To state the completely obvious (no better way to start a blog post!), Nokia and Apple are big players in the consumer technology arena. As well as selling devices, both want to have their customers using their mobile and portable devices' firmware for as many things as possible: locating goods or services in the locality, watching videos, taking photos and then buying the prints.
The ultimate aim is of course to get revenue from these things (e.g. advertising revenue, fees for downloading music). To take the example of music, Apple is already dominant in the digital music arena with iTunes; Nokia wants a piece of the action and is making serious efforts to become a popular digital music service provider during 2008.
However, these efforts to become and make money from being one-stop shops for all kinds of content and services look to have resulted in a very unpopular trend in firmware, as these companies seek to maximise revenue from their devices.
Nokia maps tracking feature goes missing in action
At the end of December 2007 Nokia released its latest firmware update for its N95 high-end smartphone. N95 owners, whilst impressed with many of the upgraded features, were taken by surprise by the disappearance of a key element of the tracking feature in the phone's maps facility (pictured - right). This feature allows users to track their location. The company's response to querys about this development was that users would have to pay for the premium version of maps if they wanted it back.
Users weren't exactly impressed; one user blog commented that Nokia was being "cheeky" and another wasn't best pleased. The Register said:
"Nokia would like users to look at their mobile phone as a desktop-equivalent, but even Microsoft would balk at removing without warning a feature through Windows Update, and then offering that same feature as a product. There may not be many users complaining about the removal of tracking from Nokia Maps - it's a little-used feature - but the concept of features being removed without warning is something that should worry every smartphone user."
Apple charges Touch users for latest firmware update
Apple CEO Steve Jobs this week angered existing owners of the ipod Touch, the company's iphone-like media player and internet tablet, when it announced that they would have to pay $20/£13 for the latest update of the Touch firmware.
The update brings new features to the Touch, such as a built-in email browser. Apple's position appears to be that the new features are "luxury", not essential, so it can charge for them. Fair enough, right? Many existing users don't think so; not only does the Touch come at a luxury price, but anyone buying a Touch now will get these "luxuries" included at no extra cost. In other words, Apple is treated existing users different to new users.
The response from Touch owners to Apple's announcement appears to be largely hostile; while a few people on the Apple user forums are saying that will be compliant and upgrade, most seem to have little in the way of kind words to say about Apple or Jobs. There also looks to be much talk from users about finding alternative ways to upgrade their Touches without paying Apple a single penny (see below for more details).
Can the law help disgrunted users?
What can annoyed users do about this kind of behaviour from consumer tech companies like Nokia and Apple?
Users are unlikely to find their contracts with Apple, Nokia, or their device providers (e.g. the mobile telecomms companies in the case of Nokia), very helpful. (I haven't got time to look, but well done if you do spot any obligation in the terms & conditions for Nokia to provide maps as part of its phones, or Apple to provide full firmware updates for free.)
Theoretically, if a user purchased their N95 from a shop on the promise/confirmation (from the shop, or in the advertising campaign for the device) that the maps feature was included, or bought their Touch on the promise/confirmation that firmware upgrades were all free, that user might be able to return the device to the shop and get a refund on the basis of breach of contract by the shop. However, this argument could be tricky to run and could stumble into legal problems early on (e.g. the terms & conditions of the retailer could state that the content of marketing materials or verbal promises given by a shop might be excluded from the contract between user and retailer). Even if the user was successful, they've no longer got a N95/Touch, just their money back - this is unlikely to be the aim of most disgruntled users, who want the missing features.
If enough consumers complained, the competition authorities in countries where these devices are sold might also investigate whether Nokia/Apple have abused their market power. This could be particularly relevant to the Touch; Apple completely controls what applications and features are on the device, doesn't let users install third party software, and can therefore demand whatever money it wants from users. Again, this is a complicated legal issue and is not going to result in annoyed users getting the missing features in the near future.
In my view, the above developments are only likely to be resolved in the long-run through consumer pressure and by the companies in question realising that they are deterring potential purchasers by making their offerings look unreliable.
Users take control
In the short term, there are practical solutions for users. Nokia smartphones run on the generic Symbian operating system, for which there is loads of third party software available (much of it free, and open source). There are often third party alternatives to Nokia phone features, meaning that if Nokia pulls these kind of stunts, third party software can replace the missing features.
For the iPod Touch, I've already said that Apple doesn't allow third party applications to be installed. However, geeky Touch fanatics have come up with various ways of cracking the device so that third party applications can be installed; this is commonly known as "jailbreaking". (Right - a jailbroken Touch and a standard Touch). From this development has sprung up what appears to have a very active developer community, and what looks to be a substantial community of users of jailbroken Touches. Whilst jailbreaking is unlikely to be allowed under the Touch end user licence, many users will argue that the $20/£13 firmware update announcement effectively legitimises jailbreaking until Apple unlocks the Touch to third party applications.
In the long run, users may choose to buy devices that aren't so tightly controlled by a particular company; the development of Linux operating systems for mobile phones (e.g. Google's Android Alliance) means that this may become a realistic option in the next few years.
The moves by Apple and Nokia, and the response of users, make this an interesting area to watch and consider, both in terms of IT developments and the legal implications. I've not considered the law in any detail in this post, and will try to do so in the next few months.
Notes: Picture of N95 from PMP Today blog. Pictures of iPod Touch from PocketPicks.
Lawrence Lessig, US lawyer and founder of 
