Comments on: Like 2-year contracts, smartphone exclusives need to go away

By: Rudy Concepcion

Rudy Concepcion — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 05:44:44 +0000

I agree with the author, Nokia would do well to make their devices available to all carriers instead of giving the good one to AT&T and the gimped version to T-Mobile (Yes I am a T-Mobile subscriber). How does Nokia expect me to jump on their platform when they only offer me a second-rate phone, while Google intelligently offers me the Nexus 4 (which is compatible across all GSM carriers, not just T-Mobile). I think handset makers should follow Google (and Apple, to a lesser degree) and make phones that are compatible with all networks and sell them at a decent price ($300-$400 wouldn’t be bad) and from there let the carriers also sell them. That way, anyone that wants the phone at a subsidized (cheaper) price will lock themselves into a 2 yr contract w/ their respective carrier and those that wish to avoid this will pay outright for the phone. But I digress, my opinion is as likely flawed as the next guy’s opinion. I’m sure Nokia execs must’ve thought things through and seen an AT&T exclusivity deal as the best way (either that or they’re too stupid to see how doing it like Google would be of greater benefit).

By: txpatriot

txpatriot — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 00:38:01 +0000

Kevin Tofel writes: “It’s a win-win for the carrier yet . . . leaves handset makers in the lurch”.

That may be true and yet handset manufacturers continue to make such deals. Apparently they think there’s more upside than downside in making these deals.

Bottom line: the handset makers are big boys, they really don’t need you to worry about them on their behalf, but I’m sure they appreciate it.

By: Raymond Padilla

Raymond Padilla — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 21:13:50 +0000

That would be incredible, but the carriers have too much power in America. I’m amazed by how much value you get with pre-paid SIMs in Southeast Asia. Granted those networks are still 3G and don’t cost as much to maintain/build.

By: John S. Wilson

John S. Wilson — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 21:05:16 +0000

I see where you’re coming from, but even the music industry does this. There are sometimes limited releases to boost sales at a specific retailer and create a large buzz. I also think an exclusive carrier relationship can benefit the phone manufacturer because the retailer may do a better job of selling the device. When a device is on all carriers it’s harder for an individual carrier to separate themselves from the pack. Consumers indeed do value choice? But the industry rushing to give consumers unfettered choice doesn’t necessarily benefit with profits.

By: Gregg Borodaty

Gregg Borodaty — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 20:53:06 +0000

Couldn’t agree more. In fact, let’s use an analogy. What if Verizon got exclusive rights to the next Macbook Air such that it only connected to the internet over Verizon’s FiOS network, and the only way you could buy it was if you signed a 2-year FiOS contract? Then again, maybe I shouldn’t suggest this idea, the carriers will love it!

By: aepxc

aepxc — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 18:29:48 +0000

So basically, phones should be sold unsubsidised (and networks should be dumb pipes). In principle, I agree 100%, but in practice I struggle to imagine any viable path for transitioning to such a system over the short-to-medium term – we’re stuck with what we have until unsubsidised phone prices fall dramatically. Considering that a 32GB iPhone 5 is about 140% the price of a 32GB 3rd-gen iPad and 240% that of the new iPod touch here (France), is it the cellular technology that is so expensive? Or just drastically higher margins acting as massive carrots to keep the phone manufacturers playing ball with the (evil, evil) networks?