Apple Wants Patents For Crippling Cellphones 371
theodp writes "Evil is in the eye of the beholder, but there's certainly not much to like in the newly-disclosed Apple patent applications for Systems and Methods for Provisioning Computing Devices. Provisioning, says Apple, allows carriers to 'specify access limitations to certain device resources which may otherwise be available to users of the device.' So what problem are we trying to solve here? 'Mobile devices often have capabilities that the carriers do not want utilized on their networks,' explains Apple. 'Various applications on these devices may also need to be restricted.'"
Confirmed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Confirmed (Score:5, Funny)
"Your cell phone sucks. It doesn't use all of its potential, so you are infringing on our patent and you owe us money."
Re:Confirmed (Score:5, Funny)
I hope they get this patent. Then I won't have to deal with any of this crippleware B.S. anymore, as long as I don't buy a phone from Apple.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Apple sucks" and "Apple worse than Microsoft" = guaranteed mod points.
So how is Apple worse than Microsoft exactly?
Re:Confirmed (Score:5, Insightful)
"Apple sucks" and "Apple worse than Microsoft" = guaranteed mod points.
So how is Apple worse than Microsoft exactly?
I think we're only hearing this from people who weren't alive during the 90s.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's what they want you to think. Just wait till those bits turn off. Suddenly YOUR files belong to THEM.
---
Well I guess I could have written --------- but that might not have been as clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny - I've never felt any great need to own an iPhone. But, now that I know Apple is capable of crippling and/or killing an iPhone, I feel this urge to run out and get one. Now, I know that if my iPhone tries to suck my brains out, Apple can prevent it. /sarcasm
Re:Confirmed (Score:5, Insightful)
This can only mean the iPhone is coming to Verizon!
Verizon was my first cellphone carrier. I can only guess your comment has been modded by non-customers of Verizon - otherwise you'd be at +5 insightful instead.
Seriously, anyone else remember when Verizon FINALLY offered their first Bluetooth phone (V700 I think)? Almost all of the useful Bluetooth features were disabled - when pushed, Verizon claimed it was "for security purposes"; yet they conveniently offered those same features for an outrageous fee through their own silly program. That was when I switched to T-Mobile - they're not perfect by a long shot, but at least their not overtly hostile towards their customers. With T-Mobile I could... GASP... use Bluetooth to sync my Mac's addressbook with my phone! Move pictures to and from my phone! Do my own ringtones! What a concept...
I've heard a lot of speculation about the iPhone going to Verizon next - I really hope it's not true. If anyone can kill the iPhone, it'll be Verizon. Hmm... I wonder if Microsoft has thought about that...
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
On one hand, the patent enables the horrible constraints that the telcos seem to feel they have to exercise to prevent feature use.
On the other hand, the telcos might not want to implement it because they'd have to pay royalities to Apple.
Oh, wait....
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
... will now play the Imperial March ....
My phone does that now -- but only when my ex-wife calls.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Mine plays [the Imperial March] for my current wife.
Complaining already, eh? You better pray that she doesn't alter the agreement any further.
Queue Verizon talk in... (Score:2)
Re:Queue Verizon talk in... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Queue Verizon talk in... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You guys are dorks
That is hardly news (Score:5, Funny)
When most phones, including the iPhone, come into contact with anything Apple, they become crippled.
At least we can officially call it: The Apple Effect.
"defectivebydesign" (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually I like that pretty much ! (Score:2)
Thanks Apple !
Re: (Score:2)
That's just what I was thinking. Maybe if we can get these companies to start patenting things that make life hard, other companies will be less inclined to implement said feature... The consumer wins!
Leave Apple Alone! (Score:5, Funny)
They're just patenting this defect so they can sue anyone that would try to harm us.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Spoken like a Tru(TM) Fanboi!
No, apparently I'm a windows fanboi [slashdot.org] this week.
