←back to thread

204 points LorenDB | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.212s | 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 #
cmeacham98 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] No.41908827[source]
You don’t need to pay $500 to $2000 for a phone. I don’t think I have ever paid that much.
replies(3): >>41908867 #>>41908893 #>>41909245 #
throwaway48476 ◴[] No.41908893[source]
Cheaper phones have a way higher value/$ ratio. Instead of financializing expensive phones the market should encourage cheaper phones through increased demand.
replies(2): >>41908966 #>>41909283 #
unsignedint ◴[] No.41909283[source]
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.
replies(1): >>41909807 #
paulryanrogers ◴[] No.41909807[source]
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.
replies(2): >>41912288 #>>41915297 #
ac29 ◴[] No.41915297[source]
You can get a (used) Pixel 6a for well under $200 and it has updates until mid 2027.

A brand new Pixel 8a is under $500 and has updates until 2031.

replies(1): >>41929422 #
1. paulryanrogers ◴[] No.41929422[source]
That is a welcome change in Google support policy, and was recent. Sadly many other vendors haven't followed suit yet.