Consumers richly rewarded AT&T for several years of iPhone exclusivity, despite those same retention mechanisms and coverage quality differences common to all of AT&T's competitors.
2.2 million iphone sales on Verizon in one quarter disagree with you.
If you can find a chart that clarifies how many of the AT&T iphone customers waited out their contracts elsewhere vs. the ones that paid the ETF to switch over to AT&T, I'll be happy to revisit issue.
It's not just customer retention. Monthly fees, uncertainty about coverage, losing grandfathered plans, inconvenience of switching over and various discounts factor in heavily on the switching decision.
The converse - that consumers would ideally "punish" undesirable carriers [or carriers who carry an undesirable selection of phones], despite those very same restrictions - should be possible in today's hyper-competitive US market.
I would only partially agree that the US market is competitive. It's us, the consumers who bear the cost of competing. There is no true competition for the consumers, vast majority is locked in the post paid model, it's a watered down competition with carriers securing long term commitments. Customer migrations from carrier to carrier occur upon contract expiration, few are willing to pay the ETF and face the factors I mentioned above, even fewer are willing to pay the ETF again anytime soon.
I don't think it's unrealistic at all. Just because a company's goal is to maximize profit doesn't mean consumers should settle for products as they are offered. And it certainly doesn't mean that I should have to restrict myself from modifying a product that I own free and clear, simply to protect the interests of the manufacturer's distribution partners.
I agree that that's how it should be. But for that to be a valid factor, the average consumer lacks the awareness and I don't see it changing anytime soon. If the carriers ever start feeling heat over it, they will compromise but again, the call for unlocked handsets is limited to tech forums and IT news sites. What you and I identify as bloatware, ordinary consumer identifies it as a gift form carrier.
It's certainly easier for OEM's to make and sell unlocked phones but carriers don't want them, I don't expect to see the Nexus on Verizon anytime soon. Sprint is conceding now but only because they are in big trouble, things will get worse for them with the upcoming merger. Verizon and the merged AT&T will dictate the rules, their stance towards unlocked phones and 3rd party apps is already known and it will only get worse once T-Mobile is out the equation.
Facebook
Twitter