is there any UK retailer that could sell the sgs2 but in payments? I cant pay for the whole thing... it means paying lets say like for example 50 pound per month..
is there any retailer that might do that or accept such kind of payment? =/
please help me out as I really wanna switch from this Omnia HD of mine..
thanks in advance
P.S
I live in Israel and not in the UK, if that will change anything...
none..?
I'm not trying sound sarcastic, but would they not let you order with a credit card? Paying that off in installments.
huh? what do you mean?
I meant credit card, but in payments.. like paying 50 pound per month instead of the whole 440 pounds in 1 hit (1 month)
Last time I looked that's kinda how credit cards work, you buy it in one go and pay the card off as you can afford it.
weird because I'm always getting charged in 1 hit.. no matter how big the charge is..
Well of course you're going to get charged the interest on the full amount, but it's up to you pay down the capital. Even if you did find a UK supplier with a credit agreement, it would be the same and probably cost more. You won't get instalments.
Fornowagain said:
Well of course you're going to get charged the interest on the full amount, but it's up to you pay down the capital. Even if you did find a UK supplier with a credit agreement, it would be the same and probably cost more. You won't get instalments.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think the OP is referring to a hire purchase agreement? rather than the entire amount being charged to his credit card in one hit, and then making monthly payments to credit card company. At least, thats my take anyway. If I'm right, then I think he is out of luck, as most hire purchase agreements require some sort of credit check?
KnightMAREcrow said:
but would they not let you order with a credit card? Paying that off in installments.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No idea how credit cards work in the UK but in Austria you get a monthly statement, to be paid immediately and in full, while in the US they seem to work more like giros.
But anyway, OP, if you can't afford the phone don't buy it. Consumer loans for something that isn't an investment (own flat / house, maybe a car) are a really bad idea.
stoney73 said:
I think the OP is referring to a hire purchase agreement? rather than the entire amount being charged to his credit card in one hit, and then making monthly payments to credit card company. At least, thats my take anyway. If I'm right, then I think he is out of luck, as most hire purchase agreements require some sort of credit check?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah that's what I was referring to, a credit agreement where they split the cost of the item and include interest. So a fixed amount each month until term, but even if he could find one it would cost a bomb and not for an overseas buyer.
fallenguru said:
No idea how credit cards work in the UK but in Austria you get a monthly statement, to be paid immediately and in full, while in the US they seem to work more like giros.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What you have to pay the entire balance?
Fornowagain said:
What you have to pay the entire balance?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep, it's even debited automatically from a regular bank account / giro, so it's only a credit card insofar as you only have to pay once per month. My point was, what a credit card actually is differs a lot, usually on a country-by-country basis.
fallenguru said:
Yep, it's even debited automatically from a regular bank account / giro, so it's only a credit card insofar as you only have to pay once per month. My point was, what a credit card actually is differs a lot, usually on a country-by-country basis.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now that would make you think twice about buying. It's all too easy over here to have a dozen cards maxed to the limit and just pay minimum balances of a few quid. Not only that, they're always increasing the credit limit. One card I've had a small balance on, only a few hundred on and off has a limit of over £20K. Never asked for it.
just order the O2 50 min deal cancel data bolt on after a month, and then pay 10.50 p/m over 24 mnths, interest free no hassle
Try this http://www.kevwright.com/home/2011/5/23/samsung-galaxy-s2-unlocked-for-351.html
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
In an attempt to get an official response from the parties involved with the locking of the phones, I am referencing 47 CFG 27.16 which has the following sections of interest, the former being more relevant than the latter.
(b) Use of devices and applications. Licensees offering service on spectrum subject to this section shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice on the licensee's C Block network, except:
(1) Insofar as such use would not be compliant with published technical standards reasonably necessary for the management or protection of the licensee's network, or
(2) As required to comply with statute or applicable government regulation.
(e) Handset locking prohibited. No licensee may disable features on handsets it provides to customers, to the extent such features are compliant with the licensee's standards pursuant to paragraph (b)of this section, nor configure handsets it provides to prohibit use of such handsets on other providers' networks.
(f) Burden of proof. Once a complainant sets forth a prima facie case that the C Block licensee has refused to attach a device or application in violation of the requirements adopted in this section, the licensee shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate that it has adopted reasonable network standards and reasonably applied those standards in the complainant's case. Where the licensee bases its network restrictions on industry-wide consensus standards, such restrictions would be presumed reasonable.
