What is Digg?Sponsored by Guitar Center
When Heavy-handed Hints Fail--Guitar Center Wishlist Posters view!
guitarcenter.com - Cool personalized designs send a friendly reminder that a new Stratocaster would rock, thanks.
14 Comments
- mrailing, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3It's not trying to give the companies time to develop products, all of this stems from 1. The FCC not upholding their own guidelines, and 2. Companies abusing the ability to request Short-Term Confidentiality. Specifically in the FCC DA 04-1705 it states that any companies "marketing" or releasing a device are suppose to send notice to the FCC to suspend their short-term confidentiality. This isn't happening. Apple even states in their request that they are marketing their device, which should never have been given Short-Term Confidentiality. Same holds true for the Samsung SCH-i760 and other devices. Companies are abusing the system, the FCC isn't following their own guidelines. If people like us don't hold them to those guidelines, who will? How many guidelines and rules do we let them break? This is all about the Freedom of Information Act, and if the government wants to set rules and polices, then we should hold them to it. If a company doesn't want to release the information, then they shouldn't openly market the device until they are ready to release the information, or should never request/or be authorized for the information to be blocked when they violate it in the first place. The companies and FCC should be held responsible. Read the link and specifically the FCC guidelines posted in post #19 of that page. This is why we are doing it. We should request this on ANY device, but it just so happens that the two devices that we know about, are actively discussed...
- tange1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3If you would read and understand everything then you might find the reason for the request of confidentiality to be removed. Putting it simply, once a company starts to market a device by the rules of the FCC they should lose the short term confidentiality request. The iPhone has already been marketed many times. The info that this group is trying to open up is not trade secrets, its items that will be opened up once the device hits market. They are just trying to get the FCC to follow their own rules and remove confidentiality once a device has been marketed.
- mrailing, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Dreaming up the iPhone is marketing, I think not. When a company makes a commercial and airs it during the Oscars on NATIONAL television, have a website devoted to the device, have it at every trade show on display and demonstration, the CEO of the company does interviews talking about the device with NATIONAL news, I would call that marketing a device. Putting it in a publication (as Samsung did with the i760), again showing it at trade shows. This is all hype, advertising, publicizing, and promoting, which leads up to the sale of an item. I am fully aware that neither of these items are on sale, and I have no desire for iPhone, but when a company even says they are marketing, then well, they are. The FCC has no set definition of "marketing", and it will be interesting as to what they say on this. But if a company is advertising and working on promotion of something with the intent to see, and doing this on a national level, then I would say they are marketing the device. Sure if you have a something you thought up, and it was "leaked" and spread all over the web, then I wouldn't call that marketing, but these companies are "actively" pursuing this. It doesn't matter if it's for sale or not, as the FCC lists in their article DA 04-1705 - June 15, 2004:
"However, if prior to the expiration of the 45 day period, an applicant engages in public marketing activities or otherwise publicizes a device for which temporary confidential treatment has been granted, the applicant must coincidentally notify the FCC or the TCB issuing the equipment authorization so that the subject exhibits may be placed in the public database immediately."
So if the applicant (named here as Apple or Samsung) "engages in public marketing activities or otherwise publicizes a device"... So even with that statement, if they publicize it (which means "to make public"), then they must notify to have the short-term confidentiality removed, and in Apple's case, they should never have had it put confidential in the first place. - mrailing, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Also this confidentiality is NOT on the permanent confidentiality, this is only the short-term items "External Photos", "Internal Photos", "Test-Setup Photos", "User's Manual". We are NOT trying to expose the permanent confidentiality, as this is proprietary information and this information should stay confidential, only the information that is blocked until the devices are marketed, which both of these devices have been.
- streak, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Given that bit of language, I would agree that Apple "must" notify the FCC of their activities, upon which the FCC should release the information to the public. But if Apple doesn't notify, I'm not sure what the FCC is supposed to do about it. (Not sure why you got dugg down, so I'm digging you back up)
- dotZeen, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Marketing, for the better portion of the 'free market', is the goal --and intention-- of a company to drum up support for, interest in, and collusion with the current market. The firm, who's in charge of such a lofty goal, must find a need within the current 'market', secure innovation, and finally supply means to fill the need; for the marketing of said product to be endorsed successfully. Notice I said, 'supply the means'. Marketing does not actually need, nor are they required to supply the actual product.
