Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #76066 > unrolled thread

Hey, Nospam

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Hey, Nospam Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-06-03 08:32 -0700
    Re: Hey, Nospam android <here@there.was> - 2015-06-03 17:44 +0200
    Re: Hey, Nospam awoolmeyer@gmail.com - 2015-06-03 10:42 -0700
    Re: Hey, Nospam "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-06-04 06:47 +1000
      Re: Hey, Nospam BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-06-03 17:01 -0500
        Re: Hey, Nospam "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-06-04 14:13 +1000
          Re: Hey, Nospam BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-06-04 06:44 -0500
            Re: Hey, Nospam "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-06-05 07:13 +1000
              Re: Hey, Nospam BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-06-04 17:55 -0500
                Re: Hey, Nospam "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-06-05 11:45 +1000
                  Re: Hey, Nospam BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-06-04 21:37 -0500
                    Re: Hey, Nospam "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-06-05 14:36 +1000
        Re: Hey, Nospam Aldo Raine <apache@scalpem.net> - 2015-06-04 08:55 -0400
        Re: Hey, Nospam gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-06-04 10:00 -0700
          Re: Hey, Nospam Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-06-05 07:51 +0000
        Re: Hey, Nospam George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-06 08:37 -0500
    Re: Hey, Nospam Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-06-03 17:57 -0400
      Re: Hey, Nospam Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-06-03 16:12 -0700
        Re: Hey, Nospam nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-03 23:11 -0400
          Re: Hey, Nospam Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-06-03 20:42 -0700
            Re: Hey, Nospam "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-06-04 14:17 +1000
              Re: Hey, Nospam Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-06-03 21:34 -0700
                Re: Hey, Nospam jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-06-04 16:41 +1200
                Re: Hey, Nospam "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-06-05 07:09 +1000
              Re: Hey, Nospam me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2015-06-04 13:12 +0000
            Re: Hey, Nospam News <News@Group.Post> - 2015-06-04 07:20 -0400
              Re: Hey, Nospam Aldo Raine <apache@scalpem.net> - 2015-06-04 09:00 -0400
        Re: Hey, Nospam "Lee Waun" <leewaun@telus.net> - 2015-06-05 20:04 -0700
      Re: Hey, Nospam nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-03 23:11 -0400
        Re: Hey, Nospam Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-06-03 20:41 -0700
          Re: Hey, Nospam nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-03 23:53 -0400
            Re: Hey, Nospam Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-06-03 21:30 -0700
              Re: Hey, Nospam me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2015-06-04 13:14 +0000
                Re: Hey, Nospam nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-04 12:52 -0400
                  Re: Hey, Nospam Király <ggrandish@gmail.com> - 2015-06-04 10:08 -0700
                    Re: Hey, Nospam nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-04 13:58 -0400
                  Re: Hey, Nospam Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-06-04 18:45 +0100
                    Re: Hey, Nospam nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-04 13:58 -0400
                      Re: Hey, Nospam Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-06-04 21:20 +0100
                      Re: Hey, Nospam "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-06-05 07:24 +1000
                        Re: Hey, Nospam nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-04 18:09 -0400
                          Re: Hey, Nospam "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-06-05 11:37 +1000
                            Re: Hey, Nospam nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-04 22:02 -0400
                              Re: Hey, Nospam "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-06-05 14:19 +1000
                  Re: Hey, Nospam "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-06-05 07:18 +1000
                    Re: Hey, Nospam nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-04 18:09 -0400
                      Re: Hey, Nospam "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-06-05 11:39 +1000
                        Re: Hey, Nospam nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-04 22:02 -0400
                          Re: Hey, Nospam BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-06-04 21:39 -0500
                            Re: Hey, Nospam "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-06-05 14:37 +1000
                              Re: Hey, Nospam BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-06-05 08:07 -0500
                                Re: Hey, Nospam "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-06-06 13:04 +1000
                          Re: Hey, Nospam "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-06-05 14:21 +1000
                        Re: Hey, Nospam JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-06-04 22:13 -0400
                          Re: Hey, Nospam "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-06-05 14:36 +1000
                            Re: Hey, Nospam JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-06-05 01:07 -0400
                              Re: Hey, Nospam "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-06-05 15:49 +1000
                                Re: Hey, Nospam JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-06-05 16:46 -0400
                                  Re: Hey, Nospam "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-06-06 15:17 +1000
                Re: Hey, Nospam JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-06-04 13:44 -0400
                  Re: Hey, Nospam ggrandish@gmail.com - 2015-06-04 10:51 -0700
                    Re: Hey, Nospam nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-04 13:58 -0400
                    Re: Hey, Nospam JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-06-04 14:51 -0400
                  Re: Hey, Nospam "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-06-05 07:22 +1000
        Re: Hey, Nospam George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-06 08:38 -0500
      Re: Hey, Nospam George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-06 08:36 -0500
    Re: Hey, Nospam ggrandish@gmail.com - 2015-06-03 15:44 -0700
      Re: Hey, Nospam Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-06-03 16:14 -0700
        Re: Hey, Nospam Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-06-04 03:36 +0000
          Re: Hey, Nospam Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-06-03 20:46 -0700
            Re: Hey, Nospam Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-06-05 07:38 +0000
          Re: Hey, Nospam Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-06-04 08:50 +0100
      Re: Hey, Nospam jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-06-04 16:38 +1200
    Re: Hey, Nospam George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-06 08:35 -0500

