[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.

[ezfe]

Because carrier-locked phones to major carriers don't suffer a severely depressed price. AT&T has high market share it doesn't matter enough if a phone is locked to AT&T to prevent theft and depress resale prices.

[Forgeties79]

If that was how these things shook out you two wouldn’t have anything to debate.

[lazide]

Honestly, I’m not even seeing the point of the debate. Even their argument implies they’re well away of it.

[night862]

The point is that the cost of stolen goods is zero or near zero in this case.

The profit margin approaches infinity.

[lazide]

Opportunity cost and cost of consequences are far from zero.

Most criminals clear less than they would working minimum wage.

It only appears to approach infinity if you ignore reality and consequences, which is often how criminals think. But it is not the actual truth, eh?

[Forgeties79]

>Most criminals clear less than they would working minimum wage.

I know people hate "Source?" as a reply but I think this claim really needs a source.

There is also the assumption that everyone has access to a job, which depending on where you are and what you're background is (we are very hostile to people with disabilities, physical "deformities" that people find unpleasant to look at, felony convictions, etc.) may or may not be true. A lot of folks turn to theft out of desperation.

[night862]

Not at all, no petty theft is deterred by the criminal thinking, “oh no, what if it’s locked!”

They aren’t making a wage at all. They are doing something else.