T-Mobile, AT&T oppose unlocking rule, claim locked phones are good for users

Cheaper phones have a way higher value/$ ratio. Instead of financializing expensive phones the market should encourage cheaper phones through increased demand.

Who will fund R&D into new innovations then?

Cheaper phones by definition have slimmer margins.

I'm not saying all phones should be cheap. The market for premium phones has and will continue to exist. And who's to say finding ways to reduce the cost to produce phones isn't innovation?

I find that markets that are financialized where the price of the good is obfuscated are less efficient. This is because efficient markets rely on price discovery. Healthcare is an excellent example of this.

I think it's impossible to buy a phone from any of the major carriers online without seeing the full upfront price at least a few times on screen.

And in store there's clearly the price tag right beside the demo model.

So hard to see how its obsfucated like healthcare.

I buy cheap phones for projects so have experienced exactly this. If you go on any prepaid WISP site and look at their device selection ordered by lowest price there's always an asterisk and the quoted price is based on some kind of contract.

The prepaid phone models available are usually the cheaper phones?

Or is there some carrier that sells the expensive $1000+ phones on prepaid plans?

You don't need to go for the cheapest phone, but I find the midrange, around $300-$400, to be the sweet spot. Sure, you could opt for something more expensive, but unless you have a specific need, the benefits won't be that noticeable. I'd rather put that extra money toward upgrading a PC instead. I chose a midrange Samsung for its practical customization options over stock Android, plus it comes with 4 promised updates. While it's not as long as the 7 years of updates from a Pixel, realistically, the battery will likely swell like a pillow before it even hits the 7th year anyway.

Typically the $1000+ premium phone market is for unlocked phones sold directly from the manufacturer.

The locked phones are usually sub $250 and have some kind of finacial gimmick to get the sticker price lower. Often it will be some carrier specific model name. Just sort by price low to high and you'll find them.

Huh? I'm talking about the US?

ATT, Verizon, and Tmobile are selling many many expensive phones, locked, on 24 momth payment plans, literally hundreds of possible configurations of dozens of models.

IME even mid tier phones won't have more than a year or so of security updates left, unless you buy them new. And even then it's often only 18-24 months. We should insist that companies support their phones longer or unlock and completely open source them at the EOL.

We’re likely talking about a small subset of users for whom open sourcing or similar efforts would be worthwhile. The bigger issue these days is that phones aren't designed to last. We've seen this trend ever since batteries became non-removable, and I doubt EU regulations will make a significant difference. Most users either dispose of their phones when they stop working or trade them in for a newer model. This is especially common with premium phones, while mid-range models might only fetch you $10 on a trade-in if you’re lucky.

Some companies do better in this regard. For example, Samsung provides four major updates, whereas the last mid-range Motorola I owned only gave me one. By the time I receive the fourth update on my current phone, I'll probably be dealing with bigger issues, like the battery not holding a charge—or worse. I wish phones were more serviceable, but that’s just not the case. Still, at mid-range prices, I’m fine with replacing it when it’s on its last legs.

If you're inclined, though, most Android phones allow you to unlock the bootloader and tinker with the software as much as you want.