Recommended Posts

The White House has responded to an online petition to make cellphone unlocking legal, and that should make the 100,000-plus people who signed it very happy. The Obama administration says it's time to legalize the practice, which lets you to take your phone with you if you switch carriers, but was banned in January by the Copyright Office and the Library of Congress.

"The White House agrees with the 114,000+ of you who believe that consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones without risking criminal or other penalties," R. David Edelman, White House Senior Advisor for Internet, Innovation and Privacy, wrote on the White House Petitions Blog. "In fact, we believe the same principle should also apply to tablets, which are increasingly similar to smart phones."

Typically, if you sign a contract with a wireless carrier, you get a phone at reduced (or no) price as long as you stay with them. Unlocking your phone involves a software alteration and requires a new SIM card -- not a big deal if it hadn't been banned. The White House says the ability to bring your phone to another carrier or network is "crucial for protecting consumer choice" and is important in making sure America maintains its "vibrant, competitive wireless market."

The Obama administration said it is now planning to address the issue and would support legislative fixes to say that "neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation."

more

The new law on phone unlocking was silly to begin with. The fact that the phone comes discounted via the carrier is largely irrelevant, as you're locked into a fixed term contract anyway which means you'll still be paying the bill regardless of the sim you have in the phone.

Why do phone companies even care if you unlock your device? They still get your money regardless. You'll still pay the monthly fees or if you terminate you'll still have to pay the cancellation fee.

  • Like 2

Excellent news!

It's only a shame they didn't go further and say that all devices should be unlocked by default. That is what I want in the UK.

Hell yes. Carrier locks are bloody annoying.

Hell yes. Carrier locks are bloody annoying.

They are annoying for a reason - it's called *contract enforcement*.

If all that keeps you tied to a carrier is your word (in short, if all carriers had the same hardware standard, which is pretty much the situation in the UK or EU), the moment another carrier dangled a lower price in front of you, despite the terms of your extant contract, how long would it realistically take for you to change carriers? Just going by what I see on most forums having to do with cellular device usage (anywhere), most folks would bail ASAP - in other words, those contracts would not be worth squat.

The carriers know this - they aren't stupid. Carrier locks are there because (as much as you won't say so) most of us want to get things as cheap as possible, even if it means breaking existing contracts.

In the US, there are different hardware protocols (vastly different, in the case of AT&T Mobility and Verizon Wireless, the two largest carriers) - you simply CANNOT take your phone from one to the other in most cases.

That is why the unlocked-phone situation is far different in Europe as opposed to the United States (or even North America). In Europe, until recently, carriers were limited to national (or regional) borders - however, there was basically little to NO hardware differences between carriers. However, in Europe, there were little usage of carrier-side subsidies - in North America, and especially the United States, carrier-side subsidies were (and, in fact, largely remain) the rule - not the exception.

Get rid of carrier locks and prices MUST go up on the handsets - after all, contracts would be worthless. Are we willing to pay the increased prices non-lockable handsets by default would force?

They are annoying for a reason - it's called *contract enforcement*.

If all that keeps you tied to a carrier is your word (in short, if all carriers had the same hardware standard, which is pretty much the situation in the UK or EU), the moment another carrier dangled a lower price in front of you, despite the terms of your extant contract, how long would it realistically take for you to change carriers? Just going by what I see on most forums having to do with cellular device usage (anywhere), most folks would bail ASAP - in other words, those contracts would not be worth squat.

The carriers know this - they aren't stupid. Carrier locks are there because (as much as you won't say so) most of us want to get things as cheap as possible, even if it means breaking existing contracts.

In the EU, we have exactly the same thing, you know. We have fixed term contracts and subsidized phones. They are very much the majority case when it comes to the latest hardware. However, they very fact that we DO have fixed term contracts is what makes carrier locks a waste of time. It really doesn't matter if you unlock your device and use a different SIM in it, you're STILL locked into that contract, and you're still legally required to pay it. If you don't, the providers WILL take you to court and WILL win a summary judgement against you. You can't get out of it without paying.

In the US, there are different hardware protocols (vastly different, in the case of AT&T Mobility and Verizon Wireless, the two largest carriers) - you simply CANNOT take your phone from one to the other in most cases.

That is why the unlocked-phone situation is far different in Europe as opposed to the United States (or even North America). In Europe, until recently, carriers were limited to national (or regional) borders - however, there was basically little to NO hardware differences between carriers. However, in Europe, there were little usage of carrier-side subsidies - in North America, and especially the United States, carrier-side subsidies were (and, in fact, largely remain) the rule - not the exception.

Get rid of carrier locks and prices MUST go up on the handsets - after all, contracts would be worthless. Are we willing to pay the increased prices non-lockable handsets by default would force?

Sure, you have different hardware, in most cases CDMA which is seriously obsolete these days. :p However, once again, that's not particularly relevant when it comes to the handset pricing. I have a Galaxy Note 2. At over ?500 contract free, there's no way I could have afforded that without signing up for a 2 year fixed term, which gave me a heavily subsidized device and I only ended up paying ?50 for it. However, my device is NOT locked at all; I can use it on any network I fancy, without limitation. Getting rid of the carrier locks will have NO affect whatsoever on this, as a contract is a contract and you are legally bound by it.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
    • Compared to the 7735HS it is around 25-30% slower in multi-threaded tasks (according to Google search) I did a review of the 7735HS Beelink SER6 Max in 2023, but thinking about it, it's not comparable to the 7730U. For the example you gave about how it will be used, the 7730U is actually an excellent choice for its power and battery efficiency.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      194
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      71
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      67
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!