Why are people so angry about the update?

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 98
    taskisstaskiss Posts: 1,212member
    I take that as a "Nope, I'm going to continue to dance a jig and show my motley" since it lacks any supporting logic or evidence.



    Have a fun life, kid.
  • Reply 62 of 98
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post


    I take that as a "Nope, I'm going to continue to dance a jig and show my motley" since it lacks any supporting logic or evidence.



    Have a fun life, kid.



    Anyone on the sidelines to this bickering care to comment on who has made a better case, and who has better reading comprehension about what the other has written?
  • Reply 63 of 98
    tednditedndi Posts: 1,921member
    I still want 3rd party apps on my iPhone.



    And, I want Apple Inc to allow them.



    I am a consumer.



    There is a solution provided.



    Apple doesn't provide that solution.



    Choice made.
  • Reply 64 of 98
    mac voyermac voyer Posts: 1,283member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shetline View Post


    Anyone on the sidelines to this bickering care to comment on who has made a better case, and who has better reading comprehension about what the other has written?



    The only thing I care about is why people are angry with Apple. You can agree or disagree about whether it was a smart move. What you can't complain about is that Apple told you what would happened. They even popped up the warning just before the download could be initiated. Those who did it anyway should be quiet, embarrassed, or upset with themselves. Apple tried to warn everyone. Those who did not listen got exactly what Apple promised. Why is this not a part of the discussion?
  • Reply 65 of 98
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post


    The only thing I care about is why people are angry with Apple.



    I'm not angry at Apple myself. Maybe a little disappointed. I might be a little angry too if I knew that some of the "bricking" was deliberate, if Apple actually went out of their way to cause problems. That's unknown at this point, however. Even providing a warning ahead of time isn't a good reason to be deliberately punitive in such an expensive way -- and certainly it's not a good PR move.



    To the extent Apple simply might not have had the time to establish and publish a stable API for the iPhone, I'm sympathetic to their position. To the extent they're trying to deliberately lock out third parties, I'm not sympathetic. Where this is all going is yet to be seen, but I find it rather ironic that for now Windows Mobile is a more open platform than Apple's iPhone.
  • Reply 66 of 98
    rcfarcfa Posts: 786member
    There are three issues here, that are upsetting:



    A) the collusion of device makers with content/service providers, i.e. market manipulation

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the good old days Apple was a hardware manufacturer that also made an OS for its machines, but in essence tried to get the most functionality to its customers. Apple's and its customer's goals were nearly identical. Apple provides value, people pay for it, Apple makes a profit, people have utility. Basic free market economics as libertarians make us believe are applicable to all scenarios, which is why there should be no government market regulatory action. If that's all there were, they would be right.



    Now, welcome to the new world of "strategic partnerships". A strategic partnership is a way for two or more companies to work together in a way as to put their competition at a disadvantage and to suck more money out of consumer's pockets without providing more value.

    The first of these examples started with the iTunes music store. While it's main purpose has been to drive iPod sales, the influence the content providers gained over Apple in the process resulted in several aspects of the audio and video capabilities of Mac OS X being crippled "to fight copyright infringement". The "strategic partnership" resulted in Apple turning from device manufacturer that has the user in mind to a policing force for the record industry. Funnily enough, content producers now need to hack the Mac in order to do certain things that would be natural. As a result, you need to install things like SoundFlower and Audio HiJack Pro to get some of the most basic things done, and you introduce additional latency in your audio workflow (I know, I work with this stuff).



    With the iPhone it gets even worse: the iPhone isn't locked to "ensure quality" as Apple claims, and even if it were, it's not Apple's business to ensure quality of third party apps, after all, they still work with Adobe, which in close to ten years of Mac OS X still has not managed to release a version of their Creative Suite that runs on a case-sensitive file system, despite Apple telling developers over and over not to rely on HFS+ being case-insensitive (e.g. HFSX is case-sensitive). No, the iPhone is locked, such that Apple can not only make a hefty profit on selling hardware, but also force third parties into "strategic partnerships" e.g. when it comes to selling game software. The result will be that Apple earns money on software it didn't write, and that you the consumer will end up paying more for that software (because the software authors will not give up their share), and have less choice (because Apple can be selective in whom they deal with). The pretense will likely shift from "ensuring quality" to "preventing piracy" as time goes on.



    What's next? Trusted Computing, subscription computing and licensing models as hardware matures and frequent hardware updates by consumers can't be counted on anymore. The point is, to suck money out of your pockets on a periodic basis, regardless if you want it or not, by artificially structuring services and devices in such a way that you have to rely on a subscription contract to have a working device. Therefore the iPod Touch does not have full audio capabilities, and that's why there's no VoIP client software in the iPhone, even though it would be trivial to do so. (God forbid, someone make free calls over the internet!)

    (For more on trusted computing and why it's the beginning of the end, read here: Trusted Computing FAQ)



    So back to the iPhone: the way it gets to be "locked" has directly to do with Apple trying to get money at every corner for doing nothing, instead of being satisfied with making money on the sale of a device and by selling occasional software updates, AppleCare contracts, and music on iTMS. They want to make sure NOTHING happens on the iPhone unless they make money, and they use trusted computing type techniques to enforce that policy, strongly diminishing competition and increasing the total cost of ownership for users.



