Slashdot Mirror
Jobs' Next Fight — Dealing With iPhone Hackers
An anonymous reader writes "With Steve Jobs' recent announcement of his intention to fight off the independent iPhone developers, the question worth asking is: How will Apple try to defeat the hackers: Software updates, or lawsuits? Will Apple risk losing its most frequently (ab)used legal tool, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, in order to try and punish the developers of the iPhone unlocking tools? This CNET article explores the legal issues involved in this, which make it perfectly legal to reverse engineer your own iPhone, but illegal to share your circumventing source code with others."
The iPod is already available in countries without DMCA-style laws.
...ummm no, it means that people in a position too are trying to help others not get screwed by a vendor locked-in product that wants to charge you for a ringtone that you can make yourself. Instead of attacking developers who wish to enlighten a public entranced by Apple, perhaps they shouldn't base a revenue stream on vendor lockin and ripoff ringtones. If you ask me (flame on that noones asking), they should be the ones providing such a ringtone app. They are all about ease of use for the masses... oh wait, I forgot its easier for someone to pay them then do it themselves.
Walk with Music;
They be takin' on the Jolly Roger. I be thinkin' they be changin' the iPhone to detect meddlin' with their cabal. Add a checksum or something.
Lawsuits be expensive.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Too bad for Jobs that it is legal to unlock your iPhone to use it with a different carrier.
Shh.
Does Apple truly have much to lose from iPhone hackery?
The only people this really harms is AT&T, and Jobs has never shown the slightest inclination before towards caring about a business partner getting fucked over. If it suits his needs, he'll probably want Apple to subtly encourage it.
I would.
I think at times we forget at times Apple is a company and they are in it to make money. What happens if someone creates an application for the Iphone and apple was on its way to making an application like that but for charge. Apple has just waisted its time and could be open to lawsuits.
I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
For the record, I will be surprised if Apple actively tries to re-lock already-unlocked phones, but I would not be surprised if they try to prevent unlocking in future firmware updates, considering the current unlock mechanism uses an overflow condition that will likely be, well, fixed in future updates (should Apple not fix a potentially exploitable buffer overflow on the iPhone?). Then, someone will find some other exploitable condition to unlock the iPhone, and the game continues.
Every GSM handset under the sun has been unlocked. The main difference with iPhone is that people are more likely to do regular full firmware updates with the iPhone due to the kind of product it is and the ease of doing so via iTunes, as opposed to other GSM handsets. But I can't see Apple relocking already-unlocked phones.
That said, while an explicit exemption exists that allows end customers to legally unlock GSM handsets in the US, no such requirement exists for a vendor to allow it, document it, or provide such a capability to the customer (see also "DMCA Exemption Attorney Weighs in on iPhone Unlocking".
Further, requirements in various jurisdictions that the carrier provide a means to unlock the handset after the contract term, i.e., after the subsidy is paid, MAY NOT at all apply to the iPhone, since the iPhone is technically unsubsidized. Apple appears to be negotiating backchannel subsidies and unprecedented monthly kickbacks from carriers...but the iPhone itself still isn't subsidized under the traditional subsidy model: you can buy an iPhone, walk out, and NEVER activate it, and the phone is yours to keep. However, this may also mean that no carrier is ever obligated to unlock it for you.
Also, Apple is depending on the expected profits from AT&T kickbacks for AT&T activations...that's how the iPhone price is structured. Now, if you can figure out how to unlock your phone and use it on another carrier, great. But also don't cry if Apple throws roadblocks in the way. You can argue that "it's only good for Apple" if people get to use unlocked iPhones, but that's not your decision to make, unfortunately - it's Apple's. Don't get me wrong: YOU can decide it's good for YOU. But you don't get to decide that it's good for Apple, or anyone else. And with things like seamless activation via iTunes, Visual Voicemail, and all the tight integration that requires enormous amounts of backend cooperation with the carrier partner (think about how iPhone activation works and how it must have been to pull something like that off), is it any surprise Apple wants to keep the iPhone experience with the carrier partner?
And think of all the other ways iPhone is unique: you get to walk out of the store with it sealed in a box, it can be easily bought as a gift, the customer does activation themselves in the comfort of their own homes with a pleasant interface, and so on.
So if people can figure out how to unlock the phone, great. But don't expect Apple to not fix actual bugs like buffer overflows in the phone that are coincidentally used to enable unlocking, and don't assume that ANYONE will ever be "required" to unlock iPhones, unless it is simply flat out illegal to have a SIMlocked phone in a particular jurisdiction, in which case Apple would probably elect to skip that market entirely.
This is a lot like the Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware arguments. People always say it's "better for Apple" or "free advertising for Apple". No. Pirating the OS is not good for Apple. And even if you say "but I'd buy it for $129!" that also doesn't solve it...the $129 price is predicated on the fact that there is Apple hardware that goes along with it. So then you say, "Well, I'd even pay $250 or more! Would that fix it?" No, because part of the Apple experience is the seamless integration and things "just workin
Mr. Jobs, can you tell us why it's your job to do that? You sell hardware. We are the customer. Is AT&T paying you to keep that exclusivity by all technical means? Oh, wait, I see. We are the consumer, not the customer. See, whenever industry uses the word consumer, it means there's someone else (such as another company) who is actually the customer. "The customer is always right" doesn't apply if we're just sheeple consumers.
[
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
I love how companies don't deny your right to fair use, they just put restrictions around the device that make it illegal to even access fair use. That's like saying, "You have the right to free speech, but only at this designated microphone that can be found inside the 4th underground level at Area 51."
"Thank you for using Stop-n-Drop, America's favorite suicide booth since 2008"
I like the idea of iphone and it's interface and what it's supposed to do. However, because it's from Apple it will be a rocky ride and not an easy product to use or operate on world level. I live in USA and travel frequently to other countries.
Since it's from Apple, the product will be ridden by lock downs, law suites, harassment of people who create addons etc. Just like every other Apple product and which is why I have always stayed clear of Apple.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
Yes, it is. (And apparently you didn't read any of the linked articles, because there are a lot more issues here.)
But it the manufacturer doesn't have to allow or enable it. If you can figure it out, great. But if they also stop that same unlocking procedure in future software or hardware iterations of the phone, they can.
And I really don't think Apple will be "relocking" phones...they'll likely just be plugging the holes that allowed them to be unlocked in the first place in future firmware versions. That said, I guess I wouldn't be stunned if some unlocked phones broke, intentionally or otherwise. But all of this has NO BEARING on the DMCA exception. The vendor is under zero obligation to enable unlocking.
So it's not "too bad for Jobs" at all, unfortunately.
Lip service. There is very little interest for Apple to stop people modifying their products because their current business model focuses on hardware sales. The problem is, though, if they are not looked upon by their content partners as working very hard to protect their content, then there will not be anything to put on that hardware... So, the end result is a constant stream of weak patches and allot of talk. (The recent iPhone ringtones "patch" is a great example of this) At the end of the day, though, nothing will change...
Apple does not seem to know who its friends are. People are taking a great hardware design (for which Apple is justifiably famous), and improving its functionality through improved or additional software. Everybody wins!
