Page 3 of 3
Re: Apple is anti-competitive
Posted: 2010-04-23 01:07pm
by General Zod
Sarevok wrote:Buying just the phone set from a shop. You know like how buy a computer and then get an internet line. Instead of getting an internet line with a computer attached.
Buying a phone without a plan that you can put a sim card into generally cost several hundred more than just getting a phone with a plan. You have contract-free phones that you can get for cheap but you pay a higher rate per minute and usually get less or crippled features. It's really just a matter of figuring out what's more important when you get one than anything; a contract really isn't that big of a deal.
Re: Apple is anti-competitive
Posted: 2010-04-23 01:14pm
by Pu-239
T-Mobile does have cheaper unsubsidized plans if you bring your own phone (or if you're lucky enough to have had a phone w/ them before they allowed this
like me) . Apparently if you buy a Nexus One outright it'd be 50$ compared to 180 or so for the subsidized N1 at the end of the contract.
Alas, I'm stuck on this slow G1 from last august when it was the only Android phone, which isn't bad enough to justify plopping 500$ on a new phone when it's less than a year old. Technology moves fast
Re: Apple is anti-competitive
Posted: 2010-04-23 01:19pm
by Sarevok
Ah I understand. Combining subsided phone prices with huge talk time bonuses I can see why it might be so attractive option.
Re: Apple is anti-competitive
Posted: 2010-04-23 01:52pm
by General Zod
Destructionator XIII wrote:
Savings are always relative on usage. Ryan Thunder doesn't use it, so he is saving compared to buying a contract he wouldn't use. If he actually used 450 minutes, the contract would be a savings. That's all there is to it.
That's kind of the point I was trying to get at though. Saying you're getting a better deal because you only use ten minutes and pay $3 compared to someone who uses more and only pays $30 is dumb.
Re: Apple is anti-competitive
Posted: 2010-04-24 03:41am
by Sarevok
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8639240.stm
Adobe abandons iPhone code tools
Adobe HQ, AP
Adobe has now squarely aligned itself with Google and Android
Adobe is to stop making software tools that allow Apple's iPhone and iPad to use its popular Flash technology.
The decision reverses an earlier pledge in which it said it would help get Flash working on the gadgets.
Flash is very widely used on the web and many sites use it to power animations, media players and other multimedia elements.
Despite this, Apple's products do not support Flash and it has made public statements criticising the technology.
Closed tools
In mid-April, Adobe released software called Creative Suite 5 that contained translation tools that automatically turn Flash code into programs that run on the iPhone.
Shortly before the release, Apple updated the terms and conditions of the license software developers must sign to create iPhone and iPad applications. The revisions prompted a lot of criticism from many iPhone developers.
The revised terms placed strict restrictions on what developers can use to create these applications and effectively banned them from using code translators such as Creative Suite 5.
At the time Adobe wrote that it still intended to deliver the translation tools. Now it has said it will halt development of future translation tools for Creative Suite.
"We will still be shipping the ability to target the iPhone and iPad in Flash CS5," wrote Mike Chambers, Adobe's principal product manager for developer relations, on his blog. "However, we are not currently planning any additional investments in that feature."
Mr Chambers also commented on Apple's revision of its terms and conditions. He wrote: "...as developers for the iPhone have learned, if you want to develop for the iPhone you have to be prepared for Apple to reject or restrict your development at any time."
Apple responded in a statement to technology news site CNet in which it described Flash as "closed and proprietary". Apple preferred to support more open standards which replicate everything Flash can do, added the statement.
Mr Chambers wrote that now Adobe will concentrate on Google's Android smartphone software and ensure that its Flash technology works well with that.
"Fortunately," he wrote, "the iPhone isn't the only game in town."
If you are a Flash developer and had any desire to develop a personal or commercial Flash based project for the iphone sucks to be you.
Re: Apple is anti-competitive
Posted: 2010-04-24 11:23am
by Ryan Thunder
General Zod wrote:Then don't pretend your "plan" is some kind of fantastic bundle of savings when there's plenty of people that actually need more than ten minutes of talk time.
Way to miss the fucking point. Phant was talking about the RAZR, which he said cost around $900 and had little more capability than the phone I'm using now.
That is insane.
Re: Apple is anti-competitive
Posted: 2010-04-24 11:29am
by Sarevok
What kind of Razr costs 900 US dollars ? Is it made of gold, paladium or encrusted with diamond ? Normal Razrs made for poor people like me can be bought for less than ninety US dollars.
Re: Apple is anti-competitive
Posted: 2010-04-24 12:02pm
by phongn
Sarevok wrote:What kind of Razr costs 900 US dollars ? Is it made of gold, paladium or encrusted with diamond ? Normal Razrs made for poor people like me can be bought for less than ninety US dollars.
The original RAZR was designed as a status symbol and to show off what Motorola's engineering team could do, though IIRC it cost US$500 on launch. High-end phones did indeed cost that much back then.
Re: Apple is anti-competitive
Posted: 2010-04-24 03:14pm
by General Zod
Ryan Thunder wrote:General Zod wrote:Then don't pretend your "plan" is some kind of fantastic bundle of savings when there's plenty of people that actually need more than ten minutes of talk time.
Way to miss the fucking point. Phant was talking about the RAZR, which he said cost around $900 and had little more capability than the phone I'm using now.
That is insane.
So you're an idiot who can't read. He was talking about when it was
originally released. Virtually every single phone in existence costs several hundred dollars when they are first released because the volume required to reduce the price isn't there yet.
