Except as and only to the extent permitted by applicable law, or by licensing terms governing use of open-sourced components included with the iPhone Software, you may not copy, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, attempt to derive the source code of, modify, or create derivative works of the iPhone Software, iPhone Software Updates, or any part thereof. Any attempt to do so is a violation of the rights of Apple and its licensors of the iPhone Software and iPhone Software Updates.
Apple originated from tinkerors. Heck, tinkering is a fundamental part of most computer companies. It is how engineers think, work, live, and relax. We know for a fact the iPod has untapped potential. By what we have seen, there is a great deal of it. But this last update had, for lack of a better word, personality. It was not just a "woops. Apps don't work." kind of update, it was a malicious "Don't fuck with me, buddy!". That letter from Apple could even sound premeditated.
Who here is content to sit by and accept the rules of known artificial limitations determined by none other than corporate greed? Who wants progressive software; enabling or unlocking new, exciting features in the future? Who is certain Apple programmers will think of everything users want. 3rd party apps gave us control, freedom, and hope of incredible sums.
There is nothing wrong with wanting the full potential value out of a product. However, contracts are a way to keep users submissive and under control. Without representation, we are useless in our grievances. TednDi, may I ask why you accepted the contract if you have such remorse from it? You, of course, fought it the slightest bit, right? I have a inkling that if everyone in the US voiced their opinion of contracts for 24 hours, there would be come major changes in a matter of days.
Now, I love Apple products and it actually depresses me to write this crap, so I will get off their backs for a while. What crossed my mind last night, and I have not seen this posted anywhere, has top do with AT&T. I received a call last night and it was unusually crappy. I was a sound board operator for several years and the voice on the other end was at times unidentifiable due to audio compression artifacts. Are they squeezing as much bandwidth as possible out of this turnip? I am wondering if cell phone networks ran into some sort of problem and can not keep up with demand. It would certainly make sense if AT&T were reaching 95% of their bandwidth at peak hours without any 3rd party apps on iPhones. I almost get the feeling they are walking a tightrope and their margin for errors is dangerously small. If Jobs knows this, he certainly wouldn't say anything as that would destabilize an allied company, but it might also explain why they actively prohibit 3rd party apps to save bandwidth. Could there be a read motive besides greed behind Apple/AT&T's actions?
(BTW... Nothing personal. I just got burned by a contract and have had serious rant brewing for roughly a week. This is just the kettle's whistle. )
If it means all that much to people, they should go buy an iPhone, return it unopened before 14 days are up with a letter that they would have kept it except for *fill in your favorite rant here* and get their money back. Wash, rinse, repeat.
OR, they can post anonymously on an internet forum and become as irritating as fingernails scraping down a blackboard to people who can't do a thing about their foolish desire to have a company cater to them.
If making that observation is whining then so be it.
lol, Somehow i'll probably remember that "don't taze me bro" line for the rest of my life.
But yes, you're whining. You keep bending truths to make your complaint seem more justified. Apple has not locked out third party development. They simply don't support it. There is an absolutely huge difference between "locking out" and "not supporting". It seems that you're so upset that you're incapable of seeing the difference.
You may say that there is effectively no difference to customers. But there obviously is. If apple wanted to truly lock out 3rd party development they could.
lol, Somehow i'll probably remember that "don't taze me bro" line for the rest of my life.
I do my part
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
But yes, you're whining. You keep bending truths to make your complaint seem more justified.
Am I bending a truth or seeing something differently?
"Innovation is the distinction between a leader and a follower." - Steve Jobs
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
Apple has not locked out third party development. They simply don't support it. There is an absolutely huge difference between "locking out" and "not supporting".
You are right, then why disparage me when I choose to get the feature set that I want with the hardware that I have?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
It seems that you're so upset that you're incapable of seeing the difference.
I am actually not that all upset. Tone does not translate well into text. I do see the difference however, it is just that I choose to something about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
You may say that there is no effective difference to customers. But there obviously is. If apple wanted to truly lock out 3rd party development they could.
