Slashdot Mirror
Unlocked iPhones in US For $649
Endoflow2010 writes "Apple on Tuesday started selling an unlocked version of its iPhone 4, starting at $649. A 16GB unlocked iPhone 4 will set you back $649, while a 32GB version is selling for $749. Both are available in black or white; the black will ship within one to three business days, while the white is available in three to five days, according to the Apple Web site. The benefit of an unlocked phone is that you are not locked into a two-year contract with a particular provider. But it also means that you don't get the subsidized pricing provided by someone like AT&T or Verizon. The same phones with a contract cost $199 and $299."
The data plan will cost the same as buying it on a contract. Only TMobile gives a $10 discount. The govt should make this practice illegal like it's done in the EU.
This space for rent.
So, knowing better than to waste my time, I called AT&T today and, as expected, "Apple still doesn't allow us to unlock iPhones." Anyone have a clue if this policy is ever going away?
Freedom isn't free.
It costs a hefty fucking fee.
That's right freedom costs a buck 'o five.
Well, in this case, it costs $450.
than in the UK: http://store.apple.com/uk/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?mco=MTAyNTQzMjI
Most of the "subsidized price" discount is never directly paid but instead offered as a small take on the monthly contract. Apple sees this as a way to get a more direct cash flow bonus while letting those willing to buy them take their chances getting them hooked up to AT&T or Verizon since I'm fairly sure the GSM antenna doesn't support T-Mobile's frequency though I may be wrong. All this really points to is that Apple is definitively a manufacturer and wishes to remain that way.
I knew there was a good reason why I still use a dumb phone.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Apple not allowing unlocking is a load of nonsense. All across the world there are multiple careers who offer unlocking of iPhones, so obviously Apple is not the culprit, but rather AT&T is. There are some countries where multiple careers offer iPhones and in these places you will find iPhones unlockable through a particular service provider, while another tries to lock you in by not offering that service.
Here in Germany, I had T-Mobile unlock all my iPhones thus far after the contract expires or is terminated. It is nothing but the absolute greed of AT&T that stops them from asking Apple for unlocks.
Apple has nothing to lose with a carrier asking them to unlock an iPhone. The carrier, AT&T, does. Do your own math on who is more likely to be responsible.
We've had unlocked iPhones here in Canada for ages, I don't see why this is big news now. Only $10 more (funny considering our dollar is worth more)
In other news: Get off my lawn!
The US catches up to other parts of the world.
Unlocked iPhones have been available from Apple here in the UK for years.
Then you have a choice of phone/data plans from many different carriers who all (surprise, surprise) all use the same phone technology. No CDMA/GSM wars here!
Outrageous is 16gb for $100. SD Cards are too mainstream.
Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
If you really want something that runs iOS, then get an iPad2 with Wi-fi+3G, then get a cheap phone. The iPhone has become very unattractive, as of late, and it is not getting any better. You can spend another $100 and get a much bigger screen and 64GB of storage.
I really do not understand unsubsidized prices of phone anymore. Back when equipment was actually expensive, sure, fine. This is 2011, the technology is rather old, and either Qualcomm is causing the ridiculous prices on the cellular boards, or the phone manufacturers and the cellular corporations are simply looking to make more money off of the uncertainty of whether or not the phones will get activated.
I would also ditch AT&T, while everyone is at it, and go to Verizon. At least Verizon treats its customers marginally better.
Why is it that everyone talks about this subsidizing? When I bought my Nexus One, AT&T didn't offer me a break because I paid full price on my phone. There is no discount at all, there is no subsidizing in this equation. The only down side to buying a phone with contract is the contract life itself.
AT&T is actually not bad about unlocking phones. They do all their other phones after (IIRC) 6 months in good standing.
But it is on them to tell Apple to unlock, not the other way around. As I understand it, the iPhone asks the Apple server on activation whether it should be locked or not - but AT&T can tell Apple to change the flag and they'll do it, based on the fact that, well, they do in other countries.
So it's very weird.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
So will AT&T unlock our iPhones like thry do ther phones. I think the reason they had is now gone.
There are some countries where you can buy an unlocked iPhone by buying it directly from Apple instead of from a carrier.... Canada is one of them, and the Canadian version most definitely will work with ATT (since it works on Telus, Bell, and Rogers, who all use the same technology and frequencies as ATT).... of course, I ended up buying an LG phone for half the price with more features. :)
From TFA:
"Get all the features of iPhone 4—FaceTime video calling, Retina display, HD video recording, and more—in a phone that you can activate and use on the supported GSM wireless carrier of your choice, such as AT&T in the United States," Apple said in a note. "If you don't want a multiyear service contract or if you prefer to use a local carrier when traveling abroad, the unlocked iPhone 4 is the best choice."
