|
1st AD posted:I could use a smartphone without having cellular data, but it would be an exercise in frustration because it would mean: You can do all those things. Just not anytime, anywhere. Just sometimes, someplaces, and that's more than no time, nowhere. For some people that's completely OK? I mean people buy tablets without freaking out about non-universal connectivity. And they can't even make calls or send texts. This all feels a bit like people driving past pedestrians and shouting GET A CAR HIPPIE e- also I typed this in airplane mode using voice typing, you download offline speech recognition. Updates over WiFi! baka kaba fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Dec 28, 2013 |
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 17:28 |
|
|
LastInLine posted:In America that doesn't happen. Paying for services you don't need, don't want and see no value in = being an adult? You're probably big on extended warranties aren't you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 03:10
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:This all feels a bit like people driving past pedestrians and shouting GET A CAR HIPPIE More like walking down the middle of the Interstate and trying to figure out why all these mean drivers are honking and flipping you off. Sheesh, not everyone *needs* a car to get from New York to LA!
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
LastInLine posted:A smartphone plan can be under $50/m if you're poor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 03:45
|
|
|
You can get a smartphone plan for $30 with unlimited data, hth
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 03:57
|
|
|
take the red pill posted:They cost an unnecessary amount of money if they're sigificantly positional goods. I was with you on the smartphone-without-data thing, I think it's a reasonable request especially with a Moto G being significantly cheaper than say, and iPod Touch. Then you went and linked to a wikipedia article on positional loving goods. That's probably the most  thing I can think of. Like really, I don't think your $180 low-end smartphone with no scarcity can be considered a positional good in a market that's saturated with better products.That said, lots of my family and friends who are perfectly functional adults use smartphones without data. They play the odd game here and there, they take pictures, they call and text people, they don't tweet or instagram, and they either don't drive or have in-dash GPS units, why would they need data?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
Obviously an online search won't work, but basic voice to text transcription will (pull up your SMS app and tap the microphone)
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 04:16
|
|
|
There's nothing wrong with a smartphone without a data plan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
Geektox posted:I was with you on the smartphone-without-data thing, I think it's a reasonable request especially with a Moto G being significantly cheaper than say, and iPod Touch. The point isn't that my Moto G itself is a positional good but that the devices that preceded it certainly were -- smartphones were always, in addition to their utility, also about style and functioned as status markers, and they still do. Now that the devices themselves are cheaper to make, they risk losing their "sexiness" (aka their functions as status markers) but the carriers are coming to the rescue by still requiring of people who buy the cheaper versions (such as myself) to still purchase data plans, which simply makes owning a smartphone a significant investment unless you're above the middle class or are someone with money to burn.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:There's nothing wrong with a smartphone without a data plan. take the red pill posted:which simply makes owning a smartphone a significant investment unless you're above the middle class or are someone with money to burn.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 04:30
|
|
|
Selling my Moto X http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3598069
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 04:34
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:"Wrong", no. "Limiting", yes. Sure, but so what? Why are people telling this guy he's dumb or whatever it is they're trying to say? He doesn't want to pay for mobile data and obviously realizes this means he can't use mobile data. I mean, its out of the norm for this forum, but iPod Touches sell, so there's obviously some market for smart devices without mobile data capabilities. It's a little ridiculous that the carrier forces someone to pay for a data plan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 04:35
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Remember, we're in America. Where the biggest health risk to the "poor" is obesity. There is no rolleyes big enough. Not even that giant rolleyes barfing smaller rolleyes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 04:49
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:"Wrong", no. "Limiting", yes. Absolutely. But that wasn't the argument being made.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 04:51
|
|
|
take the red pill posted:The point isn't that my Moto G itself is a positional good but that the devices that preceded it certainly were -- smartphones were always, in addition to their utility, also about style and functioned as status markers, and they still do. Now that the devices themselves are cheaper to make, they risk losing their "sexiness" (aka their functions as status markers) but the carriers are coming to the rescue by still requiring of people who buy the cheaper versions (such as myself) to still purchase data plans, which simply makes owning a smartphone a significant investment unless you're above the middle class or are someone with money to burn. Again, I'm totally with you that it's kind of ridiculous carriers require a data plan with smartphones of any sort, but because that's totally dumb from a practicality standpoint, not because the carriers are orchestrating some sort of class warfare. Saying a smartphone with a data plan is some kind of luxury for the upper class or that it adds any sort of social status is a little silly to me considering how widespread they are, but this is a big derail and we should agree to disagree. Calling dibs on the N5 you're going to "keep". 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 04:56
|
|
|
