Did Google Pre-Emptively Block a 4G iPhone on Verizon?

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/02/verizon-4g-iphone-block/

by brownleej • 15 years ago

43 31 15 years ago

Roritharr• 15 years ago

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• 15 years ago

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?

chapel2• 15 years ago

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.

zitterbewegung• 15 years ago

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.

chapel2• 15 years ago

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• 15 years ago

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.

rbarooah9• 15 years ago

Not true. Look at the mess windows is in because of bad software.

If you've ever had to help a non-tech-savvy user who has messed up their computer by installing bad software that was recommended to them by a well meaning friend, you'll know that there are real benefits to the app store model.

xsmasher• 15 years ago

Apple could allow the phone to be set up in one of two "modes" - one that allows any app to be installed from any source but does not allow connections to iTunes, app store, Game Center, notifications, subscriptions, or any of Apple's other services; and the normal mode that functions like a regular iPhone does now.

Viola, the user has a "choice" of open/crippled or locked/functional modes; they're meeting the letter of the law even if the "open" mode is practically useless.

rbarooah9• 15 years ago

Actually that would be a pretty interesting mode. Presumably alternative app stores would spring up - Cydia would probably be repurposed immediately. As long as there's a clear division between 'closed' and 'open' modes so that people who want the closed model still get the benefits, this would be a pretty interesting experiment.

mambodog• 15 years ago

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

nkassis• 15 years ago

Yeah, they'd have to be unlocked (does it also need to be rootable?). But they already allow pretty much any app from being installed. The apple app store rules could be contrived into protecting against apps which might be dangerous for the network but that's far fetched and would soon be attacked.

It won't be hard for Verizon to find an android device to meet the rules. But iPhone is definitively a challenge if I understand how the rule is interpreted.

guptaneil• 15 years ago

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.

The way I read the rules, it seems like Verizon can't lock down or discriminate against devices that won't harm its network. The device manufacturer (Apple in the iPhone's case) can offer whatever functionality they want on their device.

If the interpretation from the article is used, then no specialized devices like a Skype phone or a wireless medical device could be allowed on the 4G network either, since they are not open to any sort of apps. Obviously, that makes little sense.

rbarooah9• 15 years ago

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• 15 years ago

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.

Jabbles• 15 years ago

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• 15 years ago

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

tzs2• 15 years ago

> 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• 15 years ago

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.

tzs2• 15 years ago

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

m0nastic• 15 years ago

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

Hoff• 15 years ago

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.

bradleyland• 15 years ago

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...

Did Google Pre-Emptively Block a 4G iPhone on Verizon?

Related Stories