Agreed. And that would suck even more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
Put simply: You might have to wait for application updates before updating an operating system. This is true for any software platform. But it is especially true for a brand new one in great flux from ongoing internal development.
Yup, and the new application was? iTMS wifi store = great app
My argument was that I would trade that app and the added functionality that is in 1.1.1 for the expanded functionality which I receive by the use of existing 3rd party apps that I now have on my iPhone. If the developer community was able to get a reliable voip solution working would your jailbreak your iphone?
Yup, and the new application was? iTMS wifi store = great app
My argument was that I would trade that app and the added functionality that is in 1.1.1 for the expanded functionality which I receive by the use of existing 3rd party apps that I now have on my iPhone. If the developer community was able to get a reliable voip solution working would your jailbreak your iphone?
That isn't what I was getting at.
If you install hacks (3rd party apps), you'll likely have to update those apps in conjunction with operating system upgrades. The iPhone is no different than any other OS in this regard. The thing that is different is that the iPhone is a new platform and hacking it means trying to hit a moving target.
Will I install 3rd party apps? Definately yes. But I will wait until the platform's APIs have been finalized so that operating system upgrades can be applied without hassle.
There is nothing wrong with hacking an iPhone. However, it is immature to claim hostile intent on apple's part when all they're actually doing is busting their ass to rapidly improve the iPhone. You're trying to hack a moving target not one that has been made purposefully hard to hack.
Would you prefer they halt iPhone development and never finalize the APIs? Honestly, I don't know how Apple could satisfy all the whiners. If they supported 3rd party development this early in the game, they would have had to delay the iPhone's release or continue to support multiple versions of the APIs for the rest of eternity. So either the iPhone would not be out yet or we'd be saddled with a sloppy platform and tons of legacy/swiss-cheese code. Three months in, Apple would already have to support multiple versions of everything. I for one am glad that apple hasn't gone that route. I prefer my phone to glitch and crash free.
I on the other hand am willing to run beta code and deal with the instability to further the knowledge base.
I do however think that apple will release an sdk for the iphone with leopard. I am hoping that they will not wait until WWDC 08 for it to get out the door.
The cell phone biz is on a much tighter turn around time than the computer OS biz. I want apple to remain competitive and a market leader.
Sony went down the locked up road and it cost them.
Here is an excellent interview with the founder of Ambrosia Software that I think adequately sums up the arguments for and against along with the frustration.
Thanks, one of the better commentaries i've read. I don't agree with everything he says but he managed to be rational and factual despite being so close to the issue.
His software is one of just a couple of programs that was broken by Apple in an actual attempt to "lock" something down. At least that's the way it appears without having access to the code. Most other complaints seem completely unfounded and more like data structure and API changes.
Apple, as expressed by Jobs' open letter to the music industry, would prefer to have a completely DRM-less system. For now it appears that they've caved to the demands of the record labels and are making it at least rudimentarily difficult to circumvent the DRM system on ringtones. I would agree that this constitutes "locking" but it shouldn't be conflated with Apple's lack of support for native 3rd party apps.
One thing left out of the Ambrosia interview is that of the iPhone being a new platform and how that affects the choice of whether or not to support 3rd party development at this time. He assumes that the current situation is considered optimal by Apple and that Apple doesn't intend to release a public SDK. That apple is keeping the iPhone closed because they think they can provide all the functionality needed.
He may very well be right, but I doubt it. I believe the truth is somewhere in between. In my opinion, Apple intends to restrict development more than for their desktop OS. However they also probably intend on releasing an SDK after interface guidelines have worked themselves out and APIs finalized.
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.
I can only half agree with what you have to say. People taking risks with unofficial software hacks shouldn't be surprised when things go wrong, and should accept that a lot of the grief they suffer is their fault, but actually cheering along and advocating intentional bricking? Because anyone who violates a EULA "deserves" whatever they get?
