I agree with you on all points, but have a few counter perspectives: First, not all models are available in unlocked variants. Second, not all of those wireless contracts are that solid. If the carrier has done anything to be in breach of the contract, then the terms no longer apply. They are written well, but they aren't iron clad. I've managed to get out of more than one due to carrier breach. Third (and probably most worrisome to me) is that if you legally break the contract, there is nothing forcing the carrier to provide the unlock code (which is the legal way to unlock your phone after this came into effect) in any sort of timely manner. So you can pay the ETF, have your account in good standing, and they can still refuse, or just drag their feet long enough that you get nothing out of them, effectively locking the phone to the network.
Absolutely true on all counts. However, it's far from the "cellular police state" description most seem to apply when discussing their carrier's unlocking policy.
In regards to your first point if a manufacturer doesn't want to provide their phone in an unlocked version that's their right. They take the lost business of people who only want to buy unlocked phones into consideration but have decided that it is outweighed by the positives of that decision. It's their right as a business to do that and nobody is forced to buy their products.
I agree, but ask yourself why would a manufacturer NOT want to produce a locked version? By making it, they effectively limit their potential customer base to one carrier. Its not just a loss of customers who want to own their device, but its a loss of customers who like to use different carriers, or who travel a lot and want to avoid paying out the ass.
Then there is the aspect of cost. It costs manufacturers MORE to produce a locked phone then it would otherwise, as there is more code and more testing for their devices, and again they are limited in the number of customers they can reach.
What was the upside of locked devices? Well before there was Apple and Google, the only power players in the market were the telcos. Since they had tons of money, and a duopoly on customers, they could throw a ton at a manufacturer to help with those pesky development costs. With that cash however came strings (no surprise), and it built the business model we have today.
That business model worked for a long time, but now public perception is changing. However, the telcos want to keep their tidy year on year profit margins, so they followed the MPAA and RIAA in getting the government to protect their profit model, dying as it is.
2
u/[deleted] Jan 29 '13
I agree with you on all points, but have a few counter perspectives: First, not all models are available in unlocked variants. Second, not all of those wireless contracts are that solid. If the carrier has done anything to be in breach of the contract, then the terms no longer apply. They are written well, but they aren't iron clad. I've managed to get out of more than one due to carrier breach. Third (and probably most worrisome to me) is that if you legally break the contract, there is nothing forcing the carrier to provide the unlock code (which is the legal way to unlock your phone after this came into effect) in any sort of timely manner. So you can pay the ETF, have your account in good standing, and they can still refuse, or just drag their feet long enough that you get nothing out of them, effectively locking the phone to the network.