT&T and certainly VZ LTE which goes out at least twice a month. So their coverage won't stay the way it is forever and just the past few months I've noticed some coverage improvements. My house for example used to be a 4G-Available area now it's a 4G-good area and in WI there used to be just 3G and small 2G spots in places, those have been replaced with 4G and 3G spots.

I have TMoNews and PhoneArena on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+ if available. I know about the refarm. I alluded to it and the spectrum deal in an earlier post.

My experience with T-Mobile's coverage and speeds are typical. Ask anyone in this city what kind of speeds they get on T-Mobile's overloaded network with a full signal and they'll have the same response I had. It's typical. Also, my experience with T-Mobile's small coverage map and coverage gaps are typical, cause I did a 1300 mile roadtrip up here and my phone was useless for probably 850-900 miles of it. Even when T-Mobile has decent 3G in the city, it usually doesn't extend much beyond the city. 2-3 miles out of Lafayette, LA and you were back to GPRS or a very low EDGE signal on T-Mobile's network. On I49 from Lafayette to Shreveport (that's almost traveling up the whole state) you probably had 3G or a decent EDGE connection for 20% of it. AT&T and Verizon are totally different. Even Sprint is better.

Those places you mentioned test speeds in almost primarily high population metro areas. They do not say anything about the lower pop areas where T-Mobile has too few towers to handle their subscribers or the in-between areas where their network goes AWOL.

Why do I get 10mbps down on AT&T HSPA+ (not even LTE, Verizon LTE here is over 18-20mbps down and like ~8-10 up) but average about 500k on T-Mobile?

 

[eric12341]

I have TMoNews and PhoneArena on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+ if available. I know about the refarm. I alluded to it and the spectrum deal in an earlier post.

My experience with T-Mobile's coverage and speeds are typical. Ask anyone in this city what kind of speeds they get on T-Mobile's overloaded network with a full signal and they'll have the same response I had. It's typical. Also, my experience with T-Mobile's small coverage map and coverage gaps are typical, cause I did a 1300 mile roadtrip up here and my phone was useless for probably 850-900 miles of it. Even when T-Mobile has decent 3G in the city, it usually doesn't extend much beyond the city. 2-3 miles out of Lafayette, LA and you were back to GPRS or a very low EDGE signal on T-Mobile's network. On I49 from Lafayette to Shreveport (that's almost traveling up the whole state) you probably had 3G or a decent EDGE connection for 20% of it. AT&T and Verizon are totally different. Even Sprint is better.

Those places you mentioned test speeds in almost primarily high population metro areas. They do not say anything about the lower pop areas where T-Mobile has too few towers to handle their subscribers or the in-between areas where their network goes AWOL.

Why do I get 10mbps down on AT&T HSPA+ (not even LTE, Verizon LTE here is over 18-20mbps down and like ~8-10 up) but average about 500k on T-Mobile?

Click to view quoted image


Click to view quoted image

Don't you ever get tired of using that bash hammer of yours? First of all you don't even say your location in your profile, so I have no idea where you are even at. Second, slower speeds is expected in rural areas because all one does is maybe browse the web or some GPS navigation, 2G speeds are sufficient enough for those things. There are even some full wireline service providers that don't service rural areas yet. Third it might be really a 2G coverage area but some roms or phones on Android don't successfully indicate that. Finally some high end EDGE speeds can be classified as 3G so that could be a factor as well.

 

[tbonenga]

Nah, the HD7 released in October 2010, maybe November in the US, I'm unsure of hte actual date. By the second week of February it was free on contract.

Name 1 high end Android phone that released and was dropped to nothing so quickly?

The Vibrant released and when T-Mobile had their first BOGO promotion after release it was an exempt device and we had to pay full contract price ($249 + Tax) for the second one or pick a crap phone to get for free.

The Amaxe 4G is still like $149 on contract. The GSII isn't free, that's for sure - not on AT&T or T-Mobile (or Sprint). Typically the only devices that drop down to free so fast are mid-range devices (like the HTC Aria did on AT&T) and the HD7 was their only WP7 device with arguably better hardware than an HD2 (which at that time had just gone down to free, almost if not over a year after release).

That phone didn't perform well, and TBH it probably wasn't T-Mobile's fault, anyways.

WP7 launched after a huge wave of high end Android devices as well as the iPhone 4 and by the time the HD7 made it to market a ton of contracts/contract renewals were already taken by the Vibrant/MyTouch/G2 and other devices. There simply weren't enough customers buying phones at that time to really drive the sales to where they needed to be.

They dropped the price fast to get rid of them. Sales performance does matter. A carrier will never drop the price of a best-selling (or high-selling) device to $0 that fast. That's throwing money in the toilet for no reason other than "we can." No logic in that.

WRONG.... I bought a HD7 on valentines day for $199 and the Vibrant was $149