Except when some company becomes egomaniacal and starts trying to grab it all for itself. Even Microsoft did not go so far as to actually try to block "independent developers" outright.
I think Mr. Jobs is required to say things like this. How would it look to his big (and only) US carrier partner locked in for 5 years or whatever it is, if he said "We condone the hackers and their unlocking software". What they actually do about it will really tell the story, and that's a wait and see game, so no use speculating.
AirSpeak - http://itunes.com/apps/AirSpeak
So it's obviously not for you. Good luck with whatever you end up buying/using.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
Does Apple truly have much to lose from iPhone hackery?
Yes.
To say nothing of other intangibles like wanting to guarantee a seamless user experience with iTunes, activation, the carrier partner, etc.
Ultimately, if there is enough motivation in the tech community to hack products then they will be hacked. Look at the RIAA and music files, P2P file sharing and hacking is prolific even after years of intense legal battles. But let's look at what's happening here. Not all hacking is for evil and malicious ends, often times hacking products or developing new programs for them is a way to improve a product. If there is enough interest to crack the iphone and generate a lot of 3rd party apps, then maybe apple isn't doing enough to deliver a product that consumers really want. Finally, look at a company like Sony. They were very draconian about DRM, proprietary formats, and not letting their devices be tweaked and they've had a lot of lost market share and failed products. Does anyone remember the MiniDisc player? Letting the community be involved in a product, whether through 3rd party apps etc. helps generate users, as well as keeps people interested in the product.
if the unlocked iPhone can work with ANY carrier, doesn't that mean that other carriers besides Ma Bell will be interested in your products? If someone can explain this to me, I'd be grateful.
(Interesting note: The captcha for this post is "perish". Are you sure these captchas aren't generated with an AI or something?)
I believe that statement was for the benefit of AT&T and future partners. The fact of the matter is that since June 30th, Apple has released only two updates to the iPhone software. Is this the action of a company desperate to keep people out? Jobs is not concerned with hackers playing around with iPhones. Presumably they bought them, Apple got paid.
Remember when all the fanboys were soapboxing that the iPhone was going to revolutionize the cell phone market and make it more open? Misinterpreting the fact that the phone wasn't going to be subsidized by AT&T as a sign that there would be no carrier lock-in? Those cynics among us - which oddly were in the minority - predicted that no subsidy meant you're simply paying more for a device that STILL requires a two-year contract, and that Apple's attitude toward developers and users was going to be exactly like every product they sell. Tightly controlled hardware and software. The braying of the faithful never ceases to amaze me. When people started circumventing the iPhone's locks, they claimed that Jobs *intentionally* made it easy to hack the iPhone. Now this... Wait for the OpenMoko, kids.
...this is defiantly not an "insanely great" idea.
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
I have always wondered why there are so many FOSS advocates who put up with Apple's DRM'd little empire. Somehow, if Apple does the same thing that Microsoft does, Apple gets a pass, but why? And perhaps, more important, what can the FOSS community do to move Apple in a more Free and open source direction.
Are people really happy with Apple's contributions to BSD and Konqueror code?
If people are willing to put up with lock down just because Apple products are slick, I have to ask, are Apple products really that much more slick than Compiz? Is slick performance alone enough of a difference that people will give a pass to Apple?
I am not someone who believes everyone must use gNewSense and use only Free Software, because that is inconvenient for most users. But can't we make a little more effort to support vendors such as HP, Dell, Zareason, TechCollective.com, Emperor Linux, and other similar vendors who offer decent hardware with a better balance of Free to non-Free software?
IMHO, desktop Linux is good enough that we should try to encourage people to give it a shot, rather than just putting up with tyrannical insistence on having everything his own way, including his own little DRM'd desktop. Why put up with a company that would resort to the DMCA to attack its own customers? I understand that there is a lot about the iPhone that is cool, and yes it is a nice platform to hack, but why go to such lengths to hack it when you can't share your hacks?
Mr. Jobs, can you tell us why it's your job to do that? You sell hardware. We are the customer.
People often get this wrong on Apple, like them or not, they don't sell hardware... or really software (much). Apple sells you a solution, an experience, a total package. Their focus and developments are all based on expected hardware and software components being in a certain order or place to ensure they can provide a specific experience to the end user.
In this case the contracts with the carriers probably have explicit clauses saying they will fight to combat unlocks in the same way they fix their aac every quarter or so to try and appease the music companies.
--- I do not moderate.
Even Microsoft did not go so far as to actually try to block "independent developers" outright.
Have you tried writing an app to run on the Xbox without paying licensing fees/royalties to Microsoft?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I'm planning on buying two iPhones for my wife and I for Christmas. One of the iPhones most appealing characteristics for me is how accommodating its been for developers of 3rd party applications. I've no intention of unlocking the phone and going over to t-mobile, I don't have a problem with AT&T (I want visual voice mail too). But I will reconsider if Apple starts going after developers. Whether it's lawsuits or updates that constantly ruin apps, it's my dollars that are at issue here and I plan on making the best decision for me. Now, if there's an occasional update that breaks something, that's not too much of an issue. After all, I don't expect Apple to start supporting 3rd party apps. But there is a point in my mind, that if Apple crosses and makes things too "locked in", sorry Apple, taking my ball/dollars and going home. The iPhone is at a real crossroads here and Christmas may be what makes or breaks it. I know the phone has been successful, but not as successful as many had hoped. With the negative press the sudden price breaks caused (how price breaks gets bad press is beyond me), Apple should be trying to appear as accommodating as possible between now and February.
... To say roll on OpenMoko http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Main_Page
:)
I know which way I will go and Jobs can stick his iTunes et al. Free your phone!! What more is there to say
Rooster - A friend. "Anyone's friend in particular or just generally well disposed to people?"
They do this to their own detriment (if true). Look at the way Microsoft rose to power: coddling developers. Don't fight off fans of your hardware (ie the true hackers)--embrace them. More unlocked iPhones == more sold iPhones. I'm sure not switching to AT&T for some iPhone device. *shrug*
Let them do it. Watch their market share.
This sig is false.
I don't see how the the DMCA is useful to Apple here. Nothing they may have copyrighted is being copied. Quite the contrary. So, not even the anticircumvention elements of the DMCA should be relevant. About the only thing that looks likely to be a useful legal took is contract law.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
the hackers are made to be the bad guys when it's apple and AT&T who are engaging in anti-competitive behaviour. Clearly the iPhone has no technological reason to be locked to AT&T, and even if it were, why shouldn't they be allowed to modify their own damn phone.
This is like blaming the victim when they don't pay protection money. "Your store wouldn't have gotten broken into, if you had just paid them off!"
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Apple is fundamentally a hardware company, not a software company, and their job is to get you to buy physical devices, not to sell you services. I doubt they'll care about iPhone unlocking for the same reason they encourage putting Windows on a Mac-- it encourages sales.
Note that I'm not talking about SIM unlocking, which is a seperate issue. Apple should simply offer SIM-unlocked phones for a higher price to make up for the lack of AT&T subsidy.
-b.
Johnny Appleseed has been added to the FBI's most wanted list.