I'll forgive your misjudgment though, since someone modded the Apple comment insightful.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, I think we need an option to mod posts as sarcastic.
ridiculous... but good (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple and any inventor should be ashamed to put their name on such a crappy patent; there is not a bit on an idea in there.
However, if this serves to keep others from implementing carrier-based restrictions, I'm all for it: implementing this is going to hurt Apple and help everybody else.
Re:ridiculous... but good (Score:4, Informative)
However, if this serves to keep others from implementing carrier-based restrictions, I'm all for it: implementing this is going to hurt Apple and help everybody else.
That was exactly my first thought. However, you know it's not going to go down like that, because everyone else is going to want the feature. Instead, all the phones will end up with the feature anyway, and you'll just pay more for Apple's licensing fee.
Re: (Score:2)
THIS got modded Insightful?!
1> The patent isn't on the idea of restricting phones, it's on a specific method.
2> No, it doesn't stop carriers from placing restrictions. Nothing ever will.
I guess actually understanding an issue before commenting is beyond the free-beer-trolls.
Are They Really Unable to Cap You? (Score:4, Insightful)
Either there's something about the potential abuse of cell phones on networks or Apple just wants another patent. Probably both.
All I ask of Apple (or anyone really) is that -- if they implement this patent on a phone -- they advertise this "feature" and stay true to the numbers of what you can expect out of your potentially crippled device. My biggest problem with my ISP is that they flat out lie to me about what I'm paying for. When I see things like "unlimited data plan" on cell phones I can only laugh
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, the networks are probably different but can't they institute a cap and just let my phone slow to a crawl due to limited bandwidth while everyone else doesn't even notice my usage? Are the cell phone networks really that helpless in that they cannot cap usages on cell phones?
No they can't. There's no way the network can prevent your phone from sending as much data as it wants. It can refuse to pass all of that data on to the internet, but by then it's too late, your phone has already taken up the wireless bandwidth. The only way to throttle your iPhone's "upload" usage is to put software on the iPhone that does it. They can throttle your download usage, but that would have little effect on a web server app.
Re:Are They Really Unable to Cap You? (Score:4, Informative)
No they can't. There's no way the network can prevent your phone from sending as much data as it wants. It can refuse to pass all of that data on to the internet, but by then it's too late, your phone has already taken up the wireless bandwidth. The only way to throttle your iPhone's "upload" usage is to put software on the iPhone that does it. They can throttle your download usage, but that would have little effect on a web server app.
Umm... Since the radio bandwidth allocation is mediated by the network, not the phone, there is nothing stopping the network simply not giving you that bandwidth. For example, in WCDMA the network hands out one or more PRNs to the device on the fly, to meet the device's bandwidth demands. The more PRNs you have allocated to you, the more bandwidth you get. Of course, the more devices there are wanting to use bandwidth, the more thinly those PRNs are spread between them. So if you have a misbehaving device, the network can simply stop allocating (as many) PRNs to it. Of course, whether they have the infrastructure in place to exercise this amount of control over the network is another question, but from a technical standpoint there is no reason why they can't do this.
So sure, the network can't ask your IP stack to stop chucking out UDP packets (or various other protocols) as fast, but it can throttle you in the data link layer.
As far as your web server example goes, that _is_ trivial to throttle at the IP level anywhere along the route - start chucking away a proportion of the TCP packets and the TCP stack will throttle back the transfer rate.
I use the iPhone Configuration Utility... (Score:3, Insightful)
...on my own personal iPhone. Why? Well, it's easier than remembering how to hook it up to the 5 Google calendars I need it to sync and edit...
Yeah. Just one phone. I don't have to be a big corporation to find tools like that useful.
This makes me evil, right?
I have issue with Apple's "their network" claim (Score:2)
It is not "their" network. It is hosted on the radio frequencies effectively leased to them by the FCC which is ultimately owned by "we the people."
With all that said, it is within the rights of the property owners to determine how the leased property can be used. I find that it is past time that the FCC or even congress enact rules that prevent carriers from harming consumers in much the same way that Bell Telephone abused consumers.
