4 ms·

There's a huge difference between a phone maker having control and a network having control. Consider: When Verizon doesn't allow mp3 ringtones ... well, you j

by roc 16y ago

There's a huge difference between a phone maker having control and a network having control. Consider: When Verizon doesn't allow mp3 ringtones ... well, you just don't get phones with mp3 ringtones on their network [1]. When Apple doesn't allow mp3 ringtones, Verizon is compelled to open the door to Android phones that happily allow mp3 ringtones so that they can compete. The only reason Verizon and AT&T have rolled back any of their customary phone-crippling practices is because other phones must compete with the iPhone. Consumers have 'won' to an astounding degree since the iPhone released. I don't know anyone who's purchased a phone in the last three years, that didn't wind up with a device head and shoulders more capable and well designed than what they had before. Frankly, I can't think of anything remotely close to a 'regression' that actual consumers would have been forced to swallow post-iPhone. [1] Yes, I completely discount the existence of unlocked unsubsidized phones on US networks prior to the iPhone. 1. they were horrible, 2. there was no break on service fee for having an unsubsidized phone, if not an outright charge for bringing your own unlocked phone, making the effective price wildly prohibitive.

rbanffy 16y ago
> There's a huge difference between a phone maker having control and a network having control. There is, but it only distracts you from understanding that you should be the only one in control of your phone.
- vidar 16y ago
  Should is a funny word. Just because our perception of fairness dictates that we should control our phones, its just not going to happen in the foreseeable future.
  - abrahamsen 16y ago
    I'd say this particular should is more a question of enlightened self interest, rather than fairness. It is in our long term interest to have as much control of our "digital assistants" (which includes both smartphones and personal computers) in order to ensure that they assist us, and not some other party.
- roc 16y ago
  Understanding how things "should" be has nothing to do with being able to recognize improvements in the World That Is. You can know that you should be able to load an arbitrary mp3 as a ringtone on an iPhone, and still prefer the current state of affairs to the state of things a mere three years ago. I do.
- rimantas 16y ago
  And your network! Right?
doron 16y ago
I just dont get this line of reasoning, i had a mediocre Windows phone on Verizon, and i could do anything on it including mp3 ringtones. there was no restriction on any element, that was before the iPhone was around. I dont really trust either the operator or the phone manufacturer to restrict my phone experience, why should the choice for the consumer be a lesser of two evils when the obvious solution is right there, that is, no lock to either (if the consumer so chooses), i dont see the difference between restrictions imposed on sideloading regardless of the source Frankly i consider not being able to change the default OS keyboard (say use swype instead) or default music player, or be forced to use Itunes a regression. Not to mention i have to connect it to a computer (an Authorized one at that to update the iphone, again forced to use that awful piece of software forced on me by the manufacturer) If we suppose that the competition with the Iphone creates a better ground for consumer freedom, then it would not suffer from new players, on the contrary, it might force the iphone to be more open as well.
- roc 16y ago
  > "Frankly i consider not being able to change the default OS keyboard (say use swype instead) or default music player, or be forced to use Itunes a regression." But you have none of those limitations on an Android phone. So how has the market regressed? Many, many more people are enjoying device freedom well beyond what your windows CE phone enjoyed and you're calling that regression just because one vendor doesn't? Has the market regressed if Windows Phone 7 ships without replaceable keyboards? Was it regression when the Pre shipped without that? Is it a regression of Android if a single Android handset ships with unremoveable crapware? Or is the state of the market still improving, because even gimped android devices are head-and-shoulders better than consumer phones three years ago, non-gimped Android device choices abound and a new MS Phone and Pre are around the corner? I guess you could argue that it wasn't the iPhone that forced Verizon (and AT&T) to offer these newer, better handsets without locking them down as they often would with even Windows CE and Blackberry phones (consider the state of data plans in the pre-iphone world). But to that I would simply direct you to the lag between the G1 and the Droid, the lack of a Nexus One on Verizon, the rate of handset innovation in the last three years compared to the previous 7 and to the timing of the 'open network' pledge vs the iPhone announcement. Without the iPhone upending the Apple cart, would you get a Pre? Would Microsoft be pushing Windows Phone to consumers? Would the Blackberry have a decent browser? Would Verizon be advertising consumer phones that aren't locked to their app market, ringtone market, etc? I just don't see it.

by roc 16y ago

rbanffy 16y ago

> There's a huge difference between a phone maker having control and a network having control. There is, but it only distracts you from understanding that you should be the only one in control of your phone.

vidar 16y ago
Should is a funny word. Just because our perception of fairness dictates that we should control our phones, its just not going to happen in the foreseeable future.
- abrahamsen 16y ago
  I'd say this particular should is more a question of enlightened self interest, rather than fairness. It is in our long term interest to have as much control of our "digital assistants" (which includes both smartphones and personal computers) in order to ensure that they assist us, and not some other party.
roc 16y ago
Understanding how things "should" be has nothing to do with being able to recognize improvements in the World That Is. You can know that you should be able to load an arbitrary mp3 as a ringtone on an iPhone, and still prefer the current state of affairs to the state of things a mere three years ago. I do.
rimantas 16y ago
And your network! Right?

doron 16y ago

I just dont get this line of reasoning, i had a mediocre Windows phone on Verizon, and i could do anything on it including mp3 ringtones. there was no restriction on any element, that was before the iPhone was around. I dont really trust either the operator or the phone manufacturer to restrict my phone experience, why should the choice for the consumer be a lesser of two evils when the obvious solution is right there, that is, no lock to either (if the consumer so chooses), i dont see the difference between restrictions imposed on sideloading regardless of the source Frankly i consider not being able to change the default OS keyboard (say use swype instead) or default music player, or be forced to use Itunes a regression. Not to mention i have to connect it to a computer (an Authorized one at that to update the iphone, again forced to use that awful piece of software forced on me by the manufacturer) If we suppose that the competition with the Iphone creates a better ground for consumer freedom, then it would not suffer from new players, on the contrary, it might force the iphone to be more open as well.

roc 16y ago
> "Frankly i consider not being able to change the default OS keyboard (say use swype instead) or default music player, or be forced to use Itunes a regression." But you have none of those limitations on an Android phone. So how has the market regressed? Many, many more people are enjoying device freedom well beyond what your windows CE phone enjoyed and you're calling that regression just because one vendor doesn't? Has the market regressed if Windows Phone 7 ships without replaceable keyboards? Was it regression when the Pre shipped without that? Is it a regression of Android if a single Android handset ships with unremoveable crapware? Or is the state of the market still improving, because even gimped android devices are head-and-shoulders better than consumer phones three years ago, non-gimped Android device choices abound and a new MS Phone and Pre are around the corner? I guess you could argue that it wasn't the iPhone that forced Verizon (and AT&T) to offer these newer, better handsets without locking them down as they often would with even Windows CE and Blackberry phones (consider the state of data plans in the pre-iphone world). But to that I would simply direct you to the lag between the G1 and the Droid, the lack of a Nexus One on Verizon, the rate of handset innovation in the last three years compared to the previous 7 and to the timing of the 'open network' pledge vs the iPhone announcement. Without the iPhone upending the Apple cart, would you get a Pre? Would Microsoft be pushing Windows Phone to consumers? Would the Blackberry have a decent browser? Would Verizon be advertising consumer phones that aren't locked to their app market, ringtone market, etc? I just don't see it.