skillissuerJun 28, 2024
is that some american problem i’m too euro to understand? we got rid of this anticompetitive shit in early 10s
Show threadnooneescapesthelawJun 28, 2024

I don’t really see why people are against it, personally I never buy locked devices but they are usually a chunk cheaper and there is always an option for a locked device.

If telecoms were making certain phones exclusively locked (as in not selling unlocked phones) it would be a problem. But rn it seems that it is an easy way to save money if you like a carrier.

Show threadskillissuerJun 28, 2024

okay but you end up paying more - if it was just normal data plan and cost of phone it would be even, but there’s also something paid to middleman that provides something that is effectively credit and extortion services like simlock and some legal thingies, it might have smaller downpayment but it’s not this, see also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory

this is on top of various security and privacy implications of using a phone which you can’t legally reflash

Boots theory - Wikipedia

Show threadnooneescapesthelaw

Boots theory doesn’t really apply because it is the exact same phone/hardware. Plus most people don’t really care about reflashing their phone.

As for the privacy stuff I don’t really know much about it in the context of locked phones so I’ll take your word for it.

Jun 28, 2024 at 7:04pmWeb
Show threadn2burnsJun 28, 2024
I think it’s more of a corollary that phone companies can incentivize people to buy more than they need. I live in Canada, where carrier locks have been outlawed for a decade, so we don’t typically get $100s off the phone, but they do often give interest free financing. This pushes people to get a brand new, top-of-the-line Galaxy or iPhone, when all they do is simple stuff that any basic smartphone could do. They just get used to paying “only an extra $50/mo” so once that phone is paid off, they finance a brand new, top-of-the-line smartphone.