Hacker News Reader

Comment by Thiz | Hacker News Reader

Vote with your wallet. Don't buy locked phones.

Once the consumers know the power they have in their hands, change will come easier.

That is fallacy. Carriers are oligopoly with high cost of entrance. So if all carriers provide only locked phones there may not be enough devices on the market.

There should be laws preventing forced vertical integration. If you sell hardware you cannot restrict the os(you are free to provide os, but locking of the bootloader should be left to the user). If you sell OS you cannot limit what applications the user can run and from where to obtain them etc ...

Why are you limited to carrier-provided phones?

> So if all carriers provide only locked phones there may not be enough devices on the market.

Except you can buy directly from the phone manufacturer: https://play.google.com/store/devices/details/Nexus_4_8GB?id..., http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone

Your argument basically amounts to: "if the carriers did have a monopoly on phones, then there would be a problem."

yet, ATT & Verizon will not charge less. wait, they will force you to buy a data plan too if you use your unlocked smartphone. Imagine a real state market - take mortgage or pay double for the house if you pay cash.

Or you could go to MetroPCS or one of several other providers and buy an unlocked phone. T-Mobile offers both contract and month-to-month service, and IIRC will sell you an unlocked phone if you're willing to pay up front for it.

I'm torn on the issue of buying locked vs unlocked. I have a family to support, so I don't have $500 or more to spend on an unlocked iPhone. Even if I had the money, I live in the US, and I haven't traveled outside of the country in over 10 years. Finally, there is no monthly discount on service if you bring an unlocked phone to a carrier, so that's the third strike. I'll continue to buy a new locked device every couple of years and take the subsidy, thanks. I'll also be having my 4S unlocked when this contract is up.

Having said that, I agree that it should be easier to unlock phones in the US, even if it's just for international coverage (which would be something).

I don't have $500 to spend on an iPhone either, so I just don't buy iPhones.

Yes, there is a discount. You can buy an unlocked GSM phone and get a SIM only plan that costs half as much as the regular plans. The total cost is cheaper compared to how much you pay over a two year contract.

Where do you buy this plan? AT&T and Verizon are willing to sell me plans that cost just as much as on-contract plans. T-Mobile is willing to sell me much cheaper plans, but randomly loses service all around my city all the time.

I use one from Straight Talk, which just resells AT&T's service.

My family recently purchased three Nexus 4 phones straight from Google ($300 each), and picked up a T-Mobile Family Value plan (which means you don't get a phone subsidy, but it is a cheaper) with 1000 minutes, unlimited sms, and unlimited HSPA+ data. $120 / month for 3 lines.

Yep. I know that Nexus devices are cheaper than iPhones when you compare unlocked. But I prefer the iPhone. I also prefer AT&T service. Point is, the unlocked cell phone discussion is a different animal in the US where it doesn't seem to have as many benefits as it would abroad.

Thus, I'll keep using iPhones and my AT&T service and I'll take the subsidy for a new iPhone every few years.

My in-laws only got iPhones because they could get one for free. In their case, spending $0 for 4 older, on-contract, locked iPhones is preferable to spending $800 for 4 new, on-contract, locked iPhones. I would have been laughed at for suggesting $1800 to get 4 iPhone 4's unlocked.

You can get a pretty awesome brand new, not-just-released android phone for $100. Or you can get a used phone in good condition on ebay for much lower (even a used iPhone). Sorry but you have a bit of a yuppie dilemma here. There are tons of off-contract, much cheaper options, but not if you only buy directly from Apple.

"Vote with your wallet"

That gives poor people less of a vote than rich people.

I don't think so. I ended up going with a month-to-month provider int he first place because I was poor and didn't want to deal with the risk of early termination fees etc. I just bought a lower-quality phone. Being poor means that you don't get to buy the nicest thing on the market if you don't have the money.

The economics of contract plans didn't look that good to me, because it meant a much higher monthly bill than I felt comfortable paying for a bunch of features I was not at all sure I would really use or need. I was happy with my decision and have stuck with month-to-month service ever since. Back then, MetroPCS (who I signed with at the time) was a tiny company operating in only 2 or 3 urban markets, now they operate in most of the country.

>>> "Vote with your wallet"

>> That gives poor people less of a vote than rich people.

> I don't think so.

Sure you do, it's not really subjective... 1 < 2, and all that.

> Being poor means that you don't get to buy the nicest thing on the market if you don't have the money.

Yeah, I knew you did.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com