←back to thread

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

(arstechnica.com)
197 points LorenDB | 4 comments | 21 Oct 24 20:31 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
tptacek ◴[21 Oct 24 21:11 UTC] No.41908565[source]▶
This is a good way for Ars to generate clicks and a more honest headline probably wouldn't move the needle much, but it's worth being clear for HN that the objection here is not that locked phones are good for consumers, but that the subsidization deals locked phones enable are.
replies(11): >>41908581 #>>41908673 #>>41908679 #>>41908875 #>>41908906 #>>41909375 #>>41909380 #>>41909447 #>>41909558 #>>41911205 #>>41911215 #
nothercastle ◴[21 Oct 24 21:27 UTC] No.41908679[source]▶
They aren’t though. Subsidized phones are like monthly car payments drive up costs and are targeted at people bad at math.

If consumers paid out of pocket for their phones then they would be more picky about upgrading and plan prices. It would also make upselling shitty plan features harder so the carriers would loose a lot of money.

replies(7): >>41908735 #>>41908766 #>>41908828 #>>41909010 #>>41909194 #>>41909329 #>>41909562 #
cmeacham98 ◴[21 Oct 24 21:35 UTC] No.41908766[source]▶
I would agree with you (financing small purchases like a phone is a bad idea and causes people to spend money they shouldn't), but that doesn't make the clickbait acceptable. Ars Technica should accurately report the claims of the telco industry.
replies(2): >>41908799 #>>41909304 #
DaiPlusPlus ◴[21 Oct 24 21:39 UTC] No.41908799[source]▶
Most people don’t live in your affluent bubble where, apparently, a $500 to $2,000 expense is a “small purchase”.
replies(4): >>41908827 #>>41908915 #>>41909013 #>>41909336 #
Always42 ◴[21 Oct 24 21:42 UTC] No.41908827[source]▶
You don’t need to pay $500 to $2000 for a phone. I don’t think I have ever paid that much.
replies(3): >>41908867 #>>41908893 #>>41909245 #
Symbiote ◴[21 Oct 24 21:48 UTC] No.41908867[source]▶
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.
replies(3): >>41908902 #>>41909023 #>>41909039 #
1. throwaway48476 ◴[21 Oct 24 21:51 UTC] No.41908902[source]▶
Somehow the rest of the world gets by with much cheaper phones.
replies(2): >>41909059 #>>41909686 #
2. givinguflac ◴[21 Oct 24 22:09 UTC] No.41909059[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>41912076 #
3. refurb ◴[21 Oct 24 23:38 UTC] No.41909686[source]▶
Much of the world “gets by” on outdoor toilets, but we put value on indoor plumbing don’t we?
4. ahartmetz ◴[22 Oct 24 07:39 UTC] No.41912076[source]▶
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.