I dont know if I will get anywhere with this but I am working on an open letter to VZW/Samsung (with EFF/FTC/FCC copied) requesting their official legal stance on this issue which will hopefully force them to respond according to part (f). I dont hold too much hope for this in the beginning but I am hopeful that this will gain traction as it seems, to me at least, that locking down the devices and not allowing installation of custom operating systems is in direct conflict with part (b) in that it "shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice".
Let me know what your thoughts are on this. I may be totally off base but I hope that I am not.
smokeyrd said:
In an attempt to get an official response from the parties involved with the locking of the phones, I am referencing 47 CFG 27.16 which has the following sections of interest, the former being more relevant than the latter.
(b) Use of devices and applications. Licensees offering service on spectrum subject to this section shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice on the licensee's C Block network, except:
(1) Insofar as such use would not be compliant with published technical standards reasonably necessary for the management or protection of the licensee's network, or
(2) As required to comply with statute or applicable government regulation.
(e) Handset locking prohibited. No licensee may disable features on handsets it provides to customers, to the extent such features are compliant with the licensee's standards pursuant to paragraph (b)of this section, nor configure handsets it provides to prohibit use of such handsets on other providers' networks.
(f) Burden of proof. Once a complainant sets forth a prima facie case that the C Block licensee has refused to attach a device or application in violation of the requirements adopted in this section, the licensee shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate that it has adopted reasonable network standards and reasonably applied those standards in the complainant's case. Where the licensee bases its network restrictions on industry-wide consensus standards, such restrictions would be presumed reasonable.
I dont know if I will get anywhere with this but I am working on an open letter to VZW/Samsung (with EFF/FTC/FCC copied) requesting their official legal stance on this issue which will hopefully force them to respond according to part (f). I dont hold too much hope for this in the beginning but I am hopeful that this will gain traction as it seems, to me at least, that locking down the devices and not allowing installation of custom operating systems is in direct conflict with part (b) in that it "shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice".
Let me know what your thoughts are on this. I may be totally off base but I hope that I am not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon doesn't lock the phones. You can install any operator's SIM and use it. That's what this law is about - it's nothing to do with bootloaders, it's to do with portability of the phone between carriers.
Sorry, you're wasting your time.
k1mu said:
Verizon doesn't lock the phones. You can install any operator's SIM and use it. That's what this law is about - it's nothing to do with bootloaders, it's to do with portability of the phone between carriers.
Sorry, you're wasting your time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well that sucks. It seems like the law is referring to more than just the SIM cards because it references "devices and applications" but like I said before, I'm no lawyer. Part (e) is certainly intended to be about the SIM cards but part (b) seems to be a "general statement" In any case...waiting on the EFF response and we'll see where it goes from there. *shrug*
pected eekerman
smokeyrd said:
In an attempt to get an official response from the parties involved with the locking of the phones, I am referencing 47 CFG 27.16 which has the following sections of interest, the former being more relevant than the latter.
(b) Use of devices and applications. Licensees offering service on spectrum subject to this section shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice on the licensee's C Block network, except:
(1) Insofar as such use would not be compliant with published technical standards reasonably necessary for the management or protection of the licensee's network, or
(2) As required to comply with statute or applicable government regulation.
(e) Handset locking prohibited. No licensee may disable features on handsets it provides to customers, to the extent such features are compliant with the licensee's standards pursuant to paragraph (b)of this section, nor configure handsets it provides to prohibit use of such handsets on other providers' networks.
(f) Burden of proof. Once a complainant sets forth a prima facie case that the C Block licensee has refused to attach a device or application in violation of the requirements adopted in this section, the licensee shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate that it has adopted reasonable network standards and reasonably applied those standards in the complainant's case. Where the licensee bases its network restrictions on industry-wide consensus standards, such restrictions would be presumed reasonable.
I dont know if I will get anywhere with this but I am working on an open letter to VZW/Samsung (with EFF/FTC/FCC copied) requesting their official legal stance on this issue which will hopefully force them to respond according to part (f). I dont hold too much hope for this in the beginning but I am hopeful that this will gain traction as it seems, to me at least, that locking down the devices and not allowing installation of custom operating systems is in direct conflict with part (b) in that it "shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice".
Let me know what your thoughts are on this. I may be totally off base but I hope that I am not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AFAIK this only applies to those phones that make use of the C-block (700MHz band) of the radio spectrum. Only some new phones utilize that frequency range, and I think they also have to be bought off contract from the manufacturer directly. I think the Nexus 7 2013 edition tablet is made to use the C-block spectrum, but even then Big Red found some way to get past and violate the open access policy and disallow those tablets to be used when they clearly can and do work with Verizon.
