DISQUS

Duog Lay · 2 years ago

If the death of exclusivity is basically inevitable (and I am inclined to agree with this) then does it make much difference whether we praise or mourn it? We just need to work with it.

cordblomquist · 2 years ago

I agree Doug. I just wonder if it will be a "liberating" experience--one worth celebrating--right away or if it will involve some uncomfortable readjustment before business models are able to transition. Creative destruction is part of the capitalist system for sure, but smooth transition and adaptation is undoubtedly preferable.

Tim Lee · 2 years ago

I think it's overstating things to say that exclusivity is dead. I would be shocked if more than 10 percent of the people who bought iPhones took advantage of these hacks to switch to another carrier. Most people just don't see that much difference among the carriers, and a lot of people would be afraid of breaking their phone and voiding their warranty.

So going forward, companies signing exclusivity deals will have to keep in mind that some small fraction of their customers will hack their products and use them in ways not envisioned by the deal. But in the grand scheme of things, those people are little more than rounding error.

cordblomquist · 2 years ago

I agree with you, to a point. We won't see people running out to hack their iPhone, especially for fear of damaging a $700 piece of hardware. However, one of the handful of hacks that have been reported in the last week supposedly is restore and update "resistant." Assuming that the software is easy to run, and cheap, this may affect sales in an appreciable amount.

If these hacks can be made into a commercial download the real effect will be seen in the international market. I think you're right that most people just don't see a difference in the carriers here, but for people in Europe who don't have an iPhone carrier yet. Using a bit of unlocking software for $40 or $50 is a small price to have the gadget 6 months or a year before your peers.

Barnaby · 2 years ago

I agree that hack-proof tech for hardware isn't viable in an environment where the hardware is directly available without restriction. In the case of Apple and AT&T;, they made the mistake of making the iPhone hardware available for sale absent a service contract. However, they did, at least at launch, limit purchases to no more than two iPhones per person.

It may not be too late for them to shore-up exclusivity by requiring hardware and service purchases to be simultaneous, and by not offering pre-paid service plans for the iPhone. A service contract requires identity and credit verification, and therefore would make it impractical and expensive to amass a substantial number of iPhones for exportation to the international market.

Don Marti · 2 years ago

The i-opener and the CVS video camera are two more examples of unlocking. Both of those were popular unlocks because the business plan behind the lock-in was to make a low-end product in an existing category available at a very low price, and then make the profit on the associated service. There were lots of people who could use an extra PC or a cheap video camera who were willing to do the unlocking.

Lock-in might still work if there is an existing cheap product in the category, and the locked-in product/service combination just gets you a better overall customer experience than you would get by spending the same money up front for a cheap product without service. Many of the marginal hackers would go for the cheap product instead of taking the risk of "bricking" the locked-in product.