Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Welcomes Programmers for All Phones Except the iPhone
An anonymous reader writes "Apple's reasoning for keeping the iPhone a closed platform is that they don't want to 'potentially gum up the provider's network'. An article in the New York Times, though, points out that there are hundreds of phones out there working on open platforms that don't seem to be causing network interference. AT&T and Palm, in fact, welcome experimentation on their platforms. In AT&T's case ... on every phone but the iPhone. 'Hackers who have explored the workings of the phone say it uses the frameworks and structures that Apple uses on its other platforms to enable development; it just hasn't been documented. So if Apple is going to allow applications later, is there any reason -- other than vindictiveness or obsessive interest in control -- that it would want to cut off those developed by the pioneers who figured things out ahead of the official launch?'"
If they don't want people messing with their precious phone, then don't buy one. I know that won't play well in the Reality Distortion Field, but their stubborness should not be rewarded.
Now, if it were actually the case that the service providers in the States actually wanted developers to do nifty stuff, then I think the pace of innovation on mobile phones would be quite different. Most of the wireless network providers don't want you to do neat things because that's money out of their pocket.
If there's a benevolent provider, please speak up.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
The simple reason that the iphone software is being significantly modified with every update now. Its sill in development at apple and is a moving target for potential developers. Its very possible that they will allow developers at some point but are aware that any applications written now will likely be broken after the next update.
Steve Jobs can't come right out and say this, as it can be seen as tantamount to saying that users are stupid. Security. Not on the cell network, but the iPhone as a new platform. User's can't be trusted to install their own apps!
The big reason that Windows machines are riddled with Trojans, is that every user's process runs with the same permissions as the user, and that current systems do not allow finer-grained control over these permissions. (I removed 18 Trojans from my girlfriend's mom's computer the other day!) Stuff like this is one of the big reasons why the user experience on Windows can SUCK. (And yes, it's terrible that all iPhones have the same root password and that's already been cracked.)
The OLPC folks are addressing this by running apps in a sandbox. There are many others thinking along these lines -- that the security model we've been using is not the right one. The current Access Control List security model was designed to keep individual users on a mainframe from interfering with each other while under the supervision of a benevolent and all-powerful root Super-User. Now, in the 21st century, essentially everyone, their mom, their grandparents, and anyone else who runs Windows as Administrator and installs programs is root.
Think about it. There's something seriously wrong here, folks.
Now that we are entering the era of dual and quad core computers becoming mainstream, there is no reason why we can't have more secure models like capabilities. (Especially on quad core machines, where a micro-kernel can lock itself to one processor to prevent context-switch overhead without undue loss of performance.) In order to ensure security on the iPhone, and thus retain total control of the user experience despite malicious hackers, something like sandboxes with a capability model is needed. (Capabilities without context switch overhead could also be enabled by using a VM platform like Java.)
See Rik Farrow's Google Tech Talk on this subject. It's over an hour, so download it and watch it while working out. It's a *fact* that we've been barking up the wrong tree security-wise.
I have read in several places on the web, including in the comments here at /., that the reason the iPhone is closed is to prevent the development and widespread use of a VoiP app.
In light of this article, here is my questions: do VoiP apps exist for these other phones? If so, are such apps widely used? If not, why not?
Has a VoiP app been written for hacked iphones? If not, why not?
I have no experience with either the iphone or unlocked gsm phones that allow third-party development because I'm on Verizon. (They are the only network provider with decent coverage over the vast swathes of non-urban areas that make up the majority of where I need a mobile phone in the US.)
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
Just to add, (I was working at IBM at the time), many IBM people were really upset by the reverse-engineering of the BIOS, (that really enabled the cloners to break through), but it was deemed that IBM could not sue & win.
/360 - for ages). In reality, the big iron & mini boys were soon shitting their pants about it, especially when 3rd party networking solutions appeared...by then it was too late to stuff Pandora back into the box, and the PS/2 was always going to lose, fine machine that it was. The market was not dumb enough to go back to closed architectures and prices.
It was a conseqence of using off-the-shelf components, itself a consequence of the very short development cycle of the PC. IBM just did not have enough patents in there. Hell, we even bought the software from some small outfit... A lot of people opposed this from the start, FYI, since they could see where it was going.
Was not lack of focus due to 'big iron' mentality, (although that certainly existed, and does explain why PCs were a bitch to network - apart from to a