iPhone 1.1.3 Update Confirmed, Breaks Apps and Unlocks

An anonymous reader writes "Gizmodo has gathered conclusive evidence which confirms that the iPhone Firmware 1.1.3 update is 100% real. It installs only from iTunes using the obligatory Apple private encryption key, which nobody has. The list of new features, like GPS-like triangulation positioning in Google Maps, has been confirmed too. Apparently it will be coming out next week, but there's bad news as expected: it breaks the unlocks, patches the previous vulnerabilities used by hackers and takes away all your third-party applications."

Comments

Just need to wait until it's jailbreaked...

[Kagura]

My phone is activated and I use AT&T. There is no way I am upgrading until I can use my apps with it, too. And it'll suck, period, if I have to reinstall all my apps. I would consider doing so for the GPS triangulation.

Re:Just need to wait until it's jailbreaked...

[Kagura]

I know it's not GPS triangulation, but rather done through the cell towers, by the way. :)

Re:Just need to wait until it's jailbreaked...

[skeftomai]

I believe the app Navizon has triangulation which links into the Google Maps app.

Re:Just need to wait until it's jailbreaked...

[Kagura]

Yeah, but outside of a major metropolitan area it is useless. I live in North Carolina, and even though I'm in a medium-sized city Navizon doesn't work. When I used it during a trip to D.C., it was spot on and highly accurate. I'm hoping that native support might change something, like which services' cell towers are used to perform the triangulation.

Re:Just need to wait until it's jailbreaked...

[BosstonesOwn]

Well it uses the truenorth system. http://www.trueposition.com/.

Cingular and T mobile currently have in place already to assist in e911 location awareness. It triangulates with the use of as many towers and antenna's as it can based on signal levels to each locating modulation unit to give you the location of where you are. Not very accurate in heavily developed cities where skyscrapers block a majority of the signal.

Worked with them before , I went to work at Sun , pretty cool tech.

It's a shame that they chose to use it to provide a service that the iphone really should have already had. Seams like they are trying to give people an app they get a revenue stream from instead of letting you use other available 3rd party apps where they don't profit.

Re:Just need to wait until it's jailbreaked...

[longacre]

This isn't unique to iPhone. The beta of the latest version of Google Maps Mobile (except the Palm version) offers a "My Location" feature for non-GPS phones, and is also integrated with GPS.

Re:Just need to wait until it's jailbreaked...

[smilindog2000]

I have no idea how you got modded off-topic... Anyway, my phone got borked on one of the prior updates. This Apple hostility towards simple 3rd party apps has me really steamed. I've joined the Android effort, and it may take a year or two, but no way is Apple going to have the better phone OS in 2010. Without the 3rd party apps, it's not even in the lead today. Morons...

Re:Just need to wait until it's jailbreaked...

[Z00L00K]

There is no reason to have the iPhone at all considering all the hassle that has been popping up all the time with broken apps and being locked to a single operator. It is only good for the designfreaks.

Personally I stick with unbranded unlocked phones.

Re:Just need to wait until it's jailbreaked...

[SpooForBrains]

This is like watching the PSP mod scene a year ago ...

Re:Just need to wait until it's jailbreaked...

[PopeRatzo]

Morons...

Apple isn't moronic for their behavior in regard to locking down the iPhone, just hostile to their most loyal customers. Today, that's known as "good business practice".

Re:Just need to wait until it's jailbreaked...

[Tony Hoyle]

If it's that version it's useless - doesn't work even in large cities.

Re:Just need to wait until it's jailbreaked...

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Personally, I only use previously owned generic unlocked phones the size of a work boot. I buy them at thrift stores.

Moron.

Re:Just need to wait until it's jailbreaked...

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Except people bought iPhones.

Re:Just need to wait until it's jailbreaked...

[tacocat]

What did you expect? You purchased a product from a company. Said Company makes very clear that they do not authorize you to use third party applications and so when you do... they have an interest in tearing your mods out of the software. That's the nature of the product right now.

I don't think Apple is evil but they are working on a very fine edge right now. They are taking on the entire cellular industry with a product that they have tried previously to launch (Anyone remember Newton?) with updates to the 21st century. It's a major project trying to consolidate so many products into one.

Unlike the notebooks and PC's they cannot afford to have anyone's third part software screw up the iPhone. The fallout on the consumer market would be too damaging for them to take on right now. Even if it was someone elses fault for a bad product, Apple would be blamed for it.

Add to this the fact that they originally delayed the Mac OSX launch to get the iPhone launched last year. I would suspect that they have just barely managed to release their products with the stability that Apple strives for. With that delicate stability, third party software isn't going to help them.

I do believe that eventually Apple will be required through consumer pressure to open up the iPhone but they are not about to do it right now. Once they get some market share and solid progress in the market, they can start taking a more open road.

But for now, they are taking on a lot of companies: Verizon, AllTel, T-Mobile, Microsoft, LG, Nokia in this bid. they are not about to take up company with some 1/2 baked software that maybe works most of the time.

Re:Just need to wait until it's jailbreaked...

[coolGuyZak]

It's a shame that they chose to use it to provide a service that the iphone really should have already had. Seams like they are trying to give people an app they get a revenue stream from instead of letting you use other available 3rd party apps where they don't profit.

I really don't understand where you're coming from here, particularly as the Maps application is third party--lest you forget, it's designed & maintained by Google.

I highly doubt Apple's primary intent with that partnership is profit. More likely, the partnership smokescreens an information exchange program with Google. I'm not entirely sure what was exchanged, but I wouldn't be surprised if Apple's SDK resembles (or even implements) Android.

We'll know if I'm right in February.

Re:Just need to wait until it's jailbreaked...

[FLEB]

I see your point-- everyone knew about the lock-ins before they bought. However, just saying that the thing is going to be locked-down and adversarial in the support materials does not excuse it from criticism of being locked down and adversarial.

Although locking the thing down does help preserve the "Apple seamless experience", it still reeks of ulterior motives or at least a simple cop-out. A few obvious disclaimers, an installer that made it clear that you were running non-core software, some sandboxing limitations, and a reasonable attention to stability, and their beloved PR image would be intact.

Re:Just need to wait until it's jailbreaked...

[TooMuchToDo]

It works like a champ for me in both downtown Chicago and the western suburbs (Saint Charles area). It shows my position down to 800 meters in Chicago and 1700 meters in the suburbs.

Re:Just need to wait until it's jailbreaked...

[Columcille]

So it's worth noting that Apple is releasing an iPhone SDK sometime in 2008, opening up room for 3rd party apps... And the iPhone OS of 2010 will not be the iPhone OS of 2007. However, if things in the OSS community continue as normal, any OSS phone OS of 2010 will likely be like a phone OS of 2005. Android might possibly be an exception and since that's the one you mentioned, we'll just have to wait and see.

Re:Just need to wait until it's jailbreaked...

[poopdeville]

1700m is over a mile.

Re:Just need to wait until it's jailbreaked...

[dagamer34]

Very true. When you get outside major cities with a low density of towers, then it's a lot harder to determine exactly where you are. You could never really use it for turn-by-turn navigation in a car. However, for people on the go outside of their car, it doesn't matter as much. Probably still the best thing the MyLocation feature offers is a very fast way to pinpoint where you might be on a map without typing it in. Incredibly useful in places where you are lost but there are lots of signs. Pretty easy to determine where you are on a map the figure it out from there. Hope fore a 1.1.3 unlock soon. 1.1.2 wasn't worth upgrading to, so I'm still on 1.1.1.

Re:Just need to wait until it's jailbreaked...

[tacocat]

You're right, you can complain about the lock-ins knowing that the lock-ins exist before you open your wallet, but no one is going to listen to you. Talk with your money.

Apple cannot risk having an insecure hacked up iPhone. It's got the power of a PC, which means it has the potential danger of a PC. Would you feel safe using an iPhone running the equivalent to Windows 2000? The risk is in their reputation.

I really don't think the lock-in is about "seamless experience" and "ulterior motives" unless you buy into the hype. It's about the meritocracy standing that Apple has earned as a company that sells product that Just Works.

And lo...

[ravenspear]

I felt a great disturbance in the airwaves, as if millions of helpless iPhone apps cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

They cried out, "don't raze me bro!!!"

Re:And lo...

[SeaFox]

I felt a great disturbance in the airwaves, as if millions of helpless iPhone apps cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

They were all using their iPhones on T-Mobile.

Re:And lo...

[Dr. Hellno]

when I get the update I'll tell it, "these are not the apps you are looking for."

Re:And lo...

[moro_666]

I can already imagine the scene.

Poor iPhone shaking on the ground, a running helicopter in the distance.
A fanatic iPhone hacker tries to twiddle with the touch-screen to get the damn big investment to work, next to him stands Jobs in a long latex costume, holding a firmware update next to the hacker's head. He says "Unlock this" and fires the update 1.1.3.

But Neo isn't there, Neo is home, enjoying a simple unlocked phone that has 3G and tons on applications and just works (and it was cheaper) :-)

When iphone came out, a lot of people made the noise "locked phone ? forget it mate, i will go and buy something else" ... some others fought back and said "oh come on, we will hack it, ha-ha-ha" ... who is laughing now with their several hundred $ investment ?

Re:And lo...

[Enlightenment]

Kid, I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other. I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen anything to make me believe there's one all-powerful Force controlling everything. There's no mystical energy field that controls my destiny. It's all a lot of simple tricks and nonsense.

Re:And lo...

[Anonymous Coward]

A 3g capable phone with unlimited 3g connectivity - $20 usd a month. After 2 years, the phone is mine. No sim lock.

DNA Finland Mobiililaajakaista + Nokia 6151.

Some of us have decent phones.

Walled Garden

[Divebus]

I'm not a developer, but I'm really thinking this Walled Garden thing is for the birds - which makes me want one of these less and less.

Re:Walled Garden

[kannibal_klown]

Well they're *supposedly* opening up 3rd party apps next year when they release a real SDK. I guess only time will tell.

As for unlocking them, eh. The only thing I'd really want that for is for when I go to Switzerland each year. Instead of paying the higher AT&T fees I could go with a prepaid card over there.

Re:Walled Garden

[macs4all]

You apparently missed the announcement that Apple is releasing a fully-supported SDK (Software Development Kit) in February 2008. That means that software developers will no longer HAVE to "hack" the iPhone (or iPod Touch) to install custom apps. Instead, there will be a "legal" way to do it. Then this back-and-forth between Apple and the iPhone hax0rs will simply vanish.

Re:Walled Garden

[digitalchinky]

No, you mean there will be a manufacturer approved method of creating 3rd party applications, it has nothing to do with legality, and everything to do with the corporate bottom line. I'll likely be similar to the current Symbian 3rd edition stuff, pretty much useless for the types of people that are currently doing these modifications.

Re:Walled Garden

[SuperKendall]

pretty much useless for the types of people that are currently doing these modifications.

But not useless for creating applications which is all most people really want. The ones that want unlocking, they will have to wait five years (four and a half now).

All I ever wanted was to be able to build applications myself, it's not at all useless nor will be the applications that come from this.

Re:Walled Garden

[mspohr]

The Apple authorized applications are unlikely allow you to use your phone on another network, or with VOIP, or ringtones, or any thing that might compete with the profits of Apple or ATT.

With the iPhone, you don't really own it, you are just buying the right to send more money to Steve and his buddies.

Re:Walled Garden

[Mikey-San]

I'm not a developer, but I'm really thinking this Walled Garden thing is for the birds - which makes me want one of these less and less.

Okay, don't buy one. Apple's responsibility is not to you, the hacker (I love when I get the chance to use that word in the traditional sense), but to the person who buys the device and will never do anything unsupported with it. Why? Because these people either don't want to deal with incompatibilities or problems resulting from an update, or because they can't deal with them.

Normal users don't want to "update their phone" (which is a weird concept to many consumers in the first place) and have it break in some way. Because the official SDK isn't out yet, and there are no guidelines that third-party developers are following, Apple has no realistic way to support their software across updates. Attempting to do so at this point would be a massive, stupid waste of the available time of their engineers.

"Well," you're thinking, "the users who install unsupported third-party apps would be able to deal with bugs, or understand." No, most of them are going to whine and bitch on the Internet like they do now when Apple reverts their phone to a standard, known-good state during an update. But even if I'm wrong about that, it doesn't matter. The responsibility Apple's engineers have to the customer base on the whole is to guarantee that this phone that people bought "just works".

But this presents a problem, right? It makes this amazing portable device only what Apple wants. For some, this is a real issue. You can't disagree with that, really. To solve this problem, you need a supported SDK. And that's coming. Officially. That means developers like me can write software for the iPhone and it won't vanish after an update.

Releasing an SDK means you have to support it. Putting together an SDK you can support, and that is easy for developers to use, takes time. It's not just documentation, which in of itself is a large task if you want it done right--it's API design, build toolchain design, getting the supporting websites together and ready, training your developer support people in the new stuff, etc. It's huge! But Apple is doing it.

For now, third-party software developed through unsupported means is just that: unsupported. In the near future, according to Apple, we'll have a supported means of developing software for the iPhone. And it'll be better software, because we'll have the documentation we need.

There's no "walled garden", just a device whose SDK is in beta somewhere inside Cupertino walls.

Re:Walled Garden

[Divebus]

I'll await the impending flood of software... and 3G... and GPS, I suppose... and Video recording... then I'll buy in.

Re:Walled Garden

[Anonymous Coward]

...don't buy one..."just works"...this amazing portable device...etc. It's huge! But Apple is doing it... For now, third-party software developed through unsupported means is just that: unsupported. ...according to Apple...And it'll be better software, because we'll have the documentation we need...There's no "walled garden", just a device whose SDK is in beta somewhere inside Cupertino walls.

...ah. Are you sure that you aren't a little... biased? Or is it over-enthusiasm?

Personally, I remain a little skeptical. Apple has announced a semi-open development platform, yes. But they are going to work with a digital signature system, yet they have not released any details. Will this entire deal be free (as in beer), or are they going to charge a developer (which, of course, the entire Apple community will swallow this fine, as always. They will say that it's for the Greater Good because it raises the bar since there's a development fee involved).

Either way, your reply and Apple's Press Release reeks way too much of propaganda to be taken seriously.

Re:Walled Garden

[smilindog2000]

It'll be interesting to see just what programming platform is supported. Google's Android supports a Java variant, but you can easily go under the hood and port native C applications. I'd give you 10-to-1 odds that Steve Jobs isn't going to let anyone have shell access, nor program at the same level his developers do. He'll give us some virtual machine crap that makes porting existing open-source apps impossible, and keeps you from doing anything cooler than writing games. No way he's giving us access to the phone databases, or iTunes databases. Frankly, I'm so tired of Steve's crap that I've abandoned Apple, and encourage others to abandon them as well.

Re:Walled Garden

[Hognoxious]

Did you even read what you linked to?

the suggestion is that apps will need to be digitally signed

That's in the second sentence. Perhaps you could find someone technical to explain it to you.

Re:Walled Garden

[squiggleslash]

No, that's not what it means at all.

Apple is releasing an SDK which means companies other than Apple will be able to develop for iPhone. It does not mean you will be able to get your application onto an iPhone without Apple's permission; most of the speculation on the issue, and public announcements from Apple, have suggested the opposite - that the iPhone will only run applications that Apple approves.

It'll still be a walled garden.

Re:Walled Garden

[squiggleslash]

Okay, don't buy one. Apple's responsibility is not to you, the hacke

I'm always amazed when someone makes it clear they're not going to buy something because they consider it unattractive for a variety of reasons, only to get a response "Ok, don't buy one".

The GP was pretty clear it wasn't a phone he was likely to buy. Why respond as if he was?

Re:Walled Garden

[tepples]

To solve this problem, you need a supported SDK. And that's coming. Officially. That means developers like me can write software for the iPhone Do you have proof that this SDK be freely available? Or will it cost $29,999.95 plus tax per entity per year?

Re:Walled Garden

[PopeRatzo]

All I ever wanted was to be able to build applications myself, it's not at all useless nor will be the applications that come from this.

And all you had to do was pay 500 bucks for a locked-down phone and then wait a year and a half for an approved SDK (still vapor at this point) and 5 years for a choice of provider. P.T. Barnum had a name for people that do that.

By the way, how many phones do you know of that last 5 years? What are the odds that the "early adopters" who bought iPhones on 0-day will still want to use those same phones 4.5 years from now?

Re:Walled Garden

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have proof that it will cost something? The parent was talking about facts, you're just speculating.

Re:Walled Garden

[aaarrrgggh]

I have an iPhone, jailbroken twice but currently locked down. I have seen about a dozen iPhones through my random holiday travels in airports and on planes where I could see the home screen. Nine of the 12 had third party apps installed.

Given the demographic, I was amazed by that-- well over half the people with an iPhone love it, but identify the fact that there is something fundamental missing to the point tha they are willing to void the warrantee to fix it.

The key is that people's needs are different, and there needs to be a fair way to address them. The walled garden won't sell 10m phones in 2008.

Re:Walled Garden

[Srin Tuar]

Releasing an SDK means you have to support it. Putting together an SDK you can support, and that is easy for developers to use, takes time. It's not just documentation, which in of itself is a large task if you want it done right--it's API design, build toolchain design, getting the supporting websites together and ready, training your developer support people in the new stuff, etc. It's huge! But Apple is doing it.


Absolute nonsense.

You have to have an SDK to release any software for anything period.

And making it available is as simple as releasing it, or even just releasing the headers and describing the compiler setup.

The only reason there is no SDK available is because they dont really want one to be available.

Re:Walled Garden

[Smorkin' Labbit]

Of course they have some kind of SDK internally, but it is a much different thing supporting something internally compared to letting other people use it: You have to start thinking about backwards compatibility much more, documentation must be better (you can get away with lousy/no documentation internally since you can always ask the ones writing the software how things work), etc.

  I used to be the main developer at a big software company, where we had a supported SDK for customization, and it was hell; even if you document how the SDK is supposed to be used, everyone immediately starts making assumptions based on how the current implementation works (such as relying on un-documented order of events). Ideally you could tell those users that its their fault when things break down with an upgrade, but customers don't really care about this: They upgraded a product they pay money for, and their stuff break. Ergo, the software company is at fault. Example: The SDK clearly specified that spaces was considered optional in all string messages. But when we removed those with an upgrade, my guess is that 90% of the customers had broken installations since their code assumed "a = b" was how things looked, when parsing the string. And customers paying a couple of hundred thousand dollars / year for a software do not appreciate that, no matter what you say.

Furthermore, *any* feature you add in an official SDK will be there forever, even if you later on realize it was a bad idea or design, since someone, somewhere, is using that feature. Look at Windows and how long it has taken them to get away from Win32.

Re:Walled Garden

[stewbacca]

I'm still waiting for Hoover to allow third party vacuum apps, those bastards!

Re:Walled Garden

[ThePiMan2003]

The question you should be asking, is how many of those people will have enjoyed using the phone and had no problem using AT&T with them. I understand that you don't want an iPhone with the current restrictions on it. But just because you feel superior for turning your nose up at it; it does not mean that people who have been enjoying one for the last year are fools. Just that they have different requirements for a phone. If you really want to be able to program for your phone, go buy a Windows phone, and a copy of Visual Studio. If you want a tightly integrated phone, with a nice UI, that ties into a complete music delivery system... buy an iPhone.

Re:Walled Garden

[friskyfeline]

I dislike that walled garden also. I bought the Asus eee pc instead and use Skype on it, surf the web via wifi, edit photos using the gimp, and install new applications using apt-get. What more could you ask for but maybe a bigger 7 inch screen? That is why people love the eee so much. It is fun to hack. You can edit the GUI, add any Linux application you want. I always remember Apple and their one button stance - placing form above function at the disservice of their users. They truly are a boutique hardware/software dealer selling pricey little closed model tools.

Re:Walled Garden

[mhollis]

I received an iPhone this year as a holiday gift. It's very nice.

The problem is that it's replacing something and I have expectations regarding the something replaced. I'm trying to replace my Palm TX, my cell phone (which was a really old phone) and my iPod (Photo). The only thing the iPhone completely replaces is my cell phone.

Palm has a KISS attitude about their devices and every time they have not stuck to that ethos, they have lost user base. But Palm has always had a SDK released that is based on the assumption that the Palm company cannot possibly know all of the ways someone might want to use their device. I think it's particularly arrogant for Apple to assume that only Apple knows all of the uses someone will want to put their iPhone to. They certainly don't display that kind of arrogance with the Macintosh computer. So, duly chastened, Jobs decided to release the SDK for the iPhone. After this Febuary, I'd say the iPhone (and iPod Touch) will begin to actually become useful.

For those of you who either have Smartphones or Palm devices or Windows Mobile devices, the one thing the iPhone really, really lacks is the ability to cut and paste! I've been using computers since the 1980s and I cannot recall ever not being able to copy material from one place to be used in another place. This ability to write once, use multiple is the hallmark of computing and this is involved in database, word processing, and user interactions both within applications as well as between applications. The iPhone OS must introduce this, and soon.

Until I can cut and paste, my iPhone will not be able to replace my Palm T|X.

Until I can buy, download and install third-party utilities, my iPhone will not be able to replace my Palm T|X.

I don't think my iPhone will fully replace my iPod because my iPhone simply doesn't have enough space on it for my entire music library. But the iPhone is more like an iPod Nano in the sense that one loads a subset of one's library on the iPhone, not the whole magillah.

I am hoping that the iPhone does have hidden capabilities to move beyond AT&Ts Edge network to 3G wireless data. Certainly the European units have this capability, else they won't sell well.

Until then, I shall remain a slightly dissatisfied iPhone user.

Re:Walled Garden

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a fanboy by any chance?

Re:Walled Garden

[coolGuyZak]

Look at Windows and how long it has taken them to get away from Win32.

A great example of this is Single Threaded Apartments, which even plague WPF.

Re:Walled Garden

[IdleByte]

Why do people use the comment "apple is right because there is no way they could support it so they have the right to prevent it?" This has got to be the most "de,de,dee" excuse I have ever seen! In patching 101 we learn that if we modify it, we have no right for them to support it. Apple does not block patching/unlocking of the iphone because they are afraid they will have to support it, they block it for the pure and simple fact that they have gone from a corporation that instills creativity in it's customers and products to a company that want to make a buck! And having an "exclusive" agreement with a cell phone company and control over applications launched helps them make a buck, and it does it at the expense of their image and customer base. Apple used to be a company where the hacker niche wanted one to play with because it was pretty and different. Now they are a company who's business plan is seeming a little to ... microsoft for my taste(insert intel processor here). I don't pay for Micro$haft products, and now I don't even WANT to pay for Apple $nc. products anymore.

And dumbass who posted above, an SDK isn't required to program something(as proven by the people who have released hundred of apps thus far without one that mostly work just fine until apple 'updates' the phone), SDK's make it easier for script kiddies to exploit or corporate software development to rubber stamp the same applications with THEIR name on it as the guy released a month ago without the sdk! And the coporate version will probably be allowed to run on the phone because apple MAKES A BUCK FROM IT! And don't think for a second apple will support a third party program just because it was made with an SDK, your much stupider than I thought if you believe that.

The only companies I can see anymore that actually allow creative WITHOUT guidelines or bounds are open source communities. And these are suffering because people are becoming lazy and don't mind having their "creativity" set to a wizard where your primary choices are blue or red borders around the same applications as everyone else because it's the only way it could be supported by the manufacturer... BAH!

For some reason I think guy either works for apple, or donates his time to apple!

Re:Walled Garden

[PopeRatzo]

The question you should be asking, is how many of those people will have enjoyed using the phone and had no problem using AT&T with them.

As a long-time customer of AT&T wireless (fka "Cingular"), I can predict that the number of iPhone users who will have "no problem using AT&T with them" will be very small.

I have no personal interest in programming apps for my phone. My interest is purely in the odious way consumers are currently being treated by the most successful of corporations. Apple does not distinguish itself in this regard, except perhaps by being more arrogant than most.

Re:Walled Garden

[petermgreen]

Well they're *supposedly* opening up 3rd party apps next year when they release a real SDK. I guess only time will tell.
My guess is we will end up with something like what the symbian based nokia phones do now.

The symbian way is that there is a system of capabilities, you must declare what capabilities you use at build time and you must sign your package. The application installer checks both the certificate and the capabilites and decides whether to install or not.

The most basic capabilities can be used with a self signed cert provided the user sets an option to allow it in the phones settings. The next level of capabilities are availible pretty freely to developers but you have to get your app approved to release it (the developer certs are IMEI locked to stop you just releasing apps signed with a devcert). Above that the capabilities get progressively harder to get until you get to ones only the phone manufacturers can touch.

Nokia also lets networks that resell thier phones change the rules (some set up the phones not to allow self signed apps at all) though the phones can I belive be reflashed back to nokia standard firmware. Hopefully apple will be able to avoid going down that road.

Re:Walled Garden

[poopdeville]

Because the list is a waste of time, amounting to the phrase "I don't want one". It is a rhetorical technique to show just how unimportant their reasons are.

Re:Walled Garden

[Ochu]

I am hoping that the iPhone does have hidden capabilities to move beyond AT&Ts Edge network to 3G wireless data. Certainly the European units have this capability, else they won't sell well.
No. Firstly, 2.5G phones still sell perfectly well here in Europe. The smartphone market is, truth be told quite small, and is defined by most people as "able to do email". Secondly, 3G is hardware. A software update couldn't give it. If you think apple have 3G hardware lying dormant in a million or so UK iPhones, waiting for... something, to make them activate it, that is just wishful thinking. Jobs is right, the battery as it is just can't handle 3G. It dies too soon anyway.

