iPhone, iPod Touch 1.1.1 Firmwares Jailbroken

vertigoCiel writes "Hackers Niacin and Dre have recently gained full read and write access to the filesystems of both the iPhone and the iPod Touch. The Jailbreak exploits a vulnerability in Safari's TIFF library to execute the necessary code when the specially crafted image is loaded. Access can then be permanently sustained by modifying the fstab file with iPhuc"

Comments

Makes me wonder

[Dunbal]

I wonder if Apple are going to keep playing "cat and mouse", and try to bring legal action to bear against these "vile hackers", or if they're going to take the hint that you can't stop us all? Clearly there's a demand for unlocked iPhones.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Aladrin]

What 'hint'? They are under legal obligation to maintain their firmware so that the phones can't be used on other networks for another 5 years. They are also under obligation to their customers to provide firmware for their phone that is as bug-free as possible. If the user can hack it, a malicious attacker can, too.

So are you saying that they shouldn't patch the vulnerabilities, that they shouldn't release new firmware at all, or that they should break their contract with AT&T which could make every iPhone out there useless overnight unless it is hacked?

Re:Makes me wonder

[Threni]

> They are under legal obligation to maintain their firmware so that the phones can't be used on other networks for another 5 years.

In some countries the exact opposite is true!

Re:Makes me wonder

[Reality Master 101]

But they're not under any obligation to prevent third party applications. That's just greed. They want to eventually sell only licensed third party apps.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Rob T Firefly]

What 'hint'? They are under legal obligation to maintain their firmware so that the phones can't be used on other networks for another 5 years. I could sign a specially-worded contract putting me under legal obligation to learn how to breathe margarine and turn the moon into a Buick, but it doesn't mean I'll be able to in practice.

Re:Makes me wonder

[oliverthered]

I think what were saying is that they shouldn't have entered into the 'greedy' contact in the first place.

I don't know what it's like in the states, but the IPhone contract in the UK is appaling.

1: you have to pay for the phone, no one pays for a phone on contract in the uk they all come free with the contract.
2: You don't get much for your money with the contract compaired to other contracts even if the other contracts didn't come with a free phone.
3: There are other, better, open phones to be had for free on better cheaper contracts that can easily be unlocked.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Aladrin]

You knew the terms before you bought the phone. If you didn't like the terms, you should not have bought the phone. It's not all that hard.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't realize you were a publicly traded corporation with a legal obligation to your thousands (millions?) of investors.

Re:Makes me wonder

[teh kurisu]

My understanding is that in the iPhone context, 'unlocking' refers to the enabling of third party SIM functionality, whereas 'jailbreaking' refers to enabling the ability to run third party applications. I could be entirely wrong, but I was under the impression that these were two separate issues.

Apple almost certainly have an agreement with AT&T (and O2, and T-Mobile) to prevent SIM unlocking. It's less likely that they have such an agreement to prevent jailbreaking, although it's still possible as jailbreaking would allow users to run VoIP and native IM clients, which are a direct threat to the business models of the mobile networks.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Aladrin]

I don't know what their contract says with AT&T, but that might very well be on there. Something to the tune of 'only tested and approved applications'.

But even assuming it's not a contractual obligation, Apple announced they weren't going to allow third-party apps weeks before the first iPhone was sold. It wasn't a surprise and anyone who bought it with the intent of hacking it and putting their own apps on it did so at their own risk.

I've bought devices, used 'hacks' on them, and did other things with them. But I did so with each of them with the complete understanding of how much money I could lose if anything happened that I couldn't control. In fact, while I was soldering one, my father was in the other room saying comforting things like 'That's a $300 mistake.' Turns out, he was almost right on that one... I barely managed to fix it.

Anyone complaining about Apple updating their firmware has rocks in their head. It's what they do, it's what they said they'll do, and nobody ought to be surprised that they'll do it.

If you want an open phone, there are several on the market or very close to market that will work MUCH better and the companies will support you in creating the apps. There's no need to hack the iPhone and Apple has cheated no one.

Re:Makes me wonder

[MightyYar]

Well, in this case closing down the iPhone will actually end up making it more secure... A bug in the TIFF library that allows some kind of code to execute sounds like a pretty serious security vulnerability. By locking down the iPhone, Apple has made it attractive to hackers of the non-malicious sort. They have found a vulnerability that Apple will now presumably have to plug, making the iPhone more secure against hackers of the malicious sort.

Of course, they shouldn't have this type of security bug in the first place... one wonders if it isn't also present on the Mac.

Re:Makes me wonder

[CaptainZapp]

So are you saying that they shouldn't patch the vulnerabilities, that they shouldn't release new firmware at all, or that they should break their contract with AT&T

So you know the terms of the contract between AT&T and Apple?

Oh, please, good sir: enlighten us ignorant masses.

Re:Makes me wonder

[AusIV]

I wonder if Apple are going to keep playing "cat and mouse", and try to bring legal action to bear against these "vile hackers",

On what grounds? People are hacking their own phones, which is explicitly permitted under the DMCA. Link (pdf warning). Apple is under no obligation to support it or make it easy, but they can't sue people for unlocking iPhones.

Re:Makes me wonder

[njfuzzy]

This is a case of "one bad apple spoiling the whole lot"... The unlockers opened a can of worms. If the only hacks were interface mods, third party apps, ringtones, etc. I don't think Apple would care. Unfortunately, the jailbreaking that allows these also allows unlocking. Unless the network unlockers are going away, Apple has to stop the good along with the bad.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Atzanteol]

But you *would* be under legal obligation to *try*.

Re:Makes me wonder

[MightyYar]

Profit Optimization != Greed*

In fact, Apple would be negligent and unethical if they did not act in the best interests of their stockholders.

Don't get so mad at a corporation just because they don't make the product that you want - you aren't their target demographic. There are plenty of "open" smartphones out there. If you want to get mad at a company, get mad at one of the makers of the open smartphones for not making one as cool as Apple's.

*This is assuming that their motivation for holding back 3rd party apps is monetary. It very well could be that they haven't stabilized the API, or that they have contractual obligations.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Red Flayer]

They are under legal obligation to maintain their firmware so that the phones can't be used on other networks for another 5 years.

Not quite -- they are under contractual obligation, which is something quite different.

Would AT&T have legal recourse if Apple didn't fulfill its obligation? Yes.

Would Apple face prosecution for violating the law if it didn't fulfill the obligation? No.

And as a matter of fact, legal obligations supercede contractual obligations. For example, in some countries, it is debated whether Apple is legally allowed to exclude other service providers.

or that they should break their contract with AT&T which could make every iPhone out there useless overnight unless it is hacked?

Oh, right... like AT&T would actually stop providing hugely profitable service to iPhones. They'd continue to provide service to iPhone owners, they'd just also sue Apple.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Applekid]

My understanding is that in the iPhone context, 'unlocking' refers to the enabling of third party SIM functionality, whereas 'jailbreaking' refers to enabling the ability to run third party applications. Considering there is no first-party application that will unlock the phone to use any valid SIM, all that's left is a third-party application that will do it. Hence the need for jailbreak.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Evangelion]

Clearly, there is some kind of untapped market for people who breathe margerine.

Re:Makes me wonder

[morgan_greywolf]

I don't know what their contract says with AT&T, but that might very well be on there. Something to the tune of 'only tested and approved applications'. Such a statement seems to be in conflict with AT&T's own behavior. So, no I doubt that very much.

If you want an open phone, there are several on the market or very close to market that will work MUCH better and the companies will support you in creating the apps. There's no need to hack the iPhone and Apple has cheated no one. I agree with that sentiment completely. If you don't like it, go elsewhere...Palm, Nokia, and other companies are making smart phones that encourage third-party development. If that's what you want, support them with your dollars instead of Apple. If Apple gets the message that people want third-party apps, they might change their product strategy to support that.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, minesweeper, pong and poker are all gonna bring down Cingular's west coast network.

Re:Makes me wonder

[djh101010]

My understanding is that in the iPhone context, 'unlocking' refers to the enabling of third party SIM functionality, whereas 'jailbreaking' refers to enabling the ability to run third party applications. I could be entirely wrong, but I was under the impression that these were two separate issues.

You've got it exactly right. The problem, I think from Apple's perspective, is that the process to open up the firmware to add third party apps, also allows the changes to the part of the cellphone which allows you to switch carriers. It's Unix, and the security model is that if you have root, you have root.

From a access control mechanism standpoint, they _could_ allow open access to the /Applications directory while keeping the rest of the system locked up. That would differentiate the people who want to just install third party apps from people who are trying to change carriers.

Apple almost certainly have an agreement with AT&T (and O2, and T-Mobile) to prevent SIM unlocking. It's less likely that they have such an agreement to prevent jailbreaking, although it's still possible as jailbreaking would allow users to run VoIP and native IM clients, which are a direct threat to the business models of the mobile networks.

Right. They have to make a reasonable effort to honor the contractual agreements that they have. And yes, there are third party native VOIP and IM applications available with a "tap here to install" interface, today. I haven't tried the VOIP, but the IM apps work just fine. I'm not sure how that costs anyone money though.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Richard_at_work]

I currently have an O2 contract phone (W810i - very pleased with both phone and network) and my contract is coming up for renewal at about the same time as the iPhone will be released. As you can guess, my decision is now slightly more complicated:

• iPhone for £269.00 and 18 month contract for £35 a month:
  • 200 minutes and 200 texts a month
  • Unlimited (within reason) data
  • Free wifi access at the Cloud access points
• N95 for free and 18 month contract for £30 a month:
  • 400 minutes and 200 texts a month
  • Better featured phone
  • 200MB data a month for extra £7.50 a month or unlimited data for an extra £30 a month

The iPhone deal comes to £899 total and the N95 deal comes to £675.

Quite frankly, the *only* reason the iPhone is even still in the running is because of the inclusive data and wifi at the moment - and even then I am still heavily leaning toward the N95 with the 200MB data allowance.

Thoughts?

Re:Makes me wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Possibly, but those other phones are not pocket NextStep workstations.
Try porting APACHE or DOOM to any of those.
No problem with iphone/itouch.

Re:Makes me wonder

[fgaliegue]

> In some countries the exact opposite is true!

Yes, and France is one.

(offtopic, but makes me wonder why on earth Orange signed/wanted to sign an exclusivity deal with Apple, knowing what the laws were in France)

Re:Makes me wonder

[visualight]

If you want an open phone, there are several on the market or very close to market that will work MUCH better and the companies will support you in creating the apps. There's no need to hack the iPhone and Apple has cheated no one.

My opinion on this is that it is unethical and should be illegal for ANY phone on the market to be restricted to a network, or restricted in available applications based solely on who gets paid. It's bad enough that companies have framed the software market so that products you "buy" aren't yours but licensed, they want the same paradigm with hardware too. It's bullshit, and it shouldn't be tolerated just because someone else sells uncrippled hardware.

Re:Makes me wonder

[MrHanky]

The terms of the contract, according to the Mac community, is that whenever there is something annoying with the phone -- bricking, restricted access of all sorts -- it's AT&T's fault. This also goes for the ipod touch, which features the exact same restrictions.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Henry V .009]

Responsible firmware updates don't brick hardware. For example, an update can run a checksum on essential system files before applying itself. Not doing so when you know beforehand about bricking problems (which Apple announced it did) is either A) incompetent, or B) malicious.

So is Apple incompetent at making software, or are they malicious towards their users? I think we all have a pretty good idea which one it is.

You see, after selling you something, Apple doesn't own it anymore, you do. Apple's contract with AT&T does not give them the right to destroy unlocked phones not owned by them.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Gilmoure]

iPhone is really pretty?

Re:Makes me wonder

[ZachPruckowski]

I've bought devices, used 'hacks' on them, and did other things with them. But I did so with each of them with the complete understanding of how much money I could lose if anything happened that I couldn't control.

Anyone complaining about Apple updating their firmware has rocks in their head. It's what they do, it's what they said they'll do, and nobody ought to be surprised that they'll do it.

All true. Expecting Apple to support hacked models with new firmware is a bit silly. The iPhone updater completely re-flashes the iPod, and then re-adds the data from iTunes. So any update will at least wipe Apps, unless Apple does special work to preserve them.

But just as importantly, there's nothing saying you "have to" update the firmware. It's voluntary. Sure, you've got to if you want the bugfixes and new features, but that's hardly mandatory. Users can continue to use the 1.0.2 firmware for as long as they want to, or until there's some sort of iPhone virus out there.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

That £675 turns into £1080 if you want the unlimited data option. Personally (and speaking as a MacBook Pro owning Apple junkie), I'd stick with the W810 and ask O2 for a reduction in tariff if you keep your old phone (I got half price line rental plus a £75 credit).

Re:Makes me wonder

[oliverthered]

are you near any cloud access points
are you really going to use more than 200mb a month
Do you prefer 3g performance.

If you answer those questions and decide that the iphone option is better, is it £200 better?

Re:Makes me wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

"I think what were saying is that [Apple] shouldn't have entered into the 'greedy' contact in the first place."

I've stumbled upon a very effective countermeasure to Apple's 'greedy' practices: did you know that no one's being required to purchase an iPhone? I haven't had any problems with them at all, and I have $500 more in my bank account.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Aladrin]

"Apple's contract with AT&T does not give them the right to destroy unlocked phones"

Very true. Too bad they didn't 'destroy' the phones or you might have a point here. The phones were not 'destroyed', they were simply locked again and with a patch that fixed a vulnerability. The phones aren't 'bricked', they are simply locked again.

Apple sold that phone with 1 sole purpose in mind. That purpose did not include using third-party or any network except AT&T's. They didn't even try to hide this.

Re:Makes me wonder

[godefroi]

I have DOOM on my phone, and it runs WINDOWS! *GASP*

Jailbreak? What's jailbreak? I just downloaded one of several SDKs that I liked and started writing applications. I thought that's how smartphones worked? Did I forget to "break" out of some sort of "jail"? Am I going to get in trouble for not breaking out?

To quote the 12-year-olds: /facepalm

Re:Makes me wonder

[zippthorne]

I thought it was because of the "table-top PC" style user interface. But I haven't bought one, so the only capabilities I'm aware of are the ones in the television ad...Phone! MP3-player! something else I forget! ... phone! MP3-player! ...

Re:Makes me wonder

[captainjaroslav]

Is that "5 years" thing a fact or speculation? (That's an honest question, not an attempt to antagonize.) I've assumed that part of Apple's lockdown of this device had something to do with their contract with AT&T, but I was unaware that the terms of the contract had been revealed to the public anywhere. Can you post a link?

Personally, I've been hoping that, when all the dust settles, Apple will eventually allow real application development for this device, so I would be bummed if they had legally obligated themselves not to allow that for five years. I would not buy an iPhone with the current arrangement, though I have been a fan of Apple products for many years and love the idea of an Apple handheld.

Re:Makes me wonder

[geeknado]

Apple made a conscious choice to /not/ support third party apps when they failed to provide a development API for the iPhone. Most companies are "greedy", in that they need to make money to satisfy investors, and Apple's no exception. However, I'm not sure that's their primary focus here...Apple likes to maintain a user experience monopoly with its own devices...That "Experience" factor(it just works, etcetc) is key to their whole marketing strategy. In the OS world, they can't compete without supporting 3rd party apps...Computers are expected to be extensible. Phones, however, are a completely different story, and many are, in fact, locked down.

The trap they've fallen into, of course, is that their direct competition at the price point typically /does/ allow 3rd party apps, so people are understandably resentful.

One thing that I think is particularly interesting about all of this is the tendancy for people to point a finger at AT&T about this particular issue. Based on some of the other smartphones on their network, I'd be surprised if the lack of supported 3rd party apps at this stage is /really/ attributable to them, although it's certainly the excuse that's been given out from a PR perspective. AT&T clearly supports 3rd party apps on other phones...Why not this one?

AT&T clearly has every reason in the world to care about whether or not these phones stay locked to their network, of course...That's money in their pockets. That may in fact be why these phones are actually being bricked. But the third party app thing? That's a little more complicated, imo.

Re:Makes me wonder

[mr_jrt]

I got a N95 a couple of months ago, have a look at T-Mobile. Tariff + £7.50 for unlimited data. :) If you don't want to switch, use it as leverage to get your tariff down for O2.

Re:Makes me wonder

[camperslo]

Kinda funny how people use the word "free". It's a bundle.

Calling those phones free is like getting a "free" wedding ring. You do get the ring, but the one giving it to you expects exclusive rights to screw you...

Re:Makes me wonder

[suv4x4]

Anyone complaining about Apple updating their firmware has rocks in their head. It's what they do, it's what they said they'll do, and nobody ought to be surprised that they'll do it.

Apple are supposed to be the "good" guys to their fanbase. And the "good" guys just did something bad.

Maybe they shouldn't be surprised Apple bricks their phones, but they are since it's the kind of culture Apple built. As you see, it has both upsides and downsides.

Lately Apple keeps hitting successfully the downsides.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Kazoo the Clown]

If you want an open phone, there are several on the market or very close to market that will work MUCH better and the companies will support you in creating the apps. There's no need to hack the iPhone and Apple has cheated no one.

There's no need to climb Mount Everest either, but lots of people do it just the same...

Re:Makes me wonder

[LWATCDR]

But not for the Touch. I would love a Touch but I want to add my own apps to it.

Re:Makes me wonder

[david_thornley]

Why would they take legal action? Has anybody from Apple suggested that?

Does this sort of unlocking actually bother Apple? They may not be making money on the cellular deal, but they did get money for the iPhone. They may have had to promise to try to stop unlocking contractually, but that doesn't mean they have to be all that effective about it.

