Should I, and if so how should I tell somebody they've bought into a scam phone to the tune of 1645$ CAD?

[WeiSheiLindon]

Yesterday I went to a party. The details of the party are not important, only the phone this person has bought. There's a backstory.

 

I joined this group and started going to the events they hosted about 3 months ago. Immediately I noticed that the pictures taken by one of the admins for promotional purposes always had a little logo at the bottom right corner of the photo that read "Clear" with a companies logo above it. Fast forward to the party yesterday, I was temporarily put in charge of DJ duties. This involved selecting songs requested by the party goers using the admins phone. I immediately noticed this was not a normal phone. It had what I would later find out is a 7.12" display, which if you've been following mobile technology for the past few years you'll know that's a very unusual screen size. The second thing I noticed is that the phone was very, very slow. It was clear (haha, see what I did there) that this phone was a low end phone, which for someone who not only owned a high end television (I'd been to this persons house for previous events), but also owned a very nice house, was rather unusual. Most of you will probably know that the stereotypical Facebook mom has an unnecessarily large either Samsung or apple phone, often a high end one. So naturally, my interest about this device was peaked, as it seemed all too similar to your typical Aliexpress phone that I'd seen friends using in years prior. It felt rather unwieldly in the hand, and generally felt like only 2/3 of the inside actually held smartphone components.

Midway through the event, I asked about the watermark on the photos I'd seen posted in the group, and was told it was like that since she got it. I asked if she wanted me to try and find a way to turn the watermark off, since I know as well as anyone how much it sucks having permanently watermarked pictures of important memories. (Try having your full name plastered in the corner of every photo you take for one year - there was a time in my life when I posted many pictures on social media, and hence desired a way to distinguish photos as mine.) I was then told that no, she did not want the watermark turned off, because she was proud to own a Clear Phone.

Fast forward to the end of the event, and I directly asked about the phone, curious what model it was, since I'd never seen a phone like that before. (I've seen a lot of phones - I can recognize almost any iPhone by the camera bump alone, and most flagship Samsung's) After much scrolling through settings, a model name was procured. Clear Phone 620. I immediately searched up the phone, and just as instantly realized it was a scam. The website was unreliable and outright lied about the product, and the pricing was insane. A price of 1,199$ USD, or 1645$ CAD was seen on the website.

 

As far as I can tell, the specs of the phone are as follows:

Display: 7.12" 2340*1080 IPS LCD panel (not confirmed but I've seen enough screens to know)

Processor: MediaTek Helio P70

Memory: 6GB of RAM, likely LPDDR4X as that's the latest the processor supports. 128GB of storage, likely UFS 2.0 or 2.1

Battery: 5000MaH cell, given the weight of the phone I think this is accurate. No mention of fast charging.

Camera: (Claimed - due to inconsistencies on the website I wouldn't trust this.) 16MP IMX499 1/2.8", this sensor seems to have only ever been used in one other phone, the Vivo Y7s released in July 2019. 5MP decorative sensor, 2X 0.00 MP even more decorative sensors. 

OS: ClearOS, likely based on android 11, but it could be android 12. It supports chat bubbles like stock android 11, so this is the minimum version.

 

The website is incredibly inconsistent. At the top it claims to have a 48MP + 8MP + 2MP + 2MP camera system, however later it claims to have a 16MP + 5MP camera system, which I am much more inclined to believe. It also claims to have a pop-up selfie camera? Obviously it doesn't, don't know why they chose to market that.

https://www.clearcellular.org/clearphone/clearphone-620-series

Disclaimer: This phone is a scam. I have shared the link for informational purposes, if you buy this phone, you bought it knowing it was a scam. I am not responsible for any terrible pictures, lack of Facebook speed, or terrible battery life you may experience.

 

So the question I now have for the community is this:

Given the level of scam this is, should I tell the owner that it's a scam? If so how? If not why?

I'd hate for this person to drop almost 2 grand on a new scam phone in 2 years, but I'd also hate for this person to have to live with a phone they payed that much money for, knowing it's a scam. 

I've included a picture of the phone, if anyone can figure out what phone it's based on, if any, that would be helpful and interesting.

[SquintyG33Rs]

i think you should tell them. remember always use phrasing that puts the blame on the scammer not the guy you're talking to. "hey from what i know about phones i think they scammed you" it's also pretty important that they should stop using this device because we have no idea what kind of software is on that and what it records and sends back.

 

[manikyath]

i talk from relative experience, not exactly about phone scams, but i have someone in my family that is very huffed up on snake oil...

 

it's likely not worth the argument. they're not gonna change, or just gonna jump onto another thing.

 

just be happy it's a brutally overpriced phone, and not magnesium tablets to fend off the effects of the covid vaccine. (yes.. that *is* a direct quote)

 

also.. about this:

7 minutes ago, SquintyG33Rs said:

what kind of software is on that and what it records and sends back.

probably nothing. the scam is up front, why spend time on data gathering if you're cashing in 1k per customer right up front. 