    B) gadgets are less and less hardware, and more and more software, i.e. general purpose computers in different form factors

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    In old times, you made an electronic device, and that was it. It was hard wired.



    Today, everything is software. Even radios become software controlled. Maybe the next generation of the iPhone has a software controlled radio, and can be upgraded to new wireless standards simply by a software update.



    The iPhone itself, is simply a scaled down Mac that in terms of computing power and storage capacity likely outruns a clamshell iBook from a few years ago. It's simply shrunk to a size that fits your pocket and it has built-in cellular networking peripherals. It is a Mac, it runs Mac OS X.



    If you buy a Mac, and Apple said you can only run Apple apps on it, and you can't write software yourself, and you can't run anyone else's software on it, unless they make a deal and pay us 25% of gross sales of all they sell, wouldn't you be upset? Well, that's exactly what's happening with the iPhone.



    Worse, it's supposed to be a killer phone. Yet all the Nokia and Sony-Ericsson Symbian S60 based phones have 3rd party software on them. All the PalmOS products have third party software on them, yet the pocketMac, nee iPhone, the most potent of all these devices, it is supposed to be crippled to fatten Apple's bottom line and limit what users can do?



    Example: I have 1.0.2 software iPhone, with a terminal emulator on it. I will not give that up. I can log in from anywhere into our servers, restart services, start backups, reboot the machines, etc. in a pinch, and that is worth to me a lot more than that stupid wireless iTMS.



    Preventing a general purpose computer to be used as what it is, is a way of forcing additional product sales, and it takes its toll on the environment and enforces the wasteful nature of our economy. Instead of squeezing the most utility out of a given resource, we are limited in what we can do, and forced to buy additional products (waste more resources) to get the job done.



    Apple is NOT GREEN.



    C) International travel, and consumer choice of carriers

    -------------------------------------------

    Every AT&T phone you get, you can get a "courtesy unlock" for if you have been with AT&T for a while and plan to travel internationally. This allows you to use cheap local prepaid SIM cards overseas, rather than pay outrageous international roaming fees. The contract between Apple and AT&T, and the sole control over the software by Apple, prevents even such courtesy unlocks. This means you have to buy a second phone for travel, and leave behind your contacts, calendars, etc. or you pay outrageous fees while traveling.



    Further, part of keeping service providers in check, is the ability to switch when having received unsatisfactory service. This applies even in the case of early termination fees, because these fees do not apply if the service provider fails to provide proper service and that's the reason for contract cancellation.



    But if AT&T doesn't provide proper service, you're now the proud owner of a fully paid (not AT&T subsidized) $400 door stop. You can't bring your phone to another carrier, as you can do with any other phone that you buy on the open market and isn't carrier subsidized.



    Summary:

    --------

    This has nothing to do with warranties, license terms, quality, etc. It has everything to do with Apple trying to control and squeeze the consumer beyond ethical boundaries, being more concerned with its own greed than with the inefficiency and waste that results. We should all be paying drones, and not people in control. Does anyone still remember the 1984 Apple ad? Yes, now the Apple users are the people in grey, marching, and watching to Steve Jobs preaching on the screen. Maybe a Penguin comes running in and hurls an Open MoKo Neo 1973 phone at the screen to blow up things and liberate the poor iPhone sods, myself included.
  • Reply 67 of 98
    ebbyebby Posts: 3,110member
    Damn! That is one hell of a first post!
  • Reply 68 of 98
    The update to 1.1.1 was so poorly concocted that even unmodified iPhones like mine were dealt serious blows:



    1) My iPhone crashed during the update and was in a near bricked state until I was able get it to restore from my 'puter, which then suffered a freaking kernel panic, forcing it to abandon the iPhone's restore and a reboot itself



    2) Even when the iPhone returned to life, it reverted back & lost a month's worth of information which is not retrievable. Apple doesn't bother to run a sync before updating that malicious software



    3) For a while, my phone had amnesia, because it did not know that it had been activated already. That's when the second restore was at least able to get the old data back into the thing



    Whether or not Apple meant for this software update to be malicious, this update should never have been unleashed on its loyal customers
  • Reply 69 of 98
    thttht Posts: 3,307member
    Hmm, I definitely think people angry about the update breaking third party app installers and unlockers are whining. It's simply naive. And in Leo LaPorte's case, comical.



    Users who hacked their phones did not do so innocently, knew that the hacks voided their warranties, and knew that an update could break their hacks. They were all playing with fire, and I'm simply not impressed that they are crying about being burned by the update.



    A lot of people are wishfully thinking that the iPhone is something more than it is. Many many people want it to be the most useful handheld computer to date. It simply is not. As has been said before, the iPhone is an iPod (always has been closed), a cell phone (some are open, some are not), and an Internet Communicator (some are open, some are not). Apple, in the future, may eventually turn it into a computing platform, but for now, it's an extremely targeted product.



