Apple’s locked iPhones are bad business, but should not be illegal
Jeff Nolan, who knows of what he speaks on so many topics (even outside his tech specialty), summarizes the issue:
Here’s the basic problem with locked handsets: you bought it so you own it, not the carrier. A carrier, in this case AT&T, subsidizes the purchase of the handset, which in this case they do not, in exchange for a term contract guaranteeing a financial return that offsets the subsidy. Because you and I pay for those handsets we should be free to use them on any network of our choosing. You would object if you car only accepted gas pump nozzles from Chevron, right?
What happpens if I don’t want to use my $500 handset with AT&T anymore, and I’ve met the obligations of my contract? Well according to Apple, I’m SOL despite the fact that there are no technical obstacles to using any GSM handset on any GSM network providing they are frequency matched, which most modern handsets are because the manufacturers surely don’t want their handsets limited to a single network.
This is bad business on Apple’s part, but it should not be illegal. As long as they are not hiding the fact that the iPhones are locked and thus defrauding customers, the choice is mine as to whether I want that handset or not. “It will be a useless brick unless you sign up to AT&T,” Apple is saying. By not buying one, I am saying, “Screw that.” This is as it should be.
Yes, I would object if a car only accepted gas from nozzles at Chevron…but I would also never purchase a car like that in the first place. If GM wants to make such vehicles, they should be free to do so. Whether they - or Apple - run their business into the ground is between them and their shareholders. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the government or courts of law.
Filed under: Life
‘“It will be a useless brick unless you sign up to AT&T,” Apple is saying’
Actually that is not quite what they are saying, although that is how it is being reported. What they are saying is “We will be upgrading the software from time to time including a major upgrade this week, and the combination of the unlocking process that people have done to their phones and the software upgrade could conceivably brick the phones”. (Phil Schiller actually said later that Apple would not be deliberately disabling phones, but that any such consequences would be unintentional although Apple would not guarantee that they would not occur).
Apple is clearly making these kinds of statements to attempt to dissuade people from unlocking their iPhones, but it may be that sounding aggressive about this is simply the price of doing business with AT&T. (AT&T is a phone company: as such it is horrible and closedminded and stupid, so doing business with it is probably not easy). Whether Apple is actually aggressive about this in its actions is something about which we have to wait and see. Despite what has actually been said, I think it is extremely unlikely that Apple’s software upgrades will actually brick any iPhones. If Apple is serious, what its upgrades will do is relock unlocked phones, and possibly change the software that does the locking in order that the whole process of figuring out how to unlock the iPhone has to be done again.
Personally I am avoiding the iPhone until I have clear answers to all this. (I did just order an iPod Touch instead, so I doubt Steve Jobs is too unhappy with me).
The Chevron example’s not so far-fetched. I remember when unleaded petrol first came to the UK: you’d see the very occasional petrol station that actually sold the stuff, while most didn’t. The early adopters who bought cars that required it must have found it inconvenient, but they did it anyway, and I don’t remember any calls that it be banned because of that inconvenience.