So as an American, you either need to be someone who wants to spend $649 on a smartphone but intends to use it for less than 2 years (perhaps, planning on moving to the moon?) or you need to be someone who is so frequently overseas that you have your own overseas SIM and would like to be able to switch between networks with ease. How many people is that? Any hands in the slashdot crowd?
Just where do you expect to find a pay phone?
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
The release cycle of iPhones has been pretty much around once a year. How did you end up buying a new one every 6 months? Also, why not just wait rather than have the latest greatest immediately? Lastly, no one tells you to buy an iPhone 4 now. But, at least for those who would like an unlocked iPhone in the US, there is a simple option rather than getting one off eBay or from Canada.
Strong agree. Apple has everything to gain by allowing iPhones to be unlocked: it makes their product more attractive. "Apple doesn't allow us" is pure BS.
Considering that you can buy a 32GB ipod touch for $300, an extra $450 to add phone functionality seems really steep. But they're looking to maximize their profits, so I guess they figure that someone will pay it.
It isn't quite so simple. This is a common argument (especially from republicans) but it relies on an actual free market. Cellular phone carriers do not qualify in the US, because they have government-enforced monopolies* on the spectrum that the cell phones use. They use that power to force unfair pricing strategies on the consumer. Usually they do this while saying that they are striving to lower prices for the consumer. They are lying.
* Actually a duo-opoly, with ATT and Verizon sharing the exclusive access. The reason they don't have to compete is because they don't share phone technology. EDGE, HSPA, EV-DO, LTE, etc. Users of one network can't take their business elsewhere.
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
Maybe there's an app for finding nearby pay phones... And anyway, it's not a phone. It's a great pocket computer with a built-in phone app.
don't panic-- clowns can smell fear.
I bought unlocked iphones for wife and I because she doesn't want a data plan or caller-ID, and I don't want things like voice mail, call waiting, visual voice mail, etc etc... So we pick and choose our features instead of being tied to our providers' "iphone plan"... Our total monthly bill is about half what it would be if we went on-contract for a subsidized phone... Over 3 years (minimum contract period for an iphone here in Canada), we save far far more than the difference between the subsidized and full price of the phone... The very few times that my wife wants to check her e-mail is when we're out at the cottage and I'm with her. I turn on 'personal hotspot' for her and she checks her mail...
Not everyone uses their phone the way the carriers want them to.
Nonsense - my carrier (ie, not in the US) will quite happily unlock an iPhone. That Apple would prevent it is just not accurate, unless they have some strange carrier-specific terms in the US. Given that it was AT&T doing the strong arming in that initial contract, perhaps that is the case. I get the sense that if they told you that it was down to Apple, their collective nose is now growing.
D'oh! That's what happens when you don't sleep enough.
Considering the spectrum these phones use is PUBLIC PROPERTY that is leased to the telecoms, the 'govt' wont be getting out of telecom regulations anytime soon. You do realize it is impossible to have a fair and reasonable marketplace of any kind without 'govt', right?
Good-bye
I'm not sure I understand what the advantage to unlocking a US-based iPhone is. The only GSM providers are AT&T and T-mobile, right? And isn't T-mobile on a different frequency band or something. So you unlock your phone, and your choices are... AT&T. I guess I could see it if you were doing a lot of international travel, but for those of us primarily staying in the US, I don't see the appeal. Or do I have the technical details wrong?
Apple should price their stuff at whatever the market will bear
The discussion isn't about Apple's pricing, it is about the carrier's contracts.
The govt should stay the fuck out of the free market
2) It isn't a free market. The carriers are government-created monopolies and the prices are fixed.
Apple would prohibit you from putting it on the App Store and then sell it to you themselves in six months or bundle it with the next release of IOS.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
There is nothing wrong with the pricing that I can see. Apple can charge what they like. And the cellular providers can charge what they like, clearly they are giving a discount to be tied into a contract.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with this and I see no reason for government interference.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
For a change I agree with an AC spouting "free market!". Even though the telephony market is contracting and will soon be a duopoly in the states. Unless you believe a smart phone should be the common baseline for communications, that is. Unless you think it's impossible to support yourself in any way without a smartphone.
And even if a smartphone is necessary to live (ha!), Boost mobile (for example) has non-contract Android service, IIRC.
Unless cell becomes the only way, until Apple and the big carriers hold an abusive monopoly on service, companies should be free to price themselves out of the market, and idiots should be free to spend their money on luxury goods. The government should only get involved when you are dealing with non-luxury items, if then.
Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
Freedom is another word for nothing left to lose (Janis Joplin)
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
I sure hope that your comment comes with a deep dose of sarcasm because Apple has offered unlocked iPhones outside the US much before Google stepped into the phone scene with the Nexus. The US is pretty much one of the last to get officially unlocked iPhones purchasable from Apple.
