| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Here is a very rough draft of my first paper. If anyone has ideas of things to delete, or topics I should address that I didn't, please let me know. I'll deal with grammar/spelling after I figure all of the content out. Thanks for the help. | | | Apple built itself as a proprietary, rather than “open”, company, and actively seeks to quell efforts by third parties to promote innovative but “unauthorized” software on iOS devices. From the moment Apple released its handheld devices users were imprisoned. Apple restricted the devices such that any new software would come from, or with the approval of, Apple and Apple alone. Not only were users unable to install third-party software, but also they were prohibited from using their devices on “unauthorized” networks, and performing certain functions or tasks. To free users from this industry-created jail, an underground community of software developers, “jailbreakers,” began investigating ways to access the system disk on Apple devices and open it. These jailbreakers sought to enable third-party developers to create programs and functions, make them available for installation by the average user, without Apple’s approval, and allow users to operate their phones on a carrier of their choosing. | |
<
< | Apple makes blatantly false statements about how jailbreaking will impact a user’s “experience” with the device. Natalie Harrison, an Apple spokeswoman, stated, “Apple’s goal has always been to ensure that our customers have a great experience with their iPhone and we know that jailbreaking can severely degrade the experience.” See http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/26/technology/iphone_jailbreaking/index.htm. This statement is unfounded. The jailbreak community, like Apple, has it in its best interest to insure reliability; people won’t jailbreak if it is going to crash their device, just like users won’t buy apps from the App Store if it will crash their device. In waging war against the jailbreakers, Apple subordinates its stated goal of offering truly innovative and efficient products to the goal of profit maximization, often to appease the major telecom companies. If Apple embraced the jailbreak community by removing the arbitrary restrictions it places at the behest of telecom companies, Apple would still profit substantially and maximize innovation and efficiency, likely without severe backlash from the telecom companies. | >
> | Apple makes blatantly false statements about how jailbreaking will impact a user’s “experience” with the device. Natalie Harrison, an Apple spokeswoman, stated, “Apple’s goal has always been to ensure that our customers have a great experience with their iPhone and we know that jailbreaking can severely degrade the experience.” See http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/26/technology/iphone_jailbreaking/index.htm. This statement is unfounded. The jailbreak community, like Apple, has it in its best interest to insure reliability; people won’t jailbreak if it is going to crash their device, just like users won’t buy apps from the App Store if those apps will crash the device. In waging war against jailbreakers, Apple subordinates its stated goal of offering truly innovative and efficient products to the goal of profit maximization, often to appease the major telecom companies. If Apple embraced the jailbreak community by removing the arbitrary restrictions it places at the behest of telecom companies, Apple would still profit substantially and maximize innovation and efficiency, likely without severe backlash from the telecom companies. | | | | |
<
< | With the iPhone 4, Apple introduced FaceTime? , a feature allowing users to video chat with other iPhone users. To this day, Apple restricts the great potential of FaceTime? , permitting its use only over Wi-Fi connections, likely at the request of the major telecom companies. Kim Streich, a third party programmer, quickly developed Unrestricted, an application enabling FaceTime? over 3G connections, allowing users to video chat on the go instead of only in stationary locations, such as home or school. This feature is clearly useful and would greatly enhance the user experience, but Apple swiftly rejected Unrestricted from the App Store. Unrestricted quickly found its way into Cydia, an unauthorized app store, in the form of a paid app. Streich stated, “people are so annoyed by Apple and their shit, and if you give them the opportunity to go around it, then they’ll even pay for it.” See http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/cydia-app-store/. Within just two weeks of its introduction into Cydia, the app garnered $19,000 in sales. This demonstrates that if Apple embraced the jailbreak community, thereby permitting apps like Unrestricted to be sold in the official App Store, Apple would profit. Creators are not deterred from using the App Store in favor of Cydia because of Apple’s fees. Cydia creator Jay Freeman, like Apple, charges 30% per app sale. See http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/cydia-app-store/. Creators are deterred simply because the App Store, as it currently operates, implements arbitrary restrictions which hinder functionality. Without arbitrary restrictions on functionality, there would be no reason for unofficial app stores. | >
> | With the iPhone 4, Apple introduced FaceTime? , a feature allowing users to video chat with other iPhone users. To this day, Apple restricts the great potential of FaceTime? , permitting its use only over Wi-Fi connections, likely at the request of the major telecom companies. Kim Streich, a third party programmer, quickly developed Unrestricted, an application enabling FaceTime? over 3G connections, allowing users to video chat on the go instead of only in stationary locations, such as home or school. This feature is clearly useful and would greatly enhance the user experience, but Apple swiftly rejected Unrestricted from the App Store. Unrestricted quickly found its way into Cydia, an unauthorized app store, in the form of a paid app. Streich stated, “people are so annoyed by Apple and their shit, and if you give them the opportunity to go around it, then they’ll even pay for it.” See http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/cydia-app-store/. Within just two weeks of its introduction into Cydia, the app garnered $19,000 in sales. This demonstrates that if Apple embraced the jailbreak community, thereby permitting apps like Unrestricted to be sold in the official App Store, Apple could profit. Creators are not deterred from using the App Store in favor of Cydia because of Apple’s fees. Cydia creator Jay Freeman, like Apple, charges 30% per app sale. See http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/cydia-app-store/. Creators are deterred simply because the App Store, as it currently operates, implements arbitrary restrictions which hinder achievement of optimal functionality. Without arbitrary restrictions on functionality, there would be no reason for unofficial app stores. | | | | |
