stories filed under: "iphone"

Blackberry CEO 'Outraged,' Scolds T-Mobile Like A Child For Simple Sales Pitch To Blackberry Users

from the surely-you-have-better-things-to-do dept

Thu, Feb 20th 2014 9:12pm — Karl Bode

Blackberry CEO John Chen has a lot to worry about. At the moment his company continues a head-first plunge into potential irrelevance, being incapable of offering compelling products that prevent Apple and Google from eroding its wireless market share (don't tell that to the company's loyal fans, though). A long line of executives keep getting shuffled in and out like party decorations on a sinking ocean liner in the hopes that somebody can fix this, but generally speaking Chen isn't having all that much fun, and most analysts aren't too sure the company's fortunes will ever get turned around.

With all of this on Chen's plate, it's curious then to see where Chen's attentions are focused. T-Mobile last week apparently sent a promotion to Blackberry users that simply offered users an iPhone 5S for no money down if they switched to T-Mobile. For a company that has been writing some uncharacteristically (for wireless) hilarious press releases with a CEO who spends much of the day brutally mocking AT&T on Twitter -- T-Mobile's promotion is tame and barely worth attention. Still, it was apparently enough to "outrage" Chen, who took to the company blog to scold T-Mobile as if they were a milk-spilling toddler:

"I want to thank our loyal customers for your commitment to BlackBerry. By expressing your outrage directly to T-Mobile ‎through tweets, calls and comments in the media and on blog posts, you sent a powerful message that T-Mobile could not ignore. Your partnership with our brand is appreciated by all of us at BlackBerry, and draws a sharp contrast with the behavior of our longtime business partner. I can assure you that we are outraged too. What puzzles me more is that T-Mobile did not speak with us before or after they launched this clearly inappropriate and ill-conceived marketing promotion."

Granted T-Mobile (who barely sells any Blackberry devices) wouldn't be trying to poach your customer base if you were creating products and services a broader audience actually liked. The comments below Chen's post are somewhat of a treat as well, with Blackberry fans insisting Chen is "pure class" and "the man" for swatting T-Mobile on the nose like a puppy that has pooped on your favorite slippers. T-Mobile CEO John Legere responded to Chen on Twitter in just the way we've grown accustomed to. All of this faux outrage simply wound up making waves in the press and giving an otherwise entirely-uninteresting T-Mobile promotion -- and Blackberry's ongoing failures -- a huge bath of free publicity.

Filed Under: iphone, john chen, wireless
Companies: blackberry, t-mobile

26 Comments

Crowdfunded Prize For Open Source Jailbreaking iOS7 To Improve Accessibility

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the awesome-on-multiple-levels dept

Tue, Dec 10th 2013 4:03pm — Mike Masnick

Here's a story which hits on so many different points that we're interested in. There's a new effort to crowdsource a "prize" for whoever can release an open source jailbreak for iOS7. First off, we've been big fans of "innovation prizes" like the X Prize. We're also big fans of crowdfunding -- so here's an example of combining both of those: crowdfunding an innovation prize -- which has already reached about $6,500 despite no publicity (yet). Next, the prize is for another thing that we think is of utmost importance: the freedom to tinker with products you bought. The locked down nature of the iPhone remains one of the shames of modern technology. Encouraging a true, open source jailbreak is important in opening up the technology -- for a variety of important reasons (including a huge one that inspired this project, as will be explained below). The project also has a four person team to judge which solution will qualify for the prize, including some folks you might recognize: Cory Doctorow, Kyle Wiens (of iFixit) and Gabreilla Coleman (professor who studies hacktivism, Anonymous and has posted here).

But perhaps the most interesting (if unfortunate) point in this story is the reason for the project in the first place. The fourth judge is Chris Maury, who inspired the creation of this project in the first place. Maury has Stargardt's Macular Degeneration, a genetic condition that has taken him from having 20/20 vision just a few years ago to rapidly losing his vision, to the point that he will eventually be legally blind (already he can no longer drive). He would like to be able to actually use his iPhone but much of the software that makes the phone usable with his vision isn't available in the iTunes App Store. Thus, he needs to jailbreak the phone in order to use it.

