I guess the freedom of choice is to have the freedom to buy it unsubsidized or the choice to buy it subsidized and with a 2 Year contract lockdown.

@nilchak: Umm... the freedom to rule the net at EDGE speed on AT&T's (iphone congested) network with your unlocked and unbranded N900?

well, I still have the freedom to use the super-duper N900 on one hand with the AT&T 3G phone in another with the two tethered over BT (just so I can ride the meager AT&T 3G airwaves left over after the iPhonistas are done iFarting all over it).
(Just be careful when a call comes, don't lift both phones to your ears)

One phone to rule the other

True we could (I could also just pay the lump sum in full if I wanted). It's more that..in the US the difference between a subsidized to non-subsidized price is almost non-existent as far as I'm aware with plans..

Considering that technically the N900 should have a smart-phone data plan, the cost difference can be significant over the course of the typical 2-year contract if you can get a "normal" data plan with an unlocked phone.

Its pretty simple equation in the US - cheaper devices.

If you buy a unsubsidized device you sill pay the same $X for the plan each month as you would with buying the subsidized phone.

The only "extra" you get buying unsubsidized is the no-contract on your plan.
But if I was to stick with T-Mobile for 2 years or more as such (like I have with AT&T), then the "no-contract" deal does not have the same value proposition in terms of money.

In that sense the phone is actually cheaper unsubsidized in terms of raw money that I have to pony up over the long term.
To most US consumers the freedom of having no contract is NOT a value proposition at all.

Sad but true.

I think the biggest 'reward' for Maemo if TMO USA picks it up will be the advertisement campaign and distribution reach for the N900.

And even more important will be the acceptance by the carriers cartel that an open phone is welcome in their system.
If that's the case, then I'd say that's worth asking or fighting for...

Don't you mean it is cheaper to get a subsidized phone over time because you do not get a cheaper rate just because you are buying a sim only contract - in the US?

One reason that T-Mobile might not subsidize the n900 is because Nokia isn't in the Open Handset Alliance. In ways if they do subsidize the n900 I will go against Android and the whole sizbang. Just one of my thoughts.

I am a t-mobile customer. I have been out of contract for over 2 years, I have a razrv3 from 5 years ago. (wow, thats sad)

If I get a n900 or better yet 2 on a family plan with a two year contract (through T-mobile for say 300$ per phone?), the monthly rate would be $24.99 per month OR $5 more than if I were to buy outright the two phones unlocked and just add the internet to it for 19.99. (Note this is actually cheating and if caught would be required to switch to the smartphone plan for 24.99$ per month anyway)


So if you were able to get away with the 19.99 plan for the entire two years and stayed at t-mobile (even though you had no contract) you would have saved $120 on the Data plan.

The only differences are (are you listening)

Unlocked Phone
1) You would have paid 600$ more than the person that bought the subsidized version
2) You have the freedom to leave and go to another carrier (good luck finding a cheaperone)
3) You would still be cheating the system and subject to the 5$ higher rate if caught


Subsidized Phone
1) You have to pay for the smartphone package
2) You cannot cancel my contract for 2 years if I bought the subsidized phone.

***Based on current T-mobile rate plans

The T-mobile plans COSTS THE EXACT SAME PRICE with or without a contract.


So someone please explain to me how it is cheaper to buy the unlocked version even if you cheat the system??

I just don't understand????????? Am I missing something??