So I just read this article from the New York Times – http://nyti.ms/ancxqC – and there’s this line at the end: “the Library of Congress renewed its approval for cellphone owners to ‘unlock’ their phones or lift controls that restrict use to one particular wireless carrier” (emphasis mine).
Surely Steve Jobs & Co. can’t be happy that in one fell swoop the LOC has given the A-OK to jailbreaking your iPhone. But the second element, seemingly limiting Apple’s ability to offer exclusivity to select carriers, is even more interesting.
Certainly Apple would like to keep it’s negotiating leverage over the carriers – that’s why AT&T continued to provide an unlimited data package when they clearly preferred pay-for-what-you-use options.
Some will argue that more competition is better for the consumer. But were it not for Apple’s leverage, iPhone data would have been capped a long time ago. I think this still holds true even if more carriers were in the equation.
Apple may be a dictatorship, but contrary to a vocal minority, it’s mostly a benevolent dictatorship. When the dictator has leverage, that can result in a net positive for customers. But when the leverage is taken away, the competition may not make up the difference.
{ 0 comments }
