5 ms·

Did Google Pre-Emptively Block a 4G iPhone on Verizon?

43 points by brownleej 16y ago

Roritharr 16y ago
This is potentially great news because it reverses the recent trend that legislature is used to revoke freedom where possible. That the iPhone 4G is hampered by this is just a pill apple has to swallow. As if there weren't more bands that could be used to serve non-free phones.
- Stwerner 16y ago
  I don't exactly see how this is great news. While some may enjoy seeing Apple squirm, what about the consumers who prefer the iPhone over any android offerings?
  - chapel 16y ago
    I am all for consumer choice, but if Apple complied with the rule, that would only give consumers more choice when it comes to applications on the iPhone. Imagine people being able to install applications without Apple approving them. Yeah I know, crappy apps, security, blah blah blah. Giving people the choice to install 3rd party applications is a good thing, for consumers and app makers.
    - rbarooah 16y ago
      Obviously not everyone agrees that devices that can install software from anywhere would be a good thing. Why not let the market decide? If the 'open' android model is so great then won't they inevitably win? It seems to me that using laws to force Apple to change their designs to be more like their competitors is an admission that the competition just isn't that good.
      - bad_user 16y ago
        If the 'open' android model is so great then won't they inevitably win? No, because the effects of openness, or lack thereof, are very long term ... just as smoking, or lack of it, just as eating lots of candy or not. Even if "open" is so great, people choose shiny/tasty (i.e. short term gains) over "open" all the time. This is actually the greatest example of capitalism I've ever seen or heard. In corner A we've got companies that benefit from closed gardens. In corner B that want to keep the Internet free, because they recognize that it's an essential ingredient to their bottom line. That's how capitalism should work, that's how consumers benefit; and YES, the market will decide. We are used to companies lobbying for their own selfish interest, but in this case we've got companies on both sides, which will make the consumers voices heard. The only question is, what do you gain from a the closed iPhone environment? If you're an iPhone developer, why do you fear an "open model"? Wouldn't you be happier in that environment? Myself, both as a consumer and as a developer, I know I would be happier.
        rbarooah 16y ago
        I am a developer. With Apple's model I gain from having an environment where users feel safe to buy apps. I don't fear an open model, but it has not been proven to be better for users - windows was open and look where that got us in the 'long term'. Seems like a pretty diseased ecosystem to me. As a developer I want an environment where everyday users are not afraid of software. Maybe Google can create that too, but maybe not. I think it would be a disaster if we don't get to see both models tested. History hasn't shown that open is better - quite the contrary. I'd like to see the curated model get a chance to play out. I have a feeling that in a decade's time we'll be looking at which curation model worked best - not whether open or closed was better.
        bad_user 16y ago
        windows was open and look where that got us in the 'long term'. I don't know at what you're hinting at, but openness wasn't Windows' problem. You're setting up a strawman. The problem with Windows was that Microsoft, by means of this monopoly, could force its entry into other markets. The problem with Windows is that Microsoft could force the hands of computer manufacturers to bundle it, forcing competition out of the market. The problem with Microsoft products in general were the closed protocols that only worked right with other Microsoft software. ... pretty diseased ecosystem to me References please. Secondly, for all its flaws, its openness allowed for the birth of Corel, Adobe, Autocad, SAP, Yahoo, Mozilla, Hewlett Packard, AMD and countless of others. I want an environment where everyday users are not afraid of software You either have a wild imagination, or you're setting up another strawman. Everyday users wouldn't even know how a computer looks like if the only company from which you could buy one would be Apple or IBM. And everyday users are only afraid of software complexity (i.e. things for which they cannot form a mental model / not working the way they expect to). If you want to save the world for everyday users, build less shittier apps and set a standard in your domain. This is actually interesting: you obviously are a software developer that built his skills and even reputation by relying on open systems; and yet you obviously preach against doing whatever users want with the hardware they've bought, even if you did so yourself while growing up. Will that "save the children" in the process? That's a double standard.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
zitterbewegung 16y ago
What would be the alternative then? If apple can't field a 4g phone what would they have to do to get one? Relax app store standards? (That doesn't seem very likely) I seriously doubt that they will never have a 4g phone ever and not releasing one doesn't seem to be an option.
- chapel 16y ago
  All they would have to do to comply with this rule is to allow people to install apps not served from the App Store, much like Android already does. Seems like a simple enough request, and would only benefit users.
  - fpgeek 16y ago
    In theory, it is a simple enough request. In practice, Apple has been doing a lot of things (e.g. the new subscription model and in-app purchasing rules) that only work because Apple is the sole source for iOS apps. Changing that is unlikely to be easy for them.
  - rbarooah 16y ago
    Not true. Look at the mess windows is in because of bad software. If you've ever had to help a non-tech-savvy user who has messed up their computer by installing bad software that was recommended to them by a well meaning friend, you'll know that there are real benefits to the app store model.
- xsmasher 16y ago
  Apple could allow the phone to be set up in one of two "modes" - one that allows any app to be installed from any source but does not allow connections to iTunes, app store, Game Center, notifications, subscriptions, or any of Apple's other services; and the normal mode that functions like a regular iPhone does now. Viola, the user has a "choice" of open/crippled or locked/functional modes; they're meeting the letter of the law even if the "open" mode is practically useless.