They did warn that updating a modified iPhone might hurt it, but that can be seen two ways. The /. herd mentality way is as a declaration of war, but it seems to me that an equally valid way is warning iPhone modders away from the update. Suppose you have an Ubuntu system or some other free software system that has updates. Suppose you modify and recompile your kernel. What will happen with the next automatic kernel update? Will it help? Will it fix things? I'd think your best bet would be to decline the update, just like you can with the iPhone.

I have nothing against people doing what they wish with their own iPhones (please leave mine alone for now), but I don't have much sympathy for those who unlock them and then try to use the standard update.

Re:Makes me wonder

[CaptainZapp]

Thanks;

that's what I always thought, but was afraid to ask...

Re:Makes me wonder

[oliverthered]

I use the word 'free' in the sense that the monthly subscription is £5 less than the iphone and you don't have to pay for the phone.

I know nothing's really free.

Re:Makes me wonder

[toleraen]

I obviously don't know your data usage, but 200MB isn't really a whole lot if you really plan on using your phone as more than a phone. I consistently hit 400MB+ a month with just email, web browsing, live search/google maps, the occasional small download, etc. If I had 3G coverage where I lived I'm sure that number would at least double. That said, I'd still pay the extra $ for the N95 with unlimited data.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Inanition85]

Thing is, most anytime you buy a cell phone, you're buying both the hardware and the network, not one or the other. It's just like the verizon commercials where the "network" (crowd of people) follows around those who just bought their phones, you don't get one without the other. While this may seem to be "unfair" or "unethical", remember that in a free market economy, any time someone sees a market they can go into and make a profit, they will. In this case, the major manufacturers of phones and major carriers have seen a market that they can make a profit on in a certain way and are doing so.

Another thing, this really isn't so different from what most hardware manufacturers do. If you buy most video cards or processors/mobos (certain high end/hardcore gamer models excepted, of course), the licensing and warrantees say that if you attempt to modify the hardware or use it beyond its specs (i.e. overclocking either in hardware or with hacked drivers), the warrantee is void. And in further comparison, are not certain pieces of hardware locked to certain OSs or manufacturers? (I'm thinking the reversed PCI cards and mobos on Gateway PCs of a few years back, or the fact that most Compaq and HP pcs of the past have had entirely proprietary hardware that cannot be replaced with standard components.) Even Apple themselves (until recently) would not support or even officially allow Windows to run on their PCs (and they still do not allow their OS to run on IBM-compatible PCs, anything not made by Apple won't run it). How is this that different from the iPhone?

Nothing I've seen in the PC or cell phone markets should lead me to believe that what Apple is doing with the iPhone is any different that what every other company does with their products (including the price cut). What a shock, Apple is a company just like everyone else! So maybe the iPhone has some amzaing capabilities and we'd like it to be unlocked so we can exploit these as we'd like, but Apple makes the device, and can sell it as they see fit. If you don't like that, maybe it's time for you to either run for Congress and change the laws, or go and create a device that's as good (or better) on your own. Either way you'll be contributing more to society than sitting on /. and repeatedly posting about how bad this is. And lest you call me a hypocrit, I'm in law school taking copyright classes and the like, so that perhaps I might be able to make a difference when finished.

Re:Makes me wonder

[larkost]

I don't agree that this is a matter of ethics, but think that the network restrictions should be legislated away for economic reasons (break up monopolies).

And thus far there is nothing but a couple of vague rumors that Apple is going to allow anything but Apple applications on the iPhone. It is unlikely that there is any financial arrangement between Apple and Google to get the current "Google applications" on the iPhone, and thus far they are the only non-Apple apps on the iPhone (without jailbreak).

Now Apple does have a real reason to object to the way that most of the unlocked (this is talking about switching carriers) phones were unlocked. In those cases people changed the radio id on the phone to all be the same id. From my understanding this is actually illegal in the UK, and something that the FCC probably frowns on enormously. You can argue that Apple gave the unlockers no choice (despite the fact the other people have found ways to do it without doing that), but you can't argue that the unlockers come out clean on this round.

And on the subject of "bricking", these people were playing around with Firmware. The software side I am all in favor of, but firmware is something you play with at your own risk. These people took the risk, and are now paying the price. Anyone who jailbroke their phone and it is having a problem, well they I have sympathy for. And from all the reports I have seen Apple is taking care of at least those people, they are just not being public about it.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. The N95 is fugly.

Re:Makes me wonder

[xappax]

Profit Optimization != Greed*

Making as much money as possible off the public, whether or not they've actually earned that money by providing a useful service definitely == Greed. I think the argument you're aiming for is the old hackneyed 80's mantra: Greed is good!

In fact, Apple would be negligent and unethical if they did not act in the best interests of their stockholders.

This is just a rehashed version of the "just doing their job" reasoning that justifies pretty much anything. Yeah, the Apple corporation is just doing its job. That job happens to be to do everything in its power to extract the maximum amount of money from you while giving you as little freedom as possible to ever take your business elsewhere. But hey, who can begrudge them that? It's their job after all. Apple got to do what Apple got to do.

Here's an idea: Don't set up a corporation which depends on doing unethical things to succeed. It's that simple. Just as you wouldn't set up a business that depends on slavery, don't base your corporate success on sabotaging and exerting remote control over your customers' property.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Johnny Mozzarella]

...and held responsible for monetary damages resulting from your inability to perform your contractual obligations.*

*IANAL

Re:Makes me wonder

[jededeck]

Do you have any material to back up the claim that they want to sell licensed third party applications? I think the reason why third party applications are not allowed is that unlocking the phone would be too easy -- that is running an application like anySIM.

The hardest part to hack the phone is simply to gain full access into its system.

Re:Makes me wonder

[SpiritGod21]

The iPhone doesn't work on my university's network due to its poor (non-existent?) implementation of 802.1x. The final conclusion was that there is nothing we can do about it; Apple made their phone where it will not work on secured networks. Depending on where you live/work, the lack of real wifi is a deal-breaker to me.

If I wanted something like the iPhone, I'd wait for the Neo1973.

Re:Makes me wonder

[wrf3]

It's what they do, it's what they said they'll do, and nobody ought to be surprised that they'll do it.

Are you kidding? Since when do parents (or politicians) really carry through with their threats? Meaning what you say is a rapidly dying practice.

Re:Makes me wonder

[neophytepwner]

Well, I think Apple made a mistake by releasing the iPhone. Not to say that it isn't a nice gadget, but the fact that they think they have complete control over the handheld. If Apple continues to play "cat and mouse", they will be heading down a slippery slope.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon, it's not unethical. Don't you long for the day when your TV will only work with Comcast, your car will only run on Exxon gas and your PC will only be able to get net access through Verizon?

Re:Makes me wonder

[visualight]

Thing is, most anytime you buy a cell phone, you're buying both the hardware and the network, not one or the other.

Exactly.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Archangel Michael]

My opinion on this is that it is unethical an should be illegal for ANYONE working in the marketplace should get paid.

You see, when one person decides for themselves what legal and illegal OUGHT to be and breaks rules based upon what they think OUGHT to be the case, the whole system starts to break down.

If you don't like the system, change it. If you can't get enough people to go along with you for whatever reason then move, or shut up, or keep working on changing the system. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you need can break the law and go unpunished. If what you believe matters enough to you, you'll accept the consequences without complaining.

That's the cost of changing the system. Stop whining about the system, will you?

Re:Makes me wonder

[Serious Callers Only]

You knew the terms before you bought the phone. If you didn't like the terms, you should not have bought the phone. It's not all that hard.

There are those who haven't bought an iPhone or touch of course, but think it's really weak of Apple to try to restrict the use of it in this manner.

It's time for Apple to produce an SDK, or at least admit that they're working one and it will come in 1 year or so. That way they won't be hounded continually by the hackers and they won't be bricking their customers' phones or wiping apps - all people are trying to do is install their own applications on the phone - is that so much to ask? Doesn't seem to be for every other smart phone in existence. Remember they've also done this to the touch, so it's not as if they can use the excuse of trying to appease big bad AT&T.

If Apple wants to proclaim a new age of mobile phones based on real operating systems, with real 'desktop class' apps, and the real internet, they should wake up and realise the implications - the walled garden approach failed on the internet, it failed on the desktop, and it sure as hell won't last long on a phone/ipod which has a familiar OS underneath. They're fighting their own customers - that's always a losing proposition. Whether their terms are legal or not, moral or not, or even justifiable, isn't really the question. The question is how long will Apple continue trying to lock things down before they realise they just can't win this battle. The longer they struggle, the more bad press they get.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

You're kiddng, right? Apple has always been evil.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, I wonder why they are not legally available in those countries.

Re:Makes me wonder

[drjzzz]

Buy.com has a video with a Nokia rep demonstrating the N95 - VERY impressive capabilities. A 5M pixel camera, GPS, and stereo bluetooth are just a few of the features that set it apart from the iPhone. The dual slider that reveals either a keyboard or media player controls is also cool. That said, the unlocked N95 costs $550, which is nearly twice as much as the 4GB iPhone I bought about 2 weeks ago. Moreover, the N95 controls seemed a little chaotic whereas the iPhone is amazingly intuitive - even features like conferencing calls or changing from the bluetooth headset to the regular handset are just simple buttons that appear when you might want them. I know that sounds a little simple-minded but in truth, accessing the features on a phone can be very frustrating. Maybe you should try the N95 out before you buy.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

My opinion on this is that it is unethical an should be illegal for ANYONE working in the marketplace should get paid.

If you don't get paid for working tin the market place how do you expect to eat?

Re:Makes me wonder

[tyme]

Rob T Firefly wrote:

I could sign a specially-worded contract putting me under legal obligation to learn how to breathe margarine and turn the moon into a Buick, but it doesn't mean I'll be able to in practice.

Atzanteol replied:

But you *would* be under legal obligation to *try*.

Actually, I think that contract terms that are impossible or nonsensical can be easily voided: the term of art is mistake.

Re:Makes me wonder

[LKM]

Their intention was not to block third-party apps per se. In fact, they have publicly said that they do not mind third-party apps.

The problem is that you need to run code on the iPhone in order to SIM-unlock it. So if Apple wants to prevent SIM unlocks, one thing they can do is prevent you from running your own code.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

They should see the inevitable end game, and s-l-o-w-l-y release patches that provide a minimal fix. It is often possible to satisfy the specific obligations of a contract, while failing to deliver what the other party was expecting. Nobody knows this more than AT&T.

No need for Apple to move any faster than MS remedies the security and spyware vulerabilities of IE. At worst, AT&T complains, but Apple sells more phones. At best, AT&T ignores the problem, and Apple sells more phones.

Re:Makes me wonder

[hadleyhope]

Oh please, both a TV and car are only receivers, If TV's could also transmit, or the car put back something into the pump you would want to make sure that the output would corrupt they "system" for other users.

Re:Makes me wonder

[LKM]

My thought on this is simple: I switched from a Symbian phone (a P990i) to the iPhone because Symbian is, frankly and unfortunately, a crappy OS. The iPhone sports a usable, snappy, pretty, stable OS. For 95% of what I use a phone for, the iPhone beats any Symbian-based phone. The only thing I miss from the P990i is ScummVM.

Re:Makes me wonder

[kcbanner]

Did you RTFA? This article is about root filesystem access, not about unlocking the wireless firmware for other carriers. We've already had this discussion before.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Dunbal]

Apple would be negligent and unethical if they did not act in the best interests of their stockholders.

      Once could argue that the negative publicity is not in the stockholder's best interests, despite short term profits. You can't use the "I did it for the shareholders" argument to justify dumping 20k barrels of toxic waste in the local river.

Re:Makes me wonder

[maxume]

Is it ever ethical for two parties to keep a secret from a third party? If it is, how come AT&T and Apple can't? Where does the line get drawn?

Re:Makes me wonder

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

I don't know the law, but maybe for a branding/marketing point of view it would have made sense. Even if you can only sell them unlocked, being the only source other than directly from Apple that is able to sell the iPhone sounds like a lot of business to me.

Re:Makes me wonder

[tlhIngan]

(offtopic, but makes me wonder why on earth Orange signed/wanted to sign an exclusivity deal with Apple, knowing what the laws were in France)

Don't see why Apple can't sell it as an unlocked phone.

It's got double activation, so the first one would be to sign up for an Orange contract. Oh, the phone's unlocked alright, but you'll have to sign this contract to use it, so you'll pay your provider plus Orange. Sure you can probably get out of it, who knows what the contract termination fees are (probably along the lines of, "You think $200 is expensive?").

Or heck, maybe Apple will just sell it through Orange dealers, who'll probably give you plenty of warning that yes, it's unlocked, but you're still bound by the contract. (The sim lock and an external contract with a service provider are two separate things...). To cancel the contract early (i.e., standard return policy), return the phone as per EU directives and French laws - none of this AT&T style cancel the plan but keep the phone. Heck, I'm sure there are ton of other ways to ensure that even though you can use the phone with any network in the world, well, you're gonna pay Orange still.

Re:Makes me wonder

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Except Comcast doesn't sell TVs, Exxon doesn't sell cars, and Verizon doesn't sell computers. This is someone who has a network already in place (AT&T) and they're selling access to it (Cellphones). If you don't like AT&T use Verizon. Or T-Mobile. Or one of the other guys.

And if Comcast (or Time Warner in my case) knocked 70-90% off of the price of my TV but I could only use that TV on their 'network' I'd be all for it. And just like with AT&T if you don't like that deal go find one you DO like.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Zebedeu]

If you're already happy with Sony Ericsson, why not wait a little bit for the W960i? It should come out pretty soon, runs the symbian OS (I suppose the N95 is the same) and also has wifi.
It's also prettier than at least the N95, small, has a touchscreen and a keypad, though you should also be able to write with the jot handwriting recognition.
Oh, and it's a 3G phone.

And I am pretty sure that it should be cheaper than the iPhone. In fact, it should cost more or less the same as the N95.

Re:Makes me wonder

[MightyYar]

Making as much money as possible off the public, whether or not they've actually earned that money by providing a useful service definitely == Greed. Okay, I like your definition. The problem with it is that it does not describe what Apple has done. Apple has provided a cute little gadget that does exactly what they say it does and no more. It seems to be quite successful. It is certainly a "useful service". If you don't like it, well they certainly have no monopoly on smart phones! Buy another one. The market will decide whether or not they provide a useful service, not you.

The rest of your post is hard to comment on. You actually use slavery as an analogue to locking down the iPhone... yikes! Again, if you don't like their product, just buy one of the other smart phones out there... it's not as if they have a lock on the market, or even a large share of it. This is hardly like using slavery.

Re:Makes me wonder

[shinma]

It makes sense from a corporate standpoint that the iPod Touch would fall under the same restrictions that the iPhone does, from both a technical and a commercial standpoint. From a technical standpoint, it is far simpler to maintain a largely similar set of software than it would be to put both items on different platforms, a piece of software (mail, and the apparently unintentional calendar differences) notwithstanding. I think the release firmware of the iPod Touch is the victim of an overzealous application of the second reason, and will be (mostly) remedied in the next few updates.

The second reason is simply, commercially, it is important that the iPod Touch be "good enough" to sell without being good enough to cannibalize sales of people who aren't quite sure they really need an iPhone.

Re:Makes me wonder

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

You're clearly not biased when it comes to discussing Apple, so please tell us more of what you think.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree completely. There are many consumers that go against what they're told and make bad decisions. If you make the bad decision of hacking something thats been fully anounced not to hack, then too bad for you. "$300 mistake" is well put. This can also be said for any product out there, or even the housing market. If you make a bad decision, don't expect lawsuits or fed rates, or the stock market, or anything to help bail you out......

Suffer and pay the penalty. Justice has been (or will be) served.

Re:Makes me wonder

[jandrese]

I suspect that Apple signed a deal with AT&T where the money they normally set aside for offsetting the cost of the subsidized phone is instead given to Apple--which is why the plans are no cheaper despite the fact that you bought the phone outright.

However, if this is the case, then there is really no need for a contract locking them into AT&T. AT&T is out no money on your phone purchase so you really shouldn't be beholden to them. The whole thing smells like a bad deal/greed somewhere along the way.

Re:Makes me wonder

[fitten]

In some countries the exact opposite is true!

Your statement is only true IF Apple sold iPhones in those countries, which they don't. So, no... Apple is not currently under any legal obligation to produce unlocked iPhones and, in fact, are legally obligated to NOT release unlocked iPhones.

Re:Makes me wonder

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Greed motivates people to come up with the next big and cool thing. The iPod is a 'greedy' product. You don't need it, you WANT it. Apple doesn't NEED to charge what they do (more than twice the cost of the parts IIRC) but you'll pay it. Apple is greedy, sure, but the customer is greedier because they'll overpay to have the new shiny.

Re:Makes me wonder

[stewbacca]

Wow. It would be hard to blame AT&T for any shortcomings of the iPod touch, SINCE IT DOESN'T HAVE A PHONE FUNCTION! However, this IS slashdot, and the pro- and anti-Mac crowds will be out in full force.

Re:Makes me wonder

[fitten]

That's just greed.

Possibly, but also likely to be 'greed' in that they don't want to deal with the support issues of third-party tools screwing up iPhones and Apple having to foot the bill to replace/fix them.

Besides, they are working on some technology to make web based apps cachable a la GoogleGears or whatever, in which case the apps will run in a sandbox and the main security/protection focus can be on the browser sandbox and the interaction between that sandbox and the system instead of the whole system for third-party stuff.

Re:Makes me wonder

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

The something "bad" was closing security holes that allowed anyone to execute code on the iPhone as root. Yeah, that's fucking EVIL. And with the new tiff issue it will be patched by the end of next week, I'm guessing. The problem isn't the 3rd party apps. Apple even said "More power to you." The problem is that the only way to install them at the moment is taking advantage of security flaws.