Apple, it is not for the carriers to say what specific services are enab
Re: (Score:2)
It is not "their" network. It is hosted on the radio frequencies effectively leased to them by the FCC which is ultimately owned by "we the people."
You're retarded. The FCC leased them access to radio frequencies; they, however, have their own hardware for everything else. It reaches the cell phone, comes down a wire, to their CO, and enters the POTS just like your land line. This is like saying you own your phone line, so your ISP shouldn't be able to restrict what you can send over YOUR network when you dial in.. i.e. you're retarded.
Re: (Score:2)
I know... I shouldn't respond to this but I will anyway. Without the radio frequency lease, they don't have a network. It is the most critical component of their business operating model. The FCC is the governing body for that component.
The same arguments could have been and likely were offered as excuses why Bell Telephone should be able to dictate what equipment is used on the phone networks and in fact, it is demonstrable that they owned a great deal more physical aspects of their phone network than w
Re: (Score:2)
I know... I shouldn't respond to this but I will anyway. Without the radio frequency lease, they don't have a network. It is the most critical component of their business operating model. The FCC is the governing body for that component.
Oh okay, I get you. The Sun is a universal resource and owned by all of us, so anything sunlight falls on should automatically belong to We, the People, and not be so-called "Private Property" bullshit that Corporate Greed wants you to believe in.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Maybe I'm paranoid, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Maybe I'm paranoid, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
The secret no one is supposed to talk about is that "management" is where all the money is going. Whether it is government, health care, education, telecommunications, insurance... you name it. All the money is going to the middle men who don't know how do anything but push papers and write contracts. There is no value added by these people at all. The health care industry is just full of people working in "business" areas. When I lived in Indianapolis an office I went to when I was sick had I think 3 doctors and about 12 people working in the office in various positions. Health insurance companies are chock full of people who know almost nothing but are making huge checks. Public school districts have huge multi-story "administration" buildings full of people who don't teach. That's where all the money is going... start hiring people who actually know some stuff and actually contribute to the bottom line and we'll start to move in the right direction again.
Re:Maybe I'm paranoid, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
...does anyone else ever get the feeling that there is a whole cabal of businesses, government organizations, etc, out there just trying to monetize the piss out of them? Monetized content, monetized hardware, monetized media...there is too much monetization...
There - fixed that for you.
Differentiation is good (Score:4, Interesting)
If you don't like a company crippling a product, what are the alternatives?
Well, one alternative is that the company couple sell different physical products with the different capabilities. Of course, that would increase costs, so both the crippled and uncrippled versions would cost more.
Or, the company could only sell uncrippled hardware. Now, what price would they sell it for? They certainly can't sell it for the lower price of a crippled product, because they'd lose money. So now you've lost the choice between a lower-price/lower-featured product, and a higher-price/higher-featured product. In other words, richer people win, poorer people lose.
So we should recognize that there's a benefit to being able to sell different sets of features to different consumers. More people get what they want at a price they can afford.
It is actually good for Apple PR (Score:3, Insightful)
Now lets be realistic here people.
You get a Cell Phone and most of them even the low end systems are more powerful then computers 10 years ago. So most phones can do a lot of stuff.
Now you have different carriers. They can Suck and have a small limited network where only some services will properly run. So if you had a phone that can do anything on a network that cant when you try to do something that the network can't handle you get an error, or it just doens't work. The geeks like us will see this as either a reason to switch carriers or hack the system to get it to work. But for average joe it will be like. Why offer us the feature if we can't use it, or it is broken so the entire system is broken.
So if your carrier will not support the feature then it shouldn't be on the phone. So people will be happy with your product as it works. And if they see someone on an different network with the same product and there is a new feature then you think about switching the carrier not the phone technology. So if the iPhone will be on different networks and there is one willing to support different features you need. You can switch to that vender without thinking man this iPhone sucks because I cannot tether with my computer. While the truth is the iPhone can teather it is just you stupid carrier who won't let you.