Re:Walled Garden

[ChronosWS]

You, sir, are an ass. No one here wants sound arguments based on logic and reason. Please troll elsewhere.

Re:Walled Garden

[cthulhu11]

Hell, I just want a phone that I can sync my Addresbook contacts and iCal calendars to without any loss of data. I've been looking for one for four years, and so far the iPhone is the *only* one I've found.

Re:Walled Garden

[Anonymous Coward]

There are two sets of responsibiities for Apple's engineers. Yes, they have to ensure that the phone works and they cannot take into account third party apps. However they also have a responsibility to their customers - not to interfere with what they are doing on the phone (unless it is illegal). So they can state "Problems caused by third party apps cannot be resolved by us and only certain apps are supported".

How would customers owning PCs and using Microsoft's software like it if every time a patch was applied, all non-microsoft software was erased? That isn't a wise business model and it is actively interfering with customers. Their responsibility is to support customers and not support third party apps. Once you start installing non-supported apps, it's your baby and you own the problems - fair enough - just don't interefere with my using it for why I bought the phone in the first place. . .

In this case the desire for profit is causing them to step over a line. Yes they have the RIGHT. But users have the right to choose something else if Apple prevents them in using the device to do what they want the device to do . . .

Re:Walled Garden

[aeschenkarnos]

Maybe rabbits, not birds. Birds would just fly right out.

Not remotely GPS-like..

[Junta]

It gives a vague couple-mile area that you should be in or around. Google has been working to give this to phones lacking aGPS, but it's not a good excuse for lacking the feature when my zero-charge (one-year contract zero money) phone does have it.

Re:Not remotely GPS-like..

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the AGPS I had on my phone while I was in Thailand was down to the city block area. The phones tell you where you are to the nearest intersection or large shopping area, similar to the accuracy of GPS before the DoD removed the artificial error.

Re:Not remotely GPS-like..

[MichaelSmith]

Hard to see how it could be "a couple of miles" if you are working with microcells on every second or third intersection.

Re:Not remotely GPS-like..

[Nyeerrmm]

It changes depending on your location. Down around my house, in a suburban area, the circle is about half a mile, but it tends to be accurate within a quarter mile. However, when I was downtown a few nights ago, I noticed that the circle was within about .2 miles i think, and the location within .1 mile.

I'd imagine towers are denser in most dense walking areas, allowing more accurate positions (with more intersecting hyperbolae), and that's where I see the feature being most useful. T

That is, the feature isn't a replacement for something like a Garmin or TomTom, but I can see it being very useful for when you're lost in a pedestrian area and have time to look at a street sign and get your precise position once it gets you very close.

Re:Not remotely GPS-like..

[digitalchinky]

Smaller localized footprints are useful in large central business districts where there are many service providers and tall buildings, or inside shopping centers, subways, and other high traffic areas, but errors in this type of positioning could easily be as high as 30 kilometers once you start heading out of the major centers. I'd prefer to know exactly where I am with a real GPS and the luxury of turn by turn navigation, even if I am just out walking.

Re:Not remotely GPS-like..

[cheater512]

It works pretty well and its free. What are you complaining about?

A general idea of where you are is all you need.
It takes what? 5 seconds to zoom in to your exact location.

Re:Not remotely GPS-like..

[Dr. Hellno]

In defense of this clearly defective feature:

This way big brother might know I'm in the red light district, but at least he won't know whether I'm in Marv's Muff Emporium or Kinky Kurt's Krotch Kingdom

Re:Not remotely GPS-like..

[MichaelSmith]

the luxury of turn by turn navigation

Cycling to work the other week through the Melbourne CBD I followed this car being driven by this guy who seemed transfixed by the GPS attached to his windscreen. He can't have had good GPS coverage because there were tall buildings on all sides and he slowed right down before each intersection, presumably to wait for his navigation system to catch up. Then he got a red light (that happens if you go slow enough) and stopped 10 metres back from the stop line, apparently with all his attention on the GPS.

I use one too, but I try to make am firm distinction between tactical and strategic navigation.

Re:Not remotely GPS-like..

[p0tat03]

Depends on where you are. In downtown Toronto the whole cell-tower triangulation can pin me down to a radius of roughly 10 feet, that's pretty frickin' good if you ask me, especially since it's designed so that you can search in your vicinity (restaurants, stores, etc) - anything that gets you within a block would do.

Re:Not remotely GPS-like..

[stewbacca]

Unless Kinky Kurt's Krotch Kingdom is illegal, what's your worry? I'd prefer the convenience of the map tool to the privacy of my location anyday, even if I do have a customer loyalty card at Marv's Muff Emporium AND Kinky Kurt's.

Re:Not remotely GPS-like..

[dgatwood]

The range of a GSM-based cell tower is only 40 km. An error of 30 km would mean that with a 9-antenna cell site... well, the most error you could possibly get is only 27 km even if all you know is which of those antennas you are talking to and the distance to a single tower. I suppose I could believe an error of 3 km in the distance calculation, but only being able to see a single tower is pretty unlikely unless you are in the mountains.

Bear in mind that you don't have to have an agreement with a carrier to use their tower or triangulation calculations. You just have to be able to see the tower. As a result, the fewest towers I've ever seen on major roads is six towers even in rural eastern parts of Kentucky. As I said, you can see fewer in mountainous terrain, but mountains can seriously throw off GPS, too.

Even in rural areas, I've never seen an error of more than about half a mile unless there were mountains involved. Your mileage may vary, of course. :-D

Re:Not remotely GPS-like..

[theguru]

I agree and love this feature. It's close enough for me to use it to generate directions to a known destination and using the "My Location" as a starting point. If it's a half mile off my starting point, it's really not a big deal. Turn left on Main in .25 miles? I'm already on Main thanks, so skip to the next direction.

I used it yesterday on the interstate. Update the directions using my same destination, but recalculating using my current location to re-estimate my arrival time. Even at two miles accuracy it still would have been fine for that.

I have a bluetooth GPS puck, and if I need accuracy, or I'm going into the woods, I'll use that.

Re:Not remotely GPS-like..

[Anonymous Coward]

Using cell tower positioning is quite adequate for me, Navizon's client which works fine on unlocked phones, integrates with Google Maps and lets me keep all my cool apps had no trouble dropping me quite close to my position on the highway, which was all I needed to spot how to handle the exit.

And that way, I avoid needing to carry around a bluetooth GPS device, or have a battery-sucking built-in GPS.

Oh, and anyway, folks have built an external GPS HW that plugs into the iphone.

No reason to upgrade to 1.1.3.

Re:Not remotely GPS-like..

[goodtim]

I have to say thats I find it quite strange that the iPhone does not have a GPS receiver. I own a Blackberry 8830 (which is awesome in case anyone is interested), that has a GPS receiver in it. Combined with the built in "Maps" application that supports finding directions, its pretty decent for those long road-trips.

One feature that I really love (although it's an extra $4.99/month or something), is the OnDemand 411. You can search for "pizza" and it determine where you are, and list all the pizza places nearby. Although if you didn't feel like coughing up the extra $4.99 for that service, you can download Google Maps for free, and to basically the same thing.

Now of course, the Blackberry 8830 isn't as "cool" as the iPhone (which I have to admit, is very well designed).

Oh! One more thing that I love about the BB, is since the company I work for has an a BlackBerry Enterprise Server, the BlackBerry "sits" inside the firewall. Thus I am able to access the company intranet, and even SSH (using the 3rd party app - MidpSSH) to my machine. There is nothing like doing an emerge --world while waiting for a movie to start, at the theater. ;-)

Re:Not remotely GPS-like..

[Breakfast Pants]

not with the iphone you won't.

Re:Not remotely GPS-like..

[Anonymous Coward]

That error can be shrunk to a couple of hundred metres if they snag the timing advance when you are making a call.
I have no idea if timing advance is accessible when just using data network.

Re:Not remotely GPS-like..

[ssstraub]

Yeah, and how much a month extra is that GPS routing feature? I know that Verizon charges something like $10/month for their navigation. I'm willing to pay exactly $0 a month for hardware I purchased. I am willing to pay for a cellular service, but not for hardware that doesn't even USE a cellular provider's infrastructure.

Re:Not remotely GPS-like..

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the timing advance?

Re:Not remotely GPS-like..

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timing_advance
The usual place for all such things.

Re:Not remotely GPS-like..

[goodtim]

The GPS navigation service does not cost anything extra (from Sprint at least). The only that that costs extra is the OnDemand 411 directory service.

3rd party

[larry bagina]

The iPhone SDK will probably be released at Macworld (January 14-18).

Re:3rd party

[Divebus]

OK, if the SDK is for real and apps come forth, I could be convinced.

Re:3rd party

[LeafOnTheWind]

This isn't offtopic - if there's an Apple SDK, apps won't need to be installed by hack. They'll be Apple supported. Basically, wait and see and don't let Gizmodo jump the gun ;)

Re:3rd party

[nevali]

It's undoubtedly real--Apple isn't known for announcing that they'll definitely do something by x and then it turning into vapourware: it's one reason why Apple doesn't announce stuff in advance all that often.

Whether the apps prove to be any good or not is a different matter, of course, and depends somewhat on the quality and capabilities of the SDK when it appears.

Re:3rd party

[Hognoxious]

if there's an Apple SDK, apps won't need to be installed by hack.

What if they invent an installer that checks whether apps are approved or not? But that obviously can't be possible, or Windows would do it for drivers. Er, wait...

Re:3rd party

[tepples]

if there's an Apple SDK, apps won't need to be installed by hack. Unless developers can't afford the annual fee for the SDK. It could be as open as the Wii: you have to have leased office space and a published title for Windows, Mac, or Windows Mobile to even begin to bring Nintendo to the discussion table.

Re:3rd party

[tgd]

Apps Apple chooses to let you install, which use a limited set of sandboxed APIs.

Don't count on SSH, AFPd or any of the really cool programs you have now working on there.

Keep in mind, there's an iPod SDK, too. How many 3rd party apps do you have on your iPod?

Re:3rd party

[Indiana Joe]

Apple already has a developer program. The entry level is free. You can get details at http://developer.apple.com/products/.

Re:3rd party

[nine-times]

And has anyone considered that maybe Apple has been rewriting portions of the iPhone's software in conjunction with developing the SDK, and that might be part of the reason why Apple's updates break 3rd party apps?

Not to be too defensive of Apple or anything, but many have guessed that part of Apple's aversion to 3rd party application up to this point has been because the OS is still in flux, and software developed for 1.1.2 won't work with 1.1.3. Each of the iPhone updates have forced the 3rd party developers to rewrite their apps, lending some credence to this idea.

I think we should just wait until the SDK is out and see what the situation is. If the SDK is terrible, then by all means complain.

Re:3rd party

[Sleuth]

Each of the iPhone updates have forced the 3rd party developers to rewrite their apps, lending some credence to this idea. Well, your assumptions might be possible, except that this one is incorrect. There has been very little change required, if any, for applications to run on all the recent versions of iPhone firmware.

Re:3rd party

[Bri3D]

Maybe you should go read up on the changes Apple has made between firmware versions.
They're well-documented by the iPhone community, and they aren't "OS revisions improving."
Half of it is the ghetto way in which functions were initially used (the API isn't changing, but the method of calling the API initially required a relink for each version), and half of it is Apple *very clearly and deliberately removing third-party app capability as each version comes out, not the API changing*
I won't debate if that's the "right thing" for Apple to do, but that's what they're doing. Don't try to make them excuses.

Tis the Season

[Nom du Keyboard]

Apple giveth, and Apple taketh away. Why they keep fighting their users makes no real sense. How long before, no matter how neat the gadget, the masses decide that Apple simply isn't worth the trouble?

Re:Tis the Season

[Bryan Ischo]

To answer your question: a long time, since the vast majority of users, vocal Slashdot geeks aside, don't give a rats ass about hacking any piece of consumer electronics they own. Most people buy products based on the features that the product claim to have, not on features that they *want* the product to have and believe that they can get by hacking the device.

A correlary of this statement is that Apple really isn't fighting its users, as a group. It's just fighting a small minority of users who hack their iPhones, so your statement about Apply "fighting their users makes no real sense", itself makes no real sense.

Disclaimer: I don't own an iPhone, but I might if I was richer.

Re:Tis the Season

[edwardpickman]

Because most users don't care if it's hackable or not. The masses you are talking about are a small percentage of their user base. Far more are interested in unbundling it but the device is sold bundled so there shouldn't be any shock when they rebundle it on you by disabling the hack. Look I want to buy a hybrid car but I can't expect them to make any model available today as a hybrid. If I want a hybrid I have to buy what is available. Similarly if I convert a car into some form of biodiesel or hybrid I have to assume I'm breaking warrantly so if something happens to the engine there's a chance it won't be covered. I'm not sure how much clearer they have to be when they say they don't want them modded or unbundled and at this point they don't intend it for 3rd software. I do know of companies working towards 3rd party apps but they are still a ways off and they are working with Apple towards that goal. I think most people will get what they want out of an iPhone eventually but they are working on their schedule not yours. If you don't like them don't buy one. It's a free market system. If large numbers don't buy they'll respond but the simple fact is they are selling them faster than they expected to so I doubt they are afraid of the detractors. Everyone boasts about so many other devices that they consider potentially superior. Why's it so important that iPhone do or allow precisely what you personally want? Get a competing product and be happy. Everyone wins.

Re:Tis the Season

[Doomstalk]

By "small minority" you mean almost 18% of all iPhone owners.

Re:Tis the Season

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Apple really isn't fighting its users, as a group. It's just fighting a small minority of users who hack their iPhones

Well, I've seen figures (guesses? estimations?) that put the number of unlocked iPhones at 1/6 to 1/3 of total iPhones sold. - that is not a small minority.

Re:Tis the Season

[Z0mb1eman]

How long before, no matter how neat the gadget, the masses decide that Apple simply isn't worth the trouble?

If Sony's any indication, roughly never (or at least until the gadgets themselves stop impressing).

Re:Tis the Season

[Osty]

Look I want to buy a hybrid car but I can't expect them to make any model available today as a hybrid. If I want a hybrid I have to buy what is available. Similarly if I convert a car into some form of biodiesel or hybrid I have to assume I'm breaking warrantly so if something happens to the engine there's a chance it won't be covered.

To take your car analogy one step further, once you've done your hybrid/biofuel conversion, you're probably not going to take it back to the dealer for work. Similarly, once you've unlocked your iPhone, you should be wary of upgrading the firmware. Just as it would be dumb to ask your dealer to reflash your ECU back to stock and "brick" your car, it would be just as dumb to update your iPhone firmware back to stock and "brick" your iPhone.

Re:Tis the Season

[noidentity]

Apple really isn't fighting its users, as a group. It's just fighting security holes that could allow malware, found by a small minority of users who hack their iPhones and who unfortunately rely on these holes to run their home-made software [...]

Corrected that for you.

Re:Tis the Season

[houstonbofh]

You can mod your car every which way and they can't prevent you nor can they "undo" it. Moreover, the mods don't void the warranty.

A bunch of DSM, NISMO, Honda and Subaru fanboys would be laughing at you right now if they were so busy crying about broken heads, transmissions, and warranty's. Some were voided for just showing up at a racing event or car show.

That all said, I so wanted an iphone when it came out. I was so pissed it was not on my carrier. I am so glad I didn't get one now!

Re:Tis the Season

[Anonymous Coward]

If its only "vocal Slashdot geeks" and alike, why the heck Apple gives rats ass for such an minority? Isn't it plain evil and control mentality on their part?

Re:Tis the Season

[bushelpeck]

Apple's not fighting their users, they're protecting them, from their perspective.

The jailbreaks are dependent on vulnerabilities which really can't be allowed to remain, for the security of the entire userbase. When the SDK is released all the developers who've already made apps will have a big head start and the good ones will even have an opportunity to get paid for their hard work if they choose.

Should be unnecessary to point this out on /. but a hack is, well, a hack. Isn't that the fun of it?

Re:Tis the Season

[Baumi]

Apple giveth, and Apple taketh away. Why they keep fixing security holes makes no real sense. Fixed that for you. All unsupported iPhone apps rely on security holes to install. Should they really leave tose unpatched for every single user just to please the hacking community?

I'm all for 3rd party apps on the iPhone, and if Apple's announced SDK turns out to be weak, count me among the complainers, but I don't expect Apple to compromise their phone's sceurity to please the hacker out there.

Re:Tis the Season

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Apple seems to ignore users who know what they are doing.
I don't have an iPhone or iPod specifically for this reason: I can't write software for it.

Last week my MacBook broke down. I brought it to the apple store and they replaced my screen ready the next day.

What I noticed though, is that while my fault had absolutely nothing to do with software
they reset bits and pieces of the system, changed wallpaper and CHANGED MY ROOT PASSWORD!

* For people who have repaired their macs before you will know that the customer service is very polite
and they offer to back up and restore your data in case they blow up your hardware and need to give you a new one.
In my case I had done my own backups and opted out of this service.

Regarding the iPhone i might buy it if:
  * They provide a proper SDK (a matter of freedom, not necessarily that I would install or develop anything)
  * They release the ties with specific telephone companies.

My current carrier provides the same service (unlimited data, et cetera) for £20/month instead of £35/month...
Apple isn't playing very fair.

Re:Tis the Season

[tepples]

When the SDK is released all the developers who've already made apps will have a big head start All? Even those who can't afford some significant annual fee for the SDK? Or can you cite an announcement that Apple won't be charging for the SDK?

Re:Tis the Season

[stewbacca]

While we are correcting things for him...

If I WERE richer. (Subjunctive case, "If I was..." becomes "If I were...").

Excellent post otherwise.

Re:Tis the Season

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hard to argue that the 1.1.2 mechanism was a security hole. They installed a device file for /dev/disk0.... If that's a security hole, then Mac OS X must be fundamentally insecure because it supports device files, too....

Previous exploits were security holes. Making the 1.1.2 jailbreak fail is just Apple being bastards.

Re:Tis the Season

[david_thornley]

The masses don't care about new apps on their iPhone. It does a lot of things well and easily out of the box, and that's good enough.

Nor is Apple fighting the users. Apple is working on a way for people to provide third-party apps on the iPhone in a way Apple can support. This is not a minor task, and it isn't ready yet.

This means that any third-party apps are there because of bugs somewhere in the iPhone software, bugs that might be exploitable as security holes. Apple does have a responsibility to fix bugs that might be exploitable.

In the meantime, people who want to keep their third-party apps on their iPhones do have a choice: don't upgrade the software. If I were to hack my Linux kernel (which is perfectly legal and moral), I wouldn't just accept automatic updates after that. Hack the software and you mess up official updates. It's as simple as that.

Re:Tis the Season

[Lars T.]

When the SDK is released all the developers who've already made apps will have a big head start All? Even those who can't afford some significant annual fee for the SDK? Or can you cite an announcement that Apple won't be charging for the SDK? Can you cite one that they will charging for the SDK? Esp. one that sys they will charge "some significant annual fee"? Can you cite a source that they charge for any of their SDKs? Can you cite a source that proves Linus won't ask you for a gazillion $ per month if you want to use Linux tomorrow? Is there anything else you want to make up and sell for truth?

Re:Tis the Season

[bushelpeck]

All? Even those who can't afford some significant annual fee for the SDK?

Yes. All. Why not?

Let's say Apple does charge a big annual fee for the SDK, even though there's no evidence they will (or won't) at this point. That means that fewer entities will buy it, but those who do will have to pay a lot and will be looking to hire developers and/or buy apps in order to make the investment worthwhile.

Or if the SDK is free/cheap then apps can be sold directly to users.

So accomplished developers have the opportunity to win either way. The folks who put all that time and effort into the hacks are going to be in a position to reap the rewards for their initiative, if that's what they choose to do.

Re:Tis the Season

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple can make any products they want; and consumers can buy or not -- that's obvious. Apple doesn't have to cater to "hackers"... they don't have to do anything. They can even eliminate Safari... or YouTube... or remove Videos and Photos from the Touch... they can hobble their products all they want. And consumers can keep their money in their pocket or look elsewhere.

The first Apple computers were better than PC's. But, Apple chose rigid control. Developers moved on to the open PC. And cosumers followed because most apps were written for PC's. If Apple want to repeat their same mistake, I won't lose any sleep over it. It'd be sad, because the iPhone and Touch are a good engineering step, but whatever. But, some next generation Zune or other will have an interface and design almost as good, but will be open, there'll be an explosion of 3rd party freeware and shareware (from the techies who are now playing a cat and mouse game w/ Apple) and that'll be that.

Re:Tis the Season

[lime_rising]

To answer your question: a long time, since the vast majority of users, vocal Slashdot geeks aside, don't give a rats ass about hacking any piece of consumer electronics they own. Most people buy products based on the features that the product claim to have, not on features that they *want* the product to have and believe that they can get by hacking the device. These are the people that Apple is catering to- the people that use their iPhones like they were meant to be used, which means they don't put 3rd party applications on them and hack them like Apple stated explicitly not to. If you use a piece of hardware in a way that the maker has expressly said not to, you have no one to blame but yourself if it doesn't work like you want it to.
Who cares if there are features that are "supposed" to be on the iPhone that can only be had with 3rd party apps? If you want those apps, build your own iPhone. Pretty much everyone who owns an iPhone wants to put 3rd party applications on it.If they install them on the iPhone and the software screws up their phone, who are they going to call for support? Apple, of course. And Apple doesn't want to have to take a lot of calls asking for help with software it knows nothing about. So, what do they do? They make it so that people can't put 3rd party applications on their iPhone if they want to update their iPhone. The iPhone is a fairly new product. You can't expect it to be perfect.
This isn't rocket science, just thinking like a major company with an overly hyped, popular product would.

The cryPhone

[Z80xxc!]

Why is apple trying so darn hard to stifle every attempt to develop for their product? I can sort-of understand the other carriers thing, as they and AT&T want their money, but the 3rd part apps blocking is just ridiculous. 3rd party apps are part of what made me initially interested in them; today I'm glad iDidn't get one. Even microsoft understands the importance of Developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers...

P.S: article tagged cryphone.

Re:The cryPhone

[supersat]

Would you rather them leave the vulnerabilities unpatched so that any web site could 0wn your iPhone if it wanted to? Granted, there should be a way to load third-party apps without resorting to these kinds of hacks, but we'll see what Apple does when they release the SDK.

Re:The cryPhone

[jmv]

What surprises me even more is why the hell people and developers bother with Apple products? Seriously, I just don't understand how you can piss everybody off *and* have a large loyal fanbase. Have they developed some mind control chip or are there more masochistic people in the works than I had previously thought?

Re:The cryPhone

[linuxpng]

It's like being abused in a bad relationship. Human psychology.

Re:The cryPhone

[garote]

Riiight. Because developers develop software for the benefit of the company that makes the platform. Not, say, for their own personal benefit, or the benefit of their fellow enthusiasts and users.

Ironic statements aside, compare the number of developers of Windows applications to the number of developers of OS X applications. Would you look at those numbers and declare that Microsoft must have a larger "fan base"??

Re:The cryPhone

[oman_]

Apple wants to SELL the applications. If any coder can spend a weekend working up a decent solitaire game then that means they won't be able to charge $5 (or whatever) for their solitaire game on iTunes. The cell phone market has ALWAYS been about nickel and diming the customer to death. Charging for text messages?

The movement to provide on-demand services is NOT about improving life for the customer. It has ALWAYS been about improving revenue. Getting more for less.

and anyway...

I own a hacked iPhone with the 1.1.2 firmware with about 15 third-party applications on it. This thing is by far the most useful consumer electronics device I've ever owned (besides my pc of course). I don't have to upgrade to 1.1.3 and it is still useful to me. When it's cracked I'll upgrade.... but either way it's still a win/win for me.

Re:The cryPhone

[Osty]

Have they developed some mind control chip

Not quite a chip, but yes.

Re:The cryPhone

[Bemopolis]

Apple isn't trying to stifle 3rd party developers --they are trying to close potential security holes in the OS, such as the ones that are exploited to install 3rd party apps. As someone has already pointed out, Apple is interested in serving the large majority of iPhone users who want to use the goddam phone, not replace the keypad icons with images of boobies and penguins. Or penguins with boobies. I knew what the iPhone did and did not do when I bought it, it does it, I'm happy with it. If later they settle on a method to install signed 3rd party apps on the iPhone, I'll look into it. For now, I would prefer they concentrate their fire on any lingering security issues. As for Microsoft understanding the importance of developers, they pretty much have to. Windows Mobile is a major-league atrocity, and given the usual level of security quality control from Redmond, it's not like they could stop apps from being installed anyway.

Re:The cryPhone

[jonwil]

The lockout of 3rd party apps is again the carriers.

They want to block things that hurt their business including:
VoIP & IM apps that take away their call and message revenue
Apps that connect to the internet and use that nice "unlimited data" plan for things AT&T doesn't want it used for

The official line from the carriers is "unauthorized 3rd party apps are a security risk to our network" (although if this is true, why hasn't a carrier or phone maker come up with a demonstration on a simulator or a test network?)

Re:The cryPhone

[kimvette]

I finally tried an iPhone and I have to say while I'm extremely impressed, at $599 I'd expect to be able to unlock it and use it with any provider (my provider is Cingular, but it's the principle of the thing), I'd expect to be able to install third-party apps, and I'd expect 3G. Also, I'd expect it to provide GPS functionality since new phones include GPS receivers.

