I don’t know if I would characterize the iPhone as akin to Louboutin. iPhones are not prohibitively expensive. They cost $199, the same as many other smartphones on the market. Whether or not Apple makes a substantial profit on the phone has nothing to do with whether or not the phone is a luxury good akin to Louboutin. Absolutely the iPhone is a luxury good. But so is every other smartphone in the world. No one needs the newest android phone or the newest iPhone, or any smartphone for that matter. People want them though because they are useful tools. Further, The percentage of people who buy Louboutin in the shoe market is drastically less than the people who buy iPhones in the smartphone market. The fact is that I buy an iPhone because it works well and it looks nice. I’ve tried many other smartphones and don’t like them as much. The “Louboutin” factor, as you refer to it, has nothing to do with why I buy an iPhone. More of my friends own iPhones than not. I think I have at most two friends who actually own Louboutin. It’s a different class/type of luxury. The iPhone is democratized luxury.

I certainly agree with the idea that patents are becoming the tool by which these companies war against each other. The Nortel patent deal, as you discussed in class, is clear evidence of that trend. However, in my paper, I’m not only referring to iPhone. I’m referring to iOS as a whole. While the iPhone market might not be enough to “strangle a kitten”, Apple’s share of the tablet market and the music player market I believe constitutes a stranglehold. No other company comes close to Apple’s tablet market and no other company even tries making music players anymore. So, while you are certainly right that the phone market itself might not be as dominant, the iOS market as a whole is much more substantial.

Yes, Steve Jobs is dead. And I agree with you 100% that the intangible asset factor will be affected by this. He was the company; He made it what it is. And he is gone. Of course this will affect the company monetarily. All I was saying was that as of this time, people were valuing Apple as the most valuable company in the world. The point I was trying to make with the “most valuable company in the world” issue was that Apple has become extremely successful. They might not be talking about selling physical assets. They could be talking about book value. Either way, in some form of “value” that people measure, Apple is (or was when I wrote this), the most valuable company in the world. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-09/apple-rises-from-near-bankruptcy-to-become-most-valuable-company.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/27/how-much-is-apple-worth_n_1035973.html According to this, Apple pulled in $37.5 billion in cash profits in fiscal 2011. Further, Apple has over $80 billion in cash, cash equivalents, and market securities. Sounds like they make quite a profit. You even said earlier that “Mr Jobs makes more than 50% of the world's profit on handset manufacture”…To me it sounds like Apple makes substantial profit. I have only the SEC filing report and the Wall Street Journal to go off of for that information.

Right. But my point is that the stated goal of Apple according to this spokeswoman is to foster true innovation, to make the experience the most enjoyable. Making money comes from having the best experience on a handset. They are separate issues but they necessarily touch upon each other. And the proprietary model cannot be ideal for fostering true innovation when it comes to free software. That is the point of free software, as I understand it from class discussion. People are able to change and adapt the software to make it better, more usable. So if free software is blocked, it hurts progression and innovation.

Not really. The importance of any analysis of Apple begins from the tiny share of everything that it actually commands. The corpse of Mr Jobs makes 5.6% of the world's mobile phones, for example. Another way to think of that is that more than 94% of the people who use some such product in the world don't use his. The corpse of Mr Jobs makes more than 50% of the world's profit on handset manufacture, however. In other words, Apple is a manufacturer of luxury products, sold in small quantities at insanely inflated prices. Millions of units in a market of billions, sold to people who do not bring to the purchase any sense of the relevance of value to price, because the handbag or shoe or handset is being sold on a "personal identity facilitation" basis: you're becoming the sort of person who wears Louboutin, carries Kate Spade, or submits to Jobs. Most of the rest of us (could you say of us, given the inevitable forecast now that the wizard is dead, that we are at very least the 95%?) tend to regard the result with something like shock and disgust and something like outraged helpless boredom, as we do with all the other "let them eat cake like mine" behavior displayed all the time by the world's privileged, educated, complacent, self-absorbed, narcissistic stupid people, whose insecurities about technology and about themselves make them Apple's ideal customer.

