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

FUD much?

[Mateo_LeFou]

"Open development has both benefits and disadvantages. The reason Linux has made so little impact in the desktop market is largely because a fully open system tends to devolve into anarchy.
"Who supports what? What version is the standard? Where is the commercial incentive to develop for it? Who makes it all work together in a nicely integrated package, and once that happens, it is still open?"

It's all so confusing?!!? Windows, take me away... !!!!

Re:FUD much?

[TheRaven64]

The reason Windows is so unsuccessful as a platform is the fact that there are cheap, well-supported developer tools available. Right. Apple lost the desktop war, in a large part, due to having a much smaller developer ecosystem than Microsoft. It seems they haven't learned.

As to the price, my current phone was free with a cheap contract and has 1GB of flash, an ARM CPU and both Java and C++ SDKs. The UI is a little rough around the edges, but I don't think I'd pay $500 for a better UI. 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. Oh, and it does 3G data transfer and lets my MacBook Pro connect to the Internet at a reasonable speed when I'm mobile, which the iPhone doesn't (who buys a device with only EDGE these days? Even a year ago when I got my latest phone it was hard to find one. Buying music from iTMS over EDGE is going to be very painful).

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:FUD much?

[bheer]

> But that's just the point -- if the iPod is successful as it is now (and it is), what's the point of having it do half again as much as it already does?

That's the point - you don't know. That'd be like a 70s guy asking what's the point of having a general purpose computer when you can have perfectly good word processing machines and tabulating machines? The point is that people do interesting things with your stuff when you open it up.

IBM knew this when it designed the PC. Microsoft knew this when they made MS DOS (and later OSes, including Windows Mobile) available to every OEM. Linus knows this extremely well. The point here isn't that IBM ultimately went out of the PC business or that Microsoft doesn't have a huge share of the smartphone OS market, it is that their ability to spawn platforms has added to their stature in the industry and has materially helped their bottom line.

Apple fans might get excited about the free publicity Apple gets with every launch, but companies like IBM and Microsoft -- and the Open Source community -- get free publicity from a LOT of people every day by creating opportunities for other people to do cool new stuff. And in the long run, the latter kind of publicity is what matters.

Okay, I was tempted with the last iPhone story...

[aussersterne]

...but now I have to say it: how many iPhone stories a day are we gonna get on the Slashdot front page, and for how long? This is a hell of a lot of coverage for a mere _phone_ that a) offers no new features not already available on other smartphones, b) is priced mostly out of the market, c) isn't on the market yet, and d) is tied to one carrier.

iPhone will have secure boot

[smably]

As for artificial limitations on development: According to a developer I talked to who apparently worked on the iPhone, it will have secure boot; i.e., the bootloader checks to make sure it's booting Apple's OS, and the hardware won't run any bootloader other than Apple's. Obviously Apple is taking a different approach this time compared to, say, the iPod and their Intel Macs. So, I doubt we'll be seeing iPhone Linux or anything like that unless Apple has done something really stupid.

Re:Okay, I was tempted with the last iPhone story.

[MrWGW]

I'm of the opinion that Slashdot's extensive coverage of the iPhone is warranted by virtue of the enormous public interest in the iPhone as a product. While there is really nothing new in the iPhone (although it is a clever combination of existing technologies), the public interest in it is intense, and if it does indeed live up to its promise and deliver a dramatically improved user interface experience for smartphones and handheld devices, it could become an extremely signficant product. What is terrifying about this prospect, is of course, the fact that the iPhone represents a blatant rejection of everything the FOSS community has been advocating: open platforms, open standards, open source, and user choice. If the iPhone promotes the idea that closed source, closed platform monopolies are cool, then that obviously does not bode well for us. Consequently, there is an obvious need for Slashdot to cover the iPhone as extensively as possible, so that we as a community can (a) better understand the threat that it poses, and (b) get a sense of how best to respond.

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:Don't downplay 3G!

[kanweg]

"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."

And for exactly that reason I refuse to use it. Voice is data, like internet stuff. I don't see any reason to pay tens of times more for one byte than for the other. (and it seems to me that the transfer requirements for voice are higher than for internet data). If you're bosses really want me to use it, give me a $40 per month deal like I have for voice. You'll make up in volume (more users) than what you're earning now.

BFN

Bert

Steve Jobs commands:

[subl33t]

Stop complaining and drink the Kool-Aid, dammit.

Re:Interesting stuff is GONNA HAPPEN

[bheer]

It may be leading edge to you, however as someone who's owned an XDA in Europe (and chatted on MSN Messenger when out in the countryside in 2002), it leaves me unimpressed. The Multi-touch screen is impressive, sure, but I didn't have too much trouble with the XDA's stylus and it allowed me to take handwritten notes with decent handwriting recognition.

Apple's stuff may be pretty, but you've got to remember that any cellphone sold in the US is behind the state-of-the-art by 18-24 months at least compared to markets like Europe and Asia. So I'd be careful about bandying about terms like 'leading edge'.

Fanboism at its finest

[eraser.cpp]

I don't see how some of this criticism isn't true.

Myth 1: the iPhone is missing EVDO (or some other high end feature) which will stifle adoption.

Decent 3G service is not for a niche market or only for the rich. People have shown that high-bandwidth services like streaming video can drive a broadband market. Could we honestly say that broadband Internet access on the desktop hasn't brought with it a range of practical and compelling uses for the general public? Now you'd have that kind of speed wherever you are and in your pocket! Stating outright that people won't need it for their handset is arrogant and short-sighted, the market will decide in the end. TFA also writes that decent 3G service is "overpriced, and not quite ready yet" but my PocketPC handset is over a year old, works great, and is cheaper than the announced price for the iPhone!

Myth Two: The iPhone is priced too high. It needs a 2 GB version for $299 lacking phone features.
How is the iPhone not expensive when compared to other phones? The $499 and $599 prices are with the two-year contract! That's significantly more expensive than every other PDA/Smartphone offered by Cingular, some of which are very comparable to the iPhone. "but it's also not expensive when compared to similar phones, which... aren't yet available" Need you be reminded that the iPhone itself is not coming out for almost 6 months? And how are the phones out today not similar? The Cingular 8525 looks comparable to me.

Myth Four: The iPhone software is a closed model, therefore the sky is falling.
How can you say that third-party software would make the handset insecure and unstable? Do you believe this about computers in general? Third party development can (and frequently does) turn the ideas of the general public into brilliant applications that would likely not have existed otherwise. They drive the entire computer industry, and how can you so quickly dismiss the handset market as being different where third-party development would only mean negative things?

I'm out of time but these "myths" just speak of desperate fanboism. Please realize that criticism is a healthy thing and that if this handset isn't perfect Apple has the time, money, and resources to make something that is better. After all, they're only just entering this market and will have lessons to learn just like everyone else.

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.