Ben Scott <[email protected]> wrote on 05/18/2009 05:36:57 PM: > Ultimately, that's still arguing that when the carrier limits > functionality, it's evil, but when Apple does so, it's okay.
I never said any such thing, but thanks for assuming. I am satisfied enough with what Apple has restricted that I am willing to use their product. I think it's extremely disingenuous for people to criticize Apple/ATT for locking down features and then not bothering to notice things like the Blackberry outright missing WiFi on the Verizon version - purely because the carrier demanded it. > You're implicitly accepting whatever limits > Apple sets when you buy their hardware. Sure. Same as with any other manufacturer. No one is holding a gun to my head and forcing me to buy Apple (or anyone else) > Can you use a Bluetooth keyboard with the iPhone yet? For a long > time, you couldn't. Can you use one not made by Apple? Nope, you still can't. But I think that has more to do with the immaturity of their bluetooth stack then some overt control-based conspiracy. But conspiracies are always more exciting, no? If Apple were such the control freak, why would they be opening the dock connector in the 3.0 SDK? > I've read or been told that in certain areas of the world, where the > GSM platform is ubiquitous and carriers don't have the option to lock > customers/SIMs to handsets, there is extensive selection of phones, > with a wide spectrum of prices and capabilities. It's common to > theorize that because of the freer market, there's a lot more choice, > to the benefit of both the customers and the overall market. Sure, but that's not the US market. Never has been. It might be someday, ironically because of the iPhone. The iPhone is the first phone, at least in the US, where it was designed for you and me, the end users. All other US based phones before it weren't designed for us, they were designed for the Wireless carriers. Motorola didn't work for you and me, they worked for Verizon, Singular, Sprint, etc. Apple, for the first time, successfully broke that model. The offered to Verizon first, but Verizon being the real control freaks refused to cede the control so Apple went to AT&T. AT&T didn't even SEE the iPhone until two weeks before it shipped. That was a huge leap of faith, a total break from tradition and because of that I have no problem with AT&T being rewarded with an exclusive deal with Apple. They SHOULD be rewarded for breaking with tradition and shifting control of the hardware and software more to end user. Is it perfect? No. But AT&T has done more then any other US carrier for customer choice with the iPhone and I don't think they get a fraction of the credit they deserve for it. It was a very bold and non-traditional move - a thing that is not often rewarded in the corporate world. Verizon sure as heck never would have made such a move on their own (indeed, they refused first). They are only now "talking" with Apple because they have been FORCED to by competition. They look like chumps right now, and rightfully so. As you are correct to point out, customer choice benefits the market far more. Maybe they will finally get it but I'm not optimistic. The record companies *still* don't get it. Eric Eskam =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= The contents of this message are mine personally and do not reflect any position of the U.S. Government "The human mind treats a new idea the same way the body treats a strange protein; it rejects it." - P. B. Medawar ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
