Author Topic: iOS vs android  (Read 2557 times)

Offline kitamesume

  • Member
  • Posts: 7216
  • Death is pleasure, Living is torment.
Re: iOS vs android
« Reply #40 on: November 16, 2012, 12:48:06 PM »
iOS = Retard Proof / Newb Level.
Android = Smart Proof / Enthusiast Level.

Simple as that.

/thread.
Actually it's an "us against them" pissing contest. See also: console tards vs. PC nerds
gave me a laugh.
although apple claims retard proof, i don't think its any more retard proof than a totally locked out android. other than that the price difference is too annoyingly un-ignorable.

Haruhi Dance | EMO | OLD SETs | ^ I know how u feel | Click sig to Enlarge

Offline GoGeTa006

  • Member
  • Posts: 6863
  • The fate of destruction is also the joy of Rebirth
    • Anime Planet listing
Re: iOS vs android
« Reply #41 on: November 16, 2012, 05:12:46 PM »
iOS = Retard Proof / Newb Level.
Android = Smart Proof / Enthusiast Level.

Simple as that.

/thread.
Actually it's an "us against them" pissing contest. See also: console tards vs. PC nerds
gave me a laugh.
although apple claims retard proof, i don't think its any more retard proof than a totally locked out android. other than that the price difference is too annoyingly un-ignorable.

cricket wireless (no-contract) is offering the iPhone 5 at 499.99 which is cheaper than the Galaxy SIII
so I dont see what all the fuzz about prices is about. . .

Offline lapa321

  • Member
  • Posts: 567
Re: iOS vs android
« Reply #42 on: November 16, 2012, 05:28:06 PM »
iOS = Retard Proof / Newb Level.
Android = Smart Proof / Enthusiast Level.

Simple as that.

/thread.
Actually it's an "us against them" pissing contest. See also: console tards vs. PC nerds
gave me a laugh.
although apple claims retard proof, i don't think its any more retard proof than a totally locked out android. other than that the price difference is too annoyingly un-ignorable.

cricket wireless (no-contract) is offering the iPhone 5 at 499.99 which is cheaper than the Galaxy SIII
so I dont see what all the fuzz about prices is about. . .

Is it still locked to a single carrier?

Offline GoGeTa006

  • Member
  • Posts: 6863
  • The fate of destruction is also the joy of Rebirth
    • Anime Planet listing
Re: iOS vs android
« Reply #43 on: November 16, 2012, 05:58:49 PM »
iOS = Retard Proof / Newb Level.
Android = Smart Proof / Enthusiast Level.

Simple as that.

/thread.
Actually it's an "us against them" pissing contest. See also: console tards vs. PC nerds
gave me a laugh.
although apple claims retard proof, i don't think its any more retard proof than a totally locked out android. other than that the price difference is too annoyingly un-ignorable.

cricket wireless (no-contract) is offering the iPhone 5 at 499.99 which is cheaper than the Galaxy SIII
so I dont see what all the fuzz about prices is about. . .

Is it still locked to a single carrier?

you can get it on:

iPhone 5 on Sprint for 199 with a 2 yr contract
iPhone 5 on ATT for 199 with a 2 yr contract
I think Verizon has it too for 199 with a 2 yr contract
you can get the iPhone 4S for 650 on Virgin mobile (no contract)
you can get the iPhone 5 for 499 at cricket (no contract)

Offline lapa321

  • Member
  • Posts: 567
Re: iOS vs android
« Reply #44 on: November 16, 2012, 06:40:51 PM »
iOS = Retard Proof / Newb Level.
Android = Smart Proof / Enthusiast Level.

Simple as that.

/thread.
Actually it's an "us against them" pissing contest. See also: console tards vs. PC nerds
gave me a laugh.
although apple claims retard proof, i don't think its any more retard proof than a totally locked out android. other than that the price difference is too annoyingly un-ignorable.

cricket wireless (no-contract) is offering the iPhone 5 at 499.99 which is cheaper than the Galaxy SIII
so I dont see what all the fuzz about prices is about. . .

Is it still locked to a single carrier?

you can get it on:

iPhone 5 on Sprint for 199 with a 2 yr contract
iPhone 5 on ATT for 199 with a 2 yr contract
I think Verizon has it too for 199 with a 2 yr contract
you can get the iPhone 4S for 650 on Virgin mobile (no contract)
you can get the iPhone 5 for 499 at cricket (no contract)

So that would be a yes.

Offline GoGeTa006

  • Member
  • Posts: 6863
  • The fate of destruction is also the joy of Rebirth
    • Anime Planet listing
Re: iOS vs android
« Reply #45 on: November 16, 2012, 06:59:15 PM »
iOS = Retard Proof / Newb Level.
Android = Smart Proof / Enthusiast Level.

Simple as that.