The 32 gb iPod Touch is basically the same device and only costs $300. The iPod lacks a modem, GPS and camera, but that hardly accounts count for the extra $450.
The only possible difference between the Canadian iPhone and the AT&T iphone is the language and locale settings. In all other respects, every iPhone except the Verizon one is the same hardware all over the world.
You're paying $70 a month for fees because at least half of this are installments for the price of the phone and the remaining fees for the actual service are artificially high because there's no real competition in the US.
$70 a month... Elsewhere in the developed world you can keep a whole family using smartphones including data and tethering for that kind of money. "Bring your own phone and pick one of half a dozen carriers with dozens of plans and switch to another one at will" is a market. What the US has isn't a market.
You should see the prices for unlocked top-tier Android phones!
Kris Kristofferson, actually.
It's a great pocket computer with a built-in phone app.
Very true. The bit I can't get my head around is why that phone app (plus maybe $50 worth of 3G hardware) adds $450 to the cost of an otherwise equivalent pocket computer, retailing from Apple for $299.
I think there's an App for that.
The original problem is that if you buy a subsidized phone, and I don't, but we both sign up for 2 year contracts, our contracts cost the same. So why, if I buy the phone for full price, isn't the contract less expensive then?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
This is about $100-$150 cheaper than equivalent iphone here in Egypt.
Durr hurr... I bet they'd also eat his children, too. lol!
There's absolutely no reason Apple wouldn't allow a payphone finder on the App Store.
I am kind of amazed that Apple's U.S. enterprise/corporate customers have put up with locked phones for so long. I remember some previous models were available unlocked (or at least contractless -- I forget the details). But the majority of the iPhone timeline these phones have required a contract and a phone number. I have worked for two different iOS dev shops, and in each case it was either a complete PITA to get devices, or the devs/qa just used their personal devices because there was no other effective way of getting hardware from a corporate procurement point of view. The provisioning has improved over the years, but getting an actual device has been probably the biggest pain in doing corporate iOS work. Hopefully this will make that situation better.
There aint no pancake so thin it doesn't have two sides.
So you work in a job that requires you to have a smartphone but doesn't provide it, and if you are self employed you 'absolutely' need one but can't write it off, and it MUST be an iPhone?
I call bullshit.
Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
First, this isn't about Apple (they can charge whatever they want for all I care). It's about the cell telcos.
I'm a huge free market person, but the problem here is a classic case where the free market simply doesn't work. The cell telcos require access to a finite public resource to even go into business (and that business is protected by the gov - trying putting up your own cell tower at typical cell freq and see how long it takes for you to be shut down). Part of giving/leasing the telco a public resource means the public can put requirements on them to operate in certain ways.
So don't buy the phone for full price. That's like complaining there are different prices for a car for lease, vs payments, vs cash purchase. It's up to the manufacturer to set the price how they see fit. If you don't like it buy something else, send a complaint letter, whatever. Don't go whining to the government because you think it is unfair.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
'Outrageous is 16gb for $100. SD Cards are too mainstream.'
I suppose component cost has almost nothing to do with it. The 32Gb iPod Touch goes for $299. Sure, the iPhone costs more to make, but $450 more..? They charge whatever they can get away with charging, and the 32Gb phone is the 'premium' model.
Of course since it is not subsidized they will be lowering my monthly rate, right? .....right?
Yea, but her version was more popular
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Actually I agree with AC (and I'm no Rebublican)
There is nothing wrong with the pricing that I can see. Apple can charge what they like. And the cellular providers can charge what they like, clearly they are giving a discount to be tied into a contract.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with this and I see no reason for government interference.
While there might be strong need for government interference, the 2-year-contract slows change in the market. People who sign up for a phone plan today are not on the market (as potential customers) for 2 years. This means that for any given month, maybe ~4% of the market is capable of changing carriers (not counting seasonal variance, pending releases, or people who don't renew). In a contract-free market, one carrier could over-turn the market in months if they came out with either a new feature or better price model. Here, such a shift is next to impossible (why else did AT&T wait 18 months after the iPhone 3G came out before they started network upgrades).
IMOH, there is collusion that needs to be stopped (SMS costs changing overnight at all major carriers isn't an accident) and phones shouldn't be locked to a carrier (effectively cripple-ware). If those changes are made, I think the market could take care of the rest.
Yeah I read it that way at first too, and then I remembered that this is Apple we are talking about.
Palm trees and 8
You're paying $70 a month for fees because at least half of this are installments for the price of the phone
And T-Mobile is honest about these fees. If you buy a phone up front and go into any T-Mobile store, they'll put you on the SIM-only plan for $10 (voice) or $20 (voice+data) per month less than the contract plan.
