Saturday
Sep292007
What if...
Saturday, September 29, 2007 at 8:06AM
What if you bought a computer that you couldn't install any of your own applications on? (Stupid, I know, but what if?)
What if that computer required you to sign up for two years Internet service with one particular company, and prohibited using any other ISP? (Not that the ISP subsidized the price or anything - the computer wasn't cheap.)
What if some bright guys came along and figured out how to install your own applications on the computer? And then showed you how to choose your own ISP? You'd do it, right? I mean, why not, it's your computer. But wait.
What if the company that made the computer sent down an update that checked to see if you had installed your own applications and deleted them if so?
What if that same update checked to see if you were using the required ISP, and if you weren't turned the computer into a useless, unfixable, piece of glass and plastic?
Would you ever buy a computer from that company again?
Would you ever trust a company like that again?
Addendum: Some Apple and cell phone customers seem to be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, so let me put it another way.
Let's say you're selling me a cow. You tell me that that cow is being sold for the express purpose of making milk. I agree, and buy the cow.
Later I decide that I'd prefer to make cheese. You say that's a violation of our agreement and kill my cow.
When I paid for the cow it became my property, to do with as I please. If you don't like how I'm using it you may choose not to do any further business with me but you don't get to kill my cow.
And, by the way, warning me you'd kill my cow if I keep making cheese doesn't make it all right.
The lawyers will point out that contractually I agreed to your terms. True. But I don't think the contract said anything about killing the cow did it?
Apple's sole redress is to halt all support of my phone. If we let Apple destroy our property for not following the rules we're telling the music industry it's ok to destroy a hard drive containing illegal songs, the cable company to fry our TVs for stealing cable. That is vigilante justice and a direct threat to the rule of law.
tagged Apple, Gear, Technology, iPhone in Blog
Apple, Gear, Technology, iPhone in Blog
Reader Comments (193)
What if ... we stopped obsessing about the iPhone?
It's not as if iphone isn't capable of running additional apps, it's running OS X for christ sakes. The technology is there. They are artificially crippling it, most likely, to keep people from unlocking it. The way apple has been acting lately I wouldn't be surprised to see a new iphone at christmas with 3g, and download able apps, screwing the early adopters again.
Another comment, as Leo has added an addendum to his original post..
I disagree with Leo's assertion that Apple is engaged in vigilante justice -- he uses the argument that it's the same as if a cable TV company destroyed his television set for stealing a cable signal.
But the iPhone situation is not quite the same.. while it is true that the iPhone also serves as a camera, media player, etc., just as a television can function usefully in ways other than connected to cable TV service, it is also true that the iPhone has been clearly marketed and sold under the terms that its cell phone function will work only with the AT&T wireless network. The purchase of a television set comes with no similar condition or expectation.
Now, whether bricking the iPhone is a smart long term business move on Apple's part and is helping them to win customers is a wholly different question and debate, but it seems that the company has been up front with its customers over the cell phone carrier issue.
Further, Leo is in effect alleging that, by installing the latest iPhone software update, Apple is unfairly "killing his cow" i.e. destroying his property.
Also not quite true -- just don't install the update (of which Apple supplied you and other iPhone users fair warning), and your iPhone will continue to work as well as the day you purchased it.
The if analogy of Leo's for the computer should be changed to when.
I can see Apple and Microsoft doing this kind of thing within the next decade if they aren't kept in check.
I'm guessing that most of these people taking apple's side don't own an iphone. If so, just admit that if you don't own the device being discussed, how can you feel so righteous when you haven't even had the experience of using the phone and/or the apps?
Of course everyone was warned and should have waited before updating if we wanted apps, but before this update there was always the option of rolling back to previous firmware versions. I updated wanting to check out the additions this update was offering, assuming (stupidly i know) that there was always an option to roll back. Yes I was warned, but I was not warned that the option to roll back firmware versions would be disabled.
Leo, your cow example reminded me of a local story just this week.
The Catholic Church sold one of their local Churches to a performance company and stipulated during the sale that no adult performances be played there ever. The new owner's very first play this week was "Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll."
