To paraphrase a common phrase I've seen around here: The "G" in "LTE" stands for "global".
It has been like this for several years and it’s great!
You can pay a pretty low monthly down payment over a period of 36 month.
As far as I’ve been able to tell, I don’t even have to enter into any binding contract for any phone plan to buy the phone this way. And even if I did have to do that the most they are allowed to bind me to is 12 months, by law.
Consumer protection laws in my country are fabulous :)
The "free" is just advertising and for people habituated to credit, it's a no-brainer. Pun intended.
I buy phones at full price, but in general the free/subsidized versions don't cost more. You just pay over time. For many people, it would even be worth it to pay somewhat more if they don't have the money to pay up front.
One downside though is that you're more likely to upgrade to features you don't need because "it's only an extra $5/6/10 per month". Gotta always consider the total cost.
merger conditions.
If you're using an iPhone, buy it from the Apple Store, full stop. No reason not to. If you need financing they have that (ACMI). They also sell older models refurb (like new condition) to save even more.
For a cheap Android (Revvl 60 or whatever), they'll just give you another cheap one next time you switch carriers, right? They are basically e-waste after a year or two and don't get updates.
And basically the only flagship Android widely sold in America is Samsung which is also sold DTC, albeit only online, and sometimes has promos for direct purchase? Maybe not as much financing tho. The other OEMs either don't sell in the US, or have some DTC presence too (ex. OnePlus).
I sometimes buy carrier locked phones when the unlock period is reasonable and the locked phone + the required service is a good deal compared to buying unlocked.
I don't think a 1 year locked period is reasonable though, unless it was locked to the carrier I actually intend to use.
When I graduated from college, a large majority of the recent graduates at my first job had new cars.
I still see this trend - young people with the latest iphone and/or new cars, and not worrying about being tied to payments.
I think this will happen... forever.
It would be my pleasure to announce to them that the terms of service dictate that the padlocks would never be removed, but the new subscription fees would be announced shortly.
It would be delicious to see such a delightful revenge sink deep into their lives.
Until such time, enjoy our esteem, you scoundrels!
If the phone is paid in full, what is the justification for not unlocking it?
In cases of fraud, it creates buffer time for the consumer who’s identity was stolen to notice and notify before the device disappears.
With smartphones however, the game has changed. Apple for example no longer locks their modems at all and instead rely on a software-level check as part of the "activation" process (at first boot where it also gets its client certificates/etc to talk to Apple services) - said activation policy can be changed remotely, and Apple are very cagey about their full capabilities. I have read of some vendors selling iPhones that would be unlocked at first but lock themselves to the first carrier they see.
It's unlikely Apple would ever enforce or change an activation policy on a phone purchased directly from them, so you should be safe. But technically, it's up to the phone manufacturer. I am not sure what the Android situation is in comparison.
(^1) I wish I wasn't so tempted after ~4 years, but the battery health has dropped to 75% and the performance has suffered dramatically. A new battery is on the table I suppose, but I am split between just putting that money towards a new phone.
Won't help with performance, but I've found that keeping bluetooth and location turned off lets me use the phone for the whole day without needing a recharge. Only thing that eats battery is video calls.
I'm part of the problem. But I won't be (as much) after I get a used one and put Graphene OS on it.
The fact that people pay over $100/month for a phone bill is truly a uniquely mind-boggling American thing.
(I wonder if this unlocking policy will retroactively apply to the locked Striaght Talk phone I bought back in October.)
The long locking-period is just a way to impose a stealthy and anti-competitive switching-cost onto consumers, denying them the right to use the things they own.
It's also an example of how just because one doesn't care about politics... doesn't mean it won't "care" about you.
> While the Biden-era FCC’s leadership criticized yearlong locking periods and proposed a 60-day unlocking requirement for all carriers, the Trump FCC appears likely to write a new industry-wide standard that would be welcomed by large mobile carriers.
If a carrier cannot trust you (especially due to bad credit history), they can't sell you the phone you want if you don't pay outright, and many people aren't able to do that. SIM locks are basically "repossessions but for phones." Nobody argues in good faith that banks shouldn't be allowed to evict you if you don't pay your mortgage, and that's effectively what a "no SIM locks" policy does for phones.
To make things even worse, it's far too easy for fraudsters to buy a phone using a stolen identity, never pay a single installment, and instantly sell it on the second-hand market. For SIM-locked phones, the carrier can brick the phone until it is fully paid of, so that kind of fraud is not possible.
Sim locks do enable some abuse, particularly around roaming fees, as you're not allowed to swap your SIM when leaving the country. However, They're a blunt tool unsuited to the 21st century internet-enabled smartphones. One could imagine a mechanism where the carrier is still allowed to brick the phone in case of fraud, but there's no actual SIM lock.