Re:Makes me wonder

[RHSC]

Apple has made it attractive to hackers of the non-malicious sort. Those are merely the ones we've heard of, who benefit from publicizing their discoveries. The most dangerous hackers are the ones we haven't heard of.

Re:Makes me wonder

[TClevenger]

I don't know what their contract says with AT&T, but that might very well be on there. Something to the tune of 'only tested and approved applications'.

Any why would that be any of AT&T's interest? One word: Skype.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Rogerborg]

Apple are supposed to be the "good" guys to their fanbase

Apple regularly bitch-slap their fanbase like 2-bit whores. And still they come crawling back for more, whispering "It's not them, it's me. Apple will change, if I just love them enough," through their split, swollen lips. It's sad, is what it is.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

They just don't have any grounds for taking legal action against users; the contract is between Apple and AT&T, not Apple and their users. But they'll probably do unpleasant things in future firmware updates, to try to break this (and other) attempts to add value to the iPhone.

Just don't buy this shit. Apple hates you, so really, it's ok to hate 'em back.

Re:Makes me wonder

[madato]

"I've bought devices, used 'hacks' on them, and did other things with them." That is not appropriate.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Nazlfrag]

I'm not sure, but I think it was along the lines of

1) Found a telecommunications company
2) Operate legally for years
3) Sign exclusivity deal
4) ???
5) Profit!

Re:Makes me wonder

[cyberworm]

Thank you. I'm glad to see another person spout some common sense when it comes to hacking an iPhone. If you bought it to hack it, then you should be full aware of the risks you take. Especially since the terms and specs of the iPhone had been and are made public from apple directly, all the way down to slashdot forums. If you can't afford to lose, then don't take the risk.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Reality Master 101]

Possibly, but also likely to be 'greed' in that they don't want to deal with the support issues of third-party tools screwing up iPhones and Apple having to foot the bill to replace/fix them.

What a great idea! Why don't we make all computers like that? Steve can sell Macs totally closed to third party application development, so that they don't have "to deal with the support issues of third-party tools screwing up" the computers, and then Apple having to foot the bill!

Funny how all these other smart phones manage to allow third party development with destroying the companies that produce them. Is Apple too incompetent to do what everyone else does?

Re:Makes me wonder

[maxume]

But it's AAAAAAAaaaaaaappplle.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm waiting to see if O2 include a "long weekend" offer- that would make the number of minutes more attractive

http://www.o2.co.uk/mobilestariffs/tariffs/o2longweekends

Re:Makes me wonder

[Rynth]

Dude, the whole world works by *ahem* Who gets paid . I'm not sure if you're still floating around in the stone-age ( with some sort of time/space continuum that give you interweb's access ) but thats how the world has worked for a while. It might not be right ( FTR, I don;t think it is ) but its just the way the cookie crumbles.

Re:Makes me wonder

[MightyYar]

But Apple has done nothing unethical or illegal! Toxic waste???

What we are talking about is a company that has released a very cool product targeted towards non-hackers and non-geeks. Many people don't like that the product is limited in what it can do. Okay... so why get hung up on it? Either apply the available hacks, or don't buy it and get a Windows, Palm, or Linux phone instead!

I'm not sure what negative publicity you are talking about. The only thing negative I have seen so far is how Apple's updated firmware temporarily bricked some iPhones for people who had hacked them, just as they were warned would happen. This didn't put a dent in their stock. Note the market cap - half as large as MS now!

I think people have this assumption that "geek goodwill" has some value, and it might. But look at Microsoft - doing just fine with very little geek goodwill. The iPod is doing just fine despite being "lame". Linux should be sweeping the market, along with OpenOffice.org, right? Yeah, well, er.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

What 'hint'? They are under legal obligation to maintain their firmware so that the phones can't be used on other networks for another 5 years.

Nice twist there. It was the financial motivation that created the legal obligation. Apple wanted the financial advantage of dealing with only one exclusive carrier and Apple created the legal obligation to ensure they will get a steady stream of income from AT&T. If other carriers are capable of activating the iPhone, Apple will not get their kickback from AT&T. If Apple allowed the use on T-Mobile, AT&T will argue with "Why should we pay you this $5/month and $20 per new activation per iPhone when this other carrier is paying you nothing per month?". If Apple did not have an agreement with AT&T, AT&T would still gladly activate new iPhones people brought in but they would not have to pay Apple every month.

You make it sound like through some strange twist or just some small legal detail, Apple has to have this agreement and has to make it appear they want to make AT&T happy. AT&T will be happy paying Apple $X/month if they are exclusive but will only pay maybe 10% of X if they are exclusive. The truth is this agreement is a great advantage to Apple and they make good money from it. This is no different then any other *exclusive* agreement between two companies.

Could Apple sell more phones if they did not have an exclusive agreement with AT&T? Probably. Would Apple actually make more money if they did not have an agreement with AT&T? They did not think so or they would not have gone exclusive. Is there anything wrong with maximizing profits and using your marketing leverage to gain exclusive agreements? No. People just need to realize this is what is going down and not some case of poor Apple trying to make do with the hand they were dealt and making the best effort to still make you the consumer the first priority. There was no "thinking different" here, this is Business 101.

Re:Makes me wonder

[MightyYar]

So true! And that was my point - by getting all of these eyes on the thing for "ethical hacking", they have made it less likely to be exploited by the dangerous sort because the "ethical hackers" will end up exposing more holes publicly, making them unavailable to the baddies.

Re:Makes me wonder

[funkboy]

Erm, contractual obligation (with AT&T), not legal obligation, and AFAIK said contract only applies to phones sold in the US...

Re:Makes me wonder

[Rabbit Time!]

N95 for free? You lucky, lucky bastards. If some carrier doesn't pick it up soon and offer some sort of discount I think I'm going to cry. Even if they do, it won't be free for a long time. :-( Jerkfaces.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Rabbit Time!]

I should specify that I mean in the US.

Re:Makes me wonder

[itsdapead]

I currently have an O2 contract phone (W810i - very pleased with both phone and network)

So why do you feel compelled to get a new one?

Personally, I'd give it another year before going iPhone and see what the second-gen ones are like (esp. with respect to 3G/HSPDA which may have been a defensible decision in the US but its a bit of a joke in the UK).

As other posters have said, if you're going for a new not-iPhone then T-Mobile do much better "unlimited" data deals.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the problem is that all apps on the phone run as root in the first place. That means no limits to network use like preventing raw ICMP and raw packet access. The way the iPhone's software works IS a security flaw in and of itself....

Re:Makes me wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony Ericsson W960i

Re:Makes me wonder

[oliverthered]

Free on £30 a month tariff, that's £5 less than the IPhone tariff.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Aladrin]

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=att+apple+exlusive+5+year+contract&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

gives us "AT&T has exclusive U.S. distribution rights for five years " and quite a few other links that say the same. As far as I know, it's fact.

The lockdown of third-party apps was originally blamed on AT&T, but there's been a lot of evidence lately that it may not be the case after all, as AT&T allows third-party apps on all other phones on their network. It could go either way on that... My thought is that AT&T and Apple fear that third-party apps could be used to unlock the phone (gasp) and they were banned for that reason. This is the first carrier-locked phone with a 'real' OS (or at least, it appears that way... it's less 'mobile' than Windows Mobile is, when compared to its desktop counterpart) and there may have been a lot of fear.

Re:Makes me wonder

[bnenning]

In fact, Apple would be negligent and unethical if they did not act in the best interests of their stockholders.

I'm a shareholder, and I'm disappointed that Apple appears to be pursuing short-term profits at the expense of long-term goodwill. I don't want them to go down the Sony path.

Re:Makes me wonder

[cayenne8]

"I got a N95 a couple of months ago, have a look at T-Mobile. Tariff + £7.50 for unlimited data. :) If you don't want to switch, use it as leverage to get your tariff down for O2."

Tariff? Are you saying if you don't switch..you can get them to lower the taxes you pay on the usage from O2??

I'm confused....

Re:Makes me wonder

[Mister Whirly]

"Don't you long for the day when your TV will only work with Comcast, your car will only run on Exxon gas and your PC will only be able to get net access through Verizon?"

If I was able to purchase the car for say, $6,000 with that stipulation, that was explained to me BEFORE I bought the car, then no I would'nt think it was unethical at all. If people want to buy an unlocked cell phone, than do so. But you are not going to get a price break because you are not signing up for a network contract. The reason people sign contracts is to get cheap phones. Don't want a contract, then you must pay full price for a phone. People need to learn to read and understand contracts before agreeing to them, and then bitching about them. If you agreed to it, it's on you, not the phone networks.

Re:Makes me wonder

[ceoyoyo]

Go play with an iPhone or an iPod touch whenever they appear in your area.

I bought a touch and the thing is great. Not because it's an iPod, but because it's a real web browser, with a real interface (the touch screen works much better than anything else I've ever tried).

You never can tell what the better device is by reading the features list. You have to hold it in your hand and play with it.

Re:Makes me wonder

[MightyYar]

I sold my shares :)

You need to make your opinion known at the shareholder's meeting. We can't do anything for you here at Slashdot... I will point out, however, that the user experience on an iPhone is vastly superior to that of any "open" phone on the market (or at least any that I have tried). Couldn't this be at least in part because they didn't have to spend any time adding the hooks to make it open?

Sony's problem is that they bought a content company, and the hardware division let them drive the direction of the company. I wouldn't worry about Apple unless they get too cozy with one or more content companies.

Re:Makes me wonder

[T-Bone-T]

200MB isn't much at all. I've had my phone 2 days and I've already downloaded 15MB over EDGE with light usage.

Re:Makes me wonder

[bshell]

Something rarely discussed in these forums is that the iPhone is the first truly successful mass-market Unix phone. This is huge, and when you start to think about it, it's marvelous. I had an N80 for a year and half before I "upgraded" to an iPhone. There is simply no comparison.The N95 is similar to the N80 in terms of its interface and functionality. I've played with the N95 in shops. The iPhone is a complete paradigm shift and well worth the few extra pounds. The subtle interface refinements are countless and all the things you will wish your N95 would do. (e.g. when you remove the headphones, the mp3 music player stops.) The sync functions are much slicker on iPhone. Plus if you consider the unlimited data and WiFi access, it's actually cheaper than the N95 option. Another cost you neglected is memory. The iPhone comes with 8GB and you need all 8. With the N95 you will be paying an extra 100pounds to match the memory of the iPhone and I'm not sure it even handles up to 8GB. Trust me: Nokia is shitting minibricks now trying to design future phones to match the iPhone. In a few years nearly all phones will be like the iPhone. Interestingly, by then Apple will likely have leapfrogged them again, and I can hardly wait to see what they come out with.

Let me say I *do* miss a few things from my N80. 1. The ability to take videos on the spot. (Though ironically the simplistic iPhone camera clearly takes better photos than the N80's 3 megapixel one which one would think would be better.) 2. Cut and paste. Most everything else is better on the iPhone, especially the amazing interface, and using firmware version 1.0.2 with third party apps for ringtones, and things such as the BSD subsystem, ssh, terminal, and everything a Unix hacker could desire. Hey, it's Unix which is far superior to Symbian in my opinion.

Re:Makes me wonder

[heinousjay]

Somebody has a dim view of marriage, sex, or both.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing Steve Jobs is like a golden god to you.

Re:Makes me wonder

[MightyYar]

Not really, no. I prefer Macs, but have a Windows/Linux box as well. I do have an iPod (5GB, first generation) like most of the rest of the US, but no iPhone - nor the inclination to get one. Steve is usually quite full of it (and of himself), but he does seem to know how to lead Apple.

Re:Makes me wonder

[dave420]

It's fair enough if the network is subsidising the handset, but the iPhone is not subsidised at all. They should all be sold unlocked, as if you bought it over the counter (which you do).

Re:Makes me wonder

[DreamCoder]

I went through the same calculus before buying a new phone, and went with the iPhone even though it really didn't stack up on paper. No regrets, but it's hard to explain why. It's just a completely different animal from every other handheld device you've ever used. I have to laugh at the idea of ever going back to one of those glorified pagers with the itty-bitty keyboards.

Since there's a 14 day return period, my advice is to try the iPhone for a week and see what you think.

Re:Makes me wonder

[TXISDude]

This should be a wake-up call to Apple. For years we have heard the battle cry about how Apple PC's don't suffer from viruses and malware like Windows (not necessarily a factual claim, but made all the time anyway by strident Apple idealists). Hackers, malware writers and virus writers are not dummies and they know how to use marketshare and popularity to spread their evil wares. Now that the iPhone has been shown to be not the safest codebase out there, and based on its popularity and Apple's image - the time is ripe for real attacks that actually cause damage to begin to appear. Welcome to the big leagues Apple, now's the time to clean up your act, and get secure code out there. I only wish Apple had the same level of technical acumen that their marketing department thrives on.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Em Adespoton]

Even Apple themselves (until recently) would not support or even officially allow Windows to run on their PCs (and they still do not allow their OS to run on IBM-compatible PCs, anything not made by Apple won't run it).

I was assuming you were being accurate in your statements until I hit this -- considering that 1) I know people who (against the license) run OS X on Dell laptops, and 2) Until recently, Windows was INCOMPATIBLE at a hardware level with Macintosh hardware, I think I'm going to avoid believing things you say in the future unless you back them up with references.

I thought your argument was going to develop into "You buy the phone and the service... you don't really want to have to pay full price for the phone do you?" which would have made sense to me. Instead, you meandered into sometimes incorrect generalizations about markets and /. users.

Just so you know, civil disobedience is a very good way to change laws in the US, as long as you can get a following and don't mind suffering the immediate consequences of your civil disobedience. It's MUCH easier than becoming rich/connected enough to get into congress.

Re:Makes me wonder

[mr_matticus]

No, it's not a mistake. There is no misapprehension of fact. It's not even misunderstanding, because the meaning assigned by both parties is the same.

Acts which are impossible are not enforceable, but that comes back on the Offeree for fraudulently assenting to a performance he knew he could not complete. If you agree to do something you know you won't, you're in a lot more trouble than the other party for requesting or requiring it.

Re:Makes me wonder

[SIIHP]

"Lately Apple keeps hitting successfully the downsides."

I think the Apple is avoiding the downsides that matter.

http://finance.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=AAPL

"Jan 03-Oct 10, 2007 +81.64 (96.23%)

Re:Makes me wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

"My opinion on this is..."

Irrelevant and childish.

Glad I could help, keep it in mind in the future.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Lars T.]

If you want an open phone, there are several on the market or very close to market that will work MUCH better and the companies will support you in creating the apps. There's no need to hack the iPhone and Apple has cheated no one.

There's no need to climb Mount Everest either, but lots of people do it just the same...

Yup, and they complain that the Nepalese government now wants them to not make a mess up there. Nice analogy.

Re:Makes me wonder

[saintory]

What I wonder is what percentage of iPhone and iPod Touch users are going to get their device modded/hacked? If it's a small percentage of the whole (maybe labeled "enthusiasts") and keeps them in the group "coming back for more" and has little to no effect on total revenue then maybe the cat and mouse is preferable to all parties than total lockdown or total open source. The ptb must've seen this as a possible reaction to their products. They'd be idiots not to.

Re:Makes me wonder

[photomonkey]

And in those countries, is the iPhone available via direct-import or are people buying unsupported grey market devices?

Re:Makes me wonder

[Archangel Michael]

well, for one ... It was an example to show the fallacy of one person's view being not part of the greater social norms, and thinking that the rules don't apply to them because they don't like the rules.

and to play into the stupidness of your question ... I think we all should raise our own food ...

Re:Makes me wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

"It would be hard to blame AT&T for any shortcomings of the iPod touch, SINCE IT DOESN'T HAVE A PHONE FUNCTION!"

Um, yeah, that was his point.

How embarrassing for you

Re:Makes me wonder

[Richard_at_work]

I feel compelled simply because, after 18 months, the W810i is nearing the end of its life :) Its lasted me well, but the battery is next to shot, and the keyboard is becoming unresponsive due to my proliferic texting habit. Either way I have to buy a new phone in the coming months, so I may as well renew my contract at the same time.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Threni]

> Your statement is only true IF Apple sold iPhones in those countries, which they don't.

Your statement is only true IF Apple didn't sell phones in the UK (to name just one country with such a law). They do.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Inanition85]

Hmm, let me see.

Yes, Windows was incompatible with Mac OS, but was this really Microsoft's doing, or more Apple's? Either way, my point was about hardware being stuck with certain vendors' services, which it certainly was (Apple computer meant you couldn't run Windows). And in reference to those Dells running OS X, I was unaware that retail copies would work on Windows PCs (prior to OS X 10.4, which I know has been hacked, but those people would have the same right to complain about an update to OS X killing their installs as an iPhone owner who's phone got bricked by an update).

Where was my market analysis incorrect? I admit I over-generalized but I figured that a discussion of why the phone market is an oligopoly (sticky prices and all) created by high entry costs was beyond the point of my post. Is it not true that if allowed by law a company will try to create a profit maximizing bundle of goods and services to sell? Is this not what Apple is doing? Certainly, I would like to know where my years studying economics are failing me.

Finally, I do not consider posting on \. to be civil disobedience. If you were organizing active boycotts of Apple or writing petitions to get laws changed, perhaps. But how far has our country come from it's laissez faire roots that we would want government regulation to have cheap cell phones? And to add to my earlier ending, if you (or anyone else) were to create such a wonder device as Apple apparently has (or many would so lead us to believe) would you want to give it away for next to nothing? Or open it up so that anyone can add on to it and profit from your innovation? Or would you want to lock it down, so that you can only create wonderous new uses for it, and then make all the money you can off of them? And even if you think you do all of this, could you convince a group of people equal to half plus one of Apple's shareholders that it was a good idea to give up money for the good of technology?