At the UK iPhone launch Steve basically reiterated this stance:
already have a bad taste in their mouths. their butt hurts too.
Oh, wait - it's not locked in the first place. It does everything the iPhone does, except calls, and cost $300 less. Actually, it does more - I can run whatever code I please, and even write my own programs on the Palm. iPhone owners share the dubious distinction of owning a computer they aren't legally allowed to program.
I'd like to own an iPhone. Honestly, I would. But, though I can pay for the phone, only AT&T can own it. Jobs, Apple, and AT&T want it that way, and if you've paid for an iPhone, you've essentially told them that they can have your cake and eat it too.
The very thing which makes the computer such an enabling device is that it can be reprogrammed to perform almost any task. Unlike the single function devices of the past - such as a calculator, which performs at most one function - a computer is a totally open piece of hardware. The task which it can be programmed to do are limited only by the ingenuity and creativity of the programmer/user.
Until now. With the advent of cellphones, especially locked ones, we are seeing a new trend in computers. Rather than expanding the functionality of computers, they seek to limit it, in order to serve the greed of Corporate America. A device which formerly could be repurposed for any task the owner thought fit is now restricted to performing only the functions which make the manufacturer money. Consumer benefit beyond the original purpose of the device is explicitly and legally forbidden.
And here ends the computer revolution. A formerly beautiful piece of machinery, capable of solving almost any problem, is reduced to serving the utilitarian greed of corporations, in effect, an intellectual slave of the willfully ignorant.
How long before the same happens to the PC? When a PC can only be bought in conjunction with an internet service, and users are legally prevented from installing their own software?
I hope those who buy the iPhone are prepared to deal with a future in which everything they possess is owned and licensed by a corporation. Because they're paving the way for the increased use of restricted, defective by design, hardware.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Unlock != Jailbreak. TFA focuses specifically on the applications being developed that *unlock* the phone - i.e. allow SIMs from other telephone service providers to work in the iPhone - the process to do this exploits a buffer overflow vulnerability in the software, which, IIRC is not required to install custom software on the phone. I don't think Jobs has any problem with developers creating their own third party applications for the phone, but he (quite reasonably) doesn't want to a) advertise that particular feature and b) deal with the inevitable support headaches that would arise as a result of broken third party apps.
The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
I think part of the reason is that the iPhone OS is pretty insecure by default -- everything seems to run with root privs, so you should be careful what you install. Contrast this with the latest BB which has options for what applications can access what resources.
As far as updates, you can always just not update from 1.0.2 if it becomes a problem and use STRICTLY 3rd party applications. (Probably will end up being better than a lot of Apple's applets!)
-b.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
If you actually read the link you provided, you will see that Apple gets the same amount of money from AT&T whether or not the phone is unlocked.
And AT&T doesn't even suffer, they get they subscription fee whether or not the customers use any of their service.
iPhone unlocking only have winners.
OK, Let's say I buy an iPhone. I reference various unlocking instructions, but I do not follow any 1 set of instructions to the letter. I use different tools, improvise here and there. I do not publish anything about the way I did things. According to TFA, I now have a 100% legal, unlocked iPhone, that I unlocked based on my personal knowledge, and research I did. I have modified system files, added apps, personal data, contacts, etc., but only to my own iPhone. Now Apple comes and releases an update that re-locks my phone, and makes it so that installed (native) apps stop working. Unless Apple is very clear about the effects of the update, and the update is NOT required for me to continue using my iPhone, Apple is in effect deleting my personal data on my computer without my consent. I don't think they want to go there.
If ever jobs/apple goes on to these people, the publicity and reputation they will be losing is going to be phenomenonal. No amount of money can buy that much publicity back in short notice. Id advise against it.
choose the IBM way. Do what they did with IBM PC. Support 3rd party developers. If you go that way, in 10 years time youll see that ipod "compatibles" becomes the dominant standard in mobile devices.
Read radical news here
While it says, "Apple is getting an unprecedented windfall on the sale of each new iPhone", the implicit assumption using any level of logic is that AT&T pays Apple based on activations, not on Apple simply giving them a report of the number of iPhones sold and AT&T anteing up without question. Further proof that it is based on activated phones on AT&T, and not just sold phones, and that there is an infrastructure to track and support this, is the fact that Apple is also getting a kickback on monthly service fees, to the tune of a rumored 3%/month for existing customers and a whopping 10%/month for new customers.
Even IF AT&T were just paying Apple for iPhones sold and not activated (which they're not, and which would be utterly stupid), Apple would still lose the monthly fee kickback, and AT&T would likely get very irritated at paying Apple for iPhones not activated on AT&T.
Your statement about AT&T not suffering in that scenario is remarkable, because they absolutely do not get the service fee if the phone is unlocked and not used on AT&T's network. Now if you're talking about people who ARE AT&T iPhone customers that simply choose to unlock their iPhone, I'd agree with you - to a point. But I'm talking about iPhones unlocked and never activated or used on AT&T, which is going to be an increasing number of iPhones. That's a much bigger market than you think it is.
Jobs' Next Fight -- Dealing With iPhone Hackers Now that's irony, and so we can see that in the circle of life, the hacker will eventually become the hackee.
You people and your slight differences disgust me! - Prof. Farnsworth
That is the console development world, not Microsoft alone.
"Have you tried writing an (native) app to run on the (Xbox,NES,SNES,N64,Wii,SMS,Genesis,Dreamcast,NEOGEO,Playstation,PS2,PS3) without paying licensing fees/royalties to (Microsoft,Nintendo,Sega,SNK,Sony)?"
Can't wait to see people walking around with huge modchips soldered onto the back of their iPhones. I don't think Apple have any real problem with the hackers its just that the phone companies do. If you can write your own code then you can probably get it to change your provider. I think the hackers should concentrate on the Touch now. That's got most of the features with no outside business interests.
I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
The articles referenced are about unlocking the phone, but the posting specifically mentions "third party developers". Only a small fraction of those are working on GSM unlocks!
A friend of mine last month showed me his iPhone running programs written in Ruby. The "hack" that was necessary to allow this was done of course by third party developers.
I agree that unlocking the phone and writing extra apps for it can be considered two different things. But that is what the posting implied.
"With Steve Jobs' recent announcement of his intention to fight off the independent iPhone developers" - There was never any such announcement. Jobs was talking about SIM unlocking, not software use. RTFA.
"The question worth asking is: How will Apple try to defeat the hackers: Software updates, or lawsuits?" - That's not a question worth asking. Jobs has said it's a "cat-and-mouse" game. That means continual updates, continual hacks, continual further updates, etc.
"Will Apple risk losing its most frequently (ab)used legal tool, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, in order to try and punish the developers of the iPhone unlocking tools?" - Link? Show where they've abused the DMCA, and then show that it's the tool they use most often. I'm betting they use keyboards more often. Hyperbole is NOT NEWS. This site is FOR NEWS. Save the trolling for comments.
"This CNET article explores the legal issues involved in this, which make it perfectly legal to reverse engineer your own iPhone, but illegal to share your circumventing source code with others." - No, it doesn't. It strokes the ego of a graduate student IN A NON-LAW-RELATED FIELD. See Chris Soghoian, Resume, available at http://www.dubfire.net/resume.html.
