GMU Professor Thomas Hazlett (who I'm TA-ing for this semester) doesn't think so:
Apple could have offered its device as an “open” platform, but instead chose (as with iTunes, iPods and Apple computers) to control how it builds, and how buyers use, its product. It aims for competitive superiority. Quashing its model bops the innovator on the head.Others disagree:
Unbundling phones from networks is suggested as a policy fix in the US. European phones, working with different Sim cards across carriers and borders, are the model. Innovation in the European Union is said to flourish. But the iPhone came first to the US, as did the BlackBerry and advanced broadband networks using CDMA data formats. That is not surprising given that US networks are afforded wide latitude in designing their systems. Licences in the EU mandate a GSM standard. What is recommended as “open” in fact deprives customers of a most basic cellular choice: technology
It's understandable for Apple to wage a war on unlocking the iPhone, since the company shares revenue from fees with AT&T. But the truth is, if cellphone service was awesome, like it is on iTunes, there wouldn't be a need to unlock the iPhone. Secondly, bricking these things is totally uncool, and apparently, malicious—according to some early code investigations by the independent iPhone Dev Team, Apple could have avoided this entirely.
Let's talk about the those third-party apps. While my 4GB iPhone is a brick, and the 8GB phone, which I kept on a totally legit AT&T contract, is now stripped down. Programs like the faux-GPS, IM clients, Flickr Upload, and NES emulator—what did they ever do but make the iPhone far better than the stock original? They made it far more competitive with open-platform superphones like the Nokia N95, to which I will now be switching.
I look at my iPhone with version 1.1.1 software on it compared to the old hacked one. I'm happy for the iTunes Store, which we've been waiting for. But it's not more important than fixing things, and adding capabilities such as copy/paste and email search. And it's certainly not better than all those programs I can't use anymore. Here's the comparo chart, from Rob Beschizza at Wired based on a chart from 9to5:
As a bit of a techno-nut myself, I must say Apple just diminished the utility I'd get from buying an iPhone. They've also turned me off as a consumer by their strong-arm tactics. The iPhone is still a very cool phone, but it would be even cooler if Apple learned to play a little nicer with others.
I agree with Dr. Hazlett that there shouldn't be any regulatory requirement for forcing cell phones to be used on any carrier. I just don't like Apple shutting down innovators that are making a beautiful product even better. Especially when they do so by disabling people's phones.
The iPhone's undoubtedly cool. I'm not so sure about Apple right now.
2 comments:
I agree that Apple should make a greater effort to open up the iPhone for 3rd party apps. Why not utilize this terrific resource? Just look at all those apps that are already out there, even without being officially sanctioned by Apple?
The iPhone is indeed a very cool device, and in one sense, I can understand why Apple doesn't want you downloading just any junky code into your device and have that create problems that the user would then blame on Apple. We see that happen on Windows machines all the time.
However, surely there has to be some acceptable compromise. Plus, arguably, the user should have the right to accept the risk of software corruption by 3rd party app if they wish to do so.
I have to feel that at some point in time that Apple will have to allow for some 3rd party apps...it almost is inevitable.
Now as for the unlocking of the phone to the network...that is a different story. Given their contract with ATT, it's likely that the lockdown in that area will be enforced vigorously.
Dr. Bri:
Here's a link to an interesting article on the now famous "Carterfone" ruling by the FCC which opened up wireline networks to 3rd party hardware devices (which at that time were just phones made by people other than ATT). The author, Columbia Law prof Tim Wu, draws an analogy with the current state of wireless devices and the lockdowns that carriers impose.
Post a Comment