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.
“An engineer explained to us that hundreds of ear impressions were gathered in the name of research, and while each one obviously boasted its own unique shape and size, one single characteristic remained uniform across the board: the entrance into the ear canal is not a perfect circle, it's an oval.”
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
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.