Among the Apple fans, bloggers, and general tech geeks there seem to be two sides to the iPhone bricking debacle: Those who blame Apple and those who blame AT&T. So who is the guilty party?Dan Reisinger at CNET blames AT&T for the bricking scandal. Here is a look at his argument:

More Mobility Insights

White Papers

• How To Regain IT Control In An Increasingly Mobile World - by BlackBerry
• Red Alert: Why Tablet Security Matters - by BlackBerry

More >>

Reports

• Mobility’s Next Challenge: 8 Steps to a Secure Environment
• Time to Move: How to Ensure 'Mobility' Translates to 'Agility'

More >>

Webcasts

• Maximize ROI with Database Consolidation onto Private Clouds
• Server Virtualization Gets Relief From Tivoli Storage Manager for Virtual Environments

More >>

What would have driven Apple to brick iPhones? Some may say that an unlocked iPhone running on a T-Mobile network means significant losses in revenue, but I think that argument is a bit flimsy.

Historically speaking, Apple is a hardware company, and it's in the business of selling as many computers, iPods, Apple TVs and iPhones as possible. Wouldn't an unlocked iPhone allow the company to sell more hardware? And if so, couldn't it be said that this hardware company would benefit the most from hardware sales?

An unlocked iPhone means more hardware sales because T-Mobile customers and people from all over the world could pick one up at an Apple store, bring it home, and put it on any GSM carrier.

Well, that's a pretty good argument in Apple's favor. Here is Reisinger's attack on AT&T:

Perhaps the most convincing evidence that AT&T may be wielding more influence over Apple than originally thought is Apple's own admission that hacking the iPhone would not be supported or reprimanded. Then, just a few weeks later, the upgrade is released, and the very action of hacking that most Apple folks were claiming was fine turned out to break rules.

But it goes far beyond remarks made by Apple representatives. If we take an objective look at the Apple TV, I think it's safe to say the device is one of the most hackable and customizable devices Apple has ever released. In a matter of days after its release, the Apple TV was being modified into an entirely new product.

While Apple is certainly more open on the desktop, would Reisinger care to argue that the iPod is an open device? I personally wouldn't make that argument.

As far as I am concerned, Apple sees the iPhone as an iPod with a phone, not as a mini-Mac. From that perspective, I can see why Apple wants to keep the iPhone locked down. The iTunes + iPod ecosystem is locked down, so why wouldn't the iPhone component of it also be locked?

I am sure AT&T was happy to have the iPhone locked. That factors into the old-school carrier playbook. But, I think Reisinger is trying to argue guilt by association on this one. In my estimation Apple, not AT&T, is the guilty party here and I think every person out there with a hacked iPhone that has been rendered into a useless brick should blame Apple.

If you want to push Reisinger's argument back on itself, you can point out how much AT&T is trying to recruit developers to its mobile ecosystem. Here is a look at this issue from The New York Times Bits blog:

AT&T has a very extensive Web site devoted to encouraging developers to write programs for its phones on half a dozen platforms. It does discuss the iPhone, but it points out that Apple only allows limited applications that work through the Safari browser.

So why would AT&T be worried about network problems caused by an iPhone and not from these other phones? Michael Coe, an AT&T spokesman, wouldn't say.

AT&T is even working with smartphone makers like Palm to get more developers making more applications for devices that run on its network. So why would a carrier that's trying to open its gates to developers want to lock down the iPhone? Wouldn't that carrier also encourage Apple to make the iPhone open to developers too?

And look at this juicy little quote from Steve Jobs back in January, when he announced the iPhone:

"You don't want your phone to be an open platform," meaning that anyone can write applications for it and potentially gum up the provider's network, says Jobs. "You need it to work when you need it to work. Cingular doesn't want to see their West Coast network go down because some application messed up."

Sorry, Apple fans, this looks to me like Apple, not AT&T, is the force that's keeping the iPhone locked. I am sure some Apple fans will likely try to spin this argument the other way, but if they think they can do it, they are welcome to make their arguments below in the comments section of this blog post.

And remember, I bought an iPhone and I loved it (even though I had to return it).

So what do you think? Is Apple the guilty party responsible for the iPhone bricks? Or is it really AT&T?