Slashdot Mirror
Apple Wants Patents For Crippling Cellphones
theodp writes "Evil is in the eye of the beholder, but there's certainly not much to like in the newly-disclosed Apple patent applications for Systems and Methods for Provisioning Computing Devices. Provisioning, says Apple, allows carriers to 'specify access limitations to certain device resources which may otherwise be available to users of the device.' So what problem are we trying to solve here? 'Mobile devices often have capabilities that the carriers do not want utilized on their networks,' explains Apple. 'Various applications on these devices may also need to be restricted.'"
This can only mean the iPhone is coming to Verizon!
All iPhones will now play the Imperial March on startup.
Caffeine is my anti-drug!
Duranin - A NWN2 Roleplaying Persistent World
Oh wow, that was quick.
When most phones, including the iPhone, come into contact with anything Apple, they become crippled.
At least we can officially call it: The Apple Effect.
This tag has never been more appropriate...
This story is tagged "defectivebydesign", but what Apple wants to do is anything but.
Operators have a hard limit on the amount of service they can actually provision. Allowing any and all devices to run willy nilly on the network would be certain death, even for the best-laid network. By throttling certain services, turning off certain capabilities, and allowing remote provisioning management, Apple is making sure that the device they are providing to users will work and continue to work on the network.
This is a very important feature not only for the NOs, but also for businesses who would provide these phones to their field teams. Though, to be honest, restriction of features doesn't seem very patentable, at least there are other implementations that already exist. WinMo has had this since WM6.1, for example.
They're just patenting this defect so they can sue anyone that would try to harm us.
Apple and any inventor should be ashamed to put their name on such a crappy patent; there is not a bit on an idea in there.
However, if this serves to keep others from implementing carrier-based restrictions, I'm all for it: implementing this is going to hurt Apple and help everybody else.
The patent component of this news aside, we've seen iPhones turned into web servers, iPhones running PHP and Apache and even playing reduced frame rate WoW on your iPhone. So, when we saw these articles it is easily suspected that they could be an abuse to the network. But how could an Apache server on my iPhone be anymore of an abuse than an Apache server on my home computer connected to Comcast? I mean, the networks are probably different but can't they institute a cap and just let my phone slow to a crawl due to limited bandwidth while everyone else doesn't even notice my usage? Are the cell phone networks really that helpless in that they cannot cap usages on cell phones?
...
Either there's something about the potential abuse of cell phones on networks or Apple just wants another patent. Probably both.
All I ask of Apple (or anyone really) is that -- if they implement this patent on a phone -- they advertise this "feature" and stay true to the numbers of what you can expect out of your potentially crippled device. My biggest problem with my ISP is that they flat out lie to me about what I'm paying for. When I see things like "unlimited data plan" on cell phones I can only laugh
My work here is dung.
...on my own personal iPhone. Why? Well, it's easier than remembering how to hook it up to the 5 Google calendars I need it to sync and edit...
Yeah. Just one phone. I don't have to be a big corporation to find tools like that useful.
This makes me evil, right?
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
So, I didn't buy my iPieceOfShit, I iLicensed it? How is this even legal?
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
It is not "their" network. It is hosted on the radio frequencies effectively leased to them by the FCC which is ultimately owned by "we the people."
With all that said, it is within the rights of the property owners to determine how the leased property can be used. I find that it is past time that the FCC or even congress enact rules that prevent carriers from harming consumers in much the same way that Bell Telephone abused consumers.
Apple, it is not for the carriers to say what specific services are enabled on what devices so long as the devices are compatible with the network. (Compatibility can be defined broadly so I would also urge that this is defined appropriately as well.)
It is inappropriate for wireless carriers to determine what specific devices are inappropriate for use on a publicly owned radio frequency resource just as it would be inappropriate for any one entity to determine what specific vehicles are permitted to travel on public thoroughfares. While certain general prohibitions should be appropriately directed, they should be enforced to by a regulating body, not by carriers who often use such restrictions as leverage to sell other services.
