P3Droid: Some Food for Thought - Bootloaders, Rooting, Manufacturers, and Carriers

[really fascinating]

Yeah they probably lose like at least 400 everytime they give one of their great deals and it probably takes at least 2 years before they start turning a profit. Because of that and be use of the people that take off before their time is up.

Sent from my DROIDX using DroidForums

 

[Martin030908]

Sad day, and I realize it's not just a VZW thing, it's industry wide... but as others have said... this didn't come out of left field... you could see it coming. Doesn't mean we have to like it, but it is what it is.

I'm sure tethering has it's place in this issue but I'm certain device exchanges have caught carrier's attention as well.

 

[knivesout]

Yeah they probably lose like at least 400 everytime they give one of their great deals and it probably takes at least 2 years before they start turning a profit. Because of that and be use of the people that take off before their time is up.

Sent from my DROIDX using DroidForums

At least 2 years before Verizon starts turning a profit on the sale of one smartphone? Doubtful. They'd be bankrupt if that was the case. If you leave your contract early you're charged a certain amount and then double that amount if you have a smartphone. Verizon is making plenty of money on every contract.

 

[really fascinating]

Not to mention all the times they have to replace phones all the people that don't pay the bills and early terminaton fees. And as mentioned what they lose on upgrades and promotions. Most places that hold you into a contract do it for a reason because they won't really start making profit until after its up and they hope they have got you to like them enough to stay once its over. So they can make the real profit.

Sent from my DROIDX using DroidForums

 

[Snow02]

Lol at this. Verizon makes money hand over fist. Amounts are in millions.

 

[jdm627]

Not a surprise at all I said a few months back that sadly the dev community would be dying a slow death due to ALL the manufactures locking down their devices.

I'm not bothered or upset because I have long since prepared for this day. I've also come to the realization that cutting edge hardware is more important than openness to me. Things never last forever and this is one of them.

Onward and upward....................

+1 and looking for other devices

 

[kodiak799]

Carriers have huge upfront investment costs, mostly fixed. So the marginal customer is probably something like 90% profit.

They offer a subsidy worth somewhere between $200-$300 on phones, and for that people sign up for a minimum $80 plan (voice + data). So on data alone they are breaking even inside of 10 months.

 

[knivesout]

Carriers have huge upfront investment costs, mostly fixed. So the marginal customer is probably something like 90% profit.

They offer a subsidy worth somewhere between $200-$300 on phones, and for that people sign up for a minimum $80 plan (voice + data). So on data alone they are breaking even inside of 10 months.

^Truth^
10char

 

[jdm627]

basically the problem it's not the root right? The real problem it's people abusing with tethering out off contract.
But I don't see any problem with people paying for an unlimited data plan.

 

[pc747]

It isnt just a verizon thing and we knew it was coming you can only have so many people burning through phones and data before its time to act. There is a brighter side and that is the nexus devices, I am sure google will not lock down their devices for vzw. Apple was able to dictate terms with the iphone I am sure google can allow for full customization with nexus devices.

 

[Jakeworld]

Tethering is stealing. There's no way you can justify it. If you think its wrong that you can't tether then you shouldn't have signed the contract that clearly says tethering is a violation of TOS. That contract ends all debate about it. Don't like it, dont sign.

Some of you may need a serious reality check here.

Claim:
Tethering is stealing

Proof:
Violation of ToS

Reality:
Tethering is fundamentally not a service. Neither product, nor service are provided outside of the existing plan. It's merely a (financed) license to use the data in a way that does not violate a ToS.

A breach of contract or ToS != theft. You subscribe to a data plan, which is presented as "unlimited". Regardless of the terms and conditions that may contradict this description, ultimately, you are accessing data. By restricting the means in which your consumer accesses said data, you are artificially creating an additional product/service. In of itself, tethering carries no intrinsic value, with exception to the arbitrary value you have assigned to it through its exclusion from the ToS.

Consider the following pertinent example:
Since we're talking about data, let's consider a topic with which many of us are familiar. When we purchase music, whether that takes the form of a physical medium (e.g. CD/DVD) or a virtual medium (e.g. digital tracks), we are subscribing to a license to access the music data associated with a particular album or track. We do not in fact own the track; merely, we own the rights to access the data as we see fit. Can you imagine if record companies proceeded to restrict the types of devices in which we could access this data? Say, if you purchased music from Sony BMG, you could only listen to said music on a Sony device, or only on a certain number of devices, or only a certain number of times? Let's say you would have to pay an additional fee to access your music data on an additional device or for additional replays. Tell me, if such restrictions were in place, how then would it be stealing? Because you're denying the potential for an additional avenue from which to profit? Let me reiterate what I stated before. By restricting the means in which your consumer accesses data, you are artificially creating an additional product/service. Remember, you're not purchasing the data, you're purchasing a license. The license to access the music carries no intrinsic value. Instead, it carries an arbitrary value that enables you to access the data in a way that does not violate their terms of service.

Truth be told, record companies have attempted this approach in the past. Does DRM ring a bell? Sure, it worked for a while, since many consumers felt they had no alternative to accessing music, short of piracy. Then something miraculous happened. The free market prevailed. Stores such as Amazon began offering DRM-free tracks, digital companies started offering various types of monthly/annual music subscriptions, and some artists have even opted to remove the middleman and offer their music for a more reasonable price or as donationware. The point is, the market created alternatives. Choice is a powerful concept. The interests of consumers are ephemeral. In order to stay relevant, companies must seek to appeal to those interests if they hope to survive. DRM has taken a back seat and is unlikely to ever be as restrictive or as prevalent as it once had been.

