Seems to me Apple is getting lynched in blogs, online forums and the news media.

Seems to me just a little hypocritical. Any electronic device comes with the warning that unauthorized use or opening the case may void the warranty. Microsoft would have been lynched and you would be leading the mob. Bottom line, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are laughing all the way to the bank. Boo hoo.

So you say... but MS does this sort of update with the XBox which "breaks" hacked versions and there's no uproar.

Get over it - realize the iPhone is a closed device. I'm loving my Treo with Windows Mobile, touch screen and full keyboard...

Microsoft is a monopoly. Apple is not. That's the difference. When you have to do what the seller wants you to and he's the only one in the market that's bad. When you have a choice among scores of sellers that's a free market.

@Greg Smith: As far as I know they do not brick the 360's just take away your live access and account for violating it. You may still use it to do illegal activities, it just won't do them in their controlled Live environment.

Anyhow, I am of the opinion that companies should be able to control their products and what software is run on them. After all it is their image to be upheld. I don't see what Apple is doing as something wrong as long as they warn the user of what is happening and allow them an easy way to set it back to the way it was meant. Otherwise you will end up with viruses and everything else. Their must be control

Hoozdaar when is a company a monopoly? Is it when a company owns 80%+ of a specific area? Windows owns more then 80% of the OS market. If you say yes, then apple is a monopoly since Apple owns more then 80% of the MP3 market.

@Hoozdaar

Apple not a monopoly? you need to check your figures!

iPod + iTunes = Monopoly!
Apple Tv + iTunes = Monopoly!
iMacs/iBooks etc + Mac OSX = Monopoly! plus their computer are not customizable!

Both Apple and especially Google have engaged in [recent] practices, that if Microsoft had done, it would have been World War III. Google gets away with it cause it's still honey moon... and bc everybody wants weaken Microsoft.... and Apple bc nobody really cares...

I am not a lawyer, but this much I understand:

When I pay full price for a phone ($400, with no carrier subsidy), I own it. I can sell it, give it away, or brick it, and Apple can't stop me from doing any of those things.

But to use that phone, I must use the iPhone software, including the operating system, that I do NOT own, but license it from Apple according to terms specified in a binding contract between me and Apple.

If I then choose to install non-sanctioned software on that phone, I knowingly break that legally binding contract.

If I then willingly choose to get MORE software from Apple, despite clear and advance warning that it may damage phones that have run afoul of the contract, and go ahead and accept the license terms for the upgrade software, I forfeit all right to complain.

If I whine anyway, and try to bad-mouth Apple for MY failure to honor the contract that I entered into, and Apple refuses to coddle me by unbricking my phone, I switch to the Nokia N95, and use my column as the bully pulpit to tell the world how wrong Apple is.

Microsoft gets rapped for creating closed systems, but at least the company engages and encourages third-party development. Microsoft realizes the importance of choice.

What was that sound of Netscape asphyxiating from Microsoft cutting off its oxygen supply? Ever heard of DR DOS? I could go on and on, but since you write for a column called Microsoft Watch, I assume you must already know that.

You did the right thing. Don't buy an iPhone if you don't want the experience Apple has intended for it.

But also, you should quit whining about it. The competition's phones let you do everything you want anyway. And for those who don't need the homogeneity in a phone (or parity with every other phone), the iPhone is well suited.

Apple Fanboys feel honored to have Steve Jobs spit in their face.(grin) Seriously, they have so much "fan loyalty" that they willingly allow themselves to be abused.

Bottom Line: If you want choice, avoid Apple products.

@micky and Wilcox

I don't accept that Apple is getting lynched. I think the brouhaha is blogger's getting away with themselves and the minority hacker contingent throwing a fit.

The hackers know better, they undertook their venture at their own risk. As for the bloggers. There's ulterior motives to make this into a bigger deal than it is.

There's no legal footing against Apple and 1 million plus iPhone users are not complaining.

It's just FUD.

@JohnJ

I see this brouhaha means it's open season to say insulting things about people you don't know.

No one is getting spit in their face.

The bottom line is: if you want choice consider all your options. For some it's an iPhone, for others it's a hacker's heaven (or a consumer's nightmare).

Wilcox writes: "If Microsoft had taken such action, there would have been scathing headlines over the weekend."

But Apple does not have 95% control of a market in which it's wares (hard or soft) are distributed by de fact without question. That's the case for Microsoft worldwide with Windows.

