Originally Posted by wnurse
I live in the same universe as you.. i assume that is how we are able to communicate. I know what your PERSONAL opinion of why verizon cripple some services.. i am not really interested in your personal opinion or TBaggins (the original poster). what makes your or his opinion valid?.. my point is that people are willing to give apple the benefit of the doubt without so much as even knowing why apple crippled a feature (not unless he was an employee of apple with inside information). You or anyone else here has 0 (and i mean absolutely 0) clue as to why apple would not include a feature or cripple a feature in their phone.
I see several people trying to get the point across that, in the realm of product design, "crippling" implies, to most of us, some capability having been present/available but withheld, or otherwise willfully (intentionally) held back. And this is a much, much, more specific situation than the broader class of situations where some capability is simply absent. E.g., my MacBook Pro can't do DLP video projection. Manifestly absent. I might be horrified at its absence. But it is in no way a matter of the MBP being "crippled" in its video projection capabilities - such capabilities weren't there in the precursor to this model, they aren't there in other units of the same model that other folks bought ... simply not there. But it would be completely improper to call it crippled.
As to the Verizon situation specifically, it might help to review some key history ... a situation that is the most pointed example I have ever heard of something that truly is
a matter of "crippling". A few years back, Motorola made a model of phone - I think it was the E710, or at least something close (the model that was succeeded by the E815). This phone model had a good range of different Bluetooth profiles built into it - designed, coded, debugged, packaged, the full works - real product features. In the versions of that model of phone that were sold by Verizon, some of those profiles (including file transfer) were *willfully*, *explicitly* disabled at Verizon's direction ... crippling the phone's capabilities from what was already built in
. This crippling was manifest, in part, by the fact that the same model of Motorola phone, when purchased from *other* carriers, was not crippled in this way. Or when a prospective purchaser reviewed its specs on Motorola's web site. Verizon crippled the units of that model that *they* sold ... and, um, "failed" to disclose that fact to their customers. Customers got pissed .... filed a class-action law suit ... and Verizon lost.
Now, back to the case at hand ... I've seen and heard nothing to suggest that Apple had/has a version of the iPhone that has these additional Bluetooth profiles present and (fully!) productized that they have willfully suppressed. Lacking something of that sort, it seem disingenuous, at best, to claim that the iPhone's BT capabilities are "crippled". Deficient? Perhaps. Limited? Sure. Missing something that you really, really, want and feel annoyed/pissed off because you can't have? Maybe. But crippled? No.