    If you don't like the current functionality of the iPhone, simply don't buy it or return it (if possible), or sell it.
  • Reply 70 of 98
    thttht Posts: 3,307member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rcfa View Post


    Worse, it's supposed to be a killer phone. Yet all the Nokia and Sony-Ericsson Symbian S60 based phones have 3rd party software on them. All the PalmOS products have third party software on them, yet the pocketMac, nee iPhone, the most potent of all these devices, it is supposed to be crippled to fatten Apple's bottom line and limit what users can do?



    My landline phone has no 3rd party apps for it, and I find it much more useful and reliable for use in my home than my cell phone. We tried the no landline thing, and cell phones simply aren't as reliable or as clear yet. Anyways, I digress.



    Apple's marketing for the phone aspects of the iPhone is ease-of-use in making phone calls. 3rd party software is about expansion or extending the functionality of a computing system. Note the 2 sentences don't have much relation. Not only that, with Apple you have to think different because under Jobs, they are nothing but market triangulation with their products. I didn't communicate the paragraph well, but with Apple, market focus is more important than generality.



    Palm OS Treos/Centros have 3rd party software due to Palm's attempt at creating a general purpose handheld computing system. In many ways, it been a mixed blessing for them. Their PDAs have been dying the slow death to the fact that, as of this date, the most useful functionality of general purpose handhelds are still constrained to calendaring and contacts storage. It's obvious phones are able to do that know, and the Treo (and Centro) are what's keeping Palm alive, with another useful set of functionality, email and web browsing, supporting its sales. Their PDA products, well, they are dying. MS based PDAs too. A lesson should learned there.



    Cell phones like Nokia's various phones are Nokia's attempt at general purpose computing. They choose to do this as a market strategy in expanding their market and sales. This is the right choice (the Microsoft way), but requires a bit of luck with OEMs and carriers in order to get Microsoft like penetration.



    Apple, on the other hand, focuses down to the nitty gritty and makes agonizing choices to leave functionality out of its products. They do this as market strategy. It's got to be agonizing for their product designers, both mentally and physically because including everything (or a large subset) involves less upfront planning work. Getting down to the baseline functionality of Apple's products has got to be hard. (It does pay off in the end because schedules are eventually easier to keep).



    Hence, the iPhone has only the functionality used by 90% of its target market: mobile media playing (iPod), mobile phone calling, calendaring, contacts, and email/web functionality. 3rd party app functionality is left off the table. Games are left of the table. GPS is left off the table. Lots of others, and many are left off the table simply due to schedule.



    In the future, I'm not even sure Apple will make the iPhone a general purpose computing platform (due to the Web fulfilling 99% of one's usage). They would almost have to if they want to participate in world-wide computer sales though, assuming 3rd party apps drive the market.



    Quote:

    C) International travel, and consumer choice of carriers

    -------------------------------------------

    Every AT&T phone you get, you can get a "courtesy unlock" for if you have been with AT&T for a while and plan to travel internationally. This allows you to use cheap local prepaid SIM cards overseas, rather than pay outrageous international roaming fees. The contract between Apple and AT&T, and the sole control over the software by Apple, prevents even such courtesy unlocks.



    If this proves to be a problem, ie, it reduces sales of the iPhone, then Apple will have to add the feature, or live with reduced sales.



    Quote:

    This means you have to buy a second phone for travel, and leave behind your contacts, calendars, etc. or you pay outrageous fees while traveling.



    Well, you could always buy a second phone and bring along the iPhone with you so that contacts, calendars, etc. stay with you.



    Quote:

    Summary:

    --------

    This has nothing to do with warranties, license terms, quality, etc. It has everything to do with Apple trying to control and squeeze the consumer beyond ethical boundaries, being more concerned with its own greed than with the inefficiency and waste that results. We should all be paying drones, and not people in control. Does anyone still remember the 1984 Apple ad? Yes, now the Apple users are the people in grey, marching, and watching to Steve Jobs preaching on the screen. Maybe a Penguin comes running in and hurls an Open MoKo Neo 1973 phone at the screen to blow up things and liberate the poor iPhone sods, myself included.



    Heh. Yes the proper response to not liking a product is to not buy and to buy something else.



    Your political thinking however, to be kind, is still immature.
  • Reply 71 of 98
    taskisstaskiss Posts: 1,212member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sandman619 View Post


    The update to 1.1.1 was so poorly concocted that even unmodified iPhones like mine were dealt serious blows:



    1) My iPhone crashed during the update and was in a near bricked state until I was able get it to restore from my 'puter, which then suffered a freaking kernel panic, forcing it to abandon the iPhone's restore and a reboot itself



    2) Even when the iPhone returned to life, it reverted back & lost a month's worth of information which is not retrievable. Apple doesn't bother to run a sync before updating that malicious software



    3) For a while, my phone had amnesia, because it did not know that it had been activated already. That's when the second restore was at least able to get the old data back into the thing



    Whether or not Apple meant for this software update to be malicious, this update should never have been unleashed on its loyal customers



    I had no problems updating my iPhone. It sounds as if your experience was quite different.



