Inside the iPhone — 3G, ARM, OS X, 3rd Partyware

DECS writes "After heading off the top ten myths of the iPhone, Daniel Eran of RoughlyDrafted has written a series of articles looking 'Inside the iPhone,' exploring (1) why Apple didn't target faster 3G networks, (2) a substantiated look at how the iPhone is indeed running OS X (contrary to reports that it isn't), and (3) what it means to users and developers, and how ARM is involved, in Mac OS X, ARM, and iPod OS X, and why the supposedly 'closed' system Apple describes for the iPhone won't preclude third party development."

Comments

Don't downplay 3G!

[fons]

People who argue about numbers or bullet points are probably unaware of the bigger picture and what difference customers will actually see.

I can UNDERSTAND why Apple thinks HSDPA is not necessary for their iPhone. Most people will not use it. And the iPhone is not a notebook. But please state the real reason and don't start the "Apple Distortion Field" and try to tell us that EDGE is as fast as 3G. There is a difference and customers WILL actually see it.

In theory EDGE seems almost as fast, but I can assure you that in the real world, HSDPA/3G is the only game in town that FEELS like a normal broadband connection.

I work for mobile phone operator. We have tried to push people to use data services on their mobile devices for years now. Why? Because we charge enormous amounts of money for data and it makes us a lot of money.

In all our commercials we promised people broadband expierience. Up until we had HSDPA/3G, we KNEW that we were fooling everybody. We advertised EDGE-speeds that were only realistic if you live under a GSM-antenna. It's only with HSDPA/3G (and i've done a lot of testing) that we don't have to lie anymore. HSDPA is really fasters and customers notice it (certainly those customers that use their cellphone as a modem for their laptop.

Even HP starts selling notebooks with the HSDPA chip in it. Not EDGE. Why? Because only HSDPA is relly workable. But then again, the iPhone is no notebook, maybe apple prefers putting 3G in its notebooks?

Re:FUD much?

[bheer]

> It does everything I need a phone to do, and third party applications allow me to use if for things I didn't imagine I would need it for when I got it.

Indeed. I wonder if the iPhone will ever run Skype, for example (XDAs sold in the UK do). The article in the submission goes through embarrassing contortions to 'prove' that a walled-garden approach to software is good in the face of all evidence. Even the iPod marketplace is a bit of a joke, given that device does half as much as it could if given a free marketplace.

In many ways, this approach is the anti-thesis of Open Source: valuing spit and polish over flexibility and the freedom to tinker. Now I value polish, I just don't think it should mean as much as it does to Macheads.

Re:Not this FUDmeister again

[MojoStan]

Subject: Not this FUDmeister again

That same article explained why: Apple wants the iPhone to work reliably, not to be known as a toy that can load various shareware apps, but which freezes erratically and is plagued with spyware and security hazards.

The Orwellian double-speak is mind-boggling. This is the world according to an Apple fanboy...

Also note that this story's submitter, DECS, is the same Apple fanboy who writes these articles on roughlydrafted, Daniel Eran. As Slashdot user DECS, he refers to himself, Daniel Eran, in the 3rd person. In addition to submitting his own articles, he also pimps his own articles in his Slashdot comments, in the 3rd person of course.