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#76146

In article <ctbtvtFdbbbU1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>> There's also subsidized without a contract, which I'm on.
> 
> >>> what's to stop you from defaulting if there is no contract?
>  
> >> It's PAYG, presumably.
>  
> > paygo is not subsidized.
> 
> It can be when the phone is locked to that carrier. 

paygo is not subsidized.

in some cases the phone may be financed, in which case there is a
contract to repay it.

> In fact normally is with most systems.  

nope.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76167

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote 
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
 
>>>>>> There's also subsidized without a contract, which I'm on.
 
>>>>> what's to stop you from defaulting if there is no contract?
  
>>>> It's PAYG, presumably.
  
>>> paygo is not subsidized.
 
>> It can be when the phone is locked to that carrier. 
 
> paygo is not subsidized.

Wrong when the locked phone is sold for a much 
lower price than the unlocked exact same phone. 
 
> in some cases the phone may be financed, 

And most of the time with paygo the phone is sold locked 
at a lower price than the same phone which isn't locked. 

> in which case there is a contract to repay it.
 
>> In fact normally is with most systems.  
 
> nope.

Yep, with paygo phones.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76172

In article <ctccqoFgnc1U1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>>>> There's also subsidized without a contract, which I'm on.
>  
> >>>>> what's to stop you from defaulting if there is no contract?
>   
> >>>> It's PAYG, presumably.
>   
> >>> paygo is not subsidized.
>  
> >> It can be when the phone is locked to that carrier. 
>  
> > paygo is not subsidized.
> 
> Wrong when the locked phone is sold for a much 
> lower price than the unlocked exact same phone. 

phones here have always been locked, prepaid or postpaid, until
recently.

prepaid phones are not subsidized. you own it outright unless it's
financed. the lower cost is because they're low end phones. a prepaid
iphone is going to be its normal unsubsidized price.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76184

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote 
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
 
>>>>>>>> There's also subsidized without a contract, which I'm on.
  
>>>>>>> what's to stop you from defaulting if there is no contract?
   
>>>>>> It's PAYG, presumably.
   
>>>>> paygo is not subsidized.
  
>>>> It can be when the phone is locked to that carrier. 
  
>>> paygo is not subsidized.
 
>> Wrong when the locked phone is sold for a much 
>> lower price than the unlocked exact same phone. 
 
> phones here have always been locked, 
> prepaid or postpaid, until recently.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage. 

Not one of mine ever has been, including the one phone 
that I didn't pay cash for outright, a Nokia 5110. 