I don’t know if I would characterize the iPhone as akin to Louboutin. iPhones are not prohibitively expensive. They cost $199, the same as many other smartphones on the market. Whether or not Apple makes a substantial profit on the phone has nothing to do with whether or not the phone is a luxury good akin to Louboutin. Absolutely the iPhone is a luxury good. But so is every other smartphone in the world. No one needs the newest android phone or the newest iPhone, or any smartphone for that matter. People want them though because they are useful tools. Further, The percentage of people who buy Louboutin in the shoe market is drastically less than the people who buy iPhones in the smartphone market. The fact is that I buy an iPhone because it works well and it looks nice. I’ve tried many other smartphones and don’t like them as much. The “Louboutin” factor, as you refer to it, has nothing to do with why I buy an iPhone. More of my friends own iPhones than not. I think I have two friends who actually own Louboutin. It’s a different class/type of luxury. The iPhone is democratized luxury.

What stranglehold? Expensive smartphones are a tiny fraction of the world's handsets, and Android is enabling manufacturers all over the world to turn out es equivalent product at immense cost advantage. Even in its own tiny segment the iPhone is not capable of strangling a kitten, which is why the real market is becoming not smartphones but patents you can use to block your competitors smartphones, which Apple and Google are buying from other people at immensely inflated valuations at lightning speed.

I certainly agree with the idea that patents are becoming the tool by which these companies war against each other. The Nortel patent deal, as you discussed in class, is clear evidence of that trend. However, in my paper, I’m not only referring to iPhone. I’m referring to iOS as a whole. While the iPhone market might not be enough to “strangle a kitten”, Apple’s share of the tablet market and the music player market I believe constitutes a stranglehold. No other company comes close to Apple’s tablet market and no other company even tries making music players anymore. So, while you are certainly right that the phone market itself might not be as dominant, the iOS market as a whole is much more substantial. Stranglehold might be too strong of a word, so I will change it.

No, not literally, figuratively. No one actually thinks you could sell the assets of Apple for more than the assets of IBM: we're not talking about book value. We're talking about "market capitalization," which is the number of shares outstanding multiplied by the price the last fool paid for what he bought, based (unless as a fool he invests on the greater fool theory) on his guesses about the future sales of the various companies whose "market capitalization" we are comparing. Apple's "literal" value is slight. As you may know, it doesn't make anything. It sits atop the most complicated and far-flung supply chain in the business, assembled by the current stand-in for the Corpse Of The Greatest Businessman and Genius in the History of Humanity, Tim Cook. Mr Cook is a man who really really really knows how to buy plastic, which he used to do for Compaq before he went to become the Corpse, Etc.'s COO. Mr Cook's effort in assembling and managing this extraordinary supply chain is part of Apple's "goodwill," from an accounting point of view, like the Corpse's personal talent (which was undeniable, and is now undeniably dead) for making things primates like to stroke. These intangible assets of the business are supposed to be so much in excess of tangible book value that they enable us to guess that Apple is worth 14.46 times its annual earnings. Even though those earnings were earned before the most important segment of Apple's goodwill died a more-or-less natural death, and the business of designing the cult's artifacts has descended on one of the world's most experienced plastic-buyers.

Yes, Steve Jobs is dead. And I agree with you 100% that the intangible asset factor will be affected by this. He was the company; He made it what it is. And he is gone. Of course this will affect the company monetarily. All I was saying was that as of this time, people were valuing Apple as the most valuable company in the world. The point I was trying to make with the “most valuable company in the world” issue was that Apple has become extremely successful. They might not be talking about selling physical assets. They could be talking about book value. Either way, in some form of “value” that people measure, Apple is (or was when I wrote this), the most valuable company in the world. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-09/apple-rises-from-near-bankruptcy-to-become-most-valuable-company.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/27/how-much-is-apple-worth_n_1035973.html According to this, Apple pulled in $37.5 billion in cash profits in fiscal 2011. Further, Apple has over $80 billion in cash, cash equivalents, and market securities. Sounds like they make quite a profit. You even said earlier that “Mr Jobs makes more than 50% of the world's profit on handset manufacture”…To me it sounds like Apple makes substantial profit. I have only the SEC filing report and the wall street journal to go off of. If their information is wrong, I have no way of figuring out that it is wrong (at least not to my knowledge).

