[lolinder]

Locking the phone to a carrier is not an anti-theft mechanism. They're available in abundance on the used market with no special protections of any kind from the carriers, the only difference is that they sell for a fraction of the cost because you're locked in to the single carrier.

Maybe you're thinking of the locking mechanisms built in to Android and iOS?

[acdha]

I was mostly asking because the comment I replied to wasn’t perfectly clear and I’ve read more than a few complaints about e-waste caused by people forgetting to release things from their account before tossing it. I think what they’re doing is a great idea and was curious how much hassle it involved.

[dghlsakjg]

This issue is about carrier locks. It doesn’t prevent a phone from being used, it just prevents a phone from connecting to a service provider that isn’t the original retailer’s

[stouset]

> the only difference is that they sell for a fraction of the cost because you're locked in to the single carrier

I mean, that’s honestly kind of a theft deterrent. One that’s distributed on average amongst the set of all stolen phones, but anything that reduces the average expected value of a phone thief is de facto a deterrent.

[ezfe]

A theft deterrent that doesn't actual deter theft and solely benefits the carrier.

If I steal an $800 phone but can only sell it for $400 because it's locked to AT&T I've still sold it for a profit lol.

[forgot-im-old]

Plus what thief is checking your carrier before running away with it?

[lazide]

They just can’t make enough money off it, so find some other crime to do. Assuming it’s common enough.

[night862]

The point is, it doesn't matter. They're selling a Locked iPhone instead of an Un-Locked iPhone.

Is the Locked Phone devalued because it is locked to AT&T or is the Unlocked phone at a premium because it is not?

[lazide]

It does matter, by depressing market value - if widespread enough to cause overall market value to be depressed.

Not sure what you’re getting hung up about.

You clearly already know what’s going on or you wouldn’t be able to write the last sentence.

[lazide]

If you can only sell it for $10 when it’s locked, it’s a deterrent.

[dghlsakjg]

No.

An unlocked phone is indistinguishable from a locked phone until you attempt to sign it up for another network. That distinction isn’t made until the phone is already stolen.

If I’m a thief, I steal the phone either way. Sometimes I get a carrier locked phone and only make $10 (realistically more. Carrier locked phones sell at a discount around 20-50%), or I get an unlocked phone and make $400.

Your argument is the same that carrying less cash would make you less of a target for pickpockets. It won’t. They will steal a wallet with no cash as fast as a wallet stuffed with hundreds.

[stouset]

If the average selling price of a stolen phone drops, the incentive to steal phones does so too.

> Your argument is the same that carrying less cash would make you less of a target for pickpockets. It won’t. They will steal a wallet with no cash as fast as a wallet stuffed with hundreds.

People don't tend to carry cash any more. And you know what has stopped happening as often as a result?

[dghlsakjg]

But what you are missing is that a carrier locked phone isn't worthless, it is worth quite a bit. A carrier locked iphone 14 sells for ~$400 on ebay, an unlocked one sells for ~$525.

The carrier lock mostly just affects the owner of the phone, and the resale value when they are done with it. In completely unshocking news, TMobile also has a program to buy back t-mobile phones, unlock them, and sell them on.

Stealing a $400 phone vs stealing a $525 phone is irrelevant to the thief.

What DOES stop thieves is activation and firmware locks. Phone theft is way down since Apple effectively made it impossible to use a phone that hasn't been logged out of. Those phones are only worth what their unlocked parts are worth, which is not that much.

[ezfe]

But it's not $10 because being locked to a major US carrier doesn't depress the price significantly.

[xp84]

Indeed. Anecdotally I’ve seen in a few places where the going rate for one carrier or another is actually a bit higher than unlocked because people aren’t that well-informed and think “I need a Verizon phone cuz I’m on Verizon.”

Which was pretty universally true in the USA 15 years ago.

[toast0]

Before Verizon stopped using pre-LTE, most unlocked phones wouldn't work on Verizon. I imagine you get burned by that once, and then you pay attention longer than necessary.

[FollowingTheDao]

$10 is a lot of money to some people. It was a lot for me at one point in my life.

[lazide]

Sure, and some places you’ll get mugged over $5 or worse.

But it’s a lot more likely over $5000 right?

[kstrauser]

Ding ding ding, that's the key. There are some people who will mug you for any amount > $0.00. You can't make crime disappear by lowering the value. As that value drops, though, fewer and fewer people will bother as the risk/reward ratio shifts. You'll still have crimes from people desperately sick with drug addiction who need something, anything, to get more, and they're notoriously bad and risk/reward calculations anyway. You'll have fewer crimes from people who'd otherwise think, hey, let's go out and boost some phones for spending money.

