Comments on: Slate’s Manjoo on Apple iPhone Regulation

By: iPhone-Google Voice Flap a Reminder of Why DMCA Needs Fixing

iPhone-Google Voice Flap a Reminder of Why DMCA Needs Fixing — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:44:42 +0000

[...] discussed extensively the controversy that recently erupted when Apple rejected the Google Voice application [...]

By: Kevin Donovan

Kevin Donovan — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 13:40:37 +0000

Adam - Sure, there are far more serious contractual obligations for other commercial relationships, but that's certainly to be expected due to the more serious nature of, say, buying a house. (Also, personal mortgages, or at least the leases I've dealt with, are far more flexible and able to be changed than a cut-and-dry contract from a large telcom.)

And while I agree that we should approach government interference with freedom of contract with great suspicion, I'm not as dismissive of the importance of those contracts. For one, although a minority of customers (in which we are included) can certainly tinker with devices, that is (a) no substitute for the truly revolutionary differences that characterize the modern mobile phone market, and (b) not only a way to void the warranty, but also violate the legally binding contract.

By: Kevin Donovan

Kevin Donovan — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 13:32:17 +0000

Not sure what you're actually talking about here, Allen, but I think you're unlikely to be joined by many in your '$200 cancellation fees are a "damn good deal" camp.'

By: Kevin Donovan

Kevin Donovan — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 09:40:37 +0000

By: Kevin Donovan

Kevin Donovan — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 09:32:17 +0000

Not sure what you're actually talking about here, Allen, but I think you're unlikely to be joined by many in your '$200 cancellation fees are a "damn good deal" camp.'

By: Kevin D

Kevin D — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 08:40:37 +0000

By: Kevin D

Kevin D — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 08:32:17 +0000

Not sure what you're actually talking about here, Allen, but I think you're unlikely to be joined by many in your '$200 cancellation fees are a "damn good deal" camp.'

By: Allen Graetz

Allen Graetz — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 23:03:50 +0000

Onerous? Sweet lord, did you throw a fit when you're mom told you to be home by midnight when you 8 years old?

I'd say $200 for a $700 phone in exchange for committing to 2 years of service that I'd have more or less spent the same amount of money even if it wasn't ATT is actually a damn good deal.

By: Adam Thierer

Adam Thierer — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 13:07:55 +0000

Kevin.. I suppose we'd need to agree on a definition of "onerous" before we debated when regulatory agencies should start interfering with -- of nullifying -- freedom of contract. That's not something we should take lightly. Business models and market certainty are built upon freedom of contract. There are far more "onerous" contracts I can think of than the one you sign to get service via your iPhone. Seriously, have you ever seen the stack of contracts they throw in front of you before you can buy a home on mortgage. My god, it's like you are signing away your life and your first born at the same time. I'm one of those dorks that actually reads the fine print and sometimes ask about obscure provisions that, at least on their face, appear "onerous" to me. But I pretty much have to sign them if I want the house. At the end of the day, however, they don't really amount to much of a burden on me. And that's pretty much the same way I feel about some of the sillier clauses I find in service contracts for mobile or broadband service. Many provisions looks silly and unnecessary on their face but don't amount to much in the long run.

Of course, some contractual restrictions really do.. well... restrict! Sometimes we have to accept some curbs on service offerings to make sure the provided will market them at all. There has to be at least a little piece of mind in it for them, too. At the end of the day, many of the most restrictive things will be evaded anyway. There's just no stopping truly determined people (like me) from tinkering with devices and adding functionality. Of course, I've voided just about every warranty I've every had on my electronic devices (and my cars too!) by cracking them opening and tinkering with them from Day 1. But I understand that risk. So such the public. Because the alternative (government nullifying contracts on a whim) has horrific potential consequences for technological innovation.

By: Kevin D

Kevin D — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 07:22:15 +0000

Adam – do you think the onerous contract that is required for an iPhone changes anything?

By: dm

dm — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:39:07 +0000

"We'd stop using Apple products". Or, maybe we'd violate our warranty and jailbreak them:

http://apple.slashdot.org/story/09/08/07/133320...

Four million users of the App store for jailbroken iPhones (some of those are probably iPod Touch owners). To put that number in perspective, Apple has sold 17 million iPhones as of late March (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/032409-ap...).

Having the FCC insist on a level playing field --- the flip side of your "dreaded regulation" --- might also benefit competition. Potential competitors for the iPhone would know that they'd have access to ATT's network, too. It would be a bit like back when the FCC forced the phone company to accept hand-sets that met the technical standards, instead of only (rented) hand sets from Western Electric.

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 01:51:13 +0000

Google and Apple are competitors in the cell phone market, although they have different business models. Google gives their OS and app platform – Android – to hardware manufacturers for free, while Apple give their to themselves for free. Google makes its money from Android by requiring customers to use its on-line applications, such as the contacts in Gmail, in order to use their smart phones. So obviously Apple doesn't want to help Google kill the iPhone by supporting the very applications that are meant to kill it. Is there a federal mandate for cell phone manufacturers to act as if they have a death wish?

Manjoo has clearly lost the fox on this question, and appears to simply argue for Google uber alles instead of making a princpled argument. Where's the outrage for the tie between Android and Gmail?

By: dmarti

dmarti — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:28:44 +0000

On Slashdot, the most common tag is "haha". It's a disgrace that Slate doesn't allow this functionality, since I use it with packets that travel over public airwaves.

I'm going to write the FCC, and ask them to mandate that site that any site running pieces from Apple users whining about Apple must implement tagging, so that non-Apple users can tag them "haha".

You're the ones who got on the Steve Jobs bus, so either sit down and shut up, or get off.