Basically, what Im saying is Verizon will always find ways to lock everything up and be buttholes about it. Im sure the guy in that Tom's Hardware article (I cant post links yet) is fighting Verizon to get his new tablet working as it should, but like others who have tried, hes apt to fail. We just have to wait and see and count on hackery and our beloved developers to get the things we want.
No letter/petition is ever going to persuade samsung or Verizon to unlock the bootloader. They can do whatever they want and aren't going to listen to a small amount of users who wish to flash custom software. Period.
What is the purpose of a developer edition? Thank you.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using xda app-developers app
richii0207 said:
What is the purpose of a developer edition? Thank you.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Honestly, its just another way for Samsung to earn money. Normally, phones can be unlocked by going to the manufacturer website and using a special tool or some other sort of method. However, Verizon has completely removed that ability. So, Samsung, instead of helping devs by fighting to reverse that, they took it as a way to make extra cash by making a phone without Verizon's custom bootloader security that you buy out of contract from Samsung themselves. You get a completely unlocked phone, and Samsung gets pocket money. Not entirely fair, and it cheats people who need to buy the phone under subsidy, but such are companies like Verizon.
gnubian said:
No letter/petition is ever going to persuade samsung or Verizon to unlock the bootloader. They can do whatever they want and aren't going to listen to a small amount of users who wish to flash custom software. Period.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In this case the goal isnt to politely ask that they stop doing it. The goal is to force them to conform to Federal laws governing their use of the spectrum. That being said, after some input from other members here that looks to be doubtful. I'll still give it a shot and see what turns up. It cant hurt to try.
No can't hurt to try.. Like someone else already stated though.. Neither Verizon or Samsung really care about folks like us who wish to have an unlocked bootloader to flash custom ROMs and such. Were such a small number to them. Sux I know.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Mistertac said:
No can't hurt to try.. Like someone else already stated though.. Neither Verizon or Samsung really care about folks like us who wish to have an unlocked bootloader to flash custom ROMs and such. Were such a small number to them. Sux I know.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One piece of ammo you might want to use is the fact that Cyanogen and its partners are now making phones. CM is a custom ROM to start with and if the carriers don't want the phones on their network, a restraint of trade lawsuit could be in the works.
That said, the letter is still a long shot but nothing ventured, nothing gained.
ky5ever said:
Honestly, its just another way for Samsung to earn money. Normally, phones can be unlocked by going to the manufacturer website and using a special tool or some other sort of method. However, Verizon has completely removed that ability. So, Samsung, instead of helping devs by fighting to reverse that, they took it as a way to make extra cash by making a phone without Verizon's custom bootloader security that you buy out of contract from Samsung themselves. You get a completely unlocked phone, and Samsung gets pocket money. Not entirely fair, and it cheats people who need to buy the phone under subsidy, but such are companies like Verizon.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Who NEEDS an S4?
If you chose to have someone pay the bulk of the price for you in exchange for you signing a contract dictating usage... Where is your complaint?
I am all for "sticking it to the man", I heavily support us hacking the phones to get what we want... But Its hard to complain the "guy" who paid the bulk of the cost of your phone had a say what is going on.
Contrary to popular belief the a Samsung Galaxy S4 (non dev) does NOT cost $250. Its closer to $700. The difference in cost represents the cost of the restrictions placed on you by re-upping your contract and having limitations/bloatware put on your phone.
scryan said:
Who NEEDS an S4?
If you chose to have someone pay the bulk of the price for you in exchange for you signing a contract dictating usage... Where is your complaint?
I am all for "sticking it to the man", I heavily support us hacking the phones to get what we want... But Its hard to complain the "guy" who paid the bulk of the cost of your phone had a say what is going on.
Contrary to popular belief the a Samsung Galaxy S4 (non dev) does NOT cost $250. Its closer to $700. The difference in cost represents the cost of the restrictions placed on you by re-upping your contract and having limitations/bloatware put on your phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Contrary to popular belief the a Samsung Galaxy S4 (non dev) does NOT cost $250. Its closer to $700.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's what subsidy means....correct me if I am wrong?
Also, buying a retail (non-developer) S4 changes nothing. You still get bloatware, and you still get a locked bootloader, nothing changes.
Buying a phone out of contract just means you can go without data on your plan. It also means you do not have to keep paying for two years, obviously.
