4 ms·

I was seriously considering getting a Lumia 1020 purely because of the camera, which gets rave reviews everywhere. I was even willing to abandon Android and pu

by jawns 13y ago

I was seriously considering getting a Lumia 1020 purely because of the camera, which gets rave reviews everywhere. I was even willing to abandon Android and put up with the Windows OS. But unfortunately, to buy it unlocked would cost $600, and the only carrier that was subsidizing it was AT&T, which I have sworn off. In the end, I got a Samsung S4 Zoom. Its camera is second only to the Lumia, it's got a great xenon flash, I get to stick with Android, it cost only about $350 unlocked, and it works on a GSM network MVNO, so my cellphone bill ends up being $40/mo., instead of $85/mo. on AT&T.

nailer 13y ago
> But unfortunately, to buy it unlocked would cost $600, and the only carrier that was subsidizing it was AT&T, which I have sworn off. All phones cost that much. 'subsidized' phones cost much more. Unless someone's poor enough to need a carrier plan to buy a smartphone - which, then again, they should avoid going into debt even more - then an unlocked phone is by far the cheapest option. A pity Nokia (and other companies that sell smartphones upfront) have to educate people in the basics of personal finance before they can sell a unit (not picking on you specifically, the belief that one 'saves money' by buying a carrier-locked subsidised phone is pretty common).
- wting 13y ago
  The Nexus and Moto family of phones have proven otherwise with prices ranging from $180 - $350.
- masklinn 13y ago
  > an unlocked phone is by far the cheapest option. That assumes the carrier provides equivalent but lower-priced subsidies-free plans. Otherwise the would-be subsidy ends up as additional profits in the carrier's pocket.
  - jawns 13y ago
    Exactly. If I'm going to go with a particular carrier anyway, then it's better to go with a subsidized phone, unless I get a discount for bringing my own unlocked phone. The error that nailer thinks I made, I did not make.
- dcwilson 13y ago
  With the exception of T-Mobile, I do not believe any other major US carrier offers cheaper non-subsidized plans. Given this, it does make sense to use the subsidy, as one is paying for it one way or the other. I really hope this situation changes.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    The anti-tying enforcement is one of the EU restrictions on anti-competitive behaviour I really love... That kind of behaviour generally does not fly in Europe. In fact, the subsidies on cellphones were border-line a problem in large parts of Europe when it started, and there are a lot of special restrictions that have been gradually applied to it (such as limits on contract lengths, restrictions on locking etc.) as authorities have grappled with how to allow the positive aspects of it without also enabling the predatory and anti-competitive behaviour the anti-tying regulations were put in place to prevent.
- vidarh 13y ago
  > All phones cost that much. Let me start by saying I agree with your point about pointing out the cost of taking the "subsidy". Personally that's part of my reason for the phones I've had the last couple of years. I figured that the subsidy in fact is costing me enough that if I opt for slightly cheaper models (see below), I can, if I want to, easily justify upgrading once a year instead of once every 18-24 months as is typical for the contracts here, and given my propensity for having phones slip out of my hands and end up shattering on the floor on the other side of the room, I figured that'd be a good idea... But going to $600 for a smartphone is not at all necessary these days unless you "must" have the very latest and greatest. For those of us willing to put up with last years performance, you can get great quad core phones with full hd (1920x1080) screens based on MTK or Rockchip CPU's for well under half that. I swore off the flagship phones a year ago - the tier down and cheap Chinese knockoffs that do lag behind performance wise but are otherwise fantastic, are "fast enough" now that I just don't have any need for anything faster. My latest unsubsidised phone is an iOcean X7. With an extra 3000mAh battery it cost me ca $250 for the 32GB version (internal, also supports 32GB micro SD) including paying extra to get it shipped from China in 5 days (many of these models you can also find on Amazon Marketplace from a variety of importers if uncomfortable with ordering direct). It's a fantastic phone, with just a couple of minor caveats (the GPS is shit on a number of the Chinese phones - it's a known chipset problem coupled with bad antenna design; for this model there's a known easy non-invasive fix). I'm unlikely to consider a phone above $300 again anytime soon...
- RankingMember 13y ago
  > Unless someone's poor enough to need a carrier plan to buy a smartphone - which, then again, they should avoid going into debt even more - then an unlocked phone is by far the cheapest option. Really, you're characterizing anyone who relies on carrier plans to buy a $600 hunk of breakable, lose-able, consumer electronics as poor? Have you considered that their priorities for their immediate disposable income may lay elsewhere?

