When I buy an iPhone, I don’t see a clause about “planned obsolescence”. But in fact, after a few years, the new iOS versions and apps can’t be installed in the older iPhones. Virtually, Apple has disabled older iPhones from functioning. It is planned obsolescence.
If the current IP laws don’t allow installation of an Android to current iPhone versions that I respect. But it’s also a monopolistic practice that law makers should protect the consumer rights.
I am not sure I understand? Iphone 5s got 6 years of updates before it was cut off? It didn't cease to function.. It may not be able to be able to handle all of the things software wise the new phones can but it doesn't just cease to operate like there is a built in timer that stops all functionality as you claim..
Virtually, Apple has disabled older iPhones from functioning. It is planned obsolescence.
Example - My macs at home are a mid 2011 Mac Mini that I use as a home server, web browser and for occasional work email and spreadsheets. I also have a mid 2011 Macbook Air that I used for the same reasons ( My main work machine is a windows laptop provided by my company ). Both machines were added to the vintage and obsolete list in Nov 2017. They can no longer update the newest OS but they still both work just fine and still are receiving security updates until later this year I believe.
What is your expectation in regards to length of time a product should be supported? Also just to reiterate the devices do not cease to function.. that is simply false.
When I buy an iPhone, I don’t see a clause about “planned obsolescence”. But in fact, after a few years, the new iOS versions and apps can’t be installed in the older iPhones. Virtually, Apple has disabled older iPhones from functioning. It is planned obsolescence.
If the current IP laws don’t allow installation of an Android to current iPhone versions that I respect. But it’s also a monopolistic practice that law makers should protect the consumer rights.
You received what you were promised when you bought it and were never guaranteed anything more.
When I buy an iPhone, I don’t see a clause about “planned obsolescence”. But in fact, after a few years, the new iOS versions and apps can’t be installed in the older iPhones. Virtually, Apple has disabled older iPhones from functioning. It is planned obsolescence.
If the current IP laws don’t allow installation of an Android to current iPhone versions that I respect. But it’s also a monopolistic practice that law makers should protect the consumer rights.
You received what you were promised when you bought it and were never guaranteed anything more.
I dunno about you, but I bought a piece of hardware. That hardware isn't Apple's, it's mine. Apple has no right to say I can't run any software I want on it, and I have every right to use any mechanism I want to install and run whatever software I like if I so choose.
When I buy an iPhone, I don’t see a clause about “planned obsolescence”. But in fact, after a few years, the new iOS versions and apps can’t be installed in the older iPhones. Virtually, Apple has disabled older iPhones from functioning. It is planned obsolescence.
If the current IP laws don’t allow installation of an Android to current iPhone versions that I respect. But it’s also a monopolistic practice that law makers should protect the consumer rights.
You received what you were promised when you bought it and were never guaranteed anything more.
I dunno about you, but I bought a piece of hardware. That hardware isn't Apple's, it's mine. Apple has no right to say I can't run any software I want on it, and I have every right to use any mechanism I want to install and run whatever software I like if I so choose.
That refers to an exemption from 17 USC §1201(a)(1), not an exemption from 17 USC §1201(a)(2) or 17 USC §1201(b). There isn’t a similar exemption from those latter provisions because the law doesn’t empower the Librarian of Congress to adopt exemptions from those provisions. So while jailbreaking may be legal, providing tools or services designed to facilitate jailbreaking is not.
There is another provision of the law which might be argued to provide an applicable statutory exemption, but I don’t think such an argument based in that provision would be right.
When I buy an iPhone, I don’t see a clause about “planned obsolescence”. But in fact, after a few years, the new iOS versions and apps can’t be installed in the older iPhones. Virtually, Apple has disabled older iPhones from functioning. It is planned obsolescence.
If the current IP laws don’t allow installation of an Android to current iPhone versions that I respect. But it’s also a monopolistic practice that law makers should protect the consumer rights.
You received what you were promised when you bought it and were never guaranteed anything more.
I dunno about you, but I bought a piece of hardware. That hardware isn't Apple's, it's mine. Apple has no right to say I can't run any software I want on it, and I have every right to use any mechanism I want to install and run whatever software I like if I so choose.
And do you acknowledge (and absolve Apple from responsibility for) the security risks in you replacing their software? Will everyone who wants to do the same thing have the same attitude? What about passing FCC requirements for operating an electronic device - can you afford to have the device certified, or the fines for failure to comply?
The bigger problem is that allowing vectors for replacement of Apple's installed software leads to use of those vectors for purposes not authorised by the user (the "owner" of the hardware). So overall, the cost of a relatively small number of people not being able to put the software they want on the hardware is outweighed by the benefit of an enormous number of people who are quite well-protected by default and don't have to devote a significant amount of time and effort to learning in depth about security.
Another factor is that I don't buy just the hardware - I buy the complete package of hardware and software (technically, I am granted a license to use the software). I buy an Apple device because this integration gives a better overall solution. I am fully aware that I could assemble my own desktop computer from a bunch of components that get sold individually, and then put whatever software I want on it - but I don't want the hassle of tinkering with it every time something goes wrong. You'll note that it's a lot harder to build your own laptop, and damn near impossible to build your own phone as a hobbyist - heck, well-funded companies with highly trained engineers struggle to make a phone that doesn't overheat so I'm not going to make the attempt.
So, okay, sure, you've got the right to do whatever you want with the hardware - put it in a blender, blow it up with explosives, put software on it that causes the thing to melt, whatever. But you don't have the right to demand that the manufacturer disable the safety and security systems on the device to reduce the effort required on your part. These are highly complex devices with frankly incredible energy density and you can't blithely assume that your existing knowledge will keep you and the people around you safe.
Comments
There is another provision of the law which might be argued to provide an applicable statutory exemption, but I don’t think such an argument based in that provision would be right.
The bigger problem is that allowing vectors for replacement of Apple's installed software leads to use of those vectors for purposes not authorised by the user (the "owner" of the hardware). So overall, the cost of a relatively small number of people not being able to put the software they want on the hardware is outweighed by the benefit of an enormous number of people who are quite well-protected by default and don't have to devote a significant amount of time and effort to learning in depth about security.
Another factor is that I don't buy just the hardware - I buy the complete package of hardware and software (technically, I am granted a license to use the software). I buy an Apple device because this integration gives a better overall solution. I am fully aware that I could assemble my own desktop computer from a bunch of components that get sold individually, and then put whatever software I want on it - but I don't want the hassle of tinkering with it every time something goes wrong. You'll note that it's a lot harder to build your own laptop, and damn near impossible to build your own phone as a hobbyist - heck, well-funded companies with highly trained engineers struggle to make a phone that doesn't overheat so I'm not going to make the attempt.
So, okay, sure, you've got the right to do whatever you want with the hardware - put it in a blender, blow it up with explosives, put software on it that causes the thing to melt, whatever. But you don't have the right to demand that the manufacturer disable the safety and security systems on the device to reduce the effort required on your part. These are highly complex devices with frankly incredible energy density and you can't blithely assume that your existing knowledge will keep you and the people around you safe.