Re:Makes me wonder

[Ibu001]

Maybe in the States, but not in sensible countries.

Re:Makes me wonder

[petermgreen]

my understanding is that the iPhone has no proper security infrastrucuture (I suspect because it was rushed out or something). The result is like with the PSP if you can run your own code on it you can do anything to it.

sure you can run your own basic apps on your nokia symbian phone but as soon as you want more than very basic capabilities you have to get your applications signed.

I don't know what things are like in the windows mobile world but I bet there is at least some protection against user supplied apps reprogramming the radio module to unlock it.

Re:Makes me wonder

[mr_jrt]

The phone companies are pretty desperate to get customers to renew their contracts when they expire, which is why they generally will offer you better deals if you barter with them. My granddad, for example, recently got himself a free phone and a tariff which is half per month of what was initially on offer....and he was moving from PAYG on Orange to O2, all he did was mention to the O2 rep what he was able to get from Orange.

Re:Makes me wonder

[charlieman]

No, he's saying they should give the key of the door to the owner of the mobile instead of making him break into it.

Re:Makes me wonder

[abnoctos]

uhhh, yeah... you can't use the ipod touch on t-mobile, for example. so i see your point (and raise you one point).

Re:Makes me wonder

[PopeRatzo]

They are under legal obligation to maintain their firmware so that the phones can't be used on other networks for another 5 years.

And that is one of the reasons that I won't own an iPhone.

I think we have to learn that we are not under any legal obligation to buy stuff from companies who disregard our preferences as consumers.

It's really simple. A company uses this sort of "exclusivity" = I don't buy their stuff. A company uses DRM = I don't buy their stuff. A company treats their customers like criminals = I don't give them my business. A company makes shitty products = I don't buy their stuff.

It surprises me just how many consumers don't realize they have a choice in the matter when it comes to buying stuff.

Re:Makes me wonder

[imemyself]

Wow! I have no intention of getting an iPhone but that is just pathetic. Apple can't even implement 802.1x? And yet some people keep pushing Apple's equipment for businesses... (I am aware that OS X and Apple's computers support 802.1x, but not supporting it on the mobile device is just laughable.) I can't think of any device I've used in the last three or four years that did not support 802.1x (Having to manually set it up on Linux notwithstanding).

Re:Makes me wonder

[cayenne8]

I'm still confused...it sounds like these deals they are cutting the taxes charged on the phone, rather than changing the rates they charge you? Does the govt. let them do this?

Both articles say they lower the tariff....lower the tax is what you're saying?

Re:Makes me wonder

[Carthag]

Is there a company that does give a shit about how they treat their customers provided said pay up?

Re:Makes me wonder

[Deslock]

The iPhone doesn't work on my university's network due to its poor (non-existent?) implementation of 802.1x. The final conclusion was that there is nothing we can do about it; Apple made their phone where it will not work on secured networks. Depending on where you live/work, the lack of real wifi is a deal-breaker to me.

If I wanted something like the iPhone, I'd wait for the Neo1973.

Out of curiosity, how is your university's network secured? I have yet to find a wifi network that I can't use the iPhone on, such as my university and town networks (UMass, Amherst), my personal and company networks, and and places like Panera. I routinely run on WEP, WPA, and open networks (many with authentication requirements).

Re:Makes me wonder

[Richard_at_work]

No, in the UK your 'tariff' is what would be called your 'call plan' in the US - your basic monthly fee charged by your carrier for service, inclusive of VAT (which is the *only* separately itemised tax on UK plans as there is no other tax) for non business users.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Guy Harris]

Clearly there's a demand for unlocked iPhones.

Note that unlocking the phone is not all that jailbreaking is about. Some people might not care about unlocking the phone, but might want to run some third-party apps, or just use a snippet from one of their own band's songs as a ringtone.

Note also that the "cat and mouse game" line was in response to a question about unlocking - see the question at 10:26 in the Engadget transcript of the UK iPhone announcement. At 10.37, he said, in response to a question about third-party apps, "Yes, we've already done that with Web 2.0. We're looking at more intimate apps. But people hold their phones to a higher standard than their PC. The more open you are, the less predictable."

(No, I don't want to think about more intimate mobile phone apps. Really.)

Re:Makes me wonder

[SpiritGod21]

WPA2 Enterprise through PEAP with the key type as Dynamic WEP (I have to configure it on Linux).

Re:Makes me wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Apart from specialty services like Blackberry, most phones fit into a few distinct categories as far as network technology is concerned. Any interoperability issues within a technology/band (ie provider-locked and/or sim-less phones) are artificial constructs designed to tie the service and the hardware together.

And I can't believe you're trying a free market argument to promote provider-locking phones for the purposes of tethering people to their network. This isn't an example of a "free market" industry, it is by nature of its high costs an oligopoly, and as such is able to act in anti-competitive ways like this.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Guy Harris]

Even Apple themselves (until recently) would not support or even officially allow Windows to run on their PCs

Yeah, having a processor with an instruction set no longer supported by Windows kind of gets in the way of letting Windows run on a machine. :-) What happened "recently" was that x86-based Macs appeared, so that running Windows directly was something that could be considered (without digging up an ancient copy of PPC Windows NT and trying to boot it).

Re:Makes me wonder

[Guy Harris]

Yes, Windows was incompatible with Mac OS, but was this really Microsoft's doing, or more Apple's?

At least in part, it was Microsoft's doing, given that they discontinued the PowerPC version of Windows NT.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Inanition85]

Thing is, free markets (truly free ones) have oligopolies and monopolies because of just these entry costs (not to mention the network externalities created by the things like "free IN calling" or the like). I think that you are thinking of "perfect competition" which I never said was the case, because in the real world "perfect competition" does not exist. In a perfectly competitive market, there would be no entry costs (or low entry costs, at least) and price would be set where supply is equal to demand. That never happens in the real world (well, almost never, especially if not forced by regulatory agencies). I don't think you'd like it if the phone market were perfectly competitive, because the definition of that market includes no product differentiation, meaning either no one would have a fancy phone, or everyone would (sorry, everyone would have to have the same thing). Plus, all services would have to be equal, both call quality/coverage and customer service, which is clearly not the case.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Guy Harris]

That means no limits to network use like preventing raw ICMP and raw packet access.

If you have admin access on your Mac (which you probably do, as the initial account is set up with it), the command sudo gives you "raw ICMP and raw packet access"; if that's a security problem on a given network, that network needs to be fixed.

Yes, running apps as root on the iPhone has its problems, but my sympathy with people who consider "Oh noes! You could open a BPF device or a SOCK_RAW socket!" to be one of those problems is a bit limited.

Re:Makes me wonder

[geeknado]

Hm. I've not done much Windows Mobile Development either...You could well be right about the signing-process-as-security. At the least, you'd expect some pieces of the hardware to have extremely limited accessibility(or configurability) to user apps...Though most Windows users may run as root, I seriously doubt that's the case in the Mobile world. All that understood, for the other two platforms, you've got clear pathways to app development, even if certain features /are/ inaccessible without signing.

You may be right-- the rush to market may've been the reason for some of these choices. It seems in-character for the company to me, though, to keep this locked down.

Re:Makes me wonder

[sidb]

There's no legal obligation to keep the iPod Touch locked. The only explanation there is that they're control freaks, or that they don't want the iPod Touch to be obviously better than the more expensive iPhone.

Re:Makes me wonder

[shellbeach]

Is there a company that does give a shit about how they treat their customers provided said pay up? No, there isn't. But in most cases their customers recognise this fact ... that's not the case with Apple.

Re:Makes me wonder

[petermgreen]

All that understood, for the other two platforms, you've got clear pathways to app development, even if certain features /are/ inaccessible without signing.
right, and all that requires infrastructure to support. You need a MMU, you need a certificate and capabilities management system. you need secure inter-process communication systems and so on.

from a development perspective it is far far easier to say no third party apps than to put in place the stuff needed to protect the rest of the system from them.

Re:Makes me wonder

[mr_jrt]

I sat and did a simple TCO of the various tariffs T-Mobile had on offer, and went with the cheapest way to get the N95 I wanted. The deal I went with was Flext 35 (£35/mo) + Web 'n Walk (£7.50/mo), giving £42.50/mo + £70 for the phone on a 12 month contract. I could have got the phone for free by going for an 18 month tariff, but want to get off the higher tariff ASAP - I only went for this combo as it was the cheapest TCO. Works out as £569.99 for an N95 with 12 months of unlimited data and £120 worth of calls and txts per month (which is far in excess of what I need, but a lower tariff would have required more up front for the phone). As there was an offer at the time, I also get free evening and weekends :), and after 12 months I can drop down to the cheapest tariff quite easily, or maybe get a newer phone :)

It's really easy to do this with T-Mobile at least, just grab all their tariff options from their website, dump into OpenOffice Calc, add a calculated TCO column from the values, and sort.

Re:Makes me wonder

[GaryPatterson]

Not that I would doubt your unsupported statement, or just call it an amazing bitterness by someone who probably has never bought an Apple product and somehow feels empowered to bitch about them at every turn, but can you back up your bile with some facts?

Yes, the iPhone isn't turning out to be Apple's shining moment in the Sun as far as open-ness goes but prior to that?

Re:Makes me wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Makes it useless? How so? AT&T still has a contract with their customers to provide service--let them sue apple if they must for making a business decision that they were required to make by law. Last I checked, a contract that goes contrary to law is unenforceable...

Re:Makes me wonder

[Atzanteol]

Mmm. Keeping your word *is* certainly a silly idea isn't it. ::roll::

Re:Makes me wonder

[tepples]

Yeah, having a processor with an instruction set no longer supported by Windows kind of gets in the way of letting Windows run on a machine. :-) Whose fault is it that Microsoft stopped maintaining Windows NT for PowerPC?

Re:Makes me wonder

[Carthag]

I'd say all companies have rabid fans and any perceived loudness of apple fans is probably due to their small size. Who gives a shit. All this Skub sucks/rules business is really boring and older than time.

Re:Makes me wonder

[MisterSquid]

Your statement, while humorous, in some way hits the nail on the head. What I find "pretty" about iPhone is Mobile Safari which rocks in its web-presentation capabilities. It can read PDFs, QuickTime-wrapped video (and YouTube Flash files rhough not Flash anywhere else), and many other web-accessible files. Without question, MobileSafari does have its shortcomings.

But think about this: I'm posting this from my iPhone because it's been a really long day and browsing /. On a device that I *can* curl up in bed with and which doesn't give off any (perceptible) heat and which is totally silent. . . Man, I just wish I had a larger version for home use.

I know I'm verging on fanboy, but the device is pretty spectacular and pretty to boot, especially on terms of the software Apple has put on it, though I will be among the first to say that there is a lot more that can be done with iPhone.

In some ways that's the whole point. The iPhone makes everyone realize what a stupid idea WAP was and that what folks were trying to do in 1997 wouldn't take off for another ten years. From where stand (actually, that should be "lie" because that's what I'm doing as I type this from my bed), the iPhone is a fairly slick device, sure, but more important is that it points the way to truly mobile and ubiquitous computing.

What will come inside the next three years--from many more vendors than just Apple--is going to blow all of us away.

Re:Makes me wonder

[StikyPad]

I think your comment is best summed up in one sentence:

LEAVE APPLE ALONE!

Re:Makes me wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot stop, drop and.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Gilmoure]

That's always been the appeal of the Mac. When I was trying to decide what computer to buy, back in '89, I was debating MCA vs. EISA, when I sat down at a friend's Mac. Was totally blown away, at how well it just made sense. I've had pda's and phones since Newton 120 but after playing with an iPhone (for almost an hour, posting to my LJ and such), I was flashing back to my first Mac experience. Yeah, it's missing features, is less customizable, more expensive, etc., just like the original 128K Mac, but it's done so well, it really shows how phones have been changed.

Re:Makes me wonder

[GaryPatterson]

Not so much "LEAVE APPLE ALONE" as "BACK YOUR ASSERTIONS UP WITH SOMETHING MORE THAN JUST 'BECAUSE I SAID SO'."

But you can read what you like into that.

(This text added purely to game the lameness filter, as it just doesn't like so many capitals. Please ignore.)

Re:Makes me wonder

[Iftekhar25]

It's amazing a mindless comment like that can be modded up to "Insightful" so people can read it. That's just flamebait.

Apple regularly bitch-slap their fanbase like 2-bit whores.

That's just hyperbole. I think what you're thinking of is Sony. A company has to be consistently nasty to its consumers to achieve the level of evil that you so dismissively assert Apple is guilty of.

There are a lot of things to gripe about when it comes to Apple. No games, dearth of third party apps, it comes at a significant price premium (in South and Southeast Asia at least), it's locked-in. Most of these have pretty decent answers too.

But Apple's done a lot for their consumers. For example, engaging the evil money-sucking overlords that is the music industry with, what might be argued as, very fair use of DRM'ed music: burn it as many times as you like in different playlists, and on up to five computers.

I hate DRM too, and own no DRM'ed music, but let's face it. These guys say burning CDs your own is stealing, and Apple got them to let you burn your DRM'ed tracks an unlimited number of times, and be stored on up to five Macs. That's not half bad.

There's a reason everyone's clambering for the iPhone. An excellent user experience which you get nowhere else, and, to all of Apple's marketing credit, a media hype-machine that they didn't have to spend too much money and effort on.

They didn't have to work too hard for it was because Apple has the street-cred for turning out some damn good products. Immitation is the best form of flattery, and a look at any computer electronics store will show you the influence Apple has had on the entire industry. From cheap Chinese hardware manufacturers to Microsoft, they're all influenced by Apple's design and implementation ethos.

Now what they did get wrong is closing up the platform. They claim to have reasons for it. Frankly, I don't know what their reasons are, but I won't get any of these locked down platforms until I know they're open. That's a choice you can make as a consumer.

Apple is a company which, although certainly not perfect, hasn't really been all that evil until now, and in some cases, has done some good. So there really isn't any reason to get nasty about it.

Re:Makes me wonder

[grrrl]

The n95 is pretty clunky, and the whirly menus gave me a headache (didn't help the navigation was terrible), but maybe I haven't used a new phone (apart from iPhone) for a while so perhaps all new phone menus are that obtuse. (I was a little drunk and it wasn't my phone, but damned if I could figure it out)

Re:Makes me wonder

[J.Y.Kelly]

Your statement is only true IF Apple didn't sell phones in the UK (to name just one country with such a law). They do.

Not yet they don't (although they have announced that they're going to).

Also, UK law isn't as strict on this as people think. You are allowed to lock a phone to a provider whilst you are under the contract in which the phone was provided. Only after the contract has expired do you have the right to get the phone unlocked.

The interesting part is that you can buy out your contract at any point (which will probably cost you all of the monthly fees for the rest of the contract term as a lump sum). I'd be interested to see what happens if someone buys an iPhone with an O2 contract then immediately buys their way out of the contract and tells O2 they want the phone unlocked. There were various posters who were baiting the Register to try to get them do do this.

Re:Makes me wonder

[oliverthered]

He could always switch to TMobile, they have unlimited data for the same price.

Re:Makes me wonder

[geeknado]

from a development perspective it is far far easier to say no third party apps than to put in place the stuff needed to protect the rest of the system from them. No question! I guess my point really is about customer expectation rather than technical difficulty-- Symbian and Windows Mobile Smartphones are not closed ecosystems and this one is. As reasonable as that choice may seem, particularly since it was something they broadcast prior to launch, that leads to people trying to put their 3rd party apps /anyway/. You wind up with a snafu as the vendor tries to lock things back down again, particularly if that choice winds up breaking expensive hardware.

'Course, the apparent fact that the recent hacks are going in via a well-known Safari issue that's been resolved elsewhere somewhat invalidates their choice if security was their main concern. It'll be interesting to see if we see any iPhone-targetted virii...

Re:Makes me wonder

[Rogerborg]

So, how many PPC machines do you own?

• [ ] 1 (the Student level zealot)
• [ ] 2-5 (the Self Employed Artist level zealot)
• [ ] 6+ (the True Believer zealot)
• [ ] Shut up, that's why.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Rogerborg]

Wow, with all the loving you're giving them, they're sure to never pull another stunt like peddling you obsolete PPC shit while telling you that it's premium-grade Shinola.

Re:Makes me wonder

[robin]

Viruses.

Re:Makes me wonder

[geeknado]

Yep. Guilty. Bad me.

Re:Makes me wonder

[EmptyHead]

In the long run, cell phone contracts aren't that great of a deal if you want high-end techy phones -- ESPECIALLY if you work or travel frequently overseas. When I'm in the US I only use pre-paid services. To do this, I typically have to use imported unlocked GSM phones as I prefer not to buy hacked unlocked phones.

I currently am using an HP 6915 that was imported from England long before the US version was made available. It has worked all over Africa, South America and many parts of the US (some parts of the US still don't have GSM service).

The iPhone in its hacked form does work overseas and is a lot more responsive than my Windows crippled HP mess. If the iPhone had a real GPS in it I might consider risking a purchase and then unlocking it.

In short, we don't all buy phone/network combinations. Some of use work very had to avoid such inconveniences.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Manuscript Replica]

Jesus Christ where do you people come up with this shit

Re:Makes me wonder

[stewbacca]

Well, embarrassing for me only if I somehow missed the sarcasm? He stated blankly that the iPod touch has the same limitations as the iPhone, stating that AT&T is to blame for said limitations. Since AT&T has nothing to do with the touch, then I fail to see how "that was his point". Please enlighten me so as to avoid further embarrassment.