Wait... TOS Update coming shortly from the Jobsians in California.
It's official, Apple no prohibits Pay Phone finding apps. Kill switches have been initiated. In other news, Kids are now on the menu as well at the new Apple Space Center Cafe. They're called Soylent Green bites.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Would you please elaborate as to what makes "the iPhone [] much more than just an iPod touch with a cell phone"?
Small correction: Same technology, different frequency band.
Since it doesn't support T-Mo's 3G bands, there's not much point to it unless you'll be doing a lot of international travel. If it's only going to be fully functional on AT&T, you may as well go for the contract, since you won't be saving any money on service.
I have an unlocked iPhone 4, on T-Mobile's US service.
Edge is slow, but it's very reliable and doesn't use much power. Sure, I'd like to have 3G speed but I guess I'm not really missing it much since most everything works acceptably on Edge (no Youtube, but again I don't think I'm missing much there). I have had other 3G phones, and and I have a 3G iPad on AT&T, so it's not like I don't know the difference. The lower monthly cost and better customer service from T-Mobile outweighs the speed deficit for me.
The one advantage is that I can use the "Personal Hotspot" tethering feature on the iPhone to share the connection without incurring an additional $20/month charge as I would on AT&T. Phone service is already too expensive (and yes I get the irony that I'm talking about a $650 device).
Putting moderation advice in your
And in Europe, there are no government-enforced spectrum monopolies, right?
Europe uses limited bands, 900MHz and 1800MHz mostly, and 2100MHz for data, which makes it much easier to roam.
The European cell market is vastly different from the US market, so much so that comparisons are not very helpful. It seems, to me, that the cell industry in Europe is managed as a utility, including singificant regulation and interoperability. In the US, handoffs and network connections are the limit of interoperability, since we have GSM and CDMA networks overlaid. Roaming is also a tragic situatio in the US.
But to further inject the government into this is not just undesireable, it's probably unconstitutional. And it will not fix the GSM/CDMA chasm.
Now comparing the US market to any single national market in the EU makes marginally more sense. Still not bery useful though.
And, yes, AT&T and Verizon do in fact compete. Roughly every two years their customers have the opportunity to switch. My wife just went to AT&T since she can't get an iPhone to run 3G on T-Mobile's network. I'm staying on TMO cause I want an Android phone and AT&T has nothing that interests me enough to pay a little more each month. Yet. Ask me in 18 months or so when they eat TMO and I'm in for a new phone anyways.
And this brings me to my only true peeve about the US market. IF you bring your own phone, do you get a discount on service? Why not? they can't easily make the argument that Bell made for so long, that foreign equipment might disrupt the network, since they accept them, and you can buy the same damned phone elsewhere.
Why not?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I think he's referring to the experience of having Internet access almost anywhere you go. For me, the #1 use case of a smart phone is the ability to get walking directions. I am terrible at figuring out where I'm going, and being able to pull out Maps.app without WiFi and get directions is awesome.
I don't make a lot of calls, so I'm on a pay-as-you-go plan. This means - without hacking, anyway - my only smartphone option is an Android phone.
Now I've used iOS in the past (iPod Touch), and now that I've used Android for a while... frankly if I could get a reasonably priced (and supported on prepaid) iPhone I'd drop Android in a minute - but this price is ludicrous. I realize it's not top-end hardware, but my LG Thrive cost me $149.99 - that's with no contract! LG has managed to make a decent touchscreen phone with 3G, wi-fi, and GPS at this price point. Throw in another $60 for a 32GB microSD card, and I am still only out $210.
I really don't understand the price structure here - for this unlocked iPhone in particular, but even for the high-end Android phones. It can't be costing them that much to make the bloody devices.
#DeleteChrome
Nothing new here. You've been able to buy it directly from Apple at full price all along, and actually those prices are a little cheaper then when I did the comparison about 1.5 years ago when I bought my Nexus One - then the 32GB version was a whopping $799. Apple still makes you get a contract though - probably part of their data plan agreements, one of the reasons I didn't go for it (not to mention that aside from the SDD drive size, dual camera, and a few mm in dimensions, even the Nexus One is superior).
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Maybe you're subsidizing some bribes to Canadian politicians you didn't know about?
Yeah, but the rest of the world has sane patent law. In the US what he said wouldn't surprise me. I say everyone should sue for patent infringement as much as possible to show how very broken the system is.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I don't care that much about having an unlocked phone. I mostly want an unsubsidized phone. I'd like to buy a phone without the subsidy and then get a lower rate as a result, so that if I continue to use the phone after two years, I'm not continuing to pay the subsidy. The way it's set up now, you're wasting money with every monthly bill if you don't go buy a new phone as soon as you're able to.
