←back to thread

197 points LorenDB | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.395s | source
Show context
tptacek ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
1. refurb ◴[] No.41909562[source]
Yes they are.

If you were going to buy a plan from AT&T anyways at $60/month, they are willing to give you a $800 phone for “free” if they can lock you into a 2 year contract.

Buying your own phone for $800 and paying $60/month isn’t a better deal but it does give you flexibility to drop the carrier whenever you want.

Consumers can decide.

Banning a consumer option sounds anti-consumer, not pro.