A blog of aggregated miscellanea and things I like uncovered from my daily travails. I'm @jacobjay, a peripatetic designer/developer of British persuasion, having interests in gastronomy, fashion, technology, interiors and sustainability. I'm currently living between New Delhi and France, working on a Lua web platform and e-commerce. I dig Macs, mountain biking and smelly cheese.
I used to be an Apple fan-boy, but that was a phase, now I just use Apple kit because they’ve got the nicest tools for the job, that also get the job done. This hullabaloo about people quitting the iPhone is a resurgence of the whole Mac versus Windows trollfest.
iPhones, like Macs (or ‘PCs’) before them, are just tools, and should be used as such. If the iPhone doesn’t do what you want, use something that does. There’s always a tradeoff, as nothing is perfect—and yet these people want their iPhones to be just that. Of course Apple could be blamed for setting expectation so high, but you’re a fool if you think you can have your iPhone and eat it. In his blog post Arrington says “Apple and AT&T are forcing this decision on me” [paraphrased]. No, by choosing to enter a controlled environment you are but subjecting yourself to despotism (if you will).
If I buy a giant SUV and it doesn’t fit down the road, is the SUV manufacturer at fault? No, it’s my stupid fault for not choosing the most appropriate tool for the job given the mediums available. If I, and enough others, genuinely need a giant SUV, then maybe the road-builder is at fault for making it too small.
Don’t get me wrong, discussion is useful, and there is an interesting angle to this in terms of the neutrality of a medium and anti-competitive behaviour however. We take for granted (in most countries) that we can comunicate freely with each other—via voice in person at the very least. Is the internet such a universal medium wherever it may be, or can it be provided in partial restricted forms? Should users be free to do as they please, or is it okay for them to be locked in?
With fixed internet access we have come to accept almost complete freedom to use the communication bandwidth we pay for as we wish (legal issues aside), but this has never really been the case with mobile. Now regulators (the FCC) are starting to wake up to the idea that carriers might be repsonsible for ensuring that the utility of the internet is uncrippled wherever it is deployed…and I agree on that. Access to knowledge and comunication should be a right, and the Internet is an effective mechanism for providing that.
Apple however are not a carrier but provide a device, an application, a platform—a tool, and just one of many, for use with a carrier. If this iPhone tool can’t or isn’t allowed to (for any reason whatsoever) access a service such as Google Voice, shucks, find one that does. It isn’t a monopoly…yet.
Apple may employ restrictions to provide a better user experience to most of their users, and whilst some are left complaining because they want it both ways, such people will always exist and may or may not have valid needs outside those already on offer. If the iPhone does open up more, those few users will get what they want, but what impact to everyone else? We have every right to persuade and argue as we please, but who are we to enforce? If we enforce the tool maker in this manner, then every tool maker must be treated the same way. Open standards would be required everywhere, and this would stifle innovation. Yes openness is great, but not if it’s enforced everywhere.
An exception to this would be in the case that there were limited devices with encumbered access to internet services, such as due to monopoly. But we have plenty of choice in our tools—it doesn’t matter if the alternatives suck, that can be changed. A further caveat would be if Apple enforced restrictions on their carriers, it should be the duty of carriers to provide the unencumbered service we pay for (especially if you’re locked to that carrier) and thus they should not enter into contracts that restrict this. But it’s the carrier at fault, not the tool-maker.
Incidentally declaring internet access a right wouldn’t have any practical purpose. We would actually have to stipulate what applications (protocols) were to be provided, like email, the web, SIP, whatever…in order to prevent despotic ‘AppStore’ scenarios.
I’m not for or against regulation, but making biased demands or acusations of inequitable treatment based on personal need, without considering the wider ecosystem and your own choices, is unhelpful.