This is really the most shameful part of locked down systems. In the past, we've talked about how the short-sighted view of people who want to lock out certain types of applications almost resulted in a young girl being unable to communicate, and here we have a situation where someone with a severe visual impairment can't get everything possible out of the devices he's purchased. What kind of world are we living in that we think it's okay to have this as "standard operating procedures" for the electronics we use every day?

Thankfully, what giant companies try to lock up, creativity can hopefully unlock. And, in this case, we've got layer upon layer of creative innovations to try to get around a bad situation. While it's unfortunate that such a project is even necessary in the first place, it's inspiring to see this kind of creativity pop up to try to solve the problem. Go check out the project. If you want to contribute to the prize, you can do so there (and, yes, they accept Bitcoin, too), or if you feel like creating an open source jailbreak for iOS7 and collecting the prize (or just basking in the wonders of doing something good), check it out as well.

Filed Under: accessibility, crowdfunding, innovation prizes, ios, ios7, iphone, jailbreaking

22 Comments

Apple's Fingerprint ID And How It May Take Away Your 5th Amendment Right To Protect Your Data

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the these-things-have-consequences dept

Fri, Sep 13th 2013 2:16pm — Mike Masnick

There was plenty of discussion about how Apple's new fingerprint ID biometric system on the new iPhones might help the NSA build a giant database of fingerprints, but others quickly pointed out how unlikely that was. Some have even argued that it could lead to greater privacy protection (though, others are reasonably concerned since you can't "change" your fingerprint if someone figures out a way to hack it -- and fingerprint readers have been hacked many times in the past).

However, there are additional concerns, such as how relying on fingerprint scans over passwords might remove your ability to use the 5th Amendment to protect your private data. As we've discussed a few times, while not all courts agree, some have ruled that you can't be forced to give up your passwords to unencrypt your data, because it could be seen as a 5th Amendment violation of self-incrimination. However, with a fingerprint, the issue is slightly different than with a password. As the EFF's Marcia Hoffman explains:

The privilege against self-incrimination is an important check on the government’s ability to collect evidence directly from a witness. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the Fifth Amendment broadly applies not only during a criminal prosecution, but also to any other proceeding “civil or criminal, formal or informal,” where answers might tend to incriminate us. It’s a constitutional guarantee deeply rooted in English law dating back to the 1600s, when it was used to protect people from being tortured by inquisitors to force them to divulge information that could be used against them.

For the privilege to apply, however, the government must try to compel a person to make a “testimonial” statement that would tend to incriminate him or her. When a person has a valid privilege against self-incrimination, nobody — not even a judge — can force the witness to give that information to the government.

But a communication is “testimonial” only when it reveals the contents of your mind. We can’t invoke the privilege against self-incrimination to prevent the government from collecting biometrics like fingerprints, DNA samples, or voice exemplars. Why? Because the courts have decided that this evidence doesn’t reveal anything you know. It’s not testimonial.

It does seem odd that a simple switch from a password to a fingerprint could have constitutional implications, but welcome to the world where the law and the technology don't always match up perfectly together.

Filed Under: 5th amendment, fingerprint, fingerprint reader, iphone, passwords, privacy, security
Companies: apple

53 Comments

Steve Jobs' Email Shows Apple Changed In-App Purchasing Rules Specifically To Retaliate Against Amazon

from the oops dept

Fri, Aug 23rd 2013 2:20pm — Mike Masnick

In the ongoing legal fight between Apple and the DOJ over how Apple will be punished for violating antitrust law concerning ebooks, the DOJ has presented one interesting bit of new evidence: an email from Steve Jobs, in which he flat out tells Phil Schiller to change how in-app purchases work solely to punish Amazon for daring to suggest that it's easy to switch from an iPhone to Android, since your Kindle books show up in both places.

In case you can't read that, it involves Schiller complaining to Jobs and other top Apple execs about a Kindle TV ad that shows someone buying an ebook via an iPhone and having it appear on an Android phone as well. He then notes:

While the primary message is that there are Kindle apps on lots of mobile devices, the secondary message that can't be missed is that it is easy to switch from iPhone to Android.

Not fun to watch

Less than an hour later, Jobs replies with a suggestion:

The first step might be to say that they must use our payment system for everything, including books (triggered by the newspapers and magazines). If they want to compare us to Android, let's force them to use our far superior payment system. Thoughts?

