Render Unto Steve What Is Steve's
Its taken a while to get my thoughts and heart together enough to address this. Considering the fervor that various mobile devices have caused in the past year though, I think that some accountability is an order, or at least a good bit of checking our motives at the door when it comes to these devices and what we want to do with them.
If you will, think of this as a look at stewardship, ownership, and accountability.
Matthew 22:15-22 ESV
The day of the release came, and then came the reports of what worked and what did not work. Suffice to say, there were plenty of disappointed people. Especially those who had unlocked the iPhone to be used on other carriers around the world, or those whose use of special applications enabled functionality that was nor present in the off-the-shelf-version.
A statement from Apple days before the release of the update (from Engadget):
A post that I read at The SmartPDA posted this (thanks):
Romans 13 ESV (selected quotes)
Because of end-user license agreements that a person agrees to when they purchase software or hardware, you agree not to do certain things to the item in return for a specific service. When you pay Apple (Steve Jobs and company) for the iPhone, one part of that agreement is that you make the concession NOT to modify the software of the device in any fashion, nor to manipulate the ability of the radio software to work in any fashion not prescribed by At&T or Apple.
In the US, phone makers and carriers are required by law to allow for a phone to be unlocked to be used on compatable carriers where possible. This law is usually circumvented by carriers by modifying aspects of the hardware or software so that it is harder for the device to work on another carrier. Or, by making exclusivity agreements with carriers that stipulate that a device is to be sold/used on one carrier for a specific amount of time. The latter is the case with the iPhone.
So, is it against the law to modify your iPhone to be used on another carrier? Yes.
Is it against the law to demand that Apple modify the agreement that you signed and agreed to stating that you would not use the device in any way that violates the terms of service or end-user agreement? No. It is not against the law to demand it, but not right to expect it per your timing.
As much as we believe that a device is ours and we should be able to do what we want, the truth is we cannot. As believers, and moreso as law-abiding citizens, we have to hold to standards that speak not towards lawlessness, but towards civility. If you are a believer who has purchased an iPhone and are using it in ways that break the end-user-license agreement or terms of service, you cannot expect your unsantioned use to be officially updated. If what you purchased does not fit how you want to use it, then find a device that does, or admit that your lusts cannot be fulfilled by this temporary thing and wait on the device that does work best for what you'd like to do.
Give Apple their just due for providing a device that has made you excited, but don't let your lusts for wanting to use it cost Christ's name.
If you will, think of this as a look at stewardship, ownership, and accountability.
Matthew 22:15-22 ESV
Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his talk. And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, "Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone's opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?" But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, "Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin for the tax." And they brought him a denarius. And Jesus said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" They said, "Caesar's." Then he said to them, "Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." When they heard it, they marveled. And they left him and went away.This weekend I took some time to read through RSS feeds on my Treo. It had been some time since doing so, and there are several websites that I read there, that I do not anywhere else for various reasons. One of the common themes of the week happened to be the update for the iPhone (Version 1.1.1) that had come out. Several websites reported on this update beforehand of having the possiblity of bricking, or rendering useless, their iPhones. Those that would be effected would be those whose devices were being used on another carrier's network, or had other functionality exposed that was not in the original design of the iPhone.
The day of the release came, and then came the reports of what worked and what did not work. Suffice to say, there were plenty of disappointed people. Especially those who had unlocked the iPhone to be used on other carriers around the world, or those whose use of special applications enabled functionality that was nor present in the off-the-shelf-version.
A statement from Apple days before the release of the update (from Engadget):
...the company has released an official statement warning users that "unauthorized iPhone unlocking programs" could cause "irreparable damage to the iPhone's software." Furthermore, the firm stated that these apps could result in the handset becoming "permanently inoperable when a future Apple-supplied iPhone software update is installed" -- you know, like the one coming "later this week" that includes the iTunes WiFi Music Store. As if that wasn't bad enough, the release also notes that "unauthorized modifications to the iPhone's software" violates the iPhone software license agreement and "voids the warranty."So basically, if you installed software you were not supposed to, then you are not supposed to expect an official update to continue to allow your device to work.
A post that I read at The SmartPDA posted this (thanks):
Nowadays, when you buy gadgets and software, you enter into an agreement with the manufacturer and your service provider, usually outlined in the manual or in the software itself. Quite frankly, nobody (myself included) takes the time to read the agreement, since we're too busy enjoying our new toys.There are two aspects at play here, one of which is very much a part of how Christians define themselves as relating to the world around us:
Anyone who purchases an iPhone enter[s] into a provider agreement with AT&T, and into an End User License Agreement with Apple over the smartphone's software.
Romans 13 ESV (selected quotes)
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer...There are a few ways of looking at this, but we will will just cover a few of the topmost points, and let discussion merit the rest.
Because of end-user license agreements that a person agrees to when they purchase software or hardware, you agree not to do certain things to the item in return for a specific service. When you pay Apple (Steve Jobs and company) for the iPhone, one part of that agreement is that you make the concession NOT to modify the software of the device in any fashion, nor to manipulate the ability of the radio software to work in any fashion not prescribed by At&T or Apple.
In the US, phone makers and carriers are required by law to allow for a phone to be unlocked to be used on compatable carriers where possible. This law is usually circumvented by carriers by modifying aspects of the hardware or software so that it is harder for the device to work on another carrier. Or, by making exclusivity agreements with carriers that stipulate that a device is to be sold/used on one carrier for a specific amount of time. The latter is the case with the iPhone.