No. Untrue. Apple has never prevented free software from running on Macintosh computers. The operating system OSX is made predominantly from free software parts. Other free software runs on Macintosh computers of all types, without restriction. All software running on iOS objects must be signed by Apple, and in that sense must be permitted. Apple does not prevent third-party free software from running under iOS; it prevents software it and its telecomms partners do not want distributed for business reasons from running on iOS devices, regardless of license terms. There are other nuances, but the statement is wrong and unfair to Apple.

You are right, I misspoke. Crystal made a similar point and I have since changed it. OS X is very reliant on free software. What I meant was that iOS is largely proprietary and this is largely because Apple stands to make a lot more after sale of the handset than it can after selling a laptop. I changed this in my subsequent drafts. By proprietary, I meant that it’s functionally proprietary. Even if a third party’s software wants to run on it, it needs Apple’s permission to do so, or you have to jailbreak or perform some other technological circumvention to enable the software on the phone. The statement is wrong. You are correct and I changed it. Thank you for pointing it out to me. I will attempt to be more clear with my intentions in subsequent drafts.

Not so far as I know. What facts are you relying on?

Things like the latest notification system. That notification system has been on jailbroken iPhones for I believe over 1.5-2 years now and Apple implemented basically the same exact notification system natively in iOS only in 2011. People who wanted to jailbreak before to get the cool new notification system now no longer need to. Apple has given it to them as part of native iOS 5.

Now we appear to be talking about jail-breaking. That raises different issues. Once again, modifying a handset so that it will run unsigned applications is orthogonal to the question of the licensing of the programs themselves. One could jail-break an iPhone and run only proprietary software there. Conversely, even on a jail-broken iPhone, any program that can run will need to use the iPhone SDK, and that SDK is not free software. Work on a free re-implementation of the iOS SDK for handset development may be proceeding, but that again would be orthogonal to the issue of jail-breaking.

Apple's "model" is not very well-defined by talking about the licensing of software. Apple makes luxury service platforms. Whether that model is "ideal for fostering true innovation" is irrelevant to whether it makes real money.

Right. But my point is that the stated goal of Apple according to this spokeswoman is to foster true innovation, to make the experience the most enjoyable. Making money comes from having the best experience on a handset. They are separate issues but they do necessarily touch upon each other. And the proprietary model cannot be ideal for fostering true innovation when it comes to free software. That is the point of free software, as I understand it from class discussion. People are able to change and adapt the software to make it better, more usable. So if free software is blocked, it hurts progression and innovation.

Certainly not. The App Store was the most important step, the creation of an iTunes market for third-party software.

Right. But the App Store has a fairly rigorous approval process, which is why it takes so long for apps like Gmail, and Google Voice to be approved, and why people speculate as to whether or not they will ever be approved. What I meant by coming from Apple and Apple alone meant that Apple has final say on what is released to the public through its App store. Many truly great products like 3G unrestictor are rejected from the Apple store and are only available through jailbreaking. I will make my intentions here more clear in subsequent drafts.

But tying handsets to networks is The American Way. That wasn't either an innovation by the Corpse or even the way it turned out at maturity. It was not part of his plan. His plan, which he couldn't execute for long, was to be unique in the mobile business by owning the customer.

A poor way of describing what jail-breaking does. Why don't you actually describe the technology instead of giving a Windoze-lite metaphor?

I linked to the Wikipedia article on jailbreaking in my final paper.

But that's irrelevant. That's just to say that iPhone uzers don't understand how to get software except from an App Store of some sort, so you have to make one if they're going to be able to load the software at all.

Yes, I mean, isn’t that true? I don’t know how to get Applications from outside the App store. I don’t see how that fact is relevant though. Apple does what it can to reach the most people possible, to make a profit.