That's pretty damning, as it shows the decision had little to do with reasonable choices for consumers, and a lot to do with punishing a competitor.

Filed Under: android, antitrust, doj, ebooks, email, in-app purchasing, iphone, kindle, retaliation, steve jobs
Companies: amazon, apple

34 Comments

Major Media Fails To Fact-Check iPhone Joke

Journalism

from the egg-on-face dept

Tue, Jan 29th 2013 11:58pm — Timothy Geigner

Since some folks in traditional media still love to pretend that they are part of a select group of information filters that can provide fact-checked news items and that their internet counterparts cannot, I'm going to keep driving this point home: internet news groups and blogs are no more susceptible to hoaxes than major news media. We saw a wonderful example of it recently with the Manti Te'o story, in which major news not only bought the BS hook, line and sinker, but through their inaction, actually perpetuated the story. Still, while that was a story that was, at best, a very sad case of someone lying their tail off, some examples can provide a little more levity.

Such as, for instance, when the L.A. Times and UPI write up very real accounts of a very fake iPhone case that includes a retractable cup-holder. The kicker being that Network World's blog dismissed it as a prank days earlier. Writer Paul McNamara didn't miss the chance to point this out.

Hate to say I told you so ... No, wait, I'm fine with saying I told you so: That combination cup holder/iPhone case (right) that was mocked here on Friday is indeed a joke, or a publicity stunt if you prefer (and I do), according to the Dutch marketing firm that pitched it to reporters and the crowdsourcing site Indiegogo.

Yet, despite their forewarning, and despite the pure ridiculousness of a case for a phone where the largest part of the equipment holds a Starbucks coffee cup, the L.A. Times wrote about it in all seriousness.

In a video that can go toe to toe with any of the best infomercials ever made, Natwerk shows off its "Uppercup." The case is more than two inches thick, but it has a slide out cup holder that iPhone owners can use while they text with two hands or play a video game. Natwerk says the Uppercup will hold any size cup.

They go on to note that the Dutch company has thus far only raised $765 of their $25k goal, which probably should have been a sign that something might be off. They note that it might be something of a publicity stunt, but it wasn't. It was completely made up. That did not stop UPI from writing up their own piece, based entirely off of the L.A. Times article. UPI does not note anywhere that it might be a hoax or a publicity stunt.

So how much fact-checking would have been required to find out that this was all a joke? Apparently one email from McNamara, asking the marketing company responsible for this if it was a joke. Their response?

Yes, pretty much. For instance, the fact that we've made the whole thing about 3 times as thick as necessary we hoped would give away we weren't all that serious. Nevertheless, we really think it is a cool device and we would really want to have it produced so we can walk around and be cool with it attached to our iPhones.

It was a joke. So, it would appear, were the fact-checking abilities of two writers for major news media. Good thing there are blogs around to filter out their nonsense.

Filed Under: cup holder, fact checking, iphone, jokes

20 Comments

Just In Time For The Holiday Season, Apple Loses iPhone Trademark In Mexico

Trademark

from the live-by-IP,-die-by-IP dept

Fri, Nov 2nd 2012 3:46pm — Timothy Geigner

When it comes to trademark bullies, Apple is one of the more prolific muscle-flexers in the arena. For some time now, they've been known to be extremely aggressive over their trademarks. From the idea of having an apple in a company's logo, to the name of one's store for mobile applications, all the way to how you offer their products in your own company's contests, Apple defends their marks the way a jealous puppy defends a rawhide.

That's why, while we may agree that aggressive trademark enforcement is at times overblown and unnecessary, it's really rather fun to watch Apple have the trademark stick wrestled from their grips and get beaten over the head with it, such as when Mexico invalidates their use of the "iPhone" mark in commerce within their country. And just in time for Christmas, too! The following is a wonderful story about how a Mexican telecom company already had a mark for iFone, but even more interesting is the long history Apple has of arrogantly bullying everyone else over their attempt to validate the iPhone mark.

The Mexican company registered the trademark iFone way back in 2003, full four years before Apple filed to trademark the name iPhone (which was already owned by Linksys in US, more about that later). Apple, despite fully aware of the fact that the Mexican company owned the trademark since 2004, sued them in 2009 to invalidate the iFone trademark. So Apple wanted iFone brand to be invalidated, which was filed in 2004, because it was similar to iPhone name which was filed in 2007.