Re:It is actually good for Apple PR (Score:4, Insightful)
The parent post would actually make sense if Apple and AT&T didn't enforce a false monopoly on the market. This is another reason that exclusivity deals should be illegal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that carriers and vendors in general see phone features as content. i.e. the Ipod is capable of playing any MP3, however that does not give you the right to play any MP3 without paying for it, consumers are used to paying for content and if they can be persuaded to see GPS functionality as content then that makes it easier to milk the cow that is the consumer. It is in many corporations interests to see applications and indeed all features viewed by the consumer in a similar way i.e. everything of v
Wait a minute... (Score:4, Funny)
If Apple successfully patents this, it'll be harder for other people to do it. Why is this bad, again?
What are we purchasing then? (Score:2, Interesting)
I could agree with this if and only if they are giving you the phone for free and you are only buying the service. But when you are expected to buy the hardware, it is no one's business what you do with it. Too many companiess want to control what you do with the gadgets that you buy. Why are we allowing this in our society?
Crazy scenario, if you buy a toaster with a computer chip in it that has a little app that holds memory of who you are and how you like your toast toasted, should we then allow the co
Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
I say ISSUE the patent... (Score:2)
So it's DRM... ON A CELLPHONE (Score:4, Funny)
Is "ON A CELLPHONE" the new "ON THE INTERNET"? A quick glance over the claims reveals nothing that hasn't been done with DRM before in other settings.
Re: (Score:2)
Is "ON A CELLPHONE" the new "ON THE INTERNET"? A quick glance over the claims reveals nothing that hasn't been done with DRM before in other settings.
You're right, it should never have issued as a patent!
Oh, wait, it hasn't. Settle down.
Compete with Apple if you do not like it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's holding you back?
Millions of dollars and man-decades of investment plus the likelihood of a patent arsenal that would ensure the investment is a failure. Or to be more clear: Lack of an even playing field.
Re:Compete with Apple if you do not like it (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey folks, you all have a path open to you if you don't like the way Apple and AT&T manage the IPhone. Simply design, build, market, and sell a competing phone and service that is as popular as the IPhone. What's holding you back?
Yeah, you're right! I'll just use my millions of dollars and my full team of dedicated programmers as well as my factories and create an entirely new phone that doesn't go against any of the hundreds of patents while being competitively priced, then pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into advertising to get as much known about my phone as possible, then either find an existing company that has cell phone towers up that agree with our methods (not gonna happen) or build our own cell phone towers so we don't have to pay for the privilege to be screwed over whilst jumping through dozens of government hoops!
Wow, it'll be so easy!
WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
Man, I hate Micros... err Apple. Actually, I think I just hate Steve Jobs. Most of Apple's fascist type behavior appears to be coming from him.
Surely a typo... (Score:2)
Provisioning Computing Devices should be Poisoning Computing Devices
Prior art? (Score:2)
Hasn't this sort of thing been done for years? I bought a Motorola Razr phone with AT&T some time back and a number of the standard features were disabled. Verizon takes phones all the time and mucks with the software to disable features, often so that they can rent the features back to you at some cost. So, what's new about Apple's approach that makes it patentable?
The only thin that I can think of is that traditionally carriers would "provision" the phones by licensing the phone's firmware then writin
Every cellular manufacturer has prior art btw (Score:2)
Good idea (Score:2)
Tie up a crappy idea in lawsuits over bad patents.
Translation: (Score:2)
"Method for intentionally introducing flaws in products."
Another evil company (Score:2)
It seems that Apple has become too successful for its own good -- somethings that seems to affect (virtually?) all major corporations these days. At first they start out with a cool product and they're good at keeping their customers happy about it. Then they become a success and make a lot of money. But, almost inevitably the c
I think this is a Good Idea (Score:2)
In my opinion, the license fees for the monetization of this proud piece of Intellectual Property cannot be set too high. A license fee of 15$ per appliance for any other manufacturers wishing to license this remarkable piece of Intellectual Property seems wholly appropriate.
