Quote:
Originally Posted by CubicleGeek
They have a contract with AT&T that determines that the iPhone will only be on that network for 2 years for the US. Rogers and Apple have not been able to come to terms with a deal, that is their problem. I really see nothing wrong with with Apple is doing. It's business.
Suppose you had an exclusive deal with a vendor to provide a product or service only available through that vendor. Suppose then you heard of a select group of people smuggling that product and selling them to your competitors. Wouldn't you want to put a stop to it? It is no different than Apple not wanting people to unlock their phone. Because of their contract with AT&T, if the phone is unlocked, they (AT&T) suddenly lose that differentiator with competitors like Cingular and T-Mobile. A differentiator they're paying large money for in hopes of improving market share. I don't see what people don't understand about this.
Deals like this are signed all the time. For example, exclusivity rights for video games on certain platforms. It's a business model that apparently works. You can even apply this to your signing of non-competition agreements when you start a new job - at the end of the day, you're providing a product or service that you cannot provide to a competitor for some duration even after leaving the job.
This isn't even new for the wireless business, phones come out every year that are tied to a provider, sometimes even for the entire life of the model. People are getting a rise out of the iPhone only because the demand is so high and they want it so bad but it isn't available, and provided the bricking of the phone is a deliberate act, Apple wanting to protect themselves and their contract partner financial loss.
It sucks for us Canucks that want the phone now but we can't have it. But that's life and it won't be the first product to come to here later or even never. It also likely won't be the last.
|
The problem arises in that there is an exemption under the DMCA in the US that for purposes that do not promote piracy, a device may be unlocked by the owner for their own personal use, as they see fit. That includes unlocking a mobile phone so that it may be used on another network.
Apple isn't supporting the unlock, which is fine. They shouldn't be in accordance with their contractual obligations with AT&T. And you're right, there is nothing wrong with that. But if Apple is seeking to brick phones that have been unlocked, and you can't return them to a working state with a previous firmware version, then they are restricting people from using the device as the user wants.
THAT is where there is a lot of issue here.
BTW, that DMCA exemption is for three years only, and expires in November of 2009.