> A phone OS which allows the networks to be totally supplanted wouldn't be marketed positively (by the networks).
This is so backwards that it hurts. A Network which wont support the latest and greatest phones with the most awesome features will lose out customers.
Around here where I live (Europe) you chose the phone you want and you chose the plan which fits your needs. Two entirely different and disconnected things.
I can't believe you Americans let the telcos boss you around like that. Didn't you believe in freedom of choice, and all that? Why do you put up with this? Vote with your wallets. Pay whoever gives you choice. Don't let Apple's (or Google's) latest shiny toy fool you into choosing serfdom, just because it's (currently) only available on a few (or one) carrier.
Where I live, the iPhone was launched (US-style) exclusive to one operator. This is totally Alien here, with a capitol-A. People had to go to a lower-quality network operator to get the first iPhone 3G. The market didn't like this, data heavy users didn't like going to a network with a reputation for being sucky on data. They waited it out.
Voila. More operators got it, because Apple figured they could sell more by not being exclusive. It's not that hard.
Essentially because we're really bad at math. $500 for a phone is completely unacceptable, but hiding the cost in inflated monthly rates is just peachy.
Vote with your wallets.
I ordered the Nexus One the day after it was announced; unfortunately I was heavily outvoted.
Americans allow this because in general it's much cheaper to buy a phone subsidized over contract. Only one carrier here (T-Mobile) provides a monthly discount for unsubsidized phones. Most people don't just have $500+ to drop when they want or need a new phone, so it's much easier for people to go on contract and spread out that cost, even if it costs more in the long run (which it usually doesn't since most networks don't make any distinction in monthly cost).
The carrier exclusivity, restrictions, and crapware are annoying, but in most cases it's not irritating enough to convince someone to pay $300 more for the same thing.
I think you understand how it works, but phrased it wrong.
T-mobile is the only one who doesn't markup its prices for contracts used with unsubsidized phones. Where, "subsidized", means subsidized by the customer. The other carriers charge you the same extra phone subsidy fee (in effect), regardless of whether you bought the phone at full or "discounted" price, so there is no incentive to buy a phone at full price.
I agree that this is a consumer hostile model. T-mobile seems to have the best offer, where they let you make multiple payments on a full price phone (at no markup I believe).
> Americans allow this because in general it's much cheaper to buy a phone subsidized over contract
Subsidized phones are very popular in Europe, but the phone doesn't really enter the equation when choosing a network.
I actually think Europeans are cheaper than Americans ... over here people choose networks based on reliability and monthly bill, which is influenced by included minutes or bandwidth / area or demographic popularity (since voice minutes in the same network are cheaper).
I also have an iPhone, and in my country iPhones are still exclusive to a single carrier. But I did what every one of my acquaintances did ... bought one with a cheap monthly contract for 199 EUR; then unlocked it. And I didn't even pay my last 2 monthly bill (haven't used it, so I felt like it was unneeded); so they can sue me, but I don't really care because lock-in is not seen favorably in Europe and they've got customers with actual debts to worry about.
Of course, I wouldn't give this advice to other people ... just saying that the phone doesn't enter the equation; and the marketing campaigns are reflecting that.
My brother skipped paying a tiny amount like that - he received a letter from a debt collection agency demanding payment of the £20 bill, plus £100 payment for the cost of hiring a debt collection agency. He then payed immediately before it got any worse but his credit rating is still poor many years on.
I'm not sure if the iPhone is sold locked here in Greece, but I would be surprised if it did; it would be the only one. You can get a subsidised phone with any carrier, and they don't lock it or otherwise restrict you. The basic view is "you promise to pay us X money per month, we give you a roughly X12[1] subsidy on your phone now". They don't even care what phone, if any, you decide to get with the subsidy.
Also, this happens every year. Once a year passes, you're eligible for a new subsidy of X12 euros.
[1] I'm not at all sure if the multiplier is as much as 12, but it's at least 6. The main point, anyway, is that they don't care what phone you get.
It's might be backwards, but it's an unfortunate truth.
I live in Europe too .. but go to any phone shop, and you'll see that carriers pick specific phones to support. People traditionally buy phones with contracts - and a lot people shy away from buying a phone upfront (although this trend seems to be waning).
Also, a large part of the massive amount of money that's spent on marketing comes from the networks. Without their support a phone platform would be dead in the water.
I don't think the iPhone situation was an example of market forces creating pressure, I think the intention was always to allow other networks access .. in the UK Apple had a specific business relationship with O2 which must have been profitable for both parties. I think restriction to one network, was an example of clever (devious) marketing.
The situation will continue to change - but for the time being the power of these carrier networks is an unfortunate fact of life.
Subsidies can and should be independent from carrier exclusivity. It was in germany since the late nineties. Until the iPhone I could get any GSM-phone on any carrier with a subsidy (for extending my contract).
What's WifTether? I'm looking for reasons to root it, but for now TempRoot is working fine. I am also not sure if it will have any adverse effects, like preventing updating or anything.
Sorry I meant WiFi Tether (officially called "Android Wifi Tether"), it is an open source project that does the same job as the "official" wifi tether app that the carrier usually lock or require you to pay extra for them to set allowWifiTether = TRUE;
Being rooted allows the app to provide the same functionality without needing to check the carrier setting.
It's the killer app of being rooted. Unless you are on AT&T in SF or NY in which case your network is probably hosed anyway
Hmm, I see. I'm guessing it creates a WiFi hotspot you can connect to and access the internet? If so, my stock Desire HD does that already, since I'm not in the US. It's pretty shit that your carrier would disable that, our carriers don't mess with the phones at all...
A phone OS which allows the networks to be totally supplanted wouldn't be marketed positively (by the networks).