View Single Post
danramos's Avatar
Posts: 4,672 | Thanked: 5,455 times | Joined on Jul 2008 @ Springfield, MA, USA
#17
Originally Posted by ysss View Post
It's interesting how they have to broadcast this fact now. I guess all carrier negotiations have ceased already and they're hoping to rally the interwebs to do some word of mouth marketing with "open platform vs carrier cartels" mantra of some sort.
But the carriers are arguing that you, the customers, are clamoring for them to subsidize and promote locked phones to promote innovation that otherwise would never happen without such locks and contracts.

Originally Posted by krisse View Post
I can understand why you say that but it's ultimately really dumb on the part of the networks and the government regulators.

When did you last have a PC rejected by your ISP because the ISP couldn't pre-install its own menus?

The networks are treating their customers like cattle here.
It's not dumb on their part. It's quite brilliant. What company doesn't want a captive customer base? It may be unethical and it may, in fact, be socially useless and maybe even harmful.. but it's certainly not dumb.

The dumb are the customers that are defending subsidization and contracts in the name of some bizarre form of the free market that I don't understand.

Originally Posted by cesman View Post
So, does this mean? Don't expect a carrier to subsidize the N900 or don't expect to be able to connect an unlocked N900 to a network? I can care less about subsidies... I have an N800 and a company cell phone. The N900 looks like a great integrated device combining all I want/need in a "mobile computer"! All I need is word from my company saying I can purchase my own phone and expense the monthly bill and I'm buying an N900. That is if I can get it hooked to a network (T-Mobile).
I'd rather get an N900 and just tether with a teeny little flipphone. Give.. me.. that. Subsidizing is silly.. ultimately, you'll pay more in the end for that phone.