- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
tobin! wrote:
again, back to the warranty thing. Not concerned with warranty. Moreso with a company telling me how I can use the device I purchased from them. And no, jailbreaking and rooting phones does not affect the way the phone works with "the network." It only unlocks services and options of the phone that the service provider has limited to force you into paying them more money.
Which you agreed to the terms. So it's stealing when you agreed to the terms set forth in front of you. I am all for free and cheap stuff, but I am also a firm believer in agreements. If you didn't like the agreement then why did you agree with it?
We live in a free country but are limited by the sellers of the products we buy. Verizon will take a piece of hardware and "lock out" certain functions they want you to pay for. Why? Its it because thats the way the phone communicates with their network? No. Its just a way to make more money.
See above it fits in the same category. Make your own network and give everything to everybody and offer the world and see how long the network lasts. T-Mobile tried that and look how far they have gone... Still the bottom of the barrel and looking to sell since they only made back 5B out of the 50B off their initial investment to come into the US market in over 10 years of being around... No wonder they want out, and still number 4 of the big carriers.
How many of you are using your smartphone with unlimited data as a hotspot? Why would the medium of how we are using the internet change anything about the data usage from a smartphone with unlimited data. How is that possibly costing Verizon more money? How many know that smartphones can be hotspots without the extra "tethering" cost associated/forced on us from verizon? This is one of those phone functions the manufacturer of the phone designed into the phone but verizon has limited to make more $$. Verizon has limited our abilities since the begining of semi-intelligent phones that played music with offering/forcing their products (Vcast, VZ Navigator, Vtones) that cost money to their loyal customers when most phones play music for free.
Like with an all you can eat eateries? IHOP offers unlimited pancakes, but you can't share it with your family and friends(like the agreement is for your phone specifically and not any devices that is not your phone). They even "throttle" you. They give you 5 pancakes to start, and every stack there after is 3 pancakes. Do you run a network and understand bandwidth and associated costs for that bandwidth? Again unless you are actually in the industry and understand all the costs you'd probably have a different outtake. I have put up networks for the University of Hawaii, the United States Navy, and Air Force. So they offer something they can charge for, but do you see them stopping you from using Navigation(Android), TomTom, or Google Music, Pandora, anything associated with those services? So what's the problem? VTones requires agreements with the Media, and also requires hosting and other unforseen upgrades, and bandwidth to accommodate the service of course they'll charge for it. I would... Unless you want to be like Google and take private information and sell it to the highest bidder, or get advertisements. You are always giving up something... It's not always money...
Im sorry, I don't like being limited by the manufacturer of the products I choose to spend money on. I think its crap. If the manufacterer of the phone offered it with the phone, what right does Apple or Verizon have in limiting those abilities just so they can charge you more money? Im not a sheep and I refuse to conform and "just take it." Google doesn't limit my abilities. Best Buy doesn't limit the way I use the laptop I purchase from them. Why should software and hardware companies (Apple) be able to limit the way I am using my phone? (which is really just a small handheld computer anyways)
Sorry, but I think it's crap when people complain about stuff yet they agreed to it from the beginning.
Google does limit you, and unless you DEVELOPED from source, and understand licensing you'd find out you are limited in some areas, but not all. Also you can't use Google services like you see fit. There are restrictions to their services if you ever read their terms.