It really sucks having the money for it but not buying it because it's simply not a sound financial decision (i.e., the money could be better spent elsewhere). Tempting as gently caress. Someone else buy it before I snap. As for smartphone without a data plan chat: Why is it that a data plan for a tablet is an option and totally acceptable to buy one without a data plan but for a smartphone it isn't? What makes a smartphone a smartphone and a tablet/smart device a tablet/smart device? Why is it that the smartphone must have a data plan to use it? How is the telco losing if it doesn't? (because it sure as gently caress isn't about the customer's financial well being) I think people make the mistake of getting caught up in the very thin line of what separates these devices, features-wise. To me, there are two key differences between a tablet/smart device and a smartphone, (1) size and (2) one can make calls and the other can't. That's it. And in the future that line could very well disappear, mostly because it's dumb to have these super advanced devices that are pretty much in the same family have arbitrary differences between them. To force someone to use a service they don't need or want because that's the status quo when it comes to smartphones (a term that may not exist in the future) really is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
Butt Savage posted:It really sucks having the money for it but not buying it because it's simply not a sound financial decision (i.e., the money could be better spent elsewhere). Tempting as gently caress. Someone else buy it before I snap.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 05:51
|
|
|
I'm literally bathed in wifi wherever I go unless I'm traveling. Whether it's at home, on my commute, at work, or downtown. It's absolutely retarded that I have to pay for cellular data. It amounts to a device tax. Of course I realize this so I'm dropping my contract as soon as it's up. But it's foolish to think that smartphones are pointless to own without cellular data plans. There are plenty of people who don't live in bumfuck pasty-rear end suburbs, and they make good use of the pervasive wifi infrastructure while at the same time being able to not go into withdrawal if they have to be away from the internet for more than 10 minutes. Not wanting to pay for something you don't use is actually a logical desire, if you think about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 06:04
|
|
|
You can use a smartphone on T-Mobile without data. I wouldn't do it but I loved using my iPod Touch for years and it's fine to use around home and work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:My N7 stays at home 24/7, unless I know Im going to be waiting in a lobby somewhere for a while (to read on). The N5 is with me 24/7. Directions, weather, mail, light browsing, etc. One needs mobile data, the other is fine with wifi. Usage is the difference. Having a smartphone that can only access the web after connecting to wifi is...dumb. It becomes a very portable tablet, and thats not the usage model for a smartphone. At that point you are better off getting a dumbphone for week long battery life and a tablet for doing smartphone-y stuff while connected to wifi. I think I understand what you're saying: The smartphone is what's on you all the time, and because of this it should be connected to the internet 24/7, because it's the toolset in your pocket that has the tools to resolve any issues you might have (check your facebook, check the weather, get around town, etc.). And to do this, you need a data plan. But, again, that thin line. What's the usage model of a smartphone and the usage model of a small tablet like the iPod Touch? If, for instance, that Moto X hotsauce is selling can act as a mini wifi-only tablet (with the option of paying for data if I need it) and also have the added benefit of making phone calls, then I should have the freedom to use it as such, especially if that's all I need. No need to carry two devices, especially a bulky full-sized tablet, and no need to pay carriers a ton of money to use the calling and texting feature of my smart device. Or let me ask this: If Apple magically released a phone app and included the hardware in the iPod Touch (because it'd be silly not to include it, if costs of doing so allow) that allowed it to make calls, would it be dumb to buy it without a data plan? People are getting caught up in the "phone" part of smart phones, when they're nothing more than tablets with smaller screens that have a phone app installed. The push to erase this line is being made by folks who don't necessarily see smartphones purely as smartphones, but instead as smart devices that can also make calls. We should not think of these devices as phones that can go online, but as small computers than can make calls, and as such users will use their devices as they wish, with or without data plans. I apologize if I'm not making too much sense or seem long-winded, I'm tired and hopefully someone who's more articulate can see where I'm coming from and help me out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 06:42
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:My N7 stays at home 24/7, unless I know Im going to be waiting in a lobby somewhere for a while (to read on). The N5 is with me 24/7. Directions, weather, mail, light browsing, etc. One needs mobile data, the other is fine with wifi. Usage is the difference. Having a smartphone that can only access the web after connecting to wifi is...dumb. It becomes a very portable tablet, and thats not the usage model for a smartphone. At that point you are better off getting a dumbphone for week long battery life and a tablet for doing smartphone-y stuff while connected to wifi. Your usage preferences aren't some kind of inalienable universal truth. grack fucked around with this message at 07:05 on Dec 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 06:50
|
|
|
*Cough*. Anyway, so I finally got my N5 yesterday and while I get the Moto X has some neat poo poo I think this thing is the bees loving knees. I knew within 24 hours that my Galaxy S4 was going back, something was just off about that thing, enough so that I felt the need to root it and otherwise gently caress with it, and AT&T makes loving with it a pain in the rear end, so I got the N5 and...I just like it. KitKat needs another revision or two to fully bake but it's a pretty cool update on a pretty cool piece of hardware. You could do a lot worse for your $400 (or 350 if 16gb is enough, I guess).
