This phrasing betrays a complete ignorance of how the mobile market works outside of the US. Most markets have decided that a device and the network connection are separate entities and a vast majority of the world's population buys their "device" and "sim card" separately.
Hence a device manufacturer trying to set the price of a related but distinct product (the network connectivity) is something like -- to pick a favorite American analogy -- Ford not only dictating what brand of gasoline you'd put in the car, but also dictating the price you'd pay for that gas.
Can you provide examples of where this is true? I ask because you seem to think that the US is the only market where subsidised phones exist. I know for a fact that in the UK and France mobile contracts work in a similar way. I'd go as far as suggesting that most, if not all European networks operate in this manner.
>Can you provide examples of where this is true? I ask because you seem to think that the US is the only market where subsidised phones exist. I know for a fact that in the UK and France mobile contracts work in a similar way. I'd go as far as suggesting that most, if not all European networks operate in this manner.
That is incorrect.
It is similar to the US in the UK, but not at all elsewhere. There are some contract deals in EU that go along with a carrier locked phone (like in the US), but most are not. The unlocked phone is the mainstream case.
"The unlocked phone is the mainstream case." Nope. Certainly not in 'Western' economies anyway. The link you provided says as much. I know for a fact that it is the same in France, as I have recently lived there and bought a mobile phone. I know that it's the same in Switzerland, as I have family there and have discussed it at length with them.
I'm not sure we're reading the same thing. Certainly yes in Europe. I'm not a visitor, I live in the European union, and work, travel and use mobile phones extensively there.
That you bought a carrier-locked phone in France is not really relevant, as I didn't say there are not carrier-locked phones in Europe, just that the carrier system is not as it is in the US, and having unlocked phones, pre-paid cards, and even mandatory unlocking is (and has been) the norm since mid-nineties.
In France, for example, the law (in effect since 1998) states clearly that even if they sell it locked, the carrier must unlock your phone after 6 months. That's the reason the iPhone had to be sold unlocked in France even back in 2007, when there was no such option in the US.
Heck, the US didn't even have SIM cards and GSM phones until quite recently (late '00s).
"...having unlocked phones, pre-paid cards, and even mandatory unlocking is (and has been) the norm since mid-nineties." This is what I am disputing from experience. It is categorically not the norm. Phones are sold locked to contracts. Pay-as-you-go is possibly marginally more popular, but the phones are subsidised and locked. Yes they can be unlocked and normally for a fee. The French law you allude to is out of date and falls foul of Directive 2005/29/EC (see the entry on Belgium in the wiki link). There is no law in France or most other EC territories as illustrated in your link.
EDIT: Funnily enough one of my parents, a resident of France, has had an iPhone 3G, 3Gs, 4s and 5s on contract with Orange. Not one was sold unlocked with their contract.
This phrasing betrays a complete ignorance of how the mobile market works outside of the US. Most markets have decided that a device and the network connection are separate entities and a vast majority of the world's population buys their "device" and "sim card" separately.
Hence a device manufacturer trying to set the price of a related but distinct product (the network connectivity) is something like -- to pick a favorite American analogy -- Ford not only dictating what brand of gasoline you'd put in the car, but also dictating the price you'd pay for that gas.