Yes, this rumor doesn't pass the smell test very well. Someone, unnamed, claims that somewhere in the supply chain Apple is going to build a nano iPhone. If this person exists, and isn't just bulshitting, he/she would have to work for the actual company putting together the final product. Anyone else wouldn't be privy to the information. Besides which, I'm not sure the timing of these things, but it seems like it would be a bit soon for the mass production to start. The second expert is an analysts. I won't say anymore on that.
More importantly, even if they could make the display size smaller (which as parent pointed out, would make talking on it hard), I don't think it would be very usable. The iPhone's screen is already a bit small, so you can easily hold it. If you made it any smaller, you'd have no chance at a keyboard (it already takes up a huge amount of the screen). So no web browser, google maps, SMS, etc. So you'd have a really expensive phone that couldn't do anything that any cheap phones could do. Even play games (yes, the current iPhone doesn't have games, it can in theory support them, and it eventually will).
Maybe this could specs for an iPod. Most people suspect that a widescreen iPod is supposed to come out. But again, if you're going to use a touch-screen that requires your touch, you really want a screen that's large enough.
The TPM itself shipped with the computer, but there was no direct way for anyone to use it.
But if ioreg shows an entry on my computer for TPM, doesn't that mean it's accessible by me (regardless of whether Apple uses it or not)?
I don't believe the osx86group used a development version, I believe they've been using the latest releases. They do have this to say:
Additionally, the lack of presence of a TPM kernel extension in 10.4.4 means that the functionality probably now exists as an EFI module. There is also a possible association with Don't Steal Mac OS X.kext, which presumably acts to support memory page encryption and decryption.
We know that there must be some sort of TPM support provided by (or through) a kernel extension because the ioreg output on an Intel iMac shows:
| +-o TPM
I also believe that OS X ran on intel processors before 10.4.4 (I believe it worked under 10.4.1 or 10.4.2, but I'm having trouble finding documentation on this). So even though 10.4.4 lacks TPM, I think earlier versions might have had it.
If "Don't Steal Mac OS X.kext" is stopping people from using OS X on non-Apple products, I would be curious to know how (though it sounds like many other people would too...)
1. You said: "Production MacIntels never shipped with TPM support. "
I replied to that with: "I assure you I am typing right now on a Mactel computer (Macbook Pro) which does indeed have TPM (ioreg confirms this)".. this has nothing to do with the quotes you sent .
2. It's a long chapter you sent, and most of it is off topic. The summary at the end does claim Apple never uses TPM. However, as I said before Singh *could* be correct, but it is in contradiction to what other people have said. Specifically the osx86 group. If they're wrong, I'd like to understand why.
Just because you have a link from BoingBoing that links to a chapter someone wrote about OS X doesn't necessarily make it true. The fact that the newer Macs don't ship with TPM is the most convincing argument, but then I'd like to understand why (a) my Mac *does* have TPM, and (b) why other people had to write code around the fact that their installer looked for TPM.
One possible reason for these decrepencies is that Apple might have used TPM for the early versions of 10.4, but gave up soon afterwards.
As for the SDK, it depends on which theory you buy into. Some suggest Apple is still cleaning things up, and once they do they will release an SDK. Perhaps it's dependent on XCode 3.0, which case we won't expect it until October. But then why wouldn't Apple just say so...? Jobs works in mysterious ways...
If they aren't planning on releasing an SDK, it might be a matter of simply waiting to see if anything worthwhile comes along. It's no skin off their back if people hack it and put their own apps on it. If something good comes along, they in a style similar to Bootcamp, they can release their own version.
As for the UI, it's using Cocoa. They are likely using a modified version, as things like windows don't exist. However, I suspect many it would share many similarities. Because it's all objective-c, the interface is also contained in the binaries (otool can give you this information). I think this is in part how the IPhoneInterface hack was done.. they have a partially reassembled header file, which I think was yanked from the binary (could be wrong about this, though).
Another point, Apple could easily release a scripting language for the iPhone (Applescript, Python, Ruby, etc... all run currently under OS X, and can interface with Cocoa). Considering Apple is big on scriptability (Applescript and Automator), it seems like a big omission.
3. Yes, but we're not talking about the applications that Apple uses in general, and thus has nothing to do with encrypted binaries. Again, according to their FAQ this is primarily done for installation of OS X and for using Rosetta.
According to these sources, Apple has used TPM before, though appears to be staying away from it for the most part.
"The "Trusted Platform Module," or TPM, is a computer chip embedded inside Intel-based Macs to prevent the Intel-based version of Mac OS X from running on non-Apple hardware. (during installation of Mac OS X, Mac OS X interfaces with the TPM. If Mac OS X finds that the TPM doesn't exist, Mac OS X refuses to install or run.)"
They state that they bypass the interaction with TPM in the software. So Gruber seems to be correct in relaying the information. Which leaves the osx86 group being misinformed (?) or lying.
