4 ms·

The lesson here seems to be that if you innovate you can count on the US justice system to punish you. More than any other company, Apple has improved the state

by dpatru 16y ago

The lesson here seems to be that if you innovate you can count on the US justice system to punish you. More than any other company, Apple has improved the state of the art in cell phones for US consumers. Now they are getting sued because they didn't improve it even more. Reminds me of Samuel Johnson's description of a critic: "Criticism is a study by which men grow important and formidable at a very small expense. The power of invention has been conferred by nature upon few, and the labour of learning those sciences which by mere labour be obtained is too great to be willingly endured; but every man can exert such judgment as he has upon the works of others; and he whom nature has made weak, and idleness keeps ignorant, may yet support his vanity by the name of a critick." Johnson: Idler #60 (June 9, 1759)

Sidnicious 16y ago
Apple had to develop a process to unlock iPhones when they started selling internationally. Not permitting it in the USA, when unlocking phones after a period of time is the standard, is not lack of innovation, it's a step back. Providing no way to install applications outside the App Store (and actively working to stop jailbreaking), while rejecting applications that compete with Apple or AT&T (Google Voice, Grooveshark, Podcaster, MailWrangler, etc.)? That's a great way to present like a monopoly, regardless of whether Apple is one at this time.
- xenophanes 16y ago
  The app store is a feature, not a bug. Or maybe I and Apple are wrong, but why should it be illegal to make a product the way you think is best? If Apple's doing it wrong, someone else can outcompete them. Apple thinks a free-for-all app store would make the product worse. Smart people take both sides of the issue. Why should the courts get involved? As for locking, yeah it sucks. Presumably it's AT&T's idea since it doesn't benefit Apple. But anyway, if you don't like it, don't buy it. You knew what you were signing up for. It's not like Apple has a monopoly on cell phones. Again I don't see any place in this for the legal system.
  - dablya 16y ago
    They are arguing that in fact people did NOT know what they were getting into. People were signing up for 2 year contracts with AT&T while Apple had a 5 year exclusivity contract with AT&T. Meaning people were locking themselves into 5 year commitments without realizing it.

by dpatru 16y ago

Sidnicious 16y ago

Apple had to develop a process to unlock iPhones when they started selling internationally. Not permitting it in the USA, when unlocking phones after a period of time is the standard, is not lack of innovation, it's a step back. Providing no way to install applications outside the App Store (and actively working to stop jailbreaking), while rejecting applications that compete with Apple or AT&T (Google Voice, Grooveshark, Podcaster, MailWrangler, etc.)? That's a great way to present like a monopoly, regardless of whether Apple is one at this time.

xenophanes 16y ago
The app store is a feature, not a bug. Or maybe I and Apple are wrong, but why should it be illegal to make a product the way you think is best? If Apple's doing it wrong, someone else can outcompete them. Apple thinks a free-for-all app store would make the product worse. Smart people take both sides of the issue. Why should the courts get involved? As for locking, yeah it sucks. Presumably it's AT&T's idea since it doesn't benefit Apple. But anyway, if you don't like it, don't buy it. You knew what you were signing up for. It's not like Apple has a monopoly on cell phones. Again I don't see any place in this for the legal system.
- dablya 16y ago
  They are arguing that in fact people did NOT know what they were getting into. People were signing up for 2 year contracts with AT&T while Apple had a 5 year exclusivity contract with AT&T. Meaning people were locking themselves into 5 year commitments without realizing it.