Hacker News Reader

Comment by amluto | Hacker News Reader

I don’t understand the justification for 60 days or for carrier locks at all. If a phone company wants to impose a requirement that a phone will not operate at all if money is owed for its purchase and hasn’t been paid, then maybe I’d be okay with this. But for some reason carriers seem to think it makes sense to prevent, say, using dual SIM mode with their SIM and a second SIM from a different provider for 2 years or 45 days or 60 days or whatever. This makes no sense.

I’m also a bit surprised that Apple plays along with this. Apple surely has the market power to just say “sorry, no more carrier locks”.

View on HN

You cannot go to a AT&T store to buy a phone and then use it on tmobile’s network. That’s why there is a 60 day delay. For 60 days you pay AT&T for a service contract.

> You cannot go to a AT&T store to buy a phone and then use it on tmobile’s network.

Why not? You're paying them for the device. Why should they have a right to stop you using it how you want? Imagine if buying a car also came with a requirement to only use the dealership's petrol stations for the first year.

Because the devices AT&T sells are subsidized and come with a network contract.

You can go other places to buy unlocked phones.

I don't buy carrier-locked phones anymore, personally.

Generally they are sold at a discount, with the deal that they will make back the discount if you use their service. You can buy an unlocked phone new from the manufacturer but then you will pay full price.

Are they actually discounted? Where I am in Europe they don't do that anymore, it's usually cheaper to buy the phone from Amazon - if you can afford the up front cost.

Yes. Example: https://www.techradar.com/deals/the-iphone-13-is-now-free-at...

At least in the US, in July, for a Google pixel 8, through Verizon or AT&T, no. Buying a pixel 8 retail from best-buy or Amazon was $200 cheaper than either carrier, and both wanted to push financing instead of outright purchase. My experience (mostly with Verizon) has been that buying directly from the carrier has been more expensive in the last decade than buying the phone retail.

Because contracts that people sign when they buy a subsidized phone are not really enforceable. Folks will get a "free" phone and stop paying. There is not much that provider can do. The cars are valuable enough and when you stop paying your loan you will lose it pretty fast.

Why not? Because AT&T doesn’t like selling stuff for other telecom companies. In fact the only reason they have stores is to sell wireless services. If you don’t want their service, they don’t want to sell phones to you from their stock.

Something I learned from an AT&T store

If a car manufacturer gave me an offer to only use one particular petrol vendor...I would very much consider it.

I purchased my phone from Apple, and immediately used it on Mint Mobile, which is T-Mobile.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com