iPhone, Gadget of the Year - But Has Apple Sold Out?

[ivseenbetter]

You should still register the number:

https://www.donotcall.gov/

But it won't stop the BS text message e-mail spam.

I have only gotten one BS text and come to find out it was a wrong number. Never been spammed and I have been living off of just using a cell phone for 3 yrs now. Guess I am just lucky.

 

[aberkowitz]

I have only gotten one BS text and come to find out it was a wrong number. Never been spammed and I have been living off of just using a cell phone for 3 yrs now. Guess I am just lucky.

I'm the same- I think I've gotten less than 4 spam texts in the 9 years I've had cell phones now.

 

[Wayde Robson]

Not sure about you guys, but I buy products not to "stick it to the man,"

That was certainly Apple's slogan back in the 80s. Sticking it to the man whether it be IBM or Microsoft has been a long standing mantra of mac users.

It has a lot to do with the applications being more graphic, back when that mattered. The motorola processors elite in the early 90s when it came to rendering 3D. If you were a designer it went without saying you used Mac.

There was no separating Mac from the counter-culture of the day.

 

[Tom Andry]

This thread is another great example of "If Apple does it, it's OK." If any other manufacturer threatened to break your product, you'd be all up and arms about it - whether or not you owned one. It's wrong. You know it's wrong. It may not apply to you but it is wrong. Forcing people to use AT&T (which, in my experience has some of the worst coverage and CS I've ever experienced) is a financial choice that Apple made but being able to unlock a phone for use on another service is (by law) OK. Only a small percentage of people are going to do it anyhow and yet Apple has to try and take that power out of their hands. Don't "yawn" at people that are pointing out an obvious injustice.

 

[Wayde Robson]

It seems everyone thinks that technology should be free or unlocked. Not sure why people are upset that a company has created a product, and chooses to offer it as it pleases.

There will be far reaching consequences to what consumers are willing to accept today.

I think digital music and communications opens many complex and fascinating issues. Copyright, regulation, private property, Net Neutrality.

Is AT&T free to provide the version of the Internet it pleases to its customers?

What about the wireless Internet providers?

If we're not careful to define exactly what mean by private property and free speech today, we'll have them dictated to us by companies with which we do business.

You seem to support de-regulation and probably a laissez faire captialist outlook. As do I for the most part.

If Comcast, AT&T and all the communications companies who who laid the foundation for the big network we all enjoy got their way ...

the future Internet could look like a series of AOL-like services.

iPhone has been such a popular and interesting device because for the first time we see issues of Net Neutrality being opened up to the wireless domain.

I think it's important we don't bury our heads in the sand and pretend to leave 'right' and 'wrong' to whatever the market will bear.

 

[gus6464]

Honestly the iPhone is not a bad piece of hardware. I was a bit pissed at first when the wife spent $600 on the damn thing but now that I have gotten to mess with it it's not bad. Plus it was cool that I can make it control the music server remotely so she can hear music anywhere in the house.

 

[Sheep]

You didn't ACTUALLY ask if Apple sold out, did you? Apple is the king of both selling out, and making people sell out.

"People will buy my music CD if I become a black silhouette in an Apple add."

SheepStar

 

[Plasmali]

This thread is another great example of "If Apple does it, it's OK." If any other manufacturer threatened to break your product, you'd be all up and arms about it - whether or not you owned one. It's wrong. You know it's wrong. It may not apply to you but it is wrong. Forcing people to use AT&T (which, in my experience has some of the worst coverage and CS I've ever experienced) is a financial choice that Apple made but being able to unlock a phone for use on another service is (by law) OK. Only a small percentage of people are going to do it anyhow and yet Apple has to try and take that power out of their hands. Don't "yawn" at people that are pointing out an obvious injustice.

Tom, I feel this is a little harsh. There are always two sides to an coin, the company side and the consumer side. There is a very good reason that Apple has taken this aggressive approach with AT&T at their side. Until this past June, Apple really had very little clout or credibility in the cellular world, so what better way than to partner with AT&T. Was AT&T the right choice? Maybe, maybe not, maybe they had little choice. But if you are in business with someone, you don’t scr_w them. If you do, you loose all credibility, and good luck finding another partner. Apple has entered into an arrangement with AT&T like it or not. Will they open up to other carriers in the future? Perhaps. But if Apple stood idly by while people unlocked their phones, and made no effort to discourage it, their partner would certainly be upset. There are ways to unlock the iPhone without bricking the thing, but it takes a little work. I feel that Apple is just posturing to make a stance, and support their partner.