2. The apple computers are essentially just PCs with an Apple logo. In order to keep OS X from running on other PCs, Apple had to take specific steps to stop this from happening.
3. From my Macbook Pro (1st revision), ioreg returns:
| +-o TPM class IOACPIPlatformDevice, registered, matched, active, busy 0$
One possibility is that Apple *used* to use TPM to allow their OS to only run on Apple products. Perhaps after the osx86 group made the hack, they decided it wasn't worth the money to try to stop it.
4. The claim is that the TPM is on the ARM processor itself, which means it wouldn't be obviously visible to someone taking the device apart. Again, this isn't something that Apple would've done themselves (just like they wouldn't have put the Jazelle capabilities in).
That is indeed what Singh claims, and for the most part I believe him to be completely correct. Apple does not use TPM for applications running on the OS. HOWEVER, if you might remember, OS X did not easily run on non-apple PCs, even though in theory they should be the same. Articles such as:
state that Apple specifically used TPM as a means to keep OS X running only on signed Apple HW. This is based off of what the OSx86 grouped claimed (who wrote the hack to get it working on the PCs). So if it's not true, then either they're lying, the hack doesn't really work, or there's misinformation about what happened.
Of course, all of this is besides the point. The hardware on the iPhone exists to do TPM, and to sign the binaries. Apple does not have a past of doing this, but it's not impossible for them to either.. it is a common practice for people who make cell phones. Given Apples past, and the fact they haven't yet used signed binaries (as you've pointed out), it seems more likely that they're disallowing unauthorized third-party apps simply by making it a pain in the ass to load them on to the phone.
As noted in that article, that's only true for the newer Mac Pros. Though, it was my understanding that Apple previously used it to make sure their OS wouldn't run on non-apple HW... if they dropped it from the Mac Pros, I wonder if they are going to continue to do this.
Anyways, the iPhone runs the ARM processor (most likely from Samsung, as several sources have suggested). I am led to believe from those articles that the ARM processors have a Trusted Computer Mode built in, so it's there regardless of whether Apple wants it or not (much like Jazelle, which is used for Java). Again, it's not clear whether or how Apple may choose to use it.
I hope that this is true. I am really itching to write apps for the iPhone. The interface makes it an interesting device. The problem that most people have when reviewing it is that they have to compare it to already known devices. Yes, the keyboard won't be as good as a real hardware for typing speed. However, it does open the possibilities of things previously not possible, such as modifiable keyboard (except for that vapor-ware one with the OLED keys). Additionally, the Jeff Han video has shown some other cool possibilities (beyond the stretch thing that is currently used.. which is cool, but doesn't mean more isn't possible).
It's interesting to see how Apple has so far managed security. Unlike other companies, at least so far, they don't seem set on complete lock down. For example, so far they seem only to use the Trusted Computing to make their OS run on Apple hardware only. They could be a lot more evil with it. Even the DRM on their music. While the change it up occasionally, they at least haven't made a lot of sound about PlayFair.
As for the iPhone, it might be a matter that they're fine with people hacking it, as long as they don't have to be held responsible for it. That is, if your iPhone starts crashing, it's because you put programs on it that you weren't supposed to. Doing so also allows them to watch what other people are doing with the HW (free R&D). It's somewhat similar to what the did with Bootcamp. They didn't actively stop people from getting Windows booting on the Intel computers, but they also didn't help.
I guess the two telling signs of this will be if: (a) Apple patches this with their next update (an update coming real soon?), and (b) if they force signed binaries to run on the iPhone.
Okay, yes, it's high. About the same price that it costs for the iPod. So it's actually not that surprising. Additionally, if you look at the cost of batteries, they are expensive. Plus, the iBattery is blessed. Which costs money.
I will admit, charging for the loaner phone sucks. I know with Verizon, if something bad happened to my phone, they would just give me a new phone. I'm not saying they should just give new iPhones, but charging for the loaner is somewhat rude. They'll get it back. I'd even be fine putting a deposit on the phone in case something happened to it. But it's a design flaw they put into the phone.
That is as long as no one points out how it's interesting that Steve Jobs and the head of AT&T were talking about doing VOIP on the iPhone in the eventual future (it's in one of their interviews). Which would then lead to a conversation how this very well could be the eventual future of all cell phones.
Don't worry, though, to save your sanity, I won't mention it.
Sorry, I forgot the sarcasm tags. Sometimes I get used to talking to normal people. The thing is, even if the humor was beyond your grasp, or even if you didn't find it funny, there's really no reason to be a dumbass about it.
This is stupid. We already have better technology that can constantly produce clean infinite energy based off of the variances in the magnetic fields. I've read about it in three tech web sites!
The only reason this article could make the pagers of/. is because the editors are bias and being paid off.
Not to say that's the only reason he did that.. who knows. It just a bit odd. Other military people have come forward, including a high ranking general (who released a book). The general claimed all our current technology came from UFOs. Such as the night-vision goggles. This is a fairly outrageous claim even for someone with a rudimentary understanding of electronics.
