8 ms·
To me all those problems with carriers dictating anything looks like a US-only problem. You can fix this! Just buy more unlocked phones. Since 1994 I never bou
by biafra 16y ago
To me all those problems with carriers dictating anything looks like a US-only problem.
You can fix this! Just buy more unlocked phones. Since 1994 I never bought a net locked phone. Subsidizing does not have to be linked to a net lock. Subsidizing was never (AFAIR) linked to a net lock in Germany. The iPhone was a first for us (here in Europe). From here it looks like the iPhone brought this consumer-unfriendly practice to us. Thank goodness no Android phone is net locked here in Germany at least no net locked only.
- Tuna-Fish 16y agoI would also like to point out, that the reason for this is that Nokia has been fighting carriers from since they started making phones, up to and including lobbying for legislation that banned network-locked cell phones in many countries. Why do you thing they never made much headway in the USA? Because Verizon and AT&T spent more money greasing the congress, and Nokia didn't want to give up.
- evgen 16y agoNokia never made much headway in the USA because all of their good models were GSM phones -- in the US that meant t-mobile or AT&T -- and back before the iPhone appeared most US cell phone users were on CDMA networks (Verizon and Sprint.) Nokia decided to roll their own CDMA chip instead of paying off Qualcomm (big mistake) and ended up with a weak presence in the CDMA market. Nokia screwed the pooch all on their own when it came to fumbling the US market.
- lzw 16y agoIt is worth noting that in every region where Apple does not have carrier exclusivity, they sell unlocked phones. So the locking is an exclusivity / subsidy component. It seems clear to me, by studying Apple's patents, that they originally wanted the phone to be unlocked and on every carrier, they even tried to end the subsidy system by selling the iPhone direct....
- drpancake 16y agoMy theory is that carrier exclusivity was the price they paid for maintaining complete control of the OS. This seems to make more sense in the UK, where O2 was the exclusive carrier to begin with, until it was given to the other carriers later on. It was a bargaining chip.
- lzw 16y agoI agree completely, and they needed the deal to get the first phone out there. Now that it has been such a success, they don't need that leverage band starting to go nonexclusive and to unlock the devices.
- sapphirecat 16y ago> Just buy more unlocked phones. In my experience, if you buy an unlocked phone, you hand the carrier a bonus payment of the cost of the phone. They don't give you any cheaper service. And, when I went to replace a Nokia POS that died 3 days after warranty, I discovered that Verizon even subsidizes their prepaid phones: you can get an LG VX5600 for $40 with new service, but to replace the Nokia with the existing account, they wanted $200. (Allegedly, they "don't sell" the Nokia in question as a prepaid, and thus couldn't offer a direct replacement; which raises the question of why phones they "don't sell" come with their branding and work on their network.)
- Splines 16y agoI was wondering about that. Why bother buying an unlocked phone if your payments don't change? I mean, you have the freedom to change carriers at will, but I wonder how often that's exercised.
- kenjackson 16y agoThis is the fundamental win with the current US system. If every phone existed as an unlocked/unsubsidsidized variant -- those would still hardly move. Why pay $500 for a phone, when you can get the same phone for $199, but you simply have a two year contract. I've been with the same carrier for 10 years, despite having the option to leave at many points in time. In many regards, I think our subsidized mobile phone system trumps the systems outside of the US.
- grhino 16y agoA win from whose perspective?
- kenjackson 16y agoThe users. I get the carriers to give me $300 for something I plan on doing anyways (using their service for the next two years). It would be like Comcast subsidizing my purchase of a TV if I kept Comcast for two years. I'd jumpt on that deal now (assuming the subsidy was $300+ dollars), because I anticipate keeping Comcast for two years (even with the coming internet TV threats). And certainly for the past 10 years, it would have been an even bigger no brainer.
- aphexairlines 16y agoAndroid phones in Germany (except for G1 and N1) are still dependent on the manufacturer for OS updates and so on. The user (you) can't decide you want 2.2 on your phone when it's released.
- aw3c2 16y agoNot true, you can buy unbranded devices.
- biafra 16y agoAnd you can in the US? What other phones can be updated without manufacturer support? Even for the ADP1(G1) and the N1 you need some binary-only files from HTC. I was successful in building Froyo for my N1. Not so much for the ADP1. (No GSM and no Wifi) I am missing some binaries that seem not available in the stock 1.6 image for the ADP1.