Jason Snell, in his defense of the 3G-equipped iPad:
Let’s face it: One of the things that stinks about the American cellular industry is that it’s been built around a subsidy-and-contract business model. When you buy a phone, it’s generally discounted in exchange for your agreement to pay a monthly fee for a couple of years. Non-subsidized devices generally still pay high prices for service, and it’s still a pain to cancel. The iPad’s 3G service has none of these drawbacks: It can be set to auto-cancel and requires no commitment.
[…]
My point isn’t that the iPad with Wi-Fi and 3G is for everyone. It’s that a lot of people may commit to a Wi-Fi only iPad without considering the flexibility of the iPad’s 3G system and the great deal Apple has extracted from AT&T. For an up-front commitment of $130—the cost difference between the Wi-Fi and 3G models—you give yourself the freedom to buy 3G data whenever you need it, without any of the typical cellular encumbrances. That’s pretty cool, and it’s worth considering when you’re deciding which iPad you want to buy.
When the iPad was first announced, I heard several complaints about the 3G-equipped models being more expensive. Several of these complaints included this argument:
No way the 3G chip costs Apple $130.
That’s true, but Snell nails the real reason for the extra cost. The $130 is painful up-front, but the flexibility is very, very cool and quite innovative. And it wouldn’t be possible in today’s cellular market without it.