is restricted cell net access acceptable?

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Christian Kuhtz <christian () kuhtz com>
Date: July 4, 2007 5:44:15 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net, ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: [ I know this will raise a storm djf] Hackers  
makeprogress towards unlocking iPhone
Reply-To: christian () kuhtz com

Dave,

For IP if you wish..

Open is far bigger than hardware architecture, and there's no reason  
to rehash the whole closed vs open source debate over again.

To the iPhone point, Apple has publically stated that "Web 2.0" apps  
will be permitted on iPhone.  Examples of that today are the stock  
ticker, weather, youtube and maps apps.

Isn't that sort of access public enough for a mobile terminal where  
operators interests do matter, although perhaps not as much as  
operators constrain it to today?

One could argue that limited customization is in fact doing everyone  
a favor on a specialized device such as this one, which is far from  
general purpose computing hardware.

Best Regards,
Christian

-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 17:15:47
To:ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: [IP] Re:    [ I know this will raise a storm djf] Hackers make
 progress towards unlocking iPhone




Begin forwarded message:

From: "RJR RJRiley.com" <RJR () RJRILEY com>
Date: July 4, 2007 4:57:59 PM EDT
To: "'Robert J. Berger'" <rberger () ibd com>
Cc: "'Dewayne Hendricks'" <dewayne () warpspeed com>, "'David Farber'"
<dave () farber net>
Subject: RE: [IP] Re: [ I know this will raise a storm djf] Hackers
make progress towards unlocking iPhone

Dave, my comments were intended to raise a storm:)  You are welcome to
publish this response if you like.

The inventor community sees a different side of many companies.  What
the
project via their massive public relations efforts and reality are very
different.  Perhaps a year or so ago I expressed reservations on IP
about
Google and their so called do no evil.  I think that today many more
people
recognize that Google has the potential to turn in a monster, or perhaps
they are already one.  In my opinion Apple has long been another
mindless
self-serving greedy monster.  Most certainly it is good for these
possibilities to be publicly raised and discussed.

Apple really screwed up when they went to a closed architecture.  The
Mac,
iPod and  iPhone are more of the same.  There is absolutely no way I
would
purchase any of these products because they are by design crippled.  I
always look at the total life cycle costs of products and Apple does not
fare well on that basis.  I look at utility, and Apple's attempts to
lock
their products down make then unacceptable from a utility point of view.

Now the question is what would Apple be today if the Mac had been
open?  I
am willing to bet that they would have much more of the market.  They
might
have even completely displaced the IBM platform.

Regarding the other comment about my being mad over the Lisa.  That
was not
the case, I was disappointed that Apple did a complete flip even as
IBM was
smart enough (a rare event then and now) to walk away form that business
model.  At the time one of my responsibilities was corporate PC
specifications, and Apple's introduction caused me to completely dump
them
as a vendor.  That is a story which was repeated all across industry.

What I am mad about is that Apple is now well known for taking liberties
with other's intellectual property.  They are no longer an innovator
which
produces anything of import.  Apple could evaporate tomorrow and the
majority of people who not even notice their absence.  Apple has
become much
like Japanese companies, they are good at the details of combining
others
inventions but not so hot at inventing.

Especially troubling is Apple's involvement with a band of patent
pirating
companies.  Birds of a feather do flock together, and when one
examines the
misdeeds of these companies there is no doubt about their lack of
moral and
ethical backbone in my mind.  Companies like Apple got their start as
innovators and now they are doing their best to make sure that
subsequent
generations are denied the same opportunities.

Apple could win me back by withdrawing from the Coalition of Patent
fairness
and PIRACY, switching to open architecture, and recognizing that if they
cannot invent themselves that it is time to embrace and deal
reputability
with those who do.  That means making all the inventors who they have
shafted via abuse of the process of law whole.  It also means that
they need
to stop the PR campaign of painting their victims as large ugly vicious
patent trolls.

The reality is that few companies are surprised by an inventor.  Most
know
that they are stealing years before they get sued.

