Whining iPhone hackers or Apple malevolence?

As if their fawning hype leading up to the iPhone launch wasn’t bad enough, the last few days has seen many of those same Apple watchers fiercely criticising Apple for effectively destroying the iPhones of any users who switched to a mobile telephone company other than AT&T.

Cutting a long story short, among other things, some hackers had figured out how to re-jig the iPhone, such that it could be connected to a variety of mobile telephone networks. For people with loyalties to a particular network or simply not impressed by the relatively expensive AT&T contract, this seemed like a dream come true.

But any such free-wheeling iPhone user who updates the device to the the latest software version will be in for a shock. Their iPhone is suddenly “bricked”, that is, rendered non-functional. This isn’t simply a case of forcing the user to re-install the original software and then sign up for the AT&T contract, but something seemingly much more malicious: the cellphone becomes completely and utterly non-functional. The punitive, vindictive, and surely unnecessary extremeness of this action inevitably got a lot of people very angry.

But is being locked into one supplier really that bizarre?

Let’s just rewind a little before focusing on the controversy itself. When Apple launched the iPhone back in June, one key aspect of the product was the partnership between Apple and AT&T, one of the larger American mobile telephone networks.

Computer manufacturers launching products explicitly tied into the services or products of other companies is not actually that unusual. In fact, virtually all the PC manufacturers distribute their computers with at least one major component delivered by another company: the Windows operating system produced by Microsoft.

Of course, you don’t have to run Windows on your new PC, but there’s some ambiguity about whether removing Windows in favour of, say, Linux voids your warranty. The major manufacturers such as Dell don’t have a problem with you installing Linux on your Dell PC, but a recent story on Slashdot revealed that the computer retailers might be less accommodating.

Regardless, in this instance at least Apple introduced their new product, the iPhone, in partnership with AT&T. All US users who wanted to own an iPhone had to also sign up to a two-year AT&T service plan. In the event, the market didn’t seem to mind this lock-in deal, with hundreds of thousands of units being sold in the first few days, and Apple expecting to sell a million iPhones within the first three months.

We need to be crystal clear about something here. When you buy an iPhone, you are expected to buy an AT&T contract as well. More specifically, as the light grey small print on the iPhone web page says: “Minimum new 2-year wireless service plan and activation fee required to activate iPhone features, including iPod”.

Furthermore, each time Apple formally announced the launch of the device in each European country, it also announces which mobile telephone network it will be in partnership in that particular place. So this is Apple’s game plan, like it or not.

What’s often overlooked when people criticise Apple here is that the partnerships with these mobile telephone service suppliers are exactly that, partnerships. Apple is legally obliged to ensure that each iPhone is locked into using the specific partner’s mobile telephone network. Again, there are parallels to be seen with how PC manufacturers work with Microsoft. A company like Dell has to take reasonable measures to make sure that the bundled copies of Windows it receives at a discount are not sold separately, something that would hurt Microsoft’s retail sales of Windows. Microsoft will also expect the PC manufacturer to handle service and support questions from the consumer.

So what Apple is doing here by locking in consumers to one particular mobile telephone supplier is not really anything bizarre or extreme. It’s a fairly standard business practise: two companies work together to deliver a single product, each one placing obligations on the other in return for guarantees of support.

Action and reaction

Apple warned users before releasing the updater what would happen to their iPhone if it had been hacked to use a different network. Before the updater does anything to the iPhone, it warns the user that “If you have modified your iPhone’s software, applying this software update may result in your iPhone becoming permanently inoperable”.

While no-one can reasonably expect Apple to support third-party hacks, that the software update should irretrievably “brick” the iPhone does seem unnecessarily harsh. It would be one thing if the third-party hacks simply stopped working, forcing owners to go buy an AT&T contract, But as things stand now, even buying an AT&T contract won’t resurrect a bricked iPhone. Not good.

At this level at least, the ire among the small but vociferous group of iPhone users inconvenienced makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is suggesting that Apple is behaving illegally or unethically. And that’s where reasonable criticism spills over into petulant whining.

As should be obvious, Apple doesn’t force anyone to buy an iPhone. It’s doubtful anyone really needs an iPhone. They’re cool little gizmos with some excellent marketing. People buy them because they want them. Fundamentally, people walk into an iPhone purchase with their eyes open and without anyone pushing them into it. Apple are selling an iPhone and AT&T combination, and whether you like it or not, that’s the deal on the table. If you don’t like the AT&T side of the deal, then you can walk away and buy a different mobile telephone. Simple as that.

Where this story gets its juice is from the idea that somehow Apple is “above” these hardball business practises. Had Microsoft behaved this way, or McDonalds, or Wal-Mart we wouldn’t have been surprised: but Apple surely is different?

No, not really.

And anyone who thinks otherwise — who Thinks Different — is, sadly, deluding themselves.