It's not that I think aliens are impossible. I just am highly suspicious that they'd sneak about so much. Or that our government could keep anything a secret for so long. And crackpots coming out with books on UFOs does not count as the leaks.
Do you know as a fact that tethering is out for a fact, or are you just speculating? The iPhone can use bluetooth devices, so in theory it should be possible, though it might involve Apple providing an interface to do so..
Text messages.. I don't know with AT&T, but with Verizon, fairly easily. IMs even easier. But doing it well.. in a fashion that's integrated with the iPhone in a nice and decent way isn't possible (i.e. think of the difference of any *real* app vs. a web app -- if you had to write a thesis, would you prefer using Microsoft Word, or Google's writing program [actually, I'd prefer LaTeX, but that's just me]).
Worse yet, I don't want to run my own server (I used to.. but the waste of energy just doesn't appeal to me anymore, I'm trying to be a bit greener), and if I have to use someone else's server, then you have to deal with issues like fees, ads, or majorly slow servers. Nothing comes free or easy.
If Apple never releases an SDK, or allows scripting, perhaps in a google like move (or with a google) provide free.Mac accounts to iPhone owners capable of doing AJAXey things? Not likely, but I guess not inplausible either...
All the reviews were done to people who are known to be pro-Apple, which isn't surprising, because why would Apple send a product to be reviewed by someone who will trash it. Strangely (or not really, actually) the iPhone has become rather polarized. It certainly won't fit everyone's need or style. Just like some people prefer Windows or Linux to OS X.
The new interface (multi-touch) intrigues me. Maybe it works well, maybe it completely sucks. Maybe they just need a bigger screen to make it really work well. I'm not saying there is necessarily a parallel, but the controversy with the new input style is reminiscent of the DS. Before it came out many people slammed it for being nothing more that a GBA with two screens. And why would you want a touch screen for games? So, maybe it turns out that multi-touch works no miracles, and we end up with an overpriced iPod that works okay as a phone.
I think the true potential of the phone won't be realized until 3rd party apps start being released. I *really* hope an SDK gets released. I would love to develop my own apps for it. At this point, I would settle for a scripting language (Python anyone?), which actually save Apple from security issues, and wouldn't be too hard to implement (PyObjC provides a Python -> Cocoa bridge.. or perhaps just use Applescript, since Apple tends to put hooks in all their apps anyways).
I have yet tried a Helio (it's main comparison), but my general feeling of the cell phone market is that generally it sucks. So it's not hard to imagine how the iPhone will be generally better than what you see currently out there. I also think that it's in the end a *good* idea to pay full price for our phones. It stops that telcos from directly determining what our phones can or can't do. So it really is to everyone's advantage (even if you don't want one) for the iPhone to do well. Unless you just want a cheap phone that doesn't do much. Which is reasonable (though not my preference).
So, I'm planning on getting one. I don't expect it to change my life. Especially since there isn't much out there for it right now, I'll play with it for a couple hours, and then it will carried around like any other cell phone. Where it will be different, and what I'm excited about is that walking around NYC will become much much nicer, as I'll always have a map with me. Taking the subway will become much much easier, as I can just pull up the MTA's map (yes, I had the maps on my old iPod, but they weren't really usable). Or those times I need to check if I'm buying the right product at a store. Or just when I need to check my email and I'm away from my computer.
I know other cell phones can do all that. None that I ever owned, but I know they're out there. The question is how well. I've played with other people's blackberrys, and at least based off of those, not very. So, as usual, with many of Apple's products, it might not change the direction the world is going, but it will be well implemented, and work simply. And when dealing with mobiles, interface is really important.
One general question.. does anyone else have general experience with 2.5G? I know all the reviews complain about how slow it was in comparison to 3G, but I never used 3G. I have used 56K, and while sluggish, it was always good enough for pulling up web pages. Also, is the slowness in part just AT&T's current network? If they expand their coverage, and fatten the pipes, is there a chance it will get faster? Or is it simple a matter of EDGE sucking hard?
Since this is on/., I think I'm also supposed to strongly disagree with you for no good reason, and question your sexual practices. However, I mostly agree with you, especially since my previous statement was a bit vague.
I hate SMS messages, and try to use them as little as possible. However, I do IM with people throughout the day. If the iPhone is just another cell phone (which.. and sorry to challenge anyone's religion, but it might be), then 200 text messages is more than I'll ever use. I probably don't do more than 20 in a month.
However, if the iPhone is actually supposed to be something more -- a mobile platform to do all things internetty, then having IMing capabilities is kinda important. I send out way more than 200 IMs a month, so it will become an issue for me. Which is in part where the functionality of the keyboard also comes in. Maybe web apps will allow us the needed functionality, but it still takes too long to type anything.
