Stupid Smartphones

[TNcasual]

If you really aren't willing to go any larger, your option is the Iphone SE, It's still a nice phone, but it's pretty dated. I wouldn't be surprised if it only has 1-2 more years of iOS updates, so maybe not a good long term investment. And you know when that's gone, there will be zero phones that size, so you might as well get used to larger now anyway, IMHO.

I was using a 5 year old 5s running iOS 9 that was already dated when I purchased it. Latest and greatest is just not important to me.

 

[tkbslc]

I was using a 5 year old 5s running iOS 9 that was already dated when I purchased it. Latest and greatest is just not important to me.

So buy another one?

 

[TNcasual]

So buy another one?

I nearly did.

 

[tkbslc]

I just remembered the perfect phone for you, and it's a current 2017 model:

Unihertz Jelly review: a tiny phone with huge aspirations

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[TNcasual]

I just remembered the perfect phone for you, and it's a current 2017 model:

Unihertz Jelly review: a tiny phone with huge aspirations

View attachment 626560

I wouldn't mind that.

 

[agentlossing]

Not to pick any fights, but I've never had any real complaints about AT&T. Their service is excellent now in the rural area where we live, and if you know how to make them give you the features you want and not the ones you don't, the experience can be quite painless. Also, I rode the subsidized phone rollercoaster long enough, and now, get carrier unlocked every time. You won't regret it. And you won't lose any money either.

 

[tkbslc]

I wouldn't mind that.

Check it out, it wasn't a joke recommendation. But I don't know if it works on Verizon, though.

Not to pick any fights, but I've never had any real complaints about AT&T. Their service is excellent now in the rural area where we live, and if you know how to make them give you the features you want and not the ones you don't, the experience can be quite painless. Also, I rode the subsidized phone rollercoaster long enough, and now, get carrier unlocked every time. You won't regret it. And you won't lose any money either.

I think their coverage and network is fine, but they are pretty shady with their plans. Their competitively priced plans severely throttles your bandwidth and key features (no hotspot?) and all but forces you into a DirectTV subscription. I would rather use their prepaid brand, Cricket, if I was going to be using an unlocked phone on their network.

 

[DeeJayK]

I use and like T-mobile, but Verizon still wins by a long shot in rural areas. T-mobile has nearly as much coverage by population and a fast network, but Verizon wins by quite a bit for sheer area covered.

Can't answer why anyone picks the other two, other than dirt cheap prepaid on Sprint's network.

I agree with you that Verizon still has the most coverage nationwide, particularly in rural areas. But their gap has narrowed significantly in the past few years. In fact, I have relatives who live in rural areas in Montana where T-Mobile's network (which they built out from scratch in the last two years) has the best coverage available.

With coverage each network has downfalls in particular area, so the question really becomes which carrier covers the areas in which you use your phone the most of the time. If Verizon has superior coverage in rural Iowa that does little good for me if I don't ever plan on using my phone there.

Latest and greatest is just not important to me.

Me neither. But I want a phone that remains supported. I am not a big fan of iOS, but since Apple builds the hardware and software, they are simply supported longer than any other phone out there.

In the Android world, Google's Nexus (now dead) and Pixel offerings are the only phones that come close (2-3 years of updates and security patches), plus they will run on any carrier.

I agree that Apple offers the best support in terms of software upgrades, followed by the plain vanilla Android phones from Google. However, another aspect that is just as important is that networks and frequencies are always being added. My daughter has an iPhone 5 that works fine from a software perspective, but gets terrible data performance/ coverage compared to more recent phones simply because it doesn't support all of the frequencies that have been added in the last several years. Those are things that can't be updated via software, so phones still have a limited lifespan.

 

[TNcasual]

I have learned a lot from this thread.

I didn't realize that the Google Fi project was nationwide, I thought it was limited to a few areas. I didn't know Cricket was AT&T. I hadn't seen that tiny Android phone. I didn't know Sony knee-caps their phones in the US.

 

[agentlossing]

Check it out, it wasn't a joke recommendation. But I don't know if it works on Verizon, though.



I think their coverage and network is fine, but they are pretty shady with their plans. Their competitively priced plans severely throttles your bandwidth and key features (no hotspot?) and all but forces you into a DirectTV subscription. I would rather use their prepaid brand, Cricket, if I was going to be using an unlocked phone on their network.

There's no shadiness to our plan, and it provides what we need with no bloat and hotspot included. I think it's not as difficult as it's made out to be.

 

[tkbslc]

I have learned a lot from this thread.

I didn't realize that the Google Fi project was nationwide, I thought it was limited to a few areas. I didn't know Cricket was AT&T. I hadn't seen that tiny Android phone. I didn't know Sony knee-caps their phones in the US.

Happy to help!

If the AT&T network works for you, Cricket has the iPhone SE for $160 right now and a 5GB data plan for $35/mo. (Or galaxy S8 for $350 is a better deal, IMO)

There's no shadiness to our plan, and it provides what we need with no bloat and hotspot included. I think it's not as difficult as it's made out to be.