Re:Makes me wonder

[cthulhu11]

If you want an open phone, there are several on the market or very close to market that will work MUCH better

Great! PLEASE tell me which they are so that I can get one so that I can do full syncing of Addressbook and iCal info without dropping multiple phone numbers or recurring events.

Oh, those other phones can't do that? Guess they don't work MUCH better, do they?

Re:Makes me wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

With contract law the way it is, if you ever do sign a contract that has those terms as part of the agreement, you had beter learn how to breath Parkay and the Moon had better come with airbags when you're done with it. It's either that or prepare to be bitchslapped by the Judge in court for being such an obvious idiot and/or knowingly accepting a contract with someone in bad faith.

You did read that contract and understand what you were agreeing to before signing it, didn't you?

Re:Makes me wonder

[bandmassa]

Those countries will probably never get iPhone :-/ I'm an Apple fanboi, I despise the Dozer my employer inflicts on me as it falls over every 5 minutes and I love my G4 iBook, but the whole iPhone thing is... well, it's completely Macroslop. Give me any smart phone over this crap from Apple.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Threni]

> Those countries will probably never get iPhone

The UK gets them next month, although it has to be said that in the sort of countries with such progressive mobile phone laws there are already superior alternatives - ie phones with touch screens, 3G support etc etc.

Re:Makes me wonder

[bandmassa]

Yes, of course, I guess I was being Australocentric ;-)

The iphone as it's current product structure is a frightful rip off, though (However, I do grudgingly covet the technology it represents. ;-)

Re:Makes me wonder

[blackest_k]

... the IPhone contract in the UK is appalling.

1: you have to pay for the phone, no one pays for a phone on contract in the uk they all come free with the contract. not true, the majority of phones are discounted to free, or very near free in return for signing a contract. My phone cost me £130 however it is my phone/pda not t-mobiles. In return i agreed to sign up for a phone plan. I chose a flex plan which suits me fine web and walk costs me £1 a day when i use it (I could pay £7.50 a month but mostly I use wifi on my own broadband connection). I do not have to use this pdaphone with my t-mobile sim (actually currently I don't as its in for repair) however I am locked into a contract with t-mobile which currently I am using with an unlocked razor v3.

Just to make things clear, I own my phones one of which was bought through t-mobile at a discounted price. I also own a contract which I use with a t-mobile sim which can go in any unlocked phone. I also am free to run any ap which runs on windows mobile or on linux as my phone will boot linux too. I can pay for ringtones or setup an existing mp3 as a ringtone. I can load tv and film recordings made with mythtv, I can load and run gps software. I can take my pda/phone abroad and put in a local sim card.

I am very happy with my phone and the price i paid for it and separately very happy with my phone plan.

I agree the iPhone deals in the uk are appalling.

Ofcom seems to have guide lines that say phone networks should unlock phones for a reasonable fee, and mostly they do, I don't believe there is a law compelling operators to unlock phones in the UK.

The iPhone contract may be unreasonable and uncompetitive but is probably legal.

Re:Makes me wonder

[aaarrrgggh]

The thing fundamentally missing from this argument is the reality of the cell phone coverage in the US.

Today I was less than 100' from a cell tower, and unable to use my iPhone with AT&T's Edge network. The service I purchased my iPhone to use is not usable.

The question then becomes who is responsible? My Blackberry used to work fine at that location, both on AT&T. Is Apple responsible because their partner network doesn't work, or is AT&T responsible, because they can't provide the service they advertise?

In the end, I don't care who is responsible; I just want to be able to use my phone in a location that someone provides service at a reasonable rate. The reality today is that Apple is preventing this basic functionality, which makes me want my money back...

Re:Makes me wonder

[perlchild]

Isn't think like buying a modem AND a landline, but not being able to purchase them seperately?

Re:Makes me wonder

[perlchild]

It's not 6000$ less, it's "we say we cut 6000 on the price, but it will only work with..."

You can't buy it from an independant source though...

Re:Makes me wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

There may be an obligation in the agreement between Apple and AT&T that the iPhone must initially be sold so that it must be on AT&T's network, but there cannot be a legal obligation for Apple to force the phone to stay on that network. In fact, according to Apple, they are not breaking unlocked phones at all--they are merely vehemently failing to support unlocked or hacked phones, which is perfectly reasonable by the terms of their warranty.

Certainly, Apple may have a moral responsibility to their consumers to keep the phone secure, but I am quite certain that they have no legal responsibility to do the same.

Re:Makes me wonder

[wealthychef]

I agree. I am so close to moving back to my Treo it's not funny. 1) No to-do list 2) ATT sucks, verizon is reliable 3) No copy/paste 4) No 3rd-party apps 5) Cannot sync notepad with Macintosh 6) Web apps are ridiculously slow and only available when a network is, which is not when you are in Costco or Lowe's apparently as I've found. Grrr. Treo sounds better every day -- I paid the Verizon penalty and sold my Treo way too cheap and way too early -- dumb! Now I have to do the reverse.... sell my iPhone cheap and buy out ATT contract and go back to Treo, where I can actually take notes and synch my notepad with my Macintosh. That'

Re:Makes me wonder

[Reaperducer]

So are you saying that they shouldn't patch the vulnerabilities, that they shouldn't release new firmware at all

Sounds like SonyEricsson. One of the reasons I defected from Ericsson to the iPhone is Apple's long and well documented history of adding new features with its updates.

Meanwhile, Sony is EOLing $500 phones mere months after they're sold and refusing to put out firmware fixes for known bugs. *cough*M600i*cough*

Sorry, SE -- no more money for you. You forced me right into Apple's arms.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Reaperducer]

Today I was less than 100' from a cell tower, and unable to use my iPhone with AT&T's Edge network.

Was it an AT&T cell phone tower? If you're standing next to a Sprint tower it's not going to do you any good. Duh!

Re:Makes me wonder

[Reaperducer]

Any why would that be any of AT&T's interest? One word: Skype.

That would make sense, except for T-Mobile's Hotspot At Home.

The cell phone companies are starting to realize that marrying wireless and VOIP is a good thing because it means they have to put less money into upgrading and expanding the expensive wireless netowrk. T-Mobile was first. Eveyone else will follow.

Well

[Deag]

iphucing love the name

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

iPhorone welcome our IPhucing overlords

Re:Well

[rtyhurst]

I'm looking forward to those guys finding a hack that will turn an XBox 36O into an iPhone...

Dumb user's guide to hacking my iPhone

[sam.thorogood]

So, I live in the Netherlands, and I want an iPhone. What does this mean for me? Does rw filesystem access imply that I can break whatever part of the phone it is that allows me to use other SIM cards? Or does it just help application developers? Is there any place/website I can just go to and find out the "current status" of what I can do with specific firmware revision? Without digging through the developer forums, or idling in IRC asking stupid questions?

Re:Dumb user's guide to hacking my iPhone

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any place/website I can just go to and find out the "current status" of what I can do with specific firmware revision? Without digging through the developer forums, or idling in IRC asking stupid questions?

Sure, you can always come to slashdot to ask stupid questions. : p

Re:Dumb user's guide to hacking my iPhone

[kyofunikushimi]

Well, certainly no way that will net you better results and more accurate information, no. But a quick Google search garners a few ad-ridden possibilities, such as http://www.iphone-hacks.com/. However, I'd recommend you buck up and start digging through the dev forums.

Re:Dumb user's guide to hacking my iPhone

[vtcodger]

***So, I live in the Netherlands, and I want an iPhone.***

Why would you want one of those things when the manufacturer clearly isn't interested in what their customers want/need? Unless you are just interested in the fun of engaging in a brawl (which you will likely be on the losing side of) why not wait a while for someone to come up with an iPhone like device that actually does what you want/need it to do out of the box?

Re:Dumb user's guide to hacking my iPhone

[Anonymous Coward]

Not very slashdot like. Suggesting someone wait for a company to come out with a device. Where would opensource be today if everyone was like you..

Re:Dumb user's guide to hacking my iPhone

[hadleyhope]

I guess the iPhone does exactly what this person wants/needs!

Re:Dumb user's guide to hacking my iPhone

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.nu.nl/news/1268232/50/Webwinkel_verkoopt_iPhone_in_Nederland.html ;-)

Keep your stuff updated..

[comm2k]

Apparently they used the same vulnerability to hack the PSP.

Re:Keep your stuff updated..

[Constantine XVI]

It's not the same hole, it just happens that TIFF is a very holey format.

Re:Keep your stuff updated..

[iknowcss]

It's not the same hole, it just happens that TIFF is a very holey format.

From my experience, TIFF is the spawn of SATAN

( Maybe not ... )

Lol

[Skatox]

Hackers win again!! When Apple will learn?

Re:Lol

[Hitchcock_Blonde]

Learn what, exactly?

Great

[thatskinnyguy]

Now that the hack is being posted all over the in-tar-web, Apple is sure to release a patch to brick all cracked devices.

Re:Great

[ichigo 2.0]

Don't patch until there is a working hack for the new patch. And yes, a new hack will always surface.

Re:Great

[Tony Hoyle]

They need to patch anyway.

Every single iphone and touch is running a vulnerable safari (using a year out of date libtiff). Once the virus writers get hold of this then there'll be all sorts of stuff going on.

Of course the hacked phones will be immune as one of the first things that will be done is fix the bug. :p

Re:Great

[kyofunikushimi]

Well, it sure isn't being posted YET. Looks like they're still a few hours out, at a minimum. And I'm sure Apple is working on crafting a patch for the TIFF vulnerability right this very second.

From the article:

# Thus far the hack isn't entirely without issues. We're still trying to determine exactly what's what, but we've lost read and write access unexpectedly. This may or may not be a problem with our machine or device, though, and not necessarily the hack.

# We did not test this method on an iPhone, but technically there should be no difference in the effect. Side note: your v1.1.1 iPhone would, at this time, need to be activated to load the TIFF. (How else are you gonna load it?) This is supposedly being worked on.

Re:Great

[Prod_Deity]

I never used Jailbreak before and don't plan to.
Let me know when iToner works again.
It was foolish of me to update from 1.0.2.

Re:Great

[confused_demon]

Everyone should just use the image as their signature that way anyone using the iphone for one of the approved purposes (web browsing) will end up hacking their iphones. Once 90% of all iphones are 'hacked,' even without 3rd party apps installed on them, Apple really won't be able to do any more 'ibricking.'

What AT&Apple are trying to avoid is someone figuring out how to run skype on the iphone and just running the iphone without any sort of contract that sends them monthly fees. What's funny is that Tmobile has just introduced a phone that lets you do just that.

Re:Great

[Gr8Apes]

First, if you're hacking your iPhone, why on earth are you patching it from Apple?

Second, if you're hacking your iPhone, you probably should be smart enough to patch it yourself, or at least use a patch coming from the same community that created your hack.

I mainly see the "bricking complaint" as nothing more than some of PT Barnum's quotes being acted out in RL.

Re:Great

[DDLKermit007]

Funny, many other phones have done that for ages. My N95 has done that since day 1 via SIP, and Skype via Fring shortly after. T-Mobile at least has the sense to get on board after the ship has already sailed on VOIP via cellphones. The other providers just refuse to be bothered with carrying phones that can do that outside of WM phones which, is kind of saddening.

Soubds like alot of work

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it be easier to buy an phone/mp3 player that isn't crippled?

Re:Soubds like alot of work

[Erikderzweite]

Sure, one just have to wait till openmoko's Neo 1973 is ready. It has almost everything an iPhone has (safe for camera), plus GPS, plus no vendor-locking.
AND you can replace the battery if you like!

Re:Soubds like alot of work

[Lectoid]

Where's the fun in that?

Re:Soubds like alot of work

[Joe Jay Bee]

Indeed. I got me an O2 XDA, does just about everything the iPhone can (with the addition of a microSD card, of course...) and more. And it was free with my contract. Yeah, it's not as trendy, yeah, it's Windows Mobile, but it works for me. Wouldn't touch an iPhone to save my life.

Re:Soubds like alot of work

[Joe Tie.]

It has almost everything an iPhone has (safe for camera)

Well, that's depressing. I'd really been looking forward to the neo as a platform that'd finally be the all in one phone/pda/camera/mp3player to free up my pocket. It never even occurred to me that a phone could come out in this day and age without a camera built in. Having a video recorder around at all times can be really nice.

Re:Soubds like alot of work

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh, sounds like the Kaiser, except the Kaiser is already out.

Re:Soubds like alot of work

[cduffy]

Different strokes, I guess. I explicitly look for to buy a phone without a camera -- meaning I can keep my phone with me (on silent, of course) in courthouses and other places where cameras aren't allowed. It's getting harder and harder to find a decent phone without a tiny little uselessly crappy camera grafted on; the Neo having no camera at all is thus from my perspective a very significant feature.

(I can appreciate having a camera around the office to record whiteboard contents; that's about the only thing I ever use them for -- and with the whiteboard content density I typically work at, cell phone cameras are typically too low resolution to do a good job without all the hassle of combining together multiple shots).

Re:Soubds like alot of work

[the_humeister]

It would be, but then you don't get mad-props for hacking a supposedly unhackable phone, don't get the media attention that you want, and most importantly: you don't get the Mac community's panties in a bunch.

Re:Soubds like alot of work

[stewbacca]

Don't let the "it has a camera!" crowd fool you. Save for some drunken pub crawls, the camera feature is awful (as it is on EVERY cell phone). The integration of taking pictures and emailing them or putting them on your computer is pretty flawless, but the image quality is crap. I took three or four pictures of my kid in the shade and I got three or four different color casts. Sometimes blue, usually green, but never even close to decent.

Re:Soubds like alot of work

[Anonymous Coward]

In short, no. The iPhone was hacked for a reason: people love it and want more; be it use on a different network, third-party apps, customization. Every device is limited to the vision and implementation of its creator. To envision new features and in order to extend the implementation one has to take matters into their own hands (i.e. hack the iPhone/iPod touch).

Re:Soubds like alot of work

[abnoctos]

it is certainly much easier to *make* a phone/mp3 player that is not an iphone/ipod. but i'm not sure i get your point. since when is the easiest path the most rewarding? or interesting? but you should surely do what you feel.

Re:Soubds like alot of work

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, one just have to wait till openmoko's Neo 1973 is ready. It has almost everything an iPhone has...

no. it has NOTHING an iphone has. as long as it's not yet in the market, i consider that vaporware.

Re:Soubds like alot of work

[DDLKermit007]

Pick yourself up a Nokia N95. Best cellphone camera I've ever had the pleasure of owning. 5MP Carl Zeis inside.

Re:Soubds like alot of work

[GaryPatterson]

I don't know about that last bit. As part of the Mac community I'm happy for people to hack their iPhones and I'm wondering how all this will turn out. Of course, I did miss the global meeting on Tuesday night to discuss the community's unified reaction, so I may have to recant and swallow hemlock.

Re:Soubds like alot of work

[GaryPatterson]

So... you're saying that if I want a product with features X, Y and Z then I shouldn't buy one with features A, B and C and hope that I can hack it to work the way I wanted?

Madness! Pure madness! No wonder you posted anonymously, you must be ashamed of your attitude (yes, you must!)

Re:Soubds like alot of work

[Tug3]

Wouldn't it be easier to buy an phone/mp3 player that isn't crippled?

I absolutely agree with you!

It would be MUCH easier to BUY for example a Nokia phone that can play MP3s. - The problem is the using part...

I got an iPhone a month ago (just after the price drop), and as I live in Finland, I had to unlock it for it to be usefull at all. I've had several Nokias & some SonyEricssons too. They're all very good mobile phones (some better than others), but as for MP3 players - they all more or less suck. And not forgetting web browsing, or email. Until I got the iPhone I had two Nokias, a 9300i communicator & N80ie.

Both good phones, and I loved the 9300i's keyboard & big screen. Very good for email. Also excellent phone side. (Unlike the new E90...) The problems with 9300i were the total lack of camera. Thus I missed a lot of shots I could have taken. Also the web browser was so hard to use, I never actually used it - unless I really had to. But still it is the best Nokia I've come accross. The N80 on the other hand has lot's of cool features. It also has a camera, that is also waay better than the iPhones. (Not talking about megapixels here, but actual picture quality.) Also I have TomTom for the N80, and that is absolutely great piece of software. Also the reason why I still have the phone, and use it when I need a portable navigator. (Maybe I should buy a separate navigator, but I'm hoping to survive like this until iPhone get's a proper navigator.) As a phone the N80 is ok, but as for MP3 player - useless. And for the web browsing, well only for emergencies. And as for the email - it's not even for emergencies.

So, for even with these basic needs I have, the iPhone has really answered well. The browser is far the best I've seen on any mobile. The email client could improve, but still beats hands down the most. The camera is poor quality, but it does take pictures - and for quality I prefer my Nikon SLR. After all, all mobile phones are crappy cameras compared to even a real 100 euro pocket camera, even the Nokia N93i. - As for usability and stability? Well, they is something unheard of in the mobile phone business.

I do hope the iPhone will kick some Nokia ass, to get them really moving. Actually rethinking about their strategy. They used to have usable and stable phones back in the 90's. Then they got lost somewhere. I hope they will take a lesson from Apple's first go at mobile phones, and start remaking easy to use and rock solid phones. They could do it, if the marketing droids could be silenced for a while...

LOLROFLMAOBBQOMGPOS

[MyLongNickName]

When will you learn? Apple knows it will never stop hackers 100%. If they make it risky and a pain, then these hacks will not be widely applied. If less than 1% of their customer base hack their phone, then AT&T is happy. Apple gets lucrative licensing fees and their stock price goes up. This is the bottom line of ALL publicly owned companies.

