Nokia launches anti-iPhone campaign amid controversy

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

BTW I use my NOKIA E61i and love it.  djf

Begin forwarded message:

From: dewayne () warpspeed com (Dewayne Hendricks)
Date: October 2, 2007 8:17:55 AM EDT
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <xyzzy () warpspeed com>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Nokia launches anti-iPhone campaign amid  
controversy

[Note:  This item comes from reader Mike Cheponis.  DLH]

Nokia launches anti-iPhone campaign amid controversy
By Prince McLean
Oct-01-2007 02:00 PM
<http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/10/01/ 
nokia_launches_anti_iphone_campaign_amid_controversy.html>

Bloggers and hackers aren't the only ones sticking it to iPhone maker  
Apple Inc. for its closed minded approach to user-customization of  
the touch-screen handsets -- Nokia has taken advantage of the  
situation by launching a print and web campaign dubbed "Open to  
anything."

"We believe the best devices have no limits. That's why we've left  
the Nokia Nseries open," the Finland-based handset maker wrote on its  
new "Open to anything" website. "Open to applications. Open to  
widgets. Open to anything. So go ahead and load it up. What it does  
is up to you."

The campaign, which was accompanied by the posting of similarly- 
worded bills in New York City this past weekend, is an obvious  
response to the latest iPhone update on Thursday. As Apple had  
warned, the software patch disabled versions of the Apple handset  
that had been "unlocked" to operate on wireless carries other than  
AT&T, while adding a couple of new features like the Wi-Fi iTunes  
Music Store.

In addition, however, the update wreaked havoc on a number unmodified  
iPhones and those iPhones which had been only modified to run third- 
party software applications but had otherwise remained locked to the  
Apple-approved carrier. Users who reached out to Apple for help in  
reactivating those phones were turned away (video) in the same manner  
as those users who had unlocked the devices against Apple's stated  
policy.

The Cupertino-based firm's harsh stance was met with considerable  
outrage because, unlike unlocking, users who had installed third- 
party applications simply to increase the usefulness of their pricey  
handsets -- in addition to those who had done nothing at all -- were  
suddenly being informed that they had voided their warranty on the  
handset as a whole and were on their own in attempting to somehow  
reactivate those phones.

The matter is complicated by a number of factors, primarily what is  
now being perceived by some as a poor job on Apple's part to convey  
its stance on third-party applications to iPhone users earlier in the  
handset's lifecycle. Recent comments from an Apple executive even  
made it appear as if the company was taking an indifferent stance to  
the development and installation such third-party apps. Additionally,  
Apple's public warning seemed only to target unlockers rather than  
those installing applications.

What's more, third-party iPhone apps and simple point-and-click  
applications to easily install them had become as commonplace on the  
Internet in recent weeks as shareware applications. Therefore, some  
iPhone owners may have used such applications without a full  
understanding of the consequences.

As a result of these and other gripes with Apple's iPhone policies,  
users are now banding together in an attempt to drum up support for a  
class-action lawsuit against the company under three theoretical  
classes.

The first class would contain iPhone owners who have used third-party  
software to access the flash storage on an iPhone, without having  
altered firmware or installed a program on the device. A second would  
include owners who had installed third-party apps in the past, but  
who have since restored their phones to factory defaults but are  
still suffering from hardware problems such as bad touchscreens.

A third and final class would challenge the whole unlocking issues,  
which is reportedly legal under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act  
but discouraged by Apple, which states on the iPhone's packaging and  
marketing material that an AT&T contract is required for usage.

[snip]


-------------------------------------------
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