openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | But... said by Karl Bode :
these kinds of decisions fly in the face of endless proclamations that they're dedicated to open platforms and consumer choice But Android is an open platform and consumers do have a choice. I'm not sure what the gripe is. If you don't like the Fascinate, then buy one of numerous other available Android devices without such restrictions. |
|
| the problems is that ALL phones running the Android OS are now coming with bloatware and restrictions like this. the companies figured out that they can make a buck or ten by forcing certain things on the phone, like the crappy vznavigator. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Bloatware and restrictions are nuisances at most. Most people don't care about them and I doubt that a majority of Android users actually subscribe to VZ apps. |
|
 TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | reply to openbox9
Hmmm... With all of the different versions of the Android OS floating around and the providers preventing upgrades to the latest and greatest. I seems to me like the iPhone is not so bad. Every time I read stuff like this I wonder what is the point of getting any smart phone if important parts of the way it can operate are locked down. I still like the European model purchase the phone first then look for service, you own the phone and if you don't like how you are being treated by one provider you can take business somewhere else without having to purchase a new phone to do it. I am not saying their service is any better but at least they don't have you by the 'nads with a locked phone.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption |
|
| reply to openbox9
Re: But... Yeppers. The power is in the choice. Given the ubiquity of an open platform, consumers should (and do) exercise that power.
--
Listen...do you smell something? |
|
| reply to openbox9
The problem is that for most consumers, you *can't* just get a different phone. In the US, the phone is sold by a carrier with a pecuniary interest in more than just providing service. The deal with Microsoft in locking down the choice of browsers pretty much shows that the customer is a profit line far beyond service.
Worse for the consumer, there is no true retail outlet for phones that is divorced from the carrier. Buying without contract gets you full manufacturer's suggested retail price -- from the carrier. Buying on the internet is a maze of discontinued, refurbished and imported devices that require careful reading and decision making. For the technically savvy, there are ways. For most consumers, they can't navigate it and line up to be shorn. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to Transmaster
Re: Hmmm... Comparing the Android platform to iOS is similar to comparing Linux to OS X. The freedom can also be the curse. The openness of Android facilitates fragmentation and the kinds of tailoring that carriers are doing. Right or wrong, Google left the door open for the carriers to do exactly what they're doing. And for anyone to not foresee this happening would've been extremely shortsighted.
I doubt you'll see the European model really take off in the US. People have been spoiled with low upfront costs for their devices. Most consumers won't be willing to step up to $500 or $600 phones when they're changing devices every year or two. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to clickie
Re: But... Locking down the browser? You mean search tool. And to think that customers are anything more than avenues to profit for any business is ignorant IMO.said by clickie:Worse for the consumer, there is no true retail outlet for phones that is divorced from the carrier. So? Most consumers don't care, or know. Besides, each of the main carriers offer several devices running different platforms. Choice is prevalent. |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
1 edit | reply to openbox9
I think the more important problem is that we allow the locking of phones to the carrier vs forcing them to be fully carrier neutral. But we wont get carrier neutral phones as long as people want a phone for $50 |
|
 N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | reply to clickie
said by clickie:For most consumers, they can't navigate it and line up to be shorn. Probably one of the best "sheeple" references I've seen in a long time. Kudos to you, sir.
As far as Verizon, Bing, and Android bloatware. Nice way to f things up, Verizon. Lots of people, myself included, are very happy with their Droid phones the way they are.
I'm sure I can find someone who didn't take Micro$oft's bag of cash to force a default provider on.
Sprint rings a bell....
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power |
|
|
|
 JahntassaWhat, I can have feathersPremium
join:2006-04-14
Conway, SC
kudos:4 | reply to Chubbysumo
said by Chubbysumo:the problems is that ALL phones running the Android OS are now coming with bloatware and restrictions like this. the companies figured out that they can make a buck or ten by forcing certain things on the phone, like the crappy vznavigator. Maybe on Verizon and ATT, I didn't think there was much 'bloat' on Sprint or T-Mobile offerings. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to Kearnstd
Why is that really a problem? Given the current wireless environment in the US and the plethora of options available, I have a difficult time seeing what benefits unlocked handsets bring. |
|
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:said by Karl Bode :
these kinds of decisions fly in the face of endless proclamations that they're dedicated to open platforms and consumer choice But Android is an open platform and consumers do have a choice. I'm not sure what the gripe is. If you don't like the Fascinate, then buy one of numerous other available Android devices without such restrictions. I did this. Verizon then pushed an update to the phone that added back all the crap I hated with their other phones. |
|
| reply to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd:I think the more important problem is that we allow the locking of phones to the carrier vs forcing them to be fully carrier neutral. But we wont get carrier neutral phones as long as people want a phone for $50 ????? I can buy carrier neutral phones right now. I can then go to at least Verizon and T Mobile and activate them on those networks (obviously dependent on technology, I can't put a CDMA phone on T Mobiles network or a GSM phone on Vzs) |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to cmaenginsb
Remove the "crap" again. You can't/shouldn't expect VZW to change software updates just for you. VZW develops, tests, and deploys software updates for the masses. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to Chubbysumo
It's OPEN-WARE... these carriers have the RIGHT to do what they are doing to it, and are doing exactly as Google stated they could.. they are free to modify/customize the software. Customization doesn't mean simple "add to"... it doesn't mean "customizable ONLY to the consumer".. it means just what it says... it's openware.. and it may be tweaked and modified.
The companies didn't "figure" anything out... the answers were in front of them all along. There is no conspiracy going on here.. there's no new revelations happening.. there's none of this stuff happening.