That would be great if it cost less, but it's more expensive than full featured and full speed plans from the competition. They are essentially offering the Cricket $50 unlimited plan, on the same network, for 2x the price. 3Gbps is probably fast enough for most things I do on the phone, but don't charge me the same price as 50Gbps+ plans from Verizon and T-mobile and hide it in the fine print that it's throttled.

 

[agentlossing]

Like I said, I'm not here to start any arguments. However I have researched cost and I'm not overpaying compared to what is offered by the competition. Cricket isn't what I call a full featured carrier and isn't what I compare my service to.

 

[tkbslc]

Like I said, I'm not here to start any arguments. However I have researched cost and I'm not overpaying compared to what is offered by the competition.

It's funny you keep arguing with me while saying you don't want to argue.

Cricket isn't what I call a full featured carrier and isn't what I compare my service to.

That's exactly what I'm saying, though. The base "unlimited" plan from AT&T is as full featured as Cricket (which is AT&T owned and operated). Other than phone payment plans, you are on Cricket already. With the same throttled and de-prioritized version of the AT&T network and same feature limitations. You have to pay for the Premium plan to be on what regular AT&T used to be, and then it costs more than Verizon. That's why I think it's shady.

If you are happy with it, by all means don't let me tell you what to do. But I am just telling you why a lot of people speak poorly of them lately.

Sprint is even worse!

 

[agentlossing]

I keep saying it because I could tell you were being stubborn from the get-go. Let's agree to disagree

 

[pigiron]

That said, why anyone would choose a carrier other than T-Mobile/ Metro PCS is beyond me.

I'm surprised you would say that if you are actually in the PNW. Verizon has wider coverage hands down. Try getting a T-Mobile signal on the west side of Olympic National Park.

 

[DeeJayK]

I'm surprised you would say that if you are actually in the PNW. Verizon has wider coverage hands down. Try getting a T-Mobile signal on the west side of Olympic National Park.

I don't know how recently you've been out there, but I was at Kalaloch this winter and my coverage & speed outpaced my friend who is stuck with Verizon.

Yes, if you're talking about hiking way up the Hoh or something the VZ coverage may hold out a bit longer, but for my purposes T-Mobile's network is at least as good and often better in most of the places I tend to spend time.

That was NOT the case as recently as a few years ago, but T-Mobile had really focused on building out their network.

When you add in the value (price, Netflix, etc.) it's an absolute no brainer to me. Obviously, others are free to come to another conclusion.

 

[pigiron]

I don't know how recently you've been out there, but I was at Kalaloch this winter and my coverage & speed outpaced my friend who is stuck with Verizon.

Yes, if you're talking about hiking way up the Hoh or something the VZ coverage may hold out a bit longer, but for my purposes T-Mobile's network is at least as good and often better in most of the places I tend to spend time.

That was NOT the case as recently as a few years ago, but T-Mobile had really focused on building out their network.

When you add in the value (price, Netflix, etc.) it's an absolute no brainer to me. Obviously, others are free to come to another conclusion.

As a matter of fact I was up the South Fork of the Hoh in January. It's in the backcountry where coverage counts not when lounging around at a resort.

 

[DeeJayK]

As a matter of fact I was up the South Fork of the Hoh in January. It's in the backcountry where coverage counts not when lounging around at a resort.

Ad hominem attacks much?

For me, though, when I'm really out in the wilderness cell coverage is WAY down my list of priorities. I guess I'm maybe old fashioned that way.

 

[pigiron]

Ad hominem attacks much?

You're the one who seemed to equate Kaklaloch with being in a remote area not I.

For me, though, when I'm really out in the wilderness cell coverage is WAY down my list of priorities. I guess I'm maybe old fashioned that way.

That's right, just change your argument about adequate coverage out of rhetorical convenience.

Unless you are carrying an EPIRB or an even more expensive sattelite phone perhaps you should re-prioritize your equipment hierarchy. There are plenty a steep creek crossings along the South Fork where you can break an ankle and I find Verizon LTE signals from distant cell towers to be adequately strong atop the ridges in the high country of the park too.

 

[DeeJayK]

You're the one who seemed to equate Kaklaloch with being in a remote area not I.

Can you point out what part of my response gave you to believe that I felt Kalaloch was "remote"?

That's right, just change your argument about adequate coverage out of rhetorical convenience.

Unless you are carrying an EPIRB or an even more expensive sattelite phone perhaps you should re-prioritize your equipment hierarchy. There are plenty a steep creek crossings along the South Fork where you can break an ankle and I find Verizon LTE signals from distant cell towers to be adequately strong atop the ridges in the high country of the park too.

Not changing my argument at all, but merely pointing out that I value coverage in areas where I spend the bulk of my time over coverage in fringe areas where I (personally) go to escape technology. As I said before, other's priorities may be different.

I can tell you're really animated about this topic, but I don't understand why you feel the need to be so aggressive in your argumentation. It's a camera forum after all, not Reddit. To each his own, I guess.