A recent Wall Street Journal article compared Apple's latest iPhone software update, which included changes to prevent access to other service providers besides AT&T and prevent owners from directly accessing data files, to General Motors releasing a car and then saying you can only use one brand of gasoline.
Apple claims they only did this to enforce the exclusive contract they signed with AT&T. They say allowing users to modify the software would have a deleterious effect on the user experience. They feel compelled to remove all the "hacks" from their phones so that the larger community is protected.
Then, last week, Apple announced a turn-around in its policy of blocking third-party developers from creating software to run on the iPhone. In a statement to the press, Steve Jobs said Apple is "trying to do two diametrically opposed things at once -- provide an advanced and open platform to developers while at the same time protect iPhone users from viruses, malware, privacy attacks, etc."
To some extent, manufacturers have always put constraints on how their products were used. Warranties were voided for a variety of reasons and retailers had the ability to refuse returned items that had been physically abused. But now it is very different. So many of our products are computer based with software programs that drive their operation. To continue the original analogy, car manufacturers have been dealing with hacks to their fuel injection mixture control modules for years. Savvy consumers would figure out how to change the programs in these modules to either increase acceleration or top end speed, blowing all the environmental protection agency constraints in the process.
Now many more products are coming out with imbedded computers. As consumers become more technically savvy and the products they buy are more software driven, is it right for product manufacturers to prevent their use in other ways? Where does the line get crossed between "creative use" and "product tampering"?
Discussion Questions: Should there be limits on what the manufacturer can do to prevent "creative use" of their product? Is the business model that keeps consumers "captive" with proprietary software and services becoming obsolete?