There was another part that you omitted "and your channel".
Or did people buy that also?
When Apple sells you an iPhone, it ceases to become their phone and becomes your phone. You're not leasing it, you aren't renting it, you've paid for it and it's yours.
This is somewhat orthogonal to the original point, which was that Apple is free to reject whatever applications they like from their application delivery channel, just as I'm free to choose my clients, but it's important to remember.
> It's not Apple's duty to make it easier for you by building
> a boot loader into the device [...]"
But all of those people already have that right. So the complaint is: Apple is required to do more to allow me to do things I can't manage on my own.
It is an implicit claim that Apple is duty bound to provide features that Apple has no interest in providing.
My toaster doesn't make ice, nor does it heat my living room. Simply because I own the toaster doesn't mean there is any logic in my complaining that the manufacturer didn't provide a means for me to do those things with my toaster. If the toaster manufacturer decides there is a market it wants to be in for a toaster that makes ice, it can build that toaster. It's not obligated to build that ice-making toaster even if there is a huge market for it.
Not legally. A limited amount of iPhone jailbreaking has been exempted under the DMCA, but that won't absolve you for the offense of trafficking in the tools to do so. And there are a million other EULAs and such that at least purport to take away that very right. IANAL, but I've seen people dragged into court over them. Whether or not they're legal is pretty much academic if you have to go through the expense of fighting it out in court against a giant company.
The point is that the vendors are taking away our legal right to do all these things and occasionally adding some screw-you technology to make them technically difficult as well. They're not passively thwarting your ability to do what you like, they're actively opposing it both technically and legally and that's why people worry.
My response has been not to buy devices like that and to boycott those vendors wholesale, but the way the market is going, that's not going to be possible forever. We need a good first sale type right to eliminate all this nonsense.
We would never have made it this far if those nonsense book licenses that publishers tried back in the day had actually been successful.
While I suppose that people wouldn't have this problem if they were using it as, say, a doorstop, that's not really the issue people are having here.
The claim "I bought the hardware, I own it, therefore I should be able to do what I want with it and Apple is preventing me", which is the general argument being made, is fundamentally false. You bought the hardware, you own it and you can do what you want with it.
You have to jailbreak an iPhone to install other software, or so claims PC World. That's definitely a technical barrier, just like I explained. And a legal one, with the DMCA "trafficking" problem. Having established that their opposition is not merely passive, your complaint rings hollow, unless when you said that, you were trying to say that they were less than upfront about disclosing the restrictions?
No link will be given to those instructions. They're incredibly easy to find, but I don't want to run afoul of the nebulous contributory infringement claims like "inducement." My recommendation is for people like me with a problem with this to avoid buying the products to begin with. It's the approach I have selected.
That's not the manufacturers problem.
The govt has already declared that jail breaking your phone is legal.
That's a terrible argument to make in Apple's case:
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110125/0207...
It wasn't accidental, necessary or even cheaper to make the iPhone require a jailbreak before you could install your own stuff, after all.
> The govt has already declared that jail breaking your phone is legal.
That's a very misleading way to put it.
I already explained why the Librarian of Congress' exemption for jailbreaking an iPhone is useless because they do not (and cannot) exempt anyone from the ban on trafficking in such tools.
You can read more about how the DMCA works here: http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/blakereid/new-dmca-exe...
Hopefully that will be enough that you can understand why the Librarian of Congress wrote, "Nor is this rulemaking about the ability to make or distribute products or services used for purposes of circumventing access controls, which are governed by a different part of section 1201."
Source: http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/Librarian-of-Congress-120...
That's the statement in which the Librarian of Congress exempted people from the ban on circumvention (but not trafficking) things like iPhones. The specific phone exemption is exemption #2.
Now then, how does one jailbreak an iPhone legally if they're not allowed to make or distribute the means to do so?
If you read the Freedom to Tinker article, you'll remember that the DMCA says that you cannot "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof" that is "primarily designed" to circumvent, has only "limited commercially significant" non-circumvention purposes, or is "marketed" for circumvention purposes.
That word "manufacture" is the sticky one, not that you can't run afoul of the others. Damn hard to circumvent things when you can neither make nor import the tools to do so.
The DMCA is one big catch-22. Claiming that the government has declared this legal is very dangerous. IANAL and you need proper legal advice before dealing with this stuff.
I solve it by not owning an iPhone in the first place.
> There is no reason for the channel to be Apple's
If you had the option of buying apps through another channel, this wouldn't be a problem. Most people don't have much of a problem with any of the Android Market's policies, since you can install other apps or even other markets on your own phone if you so choose.
Why don't you just remove Apple's software and install your own?
You are correct that consumer EULAs haven't really been tested in court, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. This isn't about the EULA. Apple is not stopping you from putting a third party app store on the device. They are stopping you from putting a third party app store on the stock iOS. If you jailbreak, then you can put Cydia on it.
And who is this larger segment that benefits from this decision (besides Apple employees and shareholders)? Is there a group of people who hate to have the chance to use Readability?
The only viable channel at this point is Apple's. If there were a way to access non-Apple blessed applications without rooting your device, then people might not complain so much. Savvy consumers don't appreciate monopolies.