When I upgraded my phone, I went with the Samsung Sync. Although it lacks availability of 3rd party apps, I bought it for the short term - it has instant messenger clients (YIM, AIM, and MSN). 3G access, and surprisingly, is not locked. I bought it expecting to buy an OpenMoko phone by now (it's still vaporware) but the screen size is inferior to the iPhone.

APPLE: stop locking the phones, stop breaking third-party apps, and open the platform up. It may be a success, but you could be selling a hell of a lot more units were you to open it up. Much like your hold on OS X, you have an opportunity to OWN the market, taking it away from the leaders, and you're dropping the ball on it. Such a shame, because the iPhone is otherwise an amazing device.

What I love about the iPhone:

  - The interface is nice
  - The browser is AMAZING (it's the full-blown Safari/konqueror/khtml browser!)
  - Screen clarity is fantastic
  - ipod functionality is excellent, and the speaker has a decent volume.
  - WiFi capability
  - It's a nice-looking device
  - The sound quality is great

What I dislike about the iPhone:

  - The DRM. It's locked and they break third-party apps. Sure one can work around that but at $599 one shouldn't have to
  - The lack of instant message clients. To run IM clients you have to fire up safari and use the web-based clients.
  - No 3G. What the heck are you thinking?! Even "free" phones often include 3G now!
  - I think the touch screen may be a safety issue when placing a call on the road. I can dial my sync by feel without taking my eyes off the road. Not possible with a touch screen.
  - No [micro|mini|.*]SD slot
  - proprietary connector, not USB (although that's also true of my Sync)
  - Non-user-replaceable battery

Re:The cryPhone

[Anonymous Coward]

$599? What month is this, June? The iphone has been $499 for quite a few months now. I own an iphone by the way and I feel that it was well worth the money spent. It is far and away the best phone I have ever used and might even be the best consumer electronic device I have ever owned. I am not saying it is perfect, there are quite a few improvements they could make but the usability is amazing and using it is a pleasure rather than a chore. I have not hacked it but I do look forward to the SDK being released in Feb. In the meantime it does everything I bought it to do so I have no complaints there.

Re:The cryPhone

[wizardforce]

change through absurdity, basically the idea is to herd companies favoring control to become so draconian in their attempts to control their products that even the most dim-witted consumer will wake up to the fact that it is utter lunacy to buy said company's products.

Re:The cryPhone

[Anonymous Coward]

Development, development, development is an incredibly complicated process that requires co-ordination, co-ordination, co-ordination, especially if you want to deliver a certain hallmark of quality and consistent level of usability that identifies your product above all others.
This motley crew of 3rd party developers can hardly be said to have a development road-map that is synchronised with that of the device manufacturer, Apple, or indeed with each other. Some are in it for the technical challenge, some just want to "stick it to the man", some are dying to be loved, popular, or to get laid, some want to do it for the money, etc. Where's the guarantee that these developers will "stay the course" and not just drift off to some other product platform when the inclination grabs them? Where's the testing to ensure that application A does not interfere with the stack used by applications B, C, E & J?
It is not surprising to read the remarks of users of jailbroken iPhones regarding the number of times they have to "re-initialise" or reboot their modded gadget in everyday use of their hacked applications. Does this gripe not vaguely remind you of one of the chronic ills of one particular software platform that "understands the importance of developers, developers, developers"?
This is precisely why Apple's iPhone is making such inroads and waves into an industry of which they have such little experience. Hitherto the mobile apps scene has been revealed as an absolute mess of bandit-country proportions and this is a big indictment of the existing Big Players on the mobile applications scene, who are reportedly hurrying back to the drawing-board to assess anew the slick, co-ordinated and planned approach to usability and user-interfacing that the iPhone has unleashed upon their cosy fiefdoms like a cluster bomb.
Hopefully, with the release of an SDK next year, the more committed and enterprising of these developers in the wild can adopt a more consistent approach to building elegant, cool, simple and reliable apps that echo the trademark Apple approach to making money the proper and considerate way.

Re:The cryPhone

[A1rmanCha1rman]

Development, development, development is an incredibly complicated process that requires co-ordination, co-ordination, co-ordination, especially if you want to deliver a certain hallmark of quality and consistent level of usability that identifies your product above all others. This motley crew of 3rd party developers can hardly be said to have a development road-map that is synchronised with that of the device manufacturer, Apple, or indeed with each other. Some are in it for the technical challenge, some just want to "stick it to the man", some are dying to be loved, popular, or to get laid, some want to do it for the money, etc. Where's the guarantee that these developers will "stay the course" and not just drift off to some other product platform when the inclination grabs them? Where's the testing to ensure that application A does not interfere with the stack used by applications B, C, E & J? It is not surprising to read the remarks of users of jailbroken iPhones regarding the number of times they have to "re-initialise" or reboot their modded gadget in everyday use of their hacked applications. Does this gripe not vaguely remind you of one of the chronic ills of one particular software platform that "understands the importance of developers, developers, developers"? This is precisely why Apple's iPhone is making such inroads and waves into an industry of which they have such little experience. Hitherto the mobile apps scene has been revealed as an absolute mess of bandit-country proportions and this is a big indictment of the existing Big Players on the mobile applications scene, who are reportedly hurrying back to the drawing-board to assess anew the slick, co-ordinated and planned approach to usability and user-interfacing that the iPhone has unleashed upon their cosy fiefdoms like a cluster bomb. Hopefully, with the release of an SDK next year, the more committed and enterprising of these developers in the wild can adopt a more consistent approach to building elegant, cool, simple and reliable apps that echo the trademark Apple approach to making money the proper and considerate way.

Re:The cryPhone

[Maserati]

Umm, the $5 solitaire game will (probably) have better graphics, more layouts, more options, better testing, etc. etc. etc. If it doesn't, then a weekend project deserves to kick its ass in the marketplace. If it does, then they'll sell some. The iPod games seem to be selling reasonably well (I have no actual idea), and commercial smartphone software sells so a developer willing to a bit of work will have a salable product; just like always.

That said, playing solitaire on a touch screen is pretty sweet. Even if I did only find one so Mom would understand why I bought the thing. She isn't a techy, hates the games *I* play but will go to great lengths to obtain a truly great puzzle or solitaire game.

Re:The cryPhone

[Anonymous Coward]

$599? What month is this, June? No it's December. It says December at the top of every comment on this page.

I own an iphone by the way and I feel that it was well worth the money spent. It is far and away the best phone I have ever used and might even be the best consumer electronic device I have ever owned. But how valuable is your opinion when you don't even know what month it is? The page has December written all over it, and you think it's June. Maybe you are wrong about the iPhone as well? Just something to consider.

Re:The cryPhone

[nitehorse]

Actually, they dropped the price to $399 (USD).

Re:The cryPhone

[Osty]

- The DRM. It's locked and they break third-party apps. Sure one can work around that but at $599 one shouldn't have to

I'm not sure I'd call that "DRM". I guess it's fair enough to use "DRM" as a generic term, but the lack of third-party access isn't exactly "Digital Rights Management".

- I think the touch screen may be a safety issue when placing a call on the road. I can dial my sync by feel without taking my eyes off the road. Not possible with a touch screen.

Evil, evil cell phone user! The inability to touch-type on the keypad is a feature, keeping idiots from trying to dial on cell phones while driving. Now if only it took more than one touch to answer, to keep people from answering calls while driving ...

- No [micro|mini|.*]SD slot

Personally, I don't care about that. The integrated storage (4GB or 8GB) is more than enough for what I need, so I don't see any reason to have removable storage. Since it's easy enough to sync stuff to or from the phone (unlike my old RAZR, great phone but piece of crap Motorola software), adding a card reader would've just increased the bulk of the phone and an unsexy hole on the side.

- proprietary connector, not USB (although that's also true of my Sync)

While the connector is proprietary, it's not exactly uncommon. It's simply an iPod connector, which you can pick up just about anywhere. The other end of the cable is USB, and it comes with a nice little USB-to-mains brick for charging from a wall socket.

I do agree with you on the other points. 3G and a user-replaceable battery would be nice. I'm hoping for IM apps to show up once the SDK is released early next year (I could hack the phone, but I really don't care enough to bother).

Re:The cryPhone

[Anpheus]

The stuff that you can put on these phones -BLEW MY MIND-.

It's insane, and you'll not believe it until you see it. First, dispel the idea that EDGE is slow as / slower than dial-up, it's much better. Even my podunk town of only five digit population within a fifteen mile area, and even further out of town, I get around or over 200 kbps.

Once you realize that, you realize, oh wow, all those web apps actually can work, even some crazy ones you wouldn't think would. And all the time people are coming up with new stuff.

If I hadn't received one as a gift this holiday season, I'd probably still be a skeptic. My return gift was to jailbreak the phone of my father who bought himself and I one. As a networking guy for most of his life, but a little out of the loop, he had no idea he wasn't just buying a cool phone, but something that runs a BSD kernel and can be manipulated just like any other OS. VNC? Samba? CHECK! It's the single most useful and capable device I've ever owned, and I think we're only cracking the surface here.

Re:The cryPhone

[onefriedrice]

What surprises me even more is why the hell people and developers bother with Apple products? Seriously, I just don't understand how you can piss everybody off *and* have a large loyal fanbase.
I'm not sure who the loyal fans are that are supposed to be so pissed. As a developer, I develop apps for the iPhone/iPod touch because it's a fun platform. I expect Apple to patch their security issues, so that doesn't make me pissed when they do. We'll just have to find a new one until Apple releases their official SDK. No biggie. Honestly, I'd be much more pissed if they _didn't_ patch their own security holes.

As a user, it doesn't make me upset either since I know exactly what I bought. I didn't expect it to do more than advertised, so why would I be upset when I can do even more by way of jailbreak for a while until Apple patches their software? Plus, if there are 3rd-party apps I've come to rely on, there certainly is nobody forcing me to upgrade to Apple's new patch. I'll do it when I'm good and ready. Should I be mad that Apple patches their software? No, that's irrational.

You could try to argue the point that Apple should just patch the bugs and leave the apps, but you would be ignoring the fact that the apps are still unauthorized and (for all they know) malware. Under the current model, it would be a security problem for Apple to leave unknown apps on peoples' iPhones and iPod touches until they have established the "right way" via an SDK and probably some sort of authorization system.

So no, as a developer and owner of an iPod touch, this does not make me angry. Who knows when the official SDK will be ready, but until that time it will be fun trying to jailbreak Mobile Mac OS X again.

Re:The cryPhone

[Serious Callers Only]

Apple isn't trying to stifle 3rd party developers --they are trying to close potential security holes in the OS, such as the ones that are exploited to install 3rd party apps.

The vulnerability used to install apps is on 1.1.1, you have to downgrade to that and then upgrade again currently. So wiping apps would be purely malicious action by Apple - we'll see when the update comes out. Breaking a few, or even all, in some way is fair play - they're unsupported after all.

As someone has already pointed out, Apple is interested in serving the large majority of iPhone users who want to use the goddam phone, not replace the keypad icons with images of boobies and penguins. Or penguins with boobies.

Nice straw man - here's some real apps which Apple doesn't provide :

* Books.app - ebook reader with the potential to read anything on gutenberg
* SSH - SSH into your phone
* AFP Server - see your phone appear on your desktop with bonjour
* Term vt100 - Terminal on your phone
* Mobile Finder - see the files on your device
* Customize - change the order of home screen icons (took Apple a while to get to that it seems)
* TextEdit - simple text editor
* Todo - Todo list, complete with email reminders

Maybe someone will come up with a browser without the limitations of MobileSafari (no download or upload) - wouldn't be that hard given that webkit is already on there.

Personally I can't wait for an SDK, and I'm not going to spend the time before it making excuses for Apple trying to create a walled garden. Let's see what they come up with when the SDK comes out.

Re:The cryPhone

[Ash-Fox]

I finally tried an iPhone and I have to say while I'm extremely impressed, at $599 I'd expect to be able to unlock it and use it with any provider (my provider is Cingular, but it's the principle of the thing), I'd expect to be able to install third-party apps, and I'd expect 3G. Also, I'd expect it to provide GPS functionality since new phones include GPS receivers.

I recently got a 3 Skypephone. I am amazed for the price it costs (50GBP for pay as you go or a 18month contract - minimum 12 pounds monthly). You get a mp3 player, movie player, video calls (non-skype), Steam video (tv channels), steaming audio (internet radio stations), skype-to-skype calls (free which work over the 2g network), podcasting, 3rd party software via j2me, bluetooth, msn messenger (free instant messaging) and the general other features like e-mail, mms, decent web browser (grab opera-mini), 3g support etc.

The only particular feature it lacks really is the visual voice mail (if your provider doesn't support the option of sending voice mail as MMS messages), a touch screen and of course.. the large screen.

In my opinion, it is superior to the iPhone in functionality, capability, cost (50GBP pay as you go or 12gbp 18month tariff verses 269GBP with a 18month, 35pound tariff) and it truly makes me wonder why the iPhone even gets the hype it does. The phone isn't even locked to a specific network and offers Skype calls/instant messages for free.

Re:The cryPhone

[Ash-Fox]

but something that runs a BSD kernel and can be manipulated just like any other OS.

It uses the XNU kernel which is a mish mash of the Mach kernel with a BSD subsystem. I wouldn't consider it a 'true' BSD kernel.

Re:The cryPhone

[tepples]

Under the current model, it would be a security problem for Apple to leave unknown apps on peoples' iPhones and iPod touches Agreed.

until they have established the "right way" via an SDK and probably some sort of authorization system. What sort of authorization system do you expect Apple to set up?

Re:The cryPhone

[Carewolf]

More layouts and more options? Not bloody likely unless hell freezes over, the beast rises and eats Steve Jobs. It will play solitaire in a finely tuned, highly tested, optimal configuration with a single layout you _will_ like, or else..

Re:The cryPhone

[Tony Hoyle]

Even my podunk town of only five digit population within a fifteen mile area, and even further out of town, I get around or over 200 kbps.

OTOH in this city of 5 million people it tops out at 80kbps where it's available... most of the city is GPRS only.

The iphone data is so slow I've given up trying to use it out of range of wifi (which limits it to office, home and Starbucks, basically).

Re:The cryPhone

[rrkap]

Apple wants to SELL the applications. If any coder can spend a weekend working up a decent solitaire game then that means they won't be able to charge $5 (or whatever) for their solitaire game on iTunes. The cell phone market has ALWAYS been about nickel and diming the customer to death. Charging for text messages?

I don't agree. The fact is that there is a sea of free games that run on PCs, AND there is still a lucrative market in software, even stuff like solitaire games that are pretty simple. Most people want commercial games that are easy to find and have a higher level of polish than most of the free stuff out there. Apple probably does want to make money from selling games (they do exist to make money after all), but the fact is that free applications don't pose a threat to them. The reason the iPhone was released without a SDK is that it wasn't really a fully baked product, but it was better than its competitors. With each upgrade they've been adding a bit of clearly missing functionality (do you really think that itunes on the iphone was an afterthought?). I expect the original iphone to be finished some time in February. I'm hoping for a larger capacity version before I replace my trusty RAZR, although I do suffer iphone envy every time I use my wife's iphone.

Re:The cryPhone

[Admiral Ag]

Not necessarily although the apps will have to be distributed through iTunes, if they are to reach a wider user base. But Apple already distributes masses of free podcasts through iTunes. My guess is that Apple wants some way of guaranteeing the safety of applications, so that users don't have their units bricked by bad software. It's in Apple's and every regular owner's interest to have that form of oversight.

My guess is that there was some internal dispute at Apple over how many people would actually want to put additional software on their iPods/iPhones, and whether it was worth the hassle of opening up the platform. That is: a dispute between those who saw these things as dedicated appliances, and those who saw them as the next great portable computing platform. In this respect, you are spot on about the potential of the iPhone/iPod Touch as a portable computing device. The quality of apps installed by jailbreaking and the really cool things you can do with multitouch make it inevitable that the platform argument is going to win, and obviously has won inside Apple due to the new SDK.

However, I doubt very much that Apple is going to be the only company selling apps for these devices. Apple hired EA and some other people to make the games for the regular iPods. No doubt there is some form of SDK used for that, but it has not been made widely available. Apple is going to make the new SDK one widely available. Personally, I'd expect a mix of paid and free apps from a variety of developers. Why would they announce it as an available SDK if only Apple was going to sell software.

Don't tell me that Apple will insist on being able to charge money for all apps sold through iTunes. That would massively depress development, since a lot of companies may well want to give stuff away for free (as it was with internet browsers). Similarly, the idea that there has to be a massive fee for the SDK would be stupid as it would deter independent programmers who are frankly better than more established companies at writing the kind of small, useful app that will feature on these devices.

I think we'll be pleasantly surprised.

Re:The cryPhone

[Tony Hoyle]

It's an interesting phone.. although AFAIK you don't get the video stuff on PAYG (which is 3's strong point.. they do excellent streaming video).

Re:The cryPhone

[stewbacca]

If you can't even get the price of the phone right, how am I supposed to take the rest of your post seriously?

Re:The cryPhone

[bruce_the_loon]

I think the touch screen may be a safety issue when placing a call on the road. I can dial my sync by feel without taking my eyes off the road. Not possible with a touch screen.

Evil, evil cell phone user! The inability to touch-type on the keypad is a feature, keeping idiots from trying to dial on cell phones while driving. Now if only it took more than one touch to answer, to keep people from answering calls while driving ...

And what about emergency dialing while you have a gun to your head? May not be a big problem in your area, but it's a feature in great demand in my country.

Re:The cryPhone

[toddestan]

That would be fine if the $5 solitiare game was competing on a level playing field with the free solitiare game. The whole point is that if Apple controls all the doors and holds all the keys, then they aren't competing on a level playing field.

Re:The cryPhone

[david_thornley]

Apple products, in general, do useful things with less hassle than the alternatives. Even being a geek, I like having some things easy to use to I can concentrate on what I want to do, without worrying about other things. For example, one reason I dislike Visual Studio is that doing things on it currently requires more attention from me than a few xterms running vi, one running gdb, and one for compiling and test-running. (Other people may feel differently about this.)

Apple also appears to try to make things friendly for developers. MacOSX comes with a complete development environment, like most flavors of Linux, and unlike Windows. The issue with the iPhone is that they released the phone before they had the SDK ready. This was the right way to go for most people, but it's frustrating for people who hate to have a computer they can't program themselves.

So, there's a window of less than a year between the first iPhone and a good way to program it. Is this worth all the bitching?

Re:The cryPhone

[CoolVC]

VoIP & IM apps that take away their call and message revenue

I don't really believe this point. I have 3rd party apps on my iPhone, including AIM. I still continue to use text messages instead of AIM because of their superior quality. I am willing to pay for the simple fact that I know my recipient will receive the message. And e-mail is already built into the iPhone, and as long as I stay in the USA it is free anyway. So it's not like they aren't already providing a "free" alternative.

Re:The cryPhone

[coolGuyZak]

The cell phone market has ALWAYS been about nickel and diming the customer to death.

An interesting stance to take regarding the iPhone. Unlimited data and 200 text messages for ~20 bucks more than a basic cell plan seems mightily fair to me.

Re:The cryPhone

[petermgreen]

What sort of authorization system do you expect Apple to set up?
I would expect something like nokias setup. Basic capabilities maybe availible to anyone. More "risky" stuff availible to developers to use on thier own phone through IMEI locked devcerts and with an official signature/test process required for release.

Re:The cryPhone

[kimvette]

sorry, I wasn't aware they dropped the price. However, given that it WAS $599 why should I take your snarky comment seriously? :-p

Re:The cryPhone

[hattig]

You could try to argue the point that Apple should just patch the bugs and leave the apps

That's great if the iPhone OS API that these apps are using has remained stable.

It's highly unlikely that is the case - indeed that's surely one reason why there hasn't been an SDK earlier.

When the SDK is released in February (I would be expecting an SDK developer preview as well - whether that is earlier, or what is given in February is another thing) that will be when the underlying API is solidifying into a stable platform.

For a platform that is only 6 months old (in the public) it's going to have teething issues, and it's good that Apple gets the API as useful as possible before stabilising it. The alternative of waiting to release the iPhone in 2008 is, of course, ludicrous.

I'm sure that all the current third party iPhone apps will be ported to the SDK in very short notice. I also expect the SDK to be free, like XCode. The issue of signing apps is something else entirely, but I can understand why Apple would keep this in place, and why they might have to charge a fee, or distribute via iTunes, etc. I hope that Apple don't refuse to sign stuff they don't like (e.g., NES emulators, chat apps, etc). We will find out more within a month, let's leave it for now.

The other news regarding the update is good. Multiple SMS recipients being the number one feature for most people I imagine (and one that shouldn't have taken so long to implement either).

Re:The cryPhone

[hattig]

OTOH in this city of 5 million people it tops out at 80kbps where it's available... most of the city is GPRS only.

So faster than DSL via Virgin Media in London then... i've taken up reading again when i'm down there.

Re:The cryPhone

[ostermei]

And what about emergency dialing while you have a gun to your head? May not be a big problem in your area, but it's a feature in great demand in my country.

In that case, I'm thinking you've got better things to spend $399 on than an iPhone... such as a plane ticket the hell outta there.

Re:The cryPhone

[A Jew]

iTunes could end up being a package manager for desktop applications.

Why do people like the iphone?

[CodyRazor]

I cant help but find myself asking, with all the stories like this, why do people like the iphone so much? what benefit does it offer? all i can come up with is that its an apple product, and its riding on that alone. It has a cool touch screen, but thats about it. I have a nokia 6300 i got the other day which i think is awesome. And it can do almost anything an iphone can do. My previous N95 (which sucks, never buy one, too many faults to count) did more. Can someone tell me objectively what makes an iphone so great apart from just being an apple product? (which i fail to see as being a leigitimate reason)

Re:Why do people like the iphone?

[DraconPern]

For me, it's the perceived (and probably real) feeling of responsiveness. You don't get a machine that seems to hang for a second or two while something loads.

Re:Why do people like the iphone?

[Doomstalk]

It's got the best web experience of any phone on the market, bar none. Between the multi-touch interface, the hardware scaling, and Safari's excellent (as phones go) rendering engine, it's fantastic. I got an iPhone in September after using a Windows Mobile smartphone (the Cingular 3125), and my data usage went up by a factor of 10 because the iPhone's web experience was just that much better.

Re:Why do people like the iphone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone tell me objectively what makes an iphone so great apart from just being an apple product?

Despite your sig which makes me think you are just a troll, I'll bite and enumerate why the iphone is better than any other phone on the market today.

1) The iphone is a full compliment to the itunes systems, meaning that while yes the ROKR had an itunes compatible player built in, it could only play music, and not the many extras that are part of the itunes experience offered today, including ringtones, movies, TV shows, and more.
2) The iphone includes a fully featured browser - this is unique in the hand-held computing arena. Unlike my LG Fusic where I have to browse to http://slashdot.org/mobile (not sure if the address is accurate), the iphone can go directly to http://slashdot.org/ and get this web page exactly as the slashdot team designed the web page - as well as a huge majority of any other web page on the internet.
3) The iphone brought visual voicemail to the cellular phone. While this is a feature that has been popular with certain telephony software packages which allow you to view and listen to your voicemail messages on your computer, this is the first time this feature has been available on a cell phone. Apple had to work closely with the network vendor (Cingular before AT&T bought them out) to bring this feature to market.
4) The iphone has the largest viewing space of any cell phone on the market because the keyboard is a virtual keyboard that is only displayed when it is needed. Until the iphone was announced, no other hand-held computer or cell phone had this feature - if a device used a keyboard, it took up anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of the space on the device. By utilizing a virtual keyboard, the iphone is able to use more space for a viewable screen.
5) The iphone does not require a stylus in order to operate. And while buttons are smaller than the finger, intelligent software understands which button you were trying to press through an algorithm which tries to determine both which button had more coverage, as well as which letter makes more sense in the spelling of the word/message you are trying to type. While other computing devices have touch sensitive interfaces, none are as sophisticated as the iphone.
6) The iphone syncs photos taken with the iphone into iphoto (on the mac). How many other cell phones automatically export as well as sync your photos into a photo manager?

Off the top of my head I was able to recite at least 6 features which make this device such a great device, with some of them being killer applications (who wouldn't want to view the real internet from your cell phone instead of the portion of the internet which can only be displayed on such a small view screen?). Methinks that if you really want to get into the discussion, perhaps you should investigate what intrigues you instead of blindly making derogatory statements which do nothing more than show your ignorance? For a first generation device, the iphone is an incredible piece of engineering from a company who analyzed user needs and designed a device around satisfying those perceived needs. Is this a tool for explorers and geeks? Obviously Apple has set limitations on how their devices are to be used based on their contractual obligations to their network providers. While I do not fully agree with those limitations, I would honor them should I purchase this device because of the functionality it provides me beyond any other device available today.

Re:Why do people like the iphone?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Its a good honest question.

I just bought an iPhone. 2 days ago. I am both pleased and underwhelmed. I find that it doesn't do as much as i would have hoped. It does a lot well, and the browsing is nice, i wish it were faster. Even in wifi mode, it isnt as fast as browsing on a laptop over wifi.

Its a great start. It really is a nice way to use a phone but i do think that it will be a challenge for apple or any developer when they open their sdk, to add more complex functions to the ui workflow.

