T-Mobile, AT&T oppose unlocking rule, claim locked phones are good for users

You don’t need to pay $500 to $2000 for a phone. I don’t think I have ever paid that much.

As you are probably aware, popular phones like the iPhone 15 and Samsung Galaxy S24 (#1 and #2 in the USA) are in that range, costing $700 and $1300 for the 'basic' models.

Cheaper phones have a way higher value/$ ratio. Instead of financializing expensive phones the market should encourage cheaper phones through increased demand.

Somehow the rest of the world gets by with much cheaper phones.

Who will fund R&D into new innovations then?

Cheaper phones by definition have slimmer margins.

I'm not saying all phones should be cheap. The market for premium phones has and will continue to exist. And who's to say finding ways to reduce the cost to produce phones isn't innovation?

I find that markets that are financialized where the price of the good is obfuscated are less efficient. This is because efficient markets rely on price discovery. Healthcare is an excellent example of this.

Popular or not they are luxury goods, and a modern iphone can be had for a couple hundred bucks used (SE 2nd gen)

I think it's impossible to buy a phone from any of the major carriers online without seeing the full upfront price at least a few times on screen.

And in store there's clearly the price tag right beside the demo model.

So hard to see how its obsfucated like healthcare.

That’s because subsidized plans don’t encourage shopping for the lowest price. Consumers just see free phone and optimize to buy the most expensive free phone available.

I love this take-

Sure, let’s just ignore the disastrous adware, bloatware etc that also “subsidize” these cheaper phones, to say nothing of the actual capabilities or user experience of said devices.

I buy cheap phones for projects so have experienced exactly this. If you go on any prepaid WISP site and look at their device selection ordered by lowest price there's always an asterisk and the quoted price is based on some kind of contract.

The prepaid phone models available are usually the cheaper phones?

Or is there some carrier that sells the expensive $1000+ phones on prepaid plans?

I used to buy $200 Android phones. I never had one last more than 18 months. I'm talking dead, not just annoyingly slow. I now have a 3.5 year old iPhone that I expect to get at least another 1.5 years out of. $200/yr compared to $133/yr but I'm generating less waste and getting a better overall experience the entire time I own the phone. For me it was absolutely worth it.

You don't need to go for the cheapest phone, but I find the midrange, around $300-$400, to be the sweet spot. Sure, you could opt for something more expensive, but unless you have a specific need, the benefits won't be that noticeable. I'd rather put that extra money toward upgrading a PC instead. I chose a midrange Samsung for its practical customization options over stock Android, plus it comes with 4 promised updates. While it's not as long as the 7 years of updates from a Pixel, realistically, the battery will likely swell like a pillow before it even hits the 7th year anyway.

Typically the $1000+ premium phone market is for unlocked phones sold directly from the manufacturer.

The locked phones are usually sub $250 and have some kind of finacial gimmick to get the sticker price lower. Often it will be some carrier specific model name. Just sort by price low to high and you'll find them.

I bet you weren't buying midrange Motorolas. I bought a Moto G for $179 (forgot the model: may have been G1/G2, and that may have been promo pricing for an unlocked phone) and used it for close to 5 years. I only stopped using it because the camera quality was showing it's age relative to the flagships of the day.

Huh? I'm talking about the US?

ATT, Verizon, and Tmobile are selling many many expensive phones, locked, on 24 momth payment plans, literally hundreds of possible configurations of dozens of models.

Much of the world “gets by” on outdoor toilets, but we put value on indoor plumbing don’t we?

IME even mid tier phones won't have more than a year or so of security updates left, unless you buy them new. And even then it's often only 18-24 months. We should insist that companies support their phones longer or unlock and completely open source them at the EOL.

You must be doing something wrong. I bought a few cheap mototola and xiaomi android phones over the years and they've lasted years and continue to work to this day.

I find it hard to believe that consumers are that dumb that they can't do an addition and multiplication to find the actual TCO.

No such crap on Motorola phones. Posting from a five years old Moto One Vision. It's... a smartphone. It has a decent CPU, screen, camera, storage, NFC, etc. I couldn't say what's missing.

The only thing I'd get excited about in a new phone is a faster CPU.

We’re likely talking about a small subset of users for whom open sourcing or similar efforts would be worthwhile. The bigger issue these days is that phones aren't designed to last. We've seen this trend ever since batteries became non-removable, and I doubt EU regulations will make a significant difference. Most users either dispose of their phones when they stop working or trade them in for a newer model. This is especially common with premium phones, while mid-range models might only fetch you $10 on a trade-in if you’re lucky.

Some companies do better in this regard. For example, Samsung provides four major updates, whereas the last mid-range Motorola I owned only gave me one. By the time I receive the fourth update on my current phone, I'll probably be dealing with bigger issues, like the battery not holding a charge—or worse. I wish phones were more serviceable, but that’s just not the case. Still, at mid-range prices, I’m fine with replacing it when it’s on its last legs.

If you're inclined, though, most Android phones allow you to unlock the bootloader and tinker with the software as much as you want.