    Apple should - and would - stand behind you in this matter. Had you not been able to recover your system they would have repaired the problem under warranty.
  • Reply 72 of 98
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,893member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


    The only people miffed by all of this are those who don't bother to adhere to a contract that they themselves signed, so as far as I'm concerned, brick 'em all and next time don't waste the time and energy and money warning the idiots. Apple can live with news reports about people stupid enough to break a contract and then make a fuss about it when things don't work out too well.



    Hmm we are making a lot of assumptions here aren't we. First; you are assuming that every purchaser of an iPhone has signed and agreed to the so called contract. Second; you are assuming that Apple so called contract is legal. Third; you are assuming that every body in this world is yellow bellied coward with no backbone to stand up for his rights.

    Quote:

    These "people" are miffed about what has happened to them, but the majority are the ones who never did anything to their phones and who suffer because Apple has to waste resources dealing with selfish, immature and boisterous jerks rather than creating good products.



    Actually it now appears that Apple has wasted a huge amount of time on software development that did absolutely nothing for the iPhone. Further that development has delayed any significant software enhancements that may or may not be coming for the iPhone. Enhancements that are needed by the way because many consider the iPhone to be a half done product.



    Clearly the problem is that Apple has assumed that its consumer base consist of the class of people referenced above that have no backbone. They feel free to walk all over those customers because they have neither the physical strength nor the inner strength to stand up for themselves. I Guess for Apple that is a good thing, the can jerk people around and draw a continuous revenue stream from them.



    Some of us are not like Apples wonderful customer base. We expect fair play and responsible behavior from companies. We expect products that we pay for and own to be usable to the extent that they where when we purchased them no matter what sort of upgrade the company may push upon the masses. Lastly we recognize smart phones for what they are, computers with a cell phone as a peripheral. They are not some magical device that requires special consideration when purchasing and operating.



    The only good thing that this update has done in my mind is to separate the men from those that are less than human. Defend Apple and its behavior if you wish but don't expect people to look upon you as a human being worthy of respect.



    Dave



    Quote:



    Everybody loses.



  • Reply 73 of 98
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,893member
    Just got a read of this thread and though I don't want ot pick sides I have to point out a few issues.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post


    There's nothing to discuss. You claimed a monopoly exists keeping the consumer down where the iPhone is concerned when no such monopoly exists except as a figment of your imagination. Any proof to the contrary (in the form of a link to a site that provides competitive products of all stripes) was met with ... whatever you met it with, but whatever it was, it wasn't discussing the relative merits of the evidence, it was crap and bluster. You tell me I'm black and white one moment, you accuse me of strawmen, the next. All as a cover to avoid the only point I've made - the core of your argument is inaccurate and that makes the entirety of it illogical and inaccurate. More, I don't think you're capable of an adult conversation. It's probably 'cause you're too young.My definition of the word is the same as the one in the dictionary.





    Bottom line:



    I believe you have no evidence to support your assertion that a monopoly (or a near monopoly, whichever assertion you want to support... you made both) exists in the cellular phone market and has anything to do with the introduction and sale of the iPhone.







    If you are talking about GSM phones in the USofA we have very close to a monopoly. In that we have one strong player and one weaker player. The arrangement between AT&T and Apple smacks of an attempt to strengthen their near monopoly position.

    Quote:

    I've provided evidence that supports my assertion that the consumer is totally and thoroughly in control, in the form of a link to competitive products and the fact that a 30% reduction in the price of the device occurred weeks after product introduction.



    If the consumer had control he would be able to buy the cell phone of his choice and connect it to the carrier of his choice. This isn't even an iPhone issue but show dramatically ho little control the consumer really has.

    Quote:



    I've said it before, I'm saying it again, and all you've done is dance the fools dance trying to avoid substantiating your assertion. You want to delve into "opinion" 'cause you ain't got no facts, Jack. You're talk and no walk. Back your shit up now if you want to continue this, or come back with more of your crap if you want it to end. It's up to you. I don't care one way or the other, but the dance you're dancing is getting old and I'm growing tired of watching you make a fool of yourself.



    Quote:





    It is bit over board to say somebodies points are invalid because you won't accept what is being presented to you. Even if you take the iPhone totally out of the picture it is hard to portray the cell phone markets as being open or consumer friendly. Currently it is the worst example I can think of as far as a free and open market place in the USA.

    Quote:



    You know, adult conversations usually includes people supporting their assertions. In fact, I don't see how an adult conversation can take place if a challenged assertion isn't supported by some kind of structured logic or evidence.



    Good for you, maybe this means we will see some of that from you! Life is a two way road and becoming aware of that would be very helpful in your understanding what is happening in this market place.

    Quote:



    You might want to consider that. If you want to engage with me in adult conversation and debate, bring your facts with you along with the proof to back them up. Otherwise, have a nice day, kid.



    Well from this very old guy it is very apparent that you like to dish it out but can't accept in return. Sounds like a little kid to me.
  • Reply 74 of 98
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,893member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shetline View Post


    Anyone on the sidelines to this bickering care to comment on who has made a better case, and who has better reading comprehension about what the other has written?



    I'm not about to take one side over the other, but I do see things slanted more in your direction.



    Here is my take on some of these issues.



    1.

    AT&T does have a monopoly on the iPhone it is impossible to say otherwise.



    2.