Now for the consumer perspective… Choice is always a good thing. Competition keeps things competitive, and it our job to keep companies honest. We should speak up… and when we do good companies will respond. Apple had some negative press regarding the price drop of the iPhone, but they did respond. It looks like they are set to respond to consumer demands to have native software development for the iPhone as well. Back to my point, successful companies respond, sometimes later than we like, and with less than we would like, but the good ones still do.

 

[birdonthebeach]

Don't "yawn" at people that are pointing out an obvious injustice.

"obvious injustice" seems pretty strong, considering things that are going on in the world today...

If Apple breaks people's phones for doing something that is legal, then they should certainly suffer the legal consequences that would come with that. I am not aware that they have done that - correct me if I am wrong on this. Nor I am suggesting that they should be allowed to do this.

My comments are aimed at those that seem so pissed that Apple did an exclusive with AT&T on the product. If you don't like it, don't buy it. For years Verizon had products I wanted to use, but they have locked out features of the hardware. As a result, I chose to not use Verizon and ended up not getting to use some cool products.

My "yawn" was aimed at the continued Apple-bashing that goes on around here. It's hard being the token fanboy amongst a bunch of PC guys!

 

[birdonthebeach]

Now for the consumer perspective… Choice is always a good thing. Competition keeps things competitive, and it our job to keep companies honest. We should speak up… and when we do good companies will respond. Apple had some negative press regarding the price drop of the iPhone, but they did respond. It looks like they are set to respond to consumer demands to have native software development for the iPhone as well. Back to my point, successful companies respond, sometimes later than we like, and with less than we would like, but the good ones still do.

Good point. And it will be interesting to see what Macworld Expo brings in two weeks along these lines....

 

[Johnd]

Tom, I feel this is a little harsh. There are always two sides to an coin, the company side and the consumer side. There is a very good reason that Apple has taken this aggressive approach with AT&T at their side. Until this past June, Apple really had very little clout or credibility in the cellular world, so what better way than to partner with AT&T. Was AT&T the right choice? Maybe, maybe not, maybe they had little choice. But if you are in business with someone, you don’t scr_w them. If you do, you loose all credibility, and good luck finding another partner. Apple has entered into an arrangement with AT&T like it or not. Will they open up to other carriers in the future? Perhaps. But if Apple stood idly by while people unlocked their phones, and made no effort to discourage it, their partner would certainly be upset. There are ways to unlock the iPhone without bricking the thing, but it takes a little work. I feel that Apple is just posturing to make a stance, and support their partner.

Now for the consumer perspective… Choice is always a good thing. Competition keeps things competitive, and it our job to keep companies honest. We should speak up… and when we do good companies will respond. Apple had some negative press regarding the price drop of the iPhone, but they did respond. It looks like they are set to respond to consumer demands to have native software development for the iPhone as well. Back to my point, successful companies respond, sometimes later than we like, and with less than we would like, but the good ones still do.

Well, I don't know if it's too harsh. BTW, I believe he was responding to that response that literally spelled out "yawn".

Anyhow, the best analogy I've got is if I wanted to mod my Denon, did so, and then later wanted to download some new firmware, that Denon would then lock up my player permanently because of an unauthorized mod. I know it's a little different (perhaps a lot) because we are encompassing FCC regulations with phones...but the principle remains. If I want to mod my product (without violating any laws), what right have they to shut it down? I'd be really miffed if they did such a thing.

 

[Plasmali]

I am defending Apple’s approach from a business perspective. There are many arguments that can be made in support and against Apple’s decision. You choose a product in advance knowing whom the carrier is, and that you will have it serviced/upgraded by Apple/AT&T.

Anyhow, the best analogy I've got is if I wanted to mod my Denon, did so, and then later wanted to download some new firmware, that Denon would then lock up my player permanently because of an unauthorized mod. I know it's a little different (perhaps a lot) because we are encompassing FCC regulations with phones...but the principle remains. If I want to mod my product (without violating any laws), what right have they to shut it down? I'd be really miffed if they did such a thing.

How about this: If you purchase a car from let’s say Mitsubushi or another company known for aftermarket speed appeal, and decide, gee, Let’s add a performance chip, exhaust, clutch, bigger Turbo etc. Now take it back to the dealer for the regular service. They hook it up to their computer, and well it just cannot recognize the new eprom (chip) you have installed. The dealer then says, you have just voided your warranty. You are on your own, miffed and on your own. I would be miffed too, but I can’t disagree with the decision. When you modify something, the company is in no obligation to service or perform any repairs on it.

As many others have said, you bought the thing knowing it was tied to AT&T, so you are on your own if you try and modify it.

If I was, AT&T, I would be happy to have a partner like Apple, and feel confident that I could grow with them and perhaps continuously improve service, respond to customer concerns, etc.