Excuse me? You think the Corpse didn't think up the App Store until we thought up jail-breaking? You are giving him too little credit, and us too much. Where'd this history come from?

I changed this in my subsequent drafts. My point was that jailbreaking allowed third-party software on handheld devices before Apple allowed third party software. Whether Apple knew they could do it is not relevant. It only matters what Apple actually did. And what they did was not have an App store until after jailbreakers made third party apps available. But, that doesn’t mean Apple hadn’t thought of it earlier. You are correct.

Really? I think they improved their products because they wanted to make better products. You haven't explained the reason that what you call "cut and paste" was hard in the first place, or why it would be easier to make in a jail-broken phone, so the reader doesn't have enough information to understand that the interpretation you're giving doesn't fit very well with the data. You don't point out that multitasking requires kernel modifications that are fundamental in the OS design, and that Symbian and Linux kernels were designed for it but iOS wasn't. So pressure from jail-breakers had nothing to do with the original architectural decision or the OS development roadmap, because multitasking is not a "feature" that could be implemented in userland by a jail-broken application program.

But jailbreaking had multi-tasking long before Apple allowed us to multi-task on iOS. So, assuming it does require “kernel modifications that are fundamental in the OS design” is not relevant. The point I was trying to make was that jailbreakers made it available first. If Apple could make it available, why hadn’t they? I was attempting to figure out a reason perhaps why they waited to make the product available. I wasn’t trying to say that copy and paste was hard in the first place or why it is easier on a jailbroken iPhone. All I was saying was that jailbreakers made it available first. If they can do it, Apple certainly could have done it. But they didn’t until after jailbreakers did it. People don’t need to jailbreak to get multitasking or copy paste once Apple enables multi-tasking natively in iOS. That was all I was trying to say.

Despite your entirely Kool-Aid-based view of Apple as a business, you're altogether unreasonably hard on their technology design. They weren't being pushed around by our Free World forces at all. They were developing their products and unrolling their strategy with complete mastery of the situation, paying—as they always tended to do when the Corpse was at the controls—very little attention to anything outside the paranoid field of the Corpse's Artistic Vision.

I think that's a fair statement. I made some over-sweeping generalizations and tried to fix them in subsequent drafts. I really appreciate your comments.

Jailbreaking is circumvention technology that enables fair uses of copyrighted material, to be precise. A more general exception from the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions to allow anyone to circumvent technical measures preventing them from running any software they want on any computing device they have purchased would be more in line with the position you seem to be taking here. Such a request will be filed by my organization, the Software Freedom Law Center, in the current statutory DMCA-exception proceeding at the Library of Congress.

MAJOR ISSUES: 1) I need to be clearer with my intent when I use certain words (or not use those words at all) 2) I need to be careful about over-generalizing with regards to what Apple allows and does not allow. 3) This version of my essay had not much of a point but seemed more informational. In subsequent drafts I changed it to be more persuasive rather than informational only.

Regular font = my old draft, Underline = Professor's comments, Italics = my responses to Professor's comments.

With the introduction of the iPod, MacBook, iPad, and iPhone, Apple nestled its way into the lives and homes of millions around the world, consistently increasingly its market share of the portable consumer electronics industry.

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.” This statement is unfounded. The jailbreak community, like Apple, has it in its best interest to insure reliability; people won’t jailbreak if doing so will crash their device, just as users won’t buy apps from the App Store if those apps will crash their device. Thus, it is unclear how jailbreaking, which could bring a plethora of valuable and innovative functions to iOS, will degrade the user experience. In waging war against jailbreakers, Apple subordinates its 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 maximize innovation and efficiency, while still profiting substantially, likely without severe backlash from the telecom companies.