    AT&T has a near monopoly on GSM services. The exclusive contract with Apple can only be seen as monopolistic practices to extend that monopoly and extinguish the little competition they do have.



    3.

    The issues with AT&T are just an example of the anti consumer ethos that is a significant part of the cell phone industry. Having carrier lock cell phones is an act of, I dare say, criminal control over the consumer and the rights he has.



    Imagine if you went down to the hardware store to buy a extension cord, to plug into a standard outlet, but couldn't use it because the manufacture locked it out to work only with his outlets. This is the state we are in with respect to the cell phone industry. What should be standard services and systems are locked out so that competition and consumer freedom are effectively erroded and denied. It is no surprise that the operators of these companies are starting to getting a lot of notice in congress and with consumer rights organizations. They engage in activities that are blatant disregard for the consumer.



    4.

    The current situation with the cell phone industry might be improved by new market pressures. But then we see active resistance from the industry to new concepts. One of the most obvious and current is the cell phones industry trying very hard to upset Google's attempt to offer up a new service. Employing the government to attempt to destroy potential competition is a example of a monopoly in my book, even if it is a monopoly made up of several carriers.



    5.

    Some one really has to stretch their imagination to think that the consumer has free and open access to cell services. I can't think of any industry where competition is so thin and not be under some sort of government control.



    6.

    The big problem with the iPhone is that there really is very little in the way of competition. I hope to see that change in the next few months.



    7.

    To the average Joe an EULA that says that XYZ company owns the hardware and software after he paid hard earned cash for it doesn't mean much. to him the purchase of the iPhne isn't much different than the purchase of a hammer. You don't expect a hammer manufacture to come around months later and remove functionality that you previously paid for. This is the biggest whole that Apple has dug for itself with the last iPhone update. An EULA, if it is even enforceable, doesn't men much to people that work for a living and expect things they buy to work like they did when they purchased them.



    8.

    It is hard to believe that the last updates bricking of the iPhones is anything less than Apple trying to shit on people that have tired to exercise their rights as consumers. There is no ambiguity at all with respect to the right to unlock a cell phone for use on a different carrier.



    That is my point of view. A little wordy too.



    Dave
  • Reply 75 of 98
    taskisstaskiss Posts: 1,212member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    Just got a read of this thread and though I don't want ot pick sides I have to point out a few issues.





    If you are talking about GSM phones in the USofA we have very close to a monopoly. In that we have one strong player and one weaker player. The arrangement between AT&T and Apple smacks of an attempt to strengthen their near monopoly position.



    Why the artificial distinction between technologies? Cellular phone technology isn't limited to GSM.
    Quote:

    If the consumer had control he would be able to buy the cell phone of his choice and connect it to the carrier of his choice. This isn't even an iPhone issue but show dramatically ho little control the consumer really has.



    You have the choice of carriers and each carrier provides phones that will connect to their network. Your argument would seek to remove differentiation, and by definition, differentiation provides choice - otherwise everything would be the same. Kind of a circular argument you have there, isn't it? You want choice so you want everything to be the same? Not very well thought out, I'd say.
    Quote:

    It is bit over board to say somebodies points are invalid because you won't accept what is being presented to you. Even if you take the iPhone totally out of the picture it is hard to portray the cell phone markets as being open or consumer friendly. Currently it is the worst example I can think of as far as a free and open market place in the USA.



    The points are invalid because I have already communicated that his opinion was valid and I wouldn't choose to debate based on opinion. There are facts available and I prefer to stick to those. Those available facts include a) Apple has been a cellular phone company for mere months. b) Market forces have already shaped the product cost. He asserted that there was monopolistic behavior and these facts preclude that, again, by definition.



    While the merits of the service providers can be a conversation in and of themselves, it's irrelevant to the topic under discussion.



    AN example I offered in another thread was:



    You can only legally buy a Tom Clancy novel from a publisher who agrees to work with Tom Clancy. That does not limit your choices in what you read.
  • Reply 76 of 98
    mac voyermac voyer Posts: 1,283member
    Sorry, still don't get it. Some of you are upset because they did not fulfill your fantasy of a PDA produced by Apple. You believe that just because they used an embedded version of OS X, that makes it a computer that you should have open access to. By that logic, you should also be able to open it and put in more ram and a GPS. It seems like most of the bricks belong to people with unreasonable expectations.



    How many locked, US mobile phones can be used on more than one carrier without breaking a two year contract and paying a hefty fine? Let's face the truth about the third party app controversy. What people are looking for is a VOIP solution that will allow them to make free calls and not pay Apple or At&t. Games? Apple will be selling their own games just like every other vender. Ring tones? Apple is selling their own ring tones just like every other company. Apple is not doing anything differently than any other cell phone provider. Right now, third party apps, especially the ones people most want, are neither in Apple or At&t's best interest. Now you are complaining that they broke your phone. I don't care if they did do it on purpose. They can release any sort of update they want as long as it does not contravene the original contract.



    I actually find that the iPhone is better than any other smart phone right out of the box. I don't care if they never update the thing. I'm already ahead of the curve.