Currently there is no copy and paste for example. How do you do it with just a touch screen ui? You only have so much screen space, plus you run the risk of touching other things on screen and activating their functions.

Its a great start, and the os will get more and more apps from apple over time, atleast i hope thats their plan. I hope they upgrade it with functionality and apps, even as new hardware versions come out, i hope the os and apps continue to be available on all of the versions over the years.

Itunes for windows absolutely sucks. My pc can run crysis at 1920x1080 with evertyhing set to very high except the shaders which is set to high.... but it can barely run itunes.

Itunes is a programming peice of shit. Apple really hates PC users. It shows. It is fucking obvious, and i feel ripped off in that regard. Apple NEVER supports their hardware on the PC, with quality software. It has been that way for a while now. Apple purposely neglects the iTunes software on windows and it is a fucking rip off scam. Its a bait and switch. Buy the hardware, but its a nightmare to use on windows. Just the way Apple wants. It does not at all inspire me to even consider buying a MAC. Its Apple's way of saying "See we told you PCs are slow and bad..." when in reality its Apple playing bullshit. They should be investigated by the feds for it and i'm dead fucking serious.

Youtube and Google maps is incredible on the iphone.

Email needs some more functionality.

The iPhone needs Instant messeging through a native app running in the os (AIM, YAHOO, MSN, etc). Currently you can do it through webpages like meebo.com

I cant open a link in a new window in the browser. You can with a bookmarklet but, not natively in safari. This makes it a pain when browsing because it doesnt cache the pervious page, it seems quite slow when going "back".

There are problems, but overall, if the os is robust enough and there is enough ram and processing power, all it takes is some smart thinking in the ui department to continuously add features and improvements.

Like i said, its a great start. Apple needs to follow through and improve the software both on the iphone, and on windows!!!!!!!!!

Sorry wrote this while on a phone call so i appologize for the jumbled thoughts. :)

Re:Why do people like the iphone?

[suresk]

I like my iPhone too, but the lack of IM functionality is pretty glaring. I can download and watch stupid videos off YouTube, but I can't use it for Google Talk? I've been able to use IM on other cell phones for years.

The conspiracy theorist in me says that this is at the request AT&T (or whatever their name is at the moment - I lose track) because it could compete with their income from text messaging. Who knows?

Re:Why do people like the iphone?

[CodyRazor]

Despite your sig which makes me think you are just a troll, I'll bite and enumerate why the iphone is better than any other phone on the market today.

Your posts default to 0 as well, friend. Clearly it is a joke. If it is not your cup of tea that does not make me a troll.

Apart from mac-specific features (which affect some 2% of the population) you didnt list anything there that my n95 didnt have. as far as non apple-specific features you listed, every windows mobile device iv had has had a virtual keyboard, thats been pretty standard since about 2000. My n95 had a virtual keyboard. It also had a fulyl featured browser, every device iv had for the past 4 or so years has, granted most have been windows mobile devices. Iv been using actual non-mobile internet since my HTC XDA2. also as far as viewing space, my previous HTC universal had a 640x480 screen, so much more viewing space. Every windows mobile device iv had including my N95 automatically synced photos my pc. not to mention the 5-megapixel camera.

I dont know what visual voicemail is, i live in australia which is even more backwards in terms of mobiles than the us, so il have to give you that, also i agree the touch screen is a good interface. personally i prefer buttons, but thats just me.

Also i must protest, i did not make any blatantly derogatory statements. It seems these days people cant distinguish between that and simply calling apple products into question.

So im still not aware of any killer app, or indeed anything more than a touch screen, as high end phones have been displaying full internet with better resolution literaly for years.

Also yes i have used the iphone on several occasions.

Re:Why do people like the iphone?

[SuperKendall]

And it can do almost anything an iphone can do.

Until you look beyond feature lists, it's impossible to answer your question.

Glad you enjoy your Nokia. Please let me enjoy my iPhone and we can simply not question each others sanity. Eventually enough people around you will use an iPhone that you may understand.

Re:Why do people like the iphone?

[netik]

For what it's worth, I was at apple when iTunes for windows came out. Apple didn't write iTunes for windows, it was outsourced to a bangalore programming team. This might be one of the reasons it sucks so badly.

Re:Why do people like the iphone?

[Travoltus]

I'd put my Palm Treo 700p up against this over hyped thing any day. I get more apps than the iPhone, I get to put any kind of music I want on my phone, and I have FREEDOM. Plus the 700p does such a huge shiteload of things that the iPhone's "advantage" is a joke.

Oh and I've used the iPhone for a week straight.

Re:Why do people like the iphone?

[Anonymous Coward]

i'll post this one anonymously so i don't get bad karma. my motorola a780 can do all this too. just goes to show how little apple-fanbois know about other products.

now you can mod me down with: -1: knows more than i do

Re:Why do people like the iphone?

[CodyRazor]

It distresses me that on a site like slashdot you must post anonymously for fear of reprimand when putting forward a perfectly legitimate opinion, or even statement of fact! This is the exact reason i have bad karma: questioning apple products. The reality distortion field is beggining to stifle the truth on slashdot...

Re:Why do people like the iphone?

[CodyRazor]

I didnt say theres anything wrong with enjoying your iphone, if you do thats great. but i find your post interesting, as you seem to be condemning open discussion of a product and then telling me that if an item becomes popular enough i will like it. I dont know if thats what you base your desisions on but its certainly not my method. Not calling you out as a fanboy, but you sound exactly like a religious person when called on the scientific authenticity of their beleifs. Perhaps one day there will be a religion of apple...

Re:Why do people like the iphone?

[stewbacca]

I've often wondered why a very good development team at Apple couldn't make good software for the PC. I tried Safari on my work PC and it was awful. iTunes is evil bad on a PC. Quicktime equally bad. Your outsourcing claim makes perfect sense (if it is true).

BUT...since I'm primarily a Mac user at home, these issues are moot, because they all work excellently on a Mac.

It does not at all inspire me to even consider buying a MAC[sic]"

That's a shame, because you'd note that they work very well in the Mac environment.

Re:Why do people like the iphone?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

sir, i do not know you in the least, but i have no doubt of what you say is true.

iTunes for Windows... and quicktime, are just peices of shit on windows.

Apple is doing something extremely shadey when it comes to supporting their devices on a PC.

Re:Why do people like the iphone?

[stewbacca]

Oh and I've used the iPhone for a week straight.

And I've used my iPhone off-and-on for six months now. Does that make me less legit than you?

Re:Why do people like the iphone?

[D.A. Zollinger]

Clearly it is a joke. If it is not your cup of tea that does not make me a troll.

Misinterpretation makes you a troll, if it is not obvious that it is a joke, then your message will be interpreted incorrectly which will get you mislabeled - especially in a text only communications medium in which context, facial expressions, vocal intonations, and body language are not being expressed. I am sorry for mislabeling you as a troll, it seems that was not your true intention.

... you didnt list anything there that my n95 didnt have.

Are you really trying to compare a $400 iphone with an $800 n95 which you clearly indicated in an earlier post by saying:

which sucks, never buy one, too many faults to count

As for the windows mobile specific feature, I am at fault - without being involved in the market, or needing such a device, I have not shopped around for such devices therefore I am unaware of what are current features. Is this because of a lack of advertising by Nokia? Microsoft? Why is it that I am aware of the features of the iphone without realizing it, yet know nothing of Microsoft's platform when they have been in the market longer? Is that a failure on Microsoft's part?

The point I was trying to express was that while many devices focus on specific features, the iphone brings all of these features into one device which works as advertised.

Also yes i have used the iphone on several occasions.

Conversation over - if you have used this device and you see no value in it, then there is nothing I or anyone else can say to change your opinion. You are obviously too entrenched in your own perceptions that it would be useless for me to continue trying to enumerate the value I perceive this device brings me.

Re:Why do people like the iphone?

[toddestan]

That's a shame, because you'd note that they work very well in the Mac environment.

The point is that if all the first hand experience that a user has with Apple software is their really terrible Windows programs, why would they want a computer built by the same company? Most people don't think "Well, it has to run better on a Mac", they are going to think "Wow, Macs must really suck if the whole OS is as bad as iTunes".

Re:Why do people like the iphone?

[stewbacca]

Maybe it don't come out right, but your post is exactly what I mean. It IS a shame, because people will think the Mac isn't any good, based on their experiences with Apple apps on PC.

Re:Why do people like the iphone?

[Anonymous Coward]

See, the thing is iTunes for Windows is not really a Windows application. It's an OSX application running on Windows through OSX emulation layers. Consequently it's a pig and its look & feel is completely different from other Windows programs and therefore imparts you with the "something's not right" feeling that you just can't get your finger on.

Re:Why do people like the iphone?

[dfghjk]

iTunes sucks equally on the mac. It frequently grinds my quad MacPro to an absolute halt and has to be forcably killed. Not that it changes anything you said, but I don't think Apple went out of their way to make iTunes worse on Windows.

Re:Why do people like the iphone?

[McDutchie]

iTunes sucks equally on the mac. It frequently grinds my quad MacPro to an absolute halt and has to be forcably killed.

Bullcrap. It runs smoothly on my gf's G3/400MHz iMac.

Re:Why do people like the iphone?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I apple looks at it a different way. I think Apple knows that iTunes + Quicktime for windows is complete shit and they are absolutely fine with it.

The reason being, that they already got you. Lets say someone buys an iphone for full price at launch (which was i believe $600 at the time), they then come home and plug it into their PC, only to find that iTunes is horribly slow and the overall nice phone, is now being dragged down by windows and iTunes. I think Apple is banking on the idea that the user, says to him/herself... "Hmmm, why is it so slow? The iPhone runs very smooth and its so nice, but when i plug it into my windows pc, it barely functions. This cant be apples fault, because the phone is so great and smooth!"

They then go down to the apple store or contact apple support and They start wondering about those MAC computers, for the skinny guy on tv says its faster, no spyware, virusses, or annoying popups. Surely they must be right, just look how "my" new iphone runs on windows...

Anyways. I think Apple believes that it works in their favor and they could careless about supporting windows. Its a dam shame because like you said, to a lot of people, they will just get pissed off and feel ripped off by Apple.

Their poor coding on iTunes + Quicktime for windows definitely doesnt set a good example of Apple and you really have to wonder why they havent fixed it yet.

The iPhone box says it supports Vista. It doesnt tell you which version specifically. All thingz made for Vista are supposed to have 64bit and 32bit drivers by microsoft law. Why does Apple get to get away with this?

Re:Why do people like the iphone?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Even if thats the case, its still programmed like shit because either the emulation layer is coded extremely poorly, or iTunes itself is just garbage.

How many folks run WINE on a daily basis in linux, and how many have done it on much more primative hardware, and have had programs like photoshop running in WINE?

There is no excuse for the poor performance. Its version 7.5 and it needs a complete native rewrite, or it should be dropped from windows.

Its not likely they'll drop it from windows, so Apple should just open the dam thing up to 3rd party management/syncing software, AKA people who give a damn enough to write quality software.

Re:Why do people like the iphone?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Thats interesting, but i wonder why it runs like that on your MAC? Ive used it on a MAC before and it was pretty smooth compared to windows. Its quite possible you have more songs in your library than on the macs i've used.

I dont doubt it has its problems on MAC though because everytime i use a Mac for final cut the dam thing crashes in so many ways its frustrating. Not that windows software is better, but it certainly dispels the myth that everything is rosie on the Apple side of the fence.

From what i understand, its better in general on the mac but if what you say is becoming more common on the Apple side, then you really need to question why. The iPod and iTunes are responsible for Apples recent success and i cant for the life of me see why they would allow their bread and butter to run so poorly.

Re:Why do people like the iphone?

[CodyRazor]

On the contrary, the fact that i have found it to have no appeal is what makes me interested in why other people like it.

And saying the iphone is $400 and an N95 is $800 isnt exactly fair... The N95 is about $600 unlocked, the iphone is $400 and comes with a nasty 24 month at&t contract which you cant ignore, unlocking aside. (That removes a few of the main features anyway from what i understand.)

The N95 I had(have) is plagued with problems, I know others that havent had a single issue, although problems seem to be quite prevailent. My comparison is assuming you get a good one and not a lemon.

In an objective comparison marketing and brand awareness dont come into it, thats all irrelivant. Marketing shouldnt be a consideration to someone weighing up two devices. I dont think its a failing of microsoft as anyone looking for such a device can easily find the exact and technical facts regarding a windows mobile device, as opposed to the marketing double talk apple surrounds the iphone with.

If youd like a reason to hate apple's marketing machine I remember a while ago I wanted to download X11 for osx, on the apple site where the download was located it boldly proclaimed "This one goes to 11!" I bet that made you shudder. They then proceeded to act as if it was an apple product. How ignorant do they think someone with a reason to download x11 is? I just wish apple wouldnt treat me like a child, im not interested in how many ways you can tell me it has "High definition graphics", I want to know what f*cking graphics card it has! (lol they still advertise Doom3 benchmarks)

And I adjusted my sig, so that it wont happen again heh.

Re:Why do people like the iphone?

[CodyRazor]

Currently there is no copy and paste for example. How do you do it with just a touch screen ui? I suggest the same way windows mobile handles it, you just hold your stylus (finger) down for a couple of seconds and a small menu pops up like a right click.

Re:Why do people like the iphone?

[Anonymous Coward]

They need both 32 and 64 bit compatibility only if they want a Microsoft "Works with Windows Vista" sticker on the box. Despite it not being a terrible looking sticker, I highly doubt Apple would want marring their pristine packaging, even if they did offer up x64 support.

So, they aren't really "getting away with" anything, except huge piles of cash.

Re:Why do people like the iphone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Itunes is a programming peice of shit. Apple really hates PC users. It shows. It is fucking obvious, and i feel ripped off in that regard. Apple NEVER supports their hardware on the PC, with quality software. It has been that way for a while now. Apple purposely neglects the iTunes software on windows and it is a fucking rip off scam. Its a bait and switch. Buy the hardware, but its a nightmare to use on windows. Just the way Apple wants. It does not at all inspire me to even consider buying a MAC. Its Apple's way of saying "See we told you PCs are slow and bad..." when in reality its Apple playing bullshit. They should be investigated by the feds for it and i'm dead fucking serious.
you had an interesting post going up until this paragraph, then you started bitching that apple should waste time making better software for a dead end platform. you should be happy that they even bother writing software for your minority platform. did you winge when people made substandard os2 apps? windows is dead my friend, it's only you silly pc gamers keeping it alive today

Re:Why do people like the iphone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just downgrade and install one of the many native instant messaging applications. Or you can wait for the SDK, then pay Apple iTunes and install a native instant messanging client.

Mouse....

[ff1324]

Mousetrap...Mouse...Mousetrap...

I'm going to go out on a limb and say we'll see a fix for the fix by the end of January. So all the iPhone users can get their fix fix fix.

tagged suprising?

[timmarhy]

why the fuck is this tagged suprising? apple released a shitty locked down phone and people hacked it. did you all think apple secretly liked you doing it or something? news flash - apple doesn't love you, won't give you hugs and kisses and will treat you exactly like MS would or any other large tech corp would.

the only suprise here is that apple didn't BRICK your iphones with the update.

Re:tagged suprising?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

why the fuck is this tagged suprising[sic]?

It is tagged "!surprising," as in "not surprising."

apple released a shitty locked down phone and people hacked it.

"Shitty" is a matter of opinion, the majority of which seems decidedly opposed to yours.

the only suprise here is that apple didn't BRICK your iphones with the update.

Apple patched the vulnerability used by third parties to add hacks. Since they are coming out with an official SDK and since this adds a way for users to add custom icons for Web apps it's not like there is not going to be third party apps, some people are just impatient.

Re:tagged suprising?

[biraneto]

That tag is not in spanish. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclamation_mark#Computers

Re:tagged suprising?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Timmarhy has been nominated in three categories for this year's Dotty awards. Most Annoying, Most Likely to Entirely Miss the Point, and the perennial fan-favorite Most Oblivious"
</Announcer Voice>

Re:tagged suprising?

[Carewolf]

The majority of whom? The majority of those who owns an iPhone, or the real majority of everybody who has decided not to buy one?

The more I read...

[jamstar7]

... the less likely I am to buy one of these turkeys. If Apple is so intent on creating strict boundaries around their products, they can leave me out. iLife is sounding more like iDeath the more I hear about it...

iDon't get it

[deftones_325]

iCant believe apple thinks they can outsmart the world by creating the first unlockable phone.

How dare they!

[Anonymous Coward]

How dare Apple fix security bugs that can lead to arbitrary code execution!

They're violating hackers' right to run their code on whoever's hardware they like!

Re:How dare they!

[Anonymous Coward]

arbitrary code execution
by that apple seems to think this is synonymous with vendor/user created apps.

They're violating hackers' right to run their code on whoever's hardware they like!
No they are crackers running code on their own hardware that they paid for! funny that they used a 1984 parody seems that's what they want to do to applications just as they've already done with hardware. Bottom line is they want to be the only provider of apps for the iPhone.

Can't wait until the day Linux is an option for everything. It's coming quick! I want it on my laptop, phone, mp3 player and driving my car for me!

Re:How dare they!

[Slorv]

Exactly - and coders who try to run their own code on their own hardware are the worst kind.

If Apple truely were interested in security they've could have fixed the security problems and at the same time opened up for anyone to make and install apps on the iPhone/Touch platform. But that's obvious to anyone, right?

What's next, an iPod which you can't upload your own music to?

Re:How dare they!

[The Master Control P]

If you sell it to me, it's my hardware, and I'll run whatever code and programs I damn well feel like, thank you very much.

Re:How dare they!

[nevali]

...which is exactly what they're doing. The SDK is due in February. If you don't want to update before the SDK hits, you don't have to. It's not like iTunes doesn't give you a huge great warning before doing it, with plenty of opportunity to back out.

Re:How dare they!

[makomk]

The thing is, as far as I know the only way to get code running on 1.1.2 is to downgrade to an earlier version, get third-party code running on that, make a change allowing you to access the iPhone after it's upgraded, upgrade, and use the (wired) sync interface to load apps on. No real security risk there.

Also, Apple are pretty bad at responding to real security threats. For example, the method of getting code running in 1.1.1 was an easily-exploited buffer overflow in libtiff that was well-known and had been fixed upstream a year ago. That's how seriously they took security.

Re:How dare they!

[sincewhen]

Well then, simply don't apply the update!
It's not like Apple employ a SWAT team to force their way into your home and hold you at gunpoint until you upgrade.
And neither do they have the phone surreptitiously phone Cupertino and upgrade itself without your knowledge.
It's still your hardware! Just don't expect support and compatibility with future software releases if you hack it.

Re:How dare they!

[tgd]

If you think that SDK will allow 1/4 of the apps that currently exist to work, and if you think joe-freeware-developer will be able to get the apps onto the phone, you're nuts.

Apple has stated clearly that its an iPhone SDK to allow authorized (read: bought from iTunes) apps to be run securely (read: sandboxed with limited APIs) on the iPhone.

That means no apps for sharing media, no apps for doing free ringtones, no apps for theming, no SSH, no Apache, no scripting evironments, no streaming media if ATT doesn't like it, no file sharing.

Not even remotely the same thing.

Re:How dare they!

[tepples]

Well then, simply don't apply the update! If a firmware update is available, can the phone still make and receive calls?

Re:How dare they!

[nevali]

Given that nobody outside of Apple has the first idea about what APIs will and won't be present, nor what the distribution and installation mechanism might be, you're jumping the gun somewhat.

Re:How dare they!

[Tony Hoyle]

Steve Jobs himself has said he liked the Symbian model.. said it was 'a start' which means he's probably planning something even more locked down.

Whether developer certificates (which most symbian owners use to install 3rd party apps) will be available hasn't been mention.

Valid Security Concerns

[bug_hunter]

Okay, I hate the fact that the iPhone didn't come out with an SDK at launch, and the fact that there's an existing playform for building phone apps (Java ME) that they completely ignored, and Apple's "Buy a new one if you brick it" policy (Could they at least take your bricked iPhone for $100 or something so the hardware doesn't go to waste?)
BUT
most of the security circumnavigation is a result of buffer overflows and other stuff that could be used in theory by attackers as well so they are right to patch it.

Personally I'm going to wait until after the SDK is released until I think about buying one, and anybody else who is currently trying to hack the iphone should do the same (even just to save their wallets from more brick costs).

Re:Valid Security Concerns

[pembo13]

Established or not, I am no fan of J3ME, having used it extensively for a recent project.

Re:Valid Security Concerns

[CODiNE]

iPhones are not bricked by firmware upgrades. Please quit spreading that, you're a longtime slashdot user you know what bricked means.

Re:Valid Security Concerns

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, they're bricked by failed firmware upgrades.

Re:Valid Security Concerns

[ickoonite]

You should realise that the updates don't actually irreversibly brick unlocked iPhones. They just make the unlocks stop working. A complete software restore makes the iPhone work again, though of course only with AT&T's network. Whilst that may be inconvenient for some customers (maybe as many as 18%), it is not a bricking in the true sense of the word. A truly bricked iPhone would be one not salvageable even with a software restore.

iqu :|

Watch it, Apple...

[PhotoGuy]

I'm a recent admitted Fanboi of Apple. Held off for years, but the unix-based OS X with its stability, semi-open-sourcedness, slick and friendly GUI, and nice hardware, finally won me over. I used to develop-on-linux/deploy-on-linux. Now I develop-on-OSX/deploy-on-linux. Works well.

Anyhow, I like Apple's stuff, in general.

And I recently played with the iPhone. A nice piece of design, a nice piece of hardware. And possibly they are honouring their deal with AT&T by thwarting unlocks with each point release. But continuing to do so, and *especially* nuking 3rd party apps, is really going to alienate themselves from the market in the long run. I think the stat is that more than half of the iPhones are sold without getting activated on AT&T, meaning people are either unlocking them for other carriers, or using them as overpriced iPod Touch's. Apple is going to shoot themselves in the foot if they keep pounding so hard on the 3rd party carriers and 3rd party apps. (And where I live, I couldn't get AT&T if I wanted to. If I could unlock the latest gen of iPhones, I'd buy one. But I can't, so I won't. And the nuking of 3rd party apps is scaring me away completely.)

Apple has time to change their course on this a bit, but I think they'll end up with another Newton on their hands if they don't lighten up.

Hopefully TFA is incorrect or incomplete in some way.

Re:Watch it, Apple...

[coobert]

They've already announced a proper SDK coming out in Feb, that's not supporting 3rd party apps?

They're not being 'nuked' - they're using APIs that are going to undoubtedly change in OS updates. More of a byproduct than it being intended. 3rd party apps are most likely fucked for this reason.

I am constantly amazed - wait scrub that - consistently bored at the level of Slashdot's ferocity towards an issue of which they have the tiniest morsel of information to go on. Bah this is pointless, it'll just get downmodded by iPhone hating groupthink.

Re:Watch it, Apple...

[MichaelSmith]

For a start, your post is not OT.

But it did bring back an article I read more than 20 years ago. It was about the useless scripting language which developers had to use to develop apps for the Newton. When the API comes out it could be a total joke, if that is how Apple want to play it.

Re:Watch it, Apple...

[nick.ian.k]

I am constantly amazed - wait scrub that - consistently bored at the level of Slashdot's ferocity towards an issue of which they have the tiniest morsel of information to go on. Bah this is pointless, it'll just get downmodded by iPhone hating groupthink.

You're right - suggesting that one's opinion is held by a small-but-presumably-correct minority and that it will result in dismissal by the implied incorrect majority is indeed pointless. In all seriousness: if it's pointless, why even mention it? Remember, you don't have to hit submit after formulating a statement/argument/comment. At best, you'll get someone with a similar point-of-view to yours modding you up, and then you'll have other people mod you down for both disagreeing with your statement(s) *and* to compensate for improper moderation generated by your "mod me down" spiel. You're effectively hurting the purpose of the moderation process while simultaneously complaining about improper moderation practices.

On a more on-topic note, I think you're wrong about iPhone hating group-think. People ranting on this issue probably *like* the iPhone, but dislike the ways in which Apple has restricted it. There's a long line to be said here about the question of just how much sense it makes to hand your money or time or community chatter towards something the "bad guys" are ultimately responsible for - it's paradoxical from an idealistic "vote with your dollars" perspective, but most people aren't big enough idealists. Some people will still buy the shiny toy in spite of this because they want to do cool things with, and they're well aware of what they're doing - they *like* the iPhone and *dislike* Apple's behavior. It's allowed.

Re:Watch it, Apple...

[frusengladje]

I think the stat is that more than half of the iPhones are sold without getting activated on AT&T, meaning people are either unlocking them for other carriers, or using them as overpriced iPod Touch's.


Wow. We've gone from 18% to 1/3 to more than 50% all in a single story.

The correct figure appears to be 10%:

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/10/04/report_10_percent_of_september_iphones_sold_to_unlocking_teams.html

Re:Watch it, Apple...

[heinousjay]

Sure, it's allowed. All opinions are welcome. But at the same time, no one is entitled to have Apple give them exactly the product they desire, and the ceaseless whining about it is annoying. So I'm allowed, in turn, to point out that the people who buy the iPhone, then complain about it not being exactly what they want even though they knew that ahead of time, are morons.

Re:Watch it, Apple...

[Tony Hoyle]

That's the percentage bought to be resold.

It's *way* lower than the percentage that are actually unlocked.