/thread.
Actually it's an "us against them" pissing contest. See also: console tards vs. PC nerds
gave me a laugh.
although apple claims retard proof, i don't think its any more retard proof than a totally locked out android. other than that the price difference is too annoyingly un-ignorable.

cricket wireless (no-contract) is offering the iPhone 5 at 499.99 which is cheaper than the Galaxy SIII
so I dont see what all the fuzz about prices is about. . .

Is it still locked to a single carrier?

you can get it on:

iPhone 5 on Sprint for 199 with a 2 yr contract
iPhone 5 on ATT for 199 with a 2 yr contract
I think Verizon has it too for 199 with a 2 yr contract
you can get the iPhone 4S for 650 on Virgin mobile (no contract)
you can get the iPhone 5 for 499 at cricket (no contract)

So that would be a yes.

is it?

TBH its on most carriers. . .
from the big big ones only Boost and T-mobile arent on the list

and its mostly because of network incompatibilities (with T-mobile, boost is just because iphones arent for their target audience)

the Galaxy S3 or whatever phone you want that might be "unlocked" is actually locked to whatever carriers support its network. . . be it GSM, LTE, 3G-4G, wimax, CDMA or whatever frequencies

Offline Freedom Kira

  • Member
  • Posts: 4324
  • Rawr™.
Re: iOS vs android
« Reply #46 on: November 16, 2012, 08:40:24 PM »
Typically, if you buy a phone from a carrier, it'll be locked to the carrier, whether or not you get it on a plan.

Offline megido-rev.M

  • Member
  • Posts: 16113
Re: iOS vs android
« Reply #47 on: November 16, 2012, 08:46:02 PM »
That kinda sucks.

Offline mgz

  • Box Fansubs
  • Member
  • Posts: 10561
Re: iOS vs android
« Reply #48 on: November 16, 2012, 09:26:41 PM »
Typically, if you buy a phone from a carrier, it'll be locked to the carrier, whether or not you get it on a plan.
that is only true with phones that dont have simcards
The company is required to give you unlock codes if you ask for it to use your phone elsewhere

Offline lapa321

  • Member
  • Posts: 567
Re: iOS vs android
« Reply #49 on: November 17, 2012, 02:59:44 AM »
Typically, if you buy a phone from a carrier, it'll be locked to the carrier, whether or not you get it on a plan.

That mostly applies in North America.

Imagine a demographic where you have five different carriers using the same tech. You end up with third party sellers, mom and pop stores, boutiques, etc. all dedicated to selling phones and accessories without being associated with any carrier. Any of their phones will work with any carrier so their inventory doesn't have to be split between the different techs. They can stock up on phones that will hit every possible pricepoint and work anywhere.

Eventually, people started getting their phones from them instead of the carrier (More pricepoints, more models) until it comes to the point that the carrier is just there to provide cellphone service, not cellphones. Soon the market got so saturated with factory stock phones that if a carrier were to come out using a different tech, they would automatically lose 99.9% of the possible subscribers. So rather than lockin, they resort to prepaids.

It's no longer uncommon for a single user on prepaid to carry multiple sim cards from different carriers, usually carrying a high end phone for their primary carrier and a couple of ultra cheap dumbphones for the others, the manufacturers noticed this and came up with dual-sim phones. So now a single phone, can connect you simultaneously to two carriers. Why do they do this? It's because, with the inability to lock in subscribers, carriers now add incentives to make users call within their own network. For example, they can put a promo where between 6pm and 12am, call rates are discounted if a call is made within their network only. The closest thing i can compare it to is a McDonalds vs BurgerKing, i need to go to their website to keep track of the different rates, promos, and packages, and i presume the other users are doing it too.

Guy walks into phone store (Which is not associated with any company, carrier, or brand), sees different phones on display, and the sales lady shows them an unbiased description of what each phone can do. Now considering this is a regular joe that just wants a phone in a demographic where lock-ins are uncommon (And so is the word 'Ecosystem'), what does the iPhone have that the other phones don't? Would you choose a $1,000 iPhone 5 over a $500 S3? Aside from status symbol of course. If apple were to make an apple ad here to encourage people to buy iOS phones, that's free advertising for the competition because the moment they step into the phone store, they see all the other alternatives, and they're usually Android.

This is what the current state is in SEA, and apparently from conversations, the guys over in Europe are the same way.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2012, 03:13:00 AM by lapa321 »

Offline Freedom Kira

  • Member
  • Posts: 4324
  • Rawr™.
Re: iOS vs android
« Reply #50 on: November 17, 2012, 08:28:22 AM »
That mostly applies in North America.

This I can accept, along with your discussion.

that is only true with phones that dont have simcards
The company is required to give you unlock codes if you ask for it to use your phone elsewhere

That's not entirely true. I bought a phone (yes, SIM) from Rogers without a plan a few years ago, and it was locked. I was unable to get it unlocked.