Incidentally, I do not own an iPhone or any other mobile communication device manufactured by Apple and I defi
Crippling phones? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, but it's not in the appstore. It's duplicating built-in functionality.
This is bogus (Score:2)
This is bogus. When you buy an iPhone you generally pay full price. It's not subsidized so the carrier has no $(*&^ing business crippling the phone, and Apple has no business crippling it on behalf of the carrier. It's disgusting that Apple is using tethering as one of the major selling points of the iPhone (which is odd, since I can tether my ancient Samsung "Sync" without any problem - AND get more bandwidth through it!) and they cripple it with the OS 3.1 update. That is a bait-and-switch regardless
Apple's new motto (Score:3, Funny)
Do No Evil - unless your Apple
Re:Not defective by design (Score:5, Insightful)
restriction of features doesn't seem very patentable
Haven't been around the patent office lately, have you?
Re:Not defective by design (Score:5, Insightful)
Or alternatively, why not use an appropriate charging structure, so that it becomes prohibitively expensive for the end user to consume excessive resources? And use the extra revenue earned from those users who are willing to pay for large consumption to increase the capacity.
Wait, I've seen this before (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, yeah, because it's hype
Re: (Score:2)
The carriers would need to implement it pay as you go or there would be millions of people with 4 figure bills at the end of the month saying "WTF - I just downloaded this app for $0.99 and a month later I've got a $2,500 bill? FU carrier - see me in class action court!"
Re:Not defective by design (Score:5, Funny)
Let's patent it!
Re:Not defective by design (Score:5, Insightful)
This reasoning just doesn't hold. Some netbooks already have 3G chips, I bet that will be a standard feature in all mobile computers in the near future. The result of this is that the network operators cannot control the clients.
It should be blindingly obvious to anyone that the network has to cope with rogue devices. Assuming that wireless clients are all well-behaved is a phenomenally stupid idea.
The "we're only protecting the user from excess charges" idea might hold water if the same companies weren't happy to send you insane roaming charges...
Re: (Score:2)
That wouldn't be a problem if they gave people what they REALLY want, a warning that they are about to incur excessive charges! They carefully avoid letting people know about that before it's too late and then act mystified when people complain about 5 figure phone bills.
Besides, I thought the whole point of the App Store dane brammage was to make sure iPhone users never end up with a rogue app.
Re:Not defective by design (Score:5, Insightful)
This story is tagged "defectivebydesign", but what Apple wants to do is anything but.
Operators have a hard limit on the amount of service they can actually provision. Allowing any and all devices to run willy nilly on the network would be certain death, even for the best-laid network. By throttling certain services, turning off certain capabilities, and allowing remote provisioning management, Apple is making sure that the device they are providing to users will work and continue to work on the network.
This is a very important feature not only for the NOs, but also for businesses who would provide these phones to their field teams. Though, to be honest, restriction of features doesn't seem very patentable, at least there are other implementations that already exist. WinMo has had this since WM6.1, for example.
You don't seem to understand the flawed business model that communications providers have been running with since the beginning. They never had enough capacity for their customers. They could, but they need to pay their CEO's $20M bonuses instead of grow their infrastructure. So as it stands today, there just isn't enough network for us, which is why when there are city/county/state-wide emergencies many calls do not go through.
The only analogy I've been able to come up with that paints a good picture about why it's such a flawed model is what I call the Coca-Cola Principle. If Coca-Cola was suddenly able to reclaim the soda in the can I just purchased before it hit my lips, they could in effect resell my can of Coke before I could even drink it. This is exactly what every single communications provider has done. Comcast (unfortunately my home ISP) is perhaps one of the worst offenders of this. Having resold the bandwidth I paid for multiple hundreds of times. Eventually instead of providing me with what I have been paying for (unlimited broadband, as in no bandwidth cap), they reneged on their deal and put in a hard cap of 250gb/mo.