Re:Watch it, Apple...

[shmlco]

Or perhaps bought them to give as Christmas presents, in which case you wouldn't see the activations until right about... now.

Re:Wake up Apple!

[Stamen]

Wow, yeah, they were so close to having you as a customer too... drat, foiled again; you showed them; take that Mr. Jobs!

You must be new here...

[TibbonZero]

An exclamation point in computer logic (and thus our logic here on ./) is a way of saying, "not" or a logical negation. As in, shirt = !black. Also sometimes referred to as a "bang" character.

This is adopted in several programming languages. There are other computer based meanings, but here on ./ it's considered to be understood as "not" when placed beside a word. So basically they are saying that this comes as no surprise.

Re:You must be new here...

[satoshi1]

What is this Dotslash place?

Re:You must be new here...

[TibbonZero]

It's where you go for 3am dyslexia

Bah

[MistaE]

Why does every one insist on giving the same old tired arguments every time an update comes out? Doesn't anyone remember that an SDK is coming out in a month (or less?) Everyone will be able to get their crappy Notepad++++ programs that way as well, and with Apple's approval no less.

The issue with the unlocking is a different however. But, until the US people stand up and actually say that they want universal unlocking for all phones e.t.c. exclusive deals like the iPhone will continue. (Speaking of which, there have been exclusive phones in the past, and there will be more in the future, why is the iPhone always singled out for this?

Re:Bah

[ScrewMaster]

Speaking of which, there have been exclusive phones in the past, and there will be more in the future, why is the iPhone always singled out for this?

Because Apple has worked extremely hard to put themselves in the limelight, to maintain as high a profile as possible ... the price you pay for that is that any perceived foibles are yours and yours alone.

Re:Bah

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Speaking of which, there have been exclusive phones in the past, and there will be more in the future, why is the iPhone always singled out for this?

Because in general the only phones anyone on Slashdot cares about are smart phones. Most smart phones makers (Palm, RIM) sell those phones through multiple carriers, so while often locked, they're locked to the phone service you have, not a competitor. The iPhone is the first really nice smart phone that a lot of people here would need to switch carriers to use without a hack, which is why people keep complaining. The issue is finally affecting them.

Re:Bah

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of which, there have been exclusive phones in the past, and there will be more in the future, why is the iPhone always singled out for this?

Because people don't care that they can't get a crappy Motorola RIZR Z3, but they just have to have an iPhone. Similar to how I want something as clean and simple to transcode video formats as VideoHub for a Windows based system. But much like Apple releasing an official unlocked iPhone, it's probably not going to happen.

Re:Bah

[tepples]

Doesn't anyone remember that an SDK is coming out in a month (or less?) Everyone will be able to get their crappy Notepad++++ programs that way as well Everyone? Do you have a source for the availability of the iPhone SDK to hobbyists and not only to established software publishers? Compare the Wii: an SDK exists, but you need to lease office space and have published a game on another platform to get one.

The whyPhone

[SuperKendall]

Why is apple trying so darn hard to stifle every attempt to develop for their product?

Why is Apple fixing known and demonstrated security flaws in products? I can't imagine why!

I would think the fact that they are soon releasing an API for the phone would be seen as an indication they in fact supporting development as best they can. But you simply cannot have Apple leave gaping security holes in a product open or someone WILL exploit them eventually. Would you rather Apple left open the hole that let anyone execute code on your phone with the right TIFF file?

Re:The whyPhone

[Tony Hoyle]

That's a totally false dichotomy and you know it.

What's wrong with apple fixing security holes and *also* making the phone developer friendly? Other manufacturers manage it just fine.

Re:The whyPhone

[numbski]

Fine, fix the vulnerabilities, but tell me this - why are they setting it up so that Applications that live in, well /Applications don't just appear on the Springboard (the "Desktop", if you will) automatically like they did at one point? Why set it up that every time you upgrade, only certain applications appear, and forcibly remove the rest from appearing?

They could fix the flaws without breaking third pary applications just fine, in fact however, they go well out of their way to make sure the third party applications "disappear" each time.

Re:The whyPhone

[Thrudheim]

What's wrong with apple fixing security holes and *also* making the phone developer friendly?

Nothing. That is what Apple is doing! They are closing the holes that could allow malware to be installed, and which, incidentally, are the very same holes that people are using to install third-party apps. And, they are are putting together an official SDK. It's only a false dichotomy if, somehow, the holes could be closed only for malware and not genuine apps. Do some googling on the techniques being used to install these apps and you will understand why they need to be closed for security purposes.

Re:Wake up Apple!

[Osty]

Dear Steve Jobs, I will *never* buy a iphone if you keep pulling this BS. (along with the fact that you are tied into AT&T) Stop behaving like MS, or I'll just build another PC next year vs purchasing a iMac.. and of course, install linux on the PC.

Funny. Microsoft allows complete and open access to their Windows Mobile OS (whether or not you can load your apps onto the phone is left to the decision of the carriers). In fact they even opened the source for the OS (okay, it's a Shared Source license, and it requires having an officially licensed version of Windows Embedded CE 6.0, but the source code is all there if you want to modify it while building a new device of your own). I think this is a case where you want Apple to act more like Microsoft rather than less.

On the other hand, I'm an iPhone user. I spent a fair amount of time playing with Windows CE in the past, and while I like the system I was not a fan of any of the current phones using it today. So I bought an iPhone, and I like it. The current lack of an SDK isn't slowing me down, since I probably wouldn't write any iPhone apps anyway (as much as I'd like to think I would, I know that I'd just dabble a bit and never actually finish anything). Sure, there are some things that are missing (GPS, full Exchange connectivity, an IM app), but I can live without those at least for now.

What percentage of customers are actually impacted

[HockeyPuck]

Does anybody have any numbers that state what percentage of iPhones are hacked?

Close enough for the cigar

[SuperKendall]

If the iPhone can automatically center you even around the right quadrant of a city, a simple search on your current street address will quickly pinpoint where you are. But you probably donb't even need that since you could simply see on the map where the cross-street you are near to is located.

Nate? Were is AT&T?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is the carrier listed as 'Nate' in the clip? Great hack, but that looks like an unlocked iPhone to me. AFAIK there is no way to unlock 1.1.2 yet let alone '1.1.3'.

Nice way to get traffic to your site though.

Re:Nate? Were is AT&T?

[Time Doctor]

The user applied a hack before upgrading that altered the banner on the screen.

Poison Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you not get it yet? It is a fairy tale for kids!!!

Why no J2ME

[SuperKendall]

Okay, I hate the fact that the iPhone didn't come out with an SDK at launch, and the fact that there's an existing playform for building phone apps (Java ME) that they completely ignored,

I have been doing Java stuff for a long time. And I've even done a few small things in J2ME in the past.

But if you think about it, there's a good reason the iPhone doesn't have J2ME - it's not M. That is, nothing about the iPhone is anything like the reference J2ME platform, and it's really not a "Micro" kind of platform in the traditional sense of the word. But there's also no good Java GUI API to an all touch input device either, so you combine that with Java processor and memory requirements and it's really not a good fit for the iPhone, at least right now.

Now that XCode/ObjC has garbage collection, there's really no good reason a Java developer couldn't move over to Objective C if they really want to develop something for the platform.

When the API is finally released, we probably will see someone release a J2ME emulator for the iPhone which would be kind of interesting. But I think it would be some work to put that together.

Re:Why no J2ME

[Mr2001]

Now that XCode/ObjC has garbage collection, there's really no good reason a Java developer couldn't move over to Objective C if they really want to develop something for the platform. Er.. other than having to learn a new language with a new object model (ObjC's OOP doesn't exactly map to Java or C++) and a whole new set of libraries, you mean?

After all that, frankly, garbage collection is only a minor concern. If you're learning a whole new development platform, you may as well learn how to free your own memory when you're done with it.

Sure, they could go through all that, but a barber could learn to be a mechanic too. Even moving from Java to C# is no trivial task, and C#/.NET is fundamentally little more than a Java clone. Don't underestimate the value of letting developers work on the platform they're used to.

Re:Why no J2ME

[0xdeadbeef]

lolwut? How does one write an "emulator" for a suite of libraries and a virtual machine?

The second paragraph makes me question whether you actually know what J2ME is, or have any understanding about the relative specs of feature phones, smartphones, the iPhone, and desktop computers. (And it's pretty moot, anyway, considering the fact that Apple has locked out third party development until february, and depending on the control they leverage with their signing process, could continue to lock out competing platforms such as J2ME and Android.)

Re:Why no J2ME

[dreamchaser]

So how *is* Steve's koolaid, anyways?

Gee...let's make thousands of developers scrap what they know and learn a niche language, because the iPhone is *too good* for J2ME and not good enough for full blown Java? Can you see how ridiculous that sounds?

Re:Why no J2ME

[tepples]

How does one write an "emulator" for a suite of libraries and a virtual machine? By implementing the virtual machine from spec and reimplementing the libraries from spec.

Re:Why no J2ME

[PhrostyMcByte]

Now that XCode/ObjC has garbage collection, there's really no good reason a Java developer couldn't move over to Objective C if they really want to develop something for the platform.

The strength of Java is not garbage collection, buts the massive backing library that allows for rapid development.

Re:Why no J2ME

[crayz]

The people who will write apps for the iPhone are Mac developers, because iPhone is running a lite version of Mac OS X. Almost any Mac developer is all already writing Obj-C/Cocoa, and would much prefer that to Java. Apple used to allow Java/Cocoa development and then killed it because no one wanted to use it

Unlocking is not the same as running applications

[SuperKendall]

The original poster was talking about users running applications. Apple is also taking away region unlocks, but that's a different matter and a very different issue and there are arguments that make sense for both sides of that conflict.

iSaved $599

[Anonymous Coward]

That was my standard reply when asked what I thought about the iPhone and why I'd rather stick to my old nokias, and the price cuts didn't change my view on that device: if I pay for something, I wanna be in control of what that something does.
I still fail to understand how in Earth a closed, tinkerer-unfriendly, platform such as the iPhone can be considered geeky.

Two words

[ArchieBunker]

support and liability. Think about them...

Re:Two words

[Anonymous Coward]

support and liability.

      Yes, because OS publishers have typically been liable for security holes in their products in the past and have had judgments against them... in fact, Microsoft is now out of business.

      Get real.

Re:Two words

[Anonymous Coward]

Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard I assume that Murray Rothbard has never heard of muggers or armed robbers.

But does it BRICK hacked phones?

[RobK]

Are we safe in assuming that this patch does not render iphones unusable? Simply disabling third party apps and patching holes, NOT locking it up so that you have to go to apple and pray for forgiveness?

Jesus Christ, iPhone is not life or death

[jhylkema]

If you're determined to pay too much for a calling plan and an overpriced phone, this is what's going to happen. Sure, it looks cool, but it's locked down enough to make Microsoft blush. I mean, come on.

Mod me to hell, I don't care, I have karma to burn.

Re:Jesus Christ, iPhone is not life or death

[reidconti]

If you're determined to pay too much for a calling plan and an overpriced phone, this is what's going to happen. Sure, it looks cool, but it's locked down enough to make Microsoft blush. I mean, come on. Verizon 900 minutes + unlimited data = $105ish after taxes. I know, I had a Moto Q just before the iPhone price drop, when I bought mine.
AT&T iPhone 900 minutes + unlimited data + rollover minutes = $85ish after taxes.

As for the 3rd party apps, I'll reserve judgment until after the SDK comes out. Like any half intelligent consumer, I bought the iPhone because I was happy with what it did, out of the box, at the price they charged. I did install the jailbreak + some third party apps on the original OS, but none of them were that useful. When the software update came out I knew it would trash my 3rd party apps but didn't care, so I installed it.

To be honest, I didn't need any of the apps and am not really missing any functionality. I didn't even know there were ways to install 3rd party apps on the newer firmwares, that's how little I care.

Once the SDK comes out and apps are "officially" available I'll take another look and see if there's anything I can't live without.

Re:Jesus Christ, iPhone is not life or death

[Anonymous Coward]

I was with you until yesterday.

I just happen to be looking for new cell phone service now. I recommend that you go to the different provider sites and compare plans and their costs.

After a few hours of checking out Verizon, AT&T, Sprint/Nextel, and T-Mobile, the iPhone & its associated service contracts look like pretty good bargains. I recommend that you look into it yourself. It takes about 10 minutes to put together a "plan" with a phone on each site.

I found that for what I was looking for, the only other provider with a similar price point is T-Mobile.

Re:Jesus Christ, iPhone is not life or death

[jhylkema]

Verizon 900 minutes + unlimited data = $105ish after taxes. I know, I had a Moto Q just before the iPhone price drop, when I bought mine.
AT&T iPhone 900 minutes + unlimited data + rollover minutes = $85ish after taxes.

Okay, you're paying a little less with AT&T, but GSM/EDGE data sucks. By contrast, with Verizon or Sprint CDMA data, you can get near-broadband speeds. The iPhone is a data intensive device. Hmm . . . think . . . think . . . which would be better?

Here again, you're paying nearly what you would pay for the legitimate data service and getting the shitty one. So you're really paying more and getting less. I know, I know, it's an iPhone, it's sexy, it's cool, Steve Jobs masturbated with it (when he wasn't backdating his stock options).

Re:What percentage of customers are actually impac

[Anonymous Coward]

the percentage is currently 16.93%
note that the 3 is recurring which means it is 16.93333333333333333 and the 3 goes on for infinity which is another word for 1 million so there would be exactly 74 pages just of 3's!

why Android will push out the iPhone

[peas_n_carrots]

The iPhone is a slick product. Kudos to apple for pushing the edge of UI design. But, once again apple's closed-system philosophy is their undoing. Yes they're releasing an SDK as a business response to Android. They're *responding* in this department, not innovating. That's why Google's Android will overrun the market and apple will be stuck with their ~3% market share just like the Mac.
Predictions are difficult, and I'm no seer. This one looks obvious to me though.

Re:why Android will push out the iPhone

[A1rmanCha1rman]

I suspect strongly that Apple will have "a ringside seat at the Android show" just like Google has a seat in the Apple boardroom.
Also, just as the 2 soul-mates have common plans regarding the impending world-wide frequency allocation auctions, their plans as regards the future of the mobile apps and gadgets industry will prove to be synergistic and mutually inclusive rather than all-out competitive.
So I say, roll on Android, roll on iPhone SDK!!! 2008 (and beyond) is gearing up to be a very interesting time as regards game-changing disruption that can only benefit the user...

Re:why Android will push out the iPhone

[Swampash]

But, once again apple's closed-system philosophy is their undoing.

Yep, those Macbook, Ipod, and Iphone sales figures sure do suck.

At $200+ per share I'll have some of that "undoing" myself thanks.

Re:why Android will push out the iPhone

[kharchenko]

Exactly. Played with an iPhone at the Apple store yesterday - it's a fantastic piece of hardware and has a number of cool apps. But there's no way I'll buy something that I have no right to change. If they opened up the platform (including GSM locks), I'd purchase it. Otherwise I'll wait. For Android or whatever else - it's not like there aren't enough competition coming up.

You are forgetting one important detail.

[NDPTAL85]

Customers. They're what makes a platform. Not openness, not features, customers. Thats what the iPhone has and attracts. And thats what the developers will ultimately follow. Android will have a good following no doubt, but the iPhone's will be larger. In just 6 months this incredibly CLOSED platform is already the #2 Smartphone in the US. In a few years it'll probably over take Blackberry for the #1. I don't see any one or collective Android product rivaling that.

A regular person isn't going to buy an Android unit just because some geek tells him he can install a thousand apps on it. They can already do that on a Windows Mobile, Symbian or Palm OS device. What a regular person wants is a FEW apps that work well. Thats where the iPhone excels and with the SDK that few number will get larger and larger over time. Remember, ultimately its NOT about what geeks want.

Jeve Stobs

[rice_burners_suck]

Proof of my theory, that Jeve Stobs doesn't want people running third-party software on the uPhone. He obviously wants to allow exclusive access to fourth-party apps.

Re:Jeve Stobs

[Dr. Hellno]

He obviously wants to allow exclusive access to fourth-party apps.

If first party is apple, second party is the consumer, and third party is other developers, that makes fourth party... el-jobso in front of a mirror rubbing one out?

Re:Unlocking is not the same as running applicatio

[Anonymous Coward]

The original poster said:

Apple giveth, and Apple taketh away. Why they keep fighting their users makes no real sense. How long before, no matter how neat the gadget, the masses decide that Apple simply isn't worth the trouble? What is Apple taking away? Applications AND unlocking. ~18% unlock. Apple is therefore fighting at least ~18% of their users. Are you, by any chance, retarded?

Mot sure if people realize this

[edwardpickman]

I keep heaing people complain about Apple refusing to unlock the iPhone. Here's an ugly fact, they can't. They have a contract with AT&T preventing them from opening up the iPhone to other carriers, right or wrong they can't open it up without getting sued. Also it may be a condition of the contract they they prevent people from hacking them so they can use other carriers. Nothing is going to change until the contract is up. Once that happens expect changes. iPhone is now a proven product so now everyone is interested in getting a piece of the pie.

Re:Mot sure if people realize this

[pandrijeczko]

Some of you fanbois are so far up Apple's ass, it's untrue!

Apple made a CONSCIOUS MARKETING DECISION to lock the iPhone down to AT&T (in the US) before releasing it - so please do NOT try to absolve Apple from this fact.

Re:Mot sure if people realize this

[onefriedrice]

So because Apple made a partnership with AT&T to reduce their risk in entering a new market, we have to hear people bawl and whine about teh Evilz of APPLE every time someone submits another flamebait on Slashdot? Lovely.

I mean, seriously. Usually companies are flamed her for NOT patching their security holes, but only Apple will be flamed for patching their software.

Re:Mot sure if people realize this

[pandrijeczko]

So because Apple made a partnership with AT&T to reduce their risk in entering a new market, we have to hear people bawl and whine about teh Evilz of APPLE every time someone submits another flamebait on Slashdot? Lovely.

Imagine the fuss that there would be on Slashdot, a lot coming from elitist Apple users, if Microsoft decided to only release Windows on Intel, not AMD, CPUs.

It's precisely the same thing...

Re:Mot sure if people realize this

[stewbacca]

Not even close to the same thing. That was worse than your standard slashdot car analogy.

Now if you'd like to explain how the Apple/AT&T deal is remotely different than nearly EVERY freakin' cell phone + carrier = lengthy contract deal in the US now, I'm all ears.

Re:Mot sure if people realize this

[toddestan]

You can do all the hand waving you want, but it won't change the fact that the iPhone is the way it is because that's the way Apple wanted it to be.

Re:Mot sure if people realize this

[pandrijeczko]

I don't know (and care even less) how things work over there in the US - but over here in Europe, if you do want a specific phone then you are usually able to buy it free of any restrictions as to which service provider you can use; yes it will cost you more than having the phone within a contract or "pay as you go" service, but you can do it.

Also, you can invariably unlock just about any phone for a small fee, and once unlocked it will continue to work normally.

So my analogy stands - I'm afraid it's your undying worship of Apple that is blinding you here...

Re:Mot sure if people realize this

[stewbacca]

Read what I wrote. In the US, not Europe, most phones are bundled to a service provider. It sucks, but that's the way it is.

This has nothing to do with whether or not I worship Apple. If you'd care to clarify your otherwise unclear analogy, I'm all ears.

Re:Mot sure if people realize this

[pandrijeczko]

Read what I wrote. In the US, not Europe, most phones are bundled to a service provider. It sucks, but that's the way it is.

If you're saying it's that way in the US, then I can confirm it's similar in Europe - like I said, I'm European with little interest of how it is over there.

This has nothing to do with whether or not I worship Apple. If you'd care to clarify your otherwise unclear analogy, I'm all ears.

Just how clear do I need to make the analogy? You buy an iPhone, you have to use it on AT&T - or on Orange here in the UK. That is the same analogy as buying a copy of Windows that only worked on Intel, not AMD, CPUs which, if it happened in reality, all the self-satisified Jobs worshippers would immediately rise up on their elitist thrones to throw abuse at Microsoft/Intel for.

But because the "shoe is on the other foot", you don't like it - your ever-perfect Apple is beyond reproach and criticism...

iPhone upload question

[Anonymous Coward]

OT, but ...
With the hacked iPhone can you upload files from Safari?

I need to check a website that only lets me in once I have uploaded my digital certificate & password.
I assume the password is no problem, but can I upload (via a web form) a *.cer file from iPhone Safari?
(I know piss poor security since the certificate can be freely copied. It is really only a password system, but I didn't set it up. And they don't care what I think.)
Once I am in I need to click thru a selection web form, and look at a few PDFs. Which I believe Safari lets me do, correct?

Doing this is pretty time critical and right now shackles me to my desk for most of the whole day. Where I able to handle this via a cell phone, my life would become much much simpler.

Re:iPhone upload question

[Osty]

I need to check a website that only lets me in once I have uploaded my digital certificate & password. I assume the password is no problem, but can I upload (via a web form) a *.cer file from iPhone Safari? (I know piss poor security since the certificate can be freely copied. It is really only a password system, but I didn't set it up. And they don't care what I think.) Once I am in I need to click thru a selection web form, and look at a few PDFs. Which I believe Safari lets me do, correct?

Safari on the iPhone can't upload or download files, and I don't believe jailbreaking your phone changes that (I could be wrong, I haven't hacked my phone). If you could get around the cert upload issue (perhaps build a proxy that acts as a middleman? Not sure how possible that would be), the rest will work just fine, including viewing PDFs. Aside from upload/download issues and Safari-specific issues, the only other important things missing in the iPhone Safari implementation are Java and Flash. Personally, I view that as a good thing, as missing Flash support on a high-profile item like the iPhone might prompt web developers to get away from Flash-only interfaces (or at even build pages specific for iPhone, like Google does).

Bad summary

[boer]

It installs only from iTunes using the obligatory Apple private encryption key, which nobody has.

Well obviously somebody has the key for Apple to be able to create the update packages, deliver them through iTunes and install them on the client devices.

Re:Bad summary

[Tony Hoyle]

It's also an irrelevant detail in the summary.

In context, from TFA Nate is saying he's seen this running and he's sure it's not fake because nobody could have produced a fake OS that would install without apple's code signing key.

Once you have a signed binary you can install it by other methods (the protocol is mostly known). There's just no point.. the end result is exactly the same.

But that's not taking away anything at all

[SuperKendall]

Buying an unlocked phone, you know you can't update the firmware. At least that would be true for all but the stupidest of the 18%. Therefore the figure *really* affected is less than you say, far less.

Re:But that's not taking away anything at all

[KDR_11k]

Most regular cellphones don't need firmware updates. Also most phones stay unlocked once they are unlocked and changing their firmware will remove locks that were in place. I'm not sure I'd really expect all these people to know that the iPhone follows videogame console standards, not cellphone standards there.

Re:But that's not taking away anything at all

[Lars T.]

Most regular cellphones don't need firmware updates. Want you meant to say is that "Most regular cellphones never get their quirks fixed."

Apple has?

[SuperKendall]

Because Apple has worked extremely hard to put themselves in the limelight,

Because Apple has? Or the media has? Because every single phone since the dawn of time has "worked extremely hard to put themselves in the limelight". Apple just managed to actually succeed - and is being punished for that. Success is why Apple is being singled out, not because they tried any harder or any differently than other phones which get ignored.

Re:Apple has?

[AlXtreme]

Apple just managed to actually succeed - and is being punished for that. Success is why Apple is being singled out...

Seriously, what success? Apple's Jesus-phone was probably the most hyped product of 2007. Months in advance you couldn't get around all the articles promising a revolution in mobile phones.

The reality is that I've yet to see one on this side of the pond, while I have a lot of Apple-fans in my network. They couldn't care less about some overpriced locked-down gimmick. Apple has been pushing out press-release after press-release and their marketing went into overdrive before launch here; reality is that the iPhone simply isn't that great.

Re:Apple has?

[stewbacca]

Actually, I'd say Apple is being singled out, because they are the only company with enough balls to actually show how their product works on a commercial, instead of relying on some pop-star to hold it in her hand. In otherwords, the Apple hype stems from the excellence of the product. They hype also stems from the simple fact that most of us can't believe it has taken this long for phones to include a functional UI.

Re:Apple has?

[Anonymous Coward]

The reality is that I've yet to see one on this side of the pond, while I have a lot of Apple-fans in my network.

That's weird, because I know three people at work who have an iPhone (and love it), and only one of them was already an Apple fan.

See how much anecdotes are worth?

Re:Apple has?

[coolGuyZak]

reality is that the iPhone simply isn't that great.

Did it occur to you that Apple is not targeting your market segment?

And, to respond to the rest of this thread, Gary Winston put it best:

Milo, I know, he thinks we've cloned too many programs; forced people to buy our inferior versions; blah, blah, blah. I've heard it all before. I even understand it. It's the nature of competitive business: When you're on top people attack the quality of your product.

In other words, don't bitch about Apple's high profile. They're being attacked, not punished.

Re:Apple has?

[Sandcastle]

Simple reply - try one.

Seriously, what success?

Um... millions sold... best rated/reviewed phone in a market that's meant to have been doing this for years... OSX already gaining more mobile OS share than Windows etc. etc.

The reality is that I've yet to see one on this side of the pond

I really think this is the beginning and end of your problem - if you haven't used one, and are fixated on cost vs. feature list, you just don't understand Apple anyway. They are a marvel to use, better plain old phone than I've had in years, perfect synch to my data, all the other features (iPod etc.) just add to it. If you're also going to unlock it, then it's 40% cheaper than anything vaguely comparable here (AUD$600).

