iPhone hacking
Last week, a teenager named George Hotz announced that he had a hack for the iPhone that allowed it be run on the TMobile network. Apple and AT&T have an exclusive deal that forces US iPhone customers to get service through AT&T’s network, but instructions Hotz has posted on his personal blogs gives customers instructions to move their iPhone to another phone network. Hotz was praised for his work by many media outlets and bloggers, with many praising his work as a way to give customers what they want. Finally, iPhone customers can leave AT&T’s horrible network and make their own decision. Great, right?
Well, I don’t think so. I think that Apple and AT&T have a legitimate argument against Hotz that his actions have violated their rights to their respective property. For Apple, that property is control over the iPhone. Apple created the device, and they should be able to decide who they want to sell it to or through. For AT&T, that’s control over property they’ve obtained through a deal with another company. AT&T signed a deal with Apple to be the exclusive dealer of service for Apple’s phone. These two companies made a deal to work exclusively with one another, and they should be able to so without being interference from the government, from thieves, or from hackers. Hotz’s actions may seem innocent, but they will cause real damage to a relationship between two big companies.
When I refer to Hotz’s “actions,” I’m talking about his decision to post the hacking instructions on his blog, not the actual hacking of the iPhone. If Hotz had just hacked his own iPhone and used it on his TMobile network, AT&T and Apple wouldn’t even know about it, let alone face any real damage. Damage was done when he posted the instructions on his blog, though. Those posts damaged the ability for AT&T and Apple to use their property as they saw fit — which is something that the government should protect.
Many people will say, “I bought my iPhone, I should get to do what I want with it.” That’s right, but only in a certain context. If we’re just talking about the physical device packaged in a box you purchased at a store, then yes, you own that device. However, if the context is who owns the right to the iPhone brand, the right to decide who sells iPhones, and the right to the software that is released with an iPhone, then no, Apple owns the iPhone. Those are the rights Hotz’s actions damaged. Now it doesn’t matter that Apple wants to make an exclusive deal with AT&T with their own property, and why? Because hackers say that the iPhone should be open.
Hotz is not the only person doing this. Another company has announced that they have software that will unlock the iPhone, without the soldering that Hotz’s hack requires. I don’t think that Apple and Hotz are going to sue a teenager, but I think they should go to the courts to stop these types of companies from violating their ability to control their own property. If people want Apple to use other networks, they should ask. If people want better prices and better network performance from AT&T, they should ask. Negotiate. Sign petitions, show that there is a big demand for better service. Just don’t take from them.
Tags: [george hotz, hacking, iPhone]Comments
3 Responses to “iPhone hacking”
Leave a Reply
I’m a pretty strong defender of contract rights, but I’m not convinced yet that the IPhone hack really is a violation.
A company can restrict your use of a commodity if, for example, they are renting or leasing it to you. They can even restrict your use of it in ways that are consistent with its intellectual property rights (e.g., you can’t make and distribute copies of a DVD that you buy.
But why is hacking into the device and altering it to accomplish your purposes a violation of a contract? Now, if Apple offers a package deal of the IPhone and AT&T service, then there is no way around buying the phone and getting the service. But if, after buying both, you decide that you don’t want to use the service, but would rather use something else, I don’t see the problem. You’ve received the package deal, and you’ve held up your end of the bargain by paying for it. So what does it matter what you do with the hardware after that, if you decide not to use the phone service you’ve already purchased and instead use another one in addition?
(Perhaps I don’t understand the sales arrangement. Perhaps you’re able to buy the IPhone without yet paying for or setting up the AT&T service. If so, I’d say there’s only a violation of contract if implicit in the purchase is the agreement to eventually buy AT&T service. But if there is no such implication, then Apple can have no complaint.)
Think of it this way. Suppose that a car manufacturer makes an exclusive deal with a muffler maker. Ford will only build cars that have Midas mufflers. You happen to think Midas mufflers suck, so you buy your Ford, complete with the Midas muffler, and toss the Midas and go with a FlowMaster. Whose rights have you violated?
And I don’t see what difference it makes whether you do the hack on your own, vs. tell other people about it. If I tell people how to install a Flowmaster on their Ford, even when the Ford comes with Midas, I don’t see any moral difference.
NS
Hi NoumenalSelf, thanks for replying. I’m sorry for replying so late, my computer time this week has been cut short.
My objection to iPhone hacking is based mainly on Apple’s property rights to the iPhone, not because of any contractual issues. You said that companies can restrict the use of the their products in ways that are consistent with their intellectual property rights, and I’m just saying that I think this is one of those cases. Apple built this great device, they worked with AT&T to set up the type of network setup they wanted to use for their device, and they put in many restrictions to protects their ability to make exclusive deals with companies like AT&T. If hacks like these are allowed, then that effectively means that deals like that between AT&T and Apple can’t exist. As soon as one teenager finds a way around whatever restrictions you have currently, what you want to do with your property no longer applies.
I understand what you’re saying and I could be persuaded to think this is a case where intellectual property rights might not apply. I don’t know the type of contract Apple and AT&T make their customers sign, and I don’t know all of the details surrouding the type of service that AT&T provides. I guess I just don’t believe that the fact that someone broke another person’s security restrictions necessarily gives them the right to do it.
And as a side note, just because the question popped in my head: If people have the right to hack their iPhones and jump to a different carrier, would Apple then be in the wrong if they modified their next iPhone software update to close the hole that allowed the hack in the first place?