Oh, I agree that you should be able to do more or less what you want with something you’ve bought, but I don’t think the manufacturer should be under any obligation to make it easy for you, or even possible. As I understand it, the iPhone has functions that require the carrier to do stuff above and beyond the norm for a GSM phone (something about voicemail integration, I believe, possibly other stuff) - if you unlock it to work on a different network, you might have a less than satisfactory user experience and I can see how a company like Apple, for whom user experience is a significant part of the package, would consider it quite reasonable to make sure that the phone is limited to operating in ways they happen to consider optimal.
So I don’t think the lock-in should be illegal, but I don’t think the hack should be either. If it happens that someone develops an undefeatable method of restricting the use of something, then I guess it sucks if you really want one and really want to use it in a way beyond the restrictions, but… it’s a piece of non-essential consumer electronics - and one choice amongst many. It’s not a life support machine, or the only possible way to do the job.
As Mr Jagger put it - You can’t always get what you want.
Nonsense. There are numerous examples of things you purchase with qualifications as to use, either because you include that in the contract with the purchaser, or because you have restrictions imposed upon you by government or society. Get real.
Also my ol’ Mick;
I want it, therefore I need it. 
What? What can you point to that’s directly comparable to the Apple/ATT deal? One company compels you to make a contract with another as a condition for full use of the unique product you buy!
And why are you being so combatitive? Both companies can surely take care of themselves. This is just a question, one that will eventually be resolved. One of little real consequence however it goes.
Peace,
mangeorge