Possible Class Action vs Apple

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by kermitology

But at the same time.. You don't HAVE to use IE. You don't HAVE to install Windows if you don't want to.

That is true. That's what i said in the second part of my post.

But the whole anti-trust issue was brought to light by Netscape, back in the days when the internet was pretty new.

Becuase IE had the largest market share in regards to browsers, because MS shipped it with their OS. If this class action does get feet, I could see it turning into an anti-trust issue. I kind of hope it does.

Apple right now, has the image of being the cute, friendly little company that everyone loves. Those are the companies you need to watch the most, becuase they fly under the radar.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by arsenal

Apple right now, has the image of being the cute, friendly little company that everyone loves. Those are the companies you need to watch the most, becuase they fly under the radar.

The most evil of all corporations!!

[arsenal]

Just like the butterfly.. no one expects the butterfly

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by arsenal

Just like the butterfly.. no one expects the butterfly

And yet people cheer if a moth goes into bug zapper.

[renny]

Originally Posted by kermitology

So when the iPhone is released in Europe on O2, then those people should be SOL too, right?

The iPhone is intended to be used on a TDMA (GSM) communication system. Modifying the firmware so that it can be used on ANY GSM network not just AT&T is still not changing the intended purpose of the iPhone.

It's legal to unlock a phone from a certain provider.

Thanks for taking my quote out of context. And thanks for ignoring my analogy about the car. But I'll pose the question again, if you modify your car with aftermarket parts, such as installing a turbo on a non-turbo vehicle, do you think the manufacturer will replace your motor if you blow it?

In Europe the phone was released on the O2 network so of course it should work fine, I would think that is common sense and you wouldn't try to argue that point, but I'm sorry I didn't explicitly say that.

At any rate, right now nobody knows whether or not Apple put in code to purposely brick hacked iPhones. It's quite possible that it's just a bi-product of the firmware upgrade. If you have a hacked phone that's the risk you run, that something may or may not happen when new firmware is released and you update it.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by renny

Thanks for taking my quote out of context. And thanks for ignoring my analogy about the car. But I'll pose the question again, if you modify your car with aftermarket parts, such as installing a turbo on a non-turbo vehicle, do you think the manufacturer will replace your motor if you blow it?

In Europe the phone was released on the O2 network so of course it should work fine, I would think that is common sense and you wouldn't try to argue that point, but I'm sorry I didn't explicitly say that.

At any rate, right now nobody knows whether or not Apple put in code to purposely brick hacked iPhones. It's quite possible that it's just a bi-product of the firmware upgrade. If you have a hacked phone that's the risk you run, that something may or may not happen when new firmware is released and you update it.

I've stated in this thread many times already that messing with the firmware gives you no gaurantees that it will work once you update. So your car analogy I have no problem with. But you explicitly stated that the iPhone was never intended to be used on a non AT&T network. That is not true. It is meant to run on a GSM network. Apple decided to tie themselves to AT&T when it first launches (for two years). So I'm arguing your point that Apple only intended for the iPhone to be used on AT&T, which technologically is incorrect.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I don't get it... Microsoft is sued by everyone and their Grandma for Anti-Trust issues because they dared to ship Windows with it's own integrated internet browser and java environment... even though everyone was completely free to install whatever browser and java environment they wanted to after they bought it.

Yet, Apple is forcing everyone to only use iTunes with their iPods and to only connect to AT&T with their iPhones, but people are treating them like frickin heroes?

Microsoft may have created the worst internet browser in the history of mankind and then pre-installed it on your operating system, but I have yet to hear of a single patch from Windows Update that physically renders your computer's internal hardware completely unusable just because you installed Firefox or Opera or the Java JRE from Sun.

Perspective, people. It's not just a twenty-seven syllable word.

I was reading an article on this a couple of weeks ago from PC World.

Is Apple the New Microsoft?

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

I was reading an article on this a couple of weeks ago from PC World.

Is Apple the New Microsoft?

I am going to go with yes.

[Barnes]

The reasons that Microsoft was sued were ######ed. Believe me, I'm no Microsoft lover but bundling apps does not make you a monopoly. Their heavy handedness when it came to dealing with potential competitors did.

Is Apple the new Microsoft? No

They are becoming the new Sony which is scary as #*&@.

[Burninator]

What exactly makes them the new Sony?

