Comments on: Apple’s Turn For Double Standards

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:39:03 +0000

fair argument and were it not for the fact that every other mobile device manufacturer in the world seems to manage the process okay without locking their devices down so tightly I might be inclined to support it.

Another solution would be to have a process for “reset to factory”

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:25:35 +0000

Jeff, no worries. I understand the argument, and happen to agree more-or-less. Where it gets weird is that even though you own the device, it’s not standalone; you’re depending on Apple to provide updates, patches, and new features. Testing those updates is straightforward to do on a locked down device, because you know all possible configurations. On the other hand, if you push out an update and it bricks someone’s customized device, who’s at fault? User says Apple, Apple says user.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:33:50 +0000

Brian,
I didn’t mean to suggest that “you” missed my point but rather than I didn’t write it clearly in the first place upon rereading it.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:32:55 +0000

Apple itself would be most likely to do that. They have all but declared they will disable any phone that is unlocked right now, what’s to stop them from telling you and me that if my phone has an IMEI number originally shipped to Europe that it won’t active here. Nothing.

I don’t think you missed my original point, but I do think it has been obscured. My complaint is that Apple is not only telling me where and who I can buy my iphone from but they are going beyond that and enforcing their rules on how I can use it. Remember, this is a device that I purchased, I’m not purchasing the *right to use it* from Apple. It would be like Microsoft telling you that in order to continue to have the right to use Word you can’t use it to write anything negative about Microsoft.

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:25:09 +0000

So when the unlocked iPhone goes on sale in Europe, what will stop people from buying the phones there and using them on GSM networks here?

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:20:28 +0000

It’s almost a certainty that AT&T is paying Apple for exclusivity, but the fact is that it isn’t a subsidy in the way the term is typically used, which is that the subsidy drives the consumer cost below the wholesale cost in return for the contract. If you buy the handset from Apple then AT&T is only paying the spiff when you turn it on.

By: Life of Farhan » Is Steve Jobs a hypocrite?

Life of Farhan » Is Steve Jobs a hypocrite? — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:17:00 +0000

[...] also says that the DRM issue and the phone issues have Apple playing double standards. It’s not okay for the music industry to lock down users, but its okay for Apple to do so. Or at [...]

By: Tim Dierks

Tim Dierks — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:12:51 +0000

What causes you to believe that AT&T doesn’t subsidize the purchase of the handset? Many reports believe that AT&T is paying Apple a large royalty for each iPhone user. If this is $200 over the length of the contract, it means that the “real” price of a $399 iPhone is $599 and you’re getting $200 off. I don’t see any way this is different from a $59 RAZR, other than possible complaints that the price is so high that it doesn’t seem subsidized, which seems like a pretty weak argument.

Now, I agree that once you’ve fulfilled your contractual requirement, you should be released from the manacles.