You sound a lot like a corporatist to me. Oh noes those poor Network Operators need to cripple us to continue to be able to oversell their product/service. Well, what I say is, shitcan the CEOs taking these ridiculous sums of money and grow your infrastructure to meet YOUR promises as well as the economic DEMAND.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't seem to understand the flawed business model that communications providers have been running with since the beginning. They never had enough capacity for their customers. They could, but they need to pay their CEO's $20M bonuses instead of grow their infrastructure.
Wow, only $20M to put in a $1.7Bn infrastructure upgrade, with $2.3Bn extra costs to implement it with strong integration to the current infrastructure and while prematurely terminating part of the current infrastructure before value's been realized on it? You must be the best business process accountant ever!
Re: (Score:2)
I am not in the business, but lower the $20m to $2m and you can probably "electrify" a couple more rural areas. People making $2m shouldn't be starving and we are getting more people on the grid.
Re:Not defective by design (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
At 20 million per executive per year plus the golden parachutes, it does add up.
Re:Not defective by design (Score:5, Funny)
No good! Don't understand! Your analogy has no cars!
Not free=flawed? (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't seem to understand the flawed business model that communications providers have been running with since the beginning.
The business model since the beginning has been to build networks with business users in mind, and then selling unused capacity to consumers at bargain rates.
At one time, a buck a minute was normal, and for business users, still a bargain compared to the "mobile phone" that Perry Mason used.
Since the networks grew at an amazing rate, eventually reducing costs to commodity levels, that model was hardly flawed.
They never had enough capacity for their customers.
There have always been areas where use has jumped fast enough to outstrip network expansion.
If you mean network resources have never been unlimited, I'll grant you that.
So as it stands today, there just isn't enough network for us, which is why when there are city/county/state-wide emergencies many calls do not go through.
YOUR calls don't go through - the important ones do.
That's by design.
Cell operators are required by Federal law to interrupt consumer cell service to prevent the network becoming unavailable to emergency responders.
Comcast (unfortunately my home ISP) is perhaps one of the worst offenders of this. Having resold the bandwidth I paid for multiple hundreds of times. Eventually instead of providing me with what I have been paying for (unlimited broadband, as in no bandwidth cap), they reneged on their deal and put in a hard cap of 250gb/mo.
So...what you are saying is that your monthly charge should cover 25 terabytes of transfer or more?
The fact of the matter is that you didn't buy ALL their bandwidth - they aren't reselling YOUR bandwidth - that's pure rubbish.
The question is how to strike a balance between use and cost.
There is a certain cost per byte that has to be recovered, or no one gets to play.
I probably come pretty close to the cap at times, but have never heard anything from Comcast.
On my business accounts, I shatter that barrier every month - that's why I have business accounts that aren't subject to it.
You should stop whining and do the same.
Comcast COULD have simply limited your speed so that you couldn't exceed the cap.
It would still be unlimited.
That was rejected as a bad compromise for obvious reasons - most people don't use bandwidth at a sustained high rate.
Re:Not defective by design (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't seem to understand the flawed business model that communications providers have been running with since the beginning. They never had enough capacity for their customers. They could, but they need to pay their CEO's $20M bonuses instead of grow their infrastructure. So as it stands today, there just isn't enough network for us, which is why when there are city/county/state-wide emergencies many calls do not go through.
That's not a flawed business model. You can meet 90% of your customer's needs for X dollars, and 99% of your customer's needs for 10X dollars, and 99.9% of your customer's needs for 100X dollars, and 99.99% of your customer's needs for 1000X dollars... see the problem? Increasing capacity to a point where you can fully satisfy state-wide emergencies is incredibly expensive, and leaves half of the network unused at regular times. That is a flawed business model, which is why it's not done by any infrastructure provider - there are brownouts in summer heat waves, there are water shortages in droughts, there are network shortages in emergencies, etc. This is the trade-off we make in exchange for not having $5000/month cell phone bills.