And locked phones showed up later, essentially 
so that those who bought a locked phone for a
lower price than the same phone unlocked would
not be able to change to another carrier other 
than the carrier the phone was locked to. 
 
> prepaid phones are not subsidized. 

They are when they are cheaper locked than not locked. 

> you own it outright unless it's financed. 

Irrelevant to whether its subsidized or not. 

And I owned the Nokia 5110 outright even tho I was 
legally obliged to pay for it in monthly instalments. 

> the lower cost is because they're low end phones. 

Wrong when the locked phone is cheaper 
than the SAME PHONE which isn't locked. 

> a prepaid iphone is going to be 
> its normal unsubsidized price.

Wrong when the locked phone is cheaper 
than the SAME PHONE which isn't locked. 
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76138

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
> Király <me@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote

>> There's also subsidized without a contract, which I'm on.

> what's to stop you from defaulting if there is no contract?

Locking the phone to that carrier. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76145

In article <ctbtkeFd8caU1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> There's also subsidized without a contract, which I'm on.
> 
> > what's to stop you from defaulting if there is no contract?
> 
> Locking the phone to that carrier. 

that won't stop someone from defaulting.

however, he paid for it in full so it doesn't matter.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76168

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote 
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
 
>>>> There's also subsidized without a contract, which I'm on.
 
>>> what's to stop you from defaulting if there is no contract?
 
>> Locking the phone to that carrier. 
 
> that won't stop someone from defaulting.

There is no default when there is no contract, stupid. 
 
> however, he paid for it in full 

No he has not when he paid a lower price for the locked
phone than he would pay for the same phone not locked. 

> so it doesn't matter.

Wrong, as always.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76173

In article <ctcctvFgo2mU1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>> There's also subsidized without a contract, which I'm on.
>  
> >>> what's to stop you from defaulting if there is no contract?
>  
> >> Locking the phone to that carrier. 
>  
> > that won't stop someone from defaulting.
> 
> There is no default when there is no contract, stupid. 

there is if it's financed, stupid.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76178

On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 22:02:47 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <ctcctvFgo2mU1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
><rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >>>> There's also subsidized without a contract, which I'm on.
>>  
>> >>> what's to stop you from defaulting if there is no contract?
>>  
>> >> Locking the phone to that carrier. 
>>  
>> > that won't stop someone from defaulting.
>> 
>> There is no default when there is no contract, stupid. 
>
>there is if it's financed, stupid.

 Mr. Know-It-All never tires of putting his foot in his mouth.  Must
be a yard sale disease.   :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76192

"BobbyK" <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote in message 
news:6t22nat1qhgpokg69n2c1tktg2jhe7q20q@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 22:02:47 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <ctcctvFgo2mU1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
>><rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >>>> There's also subsidized without a contract, which I'm on.
>>>
>>> >>> what's to stop you from defaulting if there is no contract?
>>>
>>> >> Locking the phone to that carrier.
>>>
>>> > that won't stop someone from defaulting.
>>>
>>> There is no default when there is no contract, stupid.
>>
>>there is if it's financed, stupid.
>
> Mr. Know-It-All never tires of putting his foot in his mouth.
> Must be a yard sale disease.   :-)

You're face down in the mud, as always. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76214

On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 14:37:43 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>"BobbyK" <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote in message 
>news:6t22nat1qhgpokg69n2c1tktg2jhe7q20q@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 22:02:47 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <ctcctvFgo2mU1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
>>><rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >>>> There's also subsidized without a contract, which I'm on.
>>>>
>>>> >>> what's to stop you from defaulting if there is no contract?
>>>>
>>>> >> Locking the phone to that carrier.
>>>>
>>>> > that won't stop someone from defaulting.
>>>>
>>>> There is no default when there is no contract, stupid.
>>>
>>>there is if it's financed, stupid.
>>
>> Mr. Know-It-All never tires of putting his foot in his mouth.
>> Must be a yard sale disease.   :-)
>
>You're face down in the mud, as always. 

Nope, just pointing out your idiocy.

