[jobigoud]

Is it really "your" smartphone if you are not allowed to modify it?

[HeckFeck]

If the telcos had their way, once your contract ended the phone would vaporise before your eyes.

[aesthesia]

If that's the case, why don't they already do this? It's totally feasible to design a phone that will brick itself when your contract ends. There's no legal impediment to doing it either.

[HeckFeck]

Don't give them the idea. I can imagine the reasoning: "We've had disposable cameras that were never truly the customer's property, may as well extend it to phones."

It could be argued that Apple were already doing this. Remember their updates that knowingly slowed down older phones? They claimed it was for performance reasons, but nowhere informed the user of this practice... Src: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171222/15380038868/apple...

[gdulli]

I agree with that. The reason I'm on Android is because my only iPhone became unusably slow 2 years into its life after a new OS update came out. I've never retired any other phone I've had for performance reasons, and I've kept them 3-4 years

[emiliobumachar]

Apple's claim, which seems reasonable, was that they were slowing down phones on older batteries to prevent surprise shutdowns which were otherwise becoming very common. They did totally botch communication.

[samus]

Phones whose batteries cannot be easily changed pretty much fit that definition.

[noisy_boy]

Because nobody would buy such a phone. They might wish but can't.

[samus]

All of us with phones whose batteries cannot be easily replaced, already did.

[noisy_boy]

Phones without replaceable batteries don't die off at end of two year contract period.