The basic supposition that pdaphonehome members are presenting is that; whilst these companies have yet to receive full on approval from the FCC, they have already begun to market their product. This is in stark contrast to the rules by which the FCC governs the 'free market' with 'Short Term confidentiality'; and in the process negating a substantial amount of fees that these companies are required to pony up. And after approval, these companies continue to market a product that's full disclosure is "protected" by a ruling that does not favor their actions.
The basic jest is this: These companies can create errant supply and demand, by forcing otherwise useful products to live 'short-term lives', at the behest of a product that's full-disclosure is under-wraps yet fully endorsed. In this instance, the product formerly mentioned is no longer in-line with the terms of a free-market and is creating its own market.
Just my shortened .02ยข on the matter, at any rate. - mrailing, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2The term marketing doesn't have a commonly agreed upon definition, heck just Google "define:marketing", every definition is different. So it all comes down to what the FCC considers marketing, and the fact that Apple even admits to marketing, "Although Apple has begun to market the device publicly...", which is taken directly from their short-term request letter. Next check Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing. Although Apple and Samsung haven't had a sale, yet, they are still in the process of facilitating a sale, no matter when that sale is going to happen, it's all about the publicity and hype of the item for commercial purposes that constitutes this marketing. We can go back and forth on this, and unless the FCC posts what their exact definition is, then it's personal opinion. To me, hyping and promoting something that you will make money on is marketing, and if you specifically say that you have begun to market the device, you should be held to it.
- michalopoulosgk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1All of us have been bombarded with tantalizing and incomplete views of productivity tools that we dream of having, only to see them yet been postponed, modified, and often (in the world of phones) curtailed by carriers who want to extract the last dollar form their customers. I agree with Mrailing. Short term confidentiality granted by FCC is been abused. Once the product has been "introduced", its specifications should become public domain so that people can plan on and depend on its use. Planning means budgeting, means determining whether the set of features "introduced" will fulfill your working needs, choosing from alternatives already in the market or also been "introduced", etc. It is so common these days to have products "introduced" only to destroy other products from competitors already existing in the market. Then, when that has happened, and very valid devices never make to success only because the people have been mesmerized by the mystery features of a device "introduced" but yet to come, the features of the "introduced" device are changing and we get a product far different than that implied. Time for this to stop and some honesty in the dangling promises to be restored.
- mrailing, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2But if you read the short-term confidentiality request from Apple, they even admit that they have been marketing the device. Do commercials count as marketing, does a website count as marketing, does going on the news and talking about a device count as marketing? Where do you draw the limits? And if you want the definition: "the total of activities involved in the transfer of goods from the producer or seller to the consumer or buyer, including advertising, shipping, storing, and selling." So "advertising" does count as marketing, which Apple and Samsung are both currently doing for their devices.
- streak, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1My interpretation of those words is that advertising alone is not "marketing". For marketing to obtain, one needs the totality of "advertising, shipping, storing, and selling," leading to the transfer of goods. No transfer of goods has taken place.
- streak, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1What's the definition of "marketing"? Does it mean, the product can be purchased out-right or even reserved with the payment of a deposit? Until L-Day (Launch Day), none of these is possible for the iPhone.
You even fall prey to this very argument, when you right "...items that will be opened up once the device hits market." The iPhone hasn't hit market. - streak, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1By your definition, just dreaming up the iPhone would constitute "facilitating a sale" and "marketing". I don't care what Apple is doing these days, you simply can't buy an iPhone right now. Nor can you reserve one. According to rumors, Apple has made an effort to ensure this. And independently of how the Wikipedia defines the term, how does the FCC define marketing?
- streak, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1give it a rest
- OS2Guy, on 10/11/2007, -4/+0How ridiculous can you get? Bury this story. Without some confidentiality for at least a short period, no one will have an opportunity to keep their products safe.
Geez, what kind of idiots are those who want that confidentiality broken?
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is