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by kermitology

(snip) It is meant to run on a GSM network. Apple decided to tie themselves to AT&T when it first launches (for two years).

So, here's a thought. Let's say next time it isn't Apple, but me personally, I come up with a phone that will...... let's say make sparks fly out a monkey's butt. Nobody else has that feature, and once its released everybody will want it. Now I approach AT&T and ask them for some help with funding and getting the prottotype ready. With this lawsuit successful, AT&T might tell me that they'd all love to have the sparks flying out the monkey's butt, however they can't keep it proprietary for a certain length of time, so no dice.

And the world is deprived of the spark feature.

Of course Apple has the resources for their own R&D, but why should they not be allowed to team up with somebody? Drug companies do the same thing; and that's for things that save peoples' lives. Should technology not get the same treatment; just because it moves along at a faster pace than other things?

Just throwing this out as Devil's advocate. I understand what you guys are saying, but I can also see the business side of this too.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by ken0042

So, here's a thought. Let's say next time it isn't Apple, but me personally, I come up with a phone that will...... let's say make sparks fly out a monkey's butt. Nobody else has that feature, and once its released everybody will want it. Now I approach AT&T and ask them for some help with funding and getting the prottotype ready. With this lawsuit successful, AT&T might tell me that they'd all love to have the sparks flying out the monkey's butt, however they can't keep it proprietary for a certain length of time, so no dice.

And the world is deprived of the spark feature.

Of course Apple has the resources for their own R&D, but why should they not be allowed to team up with somebody? Drug companies do the same thing; and that's for things that save peoples' lives. Should technology not get the same treatment; just because it moves along at a faster pace than other things?

Just throwing this out as Devil's advocate. I understand what you guys are saying, but I can also see the business side of this too.

But Ken, they do get the same treatment. It is called a patent. You can bet Apple is watching for patent infringement.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Burninator

What exactly makes them the new Sony?

Creating proprietary formats and forcing it upon the consumer.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by ken0042

So, here's a thought. Let's say next time it isn't Apple, but me personally, I come up with a phone that will...... let's say make sparks fly out a monkey's butt. Nobody else has that feature, and once its released everybody will want it. Now I approach AT&T and ask them for some help with funding and getting the prottotype ready. With this lawsuit successful, AT&T might tell me that they'd all love to have the sparks flying out the monkey's butt, however they can't keep it proprietary for a certain length of time, so no dice.

And the world is deprived of the spark feature.

Of course Apple has the resources for their own R&D, but why should they not be allowed to team up with somebody? Drug companies do the same thing; and that's for things that save peoples' lives. Should technology not get the same treatment; just because it moves along at a faster pace than other things?

Just throwing this out as Devil's advocate. I understand what you guys are saying, but I can also see the business side of this too.

See, in this case I'd wager that Apple didn't NEED to tie themselves to AT&T. BUT, they wanted a direct cut of ALL revenue generated by the iPhone (call plans, data plans, all charges) so they tied with AT&T.

Apple is the really hot girl who pretends to love you, but really just wants all your money

[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.

[kermitology]

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.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Creating proprietary formats and forcing it upon the consumer.

That and they have a an interest in controling the entire experience. Apple used to strike a good balance at leaving the option for 3rd party solutions. They now seem to be closing that loop. Not only with the iPhone but with the iPod and certain accessories. Mac OS X.5 has also eliminated development for such programs as pith helemet and OS haxies.

They don't so much as create proprietary formats, the ones they use are open such as PDF for quartz, open gl for 3D, mp4 and h.264 for video, webkit for web and so on and so on. They are also a decent contributer to open source development of the Mach kernel and BSD Unix.

As I said earlier, recent actions are very unapple like.

[CubicleGeek]

Here is a good article that covers many aspects of this "bricking" issue:

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/pr-bluff/...uff-303459.php

In particular, pay attention to the rights that the DMCA clause extends to the end user. It's to protect the user from being sued for copyright infringement (i.e. use of reverse engineered code) and in no way means that Apple is not allowed to void your warranty nor their responsibility to revert the iPhone back to a working state.

Note: This article is from the perspective of the dev team responsible for the unlock and a legal professional interviewed by GizModo, not from Apple.

EDIT: Apple could be sued if it is deemed that there was malicious intent, but is very difficult to prove. More than likely any settlements that are made will be due to Apple wanting to quell a massive PR storm.