Buying a dev S4 is NOT done through Verizon. To get the ultra-super-special feature of an unlocked bootloader, you have to get it from somewhere else than Verizon. And that place is Samsung, directly.
Finally, I know nobody NEEDS an S4, I dont know why you had to attack me based on that assumption. I said anyone who needs the phone on SUBSIDY. Because, yeah, the only other option is $700, like you said.
ky5ever said:
That's what subsidy means....correct me if I am wrong?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup, 100% wrong.
Look at your sales tax.
You bought a $700 phone and they refunded some money... Thats why you pay the sales tax on full price.
I mean, think of it this way... Find me a brand new S4 for $250 from a retailer. I have only $250 dollars. I will not sign any contracts or do any deals past the one event... Buying an S4. I have $300. Since you can buy S4's for $250, send me a brand new unopened S4 and you can pocket the profit...
But you cannot buy an S4 for $250 alone... So its pretty hard to call that the cost yes? Because no matter what it will cost you more then that to obtain one. You cannot straight trade $250 for an S4.
By definition subsidy is about the price you pay, but not cost.
See the following:
money that is paid usually by a government to keep the price of a product or service low or to help a business or organization to continue to function
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
According to Merriam-Webster.
The price you pay with a subsity is less then the cost of the good. The cost of the good is what you pay + whatever whoever else pays.
It may chance the price, but the cost
the price of something : the amount of money that is needed to pay for or buy something
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Is still what is was before. Just now your not the one paying the bulk of it. Someone else is stepping in and taking up part of that burden.
But the cost the is taken up by Verizon is still recouped.
Firstly, and mostly, by the increase in monthly income due to more people resigning contracts.
Second, by the vendors who pay for their bloatware to be preloaded
Thirdly, by the increase in sales project to occur due to modifications made before sale, i.e. increasing security to make the product more viable for corporate and government use.
The cost is what it is, your price changes as you get someone else to foot the bill.
Hence the extra input from the guy who made up the difference in what you pay and the cost (Samsung is NOT selling the S4 to verizon at no profit, verizon buys phones to sell like any other retailer. Samsung doesn't care about Verizon contracts, only number of units sold to a retailer, on that basis Verizon CAN negotiate a better cost per unit, but that is really the same as any other retailer... Just their size gives them leverage. But Samsung has NOTHING to do with the subsidy. )
scryan said:
Yup, 100% wrong.
Look at your sales tax.
You bought a $700 phone and they refunded some money... Thats why you pay the sales tax on full price.
According to Merriam-Webster.
The price you pay with a subsity is less then the cost of the good. The cost of the good is what you pay + whatever whoever else pays.
It may chance the price, but the cost
Is still what is was before. Just now your not the one paying the bulk of it. Someone else is stepping in and taking up part of that burden.
But the cost the is taken up by Verizon is still recouped.
Firstly, and mostly, by the increase in monthly income due to more people resigning contracts.
Second, by the vendors who pay for their bloatware to be preloaded
Thirdly, by the increase in sales project to occur due to modifications made before sale, i.e. increasing security to make the product more viable for corporate and government use.
The cost is what it is, your price changes as you get someone else to foot the bill.
Hence the extra input from the guy who made up the difference in what you pay and the cost (Samsung is NOT selling the S4 to verizon at no profit, verizon buys phones to sell like any other retailer. Samsung doesn't care about Verizon contracts, only number of units sold to a retailer, on that basis Verizon CAN negotiate a better cost per unit, but that is really the same as any other retailer... Just their size gives them leverage. But Samsung has NOTHING to do with the subsidy. )
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First off, what you are saying doesnt make any sense. You said that "contrary to popular belief, the S4 does NOT cost $250, its closer to $700."
Uhm, thats exactly what I said in my first post. So, no, I am not 100% wrong. Not even the slightest bit wrong. I said subsidy. Thats why the phone isnt actually $250. Cause thats what subsidy means. The phone is sold at a reduced price because the rest is paid off by Verizon.
You also stated that the reason there is bloatware and a locked bootloader is because, since Verizon paid half the price (or so), they assume some control over the phone.
My argument to that is, if that is the case, then how come buying the S4 out of contract for full price still gets you a bloated and locked device? The subsidy has nothing to do with bloatware. Verizon is going to bloat and restrict anything they sell THEMSELVES, no matter how it is purchased.
THAT is why, to get a phone sans bloatware and lock, you must get it from another company, and only purchase a SIM card and insert it to the phone.