The bargaining power on the terms of nearly any EULA is very lopsided, and I can hardly blame consumers for wanting better than "take it or leave it" as the only options. The market simply doesn't supply great alternatives all of the time -- just lots of other products with their own major limitations and restrictive terms.
Have you noticed new initiatives, like iTunes Plus and Amazon's new MP3 store, for selling DRM-free music? Do you think this would be happening if all consumers just rolled over and played dead for the big corporations, dutifully following all EULA-imposed restrictions like good, obedient little consumers? If everyone went along with your attitude of treating EULAs like sacred honor-bound blood oaths, I'm pretty sure we'd be choking under heavy-handed, pay-per-play, pay-per-platform, pay-per-device, pay-per-application DRM on most of our music, video, and software.
Want to play that song you bought on CD on your iPod? Okay... pay for it again.
Want to use that song you bought online as a ringtone? Okay... pay for it again. (They still get away with that one.)
Want to use that song you bought three times already, once on CD, once for your iPod, and once for a ringtone, to wake you up in the morning? Great! Please fork over the alarm-use fee, and you'll be all set!
Oh, you want to listen over wireless headphones instead of wired headphones? No problem... just pay us the "short-range broadcast fee" and we'll activate that "feature" for you.
IThe bargaining power on the terms of nearly any EULA is very lopsided
It sure is. The consumer doesn't have to accept the terms at all, and no matter what terms the company wants to impose, there are local and national laws that limit what it can do.
The consumer is totally in control - he or she can simply refuse to purchase the device.
If you don't like what the iPod does, don't buy it. Same goes for the iPhone. Freaking grow up and realize that your wants and desires empower you and impose no stipulation on the behavior of any company, Apple included.
Supply and Demand.... If we the public demand a product that can be manufactured.... Someone will make it and sell it. This is what makes the retail market work.....
It sure is. The consumer doesn't have to accept the terms at all, and no matter what terms the company wants to impose, there are local and national laws that limit what it can do.
The consumer is totally in control - he or she can simply refuse to purchase the device.
If you don't like what the iPod does, don't buy it. Same goes for the iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gizmo-xl
Supply and Demand.... If we the public demand a product that can be manufactured.... Someone will make it and sell it. This is what makes the retail market work.....
It's one thing to disagree with what I wrote, and another to respond as if you only half read what I said. I already addressed the issue of simple buy/don't buy choices, yet you both bring that up again as if it's going to be news to me.
"If you don't like it, don't buy it" is an incredibly blunt, and not always greatly effective, instrument for effecting change.
When you have a product like the iPod, and even more so the iPhone, which can only be effectively produced and marketed by a small number of large companies, those companies don't have to be very responsive to consumer desires. Monopolistic (or effectively so) powers, plus lopsided intellectual property and telecommunications laws, mean that a whole industry can easily band together and not give people what they want, but rather "just enough" to keep them buying under less-than-wonderful terms, because the only other options are to do without a given product entirely, with no one else to turn to to buy a better version.
Take ringtones. That the phrase "ringtone market" even exists boggles my mind. The obvious, consumer-desired choice would be to be able to use whatever music you already own and put it on your phone as a ringtone. It's the most obvious and easy technological route to allow this as well. Only lopsided bargaining power, deliberate technology crippling, and the best laws big money can buy, lead to such ridiculous end results as paying $2.00 or more for a 30-second clip of a song, and perhaps being in trouble with laws like the DMCA if you work around such consumer-unfriendly limitations.
The fact that there are phones out there now that don't have such restrictions is not purely the result of consumer choices about what they will and will not buy. It has also taken the efforts of hackers, unwilling to put up with nothing but "take it or leave it" as choices, who have forced the hands of big companies to reconsider if their attempts to create deliberately restrictive technologies are worthwhile.
If you think we'd make any progress at all against things like DRM and $2.00 ringtones simply by getting droves of people to refuse to buy things that are almost-but-not-quite what they want, simply going without music or functionality they desire for years until their buying decisions possibly make an impact, with the fervor of a mass boycott, and without any hackers breaking DRM and bypassing technological restrictions, you're dreaming.