Furthermore, the submitter is in violation of rights under copyright law belonging to c|net and/or Chris Soghoain; the "summary" takes direct quotes from the c|net article linked by it.
Signed,
140.247.x.x
Now there's a document that is just screaming to be leaked!
And yes, I own two iPhones operating on t-Mobile's network and AT&T can take their lying-n-spying asses and go straight to hell.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
You are about to step on one HUGE landmine that will cause a great amount of damage to you and your company. I strongly suggesting you step back and look for a different route. The direction you are heading WILL ensure destruction as well as incredible drop in profits. Your stance has absolute zero support from the consumers around the world. Nobody supports your apparent stance on this at all.
If you want to lose, step on that landmine. If you want to win I suggest you instruct your lawyers to leave the building and you brainstorm with people that can come up with clever ideas as to a solution to the problem.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
...but if Apple had their way, they would force those that did buy it to buy ringtones from them as well, instead of making free ones which is their right. Hell even if it was a ringtone of their kid singing whatever it is that kids sing, should u not have a way to make that your ringtone without Apple crying foul?
There seems to be a recurring and ever-increasing theme, especially here in the USA, that customers of any kind, for any product or service, are supposed to be forced into being limited and tightly controlled in what they can and cannot be permitted to do with any product or service they might buy and what products and services they can buy and from whom. This is most disturbing and needs to be reversed.
One of the most ludicrous examples of this kind of mentality I've seen recently was at one of my hometown's city council meetings. The council was voting on spending some money for its I.T. department to upgrade most of their desktop machines with bigger hard drives, more memory and in some cases faster processors so they would be ready to upgrade to MS Vista and Office 2007. One of the local computer vendors who had sold the city some PCs in the past got up during the public comments session and began ranting and raving like a lunatic that it should be against the law for the city govt's own I.T. employees to do this kind of work on the city's own computers, that the city should be required to always have to contract out these upgrades and that they needed to pass a new city ordinance requiring this. He accused the city of "stealing business" from him by doing the work in-house themselves. One of the city aldermen asked him if he thought the city's public works department was "stealing business" from the local plumbers too, for installing and maintaining the city's own water and sewer mains and this idiot said "absolutely".
Let me update your post just a bit:
What happens if someone creates an application for a computer and Microsoft was on its way to making an application like that but for charge. Microsoft has just waisted its time and could be open to lawsuits.
I hate to say it but, um, that's exactly the way most computer software works. You develop something and you distribute it. There are different price points for different offerings, including free (as in beer, or as in speech). Just because you anticipate a monopoly doesn't mean you get to have one.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
"In Belgium, the law doesn't allow sale of locked phones. All phones as a result are sold unlocked even if they feature a network's logo on their case.
In The Netherlands and Spain, providers must provide unlocking codes, but can charge a fee for this during the first 12 months after purchase; the unlocking code must be provided at no cost after this period of time."
So I wonder if the iPhone will ever be sold in these countries?
It costs a mere $100 a year to run my own XBLA apps on the 360. And the dev kit is free.
From the sidebar of the very article you link:
AT&T will unlock phones for customers once they have fulfilled their contracts, which typically run one to two years. One big exception: Apple's iPhone, distributed exclusively in the USA by AT&T. "That's different," says AT&T spokesman Mark Siegel.
For how the iPhone is "different", see here.
How frustrating!! Both the slashdot article title and that submitted by the anonymous users are decidedly misleading. "Fight off the independent iPhone developers" is NOT the same as protecting the phone against being unlocked, which is what Jobs addressed.
When I first saw the title of this article I was concerned that Apple had decided to actively block iPhone app developement. Here I was thinking to myself, if Apple decides to lock out the amazing plethora of third party apps already out there, I'm done.
Jobs hit on the best approach to preventing unlocking the iPhone (IN THE UK MARKET). By making a deal with O2 that allows for a flat-rate plan, there is little incentive to unlock to the phone for another service. The only thing I'd be leery of is the out-of-country fees. Most phones in the UK let you swap out sims for a suitable sim for the country you are going to, which obviously won't be possible with an iPhone.
Now if you're talking about people who ARE AT&T iPhone customers that simply choose to unlock their iPhone, I'd agree [that Apple doesn't lose money if the phones are unlocked] - to a point. But I'm talking about iPhones unlocked and never activated or used on AT&T, which is going to be an increasing number of iPhones. That's a much bigger market than you think it is.
But the question is, if the iPhone couldn't be unlocked:
a) How many of those phones would have been bought and activated with AT&T (at a potential gain for Apple of $250-$200 bounty plus $9/month for 2 years), and
b) How many would have NOT BEEN SOLD (at whatever their profit margin is on the vastly overpriced piece of commodity hardware)?
IMHO, while a) is very lucrative per phone, b) is a LOT more phones. Especially if the ability to crack iPhones retards the rise of lower-priced but unlocked competitive products. (For starters there are areas of the US that AT&T doesn't cover but some other carrier does. People who live/work/travel there have no reason to buy an iPhone unless they can unlock it.)
Apple needed a network partner to insure connectivity and enable the launch. And the partnership is an enormous revenue stream. So they needed to launch the phone as a locked product and not visibly encourage circumvention of their partner's lock-in. But as long as it doesn't jeopardize their revenue from the phones that are subscribed with their partner it's in their interest to have people buy additional phones and unlock them to use with other carriers.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs said today that it's his company's job to stymie hackers who try to unlock the iPhone -- the first time the company has officially said it would fight attempts to use the popular device on unauthorized networks.
Good. The iPhone is sold as a non-programmable, closed, proprietary, locked platform, and I think it is good if Apple makes sure people understand that.
If you want an unlocked, programmable phone without those restrictions, buy one from the companies that sell them: Nokia, Palm, and FIC.
It sounded to me it was like "since we can't stop them unlocking legally, we'll have to do it technically".
That's not what the game publishers pay.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Both Steve Jobs and Greg Joswiak have indicated they have a "neutral" stance on 3rd party hacking that's related to native application development. The area they have problems with is SIM unlocking.
I'm Canadian, I've been paying AT&T for a while (they make it a PITA too when you don't have a U.S. credit card). I don't have an issue paying AT&T money given how crappy our data plans are in Canada so far anyway.
Now, I've unlocked my phone, and am even happier. Sure, I'll be disappointed when future modem firmware updates break the unlock, but frankly, I expect it. There are no guarantees with hacking. But I also expect the hackers to overcome new firmware changes within a matter of days, unless there is a major software change to the way the iPhone firmware works (not likely).
-Stu
You know what's interesting. A friend used to work at Palm, the hoops they had to go through to get a phone certified on a network was (is) amazing. Of course, even if a phone isn't approved any phone can roam (kind of makes the process silly), but I digress. So why does T-Mobile, for example, so readily accept an iPhone on its network, its not like Apple applied and jumped through the cert hoops. Inquiring idiots (like me) want to know.
