Posts Tagged ‘apple’

In recent weeks, the iPhone has made quite a stir because of the regulatory decisions made by Apple. Jonathan Zittrain raised this worry in his book, The Future of the Internet, where he cautioned that generativity – the nature of systems to accept input from everyone – was being traded for sterile appliances – devices which do only simple tasks (GPS, TiVo).

The iPhone has led a new way, called contingent generativity, that makes generativity dependent upon an intermediary. Apple gets to decide whose Apps are available for download and though Steve Jobs had claimed that they would only block apps that were malicious, pornographic, bandwidth hogs, illegal or threats to privacy, that hasn’t proven true in practice. As I noted at Techdirt, Apple is becoming a Soviet ministry price-setting intermediary that decided the “I Am Rich” application wasn’t allowable even though it didn’t seem to break any rules. “I Am Rich” isn’t alone; other apps which provide additional functionality have been pulled with little to no explanation.

But being an ex-ante regulator isn’t enough. Apple, which is famously closed in character, also has the ability to regulate apps already on a user’s iPhone or iPod Touch. The so-called kill switch was not disclosed to the public until a curious user uncovered the capability. Only then did Steve Jobs admit the functionality existed, saying Apple needed the capability but “Hopefully we never have to pull that lever, but we would be irresponsible not to have a lever like that to pull.”

This position raises a number of questions, many well articulated around the web, not the least of which is why Apple thinks it needs a kill switch an the iPhone and not it’s Mac computers. The issues raised and trend shown by the iPhone’s kill switch is worrying and, as you might expect, some clever engineers have found a way to disable it for jailbroken iPhones, but a thread on the Free Culture mailing list got me wondering if there was a better way to solve this conundrum.

I think there is and I think it should draw on the scholarship of Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler in their book I recently reviewed, Nudge. For the uninitiated, Nudge is a book about “libertarian paternalism” which aims to create situations where it is easier to make the best choice while not limiting other options. Through architecting designs that enable better decisions, or nudges, libertarian paternalism provides a middle ground between freedom and mandates.

Apple has the opportunity to do so with the iPhone kill switch. The intentions of the regulatory function are good: many users are, for whatever reason, unable to avoid or fix security compromises. Apple has experts who can help these users, but a mandatory kill switch is not the best option. It treats all users the same and removes their ability to run applications they desire, regardless of potential hazards. Asheesh Laroia suggested that Apple allow users to permanently opt-out of the system.

I would go one step further towards openness and make the kill switch an opt-in feature. Call it AppleCare Pro for iPhone or something less awkward. Heck, Apple could even charge for it! Make it a prominent decision in the set-up process and allow users to revisit the option when they desire. Provide nudges towards it when the user downloads an App which might be dangerous (similar to how Google warns searchers they may be entering a nasty page).

This would give the worried or non-experts the ability to have Apple’s paternalistic reach extend to their phones without compromising the autonomy of those who want independence. Parker Higgins worries that those who need Apple’s protection are those likely to ignore the warnings, but I think Apple could architect a system where they are nudged towards better decision-making without a presumption of ignorance.

In doing this all, Apple should remain aware that openness and honesty is the best option. The fact that they hid the kill switch until outsiders found it is reminiscent of Comcast’s deceptive practices regarding BitTorrent throttling.

Last night I wrote the following piece for Techdirt:

Someone has created a simple iPhone application called “I Am Rich” which sells for $999.99 and simply makes the screen grow ruby red and offers “a secret mantra.” But more shocking than this apparent waste of bytes and money is a number of prominent blogs which are calling for Apple to block the application. This is ludicrous. If someone wants to part with a grand for a glowing screen, who is Apple to stop them? The application developer is honest and clearly states that there “is no hidden function.” It is not malicious, pornographic, a bandwidth hog, illegal or a threat to privacy.

And do these pro-regulation bloggers really want to have Apple assume the role of a Soviet ministry – designating appropriate prices for applications? Should Steve Jobs and company really determine the price of Super Monkey Ball? One commenter suggests that this application is an “insult to all the well-meaning developers that Apple made wait/are still waiting to get into the iPhone developer program.” The problem of slow approval is not a single application, but the way in which Apple is playing gatekeeper to the iPhone. Again, these complaints are asking Apple to decide which applications should receive priority review and approval – a slippery slope which places arbitrary values on applications. And by advocating that Apple makes the iPhone a more closed system, these opponents of the “I Am Rich” application may in fact be pushing Apple away from a business model that succeeds – openness.

Now, it seems the “I Am Rich” application has disappeared from the App Store. It isn’t clear if the developer removed it or Apple did, but the scenario points to a worrying trend. If Apple pulled it, they are becoming the intermediaries of Soviety style that Zittrain fears. If the developer removed the application due to the pressure of the protesting bloggers, I think it’s even more scary – a new mob of haughty, paternalistic bloggers are interfering with the market. No one stopped pet rocks, why “I Am Rich”?

Update: Apple has now pulled the application even though there was consumer interest in it.