Title is misleading. We are talking about an use case where a mobile phone bought from a bank/creditor on an installment plan can have it's features locked until payments are resumed.
Because I thought it meant that banks would be able to monitor/lock your phone, which they would presumably use as a prerequisite for installing their banking app. Basically millions of people who have no other way to remotely access banking services being forced to have their most personal details monitored by large financial institutions and allow those institutions to cut them off from their phones.
Then it seems that it means that if you buy something on an installment plan and stop paying, you lose the ability to use it to the full extent.
We can make an argument about a phone being necessary in the modern world, but the second scenario seems much less Orwellian than the first.
This implies to me, that you may have had a very different interpretation of the title, and I'm curious what it was.
I don’t know how you think that this is fine - it is not how financing works. You borrow the money to purchase the device, and go into debt with the lender. They don’t own the phone and shouldn’t have any kind of access to it - it is purely a financial dispute the moment you stop paying.
Do phone loans of this sort not function as collateralized loans? In such a loan, ownership reverts to the lender when payments aren't made, or perhaps several payments (depending on the contract).
Is that really the model you want here?
This device has complete access to your Google account, probably your photos, emails, maybe even credit cards. Smartphone has become such an important piece of personal computing that you want to buy one straight from the manufacturer or their authorized dealer and, since you're on HN, preferably with unlockable bootloader.
Very likely that's how they write the contract too. They may still sell it like "auto pilot" but the paperwork defines the actual contract.
While predatory, it's apparently acceptable in contracts.
When purchasing a phone on credit, you sign a contract which gives the lender certain rights they wouldn’t otherwise have. No “rights” are broken.
now if you complete the agreement then if becomes your device. however contracts which usually allow for remote control specify it very clearly.
What if they set it up as a "rent to own", where you can get to rent a phone for $x a month, and after N months you own it? Would it be ok to restrict functionality then?
I already avoid buying my phone hardware from my telco service provider, even if it means I have to pay more (for an unlocked product).
This is why I buy my handsets outright, not locked to a carrier (and also because of recent financial bad luck my credit rating is a total dumpster fire).
Plot twist: when you finish paying it off you still don’t really own it. You are just permitted to use it be the real owner all along, Google. Until they want paying in cash again, and they cut off your OS updates. “Nice phone you got, shame if it got a virus”.