Apple iPhone

[editor]

Tbh the annoyance of this is telling, would anyone bat an eyelid if Microsoft or Sony did this? Why should Apple be treated differently?

But surely the whole point is that neither of those companies have (afaik) tried to 'brick' their unlocked phones via updates?

Isn't this an Apple innovation?

 

[editor]

Even if you did succeed, it's something of a pyrrhic victory - some of the features (Eg EDGE, Visual/Ordered voicemail) are network dependent and other issues have popped on unlocked iphones - Google Maps/You Tube stop working for example..

Bit odd that seeing as most folks on other phone platforms can download their free copy of Google Maps and have it run on their mobiles regardless of their locked/unlocked status.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

No he didn't.

He just keep telling me how he's "not surprised" by the decision, but that's now I was asking him.

I was asking whether he think it is a "reasonable and acceptable business practice that consumers should just accept."

But I did, at least the part about whether consumers should just accept. See my point about you get what you pay for, you don't like it you buy something else. Ultimately speaking that is...

Is it reasonable? Meh...not sure I really care to be honest. If you're getting annoyed with the actions of a corporation within the market place I think you're not seeing the woods for the trees. Aren't there far worse companies out there to be angry about?

 

[jæd]

You're missing the point. Many suspect that the "irreparable damage" is being intentionally created by Apple and is not an inevitable side effect of the unlocking (after all, no other phone manufacturer has issued such dire warnings about upgrades, AFAIK)

How can "irreparable damage" by third-party tool be generated by Apple...?

Though I'm also how you can do "irreparable damage" in software... The only way I could forsee is if the utility writes to or mangles the boot procedure of the iPhone. (Ie, so it can't reboot...) But if that were the case its a bit irresponsible of the utility writers...

 

[editor]

<much fudging>

Ever considered a career in politics?

 

[editor]

How can "irreparable damage" by third-party tool be generated by Apple...?

That's Apple's phrase, not mine, so you'd best take it up with them.

 

[jæd]

But surely the whole point is that neither of those companies have (afaik) tried to 'brick' their unlocked phones via updates?

Isn't this an Apple innovation?

Sony have had a history of releasing updates to the PSP that disallow running "homebrew" software on it. (Not 100% the same, but still annoying)

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Ever considered a career in politics?

I already have one but you should too!

 

[jæd]

That's Apple's phrase, not mine, so you'd best take it up with them.

This bit...?

Apple executives have said that the company does not purposely design updates to disable or damage hacked iPhones, but warned that it would not accept any responsibility if its updates damaged phones with third-party software.

Still sounds like arse covering.... "It might explode if you've tampered with it, so don't do it, and don't blame us" Though I'd be waiting and seeing what happens, rather than all this fairly pointless speculation...

 

[Crispy]

I already have one but you should too!

I reckon he's gunning for paxman's job.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

I reckon he's gunning for paxman's job.

Heh he's more Krishnan Guru-Murthy than Paxman.

 

[editor]

You've got to be a geeky numpty to try and unlock the iphone at the moment to be fair.

Looks like there was "several hundred thousand" numpties out there!

http://www.tuaw.com/2007/09/25/iphone-dev-team-issues-statement/

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Given it's massive flaws, network lock in and huge price I still can't see why anyone would want one. I'm honestly baffled by it.

 

[rocketman]

Probably more to do with a coder inadvertently corrupting the iPhone operating system, though I don't know how much of that system is embedded. If some is embedded and becomes corrupt, then that's could be a big deal, maybe.

Saying that, I don't believe iPhone will be closed forever. Am holding out for OS 10.5 for a clue to that.

 

[jæd]

Given it's massive flaws, network lock in and huge price I still can't see why anyone would want one. I'm honestly baffled by it.

You could say the same thing about a lot of phones, smart, or otherwise...

 

[jæd]

Probably more to do with a coder inadvertently corrupting the iPhone operating system, though I don't know how much of that system is embedded. If some is embedded and becomes corrupt, then that's could be a big deal, maybe.

The link the Editor points to mentions that the hackers will be releasing a reflash utility to restore the iPhone... So it would indicate they know their unlock-tool isn't without danger...

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

You could say the same thing about a lot of phones, smart, or otherwise...

Well, yeah

But seeing as there are a million and one other options that do more, cost less and don't tie you into one operator, why on earth choose an iphone?

It's nothing more than a triumph of marketing as far as I can tell, unless I'm really missing something.

And before anyone accuses me of being simply anti Apple - my next machine will be an all singing, all dancing 8 core Mac Pro

 

[UnderOpenSky]

Its not just apple though is it? Modern nokias cant be unlocked unless u wait till the end of the contract, the days of taking them down the market or looking on the net on an unlock site are long gone.

 

[YoursTruly]

Its not just apple though is it? Modern nokias cant be unlocked unless u wait till the end of the contract, the days of taking them down the market or looking on the net on an unlock site are long gone.

Yeah but Nokia phones are on all of the networks, not just O2. Take my Nokia E65, it might be locked into O2, because my contract is with O2, but if I didn't want a contract with O2, at least I had the option of getting the same phone through other networks. So why should anyone, apart from the Apple fanboys, buy a phone, that is only on O2 and is technically inferior to a heck of a lot of phones out there?

Also, isn't there a law now, where the customer can demand a phone can be unlocked after a certain amount of time, regardless of the length of contract?