It's one thing to disagree with what I wrote, and another to respond as if you only half read what I said.
I don't disagree with what you wrote since it's presented as opinion (or I took it that way - had I taken it as fact I'd have corrected your assertions with links to substantiate my position). It's your opinion and I agree it's your opinion. I responded to the crux of your argument...the logic you presented.
Since you based your argument on the fact you consider the consumer helpless and subject to the machinations of a corporation outside of their control, I pointed out the flaw. That effectively discounted the entirety of your argument since it's underpinnings had been shown to be unfounded. Based on that, I don't HAVE to respond to the rest, QED.
The consumer isn't helpless. The consumer has TONS of other manufactures that produce items that compete with Apple and it's iPhone product to chose from. There is no monopoly. The consumer can take their iPhone and open it, change it, eat it, bury it, etc. The consumer has total control over what he or she does with the device. What the consumer doesn't have is control over the intellectual property (the code that makes the iPhone more than a collection of electronic parts and turns it into the premium device that it is) that he or she agrees at the onset of the activation of the device belongs to Apple and ONLY Apple.
Don't agree, but if you do, then honor your agreement.
The consumer isn't helpless. The consumer has TONS of other manufactures that produce items that compete...
Quite true. And this point can't be stressed enough.
I consider myself a consumer rights advocate, frequently feeling that our economy and legal system are structured against the little guy. But consumer empowerment isn't all good either. It means taking away our freedom to run a business the way we see fit..
We must balance the the benefits of consumer empowerment against the negatives associated with a government dictating the actions of its citizens.
In my opinion, the mobile phone market has plenty of competition even without the government stepping in and declaring how companies have to do business. Dissatisfied customers can easily choose a competing product. Of course markets change so I'd have to reevaluate this position if consumers ever start to lose their power to choose.
It sure is. The consumer doesn't have to accept the terms at all, and no matter what terms the company wants to impose, there are local and national laws that limit what it can do.
The consumer is totally in control - he or she can simply refuse to purchase the device.
If you don't like what the iPod does, don't buy it. Same goes for the iPhone. Freaking grow up and realize that your wants and desires empower you and impose no stipulation on the behavior of any company, Apple included.
With that kind of argument whole industries would not exist.
Ever hear of "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"? The bitchers and whiners, while they represent a minority, are a very vocal minority... prolly due to their Type-A, early-adopter personalities.
Comments
Who here is content to sit by and accept the rules of known artificial limitations determined by none other than corporate greed? Who wants progressive software; enabling or unlocking new, exciting features in the future? Who is certain Apple programmers will think of everything users want. 3rd party apps gave us control, freedom, and hope of incredible sums.
There is nothing wrong with wanting the full potential value out of a product. However, contracts are a way to keep users submissive and under control. Without representation, we are useless in our grievances. TednDi, may I ask why you accepted the contract if you have such remorse from it? You, of course, fought it the slightest bit, right? I have a inkling that if everyone in the US voiced their opinion of contracts for 24 hours, there would be come major changes in a matter of days.
Now, I love Apple products and it actually depresses me to write this crap, so I will get off their backs for a while. What crossed my mind last night, and I have not seen this posted anywhere, has top do with AT&T. I received a call last night and it was unusually crappy. I was a sound board operator for several years and the voice on the other end was at times unidentifiable due to audio compression artifacts. Are they squeezing as much bandwidth as possible out of this turnip? I am wondering if cell phone networks ran into some sort of problem and can not keep up with demand. It would certainly make sense if AT&T were reaching 95% of their bandwidth at peak hours without any 3rd party apps on iPhones. I almost get the feeling they are walking a tightrope and their margin for errors is dangerously small. If Jobs knows this, he certainly wouldn't say anything as that would destabilize an allied company, but it might also explain why they actively prohibit 3rd party apps to save bandwidth. Could there be a read motive besides greed behind Apple/AT&T's actions?