 

[Johnd]

I am defending Apple’s approach from a business perspective. There are many arguments that can be made in support and against Apple’s decision. You choose a product in advance knowing whom the carrier is, and that you will have it serviced/upgraded by Apple/AT&T.



How about this: If you purchase a car from let’s say Mitsubushi or another company known for aftermarket speed appeal, and decide, gee, Let’s add a performance chip, exhaust, clutch, bigger Turbo etc. Now take it back to the dealer for the regular service. They hook it up to their computer, and well it just cannot recognize the new eprom (chip) you have installed. The dealer then says, you have just voided your warranty. You are on your own, miffed and on your own. I would be miffed too, but I can’t disagree with the decision. When you modify something, the company is in no obligation to service or perform any repairs on it.

As many others have said, you bought the thing knowing it was tied to AT&T, so you are on your own if you try and modify it.

If I was, AT&T, I would be happy to have a partner like Apple, and feel confident that I could grow with them and perhaps continuously improve service, respond to customer concerns, etc.

Miffed. Absolutely.

But your analogy only holds water Plasmali if the vehicle is permanently disabled after a mod...a voided warranty is not analogous to killing the machine (which is what the author wrote Apple would do via firmware to an unauthorized unlocking.) So kill the vehicle, and we're on the same page.

 

[Plasmali]

Miffed. Absolutely.

But your analogy only holds water Plasmali if the vehicle is permanently disabled after a mod...a voided warranty is not analogous to killing the machine (which is what the author wrote Apple would do via firmware to an unauthorized unlocking.) So kill the vehicle, and we're on the same page.

yeah, maybe the analogy was a little weak. Anyway, I still think there are so many work arounds for the iPhone that it is not really an issue.

Here in Canada we don't even have the iPhone, but I know of several people tied to carriers here with the iPhones running the latest iPhone update. As ivseenbetter said in an earlier post:

Anyway, Apple can threaten all they want. Whatever they do, the hackers of the world will figure out how to undo.

Let's see what Macworld expo brings.

 

[Johnd]

yeah, maybe the analogy was a little weak. Anyway, I still think there are so many work arounds for the iPhone that it is not really an issue.

Here in Canada we don't even have the iPhone, but I know of several people tied to carriers here with the iPhones running the latest iPhone update. As ivseenbetter said in an earlier post:


Let's see what Macworld expo brings.

Yes.

And as the author wrote, it is Draconian for Apple to do this. I disagree with his comparison of this to the RIAA's pursuit of copyright enforcement, but the moral remains: whether or not it can be hacked (easily, or not so easily), this should only serve to weaken their fan base. Rendering the phone inoperable seems just overly severe to me.

 

[Dezoris]

While I agree with the whole article. I have to be captain obvious.

Anyone who signed a 2 year deal to buy the phone and knew ATT was the only provider should know right off the bat, Apple and ATT would protect that relationship. It's an exclusivity deal nothing more.

 

[Johnd]

While I agree with the whole article. I have to be captain obvious.

Anyone who signed a 2 year deal to buy the phone and knew ATT was the only provider should know right off the bat, Apple and ATT would protect that relationship. It's an exclusivity deal nothing more.

Well, true. If that provision is in the signed agreement. Otherwise, not obvious, and, dare I say, wrong.

 

[jotham]

I have to admit, when I hear the words "permanently disabled", I think of something completely non-recoverable. Like you basically just can recycle it.

There are a number of operations that you can do that make it difficult but not impossible to recover. For example deleting the system directory of the OS or flashing the BIOS with crap firmware (which can really suck).

If Apple is saying that hacks might nuke the OS and cause your iPhone to cease working that kinda falls in the "no duh" category of hacking. Tough luck to you, you will find zero sympathy from me. Most OSes don't really like it when you replace their key files with user-modded files.

However, I would expect that for a reasonable tech support fee, they should be able to wipe it clean and give you a shiny new system install.

I suspect as someone said, that this is as much a tough posture because of their current corporate relationship. I highly doubt they have tried to lock this OS down as much as people think. Personally, I think they are hoping folks will find workarounds but they can't make it too easy or appear too supportive.

 

[Audioholics]

Are these firmware updates "pushed" by Apple? Or are they downloaded at will...

Man, for a second there I thought Tom and J were going to have an all-out throw-down nerd-fight.

 

[birdonthebeach]

Are these firmware updates "pushed" by Apple? Or are they downloaded at will....

Clint, as always you have asked the right question that gets to the point. It will tell you there is an update and ask if you want to install.

As for a throw-down with Tom, Dina handles those duties once a week at AVRant.com...