- Sammy with iPhone
But I'm talking about iPhones unlocked and never activated or used on AT&T, which is going to be an increasing number of iPhones. That's a much bigger market than you think it is.
I have no idea how bug said market is compared to the million that have been sold - but then again how do you? What base have you to say the percentage is at all significant?
The Unlock procedure is still involved enough that I don't think even 1% of the phones around today would be involved.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1) Create new Reality Distortion Feild Generator - this one is REALLY old.
2) Get Adobe to screw down more users with CS3. Maybe free iPods? Check with legal.
3) Announce that Apple will stop iPhone hackers. I can't believe legal wants me to do this.
4) Screw with the English some more. O2 will give us ANYTHING we want.
5) Get instructions to hack my iPhone from Woz. He should know how by now.
However, because it's from Apple it will be a rocky ride and not an easy product to use or operate on world level.
What makes you say that?
To start with, all of the products Apple offers have always traditionally been internationalized pretty well.
The iPhone in particular, starts from a good place in using GSM. What if they had gone with Verizon? While service use may be a little shaky abroad at the moment, that will undoubtedly get better with time and we're also getting international specific features like being able to disable EDGE roaming.
Yes it would be nice to have the phone fully unlocked by default but the reality is that to get concessions from the network people Apple had to parter, and partnership demands some level of exclusivity.
If nothing else there is a giant light down at the end of the five year tunnel where almost certainly Apple will start selling iPhones fully unlocked. You might be willing to suffer through other phones to reach that point, but I am not - even if it means trips abroad will be a little more difficult than they might have been (or not, if I can simply apply a hardware unlock before I get and get a SIM on the other side. You can do that today with any phone but of course there's the drawback of it not then being your normal number...)
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In the public sector, it's common for state and local governments to purchase their MS software thru a state volume licensing contract, which forces them to always stay current or get left behind s.o.l. Also, there are several states that are presently forcing document exchange between certain state departments (like state health depts, transportation depts, and state police) and city and county local governments to be done in proprietary MS word format and when the state upgrades to Office 2007 which has a new native doc format that Word 2000/XP/2003 cannot open, the cities must also upgrade in lockstep at their own expense. It's all part of the evil MS lock-in stranglehold they have on the "real world".
Legal Question:
What if $Non_ATT_Carrier offers to trade in unopened Iphone boxes (selling for $399 at Apple stores) for a lollipop and $425 in cash, sends them to a workshop, unlocks them and then sells them in its store for $499 as used items and offers a cheap plan to work with them.
I do not see any law that would prevent anybody from trading in used goods, or modifying used goods that happen to be in stock, so they achieve a higher resale value.
Please note that IMO, the DMCA does not apply here, because neither Apple's iphone software nor any copyrighteable works such as movies, songs or ringtones are involved if the variable with the acceptable carrier ID in flash is nulled out.
Personally I would prefer to see Apple change its focus to something more open-minded whilst keeping the income gain in sight. Say, licensing a developement environment that has the slick (note: taste) ui and intuitive-ness as Apple is renown for and make profit that way. If they wanted to take it a step further they could open a small domain that allows the more useful and popular programs available for download (with say an Apple Certified Certificate but not legally responsible notice) with step-by-step (or auto) installations to further enhance "the Apple experience." This way they can earn money through licensing, earn a greater respect for "opening" the iPhone, and add an easy place for non-programmers to add utility to their expensive new gadget.
The majority of consoles lose money on hardware(atleast in the first year of sale). Hence the restriction makes sense because people get their hardware for less than what it actually costs to make it. What they gain in price is lost in the lack of freedom to run your apps for free.
On the other hand, the iPhones makes a tidy profit on the sale(and is not subsidized like all other unlocked phones sold by carriers out there) and tries to collect more money monthly from the consumer. That is the difference.
This space for rent.
With Steve Jobs' recent announcement of his intention to fight off the independent iPhone developers, the question worth asking is:
"Why am I equating the 'cat and mouse game' of iPhone unlocking with fighting independent iPhone developers? It is blindingly obvious to everyone else that installing Lights Out on my phone is worlds away from unlocking the sim card. I must be a total jackass trolling for hits!"
--
Apple wants to increase Iphone marketshare, not ATT marketshare.
With the Ipod, Apple wanted to increase the ratio of Ipods vs. other music players, not the ratio of legal rip-offs vs. "illegal" rips.
Therefore, the Ipod handles MP3s with minor hassles, and the Iphone will work with other carriers with minor hassles.
And maybe that won't even be a major problem for Apple and ATT.
After all, if you drive by the Apple headquarters in Cupertino, its not like you'll notice the masses picketing the entrance of the main Building with signs demanding "Open up the Ipod for 'Plays for sure', Steve!!!".
Backhanded compliments are good news?? Spit in one hand and hope for a native SDK in the other. See which hand fills up first.
So native apps are out there huh? What native apps have Adobe written? None... How about Microsoft? Also none?? How about anyone other than some nameless shareware hacker???? NOTHING!?! Ohhh, right... No native SDK. Well then... No dice. Apple, your revolutionary product isn't even on the radar. Think about all the great apps we'd have already if the energy expended hacking into the iPhone was instead spent hacking on the iPhone.
Apple isn't changing the world with a phone that is carrier locked, hardware sealed, and closed to software development. It's a pathetically limited toy without a native SDK, a "thank you sir may I have another" without a choice in carriers, and a brick in two years without a battery door. No wonder they were forced to drop the price 33% two months after release. It's another cube, as I predicted weeks before the iPhone became available to the public.
Maybe they'll figure out how to listen to their customers by the time iPhone 2.0 gets here... but I'm not holding my breath after a story like this one. They are completely fucking up any chance they had at another iPod style industry coup. A nice product is being hamstrung by hostility toward their own customers. Great job knuckle heads.
My girlfriend bought me one for my birthday, but I told her to return it. It's not that I don't want one, but with all the restrictions and constant updates and the breaking of ring-tones, I'll take the wait and see approach. I don't care to pay for all the extra nick nacks. You pay a load for a device so don't load it with a shitload of pay for service features. I prefer Apple to open her up a little more and if they don't I'll pass and take the red pill.
Religions are tax exempt! Unfortunately for Jobs, his salary is taxed... that means a working stiff like him can only expect to take home about 60 cents a year!!
... And totally lose control of your product. I can tell you, as an ex-IBMer, that the expression "They are eating our lunch" was very common during the late 80s and early 90s. IBM did not make Dollar One from PCs. Why do you think they sold the PC division to Lenovo? Great business model you have there. Out of all the original personal computer manufacturers that existed in the 80s only one still controls the destiny of its product. Apple. Atari? No. Commodore? No. There used to be a great diversity in the PC gene pool. Now, apart from Apple, it's a monoculture. Monocultures are very susceptible to plagues. Diversity protects.
You must accept Apple's firmware license EULA in order to operate it. Just like if you buy a Mac and expect to run the OS/X it comes with. The EULA might contain any legal contract terms they feel like putting in it, including what wireless carrier you're permitted to use it with. The current EULA does not specifically have any such terms, but it does say they can modify the terms at any time and you must agree to accept notice of those changed terms by them sending you an email notification. That's pretty nefarious since they can claim they emailed you anything they want to claim, there's nothing in the EULA that states that they have to prove you received such email.