I know where I'll be buying my next iPhone. Over here the pricing is as follows:
16GB = $949 NZD 32GB = $1129 NZD
Direct conversion USD -> NZD
16GB = $793 NZD 32GB = $915 NZD
sigs are like a box of chocolates, they all suck remove the underscores to email me
For many self-employed people some sort of cell phone is necessary. It wasn't true some time ago, but nowadays you often need to be able to answer the phone no matter where you are. It doesn't have to be an iPhone, but it does have to be signed up with a cell phone carrier.
This means that, as a practical necessity, many people need to sign a contract with one of a very few providers who use chunks of the electromagnetic spectrum allocated by the Federal government, in a clearly applicable use of the Interstate Commerce clause. Unregulating the EM spectrum would basically destroy its usefulness.
This means that the free market doesn't work. It's not possible to get a chunk of the EM spectrum allocated to you just because you want to move in on the big boys' territory, and a duopoly isn't that much better than a monopoly. (Consider US autos of the 1970s and later - Detroit basically fiddled with the chrome while non-US auto manufacturers prepared to clean their clocks.)
Ergo, since the market doesn't work in the status quo, and deregulation to increase competition (like that ever happens) is impossible, we need government regulation. Same as the electrical distribution system.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Yeah because that's worked out so well for the mobile phone consumers in the US.
Um... did you read the title? This story is announcing unlocked iPhone sales direct from Apple in the US.
To this "Selling an unlocked phone was Google's thing",
I have:
"Selling a phone was Apple's thing"
"Selling apps on app store was Apple's thing"
maybe even this "Selling notebooks was Apple's thing"
The irony here being that Google has actually used their kill switch, and Apple never has. But since Apple is supposed to be the evil one according to the nerds of slashdot...
The screen, the case, the camera quality, the speaker quality, the battery... If you remove strictly just those things that add cellular connectivity to the iPhone, you'll still be left with something better than an iPod touch.
No.
"For many self-employed people some sort of cell phone is necessary. It wasn't true some time ago, but nowadays you often need to be able to answer the phone no matter where you are. It doesn't have to be an iPhone, but it does have to be signed up with a cell phone carrier. "
Yes, perhaps - but if necessary, it can be written off. And you don't need to get a cell phone with a contract, and it doesn't have to be an iPhone, so I don't think that line of reasoning applies.
"This means that, as a practical necessity, many people need to sign a contract"
No. Contract-free phones are available and cheap. This thread was about unlocked phones having little effect on what is paid for access, while increasing what is paid for the phone. Even further, I do believe there are contract-free Android smartphones.
"This means that the free market doesn't work"
What most free marketeers call a 'free market' is more like an unfettered market. They take an extremist's view. That is NOT my view, however. From what I have seen, the free market works best when there are limits and regulations. Let businesses duke it out, sure - but keep them in the ring. Keep them from using knives and guns or other items that may harm the audience. Keep the audience from doing the same and harming the competition.
The free market works. Unfettered markets don't.
For an unfettered market to work,all things must be luxuries (consumers must be free not to buy), all transactions must be perfectly reversible (poisoning the water the land or air for a quick buck - or killing workers - must be 'fixable' for the same price or less as the profit made), and all markets must be infinite (labor must always be free to go get another job, for example). Having no regulation means that businesses in the course of maximizing profit will minimize competition. And when competition is marginalized or eliminated, there will be no motivation to improve or keep a lid on price, ultimately leading to economic disaster.
Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
The irony here being that Google has actually used their kill switch, and Apple never has. But since Apple is supposed to be the evil one according to the nerds of slashdot...
who says Apple is evil? I'm just waiting for them to release the Cent-i-pad... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdR7hCjQNwA Google is Evil, MSFT is Evil, foxconn is evil.. There are special places in hell for all of them.
The question for you is: "Cuddle Fish or Pudding?"
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Is there a way to buy this, and use on a cheap prepaid cell network without paying the data plan? I'm good with data only working in wifi mode. I'm just too cheap to pay today's data rates, don't feel the benefit warrants that kind of cash (for me at least), but would love to have the iPod and Apps. Basically replace my iPod touch and dumb phone combination with one device.
...but damn, tech stuff is cheap in the US compared to here in Europe. The 32GB model sells at the very least for $1107 here in Sweden .
-- I am the Monkey Guru.
I was going to get an iPhone until I started really looking at the prices. Ended up with an HTC Desire. Brilliant phone, does all I want and more. Phone was free on a 2 year £18 a month deal. Sweet. Makes $700 on a phone look frankly unhinged.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
Outrageous is that when you bring your own phone, the carrier still charges you the same price on the 'service'. If the 2 year contract is meant to amortize the subsidized phone price then why the fsck do I have to pay it for service when I bring my own phone?
