Not very happy to hear this – 2degrees Locking phones

Forums › 2degrees (including Slingshot, Orcon, Flip, Stuff Fibre, MyRepublic, 2talk and Vocus) › Not very happy to hear this – 2degrees Locking phones

1 | 2 | 3

Wade

2225 posts

Uber Geek

#1169772 6-Nov-2014 09:29

SaltyNZ:

That's why we're changing the model to Freedom contracts (no term) and handset financing. It enables us to give you better value on your postpay plan with us, whilst still giving you the choice of $0/little up-front cost if you want a handset.

Sounds like the one of the old dogs taught the new guys a couple of tricks :P

Personally, i believe the no term/interest free handset financing offers an simple and transparent model which works favourably for both parties

SaltyNZ

8231 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1169775 6-Nov-2014 09:36

Wade:
Sounds like the one of the old dogs taught the new guys a couple of tricks :P

Pffff. The old dogs would still be lying on their mats asleep if this young dog hadn't come along and started stealing their toys. :-D

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

eXDee

4032 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1170020 6-Nov-2014 13:56

So the general consensus is people are fine with sub $100 devices being sim locked due the subsidy and low unlock cost.

However what about $200? What about $1000?

When a new device launches and one carrier is $1049 unlocked and the other is $999 locked, a lot of people will ignore this fact and buy on price alone. Are people still happy with this or not? If so, will we see eventually ALL handsets locked out of the box even if the unlock fee is low?

Additionally, for these devices will the unlock fee remain at $30? or will we see deeper subsidies and more expensive unlock costs than $30?

That's the 'slippery slope' that people are discussing. Especially if it happens slowly, at what point is it no longer acceptable and when do you think the Comcom would act?

Posing questions here to get peoples opinions, so these aren't rhetorical.

old3eyes

9120 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1170029 6-Nov-2014 14:00

Wade:
old3eyes: I see model creep coming in with phone locking. Got a Warehouse Stationary flyer last nite with a Skinny ad for the 2014 Moto G locked with introductory offer of $249 normally $299. Problem is this is a dual SIM phone and two Skinny SIMs will not work at the same time , if you want to travel and add a second local SIM you will have to unlock it before you go.. I hope this creep to better speced models is not going to become the norm in NZ..

Saw this also, given that 2D sell the exact same phone unlocked for $299 day in day out so it is a no-brainer (+1 for the phone, i have one and rather like it :) )

I see today that Noel Leemings has it now for $249 unlocked NL Moto G Mk 2

Regards,

Old3eyes

dickytim

2514 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1170048 6-Nov-2014 14:23

eXDee: So the general consensus is people are fine with sub $100 devices being sim locked due the subsidy and low unlock cost.

However what about $200? What about $1000?

When a new device launches and one carrier is $1049 unlocked and the other is $999 locked, a lot of people will ignore this fact and buy on price alone. Are people still happy with this or not? If so, will we see eventually ALL handsets locked out of the box even if the unlock fee is low?

Additionally, for these devices will the unlock fee remain at $30? or will we see deeper subsidies and more expensive unlock costs than $30?

That's the 'slippery slope' that people are discussing. Especially if it happens slowly, at what point is it no longer acceptable and when do you think the Comcom would act?

Posing questions here to get peoples opinions, so these aren't rhetorical.

I have no issue with this at all. If I can get a cheaper phone and it is locked I will work out if I am happy with the risk and purchase accordingly.

Why would this ever be unacceptable? It happens all over the world, and the only reason it wasn't happening here is there was previously no need for it, that is why we don't see ridiculously discounted phones in NZ

richms

28187 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1170066 6-Nov-2014 15:00

If it means we get real pricing for going on a term contract then I am all for it.

Richard rich.ms

old3eyes

9120 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1170070 6-Nov-2014 15:07

richms: If it means we get real pricing for going on a term contract then I am all for it.

Define real pricing. $200 down and $100 / month for 24 months??

Regards,

Old3eyes

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

richms

28187 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1170146 6-Nov-2014 16:00

But better than the current subsides for sure. Free decent phones on 24 month $80 plans would justify it for me.

Richard rich.ms

Wade

2225 posts

Uber Geek

#1170149 6-Nov-2014 16:05

eXDee: So the general consensus is people are fine with sub $100 devices being sim locked due the subsidy and low unlock cost.

However what about $200? What about $1000?

When a new device launches and one carrier is $1049 unlocked and the other is $999 locked, a lot of people will ignore this fact and buy on price alone. Are people still happy with this or not? If so, will we see eventually ALL handsets locked out of the box even if the unlock fee is low?

Additionally, for these devices will the unlock fee remain at $30? or will we see deeper subsidies and more expensive unlock costs than $30?