The Catholic Church went to court and got a restraining order and the play was stopped cold. The new owners had to convince the Church they were not violating the sale agreement, and finally did so--but they couldn't do anything until the Catholic Church was appeased.
However, these owners will always face the continual threat of their cow, er, theatre being killed at the request of the Catholic Church.
You don't HAVE to put on the iphone update. When a person hacks the iphone they are violating the terms of service and therefore are rejecting all future support of the product from the company (INCLUDING updates).
People just go so complacent with apple being the feel good company and forgetting that their primary concern (as with all companies) is getting a return for their stakeholders.
This is so overblown, and to the addendum. Not in the cell phone business Leo, but now you're noticing? It's not a computer it's a cell phone, sure it's computer like, but it's a cell phone. Sold as a cell phone. Heck my refrigerator is a computer, so if I modified it, I'm pretty sure it'd void the warranty.
To the cow thing, let's say you bought a cow from me, but I own the pasture, but I agree to rent the pasture to you. You can take the cow off the pasture, but once you do that, whatever happens to it is your responsibility, but if you wanna keep it on my pasture, you gotta follow some rules, cause there is a million other cows on the pasture, and they have as much right to use it as you, following the same rules.
As part of renting, I might upgrade your cow, for free, since you're suing my pasture, but why should I let you upgrade your cow if you're not using the pasture? You packed up and left, why should I give you free upgrades to the cow when you're using it on on a different pasture? It costs me money to design and test these upgrades, and keep the pasture running.
You voided the warranty when you modified the software, just like the agreement you agreed to said when you signed up for phone service. Just like all other locked cell phones.
Why not all the crying about the locked original "Rokr"? I'm sure in there is more to come with the phone, it's only been out 3 months, give it some time.
Supposed you installed a application, that used your cellphone to transmit data constantly, like a DoS attack, say it affects the cell network, say it affects your voice calls. Who's gonna take the blame for that? Who's it gonna cost money to correct and support all the calls complaining about edge or att being down, or slow (slower than normal)? There is more to this than Apple worrying about the poor one percent of people that hacked there iPhone. And as a iPhone user, I don't want my cell service affected and bothered by it.
Leo
You need to be a bit more precise with your second analogy.
You would have to surgically enhance the cow to mimic the fact that you are updating with apps or unlocking the phone.
Continuining with the analogy.....If the person who sold it to you provided medication to keep the cow healthy which required injections every two month, but told you that if you had altered the cow in any way, the medication could cause the cow to die - would you accept the next injection?
The first analogy is also a little bogus as well - you were not sold a computer - you were sold a phone. The implementation may have been a computer, but that is the choice of the manufacturer. Your use of the word computer in this case implies that since it is a computer then it MUST be programmable by the owner. The truth is that it MAY be programmed by the owner, but the product is not supported as a computer, so there may be consequences.
OK, Leo, I own an iPhone, jailbroken and all, and I still disagree with you. You're failing to realize that when Apple updates something, they completely overwrite it with a new app, which is why 0.0.1 updates on the Mac weigh 30-50 MB. Its the same for the iPhone. 1.1.1 completely replaced the entire OS and and of the apps, but here's the important part: all of the data INCLUDING the jailbreak apps are still there. Just look at the summary bar on iTunes and you'll see a big chunk of "Other" data. Just wait for the next jailbreak.
As for me defending Apple, has it not occurred to you that the reason every update breaks stuff could be the same reason why Apple hasn't released an SDK? Since no one that I've seen has managed to decompile any of the iPhone software, we have absolutely no idea what Apple is doing or changing between releases. The most likely explanation is that Apple is still learning how to make OS X stable on ARM and its internal SDK is in constant flux. Can you imagine all the whining if they released a public SDK and then completely changed it every month for a year? Don't forget that it took Apple five years to release OS X after they acquired NeXT and it wasn't until 10.2 that it was really stable. Tiger is the first version of OS X that was really good, and it was released NINE YEARS after the NeXT acquisition, so clearly OS development is not that easy.