But yeah, when I figured out how to use T9, it definitely made life much nicer. Except for the fact that I use tons of naughty words it doesn't seem to 'know'. I expect that in some ways the predictive typing that the iPhone has is similar to T9.
I'm holding out hope for the keyboard.. someone pointed out that it takes a couple of weeks to get good with a tablet, so maybe after a week or so, it really will get good (and it's not just some marketeer who made that up).
I still have to wonder why they aren't providing a scripting language option if this is the case. I doubt you'd be able to manage to write a Skype client, and it would provide the core functionality that most people want from the SDK. It's still not as good as an SDK, but it's a decent compromise.
Additionally, since Apple has Applescript hooks already in most of their apps, it's hard to imagine it taking them long to get Applescript working. With PyObjC too, a Python -> Cocoa bridge, it should be easy to provide a Python option as well. In the second case, all they have to do is release the interface for what they will allow us to use. (now that I'm think of it, F-Script would also work well).
Given that Apple has *always* provided a scripting option, something strange is up.
One last point -- the iPhone already has web apps to do things that I suspect AT&T doesn't want to allow (i.e. a chat client). It cannot be as good as a real chat app, as it requires you to have that web page always open, and there's no good way to notify you of messages. However, I can imagine Apple using this to pressure AT&T to let them just release the SDK.
If the iPhone is supposed to be a communications device, 200 text messages is not sufficient. Unless typing on the iPhone just *really* sucks, in which case maybe it doesn't really matter. However, considering I've managed to type messages on the dial pad of my old cell phone, it's hard to imagine it gets worse than that.
Technically I should've called it ActionScript. However, ActionScript is also based on ECMAScript 2, like javascript, so in my mind they're basically the same. Here's a quick ref:
The sharehold by Linux users is so incredibly small compared to the number of Windows boxes, that I don't think it will really change anything. Look at the number of web pages that are made for IE only. Most companies don't really care about that small of a segment they might be losing. Even Apple users are mostly neglected. And I say this as both a Linux and Max user.
If anything, it at least keeps Linux as a viable desktop alternative. It's difficult for any desktop to keep mainstream if it can't do the basic functionalities that people expect. If you get someone to try out Linux, he/she won't care so much the reason why they can't access something on some web page. Telling him/her that it's because of market share won't really make a difference.
It remains to be seen if Silverlight will overcome Flash. I don't have a great love of flash -- I have a heavy dislike of Javascript. On the other hand, I have no plans of using Windows if I can avoid it, and I can't see myself switching any time soon so I can have more annoying ads block the text I'm trying to read. I don't see M$ going to implement this on the Mac, so it will be interesting to see what, if anything, Apple does.
I'm not sure your personal beef with Dave, but if you took a couple seconds to read anything about the iPhone, you would know by now (as it has been repeated 1000 times) that the iPhone runs Safari. Not just supports Safari, but is the same actual application. Apple has also claimed that the iPhone runs the full OS X.
I haven't tried Safari under windows, but it runs fine on my Macbook. Probably just as well as Konqueror does under Linux (as it is based on the Konqueror rendering engine). I'm not up on all my standards, but it seems to render most things just fine. The things is doesn't do as well, I suspect may not actual meet the standards (i.e. made only for IE).
The problem with hover overs in theory is that you either have clicked on the screen, or it has no idea where your finger is. Thus, 'hovering' is a difficult concept to translate. How does the browser know to light up text because of hovering behavior?
I seem to remember some discussion on the fact that the iPhone does not infact use pressure in order to gauge touch (which is why they can put glass in front), but rather conductance. If you look at their demos on the web page, it has an animation of the grid getting deformed when the finger comes close, which is possible in theory to detect using the conductance method. In fact there are claims that as your finger comes close to the keys, they get bigger, making the keyboard easier to type on. If any of this is true, then in theory hovering could be handled by the same mechanism.
I'm not sure that's normal earth-logic I'm famiiar with.. by that line of thinking, buying a car is the same thing as buying 50 iPhones.
The PS3 is not mobile, cannot handle phone calls, and (to the chagrin of many) does not vibrate. It does play games with very nice graphics, however. Or so I'm told, as I am unwilling to pay that much for an entertainment device.
The iPhone is mobile, has one of its main functions as doing the phone-thing, and (according to specs) does vibrate. There are no known games to this point, and I'll be impressed if someone makes a compelling AJAX game at that.
But I guess you're right, besides that, they're exactly the same.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, this rumor doesn't pass the smell test very well. Someone, unnamed, claims that somewhere in the supply chain Apple is going to build a nano iPhone. If this person exists, and isn't just bulshitting, he/she would have to work for the actual company putting together the final product. Anyone else wouldn't be privy to the information. Besides which, I'm not sure the timing of these things, but it seems like it would be a bit soon for the mass production to start. The second expert is an analysts. I won't say anymore on that.