  - rbarooah 16y ago
mambodog 16y ago
If this interpretation of the rules correct, then by the same logic all carrier-locked-down Android phones would surely also be affected.
- nkassis 16y ago
  Yeah, they'd have to be unlocked (does it also need to be rootable?). But they already allow pretty much any app from being installed. The apple app store rules could be contrived into protecting against apps which might be dangerous for the network but that's far fetched and would soon be attacked. It won't be hard for Verizon to find an android device to meet the rules. But iPhone is definitively a challenge if I understand how the rule is interpreted.
- guptaneil 16y ago
  the “open access” rules attached to the so-called 700 Mhz C block require the carrier to allow the use of any hardware or software that it can’t prove won’t damage the network. The way I read the rules, it seems like Verizon can't lock down or discriminate against devices that won't harm its network. The device manufacturer (Apple in the iPhone's case) can offer whatever functionality they want on their device. If the interpretation from the article is used, then no specialized devices like a Skype phone or a wireless medical device could be allowed on the 4G network either, since they are not open to any sort of apps. Obviously, that makes little sense.
- rbarooah 16y ago
  Nice. If this rule forced real open devices to come into existence then it would be very interesting. To me a genuinely open device would be one where we can reasonably fork Android and make a real open source variant. The idea of a much more flexible, user modifiable device (think dynabook) is very appealing to me. This isn't possible now because most devices are locked, and even rooting isn't an end-user operation, so it's impractical for unofficial variants to propagate. (which for my purposes means that Android may as well not be 'open') Yes, I know there are 'mods', but they don't count because only enthusiasts can deal with them, and they don't work on all devices. From that point of view iOS is more 'open' because jailbreaks work on all iPhones.
Jabbles 16y ago
The rules were inserted at the behest of Google, which was bidding for the spectrum but who some cynics contended got involved not to win but to ensure that whoever got the spectrum couldn’t hamper its business, which requires a free and robust internet. Cynics? I'd have thought a cynic would accuse Google of having an ulterior motive other than wanting Internet freedom.
- Qz 16y ago
  You have to remember that corporate mobile is bizarro land. Wanting Internet freedom is an ulterior motive from their perspective.
tzs 16y ago
> The problem is that the “open access” rules attached to the so-called 700 Mhz C block require the carrier to allow the use of any hardware or software that it can’t prove won’t damage the network. So if the carrier CAN prove that it won't damage the network, it can block it? That can't be right.
- dalore 16y ago
  By strict logical standards you would be right. If they can prove it won't damage then it fails the test. But if that is the case then also "if they can't prove it will damage the network" also fails the test and they could block those. I would think if we looked at the specific ruling it would be: can't prove it won't damage -> allowed can prove it will damage -> can block can prove it won't damage -> allowed can't prove it will damage -> allowed So it would have been clearer if they said if they can prove it will damage the network.
tzs 16y ago
Apple isn't a carrier. As long as Verizon (the carrier) doesn't block jail broken phones, I don't see any rules violation.
m0nastic 16y ago
This wording would also seem to apply to Windows Phone 7 (which also only allows applications to be installed from the default marketplace).
Hoff 16y ago
I'm waiting for the Wired article entitled: "Why Wired Uses Titles Referencing iPhone and Verizon and ending in a Question Mark?" As for this case, this appears entirely analogous to the Carterfone decision. Other folks can connect FCC-approved and unlocked gear onto 700 MHz without encountering a carrier prohibition (akin to what we have with wired telephone connections) while paying the 700 MHz carrier(s) for their services. I seriously doubt that Verizon would be denied the ability to sell locked phones out of this. There's no way Verizon lawyers would sign that one.
bradleyland 16y ago
This is a ridiculous conflation of the facts. "The problem is that the 'open access' rules attached to the so-called 700 Mhz C block require the carrier to allow the use of any hardware or software that it can’t prove won’t damage the network." Put simply, Verizon must allow customers to use "unlocked" phones on their network. How in the world do we go from that to "Verizon must only offer unlocked phones"? Then the author claims that the motivating actor is Google, who only sells one unlocked phone, and it only sells it in a GSM variant. Jump ahead to a quote from Markham Erickson, who just happens to be the executive director of the Open Internet Coalition. I'm sure his view is impartial and objective, right? The biggest "tell" that this is link bait is the fact that they chose the iPhone as the headliner. News flash: every Android phone sold on Verizon is also in violation of this rule interpretation. Apple has no qualms about selling unlocked iPhones. They do it abroad. Apple recognizes the value of a channel partner, and consumers have voted with their wallets. When given the choice between a $600 unsubsidized iPhone (which is still available, by the way) and a $200 phone with a two-year contract, customers go for the cheaper phone. Thus Apple sells phones though the channel that moves units. If Verizon is forced to open their phones, expect prices for Verizon phones to skyrocket, resulting in a significant advantage for their competitors. I find it very difficult to believe that the government would give such an unfair advantage to Verizon's competitors. The overview on Ars Technica is much better (as usual) and doesn't attempt to sensationalize the impact of the ruling. Note that it's from 2007. There isn't much new here other than the fact that someone is attempting to troll Verizon with an old ruling. http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/07/fcc-sets-700mhz-auction-rules-limited-open-access-no-wholesale-requirement.ars http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/07/fcc-sets-700mhz-a...