...does anyone else ever get the feeling that there is a whole cabal of businesses, government organizations, etc, out there just trying to manage the piss out of them? Managed content, managed hardware, managed media...there is too much management...
If you don't like a company crippling a product, what are the alternatives?
Well, one alternative is that the company couple sell different physical products with the different capabilities. Of course, that would increase costs, so both the crippled and uncrippled versions would cost more.
Or, the company could only sell uncrippled hardware. Now, what price would they sell it for? They certainly can't sell it for the lower price of a crippled product, because they'd lose money. So now you've lost the choice between a lower-price/lower-featured product, and a higher-price/higher-featured product. In other words, richer people win, poorer people lose.
So we should recognize that there's a benefit to being able to sell different sets of features to different consumers. More people get what they want at a price they can afford.
Now lets be realistic here people.
You get a Cell Phone and most of them even the low end systems are more powerful then computers 10 years ago. So most phones can do a lot of stuff.
Now you have different carriers. They can Suck and have a small limited network where only some services will properly run. So if you had a phone that can do anything on a network that cant when you try to do something that the network can't handle you get an error, or it just doens't work. The geeks like us will see this as either a reason to switch carriers or hack the system to get it to work. But for average joe it will be like. Why offer us the feature if we can't use it, or it is broken so the entire system is broken.
So if your carrier will not support the feature then it shouldn't be on the phone. So people will be happy with your product as it works. And if they see someone on an different network with the same product and there is a new feature then you think about switching the carrier not the phone technology. So if the iPhone will be on different networks and there is one willing to support different features you need. You can switch to that vender without thinking man this iPhone sucks because I cannot tether with my computer. While the truth is the iPhone can teather it is just you stupid carrier who won't let you.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
If Apple successfully patents this, it'll be harder for other people to do it. Why is this bad, again?
So, you build this super-nifty gadget that does all sorts of cool things... but you don't want those cool things to actually be used?
Why not build them without that capability in the first place?
I could agree with this if and only if they are giving you the phone for free and you are only buying the service. But when you are expected to buy the hardware, it is no one's business what you do with it. Too many companiess want to control what you do with the gadgets that you buy. Why are we allowing this in our society?
Crazy scenario, if you buy a toaster with a computer chip in it that has a little app that holds memory of who you are and how you like your toast toasted, should we then allow the companies to own the rights to how you want to modify the toaster?
I know I know, someone will say, it's about the network and keeping it clean of apps with viruses or that the apps are what make a company $$$, but it's all becoming too invasive.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
Cellphones cripple APPLE!
Yours In Ashgabat,
K. Trout
So if I want a phone that isn't crippled, all's I have to do is not buy an iphone? GO PATENTS!
... just with the caveat that they can't license it to anyone else, and they must sue any infringers who cripple phones also.
I admit it. I hate Apple. I hate their philosophy. I hate their restrictions. I hate their closed nature. I hate their smugness. I hate their marketing lies like "it just works" and "think different" (aka like a brainwashed moron).
But lately I was very happy when my hip cool 20-something cousin who goes to clubs and uses MSN and Facebook and Twitter bought an iPhone and was cursing about it almost immediately. If they can't get the young hip crowd with their non-functional difficult to used crippled horseshit maybe there is hope that in the not too distant future the company will just fucking die. All I hear about lately is how Apple is restricting some nice neat feature or use of a device. Fuck them. Die evil turtle neck wearing turkies!!!
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Is "ON A CELLPHONE" the new "ON THE INTERNET"? A quick glance over the claims reveals nothing that hasn't been done with DRM before in other settings.
Hey folks, you all have a path open to you if you don't like the way Apple and AT&T manage the IPhone. Simply design, build, market, and sell a competing phone and service that is as popular as the IPhone. What's holding you back?
Man, I hate Micros... err Apple. Actually, I think I just hate Steve Jobs. Most of Apple's fascist type behavior appears to be coming from him.
You can do all of this via Blackberry Enterprise Server.
My 'berry is so locked down by the guru's at head office that I have the same web browsing restrictions on it, that I do on our point of sale desktops, all courtesy of the BES and SonicWall routers.