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
The govt should stay the fuck out of the free market
A "free market" is inherently unstable and requires government intervention to enforce it. Perhaps you need to go take economics 101 before you talk about things you don't understand.
Not to mention that the phone carriers are renting space from the public and agree to terms that would let the government apply such rules. Or are you saying that the government shouldn't rent out public assets in the manner that best suits the public?
Learn to love Alaska
So don't buy the phone for full price.
The choice isn't there. You can't buy the phone at a reduced plan price from anyone but AT&T.
Don't go whining to the government because you think it is unfair.
It's illegal in the US to abuse your monopoly status. The phone carriers are, by definition a monopoly (even if the particulars of their monopoly is limited), and they gained their monopoly status from the government selling it to them. It seems reasonable that a condition of sale of public access be such that improves the state of the public.
Learn to love Alaska
Contract-free phones are available and cheap. This thread was about unlocked phones having little effect on what is paid for access, while increasing what is paid for the phone. Even further, I do believe there are contract-free Android smartphones.
And, when you are done getting that phone, you will be paying for the contract discount for others because there is no discount for providing your own phone.
For that reason, every 2 years, I'd get a new phone. I would then keep that phone until the next renewal. When I had one working phone and one backup, the others would go to the womans shelter. They are charging me for the phone anyway, so I'll make them give me one. Even if I bought my own unlocked iPhone to run on their network, I'd still get their free phone because I want something from them for the extra cost they refuse to discount me.
It's silly, and it's stupid, but that's the way phones work in the US. There is no monthly option that charges you less when you bring your own phone or are on a monthly payment plan (not counting pre-pay and ignoring the only major carrier, t-mobile, that gives a $10 discount for having your own phone).
Learn to love Alaska
A non-jailbroken phone isn't exactly DRM, it's not about copy-protection. And as for Apple DRM, they're the ones who removed it from iTunes music and offer the RIAA-approved amnesty program with iTunes match.
I agree. My iPhone (not a v4, sadly) costs me about $15 a month in service fees.
Learn to love Alaska
I had a 3G iphone with Rogers in Canada. Contract term was up and the phone is mine. Can i just plop a VirginMobile SIM and change providers? Nope. Rogers will charge $50 for unlocking *MY* iphone.
Had to jailbreak it and unlock it with ultrasnow. am on prepaid plan for a lot less than what rogers offered. Don't need the latest and greatest phone model. Comes in handy when i go to the us and use a prepaid plan down there.
If i ever buy another phone i will only by unlocked.
Wearing pants should always be optional.
The secret password to get the SIM-only plan from a T-Mobile sales rep is "Even More Plus". It's no longer offered online, but it's still offered in stores.
Oh, no, the app store thing isn't relevant. Because Google calls it a Marketplace. That makes it totally different.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Aren't the screen and the speakers the same between the iPod touch and the iPhone?
Learn to love Alaska
Funnily enough, despite the prices of Apple products being higher in euros than they are in dollars (even though the dollar is barely 0.7 euro), it will be cheaper to import an unlocked one from Europe.
Because, believe it or not, but in most European countries, tie-in sale is forbidden by law (though an exclusivity period of up to six months is allowed).
So Verizon users still need to buy it from Verizon instead.
Of course, Verizon users are used to that...
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I'm not talking about the terminology here but the concept of having a marketplace to sell apps. That said, again am not very sure if that was an 'apple concept' but it was definitely noted by Google.
I myself am not against such kind of copying by these firms (as long as the patents aren't infringed) 'cause they tend to be more competitive, making the consumer have more choices to choose from.
It's a great pocket computer with a built-in phone app.
Very true. The bit I can't get my head around is why that phone app (plus maybe $50 worth of 3G hardware) adds $450 to the cost of an otherwise equivalent pocket computer, retailing from Apple for $299.
One chip and a helluva lot of FCC testing.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
"And, when you are done getting that phone, you will be paying for the contract discount for others because there is no discount for providing your own phone."
*shrug* So? The non-contract plans are still cheap and available with varied terms and prices and usable with advanced phones. There are even plans for seniors and those on fixed incomes that provide 911 service and a small amount of minutes for free (carriers are required to subsidize) What more should the government do? I just don't think this is any reason for 'action'.
Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
There are even plans for seniors and those on fixed incomes that provide 911 service and a small amount of minutes for free (carriers are required to subsidize) What more should the government do?
A phone with no plan is required by law to still call 911. And I'm unclear. Apparently you are the only person I've ever met who thinks the government is doing exactly the right amount of regulation. You think there should be no more and no less than there is today?