As for unlocking, I've bricked a PSP and several motherboards with firmware upgrades, some legit, some not. When you release the magic smoke because you did something that is unauthorized, just grin and bear it, because it was your fault. If you want to run custom firmware that depends on a software vulnerability, don't complain when it breaks because Apple fixed a buffer overflow, especially when they warned you that the update would brick it. And when the hackers also warned you not to update.
And as for the ability to roll back to a previous version. I think the Apple statement did say that the update may make the phone permanently inoperable.
If it was always going to be possible to do a restore, then why would they say it in those terms?
I don't have an iPhone - I live in the UK - I will be buying one when they come out. This episode hasn't affected my choice of buying an iPhone.
They came for my right to un-DRM'd music and I called no one.
They came for my right to fast forward through commercials and I called no one.
They came for my right to put Linux on my PC and I called no one.
But when they came for my unlocked iPhone with third party applications I couldn't call a soul because...
They had bricked my phone!!!
I had thought about in those terms until I read what Leo wrote above. What Apple should have done was have the update software check the hardware; if it had been modified, they could then refuse to update it aka "choose not to do any further business with me ." Instead, they chose to kill the cow.
I had been seriously planning to buy an iPhone after my Sprint contract ran out next year. Now I am thinking I will wait at least until the AT&T agreement runs out in 2012.
When I first heard that Apple was going to lock in iPhone buyers to a contract with AT&T without the cost of the iPhone being subsidized, as is the case with most other of these phone deals...well that was the deal breaker for me.
I was amazed that so many people still bought it.
These folks remind me of cases of someone who won't leave an abusive partner...'but I love Apple (and Apple loves me) and they make shiny, pretty gadgets I must have'...notwithstanding cost or restrictions.
Hey...whatever works for you.
To the people that say Apple warned people, They are giving people too much credit. Sure a press release is a warning, Sure a click through warning is a warning but if Apple was serious about preventing damage they should have had the software installer abort if it detected modified phones and refuse to update or mak an offer to the user to restore the phone to factory original status while relocking the phone for use with AT&T.
Apple having the installer run without checking to be sure the phone will not be damaged in a unrecoverable way is simply inexcusable. How hard is it for Apple's installer software to verify the status of the phone before upgrading it and refusing to continue if damage will be done.
So I agree in my opinion this was Apple intentionally damaging other peoples property.
People could buy the iPhone and walk out of the apple store without signing any agreement with Apple or AT&T. Sure they had to click through a EULA to acitavte it with iTunes before they used it but that is after the customer had taken full ownership of the phone. If Apple wanted to lock people into contacts they should have been getting them signed at the store before the product was delivered. This is how most other carriers enforce their phone locks they make you sign an usage agreement before you take delivery of the phone.
Apple didn't come over and kill your cow. Apple said, "hey, we have some growth hormones we can give your cow (v. 1.1.1), but if we give them to your cow and you've been using it to make cheese, your cow will die." (Work with me here...) "Would you like us to give your cow the hormones?"
And then you said, "yes" and are now complaining your cow died.
You have no basis for complaining. You knew the restrictions (closed device, locked to AT&T) when you bought it. You're just sore you can't get around the restrictions. Worse, you took their update knowing it could brick your phone if you did get around the restrictions, and now you're complaining.
You went into it with your eyes wide open.
@Robertson: So basically you're saying that Apple should do additional development work to support people who've broken their contracts or voided their warranties? Again, absolutely no one is forcing anyone to upgrade their phones to 1.1.1. ITunes asks very politely if you want to upgrade and you can say no. You never have to update either iTunes or your iPhone ever again. Apple clearly assumes that people who are savvy enough to seek out an unlock and perform it are able to keep track of press releases that propagate over the entire net in a matter of minutes. Even Leo said that he was worried that the unlocks probably wouldn't survive a new update and might even get bricked, so no one can reasonably claim ignorance or even get mad about it.
As of this point, the only supported method of getting software on the iPhone is AJAX via Safari. Yes that sucks, but that's the way it is until Apple changes their mind. If you don't like it, don't buy an iPhone. Its that simple. Nothing that Apple has done has come as a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention.
