Apple may be considering even more extreme moves with the iPhone.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...ve-bricks.html
Quote:
|
Apple will actively work against any SIM unlocks of the iPhone, says Apple CEO Steve Jobs. Jobs made the comments during a Q&A session that took place after yesterday's press event in London announcing availability details of the iPhone in the UK. When asked by a journalist whether unlocking was a concern for the company, Jobs said, "It's a constant cat and mouse game," according to ComputerWorld's account of the discussion. "We try to stay ahead. People will try to break in, and it's our job to stop them breaking in."
|
Interestingly, whether they brick the unlocked phones or not, Jobs definitely says he's on a mission to fight against unlocking. Yet there's no outcry.
But in Apple's defense, everyone seems to be in agreement that the real obstacle to progress and consumer joy is the oppressive policies and control of the carriers. Apple may only be doing what ATT is requiring of them. Or... it might just be that Apple wants their cut of carrier service subscriptions.
Quote:
Apple's stance on stopping hackers is different depending on the hack. When it came to hacking the Apple TV and introducing the first set of native iPhone applications—something that cannot be done the "legit" way because of Apple's lack of a formal SDK for developers—Apple took a neutral stance. Apple's Greg Joswiak said last week that Apple wouldn't stop anyone from writing the apps or actively work against them, but the company would also not make an effort not to break the hacks when releasing its own software updates. After all, the hacks are not officially supported.
But when it comes to SIM unlocking the iPhone, the game changes drastically. Although Apple has less to lose by customers unlocking the device than AT&T, the company is bound by its contract to AT&T to do what it can to ensure that customers use the designated carrier. And Apple does have something to lose—the company is widely known to be getting a cut of subscription fees from AT&T for each person that buys and uses an iPhone. While it's unclear exactly how much Apple gets per customer, analyst estimates amount to millions of dollars per year in subscription fees going directly to Apple.
|
But my point is not to say whether Apple is right or wrong. It's to mention it because Apple seems to get away with it. If Sony or Palm or MS or others were to do the same thing, what would be the reaction?