More importantly, even if they could make the display size smaller (which as parent pointed out, would make talking on it hard), I don't think it would be very usable. The iPhone's screen is already a bit small, so you can easily hold it. If you made it any smaller, you'd have no chance at a keyboard (it already takes up a huge amount of the screen). So no web browser, google maps, SMS, etc. So you'd have a really expensive phone that couldn't do anything that any cheap phones could do. Even play games (yes, the current iPhone doesn't have games, it can in theory support them, and it eventually will).
Maybe this could specs for an iPod. Most people suspect that a widescreen iPod is supposed to come out. But again, if you're going to use a touch-screen that requires your touch, you really want a screen that's large enough.
0. The iPhone
.. and it is supposed to be Jesus like..
What!? Someone had to say it
But if ioreg shows an entry on my computer for TPM, doesn't that mean it's accessible by me (regardless of whether Apple uses it or not)?
I don't believe the osx86group used a development version, I believe they've been using the latest releases. They do have this to say:
Additionally, the lack of presence of a TPM kernel extension in 10.4.4 means that the functionality probably now exists as an EFI module. There is also a possible association with Don't Steal Mac OS X.kext, which presumably acts to support memory page encryption and decryption. We know that there must be some sort of TPM support provided by (or through) a kernel extension because the ioreg output on an Intel iMac shows: | +-o TPMI also believe that OS X ran on intel processors before 10.4.4 (I believe it worked under 10.4.1 or 10.4.2, but I'm having trouble finding documentation on this). So even though 10.4.4 lacks TPM, I think earlier versions might have had it.
If "Don't Steal Mac OS X.kext" is stopping people from using OS X on non-Apple products, I would be curious to know how (though it sounds like many other people would too...)
1. You said: "Production MacIntels never shipped with TPM support. "
.. this has nothing to do with the quotes you sent .
I replied to that with:
"I assure you I am typing right now on a Mactel computer (Macbook Pro) which does indeed have TPM (ioreg confirms this)"
2. It's a long chapter you sent, and most of it is off topic. The summary at the end does claim Apple never uses TPM. However, as I said before Singh *could* be correct, but it is in contradiction to what other people have said. Specifically the osx86 group. If they're wrong, I'd like to understand why.
Just because you have a link from BoingBoing that links to a chapter someone wrote about OS X doesn't necessarily make it true. The fact that the newer Macs don't ship with TPM is the most convincing argument, but then I'd like to understand why (a) my Mac *does* have TPM, and (b) why other people had to write code around the fact that their installer looked for TPM.
One possible reason for these decrepencies is that Apple might have used TPM for the early versions of 10.4, but gave up soon afterwards.
As for the SDK, it depends on which theory you buy into. Some suggest Apple is still cleaning things up, and once they do they will release an SDK. Perhaps it's dependent on XCode 3.0, which case we won't expect it until October. But then why wouldn't Apple just say so...? Jobs works in mysterious ways...
.. they have a partially reassembled header file, which I think was yanked from the binary (could be wrong about this, though).
... all run currently under OS X, and can interface with Cocoa). Considering Apple is big on scriptability (Applescript and Automator), it seems like a big omission.
If they aren't planning on releasing an SDK, it might be a matter of simply waiting to see if anything worthwhile comes along. It's no skin off their back if people hack it and put their own apps on it. If something good comes along, they in a style similar to Bootcamp, they can release their own version.
As for the UI, it's using Cocoa. They are likely using a modified version, as things like windows don't exist. However, I suspect many it would share many similarities. Because it's all objective-c, the interface is also contained in the binaries (otool can give you this information). I think this is in part how the IPhoneInterface hack was done
Another point, Apple could easily release a scripting language for the iPhone (Applescript, Python, Ruby, etc
I posted this above, but:
i cal_FAQ
1. I assure you I am typing right now on a Mactel computer (Macbook Pro) which does indeed have TPM (ioreg confirms this)
2. The people who got it running on non-apple PCs claim they had to work around TPM:
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Techn
3. Yes, but we're not talking about the applications that Apple uses in general, and thus has nothing to do with encrypted binaries. Again, according to their FAQ this is primarily done for installation of OS X and for using Rosetta.
According to these sources, Apple has used TPM before, though appears to be staying away from it for the most part.
1. According to the FAQ from the people who did the work (os86 group):
o _I_need_Apple_hardware_to_run_Mac_OS_X.3F
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/FAQ#D
they had to work around the TPM, stating:
"The "Trusted Platform Module," or TPM, is a computer chip embedded inside Intel-based Macs to prevent the Intel-based version of Mac OS X from running on non-Apple hardware. (during installation of Mac OS X, Mac OS X interfaces with the TPM. If Mac OS X finds that the TPM doesn't exist, Mac OS X refuses to install or run.)"
They state that they bypass the interaction with TPM in the software. So Gruber seems to be correct in relaying the information. Which leaves the osx86 group being misinformed (?) or lying.