BestBuy doesn't manufacturer the devices much like Verizon doesn't for phones. BestBuy doesn't subsidize the laptop either so you can get it cheaper. The manufacturer restricts what they cover and don't cover. If you modify you're laptop a certain way or even add an OS the manufacturer may not honor warranty and you are on your own for repair just like a car warranty. Reason why I keep bringing up the warranty is a think to point out there are rules and guidelines and its up to you if you want to break them or not.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
tobin! wrote:
again, back to the warranty thing. Not concerned with warranty. Moreso with a company telling me how I can use the device I purchased from them. And no, jailbreaking and rooting phones does not affect the way the phone works with "the network." It only unlocks services and options of the phone that the service provider has limited to force you into paying them more money. So yes, it DOES affect the way the phone works with "the network". By going around these service blocks, you are committing "theft of services" the same way someone who fiddles with their cable box in order to get HBO or Cinemax without paying for it. Yes it is a way for Verizon to force you to pay them more money, but this does not mean it is not money they deserve. Because Apple puts a feature into a phone, the infrastructure for these features doesn't automatically "appear" out of thin air to be used "without cost". There is a cost involved with Verizon providing this feature. To think that because a phone can access this feature means you shouldn't have to pay the service provider is just outrageous.
We live in a free country but are limited by the sellers of the products we buy. Verizon will take a piece of hardware and "lock out" certain functions they want you to pay for. Why? Why? Because it is not FREE for Verizon to provide the service for these functions. Do you think there is no cost to provide this service? There is a cost to Verizon to provide the service for the functionality to work on the phone. Why should they not recoup this cost? With your kind of thinking, since you have purchased the phone, why should you actually have to pay for the service at all, then? Its it because thats the way the phone communicates with their network? No. Its just a way to make more money.
How many of you are using your smartphone with unlimited data as a hotspot? Why would the medium of how we are using the internet change anything about the data usage from a smartphone with unlimited data. How is that possibly costing Verizon more money? Obviously you are correct that it does not use electricity, upkeep/repair/improvements on the infrastructure to provide this service. The more data which has to be transmitted, the more electricity has to be used to do so. THIS is how it cost more money. How many know that smartphones can be hotspots without the extra "tethering" cost associated/forced on us from verizon? Yes, if you want to commit "theft of services". This is one of those phone functions the manufacturer of the phone designed into the phone but verizon has limited to make more $$. Now that you mention it, utilizing a cellular network is ALSO one of those phone functions the manufacturer of the phone designed into the phone, but Verizon has also limited that to make money. Shouldn't Verizon be forced to just provide it free of charge? It's your phone, after all, and we live in a FREE country, don't we? If we shouldn't have to pay for a feature just because a phone manufacturer puts a feature into a phone, why should we have to pay for the phone service at all? Didn't the phone manufacturer put THAT function into the phone, too? Obviously since the phone manufacturer put the function into the phone, the network/support/cost just APPEARS at no price whatsoever to Verizon. They are just charging us so they can make more $$. Verizon has limited our abilities since the begining of semi-intelligent phones that played music with offering/forcing their products (Vcast, VZ Navigator, Vtones) that cost money to their loyal customers when most phones play music for free.
Im sorry, I don't like being limited by the manufacturer of the products I choose to spend money on. I think its crap. If the manufacterer of the phone offered it with the phone, what right does Apple or Verizon have in limiting those abilities just so they can charge you more money? What right? Because the manufacturer putting a function into a phone does not pay for the cost which the service provider incurs to provide the SERVICE TO UTILIZE that function! Im not a sheep No, you may not be a sheep, but it appears you quite likely are a THIEF! and I refuse to conform and "just take it." Google doesn't limit my abilities. Best Buy doesn't limit the way I use the laptop I purchase from them. No they don't, but your broadband internet provider charges you a fee which they think is appropriate for their service. Best Buy also does not limit what cable channels you can watch on the TV you purchase, but cable/satellite TV providers do. The charge more $$ to access certain channels (HBO, Cinemax, premium sports channels, etc...). Why should you have to pay more to access these channels when the capability is already built into the TV you bought. You bought it, it is yours, and we live in a free country, don't we? Why should software and hardware companies (Apple) be able to limit the way I am using my phone? (which is really just a small handheld computer anyways)
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Rcschnoor,
You and Tidbits are a very ignorant people that have no backbone to stand up for what is right.
