These flaws are just as bad and damning at Wu suggests. I would presume the flaw of being closed is a result of the iPhone being hostage to a phone carrier and their "business models" (a code word for giving to customers up the ass... pox on all such "business models" I say). It's pure speculation on my part, but I wouldn't be surprised if Apple considered the random-access voicemail as the key *phone* feature of the iPhone. This feature requires the carrier to implement a totally new voicemail protocol on their end. That is, to spend real money. I would wager that Apple went shopping for a carrier who would be willing to do this and that AT&T was willing to make the investment in exchange for being the exclusive carrier. Maybe that's the best deal Apple got from any carrier approached about this, so they took it.

It is reasonable to assume that the iPhone might, we can hope, serve as a Trojan horse, that after a bit of time with AT&T, the clout will shift to Apple, and they can negotiate better terms, and more freedom for consumers. This is more or less what happened with music. One can argue the value of Apple's DRM free music offerings, but does anyone think the music industry would, in a million years, have done this on their own? It was only when enough clout shifted to Apple that Apple could make such a move.

I certainly hope the Trojan hourse case plays out because of my many pet peeves, one of the top of my list is companies who adopt a "business model" that seeks to handcuff consumers, to extort money out of them that a freer market would never allow (ringtones are a perfect example, where carriers bring *nothing* of real value to the table, but simply extract money out of you by prohibiting you from doing something otherwise easy and free unless you pay the extortion fee). I'm all for rewarding genuine effort, bringing value to the market, but pox on anyone who makes money by limiting service, value, and innovation.

Kolmogorov

See my previous post. Investing in the voicemail feature was exactly the sort of change that Apple requested of carriers, and so far only AT&T, bless its little behemoth heart, has delivered.

So, here's hoping that instead of a pact between devils, Apple's present partnership with AT&T is the first tiny step toward an overhaul in the overall "business model" of the industry.

Visual voice mail is pretty simple to implement, actually. You can do it on your PC, via Callwave, for instance-- Callwave is a replacement for your built-in carrier's voicemail, and relies not on network "cooperation" and engineering from the carrier side but just on the carriers not blocking them. In fact, visual voicemail is a pretty good argument for net neutrality/right-to-attach/etc principles on the phone network than it is an argument for the need for phone makers and network owners to work together. That we've waited until 2007 for third feature on the phone itself is a sad indictment of the wireless industry's foot-dragging. Multi-touch *is* revolutionary and the skins for other phones that try to emulate it are pathetic. It's not "aesthetics" that makes the iPhone interface revolutionary. It's the fact that it's the first phone that puts the interface front and center, and tries to pay attention to every last detail. The interface is as flawless as they could have made it. There's been plenty of great hardware already with crap, crap UIs-- the RAZR for instance. Care, quality and attention to detail matter more than whiz-bang features-- the iPhone's got both, and gets press for the latter, but is a good product because of the former. Tim Wu doesn't "misunderstand" the difference between arbitrary subsidy lock outs (by the way, "free" phones aren't "free" when they result in higher fees for everyone) and technological incompatibility. I had a discussion with someone the other day who also somehow thought that technological diversity was "the same" as DRM in that it had the same result. Utter nonsense. In a free and open market without bogus, legally-protected customer-screwing practices like phone-locking and network discrimination, there would in fact be a strong network effect pressure towards standardization. Likely GSM. That pressure does not exist in the little artificial phone universes we have today.