    Please tell me this. Did you not know that Apple said this update would brick your hacked iPhone, or did you just want to do it so that you can have an issue against Apple? When you paid for iToner, did you really think that Apple would just turn their back on a multi-billion dollar industry and let you put free ring tones on your phone. What were you people thinking. Better yet, what were you people smoking?
  • Reply 77 of 98
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,893member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post


    Why the artificial distinction between technologies? Cellular phone technology isn't limited to GSM.



    No it is not but what does that have to do with anything. If someone has a need for a GSM phone in the USA their options are extremely limited.

    Quote:

    You have the choice of carriers and each carrier provides phones that will connect to their network. Your argument would seek to remove differentiation, and by definition, differentiation provides choice - otherwise everything would be the same. Kind of a circular argument you have there, isn't it?



    Not at all. It is extremely difficult to see how you could make the statement "differentiation provides choice" because it does exactly the opposite. AT&T's arrangement with Apple greatly limits my choice in carriers it certainly doesn't enhance my choices. Further the lock down of Apples iPhone and the lack of choice in carriers makes for very expensive traveling with the iPhone.

    Quote:



    You want choice so you want everything to be the same? Not very well thought out, I'd say.The points are invalid because I have already communicated that his opinion was valid and I wouldn't choose to debate based on opinion.



    We seem hell bent on twisting the logic here aren't we? The whole idea behind choice is to eliminate the condition where the provider is always the same. It is all about choice not the limitation of choice.

    Quote:



    There are facts available and I prefer to stick to those. Those available facts include a) Apple has been a cellular phone company for mere months. b) Market forces have already shaped the product cost. He asserted that there was monopolistic behavior and these facts preclude that, again, by definition.



    There is only one fact there, that being Apples length of time in the business. Market forces did not have anything to do with the price cuts however. The prices where cut, in a monopolistic manner, to drive sales. There are no market pressures on the iPhone, it is too new, has to little competition and there is no choice in the retail sector. The fact is that everything about the marketing of the iPhone smacks of a monopoly.

    Quote:



    While the merits of the service providers can be a conversation in and of themselves, it's irrelevant to the topic under discussion.



    Oh that is so sweet! If it wasn't for the providers no body would be worried about unlocking the iPhone.

    Quote:



    AN example I offered in another thread was:



    You can only legally buy a Tom Clancy novel from a publisher who agrees to work with Tom Clancy. That does not limit your choices in what you read.



    Exactly! If that same publisher decided to limit distribution in a way that supported only one retailer there would be issues. Look to Intel to see what is and isn't acceptable behavior. The Feds weren't to shy about breaking their preferential relationship with Dell.



    Dave
  • Reply 78 of 98
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,893member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post


    Sorry, still don't get it. Some of you are upset because they did not fulfill your fantasy of a PDA produced by Apple. You believe that just because they used an embedded version of OS X, that makes it a computer that you should have open access to.



    Well you are close there. Personally I don't even own an iPhone because it was too expensive initially and I wanted to see where Apple was going with the software suite. It was pretty obvious right from the beginning that the software was not finished. The other issue with that is that Apple was holding up the fact that the iPhones come with OS/X as a indication of future software freedom. Huge marketing mistake if you ask me, as the potential for future apps was coming from Apple itself.



    In any event the whole point is that the sort of cost that an iPhone entails one should be able to leverage that device in the way one would a laptop or similarly priced device. If you go out an buy a $50000 sports car you don't want to be limited in the tires you can run on it. Why accept the limitation on the iPhone, especially when it does have OS/X running at its heart? The only good thing about this whole situation with Apple is that there will soon be devices on the market that effectively compete with iPhones hardware, when that time comes I suspect that Apple will have a hard time with the iPhone as an expensive single function device.

    [quote]

    By that logic, you should also be able to open it and put in more ram and a GPS.

    [quote]

    Well now that you mention it yeah!!! It certianly would be nice to have an iPhone with a replaceable battery. Doubling the RAM available wouldn't hurt either. GPS is nice and for many people could effectively eliminate one more device to Carry around.



    The thing with GPS though is that that feature wouldn't even be an issue if the iPhone was sufficiently open. BluTooth GPS modules already exists and are know to work well. With Apples hammer lock on the iPhone though you won't be able to exploit that sort of technology either. This is what frustrates one with the iPhone, there is a lot of capability in the device that is being deliberately being with held from the owner.



    In any event I'm not saying that one needs to open the device as much as the device needs to be Open.

    Quote:

    It seems like most of the bricks belong to people with unreasonable expectations.



    Considering the numerous reports of bricks being made of virgin iPhones I doubt that a lot of people would like to see the statement above. In any event what is unreasonable about wanting access to something you paid for?

    Quote:



    How many locked, US mobile phones can be used on more than one carrier without breaking a two year contract and paying a hefty fine? Let's face the truth about the third party app controversy. What people are looking for is a VOIP solution that will allow them to make free calls and not pay Apple or At&t.



    First I have to ask what is wrong with VOIP if you have a device capable of it and are near a IP connection. I will give you a hint NOTHING.