Digital products will always remain a gray area in the legal space, especially since when we're considering data, it encompasses vague laws and acts that frankly are no longer relevant or explicit. The ways in which we access our data is continually evolving, and companies are taking advantage of unclear legal language to concede as little into the consumer rights domain as possible. By creating an artificial product, they are able to negotiate a means of retaining the upper hand on their service. Essentially, they are biting the hands that feed them. If you want to believe that tethering is stealing, then so is playing the radio in public, or copying a CD for archival purposes. It's ultimately relative and a matter of perspective. From a legal standpoint, it's simply unclear. When you sell a service that guarantees access to data, why should it matter the means with which I use to gain that access? If you're concerned about excessive consumption, then define a limit, and don't call it "unlimited". In no part of the definition for the aforementioned word does it imply that restrictions are inclusive. Not only does that pertain to amount, that also pertains to means of access. A violation of contract is a civil matter, and in this case does not necessitate stealing, especially when the good/service in question is one that is artificially created by exclusion from what would otherwise be an inclusive service.

Carriers may be headed in this direction, to push as far into the consumer rights domain as possible, and this is exactly why we as consumers need to end our subscription to these contracts. The subsidized price of a phone may be attractive, but is shady and contradictory business practice a fair price to swallow? As with the case of music distribution, the market will ultimately decide the direction consumers will follow. Only time will tell what avenues will open.

 

[jdm627]

Big expeculation only for GB with X! but how many devices out of droid are using tethering and woking with data free out of contract?
Think about it, and please don´t lose the time we need a new rom for our X.

 

[phillyboydroid]

Contemplating the Iphone after reading this. I mean IOS and MIUI are pretty much the same right

Sent from my Droid using DroidForums App

 

[aristoid]

I started my cell phone experience on Qwest. Gave that up after a couple years because coverage stunk - cities only. Then I went to Alltel. After their merger with Cellular One, I changed to verizon. On alltel, I had the same dumb flip phone for four years. Two on my account, and two on my work account.

I started Verizon with a hand-me-down dumb phone that I used for almost five years before the battery gave up the ghost. I still have the dumb phone I got for free when signing up for Verizon as a back up.

When I switched to the D1 last summer, I did so with every intention of keeping it until true EOL (not just tech EOL - when it physically died). So in the last 10 years, verizon has gotten about $200 from me for phones, but much much more in my monthly fees. With my early termination amount equal to about two months of my normal bill, I would now gladly terminate early to save a few hundred dollars on the newest, bestest phone out there!!

How does this make verizon money if they do not recoup the cost of the phone well within a two year contract? Why would they push us into the newest/bestest phone if that was the case? They make their money (and ROI) on us continuing to use our current devices as I have in the past - for years past end of contract.

I realize I may be a bit unusual in this crowd with my phone cycle, but far more people around here have used the same phone for years until it finally dies. And most of the folks I know are jumping on the smartphone bandwagon, and with that, much higher monthly bills. It has to be a win for Big Red to keep us in our current phones as long as possible. (and any carrier for that matter)

If they do not make any money from a contract for close to the life of the contract because of the cost of the hardware, why would any carrier enact rules that would encourage people to jump from carrier to carrier just to have the newest hardware? It used to be competition based on plan features and pricing. I cannot believe it would change to hardware focused competition. Why would they push for one year contracts if they were unable to recover the cost of the phone in that amount of time? They make six times as much in a year if I stay with them, than if I choose the early termination option!! I still get the phone, they get no more money, it just doesn't make sense.

Carrier options are limited where I live, but in most metropolitan areas, I would be gone at the first sign of reduced services. It makes more sense to offer the great service that have kept many people happy for years and years, rather than to start cutting the loyal customers off at the knees.

Again, my $.02 - better be careful, it's gonna be a nickle soon ;-o

 

[DyMiC]

I wish there were some way of buying a phone directly from the manufacturer without having to worry about the bloatware, security lockdowns, blah blah blah. A totally unlocked phone, but with the carrier's radio of your choice. So, for example, if I wanted a Motorola Droid on AT&T, I could order one directly from Moto with the radio. And if I wanna tear the firmware apart and make it do all this crazy ish, I should be able to. I understand the WiFi Tethering stuff, though. We are kinda Sh*ts for doing it. But why the hell are you gonna charge 10 bucks more for it when I'm already paying for unlimited data? I can easily rack up 5 GB a month without using tethering. This whole thing is stupid. P3 is right. It's all about the money. And it's sickening. The thing is, there's only so many of us that are into modding/deving. And the big corps are looking at the mainstream. Most people don't know or even care about the capabilities of the device. All they care about is that they can make calls, text, and surf the web.

And with the kids nowadays (and I"m talking in general, because I know there's gotta be a few of your teenagers out there that are actually smart enough to figure out how to do this stuff and you're reading this RIGHT NOW) getting more stupid as the days pass, and the educational system trying to dumb things down so the kids don't have to try so hard, it's only a matter of time before we get wiped out.

I'm starting to make Deving/Modding sound like a cult, but it really sort of is. And without further educating our friends, families, etc.... we WILL die. So preach! Preach our cult!

But yeah. Money talks, BS walks. And that's the only thing ringing in Moto/Google/VZW's heads right now.