You also now state that vendors pay Verizon for their bloatware to be preloaded. Uhm, no. Vendors made the phone. They dont have to pay anyone to install their own software on their own device. Verizon actually pays the vendors a small fee to have bloatware installed. That is part of the reason iPhones never have and never will have carrier bloat. Apple refuses to sell the software just so it can be slowed down.
Another thing. Verizon did absolutely nothing towards increasing security for corporate users. Samsung did. Also, Samsung made the bootloader able to boot custom ROMs and kernels, you just lose the ability to make KNOX containers. But, really, what average user is going to do that? The reason most of the average S4 users do not want the KNOX warranty void flag set is because it reduces resell value.
Samsung sells the phones at about $580-$600. Thats some profit off the manufacturing cost, which Im not sure of. Verizon then sells it for $700 plus taxes and all. Thats some profit for them, too. However, that is too high for the average user to pay. So, they have part of the cost paid for, as long as you promise to give them money for two years.
Verizon recovers the lost money from charging ridiculously high prices for CAPPED and SPEED LIMITED data, as well as by forcing the use of some of their services, like making you pay for internet if you have a smartphone. They cost more, so they make you pay for something else, a little over a long time, to recoup what they lost.
They DONT get it back from people resigning contracts. New contracts have nothing to do with phones purchased previously. Once the contract is paid, the phone is paid for, in full. So, starting a new contract starts payments on an entirely new session.
ky5ever said:
First off, what you are saying doesnt make any sense. You said that "contrary to popular belief, the S4 does NOT cost $250, its closer to $700."
Uhm, thats exactly what I said in my first post. So, no, I am not 100% wrong. Not even the slightest bit wrong. I said subsidy. Thats why the phone isnt actually $250. Cause thats what subsidy means. The phone is sold at a reduced price because the rest is paid off by Verizon.
You also stated that the reason there is bloatware and a locked bootloader is because, since Verizon paid half the price (or so), they assume some control over the phone.
You also stated that the reason there is bloatware and a locked bootloader is because, since Verizon paid half the price (or so), they assume some control over the phone.
My argument to that is, if that is the case, then how come buying the S4 out of contract for full price still gets you a bloated and locked device? The subsidy has nothing to do with bloatware. Verizon is going to bloat and restrict anything they sell THEMSELVES, no matter how it is purchased.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When you buy off contract you have the choice of
The phone still "costs" the market clearing price of an off contract S4... Sure that money is not anywhere, but its opportunity costs because they could have sold that unit subsidized for the market clearing price had they chosen.
The off contract verizon S4 still comes with all of that because that is what they decided to do with what they sell. Just like I can go buy a corvette and paint on a race strip and sell it at my dealership. If you want a discount from me on a corvette you need to run a bumpersticker with my logo, and I am forcing you to have a race strip. If you don't want a race strip... Buy from chevy.
ky5ever said:
You also now state that vendors pay Verizon for their bloatware to be preloaded. Uhm, no. Vendors made the phone. They dont have to pay anyone to install their own software on their own device. Verizon actually pays the vendors a small fee to have bloatware installed. That is part of the reason iPhones never have and never will have carrier bloat. Apple refuses to sell the software just so it can be slowed down.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Vendors didnt make the phones. Vendors are:
a person or company offering something for sale, esp. a trader in the street.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The people who make the bloatware profit off their apps or services. Guys who sell services (vendors) pay verizon to put their apps on phones so that the end consumer will hopefully like it and continue using the service.
ky5ever said:
Another thing. Verizon did absolutely nothing towards increasing security for corporate users. Samsung did. Also, Samsung made the bootloader able to boot custom ROMs and kernels, you just lose the ability to make KNOX containers. But, really, what average user is going to do that? The reason most of the average S4 users do not want the KNOX warranty void flag set is because it reduces resell value.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Having Admin rights reduces security. Its just a fact. Its the reason user accounts exist in linux, and why you only become administrator briefly each time rights need to be granted in both android and linux. Your phone is more secure if you don't have to option to mistakenly load something insecure on it. This is simply a fact, you can read it from pretty much any book that discusses the subject. YOU may be super admin, but there is no test before admin rights are given... and if one of your employees is not the super admin he thinks he is, your security has been compromised.
ky5ever said:
Verizon recovers the lost money from charging ridiculously high prices for CAPPED and SPEED LIMITED data, as well as by forcing the use of some of their services, like making you pay for internet if you have a smartphone. They cost more, so they make you pay for something else, a little over a long time, to recoup what they lost.
