IANAL and have always wondered why this practice is allowed in the U.S.
"Apple Asia ... required carriers to obtain its permission before setting contract prices on iPhones..."
This sounds like Apple Asia explicitly approved contract prices, but it depends on how you interpret "setting contract prices". If that literally means setting the price that the customer will pay, then this is not (to my knowledge) the exact mechanism used in the U.S., because the manufacturers cannot approve or deny the actual selling price. Instead, manufacturers rely on a loophole.
Rather than saying, "You can't sell an iPhone for less than $199 with contract," Apple says, "You can't advertise an iPhone for less than $1xx with contract." The actual number isn't $199, as we regularly see advertisements for iPhones at discounts from retail, but not much lower. We haven't seen the agreements, so we don't know the actual terms. It may be that Apple has the ability to approve/deny all advertised prices individually.
Keep in mind that a retailer is free to sell an iPhone at whatever price point they'd like. The problem is that they have no incentive to do so. Sale prices are a means to get customers in to the store. Imagine a ridiculous hypothetical situation where Walmart advertised the iPhone 5S at $99; that would draw in a lot of customers. However, their reseller terms prevent them from doing so, therefore there is far less incentive to do so. If they can't advertise the crazy sale price, then they can't draw in the number of customers required to meet their ROI requirements for an iPhone loss-leader. The inability to advertise props up the iPhone selling price.
Apple doesn't do this just with iPhones, and this is not the only mechanism Apple uses to prop up their prices. We don't know the specific margins retailers make on Apple products, but everyone I know who has worked in the retail industry tells me that the margin on Apple products is much lower than every other PC manufacturer. I can't speak for mobile devices, as I don't know anyone in that industry.
It's also worth noting that Apple isn't the only company who employs these practices. There are a number of "high-value" brands that support their pricing this way. Tempurpedic and Rolex come to mind immediately, but I'm certain there are many more.
Yes, the practice benefits the retailers and Apple, but its effect on consumers is commonly believed to be negative hence it is prohibited in some markets.
I cannot understand people who champion anticompetitive actions like Apple's ebook conspiracy with stupid logic like "They can afford an extra dollar for an ebook if it makes the market fair".
Clearly I need to phone up the Oxford dictionary as they say nothing about the consumer or market fairness so they must have gotten it wrong all these years...
Another potential effect is less outlets selling the iPad, because if there is the potential for others to undercut the price on the same product, it becomes less valuable item in the lineup.
Another potential effect is less sales through Apple's own retail channels if some other outlets are selling below Apple's price but Apple tries to maintain it, which could mean more sales but still less money going to Apple.
No, it exists to make things better for the capitalist, which is why the socialists who named the system called it "capitalism" -- the entire system revolves around the interests of capital.
Its true that part of the sales pitch that capitalists use to the masses (who significantly outnumber them, and without whose complacency capitalism could not stand) is that it has the effect of making things better for the consumer, but that's not the purpose of capitalism at all.
Free markets need not have capitalism, and vice versa, but capitalism will likely arise in any free market.
If Bob produces X, and he wants to sell X for Y dollars, how is it immoral or bad to allow others to sell X for Y dollars, but no less?
This is like saying it's "price fixing" when an app developer charges the same for his product on the play store and the App Store.
Apple did not collude with HTC; they set the price for their product.
Apple can always control prices by being the exclusive seller of their products, that would be a valid way to do it. By selling it to a third party they, I think (again, am undecided) they give up the right to say how much it can be sold for. In the same way they can't stop you from selling your iPhone to a friend for cheap.
What they can do is not to sell to retailers who they feel are damaging their brand. In effect, this is exactly what they are doing, however they are doing it through written agreements rather than through observation.
Whether it is or not, I'm not sure that the fines are the way to go. If "the public" thinks that these practices are anticompetitive, why not simply declare that contract provisions to that effect won't be enforced in their jurisdiction?