Not really. The importance of any analysis of Apple begins from the tiny share of everything that it actually commands. The corpse of Mr Jobs makes 5.6% of the world's mobile phones, for example. Another way to think of that is that more than 94% of the people who use some such product in the world don't use his. The corpse of Mr Jobs makes more than 50% of the world's profit on handset manufacture, however. In other words, Apple is a manufacturer of luxury products, sold in small quantities at insanely inflated prices. Millions of units in a market of billions, sold to people who do not bring to the purchase any sense of the relevance of value to price, because the handbag or shoe or handset is being sold on a "personal identity facilitation" basis: you're becoming the sort of person who wears Louboutin, carries Kate Spade, or submits to Jobs. Most of the rest of us (could you say of us, given the inevitable forecast now that the wizard is dead, that we are at very least the 95%?) tend to regard the result with something like shock and disgust and something like outraged helpless boredom, as we do with all the other "let them eat cake like mine" behavior displayed all the time by the world's privileged, educated, complacent, self-absorbed, narcissistic stupid people, whose insecurities about technology and about themselves make them Apple's ideal customer.

I don’t know if I would characterize the iPhone as akin to Louboutin. iPhones are not prohibitively expensive. They cost $199, the same as many other smartphones on the market. Whether or not Apple makes a substantial profit on the phone has nothing to do with whether or not the phone is a luxury good akin to Louboutin. Absolutely the iPhone is a luxury good. But so is every other smartphone in the world. No one needs the newest android phone or the newest iPhone, or any smartphone for that matter. People want them though because they are useful tools. Further, The percentage of people who buy Louboutin in the shoe market is drastically less than the people who buy iPhones in the smartphone market. The fact is that I buy an iPhone because it works well and it looks nice. I’ve tried many other smartphones and don’t like them as much. The “Louboutin” factor, as you refer to it, has nothing to do with why I buy an iPhone. More of my friends own iPhones than not. I think I have two friends who actually own Louboutin. It’s a different class/type of luxury. The iPhone is democratized luxury.

The software on Apple’s handheld devices, now called iOS, is a critical factor that has enabled Apple to gain its stranglehold control over the market,

What stranglehold? Expensive smartphones are a tiny fraction of the world's handsets, and Android is enabling manufacturers all over the world to turn out es equivalent product at immense cost advantage. Even in its own tiny segment the iPhone is not capable of strangling a kitten, which is why the real market is becoming not smartphones but patents you can use to block your competitors smartphones, which Apple and Google are buying from other people at immensely inflated valuations at lightning speed.

I certainly agree with the idea that patents are becoming the tool by which these companies war against each other. The Nortel patent deal, as you discussed in class, is clear evidence of that trend. However, in my paper, I’m not only referring to iPhone. I’m referring to iOS as a whole. While the iPhone market might not be enough to “strangle a kitten”, Apple’s share of the tablet market and the music player market I believe constitutes a stranglehold. No other company comes close to Apple’s tablet market and no other company even tries making music players anymore. So, while you are certainly right that the phone market itself might not be as dominant, the iOS market as a whole is much more substantial. Stranglehold might be too strong of a word, so I will change it.

propelling the company to becoming, literally, the most valuable company in the world.

No, not literally, figuratively. No one actually thinks you could sell the assets of Apple for more than the assets of IBM: we're not talking about book value. We're talking about "market capitalization," which is the number of shares outstanding multiplied by the price the last fool paid for what he bought, based (unless as a fool he invests on the greater fool theory) on his guesses about the future sales of the various companies whose "market capitalization" we are comparing. Apple's "literal" value is slight. As you may know, it doesn't make anything. It sits atop the most complicated and far-flung supply chain in the business, assembled by the current stand-in for the Corpse Of The Greatest Businessman and Genius in the History of Humanity, Tim Cook. Mr Cook is a man who really really really knows how to buy plastic, which he used to do for Compaq before he went to become the Corpse, Etc.'s COO. Mr Cook's effort in assembling and managing this extraordinary supply chain is part of Apple's "goodwill," from an accounting point of view, like the Corpse's personal talent (which was undeniable, and is now undeniably dead) for making things primates like to stroke. These intangible assets of the business are supposed to be so much in excess of tangible book value that they enable us to guess that Apple is worth 14.46 times its annual earnings. Even though those earnings were earned before the most important segment of Apple's goodwill died a more-or-less natural death, and the business of designing the cult's artifacts has descended on one of the world's most experienced plastic-buyers.

