Price point does matter. There is a big market for the $0 phones (its what pushed apple to offer a budget iphone).

I think badusername's point was that price is a secondary determinant for people. The $200 phones everyone wants but not everyone can afford sell very well once they drop down to $0. However, the $200 phones no one wants sell just as well at $0.

Then they probably don't have enough money for a subscription service, and if they do, they're better off with a non-smart (dumb?) phone.

Sure, there will always be some people who can afford a $200 phone, and others that can't. But for those who can, I'm amazed at how much emphasis is placed on the upfront cost of the phone itself, versus the total cost over the 2 years of a normal contract. Lets just pick easy numbers and say your monthly bill is $100, which is probably on the low end, but it still illustrates my point. Over two years, you're going to pay $2400 for the service. $200 vs $400 vs $600 is the wrong comparison to be making, because it's less than 20% of the total cost.

That's why these marketing promotions really feel scummy to me. "Buy Mom a smartphone for Christmas" is actually "Show Mom how much you love her with a two year, $2500 financial obligation".

Since Amazon is positioning this phone as a conduit from which to sell additional products from Amazon, they probably don't want consumers that can't afford the $200 phone.

But then they have $100/month to pay for the plan? It's not like subsidized phone plans in the US are cheap.