Kudos to the hackers. But kudos also to Apple for their bricking strategy. Spread FUD, increase shareholder wealth.

Not a long term solution

[uglydog]

according to the article since the TIFF exploit can be patched. I understand it's a "cat and mouse game", but I was wondering why there can't be a more permanent solution, like creating an image that can be restored using the iTunes Restore function.

This is great news and I'd like to know how do you get started learning how to hack the iPhone? I found stuff that explains how the jail breaking works, but not how it was discovered or what was tried, etc. Blogs, logs, etc would be cool.

Re:Not a long term solution

[jaredmauch]

Google iPhone Dev Wiki

Re:Not a long term solution

[Tiberius_Fel]

It's plausible that they are working on such a long term solution right now, but they have discovered this one quickly. This way they can release this unlock right away and then work on a more permanent one instead of having to wait until the long term solution is finished.

Re:Not a long term solution

[ZachPruckowski]

according to the article since the TIFF exploit can be patched. I understand it's a "cat and mouse game", but I was wondering why there can't be a more permanent solution, like creating an image that can be restored using the iTunes Restore function.

Any exploit can be patched, but odds are good that there are at least dozens of exploits in mobileSafari. Once you run out of those, there's mobileMail, and the Wireless iTMS. Finally, you could clone the software on the iPhone, modify it on a computer, and impersonate iTunes to the iPhone and convince it to "update" off of that.

The difficulty with having a cracked image that you just copy back over after updates is that you would then lose the benefit of the updates. Hackers would have to update the changed libraries selectively. This is sort of what OSx86 does, and it results in an ugly patchwork of "half-1.1.1, half-1.0.2" software. It kinda works, but it can seriously compromise stability.

Re:Not a long term solution

[John Whitley]

I was wondering why there can't be a more permanent solution, like creating an image that can be restored using the iTunes Restore function. Most embedded devices with upgradeable firmware have mechanisms to validate new firmware images, e.g. against corruption during the transfer to the device (or downloading before that). Many such devices also decrypt the image and/or verify a cryptographic signature as part of the verification process. Then there's the need to understand the firmware upgrade process sufficiently well so that attempts at a "third-party" upgrade won't just brick the device.

Dealing directly with the firmware upgrade process is generally a bit more involved than the buffer-overflow approach. In some sense, that's the "guarded front gate". Tho I'll note that the buffer-overflow tack might eventually be used to create a back-door that could survive firmware upgrades, even when other installed apps were invalidated by the new firmware.

Re:Not a long term solution

[uglydog]

Thanks! Exactly what I was looking for. I was googling 'how the iPhone was jail broken' :-/

Nice summer job

[ThirdPrize]

I bet Sony and Apple both have an intern whose sole job it is to churn out new FW for the PSP and iPhone/Touches. Ocasionally they will slip in a few bug fixes and patches for security holes. Other than that they will end up releasing one update a week with the hackers always a week behind.

Re:Nice summer job

[Aladrin]

Wrong. If there's no bugfixes or patches in the update, the 'hackers' aren't a week behind, they are merely hours behind. And if there's no update anyhow, why bother upgrading? Anyone with a hacked device doesn't update unless there's a new feature they want in the new firmware, so constant updates don't -do- anything to the hacked devices and hackers, except fill a bit of their free time and give them a chance to further hack the system.

The PSP is a good example of that. They had to rely on bugs like the TIFF exploit for a long time, until someone figured out how to hack the updates. Lately, they've even figured out how to hack the BATTERY to update the firmware to whatever they want with no trouble. I think this attack even works on the new PSPs as well now, so Sony has real issues on their hands trying to stop hackers.

The more updates and changes you make, the more knowledge you give the hackers. Every new encryption key for the firmware is another piece of data to help them crack that key and generate their own.

More updates is actually -bad- for the manufacturer, not good.

Re:Nice summer job

[Anonymous Coward]

Every new encryption key for the firmware is another piece of data to help them crack that key and generate their own

No. Please read any entry level book into modern crypto.

Re:Nice summer job

[Anonymous Coward]

And the assumptions to modern cryptography break down when Alice = Bob, so your point is invalid.

Re:Nice summer job

[Serhei]

So all the hackers need to do is find that intern and bribe him with a real job.

Re:Nice summer job

[Anonymous Coward]

> So all the hackers need to do is find that intern and bribe him with a real job.

No, because that would just create a cat and mouse game between the hackers and Apple's HR department.

Re:Nice summer job

[Anonymous Coward]

No. See previous entry. Don't assume what's not stated there.

Re:Sounds like alot of work

[jaredmauch]

Problem is that compared to most phones people have owned in the past (at least here in the US), this phone is the least crippled of any that one has owned. Yes, there are a few things that are less than optimal (double activation, lack of tethering). Taking the example of my old Nokia 6230, it was a mp3 player, had a FM radio, had email client and numerous other features that made me repurchase the identical phone when my original was slowly developing some hardware issues with the microphone. The Email, web, etc.. on it sucked. The bluetooth didn't work unless you sent it to get flashed with what is still the latest firmware. It was crippled with some cingular customizations, (you can send the phone to a 3rd party to get them to undo that), yet it was still a good operable phone, etc..

With an iPhone, i now have a full (not the wap garbage) web browser, something that knows how to seek in a mp3/podcast, the ability to do E-Mail, and most of the other things that Nokia didn't get right over the years. I'd looked at other phones, such as the E60, etc... to cover me but they still have serious issues. The polish that apple brings to this space gets rid of all the rough edges. I now have a different set of issues with my phone, but the utility of the current device (in my life) makes those mostly small things. Of course i'd love to be able to ssh from the phone, but would you really want to type your password/passphrase 90 times on the touch keyboard? (because hopefully you're not using a word in the dictionary? ;) Running vi would be a massive pain as well.

The issues with the iPhone at least leave the promise of them getting fixed in a newer release that *I* can install at home instead of shipping the phone to a far away service center and who knows when they will update it. I can also file bug reports that get reponses at my hardware/software provider. Much better than the old status-quo for cellular phones. Do I wish it was better, of course! Do I hope that the double activation goes away? Yes! Do I have faith that someone will find a workaround, even if it is via JTAG or some other creative solution set? Yes, it's a large enough target. It's also large enough that apple can't ignore it. Me? I'm watching what's going on with the french iPhone launch.

Out of the loop..

[s31523]

This crack sounds great! Um, could someone explain to me why it is useful? Sorry, I guess I am out of the iStuff loop...

Re:Out of the loop..

[Anonymous Coward]

go fuck yourself.

Opportunity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only person here who reads that there is a vulnerability in the way iPhone handles TIFF files who immediately thinks that this is a massive security problem that needs to be addressed immediately? Sure, a handful of people will make use of this to open up their iPhone. Good for you. However, for everyone else, this is just a hole waiting to be exploited by someone posting a malicious TIFF onto a website or in an email and luring the iPhone users to view the TIFF causing havoc.

Re:Opportunity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, but is the portable version of Safari the only version affected?

Re:Opportunity?

[koutkeu]

Why would i care? TV commercials keep telling Apple products are not affected by viruses

Jail Break How-To

[Chris_Stankowitz]

Reposted from: http://www.iphonealley.com/news/iphone-v1-1-1-jailbreak-apptapp-installation-guide

Jailbreaking Steps

1. Sync and pray
1. Sync your iPhone with iTunes. You'll be losing all of your information, so it's a good idea to back up
2. Downgrade to v1.0.2
1. Hold down the Sleep/Wake and Home buttons at the same time for about 10 seconds. The phone should shut down.
2. When the phone shuts down, release the Sleep/Wake button but continue holding Home
3. Wait until iTunes recognizes the iPhone. The screen will appear to be off, but iTunes will eventually recognize the iPhone. When it does, let go.
4. A message will appear telling you to restore. Click OK
5. Using your favorite browser, download the v1.0.2 software from this location. You may need to rename to .ipsw if it comes as a .zip
6. Back in iTunes, hold Option on the Mac or Shift on the PC while clicking Restore. Navigate to the software you downloaded and select it.
7. The phone will restore, but it will fail. This is normal.
8. Your iPhone should show a yellow triangle. Run Nullriver's AppTapp. It should bring you back to the Activation step on the phone and show an error in the application. Disregard the error.
9. Run AppTapp again and it should succeed.
10. If not using an AT&T SIM, use INdependence to activate your iPhone. That's it!
3. Create Symlink
1. If you haven't already, install Nullriver's AppTapp
2. Go to http://conceitedsoftware.com/iphone/beta in iPhone's Safari. Tap "Yes" to add to Installer
3. Plug iPhone in and open iTunes. Make sure it's recognized before proceeding
4. Using Installer, install "Trip1Prepz" located under "System"
4. Upgrade to v1.1.1
1. In iTunes click "Upgrade" and not Restore. Restoring will ruin our progress.
2. Once upgraded to 1.1.1, close iTunes
5. Jailbreak
1. Download iPHUC and friends from Rapidshare
2. Extract the contents so that iphuc, fstab, and iphonefs are all on the Desktop
3. If you don't have libreadline, download it and extract the zip to your Macintosh HD
4. Open Terminal.app located in Applications>Utilities
5. Type cd ~/Desktop and hit return
6. Type ./iphuc and hit return
7. Type getfile

Re:Jail Break How-To

[Anonymous Coward]

49 steps with several reboots, and several instances of doing multiple things simultaneously?

How about no steps, and let it "just work"?

Re:Jail Break How-To

[sRev]

That's all?

Re:iPhuc?

[gEvil (beta)]

Who said total nerds weren't funny? It's a wonder with comedy like this more pocket protector types don't get laid.

Well, according to the name of the program, at least one does...

Ok, so I don't have an iPhone...

[Anonymous Coward]

... so what worries me (and the article doesn't say) is: Does this vulnerability affect the desktop version of Safari as well, or (as someone else suggested) does the iPhone firmware merely have an out of date version of the TIFF library?

TIFF image exploit?

[Anonymous Coward]

So let me get this straight: if an image handling vulnerability is in IE or Firefox, it's deplorable, but if it's in an iPhone, it's the greatest thing ever?

If you cretins don't like the iPhone's contract terms, DON'T BUY ONE.

Re:TIFF image exploit?

[Durzel]

Well you're almost right.

If it's an image handling vulnerability in IE then the skies are falling and it's featured on the front page of Slashdot.

If the same vulnerability appears in Firefox then it's trivial and automatically "nothing to worry about" simply because it's OSS.

If it's a vulnerability in iPhone then Apple intended it to be there in the first place and it's the users who are mistaken in thinking it was a problem.

Re:TIFF image exploit?

[mrjb]

The difference is- an image handling vulnerability is in IE or Firefox is a bug. In the iPhone, it happened to be a feature.

Re:TIFF image exploit?

[JohnWhitney]

If you cretins don't like the iPhone's contract terms, DON'T BUY ONE.
1. My iPhone did not come with a contract. I carefully looked through the box it came in, and none of the documents included came with a contract. Turning on the iPhone, it said I needed to activate it. This also is not a contract. When I then activated my phone via one of the non-iTunes tools, no contract was signed. There was no EULA and no click-through license I had to agree to. Please tell me which iPhone contract you are referring to that I agreed to.

2. It is my legal right to circumvent the DMCA in order to unlock my iPhone to work with other carriers. Why are you so adamant that I should not exercise my legal rights? I'm not hurting you or your iPhone, so why do you care? I guess those guys that reflash their Linksys wireless APs with more capable firmware are also on your list. Not to mention those bastards who put Linux on the iPaq PDA, or the iPod. After all, if we don't like what we get from the Gods of Apple, we just shouldn't buy it, right?

Firmware is an uncountable noun

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no plural form. There is no trailing "s".

Re:Firmware is an uncountable noun

[Anonymous Coward]

Your right. At most, there could be a trailing 'z'...

according to the Mac community

[Fizzl]

Or "scientists think that...".

Re:Sounds like alot of work

[Erikderzweite]

Future versions are promised to include a camera as well. In the meantime one may connect an USB camera although it is not an elegant solution.
But a camera is not on the list of wanted features for me. I'll buy myself such Neo for Christmas (hope it'll be ready till then).

The people behind openmoco are really awesome - they were willing to give up WLAN because there were no chipsets with open drivers. Luckily they have found aetheros chipset afterwards, so 1973 will support wireless networking.
Such approach is very rare in the times of profit-at-all-cost companies. They have earned my respect by having principles.

Hacker handles

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Hackers Niacin Riboflavin would have been a much more badass handle.

For Example: Soviet Union and South Korea

[Johnny Mozzarella]

In the Soviet Union the firmware is under legal obligation to maintain you for 5 years.

In South Korea only old people maintain their firmware.

iPhuc???

[steve_thatguy]

I didn't know Apple had a sex-toy product line.

Re:iPhuc???

[chill]

Wow, are you behind the times.

I assume...

[Y-Crate]

...that Firmwares Jailbroken is the name of the Finnish hacker who cracked the iPod?

I'd just like to point out

[SpiritGod21]

Apple's firmware division is not in charge of Gundam.

Re:I'd just like to point out

[seandiggity]

I for one welcome our Gundam-loving, wiki-editing, Japanese Agricultural Ministry overlords.

Re:I'd just like to point out

[TheBOfN]

In Soviet Russia, Gundam is in charge.

Re:I'd just like to point out

[Neuticle]

That... it's so... My god, IT'S FULL OF STARS

My head asplode.

TIFF for the root

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't see anything that said otherwise, but doesn't this mean that someone could get root on your iPhone just by visiting a website with a special TIFF?

NOT insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you cretins don't like the iPhone's contract terms, DON'T BUY ONE."

Why does it bother you that people are modifying their own property? I really don't understand:'

a) why does it bother you that people are hacking their own phone?
b) why do you think people can't manipulate their own property?
c) why does modifying your own property make you a "cretin"?
d) do you think that when apple does bad things, it's usually because their goals are good?

Apple II on

[wbean]

Since the begining of time (roughly 1981) users have been hacking Apple products. If you wanted lower case letters on an Apple II you had to solder in an extra wire on the keyboard. This voided the warranty but never seemed to cause any real-world problems. In the past Apple has tolerated this sort of activity; only a limited number of people did it and it and Apple didn't suffer. The difference this time around is that Apple is trampling all over this unspoken arrangement. Instead of tolerating the small number of people who want to mess with their iPhone so they can use TMobile instead of ATT (now tell me again why you want to do that?) Apple has decided to make a Federal case out of it.

They are perfectly within their rights to do so, but I don't think the benefit will make up for the damage to their reputation.

Hyperbole

[stewbacca]

massive security problem?

Hackers accessing the NSA mainframe is a "massive security problem". My iPhone hardly qualifies as any sort of security problem, no matter how unsecure it may be.

Re:Hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue is that the same TIFF handling library is most likely used in other products and operating systems.

There is ONE valid argument, though

[Anonymous Coward]

If the iPhone doesn't have hard segregation between the air component and the application space there is indeed one argument that is valid: providers are understandable very worried about anyone modding the air interface to start hacking the phone carrier networks.

If so it betrays quite a lot of nervousness about the robustness of false signal rejection, and 2600 would ride again in a more advanced form (come to think of it, I suddenly realised that 'talk' is back amongst us, we just call it IM now, but I digress :-).

However, that is then a design weakness (IMHO) and I wonder how Apple managed to swing that then in the light of the money they're currently extracting from AT&T.

Anyone any idea how the iPhone separates the two, or maybe how it doesn't? Could be quite an oopsie..

Profit Optimization == Stupid

[LKM]

In fact, Apple would be negligent and unethical if they did not act in the best interests of their stockholders.

Yeah, that's bullshit. The most vocal shareholders usually value short-term gain. A corporation would be stupid to give in to that, but it seems what Apple is doing lately. Apple stayed alive next to Windows because they focused on the user. Apple is the number one MP3 seller because their product is better. Everyone wants an iPhone because the user experience blows everything else away.

In other words, Apple is successful because they give their customers what the customers want.

Recently, they have started to do small-ish things that annoy their customers while pleasing other corporations, or simply helping their own bottom line. Not allowing you to use music you legally own as ringtones. Selling special cables for video out on iPods. Not selling the iPhone unlocked. Not allowing third-party native iPhone apps.

These are crappy decisions. Yes, they make them money short-term. Yes, they make the shareholders happy. No, they are not good for the company, because they destroy the very thing that has allowed Apple to remain alive against Microsoft, and become successful against many other companies: Their focus on their customers.

So screw the shareholders. If Apple wants to remain the success that it is, it needs to value the customer, not the shareholder. Success brings a good stock price, not vice versa.

Re:Profit Optimization == Stupid

[MightyYar]

Yeah, that's bullshit. It's not bullshit, it's their primary responsibility.

The most vocal shareholders usually value short-term gain. This is often quite true, and it is often the fault of the management for catering to that type of investor. Still, acting in the best interest of the stockholders is their primary responsibility, even if it means largely ignoring some of their immediate wishes.

A corporation would be stupid to give in to that, but it seems what Apple is doing lately. Depends. I certainly can't fault K-Mart's execs for buying Sears and then basically liquidating the company. Really, K-Mart could not compete with Wal-Mart and a graceful liquidation sure gets the investors more bang for their buck than bankruptcy. I don't really see how locking down the iPhone hurts Apple in the long term.

I disagree that what kept Apple (barely) alive was their focus on users. Instead, it was their niche in graphics design and education. Really they have only been delivering "better" products over the last 5 or 6 years, and those have all been pretty locked-down. OSX is, as a practical matter, tied to Apple's hardware. The iPod is not extensible, cannot run 3rd-party apps, and really has access to only Apple's music store. The iPhone is not really any big change for Apple. They are focused on the 99% of users that will be happy with what the phone was advertised to do, not us few geeks that want a native unit converter or native RPN calculator (both of which CAN and have been done as widgets, BTW).