The posting talks about "Steve Jobs' recent announcement of his intention to fight off the independent iPhone developers..."
This is incorrect. Jobs only said they have to fight the unlock. The actual quote of what he said is,
Q: What are you going to do about iPhone unlocking?
Steve: This is a constant cat and mouse game. We play it on iPods with DRM. We promised music companies to stay ahead of this problem. We try to stay a step ahead. It's going to be the same way here with the iPhone. It's our job to keep them from breaking in. That's job security.
In fact, last week Greg Joswiak, a high level marketing guy at Apple, said that Apple would neither forbid nor support native code on the iPhone/Touch. (He initially said something a bit more positive, but later corrected it since he thought people would read too much into it).There is no "funny money" accounting that credits software engineering $129 per computer sold.
Apple is (was) a _computer_ company, not a _hardware_ company.
Joz reversed that statement within 24 hours. And Jobs said
"[P]eople are going to try and break in and it's our job to try and stop them."
Yes, he also says Apple is looking at 3rd party apps, but he never says the phone will be opened. Maybe he'll just buy your app off you. It is a buyers' market too, since if you don't make a deal your app will keep breaking with every new firmware update.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Apple would make any type of product we wanted to buy.. its AT&T that needs to force people to use their crummy network.
Remember AT&T at one time wouldn't even let you plug in a answering machine, "installing a foreign device" they called it.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
Given the number of "independant developers" who have visited Apple Campus, and gone home in Limo's with a fat checque and a job offer.
I'd say Apple knows who's friends are.
Steve said the other day that they had been looking at a number of good homebrew apps that exist already for the iPhone.
So I guess the job offers are in the post to those guys already.
"Call us when the New age is old enough to drink" Beck
It's not Capitalism, its Government teamed up with business.. we call that Corporatism.
.. its a legal problem.)
The monopoly and lock in can't exist without government allowing it to exist. Capitalism is just a economic model that says you can sell or buy anything you want without government restriction. You can look at it this way.. a corporation couldn't even exist without the government creating laws allowing them to incorporate. And what is a corporation other than "legal protection" so people can engage in questionable business practices?
(You do know that city's only allow certain providers in their areas to rent the city's telephone poles and communication conduits etc.. expanding their network is not a technical problem for a would be competitor
AT&T is rightly to blame.. and I would boycot THOSE guys especially over any other large business because of their past actions.. but so is the government for allowing them to hurt customers.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
noone knew what was going to happen. now, many ways to benefit the originator company can be found.
heck, goddamn expertise status on a field is something in itself. originator is naturally the first source to be relied on for consulting.
Read radical news here
*waves to Apples lawyers*
You could say getting information off the internet is a little like getting pee out of a swimming pool?
Ever see this before? 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
If I hand you a piece of paper saying:
;-)
"If you read this, you will explode", then that does not mean that you will vanish in a puff of smoke after having a look at it.
The Ipod is a gadged that incidentally uses software to operate it.
When you buy it, used or new, the "first sale doctrine" applies.
For the money you handed to the salesperson, you got the right to do as you like with both the software and the hardware that came with the device - except making an *unauthorized copy* of the software, thus violating the copyright of the manufacturer.
For example, it would be perfectly legal to desolder the system flash and try to boot your PC off it - after all, there is about a 1:2**8388608 chance that this might work
You could also wire-wrap your own Iphone-compatible PDA on a breadboard using SN74xx chips you got from a surplus sale, as long as you do not violate any apple patents, and use the desoldered flash to run it.
I'd imagine that Jobs said that (TFA read way too much into what he said) in order to keep the providers happy. Truth is, the plan w/ att is better than tmobile, for the same or less $ and Jobs will only sell more out of contract iphones to current tmobile users that want to upgrade their phone.
:-)
Jobs will probably break the unlocking for the next few updates just until all the contracts with the providers all over the world are finalized, and then he will shrug his shoulders and say "we tried, but the hackers are just too good," while he watches his sales keep going up
Fix your Dell XPS m1210 screen! -- http://m1210screenfix.blogspot.com
Steve Jobs is not fighting off independant iPhone Developers, indeed Apple has specifically said that they are not going to deliberately fight them off. What Apple may fight off is the illegal distribution of unlocking tools.
There should be a very broad distinction drawn between folks writing productive applications for the iPhone, and folks trying to ruin this by deliberately trying to circumvent the protection measures in the phone.
Do not group these two separate activities together.
Lastly, the posting of articles like this to the Slashdot front page written by Anonymous Cowards should be banned. Be prepared to stand up personally to your article. Real Journalists do this.
you just have to compile for ARM
Compile!? I rest my case.
In general, it is safe and legal to kill your children. -- POSIX Programmer's Guide
Was this a call for the government to become an impartial monitor of the marketplace and an increased government control of the rules of the game to prevent abuse by large businesses and priviledged individuals? Somehow I do not think so....
Libertarians repeat this like a prayer, and like a prayer they hope it somehow, magically, becomes true.
But it is not, and it won't.
The truth is that monopolies and oligopolies are created via barriers to entry to the marketplace, and abuse of governmental regulation is only one of many method of creating such barriers, others being technological, geographical, social, cultural etc and so on.
For example, no one mandated the (for all the practical purposes) duopoly of Coca-cola and Pepsi. Neither was Intel and AMD somehow made the only major players in the PC CPU arena via making their competitors illegal. Etc and so on. I could go on like this through the thousands of persistent (as in lasting through generations) global, national and local monopolies which have nothing whatsoever to do with government or regulation and yet are devastating to consumer choice and highly parasitic in nature.
In short, blaming the government for all inherent flaws of the real-life (as opposed to inane "theoretical" oversimplifications used by propagandists) marketplace serves only one purpose: to free some very unscrupulous and ill-meaning individuals from any last remaining vestiges of anything resembling oversight. And that marginal oversight is the very last thing standing between them and their dream of becoming the new Kings, Lords and Nobles and the rest of us their indentured slaves and outright owned peons.
That is why Libertarians frighten me to no end, they are like the goofuses who honestly thought that the new "Worker's and Peasant's Party" will, in a few more red-flag-waving rallies, bring them freedom, justice and prosperity, just as that fellow Lenin promised! Different phillosophy but the same naivette and a very similar species of wool-clad wolves leading their "rugged indvidualist" sheep to slaughter at the altar of greed and power.
How is it "hacking" if it's my computer? I own it.
Why fight people who contributing to your profits by buying your hardware??? In what parallel universe does that make good economic sense?
Don't buy Macintosh products.That will teach them to abuse and control their benefactors(the paying public).
Be an activist with your wallet.Think Different.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
That largely is how SoundJam which was a third party music app became the first version of iTunes.
Mobile phone operators in the UK *must* unlock phones when requested to. They are allowed to charge a reasonable admin fee (£10-£20). I think this is just talk to keep O2 happy to be honest.
Most people have no idea what they are doing, and are silently panicking on the inside.