Here is the truth about the process.  After inventing something
inventors
start shopping for a nice home for their baby.  They talk to
companies, and
some companies listen to gather information, say they are not
interested,
and a year of two later introduce a product using the invention.  At
that
point the inventor goes back, and tries to license the invention again.
Typically that process goes on for a year or two, and it is then that
the
inventor looks for a big bad and mean contingency patent enforcement
entity
to adjust the infringer's attitude.  The infringer could settle at this
point, but if they figure they can make a killing while delaying the
case in
court and run the inventor and their investors into bankruptcy they
continue.  First they use as many procedural delaying tactics as
possible.
Then when they get into the trial they might commit fraud on the
court (RIM
& Blackberry and Microsoft and the Eolas are examples of this).

At this point the Court is fed up with the patent pirate and throws
the book
at them.  The pirate conducts a massive public relations campaign to
paint
the victim as an abuser and at the same time buys influence in the
USPTO.
The USPTO then uses procedural and bureaucratic BS to tie up the
inventor,
typically by invalidating the patents.  The patent pirate crows about
bad
patents, using the invalidation which is likely to be overturned as
public
relations fodder.  Years later the patents are likely to be upheld,
but that
is a quiet event.

All this can take a decade or two, and meanwhile the inventor has been
denied the revenue they needed to continue to invent or to launch
their own
company.  The next IBM, Apple, HP etc. was stillborn.  The status quo
was
maintained and a company which should have expired uses the profits they
stole from each inventor to prey on the next.

Eventually these companies end up like the auto industry.  IBM, Intel,
Micron, Cisco, Dell are all probably within a decade of expiring.
Apple's
is perhaps two decades away.  The problem is that older companies are
getting away with destroying the young companies.  The cost to
society is
tremendous.



-----Original Message-----
From: Robert J. Berger [mailto:rberger () ibd com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 1:37 PM
To: RJR RJRiley.com
Cc: Dewayne Hendricks; David Farber
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: [ I know this will raise a storm djf] Hackers make
progress towards unlocking iPhone


On Jul 4, 2007, at 8:08 AM, David Farber wrote:

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: "RJR RJRiley.com" <RJR () RJRILEY com>
> Date: July 4, 2007 6:55:57 AM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: RE: [IP] Hackers make progress towards unlocking iPhone
>
> Dave, for IP if you wish.
>
> I and many of my peer group have little use for Apple.  I was a huge
> fan of Apple until the Lisa project (Apple III & miserable failure,
> shortly followed by the Mac).  I promptly dumped them at that point.
Implying that the Mac was another miserable failure?

So is your peer group using Amigas :-)

Anyway, I agree that Apple (aka Steve Jobs) has pioneered several
tremendous
marketing innovations. But part of why this works besides Job's Reality
Distortion Field, is that he does couple it with some actual PRODUCT
innovation.

He doesn't necessarily invent totally new things or elements but puts
stuff
together where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
Sure he "stole" a lot of ideas from Xerox PARC for the Lisa/Mac. But
did you
ever see any such products come from Xerox that normal consumers
could buy
and use?

Sure all the elements of the iPod had been around for a while, but had
anyone put it together in a way that was as simple as possible but no
simpler and integrated with their PC and online services, was a joy
to use?
Of course there was a brilliant marketing program to go with it. But
there
was also a product that resonated with people.

And the iPhone does have to be one of the greatest marketing
strategies and
execution ever. Getting people to stand in line for something that has
effectively infinite supply! And the people had fun while doing it!

But the iPhone again is successful not because of marketing, but
because the
total package is innovative. Sure all the elements have been demoed
before,
but not put together like this.

Just the industrial design alone makes it an artifact that is
delicious to
hold.

And no smartphone in existence is as easy and pleasurable to use.

Yeah, pleasurability, that is how I would describe the overall Apple
experience, including my Macintosh. A lot of people  don't get that.
And by pleasurable, I don't mean because of eye candy, but because it
generally works in a transparent and effortless way. Its the total
package
that is innovative. And the marketing is part of the package, but not
the
key part.

Rob

------------------------------
Robert J. Berger - Internet Bandwidth Development, LLC.
Voice: 408-882-4755 eFax: +1-408-490-2868 http://www.ibd.com







-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com