Apparently, Apple's argument for invalidating the pre-existing iFone mark in Mexico went something along the lines of, "Hey, we're Apple." This, as the article goes on to note, is something Apple did that adds to their longstanding history of not giving a damn about anyone else's trademarks. You may recall that the iPhone mark was originally owned in the US by Cisco, who settled with Apple on use of the mark. But back to iFone.

It turns out that the Mexican courts were understandably unimpressed with Apple's possibly trademarked "Hey, we're Apple" legal argument. They upheld the iFone mark and now Apple can't use the iPhone term inside of Mexico.

It means a lot of trouble for "sue first talk later" Apple which is engaged in dozens of lawsuits around the world. This decision will have a huge impact on Apple's market in Mexico and they now won't be able to use the name iPhone in the country - this decision coming before the holiday season is nothing short of A Nightmare At The Mexico City for Apple.

Apple needs to hold its horses back. It needs to stop its "sue everyone else" drive as it has started to come back and bite them.

Which is the problem with lawsuit-happy companies like Apple. They escalate the war to the point where their own extremism is met with opposite extremism to combat it. Is this whole trademark nonsense necessary? Probably not. I can't claim to be an expert on how the average Mexican citizen associates something that says iFone with Apple, but I'm guessing they're smart and in-tune with technology enough that they know the two aren't related. I could be wrong about that, but there's one thing I'm not wrong about.

It's immensely entertaining to see aggressive IP folks get bit in the ass by their own tactics.

Filed Under: iphone, mexico, trademark
Companies: apple

35 Comments

Chinese Knockoff Maker With A Sense Of Humor Files Design Patent On Leaked iPhone 5 Design

Patents

from the joke's-on-you dept

Fri, Sep 7th 2012 12:34pm — Mike Masnick

crashsuit alerts us to the bizarre story that a Chinese phone knockoff maker, who took some supposed "leaked" photos of the still unannounced iPhone 5 and not only produced a knockoff device called the Goophone I5 (running Android, naturally), but also is claiming to already have a Chinese patent on the design.

Of course, we've talked about Chinese manufacturers creating rather interesting mashups of phone ideas by ignoring patent, trademark and copyright laws (sometimes all at once!). And the decision to file for a design patent is made that much more amusing when you consider how design patents were at the center of some of Apple's big case against Samsung (for the non-patent nerds out there, design patents are a bit different than what most people traditionally think of as patents, and some actually suggest that they're really closer to trademarks than "patents" in that they really just cover a basic design look and feel, rather than a method or process).

That said, the details of this "Chinese patent" are a bit sketchy. Was it just applied for? Or granted? No one seems to be saying. It could just be a joke. That said, we've been noting for quite some time that while the US has been pushing China to respect patents a lot more (due to lobbying pressure from US companies), China has been mocking them all by suddenly "enforcing" patents much more stringently... but almost always against foreign companies and to benefit Chinese competitors. So, it's not completely crazy to suggest that a Chinese company might be able to secure such a patent and use it to stop Apple, though it would take a fair amount of chutzpah (or whatever the Chinese equivalent is) to make such a claim.

Filed Under: android, china, design patents, goophone, iphone, knockoffs, patents

33 Comments

Apple/Samsung Verdict Advertising Samsung As A Viable Alternative To iPads & iPhones

Patents

from the backfiring dept

Mon, Aug 27th 2012 1:01pm — Mike Masnick

From early on in the Apple/Samsung dispute, I pointed out that Apple's reaction really seemed to indicate to the world that Samsung's devices were the ones they were most scared of. And, of course, for those looking for alternatives, it was possible that it would act as really, really good advertising for Samsung. It's still early, but there's some anecdotal evidence that the verdict only emphasized that fact even more. Via Mashable, we learn of a post from Enrique Guitierrez, who was in a Starbucks over the weekend and overheard people talking about the verdict -- and they seemed to indicate that it was making them more interested in buying Samsung products:

Guy: "Wait, so what they're saying is, Samsung is the same as Apple?"
Friend: "I know, right? Makes me think twice about how much I paid for my Mac Book"
Guy: "Seriously"

Not 10 minutes later, a husband and wife, same newspaper:

Husband: "... Samsung's iPad is the same as Apple's iPad, and I paid how much for the Apple one? Honey, I told you they were a ripoff", after looking up the Samsung tablet on his iPhone.
Wife: "Oh wow," looking at the screen, "... that's a lot cheaper. Think we can return it?"