43 points by brownleej 16y ago

This is potentially great news because it reverses the recent trend that legislature is used to revoke freedom where possible. That the iPhone 4G is hampered by this is just a pill apple has to swallow. As if there weren't more bands that could be used to serve non-free phones.

Stwerner 16y ago
I don't exactly see how this is great news. While some may enjoy seeing Apple squirm, what about the consumers who prefer the iPhone over any android offerings?
- chapel 16y ago
  I am all for consumer choice, but if Apple complied with the rule, that would only give consumers more choice when it comes to applications on the iPhone. Imagine people being able to install applications without Apple approving them. Yeah I know, crappy apps, security, blah blah blah. Giving people the choice to install 3rd party applications is a good thing, for consumers and app makers.
  - rbarooah 16y ago
    Obviously not everyone agrees that devices that can install software from anywhere would be a good thing. Why not let the market decide? If the 'open' android model is so great then won't they inevitably win? It seems to me that using laws to force Apple to change their designs to be more like their competitors is an admission that the competition just isn't that good.
    - bad_user 16y ago
      If the 'open' android model is so great then won't they inevitably win? No, because the effects of openness, or lack thereof, are very long term ... just as smoking, or lack of it, just as eating lots of candy or not. Even if "open" is so great, people choose shiny/tasty (i.e. short term gains) over "open" all the time. This is actually the greatest example of capitalism I've ever seen or heard. In corner A we've got companies that benefit from closed gardens. In corner B that want to keep the Internet free, because they recognize that it's an essential ingredient to their bottom line. That's how capitalism should work, that's how consumers benefit; and YES, the market will decide. We are used to companies lobbying for their own selfish interest, but in this case we've got companies on both sides, which will make the consumers voices heard. The only question is, what do you gain from a the closed iPhone environment? If you're an iPhone developer, why do you fear an "open model"? Wouldn't you be happier in that environment? Myself, both as a consumer and as a developer, I know I would be happier.
      - rbarooah 16y ago
        I am a developer. With Apple's model I gain from having an environment where users feel safe to buy apps. I don't fear an open model, but it has not been proven to be better for users - windows was open and look where that got us in the 'long term'. Seems like a pretty diseased ecosystem to me. As a developer I want an environment where everyday users are not afraid of software. Maybe Google can create that too, but maybe not. I think it would be a disaster if we don't get to see both models tested. History hasn't shown that open is better - quite the contrary. I'd like to see the curated model get a chance to play out. I have a feeling that in a decade's time we'll be looking at which curation model worked best - not whether open or closed was better.
        bad_user 16y ago
        windows was open and look where that got us in the 'long term'. I don't know at what you're hinting at, but openness wasn't Windows' problem. You're setting up a strawman. The problem with Windows was that Microsoft, by means of this monopoly, could force its entry into other markets. The problem with Windows is that Microsoft could force the hands of computer manufacturers to bundle it, forcing competition out of the market. The problem with Microsoft products in general were the closed protocols that only worked right with other Microsoft software. ... pretty diseased ecosystem to me References please. Secondly, for all its flaws, its openness allowed for the birth of Corel, Adobe, Autocad, SAP, Yahoo, Mozilla, Hewlett Packard, AMD and countless of others. I want an environment where everyday users are not afraid of software You either have a wild imagination, or you're setting up another strawman. Everyday users wouldn't even know how a computer looks like if the only company from which you could buy one would be Apple or IBM. And everyday users are only afraid of software complexity (i.e. things for which they cannot form a mental model / not working the way they expect to). If you want to save the world for everyday users, build less shittier apps and set a standard in your domain. This is actually interesting: you obviously are a software developer that built his skills and even reputation by relying on open systems; and yet you obviously preach against doing whatever users want with the hardware they've bought, even if you did so yourself while growing up. Will that "save the children" in the process? That's a double standard.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