And even if you can get the unlock code, it's still got all kinds of whatever bloatware on it that the carrier installed, so it's not truly "unlocked." That's where the difference between "unlocked" and "never locked" comes from.

Online metro.

  • Member
  • Posts: 9737
  • fuckyougoskiing.
Re: iOS vs android
« Reply #51 on: November 17, 2012, 09:05:13 AM »
Didn't realize you were Canadian Freedom...

Still, point stands that Canada, and the States, for some reason has this thing with locking phones. I know now that Telus is unlocking them for free, and I think I read somewhere everyone else is going to be doing it now too. Thankfully.

I'm gunna leave you anyway.

Offline mgz

  • Box Fansubs
  • Member
  • Posts: 10561
Re: iOS vs android
« Reply #52 on: November 17, 2012, 10:26:01 AM »
That mostly applies in North America.

This I can accept, along with your discussion.

that is only true with phones that dont have simcards
The company is required to give you unlock codes if you ask for it to use your phone elsewhere

That's not entirely true. I bought a phone (yes, SIM) from Rogers without a plan a few years ago, and it was locked. I was unable to get it unlocked.

And even if you can get the unlock code, it's still got all kinds of whatever bloatware on it that the carrier installed, so it's not truly "unlocked." That's where the difference between "unlocked" and "never locked" comes from.
and the reason they start off locked adn with their garbage is the same reason you pay 199 for a 600$ phone and why the google nexus sold out so quick. Unlocked phones costs full price locked phones from your carrier cost a fraction of the price

Offline Freedom Kira

  • Member
  • Posts: 4324
  • Rawr™.
Re: iOS vs android
« Reply #53 on: November 17, 2012, 10:30:16 AM »
Didn't realize you were Canadian Freedom...

Still, point stands that Canada, and the States, for some reason has this thing with locking phones. I know now that Telus is unlocking them for free, and I think I read somewhere everyone else is going to be doing it now too. Thankfully.

Indeed I am. It's not really a secret.

I heard about the free unlocking as well. I'm not sure if it has anything to do with the recent push by OpenMedia.ca, or if they're doing it out of an attempt to draw in customers. On the other hand, the problem of getting your phone unlocked vs. getting a phone that has never been locked still stands.

and the reason they start off locked adn with their garbage is the same reason you pay 199 for a 600$ phone and why the google nexus sold out so quick. Unlocked phones costs full price locked phones from your carrier cost a fraction of the price

Continuing with my personal experience, the phone I got was the Nokia 5300 XpressMusic and I paid $250 for it. I really don't think it was worth more than that, even back in the day.

Offline mgz

  • Box Fansubs
  • Member
  • Posts: 10561
Re: iOS vs android
« Reply #54 on: November 17, 2012, 11:05:32 AM »
Didn't realize you were Canadian Freedom...

Still, point stands that Canada, and the States, for some reason has this thing with locking phones. I know now that Telus is unlocking them for free, and I think I read somewhere everyone else is going to be doing it now too. Thankfully.

Indeed I am. It's not really a secret.

I heard about the free unlocking as well. I'm not sure if it has anything to do with the recent push by OpenMedia.ca, or if they're doing it out of an attempt to draw in customers. On the other hand, the problem of getting your phone unlocked vs. getting a phone that has never been locked still stands.

and the reason they start off locked adn with their garbage is the same reason you pay 199 for a 600$ phone and why the google nexus sold out so quick. Unlocked phones costs full price locked phones from your carrier cost a fraction of the price

Continuing with my personal experience, the phone I got was the Nokia 5300 XpressMusic and I paid $250 for it. I really don't think it was worth more than that, even back in the day.
my point of reference is the top of the line phones which generally have a 500-700$ price tag and a 199-299 price tag if you buy them through a carrier.

for instance nokia lumia 920 100$ with contract at att. 450 without
samsung rugby 2 rugged flip phone - 100 with 270 without
even the shitty flip phones that are free or 20$ with contract are like 100-200 without one

the without contract pricing is equivalent roughly to buying a unlocked phone. And you can get the locked phones unlocked, although that doesnt help much with verizon phones or sprint phones unless they are global capable and have simcard slots

Online Bob2004

  • Member
  • Posts: 2562
Re: iOS vs android
« Reply #55 on: November 17, 2012, 06:29:00 PM »
Yeah, purchasing phones on contract from a carrier is always cheaper, because the carrier subsidises the cost. The iPhone 5, for example, costs $499 for the most basic version from Apple (going up to $699 for the top), but carriers will sell it for $199 (going up to $399) and pay the rest of the cost themselves. Having you locked into a contract for 2 years, with a phone that's locked to their network, is worth the $300 they pay for it.