Re: Apple is anti-competitive
Posted: 2010-04-24 03:51pm
by Phantasee
Ryan Thunder wrote:General Zod wrote:Then don't pretend your "plan" is some kind of fantastic bundle of savings when there's plenty of people that actually need more than ten minutes of talk time.
Way to miss the fucking point. Phant was talking about the RAZR, which he said cost around $900 and had little more capability than the phone I'm using now.
That is insane.
Way to miss the fucking point. I was talking about how the fucking RAZR was fucking expensive on launch, because it was supposed to be a very high-end fashion phone, until they realized it was hugely popular, and subsequently dropped in price by a huge amount and marketed it as the wonder phone for all. And the fact your phone has roughly the same capability as the RAZR is fucking sad and pathetic, when the RAZR came out like, 5 or 6 years ago. If you've had a chance to take a peek out from under your rock lately, comparably priced phones can do a lot more these days. The RAZR was effectively free even for Pay as you Go plans by the end of it's product life cycle.
Re: Apple is anti-competitive
Posted: 2010-04-24 07:58pm
by Stark
phongn wrote:The original RAZR was designed as a status symbol and to show off what Motorola's engineering team could do, though IIRC it cost US$500 on launch. High-end phones did indeed cost that much back then.
They still do in AU, amusingly. 400-700 is normal for an unlocked decent handset outside a contract here, sad as that is.
Shit, I wonder why people who want decent phones prefer contracts in this country?
Re: Apple is anti-competitive
Posted: 2010-04-24 09:25pm
by Losonti Tokash
Phantasee wrote:Ryan Thunder wrote:General Zod wrote:Then don't pretend your "plan" is some kind of fantastic bundle of savings when there's plenty of people that actually need more than ten minutes of talk time.
Way to miss the fucking point. Phant was talking about the RAZR, which he said cost around $900 and had little more capability than the phone I'm using now.
That is insane.
Way to miss the fucking point. I was talking about how the fucking RAZR was fucking expensive on launch, because it was supposed to be a very high-end fashion phone, until they realized it was hugely popular, and subsequently dropped in price by a huge amount and marketed it as the wonder phone for all. And the fact your phone has roughly the same capability as the RAZR is fucking sad and pathetic, when the RAZR came out like, 5 or 6 years ago. If you've had a chance to take a peek out from under your rock lately, comparably priced phones can do a lot more these days. The RAZR was effectively free even for Pay as you Go plans by the end of it's product life cycle.
Dude, the Razr is still not done yet. I can tell you I probably sell 5 or 6 unlocked ones a week at my job, and I work from 2200-0700. It's ridiculous.
Re: Apple is anti-competitive
Posted: 2010-04-25 04:27am
by Colonel Olrik
Stark wrote:phongn wrote:The original RAZR was designed as a status symbol and to show off what Motorola's engineering team could do, though IIRC it cost US$500 on launch. High-end phones did indeed cost that much back then.
They still do in AU, amusingly. 400-700 is normal for an unlocked decent handset outside a contract here, sad as that is.
Shit, I wonder why people who want decent phones prefer contracts in this country?
In Germany you can choose between paying the price of the phone upfront, or paying it locked in a contract for two years with an interest rate of usually 3 to 4% per year. Excluding the monthly extra for the phone, the contract is otherwise the same. This way it's very transparent that companies prefer you to make a contract , and that's the reason phone companies try so hard to "give" clients a new handy by the end of the second year.
So it's better to buy the phone upfront if the person can afford it. If that's not the case, in my opinion the person should get a cheaper phone, but that's not how the majority think, luckily for the companies.
Re: Apple is anti-competitive
Posted: 2010-04-25 04:35am
by Stark
Yeah, it's almost the opposite here; the pre-pay rates are similar (generally, more 'call credit' but higher tariffs) so there's no advantage beyond the freedom to move to be on pre-paid.
Re: Apple is anti-competitive
Posted: 2010-04-25 04:47pm
by Phantasee
Here you can buy the phone outright or get a discount in exchange for getting locked in to a carrier for 1-3 years. There is the option to buy out the contract but it is expensive. It's not a huge deal though, you can change your monthly plan once a month if you like.
And if you are smart you can exploit this to get a better deLon your next phone and plan by calling customer service and asking them to beat the "offer" you got from the competition. I save 25-30 a month on my new plan because of that and I got mor features than th other offer.
Re: Apple is anti-competitive
Posted: 2010-04-26 04:06am
by Skgoa
Phantasee wrote:So it is a bit of a status symbol, whether it's justified or not.
At least in germany its a pretty strange situation: people either go "wow, you've got an iPhone?" and look at you as if you just killed a tiger with your bare hands OR they immediately start verbally abusing you, your iDevice and apple products in general. There seems to be absolutely no middle ground. The funniest thing: i have an IPOD. I paid a fraction of what others paid for their freerunner, nexus one, blackberry... but they judge me and keep telling me I have to much money.
Re: Apple is anti-competitive
Posted: 2010-04-27 03:09am
by Stargate Nerd
phongn wrote:Sarevok wrote:What kind of Razr costs 900 US dollars ? Is it made of gold, paladium or encrusted with diamond ? Normal Razrs made for poor people like me can be bought for less than ninety US dollars.
The original RAZR was designed as a status symbol and to show off what Motorola's engineering team could do, though IIRC it cost US$500 on launch. High-end phones did indeed cost that much back then.
And that was WITH a 2 year agreement with Cingular. What makes it even funnier/more infuriating is that by the time Cingular finally got the RAZR it had been out elsewhere for ~6 months or more so you could actually get it unlocked for ~$400. Cingular really did the gullible US population dirty with that one.