zitterbewegung 16y ago

What would be the alternative then? If apple can't field a 4g phone what would they have to do to get one? Relax app store standards? (That doesn't seem very likely) I seriously doubt that they will never have a 4g phone ever and not releasing one doesn't seem to be an option.

chapel 16y ago
All they would have to do to comply with this rule is to allow people to install apps not served from the App Store, much like Android already does. Seems like a simple enough request, and would only benefit users.
- fpgeek 16y ago
  In theory, it is a simple enough request. In practice, Apple has been doing a lot of things (e.g. the new subscription model and in-app purchasing rules) that only work because Apple is the sole source for iOS apps. Changing that is unlikely to be easy for them.
- rbarooah 16y ago
  Not true. Look at the mess windows is in because of bad software. If you've ever had to help a non-tech-savvy user who has messed up their computer by installing bad software that was recommended to them by a well meaning friend, you'll know that there are real benefits to the app store model.
xsmasher 16y ago
Apple could allow the phone to be set up in one of two "modes" - one that allows any app to be installed from any source but does not allow connections to iTunes, app store, Game Center, notifications, subscriptions, or any of Apple's other services; and the normal mode that functions like a regular iPhone does now. Viola, the user has a "choice" of open/crippled or locked/functional modes; they're meeting the letter of the law even if the "open" mode is practically useless.
- rbarooah 16y ago

mambodog 16y ago

If this interpretation of the rules correct, then by the same logic all carrier-locked-down Android phones would surely also be affected.

nkassis 16y ago
Yeah, they'd have to be unlocked (does it also need to be rootable?). But they already allow pretty much any app from being installed. The apple app store rules could be contrived into protecting against apps which might be dangerous for the network but that's far fetched and would soon be attacked. It won't be hard for Verizon to find an android device to meet the rules. But iPhone is definitively a challenge if I understand how the rule is interpreted.
guptaneil 16y ago
the “open access” rules attached to the so-called 700 Mhz C block require the carrier to allow the use of any hardware or software that it can’t prove won’t damage the network. The way I read the rules, it seems like Verizon can't lock down or discriminate against devices that won't harm its network. The device manufacturer (Apple in the iPhone's case) can offer whatever functionality they want on their device. If the interpretation from the article is used, then no specialized devices like a Skype phone or a wireless medical device could be allowed on the 4G network either, since they are not open to any sort of apps. Obviously, that makes little sense.
rbarooah 16y ago
Nice. If this rule forced real open devices to come into existence then it would be very interesting. To me a genuinely open device would be one where we can reasonably fork Android and make a real open source variant. The idea of a much more flexible, user modifiable device (think dynabook) is very appealing to me. This isn't possible now because most devices are locked, and even rooting isn't an end-user operation, so it's impractical for unofficial variants to propagate. (which for my purposes means that Android may as well not be 'open') Yes, I know there are 'mods', but they don't count because only enthusiasts can deal with them, and they don't work on all devices. From that point of view iOS is more 'open' because jailbreaks work on all iPhones.