 

[UnderOpenSky]

With 3 its the end of the contract, dont know abou other companies. Why sign a contract for a phone if u dont want the contract, its not really a cheap way of doing it. I dont understand why apple are going to limit themselfs to one network, why not sell them unlocked for the true price? Give it B months and i bet u will be able to get them on other networks.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

iPhone trumps HTC Touch, N95 in usability study

Not sure why they chose these two phones to compare to the iPhone given but there you go...

We've given you your chance to choose a champion amongst the iPhone, HTC Touch and LG Prada, and while the latter wasn't included at LG's request, the other two were recently pit against Nokia's N95 in a study of usability. The test was reportedly conducted by Perceptive Sciences, a Texas-based usability consulting firm, and relied on data from just ten individuals who had "never used any of the three devices."

The group was asked to "perform a series of tasks on each handset with quantifiable results, such as the time needed to find and use the on / off switch," and when all was said and done, the iPhone managed to snag the gold. Of course, we wouldn't take these results to be the bonafide truth, but if you're interested in seeing what all the mobiles (and guinea pigs) went through before a winner was chosen, head on over to the read link.

Link

 

[editor]

Not sure why they chose these two phones to compare to the iPhone given but there you go...

It's the battle of three phones with shit keyboards!

I've only tried the HTC's interface/keyboard of that lot and it's really awful, but the Treo would pwn them all.

 

[rocketman]

Some speculate Apple isn't so arsed about unlocking, they just want to sell the device, however the deal with the exclusive carriers (and they needed that kind of extra support you get from making a network buy into the concept of the phone to help them launch the device) requires that carriers hand over a percentage of revenue raised through iPhone use, reportedly 40 per cent revenue slice from O2, so AT&T in the US - their interest is bringing in users, so AT&T (it's speculated) has put pressure on Apple to push out and anti-unlocking message to users to protect, not Apple, but AT&T. As AT&T had paid for iPhone distro rights, that is why Apple had to put out this message -- but it took 'em weeks to do so, which suggests to me that their heart isn't truly in it.

 

[editor]

As AT&T had paid for iPhone distro rights, that is why Apple had to put out this message -- but it took 'em weeks to do so, which suggests to me that their heart isn't truly in it.

Eh?!!

If Apple are getting up to 40 per cent of the carrier's iPhone revenues it's absolutely in their interest to maximise that return.

After all, if people unlock their phones and go off with other networks, Apple gets bugger all additional income.

 

[rocketman]

Eh?!!

If Apple are getting up to 40 per cent of the carrier's iPhone revenues it's absolutely in their interest to maximise that return.

After all, if people unlock their phones and go off with other networks, Apple gets bugger all additional income.

yeah, but they already got the device - that next step leads them to ubiquity. And they already had some money for the phone, so no real problem (this logic goes).

Ubiquity is key, it's how come iPod is so popular - it became generic, and kept growing.

So I'd argue that Apple can see that in the big picture,
In any case, I don't have an axe to grind in those assertions, it's just a whisper I keep hearing that I thought may interest some, I offer no guarantee of its veracity, but it is persistent in some quarters

 

[untethered]

I don't quite get Apple's strategy here.

Businesses want to commodify their complements. The complement of a mobile phone is the network service.

Why aren't they just selling an open phone on all networks and getting a kickback from all of them, just like the other manufacturers do?

My suspicion is that this is just a short-term deal to bring in a one-off killing on the early adopters and they'll have the phone on all networks within a year or two once the bugs are worked out.

 

[rocketman]

and they'll have the phone on all networks within a year or two once the bugs are worked out.

I'm not clear - I came across it somewhere - a three year exclusive, but can't remember in which territory,

Frankly, I'd be watching Google's move into becoming a network operator meself. And if I were Apple I'd be learning about mobile tech - possibly make a small investment in a mobile firm in Uzbecestan, or buy AT&T ir something or other,

I'm no oracle, mind, I'm just shooting me virtual mouth off, as I'm on a deadline and am desperate for distraction

 

[Sunray]

Some speculate Apple isn't so arsed about unlocking, they just want to sell the device, however the deal with the exclusive carriers (and they needed that kind of extra support you get from making a network buy into the concept of the phone to help them launch the device) requires that carriers hand over a percentage of revenue raised through iPhone use, reportedly 40 per cent revenue slice from O2, so AT&T in the US - their interest is bringing in users, so AT&T (it's speculated) has put pressure on Apple to push out and anti-unlocking message to users to protect, not Apple, but AT&T. As AT&T had paid for iPhone distro rights, that is why Apple had to put out this message -- but it took 'em weeks to do so, which suggests to me that their heart isn't truly in it.

I doubt they have paid anything to Apple, all they have done is taken it up..err..given in to Apples ludicrous demands for the share of Apples glory, so would like to make some cash.

Still cannot understand why Apple bothered with this operator tie in. I can guarantee they will give up at some point.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Eh?!!

If Apple are getting up to 40 per cent of the carrier's iPhone revenues it's absolutely in their interest to maximise that return.

After all, if people unlock their phones and go off with other networks, Apple gets bugger all additional income.

Aren't you conflating two different networks in two different countries with two different business deals?

 

[editor]

Aren't you conflating two different networks in two different countries with two different business deals?

I was giving an example. The cut is rumoured to be 40% in the UK. No one actually knows the terms of the AT&T deal, but it could be the same for all I know (hence my words, "up to 40%).

Seeing as Apple has bagsied an operator's cut in all the territories where they've launched their iPhone, is there a point here or is it just a bit of aimless nitpicking?