No, the challenge is dealing not only with people who will continue to ask "But why?" after being told, "Well, we don't know", but also those who claim that anyone who disagrees with them is a "shill" or a "fanboy".
And I think you're reading too much into the notion that AT&T locking ensures the phone will work better on AT&T. I didn't read that at all. I read it as AT&T phones are best suited to the AT&T network, which is true. T-Mobile's oddball 3G variant means that phones that work on 3G everywhere else in the world are 2G on T-Mobile.
Your opinion on the contract locking you into the line vs. the phone is irrelevant, whether or not it's true. AT&T has said they won't unlock currently in-contract iPhones, same as they won't unlock AT&T exclusives (sorry, Lumia owners). It may be your baseball, but it's their field and their rules.
New Reality wrote:
The challenge you will have here asking any most question about locking is the AT&T fan boys will come out of the woodwork to defend the practice and to defend AT&T.
I noticed someone made a comment about AT&T locking ensures the phone will function better on an AT&T network, that's absolute rubbish.
When AT&T had the iPhone exclusive locking may have been a good idea so they kept the devices on their GSM network. Since the exclusive is gone the locking nonsense is long past its time.
Also, locking kept international travelers hostage to AT&T's very expensive roaming options, now that AT&T will unlock phones (under certain conditions) this being held up without a gun is also moot.
2 year contract minimums locks you into the line, not the phone.
It's good that AT&T has made provisions to unlock some phones.