They could, in a sense, gut the majority of the experience from the user, in all reality, but as long as they adhere to the terms of use, they still can call it "android" which isn't "iPhone" to many people...
Watch, however.. the more and more fractured these carriers make the android operating system (and quite frankly, the name) you watch just how much and how fast they are going to fracture the strength of iPhone vs. android.
I'm afraid that once you start to make android from what started as 1 thing into many many things, apple starts to regain dominance by its stability alone.
android users: can your 'droid do...?
iPhone users: My iPhone just is... |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to openbox9
Re: Hmmm... If you really want to see the future of the mobile phone model in the US, turn to T-Mobile.
You said you doubt that the EU model will take off in the US.. I disagree with you.. you seem to have little faith in the small groups of consumers in America who cry foul and scream for change.. the very change that congress finds a way of giving these small groups that ultimate affect the majority of people.
Look at T-Mobile.. they have two sets of plans (which at first, are confusing)..
Their plans are $10/$20 different based on if you buy the phone upfront, or buy it at a discount. Seems like a good deal, right? - wrong...
Take their talk+text+web personal plans. (Look at the unlimited one) $79 a month with a upfront phone purchase. $99 if you take their discounted phone handset + 2 year agreement. Over 2 years of that plan, you're paying $480 additional for the plan. Add in their MyTouch 3G Slide phone at $179. That phone just cost you $659 over the life of the contract. (Cancel early and you pay the ETF of course too)
That model is geared towards people either a) not understanding what they're spending and gouging them for the phone. b) getting them to simply buy the handset out right, that is if you're smart enough to realize the numbers.
T-Mobile really doesn't want to deal with handset discounting on one hand because they DO price it so you won't want to. But, they also count on the fact that if they're going to, why not make a but-load of money while doing it? (And people praise them over AT&T..)
But, T-mobile is ultimately where the other post-paid carriers WILL wind up.. it's not quite the EU model because you simply can't just go from carrier to carrier here, but the way you buy your handset here is going to start being slightly more modeled after these other countries. We've already seen some of the grumbling with the fighting of the ETF fee, which quite honestly, for the most part, is 100% legit. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Are you attempting to suggest that consumers in the US will eventually pay full price up front for their devices? If so, I disagree. The option may exist in lieu of a contract, but I don't foresee much more than that. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | How can you even assume that's what I'm suggesting? lol
Where did I even say that? I clearly pointed to the T-mobile model as "the future"... As it already stands, consumer groups are attacking the ETF fee, wrongfully in my opinion, as a "bad thing"... the writing IS on the wall in that case alone that if the ETF fee ultimately is torn down, yes, you will pay full price up front for phones. It really is a fine line to say that it's where I THINK it WILL go, more so than if the ETF fee is attacked, which is tied directly to the hardware, that it's predictable that the industry would ultimately threaten that, to say the least.
You also say that "the option" may exist "in lieu of a contract" but you probably aren't realizing that it already does. There isn't a carrier out there where you can't walk in, now, and buy a phone out right and NOT be bound to a contract - that's why you have the 2-year price and "full retail price".. do you really think that people would skip the 2-year contract price, pay full retail, just because, AND still be in a contract?
I'm sorry to say, but your post is a classic example of mis-informed. Like I said, the option already exists, but people don't exercise it. T-mobile really does have a great game going on with how they price their phones vs plans. IF the ETF ever comes under full scale attack from the government, then yes, I believe, and am on record here as saying, that this IS the future.T-mobile is just up front about their pricing models and have already included their services plans as part of HOW they sell the HANDSET. Sprint, ATT, Verizon.. none of them change the price of your service plans based on how you pay for your phone.. it's just a matter of if you're stuck for 2 years with an ETF over your head or not. T-Mobile looks like a great deal, but in the end, if people wonder why their plans are so good and deals are awesome, it's because they've padded their model with some extra money - to the tune of $240 to $480 every two years.
The more I write this and the more I reflect on this AND what I've said in the past.. yea, I actually do believe that the consumer will ultimately pay full price up front for their phones.. why do I say that? .. because the consumers (the noisy idiots who don't realize what they ask for**) are pushing themselves into that. There is a factor still, that is if they attack the ETF fee and say that their "choices" are being taken away from them.. the carriers would ultimately say "fine! Buy your phone out right and do as you please".. the carriers really don't want this, but that would be an ultimate path for them. They'd keep their customers based on the principle of initial investment by the consumer into the handset.
Learn from history to see the future. To forget or have history erased is only a recipe for mistakes to be repeated.
** same thing happened with ISPs and the move towards capping customers. The more customers demanded to know the invisible cap, it was defined.. a few people who actually cared pushed the issue and they raised a mess for the 95% of consumers that quite frankly didn't care, nor were affected by it. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | said by fiberguy:How can you even assume that's what I'm suggesting? lol My apologies, but I was having a difficult time following your post.said by fiberguy:but you probably aren't realizing that it already does. Of course I realize the option exists.said by fiberguy:do you really think that people would skip the 2-year contract price, pay full retail, just because, AND still be in a contract? Of course not, but I also don't believe a vast majority of consumers are willing to pay full price for a device, just to avoid a contract.said by fiberguy:I'm sorry to say, but your post is a classic example of mis-informed. Easy there Tex. I'm not disputing the availability of full price, contract free options. My point is that discounted devices will remain an option and most consumers don't want to pay full price, regardless of contract requirements. The ETF will never disappear. Its restrictions may change, but most carriers have already changed their ETFs so I don't see the ETF being an issue. |
|