<
< | Most users do not jailbreak their phones, so what incentive does Apple have to stir the pot with telecom companies in favor of jailbreakers? Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, reported that as of October 2011, China is Apple’s second largest market, accounting for roughly 16% of sales. See http://news.businessweek.com/article.asp?documentKey=1376-LTAG816TTDSA01-2F6G3VDNPFKF5PM4STRMK5TJMK. Further, roughly 35% of iOS devices in China are jailbroken. See http://3g.unlockediphone.info/2011/05/09/jailbreak-statistics-in-china/. If Apple removed arbitrary restrictions on functionality, these applications would be available on the official App Store, for 100% of all iOS users to purchase, and these 35% of users would convert to the official App Store for purchasing their applications. Further, many people purchase non-iOS devices specifically because Apple is a closed system with arbitrary restrictions. Removing the restrictions will induce more people to convert to iOS. Thus, Apple stands to profit substantially from embracing the jailbreak community. Not only will Apple profit, but also the user experience will be greatly enhanced, thus achieving Apple’s stated goal; new, innovative features such as free tethering, Adobe Flash, and text messaging enhancements will be offered, through the user-trusted App Store, to all. | >
> | Most users do not jailbreak their phones, so what incentive does Apple have to stir the pot with telecom companies in favor of jailbreakers? Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, reported that as of October 2011, China is Apple’s second largest market, accounting for roughly 16% of sales. See http://news.businessweek.com/article.asp?documentKey=1376-LTAG816TTDSA01-2F6G3VDNPFKF5PM4STRMK5TJMK. Further, roughly 35% of iOS devices in China are jailbroken. See http://3g.unlockediphone.info/2011/05/09/jailbreak-statistics-in-china/. If Apple removed arbitrary restrictions on functionality, these applications would be available on the official App Store, for 100% of all iOS users to purchase, and these 35% of Chinese users would convert to the official App Store for purchasing their applications. Further, many people purchase non-iOS devices specifically because Apple is a closed system with arbitrary restrictions. Removing the restrictions will induce more people to convert to Apple and iOS. Thus, Apple stands to profit substantially from embracing the jailbreak community. Not only will Apple profit, but also the user experience will be greatly enhanced, thus achieving Apple’s stated goal; new, innovative features such as free tethering, Adobe Flash, and text messaging enhancements will be offered, through the user-trusted App Store, to all. | | | | |
<
< | Some argue that removing restrictions which were implemented at the request of the major telecom companies could actually hinder Apple’s profit potential and could have an adverse affect on user’s in that telecom companies could simply charge more for mobile service. Given the current structure of the mobile device industry, however, this is an unlikely result. A year ago, if Apple were to remove the restrictions implemented by AT&T and Verizon, surely data charges would increase. However, given that Sprint has pledged $20 billion to Apple for the iPhones, AT&T and Verizon are now facing potential competition; Sprint will do whatever it can to realize its investment in the iPhone. Given that it subsidizes the cost of the devices, Sprint intends to make the most off of service charges. See http://mashable.com/2011/10/03/sprint-20-billion-iphone/. Thus, Sprint will do whatever it can to convert customers away from AT&T and Verizon. The release of the iPhone 4S was Sprints best sales day ever. Thus, Sprint could potentially make a comeback in the industry and pose a substantial threat to AT&T and Verizon, reducing the risk of AT&T and Verizon increasing services rates. Given that iOS commands a substantial market share, telecom companies want Apple to remain in business and will not act in ways that negatively impact Apple users. | >
> | Some argue that removing restrictions which were implemented at the request of the major telecom companies could actually hinder Apple’s profit potential and could have an adverse affect on user’s in that telecom companies could simply charge more for mobile service. Given the current structure of the mobile device industry, however, this is an unlikely result. A year ago, if Apple were to remove the restrictions implemented by AT&T and Verizon, surely data charges would increase. However, given that Sprint has pledged $20 billion to Apple for the iPhones, AT&T and Verizon are now facing potential competition; Sprint will do whatever it can to realize its investment in the iPhone. Given that it subsidizes the cost of the devices, Sprint intends to make the most off of service charges. See http://mashable.com/2011/10/03/sprint-20-billion-iphone/. Thus, Sprint will do whatever it can to convert customers away from AT&T and Verizon. The release of the iPhone 4S was Sprints best sales day ever and it appears that Sprint could potentially make a comeback and pose a substantial threat to AT&T and Verizon. This would reduce the risk of AT&T and Verizon increasing services rates. Further, given that iOS commands a substantial market share, telecom companies likely want Apple to remain in business and will not act in ways that negatively impact Apple’s users.
Thus, by removing arbitrary restrictions on functionality, and thereby obfuscating the need for an unauthorized app store, Apple stands to achieve its stated goal of improving the user experience, while substantially profiting, without severe backlash from the major telecom companies. | | | | |
<
< | Thus, by removing arbitrary restrictions on functionality, and thereby obfuscating the need for an unauthorized app store, Apple stands to achieve its stated goal of improving the user experience and stands to substantially profit without severe backlash from the major telecom companies. | | | |
|