Learn to love Alaska
The cell phone market in the US is not a "free market" at all.
That's monopoly pricing in this case, not free market pricing.
Cell phone service in Europe is much closer to a free market: any phone works on any carrier and you are usually not locked into contracts anymore. As a result, voice and data cost a fraction of what they cost in the US, and phones are cheaper too.
ipod touch: screen is still "retina" resolution, but it's not the same quality. The camera is not as good as the iphone 4's. There are probably other subtle differences... the iphone 4 is top of the line, the ipod touch has various parts swapped out so that it can be cheaper.
don't panic-- clowns can smell fear.
There is a discount, since you can use non-contract prepaid phones, as was stated.
In my city there's a shop that is basicly a drop box and service centre for phones sent by airmail out of Hong Kong which have never been anywhere near a carrier so have never been locked. There is probably one near you. That's how I got my Nokia N900 a few months before the carriers here eventually decided to bring it in yet also more than a year after it had been launched.
Telephone companies make used car salesmen look like saints.
There are plenty of places in Oz that get unlocked phones direct from Hong Kong. There's probably a place or two in NZ where some Chinese ex-pats are doing the same thing.
Not for regular monthly accounts, as was stated.
Learn to love Alaska
Dear Steve,
Can you please explain why an unlocked 16GB iP4 retails for $649 in the US yet the IDENTICAL unlocked phone retails for US$918 (AUD$849) in Australia?
Kind regards,
Ass-fucked Australian.
The choice isn't there. You can't buy the phone at a reduced plan price from anyone but AT&T.
Its there or it isn't. If AT&T offers it then its there. If they are offering something other carriers do not then good for them, and why not get it from them?
It's illegal in the US to abuse your monopoly status. The phone carriers are, by definition a monopoly
How can multiple companies be a monopoly? Where I am I have the choice of three national carriers, then maybe a handful of smaller ones. How is this a monopoly?
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
How can multiple companies be a monopoly?
Through collusion, they operate as an oligopoly, and they do have specific monopolies over specific public resources (none of the others get to use AT&T's frequencies or vice versa).
Learn to love Alaska
"Would you like one or not" is a choice, but it is not choice in the obvious context at hand of being able to get that choice from anywhere else.
So because I can only get a Ford Explorer from Ford, Ford is then considered a monopoly?
Through collusion, they operate as an oligopoly, and they do have specific monopolies over specific public resources (none of the others get to use AT&T's frequencies or vice versa).
Collusion is illegal, but I doubt you'd be able to make it stick. If you think they are colluding, why not contact a lawyer and sue them? As for the public resources thing, these frequencies are licensed. Doling out frequencies to manage the airwaves is not a molopoly.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Apple has nothing to lose with a carrier asking them to unlock an iPhone.
not true. if you switch carriers and can't take your phone because it's locked, your new carrier (in the US, in a theoretical place where more than one GSM carrier offers the iPhone) will sell you a new iPhone and subsidize the cost, paying the subsidy to Apple.
1. sell iPhone through carrier 'a'
2. annoy customer into switching carriers
3. sell another iPhone through carrier 'b'
4. Apple Profit!
Ask Me About... The 80's!
Through collusion, they operate as an oligopoly, and they do have specific monopolies over specific
They cannot legally collude to fix prices, violation of the Antitrust act, and the feds would be all over them.
Well if you have to pay $70/month you're absolutely right! But I think the hope here is that carriers will now start to offer SIM-only plans that don't include contracted payment instalments for a phone.
I have an iPhone 4 (bought outright/unlocked for close to $1000 USD) and I'm lucky if my bill is more than $15 in a heavy-use month. Under $10 quite a few months. Provided the phone lasts me 2 years or so, that works out cheaper than the 'cheap up-front phone but expensive contracted plan' options like the ones you mention. Plus I can put other SIMs in it when I travel.
Remember, those plan prices you are quoting ~include repayments for the subsidised phone you got when you signed up~. That is, you're paying the $700 for the phone either way - either up front (phone unlocked), or via a component of the monthly contracted plan charge (phone locked). Now that Apple is selling unlocked iPhones in the US like they do everywhere else, carriers will hopefully start offering plans without the built-in phone repayments. The prices will then begin to look a lot more reasonable.
I agree that you'd be completely nuts to buy an unlocked phone and then put it on a $70/month plan that's designed to include phone repayments. You'd be buying TWO iPhones over the course of the 24 month contract (but only getting one, of course!). The good thing about this announcement is that it should hopefully open the door for carriers to introduce SIM-only plans in the US like have always existed in every other country. We can hope, at least... :)
Problem with that logic is that, if this was a free market, there would be no Boost or Virgin. Both are Sprint, and Sprint reps testified in front of congress that, if AT&T is allowed to buy T-mobile, Sprint will be next. Then you'll have a true duopoly, and prepaid cell service might go away all together...
