Nice summary. It wasn't until after the subsidy ended that I realized who benefitted the most from them. If you didn't get the subsidy then, you were basically subsidizing those that choose the subsidy because you and the other subsidy person paid the same rates. (ATT) I often wonder if / how much such pricing took advantage of poor people who couldn't take advantage of the subsidy. Especially if they were a family with a couple of children. They paid full rates and had to use less the great phones. Or, where there subsidies on other phone brands that poor people could get that were of similar quality that were subsidized by ATT? Say Samsung or Motorola.
Back in those days, anyone could get the subsidy, provided they passed a credit check. Around the time of the iPhone3GS (2010??), you had a choice of a "free", $100, or $200 phones. Free phones probably cost the carriers about $350 to $450. The more expensive phones were probably in the range of $500 to $800. For iPhones, at least, the typical subsidy was $450.
People who couldn't put $200 up front, were able to choose other phones. Let's say a mid-tier Samsung or Moto or LG and walk out with a "free" phone. They probably ended up with a $350-ish subsidy. More if the carrier was trying to clear inventory of a particular phone model. In the end, rich or poor, you got a subsidy. Now, the issue of credit score could affect a poor person from being able to get a plan, but as long as they could put a cash deposit, the carriers would let them in.
I am also wondering who benefits and who loses with Amazon Prime. Do the people NOT using Amazon Prime subsidize the Prime members? If I save $500 on shipping and Prime cost me $100 then, this seems like an unsustainable model if all or most of the Prime members cost Amazon more than Amazon receives from Prime membership. Thus, how is it being sustained. Price increase across the board including those that don't subscribe to Amazon Prime?
Ugh! This post is poorly written but I had to get it out.
Take care.
Another example would be credit cards. Folks who use credit cards incur a cost for folks who pay cash. There's a transaction fee for every credit card purchase that the retailer has to pay for. This fee is passed onto the consumers, but not just the ones who use credit cards. Retailers don't want to (or have agreements with the CC companies) list two prices (one for CC and one for cash) so everyone pays a little more. You can make an argument that this is fair or unfair. But it just is.
In society, there's always people who will benefit more than others. This is just the way it is and it's not necessarily unfair. Homeowners pay school taxes. If I have 7 school aged kids, I pay the same taxes as someone that doesn't have kids (or perhaps their kids are grown). There's tons of examples of this kind of thing. I think, as with most things in life, that it balances out.