Yes, Steve Jobs is dead. And I agree with you 100% that the intangible asset factor will be affected by this. He was the company; He made it what it is. And he is gone. Of course this will affect the company monetarily. All I was saying was that as of this time, people were valuing Apple as the most valuable company in the world. The point I was trying to make with the “most valuable company in the world” issue was that Apple has become extremely successful. They might not be talking about selling physical assets. They could be talking about book value. Either way, in some form of “value” that people measure, Apple is (or was when I wrote this), the most valuable company in the world. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-09/apple-rises-from-near-bankruptcy-to-become-most-valuable-company.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/27/how-much-is-apple-worth_n_1035973.html According to this, Apple pulled in $37.5 billion in cash profits in fiscal 2011. Further, Apple has over $80 billion in cash, cash equivalents, and market securities. Sounds like they make quite a profit. You even said earlier that “Mr Jobs makes more than 50% of the world's profit on handset manufacture”…To me it sounds like Apple makes substantial profit. I have only the SEC filing report and the wall street journal to go off of. If their information is wrong, I have no way of figuring out that it is wrong (at least not to my knowledge).

Apple has built itself up as a proprietary, rather than “open”, company, and has actively sought to quell efforts by third parties to promote free software for use on its handheld devices. This free software seeks to provide the everyday user with the ability to perform functions and run applications not authorized by Apple, on Apple devices.

No. Untrue. Apple has never prevented free software from running on Macintosh computers. The operating system OSX is made predominantly from free software parts. Other free software runs on Macintosh computers of all types, without restriction. All software running on iOS objects must be signed by Apple, and in that sense must be permitted. Apple does not prevent third-party free software from running under iOS; it prevents software it and its telecomms partners do not want distributed for business reasons from running on iOS devices, regardless of license terms. There are other nuances, but the statement is wrong and unfair to Apple.

You are right, I misspoke. Crystal made a similar point and I have since changed it. OS X is very reliant on free software. What I meant was that iOS is largely proprietary and this is largely because Apple stands to make a lot more after sale of the handset than it can after selling a laptop. I changed this in my subsequent drafts. By proprietary, I meant that it’s functionally proprietary. Even if a third party’s software wants to run on it, it needs Apple’s permission to do so, or you have to jailbreak or perform some other technological circumvention to enable the software on the phone. The statement is wrong. You are correct and I changed it. Thank you for pointing it out to me. I will attempt to be more clear with my intentions in subsequent drafts

The dynamic between Apple and these third parties is truly unique and ironic. One of Apple’s main strategies to squash the free software movement has been to take the software developed by third parties and actually incorporate it into iOS itself.

Not so far as I know. What facts are you relying on?

Things like the latest notification system. That notification system has been on jailbroken iPhones for I believe over 1.5-2 years now and Apple implemented basically the same exact notification system natively in iOS only in 2011. People who wanted to jailbreak before to get the cool new notification system now no longer need to. Apple has given it to them as part of native iOS 5.

After Apple includes these programs in iOS, thereby recognizing as valuable and innovative these third party programs, Apple bolsters its protections within the software code itself to prevent third parties from hacking the system and developing more useful programs.

Now we appear to be talking about jail-breaking. That raises different issues. Once again, modifying a handset so that it will run unsigned applications is orthogonal to the question of the licensing of the programs themselves. One could jail-break an iPhone and run only proprietary software there. Conversely, even on a jail-broken iPhone, any program that can run will need to use the iPhone SDK, and that SDK is not free software. Work on a free re-implementation of the iOS SDK for handset development may be proceeding, but that again would be orthogonal to the issue of jail-breaking.

Through these actions, Apple implicitly recognizes the true value third party developers bring to the iOS platform, and demonstrates that its proprietary model is not ideal for fostering true innovation.

Apple's "model" is not very well-defined by talking about the licensing of software. Apple makes luxury service platforms. Whether that model is "ideal for fostering true innovation" is irrelevant to whether it makes real money.