Hey, Mr. English major....  parse this sentence;
"queue its usual puerile shit it always ends up with when 
its got done like a fucking dinnner, as it always is"

Only a half-wit with the urge to use the word "puerile" (which should
be his middle name) could write such goofy, unbelievably bad English
with no meaning.  Oh, it's spelled dinner.
.
My bad.  I called it a sentence.  It doesn't even qualify.

LMAO.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76316

Some terminal fuckwit desperately cowering behind
BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote just the puerile
shit it always ends up with when its got done like a fucking
dinner, as it always is. 

<queue its usual puerile shit it always ends up with when 
its got done like a fucking dinner, as it always is>
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76185

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote 
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
 
>>>>>> There's also subsidized without a contract, which I'm on.
  
>>>>> what's to stop you from defaulting if there is no contract?
  
>>>> Locking the phone to that carrier. 
  
>>> that won't stop someone from defaulting.
 
>> There is no default when there is no contract, stupid. 
 
> there is if it's financed, stupid.

It isn't financed if the locked phone has a lower 
price than the same phone unlocked, cretin.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76175

On 15-06-04 21:39, Rod Speed wrote:

> There is no default when there is no contract, stupid. 

If the carrier sells you for $100 a phone that costs them $100 , then
there is no subsidy even if the phone has a list price of $200.

However, find me a carrier that will hand out iPhone6 for $200 or less
without contract.

Carriers do not get those iPhones from Apple at a deep discount from
Apple's full retail price.

And even if locked to carrier X, you can still resell it to customers of
carrier X. So the phone retains some resale value. And you can game the
system and make it profitable (which is what the carriers don't want to
do since they end up losing money when you don't pay back subsidy and if
the practice grows then end up losing mucho money.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76190

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> There is no default when there is no contract, stupid.

> If the carrier sells you for $100 a phone that costs them $100,
> then there is no subsidy even if the phone has a list price of $200.

Hardly any carriers are actually stupid enough to sell you
the phone for the same price they paid for it unless its an
obsolete phone and they are getting rid of surplus stock.

> However, find me a carrier that will hand out
> iPhone6 for $200 or less without contract.

Plenty will sell you a locked phone for a lower
price than they will sell you an unlocked phone.

> Carriers do not get those iPhones from Apple
> at a deep discount from Apple's full retail price.

We aren't just discussing iphones, we
are now  discussing phones in general.

> And even if locked to carrier X, you can
> still resell it to customers of carrier X.

Yes, but that buyer can buy it directly from carrier X too.

> So the phone retains some resale value.

Irrelevant to whether there is always a
contract involved with a subsidized phone.

> And you can game the system and make it profitable

Yes, that is what I did with the unlocked Nokia 5110,
the only phone I did buy on contract, essentially because
the total amount I paid was considerably lower than the
best price I could find it being sold for cash.

> (which is what the carriers don't want to do since they
> end up losing money when you don't pay back subsidy

But with a locked phone, even if you don’t pay back the
subsidy, the person you sold the locked phone to may
well do that.

Paying back the subsidy is never guaranteed with a
locked phone, the buyer is welcome to never make
a call at all and to just receive calls on the phone etc.

> and if the practice grows then
> end up losing mucho money.

The reality is that few people use their phones like
that and so the carrier normally does get the subsidy
back with the calls made using the phone. If they didn’t,
you wouldn’t have seen locked phones sold at lower
prices than the same phone unlocked to this day.

With almost all the locked phones, the carrier is happy
to remove the lock when the phone has been used for
a specified amount of time, or if an unlock fee is paid.

The reason carriers do have locked phones is because
the dregs of the market do not have a good enough
credit risk to ensure that they will continue to abide
by the contract they sign up for and its not worth the
very high cost of trying to get the phone back from
those who default on the contract, only to end up
with a phone that has very little value to the carrier.

Our carriers have always been selective about who
they will accept as post paid customers and those
who don’t have a good enough credit risk are told
that their only option is a prepaid account.