by jawns 13y ago

nailer 13y ago

> But unfortunately, to buy it unlocked would cost $600, and the only carrier that was subsidizing it was AT&T, which I have sworn off. All phones cost that much. 'subsidized' phones cost much more. Unless someone's poor enough to need a carrier plan to buy a smartphone - which, then again, they should avoid going into debt even more - then an unlocked phone is by far the cheapest option. A pity Nokia (and other companies that sell smartphones upfront) have to educate people in the basics of personal finance before they can sell a unit (not picking on you specifically, the belief that one 'saves money' by buying a carrier-locked subsidised phone is pretty common).

wting 13y ago
The Nexus and Moto family of phones have proven otherwise with prices ranging from $180 - $350.
masklinn 13y ago
> an unlocked phone is by far the cheapest option. That assumes the carrier provides equivalent but lower-priced subsidies-free plans. Otherwise the would-be subsidy ends up as additional profits in the carrier's pocket.
- jawns 13y ago
  Exactly. If I'm going to go with a particular carrier anyway, then it's better to go with a subsidized phone, unless I get a discount for bringing my own unlocked phone. The error that nailer thinks I made, I did not make.
dcwilson 13y ago
With the exception of T-Mobile, I do not believe any other major US carrier offers cheaper non-subsidized plans. Given this, it does make sense to use the subsidy, as one is paying for it one way or the other. I really hope this situation changes.
- vidarh 13y ago
  The anti-tying enforcement is one of the EU restrictions on anti-competitive behaviour I really love... That kind of behaviour generally does not fly in Europe. In fact, the subsidies on cellphones were border-line a problem in large parts of Europe when it started, and there are a lot of special restrictions that have been gradually applied to it (such as limits on contract lengths, restrictions on locking etc.) as authorities have grappled with how to allow the positive aspects of it without also enabling the predatory and anti-competitive behaviour the anti-tying regulations were put in place to prevent.
vidarh 13y ago
> All phones cost that much. Let me start by saying I agree with your point about pointing out the cost of taking the "subsidy". Personally that's part of my reason for the phones I've had the last couple of years. I figured that the subsidy in fact is costing me enough that if I opt for slightly cheaper models (see below), I can, if I want to, easily justify upgrading once a year instead of once every 18-24 months as is typical for the contracts here, and given my propensity for having phones slip out of my hands and end up shattering on the floor on the other side of the room, I figured that'd be a good idea... But going to $600 for a smartphone is not at all necessary these days unless you "must" have the very latest and greatest. For those of us willing to put up with last years performance, you can get great quad core phones with full hd (1920x1080) screens based on MTK or Rockchip CPU's for well under half that. I swore off the flagship phones a year ago - the tier down and cheap Chinese knockoffs that do lag behind performance wise but are otherwise fantastic, are "fast enough" now that I just don't have any need for anything faster. My latest unsubsidised phone is an iOcean X7. With an extra 3000mAh battery it cost me ca $250 for the 32GB version (internal, also supports 32GB micro SD) including paying extra to get it shipped from China in 5 days (many of these models you can also find on Amazon Marketplace from a variety of importers if uncomfortable with ordering direct). It's a fantastic phone, with just a couple of minor caveats (the GPS is shit on a number of the Chinese phones - it's a known chipset problem coupled with bad antenna design; for this model there's a known easy non-invasive fix). I'm unlikely to consider a phone above $300 again anytime soon...
RankingMember 13y ago
> Unless someone's poor enough to need a carrier plan to buy a smartphone - which, then again, they should avoid going into debt even more - then an unlocked phone is by far the cheapest option. Really, you're characterizing anyone who relies on carrier plans to buy a $600 hunk of breakable, lose-able, consumer electronics as poor? Have you considered that their priorities for their immediate disposable income may lay elsewhere?