Those aren't the only examples in the post either. He notes that these people don't understand the details, but they seem to have gotten the message that Samsung makes at least an equivalent product for a lot less money... and that's making them a lot more interested in Samsung. Once again, it makes you wonder why Apple didn't just focus on competing in the marketplace, where they had a tremendous brand advantage.

Filed Under: advertisements, android, galaxy, ios, ipad, iphone, patents
Companies: apple, samsung

121 Comments

Apple's Argument: Samsung Could Have Made Its Phone Large, Thick, Bumpy, Sharp-Edged & Hexagonal

Patents

from the sounds-great dept

Mon, Aug 6th 2012 7:04am — Mike Masnick

A few months ago, we noted that Samsung's new phones had rather odd designs... and the theory making the rounds was that, considering the ongoing worldwide fight it was in with Apple, it was trying to go out of its way to make the phones as un-Apple-like as possible. Of course, that resulted in ugly, weirdly shaped phones.

As you may (hopefully?) know, some of the patents in the fight are "design patents" rather than utility patents. When people talk about patents, they usually are referring to utility patents. Design patents are, in many ways, more similar to trademarks than to utility patents. But it creates odd situations where Apple gets to claim "ownership" of the concept of a rectangular device with rounded corners. It's also important to remember that design patents can't be for functional features, but only for design/appearance. That means that Apple has to insist that the basic design of the iPhone and iPad aren't functional at all.

As Matt Schruers highlights, that means that Apple is left in the awkward position of insisting that these basic concepts that are sort of obvious design choices to make such devices functional both aren't functional at all and that there are perfectly reasonable alternatives. For example, Apple's lawyers have suggested some "alternatives" in how Samsung could have designed its devices:

“front surfaces that are not rectangular, not flat, and without rounded corners; display screens that are more square than rectangular or not rectangular at all, display screens that are not centered on the front surface of the phone...”

and

“overall shapes that are not rectangular with four flat sides or that do not have four rounded corners; front surfaces that are not completely flat or clear... and profiles that are not thin”.

So what would that mean? Schruers explains:

Of course. Surely consumers would happily hold a large, thick, bumpy, sharp-edged hexagonal thing up to their head. They’ll no doubt appreciate the different “ornamental” approach while reading through their opaque screen. No functional drawbacks there.

Does that even sound like an object you would willingly put in your pants? Having a device that is not an unwieldy weapon-like object is a functional feature, not an ornamental design choice. One is not going out on a limb in concluding that if the object design increases your likelihood of getting strip-searched at the airport, those are functional drawbacks, and foreclosing functional features is not the purpose of design protection.

Oh yeah, Schruers also includes this bit of prior art to emphasize his point:

Filed Under: design patents, iphone, patents, shape, smartphones
Companies: apple, samsung

105 Comments

AT&T May Try To Charge FaceTime Users, Raising Net Neutrality Questions

Failures

from the or,-time-to-find-another-carrier dept

Wed, Jul 18th 2012 5:11am — Mike Masnick

One of the main concerns of those who worry about net neutrality is how a network provider might block or charge extra for competing services. For example, telcos who still make a fair bit of money from voice services might not like competing services like Skype. Or... Apple FaceTime. So it's interesting to see a report from 9to5Mac suggesting that AT&T may be planning to charge extra to use FaceTime over cellular. This came out when testing iOS6 and receiving a popup requiring "activation." Here's the screenshot of what 9to5 saw:

This does not absolutely mean that they're going to charge. Currently, FaceTime only works over WiFi, but iOS6 is set to enable it for cellular. It's possible that this popup is just because iOS6 is still in beta, and it's just a generic message for a service that is not yet available. But it's at least raising concerns about the intentions of AT&T, with groups like Free Press already warning that this would violate existing (if contested) FCC rules on net neutrality (which, it should be noted are very, very limited when it comes to mobile services). To be honest, I'm not sure why AT&T would actually go down this path. It's already trying to cap and/or meter mobile bandwidth, so it already has a natural restriction on usage. Furthermore, since the iPhone is now widely available on other platforms, charging extra for FaceTime seems like a perfect strategy for driving iPhone users to other mobile operators.

