5 ms·

You wouldn't expect a competing store in a Barnes and Noble because that's their store; they own it. However, if Apple is going to sell me a phone, then I own

by lambda 17y ago

You wouldn't expect a competing store in a Barnes and Noble because that's their store; they own it. However, if Apple is going to sell me a phone, then I own the phone. I should be able to install the apps I want on it, regardless of who wrote them or sold them to me. If someone sold you a house, but with the restriction that you could never sublet, could only ever use approved furniture from Ikea, and you had to give them regular access to inspect the house to make sure you're not violating their rules, would you buy such a house? Why are we willing to buy phones with such restrictions, then?

bonaldi 17y ago
Plenty of people accept similar restrictions to live in gated communities or in exclusive apartments with tenant associations. That's what Apple's offering: A gated community. Businesses have to play by its rules to get in there. If you too want the benefits of living in its world you don't get to paint your house pink.
- jhancock 17y ago
  What's wrong with it? Apple (and many others) are using federal criminal laws to enforce their business model. It is very possibly a criminal act to unlock your iPhone. Why should the FBI and our criminal judicial system be used to protect a business model? The gated community you refer are not using criminal laws; just civil contracts to enforce the position.
  - DougBTX 17y ago
    IANAL, but I'd suspect it becomes criminal trespass once you're lease is terminated. FWIW, here in the UK there is always the possibility of going to jail if you paint your house pink: http://www.dacorum.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=3118 http://www.dacorum.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=3118
  - ubernostrum 17y ago
    Why should the FBI and our criminal judicial system be used to protect a business model? So far as I can tell they haven't. And, yes, the judicial system will get involved if you run afoul of your gated community's regulations: you'll be evicted by an officer of the law, and you'll be arrested and jailed if you attempt to remain in your former home after the eviction.
    - jhancock 17y ago
      "So far as I can tell they haven't." The threat of imprisonment is not a deterrent for millions of people to have unlocked phones?? Don't confuse the home ownership issue. The actions you are talking about (law officers arresting you) come after a civil process is lost. Such civil processes must be instigated at the cost of the plaintiff, not the government. Apple, and anyone else locking devices are relying on the threat of criminal penalties. It is enough that the act of unlocking the phones is illegal and closes off competition. If it were not for laws that provide for these penalties, there would be a huge secondary market of unlocked devices, instead of the grey/black market that exists.
      - ubernostrum 17y ago
        Apple, and anyone else locking devices are relying on the threat of criminal penalties. As they say on Wikipedia: "citation needed". Last I checked Apple hadn't bothered going after anyone who'd unlocked their phone, or even anyone who'd distributed tools for unlocking phones. Also, it's questionable that the law would even support that -- there's a DMCA exemption for cell-phone unlocking, for example, which means the only likely grounds for going after someone would be civil proceedings based on breach of user agreements. Which means that, um, you're spouting off a bunch of hyperbole unrelated to actual reality.
        jhancock 17y ago
