| | |
|
AustinKlarPaper1 14 - 25 Oct 2011 - Main.AustinKlar
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
UPDATED DRAFT NEAR BOTTOM OF PAGE | | | You say that Apple stands to gain from removing restrictions b/c a more open product would render the iPhone and iOS more attractive to consumers (this would be esp. important in China, for example). You also note that some argue such openness could hurt Apple's bottom-line or, at least, damage its relationships with the telecom companies that carry the iPhone--indeed, this may be more true now that Sprint has entered the market b/c whereas AT&T and Verizon used to be able to recoup any losses by raising data charges, Sprint now acts as a check on their ability to financially insulate themselves from changes in Apple's policies. Presumably, Apple's rejection of openness is a product of its own cost/benefit analysis--while it may stand to profit more from an open product, it's simply not worth it for other reasons. If Apple values its relationships with the telecom companies more than the prospect of increased sales flowing from fewer restrictions on its product, should Apple reduce its restrictions on functionality? What if, by removing these restrictions, Apple incurred costs--such as reduced cooperation from telecom companies hurt by Apple's openness--that killed or delayed the production of other products that users stand to greatly enjoy and/or benefit from? Why isn't it right to defer to Apple's decision to do X versus Y when that decision is ultimately a business call between two different sets of costs and benefits for the company, its shareholders and users?
-- MatthewLadner - 25 Oct 2011 | |
>
> |
I guess my point is that Apple shouldn't value its relationship with telecom companies more. In an ideal world (which we obviously don't operate in), the user is most important; his needs, and his goals, should be what drives the product. Afterall, that's what free software is all about (free in this case meaning open, not free as in $0). What products would be killed or delayed? The whole point is that with Sprint, Apple has a third company out there willing to check ATT and Verizon, thereby insuring Verizon and ATT remain viable options on the market for end users. Verizon and ATT stand to make a TON of money if they allow Apple to continue to operate making handsets for use on their networks. I see zero reason why the telecom companies would risk billions of dollars in revenue just becuase Apple thumbed their noses at them by opening up 3G connections for facetime use....If Sprint, as we both think, can serve as a check, not much backlash will actually be incurred on Apple.
So, I'm confused as to what decisions on products Apple has to make to delay or kill?
-- AustinKlar - 25 Oct 2011 | | |
\ No newline at end of file |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |