how-to block ads
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| Re: No way in hell they should do this.... said by Alphy  :Please tell me how you arrived at your conclusion. I can tell you with confidence that Google has provided a number of services to the end user with little to no cost associated. I fail to see how this initiative would be any different. I think the point he is making is that as "Open unlocked phones" become available, the market for subsidized locked down phones from the telcos will disappear. Meaning that to use cellphone networks in the future you will have to BUY your phone.
Whether it happens that way or not is up for debate, but he does make a valid point.
Of course, the other side of this debate is that if subsidized phones disappear, cell phone calling rates will decrease due to the providers not having to carry the cost of subsidized phones. But I doubt that calling rates will drop enough to make a difference to those users who will now have to buy their phones separately.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
| |
|  Alphy
join:2001-12-31
Troy, MI
| Re: No way in hell they should do this.... The open phones themselves are just a dry run for the 700Mhz shift that will occur in '08 or '09.
I would have to believe Google and others are looking at multiple business models that would be considered disruptive to the current wireless oligopoly in the US.
There's too much money to be made not to have a conglomerate with some equity, and this much talent, to remain out of this sector. | |
| | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| Re: No way in hell they should do this.... I can't wait for the day when BBR members are bitching about Google along with AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc. and how they're screwing consumers for the sole purpose of increasing revenue.
I can see both sides of the argument. On one side, the potential introduction of additional competition has to be good for consumers. Right? On the other side, I have no desire to pay $300 up front, plus $50/mth for the privilege of using a crappy phone plastered with Google Ads.
Oh well, like everything else in life, we'll have to wait and see if this even comes to fruition. | |
| | | 
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| Re: No way in hell they should do this.... said by openbox9 :...I have no desire to pay $300 up front, plus $50/mth for the privilege of using a crappy phone plastered with Google Ads. May I suggest using your phone as ..uh..phone then. You actually don't see adverts whiole your talking on the phone. And yes, I understand you want to surf while sitting on a busstop... but don't bark about something that you're clearly choosing to do! | |
| | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | Re: No way in hell they should do this.... Actually, I just want a phone, which is becoming more and more challenging. You don't see (or hear) adverts while on the phone now, but Google is like the 800 lb gorilla that everybody sees in the corner, but is wearing a tutu and appears harmless. | |
| 
JasonD
@comcast.net | Yes, thanks for elaborating my point. Plus this 'open innitiative' creates risk for AT&T, Verizon, etc., by placing parts of their business outside of their control. This will only INCREASE costs for all of us. | |
| | Alphy
join:2001-12-31
Troy, MI | Re: No way in hell they should do this.... The risks associated with this occurring are positively hedged by the introduction of new players in the market. Adding a 5th and 6th competitor beyond the Big Four, will do wonders. | |
| |
openphoneluvr
@spcsdns.net
| said by JasonD :
Yes, thanks for elaborating my point. Plus this 'open innitiative' creates risk for AT&T, Verizon, etc., by placing parts of their business outside of their control. This will only INCREASE costs for all of us.
Apple put a part of AT&T's business out of their control and it hasn't hurt AT&T.
I like this approach. Service providers need to be just that. Why would I need to have my phone tied to who provides me service? Or, do you like getting your home phones only from "AT&T"? | |
| | Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL
| said by JasonD :
Yes, thanks for elaborating my point. Plus this 'open innitiative' creates risk for AT&T, Verizon, etc., by placing parts of their business outside of their control. This will only INCREASE costs for all of us.
With that logic, AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc... should sell us subsidized computers with our broadband service. Since letting us have computers that run applications outside of their control creates risk for them. Think about how much Comcast could save if they didn't have to buy Sandvine boxes and could just control the computer they sell to you. | |
| | 
Alakar
Facts do not cease to exist when ignored
join:2001-03-23
Milwaukee, WI
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| You really haven't got a clue.
An open market model similar to this is what has driven Europe's cell phone industry. While carriers do offer subsidized phones for a contract lock in, most people in Europe don't use it. Unlocked cell phone prices are considerably cheaper there than here in the states and the level of innovation in technology and pricing models is way ahead of whats offered here.
--
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom; it is the arguments of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt the Younger | |
| 
Rogue Wolf
Is Kind Of A Big Deal In Yemen
join:2003-08-12
Troy, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| Wouldn't this be offset by the fact that you'd only have to buy your phone once, and could carry it from provider to provider as you saw fit? I can't see this scenario being worse than phone companies having to take in two-year-old phones after a user's required subscription time has passed.
They get the money out of you one way or the other. With unlocked phones, sure, the full cost comes up-front, but then you're pretty well set.
At least that's the way I see it.
--
I have learned to ignore such naysayers, when... quelling... them... hm?... was out of the question. | |
| | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: No way in hell they should do this.... said by Rogue Wolf :They get the money out of you one way or the other. With unlocked phones, sure, the full cost comes up-front, but then you're pretty well set. I beauty of unlocked phones is if your provider can't deliver on their promises, you can just move to another provider. now if the companies aren't giving you cheap phones then why have contracts and ETFs
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
| Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL
| said by TKJunkMail :I think the point he is making is that as "Open unlocked phones" become available, the market for subsidized locked down phones from the telcos will disappear. Meaning that to use cellphone networks in the future you will have to BUY your phone. Whether it happens that way or not is up for debate, but he does make a valid point. Of course, the other side of this debate is that if subsidized phones disappear, cell phone calling rates will decrease due to the providers not having to carry the cost of subsidized phones. But I doubt that calling rates will drop enough to make a difference to those users who will now have to buy their phones separately. The thing is, that with the carriers subsidizing phones, the retail cost of phones does not reflect true market prices. The current retail prices are artificially supported by the prices the big 4 are willing to pay the manufactures for the phones. So anyone currently buying retail is over paying.
If the subsidized market were to completely disappear, the manufactures would have to price their phones to reflect real supply and demand. So just like in the POTS phone market, there will be cheap no frills phones, midline phones, and expensive phones. | |
|
PhoneGuy
@ericsson.net
| Unlocked, or should I say unbranded phones are much more userfriendly than locked down branded ones. They are also cheaper and easier for the end user in the long run compared to branded ones. The operators does not brand the phones just for fun, they do it to make more money!
Examples:
Why is it that you cannot bluetooth pictures from most branded phones to other devices? They want to make a buck from the MMS (picturemessage) you have to send ofcourse!
Why is it that most branded phones can only play/use operator DRMed ringtones? Because they want to make a buck from the ringone when you buy it!
Why is it that most branded phones has the internet button very "conveniently" located, so that you hit it accidentally lots of time in your everyday use of the phone, ringing up a GPRS/data-tab? Again because they want to make a buck of the to you useless data that you transmit to download the portal for the n-th time today!
Also, phone software is poorly updated (again because the operator has to pay the vendor to brand the SW) compared to the generic version, giving you a phone with more bugs that will also not have the latest improvements on standby/powersaving features.
You are unable to use a prepaid card when you are roaming with a locked phone, ringing up roaming fees benefiting the operator(s).
Have tried operator "free" phones, after that painful experience I learned how to unlock and debrand phones!!
Now when security is getting harder on the phones, I just make sure I buy the unbranded unlocked version to save me the hassle.
Actually it is cheaper to buy most phones here in North America compared to Europe, check out »www.hi-mobile.net/index.php | |
| | | |
|