If it was so important for Apple they would have the customers sign AT&T deals at Apple Store before they get the phone.
A program to keep a check book and sync with Quicken. I can throw the paper one away.
Cisco VPN?
Active Directory support- lot of institutions including academic ones use it. I would like to connect to wireless there!
Games?
What part of convergence do they not understand? I can probably buy the iPhone but I won't because it is too limited! Apple can either let developers in and make more money or spend lots of money keeping hackers out. Get out of bed with AT&T while you are at it.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
You need to understand that Coke and Pepsi compeet with Starbucks and you also shot yourself in the foot naming AMD.
AMD started very small and was able to succeed against Intel without government help thus offering people a choice. "The barrier to the microprocessor market is far too hight to challenge Intel." If AMD would have believed that nonsense in 1986, they wouldn't exist today.. but they did challenge Intel now Intel chips are based on AMD's designs. There are many other microprocessors out there as well you can "choose" if you so like. If Intel and AMD teamed up and jacked their prices up to a point where it made people extremely unhappy with the sale, we would eventually see a Windows port to IBM's PPC or Cell's.
Ohh how could Microsoft challenge IBM.. oh how could Apple, Linux, and Sun ever challenge Microsoft? They do it all the time. Hell, Google started in garage owned by one of Larry Page's friends and its now the dominate search engine all because it works better.
Barrier to market my ass.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
If you unlock it in the US, really the only other big carrier you can use it with is T-Mobile. As that was my last carrier, I can't really see a much of an appeal to it unless T-Mobile happened to be better for where you lived. In my case, AT&T has actually worked out to have better coverage, but not so much so that I would have go to all the trouble to unlock the iPhone just to stay with AT&T if the cases were reversed!
All the other carriers are CDMA, and no amount of unlocking is going to have the iPhone work with something like Verizon.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Not to mention the recent case, of the developer of Coverflow freeware disappearing.
Then turning up at Apple with the launch of iTunes "now with coverflow".
"Call us when the New age is old enough to drink" Beck
Riiight. And they also "compete" with tap-water...
That occured before the fabrication plants costs were into tens of billions of dollars, i.e. during the time when many other companies could try to compete with Intel. That is no longer the case and has been that way for a decade.
See above. The barriers change as the technology changes. The important part is that for prolonged stretches of time, sometimes lasting generations, they are too steep for viable competitors to emerge in many many cases.
None of which are viable competitors in the main arena we are discussing. This is equivalent to proposing that one can "choose" rain water instead of one of the products owned by the Pepsi/Coke duo-poly. Or just like one can "choose" to walk as a "competition" to owning a car. Or eating grass as an "alternative" to General Mills merchandise.
And you conclude your non-argument with a nice demonstration of your having no clue as to what effects monopolies and cartels have on the market. Here is a free clue: they do not have to jack prices up to the point of a consumer revolt. Anywhere above the prices of an actual functioning market is quite fine, thank you very much. There is a huge gray area between "properly functioning market" and "consumer revolt". That does not however foster any competition and thus breaks all of the fundamental mechanisms of the market. At which point capitalism becomes a kleptocracy.
It kills me that the likes of you always whine about "free market" and at the same time have no objections whatsoever to having competition reduced to two or even one global supplier by the naturally occuring flaws of the marketplace. Somehow the reverse relationship between efficiency of the marketplace and the number of competitors, about which Adam Smith was so concerned, is unable to jolt you out of your greed-motivated ideological stupor. Talk about cognitive dissonance.
Apparently, you would not recognize one if it impacted up your ass, at high velocity, edge-wise.
You believe this current system we have sucks, I agree with you! Where we disagree is what we call this system and how to fix it. I call our current system a Mercantile or Corporatist system, where the government plays a protectionist role in the economy for the sake of our investors and corporations. I believe that can be fixed by eliminating the ability to incorporate at all (thus denying the special legal protection to shady business men, as thats all a corporation really is.) and implementing a free market capitalist system, something much like to what we had at the birth of this nation and the system that made us the most wealthy nation able to rival the ancient wealth of Europe in a few short decades.
You seem to only want more government "tweaking" of a broken Mercantile system.. or perhaps your a fascist and want government to control all business.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
I'm not going to get into everything you say as its just absurd and a waste of my time anyhow as you believe what you do and nobody is going to change your mind.. but I will make some comments.
... I thought it was amusing to throw that first rule of the Bill O'Reilly School of Debate back at you.
Libertarians just kill me with this laughable distinction of "being forced" vs "free choice", with the first one, of course, always being an exclusive domain of governments, and the other of the glorious, basked in a divine ray of light, feature of the Holy Free Markets of His Lordship Greed. It never crosses their mind that "offering an alternative" to someone of driving around for half an hour to buy a non-Pepsi or non-Coke drink for one's sadwitch constitutes just as effective means of "forcing" him to buy one of the two oligopoly products as simply ordering him to for all practical purposes, with a bonus feature of creating an illusion of "choice". This, or offering the "competing" product of tap-water. But that is not truly "forcing", according to them, it is merely "suggesting with no other practical alternatives" or "gently persuading via time and distance" etc. Similarly, one can start a farm and grow his own chicken as an "alternative" to some food manufacturing monopoly in the only convenience store in town as a fully "practical" and completely "free choice" alternative! No one is "forcing" you to eat the General Mills stuff! "Just" grown your own corn! Or "just" drive 30 miles! Its a "free enterprise" kind of world!
And then there is always grass and tree bark! A world full of "free choices" as opposed to all that nasty government-induced "force"!
For those historically inclined, I should point out some more creative "freedoms" and "choices", as envisioned by the Libertarians of old.
Of course. The old jerk is simply saying, now that his conscience is starting to bother him at the end of his life, the patently obvious: Free Markets do not exist in practice.
One can try to approximate the theory in some areas of commerce, with careful monitoring and rapid intervention to remove self-forming deformities, but one will never achieve truly "free" marketplace. There are just far too many real-life obstacles for the theory to be ever fully applicable. Fundamental, insurmountable obstacles.
True.
True again, that is because the very functions of governance have been corrupted beyond recognition by the powerful and rich people (and those who seek to become powerful and rich).
I would agree to a degree. The corproate charter was originally a mechanism for a group of smaller businesses to reduce a risk for themselves when banding together to construct a project beyond the
One of the iPhones most appealing characteristics for me is how accommodating its been for developers of 3rd party applications.
Accommodating? Really? I see an extraordinary amount of effort being expended for miniscule results. If you use another platform, Symbian or Windows CE, you immediately enhance your application ease of development and installation by at least several hundred.
I just checked, and last month I downloaded and installed (usually with a single click) more than forty programs for my Windows phone, including MS Portrait (a video phone app), various ebook readers, emulators, vxUtils, a packet snarfer and a WEP cracker, Google Maps, a "touch" contacts UI app, several new screen input UIs, a threaded SMS program to enhance conversations, Flash, a mind mapping program, GMail, several new UI skins, a universal remote for the infrared, a backup program, an encrypted data wallet, Doom, and pacman.