I wish I was a neutron bomb, for once I could go off...
Hell yeah as independent developers we need more fragmentation.
Why the patent, I couldn't guess, unless it is as others here are saying - patent it so you can sue carriers who want to implement the system to prevent them from crippling the iPhone.
This is Apple's ultimate goal!
Provisioning Computing Devices should be Poisoning Computing Devices
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
Thanks Apple !
Hasn't this sort of thing been done for years? I bought a Motorola Razr phone with AT&T some time back and a number of the standard features were disabled. Verizon takes phones all the time and mucks with the software to disable features, often so that they can rent the features back to you at some cost. So, what's new about Apple's approach that makes it patentable?
The only thin that I can think of is that traditionally carriers would "provision" the phones by licensing the phone's firmware then writing a new variation and burning it into all the phones that they sell. I can only suppose that Apple's solution is reduced to a secured / signed configuration file so that you can simply install that and not screw with the phone's firmware/OS.
They crippled my Nokia 6582 years ago...
I think it's high time Apple got a new logo on this site..
Do Borg implants work on fruit..?
As a former Motorola mobile devices employee, I can attest to that. All cell makers have provisioning, it is nothing new, interesting, unique, or patentable (in my opinion). Just another example of Apple thinking that it excretes golden feces...
Isn't that what slashdot has been ripping into the cable ISPs for? Throttling certain services, and charging for "excessive" use (bandwidth caps)? AT&T and Verizon are always bragging about their networks ... why don't we make them live up to the hype?
...
Oh, yeah, because it's hype
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Tie up a crappy idea in lawsuits over bad patents.
"Method for intentionally introducing flaws in products."
Does that mean it would be a patent violation for any other manufacturer to limit capabilities? If so I'm all for it. Let Apple restrict their products if it means everybody else isn't allowed to!!!
you are absolutely right. That is why in Europe, where phones are not restricted, not a single Carrier has survived today. Oh wait... try again
you are absolutely right. If users were to use their USB cable to install a free ringtone, this would totally overload the network. Oh wait... mmm; bollocks
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
... that's what Apple are showing themselves to be. If, occasionally, I feel interested in their innovative products, this kind of news is what always keeps me from acting upon it.
It seems that Apple has become too successful for its own good -- somethings that seems to affect (virtually?) all major corporations these days. At first they start out with a cool product and they're good at keeping their customers happy about it. Then they become a success and make a lot of money. But, almost inevitably the company gets sold and/or one or more assholes take over the helm. Assholes? Yeah, they're the type that understand that "It's the stockholders, stupid!" Therefore, if a decision to do something differently will probably make the company more money -- even if it's likely to piss off many customers -- then it's the right thing to do. Hell, they usually don't even care about breaking the law; normally they're careful that the potential fines don't exceed the resulting profits, but that's not always the case. Not that I'm accusing Apple of ever having done anything illegal, but I see no reason to trust them either.
Show me a successful company that has always put customer satisfaction before profits, and I'll show you a company that you can trust (at least until the next change of management). Actually, I'll bet that there are lots of them... just precious few (if any) that are publicly owned.
In my opinion, the license fees for the monetization of this proud piece of Intellectual Property cannot be set too high. A license fee of 15$ per appliance for any other manufacturers wishing to license this remarkable piece of Intellectual Property seems wholly appropriate.
Incidentally, I do not own an iPhone or any other mobile communication device manufactured by Apple and I definitely have no plans to acquire one. I am quite happy with my 3-year-old mobile telephone, which is a prepaid model, and I have no plans to convert to a subscription. Thanks.
This makes me want to cancel my iphone
You don't seem to understand the flawed business model that communications providers have been running with since the beginning.
The business model since the beginning has been to build networks with business users in mind, and then selling unused capacity to consumers at bargain rates.
At one time, a buck a minute was normal, and for business users, still a bargain compared to the "mobile phone" that Perry Mason used.
Since the networks grew at an amazing rate, eventually reducing costs to commodity levels, that model was hardly flawed.