That said, Readability's claim that this "smacks of greed" is totally right. Apple is not acting in its users' best interest, because more than other moves, this actually affects their developers' business models, and it's going to drive high quality, innovative apps away from the App Store.
There are two viable moves Apple can make:
1) Allow subscriptions outside the app without requiring one in the app
OR
2) Lowering the 30% fee for in-app subscriptions
Both of these options keep value in the App Store while providing Apple with some benefit. If they don't adopt one of these, the long term viability of the App Store is in jeopardy.
Comparing the iOS with a magazine is slightly disingenuous because the scale is much so larger.
I think all markets should involve a certain amount of freedom - and Apple's decision making process actively inhibits market freedom.
EDIT: iOS/App Store
The "global marketplace" is the one in which you can purchase a piece of hardware, install software of your choice on that hardware (albeit sometimes with a great deal of effort), possibly licensed from a third party (again, albeit sometimes with a great deal of effort).
Apple sells a service - they make it easier to install certain software on the hardware you purchased (from them, although that's irrelevant), to the extent of pre-installing iOS and various applications, and they facilitate discovery of individuals willing to license software to the owner of the hardware and transactions between said individuals and the owner of the hardware.
They are free to provide or not provide this service as they see fit.
If you really believe that Apple should provide this services gratis to developers as some kind of latter-day addition to the Bill of Rights, perhaps you should lobby the government to purchase the App Store infrastructure and oversee it instead?
Comparing the iOS with a magazine is slightly disingenuous because the scale is much so larger.
All of his points map exactly onto TV stations. Is that large enough scale for you?
It's a bit naive to state that people have choice - because if you have a iOS based device, you (effectively) only have one place to make purchases. Jail-breaking and third-party software sources are beyond the reach of most consumers.
For all intents, if you have an iOS based device, the AppStore is your marketplace - and it is a marketplace which trades globally.
--
"All of his points map exactly onto TV stations. Is that large enough scale for you?"
A TV station purchases or licenses content on behalf of their customers. Apple doesn't operate in this way.
I honestly believe the most useful analogy is a 'marketplace' - however, if this is accepted, perhaps Apple's policies seem more disagreeable than they do if 'tv station' or 'magazine' is used as a comparison. Maybe this is why Apple's supporters seem unkeen to make the comparison?
--
"If you really believe that Apple should provide this services gratis to developers as some kind of latter-day addition to the Bill of Rights, perhaps you should lobby the government to purchase the App Store infrastructure and oversee it instead?"
I think Apple should be forced to allow third party App Stores.
If you think that's something most consumers would desire and are incapable of achieving, then go into business jailbreaking iPhones. You can install an app store while you're at it.
I think Apple should be forced to allow third party App Stores.
Again, they can't stop you. Open up a brick-and-mortar store where you jailbreak iPhones and put your own app store on the iPhone. Sell kits online.
I honestly believe the most useful analogy is a 'marketplace'
What does 'marketplace' even mean? If you're selling stock on the NYSE, someone's collecting vig. If you're selling consumer goods at a mall, someone's collecting rent. If you're selling something on Amazon, they're collecting vig. How does calling it a 'marketplace' support your argument when just about every privately owned 'marketplace' involves someone collecting vig?
- however, if this is accepted, perhaps Apple's policies seem more disagreeable than they do if 'tv station' or 'magazine' is used as a comparison. Maybe this is why Apple's supporters seem unkeen to make the comparison?
Apple supporter? I am an Android phone owner who is keen to know why you don't buy an Android device, and write apps for it.
What this all boils down to is that consumers are perfectly capable of escaping lock-in and installing whatever software for which they can get a license. However, they both trust Apple's imprimatur enough and value individual apps lowly enough that they don't. Consumers don't want <app> enough to venture outside of Apple's convenient payment and discovery service. You are attempting to disguise this reality by saying that Apple restricts the consumer's choice, but this is a canard. <App> is simply not compelling enough for most consumers to jailbreak their phones, or buy Android, to get it.
Users own the iPhones bought. Therefore Apple should either let users subscribe to third-party channels, or release their channel in the hands of users (i.e. let them approve or ban apps).
Otherwise, if there will ever come a day when Apple will have a monopoly on his hands, a big lawsuit will also happen.
And really, I can see why Apple wants to control their channel, but why should I be restricted to their channel only? Why should I jailbreak my phone, which is dependent on kernel / various other exploits and risk bricking my device and losing the warranty if I want to be freed from Apple's channel?
It's just another service, separate from the phone, you're free to use it, or not use it.
The answer to your why's is probably "because they can".
iOS is a platform for third-party apps. That's how it's now sold (right on their website: "The world’s largest collection of mobile apps").
That's a lock-in mechanism. Switching between phones with no third-party apps is a lot cheaper that switching between the iPhone and a Blackberry.
They could do this if they wouldn't have allowed any third-party apps at all; if the popularity of the platform for third-party apps wouldn't be one of the reasons iPhones are selling like crazy.
And I also don't get this apologetic behavior from people in regards to Apple's actions. Do you miss the 90s when all you could use and target was Microsoft's OS? Do you miss the whims of Microsoft and the iron grip they had on the industry?
What, do you feel too much freedom of choice now? You think it's unhealthy or something?