Indeed, Google are in no position to strong-arm the U.S. mobile industry to just give up contracts. Why? For one, no one has to use Google Android. Mobile companies are already making money with contracts. Contracts are great at bypassing the competitive forces present in a pure market. There is nothing a company like Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, and others, wants to do more than stomp on competition. Unless Android became the Microsoft Windows of the mobile phone overnight, it's like Google can twist arms thus. In addition, U.S. mobile companies are not so spectacular that they could even keep business without contracts -- what with their outdated handsets and puny, restrictive service offerings (1GB limit anyone?). What we really need is proper consumer defense against such stupid practices, like banning early termination fees or limiting the length of a mobile service contract. Contracts allow businesses to be lazy, uncreative, and arrogant when it comes to customer service because they no longer have to fight as hard for their customers. It's like having 1000 year copyright. You score once, and here comes early retirement! There goes the innovation argument. However, you don't have to sign such a contract ...
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Zachary Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't believe Google has any say on how individual phones are sold. Just > like Ubuntu doesn't have much say on how Dell sells computers on how they > sell Ubuntu computers. At least that is my understanding. If you want to be > mad at anyone for the 2 year contract be mad at T-mobile. But as Mark said > the 2 year contract is typical of buying almost any mobile phone. > > On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 4:00 AM, Mark Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> >> Ron Pinkas wrote: >> > What gives? How could you advocate freedom, open source, etc., when >> > you try to force your clients into 2 years conracts with an exclusive >> > provider? >> >> HTC and T-Mobile are welcome to do what they want; it's a part of >> free-market economies. >> >> It is fairly common in the US for phones to be subsidized and, >> therefore, SIM-locked and tied to a two-year contract. Off the top of my >> head, I'm not aware of any major US wireless carrier that *doesn't* work >> this way. >> >> HTC is welcome to sell un-badged/unlocked HTC Dream phones, if their >> contract with T-Mobile allows it. I have no idea if it does or not -- >> the terms of HTC's and T-Mobile's contract are (presumably) private to >> their firms. Again, welcome to the free-market economy. I get the >> impression that HTC's typical contracts don't allow them to directly >> sell such devices in the US market, but that they can sell them >> elsewhere, allowing resellers to bring them stateside. Watch the sites >> of your favorite mobile device resellers, or watch eBay. >> >> Also, there may be markets that Deutsche Telekom/T-Mobile enter that >> require unlocked phones. Not every country supports the US phone >> distribution model. So it may be that, where you are, you will be able >> to get one unlocked and without a contract from the start. >> >> Also also, I've heard that T-Mobile will unlock your G1 for you after 90 >> days, but I don't recall seeing a definitive statement from T-Mobile >> confirming that point. >> >> So, rolling back to your original point, if you have proof that HTC and >> T-Mobile wanted to buck tradition and sell unsubsidized/unlocked phones >> in the US market, and Google forced them at gunpoint to do otherwise, >> please post a link! >> >> > While I understand that more phones from more vendors may ultimately >> > become available, this does not change the fact that the only hardware >> > currently "available" is not at all availble in the true meaning of >> > the word. >> >> This is an issue for HTC, and secondarily T-Mobile. Google is more >> involved than, say, the Apache Foundation, but the whole *point* of >> Android is to create an open source mobile operating system that firms >> could use with no strings attached. No strings attached means just that >> -- and in the US market, requiring unsubsidized/unlocked phones would be >> considered a substantial string. >> >> -- >> Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy) >> http://commonsware.com >> >> Android Training on the Ranch! -- Mar 16-20, 2009 >> http://www.bignerdranch.com/schedule.shtml >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Beginners" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-beginners?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
