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
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...
They're just patenting this defect so they can sue anyone that would try to harm us.
restriction of features doesn't seem very patentable
Haven't been around the patent office lately, have you?
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.
Or alternatively, why not use an appropriate charging structure, so that it becomes prohibitively expensive for the end user to consume excessive resources? And use the extra revenue earned from those users who are willing to pay for large consumption to increase the capacity.
...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...
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.
You don't seem to understand the flawed business model that communications providers have been running with since the beginning. They never had enough capacity for their customers. They could, but they need to pay their CEO's $20M bonuses instead of grow their infrastructure. 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.
The only analogy I've been able to come up with that paints a good picture about why it's such a flawed model is what I call the Coca-Cola Principle. If Coca-Cola was suddenly able to reclaim the soda in the can I just purchased before it hit my lips, they could in effect resell my can of Coke before I could even drink it. This is exactly what every single communications provider has done. 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.
You sound a lot like a corporatist to me. Oh noes those poor Network Operators need to cripple us to continue to be able to oversell their product/service. Well, what I say is, shitcan the CEOs taking these ridiculous sums of money and grow your infrastructure to meet YOUR promises as well as the economic DEMAND.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
So if I want a phone that isn't crippled, all's I have to do is not buy an iphone? GO PATENTS!
Wow - didn't take long for the apologists to come out of the woodwork. Here's what I'd like to see instead: A balanced comment that takes into consideration the needs of BOTH parties in a transaction/business relationship/whatever, rather than just the point of view of the party with the most power. I think we (i.e. "reasonable people") understand that one-sided relationships that favor one party over the other aren't optimal in a civilized society. But I can't quite understand the psychology behind those that rapidly spring to the defense of the powerful. Unless you're working for them and will directly benefit from maintaining or adding further imbalance to the status quo, WHY?
In your particular example, I would counter that the real reason for crippling devices has much more to do with control for the purpose of maximizing income than control for technical reasons. The fear isn't that willy-nilly allowance of device capabilities will bring down the network, it's that it will allow customers to create their own solutions rather than paying a lucrative monthly fee for the officially sanctioned service that optimizes monetization of the service rather than optimizing the ability of people to do what they need/want to do. Use of the term "crippling" isn't accidental - it's an accurate description of what is being done.
No good! Don't understand! Your analogy has no cars!
Let's patent it!
I don't care why you're posting AC
$18M is pocket change. A few million dollars doesn't solve anything; how about you stop buying the occasional order-out pizza, because $18 for a meal one night a month is outrageous when you could make some chicken soup to last the family a whole week for twice as much (making it $5 instead of $18)! That whole $216/year saved is MASSIVE!
Support my political activism on Patreon.
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
This phone crippling crap is performed by US carriers mostly in order to maximize their profits and there are no technical reasons whatsoever to restrict any capabilities of a certified GSM phone.
Like it or not: A phone, which is crippled by design, like the iPhone, is defective by design.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Nice save there chief. Real smooth and entirely believable. O_o
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.
This reasoning just doesn't hold. Some netbooks already have 3G chips, I bet that will be a standard feature in all mobile computers in the near future. The result of this is that the network operators cannot control the clients.
It should be blindingly obvious to anyone that the network has to cope with rogue devices. Assuming that wireless clients are all well-behaved is a phenomenally stupid idea.
The "we're only protecting the user from excess charges" idea might hold water if the same companies weren't happy to send you insane roaming charges...
There's an app for that.
Reply to That ||
telecoms operators have always tried to maintain a tight grip on what devices can connect to their networks.
No. US telecoms operators have always tried to maintain a tight grip on what can be connected to their networks. This is not the case elsewhere in the world (although it is notable that with the advent of the iPhone, operators elsewhere in the world are starting to embrace anti-consumer ideas such as device-exclusivity contracts and refusal to unlock off-contract devices - one can only hope that the regulators get their finger out and put a stop to this).
And I think they are right to do so, allowing unrestricted software access to their network infrastructure might well be disastrous. Most computers have to connect via a modem, but the iPhone is the modem, so allowing software to access the hardware directly would remove this layer of abstraction and security.
You clearly don't understand how mobile phones are architected. A smartphone is basically a palmtop computer and a GSM/WCDMA modem in the same box. The computer part of it is _not_ (logically) the same device as the radiomodem, any more than a computer with a built in modem is. The "computer" side of a smartphone generally talks to the radio side through an interface that basically behaves like a serial port - i.e. it is controlled by standard AT commands.
Allowing a smartphone to run arbitrary software is no more a security risk than allowing a computer with a 3G dongle to run arbitrary software because the logical separation between the computer and the radio is still there.
We have rules about the capabilities of devices that can run on our roads, this is not much different.
Last time I checked, there were no laws that claim your car is unfit to be used on the road if you're using a third party stereo, or if you're using BP petrol instead of Shell. But these sorts of things are essentially what a lot of the restrictions are all about. Placing restrictions on what the _radio_ part of the phone is allowed to do is fair enough, but placing restrictions on what the user can do with the computer part of a device isn't acceptable to a lot of people.
http://blog.nexusuk.org