Is The iPhone App Kill Switch Really Such A Surprise?

from the this-is-Apple-we're-talking-about dept

There was a lot of fuss last week as some folks discovered a secret "kill switch" in iPhone software that allows Apple to retroactively "kill" an app that it allowed you to "buy" (but apparently, not really buy). Steve Jobs admitted over the weekend that the kill switch exists, with this gem:

"Hopefully we never have to pull that lever, but we would be irresponsible not to have a lever like that to pull."

Irresponsible? Really? That's why no other platform has a similar switch? Apparently, everyone else is irresponsible. The truth is more along the lines of this being a standard Steve Jobs offering, where he wants full control over how things are done -- even if it means removing apps you thought you had bought.

But the question is whether this is really a surprise or even a bad thing? While some are screaming "bloody murder" (or at least asking why people aren't screaming that), as others point out, if this is such a big deal, don't buy the iPhone. I agree that this isn't very smart on the part of Apple or Jobs. It certainly opens up an opportunity for competitors to point out that they don't maintain such a closed system, but it's hardly the end of the world. The more Apple makes decisions like this, the more likely people will be more open to alternatives that are coming to market -- and that's exactly what should happen. There's no "bloody murder" to scream. There's just a chance for the competition to come up with something better that doesn't give Steve Jobs the ability to pull a lever and make apps you thought you had bought disappear.

Filed Under: competition, control, iphone, kill switch
Companies: apple

California The Latest To Try To Outlaw Cyberbullying: Send A Mean Txt, Get Kicked Out Of School

from the seems-a-bit-extreme dept

You want to know how to basically clog up the administration of various high schools across the state of California? Pass a law that would kick kids out of school for sending a "cyberbullying" text message. Yet, that's exactly the type of bill that's been introduced in the state, as it rushes into following others in trying to make it illegal to be a jerk online. Yes, cyberbullying is an issue for the targets of such bullying. But the answer is not to create laws that try to legislate manners, nor to suggest that it's okay to kick kids out of school for sending a bullying message. All that's going to do is have overly sensitive kids complaining any time anyone sends them a mean message.

Filed Under: california, cyberbullying, expelled

RIM Pays Off Wi-LAN To Get Rid Of Another Patent Suit

from the losers-litigate dept

Wi-LAN is a Canadian company that did some early work in the wireless field, but was unable to actually make much of a business out of its work, so it took the loser's route: it started suing lots of companies for patent infringement. It's the same old story: winners innovate, losers litigate -- and litigate seems to be about all that Wi-LAN does these days. Recently, Wi-LAN targeted RIM, another Canadian company, who famously was pressured to cough up hundreds of millions in another patent battle to NTP a few years ago. These days, RIM seems to have learned an unfortunate lesson: it's easier to just pay up whoever sues you for patent infringement, no matter how legit (or not) their claim is.

So, it should come as no surprise that RIM has agreed to pay off Wi-LAN to make the lawsuit go away. No details were released, but given that Wi-LAN put out a separate press release saying that its "earnings" (a misnomer if there ever were one) for the quarter should be between $24.5 million and $25.5 million from the previous guidance of $15 million to $20 million you can take a guess how much this cost RIM. Definitely cheaper than a lawsuit, though this will only encourage two bad results: Wi-LAN will keep suing companies that actually do something, and more companies with questionable patents on wireless technologies will line up to get some cash from RIM. This isn't encouraging innovation. It's encouraging extortion.

Filed Under: patents
Companies: rim, wi-lan

Before We Ban Mobile Phones On Planes, Why Not See If They're Really A Problem?

from the we're-congress,-we-don't-do-empirical-evidence dept

We've already explained why it's rather silly for Congress to pass an outright ban of talking on mobile phones in-flight, but that probably won't stop the effort from going forward. However, new research is showing how this may be even less necessary than many assume. First, contrary to the idea that most people are worried about in-flight phone use, most younger users seem to actually support it.

As for the concern that it would just be really "annoying"? It turns out that when you look at actual tests (what a concept), this turns out not to be a problem. Passengers develop their own etiquette for keeping quiet and not pissing off other passengers. In other words, social pressures can handle most of the worst scenarios without the need for any sort of law that bans it in all situations. But, of course, this is Congress we're talking about. They're not huge fans of basing laws on what actually happens, but on what will generate the best headlines.