Right. But my point is that the stated goal of Apple according to this spokeswoman is to foster true innovation, to make the experience the most enjoyable. Making money comes from having the best experience on a handset. They are separate issues but they do necessarily touch upon each other. And the proprietary model cannot be ideal for fostering true innovation when it comes to free software. That is the point of free software, as I understand it from class discussion. People are able to change and adapt the software to make it better, more usable. So if free software is blocked, it hurts progression and innovation.

From the moment Apple released its handheld devices users were imprisoned. Apple restricted the devices such that any new software would come from Apple, and Apple alone.

Certainly not. The App Store was the most important step, the creation of an iTunes market for third-party software.

Right. But the App Store has a fairly rigorous approval process, which is why it takes so long for apps like Gmail, and Google Voice to be approved, and why people speculate as to whether or not they will ever be approved. What I meant by coming from Apple and Apple alone meant that Apple has final say on what is released to the public through its App store. Many truly great products like 3G unrestictor are rejected from the Apple store and are only available through jailbreaking. I will make my intentions here more clear in subsequent drafts

Not only were users unable to install third-party software, but also they were prohibited from using these phones on a network other than AT&T.

But tying handsets to networks is The American Way. That wasn't either an innovation by the Corpse or even the way it turned out at maturity. It was not part of his plan. His plan, which he couldn't execute for long, was to be unique in the mobile business by owning the customer.

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.

A poor way of describing what jail-breaking does. Why don't you actually describe the technology instead of giving a Windoze-lite metaphor?

I linked to the Wikipedia article on jailbreaking in my final paper.

These jailbreakers sought to enable third-party developers to create programs, to make them available for installation by the average user, and to allow users to operate their phones on a carrier of their choosing. The applications available for jailbroken phones were organized in a single application on the handheld device from which the users themselves could download any program from the catalog.

But that's irrelevant. That's just to say that iPhone uzers don't understand how to get software except from an App Store of some sort, so you have to make one if they're going to be able to load the software at all.

Yes, I mean, isn’t that true? I don’t know how to get Applications from outside the App store. I don’t see how that fact is relevant though. Apple does what it can to reach the most people possible, to make a profit.

As the jailbreak process became as easy as typing in a website URL, more and more users began jailbreaking their phones. Apple viewed jailbreaking as a threat, as users began relying less on Apple to give them the programs they wanted. Apple swiftly responded with the App Store, an application distribution program managed by Apple itself, which allows users to download new applications directly onto their phone from a single online catalog.

Excuse me? You think the Corpse didn't think up the App Store until we thought up jail-breaking? You are giving him too little credit, and us too much. Where'd this history come from?

I changed this in my subsequent drafts. My point was that jailbreaking allowed third-party software on handheld devices before Apple allowed third party software. Whether Apple knew they could do it is not relevant. It only matters what Apple actually did. And what they did was not have an App store until after jailbreakers made third party apps available. But, that doesn’t mean Apple hadn’t thought of it earlier. You are correct.

Third party developers were now “allowed” to create programs for Apple devices, and, if Apple approved the application, to post it in the App Store. In return for the privilege of acceptance into the App Store, Apple received 30% of any revenue generated from these applications. To protect its investment in the App Store, to maintain control over third-party applications, and to foster good will among developers who posted programs on the App Store, Apple subsequently revamped and reinforced the built-in protections in its software, designed to prevent jailbreakers from hacking the system and giving users access to an alternate App Store, i.e., to non-approved applications for which Apple would receive zero remuneration, over which Apple had no control. The App Store was certainly not the only instance in which Apple appropriated ideas developed by the much-hated and much-feared jailbreakers. Since the iPhone’s inception, users wished for copy/paste functionality. In 2009, after that function had been available on jailbroken phones for nearly 2 years, Apple finally developed its own copy/paste function, and implemented it in version 3.0 of its software. It took apple another year to come out with its own multitasking function and implement it in iOS4. Copy/paste and multi-tasking functionality had grown significantly important to users such that more consumers were jailbreaking their phones, jailbreakers made these functions widely available in innovative ways.

Apple implemented these features largely to “convince” users that there was no longer a need to jailbreak their devices, thereby providing App Store developers with a continuing customer base, reinforcing Apple’s stranglehold on the market.

