[LINK] the Apple iPhone rort
Richard Chirgwin
rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au
Thu Jul 12 10:59:48 AEST 2007
Ahh, David, you forget the really big main points.
1) Do not criticise Apple. Any criticism is always swimming upstream
2) Cool toys are concrete; consumer choice is an abstract. The concrete
is always more important, to most people, than the abstract, until the
day the abstract disappears completely. Then they'll start complaining.
Try starting a discussion about cargo cult technology - that is "will
you trade an intangible for a new toy?" sales strategies - and count how
many people actually care.
Now; a response to Kim:
>I don't understand why you are singling out the iPhone for this
criticism. It seems more open than many phones.
Without wanting to light a fuse, I consider this somewhat non-sequitur,
for the following reasons:
a) Regardless of whether the hardware can be considered "more open than
a Nokia", David was (and I am) suspicious of a sales and service model
which says "you may not choose your carrier". That's not intrinsic to
the hardware.
b) Saying "iPhone is bad but Nokia/Ericsson/whatever is worse" doesn't
address the criticism of the iPhone.
It took some time for Australians to get mobile number portability,
which isn't the same as complete device freedom anyhow but at least a
start ... but to say "to hell with that I want the iPhone NOW!" ... a
person may as well have "sucker" tattooed on their forehead.
RC
David Goldstein wrote:
> I think people are missing some of the
> points. Apple, the supposed champion of consumer rights, is locking people into
> a contract with one, and only one, service provider. I’m not aware of any,
> although there could be the odd hardware manufacturer, that does.
>
>
>
>
>
> A Nokia phone is a Nokia phone, and it will
> work on any network, assuming the frequency is right.
>
>
>
>
>
> As was pointed out on another list, “what is
> not common is that a particular device model is exclusively tied to that
> company's services. Like, I can buy any several models of Sony Ericsson phones
> in stores and just install a chip I contract with my GSM operator, even though operators
> also sell the same models as part of their services package.”
>
>
>
>
>
> Further, “The iPhone case takes this tied
> purchase practice to an extreme, and again brings AT&T to the fore of the
> consumer rights' violations debate -- witness the long EFF case against AT&T
> for unilateral violation of privacy rights of millions of Internet users, using
> huge packet sniffer installations at key points in their network.”
>
>
>
>
>
> Another great point is the “schizophrenic
> attitude of Apple, in which they start preaching for an end to DRM and at the
> same time sign an incredibly restrictive ... contract like this?””
>
>
>
>
>
> Someone who buys a digital set top box is
> not locked into anything. The set top boxes I have had have not locked me into
> anything. On Foxtel or their equivalents, I’m not sure if I’d agree it’s the
> same thing. But, I guess you can argue there are similarities.
>
>
>
>
>
> And then, from what I can work out, Apple
> have developed a device that ignores the rights of people with disabilities,
> especially those who are blind and vision impaired. You can say this is only
> one device, but it sets a terrible precedent if it’s as I think it is. Kim,
> being the owner of one such device, would have more of an idea of this.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> David
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Kim Holburn <kim at holburn.net>
> To: Link List <link at anu.edu.au>
> Sent: Wednesday, 11 July, 2007 10:33:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [LINK] the Apple iPhone rort
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited storage on all webmail accounts.
> http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>
>
More information about the Link
mailing list