Garrick van Buren

“The US copyright office will permit mobile phone subscribers to unlock their phones, allowing them to be used by rival network providers.” – Andrew Orlowski, The Register

“The exemptions become effective on 27 November 2006 and will only remain in effect for three years.” – Tim Finn

“This is really only applicable to Cingular and T-Mobile customers” – Alex Zaltsman

This is really good news for handset makers and the geek set. Opens up a new world of higher-end handset options (the choices today are pretty bad).

If any of you Apple-geeks missed it, the rumored iPhone is rumored to be unlocked. Just as you supplied the keyboard, mouse, and monitor with the Mac Mini, this means you’ll bring your own mobile phone service provider for the iPhone.

Seems like a smart, customer-centric decision. Since not all providers have decent coverage where there are Apple Stores (US or worldwide) not tying the handset to a provider means Apple (or any other handset maker) can sell to the greatest number of customers.

UPDATE:

“An Apple phone wouldn’t do more than a Treo or a BlackBerry or a Razr — it would do less, and what it would do, it would do really well.” – John Gruber

Exactly. Today those are the options for decent voice + internet handset. As I wrote last April – we don’t need more of the same – we need the opposite. While my previous write up is pretty geeky – the underlying principle is valid – phone as peripheral. Not stand-alone device.

We caught the “Heretics” episode of the This American Life last week on the drive back from Wisconsin. A superb listen – about Reverend Carlton Pearson and his New Dimensions church – best I’ve heard from public radio in quite a while (not that I’ve been able to stand listening that much). Pearson’s philosophy of inclusion is the closest I’ve heard something sounding like a Post-Scarcity Christianity.

I don’t remember a church service where the offering plate wasn’t passed around. Donations – dare I say – commerce – is baked into religious gatherings. Same goes for street performers and hat passing.

Outside of those two contexts, I’m drawing a blank on where same gather-entertain-donate model has been successful – especially not in the online realm. Hmmm – what would a successful model look like?

While commerce is baked into religion – the inverse can also be true:

“You see, the customers (and I am one) who make Apple what it is don’t purchase products. They (we) accept and enter a myth — a cult.” – Rex Hammock

Reminds me of my favorite L Ron Hubbard quote:

“I’d like to start a religion. That’s where the money is.”

Keep on eye Pearson – he’s out to prove joy can be as financially lucrative as fear.

Oh, and I think there is a distinction between building a religion and building a cathedral.

While Darren’s post is specific the challenges of high-profile, pro-bike racing, the messed up relationship he describes is evident in so many other industries, the major entertainment publishers come to mind immediately (music, books, etc).

While I admittedly don’t know the specifics of the issues within bike racing (Darren’s the expert here, and I could scare up a couple more if you’d like) – seems to me walking into the sport there’s some degree of acceptance that’s ‘this is the way the game is played’.

Of course, “The Man” has more incentive to keep things status quo than do the “the little guys”. All around me, I’m seeing similar hierarchies bypassed. RSS, podcasting, Tivo, YouTube, email, BarCamps, open-source software, and weblogs – all bypass existing gatekeepers, syndicators, and publishing structures, and organizational structures.

“You’ve got to build bypasses” – Douglas Adams, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy

These bypasses changes the game at a fundamental, un-ignorable way. The best bypasses promise sustainability without threat of holding your breath underwater.

What would it look like if the same thing that happened to stock brokers and real estate agents happened to professional sports leagues?

Related:

“Meanwhile, top reporters and columnists at major newspapers are realizing (or will realize soon) that their fates are not necessarily tied to those of their employers.” – Michael Hirschorn