Teacher
•
1 Message
Locked bootloader on Galaxy S4...DO NOT BUY IT!
I been with ATT for over 10 years and every year I see more and more anticonsumer behavior from you... I was planning on purchasing new Galaxy S4 and now I come to find out that it and the other high-end phone, HTC One, both have locked bootloaders!
Why are you crippling devices ATT? This is a slap in the face to any loyal customer and high-tech driven people. These phones were meant to be used with maximum cusomization in mind, Sprint and T-Mobile both released theirs totally unmolested.
Why are you driving your customers away?
kgbkny
Guru
•
309 Messages
11 years ago
Ideally, this would be the case. However, T-Mobile had a 2 year contract plan (complete with an ETF), called Value Plan, that offered a lower monthly rate by not providing a subsidized phone. In fact, subscribers who are still under contract for those plans must pay a migration fee if they choose to move to one of the "UnCarrier" plans. Here's an interesting, albeit old, article that discusses ETFs and the carriers' claims that it's charged in order to recoup subsidies: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9971423-7.html
0
0
sitnsidewayz
Professor
•
1.9K Messages
11 years ago
That ETF for that plan makes sense since T-Mobile was offering a lower monthly rate and the contract is tied specifically to that. The ETF recovers some or all of the savings already given. Not going full term with the contract forces one to surreneder those savings. With AT&T, bringing your own device does not get you a lower monthly rate and there is no contract. It is month to month.
0
0
kgbkny
Guru
•
309 Messages
11 years ago
But....T-Mobile was not providing a subsidized device with that plan, hence the lower monthly rate. They were very public with the fact that the lower rate results from the cost of the subsidized device not being built into it.
0
0
21stNow
Professor
•
2.7K Messages
11 years ago
Almost everyone blames the (at the time) pending buyout by AT&T for the contract requirement for that plan. It would make some sense, since before and after the AT&T buyout failure T-Mobile offered the unsubsidized phone plan as a month-to-month plan with no term requirement.
0
0
kgbkny
Guru
•
309 Messages
11 years ago
There's anecdotal evidence that T-Mobile was trying to prevent a mass exodus of customers when the planned AT&T buyout was announced, prompting the company to implement some rather draconian practices. Contracts on non-subsidized plans, as well as automatic contract renewals for account changes that wouldn't normally require a contract renewal, are just a couple of examples.
0
0
21stNow
Professor
•
2.7K Messages
11 years ago
There was a flip-side according to one of the other forum members, and I do remember hearing this during that buyout period. Some customers actually wanted to be "protected" by a contract just in case "big bad AT&T" succeeded in the buyout. I truly don't understand the level of fear that the customers had. If I did have that level of fear, I would have preferred to not be in a contract so that I could have left with ease if things were not to my liking after the acquisition.
0
0
kgbkny
Guru
•
309 Messages
11 years ago
The fear was certainly irrational. Even if AT&T were to immediately raise the rates of all former T-Mobile customers, that would constitute a materially adverse change and allow these customers to leave without an ETF. T-Mobile customers (and now, their CEO) seem to harbor some deep hatred for AT&T.
0
gamesjon
Contributor
•
2 Messages
10 years ago
Regarding all the posts in this thread regarding legal ownership of phones that were purchased at subsidized prices with contracts I just wanted to try and clear this up. This is a very convoluted issue because of how they implement prices/plans and what the actual terms of the contract are.
If considering only the terms of the contract you would own the phone from day 1. But, you would be responsible for keeping the full contract to recieve the discounted price. If you failed to complete your obligations of the contract you would forfeit the discount that was given. Which means you would owe the company the difference between the full cost of phone and the discounted price you paid. Now technically I am pretty sure it would be possible to implement a way to have the customer who failed these obligations to return the phone but with no real set standard on appraising the value of used electronics in general, let alone specifically cellphones, condition variations from different customers I doubt that this could be introduced in a fair and accurate way to both customers and the carrier.
When looking at how they rate their plans and fees it is like a loan. Especially considering the recent changes to the mobile share plans ($15 less a month for plans that don't include subsidized phones). The only way it isn't implemented like a loan is in the fact that you don't recieve a reduced rate when they recoup the money they discounted for the phone, and that they didn't offer the reduced rates for non-subsidized phone plans before December 5th of this year.
They way these opposing ideas are put together I am 99% positive that you do technically own a subsidized phone from day 1 in legal terms. But, the flipside to this is that AT&T does not have to adjust plan rates when the subsidy is recovered from plan holders nor do they have to show how much of the bill is caused by getting this subsidy (Even with the new price changes their plan prices do not consider subsidy costs accurately). So although it essentially operates like a loan it "technically" is a breach of contract on your end that results in them being able to recover the costs they had from their obligations of the agreement (i.e. the discount price).
0
0
rgp2014
Contributor
•
2 Messages
10 years ago
P.D. If I buy the unit under a contract only paying $99.00, $200.00 or whatever they offer it on sale, then it would probably be just fine and still is not free, they should only be concerned with the monthly service which ultimately will remain unchanged.........
0
0
alanb28613
Voyager
•
1 Message
10 years ago
I'm with you 100% on this. AT&T will lie to you and tell you it is Samsung that is locking the bootloaders down, however if that was the case ALL Samsung bootloaders would be locked and that's simply not true. As mentioned earlier the Sprint and T-Mobile versions does not have a locked bootloader and neither does the Canadian version. It is locked on our AT&T variants because AT&T wants it that way. Same with Big Red. I'll never buy another Samsung product, including TV, DVD player, etc because of it. As long as HTC continues to allow users to unlock their bootloaders my next phone will be another HTC and I regret buying this Samsung Galaxy S4 instead of the HTC One.
0
0