[LINK] the Apple iPhone rort

[Kim Holburn]

I don't understand why you are singling out the iPhone for this  
criticism.  It seems more open than many phones.

Here is some more directed criticism of the iphone.
<http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007/07/whats-hidden-in-iphones- 
fine-print.html>

On 2007/Jul/11, at 5:28 AM, David Goldstein wrote:
> I'd put this posting below on my website - http:// 
> technewsreview.com.au/ - and thought I'd post it here and see what  
> the response was. It's based on an article in The Guardian today  
> that makes a few more points on the new must-have iPhone. Well,  
> must have only for those who are slaves to marketing hype. It makes  
> points that have been made before.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.”

Currently a television is a standard but most set-top boxes are  
completely tied to a cable or satellite network.  Different cable  
providers only offer their own content and in the future HD-TVs may  
well have DRM encryption which will tie you to particular providers.   
The contracts are often pretty nasty too.  Companies will try lock  
ins whenever they can, games consoles being one example among many.

> 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.”
>
> 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.”

Doesn't really make sense.  "phone companies don't just hold phones  
captive"  makes sense; there is only one company involved in the case  
of the iPhone.  The rest of the paragraph is about phone companies in  
general and is not untrue but not really particularly related to the  
iPhone.  Many mobile phones in Australia and other places sold on a  
contract are "locked", that is you and the phone are tied into a  
contract usually for several years.

> “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 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.

Not really, the mobile phone market has been very locked in, the  
arrival of internet access is starting to open it up.  It will  
probably be painful, companies like the lock-in and they probably  
think they'll make more money that way.

> “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.”
>
> So all this, and combined with the rort of having to send your  
> phone to Apple just so you can exchange the battery,

Yeah, not having a replaceable battery is a real pain, probably would  
stop me buying one.  I used to always have a spare battery for my  
phone and in the past you used to be able to buy chargers for them  
but not these days.  I must say, batteries are another place where  
companies try to lock you in.  Think of all the different kinds of  
batteries in phones, cameras, video cameras, PDAs, laptops, etc.   
Cellphone handset makers seem particularly prone to this kind of lock  
in although it is changing, but think of all the special connectors,  
headphone connectors, chargers etc.

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

I think you have it round the wrong way, the iphone may help the  
process of opening the market up.

--
Kim Holburn
IT Network & Security Consultant
Ph: +39 06 855 4294  M: +39 3494957443
mailto:kim at holburn.net  aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request

Democracy imposed from without is the severest form of tyranny.
                           -- Lloyd Biggle, Jr. Analog, Apr 1961