[citation][nom]naterandrews[/nom]I think that ending carrier exclusivity would be a BAD thing for consumers. AT&T at first didn't subsidize the iPhone as much as they do now. The reason? AT&T knows the phone will sell, and that the customers are locked to their network. Lower subsidies would be an end result of exclusives ending, and would skyrocket prices for consumers. Handset manufacturers also get hefty amounts of money in negotiations for their exclusive handsets, which helps them to speed up development of other unique and great phones. Without this money- we'd potentially see less innovative phones as well.[/citation]
All total B.S. Yes, AT&T didn't subsidize the iPhone at first, but that was Apple's doing. Subsidized prices, in Apple's mind, reduce the appearance of product quality. Apple new people would pay $600, and people did just that. Most countries don't have subsidization of any sort to begin with. Japan gets way cooler tech than we do in the states.
Second, locking the iPhone to AT&T means AT&T charges whatever they want, which in the end hurts the consumer. If AT&T had to compete with Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, etc.., the iPhone plans would be more competitively priced.
Finally, I believe there was a study done showing that AT&T can NEVER see a profit from offering the iPhone. They had to invest so much into upgrading the network for the iPhone, they won't see a dime off a single phone sold. Remember, according to AT&T's own number, iPhone users use 10-times the amount of network traffic as other customers. I think they'd rather sell 10-times more phones and not have to upgrade the network.
Imagine if you could use your iPhone, Android phone, or Palm WebOS phone on any network you choose. You'd probably choose whoever had the best coverage and plans in your area, not AT&T just cause the one-time expense of the phone was $100 cheaper, but your monthly data plan is now $30 more expensive.