Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Forget the Cellphone Fight — We Should Be Allowed to Unlock Everything We Own

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 107 posts

Re: Forget the Cellphone Fight — We Should Be Allowed to Unlock Everything We Own

#81

Post by grannyg00se »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #74
grannyg00se wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this analogous to the just world fallacy? In that case the belief is that people get what they deserve. If bad things keep happening to you it must be because you're doing something wrong. Because the world is overall just. In this case people are willfully encouraging a certain business practice by giving those businesses their money. Then they complain about the business practice they just supported and look…

>They're not being victimized by a harsh world and being told it's their fault. They're willfully victimizing themselves. You're ignoring the collective action problem. Suppose that long-term contracts reduce competitiveness, because if people can't switch providers at the drop of a hat then companies don't compete as aggressively and in consequence their profits go up while the value for money on cellular service go…

But the collective action as you've described would be disrupted as soon as it becomes a big enough issue that a newcomer to the market can profit from a different business model. Equal service and no contract for instance. Eventually perhaps better service and no contract. Actually, last year I switched to a provider who does exactly that. No contracts is part of the business model. You can't get a long term contract from them if you tried.

Re: Forget the Cellphone Fight — We Should Be Allowed to Unlock Everything We Own

#82

Post by grannyg00se »

nitrogen wrote: post #76
grannyg00se wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this analogous to the just world fallacy? In that case the belief is that people get what they deserve. If bad things keep happening to you it must be because you're doing something wrong. Because the world is overall just. In this case people are willfully encouraging a certain business practice by giving those businesses their money. Then they complain about the business practice they just supported and look…

They're willfully victimizing themselves. ...by doing the only things they can in order to remain competitive in the short term. The Just-market Fallacy is analogous to the Just-world Fallacy because it assumes that all actors are free to change their behavior, thus if they don't change their behavior, they are getting what they deserve from the market.

True, they might need that farm equipment so in the short term they are at the mercy of the status quo. But there's still nothing to stop a group within the market from competing on new terms. Also, if the gap between what is desired and what is provided is significant, then a newcomer to the market would have a field day leveraging that gap. Finally, the consumers are also free to change their own business model so they no longer require that equipment to remain competitive. The supplier would find its market diminishing and look to get it back.

Re: Forget the Cellphone Fight — We Should Be Allowed to Unlock Everything We Own

#83

Post by nitrogen »

grannyg00se wrote: post #82
nitrogen wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're willfully victimizing themselves. ...by doing the only things they can in order to remain competitive in the short term. The Just-market Fallacy is analogous to the Just-world Fallacy because it assumes that all actors are free to change their behavior, thus if they don't change their behavior, they are getting what they deserve from the market.

True, they might need that farm equipment so in the short term they are at the mercy of the status quo. But there's still nothing to stop a group within the market from competing on new terms. Also, if the gap between what is desired and what is provided is significant, then a newcomer to the market would have a field day leveraging that gap. Finally, the consumers are also free to change their own business model so…

There's still the inertia of a massive status quo. It takes time to ramp up new distribution channels, supply chains, etc. It also takes time to convince customers to change suppliers, it takes time to design competing equipment, etc. The time taken is even longer if the gap in profitability between what is and what ought to be is relatively small from the perspective of a potential disrupter.

I could maybe accept that markets might tend to create equitable outcomes over very long terms, but most people don't live on very long terms; they live day to day, and if today sucks, today they complain.

Re: Forget the Cellphone Fight — We Should Be Allowed to Unlock Everything We Own

#84

Post by Amadou »

amalcon wrote: post #79
anigbrowl wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the early termination fee is prorated to the outstanding term of your contract. The difference from (say) a car lease simply reflects the difficulty of repossessing your phone. Meanwhile, if you get tired of the contract, you just breach it and pay the ETF. then you can unlock your phone immediately.

No; the difference from (say) a car loan reflects the fact that there's no lien created on the phone. That in turn may be because such a lien would be unenforceable. Still, the reason there's no lien is not relevant. Its absence is relevant.

What you are talking about is a secured loan. There all kinds of loans which are not secured - like credit cards.

Re: Forget the Cellphone Fight — We Should Be Allowed to Unlock Everything We Own

#85

Post by jebblue »

I'd like to know why Sony was allowed to turn off our ability to install other OS'es on the PS3's we had _already_ bought. That's like if the dealership showed up with a mechanic and said they changed their minds and want the turbocharger back.