There is no network control that Apple exerts. You were able to move to another phone. Just as you're able to move to another MP3 player.

Apply the correct definition of a monopoly and then you'll know what the difference between Apple and Microsoft is.

You buy an iPhone, that you cannot change carrier and cannot install third party software. Xm...Imagine, buying Windows on specific only hardware, with specific limited software provided by Microsoft (i.e office)..
Xm....even i can make a stable a fast system with that kind of specs....
I am only making the comparison just to pin point 2 thinks. First, who creates "closed" and who creates "open" systems is not that obvious anymore and secondly how harder it is to create something that is available and therefore able to protect itself on virtually any Hardware (that implements some driver spec) and any third-party (potentially mis-behaved) software. Microsoft and Apple are on the opposite ends on this philosophy and the winner is obvious...

Jesus, I didn't realize things were that bad in the US regarding cellphones.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/breaking/how-to-unbrick-an-iphone-confirmed-apps-are-back-but-unlocked-phones-still-cant-call-305230.php
Quote:
"Only three days after Apple killed it, the JesusPhone walks again, but it doesn't talk again [UPDATE: actually it talks, see our breaking news]: By downgrading your firmware from 1.1.1 to 1.0.2 using the method below, all iPhones can get use of third party apps, but If you have an unlocked iPhone, there's still no way to dial."

"Last Saturday we reported on how to unbrick an unlocked iPhone. Today we have discovered that you can send and receive calls, SMS and mails too, as well as surf the web with it. However, to do it you must have used IPSF paid software to unlock your iPhone (like they claimed) or use a TurboSIM card, which just works straight away."
--------
Really, DRM and similars, have not future.

This is amusing.
iPhone buyers would be in an uproar if Apple didn't provide security updates or more features to their $400 phone.
Yet, when Apple does just that (and beforehand, warns said buyers that they shouldn't violate their user agreement if they want these updates to work properly) out come all the whiners.
Apple can't win.

great FAIR article joe. I appreciate the thought that went into it.

Apple is a monopolist of their platform, in a way that Microsoft cant even IMAGINE.

@boo

At 6% market share, who really cares about Apple's platform? It's nothing compared to Microsoft's strangle hold on 95% of the hardware vendor market share.

You complain that Apple is a monopolist of THEIR platform. That's oxymoronic. In order to support something a company has to be in control of it. You wouldn't hold Chevy accountable if you put a Ferrari engine in a brand new Corvette. Chevy would tell you to go to a Ferrari specialist to fix the engine. So go to Erica Sadun with your iPhone problems. She's the one popularizing the iPhone hacking idea.

The problem with the iPhone is that the hacker community who heard it was running OS X thought they could treat it like a Mac computer. Well, gee wiz, Apple actually meant it when they said that it's a multimedia phone. Nothing more, nothing less.

The hackers are going to have to hold their horses until Apple comes out with the UMPC that everyone is expecting they'll be releasing soon. Being more like a computer, I expect it will be very hackable.

People who paid for the iPhone OWN it. Apple has no right to brick it any more than GM has the right to disable your car because you put a third party oil filter in it.

Perhaps its because apple does suck as much as MS?

If MS actually innovated for a change, then perhaps they might have some brand loyalty.

And dont stand and preach about DRM where other articles on this site support Vista - the O/S with built DRM ?

---* Bill

Maddog: Your argument only holds water if you don't expect Apple to add any free improvements to your OWNED phone.
GM would never offer you an upgrade to better braking, a change to the engine for better gas mileage, or a change from manual windows to power for free, yet you expect Apple to do so?

To Unrepentant iPhone User.

In the EU it is mandatory for the Network providers to provide an unlock code on request. Therefore in the EU you are able to have a legally unlocked iPhone, no hacking required.

This authorisation to unlock comes directly from the manufacturer and the network provider. If you have a legally unlocked iPhone as is your statuary rights then Apple cannot release an update that Bricks or relocks your legally unlocked phone.

Quoting EULA's is not going to hold water in a court in the EU because the Judge would point Apple in the direction of the legislation that expressly allows consumers to have unlocked phones. EULA's are not law. In anything EULA's have to be written with respect to the law in the host country if the EULA's wish to remain legal. Otherwise Apple will find themselves in court for having illegal EULA's.

Also, if an EULA is merely a contract, then you can freely challenge that contract in a courtroom for being too restrictive or being unfair. You cannot just write an EULA that effectively waivers the consumers staturary rights.