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 07:05
|
|
|
Holy poo poo guys maybe some people don't need to check facebook/forums/whatever as often as you do. I can't believe how many of you are piling on a dude for not needing internet everywhere. That's insane and kinda hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 07:12
|
|
|
Forcing a data plan on anyone with a smartphone is as anti-consumer as charging someone extra to let their tablet use the data they've already paid for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 07:27
|
|
|
Web Jew.0 posted:Holy poo poo guys maybe some people don't need to check facebook/forums/whatever as often as you do. I can't believe how many of you are piling on a dude for not needing internet everywhere. That's insane and kinda hilarious. Given the availability of low cost data plans it's easy to see why a carrier would make you use a plan compatible with the capabilities of the device. Catering to edge cases is a loser's game and while I hate the carriers as much or more than anyone it seems to me that's just sensible policy. Ixian posted:*Cough*.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 07:32
|
|
|
If you're not going to have a data plan you might as well buy a Nexus 7 instead of a lovely underpowered phone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 07:40
|
|
|
It could be worse. It could be Sprint forcing you to pay an extra $20/mo for a 4g plan even though there's no 4g to be found for 200 miles in any direction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 07:50
|
|
|
LastInLine posted:It doesn't have anything with not needing internet everywhere and everything to do with not understanding how smartphones work. I know this is Android where everyone has been trained to disable their phone's core functions in pursuit of ~~MY BATTERY~~ but the fact is that if the device isn't doing its background sync constantly then you've got nothing more than a dumbphone with 90% of the functions unavailable at any moment. If you aren't going to use it like a smartphone why would you have a smartphone? Maybe they want to - listen to music/podcasts - take pictures - read kindle books / offline articles - play games - watch local videos etc. You can get a Moto G or used Nexus 4 for less than the price of a current-gen iPod Touch, and it's one less device to carry around.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 07:55
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Couldn't you just put your sim in and turn off mobile data, and as far as they're concerned it's a dumbphone? I mean surely your carriers can't push you around and force you onto contracts you never agreed to? When authenticating to a mobile network all devices will report their IMEI number which will then be cross-referenced with a giant database that will quickly tell the carrier exactly which phone you're using. Also USA carriers tell you in advance that smartphones = data plans so in effect owning a smart phone = agreeing to be charged for a data plan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 07:58
|
|
|
LastInLine posted:It doesn't have anything with not needing internet everywhere and everything to do with not understanding how smartphones work. I know this is Android where everyone has been trained to disable their phone's core functions in pursuit of ~~MY BATTERY~~ but the fact is that if the device isn't doing its background sync constantly then you've got nothing more than a dumbphone with 90% of the functions unavailable at any moment. If you aren't going to use it like a smartphone why would you have a smartphone? Are you trying to argue that non-connected applications like say, games, or Snapseed, or pinned music in Play, or Kindle, or locally store media are not valid use cases for a smartphone? Which of these with the exception of locally store music or horribly lovely video can you do on a dumbphone? Background sync is hardly the defining feature of smartphones. Plus, the dude said he has good WiFi coverage, so he'll be connected most of the time what's the difference between that and you know, having Sprint's lovely service? 1st AD posted:If you're not going to have a data plan you might as well buy a Nexus 7 instead of a lovely underpowered phone. Despite the thread title not everyone has jorts to stick an N7 into.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 08:00
|
|
|
LastInLine posted:if the device isn't doing its background sync constantly then you've got nothing more than a dumbphone with 90% of the functions unavailable at any moment. If you aren't going to use it like a smartphone why would you have a smartphone? The reason both my parents have smartphones is they make better normal phones too - looking up contacts, sending text messages and taking pictures is much easier to do on a smartphone than a dumb 'feature phone' (especially now the only feature phones left on the market are terrible). Then again they do have data enabled but that isn't an issue outside of North America (so far as I can tell) - their $19/month prepay packs include enough data, calls and texts for their lightweight usage
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 08:00
|
|
|
Toilet Clam posted:It could be worse. It could be Sprint forcing you to pay an extra $20/mo for a 4g plan even though there's no 4g to be found for 200 miles in any direction. What carriers are doing when they force you into a plan compatible with your device is just making sure the user experience is what it should be. What Sprint was doing in the WiMAX era was forcing everyone to subsidize their half-hearted attempt to roll yet another network into their patchwork of awful. Carriers received plenty of government subsidies to build out their networks in every era of cell infrastructure buildout. Nearly all of them pocketed the subsidies then forced users to pay more to access their newer infrastructure effectively double charging for their capital expense. (I will grant that the iPhone significantly altered the landscape to the point where their previous business model would not have been feasible to maintain so there's room for a lot of debate here.) My point being that if the money they claimed was to be used solely for infrastructure went to infrastructure this kind of naked gouging could be excused but it didn't and as such users are rightfully skeptical of every seemingly arbitrary carrier decision. Forcing users to have compatible plans when they have the devices is not one of those decisions and is in fact good business sense. Sprint of course was a whole new level of horrible business decisions what with the Nextel acquisition and then their WiMAX debacle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 08:00
