this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
505 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

59612 readers
3052 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 148 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"Taking away peoples freedom is whats best for users! It's the American way!"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business 119 points 1 month ago (12 children)

So the story is 'if they have to be unlocked, we can't offer discounts on the phones'.

Okay fine but uh, the last time I used a post-paid subsidized phone, I signed a contract. That stipulated how much I'd pay for however many months, and what the early cancellation fee was, as well as what the required buy-out for the phone was if I left early.

In what way is that insufficient to ensure that a customer spends the money to justify the subsidy?

[–] Hegar@fedia.io 69 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's just a lie. I don't think it's meant to hold up to scrutiny, it's just meant to be repeated.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's exactly right. Users will have to purchase phones on credit like we do for every other major (and sometimes minor) purchase. This doesn't change the relationship between carriers and their customers at all. It only changes their accounting.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Anivia 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Bonus points: In Germany all phones come unlocked, regardless if you get them with a contract or not, and we still get much better discounts on the phones than in America.

Often times the total cost of the 24 month contract ends up being cheaper than buying the phone without a contract, so you essentially end up with a free phone plan

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago

Nono that wasn’t a service contract, it was a payment plan on the phone. And you can’t cancel the service until you pay off the phone.

It’s different…. Really….

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 83 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

"Narcissistic domestic abuser claims the exit doors that are locked from both sides are just for the protection of their spouse and its in their best interest to be secure"

[–] littletranspunk@lemmus.org 53 points 1 month ago (2 children)

For my past 3 phones I just bought straight from the manufacturer.

I recommend it and hope phone unlocking gets pushed through despite their whining

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I've done this almost from the very beginning (back in the 90s) and always had very small mobile communications costs because I could easilly change providers and plans and even do things like use a local SIM card whilst abroad to avoid roaming costs.

[–] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

I haven't financed a phone since 2008. I copped a fee for ending a 24 month contract a day early.

I just buy a cheap outright handset, flash a community ROM and avoid everything my telco offers past a $20 basic service. Handsets with community support go for years past what the manufacturers support.

[–] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 47 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Is there a technical term for when a company or corporation makes a statement that is a blatant bad faith argument like that?

If none exists, I'd call it "Corporate massturbation". Because they're trying to jerk everyone off.

Edit Here's another one: "Corporate Anal Ostriching." Because they're shoving their heads up their own asses

[–] Nutteman@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] Tenniswaffles@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 month ago

Not even close.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

It's always the same argument. "This objectively bad thing for consumers is actually good for consumers because it allows us to offer a lower price!"

No, dipshits, you are choosing to make your product shittier than necessary and charging customers to undo your shittery. That's not some external thing, it's something that you chose.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] secret300@lemmy.sdf.org 42 points 1 month ago

Locked phones should just be straight up illegal. It creates so much e-waste and is utterly ridiculous

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 35 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Missing in this thread, courts are not known for their technological literacy. So companies just lie to them. Like, all the time. This isn't meant to withstand consumer scrutiny.

[–] reksas@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

isnt lying to court felony?

[–] Chewget@lemm.ee 23 points 1 month ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah but you have to get caught lying. And the courts aren't very literate with tech and economic stuff. You'd basically need to create a memo that says, "lol we lied!"

[–] reksas@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

someone should try to inform relevant courts about technical things, no idea how but those corporations shouldnt be allowed to get away with crime

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

You'd be interested in groups like the EFF and Amicus briefs.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 35 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Locked phones are what led me into the rabbit hole of purchasing phones from manufacturer, since the carriers not only lock phones but hobble the OS.

It did mean understanding what was necessary for a phone to qualify for given carriers, but I can tech when I need to, and I tech for my friends when they need it.

In 2024, T Mobile and AT&T (and Verizon) have all demonstrated they do not engage in good faith commerce, and so right now they're being sniveling little shits (quote me please) because the FCC and DoC are escaping regulatory capture.

That is to say, the end users are tired of their shit. Apple and Google, too.

[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

My T-Mobile phone that's been unlocked and moved over to Google Fi has the T-Mobile image whenever you start up the phone. I'll only buy phones directly from the manufacturer now.