They never had enough capacity for their customers.
There have always been areas where use has jumped fast enough to outstrip network expansion.
If you mean network resources have never been unlimited, I'll grant you that.
So as it stands today, there just isn't enough network for us, which is why when there are city/county/state-wide emergencies many calls do not go through.
YOUR calls don't go through - the important ones do.
That's by design.
Cell operators are required by Federal law to interrupt consumer cell service to prevent the network becoming unavailable to emergency responders.
Comcast (unfortunately my home ISP) is perhaps one of the worst offenders of this. Having resold the bandwidth I paid for multiple hundreds of times. Eventually instead of providing me with what I have been paying for (unlimited broadband, as in no bandwidth cap), they reneged on their deal and put in a hard cap of 250gb/mo.
So...what you are saying is that your monthly charge should cover 25 terabytes of transfer or more?
The fact of the matter is that you didn't buy ALL their bandwidth - they aren't reselling YOUR bandwidth - that's pure rubbish.
The question is how to strike a balance between use and cost.
There is a certain cost per byte that has to be recovered, or no one gets to play.
I probably come pretty close to the cap at times, but have never heard anything from Comcast.
On my business accounts, I shatter that barrier every month - that's why I have business accounts that aren't subject to it.
You should stop whining and do the same.
Comcast COULD have simply limited your speed so that you couldn't exceed the cap.
It would still be unlimited.
That was rejected as a bad compromise for obvious reasons - most people don't use bandwidth at a sustained high rate.
OK, he's wrong and you're wrong.
Oversubscription is a great and fine thing and keeps costs low and therefore costs to the customers low. Most of the time, providing enough service that everyone could use everything all at once (electricity, phones, water, etc) would mean building out a ridiculous level, and create fantastic waste 99.999% of the time.
Every business oversubscribes in some way. You allow your tenant to throw parties, but don't expand the roof to cover the infinitely number of guests he might invite: so you're an evil coca cola stealing bastard?
The problem is not over subscription -- it's the fact that it's hidden/lied about. The fact that an apartment can only hold a finite number of guests and yet there's no statement in your lease restricting the number of guests your tenant can invite to a party isn't really a problem. The lease doesn't tell him he can invite an unlimited number of people. It doesn't tell him he can invite 1000/hour all the time and so can all his guests.
The phone companies tell us we can have unlimited bandwidth or a high amount. Then they can't provide it. That's breach of contract and fraud.
Your last lines are getting close to the heart of the matter: "shitcan the CEOs taking these ridiculous sums of money and grow your infrastructure to meet YOUR promises as well as the economic DEMAND."
But you're missing the point. They're committing fraud and breaking contracts. They should not lose their jobs -- that hardly matters. The companies should be sued and prosecuted for the civil and criminal aspects of this. The officers of the company should be held responsible. They should be both destitute and jailed.
The fault, dear Brutus, is not our telephone system, but in our political/judicial system that we are kept underlings. And in ourselves, that we are unable to force a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" to stop representing only RICH people.
...if the reason Apple wants to patent this is to sit it on the shelf with the threat of a lawsuit to anyone who cripples cell phones in the future? Think about it: Apple can cripple phones because only they can.
As a result, Verizon, AT&T, et al. all now have to have their phones open and able to allow the consumer to do absolutely anything and everything they could ever want to do with their phones. Now, would Apple continue to have the only restricted phone on the market? I doubt it. They'd lose too much money competing against all the unlocked phones they created.
Hurry up and do it, Apple. I want a new browser on my LG env2.
I run Ubuntu skinned to look like a Mac on a PC. Go figure.
On one hand, the patent enables the horrible constraints that the telcos seem to feel they have to exercise to prevent feature use.
On the other hand, the telcos might not want to implement it because they'd have to pay royalities to Apple.
Oh, wait....
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
There's an app for that.