Not the model as we know it

[SuperKendall]

Apple wants to SELL the applications. If any coder can spend a weekend working up a decent solitaire game then that means they won't be able to charge $5 (or whatever) for their solitaire game on iTunes.

That makes no sense. Regardless of how many "MySuckySolitare" games people release, Apple is still free to sell whatever they like on iTunes and probably get uptake that is affected negligibly by unpolished experimenters - have you SEEN most Palm software?

After all, Apple started the iTunes store selling songs for $1, that you could get for free anywhere else. They maintained that if you make the experience pleasant and easy enough, people will pay money over free alternatives - and they were by and large correct. Why would the thinking and the model be any different for iPhone applications?

Apart from that, what little we know of the proposed development is that developers have to acquire a signature to use for developing apps - which in turn would mean I would be free to distribute MySuckySolitare, people would just have to accept my signature on an app. This seems like a fine model as it helps to maintain accountability for applications developed.

Re:Not the model as we know it

[toddestan]

After all, Apple started the iTunes store selling songs for $1, that you could get for free anywhere else. They maintained that if you make the experience pleasant and easy enough, people will pay money over free alternatives - and they were by and large correct. Why would the thinking and the model be any different for iPhone applications?

In the iTunes situation, by getting the free songs from eMule, Kazaa, etc. you were also committing copyright infringement and opening yourself up to lawsuits from the RIAA. iTunes offered a way for users to "go legit" fairly inexpensively. On the other hand, there isn't any copyright infringement involved in loading 3rd party applications that are freely given away. Hence, paying Apple for the applications because they won't let you load your own for free is seen as nickel-and-diming the customer, exactly as it is on other phones.

Re:Not the model as we know it

[hattig]

What if Apple says "We'll offer your software via iTunes! Written a utility application? We'll sign and verify it for you, and sell it via our hugely accessed portal for $0.99 - we get half, you get half!"?

How many people would go "Hmm, I could just give it away, but I'll have to pay that $50 fee for the signing certificate (for example), and I think this is useful, hey, what's the risk of making a bit of money?".

Other apps could be $1.99, $4.99, $9.99, ... Apple getting half (distribution, signing, etc) and the developer getting the rest (for writing).

I remember Palm apps selling for tens of dollars, up to $100 or more. For simple tasks. On those Palm software websites. You'd go through, pick up the decent freeware, and get annoyed at people wanting $29.99 for a ToDo list. Pretty much like the Windows Shareware market, ridiculous fees for low-function apps.

iPhone SDk announced before Android- Occam applies

[SuperKendall]

Yes they're releasing an SDK as a business response to Android.

The iPhone SDK was announced before android.

But even if it was not, apply Occam's Razor - what is the simplest explanation for the iPhone SDK? Simply put it's the entire internet whining to no end ever since the iPhone launch that they want an SDK for the iPhone - more importantly, among them many registered Apple developers. It could be that Apple actually listens to customers and developers, a plan so crazy it just might work!

Dangerous

[Budenny]

People will say that if you don't like it, don't buy it. They are wrong.

The problem is not the iPhone. The problem is, trying to tell people what to do with your product after they have bought it. If we start admitting this is a legitimate approach to business, we have basically lost intellectual freedom in the digital age. It gets clearer and clearer that one trend is the open trend - which dominated media for hundreds of years. This approach was, buy it where you want, read/play it where you want. This was books, tapes, CDs, DVDs. It has also marked the PC: buy hardware, run Windows/Unix/Linux, and put whatever apps you want on it. Write whatever you want for it.

However, there is another distinct model, which Apple and now Amazon are struggling to generalize. That is, buy it and then connect to or play on it or install on it what we give you and permit you.

Of course, the iPhone and its third party apps does not matter. Neither in itself does Kindle. Neither does the locking of MacOS to own brand machines, as long as Apple has tiny market share. Neither does the inability to play iTunes on any other players, its just music...

Take them all together, and they do matter. Take them all together, and we can see a real and growing threat to intellectual freedom. Apple has always been a leader in this attack, and its now joined by Amazon. What you can expect to see is ever increasing attempts to hack away and diminish the 'buy anywhere, play anywhere' business model. Each one will be small and unimportant in itself. Take them all together, and you are looking at a very expensive future where, on multiple incompatible products you have access to restricted media which is limited to what a few large companies want you to have access to.

It is a war, and its important to make an example of both Amazon and Apple. Because if their model works in the market, in 10 years time, we will look back with amazement at the freedoms we used to have, and wonder how we ever had them.

Boycott Apple now. And boycott Amazon too. Do not accept that when you buy software, you in fact license it. Assert your right to play bought media on whatever you feel like, and to buy it through open interfaces not closed proprietary software. And agitate and publicize.

This one is really, really important, and its importance goes far beyond the particular detailed examples we are confronted with daily.

Re:Dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh...not really.

Although I do agree that there is a problem with proprietary software/hardware, it is also an appeal to a lot of people. In the case of the Kindle, bad move. In the case of the iPhone, could and should have been ported for developers by now, i mean common.

When it comes to a computers OS, I have to disagree. I use a Mac and will probably not buy a PeeCee as long as I am video editing ever again. I like the knowledge that since I forked out the cash for the machine and its software, for three years I can call up Apple and ask them the stupidest question and someone will have to help me. Its a safety net. With Windows, who do I call if my 3rd party software isn't working? If I try to contact the software developers they are gonna say its the OS's fault. If I call M$ they are gonna say its the software companies fault. Then its just a big blame game and nothing gets solved because they rather tell their tech support to pass the buck then to try and fix my problem.

So although I do agree that there is a possibility of a huge Big Brother to grow bigger than it is now, I really do not see it ever happening. At least not in my lifetime.

Re:Dangerous

[illumin8]

Boycott Apple now. And boycott Amazon too. Do not accept that when you buy software, you in fact license it. Assert your right to play bought media on whatever you feel like, and to buy it through open interfaces not closed proprietary software. And agitate and publicize.

Might as well boycott Microsoft (Xbox360), Sony (PS3), and Nintendo as well. Oh, and boycott all video game developers since they develop for closed systems as well.

Get over yourself dude. Some companies decide to create a "walled-garden" where only approved 3rd party apps can run. This is for two reasons:

1. They want to protect their revenue streams and get a commission from every software sale on their system. Some like Sony (PS3) depend on that because their console is sold at a loss.

2. They want to make sure that the software that runs on their systems has good quality. Apple certainly fits this category, and I don't blame them for wanting to make sure that 3rd party apps don't totally bork millions of people's iPhones.

Oh, and your example of Amazon is stupid because you can put millions of free and unprotected eBooks on it by simply copying them over USB. Of course the software is locked down, but I imagine some hackers will figure out how to load a different build of Linux on it.

Anyway, you might as well boycott all companies and corporations and we can go back to living in caves and banging rocks together to make fire. Ungrateful pretentious snob.

Re:Dangerous

[Mikey-San]

Did two people write your post independently?

People will say that if you don't like it, don't buy it. They are wrong.

Then you say:

Boycott Apple now. And boycott Amazon too. Do not accept that when you buy software, you in fact license it. Assert your right to play bought media on whatever you feel like, and to buy it through open interfaces not closed proprietary software. And agitate and publicize.

Re:Dangerous

[stewbacca]

Excellent points. The reason Mac OS is overwhelmingly adopted by the creative industry is that it does creative tasks well. The PC is just a big empty box that doesn't do anything particularly well, yet gives derranged customers like the guy who posted this thread the security of knowing it can be whatever they want it to be. The same kind of people who buy consumer products based on the list of features (without regard to quality) are the same people who complain about the walled-garden approach Apple takes. Gimme quality over features any day of the week.

Re:Dangerous

[Thrudheim]

The problem is not the iPhone. The problem is, trying to tell people what to do with your product after they have bought it. If we start admitting this is a legitimate approach to business, we have basically lost intellectual freedom in the digital age. It gets clearer and clearer that one trend is the open trend - which dominated media for hundreds of years

Although I agree with some of what you are saying, It is not that simple. People *can* do whatever they want to their iPhones after they buy them. What people cannot do is modify their phones and then expect that these modifications will stick when they install firmware updates and take advantage of new features developed by Apple.

Ummmm...it's just a phone, people....

[Joce640k]

I don't grok the amount of anger in this thread. It's a phone. It was sold to you as a phone, nothing more.

If you bought a car and completely changed the engine you wouldn't complain if the manufacturer didn't service it or keep a stock of oil filters for it.

Re:Ummmm...it's just a phone, people....

[Ash-Fox]

I don't grok the amount of anger in this thread. It's a phone. It was sold to you as a phone, nothing more.

Actually it's sold as a iPod, Phone and "an internet communications device".

Re:Ummmm...it's just a phone, people....

[Anonymous Coward]

How come ppl with stupid car analogies always compare the wrong things ?

Re:Ummmm...it's just a phone, people....

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but you probably would complain when bringing it in for a required maintenance check rips out your new engine and replaces it with a go-cart motor

Just a thought...

[defi]

I personally love my iPhone. It does everything I need and then some. For instance I NEVER used youtube, but now I find myself using it in the oddest situations (like when an guy at work was talking about conway twitty I searched and found some concert clips and showed him). I also dont mind the wait for third party apps, I would rather have a well thought out SDK than something hacked together. Heres something I dont understand regarding third party apps; why does everyone feel that Apple has to support them and be careful when updating. I find this analogous to a contractor building a house and having to redesign it every morning when someone cuts holes for windows or runs wires where they want to. If the "hacker" community involved wants to create a cell phone then do it. Don't complain that someone spent a long time to refine the hardware and software for a device and then claims ownership and is protective of it. If their so happy with their unlocked phones then don't update, if its so perfect leave it alone. Better yet why not treat it in the true spirit of open source and give Apple the respect for what they did and fork it. Make your own project, create the firmware, make a loader, refine its synching abilities, and so forth. I love the open source community and use a lot of their software daily, linux especially is a one of the best things ever to happen to computing. What I don't like is the direction its moving, and the attitude towards the iPhone makes this apparent. I attribute this to the RMS opensourcers' and their socialist, anti-capitalists ideologies (Honestly what is wrong with making a profit off of your creation, this isn't the 70's and these are not command line e-mail apps were talking about).

I dont mind the way Apple does buisness and believe they listen to their consumers. I cant tell you how many posts I read complaining of a lack of gapless playback on the iPod, only to find out that these posts were dated and that the feature had been included. The thing with Apple is that they don't just "do" things to shut people up. I admire that. They have a direction their moving in and they keep the course. I cant stand these companys that try to make a swiss army knife style device that is just crap. Have some focus and get the core features working. I had a gps-enabled blackberry on nextel and I dont think I ever got it to find my location. Thats crap, if a feature is there it should work, with the least amount of flaws. My iPhone always works and the only two apps I ever have problems with (Mail when I check my IMAP account from to many locations simoultaneously i.e. on my laptop while connected on my phone, and safari has the occasional page crash) are corrected very quickly. If an app hangs hold the home button down and it will restart. I never have to reboot my iPhone and can honestly say that its been on for about 4-5 months straight. Thats stability.

In time I agree that most of these arguments will be mute and have been a waste of time. The SDK will come, it probobly will be limited in the beginning but will eventually be full featured. It will become unlocked, I mean, Isn't it illegal to keep a phone locked after the contract is up anyway. If this isn't allowed then someone will take them to court and force them to obey the laws.

Now for a request. Could everyone stop complaining and get innovating. Take all this negativity and focus it into the iPhone killer. I would love this and probably be one of the first buyers . Ohh yeah I own Apple stock (sort of a disclamer), but I would ditch it and my iPhone in a second if there was truly a better product. I'm only loyal to my family, my money goes to the winner.

Re:Unlocking is not the same as running applicatio

[moro_666]

Wake Up! Apple doesn't count these 18% as users. They count it as consumers but not as users, not as the market place they want to have.

It's too damn simple, can't you fools understand ?

  1. Apple sells you a phone, they say it's locked, they say it's fixed networked.
  2. Every legal paper along the way tells you it's supposed to be locked down.
  3. Now some idiots come along and protest that they can't keep it broken.
  4. Profit ? Yes and no.

  Apple enjoys the buzz around "locked or unlocked, how exciting", it's probably a minor part of their strategy. They just want to sell you the phones, they don't want you (hackers, crackers or dummy followers) as their main client base.

  Bmw counts medium rich people as their "users", not the dumb wit 18 y/o death racers. But they still sell to them.
  Microsoft counts companies and honest home users as their clients, not the illegal-copy-using people.
  Pharmacies count ill people as their clients, not drug dealers that synthesize addictive drugs out from legal ones.

  Why Should Apple Differ or Care ? --> Simple, they don't.

  As far as apple cares: you bought a car and you complain that the f*cker can't fly, oh my !

  End of story, stop dreaming. This is life, if it's too much for you too take, go play WoW or something.

That's not a reason

[Iloinen Lohikrme]

iPhone having a touch screen GUI isn't a valid reason for it not having J2ME support. Just in example look at some other phones that don't have the normal form factor that traditional phones and that have support for J2ME.

• Nokia E90 Communicator

• Nokia E61i

• Sony-Ericsson P1i

• LG KU990

• HTC Touch

As you can see all those phones support J2ME. The real reason why iPhone doesn't have J2ME support is the same reason why it didn't have MMS support: Apple just couldn't deliver.

I also don't think that there is any reason to change from J2ME to any other framework ff you can do the application in J2ME. If you can't do the application in J2ME, the next choice is S60. J2ME support is built in virtually every phone meaning and S60 is also very popular. Why limit yourself to a device and framework that has only a million users when you can go to tens and hundreds of millions of users?

Nokia "so good" while asking to DRM .ogg ?

[freaker_TuC]

The most blasting thing of 'm all; they want .OGG to be a closed DRMized format,
while they got their posters hanging throughout the entire city with "Let's PLAY!" with the Play triangle next to it.

They sure got irony at Nokia between their lawyer and advertising departments.

Steve says: Pwn Different

[Zhe Mappel]

What, you didn't think your iPhone was yours, did you?

Apple is not the only one caging customers

[what about]

If you want to read what Nokia does on E90 to cage the customer then have a look at what happened when I tried to import my old 9110i Contacts into my new E90

Companies wants to retain control over devices they sell, they want to lock you into it as much as they can, by the sheer pressure of customers Apple will provide a toolkit, but in the name of SECURITY they will decide what application will be able to run on the machine.

Customers should be aware that the data they produce and own are caged into a device that is under control of somebody else !

Compare to Symbian Signed

[tepples]

But not useless for creating applications which is all most people really want. It will probably need each app to be signed by the holder of a code signing certificate. Based on what I've seen on other similar platforms (such as Symbian Signed), the terms of service attached to code signing will likely have a technicality, such as no charging for copies of signed binaries, that makes it incompatible with the requirements of the GNU GPL, such as granting permission to distribute source and binaries for a fee and disclosing Installation Information.

Re:Compare to Symbian Signed

[Admiral Ag]

I love speculating as much as the next person, but let's just wait and see what the SDK is like. Remember that the SDK is for both the iPhone (which I don't own) and the iPod Touch (which I own). I'm waiting to see what happens at Macworld in a couple of weeks before I jailbreak my Touch, but I've played around with a couple of jailbroken units and they are incredible. If you've seen one, you'll know what I mean: the iPod Touch isn't really an iPod in the traditional sense, but the next great ultra portable computer and probably gaming device (there's a roll ball game available that demonstrates the potential of the platform). My experiences with jailbroken iPods have convinced me that Apple is sitting on a goldmine. So are developers if Apple does the right thing.

But as someone else said, Apple will need to protect the non techie users who will go mental if a software upgrade breaks their unit. Moreover, if apps on these things are to become popular with the masses, then there will have to be integration with iTunes, since that is what most people use to manage their iPods. That means that iPod software installation will have to work like podcasts do: you can get them through iTunes with no hassle, and they won't harm your iPod or break with updates. There is really no alternative if it is to become mainstream. If it does, everyone is in for a treat. I'm hoping that excellent Mac shareware companies like Panic will write software for it (if you don't know who Panic are, then shame on you!).

There's no reason why Apple couldn't make the iPod Touch into the new Newton. I'm hoping they will, and the massive black space on the iPod's home screen makes me confident that they will. It already does almost everything you'd want a digital media player to do, so the space can only be taken up with radically extending the use of the device. It's crying out to become a PDA for regular people.

Re:Compare to Symbian Signed

[Anonymous Coward]

it already does almost everything you'd want a digital media player to do

Except, you know, play vorbis.

Re:Compare to Symbian Signed

[Admiral Ag]

Fair enough.

Re:Compare to Symbian Signed

[Anonymous Coward]

that excellent Mac shareware companies

Excellent...shareware? These companies still exist?

Re:Compare to Symbian Signed

[HAKdragon]

I take it that you don't own a Mac. There are a number of small software vendors that distribute their software as shareware with limitations, either on time or functionality. Most of this software comprises of neat little system or interface utilities or games. Panic is one of the better vendors, as is Ambrosia.

Re:Compare to Symbian Signed

[Hal_Porter]

Interesting stuff. I got an iPod touch for Christmas. The hardware is superb, and Safari is actually pretty usable for browsing over WiFi

The one thing that lets it down is iTunes. I tried to import 50GB of mp3s from a hard drive and it's basically hopeless. It hangs frequently, and even if it didn't it would take overnight to index them because it's too damn slow. And I don't trust things like iTunes with tens of thousands of mp3s. And even if it worked, the Sync metaphor breaks down when you have far more music than will fit on the device.

Winamp on a PC manages this fine of course - just copy the files and generate an m3u playlist with dir /s /b *.* > playlist.m3u. All of which is limited only by disk performance.

If I could install a third party mp3 player that lets me drag and drop stuff, I'd do it in a hearbeat.

Re:Compare to Symbian Signed

[Varun Soundararajan]

Its not Fair enough, but Fair Play.

Re:Compare to Symbian Signed

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to manage songs manually, create a playlist called 'Touch' and drag your songs to it, then set it to sync that playlist. You can create one which just contains songs of a certain type etc etc if you read the help files for iTunes.

As to importing lots of songs, you'll have to be patient at first to let it import them. If you don't like iTunes though, perhaps just drag in the songs that you want on your touch to iTunes and use something else to manage the rest, instead of putting in your 50GB of music.

If you like the touch you should try jailbreaking it.

Rewriting business logic for each platform?

[tepples]

Now that XCode/ObjC has garbage collection, there's really no good reason a Java developer couldn't move over to Objective C if they really want to develop something for the platform. Does, say, a video game developer want to have to rewrite a game's model in a separate language for each platform, and maintain a version in each language in parallel? I thought that died after the 16-bit era when video game developers switched from assembly language to C.

Re:Rewriting business logic for each platform?

[SuperKendall]

Generally no you don't want to have to re-write a model for every platform. But given that a game on the iPhone would probably be somewhat different than what is possible with a J2ME game, the model would have to be adopted anyway...

If you just wanted a straight-up limited port, one could work up a Java to C translation of the model and use that as a library from Objective-C. Not really seeing much of a problem either way.

Re:Rewriting business logic for each platform?

[tepples]

But given that a game on the iPhone would probably be somewhat different than what is possible with a J2ME game, the model would have to be adopted anyway... In my (limited) experience with building a video game where multiple platforms compile from the same source tree, I've found that the view changes between platforms much more than the model does. For example, if I were to make a Diablo clone on an ordinary phone, I'd have the Control Pad move the character and the buttons attack, like on A Link to the Past for Super NES or Diablo for PlayStation. But on a touch screen phone, I'd do it more like Diablo for PC or Phantom Hourglass for DS: touching the floor moves the player toward that spot, and touching something interacts with it (use, attack, or pick up). (If you have Animal Crossing for DS, you can see both of these control styles in action.) The differences between the two are what stream of user actions the front-end feeds to the model, and how the front-end transforms the state of the model into commands to graphics and sound APIs.

one could work up a Java to C translation of the model Which automated Java to C translator do you recommend? Google showed me Toba, but that's stuck at Java 1.1. Something non-automated is not going to be able to update the translated model when the original model changes.

Re:Rewriting business logic for each platform?

[SuperKendall]

If you aren't re-thinking the game for a much faster platform with a much better display to the point where the model is affected, I'd say why even bother? That's why I think the whole point is silly and why it just doens't even make sense to want or use J2ME on the iPhone if you have access to native development tools. Again, why are we not using J2ME apps on desktops? The iPhone is much more a new kind of desktop than a phone like the others we have today.

As for the translator, since model code is generally not too complex I don't see were the translator being at 1.1 should present much of an issue... I was also looking at a CPP translator I tried once (java2cpp) but that appears to have gone off the map. Or of course there's the option to compile Java to native code and use it as a library, but I've not had good luck finding resources on that nor have I gone that route (though I have used JNI both directions, I've not tried using native compiled Java code as a library from C).

SDK availability?

[tepples]

They've already announced a proper SDK coming out in Feb, that's not supporting 3rd party apps? To whom will the SDK be available? The general public? People who can pay three figures USD? People who can pay five figures USD? Only a small set of publishers hand-picked by Apple's marketing department? I haven't seen any solid evidence that the SDK will be made available to hobbyists.

Re:SDK availability?

[coobert]

I haven't seen any solid evidence that the SDK will be made available to hobbyists.

Have you seen any to contrary? Or are you just assuming?

Why use a iPhone anyway ?

[Hektor_Troy]

Why are people still dumm enough to buy and use an iPhone ?

The phone might have a fancy GUI, but is pretty boring regarding features, no radio, no java, and more.

It is pretty pricy, you are locked together with the phonecompany apple has chosen, they even demand money for your usage.

And what is even worse, Apple is just about the worst company in the IT business when it comes to giving the users freedom to use their products for wathever they want.

Yes there might come a SDK to make software, but they should have allowed Java from day one ! and not some self invented SDK system.

But people are so blinded by the very good Apple advertising and hyping of the products, so they don't notice how crippled the products really are.
The iPhone, the iPods are very crippled when it comes to features, and you are forced to use iTunes or some not very good 3rd party products.

No thanks i prefer my freedom.

Re:Why use a iPhone anyway ?

[stewbacca]

My iPhone hasn't "dumm"ed me down enough to recognize a troll when I see it though...

Re:Why use a iPhone anyway ?

[Macthorpe]

Well done, you pointed out a spelling mistake in GP's post. However, that barely qualifies it as a troll, unless you figure telling the truth is deliberately aggravating.

Did you want to at least try to respond to the rest of his criticism? Here, I'll summarise it for you, make it a little easier:

- No FM radio
- No Java support
- Very expensive
- Apple have a poor reputation for actively restricting users from doing what they want with their product
- The much-hyped 'SDK' should have been available from the start
- iPhones are advertised as feature-rich but compared to other phones available, especially on the European market, they do nothing new

Unless, of course, you want to label me as a troll too.

Re:Why use a iPhone anyway ?

[stewbacca]

You are no troll because you don't deliberately start your post with an unsubstantiated insult used clearly to aggitate others. If he wanted me to stick around long enough for the rest of his criticism, he shouldn't have started his post as a troll. And I wasn't pointing out a spelling mistake, as I'm sure he advertently, yet unsuccessfully, is spelling dumm on purpose to make some point?

Re:Why use a iPhone anyway ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, let me tell you why you're wrong.

- No FM radio

Who cares? I'd never use an FM radio even if I had it. FM sucks.

- No Java support

Again, so what? This is a little more annoying, but there's nothing I need Java for.

- Very expensive

$400 for a quality phone is only an issue if you're poor.

- Apple have a poor reputation for actively restricting users from doing what they want with their product

This is annoying, but just because Apple tries to do it doesn't actually stop users.

- The much-hyped 'SDK' should have been available from the start

Again, so? People have made apps anyway.

- iPhones are advertised as feature-rich but compared to other phones available, especially on the European market, they do nothing new

Ok, show me another phone that can do everything the iPhone can do. I'm talking a multi-touch screen, a real web browser, and a GUI that doesn't suck (especially for things like Google maps), among other things.

Re:Why use a iPhone anyway ?

[Macthorpe]

So, you're saying the first 2 of them aren't an issue because you personally don't care about them, thereby missing the point that lots of people do care about them or they wouldn't complain.

The next one is only an issue because people are poor, which is just a beautiful stance to take. Congratulations, you don't sound like an asshole at all.

The next two are issues but people have hacked around them so they're not a problem, which makes me wonder if you actually read the article that you're commenting on.

The last point - I will concede multitouch, but I've been using Opera Mini/Mobile on a variety of phones for a very, very long time, and I've never had a problem navigating any page or GUI that they've presented to me.

Re:Why use a iPhone anyway ?

[Anonymous Coward]

How much does Apple pay you to troll endlessly for them? Do you also do paid shill work for M$ under a different ID?

Re:Why use a iPhone anyway ?

[godawful]

Yes, everyone is so dumb for falling for the hype, we can't resist marketing, there is no choice, there is only what apple tells us.

and you're the only sane person in a town of crazies ;)

Multiple levels of ADC membership

[tepples]

Apple already has a developer program. The entry level is free. You can get details at http://developer.apple.com/products/. Then let me rephrase my question: Can you cite a source stating that the iPhone SDK will be included in the "ADC Online Membership" (free) level of this developer program, or will it require an "ADC Select Membership" or higher?