    In any event if you where to look on some of the third party software sights you would see that there was a wide variety of software packages available. Until Apples fatal mistake with the last update, those third party apps where causing me to look at the iPhone as a real possibility. Without those features one has to wait for Apple, at this time it doesn't even appear that they are going in the right direction. So if the manufacture isn't willing ot supply the right software suite then why not look at alternative vendors. In this case we aren't even talking vendors as the software was free for the most part.

    Quote:



    Games? Apple will be selling their own games just like every other vender. Ring tones? Apple is selling their own ring tones just like every other company. Apple is not doing anything differently than any other cell phone provider. Right now, third party apps, especially the ones people most want, are neither in Apple or At&t's best interest.



    It is always in a technology vendors best interest to provide the solutions that their customers want. Otherwise those customers will go elsewhere. It will be interesting to see how Apple reacts in 2008 when more open competition comes on line.



    In any event you seem to be under the impression that "the ones people most want" are the sorts of apps that Apple is even willing to supply. If Apple was willing I suspect we would have seen a better iPhone update than the last which provided almost nothing but grief.

    Quote:

    Now you are complaining that they broke your phone. I don't care if they did do it on purpose. They can release any sort of update they want as long as it does not contravene the original contract.



    First off I don't have a iPhone. The killer here being that I just about allocated the money for one. Then this disaster hit with the update.



    In any event you really should care if they did it on purpose. Lets say you are walking down the road and somebody whacks you over the head, do you really care if the act was done on purpose or not? The issue is being wronged nothing more.



    In any event the update so pervasively changed the behavior of the iPhone that it is hard to see how it could not be breaking the contract by Apple.

    Quote:

    I actually find that the iPhone is better than any other smart phone right out of the box. I don't care if they never update the thing. I'm already ahead of the curve.



    That is fine for you. I won't even argue that the iPhone is fairly darn good out of the box, because it is pretty good. Pretty good doesn't bring home the bacon though.



    With the current lock out I don't really see how the iPhone even competes in the smart phone category though. Its feature set is extremely limited to be called a smart phone. The lack of a avenue for third party apps pretty much seals its fate as a dumb phone.



    The reality is that my pay as you go phone, base model that it is, offers many of the features of an iPhone. Sure the UI is pretty shitty and it doesn't play music but the fact remains that it works well and provides some of the features that the iPhone does. It can't load and run user apps though and that make it a dumb phone in my book. So to0 has Apple made the iPhone into a dumb phone.

    Quote:



    Please tell me this. Did you not know that Apple said this update would brick your hacked iPhone, or did you just want to do it so that you can have an issue against Apple?



    Again I don't have a bricked iPhone! My issue with Apple is it very anti consumer behavior with its handling of the iPhone. Second; is the issue of the removal of features and the dramatic change in behavior of the iPhones software suite after the sale. Third; and maybe this should be first, is Apples claim that they own your phone. Fourth; is the issue of false advertising.



    Anyone of these should bother you.

    Quote:

    When you paid for iToner, did you really think that Apple would just turn their back on a multi-billion dollar industry and let you put free ring tones on your phone.



    Well number one; it is my phone if I own it. Second; if you already own the music why would you pay for it again? Third; what if I wish to place my own music, recordings or recordings of a friend on the iPhone? Fourth; why pay as much for a sound fragment as you pay for the whole song?



    In any event if your claim that ring tones are a multi-billion dollar industry are true, which I doubt, then there is something very wrong with American society. The whole concept of ring tones and the excessive prices paid for them just highlights how far wrong we have gone with IP and copyright rights.

    Quote:

    What were you people thinking. Better yet, what were you people smoking?



    I have to wonder what you where thinking myself. You seem to be rather oriented to giving up your right to the corporate world with no thought about what you are loosing. All so you can try to impress with a ring tone.



    Don't get me wrong but in the past I've been guilty of not examining an issue in depth and ended up supporting the wrong side. I've learned form my mistakes though. Frankly I don't want to give up anything that we are entitled to as free people. Now the iPhone is obviously not a serious attack on freedom on the surface, but one has to thing real hard about what a future would be like if all industries and companies operated in the manner that AT&T and Apple are at the moment.



    Imagine a home stereo system where every component is dictated to be from the same manufacture and is only allowed to run software from that manufacture. Imagine a system so closed that you can only tune the radio to pre-approved channels. Do you want Apple (or XYZ company) to be your sole supplier of software? Software being music and media or code for your PC.



    Or take your automobile where the market is so controlled that here are no after market upgrades or replacement parts. Do you really want to live in a world where your options are eliminated by corporate control instead of competitive market forces? Basically that is what Apple is doing with the iPhone, it is effectively eliminating your ability to do with the device as you would want.



    The problem is if this sort of behavior is not checked it will just extend itself further and further. There is more depth to this issue than many believe. It is no surprise that the legal community and the legislative communities are taking serious looks at the behavior of cell companies and operations like ITunes.



    DAve
  • Reply 79 of 98
    taskisstaskiss Posts: 1,212member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    No it is not but what does that have to do with anything. If someone has a need for a GSM phone in the USA their options are extremely limited.