Re: Forget the Cellphone Fight — We Should Be Allowed to Unlock Everything We Own

#86

Post by AnthonyMouse »

grannyg00se wrote: post #81
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They're not being victimized by a harsh world and being told it's their fault. They're willfully victimizing themselves. You're ignoring the collective action problem. Suppose that long-term contracts reduce competitiveness, because if people can't switch providers at the drop of a hat then companies don't compete as aggressively and in consequence their profits go up while the value for money on cellular service go…

But the collective action as you've described would be disrupted as soon as it becomes a big enough issue that a newcomer to the market can profit from a different business model. Equal service and no contract for instance. Eventually perhaps better service and no contract. Actually, last year I switched to a provider who does exactly that. No contracts is part of the business model. You can't get a long term contrac…

You're assuming a low barrier to entry. That is clearly not the case for a business requiring the licensing of multibillion dollars worth of wireless spectrum. Moreover, the availability of service without a contract doesn't break the cartel, because that provider has no incentive to induce a price war by offering it at a more attractive price point than on-contract service from competitors. They can instead offer off-contract service for a premium (or offer lower-quality/coverage service for the same price), which is worse than what you would get if long-term contracts were prohibited and all providers had to compete in the market for off-contract service.

You would know if there was a wireless company offering an off-contract plan that was actually more attractive than their competitors' on-contract plans because everybody would switch to it -- customers don't want to be locked into a long-term contract, they only do it because the providers have the incentive to make off-contract plans more expensive.

Re: Forget the Cellphone Fight — We Should Be Allowed to Unlock Everything We Own

#87

Post by rayiner »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #72
rayiner wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since an auto-loan is secured by the vehicle, your lender can and does put conditions on your use of the vehicle. E.g. they may require you to carry full collision & comprehensive insurance on the vehicle even if your state doesn't require it. In this situation, the lender is your carrier, and attaches a different set of conditions.

>Since an auto-loan is secured by the vehicle, your lender can and does put conditions on your use of the vehicle. The distinction is that those are contractual conditions. If you fail to carry comprehensive insurance on your vehicle, they may repossess it etc. according to the contract, but the police don't come to arrest you.

FWIW, I don't think this should be a criminal issue. I support the right of the telcos to put in whatever twisted and crazy terms they want into their contracts, but their only recourse should be a civil suit.

Re: Forget the Cellphone Fight — We Should Be Allowed to Unlock Everything We Own

#88

Post by amalcon »

Amadou wrote: post #84
amalcon wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No; the difference from (say) a car loan reflects the fact that there's no lien created on the phone. That in turn may be because such a lien would be unenforceable. Still, the reason there's no lien is not relevant. Its absence is relevant.

What you are talking about is a secured loan. There all kinds of loans which are not secured - like credit cards.

Sure. Of course, a credit card doesn't restrict what you do with things you buy with it.

Re: Forget the Cellphone Fight — We Should Be Allowed to Unlock Everything We Own

#89

Post by walshemj »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #72
rayiner wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since an auto-loan is secured by the vehicle, your lender can and does put conditions on your use of the vehicle. E.g. they may require you to carry full collision & comprehensive insurance on the vehicle even if your state doesn't require it. In this situation, the lender is your carrier, and attaches a different set of conditions.

>Since an auto-loan is secured by the vehicle, your lender can and does put conditions on your use of the vehicle. The distinction is that those are contractual conditions. If you fail to carry comprehensive insurance on your vehicle, they may repossess it etc. according to the contract, but the police don't come to arrest you.

I think if you get caught driving with out insurance the cops will arrest you.

Re: Forget the Cellphone Fight — We Should Be Allowed to Unlock Everything We Own

#90

Post by AnthonyMouse »

walshemj wrote: post #89
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Since an auto-loan is secured by the vehicle, your lender can and does put conditions on your use of the vehicle. The distinction is that those are contractual conditions. If you fail to carry comprehensive insurance on your vehicle, they may repossess it etc. according to the contract, but the police don't come to arrest you.

I think if you get caught driving with out insurance the cops will arrest you.

1) Not for violating the contract with the car dealer.

2) It's not the same insurance. The law typically requires you to carry liability insurance, which covers third parties you harm. The car dealer wants you to insure against damage to the car, which the law may not require you to insure against.

Post reply on HN