(BTW... Nothing personal. I just got burned by a contract and have had serious rant brewing for roughly a week. This is just the kettle's whistle.
use of open-sourced components included with the iPhone Software
hmm? what could those be?
OR, they can post anonymously on an internet forum and become as irritating as fingernails scraping down a blackboard to people who can't do a thing about their foolish desire to have a company cater to them.
They also subject themselves to the penalties of the breach including voided warrantee.
I love my iphone. I love my 3rd party apps. I would love to use them with 1.1.1 but I can't.
In my opinion and I am reasonably sure that many would agree, the phone is better with the addition of 3rd party apps than without.
Many of the arguments for keeping the iphone closed can be boiled down to "we will take whatever apple gives us and be happy"
Think Different
It is ironic that Steve J. is such a defender of a locked phone tied to AT&T after his first career being a phone phreaker.
http://www.telephonetribute.com/phonephreaking.html
Don't tase me bro!
...
If making that observation is whining then so be it.
lol, Somehow i'll probably remember that "don't taze me bro" line for the rest of my life.
But yes, you're whining. You keep bending truths to make your complaint seem more justified. Apple has not locked out third party development. They simply don't support it. There is an absolutely huge difference between "locking out" and "not supporting". It seems that you're so upset that you're incapable of seeing the difference.
You may say that there is effectively no difference to customers. But there obviously is. If apple wanted to truly lock out 3rd party development they could.
lol, Somehow i'll probably remember that "don't taze me bro" line for the rest of my life.
I do my part
But yes, you're whining. You keep bending truths to make your complaint seem more justified.
Am I bending a truth or seeing something differently?
"Innovation is the distinction between a leader and a follower." - Steve Jobs
Apple has not locked out third party development. They simply don't support it. There is an absolutely huge difference between "locking out" and "not supporting".
You are right, then why disparage me when I choose to get the feature set that I want with the hardware that I have?
It seems that you're so upset that you're incapable of seeing the difference.
I am actually not that all upset. Tone does not translate well into text. I do see the difference however, it is just that I choose to something about it.
You may say that there is no effective difference to customers. But there obviously is. If apple wanted to truly lock out 3rd party development they could.
Agreed. And that would suck even more.
Put simply: You might have to wait for application updates before updating an operating system. This is true for any software platform. But it is especially true for a brand new one in great flux from ongoing internal development.
Yup, and the new application was? iTMS wifi store = great app
My argument was that I would trade that app and the added functionality that is in 1.1.1 for the expanded functionality which I receive by the use of existing 3rd party apps that I now have on my iPhone. If the developer community was able to get a reliable voip solution working would your jailbreak your iphone?
Yup, and the new application was? iTMS wifi store = great app
My argument was that I would trade that app and the added functionality that is in 1.1.1 for the expanded functionality which I receive by the use of existing 3rd party apps that I now have on my iPhone. If the developer community was able to get a reliable voip solution working would your jailbreak your iphone?
That isn't what I was getting at.
If you install hacks (3rd party apps), you'll likely have to update those apps in conjunction with operating system upgrades. The iPhone is no different than any other OS in this regard. The thing that is different is that the iPhone is a new platform and hacking it means trying to hit a moving target.
Will I install 3rd party apps? Definately yes. But I will wait until the platform's APIs have been finalized so that operating system upgrades can be applied without hassle.
There is nothing wrong with hacking an iPhone. However, it is immature to claim hostile intent on apple's part when all they're actually doing is busting their ass to rapidly improve the iPhone. You're trying to hack a moving target not one that has been made purposefully hard to hack.
Would you prefer they halt iPhone development and never finalize the APIs? Honestly, I don't know how Apple could satisfy all the whiners. If they supported 3rd party development this early in the game, they would have had to delay the iPhone's release or continue to support multiple versions of the APIs for the rest of eternity. So either the iPhone would not be out yet or we'd be saddled with a sloppy platform and tons of legacy/swiss-cheese code. Three months in, Apple would already have to support multiple versions of everything. I for one am glad that apple hasn't gone that route. I prefer my phone to glitch and crash free.