Re:Multiple levels of ADC membership

[Jeppe Salvesen]

I don't know. However, everyone can reason. I bet all the jailbreaks has convinced Apple that people really would like access to third-party apps. And Apple already supplied XCode for free, so I don't really see why there should be much of a premium on releasing apps for the iPhone. Perhaps a few bucks for an encryption signature for your application?

Re:Multiple levels of ADC membership

[coolGuyZak]

Due to the security necessary, I could see it needing Select membership. That said, anyone intent on doing damage with the SDK (these days, organized crime) could easily purchase membership, so it could remain free.

I hope it uses the free membership, because I intend to develop a few personal apps which I'm not interested in selling.

Re:Multiple levels of ADC membership

[tepples]

I hope it uses the free membership, because I intend to develop a few personal apps which I'm not interested in selling. That can still be accommodated under a "corporate tough love": Design both the program A that you are not interested in selling and a similar program B that you are interested in selling. Then put a scripting language to B that allows you to implement the functionality of A. The built-in Safari web browser uses this approach: the basic functionality of HTML with CSS is there, which can be extended with ECMAScript access to the HTML and CSS DOM.

Re:Multiple levels of ADC membership

[LeafOnTheWind]

No one can say anything because it is not released yet. Did I not just go over this?

Re:Multiple levels of ADC membership

[daviddennis]

The problem is that, unlike viruses or spyware on PCs, malicious software can cost real money.

In early 2006, I visited a friend in the Philippines. She was upper middle class, which means about a $1,000 a month income. She also had a beautiful, expensive phone, the Nokia 6600. She bragged that she waited until the price came down; she bought it for about $250. At the time, her phone included an entirely open Java subsystem.

One day she came up to me and said "I think Celly's sick." And he was indeed. Celly had an exceptionally cruel virus, which sent expensive MMS messages to all her friends. Of porn. Now, my friend has the firey personality and attitude that makes Filipinas wonderful, but she also is a lady and so this was profoundly embarassing to her. Fortunately, most of her friends didn't have MMS phones and so they didn't manage to receive the messages.

I was able to look up the virus it got on the web and eradicate it for her. I also told her how to make sure this didn't happen in the future.

That did absolutely nothing about the $300 phone bill she got next month. And since she lived in the Philippines, that had might as well be a $3,000 bill. Worse, her phone company was nothing like AT&T. Instead of writing off the ridiculous bill, they insisted that she pay it. I think she was a little embarassed by the situation, so she never told me what happened, but I think she had to cancel her service and switch to Globe's competitor, Smart.

Ever since that I have not been nearly as upset as most Slashdot users that more cellphones run proprietary software and don't have any user-modifiable programming. I had no problem paying $10 for SSH for my Sidekick.

So it was no big problem for me to switch to iPhone. As a glance through my posts shows pretty clearly, I'm extremely happy with iPhone and the overall quality of its software experience.

It would be nice if the owner could specifically install software through iTunes. I think that would eliminate most problems since there is no automated way to control iTunes. And I certainly hope that Apple, or someone close to Apple, introduces a good implementation of SSH.

But because of how nasty the outside world is nowadays I absolutely don't think the guts of iPhone should be accessable without some kind of security. Otherwise I'll wind up with a $3,000 phone bill some day and that won't be cool at all.

D

Who is speculating

[tepples]

Do you have proof that it will cost something? I have proof that "ADC Compatibility Labs Access" and "ADC Business and Marketing Programs" cost something. See Apple Developer Connection - Products.

The parent was talking about facts, you're just speculating. Mikey-San referred to "developers like me". Unless Mikey-San can cite a source that the iPhone SDK will be included in the ADC Online Membership, or unless he states that he has an ADC Select Membership, he is also speculating.

Re:Who is speculating

[Lars T.]

Do you have proof that it will cost something? I have proof that "ADC Compatibility Labs Access" and "ADC Business and Marketing Programs" cost something. See Apple Developer Connection - Products. So what do these have to do with the SDK? Let alone the out-off-your-ass price you quoted?

Modded off-topic; why exactly?

[SpzToid]

seriously? I mean the parent just wants the phone he bought do what he wants after all. And I suppose he doesn't want to give anything up until he sees good reason to *upgrade*.

Does Apple supports his interests? Well, solely no. Apple has several constituents in this space.

Re:Wake up Apple!

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny. Microsoft allows complete and open access to their Windows Mobile OS (whether or not you can load your apps onto the phone is left to the decision of the carriers). In fact they even opened the source [microsoft.com] for the OS (okay, it's a Shared Source license, and it requires having an officially licensed version of Windows Embedded CE 6.0, but the source code is all there if you want to modify it while building a new device of your own). I think this is a case where you want Apple to act more like Microsoft rather than less. I agree with the basic idea of your argument, but I think your comparison with Microsoft's offerings is weak at best. Instead, you should be comparing it to Java Mobile Edition.

Microsoft's Shared Source is just a marketing exercise that has nothing to do with Open Source - it isn't like "if you can get it to work, you can use it for free" - basically, it's an attempt to get others to add value to the Microsoft bottom line. Oh, and it really can't run on any mobile piece of hardware - there are far too many limitations in the codebase, as its roots assumed a device of the late 1990's/early 2000's.

The iPhone is locked down, it certainly isn't more locked than, say, any Verizon phone, nor is it as weak and powerless than any Microsoft-based phone.

A comparison of the iPhone with an open Java ME-based device is interesting, given the openness of that platform, plus the fact that some providers don't lock it down.

Re:Unlocking is not the same as running applicatio

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as apple cares: you bought a car and you complain that the f*cker can't fly, oh my! Um, nothing like that at all.

It's more like: You bought a car, you can clearly modify it so it can fly, but every time you take to the mechanic to get the radio fixed they deliberately take off all the stuff you added to make it fly because "they don't support flying". Even though you're fully aware they don't support flying, you just want it to because it's your damn car!

Real GPS feature coming to the iPhone

[Lord Satri]

I would consider doing so for the GPS triangulation. The Google 'My Location' feature will now work with the iPhone. Additionally, here's a new GPS add-on, shipping in February for 89$, for the iPhone and iPod Touch. There's also TomTom who is rumored to develop a GPS add-on for the iPhone. See my journal for the rejected story last Friday on this subject.

(I don't have an iPhone and don't want one, aside from the fact that they're not available in Canada anyway ;-) (and oh, I think we're kind of losers of focusing on the bad sides of the new update instead of also discussing the new good features)

Re:Real GPS feature coming to the iPhone

[Montag2k]

That TomTom picture was a hoax, as mentioned in a posting the next day. The other add-on could be real though!

Cheers,
Montag

But...

[Junta]

My point was my cheaper phone also has aGPS for 'free'. Apple didn't design it in.

And zooming in on your exact location kinda requires that you already know where you are. If you do, then why do you need location service at all?

Re:But...

[adamstew]

GSM, or atleast AT&Ts version of GSM doesn't support aGPS.

If it were Verizon or Sprint, it would have aGPS in it.

Probably not merely triangulation..

[Junta]

You probably have aGPS. It's GPS that gets most of the satellite data from your Cell tower (which has line of sight guaranteed to a lot of GPS satellites) and uses that in conjunction with GPS satellite data it can pick up directly (even indoors, you can probably get at least one satellite, and aGPS is good with that). An aGPS handset can do ~10 ft precise location, but requires a cell tower for the satellite data it's not likely able to pick up.

Re:Unlocking is not the same as running applicatio

[Cederic]

Please, explain to me as a consumer and user of mobile telephony how locking a phone to prevent me using it with another carrier benefits me?

I'd appreciate you illustrating your answer with specific reference to the iPhone as that's a device you pay for entirely up-front, with the initial purchase price fully compensating the manufacturer and distributor.

It may be a different matter, and a very different issue, but I fail to see the arguments for it, unless you're a user unfriendly hardware manufacturer seeking to screw over your actual customers.

Re:The (b)i(zarro)Phone

[Anonymous Coward]

Vulnerabilities am good. Fixing holes make me sad!

BREW

[tepples]

Perhaps a few bucks for an encryption signature for your application? And then if you change one line of code, you have to get the new version signed again, even if you're not distributing the app. That's how BREW works: developer signatures are good for one build and sold in packs of 100, 500, or 1000, and you need additional signatures from a testing facility and a network operator for deployment.

Typical Slashdot hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

Thousands cry and cry and cry over the iphone's lack of an sdk - Apple actually decide to release one - and have to update the iphone os to support it - and thousands cry about it - geez

What do Apple have to do for you people? I think you will never accept Apple so just go and wait for the gphone will y'all?

Re:Unlocking is not the same as running applicatio

[rudlavibizon]

So many bad analogies in one post. The thing is, people see iPhone for what it really is, a computer, and they know what what a computer can do. In other words they know it can fly. Right now Apple don't give any right to 'hack' it but that it is only because they want to sell you a new one with more 'features' next year. People have come to realize this and Apple is balancing its act in order to satisfy its commercial interest, one of which is keeping their 'good' company hype. They do, however, consider un-lockers as users otherwise they wouldn't announce the release of the SDK.

Another reason

[p51d007]

Not to buy the iphone. I looked at it when i bought my at&t Tilt. A. I'm not into games B. I'm not into MP3's/videos C. (personally) I don't like closed source devices. Yes, the MS6 Mobile is a "closed" OS, but at least I can tinker with the registry, add just about any application I want without having to bow to the Apple police. The iphone is a nice device, but I don't like a company telling me what I can and cannot install. It's MY PHONE. I'll install what I damn well please.

Signed Code

[Zeinfeld]

It will probably need each app to be signed by the holder of a code signing certificate.

Apple would be very ill advised to allow unsigned code on the device. The question is whether the set of trusted roots is closed or open.

This issue is currently being examined by every cell phone platform provider. The potential for damage caused by malicious code on the handsets is real, particularly in places like Scandinavia where the cell phone is routinely used as a payment device. Carriers are understandably concerned that there might be premium rate fraud applications like the Beavis and Butthead screensaver that silently dialed a premium rate number in Moldovia.

The advice I have been giving people is that they should insist that all code be signed but allow for configuration of the list of trusted signing roots so that it is possible for anyone to load any code they choose but not possible for drive by code to install itself without their knowledge.

This will in turn mean that there will need to be some process for acquiring code signing certificates for development purposes and for distribution of open source software. The two issues are different though, supporting developers is easier since they are assumed to be technically competent and can be told to go through a complicated procedure to generate and install a self signed root.

Providing code signing certs for distribution of open source code is trickier. The problem is not the cost, that can be taken care of, the cost of providing certs for open source applications can be carried by a small increase in the price of commercial code signing certs. The problem is that while some open source enterprises like Apache or Mozilla have very good internal processes that I would have no problem issuing certs to those efforts, I can validate their credentials and any injured party knows where to send a writ. They are accountable. Most of the 100,000 or so open source efforts are not in that category, they are small, informal and most likely to fold long before delivering useful code. If efforts of that type can easily obtain a code signing credential the whole purpose could be lost, the Internet criminals would simply present themselves as open source efforts and roll malware into that code.

Incidentaly, we do not know for sure that the alleged code is genuine. While only Apple will have the hardware containing their private key there is another way to get an update onto the device - substitute the Apple public key on the device for another one.

I suspect however that the leak is genuine and deliberate. Its a way for Apple to tell people that they should expect their unlocked iPhone to stop working in the near future.

Buy a Nokia N800/N810 instead

[Edgester]

This is what I don't understand. Apple is clearly hostile to hackers on the iPhone/iPod Touch. Why bother? Vote with your wallet. Go out and buy a device like the Nokia N800 or N810 which is the most open handheld device I've seen. It lets you install third-party apps without even using the command-line! Browse to a 3rd party maemo app link, tap install, and agree to the "This is not a Nokia app" warning screen. There are very few programs on the Nokia that aren't open source, of which the wireless driver is closed.

I'm all for hacking devices, but Apple isn't doing the "no warranty, your on your own" thing; they are actively thwarting any efforts to tweak the device. DON'T BUY IT! If a device does not do what you want, including being hackable, then don't buy it.

Support Nokia with its Internet Tablet devices! Show vendors that we want more open hardware!

Re:Buy a Nokia N800/N810 instead

[hattig]

Isn't an iPhone firmware update just a disk image that is written onto the iPhone / iPod Touch overwriting what was there before? That's hardly "thwarting", that's just how it's done.

Nevermind the core APIs changing, making third party applications unlikely to run anyway, even if they were preserved.

As to fixing security flaws that previous hacks have utilised ... that's sensible behaviour.

And providing a third party SDK of their own very soon - only 8 months after the device release when the platform has stabilised - that's not so bad. How were the first Palm or Windows CE SDKs and APIs?

We can bitch about the iPhone SDK when it is released and we know what limitations or restrictions it enforces. I'm sure there will be something to upset everyone.

In the meantime we can be happy that it isn't Windows Mobile that's going to take over that area of the market. Haven't ever seen such a piece of poorly designed crapware before, well, since WinME.

You're Paying Too Much

[meehawl]

Verizon 900 minutes + unlimited data = $105ish after taxes. I know, I had a Moto Q just before the iPhone price drop, when I bought mine.
AT&T iPhone 900 minutes + unlimited data + rollover minutes = $85ish after taxes.

Sprint SERO:
500 mins, unlimited texts, unlimited EVDO data, free Verizon roaming, tethering. $30/month + tax.
1250 mins, unlimited texts, unlimited EVDO data, free Verizon roaming, tethering. $50/month + tax.

At those prices, it makes sense to get a Sprint phone, share out its connection using Wifi or BLuetooth, and slave an Apple Touch or phone off it for connectivity. You still come out ahead and you don't have to put up with sucky EDGE.

Re:You're Paying Too Much

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, SERO stands for Sprint Employee Referral Offer.

I don't know anybody who works for them, to get that great discount.

Try using the normal rates the rest of the United States can use if you want to make a valid price comparison.

Forced or Optional

[Anonymous Coward]

Just disable the receiver/transmitter, at least the third party apps would work!

Tautology Alert

[meehawl]

The reason Mac OS is overwhelmingly adopted by the creative industry is that it does creative tasks well.

DA: Anything that happens, happens. Anything that in happening causes something else to happen, causes something else to happen. Anything that in happening happens again, happens again. Though not necessarily in that order. Your favourite OS sucks.

Balls Out Away From EDGE

[meehawl]

Apple is being singled out, because they are the only company with enough balls to actually show how their product works on a commercial, instead of relying on some pop-star to hold it in her hand.

In all the Apple ads, and in the stores, Apple's phones are never set up to browse using EDGE. It's always the Wifi connection and, using that, any service looks snappy. Using EDGE, I doubt Apple could actually *fit* more than two UI operations into a 30-second TV ad slot because it takes around that long for many basic web pages to finish loading.

Maybe Apple's new 3G phones will not suck so much at basic web tasks using the phone network, and Apple will actually have the balls to show this in operation. Sucks to be a user in a 2-year contract though.

Re:Balls Out Away From EDGE

[stewbacca]

Even so, other cell phones' UI suck so badly they don't dare show how badly they actually operate. Bring in Beyoncé, blast some Top-10 song, and obfuscate the details of your phone as much as possible, since it can't hold a candle to the iPhone's UI.

No argument from me about EDGE sucking, but it is still better than NO Internet access.

Appleverse Unreality

[meehawl]

Normal users don't want to "update their phone" (which is a weird concept to many consumers in the first place) and have it break in some way.

Yeah you're right, outside of the Apple-verse, nobody updates their phones. Yes, those hundreds of millions of people downloading Java or Windows Mobile or Palm OS or Symbian or RIM games and applications to run on their phones though either commercial or "free" channels must be a figment of the multibillion dollar mobile phone industry. And I'm not even counting ringtones in this figure, the total dollar value of which far eclipses all "legal" music downloads sales combined.

Hurry up with quantum computing

[Myria]

What we really need is quantum computing. All modern lockout systems ultimately derive from public-key cryptography. Quantum computing would break all three popular systems - RSA, modular discrete logarithm, elliptic curve discrete logarithm - and there would be nothing Apple or anyone else could do to protect against unauthorized software on their hardware.

More importantly, it would destroy the VeriSign cartel.

Re:Hurry up with quantum computing

[argent]

What we really need is quantum computing.

If you think public key is hard to break, wait until they have quantum encryption.

No, I don't know how it'll work, but I have faith that they'll come up with some operation they can use on qbits that you can't reverse using qc even if you can destroy the universe after every failed trial.

Re:Hurry up with quantum computing

[condensate]

With a quantum computer, you can do one time pad ciphers. Thing is that encryption with normal computers is costly. If you have qbits doing the job, you are no longer forced to rely on some algorithm to produce random numbers, but you also do the job quickly. So, if the key is then kept secret, you won't break it...

I'm waiting ...

[PPH]

... for a Linux port before I buy an iPhone. I'll load what I damned well please on hardware that I paid for.

Re:I'm waiting ...

[Anonymous Coward]

better get porting, then..

Tie free software certs to ADC accounts?

[tepples]

Apple would be very ill advised to allow unsigned code on the device. Why? Newer operating systems can implement fine-grained sandboxes. In OLPC Bitfrost, each application package specifies the capabilities it requests. The first time the user runs a program, it shows a list of checkboxes, with the capabilities it needs checked.

I can validate [big-name free software publishers'] credentials and any injured party knows where to send a writ. They are accountable. Most of the 100,000 or so open source efforts are not in that category One solution to allow free software onto a platform that uses code signing might be to 1. tie each developer certificate to a free ADC account and 2. as a condition of use of the certificate, require software published by holders of ADC accounts below Select level to be copylefted, even under a BSD license with minimal copyleft terms added. That satisfies the GPL's requirement; from there it just becomes a business decision of whether Apple and AT&T want free software on their platform.

If [not-yet-usable free software projects] can easily obtain a code signing credential the whole purpose could be lost, the Internet criminals would simply present themselves as open source efforts and roll malware into that code. If all software that uses a gratis cert is copylefted, paranoid people can read the source code and warn other users.

Re:Tie free software certs to ADC accounts?

[Zeinfeld]

Why? Newer operating systems can implement fine-grained sandboxes. In OLPC Bitfrost, each application package specifies the capabilities it requests. The first time the user runs a program, it shows a list of checkboxes, with the capabilities it needs checked.

Maybe Slashdot readers can cope with that level of security but most people cannot. We have had fine grained security for 25 years and it certaily has real value, but not as an end user configuration.

Fine grained security models work really well with signed code. If you know who provided the code and what level of privileges it requires you can get a pretty good idea of the level of risk involved in running it. If you load up a game and it demands kernel level access you can probably figure out that the correct response should be 'no thanks'. Signing the code allows this to be outsourced.

If all software that uses a gratis cert is copylefted, paranoid people can read the source code and warn other users.

Been there, done that, seen it fail. As Jeff Schiller always points out when this claim is made, Kerberos was always open source, it was always subject to peer review by a huge number of people yet some very fundamental architectural and coding errors went undetected for a decade.

Open source facilitates a secure coding model but it turns out to be neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for security.

Compare to PC trialware

[tepples]

I take it that you don't own a Mac. There are a number of small software vendors that distribute their software as shareware with limitations, either on time or functionality. It's not limited to Macintosh computers. Plenty of publishers of shareware for Windows have paid PC builders to install unregistered shareware on the hard drive and on the recovery CD.

I can cite some sources

[tepples]

Can you cite a source that they charge for any of their SDKs? No. But this is an SDK for a mobile phone, and I can cite sources that other companies making SDKs for mobile phones do charge.

Can you cite a source that proves Linus won't ask you for a gazillion $ per month if you want to use Linux tomorrow? He can ask for it, but nobody will be obligated to pay or quit using Linux because Linus won't be able to revoke the license of existing versions of Linux so easily.

Re:I can cite some sources

[Baumi]

Can you cite a source that they charge for any of their SDKs? No. But this is an SDK for a mobile phone, and I can cite sources that other companies making SDKs for mobile phones do charge. At the same time, Apple's giving away its desktop SDKs for free. Considering how greedy they can get, there's no guarantee they'll do the same on the iPhone, but it might happen. So there's fuel for both sides of the argument which basically means: We don't know. (Surprising, isn't it...?)

Therefore, any attempt to justify anything with "the high price of the iPhone SDK" is nothing but FUD until any supposed pricing has been announced.

Re:I can cite some sources

[tepples]

At the same time, Apple's giving away its desktop SDKs for free. Considering how greedy they can get, there's no guarantee they'll do the same on the iPhone, but it might happen. Here, one could just as easily draw an analogy to how Microsoft distributes the Windows platform SDK at no charge but charges $495 for a 5-year subscription to "XNA Creators Club", the closest thing to a publicly available Xbox SDK.

What You Do vs How You Do It

[meehawl]

other cell phones' UI suck so badly they don't dare show how badly they actually operate.

I disagree. Some phones are better at certain UI tasks than Apple's phone, others are worse - it's not an absolute. For many operations, Apple's UI or its phone makes certain tasks far more difficult than it should be - like going to random sites from a texted URL. Lack of simple copy/paste UI operations makes that suck, as does a lack of phrase-based autocomplete. Most companies are not in early adopter mode, so they do not stress mechanical operations or lean heavily towards adverts of that type. One notable exception is something like HTC, where it runs ads similar to Apple's demonstrating its version of a touch UI. Apple has always fetishised its UIs, and so its current reliance on ads of this type should come as no surprise.

One a more significant level, Apple's advertising for its phone is currently is early adopter mode, stressing the manual operations as a fetish over the ability to complete tasks. For certain things it is moving beyond task based presentation to goal-directed presentation, but it still lacks a lot of the "message" that other phone ads have been pushing for years: community, family, connectedness, sociality. The best UI is one that is not there. Personally, I like voice UIs more than many people. Rather than futzing with a screen to get ijn touch with someone, I like being able to say "call X" or "text X" or "Amazon" to get something done. It means I constrain the directing of my attentional focus on the communication device until it has successfully established the mode of operation that I desire. It's virtually impossible to get anything done on Apple's phone without focussing entirely on its screen and its UI. And that is exactly how Apple wants it.

it is still better than NO Internet access.

I confess I do not fully understand what point you are making here, because I haven't had a phone that did not possess the ability to access the Internet since the 1990s. Can you even get a new one today that is "internet-free"?

Here's one way to cut/paste

[Manfesto]

"Currently there is no copy and paste for example. How do you do it with just a touch screen ui?"

http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/09/fake-iphone-cut-and-paste-demo-loves-you/

Nope

[StarKruzr]

You're wrong. The iPhone API is a subset of Leopard's.

Re:Nope

[TheRaven64]

Everything I have read indicates that the UI components use a new UIKit, which is similar to AppKit but not the same. It's a shame, since QuantumStep already implements a full AppKit on a number of mobile devices.

Right Now...

[emjoi_gently]

Right now, you have a situation where the jailbroken applications run as root user.
They have complete access to the entire filesystem, and to all the communication systems such as wifi net access, with no firewall or any other protections.

A naughty program can do anything it damn well likes with your iPhone/Touch.
To me, that it the most serious issue that Apple has to sort out before letting in 3rd Party software.

I've got no problem with people jailbreaking their gadgets, and I've done it myself, but it's Unprotected Sex at the moment. No condoms.

My take is these gadgets are early days in the design cycle. Eventually they'll evolve into full Newton 2.0's, but Apple just isn't finished the work it needs to do yet.

Since I've done it...

[SuperKendall]

Er.. other than having to learn a new language with a new object model (ObjC's OOP doesn't exactly map to Java or C++) and a whole new set of libraries, you mean?

Perhaps I've made it sound a bit too easy. But really the syntax and even the different OOP models are not that hard to get used to, the one thing that always annoyed me using other languages after Java was when I had to do my own memory management. I don't mind doing so occasionally, but after you get out of the habit of thinking about it it's a pain to go back.

It also helps if you ever adopted a message passing style of communication in a project before as well. so that you are used to that as a concept.

I would argue the Java-C# transition is actually harder exactly because they are so similar. With a transition to ObjectiveC you can keep them a bit seperate from each other in your mind instead of losing track of what is capitalized vs. what is not, or what subtle differences exist in a library that looks just like one you have used in the past...

Couldn't vs. Wouldn't

[SuperKendall]

The real reason why iPhone doesn't have J2ME support is the same reason why it didn't have MMS support: Apple just couldn't deliver.

Couldn't and Wouldn't are two very different things, and you have them confused.

The experience of using a J2ME application on an iPhone would suck. It would be far more limited than "real" apps, wouldn't generally make very good use of the touch screen, and just look like yesterdays breakfast.

Why do people not run J2ME apps on desktops? After all, they COULD run there as well.

Re:Couldn't vs. Wouldn't

[Iloinen Lohikrme]

So your argument is that in Apple, in their minds, user experience comes before functionality. That's fair argument knowing the past history of Apple. That however doesn't mean that the supposed Apples position would make any sense, nor that it would be in line with the users.

In my mind it just is ridiculous idea that a phone wouldn't be capable on running J2ME applications. In business environments many applications have J2ME application front-end for mobile users: typical intranet/extranet applications from CRM, ERP, to collaboration and email. Also there are huge amounts of software targeted to individuals from public services and productive tools to games and entertainment. That's just plain crazy to exclude so much functionality and so many people relying on that functionality.

Also I would argue that the user experience on using J2ME on an touch interface can't be that bad, as other mobile phone makes have done it in the past. No, I would put this in the same bin as missing MMS functionality: they just couldn't hack it together.