2. The apple computers are essentially just PCs with an Apple logo. In order to keep OS X from running on other PCs, Apple had to take specific steps to stop this from happening.
3. From my Macbook Pro (1st revision), ioreg returns:
| +-o TPM class IOACPIPlatformDevice, registered, matched, active, busy 0$
One possibility is that Apple *used* to use TPM to allow their OS to only run on Apple products. Perhaps after the osx86 group made the hack, they decided it wasn't worth the money to try to stop it.
4. The claim is that the TPM is on the ARM processor itself, which means it wouldn't be obviously visible to someone taking the device apart. Again, this isn't something that Apple would've done themselves (just like they wouldn't have put the Jazelle capabilities in).
That is indeed what Singh claims, and for the most part I believe him to be completely correct. Apple does not use TPM for applications running on the OS. HOWEVER, if you might remember, OS X did not easily run on non-apple PCs, even though in theory they should be the same. Articles such as:
.. it is a common practice for people who make cell phones. Given Apples past, and the fact they haven't yet used signed binaries (as you've pointed out), it seems more likely that they're disallowing unauthorized third-party apps simply by making it a pain in the ass to load them on to the phone.
http://daringfireball.net/2005/08/trusted
state that Apple specifically used TPM as a means to keep OS X running only on signed Apple HW. This is based off of what the OSx86 grouped claimed (who wrote the hack to get it working on the PCs). So if it's not true, then either they're lying, the hack doesn't really work, or there's misinformation about what happened.
Of course, all of this is besides the point. The hardware on the iPhone exists to do TPM, and to sign the binaries. Apple does not have a past of doing this, but it's not impossible for them to either
As noted in that article, that's only true for the newer Mac Pros. Though, it was my understanding that Apple previously used it to make sure their OS wouldn't run on non-apple HW... if they dropped it from the Mac Pros, I wonder if they are going to continue to do this.
Anyways, the iPhone runs the ARM processor (most likely from Samsung, as several sources have suggested). I am led to believe from those articles that the ARM processors have a Trusted Computer Mode built in, so it's there regardless of whether Apple wants it or not (much like Jazelle, which is used for Java). Again, it's not clear whether or how Apple may choose to use it.
I hope that this is true. I am really itching to write apps for the iPhone. The interface makes it an interesting device. The problem that most people have when reviewing it is that they have to compare it to already known devices. Yes, the keyboard won't be as good as a real hardware for typing speed. However, it does open the possibilities of things previously not possible, such as modifiable keyboard (except for that vapor-ware one with the OLED keys). Additionally, the Jeff Han video has shown some other cool possibilities (beyond the stretch thing that is currently used .. which is cool, but doesn't mean more isn't possible).
It's interesting to see how Apple has so far managed security. Unlike other companies, at least so far, they don't seem set on complete lock down. For example, so far they seem only to use the Trusted Computing to make their OS run on Apple hardware only. They could be a lot more evil with it. Even the DRM on their music. While the change it up occasionally, they at least haven't made a lot of sound about PlayFair.
As for the iPhone, it might be a matter that they're fine with people hacking it, as long as they don't have to be held responsible for it. That is, if your iPhone starts crashing, it's because you put programs on it that you weren't supposed to. Doing so also allows them to watch what other people are doing with the HW (free R&D). It's somewhat similar to what the did with Bootcamp. They didn't actively stop people from getting Windows booting on the Intel computers, but they also didn't help.
I guess the two telling signs of this will be if: (a) Apple patches this with their next update (an update coming real soon?), and (b) if they force signed binaries to run on the iPhone.
Okay, yes, it's high. About the same price that it costs for the iPod. So it's actually not that surprising. Additionally, if you look at the cost of batteries, they are expensive. Plus, the iBattery is blessed. Which costs money.
I will admit, charging for the loaner phone sucks. I know with Verizon, if something bad happened to my phone, they would just give me a new phone. I'm not saying they should just give new iPhones, but charging for the loaner is somewhat rude. They'll get it back. I'd even be fine putting a deposit on the phone in case something happened to it. But it's a design flaw they put into the phone.
That is as long as no one points out how it's interesting that Steve Jobs and the head of AT&T were talking about doing VOIP on the iPhone in the eventual future (it's in one of their interviews). Which would then lead to a conversation how this very well could be the eventual future of all cell phones.
Don't worry, though, to save your sanity, I won't mention it.
Sorry, I forgot the sarcasm tags. Sometimes I get used to talking to normal people. The thing is, even if the humor was beyond your grasp, or even if you didn't find it funny, there's really no reason to be a dumbass about it.
This is stupid. We already have better technology that can constantly produce clean infinite energy based off of the variances in the magnetic fields. I've read about it in three tech web sites!
/. is because the editors are bias and being paid off.
The only reason this article could make the pagers of
This was posted on digg, and as someone pointed out, Haut also ran a UFO museum. So .. yeah .. no ulterior motives ..