Re:Profit Optimization == Stupid

[LKM]

A corporation would be stupid to give in to that, but it seems what Apple is doing lately. Depends. I certainly can't fault K-Mart's execs for buying Sears and then basically liquidating the company. Really, K-Mart could not compete with Wal-Mart and a graceful liquidation sure gets the investors more bang for their buck than bankruptcy. I don't really see how locking down the iPhone hurts Apple in the long term.

It hurts them because

• They are selling less hardware than they would have sold unlocked
• They are annoying their most loyal customers, the very people who sell other people on Apple's hardware
• They are missing a Business Opportunity: Selling third-party software

Basically, Apple gave up goodwill, sales and money from software sales in order to gain money from AT&T. It's a short-term gain that sacrifices the long-term gain.

I disagree that what kept Apple (barely) alive was their focus on users. Instead, it was their niche in graphics design and education.

Apple's education market was basically dead for the last decade and is only now starting to come back, and the graphics design market isn't too big, and about 50% Windows anyway. Apple stayed alive by selling to the people who care about design and usability, who make informed decisions when buying Computers (and don't just get the cheapest no-name Windows box in their local electronics store), and who are willing to spend money in order to get a better experience.

And now Apple seems to be destroying that very thing which allowed them to remain in the market.

Really they have only been delivering "better" products over the last 5 or 6 years, and those have all been pretty locked-down. OSX is, as a practical matter, tied to Apple's hardware.

I don't see how this is locked down. You buy a Mac. It's not locked down, it's open. You can run anything you want on it. Mac OS X is only locked down if you don't give Apple your money.

The iPod is not extensible,

How is the iPod not extensible? No other MP3 player has more stuff you can extend it with.

cannot run 3rd-party apps,

Actually does run Linux and other OSs. And you can mount it in the Finder and hack it to your heart's contents, you have direct access to the file system. The iPod is not locked down in any way.

and really has access to only Apple's music store.

And emusic.com, and the Amazon MP3 store, and every other store which sells unprotected audio.

The iPhone is not really any big change for Apple.

It actually is. Even a year ago, Apple released the AppleTV. It's basically a standard OS X box with a custom interface. You can easily hack it, add disks, even install a standard copy of OS X on it, run Apache, whatever. The iPhone could have been like that, and it's not.

Finally, I don't see how your argument even applies. I'm complaining about Apple because I don't like what they are doing. Whether it makes financial sense for them to do so is absolutely immaterial to me. I don't care. I think they're missing an opportunity at making even more money here, but even if that was not the case, what Apple is doing would still suck.

Re:Profit Optimization == Stupid

[MightyYar]

You are not part of Apple's target demographic for the iPhone. We can speculate on why, but it would just be speculation. It could be that AT&T demanded the phone be locked down. It could be that Apple rushed the phone out and didn't have time to add features allowing 3rd party applications while maintaining stability. It could be that they are all just a bunch of miserable pricks who wouldn't know a good business decision if it bit them in the ass.

The important thing is that you are not their target demographic. Getting angry at Apple for this is a bit irrational. Do you hate Nickelodeon for not producing good, quality porn? I mean, you supported them by watching their crappy Canadian-produced shows back when you were a kid.

Re:Profit Optimization == Stupid

[ickoonite]

Do you hate Nickelodeon for not producing good, quality porn?

I think you've hit the nail on the head here - this is a brilliant analogy. If you want to watch kids TV, you watch Nickelodeon; if you want porn, you watch the Adult Channel, or whatever. But you don't go moaning at Nickelodeon because they don't show porn. It just doesn't make any sense!

And so it is with the iPhone. It was never sold as a smart phone - that's just what everyone hyped it up to be. It does exactly what it says on the tin, nothing more. If you like it, you buy it; if you don't, fuck the fuck off and get something else! Don't buy it and moan that it doesn't do what you want it to do. Caveat fucking emptor, for fuck's sake.

Hmmm, that was quite a lot of fucking...

iqu :|

Re:Profit Optimization == Stupid

[LKM]

You are not part of Apple's target demographic for the iPhone.

Exactly. But I really want an iPhone because it does everything right that all the other cell phones do wrong (and in fact, I do own a hacked iPhone, and it's the best phone I've ever owned - I just wish I wouldn't have to give up support from Apple in order to change the 2% of the phone that I don't like but really need). So I complain about the things I don't like, hoping that maybe Apple will fix them.

We can speculate on why, but it would just be speculation. It could be that AT&T demanded the phone be locked down. It could be that Apple rushed the phone out and didn't have time to add features allowing 3rd party applications while maintaining stability. It could be that they are all just a bunch of miserable pricks who wouldn't know a good business decision if it bit them in the ass.

Which is why we, their (potential) customers, need to tell them what we would like to see changed. Apple actually does listen to the people who buy their stuff from time to time. Not often, but it's not unheard of :-)

The important thing is that you are not their target demographic. Getting angry at Apple for this is a bit irrational. Do you hate Nickelodeon for not producing good, quality porn? I mean, you supported them by watching their crappy Canadian-produced shows back when you were a kid.

Well, first of all, I'm not angry. It's a cell phone, not the end of the world. And no, I don't complain that Nick doesn't produce pron, but I do complain if I see something in a Nick show that I don't like (not that I watch them anymore, but I would if I did).

Re:Profit Optimization == Stupid

[LKM]

So what you're saying is that the analogy is: The iPhone needs just a few changes to be the perfect phone; and Nick shows need just a few changes to be perfect porn?

You're wrong, of course. While it makes no sense to expect Nick to produce porn, it does make sense to want Apple to make a few changes to the iPhone to make it so much better.

Re:Profit Optimization == Stupid

[MightyYar]

I dunno, Nick shows would make some damn fine kiddy porn with just a bit of tweaking.

I guess I understand people's frustration with the iPhone - I just don't understand when they start calling Apple evil and comparing the release of the iPhone with the release of toxic waste or, sweet Jesus, slavery!

Re:Profit Optimization == Stupid

[LKM]

I just don't understand when they start calling Apple evil

It's not just the iPhone. It's also stuff like the iPod cables. Apple isn't evil (yet), just getting too greedy for its own good.

and comparing the release of the iPhone with the release of toxic waste

Haven't seen that one.

Re:Profit Optimization == Stupid

[MightyYar]

I was referring to this post, where he uses a toxic waste analogy. I just think that people get WAY too wound up emotionally about a silly phone - nice as it is. We'll all be laughing at the things 10 years from now, just like we do the 1980's suitcase and brick phones that seemed so cool back then.

Re:Sounds like alot of work

[Overzeetop]

You must have Verizon or US Cellular, or some similar "fuck the customer" phone. I went to Cingular (now AT&T) because I could get an unlocked GSM phone. I got the Cing 8525, 'cause it was cheap and easily unlocked, thanks to a very active HTC hacking community. It's been just about perfect - better than any phone I've ever owned from a controlled source. BT works, Wifi works, GSM/3G/UTMwhatever works, and even with IE I can chose the mobile or standard web pages (though I never use mobile on gprs - to damned slow for anything). Opera works even better.

The one think I really wish I could get is a WM6 that was intended for fingers instead of a stylus. In that way, the iPhone is awesome. Otherwise, I really like the 8525 - I get to use my scheduler, GPS software, and the like, and it works well.

Incorrect assumption

[maestro371]

The problem is that they don't completely re-flash the firmware. If you have a 1.0.2 unlocked iPhone, the 1.1.1 upgrade will break your baseband and prevent you from making calls or using wi-fi. If they completely reflashed the baseband, that would not be an issue.

Re:Incorrect assumption

[ZachPruckowski]

Maybe not the firmware, but it does write over a lot of the software. That's why it's a 250 MB download - it's overwriting most of the libraries altogether (this is not uncommon on Macs, especially 3rd-party Macintosh applications, which often update themselves like this).

Note also that "jailbreak" and "unlock" are different. "Jailbreak" means "Can run third party userspace code" (generally 3rd party apps). By contrast, "unlock" means "Can use with a different carrier". Jailbreaks generally involve the software (the OS and things that run on it) and unlocks require access to the lower-level firmware that controls the radio components. The confusion arises because "firmware" can technically mean anything running on a piece of consumer electronics that's designed to be unmodified - note that many routers or set-top boxes run some brand of Linux (generally with a real-time patchset) but the entire package is generally considered firmware.

Image found

[Anonymous Coward]

The TIFF image used to exploit Safari can be viewed safely on non-Safari browsers here.

It turns out that performing a "Jailbreak" on your iPhone is a bit like performing an exorcism.

Stop supporting them

[Comboman]

I wonder if Apple are going to keep playing "cat and mouse", and try to bring legal action to bear against these "vile hackers", or if they're going to take the hint that you can't stop us all?

If you want them to "take the hint" then stop buying their locked-down, over-priced, eye-candy and support companies that make more open smart phones. By the way, whatever happened to the much-lauded Apple security? Could it be that the only reason MacOS wasn't hacked was that no one could be bothered hacking a unpopular system and now that Apple has something hackers are interested in there are security holes-a-plenty?

This makes me happy

[Wabbit Wabbit]

For some reason I just giggled like a schoolgirl when I read the article summary.

Yay for determination, passion and skill!

These folks remind me that there are still good, smart driven engineers out there, not just dullards and drones.

Why oh why don't the PHBs ever get this???

I switched to BlackBerry 8320 and can't be happier

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a first gen iPhone with 1.0.2 firmware, T-Mobile SIM and some apps that I find useful. After looking at the new Blackberry 8320 Curve from T-Mobile I gave the iPhone to my wife who is a very limited cell phone user and got the 8320 for myself. She is happy with the ease and niceties of using the iPhone and I find the 8320 the best, most usable cell phone ever made.

For 10$ a month less than AT&T I get free Wi-Fi calling, more minutes (600), Family Plan, Bluetooth modem for on-the-go internet access with acceptable speeds, push email, *and* third party apps. A business user could not care less about the iPhone.

A hacked media player for the iPhone

[HartDev]

I want a media player that can do Ogg, and AVI files and have the whole eight gigs in the file system, I am willing to make a web site raise money, whatever. I will continue to beat a dead horse and ask for Linux or a great version of BSD on the iPhone.

The point of your confusion

[SuperKendall]

The iPhone is not crippled, it works quite well as-is. Some would like to extend the iPhone beyond where Apple has taken it, but that is a different matter.

I would argue that many other phones that allow third party apps do so precisely because they are crippled, key features like mail clients and browsers needing to be replaced because the apps shipping on the device are substandard.

It's the lack of crippling that makes the iPhone such an appealing base to start from.

No Google apps on the iPhone

[666999]

Just to clarify, the Google Maps client on the iPhone wasn't written by Google, it's an Apple app. At the All Things Digital conference when Mossberg interviewed Jobs and Gates, Jobs mentioned how impressed the Google guys were with the Maps client that Apple had developed.

Cretin? Just looks like AnonymousCoward, to me...

[_.- thimk! -._]

If you cretins don't like the iPhone's contract terms, DON'T BUY ONE.

As has been pointed out, any contract term, EULA, et cetera that did specify the iPhone must not be hacked in order to allow it to be used with other carriers would not be valid nor enforcable, since it is the legal right of the owner of a phone to unlock it to use whatever carrier they choose. It is perfectly reasonable for folks to want to hack the iPhone, regardless of whatever your myopic view of it may be.

Completely aside from that, did you, with your uncreative little troll heart somehow wander onto Slashdot by accident? There are many thriving communities who spend their time hacking away on various pieces of technology to make them more interesting/useful/cool. And there is, unsurprisingly, a lot of overlap between those communities, and the folk here.

Sometimes half the fun of having a cool gizmo is to see what else you can do to make it even more cool and useful. Simply because you personally lack the interest, will, creativity, or skills to add your own improvements to your tools, doesn't mean the rest of us are in any way so lacking, nor are we restricted in our views, abilities, or actions merely because you happen to either have a bug up your butt.

We expect the article is correct, and that said vulnerability will indeed be ephemeral. In the meantime, yes, by all means, we consider it a useful exploit for this particular purpose, even while at the same time simultaneously recognizing that it is something that should be remedied from a more general browser security standpoint. That's the very reason, in fact, that we expect it to be fleeting. Some of us, apparently unlike trolls, are more than capable of simultaneously processing two different viewpoints about the exact same thing that may, superficially, seem to conflict. :)

Am I the only one

[scudie]

who is wondering about the potential of iphone botnets? granted, its darwin. but it has been lack of user base, and not impregnability which has protected OS X so far.

Re:Am I the only one

[packageman]

Linux has a smaller market share than Mac OSX, but it has its share of vulnerabilities anyway

Re:Am I the only one

[Craig Davison]

Linux has a nice share of the server market. Linux exploits are generally against server software.

On the desktop, yes, it has a miniscule market share.

What about the software radio...

[argent]

As has been pointed out, any contract term, EULA, et cetera that did specify the iPhone must not be hacked in order to allow it to be used with other carriers

The problem with the iPhone seems to be that the software radio is vulnerable to being exploited if you can get root on the iPhone, which may violate FCC rules and certainly makes carriers nervous. Originally, articles claimed that the software radio was driven directly from an OS X driver, but it seems from comments elsewhere that you still have to use AT commands to talk to the cellphone part of the device. I have not seen any clarification as to whether locking the iPhone is necessary for FCC certification or not... obviously if the software radio is under direct control of an OSX driver it almost certainly would be.

I have asked for clarification on this point before but answer came there none.

In any case, if that point is true, then a contract term that required the iPhone software not be modified to continue to use the iPhone as a certified device would probably be enforceable... but if you could modify it without becoming root you'd be home free. :)

Re:What about the software radio...

[_.- thimk! -._]

Since we're moving more towards specifics that haven't been well-trodden, I'll start with the standard disclaimer: IANAL. Nor am I, by any stretch, an expert on the inner workings of the FCC.

Having said that, however, I have read through the final rules of 47 CFR Part 2, Cognitive Radio Technologies and Software Defined Radios, and I see nothing that would lead me to believe that an iPhone is any more subject to it than would be any other smart phone.

There are many smart phones, for instance, running the PalmOS or Windows CE that allow the user to load other applications without any hindrance at all. None of these appear to be in conflict with 47 CFR Part 2. So, this appears to me to fall under fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD), rather than really being applicable. Whether specific control and access to the telephony components of the iPhone are via an OS X driver on the one hand, or via a PalmOS or Windows CE driver would appear to have no specific bearing. Likewise, it is not clear, by any means that the iPhone, or other smart phones fall under that rule.

I'm not trying to suggest that you're bringing up the possibility deliberately as fodder for FUD, just that it has some of the hallmarks: a general concern that sounds potentially problematic, whether it actually is or not, and not much in the way of detail other than that. I think it's legitimate to wonder whether or not 47 CFR Part 2 applies. But, I doubt that it really does. If it did, then I think there'd have been a significant brouhaha a long time since over one or another of the other smart phones that have already been out in the marketplace for a much longer time.

Note point two, from the Summary of the Memorandum and Order (my bold emphasis):

2. In the Cognitive Radio Report and Order, the Commission modified the rules to require that radios in which the software is designed or expected to be modified by a party other than the manufacturer be certified as software defined radios. To minimize the filing burden on manufacturers, this requirement was narrowly tailored to affect only those radios where the software can be modified by a party other than the manufacturer because such radios pose a higher risk of interference to authorized radio services. The definition of software defined radio (SDR) is intentionally broad, while the category of equipment that is required to be certified as SDRs is intentionally narrow. The Commission agrees with Cisco that a reading of the definition of SDR in the rules by itself may give the incorrect impression that more devices must be certified as SDRs than the rules intended to require. The Commission finds that the appropriate solution to Cisco's concern is to add an additional sentence following the definition of SDR to indicate the class of radios that must be certified as SDRs. It therefore clarifies the rules by adding the following statement to the definition of SDR: ``In accordance with Sec. 2.944 of this part, only radios in which the software is designed or expected to be modified by a party other than the manufacturer and would affect the listed operating parameters or circumstances under which the radio transmits must be certified as software defined radios.'' This action clarifies the intent of the rules adopted in the Cognitive Radio Report and Order.

Section 2.1 Terms and Definitions, subsection (c), defines 'software defined radio' as:

* * * * * (c) * * * Software defined radio. A radio that includes a transmitter in which the operating parameters of frequency range, modulation type or maximum output power (either radiated or conducted), or the circumstances under which the transmitter operates in accordance with Commission rules, can be altered by making a change in software without making any changes to hardware components that affect the radio frequency emissions. In accordance with Sec. 2.944 of this part, only radios in which

Re:What about the software radio...

[argent]

Unless the iPhone hardware itself is capable of transmitting outside of its assigned telephony frequency range

That is one specific claim that I have seen, that the iPhone does use a "software defined radio" except that (quoting that section) the software isn't "expected to be modified by a party other than the manufacturer".

Declaring that the iPhone is not supposed to run native third-party software and then backing that claim up by vigorously acting to prevent it from being used that way is completely consistent with Apple's handling of attempts to break Fairplay. They do not make it particularly hard to bypass the DRM in iTunes by converting the music to uncompressed digital data, because that was explicitly allowed for burning CDs, but they respond very quickly when someone comes up with a way of removing the DRM from the compressed file without converting it.

Whether specific control and access to the telephony components of the iPhone are via an OS X driver on the one hand, or via a PalmOS or Windows CE driver would appear to have no specific bearing.