Filed Under: charges, competition, facetime, ios, iphone, net neutrality
Companies: apple, at&t

25 Comments

<< Newer Stories

Older Stories >>

Follow Techdirt

Essential Reading

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Read the latest posts:

read all »

Techdirt Deals

Report this ad | Hide Techdirt ads

Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Older Stuff

Tuesday
12:08	Superbowl Ads Try To Make 5G Sexy, But Consumers Still Aren't Buying The Hype (13)
10:54	Israeli Police (Mostly) Cleared Of NSO-Related Wrongdoing While NSO Issues Legal Threats To Calcalist Over Cover-Up Claims (4)
10:49	Daily Deal: FlashBooks Business Book Summaries (1)
09:30	EARN ITs Big Knowledge 1st Amendment Problem (39)
06:08	ID.me Doesn't Have Enough Humans To Backstop Its AI, Allowed A Guy In A Bad Wig To Illegally Obtain $900,000 In Benefits (16)
Monday
20:16	YouTube's Content ID System Flags, Demonetizes Video Of Cat Purring (65)
15:43	Eleventh Circuit Smacks Georgia Sheriff Around For Posting 'Don't Trick Or Treat Here' Signs In Sex Offenders' Yards (22)
13:38	The Intersection Of Section 230, SLAPP Threats, The Streisand Effect And Sex Discrimination In Corporate Structures (10)
12:02	FCC To Take A Closer Look At Racial Discrimination In Broadband Deployment (2)
10:44	Missouri's Governor Still Insists Reporter Is A Hacker, Even As Prosecutors Decline To Press Charges (22)
10:39	Daily Deal: The 2022 Ultimate Adobe CC Training Bundle (0)
09:38	How EARN IT Could Give Abusers A Get Out Of Jail Free Card: By Making Evidence Inadmissible (21)
05:37	Law Firm Sues US Citizen And Immigration Service After It Tries To Claw Back Docs Obtained Legally Thru A FOIA Request (12)
Sunday
12:00	Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt (14)
Saturday
12:00	This Week In Techdirt History: February 6th - 12th (1)
Friday
19:39	Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon (348)
16:26	Analog Books Go From Strength To Strength: Helped, Not Hindered, By The Digital World (62)
14:02	Declassified Documents Shows The CIA Is Using A 1981 Executive Order To Engage In Domestic Surveillance (12)
12:13	Can We Compare Dot-Com Bubble To Today's Web3/Blockchain Craze? (11)
10:49	Cop Trainer Encouraging Cops To Run Facial Recognition Searches On People During Traffic Stops (20)
10:46	Daily Deal: The Complete 2022 Microsoft Office Master Class Bundle (0)
09:46	Penguin Random House Demands Removal Of Maus From Digital Library Because The Book Is Popular Again (79)
06:33	Unknown American VC Firm Apparently Looking To Acquire NSO Group, Limit It To Selling To Five Eyes Countries (13)
Thursday
21:09	Minneapolis Police Officers Demanded No-Knock Warrant, Killed Innocent Gunowner Nine Seconds After Entering Residence (146)
15:30	The Top Ten Mistakes Senators Made During Today's EARN IT Markup (61)
13:31	Court (For Now) Says NY Times Can Publish Project Veritas Documents (43)
12:00	Yet Another Israeli Malware Manufacturer Found Selling To Human Rights Abusers, Targeting iPhones (2)
10:45	Surprise: U.S. Cost Of Ripping Out And Replacing Huawei Gear Jumps From $1.8 To $5.6 Billion (12)
10:40	Daily Deal: The Complete GameGuru Unlimited Bundle (0)
09:36	Senator Blumenthal, After Years Of Denial, Admits He's Targeting Encryption With EARN IT (20)

Blackberry CEO 'Outraged,' Scolds T-Mobile Like A Child For Simple Sales Pitch To Blackberry Users

from the surely-you-have-better-things-to-do dept