Reply to That ||
This is bogus. When you buy an iPhone you generally pay full price. It's not subsidized so the carrier has no $(*&^ing business crippling the phone, and Apple has no business crippling it on behalf of the carrier. It's disgusting that Apple is using tethering as one of the major selling points of the iPhone (which is odd, since I can tether my ancient Samsung "Sync" without any problem - AND get more bandwidth through it!) and they cripple it with the OS 3.1 update. That is a bait-and-switch regardless of where you live.
Maybe in reaction to this Google can make Android even less restrictive. If they do that and really support their developers, and don't place all kinds of "duplication of native functionality" or "competes with Crapple" or "app is available elsewhere" restrictions that Apple and Palm have, they'll take over the market Apple is currently occupying. It'd be neat if they do that and then shut down Apple's access to google maps.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Apple, this is chmod. chmod, this is Apple. Apple, chmod's nickname in this context is "prior art"
Obvious to those skilled in the trade, not novel and therefore not patentable - at least not by law. Of course the USPTO will rubber stamp it.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
...if consumers did not implicitly agree to buying these crippled phones from the providers, these practices would not remain in vogue.
I only bought an Android phone when I know I could get a rooted one with no guff and no crippled features. It still has a dumb country-specific limitation on the market place precluding paid apps for my area, but such things as tethering and VoIP apps seem be working fine with no restrictions on which networks I switch my data traffic.
There is not excuse for the tethering restrictions, and in Europe most providers can offer unlimited data at small premiums. Why should it be different for US providers? They should simply price their data plans to match service provisioning cost.
Cellphone carriers everywhere are notoriously greedy, but US providers are the worst and most expensive - and do not act in the interest of their users, whom they instead nickel and dime to death with outrageous service charges and all manners of designs for captive restraints.
That Apple chooses to embrace this culture of consumer-hostile greed rather than fight against it shows us clearly what kind of corporation they are.
Recently I went into Verizon for a new phone. I told the guy I was interested in a "smart phone" but was not interested in paying for the "data plan". He explained that "if I bought any of their 'smart phones' I would automatically be charged the extra $30/month" for the 'data plan'. I explained to the guy that I did not need the data plan, particularly seeing how the phone I wanted had wireless. Along with many features that would have ZERO effect on Verizon's network. My argument went nowhere fast.
How does this article tie into my experience? Simple, all cell phone providers are SCAM ARTISTS!
I'll try anything once. Twice if it tastes good
damn Apple for making a secure phone. NOte - if you read the patent its clear its for Apple's signing of the carriers config file that prevents hackers form using fake files to access network resources they didn't pay for that would steal bandwidth and functionality from others. ie tethering This is apart of the 3.1 OS and hasen't killed an one yet
...that seems to have crippled quite a number of cellphones!
There should be the ability to permanently cripple stolen iPhones remotely, rendering them unusable. This would certainly deter theft.
Apple is refusing to cripple its phone for the carriers like most other manufacturers. This method is for signing the config file...by allowing the carrier to securely set the network settings Apple sells an phone uncrippled that only lacks the features not approved by the carrier when being used by that carrier (new carrrier = limits are gone) unlike if you get any other manufacturers Verizon phone that is crippled in firmware (take those to a new carrier stuff still doesn't work).
all this really. That Apple wants to do this is not out of character as others are pointing out. Nor is this type of thing out of context for things like telecos, and other traditional purveyors of things such as music, movies etc. They are used to a take our stuff the way it is, like it or lump it. Now these companies have gone into areas where the savvy consumer doesn't have to, like it or lump it. On the computing side of the game, the hard core "I want it the way I want it" is served by Linux. Apple sells it as "have it our way", while Windows both to their folly and benefit has tried to walk both sides of the street with mixed results. They are all running into difficulty with their philosophies with all this new tech... Apple doesn't want you doing certain things... well, tough darts, jail breaking exists and they don't like it. I need not go into the RIAA philosophy of such things and the rocks they have smashed up on... MS, well, sure they have DRM, but there's a hack for that! Linux, well, those traditional industries call Linux communist for a reason (in their minds)... In their minds, convergence was never supposed to be like this... Let them patent it, who gives a flying f*ck... Like all attempts to try to curtail people from using tech for their own purposes, this is fail
I hate to rain on the tinfoil hat brigade parade but this is for "provisioning" iPhones to corporate or government users. This allows the admin setting up iPhones to place restrictions on what applications and network services can run. It has nothing to do with carriers or Apple taking away features from your personal iPhones.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
This may be closer to the truth then you think. Verizion has a long history of not allowing certain functions on phones. This is why nobody wants a used Verizon phone because so much is disabled. This would allow Apple to still make one iPhone with one OS and one firmware but allow Verizion to place its own mandated limits on the ones used on its networks. Thus allowing Verizon to be known as the evil network and AT&T the freedom loving patriot ( quite a switch)
This is very much self-defensive. If Apple owns the patent on this, it dissuades carriers from crippling the phone. If they try, Apple makes a premium on top of whatever they're making from selling to them.