Tidbits, FYI, I have a Masters in Information Security, Bachelors of Science in Computer Information Systems, and maintain a Certified Information Systems Security Professional Certification through ISC(2). I have been in the IS field for over 15 years and work on the most advanced systems in the world.
To argue this point with you is a waste of my time, energy, and keystrokes because, as Ron White quoted, "you can't fix stupid." I find it amusing you are willing and able to take it up the tailpipe from Verizon when they limit your services that come as factory settings on your phone. A continuation of this mentality will eventually lead GM, Ford, and other car manufacturers to charge you for the use of the headlights, radio, windshield wipers, taillights, and other options of your car. While we are at it, the home manufacturer should also charge you for use of the doors, windows, light switches, and other peripherals that were built into your house.
Whether I use my unlimited 3G coverage across a computer, phone, or other peripheral is still the same 3G service I am already paying for, so why pay twice based on peripheral? Your logic of Verizon bricking phones allows for companies like your ISP to poison pill your computer at home if they determine you are not using it in accordance to their "agreements." You bought your computer, paid for it by yourself but you were not using your computer per your agreement with the ISP and therefore by your logic gives them right to kill your hardware. True? That is what you are referencing above.
With any luck the two of you will remove your cranium from your anus before you can influence others into your ignorant thought process.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Uhuh if you say so...
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
tobin! wrote:
To argue this point with you is a waste of my time, energy, and keystrokes because, as Ron White quoted, "you can't fix stupid." By your argument here, at least this last statement is true! I find it amusing you are willing and able to take it up the tailpipe from Verizon when they limit your services that come as factory settings on your phone. A continuation of this mentality will eventually lead GM, Ford, and other car manufacturers to charge you for the use of the headlights, radio, windshield wipers, taillights, and other options of your car. It has never been ANYONE'S arguement that phone manufacturers charge extra for using features they have put on a phone, but it appears you seem to think so. I have never advocated that Motorola, HTC, Apple, etc... are charging extra for the features they put on the phone, but they obviously do price their products with the total cost of the product in mind. What they DO NOT price their products for is what the COST is for a service provider to make those features work. Yes, Apple and others can put in a $1.00-$2.00 switch so that you can utilize a feature which MAY or MAY NOT be available on Verizon's network. Gosh, gee, that $1.00 switch should definitely PAY for the services Verizon provides for the life of the phone. Verizon definitely shouldn't charge extra for those services. Next thing we know, you are going to be mad at Verizon/Google when they do not provide the funds in your checking account to cover the purchases you make if you use Google Wallet(or equivalent services) to buy things with your phone. They are providing the service with your phone to do so, aren't they? Shouldn't they also just pay for it then and take the loss? Isn't it your phone and don't we live in a free country? Why should you have to "take it up the tailpipe"? But then again, are you also using a stolen credit card to pay for your stolen services? While we are at it, the home manufacturer should also charge you for use of the doors, windows, light switches, and other peripherals that were built into your house. Getting mixed up again? You seem to be doing this quite a bit. Verizon IS NOT a phone manufacturer. The phone manufacturer is not charging you for a service which VERIZON provides. Why should the phone manufacturer charge for something they do not provide? Verizon, on the other hand, has every right to charge for something THEY provide. YOU seem to be unhappy with the price they charge, which is your right, and you have every right to wait until the price is something you think fair BEFORE you purchase it from them. Once you AGREE by signing up for the service, which you do by activating your phone, you DO NOT have the right to STEAL those services from Verizon! If you go into a restaurant and purchase a bowl of soup, you do not get the rest of the meal FOR FREE! By your reasoning, though, you should, since it is coming from the same kitchen and the same waiters are bringing it to your table.
