Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
I think the NON-support for 3G is wrong and Apple should held accountable.

Since wireless contracts are 2 to 3 years then a phone should be supported for up to 3 years after it ceased being sold. After three years, your contract is over so no guarantees.

The 3GS went on sale on June 19, 2009 meaning that you could have got a 3G on June 18th, 2009 and have it under contract until June 17th, 2012.

While I appreciate that you can't support every old phone, it should be supported until the users contract with that phone expires.

I have a 3GS and I expect to be able to take every Apple update until my contract expires.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,309 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
It's still better than what Android users face :) More features often mean more demands on the hardware and sooner or later the negative impact on user experience will outweigh the utility of the new features. My 3G is definitely slower under 4.0 than it was under 3.x with not much gained from new features (no multitasking, no AirPlay).
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
I understand the tension between new features requiring extra horsepower and old technology. On a computer or most CE devices, I'm of the belief that if you want the latest and greatest features then be prepared to buy new hardware.

But that is not the case with Wireless. If iOS 4.3 has a bug fix that is applicable for all iPhones then the iPhone 3G user who is still under contract should have access.

I just feel that as long as your paying for that phone, you should be supported.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,996 Posts
I think Apple should be putting out a separate update for the iPhone 3G with bug fixes. I don't think users are ever necessarily entitled to updates that add functionality, because when you buy your phone you buy it based on the functionality it comes with, not what might come in the future.

I'm also not sure I agree that you're owed updates for 3 years as it is only Canada that has 3 year contracts. On top of that, it's not Apple that sets the contract length, it's the carriers. That said, I still believe that as long as there are serious bugs, especially for a device as expensive as an iPhone, Apple should release minor updates to fix them, particularly when they clearly know how to fix it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
216 Posts
It's still not a certainty that there won't be a 3G version of 4.3. I believe there has been a case in the past when the 3G version wasn't posted right away.

The problem is that you have two very different groups of people, remember when 4 first came out and there was all sorts of conspiracy theories that apple had made the 3G's useless to try to force people to buy iPhone 4's.

That being said, I'd hope that Apple cracks down with the 5 and tells Bell/Rogers/Telus that 2 years will be the future contract limits if they want to carry the phone.
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
I'm also not sure I agree that you're owed updates for 3 years as it is only Canada that has 3 year contracts.
As I stated earlier, new features are different and I understand that new features may require new hardware.

But I think Apple and the carrier have an obligation to fix known bugs while the product is under contract. As a consumer, I sign a three year deal which requires me to pay my bill every month and it should require a carrier to provide me with a device that works.

At the very least, Apple and the carriers should be required to have maintenance releases for each phone so when they come out with 4.3, there should also be a iOS 4.2m (for maintenance).

I believe MS supports a windows OS for at least seven years. Should smartphone providers not do the same? (Okay maybe 5 years but I think you get my point)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,022 Posts
I think the NON-support for 3G is wrong and Apple should held accountable.

[snip]

I have a 3GS and I expect to be able to take every Apple update until my contract expires.
I know a guy who took a seven year loan from a dealership for a used truck. See where I'm going with this? We'd never think that GM should be on the hook for a seven year warranty just because a customer entered into an onerous financing arrangement.

Your contract is between you and your carrier. It has nothing to do with the manufacturer. I think a handset should be supported by firmware updates for the length of its warranty, though. At any rate, I don't know of any real bugs in the 3G under OS4.2.x other than the recent New Years alarm debacle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,830 Posts
That being said, I'd hope that Apple cracks down with the 5 and tells Bell/Rogers/Telus that 2 years will be the future contract limits if they want to carry the phone.
I would be mighty surprised if this ever happened, it would be nice, but unlikely in Canada. :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,190 Posts
If Apple actually managed to do that, I think it would eventually lead to a reduction to a 2-year contract for most phones. Given the rapid pace of smartphone developments, I'd be in favor of this even if it meant paying slightly more for the device than US pricing.
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
Your contract is between you and your carrier. It has nothing to do with the manufacturer. I think a handset should be supported by firmware updates for the length of its warranty, though.
I think your analogy is faulty since a phone is of no use without a carrier, however, I hear what you are saying.

