The Significance of the iPhone

Recently, in the name of increasing competition, USA politicians proposed a bill to transform the App Store so that it behaves more like Microsoft's concept of a App Store. The irony should raise alarm for those who are serious about government regulation. Why does a bill aiming at increasing competition end up endorsing Microsoft's business strategy? Part of it is political cynicism, but it seems that the obscurity of iPhone's nature and significance is at play. Following Apple's advertisement, the public perceived the iPhone as a magical success, which served Apple well for market expansion, but the concealment also gave regulators a false sense that they are regulating a familiar, albeit extraordinarily successful, product.

Magic doesn't explain why the issue of surveillance and privacy was so acute for the iPhone. Magic doesn't explain why security of the iPhone is of prime importance. Magic doesn't explain why the regulator's drive for increasing competition at the expense of security may be undesirable. What's needed is a sound analytical framework.

Indeed, the drive for increasing competition doesn't apply to Social Security, or many subtle aspects of life, such as friendship. Universal drive for increasing competition is Trump's doctrine. He even took pride in the enjoyment that females compete for him. Choosing a sound analytical framework is critical, or risk shredding Social Security into pieces. There is real risk that USA politicians are actually falling into the trap. For example, if politicians regard the iPhone as the epitome of purposeful computing expounded by Intel, it's hard to see why undermining security in favor of competition could be disastrous.

From Apple's perspective, the nature of the iPhone justifies more pro-security regulation, rather than pro-competition regulation. Does it make sense? Here a attempt is made to answer it.

Although Steve Jobs introduced the original iPhone as a UI revolution, the following developments showed that it's much bigger and deeper. The iPhone is a mobile phone with power comparable with a desktop computer, trusted with most personal data, accessible anytime anywhere. It's a personal computing revolution.

The iPhone is trusted with most personal data. Thus the issue of surveillance and privacy is acute, security of the iPhone is of prime importance, and the drive for increasing competition at the expense of security may be undesirable. It boils down to the fact that the iPhone revolutionized personal computing. The most obvious evidence of all this is the proliferation of selfies. Less obvious is the booming industry of personal data harvesting.

The iPhone is not a common product, but a storage of critical personal data that may be exploited if breached.

The focus on the perceived App Store monopoly partially stems from the claim that the App Store is a bigger revolution than the iPhone. For politicians, breaking App Store dominance was more important than the security of the iPhone. It should be noted that a comparable App Store on feature phones would never succeed. It's the constitution of the iPhone that makes the App Store possible. Popular apps on the App Store such as Facebook regularly deal with personal data. Security of the iPhone should not be regarded as a lesser objective. Cybersecurity is a more and more serious challenge. The response should be more pro-security regulation.

For conclusion, Apple's pro-security approach makes sense, but it would be nice if the premium Apple collects isn't so high. Politicians' desire to transform Apple into Microsoft through bad regulation should be curbed. Much of the discussion here applies to the iPad and Apple Watch, too.