They DONT get it back from people resigning contracts. New contracts have nothing to do with phones purchased previously. Once the contract is paid, the phone is paid for, in full. So, starting a new contract starts payments on an entirely new session.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They make money in more ways then just monthly contract. Again, do you think they are not paid to load bloat? Do you really not acknowledged that a phone that cannot be modified is more secure from the viewpoint of a corporation issuing phones to random employies? This increases sales and profit.
The fact that its mean kind does not mean a damn thing. Its a deal YOU already agreed was fair, and VZ has your signature to prove it. If it wasn't fair, why didn't you sign up for the better option?
You were presented with, in writing, the fact that you would not be allowed to modify your phone if you asked VZ for help with the price. If you didn't read your contact, or didn't believe they would hold you to it... I don't know what to tell you.
And honestly that is what it comes down to more then ANYTHING.
MAN THE **** UP. You knew VZ locks phones from the get go. They don't hide it. Even if it was unlocked you agreed contractuatlly that you should not be able to modify the phone.
The real difference is that we haven't been able to beat them yet. Be upset about that, but you signed up for what you signed up for man... Very transparent.
15 33663429
scryan said:
When you buy off contract you have the choice of
The phone still "costs" the market clearing price of an off contract S4... Sure that money is not anywhere, but its opportunity costs because they could have sold that unit subsidized for the market clearing price had they chosen.
The off contract verizon S4 still comes with all of that because that is what they decided to do with what they sell. Just like I can go buy a corvette and paint on a race strip and sell it at my dealership. If you want a discount from me on a corvette you need to run a bumpersticker with my logo, and I am forcing you to have a race strip. If you don't want a race strip... Buy from chevy.
Vendors didnt make the phones. Vendors are:
The people who make the bloatware profit off their apps or services. Guys who sell services (vendors) pay verizon to put their apps on phones so that the end consumer will hopefully like it and continue using the service.
Having Admin rights reduces security. Its just a fact. Its the reason user accounts exist in linux, and why you only become administrator briefly each time rights need to be granted in both android and linux. Your phone is more secure if you don't have to option to mistakenly load something insecure on it. This is simply a fact, you can read it from pretty much any book that discusses the subject. YOU may be super admin, but there is no test before admin rights are given... and if one of your employees is not the super admin he thinks he is, your security has been compromised.
They make money in more ways then just monthly contract. Again, do you think they are not paid to load bloat? Do you really not acknowledged that a phone that cannot be modified is more secure from the viewpoint of a corporation issuing phones to random employies? This increases sales and profit.
The fact that its mean kind does not mean a damn thing. Its a deal YOU already agreed was fair, and VZ has your signature to prove it. If it wasn't fair, why didn't you sign up for the better option?
You were presented with, in writing, the fact that you would not be allowed to modify your phone if you asked VZ for help with the price. If you didn't read your contact, or didn't believe they would hold you to it... I don't know what to tell you.
And honestly that is what it comes down to more then ANYTHING.
MAN THE **** UP. You knew VZ locks phones from the get go. They don't hide it. Even if it was unlocked you agreed contractuatlly that you should not be able to modify the phone.
The real difference is that we haven't been able to beat them yet. Be upset about that, but you signed up for what you signed up for man... Very transparent.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was gonna just give the f**k up and leave you be, cause Im tired of arguing and I figured youd come to a consensus, and I was even agreeing with many of your points, up until I read the last paragraph.
scryan said:
The fact that its mean kind does not mean a damn thing. Its a deal YOU already agreed was fair, and VZ has your signature to prove it. If it wasn't fair, why didn't you sign up for the better option?
You were presented with, in writing, the fact that you would not be allowed to modify your phone if you asked VZ for help with the price. If you didn't read your contact, or didn't believe they would hold you to it... I don't know what to tell you.
And honestly that is what it comes down to more then ANYTHING.
MAN THE **** UP. You knew VZ locks phones from the get go. They don't hide it. Even if it was unlocked you agreed contractuatlly that you should not be able to modify the phone.
The real difference is that we haven't been able to beat them yet. Be upset about that, but you signed up for what you signed up for man... Very transparent.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First off. Verizon does not state that the software cannot be modified. They state that if you do modify the phone, you cannot ask for help fixing the phone or applying further modifications to it with support from Verizon. They will not help you. If they said you cannot root the phone, than a LOT of people would be facing court sessions.
Secondly. Man the f**k up? What made you think I was any bit upset with what Verizon does?
