Can you explain how it keeps smartphone prices artificially high everywhere?

It keeps the high-end phone prices artificially high. Manufacturers cannot sell the same phone to consumers for less than they sell to carriers. This is why high-end phones are less popular in areas where paying full price for a phone is the norm.

So, Apple keeps the price of the iPhone high in countries where people pay for access to the cellular network separately from the phone hardware to keep US carriers happy. Is that your assertion?

I still do not get it. It seems to me that US carriers subsidize the phone hardware because US consumers have an irrational unwillingness to pay the full price of the hardware -- or an irrational willingness to pay monthly contractually obligated payments to carriers.

If that is true, then there I see no reason for US carriers to fear the availability of high-end phones at full price -- even if that price is not "artificially" high -- since US consumers have an irrational aversion to paying full price. So why would US carriers pressure manufactures to keep high-end phone prices high (in the US or in other countries)?

ADDED. I agree with you that Apple is able to keep the price of the iPhone a lot higher than their cost to make iPhones. Where I disagree is where you assert that any policy of the US carriers has anything to do with the price of iPhones in non-US countries.

You misunderstand me. The prices of high-end smartphones are the result of market pressures, not carrier policy. But the market pressure is, primarily, between the manufacturers and carriers; not the manufacturers and consumers. Carriers would like to pay less, obviously, but they make so much money by keeping people on expensive contracts that the market prices the phones where they are.

They prices of high-end smartphones have virtually unchanged in years, where the price of mid-range and low-end phones have plummeted. My assertion is that the reason for this is that high-end phones aren't targeted at consumers.

This confuses me because it seems to contradict your original comment, and make exactly the point I was trying to nudge toward. I agree with you that the unsubsidized price does not matter in the United States for example, but one must acknowledge that this is a US-centric view and cannot explain what goes on worldwide. I read somewhere that most iPhone sales aren't in the US, so I suspect it doesn't even explain just Apple taken in isolation.

iPhone market share is much smaller worldwide than in the U.S. In the U.S. they're around 40%. Android has almost 80% worldwide.

I was not talking about market share. Of the raw number of iPhones sold, what percentage are sold in the US?

(This by the way was not even my primary point. I can't tell what your primary point is because you've contradicted yourself.)

Where have I contradicted myself? The iPhone (and other high-end smartphones) are less popular in countries where they are purchased unsubsidized. Are you disagreeing with this?

First comment:

> It doesn't matter than the iPhone costs twice as much

Most recent comment:

> The iPhone (and other high-end smartphones) are less popular in countries where they are purchased unsubsidized.

This reads as a contradiction to me, as I've stated. I pointed out that your first comment didn't tell the entire story, and ever since then you've seemingly agreed with me. :-)

> This reads as a contradiction to me, as I've stated.

In the first statement I was making a comment on the U.S., where iPhone is most popular, in the second I was making a comment on globally, because you brought it up. Both statements are true.

It was never stated that the first comment was only about the United States.