Originally Posted by volt

Okay, just checking if I get this right.

In Europe, we can get a cell phone cheap with an expensive subscription, or you can get the same cell phone mid-priced with a cheap subscription. With the cheapest subscriptions, they don't offer any "subsides" at all. Basically, you can get a $400 phone for $1 but then you have a subscription that is about $400 more expensive a year, than the optimal subscription.

Are you telling me that US carriers will give you the $400 phones "subsidized" at the same price regardless of what subscription you have? That there are no cheaper options?

Sounds like capitalism isn't working, if noone offers a barebone subscription with lower costs and lower monthly fees.

Originally Posted by drizek

I would, except for one snag: T Mobile.

This morning I found out that if you are on a high-price plan with Sprint(basically anything with data), they will allow you to change phones every year at the subsidized price.

The N900 is nicer than any phone out today, but is it nicer than the phones that will be out a year from now? With Zii on the way, I think the answer is no, so the decision is really tough.

Moreover, Sprints plans are just plain better than T Mobiles. TMo nickel and dimes you for every little thing and to get a reasonable plan with them it ends up costing quite a bit of money. Mobile to Mobile is free on most other carriers, but TMO charges $5 for it. Nights and weekends only start at 9, and they don't include the turn by turn navigation app like other carriers(although Nokia might, but they might charge for it). That said, Tmobile is better than ATT, so it could be worse.

Also, it is a really thick device, it might not be very pocketable. The Motorola sholes is remarkable in that it is only a couple millimeters thicker than the iPhone, and yet it has a bigger screen and a bigger battery than the n900.