I sure as hell accept it. And I sure as hell cant do anything about it. Thats not the problem here. I was merely telling the other guy that HE is also going to have to "man the f**k up" and deal with it.
Third. VZW just recently started locking phones. And it was not publicized. They dont just up and go "HEY GUYS, WE LOCK PHONES NOW. KTHXBAI." Also, if it was unlocked, then why make an agreement that Im not going to unlock it? Thats right, there was no agreement.
We have beaten them, several times. Not yet for the S4, but we are oh so close. Im not upset about that, far from it, my friend. Im ecstatic. I only wish I could contribute somehow myself.
I signed up for a high end phone on the nations most reliable cellphone network. Any caveats therein are to be dealt with as met.
Fourth. Verizon locking the bootloader when one of the key features of the KNOX bootloader is staying secure while also letting you run proprietary customized ROMs and software IS NOT A SELLING POINT. I dont know WHAT made you think LACK of features was a selling point.
A phone that keeps ONLY THE DATA THEY WANT, to be encrypted, encrypted, while keeping everything else normal, is the best phone.
Most corporate companies are purchasing T-Mobile or AT&T phones, even, because they are more lenient with letting the business customize the phone to their individual needs. Not everyone wants what Verizon wants.
Im done with you. You can type me up another nice long reply and tell me again how wrong I am. I dont care. You believe what you want to believe, and Ill believe what I want to believe. This all started because you misinterpreted my words, anyway. So, please, lets drop this.
It's worth a shot and i applaud u for exercising your 1st amendment and looking out for consumer rights. I'll definitely sign that petition. In addition, I wonder if this also applies to carrier"blacklisting/blocking" equipment imei from being used due to unpaid accounts. I would think that it's common sense and good business to blacklist/block the account holder who has delinquent or unpaid equipment bills instead of blocking the phone from being activated on another account.
////ANDY
Sorry Google Play Music subscribers. It looks like you won’t be getting an advertised three month credit when you purchase a new LG Nexus 5X or Huawei Nexus 6P. In the terms for the Play Nexus 90 promotion, it says the following:
“The Offer is only open to residents in the US, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany, France, Spain, Austria, Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Russia, Switzerland, Belgium, Norway, Poland, Greece, Japan, Australia and New Zealand (each an “Eligible Territory”) who:
1. have purchased an Nexus 6P or Nexus 5X in a Eligible Territory (“Phone”) between September 29, 2015 and midnight Pacific Standard Time on April 18, 2017; and
2. at the time the Offer is redeemed: (i) are not current Google Play Music subscribers; (ii) have not been Google Play Music subscribers in the past 12 months; and/or (iii) have not participated in a Google Play Music trial in the past 12 months.”
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In past cases, even as recently as the Nexus 6, current subscribers would get a credit towards their bill. I personally have a credit until December due to buying a Nexus 6 and I’ve been a subscriber since the service begun a few years ago.
Definitely disappointing but probably not something that will keep many people from purchasing the phone. If you’ve only used the free version of the service it appears that you’ll still be able to redeem the offer and get three free months.
http://www.androidguys.com/2015/10/03/current-subscribers-wont-receive-a-google-play-music-credit-with-a-new-nexus-purchase
Ugh
Makes absolutely no sense!
Existing customers get nothing.
And because I'm in the UK, I don't even get the $50 Google Play credit that everyone gets in the states either.
It's bad enough we pay soooo much more for the device aswell!
.... Thanks for nothing Google! (Literally)
I'm not even planning on taking advantage of it. 90% of my music listening is on the subway, streaming doesn't work for me.
Thats disappointing for sure..
Just create a new gmail. Should work and since you can have multiple accounts on a device it won't impact you. I did this with Nexus 6 promotion last year
[hfm] said:
I'm not even planning on taking advantage of it. 90% of my music listening is on the subway, streaming doesn't work for me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can create playlists and then select to download them to your device for offline use. Any future songs added to that list will auto-download on your device when you have data (you can select it to only happen on Wi-Fi).
I was planning on doing something similar with my car. There is an after market android head unit (not android auto) that I was looking at and I would put Play Music on it and make a playlist for the car and have it auto-download there. When the car is in my driveway it gets Wi-Fi and would download the music before I left
[hfm said:
;1975325]I'm not even planning on taking advantage of it. 90% of my music listening is on the subway, streaming doesn't work for me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can download it for offline playback
i don't know what's so outrageous about this. i know you mention something about being able to take advantage of such offers before, but that's never been the case for me. Previous offers bundled with other nexus devices and chromebooks have been off limits to me as an existing subscriber. the only thing they've consistently allowed was google drive storage bonuses. ymmv but it's hardly shocking
WoodroweBones said:
You can create playlists and then select to download them to your device for offline use. Any future songs added to that list will auto-download on your device when you have data (you can select it to only happen on Wi-Fi).