Apple implemented this in OS 3.1 and the earth still rotates around its axis.
There's wack-ass limitations like how many bytes can be downloaded, what can be installed, etc. I can't see how this is patentable. Its called a sandbox people.
. . . everyone seems to misunderstand the patent system. Now, I'm no patent lawyer, but I have at least some basic understanding.
I believe that Apple doesn't have a grand, generic patent on any possible scheme to cripple cellphones. It's close to impossible to get a universal patent covering an abstract idea, unless the nature of the idea is such that there is only one possible way to accomplish it (which is very rare). Patent's are required to included a list of claims, which is a fairly specific, technical listing of how the 'invention' is implemented. If you can come up with a way to accomplish the same goal using different techniques, then I believe you don't infringe the patent. In fact, I think you need only differ by one claim, and the rest of the patent could be the same, and it would still be considered non-infringing (again, I am not a patent lawyer, but that seems to be what all the patent lawyers I've seen write articles about these sort of patents indicate).
When discussing patents, the first thing anyone should do is *read the patent*, which, this being /., no one does, apparently.
They have a patent on a particular scheme. One that involves a signed blacklist file which specifies resources/apps which *are not* allowed, while, one presumes, everything else is allowed.
So, one way to avoid the Apple patent, it would appear, is to switch to a whitelist model where everything is disallowed unless specifically allowed by the provisioning profile. That actually sounds much more like the way the control freaks at the mobile carriers would probably prefer to screw their customers, so if they wanted to do that, I don't *think* this patent would stop them. I'm sure someone could come up with other schemes, even, which would not infringe the particular scheme Apple is using.
I just have to Patent Patents, then the world will be mine!
That is unless someone figures out that you can Patent Patent Patents, then I am screwed!
How evil is Apple? Well, on a scale of Google to Microsoft, I would say that this move ranks about an SCO.
Only one word springs to mind here: Why? I had a sim card that didn't support MMS. Did it cripple my phone with MMS capabilities, by imposing restrictions? No, it just didn't work because the service wasn't supported as a feature. What's wrong with that system?
obviously an iPhone is comming to Verizon, as to be allowed on Verizon it must be crippled. Probably also tethering will never come to AT&T.
Sounds like they're working on trying to give AT&T a way to shut down iPhones that either loaded the tethering hack for 3.0, or are jailbroken for tethering.
wow... what a bunch of cry babies..
None one here can see this is just part of the iPhone in Enterprise development. This anti-apple fad is getting to be nauseous.
it's called the iPhone.
Do No Evil - unless your Apple
Do No Evil - unless you're Apple
The parent was ahh ... some kind of Garden of Eden joke.
One could speculate that mobile carriers are scared to death of VOIP becoming possible on jailbroken iphones, such that they would want to be able to disable such features on phones on their networks. I suspect that this would be the ultimate reason why Apple would like the power to remotely cripple apps. It is evil behavior, no doubt. But I doubt Apple would care if it weren't for the mobile companies wanting to maintain their absurd uneven charges for different types of bits. The best way to stop such evil behavior is via government regulation. There will never be enough mobile carriers to allow true competition.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Wouldn't this be a patent granting them the legal ability to do what the Carterfone decision forbade AT&T?