Also, just to respond to some of the misconception in the comments to the previous post: the potential ban has absolutely nothing to do with the technology issues related to using mobiles on airplanes. It's entirely about the etiquette/annoyance issue. Most of those technical issues have been worked out by putting a "picocell" on the airplane itself to redirect the voice traffic in a more efficient manner, rather than having the phones try to connect directly to towers on the ground.

Filed Under: congress, in-flight, mobile phones, planes, voice calls

Is There Any Good Reason Why Apple Should Pull The $1000 iPhone App?

from the USSR dept

Someone has created a simple iPhone application called "I Am Rich" which sells for $999.99 and simply makes the screen grow ruby red and offers "a secret mantra." But more shocking than this apparent waste of bytes and money is a number of prominent blogs which are calling for Apple to block the application. This is ludicrous. If someone wants to part with a grand for a glowing screen, who is Apple to stop them? The application developer is honest and clearly states that there "is no hidden function." It is not malicious, pornographic, a bandwidth hog, illegal or a threat to privacy.

And do these pro-regulation bloggers really want to have Apple assume the role of a Soviet ministry - designating appropriate prices for applications? Should Steve Jobs and company really determine the price of Super Monkey Ball? One commenter suggests that this application is an "insult to all the well-meaning developers that Apple made wait/are still waiting to get into the iPhone developer program." The problem of slow approval is not a single application, but the way in which Apple is playing gatekeeper to the iPhone. Again, these complaints are asking Apple to decide which applications should receive priority review and approval - a slippery slope which places arbitrary values on applications. And by advocating that Apple makes the iPhone a more closed system, these opponents of the "I Am Rich" application may in fact be pushing Apple away from a business model that succeeds - openness.

Filed Under: apps, i am rich, iphone, openness
Companies: apple

Openness Is A Winning Business Strategy

from the it's-not-just-a-philosophy dept

For some unfortunate reason, there seems to be this idea that "open" solutions are somehow a less feasible business strategy. There are still those that sneer at open source companies as somehow being less-than-true-businesses, despite an awful lot of evidence to the contrary. But beyond just being a good business strategy, it's worth pointing out that "open" solutions will almost always win in the end, because they simply provide more opportunities. For years, AOL insisted on a walled garden strategy -- and in the mid-90s there were many who believed that AOL's proprietary system would "beat" the wider internet. How's that looking these days?

More recently, there's been concern about the various "walled gardens" in the mobile space -- which folks like Walt Mossberg have referred to as "the Soviet ministries." Jonathan Zittrain has been beating the drum, insisting that a closed system, like the iPhone's, is a dangerous trend. However, it seems quite like looking at AOL vs. the internet in the early- to mid-90's. While the proprietary iPhone system may seem a lot better at first, there are problems under the surface -- and openness is coming to the rescue.

Now, we've been beating on mobile providers for their silly "walled garden" approach for years, so you'd expect that maybe we'd be pessimistic. But, competition does wonderful things for innovation, and Apple's presence in the market is driving everyone else to become a lot more open. Hell, even Apple is now a lot more open than it was just a little while ago, when Steve Jobs thought that 3rd party native apps would ruin the iPhone. He changed his mind when he realized that the iPhone needed a more open app environment to compete with what was coming down the road from others (competition drives innovation again).

But, Apple's iPhone apps aren't really that open -- something that we warned would be an issue. That's getting some attention now as Apple is, without explanation, making some apps disappear completely, without even telling the developers why. That will cause one (or maybe both) of two things to happen: developers will start concentrating greater efforts on other, more open, platforms to avoid having to deal with the mysterious Apple gods, or Apple will have to give in and be much more open itself.

In discussing this phenomenon, Princeton's Ed Felten points out:

Generally, the closer a system is to being open, the more practical autonomy end users will have to control it, and the more easily unauthorized third-party apps can be built for it. An almost-open system must necessarily be built by starting with an open technical infrastructure and then trying to lock it down; but given the limits of real-world lockdown technologies, this means that customers will be able to jailbreak the system.

In short, nature abhors a functionality vacuum. Design your system to remove functionality, and users will find a way to restore that functionality. Like Apple, appliance vendors are better off leading this parade than trying to stop it.

Openness isn't just a business strategy -- it's the natural evolution of the marketplace, because, in the long run, it will be the business strategy that succeeds.

