Hacker News Reader

Comment by digitalmaster | Hacker News Reader

Personally I don't think they should be locked to begin with. We've already signed an agreement in which i've agreed to terms which include making payments until the cost of the device is paid. Given that contract there should be no reason why I can't use the device as I please so long as I haven't violated those terms.

People who travel with a locked phone know how useless it is. No one is stupid enough to want pay the ridiculous roaming rates. Locked phone prevents you from using a local service during your stay! #thisNeedsToChange

View on HN

I know my point of view is really unpopular, but in my opinion if you value your freedom and privacy you should buy a phone. Just get one that is cheaper or a used one if you can't afford the latest greatest.

Would you take a subsidise laptop with a bunch of restrictions from your ISP?

Of course it is unpopular. You're treating freedom and privacy as a commodity. If I cared and spent enough money, could I also restrict other people's freedom or privacy? Neither should be a function of ability to pay. That being said, that is more or less how it is now -- you pay in cash/time/effort.

I think he was saying precisely that: when you take a locked-in phone with a fixed deal, you're treating freedom and privacy as a commodity.

Nope. They are lending you money (normaly with a huge interest), and taking your privacy and freedom away for free.

I think it is unpopular because people want the latest gadget but don't want to pay for it.

> You're treating freedom and privacy as a commodity

To the same extent that when I rent a car I accept the restriction on it. The difference is that I am more concerned about these restrictions than most people, and most of the time I will buy a smaller car or a used one rather than live by rental companies rules.

To me the current situation in the phone market is like people leasing cars and crying to the government that the leasing companies' rules are unfair.

I bought a used one, but I think it's still locked, and I'm not using a major carrier, so they're not going to 'unlock' me now (was an AT&T iPhone 5s, now using net10). Maybe it's 'unlocked' enough to use net10, but I think it's not truly 'unlocked', and may never be.

Well, of course you need to verify that it is unlocked when buying used, this is as important as verifying that it is functioning.

No one is forcing you to buy a locked phone. It's easy enough to buy unlocked phones and sign up with any of the carriers without a contract. You get a lower monthly rate too and often pay less in the long run. People have been voting for the carrier locks with their dollars by mortgaging their phones through carrier subsidies. We can all agree that carrier locks are stupid, but I don't see why the government needs to get involved.

It has not been that easy, in my experience.

Apple did not sell an unlocked iPhone 6 until last month, and I think they may have done the same locked-only-for-a-few-months thing with the 5s. I don't recall seeing earlier iPhones for sale unlocked at all, you had to do something illegal to them up till surprisingly recently -- maybe the 4, not sure?

I think the legislation is responsible for the easier access these days; I've wanted to buy unlocked phones since 2005, but haven't really been able to until this year.

It has been happening since the iPhone 4s: http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/11/apples-us-online-store-be...

I didn't know that about the iPhone, interesting point. Unlocked phones have always been available, but you should certainly be able to buy the phone you want. All the same, the free market has made unlocked phones available already without any legislation. I don't see manufacturers reversing course, especially now that consumers have so many choices.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com