        I live in a reality where I can read public U.S. documents. Here's one where Apple requests to keep it a criminal act to unlock an iPhone: "Apple Inc. submits this responsive comment in opposition to proposed Class #1 contained in proposed exemptions labeled 5A and 11A3 submitted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation" http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/responses/apple-inc-31.pdf http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/responses/apple-inc-31.pd... To date, it is legal for an "individual" to unlock their phone (an iPhone's additional behavior, not so certain) but it is still a criminal act to provide services or create tools to assist such acts. The fact that the government isn't currently prosecuting does not make the threat any more real. The threat keeps the unlocking market from being legitimate and pervasive. The current Copyright Office exemption only applies to a narrow range of activity leaving wholesale unlocking a gray/black market. This link has a solid catalog of the current state of the Copyright Office's DMCA position: http://www.eff.org/cases/2009-dmca-rulemaking http://www.eff.org/cases/2009-dmca-rulemaking You can see the most recent EFF request is September, 2009. It seems pretty clear the status of jailbreaking is still up in the air. It took me one Google search to find dozens of quality sources of information on this topic. Next time, please do your own search before publicly accusing someone of being disconnected from reality.
ynniv 17y ago
the restriction that you could never sublet, could only ever use approved furniture from Ikea, and you had to give them regular access to inspect the house to make sure you're not violating their rules, would you buy such a house? Those are common restrictions for renters (except for the Ikea part). Why are we willing to buy phones with such restrictions, then? You purchase a complicated package. Many people have decided that Apple's is more appealing than the others. You certainly can't fault Apple for making something that people like, so why are people so upset over small things that don't seem to bother most people?
GHFigs 17y ago
However, if Apple is going to sell me a phone, then I own the phone. You do own the phone. You do not own the software that runs on the phone.
philwelch 17y ago
It's still feasible to jailbreak an iPhone as long as you don't just directly apply Apple's firmware updates, right?
jsz0 17y ago
"Why are we willing to buy phones with such restrictions, then?" To use the house analogy the alternative in SmartPhones seems to be a house with an ugly paint job, the floors aren't quite level, the doors squeak, the roof leaks, and sometimes the locks on the doors don't work and you come home to a house full of shady individuals peeking around in your underwear drawer. We're almost 4 generations into the iPhone and arguably Android 2.x is the first real good "open" alternative -- even though it's not nearly as open as people like to think. I'm all for open platforms and freedom but delivering wonky products is a great way to push the mainstream market towards walled gardens. No one wants to run anti-virus and anti-spyware on their phone, or deal with a task manager, or deal with apps that crash a lot. Those days are over with. People just won't put up with it anymore. The open platforms gotta deliver a good experience or they're doomed.
- orangecat 17y ago
  arguably Android 2.x is the first real good "open" alternative -- even though it's not nearly as open as people like to think I'm not sure what you mean by that. My Nexus One is rooted, unlocked, and runs any software I tell it to, including custom ROMs based off of the Android open source code. Yes some carriers lock down their Android phones, but that doesn't make Android itself not open any more than TiVo makes Linux not open.
  - jsz0 17y ago
    Just in the sense the phone the average customer buys off the shelf may be just as locked down as an iPhone and that Google does allow carriers/handset makers a lot of power over users. (stuck with Android 1.5 on my HTC Hero for example)