I do however think that apple will release an sdk for the iphone with leopard. I am hoping that they will not wait until WWDC 08 for it to get out the door.
The cell phone biz is on a much tighter turn around time than the computer OS biz. I want apple to remain competitive and a market leader.
Sony went down the locked up road and it cost them.
http://www.tuaw.com/2007/10/03/tuaw-...ne-update-and/
His software is one of just a couple of programs that was broken by Apple in an actual attempt to "lock" something down. At least that's the way it appears without having access to the code. Most other complaints seem completely unfounded and more like data structure and API changes.
Apple, as expressed by Jobs' open letter to the music industry, would prefer to have a completely DRM-less system. For now it appears that they've caved to the demands of the record labels and are making it at least rudimentarily difficult to circumvent the DRM system on ringtones. I would agree that this constitutes "locking" but it shouldn't be conflated with Apple's lack of support for native 3rd party apps.
One thing left out of the Ambrosia interview is that of the iPhone being a new platform and how that affects the choice of whether or not to support 3rd party development at this time. He assumes that the current situation is considered optimal by Apple and that Apple doesn't intend to release a public SDK. That apple is keeping the iPhone closed because they think they can provide all the functionality needed.
He may very well be right, but I doubt it. I believe the truth is somewhere in between. In my opinion, Apple intends to restrict development more than for their desktop OS. However they also probably intend on releasing an SDK after interface guidelines have worked themselves out and APIs finalized.
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.
I can only half agree with what you have to say. People taking risks with unofficial software hacks shouldn't be surprised when things go wrong, and should accept that a lot of the grief they suffer is their fault, but actually cheering along and advocating intentional bricking? Because anyone who violates a EULA "deserves" whatever they get?
The bargaining power on the terms of nearly any EULA is very lopsided, and I can hardly blame consumers for wanting better than "take it or leave it" as the only options. The market simply doesn't supply great alternatives all of the time -- just lots of other products with their own major limitations and restrictive terms.
Have you noticed new initiatives, like iTunes Plus and Amazon's new MP3 store, for selling DRM-free music? Do you think this would be happening if all consumers just rolled over and played dead for the big corporations, dutifully following all EULA-imposed restrictions like good, obedient little consumers? If everyone went along with your attitude of treating EULAs like sacred honor-bound blood oaths, I'm pretty sure we'd be choking under heavy-handed, pay-per-play, pay-per-platform, pay-per-device, pay-per-application DRM on most of our music, video, and software.
Want to play that song you bought on CD on your iPod? Okay... pay for it again.
Want to use that song you bought online as a ringtone? Okay... pay for it again. (They still get away with that one.)
Want to use that song you bought three times already, once on CD, once for your iPod, and once for a ringtone, to wake you up in the morning? Great! Please fork over the alarm-use fee, and you'll be all set!
Oh, you want to listen over wireless headphones instead of wired headphones? No problem... just pay us the "short-range broadcast fee" and we'll activate that "feature" for you.
IThe bargaining power on the terms of nearly any EULA is very lopsided
It sure is. The consumer doesn't have to accept the terms at all, and no matter what terms the company wants to impose, there are local and national laws that limit what it can do.
The consumer is totally in control - he or she can simply refuse to purchase the device.
If you don't like what the iPod does, don't buy it. Same goes for the iPhone. Freaking grow up and realize that your wants and desires empower you and impose no stipulation on the behavior of any company, Apple included.
It sure is. The consumer doesn't have to accept the terms at all, and no matter what terms the company wants to impose, there are local and national laws that limit what it can do.
The consumer is totally in control - he or she can simply refuse to purchase the device.
If you don't like what the iPod does, don't buy it. Same goes for the iPhone.
Supply and Demand.... If we the public demand a product that can be manufactured.... Someone will make it and sell it. This is what makes the retail market work.....
It's one thing to disagree with what I wrote, and another to respond as if you only half read what I said. I already addressed the issue of simple buy/don't buy choices, yet you both bring that up again as if it's going to be news to me.