[pcai]

It is 100% an anti theft mechanism - it prevents people from stealing phones from carriers. The scam is: - get a new iphone from tmobile that costs $30 over 2 years. - don’t pay them anything: you just got a free iphone. Tmobile is mad and won’t provide service to that handset because you stole it from them. - You open a new line with at&t and tell them you’re bringing your own phone.

Carrier locking prevents this. If someone steals your phone on the train that’s a different problem with a different solution

[safety1st]

That is a weird take which is not informed by an understanding of how business operates.

It is 100% an _exclusive dealing_ mechanism. (This is a term of art for a business strategy which may not be legal in the current context, by the way.) It was undoubtedly implemented because it's a way to make more money. Businesses love imposing exclusive dealing. It can reduce their competition and increase their margins. We have businesses all over the American economy doing it.

Now does this particular case of exclusive dealing also serve to reduce theft? Perhaps it does, a case can be made. But what is 100% certain is that anti-theft was not the motive for doing exclusive dealing. It's the other way around. The FTC recognizes that. Any nominally honest judge or business executive would recognize that. Anti-theft is an afterthought compared to the billions in profits at stake.

[pcai]

This is incorrect. You can pay off a phone early and simply ask that it be unlocked - the carrier will happily comply because you are no longer a credit risk. You can also just purchase phones unlocked by paying cash upfront. You don’t need to be a genius to deduce how this works.

The imei blacklists for theft were created much later and aren’t honored globally

[piltdownman]

Where are they not honored globally in the first world bar Romania and Africa/China?

iPhones are effectively rendered useless even with IMEI blacklisting due to the iCloud tie-in. When stolen phones end up there, the receivers on the Asian end try and guilt/shame/social engineer the original owner to unlock from iCloud - but there's basically no technical solution.

For those that claim 'oh but the OEM parts resale value only' need to keep up with the news:

https://www.tomsguide.com/phones/iphones/ios-18-activation-l...

[grepfru_it]

Back in 2012 there were international agreements which required us cellular carriers to enforce locking phones. Those may have been unwinded by now but it’s not a simple “just force the companies to do it” scenario

[wormius]

* citation needed.

[grepfru_it]

https://www.cbp.gov/trade/free-trade-agreements/korea

[lolinder]

A) This isn't what OP was asking about. They're pretty clearly asking about stolen devices from a consumer, not consumers stealing devices from carriers.

B) Your take is complicated by the fact that there actually is a secondary market for locked phones [0], so this isn't just about people rent-to-owning a phone with an explicit installment plan.

[0] https://www.ebay.com/itm/186656753206

[pcai]

My point is that carrier locking is about managing credit risk and fraud, not an evil plot to trap customers, and not a mechanism for discouraging street theft.

It’s only complicated if people conflate issues or fail to understand the mechanics of carrier locking. You can just call up a carrier and ask to have the phone unlocked and they’ll oblige if its paid off. Sometimes people confuse carrier locking with imei blacklists, which is for stolen handsets. Sometimes people confuse phones with modems or firmware that only work with specific carriers as “carrier locked” but again, that’s not the same thing

[matheusmoreira]

They're essentially extending credit lines to people they know nothing about. Sounds like they should just stop doing that. Their "lock down the phone" solution should be illegal.

[lazide]

They’re not locking the phone for that, they’re adding a barrier to competition by adding friction being able to switch carriers.

[zaptheimpaler]

That sounds like a speculation on a tangential benefit instead of the major consideration in locking phones. The carriers can blacklist any phone's IMEI at any point (in addition to the usual collections attempts, credit reporting etc) which achieves the same effect but better if a phone is stolen from them.

[pcai]

It’s not speculation - this is literally why cell phone locking was invented. The imei blacklists were created much later specifically for theft, not to manage credit risk of customers getting subsidized phones.

You can literally just call your carrier to ask how to get your subsidized phone unlocked. There’s no need to speculate- it’s not a secret!

[II2II]

To be fair, that was an argument that was put forth by carriers years ago (at least in Canada). That said, I don't think it has popped up as much (or at all) in recent years.

[dingnuts]

sorry if this is a stupid question, but if you don't pay for the phone don't they repossess it or something?

[michaelmrose]

So your average phone costs $700-$800 retail new. Cost of repossession would be going to court, court costs, lawyer bills etc. I would end up costing $5000+ for a piece of used goods that is worth $300 if they are lucky.

[batch12]

No. They charge you and if you dont pay, they report your debt to credit agencies.