Re:Couldn't vs. Wouldn't

[SuperKendall]

Also I would argue that the user experience on using J2ME on an touch interface can't be that bad, as other mobile phone makes have done it in the past. No, I would put this in the same bin as missing MMS functionality: they just couldn't hack it together.

MMS they left out for a good reason - it's an idiotic holdover from past times. Apple is trying, as Apple has done in the past, to try and move an industry forward and out of the dark ages. Just as computers eventually no longer needed floppy drives, so today sending images over such an archaic protocol when everyone can just use e-mail is insane. Indeed, there are email gateways for every provider that let iPhone users send images to backwards folk that cannot support email with image attachments.

Yes the iPhone could support it. But just like we don't see J2ME on desktops, so we do not really need J2ME on the iPhone. For the record, I also think "iPhone optimized" web sites are an abomination because when you have a real browser, you do not need an "optimized" site with far less information!! And those little tiny J2ME apps that let you see a fragment of the data you want for enterprise applications, similarly why should anyone limit themselves like that? Most enterprise apps are coming in over web pages now anyway and for richer apps on an iPhone again you can do way more with the SDk and really with very little extra effort.

Re:Couldn't vs. Wouldn't

[Iloinen Lohikrme]

Eh... you might want to tell to the rest of the world that MMS is useless relic of history, they for some reason haven't found out this. Actually MMS is coming more and more popular as even the lowest handsets can receive and show their contents, and camera phones start from below 100euros. It should also be pointed out that MMS and email are not the same thing even in functionality, MMS has more. In example when I send an email I don't know if the receiver has received it or not, with MMS and SMS too, I can turn on functionality where the operator sends me an confirmation message when my message has been received by the device. This is in very handy in many situations, and can also be used to alert when people put their phones on: i.e. my friends is out side network or his battery is dead, I just send SMS/MMS to him with an alert turned on, and the minute his mobile comes back to network I get an confirmation that my message has received its target. Quite handy?

By the way do you know this word convergence... it's what happens with phones having functionality. You can use multiple options to message: voice, SMS/MMS, video call, email, instant messaging, etc.. That's all in there, just pop a 150 euros at maximum (unsubsidized) and you get an mobile with all the previous functionality. So why doesn't Apple provide these too? Why not support multiple options and let the user decide what he/she does with his/her handset... And web browsing... please... all Nokias handsets S60 and most of S40 have decent build in browser and if for some reason you don't like it, you can download Opera Mini for free, and for 19 euros you can get the best mobile browser there is. Also browsing from a screen with a low resolution isn't really very full fledged experience. iPhone has resolution of 480x320, and there is not much of difference when you compare it to normal phones that sport 240x320 or 320x240 (in case of Nokia 61i), they both have to scale the page smaller and you have to zoom in and out. The only phone that gives you real browsing experience is E90 which has inner screen of 800x352.

I also differ in opinion about optimizing for mobiles. You have to optimize for mobiles as their form factor limits their capabilities always. Yes you may put screen there that sports very good resolution, maybe you put 960x1280 resolution, but that doesn't help as when the screen size is 2.2 inch. With small screen with high resolution your eyes will just hurt if you scale the content up. That is why you need to optimize for mobile users. As we now days have CMSs in place and more and more software interfaces can be skinned and generated via XML soup, there is really no excuse on not optimizing when the need arises. The same is true with applications. Also when we discuss mobile usage, to truly embrace it we have to start thinking about what functions people are doing in the field, what needs they have and so on... So you don't cram all the functionality of enterprise application into an J2ME application or mobile page, but you select what is needed most in an situation where mobile phone is used. So in example, you could have mobile application that lets you browse your CRM and find the names and addresses of your customers, maybe pint point their location in the map, as many times an sales representative is either trying to locate the customer or wants to refresh his/her memory about the client. You absolutely need to optimize for mobile, that's my opinion.

Re:Couldn't vs. Wouldn't

[SuperKendall]

Eh... you might want to tell to the rest of the world that MMS is useless relic of history, they for some reason haven't found out this. Actually MMS is coming more and more popular as even the lowest handsets can receive and show their contents, and camera phones start from below 100euros

Although the analogy is not perfect, floppy drives were also quite cheap and popular right until the end. And all the benefits you claim for MMS are also supported by email (like read receipts).

I also differ in opinion about optimizing for mobiles. You have to optimize for mobiles as their form factor limits their capabilities always. Yes you may put screen there that sports very good resolution, maybe you put 960x1280 resolution, but that doesn't help as when the screen size is 2.2 inch.

The iPhone screen is not 2.2 inches though and is a rather high resolution, and with an easy ability to zoom and pan you do not need to scale for that screen. I agree you need to scale for all other mobile devices, because the screens and techniques of navigation used on them require that optimization be done. But the iPhone absolutely does not need that for browsing, the only desire anyone might have to do so would be based strictly on bandwidth and NOT on UI as with other devices.

Re:Couldn't vs. Wouldn't

[Iloinen Lohikrme]

Email receipts do not provide the same functionality as SMS/MMS, as in emails receipt are gotten only via request, and even then, the receiver could just select not to send receipt to the send. In case of SMS/MMS receipts are part of the standard and are supported by both the network and devices in a standard way. If I sent email with an request for receipt, I can't be 100% that I will get that receipt. With SMS/MMS I'm 100% sure that I will get receipt when the device receives the message.

Just to give you an example. Before Christmas my parents were in Paris for holiday shopping and my mother saw an nice winter jacket that she thought I might like. She snapped a picture of it with a camera phone, added the photo to MMS, put a small text there and sent it to me. When the MMS arrived to my phone and made an alert sound that I have new message. I looked it and sent back my opinion. Now if she would have done the same with email, there would have come few problems namely did he receive it, was he alerted to it, and when did his email client check for new email. Okay, you don't have that bad timing problem when you put your email client to check email for every few minutes, but then again, then you start to pay in battery life.

There is real need for SMS/MMS functionality as there is for email, they don't replace each other, but they complement, and as we clear standards and enough capacity in mobile devices, there is no reason not to support both, and give the power to the user. So no, I don't think SMS/MMS are going to go anywhere anytime soon, they just provide something more. Of course this is partly an cultural thing as in Europe SMS/MMS are very popular, but in example Japan email is what everybody uses with mobiles.

Yes, iPhone has a big screen, it isn't 2.2 inch, and that's a problem. I don't want that big phone. What I need and want is small phone that fits my jeans side pocket easily, or goes nicely inside a suites inner pocket with out being too heavy or causing wrinkles. When you look at what phones people like to buy, you see they like to buy as small and light phones as possible. When you make an small phone, 2.2 inch is huge screen for it. So making the screens and phones bigger isn't the answer, the answer is supporting peoples choice on using small devices.

On a note about browsing... some sites use simpler UI and it converts nicely to even smaller screens like the one in iPhone, how ever trying to use an full scale enterprise app or some media outlets portal via anything other than a standard 1028x768 screen is just an horrible experience. In example I have tried my own company's products via many mobile devices and other devices with an smaller screen than 1028x768 and it just kills the usage, without optimizing or designing an other interface for the mobile devices, it just is completely unusable. This is not going to change, it just the form, you have to make compromises when you start putting the same content that you usually use in desktop into a device that sits in your pocket.

Re:Couldn't vs. Wouldn't

[SuperKendall]

With SMS/MMS I'm 100% sure that I will get receipt when the device receives the message.

What you see as a feature smacks to me of inflexibility in allowing me to CHOOSE if I want a receipt sent to you or not. I personally deny all email receipts and will not use a client that would not let me disable them, and I don't see why MMS should be any different.

Since a user can easily enable them if they want it sent, this is not an issue and you are trying to claim a design constraint of a hoary old protocol as an advantage!!

Yes, iPhone has a big screen, it isn't 2.2 inch, and that's a problem. I don't want that big phone

You totally miss the point!! We are talking specifically about J2ME apps on the iPhone. If you do not want an iPhone then the conversion holds absolutely zero interest for you, because you will not use one. I'm not saying smaller devices should not use J2ME, just the iPhone.

Some sites use simpler UI and it converts nicely to even smaller screens like the one in iPhone, how ever trying to use an full scale enterprise app or some media outlets portal via anything other than a standard 1028x768 screen is just an horrible experience

The iPhone has an effective resolution I would say, of about 1600x1200. It's all about interface and a scalable UI and high DPI interface, that's what you are not understanding. I can for example read the Slashdot front page pretty easily with no zooming, and still work the links.

Re:Couldn't vs. Wouldn't

[Iloinen Lohikrme]

Yes, that is inflexibility, but that is the price you and all users of system must pay, to have any guarantees and data about message delivery. Actually there are historical reason for this: 1) sending SMS/MMS has cost you money and thus to serve customers, there had to be a system implemented to let you know have you paid for nothing or not, and 2) all SMS/MMS messages have their time to live, which you and the network can set, usually networks allow message to be in their system for 30 days undelivered before it's deleted. Now yes, there is huge amount of inflexibility and rules that everybody must follow, but then again, that is the price you have to pay use an messaging system designed for mobile usages: it has it's ups and downs.

What I'm claiming is that SMS/MMS systems both are usable and needed systems that have their ups and downs. They provide something in exchange of something. My point is that as there is no other system that can deliver the same functionality and which is as popular and used. That's why I think it should be implemented by all devices. And as the feature is in virtually all phones, it's very strange that it's not in iPhone. Could or would, that is a question, and I lean to could, as that feature with many other flaws have made them a failure in Europe.

My interest on this conversation lies on question couldn't or wouldn't have. When coming back to that point, I just have point back to my original message and say: if those phones that are not traditional phones, can have J2ME and have it workable, why iPhone couldn't/wouldn't? Why not use standard that is there, that has loads of applications, and that is familiar with the users? Why instead of not putting that functionality they instead have choose to have no applications at all at the iPhone. Yes you can unlock your iPhone and put there some applications, but as the newest firmware comes, you have to unlock it again and again. In the other hand Apple could have included J2ME midp 2.0 support there, and say to their users and customers 'there is J2ME, do your applications with it, do you own work to get them running smoothly'. Instead they have chose not to have feature, and from my point of view is totally ludicrous as it for sure has taken users and customers from adopting the iPhone. Thus in this light, the question of couldn't/wouldn't turns in my mind to favor couldn't.

Exactly

[SuperKendall]

Because J2ME has a more limited scope than the whole of Java proper (in terms of libraries and somewhat in terms of language) it seems like someone could rig something together out of one of the open source VM's around.

Like you know

[SuperKendall]

Why set it up that every time you upgrade, only certain applications appear, and forcibly remove the rest from appearing?

I don't know since I am not in charge of the iPhone system architecture. I personally think Apple should be able to change whatever the hell they like in undocumented non-public portions of the system, without complaints. Don't like the new system? Then keep using the older hacked version. People in the past have understood that hacking software or hardware was diverging from the manufactured planned path of changes and lived with the consequences of that. People today what Apple to actually tiptoe around whatever modes app developers feel like making, which as a system designer myself (but of servers, not handheld devices) strikes me as absurd.

Same strength

[SuperKendall]

The strength of Java is not garbage collection, buts the massive backing library that allows for rapid development.

But that's exactly why ObjectiveC make such a nice translation from Java development - because ObjectiveC (at least on the Mac, not as much generally) also offers a large backing library for functionality and a UI builder that allows for rapid development. It's not like moving to C or C++ (especially C++ which has large libraries but I defy anyone to say they allow for rapid development until you have used them for quite a long time).

GC is just one of the more annoying hassles to have to deal with when you leave the non-memory-managed language space. I made it sound a little more prominent of a feature than it actually is, but on the other hand it will help a lot people create more stable applications than they might have otherwise.

Then it's vapor

[tepples]

No one can say anything because it is not released yet. If you don't want to discuss which of the existing business models would best match Apple's intent, then let's just call the iPhone SDK vaporware and drop the issue.

Analogy to existing business models

[tepples]

Have you seen any to contrary? Yes. It's too early to speculate definitively about Apple's intent, but I expect Apple and especially AT&T to take existing mobile phone code signing business models into account. BREW costs money, and Qualcomm appears to tout that as an advantage of BREW over Java ME, as commercial BREW developers don't have to compete with hobbyists. Symbian Signed also costs money. (Cellmania offeers a "Freeware Route to Market" for S60 software that costs near zero, but its terms of service appear to be incompatible with the GPL on a technicality related to the GPL's requirement to grant permission to distribute binaries without or with charge.) The iPod never even got an SDK for game development.

Wow

[StarKruzr]

I hadn't heard of QuantumStep until just now. Thanks for the Google search term :)

What devices are extant that use it?

Re:Wow

[TheRaven64]

No devices ship with QuantumSTEP, but the site allows you to download it for the Zaurus, the Neo1973 and a few others (including the Nokia 770, although I haven't tried it there yet). As a result of a meeting at FOSDEM last year, the lead developer now has commit access to GNUstep, and the two projects are working more closely together. They are going to remain separate, since they have different goals (QuantumSTEP wants the smallest possible footprint for mobile devices, GNUstep aims more for desktops), but the missing features from each are starting to appear in the other.

Re:Buy a [actually] iPod Touch instead

[leoofborg]

I maintain that the iPhone, even with firmware 1.12 is an insecure buggy piece of crap running on ATT's FAIL [*burp* Edge] network [with a little 'n']. Most of you are probably better off just running 802.11G near a Starbucks, right? Then why put up with a mehRig? The perfect 'G' rig is the iPod Touch. Vote with your pocketbook and get an iPod Touch anyway, and hack it. I recommend Costco and their 90 day warranty on electronics. Don't upgrade to 1.13 until the jailbreakers break it. Me? I like having MobileScrobbler, iStumbler, and vt100 on my 'touch. It is a mehPod no more. The simple point is this: Apple is doing a disservice to their users by intentionally hobbling these rigs. I'm sure Steve will have some 'announcement' at MacWorld about real apps, I'm also sure that I will be as underwhelmed as current iPhone owners are with their unhacked rigs. I'll echo the other user's sentiments that once hacked, the 'touch is one of the most useful mobile devices I have -ever- owned. The second coming of the Newton done right. And not even done by the Gnomes of Cupertino. In the end, Apple will just be Apple, and miss an opportunity to absolutely CRUSH the competition. But no, I expect another round of mehPods and mehPhones.

Drug dealers and death racers

[Serious Callers Only]

You sound like Fox News on a bad day - all false dichotomies, bad analogies, and personal attacks. Useful arguments are a dialogue, so stop treating this like a gladiatorial match. Your barbs about playing WoW etc really only reflect badly on you.

A customer is someone who buys your product, regardless of what they do with it afterward. Apple releasing an SDK does show us that they do indeed count the 'hackers, crackers and dummy followers' as customers - those people want to buy an iphone after all, and might buy upgrades if they're happy enough. What they don't want is to be locked in forever to whoever Apple thinks is the best carrier for them, and the best supplier of apps.

I'd consistently look at Apple products first when evaluating consumer electronics/computers, because they think through their choices, actually design their products, and they are not user-hostile; if they do something unpopular like remove serial ports, remove floppies, or discontinue classic, it's usually for a good reason, and makes it better for everyone in the long run. If they turn into the kind of company that tries to lock down its users so hard they can't even install stuff on their own device, I'd reconsider that stance, as would I think the majority of their current customers. So Apple should care because a lot of their customers rely on them to make the right choices, and will go elsewhere if those choices are solely made to maximise profit short-term, at the expense of the wishes of their users. Linux phones will soon be a big competitor to the iPhone, particularly with webkit installed.

There was no requirement to wipe apps with this update, and to do so is just going to encourage a lot of people not to bother with it (frankly it's not very compelling and in some cases copies what has already been done by those 'crackers' - (that's drug dealers and death racers to you)). So they'll end up with a fragmented user-base running all sorts of versions. They may well feel this is worth the pain just now to force everyone to go to their way for installing apps when they've released the SDK. Actively blocking unlocking is a stupid move in my opinion - they could make a lot more money by simply not condoning software unlocks and looking the other way.

We'll see far better when the SDK is released what Apple's plans are, and if they're going to try to continue with this ridiculous walled garden they've set up or get with the program and open up the phone to the users/developers. I imagine Apple thought they could milk certain customers for a while first with locked in plans and then open up the platform later, which is risky, but might work. Ultimately a walled garden approach will fail, so I'm not too worried about the future as if they don't choose to they'll be pushed to open up. The touch and the iphone are mini-computers, and even if Apple don't see them that way yet, they will have to recognise it at some point - I'll wait till they do before buying an iPhone.

Re:Drug dealers and death racers

[msim]

they could make a lot more money by simply not condoning software unlocks and looking the other way.

My Money is on contractual obligations with AT&T to put in a "best effort" to attempt to stop these unlockings.

Why buy a Touch, even?

[argent]

The OP's point about NOT rewarding Apple for screwing up is just as valid. Apple is just a company, Jobs is just a man, they make mistakes and even if they're awfully passive-aggressive about admitting them they do seem to, eventually, learn from them.

Re:Unlocking is not the same as running applicatio

[Space cowboy]

It saves you an extra $1100 or so, paid up-front, on top of the existing cost of the phone. In Germany, officially unlocked phones were on sale at 999 euros (or ~$1500). This is down to Apple losing any monthly fees from its partner phone-network once a phone is unlocked from that network.

So, with Apple wanting to recoup 4 years (according to the Steve) of R&D, here's your choices:

      - Pay $399 for a phone locked to AT&T.
      - Pay $1500 for an unlocked phone

Apple's position presumably is that no-one in their right mind would pay $1500 for the same phone that costs $399; and that the additional overheads of supporting any network, not to mention explaining to consumers that the 'visual voicemail' and possibly other future features wouldn't work, just made option 2 a non-starter.

It's up to Apple to figure out how much profit they want to make on each device (that's the right of the manufacturer). It's up to the consumer to decide whether the value is worth the cost. If the value-proposition is high enough, people will purchase the device in droves (and it looks like this is happening).

Simon

Re:Unlocking is not the same as running applicatio

[Cederic]

Given that devices with higher hardware specifications can be bought for under $700 even at inflated UK prices, if Apple charges $1500 for unlocked iPhones they're merely profiteering and not specifically attempting to cover costs.

That an officially unlocked phone can be purchased at such a premium merely accentuates Apple's desire to limit consumer choice and gouge their customer base.

Again, I fail to see how customers are benefiting here. I guess the answer is to buy Apple stock.

Re:Unlocking is not the same as running applicatio

[mjeffers]

It's more like: You bought a car, you can clearly modify it so it can fly, but every time you take to the mechanic to get the radio fixed they deliberately take off all the stuff you added to make it fly because "they don't support flying". Even though you're fully aware they don't support flying, you just want it to because it's your damn car!

You've heard of this mechanics reputation. In fact, they've told you about this, recommended you not mod your car because of it, and told you that anytime you bring a modded car to them they'll remove it. Your friends have had their mods removed in older model cars and you read all over the web that this mechanic removes custom car mods.

Yet you still buy cars from the mechanic, mod them, and take them back to for repairs. And complain everytime your mods are removed.

Obviously the problem is with the mechanic.

I don't care about modding my iPhone. I don't like AT&T so I just bought another phone that works for me. At this point in time, anyone (but especially Slashdot readers) knows that Apple locks down hardware and isn't friendly to modders. If this works for you, buy a mac. If it doesn't, don't.

Still not understanding

[SuperKendall]

Yes, that is inflexibility, but that is the price you and all users of system must pay, to have any guarantees and data about message delivery.

But not everyone wants that, and I want to be able to turn it off - and it's there if you want it. Honestly, email is quite reliable now.

I know all about the history of MMS which is why I don't want it and think it should die. It's from another time, and that time is done.

Again, Email has the option to provide everything you want from MMS if it is configured well - and the point is you can in fact configure it to do different things. For moving data between users it's a far superior method which is why we do not use MMS on desktops! After all, if MMS is so great why are we not using it on desktops?

When coming back to that point, I just have point back to my original message and say: if those phones that are not traditional phones, can have J2ME and have it workable, why iPhone couldn't/wouldn't? Why not use standard that is there

And I'll just come back to my original question which answers yours completely - why do we not use J2ME on the desktop today.

Re:Still not understanding

[Iloinen Lohikrme]

Well it seems that we a difference on point of view. I myself believe that you have accommodate by the device that is being used. When you have an mobile device you accommodate to it, when you have an full feature computer, you accommodate to that. With mobile phones you have a different environment that with different needs, and you target that.

Now, yes you can configure email to resemble MMS as close as it can, but still the problem is that it's not mandatory. That's the big difference. With SMS/MMS you can trust that the person you are sending message has the same setup and follows the same guidelines that you do. With email that's optional, so you have no guarantees that the person has configured his/her device to check email every few minutes, to alert when new email arrives etc.. That's a big difference. With SMS/MMS you know when you send a message that it goes directly in to receivers handset, handset giving alert, and you getting contact to the person you wanted.

Now why don't we use MMS messaging in desktop? Because it's a different usage situation. When I have need to make contact quickly, I grab my phone, make the message and send it. When I'm making an memo or have more to say, or am not in hurry, I write an email with my desktop/laptop. Also you have to understand different options to message also carry different meta message. When I phone you, and ask a question, that's the most direct and urgent mode of messaging. When I send SMS/MMS, it's still personal and time sensitive, but I give you some time to answer. When I send email, I don't expect to get answer any time soon. So the answer is, it's a different usage situation, with different usage attributes: it's mobile, it's personal.

Now why don't we use J2ME in desktop? Well because we have different environments that have different capabilities. Just look at your phone, it has and always will have smaller screen, less processing power, less memory, less mass memory than an desktop computer, and lets not forget that it has a different usage profile, because of that you use an different environment that accommodates to the device in hand. So again, it's a different situation with different capabilities.

Why I think that having J2ME is very important is because it gives you ability to run countless of application in your phone and those applications are not phone dependent. Even more, from the point of view of software developer, J2ME is very important and powerful as it allows me to target a range of mobile devices with one application, and that is not the last benefit of J2ME. In example my company's enterprise software is done with J2EE and it's currently used via web interface solely. Now if there would be some need to get the application or application interface to run in desktop, the jump wouldn't be as big, as I can reuse the same class libraries and code that make the J2EE application. The same holds true with J2ME, of course the jump is little big bigger, but still it's manageable. And no, having it ran via network is not always wanted, as sometimes you need to either make processing in the client side or have it able to run without network.

Now if we look at iPhone it's a smart phone, it's a mobile device, it should embrace mobile standards, it should have MMS and J2ME support as those are used and will be used for very long time. Yes maybe someday we only use email and instant messaging and have full feature Java runtime in our handset, but that time is not now and it won't become very quickly.

So couldn't of wouldn't. I still lean to couldn't.

Re:Still not understanding

[SuperKendall]

Well it seems that we a difference on point of view. I myself believe that you have accommodate by the device that is being used.

But that is exactly my point. The iPhone is difefrent enough than all other portable devices that the accomidations you must make are greater than what the scope of J2ME effectively allows for.

The iPhone is effectively closer to "a full featured computer" than a handheld, in terms of UI. It's not in terms of processor. But J2ME is more about addressing the UI side of the equation.

When I send SMS/MMS, it's still personal and time sensitive, but I give you some time to answer. When I send email, I don't expect to get answer any time soon.

Sorry but to me that is absolutely splitting hairs. I use email from everything for one-time send where I never expect a response, to something where I anticipate a reply in under a minute. MMS is exactly the same disconnected messaging model that lets you send and forget until a response is received.

Just look at your phone, it has and always will have smaller screen, less processing power, less memory, less mass memory than an desktop computer, and lets not forget that it has a different usage profile, because of that you use an different environment that accommodates to the device in hand

I am looking at my phone. It has the same effective screen size as my desktop for a single window. It has the same effective storage as my desktop, as anything over a GB or so is roomy for most applications. The networkig is the same with WiFi, and input is alost as good with a finger for a pointer and a very good keyboard I can type quickly on.

So why would I want J2ME on this very full featured system? Just because of processor differences? I don't think so, not when other options can give me the full UI the device supports.

Why I think that having J2ME is very important is because it gives you ability to run countless of application in your phone and those applications are not phone dependent.

I don't think J2ME will go away and I think it's great for all other phones. But it's not good for desktop equivilent UI's, and since that is what the iPhone offers it is pointless on that platform except for corner cases - but J2ME is about ubiquity, not corner cases.

Now if we look at iPhone it's a smart phone, it's a mobile device, it should embrace mobile standards,

Wrong, it should DRIVE mobile standards being the leader in that device space by a huge margin. The entire industry has been "embracing" the current mobile standards for the last decade, which is why the whole market was stagnant. Someone has to lead in order for the industry to move forward. That is happening in other nations to some extent, but not really here, not until now.

SDK

[scolbert]

looking forward to the iPhone SDK, some info at iPhone

Privacy is for the innocent, too.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, the "nothing to hide" argument.

The Eternal Value of Privacy

Re:Wake up Apple!

[Anonymous Coward]

Appolo is the IM App you're looking for...

Could be worse

[shentino]

At least they didn't get bricked this time...

breaks apps

[scolbert]

Why would anyone expect Apple to not break the hacked iPhones. Its what they do! /sammy with iPhone

when

[scolbert]

When does it come out? And does it has copy and paste? The GPS thing for the iPhone will be pretty cool. I think I will actually use the maps thing now.