Perhaps these sorts of actions will finally bring about the downfall of the abominations that are "smartphones", and we'll see a return to the sensible and logical separation of CellPhone and PDA. And that way you'll be able to get a PDA back at it's reasonable price point, rather than the 3x-4x pricing that has become the result of the rush to smartphones.
Look at the price of a cellphone with someone like TracFone. There's the logical price a cellphone should be, the calling rates being the only thing we should be seeing the carriers competing on.
From my understanding, a BlackBerry linked to a BES (Blackberry Enterprise Server) can have "policies" pushed down to them like restrictions on program installation, camera usage, etc. If that's the case, then this patent would be invalid.
I can't hepl but notice, the more Jobs is in control of Apple the better it does. Most things people hate about Apple happen when Stvev Jobs wasn't running things tightly.
When he returned to Apple he turned them around. Used BSD, created cool cutting edge devices, Apple became more open.
Now that he is ill and not managing every detail like he used to , all the middle managers seem to be coming our and making everything mediocre.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Apple - It Just Doesn't Work!
Apple have pioneered the new feature of Just Doesn't Work! True, many other companies have provided phones and computers with features that were crippled or otherwise didn't work, but Apple were the first ones to popularise it. They were the first ones to integrate it so it didn't work properly, and provide a seemless user experience of not working. Other phones, you have to really try to break them, but Apple have perfected it - so that crippling your phone Just Works, so that it Just Doesn't Work. That's right, it Doesn't Work Just Works.
can't a number of pay TV companies remotely control what features/material your set-top box has or has not? Or phone companies that add features or content via SIMs etc?
There was an unknown error in the submission.
The company logically has every right to do this. From a PR perspective, I don't think it's a good decision, but I'm a college student, so what do I know in my feeble liberal brain? Does the company ethically have the right to do this? In my personal opinion, no. But from a business standpoint, and from the POV of the carrier network (notice the singular), having so many applications accessing the network simultaneously, well, that gets expensive. Not only in terms of dollars, but also of bandwidth and resources which can lead to more costs for hardware upgrades, towers, etc. And when AT&T has to fork over 400$ per device regardless of what the user pays upfront, it takes a few months of service on their jacked up iPhone plan to cover that cost. Adding this to the cost of providing service for the numerous apps (as well as the fact that iPhone users are absolutely RIDICULOUS about texting and web surfing), the profits don't seem so large. What makes this wrong is that Apple mentions "carriers" rather than AT&T to avoid saying that AT&T has its hand up their hindparts. This is clearly collusion. AT&T is having trouble maintaining that amount of bandwidth. They analyze their traffic and report their findings to Apple. I'm sure a number of threats and nasty e-mails were sent between complementary iPhones before it was decided at Apple that they would handle this with the maximum possible amount of finesse: restrict the user and developer.
I've got a Motorola cell phone with Bluetooth via Tracfone that can't be tethered. Apple didn't invent pre-crippled cellphones.
Tech Public Policy stuff
With perfect timing Apple renews my decision not to buy Apple.
He feels a bit grumpy
They used to do this in secretly. Now, they even tell you that we have the right of the world to do so... suck it up!
Everything Apple does is Evil, obviously, because Martian hybrids are trying to have sex with you. Evil? This is about a company protecting itself when a phone is lost or stolen, and it's also about YOU being able to disable your iPhone for the f*cking thieves who stole your phone and could be phoning your girlfriend and finding out all your personal information. Screw 'em, let them have a brick with GPS. People obviously haven't been doing any critical thinking here. Can software that bricks an iPhone be used for evil? Of course. But the function has to exist. Nothing Evil here, folks.
Oh, let's see: "it may be necessary to remove functionality of an app?" Well, what about if a bit of spyware gets put into an app? I'd like Apple to disable it, reimburse me, and toss the programmer off the store. And sue him. And brick his iPhone, too.
Really, there are a number of people on these forums who are so sure that whatever Apple does is evil that they have to say any number of silly things.