by lambda 17y ago

bonaldi 17y ago

Plenty of people accept similar restrictions to live in gated communities or in exclusive apartments with tenant associations. That's what Apple's offering: A gated community. Businesses have to play by its rules to get in there. If you too want the benefits of living in its world you don't get to paint your house pink.

jhancock 17y ago
What's wrong with it? Apple (and many others) are using federal criminal laws to enforce their business model. It is very possibly a criminal act to unlock your iPhone. Why should the FBI and our criminal judicial system be used to protect a business model? The gated community you refer are not using criminal laws; just civil contracts to enforce the position.
- DougBTX 17y ago
  IANAL, but I'd suspect it becomes criminal trespass once you're lease is terminated. FWIW, here in the UK there is always the possibility of going to jail if you paint your house pink: http://www.dacorum.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=3118 http://www.dacorum.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=3118
- ubernostrum 17y ago
  Why should the FBI and our criminal judicial system be used to protect a business model? So far as I can tell they haven't. And, yes, the judicial system will get involved if you run afoul of your gated community's regulations: you'll be evicted by an officer of the law, and you'll be arrested and jailed if you attempt to remain in your former home after the eviction.
  - jhancock 17y ago
    "So far as I can tell they haven't." The threat of imprisonment is not a deterrent for millions of people to have unlocked phones?? Don't confuse the home ownership issue. The actions you are talking about (law officers arresting you) come after a civil process is lost. Such civil processes must be instigated at the cost of the plaintiff, not the government. Apple, and anyone else locking devices are relying on the threat of criminal penalties. It is enough that the act of unlocking the phones is illegal and closes off competition. If it were not for laws that provide for these penalties, there would be a huge secondary market of unlocked devices, instead of the grey/black market that exists.
    - ubernostrum 17y ago
      Apple, and anyone else locking devices are relying on the threat of criminal penalties. As they say on Wikipedia: "citation needed". Last I checked Apple hadn't bothered going after anyone who'd unlocked their phone, or even anyone who'd distributed tools for unlocking phones. Also, it's questionable that the law would even support that -- there's a DMCA exemption for cell-phone unlocking, for example, which means the only likely grounds for going after someone would be civil proceedings based on breach of user agreements. Which means that, um, you're spouting off a bunch of hyperbole unrelated to actual reality.
      - jhancock 17y ago
        I live in a reality where I can read public U.S. documents. Here's one where Apple requests to keep it a criminal act to unlock an iPhone: "Apple Inc. submits this responsive comment in opposition to proposed Class #1 contained in proposed exemptions labeled 5A and 11A3 submitted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation" http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/responses/apple-inc-31.pdf http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/responses/apple-inc-31.pd... To date, it is legal for an "individual" to unlock their phone (an iPhone's additional behavior, not so certain) but it is still a criminal act to provide services or create tools to assist such acts. The fact that the government isn't currently prosecuting does not make the threat any more real. The threat keeps the unlocking market from being legitimate and pervasive. The current Copyright Office exemption only applies to a narrow range of activity leaving wholesale unlocking a gray/black market. This link has a solid catalog of the current state of the Copyright Office's DMCA position: http://www.eff.org/cases/2009-dmca-rulemaking http://www.eff.org/cases/2009-dmca-rulemaking You can see the most recent EFF request is September, 2009. It seems pretty clear the status of jailbreaking is still up in the air. It took me one Google search to find dozens of quality sources of information on this topic. Next time, please do your own search before publicly accusing someone of being disconnected from reality.

ynniv 17y ago

the restriction that you could never sublet, could only ever use approved furniture from Ikea, and you had to give them regular access to inspect the house to make sure you're not violating their rules, would you buy such a house? Those are common restrictions for renters (except for the Ikea part). Why are we willing to buy phones with such restrictions, then? You purchase a complicated package. Many people have decided that Apple's is more appealing than the others. You certainly can't fault Apple for making something that people like, so why are people so upset over small things that don't seem to bother most people?

GHFigs 17y ago

However, if Apple is going to sell me a phone, then I own the phone. You do own the phone. You do not own the software that runs on the phone.

philwelch 17y ago

It's still feasible to jailbreak an iPhone as long as you don't just directly apply Apple's firmware updates, right?

jsz0 17y ago

"Why are we willing to buy phones with such restrictions, then?" To use the house analogy the alternative in SmartPhones seems to be a house with an ugly paint job, the floors aren't quite level, the doors squeak, the roof leaks, and sometimes the locks on the doors don't work and you come home to a house full of shady individuals peeking around in your underwear drawer. We're almost 4 generations into the iPhone and arguably Android 2.x is the first real good "open" alternative -- even though it's not nearly as open as people like to think. I'm all for open platforms and freedom but delivering wonky products is a great way to push the mainstream market towards walled gardens. No one wants to run anti-virus and anti-spyware on their phone, or deal with a task manager, or deal with apps that crash a lot. Those days are over with. People just won't put up with it anymore. The open platforms gotta deliver a good experience or they're doomed.

orangecat 17y ago
arguably Android 2.x is the first real good "open" alternative -- even though it's not nearly as open as people like to think I'm not sure what you mean by that. My Nexus One is rooted, unlocked, and runs any software I tell it to, including custom ROMs based off of the Android open source code. Yes some carriers lock down their Android phones, but that doesn't make Android itself not open any more than TiVo makes Linux not open.
- jsz0 17y ago
  Just in the sense the phone the average customer buys off the shelf may be just as locked down as an iPhone and that Google does allow carriers/handset makers a lot of power over users. (stuck with Android 1.5 on my HTC Hero for example)