"If you don't like it, don't buy it" is an incredibly blunt, and not always greatly effective, instrument for effecting change.
When you have a product like the iPod, and even more so the iPhone, which can only be effectively produced and marketed by a small number of large companies, those companies don't have to be very responsive to consumer desires. Monopolistic (or effectively so) powers, plus lopsided intellectual property and telecommunications laws, mean that a whole industry can easily band together and not give people what they want, but rather "just enough" to keep them buying under less-than-wonderful terms, because the only other options are to do without a given product entirely, with no one else to turn to to buy a better version.
Take ringtones. That the phrase "ringtone market" even exists boggles my mind. The obvious, consumer-desired choice would be to be able to use whatever music you already own and put it on your phone as a ringtone. It's the most obvious and easy technological route to allow this as well. Only lopsided bargaining power, deliberate technology crippling, and the best laws big money can buy, lead to such ridiculous end results as paying $2.00 or more for a 30-second clip of a song, and perhaps being in trouble with laws like the DMCA if you work around such consumer-unfriendly limitations.
The fact that there are phones out there now that don't have such restrictions is not purely the result of consumer choices about what they will and will not buy. It has also taken the efforts of hackers, unwilling to put up with nothing but "take it or leave it" as choices, who have forced the hands of big companies to reconsider if their attempts to create deliberately restrictive technologies are worthwhile.
If you think we'd make any progress at all against things like DRM and $2.00 ringtones simply by getting droves of people to refuse to buy things that are almost-but-not-quite what they want, simply going without music or functionality they desire for years until their buying decisions possibly make an impact, with the fervor of a mass boycott, and without any hackers breaking DRM and bypassing technological restrictions, you're dreaming.
It's one thing to disagree with what I wrote, and another to respond as if you only half read what I said.
I don't disagree with what you wrote since it's presented as opinion (or I took it that way - had I taken it as fact I'd have corrected your assertions with links to substantiate my position). It's your opinion and I agree it's your opinion. I responded to the crux of your argument...the logic you presented.
Since you based your argument on the fact you consider the consumer helpless and subject to the machinations of a corporation outside of their control, I pointed out the flaw. That effectively discounted the entirety of your argument since it's underpinnings had been shown to be unfounded. Based on that, I don't HAVE to respond to the rest, QED.
The consumer isn't helpless. The consumer has TONS of other manufactures that produce items that compete with Apple and it's iPhone product to chose from. There is no monopoly. The consumer can take their iPhone and open it, change it, eat it, bury it, etc. The consumer has total control over what he or she does with the device. What the consumer doesn't have is control over the intellectual property (the code that makes the iPhone more than a collection of electronic parts and turns it into the premium device that it is) that he or she agrees at the onset of the activation of the device belongs to Apple and ONLY Apple.
Don't agree, but if you do, then honor your agreement.
...
The consumer isn't helpless. The consumer has TONS of other manufactures that produce items that compete...
Quite true. And this point can't be stressed enough.
I consider myself a consumer rights advocate, frequently feeling that our economy and legal system are structured against the little guy. But consumer empowerment isn't all good either. It means taking away our freedom to run a business the way we see fit..
We must balance the the benefits of consumer empowerment against the negatives associated with a government dictating the actions of its citizens.
In my opinion, the mobile phone market has plenty of competition even without the government stepping in and declaring how companies have to do business. Dissatisfied customers can easily choose a competing product. Of course markets change so I'd have to reevaluate this position if consumers ever start to lose their power to choose.
It sure is. The consumer doesn't have to accept the terms at all, and no matter what terms the company wants to impose, there are local and national laws that limit what it can do.
The consumer is totally in control - he or she can simply refuse to purchase the device.
If you don't like what the iPod does, don't buy it. Same goes for the iPhone. Freaking grow up and realize that your wants and desires empower you and impose no stipulation on the behavior of any company, Apple included.
With that kind of argument whole industries would not exist.
Like Nascar