Thank you sandblaster!! whew, i started to think no one could even engage the conversation. Thanks for offering something of worth.

It's a good thing to note that carriers selling subsidized phones will sell way more phones for the manufacturer. This seems to me to be a good 'symbiotic' relationship between carrier and device maker, which can also benefit the customer buying a reduced-priced device.

There are those who have abused the ETF and made profits, that's shady, but the carrier can just make the ETF the same amount (or more) than the remaining unpaid full-priced phone.

The part i differ with you about is how much it benefits the manufacturer, in this case Apple. You make a really good point about the manufacturers selling an experience that needs to work right. And five years ago with the release of the first iPhone, this was a really big deal - Apple had to work long and hard with At&t to have the technologies ready for the iPhone. At&t was the only carrier capable of running it.

But a few key things have changed since then. First, the carriers have all made a lot of progress (no doubt feeling the pressure to be iPhone-ready). But second, Apple's software is becoming more and more self-sufficient all the time - meaning iOS relies less and less on the technologies of the carriers and more on a basic data connection. This means that the iOS experience will be more unified and more as Apple intended, regardless of which carrier is being used and how. Notice also all the local pre-paid carriers that are getting the iPhone now, as well as Apple's successful business selling factory unlocked iPhones for full-price.

all that to say, i think at the beginning you are right - apple would have wanted the iphone to be locked, but now, i don't think it benefits apple any more.

Either way, whether it's apple or at&t, the issue of ownership remains - are we free to do what we want with the devices we own?