Really? I think they improved their products because they wanted to make better products. You haven't explained the reason that what you call "cut and paste" was hard in the first place, or why it would be easier to make in a jail-broken phone, so the reader doesn't have enough information to understand that the interpretation you're giving doesn't fit very well with the data. You don't point out that multitasking requires kernel modifications that are fundamental in the OS design, and that Symbian and Linux kernels were designed for it but iOS wasn't. So pressure from jail-breakers had nothing to do with the original architectural decision or the OS development roadmap, because multitasking is not a "feature" that could be implemented in userland by a jail-broken application program.

But jailbreaking had multi-tasking long before Apple allowed us to multi-task on iOS. So, assuming it does require “kernel modifications that are fundamental in the OS design” is not relevant. The point I was trying to make was that jailbreakers made it available first. If Apple could make it available, why hadn’t they? I was attempting to figure out a reason perhaps why they waited to make the product available. I wasn’t trying to say that copy and paste was hard in the first place or why it is easier on a jailbroken iPhone. All I was saying was that jailbreakers made it available first. If they can do it, Apple certainly could have done it. But they didn’t until after jailbreakers did it. People don’t need to jailbreak to get multitasking or copy paste once Apple enables multi-tasking natively in iOS. That was all I was trying to say.

Despite your entirely Kool-Aid-based view of Apple as a business, you're altogether unreasonably hard on their technology design. They weren't being pushed around by our Free World forces at all. They were developing their products and unrolling their strategy with complete mastery of the situation, paying—as they always tended to do when the Corpse was at the controls—very little attention to anything outside the paranoid field of the Corpse's Artistic Vision.

I think this is a fair statement. I made some over-sweeping generalizations and tried to fix them in subsequent drafts. I really appreciate your comments.

Subsequent to implementing these innovative features developed by jailbreakers, Apple consistently reinforces its protections in its coding to prevent the jailbreakers from hacking newer versions of the device software. Further, after Apple releases software updates, those new versions must individually be jailbroken. In order for a user who has a jailbroken phone to upgrade to Apple’s newest software, the users must “restore” their device, which involves erasing all data on the device (songs, contacts, etc.), installing the new software, and re-jailbreaking the phone with an updated jailbreak program designed specifically for the new software version – an annoying, cumbersome process that often dissuades jailbroken users from even upgrading to Apple’s newest software. Again, Apple recognizes the innovation and value that developers of free software could bring to iOS when it implements innovative features developed by jailbreakers into iOS, but Apple is consistently unwilling to relinquish control over the technology and seeks to further exclude these developers from the development process and dissuade users from jailbreaking their devices.

There is hope for jailbreakers. Despite the incredible lobbying power of Apple and AT&T, congress recently amended 17 U.S.C. Section 1201, adding exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act regarding circumvention of technological measures. See 17. U.S.C. §§ 1201(f)(1)-(3) (1999). Recognizing that jailbreaking is fair use under the 1976 Copyright Act, the exemptions allow users to “jailbreak” their devices to use applications, even if Apple did not authorize those applications, and to enable “interoperability” between the third-party programs and the proprietary programs. See Id. While Apple can still try to block jailbreakers, it is not unlawful for individual users to hack their phones, and jailbreakers now have a legal mechanism standing behind them in their fight against Apple.

Jailbreaking is circumvention technology that enables fair uses of copyrighted material, to be precise. A more general exception from the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions to allow anyone to circumvent technical measures preventing them from running any software they want on any computing device they have purchased would be more in line with the position you seem to be taking here. Such a request will be filed by my organization, the Software Freedom Law Center, in the current statutory DMCA-exception proceeding at the Library of Congress.

MAJOR ISSUES: 1) I need to be clearer with my intent when I use certain words (or not use those words at all) 2) I need to be careful about over-generalizing with regards to what Apple allows and does not allow. 3) This version of my essay had not much of a point but seemed more informational. In subsequent drafts I changed it to be more persuasive rather than informational only.

--Main.AustinKlar - 05 Dec 2011