You buy a phone for $1k, but you do it through your carrier, along with a $50/month plan. Because you’re on this plan, the carrier offers $600 off the phone price, paid in account credit over 24 months ($25/month), so your total monthly bill becomes $67/month for 2 years, then $50/month at the end of 2 years.
If, 3 months in, you find yourself unhappy with your carrier, you can still pay the remainder of your phone cost ($875) to own your phone outright and walk away. In that time, you’ve saved $75 off the full price of the phone.
Arguing that US carrier prices are exorbitant is not relevant to whether carrier locks and phone discount credits are worthwhile or cost effective.
I'm not sure what that has to do with locking your phone.
If you have a line of credit for the cost of a phone, then you have a line of credit for the cost of a phone. If you have a contract for service, them you have a contract for service.
If you try and terminate either then they will reclaim based upon your contract with them.
And the lock is collateral against a small, high-demand object that can easily be fenced. The phone lock is essentially the same as a hold against a car title until it’s paid off.
This would only be a real problem if there were no options to buy phones direct/outright without the lock. Instead, we’re likely to end up in some situation where carriers work with phone manufacturers to implement a sort of higher-level device lock feature that stipulates the device “belongs” to the carrier and can be functionally locked (a la the stolen device lock features that currently exist) if they ever go unpaid.
If, 3 months in, you find yourself unhappy with your carrier, you can still pay the remainder of your phone cost ($875) to own your phone outright and walk away. In that time, you’ve saved $75 off the full price of the phone.
Arguing that US carrier prices are exorbitant is not relevant to whether carrier locks and phone discount credits are worthwhile or cost effective.