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
So because I can only get a Ford Explorer from Ford, Ford is then considered a monopoly?
They are accorded a monopoly based on trademarks, copyright, and patents. So yes, Ford has a monopoly on Ford Explorers.
Collusion is illegal, but I doubt you'd be able to make it stick.
Yes, the colluding companies have gotten much better at making it legal, even with the effect being no different than the overt collusion that was the catalyst for the laws in question. But that doesn't make it any less collusion.
Learn to love Alaska
They cannot legally collude to fix prices,
That is correct, but that doesn't stop them.
Learn to love Alaska
its fact at the 199/299 price point apple made a killing off the hardware aka charging full price there was never any discounts. this is just straght up rapeing custmers that are not smart enough to jailbrake/unlock used phones. relly at this point i say go for webos those devices are unlocked from the factory they just need to get better hardware but there tabelit looks insanly cool.
they do that hear as well they like to screw you twice. you get a pently then a useless brick for a phone being its locked. they do this to sell phones relly being most people dont go threw the pain to hack and unlock there phone to use on another carrer they just buy a new phone.
for that kind of money i can buy mutch better things i need like a new tower hell a new gameing tower. any androide device unlocked possably 2 of them. or a badass tablet like a zoom. 600$ for a iphone is beyond stupid when it comes to cost being at 299 there where rakeing in the cash. just funny there saying your not getting a discount you never got in the first dammed place they where never sold at loss or even at cost.
They cannot legally collude to fix prices, violation of the Antitrust act, and the feds would be all over them.
They can't legally collude. What they can legally do is watch for one of their competitors to increase prices or reduce what you get for your money, then all independently copy that move. Guess what they do?
This is a common argument (especially from republicans)
If only. Republicans != fiscal conservatives; you won't get Gov. Huckabee making this argument.
The reason they don't have to compete is because they don't share phone technology. EDGE, HSPA, EV-DO, LTE, etc. Users of one network can't take their business elsewhere.
Huh? I've only once stayed with a carrier after my contract expired. The fact that the phone costs virtually nothing, which you want to make illegal, means that I have nothing forcing me to stay with a carrier.
* Actually a duo-opoly, with ATT and Verizon sharing the exclusive access.
Yeah, there's always that footnote whenever people claim the government *has* to step in because of monopoly.
The legitimate reason for regulation is when there are natural barriers to entry to the marketplace.
There is then some hand-waving where the original argument goes away and is replaced with, well, we have to regulate when there's a monopoly.
And then there is some more hand-waving and the claim becomes, well, okay, *techincally* there are a dozen competitors, but only X and Y have significant market share so they're a "duopoly."
But go back to the original claim: barriers to entry. There are dozens of carriers competing in the US, they may not be competing in the retail market, but they are competing. Whatever barriers to entry there are, they have cleared them and they could provide retail service just fine. I can call absolutely any carrier in the US from any other carrier's phone, that's a fact. I can email or text any smartphone from any other smartphone in the US, that's also a fact.
So claims that we need regulation based on the supposed monopoly are bunk.
Its the contract thats too expensive, the phone price is appropriate.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
I'm saying further government intervention in the market is unjustified. I do NOT think that knee-jerk 'deregulate' reactions are justified by this either.
Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
The choice isn't there. You can't buy the phone at a reduced plan price from anyone but AT&T.
I thought that the Verizon iPhone was subsidized, too...
Or, are you only considering the GSM iPhone?
No.
The tech specs on the screen and speakers listed on Apple's web site indicate identical performance. Unless you can point me to something that explains otherwise, I'd trust Apple over some anonymous Internet guy.
Learn to love Alaska
They are accorded a monopoly based on trademarks, copyright, and patents. So yes, Ford has a monopoly on Ford Explorers.
so with that logic, basically every product on the market is a monopoly. I dont think you know what a monopoly or competition is.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
You are the type to complain that a company with the monopoly on milk on the market doesn't have a monopoly even if they have a true monopoly because you could always buy your own cow or fly to Mexico to drink milk. As such, getting into a hairsplitting discussion on whether a real 100% monopoly was or wasn't one would be a waste of time.
When AT&T had a monopoly on iPhones (you could get them from AT&T and nowhere else) would you say they had a monopoly on iPhones? Or would you say that they didn't have a monopoly on iPhones because other smartphones are sufficiently similar to be a replacement? From your comments so far, it seems you would argue there is a replacement product. A milk monopoly wouldn't be a monopoly because you could always buy soy milk, and they are close enough for you, so they should be close enough for everyone...
Learn to love Alaska