The problem is that Apple (under the leadership of Steve Jobs) is like a despot. There can be no openness and no freedom.
They need people to be sheep following them like a shepherd, that way they can keep fleecing their happy little sheep.
If you don't follow them properly they will fight you and punish you. The iPhone firmware problem is not a one-time thing. They will continue to whack you across the scull with the shepherd's crook each time they think that openness is getting in.
You make a really good point. Lets just hope it doesn't become that serious.
Hoping, hoping, hoping, hoping............hoping.
Leo and others with ruffled feathers,
Do a Google search for iPhone user agreement.
Read it, especially the section on internet access.
Do you see all the prohibited uses? Think about how many 3rd party iPhone apps violate those prohibited uses.
Take a deep breath and realize that maybe, just maybe, a VOIP app running on an iPhone would not be something AT&T would like using bandwidth on their network. If you made the big decisions at AT&T what would you ask Apple to do?
Face it folks, the 3rd party "developers" forced this to happen by blatantly violating AT&T's terms of use.
OK, Apple is completely in the wrong here. If they want to keep that much control over the phone, they have to lease them, not sell them. Leo's right; he bought the phone, it's his, he can do what he likes with it.
If I buy a car it's mine. I can mod it anyway I like within the constraints of traffic/highway laws (which have nothing to do with the manufacturer). The manufacturer can void my warranty if they like; that's their choice, as it was mine to do the mods. But they don't get to send a mechanic to my house to destroy the car. That's illegal.
Steve Jobs has no choice.
And when those hackers will not stop he'll have to take harder measures.
See my small cartoon:
http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/2007/09/stop-the-iphone.html
Bye,
Oliver
Leo, I think you're just showing your skill at trolling and getting attention. Whether it's about "rule of law" or your preaching of "morality" or the meaning of "stealing" (and even who is the "vigilante"), the view of this issue wrt Jobs/Apple vs consumers/pirates depends on which side you're on.
Even though I agree with your sentiment that the little guy is too often overpowered by the big guy, there were no secret gotchas here.
You're just as responsible as anyone wrt getting people to buy the iphone, getting them to hack it, and getting them screwed... all "legally", btw, with no legal recourse. Your intention was probably good, but you still used people's lack of understanding of the system against them and are even now trying to capitalize on the commotion you've stirred up. (Well, of course it's only partly your responsibility, but if you want to be a good example in today's political climate, maybe you can take at least a little responsibility for innocent people getting screwed.)
Btw, I still think you're the best. It's just that it bugs me when idealism can blind even the best.
Meanwhile, for the sake of integrity... will you ever stand in line again for an apple product? (I'll bet you'd *still* rather stay noncommited on the answer to that one.)
Or maybe summarize in a bigger picture for us if possible... eg do you think Jobs and/or our current economic system is good for us humans in the long run, or not? Is this too big of a picture for your audience to try to see? I don't think so. Come on Leo, help people THINK better, and understand the system better so that they might actually be able to affect it better. Just complaining about it without changing anything is a lot like "whining".
Helping people understand stuff IS your forte, after all. You're never too old to try to be constructive, instead of trolling for whiners. HELP people instead, please! (Like you do in the rest of your show.)
Ikon,
You nailed it with the car reference but in this case AT&T owns the roads and has told Apple to make the car that they sell follow their traffic/highway (internet use) laws.
Response to Ikon: Wow, I just can't believe how many here keep voicing the same incorrect assertion -- that Apple has done something extremely unfair or even illegal.
According to your choice of analogy, GM (or Ford or whoever) has sent a mechanic to your house and destroyed your car because you modified it contrary to the vehicle's warranty.
But you can simply tell the mechanic that (s)he is not allowed on your property and not to touch your vehicle, thereby protecting your possesion.
Likewise, no one is telling or forcing iPhone owners to update and, further, Apple has even warned owners that updating a hacked phone will likely break/brick it.
To rephrase my point in an earlier post, whether this is a smart move (in the long term business-wise) by Apple is certainly open to debate and discussion, but with respect to unauthorized hacking of the device, you pays yer money and you take yer chances...