

Did Google Pre-Emptively Block a 4G iPhone on Verizon? - brownleej
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/02/verizon-4g-iphone-block/

======
Jabbles
_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
You have to remember that corporate mobile is bizarro land. Wanting Internet
freedom _is_ an ulterior motive from their perspective.

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

~~~
rbarooah
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.

~~~
jrockway
_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._

I hate to break it to you, but non-enthusiasts won't be able to deal with
anything that is not pre-installed. The good "mods" are typically full AOSP
forks, which is as open as you can get.

And of course, you don't have to have root to download the source code of the
built-in apps, edit it, and deploy to your phone.

~~~
rbarooah
You're not breaking anything to me. You're agreeing with me - the current
situation isn't open in any meaningful way.

Given they can install apps, non enthusiasts could certainly deal with a one-
click install of an alternative OS if it had compelling benefits.

I didn't think the source for the built-in apps was actually available. In any
case even if it is, what possible good does it do me to fork Google's apps to
make minor modifications to them? Why do you even bring that up?

~~~
trotsky
I think AOSP forks are open in a meaningful way. Yes, you can't one click
install an alternate Android build. But you can choose to buy handsets that
have no hardware lock, or others that have trivial (intentionally?) roadblocks
to installing a new ROM. CyanogenMod doesn't run on many handsets, but it does
run on many others.

Linux had similar difficulties much later in its life than Android is, and
*BSD still has them in terms of driver support. None of the open solutions are
anywhere close to a one click install. But I wouldn't say Linux/BSD aren't
open in a meaningful way.

I think you're expecting a bit too much in terms of your standard for
"meaningful" openness. Granted, open Android builds still are getting their
legs and have a lot of work still to do.

~~~
rbarooah
You're right that I'm expecting a lot. If the 'openness' that is claimed for
Android is only accessible to expert enthusiasts and tinkerers, that's fine,
but then those people have what they want already so why are they complaining
about the iPhone?

I think the answer is that like me, they see computers and software as a
medium for sharing ideas and creativity. The more people who can participate,
even if just as recipients, the better.

This leads some people to be angry about the closedness of the iPhone because
it's so popular.

For me, the iPhone is what it is. It solves a lot of problems for a lot of
people very nicely. It ends an era of software nightmares for everyday people,
but it doesn't usher in an era of true software openness for those of us who
believe in the potential of software to improve our world. Personally, I don't
think the way forward is to try to undo what Apple have done. You don't change
the world by being 'against' something - you change it by creating the thing
you think is missing.

Given this, I am disappointed with Android because I don't see it leading us
in the direction of a universal medium. Its direction is controlled by a
combination of Google and the Carriers, and the fragmentation (don't flame me
- I'm not talking about the exaggerated hardware differences) between the
levels of openness of handset to having the ROM replaced severely limits the
viability of a long lived fork coming from the community.

Linux and BSD are open, but more importantly the PC is open. Even the Mac is
open - I can install BSD or Linux or Windows or some homebrew OS (for which
there are plenty of kits), or an Ocaml App running in Mirage on to of Xen, or
whatever else I want on these computers. That's the kind of openness I believe
in.

Android isn't just a source tree. It's the complete system - you can't use the
source tree without hardware and a network. If these spectrum rules have any
bearing on this (which I doubt), then what would be interesting is if they
forced all the Android devices to be open.

Obviously it's easy to demonize Apple, and make Google into the hero in these
debates. Apple isn't even pretending to be open and they don't care if they're
criticized for it. If we want an open world, and Google are claiming to be
part of building that, then they are the ones who should bear scrutiny.

And if we want non-geeks to switch to this amazing open world - the answer is
simple too - make it easy to switch and better than what Apple offers.

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

------
bradleyland
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-a...](http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/07/fcc-sets-700mhz-
auction-rules-limited-open-access-no-wholesale-requirement.ars)

------
m0nastic
This wording would also seem to apply to Windows Phone 7 (which also only
allows applications to be installed from the default marketplace).

------
tzs
> 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
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.

------
Roritharr
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
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
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
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

         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
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

         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.

~~~
rbarooah
I'm not going to bother to look up references about malware or scareware etc.
on Windows. Seriously? You've never heard of spyware or people having to
reinstall windows, or registry corruption, etc. etc.?

Also several of those companies were actually born on the Mac (Adobe), or NeXT
(Mosaic->Mozilla), or FreeBSD (Yahoo). And the fact that you think Windows
enabled Hewlett Packard to be born suggests you have little grasp of history.
I was AT HP when the decision was made to standardize on Windows - it seemed
like a multi-billion dollar corporation at the time - not something that was
just being born.

I don't have a wild imagination - I've encountered lots of everyday users
who've messed up their systems by installing software that caused them
problems. One of the reasons the App store is so successful is that users
don't have to worry that installing software from it will mess them up.

Sorry, there's no double standard.

Firstly the Apple ecosystem includes the Mac, which is open, and would have
enabled me growing up to write software for my iPhone or the web or whatever I
wanted, much as I do now. I'm talking about the world as it exists now - not
some imaginary world where only iDevices exist.

And more importantly, my point is that there IS a very real benefit to the App
store for end users. We might not like it, but deceiving ourselves that there
is no value to it doesn't help anyone.

I'm not arguing for a world where all devices are closed. I'm arguing that
open devices need to actually be better and really open - not just in
principle. Competition from the iPhone is why Android devices aren't just
slightly better Blackberry's today.

If you don't like Apple's way of delivering that benefit then as you point out
the solution is to build better apps and set a standard in your domain. That's
why I'm critical of Android. I _want_ Android to be better.

The solution isn't to legislate against Apple or make false-in-practice claims
about the openness of Android. It's to make Android genuinely better and more
open.

It's also worth pointing out that if it were really open, the community might
be more involved in making it better.

------
zitterbewegung
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
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
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.

------
Hoff
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.