So, is it against the law to modify your iPhone to be used on another carrier? Yes.
Is it against the law to demand that Apple modify the agreement that you signed and agreed to stating that you would not use the device in any way that violates the terms of service or end-user agreement? No. It is not against the law to demand it, but not right to expect it per your timing.
As much as we believe that a device is ours and we should be able to do what we want, the truth is we cannot. As believers, and moreso as law-abiding citizens, we have to hold to standards that speak not towards lawlessness, but towards civility. If you are a believer who has purchased an iPhone and are using it in ways that break the end-user-license agreement or terms of service, you cannot expect your unsantioned use to be officially updated. If what you purchased does not fit how you want to use it, then find a device that does, or admit that your lusts cannot be fulfilled by this temporary thing and wait on the device that does work best for what you'd like to do.
Give Apple their just due for providing a device that has made you excited, but don't let your lusts for wanting to use it cost Christ's name.
Labels: accessiblity, Devotions, iPhone, mobile, tech
posted by Antoine @ 10/01/2007 04:36:00 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
I'm sure you are bound to be criticized for this post, but I wanted you to know that I, for one, appreciate it. Thanks.
-Jon
I'm going to have to disagree with the post. It was well written, but I disagree on several key points. I was honestly on board with you until the "So is it against the law to modify your iPhone to be used on another carrier?". The answer to that is no. Actually, the first question is, is it within the law for Apple to disable the phone when being used on another carrier. The answer to that question is shady. It's not, but it IS against the law to circumvent you from unlocking it.
So is it against the law to modify it? No. It *is* however, against the warranty. That's fine. Had Apple maintained that modified iPhones have voided their warranty, that's fine. However, it was very malicious and very against the law, in my opinion, for them to brick phones for being modified.
However, I speak with my wallet (and my blog). I refuse to buy an iPhone. For several reasons, but the biggest one is the lack of freedom.
However, to the original point, here's my question. My Nokia E62 was sold to me as an exclusive device from Nokia and Cingular (at the time). It was locked to only use Cingular's network, and had Cingular's customizations that Nokia and Cingular agreed upon. I was able to acquire a code which unlocked it from Cingular, and was then able to use Nokia's own Software Updater to change to an unbranded firmware, thus both unlocking and modifying an originally locked down device, sold to me through an exclusivity agreement.
I can appreciate that "Give unto Cesar what is Cesar's." However, I think that is misapplied to this situation. Personally.
Hye Anon; Thanks for your feedback. I'd tell you how much I wrestled with this before posting, but that's not at all very important here.
Anon said "So is it against the law to modify it? No. It *is* however, against the warranty. That's fine. Had Apple maintained that modified iPhones have voided their warranty, that's fine. However, it was very malicious and very against the law, in my opinion, for them to brick phones for being modified."
Actually, it is against the terms of service in owning the device that one agrees to from Apple (and from AT&T) to modify the software or the radio firmware. Enabling the ability for one to use it on another carrier means one has to download an application that changes core functionality, and this violation of the terms of service (ATT) and end-user-license agreement (Apple) is breaking a contract that the user does agree to in the financial transaction with Apple and ATT.
According to your E62 situation, I believe that you are not breaking the law if the update that you have installed is not just Nokia supplied, but ATT endorsed. When you state that you were able to acquire a code to unlock it, was this code supplied by ATT (the PUK code for instance), or was it the regional device code (which neither Nokia nor ATT supplies to end users but are freely findable online)? In the case of just finding the code online, you would be guilty of breaking your agreement because your using of that unlocking code would be considered (on ATT's end) of breaking the end-user-license agreement (manipulating the software in a manner that was not officially endorsed by the carrier). If they supplied the code, then you are good, as then the manufacturer and the reseller have consented to giving you the information that you have. Therefore your use of the Nokia Software Updater and subsequent updates would fall under allowable use. The dispute on your usage would be disputed between Nokia and ATT as then both of their agreements would be in contradiction to one another.
That all being said, I really do thank you for taking me to task on this. I'd rather get this side of things right before I were to purchase a device (unlocked, locked, or other) so that I am walking right with God and man in my device usage. And above that, keeping my expectations on what I think I deserve at bay. So if I'm not right in points here, do correct, I've got a ton of learning yet to do, and especially in terms of understanding legal jargon and application.
The problem with this is that at what point do you own something. If i own an iphone, and i can't do with it what i want, then isn't that more of a lease than ownership?
my other point is in how legally binding eulas of this type are if you look at the case of Klocek v. Gateway (http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case209.cfm)
"The U.S. District Court of Kansas in Klocek ruled that the contract of sale was complete at the time of the transaction, and the additional shipped terms contained in a document similar to that in Brower did not constitute a contract, because the customer never agreed to them when the contract of sale was completed" and while i have not actually bought an iphone, i went through apple's to buy an iphone, and i reached the point to put cc info in without seeing an eula.
sorry about grammar, its late.
-Aaron
Unless one subverts the software design, and the EULA in iTunes, there is no way to use an iPhone without agreeing to NOT modify its software.
You always own the device, you just sign a contract durning that change of ownership that you will not manipulate the software (Apple iTunes iPhone EULA). Ownership with such a contract means that you've signed away freedsoms to "do what you want to do."
See the EULA for all the hardware that you own, you will find similar terms that you've agreed to.
Post a Comment
<< Home