Offline Slysoft

  • Member
  • Posts: 838
Re: iOS vs android
« Reply #56 on: November 17, 2012, 09:00:06 PM »
Yeah, purchasing phones on contract from a carrier is always cheaper, because the carrier subsidises the cost. The iPhone 5, for example, costs $499 for the most basic version from Apple (going up to $699 for the top), but carriers will sell it for $199 (going up to $399) and pay the rest of the cost themselves. Having you locked into a contract for 2 years, with a phone that's locked to their network, is worth the $300 they pay for it.

It actually isn't cheaper. You can buy off contract plans for lower rates so you save more money over the life of the phone. Most people are too short sighted to see this however.

Online Bob2004

  • Member
  • Posts: 2562
Re: iOS vs android
« Reply #57 on: November 17, 2012, 10:00:42 PM »
Yeah, purchasing phones on contract from a carrier is always cheaper, because the carrier subsidises the cost. The iPhone 5, for example, costs $499 for the most basic version from Apple (going up to $699 for the top), but carriers will sell it for $199 (going up to $399) and pay the rest of the cost themselves. Having you locked into a contract for 2 years, with a phone that's locked to their network, is worth the $300 they pay for it.

It actually isn't cheaper. You can buy off contract plans for lower rates so you save more money over the life of the phone. Most people are too short sighted to see this however.

Well, it depends on the contract, obviously. Here in the UK it's pretty much a choice between a fixed contract or a pay as you go plan, and unless you're a pretty light user (who never uses any data allowance at all), contracts are often better value. They purposely make them relatively cheap to encourage people to purchase one, since it's better to earn a slightly lower profit margin but have it guaranteed for 24 months.

Offline GoGeTa006

  • Member
  • Posts: 6863
  • The fate of destruction is also the joy of Rebirth
    • Anime Planet listing
Re: iOS vs android
« Reply #58 on: November 17, 2012, 10:02:28 PM »
Yeah, purchasing phones on contract from a carrier is always cheaper, because the carrier subsidises the cost. The iPhone 5, for example, costs $499 for the most basic version from Apple (going up to $699 for the top), but carriers will sell it for $199 (going up to $399) and pay the rest of the cost themselves. Having you locked into a contract for 2 years, with a phone that's locked to their network, is worth the $300 they pay for it.

It actually isn't cheaper. You can buy off contract plans for lower rates so you save more money over the life of the phone. Most people are too short sighted to see this however.

true that,
the iPhone 5 at 500 dlls from cricket with 55 dlls/mo unlimited comes out to a whooping 1800 dlls but if you buy it for 200 at a 2 yr contract that they range from 80 - 120 dlls/mo it comes out to around 2000-ish

its a fucking rip off tho
I was looking at ATT's plans
and they advertise it for 60 bux but once you finish "check-out" it comes otu to like 100 per month, because theres a 40 dlls smartphone fee added to your "60 dlls unlimited plan"
fucking joke!

still its the basics of credit, its easier to put out 200 dlls down than to put 500

Offline Freedom Kira

  • Member
  • Posts: 4324
  • Rawr™.
Re: iOS vs android
« Reply #59 on: November 18, 2012, 11:35:36 AM »
my point of reference is the top of the line phones which generally have a 500-700$ price tag and a 199-299 price tag if you buy them through a carrier.

for instance nokia lumia 920 100$ with contract at att. 450 without
samsung rugby 2 rugged flip phone - 100 with 270 without
even the shitty flip phones that are free or 20$ with contract are like 100-200 without one

the without contract pricing is equivalent roughly to buying a unlocked phone. And you can get the locked phones unlocked, although that doesnt help much with verizon phones or sprint phones unless they are global capable and have simcard slots

No, I get that; it's pretty common knowledge. My main point is that when you get it through a carrier, it's locked regardless of whether or not you get it on contract (and typically costs a bit more to get the unlocked version, which would end up being roughly the same price as a never-unlocked version), and contains all the extra software that the carrier installed. Sometimes the phone is not even entirely the same as the never-unlocked version of the phone because some carriers require the phone to be modified. The biggest difference caused by such modifications that I've seen to date is the Galaxy S3, which has a quad core outside of North America and dual core within North America.

true that,
the iPhone 5 at 500 dlls from cricket with 55 dlls/mo unlimited comes out to a whooping 1800 dlls but if you buy it for 200 at a 2 yr contract that they range from 80 - 120 dlls/mo it comes out to around 2000-ish

The carrier sees no difference because of the time value of money. Regardless of the total amount you end up spending, the carrier's income is the same because the extra $300 you put down at the beginning has potential to gain interest over the entire contract's time. It's like how spending $2000/year on an RRSP for ten years from when you are 20 and then not putting any more in after that can be equivalent to spending $2000 a year on the same RRSP from age 30 to 65.