Whether I use my unlimited 3G coverage across a computer, phone, or other peripheral is still the same 3G service I am already paying for, so why pay twice based on peripheral? Your logic of Verizon bricking phones allows for companies like your ISP to poison pill your computer at home if they determine you are not using it in accordance to their "agreements." You bought your computer, paid for it by yourself but you were not using your computer per your agreement with the ISP and therefore by your logic gives them right to kill your hardware. True? That is what you are referencing above. I have NEVER advocated Verizon being able to KILL your hardware. The ONLY thing I am advocating is that you should not be allowed to STEAL Verizon's service. I will agree that Verizon/Apple etc... should not be able to brick your phone if YOU choose to STEAL their services. They should instead, just CANCEL your service and apply the ETF(if any) to your account when they do so. Yes, they should not be able to destroy the computer/phone YOU own, but Verizon does not have to let you have access THEIR network if you ARE NOT going to abide by the agreement which YOU made with Verizon by activating YOUR service.
With any luck the two of you will remove your cranium from your anus before you can influence others into your ignorant thought process.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
I think I posted the link when Apple applied for permission to brick jailbroken phones, a year ago.
I only have a B.S. in bs, but I imagine that 99.9% of the people that jailbreak iphones do so to get widgets and a custom U.I., NOT to "steal intellectual property".
Apple did that out of arrogance and nothing more. I've also said that people don't "own" iphones, they "use" them. And use them how they are told, or else.
The argument about Verizon doesn't fly, however. Here's yet another example:
My car stereo has satellite radio at an EXTRA cost (subscription). My car has OnStar at an EXTRA cost. I don't curse GM or Sirius/XM because of that. Am I missing something?
I agree with some of tobin's thoughts, but ultimately it's about money and profits and Verizon didn't spend hundreds of millions on a network only to give it away for free.
But, I had forgotten about the bricking thing and yes, even though I probably never would, it is another reason to dislike Apple.
Imagine Windows bricking your PC if you formatted your hard drive and installed Linux?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
A brick wasn't cause by Apples code. If people ACTUALLY read the complaints and the lawsuit it wasn't Apple who caused the bricks. The exploit used that Apple patched(like all companies should) bricked some but not all iPhones that were jailbroken.If Apple planned to brick them then they all would have been broken. Rationally speaking that is.
Now think of it this way. When and if Android devices get updates they do brick from time to time or there's a whole lot of bugs. You don't hear much about the bricks because Android doesn't have the fanfare like Apple did at that time.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
The specific news item I am speaking of detailed how Apple was asking the FCC (or whoever presides over such things) for permission to brick, disable, lock, etc. ANY iphone that was jailbroken SPECIFICALLY and for NO other reason than it was jailbroken.
Maybe, that is acceptable to some, or can be spun into techno-babble, but it sounds pretty petty to me. But, their purogative, of course.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Anything on the internet is not always true. People were complaining about the fact that early Jailbreaks COULD brick devices, and people "ASSUMED" it to be that Apple was intentionally doing it which spurred a whole bunch of rumors which then believed it was true.
Sure Apple could have, but also might have not have. A lot of these articles had no information other than "I heard from X from Y who was there at Z" type of information.
The first exploit was much similar the G1 when messing with the firmware. People played with the firmware had a chance to brick their devices if they wanted the 2.0+ updates. A lot of people took that risk and roughly 30% of the bricked(which probably around 50% of them pulled warranty or cried to T-Mobile about it and got newer devices). Man those days were tough on T-Mobile forums...
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
I'm not referring to any rumored bricking. I'm referring to Apple going to the govt to get permission to brick (disable), or block jailbreaking.
The first of these discusses the latter and the other is their other attempt to keep people from jailbreaking.
It was the Library of Congress and a copyright loophole in this article. This is from Time, not exactly the National Inquirer.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2006956,00.html
The other is from something called "tecdiary", admittedly not a household name, no doubt discrediting them in your opinion.
http://tecdiary.com/blog/mobile-phones/apple-files-for-patent-to-disable-jailbroken-iphones.html
Either way, as I have written, it's their right. But, it doesn't make them seem any less like the evil empire to claim "protecting intellectual property".