Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1.    #1  
    I'm from Serbia, where we have only GSM, but I feel your pain. I'm long time Palm user, and I know how deep relations and devotion Sprint users have with Palm devices.

    Since I'm not from US, I can't fully understand how things with carriers function in your country. In my country, we have tree carriers, and they all offering from 15 to 20 subsided phones in their stores and their web stores. They bought it from manufacturers directly. But also we have few cell phone resellers which have much, much more broader phone offering. And, all resellers have contracts with carriers to apply subsided prices for all phones they offer if customers want to sign contract with carrier. So, if some carrier does not directly support some phone, you can find it at resellers store and buy it with data plan (same as you bought it from carrier)

    So, how come in US there is no option for HP to sell Pre3 with Sprint's data plans? In that case Sprint wouldn't risk potential fiasco to stay with full warehouse of devices that no one wants, and sprint users would have option to buy WebOS device.
    Last edited by chalx; 05/13/2011 at 01:14 PM.
  2. #2  
    Well it's also different since Sprint is a CDMA network. You can't just buy a phone and use it on the network like you would with a GSM phone.
  3. #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by kjb86 View Post
    Well it's also different since Sprint is a CDMA network. You can't just buy a phone and use it on the network like you would with a GSM phone.
    But maybe he's referencing the CDMA Pre3?
    Last edited by bigmoe88; 05/13/2011 at 07:38 PM. Reason: typo :-)
  4. mauro1's Avatar
    Posts
    205 Posts
    Global Posts
    213 Global Posts
    #4  
    Sprint will not activate a Verizon CDMA phone just as VZW will not activate a S CDMA phone either. Why? they both want to preserve the lock-in features that they have with CDMA. You can't really call it collusion, it is more like mutually agreeing not to compete in the manner, but it sure feels like it. At least that it my layperson's observation of the cell phone market, I'm no 'expurt'.
    Palm Pilot -> IBM WorkPad -> Handspring Visor -> Palm VIIx -> Palm T|X -> Palm Pre -> US GSM Palm Pre 2 [shelved] and 16GB HP TouchPad [died] -> (Samsung GNex and 32GB HP Touchpad with CM9)
  5. #5  
    If Sprint activates the ESN range of the Verizon Pre 3 on their network, you can configure the Pre 3 to use Sprint's network with QPST. But since Sprint hasn't ever activated a Verizon's ESN range on their network, this is impossible.
  6.    #6  
    What I meant is - HP or Best Buy could carry Pre3 Sprint sales without Sprint's investment into Pre3. It would be Sprint configured phones, but Sprint wouldn't give a dime for phones. In this scenario Sprint would only pay HP for any sold Pre3, and not for large stocks of Pre3 bought infront. That way Sprint would avoid potential money loss. I understand that Sprint now have full stocks of Android devices, and they want to force WebOS users to switch to Android, but there is some thousands of users not willing to abandon WebOS, and ready to leave Sprint.
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by mauro1 View Post
    Sprint will not activate a Verizon CDMA phone just as VZW will not activate a S CDMA phone either. Why? they both want to preserve the lock-in features that they have with CDMA. You can't really call it collusion, it is more like mutually agreeing not to compete in the manner, but it sure feels like it. At least that it my layperson's observation of the cell phone market, I'm no 'expurt'.
    It's not collusion as long as they didn't sit down and agree to it together. It seems to me that it's pretty likely both companies independently decided that it was in the shareholders' best interest not to activate someone else's phones on their network.
    Blasphemous webOS fan, using Android (with a big phone buying problem)
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by chalx View Post
    What I meant is - HP or Best Buy could carry Pre3 Sprint sales without Sprint's investment into Pre3. It would be Sprint configured phones, but Sprint wouldn't give a dime for phones. In this scenario Sprint would only pay HP for any sold Pre3, and not for large stocks of Pre3 bought infront. That way Sprint would avoid potential money loss. I understand that Sprint now have full stocks of Android devices, and they want to force WebOS users to switch to Android, but there is some thousands of users not willing to abandon WebOS, and ready to leave Sprint.
    Thats not how it works in our country. If Sprint allows it to be on it's network, then it will be on it's network. Otherwise no WebOS for us Sprint users.
  9. #9  
    The way I understand it from talking to a store rep is this, and this is at&t mind you not sure if the others do it this way too. But he told me that at&t makes a "master" order from the manufacture, they make the deal for a certain amount of handsets at a set price customized for their network. Then the manufacture delivers these the at&t. Now at&t then sells them to all the different retailers, including their own retail stores, and sells them at wholesale to encourage the retailers to sell contracts.
    iPhone 4s 64gb for personal, at&t Prē 3 for business. Best of both worlds.
  10.    #10  
    And here, resellers are making master agreement with carriers about amount of discount they give to customers for any sold phone with contract. Carriers than refund discount amount to resellers for any phone sold with contract. I remind you, carriers also have their own stores and phone lineup, but they are not willing to loose users just because they can't offer any single model existent on market. This way carries are not blackmailing users to sign contract and buy subsided phone only from their limited offer.

    ** But, to be fair, we do not have such good subsided prices for phones with contract. You guys are getting phones for insanely cheap prices, so don't feel too bad **
  11. #11  
    Also the way I look at it, carriers need ways to be unique. If it wasn't for carrier exclusives, then what would be different? Its like saying Sony shouldn't have any ps3 exclusives.
  12. #12  
    the differences would be quality, prices, plans, customer service, coverage, ect. Imo phones options should not be something to set cell companies apart.

    Quote Originally Posted by astraith View Post
    Also the way I look at it, carriers need ways to be unique. If it wasn't for carrier exclusives, then what would be different? Its like saying Sony shouldn't have any ps3 exclusives.
  13. Loiter's Avatar
    Posts
    682 Posts
    Global Posts
    893 Global Posts
    #13  
    You get phones in better prices in the US but you are somewhat "locked" to the carrier.
    This exists in my country too (a carrier having a good deal in one phone along with a contract), but phones from one carrier can be used to another carrier (GSM network). Also there are unlocked phones you can buy from stores and even if carrier X does not sell cell phone Y you can still use it. Also some stores have deals with carriers, so you can get phones at better prices despite the fact that the phone is not sold officialy by the carrier.
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by Loiter View Post
    You get phones in better prices in the US but you are somewhat "locked" to the carrier.
    This exists in my country too (a carrier having a good deal in one phone along with a contract), but phones from one carrier can be used to another carrier (GSM network). Also there are unlocked phones you can buy from stores and even if carrier X does not sell cell phone Y you can still use it. Also some stores have deals with carriers, so you can get phones at better prices despite the fact that the phone is not sold officialy by the carrier.
    this is how i wish it was.

Posting Permissions