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 5 points 1 month ago

You'd have to flash new firmware for that to change. In the old days each phone was carrier specific and had to have the exact right firmware but now they're fairly generic and are cross compatible (do your own research). You could check XDA Developers for the process.

[–] EngineerGaming@feddit.nl 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

"Rabbit hole"? Isn't it as easy as just not going to a carrier's store for it?

We always bought from generic tech stores, almost always big chain ones - never got a carrier-locked device. Is it different in the US?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] scottmeme@sh.itjust.works 34 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Never buy a phone from your carrier, they will do some evil shit to try and force you to stay

[–] five82@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

It was probably incompetence more than malice but T-Mobile customer service incorrectly told me multiple times that I was not allowed to pay off my phone balance early to unlock it. I'm on US Mobile now and I'll never go back to postpaid.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago

With Deutsche Telekom, never attribute to incompetence that which can be attributed to greed.

[–] muculent@lemmy.world 28 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Near monopolies say monopolistic behavior is good for you and does not only benefit them. More bullshit at 11.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Eiri@lemmy.ca 25 points 1 month ago

What year is it? Locked devices have been illegal in Quebec for, like, ever.

[–] lnxtx@feddit.nl 24 points 1 month ago (2 children)

If they are good, why then the Europe ended that practice nearly 2 decades ago?

and behold all of the terrible consequences!

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago

They must hate freedom!!

[–] teleprintme@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If I don't own my phone, then I'm not paying for it. Period.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dessimbelackis@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] redwattlebird@lemmings.world 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] Pacattack57@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

That's such bullshit. Locked phones are like google accounts. At the end of the 2 years of owning it supposedly, you end up with all this shit you accumulated and no way to save it anywhere practically.

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Meanwhile Verizon has already been unlocking after 6 months

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

But if we unlock your phones from the start we lose control over you :( pwease

[–] Pacattack57@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

“T-Mobile claims that with a 60-day unlocking rule, "consumers risk losing access to the benefits of free or heavily subsidized handsets because the proposal would force providers to reduce the line-up of their most compelling handset offers."

I’m I stupid or are they threatening to arbitrarily raise prices for no reason other than spite?

Also wtf is a “handset”?

[–] Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
  1. "Handset" is obfuscating legalese to refer to a cell phone in a way intending to distance the meaning of the word from the thing that the old and technologically illiterate people who rule on this use every day.

  2. I'm no fan of their strategy, but cell phone providers have claimed for a long time that filling your phone with unremovable bloatware causes the overall price to decrease. Their argument is most likely that they will have to charge more once the propagators of that bloatware realize that they can no longer force it on people and wedge that as a reason to pay less to carriers.

  3. The reality is that cell phones are priced based on what people will buy anyway and carriers pocket as much of the money as they can that third parties pay them for their bloatware. Ultimately because of that this ruling hurts their bottom line, but the above reasoning gives plausible deniability in the face of the law as it is interpreted by old technologically illiterate lawmakers

[–] Shdwdrgn@mander.xyz 9 points 1 month ago (4 children)

It's weird to see T-mobile taking this stance. I switched to them years ago because they were one of the few that supported unlocked phones, and even offered them for sale. Their policies might have changed on this, but I just bought an unlocked phone off Ebay this Summer and all I needed to do was pop my sim card into the new device. Hell I had to specifically install the visual voicemail app because there wasn't any bloatware on the phone when I got it. So I guess I'm not following what their complaint is about?

[–] ozymandias117@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Every carrier lets you use an unlocked phone on their network

T-Mobile no longer lets you buy unlocked phones from them

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] eleitl@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I install alternative firmware, so no sale for you.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 month ago (2 children)

This is talking about carrier locked phones, not locked bootloaders.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 month ago

They shouldn't be locked at all. If the phone is included with the contract, it probably requires you to pay it off if you cancel early anyways.

[–] mlg@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

They aggressively buy spin off services to ensure a locked market as well.

Cricket wireless was a on AT&T network provider that outshined AT&T because it allowed any device + better prices.

So naturally they bought them out and shutdown the any allowed devices to force you into buying a carrier phone to ensure your device will be locked.

load more comments
view more: next ›