That's the 'slippery slope' that people are discussing. Especially if it happens slowly, at what point is it no longer acceptable and when do you think the Comcom would act?

Posing questions here to get peoples opinions, so these aren't rhetorical.

Carriers lock phones ==> Consumer starts parallel importing ==> local Distributor loses sales ==> Distributor puts pressure on carrier to unlock to maintain demand ==> back to status quo

Not sure where there is a case for the comcom? carrier offers subsidy for term lock in, nothing new there?

eXDee

4032 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1170156 6-Nov-2014 16:12

dickytim:I have no issue with this at all. If I can get a cheaper phone and it is locked I will work out if I am happy with the risk and purchase accordingly.

Why would this ever be unacceptable? It happens all over the world, and the only reason it wasn't happening here is there was previously no need for it, that is why we don't see ridiculously discounted phones in NZ

What if its still sold at $999 but theres a $300 unlock fee? What about if you can't unlock it until after your 24 month term? Some would find either of those unacceptable.
The comcom didn't like the practice of locking phones because its anti competitive, but allowed it because it was only being done on the low end ones, and cheap to unlock.

What i'm asking is, where is the line if you have one, and at what point would they be crossing it?

Wade: Carriers lock phones ==> Consumer starts parallel importing ==> local Distributor loses sales ==> Distributor puts pressure on carrier to unlock to maintain demand ==> back to status quo

Not sure where there is a case for the comcom? carrier offers subsidy for term lock in, nothing new there?

I think you're over estimating the power of parallel importers on the market as a whole - i'd wager the vast majority don't even look at parallel import options.

dickytim

2514 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1170160 6-Nov-2014 16:16

eXDee:
dickytim:I have no issue with this at all. If I can get a cheaper phone and it is locked I will work out if I am happy with the risk and purchase accordingly.

Why would this ever be unacceptable? It happens all over the world, and the only reason it wasn't happening here is there was previously no need for it, that is why we don't see ridiculously discounted phones in NZ

What if its still sold at $999 but theres a $300 unlock fee? What about if you can't unlock it until after your 24 month term? Some would find either of those unacceptable.
The comcom didn't like the practice of locking phones because its anti competitive, but allowed it because it was only being done on the low end ones, and cheap to unlock.

What i'm asking is, where is the line if you have one, and at what point would they be crossing it?

Wade: Carriers lock phones ==> Consumer starts parallel importing ==> local Distributor loses sales ==> Distributor puts pressure on carrier to unlock to maintain demand ==> back to status quo

Not sure where there is a case for the comcom? carrier offers subsidy for term lock in, nothing new there?

I think you're over estimating the power of parallel importers on the market as a whole - i'd wager the vast majority don't even look at parallel import options.

The consumer has a choice buy ir not to buy.

I don't see what the problem is?

eXDee

4032 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1170166 6-Nov-2014 16:24

dickytim:
eXDee:
dickytim:I have no issue with this at all. If I can get a cheaper phone and it is locked I will work out if I am happy with the risk and purchase accordingly.

Why would this ever be unacceptable? It happens all over the world, and the only reason it wasn't happening here is there was previously no need for it, that is why we don't see ridiculously discounted phones in NZ

What if its still sold at $999 but theres a $300 unlock fee? What about if you can't unlock it until after your 24 month term? Some would find either of those unacceptable.
The comcom didn't like the practice of locking phones because its anti competitive, but allowed it because it was only being done on the low end ones, and cheap to unlock.

What i'm asking is, where is the line if you have one, and at what point would they be crossing it?

Wade: Carriers lock phones ==> Consumer starts parallel importing ==> local Distributor loses sales ==> Distributor puts pressure on carrier to unlock to maintain demand ==> back to status quo

Not sure where there is a case for the comcom? carrier offers subsidy for term lock in, nothing new there?

I think you're over estimating the power of parallel importers on the market as a whole - i'd wager the vast majority don't even look at parallel import options.

The consumer has a choice buy ir not to buy.

I don't see what the problem is?

IMO if every handset was locked with high unlock fees, then there isn't a lot of alternatives for the consumer if they do want to buy, especially if they want local warranty support (ie not parallel imported). And while you can say they still have the choice to just not buy at all, I don't think that's a good answer. Then you have an anti competitive marketplace with few options for the consumer.

While this isn't the case at the moment, that's why i'm asking at what point does it become a problem. It seems your answer to this is "it never does", whereas others may differ.

Wade

2225 posts

Uber Geek

#1170224 6-Nov-2014 17:50

By parallel importing I mean consumers buying internationally via the interwebs not local PI shops

SaltyNZ

8231 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1170263 6-Nov-2014 19:24

Wade: By parallel importing I mean consumers buying internationally via the interwebs not local PI shops

Mmmmmm PI shops...

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

1 | 2 | 3