.. who knows. It just a bit odd. Other military people have come forward, including a high ranking general (who released a book). The general claimed all our current technology came from UFOs. Such as the night-vision goggles. This is a fairly outrageous claim even for someone with a rudimentary understanding of electronics.
A simple google search gives one of many such links:
http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tw/07-20-95/cover.htm
Not to say that's the only reason he did that
It's not that I think aliens are impossible. I just am highly suspicious that they'd sneak about so much. Or that our government could keep anything a secret for so long. And crackpots coming out with books on UFOs does not count as the leaks.
Well, the question has been answered by Pogue:
u its/28pogue.html?ex=1340683200&en=6db6ecaa7a2c97d0 &ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/28/technology/circ
so no, at least not until Apple updates their software.
Do you know as a fact that tethering is out for a fact, or are you just speculating? The iPhone can use bluetooth devices, so in theory it should be possible, though it might involve Apple providing an interface to do so..
Text messages .. I don't know with AT&T, but with Verizon, fairly easily. IMs even easier. But doing it well .. in a fashion that's integrated with the iPhone in a nice and decent way isn't possible (i.e. think of the difference of any *real* app vs. a web app -- if you had to write a thesis, would you prefer using Microsoft Word, or Google's writing program [actually, I'd prefer LaTeX, but that's just me]).
.. but the waste of energy just doesn't appeal to me anymore, I'm trying to be a bit greener), and if I have to use someone else's server, then you have to deal with issues like fees, ads, or majorly slow servers. Nothing comes free or easy.
.Mac accounts to iPhone owners capable of doing AJAXey things? Not likely, but I guess not inplausible either...
Worse yet, I don't want to run my own server (I used to
If Apple never releases an SDK, or allows scripting, perhaps in a google like move (or with a google) provide free
All the reviews were done to people who are known to be pro-Apple, which isn't surprising, because why would Apple send a product to be reviewed by someone who will trash it. Strangely (or not really, actually) the iPhone has become rather polarized. It certainly won't fit everyone's need or style. Just like some people prefer Windows or Linux to OS X.
.. or perhaps just use Applescript, since Apple tends to put hooks in all their apps anyways).
.. does anyone else have general experience with 2.5G? I know all the reviews complain about how slow it was in comparison to 3G, but I never used 3G. I have used 56K, and while sluggish, it was always good enough for pulling up web pages. Also, is the slowness in part just AT&T's current network? If they expand their coverage, and fatten the pipes, is there a chance it will get faster? Or is it simple a matter of EDGE sucking hard?
The new interface (multi-touch) intrigues me. Maybe it works well, maybe it completely sucks. Maybe they just need a bigger screen to make it really work well. I'm not saying there is necessarily a parallel, but the controversy with the new input style is reminiscent of the DS. Before it came out many people slammed it for being nothing more that a GBA with two screens. And why would you want a touch screen for games? So, maybe it turns out that multi-touch works no miracles, and we end up with an overpriced iPod that works okay as a phone.
I think the true potential of the phone won't be realized until 3rd party apps start being released. I *really* hope an SDK gets released. I would love to develop my own apps for it. At this point, I would settle for a scripting language (Python anyone?), which actually save Apple from security issues, and wouldn't be too hard to implement (PyObjC provides a Python -> Cocoa bridge
I have yet tried a Helio (it's main comparison), but my general feeling of the cell phone market is that generally it sucks. So it's not hard to imagine how the iPhone will be generally better than what you see currently out there. I also think that it's in the end a *good* idea to pay full price for our phones. It stops that telcos from directly determining what our phones can or can't do. So it really is to everyone's advantage (even if you don't want one) for the iPhone to do well. Unless you just want a cheap phone that doesn't do much. Which is reasonable (though not my preference).
So, I'm planning on getting one. I don't expect it to change my life. Especially since there isn't much out there for it right now, I'll play with it for a couple hours, and then it will carried around like any other cell phone. Where it will be different, and what I'm excited about is that walking around NYC will become much much nicer, as I'll always have a map with me. Taking the subway will become much much easier, as I can just pull up the MTA's map (yes, I had the maps on my old iPod, but they weren't really usable). Or those times I need to check if I'm buying the right product at a store. Or just when I need to check my email and I'm away from my computer.
I know other cell phones can do all that. None that I ever owned, but I know they're out there. The question is how well. I've played with other people's blackberrys, and at least based off of those, not very. So, as usual, with many of Apple's products, it might not change the direction the world is going, but it will be well implemented, and work simply. And when dealing with mobiles, interface is really important.
One general question
Since this is on /., I think I'm also supposed to strongly disagree with you for no good reason, and question your sexual practices. However, I mostly agree with you, especially since my previous statement was a bit vague.
.. and sorry to challenge anyone's religion, but it might be), then 200 text messages is more than I'll ever use. I probably don't do more than 20 in a month.