Oversubscription (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, he's wrong and you're wrong.
Oversubscription is a great and fine thing and keeps costs low and therefore costs to the customers low. Most of the time, providing enough service that everyone could use everything all at once (electricity, phones, water, etc) would mean building out a ridiculous level, and create fantastic waste 99.999% of the time.
Every business oversubscribes in some way. You allow your tenant to throw parties, but don't expand the roof to cover the infinitely number of guests he might invite: so you're an evil coca cola stealing bastard?
The problem is not over subscription -- it's the fact that it's hidden/lied about. The fact that an apartment can only hold a finite number of guests and yet there's no statement in your lease restricting the number of guests your tenant can invite to a party isn't really a problem. The lease doesn't tell him he can invite an unlimited number of people. It doesn't tell him he can invite 1000/hour all the time and so can all his guests.
The phone companies tell us we can have unlimited bandwidth or a high amount. Then they can't provide it. That's breach of contract and fraud.
Your last lines are getting close to the heart of the matter: "shitcan the CEOs taking these ridiculous sums of money and grow your infrastructure to meet YOUR promises as well as the economic DEMAND."
But you're missing the point. They're committing fraud and breaking contracts. They should not lose their jobs -- that hardly matters. The companies should be sued and prosecuted for the civil and criminal aspects of this. The officers of the company should be held responsible. They should be both destitute and jailed.
The fault, dear Brutus, is not our telephone system, but in our political/judicial system that we are kept underlings. And in ourselves, that we are unable to force a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" to stop representing only RICH people.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Operators have a hard limit on the amount of service they can actually provision. Allowing any and all devices to run willy nilly on the network would be certain death, even for the best-laid network.
Do you have any examples of this? Apart from the non-standard system needed to support the iPhone's voice mail stuff, I can't figure out what you might be referring to.
Re: (Score:2)
By throttling certain services, turning off certain capabilities, and allowing remote provisioning management, Apple is making sure that the device they are providing to the users who aren't cut off will work and continue to work on the network.
There, that's better
Re:Not defective by design (Score:5, Insightful)
In your particular example, I would counter that the real reason for crippling devices has much more to do with control for the purpose of maximizing income than control for technical reasons. The fear isn't that willy-nilly allowance of device capabilities will bring down the network, it's that it will allow customers to create their own solutions rather than paying a lucrative monthly fee for the officially sanctioned service that optimizes monetization of the service rather than optimizing the ability of people to do what they need/want to do. Use of the term "crippling" isn't accidental - it's an accurate description of what is being done.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My last phone from T-Mobile is hardware capable of MP3 playback and ringtones. It is however flashed with T-Mobile firmware locking those features out *unless* the ringtone in question is purchased from T-Mobile.
This has nothing whatsoever with them provisioning services and everything to do with them wanting me to pay extra for permission to use my own music files or pay extra for permission to use their music files.
Re:Not defective by design (Score:4, Interesting)
Congratulations your right on the money. My last phone from Telus disabled file transfers over USB meaning that pictures taken on the phone had to be emailed to me for a fee rather than just transferred for free. Thankfully Bitpim fixed that for me with the Motorola equivalent of a registry change. This isn't at all about reducing use of resources, it's about maximizing the use of resources that the phone company can bill you for.
Re: (Score:2)
as in Europe (Score:5, Insightful)
you are absolutely right. If users were to use their USB cable to install a free ringtone, this would totally overload the network. Oh wait... mmm; bollocks
Re:Not defective by design (Score:5, Insightful)
This phone crippling crap is performed by US carriers mostly in order to maximize their profits and there are no technical reasons whatsoever to restrict any capabilities of a certified GSM phone.
Like it or not: A phone, which is crippled by design, like the iPhone, is defective by design.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you kidding? Not only does trusting client side security always end up in disaster, but European cell phone networks seem to be doing just fine.