The second claim that I have seen is that the iPhone CPU has that applications are running on the same CPU that directly controls the software radio, whereas the Palm and Windows CE devices have a second processor handling the telephony functions.

Palm OS is unlikely to be an issue because the published PalmOS API is not that of the underlying OS (AMX in the 68000 based devices, I don't know about the ARMs), and in the ARM-based palms I was investigating before I washed my hands of them for cellphones most software still ran under a 68000 emulator and even native code didn't have direct access to the hardware. In addition, of course, the early Palm phones using the 68000 processor did not have the CPU power to spare for D/A and A/D conversion in software in realtime.

Windows CE started out from the start with native code support, so any phone using Windows CE would have to have additional technical barriers in place (such as a separate telephony CPU) to keep the software from having direct access to a software defined radio if any specific Windows CE device used one. Windows CE devices are made by a number of manufacturers, and each gets their own certification.

I'm not trying to suggest that you're bringing up the possibility deliberately as fodder for FUD, just that it has some of the hallmarks: a general concern that sounds potentially problematic, whether it actually is or not, and not much in the way of detail other than that.

I'm not particularly a fan of the iPhone and I am DEFINITELY not one to let Apple off the hook when they do something stupid (check my webpage under "IO Port"), and I'm kind of confused as to what I would be seeding uncertainty about here... whether Apple has a good reason for restricting access or not, most iPhone customers simply won't care, so even if everyone believes everything I say here as gospel it'll make no difference to Apple one way or the other. Meanwhile, folks willing to mod their iPhone at this point are not risk-averse individuals nor can I see why they'd care whether Apple has a "good" reason or not, courts are not speedy, so the only impact that'll have will be years down the road long after their warranties would have expired anyway.

N95 or iPhone

[Jeremy_Bee]

Here is your mistake right here:

Better featured phone (the N95) If you need to use 3G there is a reason to purchase the N95.
Otherwise, if you look closely at the specs and actually compare the units in your hand, you will find the iPhone to be a much "better featured phone" than the N95.

The N95 is clunky and poorly assembled, it has less battery life, less storage, and the apps it has are hardly useable and poorly integrated.
To really decide, try browsing the web on each phone. I will bet it will not be the N95 you choose.

Re:N95 or iPhone

[Richard_at_work]

While I'm not at the stage to comment on your other points, the N95 does not have 'less storage' - Nokia released an 8GB internal storage version a few months ago and I have confirmed O2 will ship that version to me if I upgrade over the phone.

Re:N95 or iPhone

[mr_jrt]

Also, don't forget that the N95 has a Micro-SDHC card slot. I have a 4GB card in there, and 8GB ones should be available within a year. Being able to switch out my music library to have a spare few GB for recording video/piccies is quite handy.

The N95-8GB has no SD slot, AFAIK.

But they are hackers

[Swift2001]

If their hack depends on a "specially-crafted" TIFF, then that's a bug, and Apple is under an obligation to close that hole. How would you like it if a "specially-crafted TIFF" was used to steal all your personal information?

Open the SDK, Apple. Allow the legal unlocking, and make it easy for people to write apps and then sell them for them on iTunes. Stop being jerks. You make money to the extent that you're not jerks.

But hacking is hacking, and I don't want any vulnerabilities on my iPhone, even if it's just "good guys" who are using them.

Re:But they are hackers

[Guy Harris]

Open the SDK, Apple. Allow the legal unlocking,

Opening the SDK doesn't necessarily imply legal unlocking, given that "unlocking", when talking about a mobile phone, refers to allowing it to work on arbitrary networks, not to allowing third-party apps on it.

and make it easy for people to write apps

...and hard for Apple to change UIKit, for example, if they decide that the version of UIKit in the current release of Handheld OS X needs cleaning up in ways that break binary compatibility with that version.

and then sell them for them on iTunes.

At least one application I would have liked to have had on my iPhone yesterday, to try to figure out why its connection to the Wi-Fi network at the restaurant I was at wasn't working, isn't "sold" (and, yes, there have been earlier versions of it that ran on handhelds, and, yes, somebody did ls -l /dev on a jailbroken 1.0.2 iPhone and the usual four initial instances of my favorite device were there).

Don't forget the followup...

[argent]

Well, if it's an exploit in Firefox it'll be fixed within 24 hours, and /. will just make that an update to the article.

If it's in IE it'll take 2-6 weeks and effect Windows Media Player, Real Player, and seven Windows-specific Firefox extensions... and when they're temporarily disabled by a Firefox update you'll get a second front page story in /. about that.

If it's an image handling vulnerability in Safari then according to half the OSS community it's nothing to worry about, and according to the other half it's what you deserve for supping with the devil, and Unsanity will come out with a patch it within 24 hours.

Since it's in the iPhone there will be another story when the security alert comes out, another when the patch comes out, another when the patch bricks someone's iPhone, and another when it shows up in Dilbert.

If it's in Opera nobody will ever hear about it.

Re:Cretin? Just looks like AnonymousCoward, to me.

[SIIHP]

"As has been pointed out, any contract term, EULA, et cetera that did specify the iPhone must not be hacked in order to allow it to be used with other carriers would not be valid nor enforcable, since it is the legal right of the owner of a phone to unlock it to use whatever carrier they choose. It is perfectly reasonable for folks to want to hack the iPhone, regardless of whatever your myopic view of it may be."

You really have no clue what this debate is about do you?

Hint: it doesn't have anything to do with what you posted there, and not one person has tried to make the argument you are suggesting has been made.

That's my point.

[Rob T Firefly]

Acts which are impossible are not enforceable, but that comes back on the Offeree for fraudulently assenting to a performance he knew he could not complete. If you agree to do something you know you won't, you're in a lot more trouble than the other party for requesting or requiring it. And that's my whole point. Can it be argued that Apple must have known full well that they wouldn't be able to keep the iPhone locked down? They're certainly no neophytes to the hardware business, nor are they new to the concept of controlling a widespread platform. Would Apple really have a leg to stand on now if AT&T decided to call them out on their inability to alter the realities of the popular digital appliance market?

Re:That's my point.

[droopycom]

"Can it be argued that Apple must have known full well that they wouldn't be able to keep the iPhone locked down?"

Dont worry, the language of their contract is not "keep the iPhone locked down". They certainly acknowledge that flaws and bugs are possible. They probably have a very specific definition of what a "hack" is, how long they have to come up and distribute the fix, etc...

So basically, as long as they keep playing cat and mouse, they should be safe from an ATT lawsuit.

Re:That's my point.

[mr_matticus]

Can it be argued that Apple must have known full well that they wouldn't be able to keep the iPhone locked down? No, because it's as locked down as can reasonably be required in the course of business. Some people will always get through. There is no requirement to create a hack-proof system, but only to create a secure system that ensures that AT&T is able to reasonably rely on the promised exclusivity.

No other carrier will pick it up, and no resupplier will be able to sell mass quantities of unlocked iPhones (except on the current firmware version). The job's been done pretty well.

Re:That's my point.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mind posting the actual contract? Since you know the language and all...

I don't think that it's a current vulnerability...

[argent]

From the instructions quoted in /. ...

2. Downgrade to v1.0.2
                                    1. Hold down the Sleep/Wake and Home buttons at the same time for about 10 seconds. The phone should shut down.
                                    2. When the phone shuts down, release the Sleep/Wake button but continue holding Home
                                    3. Wait until iTunes recognizes the iPhone. The screen will appear to be off, but iTunes will eventually recognize the iPhone. When it does, let go.
                                    4. A message will appear telling you to restore. Click OK
                                    5. Using your favorite browser, download the v1.0.2 software from this location.

This implies that you have to downgrade to get a version with the hole in it.

Mod parent up.

[shmlco]

No mod points at the moment, or I'd do it myself. He's absolutely right. Apple WILL patch bugs and security loopholes, and I for one want them to do so.

You are absolutely right. But.

[StarKruzr]

They are under no such obligation to keep the iPod touch locked up tighter than a virgin. Yet they do anyway.

You do know this is false, don't you?

[StarKruzr]

If you want an open phone, there are several on the market or very close to market that will work MUCH better and the companies will support you in creating the apps.

There is nothing on the market that works better than the iPhone. The iPhone is the ONLY smartphone that has really gotten the equation right. It is touch-based, UNIX-based, incredibly flexible, and incredibly easy to use. Windows Mobile is still pen-based and crashy. Palm is dying, pen-based, and even crashier. Symbian is now a closed platform. OpenMoko will never get off the ground. There are no other extant Linux-based phones that allow any useful access to the OS (inclusive of the RAZR 2, which also has no WiFi). The gPhone will almost certainly not be a consumer-empowering platform. iPhone is it, boys and girls.

Re:Sounds like alot of work

[rrkap]

I just replaced a broken 8525 with an iPhone and I'd never consider going back. The iPhone is dramatically smaller, easier to hold, better built, easier to use and has much better designed and integrated applications. Are there features I'd like on the iPhone that were on the 8525? Yes, but not enough to make switching worthwhile. The iPhone is the only smartphone I've used that doesn't feel like a hurriedly slapped together piece of crap. That being said, I'd love to be able to run third party aps.

Or Just Get A Real Damn *Smart* Phone

[meehawl]

You could skip all this pointless cat'n'mouse cracker wankery by just using a real smart phone (Symbian/Windows/Palm) where installing pretty much any application you want take a couple of clicks, and there are more SDKs for it than you can shake many sticks at.,

Hacking popularity

[kuzb]

This just goes to show you that the more widespread and popular something is, the more likely it's going to get hacked (whether by the owner, or an outside party) to do something for which it was not originally intended. Mac owners who feel secure because they have Macs should take note of the fact that Apple's platforms do in fact contain exploitable flaws.

That's what I love about a Mac.

[MacDork]

It just works!(TM)

"They" Say...

[GaryPatterson]

They say that as long as you don't cite specific sources, you can make up any old assertion and pass it off as fact.

"The Mac community today stated that their rabid, unquestioning support of Apple was due to a suicidally loyal fanbase of OS X zealots, and not, as some outsiders previously thought, due to the solid operating system, value-adding iLife software and great laptop range."

"According to the PC community, Windows Vista is actually the world's most sophisticated practical joke, which we'll all get on April 1, 2008 when all Vista PCs in the world start flashing up pictures of tubgirl every 30th of a second before delivering all user data to Microsoft over an unencrypted connection."

"'Linux isn't going anywhere and we're abandoning all versions immediately,' the Linux community stated yesterday. 'We've finally realised we're never going to catch up with Windows or OS X, and that we've been fooling ourselves all along' said a spokes-penguin who asked not to be identified. 'We're all going to give this Amiga thing another go, we think we can make it work'"

"Government officials today said that the whole Iraq thing was a double-dog dare that got out of hand, and expressed great concerns about the escalation of a dog dare to a double-dog dare regarding Iran."

"UN insiders revealed that the current leader, Ban Ki Moon, is actually a sock puppet from a children's television show in Asia. 'Banky' as he is known, likes to draw pictures on cartridge paper and make animals out of toilet rolls and pipe cleaners. He was voted Korea's most popular children's entertainer four years in a row before accepting the job of entertaining the children of the previous UN leadership cicrle. Due to a paperwork error, 'Banky' Moon was nominated for leadership of the entire UN and since no-one wanted a Western nation to run it, the world's countries voted him in as the least hated nominee."

"People who know popular Slashdot identity MrHanky have admitted their irritation in being used in unsubstantiated quotes made by him, and wish he'd put their names in his posts or at least link to their quotes as proof. MrHanky has so far remained silent on the issue, leading some people to question his motives for doing so."

Hey! This is fun!

Re:"They" Say...

[MrHanky]

You're fairly new to sarcasm, aren't you?

Re:"They" Say...

[GaryPatterson]

No, just having some fun.

My Word:

[billy901]

This is great that someone keeps hacking Apple's firmware. I like the idea of people hacking Apple's firmware, but I don't like the idea of people complaining every time Apple voids their warranty for it. It takes time and money for Apple to repair or send you a new

iPod or iPhone. However Apple shouldn't brick their iPhone or only limit it to AT&T. This stuff has been in the news a lot lately. So be careful when you're hacking these things. I honestly hate how Apple prevents people from changing things in their firmware but if you think about it, it's for your own good and to save Apple time and money from the warranties.

A good solution to this problem for Apple is to allow firmware patches. This however would require them to have open source jukebox firmware. If you can find a better solution to this, please post. Until a good idea is found that allows hacks and warranties, I'm going to listen to my Rockbox Enabled iPod.

PS. I only use Rockbox because I don't much care about my iPod Video. Although it is the center of my life, I can just buy another one.

Re:My Word:

[IntergalacticWalrus]

This is great that someone keeps hacking Apple's firmware. I like the idea of people hacking Apple's firmware, but I don't like the idea of people complaining every time Apple voids their warranty for it. It takes time and money for Apple to repair or send you a new

Well if Apple weren't such assholes about not letting people run 3rd party applications on their handheld computers, there wouldn't be any problem. Getting complaints and bad press is exactly what Apple deserves for this.

So...

[IntergalacticWalrus]

What's Apple's excuse for locking up the iPod Touch...?

With the iPhone it was apparently part of the contract they signed with AT&T, but with the iPod Touch, Apple has NO fucking excuse.

Re:So...

[mamer-retrogamer]

(non-) feature parity?

Rights, schmights, ...

[hummassa]

IMHO: nobody has the right to sell me a gadget and tell me what to do with it after I bought it. It's my gadget now, and if I want to use it to do something illegal, be it mount "lasers" on sharks or take down the whole Cingular's West Coast network, is my problem and my responsability.
And, for the record, I have a Mythbuntu-loaded AppleTV and a Rockbox-loaded iPod.

Re:Rights, schmights, ...

[MightyYar]

How is Apple telling you what to do with your gadget after you've bought it? They tell you up front that it is a phone that works with AT&T, and they make no claims about 3rd party native applications. They even warned people who had hacked their phones that the firmware upgrade might "brick" their phones.

So, you can do whatever the hell you want with your iPhone - load whatever firmware you want on it, unlock it, whatever.

OT: Is it worth buying an AppleTV to load Mythbuntu on it? Why an AppleTV vs. a Mini or some small form factor PC? Not a flame - genuinely curious.

[OT] dim view

[Anonymous Coward]

I have, and I'm married!! :-)

Re:Cretin? Just looks like AnonymousCoward, to me.

[_.- thimk! -._]

Certainly, I do. I've also been keeping an eye on the last several similar discussions.

Clearly, though, you do have some confusion about it...

Apple's contract with AT&T as an exclusive carrier is not binding upon purchasers of the iPhone. They have the legal right to hack the iPhone to use alternative carries if they choose. That IS one of the reasons folks have been hacking the iPhone. So it is relevant. And, yes, that has been brought up.

I also addressed the apparently ambivalent response from folks on Slashdot about the current method being a browser exploit that's likely to be patched soon, and why within this story it has generally been viewed positively, rather than negatively.

If you're having problems keeping up, then perhaps you should be the one rereading this, and other related threads.

[OT] AppleTV

[hummassa]

Where I live a Mac Mini is not really accessible, and an AppleTV was relatively cheap (EUR 300) last time I went to Europe. It's a nice machine, pretty, and silent ... (my SKY+ decoder/DVR makes much more noise) and MythTV is better (IMHO) then the original firmware, even with hacks (nitoTV is a nice hack, thou). The 1080p HDMI output is nice, too, and matches my current TV set. So, for me, it was worth it.

Social good versus individual good.

[argent]

What's Apple's excuse for locking up the iPod Touch...?

They didn't want to maintain two different software inventories. They also don't want unrestricted iPod software development because they don't want iPod users using other company's DRM. There's actually a good reason for that, and there's a "social good" argument for it as well... unless you're on the side of the RIAA in the DRM debate.

First, the "social good" reason. If people can run arbitrary software on the iPod, they can run software using anyone's DRM scheme. This makes the use of DRM more convenient, and decreases the social opposition to DRM. Apple has been opposed to DRM from the start... Jobs is on record from the very opening of the iTunes music store as saying that this kind of DRM doesn't work, and that everyone (including the artists) would be better off without it.

Second, the "private good" reason. Apple's use of DRM the way the music industry uses it is almost entirely defensive... and it's defending against *Windows*. If people can run arbitrary software on the iPod, it means that iPod users running Windows will have an advantage over iPod users running OSX, since the music stores that work with these third party DRM schemes don't work on OSX. This has the potential of significantly hurting their market share. To complicate this, Microsoft uses the "secure audio path" and the related DRM technologies that have been part of Windows Media Player since WMP9 as a marketing tool to promote their proprietary DRM over Apple's proprietary DRM (don't bring up non-proprietary DRM... non-proprietary DRM can not be used for what the RIAA and the labels want). Apple is not going to be able to get support for the music stores using Microsoft's formats on OSX without making the same kind of restrictions in the OSX kernel that Microsoft has made in the Vista kernel... even if Microsoft is willing to license the technology to them at all.

Which brings things back to a "social good" issue again.

So... the question is not why they locked up the iPod Touch, it's what they do now.

Over the short term, the inventory issues are likely to make them simply treat the two devices as versions of the same device, with the same software and restrictions.

Over the long term, if they manage to wean enough labels off DRM, they won't have anything more than inventory control keeping the iPod locked, and they're unlikely to care about that any more than they care about the AppleTV being cracked. And weaning the labels off DRM is one for the good guys.

So I gotta say, I've got mixed feelings over the whole thing.

Re:Social good versus individual good.

[IntergalacticWalrus]

You make good points. The iPod is a DRM-tainted device, and as usual with DRM, it's not about what the consumer wants.

It's sad how Apple made this awesome little device, but thanks to DRM it'll never reach its full potential.