I want visual voice mail too
Google does visual voicemail through GrandCentral. It's been around for ages, both from GC and from others. The beauty of GC is that it works on any phone, sending one or both of a text message with the visual voicemail, or aggregating all messages within a single web page that you hit with any phone browser by simply bookmarking m.grandcentral.com. So it's cross platform, and cross-carrier. It's no big deal.
Da Blog
Visual voicemail, for example, is a great enhancement to the tired "call in to pick up your saved messages" strategy everyone has been using since day 1.
Google does visual voicemail through GrandCentral. It's been around for ages, both from GC and from others. The beauty of GC is that it works on any phone, sending one or both of a text message with the visual voicemail, or aggregating all messages within a single web page that you hit with any phone browser by simply bookmarking m.grandcentral.com. So it's cross platform, and cross-carrier, with no device lock-in. It's no big deal. Of course, you do really need a proper 3G bandwidth on your phone, so that when you click/select the message, it plays back instantly. Given the ease of programming on Windows CE/Symbian devices though, I can see someone someone easily rigging up an on-device cache. The fact they have not seems to indicate that the networks these phones are deployed within are robust enough to support "instant" message playback.
Da Blog
If you have "proper" 3G and unlimited data. See above.
Da Blog
Visual Voicemail, and all the tight integration that requires enormous amounts of backend cooperation with the carrier partner
VV is not that hard to do well, and it doesn't necessitate carrier cooperation. Google does visual voicemail through GrandCentral. It's been around for ages, both from GC and from others. The beauty of GC is that it works on any phone, sending one or both of a text message with the visual voicemail, or aggregating all messages within a single web page that you hit with any phone browser by simply bookmarking m.grandcentral.com. So it's cross platform, and cross-carrier, with no device lock-in. It's no big deal. Of course, you do really need a proper 3G bandwidth on your phone, so that when you click/select the message, it plays back instantly. Given the ease of programming on Windows CE/Symbian devices though, I can see someone someone easily rigging up an on-device cache. The fact they have not seems to indicate that the networks these phones are deployed within are robust enough to support "instant" message playback.
Da Blog
What about the fact that unlocked GSM phones anywhere near the class of the iPhone are ridiculously expensive?
"Classy" unlocked phones are not as expensive as you think. Also, given the amount of hardware features that the iphone lacks, it's more apt to describe it as a simple playback media phone than a "smart" phone. Compare it to unlocked chocolate- or helio-calibre devices.
Da Blog
Visual voicemail seems harder, if only because you have to keep track of the mailbox usage state to keep the display in sync
VV is not that hard to do well, and it doesn't necessitate carrier cooperation. Google does visual voicemail through GrandCentral. It's been around for ages, both from GC and from others. The beauty of GC is that it works on any phone, sending one or both of a text message with the visual voicemail, or aggregating all messages within a single web page that you hit with any phone browser by simply bookmarking m.grandcentral.com. So it's cross platform, and cross-carrier, with no device lock-in. It's no big deal. Of course, you do really need a proper 3G bandwidth on your phone, so that when you click/select the message, it plays back instantly. Given the ease of programming on Windows CE/Symbian devices though, I can see someone someone easily rigging up an on-device cache. The fact they have not seems to indicate that the networks these phones are deployed within are robust enough to support "instant" message playback.
Da Blog
Oddly enough the people who you would call "the evil free market capitalist robber barons" were very involved in government, and had law written to suit them. Ironic that the term robber baron is used as one might ask "Who put the baron in robber baron?" The very term itself applies to the title of nobility and the right to own land. Thus government facilitates their robbery. Again, you shoot yourself in the foot as the very example you give is an example of why government control of business does not work. Monopolies can not exist without government because government is the only one that can legally force you to do something. When I talk about force, I'm talking about the governments ability to hold a gun to your head and shoot you if you do not comply. Your an idiot if you look at force as driving 30 minutes our of your way (holey crap, not 30 minutes!) however thats *IS* absolutely a choice. Naturally people make the most appealing choice, they get the best deal they can.. if they were unsatisfied with the terms of the deal (such as the requirement to drive 30 minutes out of their way) they would "choose" another option. Some people choose the less appealing option to cook their own food.. it's not FORCE because they don't want to pay for servants. That's absurd.
If you want to see what our government will do to you, go walk straight up into a cops face and say "I'm not going to do what you tell me." and let's just see how long it takes you to lean what force really is.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
WTF?! Jews?! When did I mention any Jews?! Is this some sort of "Chewbaka Defense" manouver?! Next thing you will be trotting out the Holocaust and calling me an anti-semite ...
Same ... err ... different pile.
Great efforts of various greed mongers resulted in adoption of the term "Libertarian" to somehow mean something "better" then those silly, old-fashioned, "commie", passe Anarchists, at least in the so-called "Mainstream Media". But the general idea is the same: get rid of "Teh Evil Gubmnt!!!" for it gets in the way of "individual achievement" or Anarcho-syndicate Communes or what not.
Which was a part of the problem then, just like the corporates doing so is a part of the problem now. And the reason for both is a faulty governance mechanism which is not resilliant enough to such attempts at corruption. Which means that a better, more robust system of democratic governance has to be implemented.
No, corrupt crooks and thieves "facilitate" robberies. They can be found as frequently in government as in business and everywhere else. There is nothing unique about crooks and power-mad psychopaths corrupting any organization they manage to infiltrate, from various organized religions, political parties, companies, all the way down to PTA meetings and Homeowner Associations ... or Anarchist Syndicates.
Err, no, it is an example of how not to attempt to control business. There are many, many other ways.
This, of course, is utter bullshit. It is a Holy Dictum of Libertarian Dogma and not anything even remotely resembling an empirical fact. I already pointed out many other ways in which monopolies can and did form in real life. You have to get off this idiotic one-track "Gubmnt is teh Source of all Evil!!!" broken record. Or better yet, take a hammer, bang yourself on the head with it until you pass out, after which you will have a first-hand, visible (on your forehead - if you aimed right) proof of evil outside of the realm of governments.
Yes, of course, after you redefine force to mean what you want it to mean ("Tah Evil Gubmnt!!!"), then everything else falls into place ....
Never you mind that a garden variety thug can also hold a gun to one's head, or that indentured servitude can be accomplished merely under a threat of death from starvation or exposure to elements, or denial of medical care to one's sick children etc and so on.
And if you persist in this stupidity of "defining" force as exclusively a gun in a hand of a policeman or a soldier (but not a warlord's mercenary - go figure!), then I wish upon you that you experience one of the other kinds of "free choices" I just described. Perheaps you will get wiser before your ass rots away in some ditch.
Ya know.. I've had a epiphany. I don't know what I was thinking wanting people to control their own lives, how crazy of me.. I see the true solution to all the problems in the world now is to put YOU in charge.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
With statements like: Great efforts of various greed mongers resulted in adoption of the term "Libertarian" to somehow mean something "better" then those silly, old-fashioned, "commie", passe Anarchists, at least in the so-called "Mainstream Media". But the general idea is the same: get rid of "Teh Evil Gubmnt!!!" for it gets in the way of "individual achievement" or Anarcho-syndicate Communes or what not. Did you really think I would take you seriously?
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/