4 ms·

So actively enforcing a way for the carrier to exploit for further income doesn't bring preferenciality when being picked up by said carrier as a middle stage p

by novalis 14y ago

So actively enforcing a way for the carrier to exploit for further income doesn't bring preferenciality when being picked up by said carrier as a middle stage profit model enabler ? Should we all show this good will towards all brands and just call all lock downs the greatest neutral thing ever because they are clearly just the bios chips makers fault ? Who wins with stuff like that. It's not like those sorts of actions and their ramifications bring advantage to anyone else down the line...

parasubvert 14y ago
I think you're reading more into my statement than was there. The carriers in the USA, and their behaviours, are reality. They enforce restrictions. Therefore, phones are restricted. If you root your phone, and use features your carrier don't want used, they can fire you as a customer. Apple enabling features or apps that get you fired won't win them any fans other than hardcore technical folks that want to live on the edge. The way to change that is... either a) market competition, which is extremely difficult due to capital needs owing to the sheer size of the USA, or b) regulation, as in Europe.
- novalis 14y ago
  In reality, whenever a brand enforces to not allow software that can use the hardware in perfectly normal expedients, it isn't just "protecting" customers from being "fired". It is simply enabling abusive carrier behaviour and that is a negative when you consider its data pseudo-segmentation those charging practices are built upon. "Apple enabling features or apps that get you fired won't win them any fans other than hardcore technical folks that want to live on the edge." <- that looks lifted from a 90's hacker movie. You have this passive aggressive streak that cuts your reasoning off just when you would be able to identify a brand/carrier plot to squeeze customers income while the tech could be used without over charging for pseudo differentiated services. But whatever rocks your boat, if you like thinking of it like a big-brand protecting you from the big bad carrier, go ahead. Let a brand that allows for this sort of thing have a free pass, it's your call.

by novalis 14y ago

parasubvert 14y ago

I think you're reading more into my statement than was there. The carriers in the USA, and their behaviours, are reality. They enforce restrictions. Therefore, phones are restricted. If you root your phone, and use features your carrier don't want used, they can fire you as a customer. Apple enabling features or apps that get you fired won't win them any fans other than hardcore technical folks that want to live on the edge. The way to change that is... either a) market competition, which is extremely difficult due to capital needs owing to the sheer size of the USA, or b) regulation, as in Europe.

novalis 14y ago
In reality, whenever a brand enforces to not allow software that can use the hardware in perfectly normal expedients, it isn't just "protecting" customers from being "fired". It is simply enabling abusive carrier behaviour and that is a negative when you consider its data pseudo-segmentation those charging practices are built upon. "Apple enabling features or apps that get you fired won't win them any fans other than hardcore technical folks that want to live on the edge." <- that looks lifted from a 90's hacker movie. You have this passive aggressive streak that cuts your reasoning off just when you would be able to identify a brand/carrier plot to squeeze customers income while the tech could be used without over charging for pseudo differentiated services. But whatever rocks your boat, if you like thinking of it like a big-brand protecting you from the big bad carrier, go ahead. Let a brand that allows for this sort of thing have a free pass, it's your call.