|
|
|
LastInLine posted:What carriers are doing when they force you into a plan compatible with your device is just making sure the user experience is what it should be. I don't think that is valid now Android is the default OS you'll find on virtually any phone, even at the very cheap end of the market.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 08:04
|
|
|
Geektox posted:Are you trying to argue that non-connected applications like say, games, or Snapseed, or pinned music in Play, or Kindle, or locally store media are not valid use cases for a smartphone? Which of these with the exception of locally store music or horribly lovely video can you do on a dumbphone? Background sync is hardly the defining feature of smartphones. ProjektorBoy posted:Also USA carriers tell you in advance that smartphones = data plans so in effect owning a smart phone = agreeing to be charged for a data plan. Argue it should be whatever you believe it should be and let's face it, real cross compatibility would increase competition which would almost certainly allow for carriers to compete like European carriers and offer oddball plans like you want but the end result remains the same: That will never happen and you can take their offer or leave it. Geektox posted:Plus, the dude said he has good WiFi coverage, so he'll be connected most of the time what's the difference between that and you know, having Sprint's lovely service? That's. The way. It is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 08:10
|
|
|
So we've gotten to the point of defending lovely, blatantly anti-consumerist policies as in the best interests of the consumer. This thread is weird.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 08:12
|
|
|
LastInLine posted:Would it be nice if there was an Android equivalent to the iPod Touch? Yes but there isn't one. Uhh buy a phone and don't install a SIM card? I don't see how that is functionally any different to an iPod Touch (either way you can't make/receive calls) e. grack posted:So we've gotten to the point of defending lovely, blatantly anti-consumerist policies as in the best interests of the consumer. This thread is weird. You could argue on-by-default casual data rates are worse - I think costs $1/MB on my carrier which can really ruin your day if you don't have a data pack of some kind dissss fucked around with this message at 08:17 on Dec 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 08:15
|
|
|
grack posted:So we've gotten to the point of defending lovely, blatantly anti-consumerist policies as in the best interests of the consumer. This thread is weird. Subsidy addiction and hiding the true cost to the consumer? Sure, that's egregious and wrong. Forced network incompatibility making portability a complete nonstarter? Of course, obvious collusion in order to extract as much out of the customer as possible while effectively limiting competition. Blocking tethering on tiered data plans just so they can add an upcharge? Obviously gouging. Making you use their network the way it was intended for the device you own? LOL, no. If you don't want a data plan on a carrier don't get a device activated on a carrier that uses data. No one is being harmed by this practice at all. e: dissss posted:Uhh buy a phone and don't install a SIM card? I don't see how that is functionally any different to an iPod Touch (either way you can't make/receive calls) dissss posted:You could argue on-by-default casual data rates are worse - I think costs $1/MB on my carrier which can really ruin your day if you don't have a data pack of some kind ClassActionFursuit fucked around with this message at 08:26 on Dec 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 08:20
|
|
|
To interrupt smartphone plan chat for a moment, has anyone had an issue where their phone can't get connected to Google services over data? I toggled my Nexus 5 to 3g from LTE briefly, and now push notifications, etc. don't work, even after setting it back to LTE. I've tried removing and re-inserting the SIM card, rebooting, resetting APN settings, etc. with no luck. Everything including push works over WiFi, and the web browser, etc. work over data. Next step would be factory reset, but I really don't want to have to do that
Soviet Canuckistan fucked around with this message at 08:26 on Dec 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 08:24
|
|
|
Soviet Canuckistan posted:To interrupt smartphone plan chat for a moment, has anyone had an issue where their phone can't get connected to Google services over data? I toggled my Nexus 5 to 3g from LTE briefly, and now push notifications, etc. don't work, even after setting it back to LTE. I've tried removing and re-inserting the SIM card, rebooting, resetting APN settings, etc. with no luck. Next step would be factory reset, but I really don't want to have to do that. You might want to call the carrier and make sure you're provisioned for LTE service on their end if you were on a non-LTE device before. I'm guessing you went into the secret phone menu and set the network preferences appropriately?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 08:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 17:28 |
|
|
LastInLine posted:If you don't want a data plan on a carrier don't get a device activated on a carrier that uses data. No one is being harmed by this practice at all. Unless, of course, they're in a geographic location that limits them to using certain carriers. I'm guessing that's more people than "no one".
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 08:28
|
|