JD on EP

I couldn't agree more. Everyone that wasted ... er, I mean spent their money on an (overpriced) iPhone did so with their eyes wide open, knowing full well that they were being restricted to a particular network. It's not like Apple or AT&T ever attempted to hide that. So if you agree to that, you don't get to complain later about it.

Apple is certainly within their rights to fight the unlock hack, ethically, legally, etc. That goes almost without question. The more interesting question is whether they really want to. Other than trying to convince their partner in crime (no pun intended) that they are trying to honor the agreement, why would they want to fight tooth and nail against the iPhone hackers? It seems to me like its more profitable for them to just "break the hack" (wink wink, nod nod) every once in a while. Unless the revenue share they are getting through AT&T is significantly impacted by people that are buying iPhones but not becoming AT&T customers. But you could still make the argument that getting more iPhones out there is of greater strategic importance than the short term revenue they get through AT&T's new contracts.

But your reasoning is fundamentally flawed. Obviously, the revenue stream from the AT&T contracts is very important to the iPhone profit margin. If it wasn't - if just getting a bunch of iPhones out there on the market was the goal - then they wouldn't have entered into the contract with AT&T in the first place.

In addition, they need to consider their perception in the business market. If they turn a blind eye to this and let AT&T hang in the wind, then what are their chances of gettng the next company to enter into a strategic partnership with them?

Finally, we also need to remember the basic premise of John's post in the first place - intellectual property rights are worth protecting for their own sake. Apple has every right to decide that the iPhone will only work with AT&T, and they have every right to protect that decision. Period.

Its not intellectual property that they are so concerned with protecting as you put it. Its money. What I didn't realize was just how much they are clearing in revenue from the exclusive agreements. Apparently their contract with AT&T alone guarantees them more than half the sale value of the phone, and thats just pure revenue. The European agreements are looking to be even more profitable for them. Maybe they should have released in a smaller European country first and used the success there to pressure their other partners in larger markets into an even more lucrative arrangement.

Of course apple has the right to defend their agreements, via legal recourse or frequent firmware updates. I don't think many people are disputing that. Now whether their agreement is ethical and whether the *right* to enter into exclusive agreements that reduce customer choice is fair is another argument entirely.

What bothers me about the whole exclusive agreement is that the decision was clearly based off of profit, and the effect this would have on the consumer (and the market) was obviously secondary when weighed against the potential revenue to be gained. Its unfortunate that the message the other phone makers will glean from this is that a really cool design and a strong brand means you can reduce customer choice, and apparently a reduction in customer choice means far greater profits.

@Chris, I am surprised that somehow we are concerned by the presumed motive more than the deed.

@JD. I agree. There is a strange thing about buying it, not liking the deal, and willfully violating the terms. (In whatever sequence.)

Then there is the point where we all feel we have to have device iXXX (or software package mYYY)because of the network effect and not being excluded. I don't think it changes the nature of the behavior, just how we justify crossing the line.

I remember back 30 years when I had developed the habit of taping what I liked from LPs that I'd purchased and then giving away the records, keeping the cassette. Somehow, that seemed less of a bad act than the reverse. After a while, I couldn't ignore the feeling-dirty, especially for me as a copyright-law junky, and I stopped all such weaseling. This was before MP3 and Internet file sharing, but it is a reminder to me how easy it is to step over the edge in service of a want and be left with a personal integrity problem.

Nowadays I turn back home-burnt CDs of music compilations that friends or relatives pass around. I am not sure how to do that gently, but I do make sure to do it. Quietly disposing of the gift doesn't seem like quite enough.