• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Unlocking smartphones without permission illegal in US after 01/25/13

too bad vinyl and car stereos don't mix. although i think one company did attempt it

1960recordplayer_zps39ed9ba8.jpg
 
You're making me nostalgic. *sigh* I don't even have a turntable any more, but my albums are still in pristine condition. I'm kind of obsessive about taking care of stuff.
I still buy new stuff on vinyl, I also buy CDs and burn them onto my PC.
 
Wow, I just looked back in on this thread after a couple of days. What a turn this conversation has taken! Now I have to go back and see how it got here. lol
 
I always hear carriers claiming that they subsidize the cost of the phone, but really, I've never seen and hard proof of this. I do know that when I travel to 3rd world markets more often than not the same phones are substantially cheaper as someone living in say the Philippines making $100 mo. can't afford a $300-$500 phone.

I think this new law SUCKS and hopefully consumer groups will sue to change it. To me, whining about the software licensing is just a way for the carriers to cover their tracks in their quest for profits and control over our handsets. Frankly, I don't want any of the bloatware they put on my phone to start with, so they can take their licensing claims and shove it.......

DW
 
There are now turntables that can record to mp3. I'm not sure if they can correct the hiss and pop you get on recording.

You can get turntables with a pre-amp and/or USB, that just plug straight into a PC. Most likely they come with an audio mastering, editing and encoding suite, something like Audacity.
 
I always hear carriers claiming that they subsidize the cost of the phone, but really, I've never seen and hard proof of this.

All I can say is if you buy a phone without a contract, it is more costly than with a contract. Lots of phones available for free that can cost you hundreds if you do not purchase a 2-year contract. You might not pay hundreds upfront, but you do end up paying for the phone one way or another.

Sure seems like a subsidy to me.

If there were no subsidy, sales would likely slow if we had to pay full boat for the phone upfront.

That said, we end up paying for the phone via our bills and escaping them is also costly.

That said, if carriers sold us the phone upfront without the subsidy, the costs would be cheaper than the phones they sell off contract (sometimes, $700.00 or more) currently.

That said, our costly bills would be more because the phone company wants money and they know we will pay for our phones.
 
I always hear carriers claiming that they subsidize the cost of the phone, but really, I've never seen and hard proof of this. I do know that when I travel to 3rd world markets more often than not the same phones are substantially cheaper as someone living in say the Philippines making $100 mo. can't afford a $300-$500 phone.

I agree about the phone costs. I think those prices are absurd. Take the NExus 7 for example. It has a 7 inch screen, QUAD CORE processor, bluetooth radio, and WiFi radio. The only difference between this and a phone is the addition of two, maybe three radios. Now I must admit that I have no idea how much a CDMA 3G radio costs, but that technology hasn't changed in a LOOOOOONG time. How much could they possibly be? SO what about Wimax, or LTE? Both of these are newer, but again, I suspect the radio doesn't cost hundreds and hundreds of dollars.

So how do we get from a $200 Nexus 7 to a $700 Galaxy S3? That's $500 more for a phone with a smaller screen, dual core processor, and a couple of extra radios. Oh, and an 8MP camera with a cheap lens, and a terriblly small sensor. I almost forgot about that :rolleyes:

Does this add up? IMHO it doesn't...but again, it's not about fair markups. This is about capitalism and free market. So they can charge $1200 if they want, or whatever. I'm just pointing out that $700 for a phone off contract is utter BS...though my opinion doesn't really count for anything.

As long as every manufacturer does it, the consumer is screwed.
 
Google is probably losing money on every nexus device they sell.

That isn't really a good comparison because Google is just trying to get more users on android because they get money from people being on it. Samsung only makes money on selling the device
 
^^^

asus is the maker of the N7... and they will need to make $$$ on each device.
Google may not want to make $ on the device, but google did not make the device.

so asus can make the N7 and make a profit on it...at $200.
then give the S3 another $150 for the extra stuff.. that is $350.
then the carriers are getting the device at about $350... then subsidizing it, and selling it for $200 with a 2 yr contract.

in theory the carrier is subsidizing only about $150.. but they raise the service month cost by a huge margin (comparing prepaid cost, where you own your own device).. for 2 yrs!!!! there is something uneven here...
 
Google is probably losing money on every nexus device they sell.

That isn't really a good comparison because Google is just trying to get more users on android because they get money from people being on it. Samsung only makes money on selling the device

OK, I'll play along.

What about the Samsung Galaxy Tab? $200 with 7" screen...only dual core, but it's older. Pick any tablet in the $300 price range, it it will likely compare to the Galaxy S3 or surpass it...and the main difference is the lack of cellular radios. Are the cellular radios really that expensive? Maybe they are, I don't know...

My main point is that the numbers seem fudged. I am not questioning their right to fudge the numbers...just claiming that they are fudged.
 
if phones were not subsidized the cell phone customer would be the same type who had one in the 1980s...you know, super-expensive phones, $4 per-minute rates and all that stuff. subsidies are the reason that average Joes can even have cell phones, cheap laptops, even HDTVs. some are part of a contract deal and others just make things appear cheap by either outsourcing or offsetting the cost in taxes
 
OK, I'll play along.

What about the Samsung Galaxy Tab? $200 with 7" screen...only dual core, but it's older. Pick any tablet in the $300 price range, it it will likely compare to the Galaxy S3 or surpass it...and the main difference is the lack of cellular radios. Are the cellular radios really that expensive? Maybe they are, I don't know...

My main point is that the numbers seem fudged. I am not questioning their right to fudge the numbers...just claiming that they are fudged.

I think a good example is the Apple iPhone vs the Apple iPod Touch. They're pretty much the same thing, except one has cellular radios and one doesn't. However there's probably around a $300-$400 USD price difference between the two, if you're paying the full unsubsidised price for an iPhone. There's no way cellular radios really can cost that much, simply because of all the low cost cell-phones out there. Some of which are as little as $20 now, and that's an unsubsidised price.
 
FCC to investigate ban on 'unlocking' cellphones

latimes.com

By Salvador Rodriguez

10:00 AM PST, March 1, 2013

The Federal Communications Commission will investigate a recent ban on the practice of consumers "unlocking" their mobile phones.

The ban went into effect in late January and keeps consumers from unlocking their phones without the permission of the carrier from whom they purchased the device. Previously, consumers unlocked their phones in order to use the device with a different carrier. Now, they face possible legal action if they unlock their device without carrier permission.

The
 
“It’s something that we will look at at the FCC to see if we can and should enable consumers to use unlocked phones,” he said, according to the report.

i am concerned about that statement.
 
Back
Top Bottom