One final thing, even if you do break the EULA and Apple breaks your phone because you did something which breaks the terms of their contract (and not the law) then of course you still have grounds to complain. Whatever happened to having freedom of speech?

Unrepentant iPhone User - "...and use my column as the bully pulpit to tell the world how wrong Apple is."
And might I commend Joe for doing so. People who bought their iPhones were woefully and wilfully ignorant of the terms on which they bought them BUT, now that they're waking up, it's a good thing that Joe (and anyone else) is playing "alarm clock" and waking them from their slumber ASAP.
The more people that sell their iPhones the better, because then Apple will realise what a monumental mistake they've made in being such bastards to their own customers. The fact that so many people signed a bad contract does not turn that contract into a good one.
I'm in Australia, so it's not like I had a choice, but perhaps it was the clarity of distance that allowed me to realise that signing people to a 24-month contract for an unsubsidized phone on which 3rd-party applications were barred was a recipe for disaster. As such, when the iPhone comes out here, I will stay the heck away from it until it is made available to consumers on consumer-friendly terms.
The point is, you can give people a bad deal, and they can accept it. When it goes bad for them (as it invariably does), they are well within their rights to yell from the highest rooftop in their loudest voice: "This is a terrible deal, I have been a fool and you will be one too if you sign up!"

Apple is being raked over the the coals in the blogosphere and the media over this. So the point that "Microsoft would get reamed while Apple gets away with it" by Joe holds no water whatsoever.

And, indeed, it is worse when MS does it, because they have a monopoly over 95% of the PC hardware market. If MS does it, many consumers (who are afraid of change with operating systems) don't have a choice. When Apple does it, the consumer can easily get rid of his/her iPhone, and get a Nokia or other similar product.

Regardless, knowing that both MS and Apple fanbois will flame me for this, both MS and Apple, and their products suck. Both companies are extremely arrogant and not consumer focused, and put out products and services that reflect that attitude.

Which is why I usually prefer things like Linux and other open source software, or products that use them, or simply proprietary products that are much more customer focused and embrace open standards.

Heck, I work for a small proprietary software company, so certainly I'm not against proprietary software - I make a living and support my family with it. But open source software definitely changes the game. It brings in more choice, and respects the end user's rights, and is focused on putting out great products that people want to use, and are happy with. Open source products can't lock people in, so, if they want anyone to use their stuff, they have to put out good stuff that people like. Sure, Linux and FOSS are far from perfect. But it improves rapidly, and it always has to, otherwise, it falls into irrelevancy.

@ HG, who wrote: "At 6% market share, who really cares about Apple's platform? It's nothing compared to Microsoft's strangle hold on 95% of the hardware vendor market share."

Umm, where did you learn how to add? How can Apple have 6% market share and Microsoft have 95% market share? That's 101%. Then add a point or two for Linux that get you to 102-103% out of 100% market share. LOL.

But if you consider the marker share for this area - Media Players, Apple shipped over 41 million iPods vs. about 1 million Zunes last year. Who has a monopoly? Then there is the smart phone market with BlackBerry, Palm, Linux and now Apple which together selling more devices than Windows Moblie phones. You still think they are a monopoly?

I love how everyone like quotes market figures without ever checking them or updating them in the last 10 years. Of course, if you someone hears something enough times they typically start to believe it, even when it's not true. I see it everyday.

@ jeff: as you mention, open standards is not the same as open source. This being said Microsoft has many products that support, even embrace open standards. They also have an interop agreements with several linux vendors now - SuSe, Linspire, XenSource - developing standards and providing the abiltiy to enhance software's - MS and non-MS software - capabilities user and administrators experience.

@ jeff: as you mention, open standards is not the same as open source. This being said Microsoft has many products that support, even embrace open standards

I love how everyone like quotes market figures without ever checking them or updating them in the last 10 years

I love how everyone like quotes market figures without ever checking them or updating them in the last 10 years

Regardless, knowing that both MS and Apple fanbois will flame me for this, both MS and Apple, and their products suck. Both companies are extremely arrogant and not consumer focused, and put out products and services that reflect that attitude.

I'm loving my Treo with Windows Mobile, touch screen and full keyboard.

Well, gee wiz, Apple actually meant it when they said that it's a multimedia phone. Nothing more, nothing less.

When Apple does it, the consumer can easily get rid of his/her iPhone, and get a Nokia or other similar product.

I'm loving my Treo with Windows Mobile, touch screen and full keyboard.!!