Filed Under: competition, iphone, mobile phone apps, openness, walled gardens
Companies: apple

Connecticut Gives Up Banning Cameraphones In Court Rooms

from the still-can't-use-them,-though dept

It's been somewhat amusing watching as various folks overreacted to the rise of cameraphones over the past few years, with some companies banning them entirely, and a few clueless industry analysts insisting that they were just a fad that should be banned from any workplace. However, as cameraphones have become much more common, it seems that this mass hysteria is, thankfully, dying down. Over in Connecticut, they've even backed down on a rule that banned cameraphones in the court room. You're still not allowed to use them, but the courts realized now that nearly every mobile phone is a cameraphone, that it was becoming ridiculously time consuming to stop everyone from entering the courthouse, and make them tag and bag every mobile phone for storage and later pickup. Apparently, the lines to get into the courthouse were getting rather long.

Filed Under: cameraphones, connecticut, courts

ER Doctors Warn About Walking While Texting; When Will We Start Seeing Laws?

from the they're-coming dept

Anyone want to take a guess on when we'll see the first laws proposed to ban the practice of walking-while-texting? We've already seen a few proposals that would ban walking and talking in a crosswalk. And, to add some fuel to the fire, some ER doctors are warning people who walk and text at the same time that it's risky behavior. The doctors say they're seeing a rise in reports of people walking and texting at the same time, leading to some sort of injury, including two people who were hit by a car after paying more attention to their phone than oncoming traffic. Since technopanics always seem to start with a news article, just wait for someone to propose a law against this -- rather than insisting that perhaps it's time to institute a little common sense. Update: Apparently, I'm too late. At least one state has already proposed just such a law.

Filed Under: doctors, health, technopanic, texting, walking

Court Makes Sprint Pay $73 Million Early Termination Fee

from the see-how-that-feels? dept

You know that awful feeling you get when your mobile operator tells you there's a huge "early termination fee" for canceling your contract early? Yeah, that's probably about how Sprint executives feel now that Sprint may need to pay $73 million for its ETFs. A closer look at the details shows that it really would just be refunding $18.25 million and then reversing charges on another $54.75 million in ETFs that hadn't been paid. People absolutely hate ETFs, and even Sprint acknowledged this last year when it noted that its eventual WiMAX network won't have ETFs.

However, there is a reason why such ETFs exist: it's basically to recoup the subsidy that mobile operators pay to give you your super cheap mobile phones. And, those ETFs were in the contracts offered to customers, so it's difficult to see why such things are really a problem. The actual ruling sheds some light on this, as it notes that in 80% of the ETFs, it was actually Sprint terminating the contract and then still charging the ETF -- which, as the ruling points out, is basically Sprint trying to get "liquidated damages." Then, the problem is that it does so in violation of a specific California law that requires a more accurate calculation of liquidated damages, beyond "the ETF is $200 no matter what." So, this isn't the end of ETFs by any means, but might mean that they need to be a bit more fair going forward.

Filed Under: california, early termination fee, etf, liquidated damages, subsidies
Companies: sprint

AT&T Says It Will Cut Off P2P Wireless Users; But What About Pandora Users?

from the be-careful-on-that-iPhone dept

While those who like to claim that the US broadband market is more competitive than it really is like to point to the rise of 3G wireless networks as proof, they almost always ignore the fact that those 3G networks come with insanely restrictive terms of service, that allow the providers to cut users off for almost any activity outside of email or web browsing. For example, using such a service for video and music has been prohibited in some terms of service. Sprint was the most open with their 3G wireless until recently.

Now AT&T is admitting that if it discovers users of its wireless broadband 3G service are making use of P2P apps, it will cut them off completely, and claims that it makes this clear in the terms of service. It hasn't happened yet, but this bit of data will supposedly be used by a dissenting FCC commissioner this week to show that Comcast's traffic shaping is pretty tame compared to other "rules" out there on network usage (ignoring the very different nature of the networks in question, of course).

This raises a number of questions: If AT&T's biggest concern about P2P file sharing apps is clogging its 3G wireless network, why does it allow streaming apps to run on the iPhone? For example, one of the most popular apps on the iPhone is Pandora, whose customized streaming radio offering is super popular (and appears to work quite well). So is AT&T going to cut off users of one of the most popular apps on the iPhone? And how will AT&T respond when someone (inevitably, if they haven't already done so) develops an iPhone app for P2P file sharing as well? This really just seems like AT&T slipping an excuse into the terms of service to cut off anyone they don't like -- but in the long run it may backfire as people get pissed off at AT&T for limiting what new devices like the iPhone can do.

Filed Under: network usage, p2p, users, wireless
Companies: at&t, pandora