    Having the choice between GSM or CDMA, you pick GSM. You've made a choice. Yes, it limits the offering since you can't go through two doors at the same time, but that's the fact of the nature of choice - you can't have it both ways. Since choice in cellular technology offerings are the objective, and since your choice is what has limited you, that's not the fault of the service providers.
    Quote:

    Not at all. It is extremely difficult to see how you could make the statement "differentiation provides choice" because it does exactly the opposite. AT&T's arrangement with Apple greatly limits my choice in carriers it certainly doesn't enhance my choices. Further the lock down of Apples iPhone and the lack of choice in carriers makes for very expensive traveling with the iPhone.



    Differentiation is the only construct that enables a choice to be made. One provider offers different prices, another offers different options, another offers different technology, faster networks, etc. These differentiate the service providers and allow choices to the consumer. Without differentiation there is no choice.
    Quote:

    We seem hell bent on twisting the logic here aren't we? The whole idea behind choice is to eliminate the condition where the provider is always the same. It is all about choice not the limitation of choice.



    Choice by definition is a limiting condition. There are 2 doors, pick one and walk through and you've eliminated the opportunity provided by the second door. It's not twisted logic - it IS logic and I cant help it if you don't understand. It's simple. Flip a coin and choose what it will land on. Heads you win, tails you lose, but you can't pick both. Such is the nature of choice.
    Quote:

    There is only one fact there, that being Apples length of time in the business. Market forces did not have anything to do with the price cuts however. The prices where cut, in a monopolistic manner, to drive sales. There are no market pressures on the iPhone, it is too new, has to little competition and there is no choice in the retail sector. The fact is that everything about the marketing of the iPhone smacks of a monopoly.



    Monopolistic behavior doesn't include cutting prices. On the contrary, it means the provider of the good or service is in control of supply to the point where another provider can't compete, A monopoly is the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service. One does not need to drop prices to drives sales, the exclusivity the provider enjoys is the driving factor.
    Quote:

    Exactly! If that same publisher decided to limit distribution in a way that supported only one retailer there would be issues. Look to Intel to see what is and isn't acceptable behavior. The Feds weren't to shy about breaking their preferential relationship with Dell.



    The feds moved against Intel not because they limited distribution -
    Quote:

    “Innovation is critical to economic progress, and patents play a crucial role in encouraging that innovation,” said William J. Baer, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “Intel’s great contributions to this country’s economic growth have been encouraged and protected by patents in the design and manufacturing processes for its semiconductor products. But if Intel can use its monopoly position in the market for microprocessors to prevent other firms from enforcing their own patents, other firms will have little incentive to invent new features to challenge Intel’s dominance. As a monopolist, Intel can compete by producing better, cheaper and more attractive products. It cannot act to cement its monopoly power by preventing other firms from challenging its dominance. Intel has acted illegally. It has used its monopoly power to impede innovation and stifle competition.”



  • Reply 80 of 98
    physguyphysguy Posts: 915member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    Well you are close there. Personally I don't even own an iPhone because it was too expensive initially and I wanted to see where Apple was going with the software suite. It was pretty obvious right from the beginning that the software was not finished. The other issue with that is that Apple was holding up the fact that the iPhones come with OS/X as a indication of future software freedom.



    .

    .

    .

    much removed for bevity

    .

    .

    .



    The problem is if this sort of behavior is not checked it will just extend itself further and further. There is more depth to this issue than many believe. It is no surprise that the legal community and the legislative communities are taking serious looks at the behavior of cell companies and operations like ITunes.



    DAve



    The problem with most of your arguments are that they are projections of your desires, not based on actually events and information.



    First example - 'Obvious their software was not finished' This can be said of almost (if not all) software. OS 10.5.11 will not be finished, I'll make that prediction now. This is true statement with no real value.



    Second example - (paraphrased for brevity) OS X implies software freedom. Where does this come from? Apple touted OS X as way to enhance software development and robustness - both of which I think are true. They never said anything about 'software freedom' either way (assuming anyone knows what that is)



    Third example - monopoly. While it is technically correct to refer to AT&T's access to the iPhone as a monopoly it certainly doesn't apply in any economic sense. It would be more correct to refer to it as exclusive. As many, many, many others point out the iPhone has many, many competitors and it is only accounting for a tiny percentage of the cell-phone market at this time. Additionally, the cell-phone industry is anything but a monopoly in the US (or most countries). There are three major carriers that do compete (and offer different services and experiences as demonstrated by the many here who complain about AT&T's poor service in comparison to other carriers). You may want to claim collusion, but you're not doing that.



    What continues to amaze me about these discussions is that, as best I can tell, Apple has been amazingly transparent. They have told you exactly what you will get, they have told you exactly what it would cost and what it would do. They have told you exactly what might happen with the upgrade, which follows exactly what is spelled out in the EULA's.



    The solution to these issues is simple - Don't buy. And if you buy but want change (like me) give feedback to Apple. There are, IMO, absolutely zero legal issues here. There are, IMO, absolutely zero reasons to be ANGRY at Apple, they've done what they said they would do. Don't like it, go elsewhere. Its not like MSFT where you have to use it because 85%+ of the world uses it - that's a monopoly. <1% of the market in one country is hardly a monopoly.
Sign In or Register to comment.