I was planning on doing something similar with my car. There is an after market android head unit (not android auto) that I was looking at and I would put Play Music on it and make a playlist for the car and have it auto-download there. When the car is in my driveway it gets Wi-Fi and would download the music before I left
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Pilz said:
You can download it for offline playback
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm just extremely anal about my music collection. I like organizing it on my NAS so I can put it on any device I feel like with a simple copy on my local WiFi. I also have Amazon prime (where I buy all my mp3s anyway for a large number of years) so I'm already paying for being able to stream a decent chunk of my purchases and whatever Amazon throws in for free in Prime from time to time if I want to stream something on my laptop that I don't actually "own" in a rare case. I don't need yet another music service I will rarely want to use. I like having full control over my mp3s. I definitely see the draw for people that like to use it or if you don't have a music collection at all. But I've got like hundreds of gigabytes of music that ripped from my CD's (which I rarely buy anymore, but I've still got a ton of them) and purchased from Amazon MP3. I've still got all my CD's going back to like the late 80s (I'm old..relatively..)
bummer. i like free credits.
but this phone is so awesome, i'd buy it again. credits be damned.
AS someone said, its pretty trivial to create a new google account and use it for music for the 3 months.
indianajonze said:
i don't know what's so outrageous about this. i know you mention something about being able to take advantage of such offers before, but that's never been the case for me. Previous offers bundled with other nexus devices and chromebooks have been off limits to me as an existing subscriber. the only thing they've consistently allowed was google drive storage bonuses. ymmv but it's hardly shocking
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then credit me the 3 months of service in my google account.
Pisses me off. We should get something.
EVOme said:
Pisses me off. We should get something.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why do you feel entitled to this?
The world is full of "for new subscribers only" type offers. The concept is well understood. The terms were posted when you purchased the device. What ever Google did previously with other releases is not relevant.
I ask because I don't understand the sense of entitlement and anger people expresses in this thread over what amounts to less than $30.
Elnrik said:
Why do you feel entitled to this?
The world is full of "for new subscribers only" type offers. The concept is well understood. The terms were posted when you purchased the device. What ever Google did previously with other releases is not relevant.
I ask because I don't understand the sense of entitlement and anger people expresses in this thread over what amounts to less than $30.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, it sucks when companies screw current customers in order to gain new customers. We've contributed to the success of the service and when there's incentives to be had, you'd think current loyal customers saw something from it. One month free would be fine with me....something to say thanks for being a customer as well as thanks for spending $590 on our new phone. I don't feel i'm owed anything, btw....just think there should be something for us all.
Elnrik said:
Why do you feel entitled to this?
The world is full of "for new subscribers only" type offers. The concept is well understood.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How about the $50 Google Play Credit & the fact it's only U.S only.
You don't think this is unfair?
Especially when everyone outside of the states pay a much higher price for the devices already.
Would have been nice to have credit towards my current service - but doesn't surprise me they aren't doing this. Also, would be nice to buy a case with the $50 - Is what it is, not why I bought the phone anyways.
EVOme said:
Well, it sucks when companies screw current customers in order to gain new customers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, that's what I don't understand though. From my perspective, I'm not being screwed. You're not being screwed. Google hasn't increased the price of the service, or deleted our music libraries, or whatever just to be spiteful or to screw you. Nothing is changing for us. Google is just offering new customers a little incentive to use their product.
chrisjcks said:
How about the $50 Google Play Credit & the fact it's only U.S only.
You don't think this is unfair?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't understand the decision, but I wouldn't call it unfair.
chrisjcks said:
Especially when everyone outside of the states pay a much higher price for the devices already.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Let's examine that.
In the States the 32GB black Nexus 6P costs $499. According to Google, the current conversion rates makes that 324.89 British Pounds.
In the UK, the same phone costs what? 449 pounds?
449 pounds converts to $689.62 usd.
$689.62
-499.00
=You're getting screwed.
BUT - considering I have no idea what other costs go into selling the thing in the UK (tariffs, taxes, etc), I couldn't say for sure that this is completely unfair. Easy to look at it and say it is though.