I believe the OS analogy is much superior since its more akin to what's happening hear. I think smartphone manufacturers should support a phone's OS for more than just a year. Maybe the 7 years for a PC OS is too long but three to four years for a phone seems reasonable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
763 Posts
In my opinion, I do not think the carrier or manufacturer should support a phone for the life of a contract. You are signing a contract for service from the carrier for 3 years, and by doing so you are receiving a discount on hardware. You are in no way forced to use that piece of hardware for the whole 3 years.

Actually what I believe (though I think it will never happen) is that hardware and service should be separated. We choose a carrier for our service, and choose a phone/device through retail. (Sure, everyone will be scared of the high prices that smartphones currently carry, but they're all inflated to begin with to make signing a contract for the discount seem so good). The carriers should focus on services, plans and options, and put money towards those instead of all the energy/money/time wasted on devices.

In regards to support or ongoing updates for a phone/device, it should be the responsibility of the manufacturer. We complain about the iPhone 3G (a 2.5 year old phone) not getting all the features of the recent updates, but I'd like to see any other manufacturer that provides updates for phones that are nearing 3 years in age.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,996 Posts
I suspect that prices are inflated far less than you think. Consider the Google Nexus phones which were each sold without carrier partners for over $500. Or carriers like Wind and Mobilicity, who do not have contracts and are known to sell their devices at close to cost. There is a lot of high-end technology in one of those little devices.

To me the problem with using contract length as your measurement is that the manufacturer doesn't get to set contract length. If Rogers were to start offering iPhone 4s for free on a 5-year contract, would Apple then be obliged to support devices for 5 years? I think the warranty length is far more appropriate as a marker because it is set by the manufacturer as the length of time they will support your device.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
763 Posts
^I believe the prices are inflated, all part of a cycle where cell phones always had to look expensive so the contract price can show a big discount. Both Nexus phones have $529 retail price, but they are also sold on contract with a large discount.

BB9700 as an example from Wind. When they first launched, and the 9700 was pretty new, Wind's cost from RIM was $430-440/unit. That price is even somewhat inflated by the manufacturer.. and then carriers at the time like Rogers listed it as $650 without contract.

Recently a lot of higher end phones have been around the $500 mark which isn't too bad, but I think it could come down still.

With the way technology advances, all sorts of electronics have prices dropping like crazy (TVs, computers, laptops, etc), but these phones haven't moved. Good example off the top of my head is an iPod touch 32GB @ $320 vs an iPhone 4 32GB @ $770. There are some differences (minor screen difference, glass vs plastic back, $20 cellular radio), but both devices are mostly the same, yet the retail price for the iPhone is almost 2.5x the price of the iPod.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,996 Posts
Prices haven't dropped because the technology in mobile phones is advancing faster than those other sectors. We're beginning to see phones with specs comparable to netbooks but in a much smaller size and with much better battery life. That kind of technology is expensive.

You can get old technology TVs like LCD and plasma for cheap, but if you want new technologies like 3DTV it is still very expensive. The same applies to cell phones. You can get a Blackberry Curve for much cheaper than a Torch because it uses older technology.

The Nexus One was sold pretty much at cost. The reason it's cheaper with a contract is that T-Mobile subsidized the cost of the hardware. Rogers is notorious for inflating prices for unsubsidized phones, but other carriers aren't as bad. Besides which, if you're going to buy a phone full price, why buy it from the carrier?

As for the difference in parts cost between an iPod touch and an iPhone, keep in mind that you can't just count the cost of the parts. There is a lot of engineering work to make them all fit in the same case and maintain decent battery life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
763 Posts
I disagree, with the quantities and production of these phones, its simply the market that is leading them to be priced the way they are. My point about TVs or laptops, is that you can get newer technology for a lesser price.

If carriers never actually sold the phones - you always had to buy them through the retail chain, do you think these non-subisidized prices would really be this high?

For apple, I can understand some different things that go into the iPhone compared to the iPod, but they're still two very similar devices. $320 vs $770 is a huge difference in retail price. Without the way the cell phone market is with subsidies and contracts, I doubt Apple would have to sell the iPhone for 2.5x the price of a very similar iPod just to make a profit.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top