[LINK] the Apple iPhone rort

[Ivan Trundle]

On 11/07/2007, at 1:28 PM, David Goldstein wrote:

> <snip>
> To have an iPhone one must agree to a contract with AT&T,  
> previously described as one of the worst mobile phone service  
> providers in the US. So if you want an iPhone, and you are already  
> contracted to another company, you have to terminate that contract  
> with the related fees that involves. Ben Scott’s article also notes  
> “if you are on a family plan, you may have to pay a separate fee to  
> terminate all of your family's phones.” And there’s the point that  
> that AT&T doesn’t offer full coverage in more than a dozen states.

The multitude of reviewers of the phone to date have indicated  
otherwise, but I won't let that stand in front of a good story.

> Now, the real point the article makes I’d not thought of, is that  
> the “practice of tying users to one provider is unique to the  
> wireless world. Cable TV providers can't tell you what kind of TV  
> to buy. And regular phone service will work on any phone you can  
> find at your favorite electronics store. In the latter case, that's  
> because there is a longstanding set of laws that guarantee consumer  
> choice.”

No more unique than others have pointed out. Buy a petrol-driven car  
and you're tied to buying petrol. But this aside, so what? What long- 
standing law guarantees consumer choice? If I buy an iBurst device,  
then I'm tied to using their service.

In this day and age, services and function go together - when you buy  
a product, there is no guarantee that the product is free from any  
service obligations. But before we all descent into hyperbole,  
America is different, and has different rules when it comes to mobile  
phones: there is no other market quite like it.

> In the USA, at least, this is “called the ‘Carterfone’ rules, these  
> laws make it so you can use any device you want - phone, headset,  
> fax machine or dial-up modem - on your telephone network, so long  
> as it doesn't harm the network.”

I have no problem with this, based on the premise that the product  
and service are often tied together. But what has happened in America  
is that the telcos have taken the liberty of deciding what services  
people can use, and tie this to the hardware choices that people make.

>
> The article then says, “But it gets worse: phone companies don't  
> just hold the iPhone captive; they also routinely cripple features  
> on handsets (like Wi-Fi, games, audio and video) so that you can  
> only access their ‘preferred’ content. They also limit access to  
> the network, despite marketing ‘unlimited access’. And they reserve  
> the right to boot you off the network if you do almost anything  
> they don't like.”

Again, it's a case of services being tied to the product. The limited  
choices available to consumers is merely a reflection of the powers  
that phone companies have managed to obtain - it's not the same the  
world over, though I'm sure that all telcos would like to have that  
power. This is not unique to the iPhone.

You want better examples of this? An American telco is now sending  
letters to select customers telling them that their services are no  
longer going to be provided, since they no longer want them to be a  
customer.

>
> “This kind of ‘blocking and locking’ behavior doesn't stop you from  
> accessing the internet, but it does shape your experience and  
> undermine the open, level playing field that consumers have come to  
> expect online.

The amount of openess of the internet has never been high. We like to  
think that it is, but ISPs - in concert with governments - can and do  
govern what and how we see things, and how we use such services and  
products. There is possibly more regulation in the internet world in  
terms of what people can and can't do in an environment where there  
is little need for regulation, compared with almost any other industry.

> The iPhone is simply the highest-profile example of a wireless  
> internet market that is drifting further and further away from the  
> free and open internet we've all come to expect.

Hardly - I see the opposite: the wireless function of an iPhone is no  
different to any other roaming internet-enabled device, such as  
laptops. Indeed, if there is an open wireless base station, then the  
iPhone will use it. For those people prosecuted and convicted of  
using open wireless connections without permission in places such as  
America and England, this will be the thin edge of a big wedge of  
ubiquitous networked wireless communication. This is what most people  
have come to expect.

>
> “The only solution to this problem is a political one. Decisions  
> that legislators and regulators in Washington make now will  
> determine what the internet looks like in the future. The US  
> Congress is holding a hearing this week - call it the iPhone  
> hearing - to discuss the new technology and its impact on consumer  
> choice.”

This is a different matter, and not related to the iPhone.

>
> So all this, and combined with the rort of having to send your  
> phone to Apple just so you can exchange the battery, and other lock- 
> ins, I’d hope smart people would boycott the iPhone. Even if it’s  
> just to somehow enable consumer choice and stop the drift away from  
> a “free and open internet”.

Nonsense. Why is this a rort? And who said that the phone must be  
returned to Apple? How many people replace their oil in their car  
when it needs changing? It's a matter of choice. Either you have a  
compact, trouble-free device, or you build extra components that  
diminish the strength of the unit to permit people to do their own  
servicing. The same thing was said of the iPod. I've replaced a  
number of iPod batteries, and I'm no Apple engineer. I'm sure that  
when the iPhone battery requires replacing, there will be ways of  
doing so that don't involve sending it back to Apple.

What are the other lock-ins that are worthy of smart people's  
thought? Most complex devices ever made have 'lock-ins', but it's all  
part of a general feature set which an intelligent consumer has to  
consider, and make trade-offs. When I buy a car, I buy it for overall  
function, not for the ability to change the clock from digital to  
analog. If I wanted to have the ultimate choice, I'd build my own.  
And the same applies to any other device that exists on this planet.  
I have enough 'choice' in the consumer market as it is.

> For the article that got me thinking about this post, see http:// 
> commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ben_scott/2007/07/free_the_iphone.html

Head-in-sand stuff. Anyone who proclaims that the iPhone advertising  
campaign is 'ubiquitous' obviously needs to get a real life. And the  
rest of the arguments about lack of choice in America merely  
highlight what can happen in a free and unregulated market, with most  
of the power vested in nascent industries with an unwitting and  
clueless consumer audience. That's also why so many Americans choose  
to drink Coca Cola. But that's a different issue...

iT

--
Ivan Trundle
http://globallearning.com.au ivan at globallearning.com.au
ph: +61 (0)2 6249 1344 mb: +61 (0)418 244 259
skype: callto://ivanovitchk