[SquintyG33Rs]

1 minute ago, manikyath said:

 

 

also.. about this:

probably nothing. the scam is up front, why spend time on data gathering if you're cashing in 1k per customer right up front. 

the scammer is for sure not the one making the OS....

[manikyath]

Just now, SquintyG33Rs said:

the scammer is for sure not the one making the OS....

it's probably just a phone they order from some manufacturer, with some custom bubblyness in the OS.

 

i seriously doubt anyone cared to set up backend infrastructure for these to call back to, when it would sell just the same without going trough that effort.

[SquintyG33Rs]

Just now, manikyath said:

it's probably just a phone they order from some manufacturer, with some custom bubblyness in the OS.

 

i seriously doubt anyone cared to set up backend infrastructure for these to call back to, when it would sell just the same without going trough that effort.

lets say the scammer bought these for 100$ it's clear that somebody spent the time to make a rebadged body for these since it seems like it's a vivo phone or a clone of one.
the person that made THAT product could easily be subsidizing their profits by collecting and selling data. Because that's what Samsung does.... (not that they're alone, fire tablets exist too)
So yea we don't know, and I don't think it's worth keeping a sub par experience when they can get a pixel A series for a fraction of what this cost them. seems like they could afford it even if it might hurt emotionally to accept at first, i'd want to get rid of the reminder.

[YoungBlade]

What is leading you to the conclusion that this is a scam and not just a very bad value phone with a poorly made webpage for it?

 

Looking at this, the company is tied to the Clear Foundation, a registered non-profit, and the company that makes ClearOS - a Linux-based OS. I remember hearing about the OS years ago now and I vaguely remember hearing that they were coming out with a phone. I thought it was supposed to be a Linux phone, not Android, but it's very possible that they pivoted. The Clear Foundation company has apparently been around in New Zealand since 2009 according to Wikipedia.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong - this may well be a scam - but if it is, it isn't like any scam I've ever seen before. These folks are really playing the long game.

 

 

[manikyath]

4 hours ago, SquintyG33Rs said:

lets say the scammer bought these for 100$ it's clear that somebody spent the time to make a rebadged body for these since it seems like it's a vivo phone or a clone of one.
the person that made THAT product could easily be subsidizing their profits by collecting and selling data. Because that's what Samsung does.... (not that they're alone, fire tablets exist too)
So yea we don't know, and I don't think it's worth keeping a sub par experience when they can get a pixel A series for a fraction of what this cost them. seems like they could afford it even if it might hurt emotionally to accept at first, i'd want to get rid of the reminder.

but, as the mobile phone equivalent of a "white label manufacturer".. what is the benefit of setting up the infrastructure, developing the tools, etc.. if you have no reason to support the devices in any way at all.

 

companies like samsung have to provide some form of ongoing support for the device, so they have an incentive to target some form of ongoing revenue, and have the infrastructure set up anyways because these things need updates.

a white label product will *NEVER EVER* get back to you for any sort of support, updates arent your problem, and honestly.. data mining isnt your business. any dev time going into data gathering isnt going into making phones roll of fthe porduction line.

 

until proven otherwise, i'm gonna confidently assume this device isnt any more or less seccure than <insert literally every other android handset here>.

[SquintyG33Rs]

5 hours ago, manikyath said:

but, as the mobile phone equivalent of a "white label manufacturer".. what is the benefit of setting up the infrastructure, developing the tools, etc.. if you have no reason to support the devices in any way at all.

 

companies like samsung have to provide some form of ongoing support for the device, so they have an incentive to target some form of ongoing revenue, and have the infrastructure set up anyways because these things need updates.

a white label product will *NEVER EVER* get back to you for any sort of support, updates arent your problem, and honestly.. data mining isnt your business. any dev time going into data gathering isnt going into making phones roll of fthe porduction line.

 

until proven otherwise, i'm gonna confidently assume this device isnt any more or less seccure than <insert literally every other android handset here>.

you're trying to apply your own reasonable logic here. Corporations aren't reasonable humans people. Samsung doesn't do it for the BS reasons they'll gloriously announce at PR events.
there is only greed, it's super simple. does it make more money? then it is so.

and yes you're right it's not inherently more or less secure than anything else. but it doesn't have a reputation to protect. if google's public credibility is gone people will stop buying their products and they will lose revenue.

[Lurking]

Why is it a scam? It seems overpriced, but that itself isn't a scam. That Clear phone doesn't pretend to be an Apple or Samsung or other premium phone. It is large and seems to work and the user seems happy. 

 

A scam would be taking the money and not sending a phone, or sending a fake or a non-functioning phone and the seller disappears. None of that seems to be the case here. 

