Agreed, the phone is 99 cents ON A 2-YEAR CONTRACT, not unlocked, which somewhat diminishes its value proposition.

is the headline false? or is it a negligent reader who doesn't assume "with a contract" was implicit? equal parts both as I see it. don't throw stones in a glass house, so they say.

anyway, the title of the article Is irrelevant with respect to my explanation. and it should be. determining how misleading a title is would be the job for another algorithm.