 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76194

On 15-06-05 00:36, Rod Speed wrote:

> Hardly any carriers are actually stupid enough to sell you
> the phone for the same price they paid for it unless its an
> obsolete phone and they are getting rid of surplus stock.

ding ! ding ! ding ! give the guy a prize ! That is exactly what they do
with prepaid service.

> Plenty will sell you a locked phone for a lower
> price than they will sell you an unlocked phone.

The point is that without a contract, they will not seel you a phone
under their own cost.

And locked phones actually cost more to the carrier since they have to
lock the phones and load/manage/maintain their own bloatware on the
phone. (which is one very good thing Apple did by preventing carriers
from customizing the phone's app TOO MUCH. (AT&T got away with disabling
many things via the carrier.plist and SIM cards).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76198

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> Hardly any carriers are actually stupid enough to sell you
>> the phone for the same price they paid for it unless its an
>> obsolete phone and they are getting rid of surplus stock.

> ding ! ding ! ding ! give the guy a prize !
> That is exactly what they do with prepaid service.

Nope. Ours are happy to sell you any of
the current phones with prepaid service.

>> Plenty will sell you a locked phone for a lower
>> price than they will sell you an unlocked phone.

> The point is that without a contract, they will
> not seel you a phone under their own cost.

That's wrong too with locked phones.

> And locked phones actually cost more to the carrier

No they don’t.

> since they have to lock the phones

Plenty of the phone companys are happy to sell carriers
locked phones for the same price as unlocked phones
because locked phones are a big part of the volume
they sell, particularly with some phone models.

> and load/manage/maintain their own bloatware on the phone.

Not all locked phones have any bloatware.

> (which is one very good thing Apple did by preventing
> carriers from customizing the phone's app TOO MUCH.

Irrelevant for the carriers that just want to lock the
phone so that those who buy them at the subsidised
price can only use them on the carrier's network.

> (AT&T got away with disabling many
> things via the carrier.plist and SIM cards).

Irrelevant for the carriers that just want to lock the
phone so that those who buy them at the subsidised
price can only use them on the carrier's network.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76286

On 15-06-05 01:49, Rod Speed wrote:

>> And locked phones actually cost more to the carrier
> 
> No they don’t.

Yes they do. There is the extra step to lock the phone, record the
unlock codes into some database (and build that database/software). This
has to be done for every phone.

In the case of the iPhone, in  Apple stores in Canada, it means that the
staff have to spend extra time to lock the phone (and again, have spend
money to build the phone lock database which is used not only by the
carriers to unlock phones, but also by Apple servers when they serve
each phone with locked software.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76331

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>> And locked phones actually cost more to the carrier

>> No they don’t.

> Yes they do.

No they don’t.

> There is the extra step to lock the phone,

Not necessarily.

> record the unlock codes into some database

It isn't necessarily done like that.

> (and build that database/software).

Not if it isn't done like that. And even when it is,
that is done for the first one and doesn’t need to
be done again.

> This has to be done for every phone.

Wrong.

And when a carrier asks for a price on a million or ten locked phones,
they will get a better price just because they are getting so many and
the locking is included in what they get for the much better price.

> In the case of the iPhone, in  Apple stores in Canada,

Irrelevant to locked phones in general.

> it means that the staff have to spend extra time to lock the phone

Not if a million or ten are shipped to a carrier from the factory locked.

> (and again, have spend money to build the phone lock database

That is just one way of doing locked phones.

> which is used not only by the carriers to unlock phones,

Not all locked phones are done that way.

> but also by Apple servers when they
> serve each phone with locked software.

They don’t necessarily have locked software.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76120

On 15-06-04 09:14, Király wrote:

> There's also subsidized without a contract, which I'm on.


No carrier offers subsidized phones without a contract. When the lend
you money to get the handset, they want to make sure you will pay it
back. They may have used euphemisms instead of "contract" but there is
something you agreed to which ensures you pay back the subsidy.

If you end service before the subsidy has been repaid, I bet you have
termination penalty.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web