Actually the better analogy would be: Being told that you have to use Exxon gasoline if you buy this car. Buying the car. And then complaining that you can't use BP gas.
Actually the better analogy would be: Being told that you have to use Exxon gasoline if you buy this car. Buying the car. And then complaining that you can't use BP gas.
I'd say that's accurate for one of the charges. I'm not sure what the legal issues are surrounding companies' responsibilities to provide unlocked phones etc, but I agree that if people know the phone is locked they should not complain about the fact.
However, another charge in the suit is that apple is intentionally damaging the iphones that fully belong to the consumers who bought them. In this case, your analogy becomes:
"Being told that you have to use Exxon gasoline if you buy this car. Buying the car. And then complaining that you can't use BP gas. You realize that BP gass works completely fine in the car, and they just don't WANT you to use BP gas. So you use BP gas. The car manufacturer finds out, and modifies your car's engine so that it will no longer run."
I am of the stance that when you pay for a piece of hardware it becomes yours to do whatever you want with. People who unlock their phones are not hacking apple or AT&T's networks, websites or property, only their own phones. If unlocking the phones is illegal, and Apple/AT&T want to protect their investment, then they should be pursuing solutions that involve legal action, not destroying the property of paying customers.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Mugsy @ Oct 10th 2007 5:11PM
Actually the better analogy would be:
Being told that you have to use Exxon gasoline if you buy this car. Buying the car. And then complaining that you can't use BP gas.
TG @ Oct 11th 2007 3:17AM
Actually the better analogy would be:
Being told that you have to use Exxon gasoline if you buy this car. Buying the car. And then complaining that you can't use BP gas.
I'd say that's accurate for one of the charges. I'm not sure what the legal issues are surrounding companies' responsibilities to provide unlocked phones etc, but I agree that if people know the phone is locked they should not complain about the fact.
However, another charge in the suit is that apple is intentionally damaging the iphones that fully belong to the consumers who bought them. In this case, your analogy becomes:
"Being told that you have to use Exxon gasoline if you buy this car. Buying the car. And then complaining that you can't use BP gas. You realize that BP gass works completely fine in the car, and they just don't WANT you to use BP gas. So you use BP gas. The car manufacturer finds out, and modifies your car's engine so that it will no longer run."
I am of the stance that when you pay for a piece of hardware it becomes yours to do whatever you want with. People who unlock their phones are not hacking apple or AT&T's networks, websites or property, only their own phones. If unlocking the phones is illegal, and Apple/AT&T want to protect their investment, then they should be pursuing solutions that involve legal action, not destroying the property of paying customers.