[manikyath]

10 hours ago, SquintyG33Rs said:

does it make more money? then it is so.

but.. does it make more money, if that infrastructure is doing nothing else?

 

you seem to imply that data gathering is inherently profitable, but i fail to believe it is so. data gathering usually piggy backs off the support infrastructure (updata meanagement, etc.) of companies, but if yuou dont need said infrastructure, just the HR effort of staffing might be a big enough impact for it to quickly lose profitability.

[SquintyG33Rs]

8 hours ago, manikyath said:

but.. does it make more money, if that infrastructure is doing nothing else?

 

you seem to imply that data gathering is inherently profitable, but i fail to believe it is so. data gathering usually piggy backs off the support infrastructure (updata meanagement, etc.) of companies, but if yuou dont need said infrastructure, just the HR effort of staffing might be a big enough impact for it to quickly lose profitability.

there's virtually no HR involved. when massive entities do this it's one thing. when smaller groups do it all they need is a computer, 50TB of storage and someone who wants to buy it. you don't even need to design the data gathering when android has telemetry built it. just send the files back at the address periodically.

these things are only hard if you're not in the system from the get go.

famous example is how before pegasus the US made a whole fake secure phone and they fake smuggled/fooled criminals to buy and used that. they're already inside the device no work needed there.

this practice never involves doing anything productive with the data, a 3rd party wants it to make their own money on top. it's like amazon return boxes, you buy a pallet and you yourself sift through it to see if you can sell back the good parts for a profit. these guys would just be the dudes getting the returns at the warehouse sticking them on pallets.

that's the kind of data collection that you see on all the bottom tier websites are like. they implement the facebook pixel because it improves the add money they get on their website, they're the ones collecting it and sending it back. but facebook is the one digging through the data to find the juicy bits they can milk.

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, SquintyG33Rs said:

there's virtually no HR involved.

if you're developing, managing, and profiting off a data collection scheme, you have a bunch of staff, so you have a bunch of HR.

 

smaller entities still need the same amount of work done to make a data collection scheme worthwhile, which is so far beside the point of "making white box smartphones" that it makes no business sense for the manufacturer to bother.

 

besides that, it could be assumed that the majority of control over the OS features are in the hands of their customer (in this scope: the entity rebadging them as "clear phone") so any implementation of weird stuff would be in the hands of clear, not the hands of the manufacturer. and given the OBVIOUSLY GINORMOUS profit margins clear has here, it seems exceptionally unnecessary on their part as well.. once again going back to the "if you dont have to support them, why bother with the infrastructure" argument.

 

clear literally has a bigger scope for profit when they keep their surface area as small as possible, being able to recycle and spin up a new sham once things get toasty under the clear phone branding. compared to the relatively small potential for data harvesting on.. what? maybe 1000 of these devices? going home with a million dollar payday seems pretty good.

 

so.. in other words:

- the manufacturer has better things to do than get into the data gathering business (they can quote their customer whatever they want either way...)

- clear has more advantage to keep their own surface area as small as possible, which means low staff count, to maximize the profits from this.

- given the pricepoint and premise, their potential market is absolutely tiny in the scope of data gathering, so also relatively little profit to be hd as a result.

 

i'm still convinced this is nothing but a bubbly android experience stuck on an off the shelf phone, with a stupid pricetag and a horrible "confirmation bias" marketing campaign.

 

to go back to OP.. the fact the lady is this "proud" about her phone.. is probably a very human coping mechanism because no one likes to admit that "they have been had". this whole thing just reeks of 'white van speaker scam'. the company behind it is an endless onion of <5 staff shell companies, spread across several continents.

basicly, it's a textbook example shady company, that's at least being dodgy with taxes. it's horrid all the way around, but it seems extremely counter productive to go the data collection route if the entire thing is set up as a recyclig center for corporate filings.

[Vishera]

Ignorance is a bliss, she is happy about her phone so why ruin it for her?

[WeiSheiLindon]

Thanks to everyone who's replied to this post, the information has been very helpful in making an informed decision. I've decided I'm not going to tell the owner of the phone, as I see no harm in somebody using a scam phone, and I don't want her to feel bad about her purchase for a long time before she gets a new phone. I will let her know about the pixel A series when I have one, until then it would seem a little weird to just be like "hey there's the super cool phone out, I know you already have an super 'nice' phone but this is better!"

 

Thanks again I'm glad I didn't make the wrong decision. Feeling bad about being scammed out of 1.4K$ is not a feeling you want have every time you look at your poor android phone.

[shadow_ray]

On 3/26/2023 at 7:14 AM, WeiSheiLindon said:

Thanks again I'm glad I didn't make the wrong decision. Feeling bad about being scammed out of 1.4K$ is not a feeling you want have every time you look at your poor android phone.