Stop buying into the carriers' propaganda already and start buying your phones directly from the manufacturers. You'd never be in this mess if the average American had done so from the start. The world's largest cell phone manufacturer [nokiausa.com] would prefer to not sell you crippled devices, and look how much US market share it's been rewarded with.
Re: (Score:2)
Then they should limit the amount of service they provide and not what you do with that service. They should also quit advertising capabilities they have no intention of actually providing. In the case where their network is already overloaded, they should quit advertising PERIOD. After all, if they're overloaded they don't have room to add more customers and might be better off if a few leave. They can spend those advertising dollars on expanding their network capabilities instead.
It's amazing, when ISPs a
Re: (Score:2)
Little niceties like not being able to transfer/play media files from a computer onto a phone whose hardware can support it. That takes zero network resources, while the "Vcast" option involves considerable data transfer. Same thing with not being able to transfer pictures off the thing, in order to drive M
Re: (Score:2)
It was ever thus, telecoms operators have always tried to maintain a tight grip on what devices can connect to their networks. And I think they are right to do so, allowing unrestricted software access to their network infrastructure might well be disastrous. Most computers have to connect via a modem, but the iPhone is the modem, so allowing software to access the hardware directly would remove this layer of abstraction and security.
We have rules about the capabilities of devices that can run on our roads,
Re:Not defective by design (Score:5, Insightful)
telecoms operators have always tried to maintain a tight grip on what devices can connect to their networks.
No. US telecoms operators have always tried to maintain a tight grip on what can be connected to their networks. This is not the case elsewhere in the world (although it is notable that with the advent of the iPhone, operators elsewhere in the world are starting to embrace anti-consumer ideas such as device-exclusivity contracts and refusal to unlock off-contract devices - one can only hope that the regulators get their finger out and put a stop to this).
And I think they are right to do so, allowing unrestricted software access to their network infrastructure might well be disastrous. Most computers have to connect via a modem, but the iPhone is the modem, so allowing software to access the hardware directly would remove this layer of abstraction and security.
You clearly don't understand how mobile phones are architected. A smartphone is basically a palmtop computer and a GSM/WCDMA modem in the same box. The computer part of it is _not_ (logically) the same device as the radiomodem, any more than a computer with a built in modem is. The "computer" side of a smartphone generally talks to the radio side through an interface that basically behaves like a serial port - i.e. it is controlled by standard AT commands.
Allowing a smartphone to run arbitrary software is no more a security risk than allowing a computer with a 3G dongle to run arbitrary software because the logical separation between the computer and the radio is still there.
We have rules about the capabilities of devices that can run on our roads, this is not much different.
Last time I checked, there were no laws that claim your car is unfit to be used on the road if you're using a third party stereo, or if you're using BP petrol instead of Shell. But these sorts of things are essentially what a lot of the restrictions are all about. Placing restrictions on what the _radio_ part of the phone is allowed to do is fair enough, but placing restrictions on what the user can do with the computer part of a device isn't acceptable to a lot of people.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess, then, that you hate what Intel is doing to stop, via hardware measures, any kind of code overflow attack. Should a hacker have the "right" to crash your media player so he can do a remote code execution attack?
Huh? How does that commend have *anything* to do with my post?
But anyway, I'll bite - a remote execution attacker does not have any "right" to execute code on my computer. In fact, doing so is a crime, as laid out by the Computer Misuse Act. Conversely, my phone is owned by me - I paid for it, I get to do what I like with it.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no reason for either
Re: (Score:2)
Right, and the PATRIOT act will only be used to protect us from terr'ists [huffingtonpost.com] (sorry, pdf).
More accurately, if Verizon is any judge, it will be used to block access to, or remove features that would otherwise allow users access to cheaper markets. Much like Verizon's disabling of bluetooth OBEX profiles to prevent you from sending your own ringtones to your phone, and instead pushing toward they're exorbitantly overpriced ones, where 30 seconds or less of "music" costs as much as an entire album by the same ar
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)