.. someone pointed out that it takes a couple of weeks to get good with a tablet, so maybe after a week or so, it really will get good (and it's not just some marketeer who made that up).
I hate SMS messages, and try to use them as little as possible. However, I do IM with people throughout the day. If the iPhone is just another cell phone (which
However, if the iPhone is actually supposed to be something more -- a mobile platform to do all things internetty, then having IMing capabilities is kinda important. I send out way more than 200 IMs a month, so it will become an issue for me. Which is in part where the functionality of the keyboard also comes in. Maybe web apps will allow us the needed functionality, but it still takes too long to type anything.
But yeah, when I figured out how to use T9, it definitely made life much nicer. Except for the fact that I use tons of naughty words it doesn't seem to 'know'. I expect that in some ways the predictive typing that the iPhone has is similar to T9.
I'm holding out hope for the keyboard
I still have to wonder why they aren't providing a scripting language option if this is the case. I doubt you'd be able to manage to write a Skype client, and it would provide the core functionality that most people want from the SDK. It's still not as good as an SDK, but it's a decent compromise.
Additionally, since Apple has Applescript hooks already in most of their apps, it's hard to imagine it taking them long to get Applescript working. With PyObjC too, a Python -> Cocoa bridge, it should be easy to provide a Python option as well. In the second case, all they have to do is release the interface for what they will allow us to use. (now that I'm think of it, F-Script would also work well).
Given that Apple has *always* provided a scripting option, something strange is up.
One last point -- the iPhone already has web apps to do things that I suspect AT&T doesn't want to allow (i.e. a chat client). It cannot be as good as a real chat app, as it requires you to have that web page always open, and there's no good way to notify you of messages. However, I can imagine Apple using this to pressure AT&T to let them just release the SDK.
If the iPhone is supposed to be a communications device, 200 text messages is not sufficient. Unless typing on the iPhone just *really* sucks, in which case maybe it doesn't really matter. However, considering I've managed to type messages on the dial pad of my old cell phone, it's hard to imagine it gets worse than that.
Technically I should've called it ActionScript. However, ActionScript is also based on ECMAScript 2, like javascript, so in my mind they're basically the same. Here's a quick ref:
t /j_s/column2/
http://www.webreference.com/programming/javascrip
The sharehold by Linux users is so incredibly small compared to the number of Windows boxes, that I don't think it will really change anything. Look at the number of web pages that are made for IE only. Most companies don't really care about that small of a segment they might be losing. Even Apple users are mostly neglected. And I say this as both a Linux and Max user.
If anything, it at least keeps Linux as a viable desktop alternative. It's difficult for any desktop to keep mainstream if it can't do the basic functionalities that people expect. If you get someone to try out Linux, he/she won't care so much the reason why they can't access something on some web page. Telling him/her that it's because of market share won't really make a difference.
It remains to be seen if Silverlight will overcome Flash. I don't have a great love of flash -- I have a heavy dislike of Javascript. On the other hand, I have no plans of using Windows if I can avoid it, and I can't see myself switching any time soon so I can have more annoying ads block the text I'm trying to read. I don't see M$ going to implement this on the Mac, so it will be interesting to see what, if anything, Apple does.
I'm not sure your personal beef with Dave, but if you took a couple seconds to read anything about the iPhone, you would know by now (as it has been repeated 1000 times) that the iPhone runs Safari. Not just supports Safari, but is the same actual application. Apple has also claimed that the iPhone runs the full OS X.
I haven't tried Safari under windows, but it runs fine on my Macbook. Probably just as well as Konqueror does under Linux (as it is based on the Konqueror rendering engine). I'm not up on all my standards, but it seems to render most things just fine. The things is doesn't do as well, I suspect may not actual meet the standards (i.e. made only for IE).
The problem with hover overs in theory is that you either have clicked on the screen, or it has no idea where your finger is. Thus, 'hovering' is a difficult concept to translate. How does the browser know to light up text because of hovering behavior?
I seem to remember some discussion on the fact that the iPhone does not infact use pressure in order to gauge touch (which is why they can put glass in front), but rather conductance. If you look at their demos on the web page, it has an animation of the grid getting deformed when the finger comes close, which is possible in theory to detect using the conductance method. In fact there are claims that as your finger comes close to the keys, they get bigger, making the keyboard easier to type on. If any of this is true, then in theory hovering could be handled by the same mechanism.
I'm not sure that's normal earth-logic I'm famiiar with .. by that line of thinking, buying a car is the same thing as buying 50 iPhones.
The PS3 is not mobile, cannot handle phone calls, and (to the chagrin of many) does not vibrate. It does play games with very nice graphics, however. Or so I'm told, as I am unwilling to pay that much for an entertainment device.
The iPhone is mobile, has one of its main functions as doing the phone-thing, and (according to specs) does vibrate. There are no known games to this point, and I'll be impressed if someone makes a compelling AJAX game at that.
But I guess you're right, besides that, they're exactly the same.