Jabbles 16y ago

The rules were inserted at the behest of Google, which was bidding for the spectrum but who some cynics contended got involved not to win but to ensure that whoever got the spectrum couldn’t hamper its business, which requires a free and robust internet. Cynics? I'd have thought a cynic would accuse Google of having an ulterior motive other than wanting Internet freedom.

Qz 16y ago
You have to remember that corporate mobile is bizarro land. Wanting Internet freedom is an ulterior motive from their perspective.

tzs 16y ago

> The problem is that the “open access” rules attached to the so-called 700 Mhz C block require the carrier to allow the use of any hardware or software that it can’t prove won’t damage the network. So if the carrier CAN prove that it won't damage the network, it can block it? That can't be right.

dalore 16y ago
By strict logical standards you would be right. If they can prove it won't damage then it fails the test. But if that is the case then also "if they can't prove it will damage the network" also fails the test and they could block those. I would think if we looked at the specific ruling it would be: can't prove it won't damage -> allowed can prove it will damage -> can block can prove it won't damage -> allowed can't prove it will damage -> allowed So it would have been clearer if they said if they can prove it will damage the network.

tzs 16y ago

Apple isn't a carrier. As long as Verizon (the carrier) doesn't block jail broken phones, I don't see any rules violation.

m0nastic 16y ago

This wording would also seem to apply to Windows Phone 7 (which also only allows applications to be installed from the default marketplace).

Hoff 16y ago

I'm waiting for the Wired article entitled: "Why Wired Uses Titles Referencing iPhone and Verizon and ending in a Question Mark?" As for this case, this appears entirely analogous to the Carterfone decision. Other folks can connect FCC-approved and unlocked gear onto 700 MHz without encountering a carrier prohibition (akin to what we have with wired telephone connections) while paying the 700 MHz carrier(s) for their services. I seriously doubt that Verizon would be denied the ability to sell locked phones out of this. There's no way Verizon lawyers would sign that one.

bradleyland 16y ago

This is a ridiculous conflation of the facts. "The problem is that the 'open access' rules attached to the so-called 700 Mhz C block require the carrier to allow the use of any hardware or software that it can’t prove won’t damage the network." Put simply, Verizon must allow customers to use "unlocked" phones on their network. How in the world do we go from that to "Verizon must only offer unlocked phones"? Then the author claims that the motivating actor is Google, who only sells one unlocked phone, and it only sells it in a GSM variant. Jump ahead to a quote from Markham Erickson, who just happens to be the executive director of the Open Internet Coalition. I'm sure his view is impartial and objective, right? The biggest "tell" that this is link bait is the fact that they chose the iPhone as the headliner. News flash: every Android phone sold on Verizon is also in violation of this rule interpretation. Apple has no qualms about selling unlocked iPhones. They do it abroad. Apple recognizes the value of a channel partner, and consumers have voted with their wallets. When given the choice between a $600 unsubsidized iPhone (which is still available, by the way) and a $200 phone with a two-year contract, customers go for the cheaper phone. Thus Apple sells phones though the channel that moves units. If Verizon is forced to open their phones, expect prices for Verizon phones to skyrocket, resulting in a significant advantage for their competitors. I find it very difficult to believe that the government would give such an unfair advantage to Verizon's competitors. The overview on Ars Technica is much better (as usual) and doesn't attempt to sensationalize the impact of the ruling. Note that it's from 2007. There isn't much new here other than the fact that someone is attempting to troll Verizon with an old ruling. http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/07/fcc-sets-700mhz-auction-rules-limited-open-access-no-wholesale-requirement.ars http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/07/fcc-sets-700mhz-a...