They were often the same people, too, e.g. Woz was both varieties of hacker (which weren't that strongly differentiated anyway).
That's true. Wozniac and Jobs got their start in the tech industry building and selling blue boxes. While neither one of them denies that, they generally don't make a point of bringing it up either. Of course, the devices hadn't yet been outlawed at that point.
(For you youngsters out there, a blue box was a device that allowed you to control a telco's electronic long-distance circuit switches to your advantage.)
The only thing that makes me suspicious is that I cant find any report on what chip it is using.
That and the fact that despite reporting that there were Apple-labled components inside, there were no photographs of them. Gizomodo not publishing the most obvious proof their theory seems a little odd to me.
Why would that be far more likely? Why the heck would someone go to that length to make counterfeit unannounced iPhones? No. It is far more likely that this is the real thing.
I dunno. Why not ask any of the manufacturers of these fine items? Perhaps they could explain it to you.
I think there's some shenanigans at work here. Maybe something along the lines of:
Apple: Hey gizmoto, we're going to "lose" an iPhone at a bar (really just hand it to you) then you write up a review of what you find
While I'd never put it past any corporation to attempt some sort of viral marketing, Apple's extreme secrecy and past history of actually physically locking down new devices makes me doubt that's what happened in this case. My guess is that it's one of those Chinese knockoffs and Gizmondo knows that it is but is playing it up for the page hits. Everybody's gotta make a buck.
$5 says its some wannabe iPhone killer, just waiting for everyone to say how great it is before they go "tada!
I sure wouldn't bet against you on that. The case design looks like a step backwards from Apple's current design trend; I suspect it's a Chinese knock-off.
Does it not creep anyone out that Apple is willing to show off that it can wipe its phones remotely?
Anyone who owns an iPhone and has a me.com account has the ability to wipe the data remotely. The phone in question--assuming it really is a prototype--would be registered to Apple, hence they were able to wipe it. I don't think that means Apple can wipe somebody else's phone.
Uhhh. How do you think we first explored space? We sent probes (aka satellites) up there (Sputnik ring any bells?).
Did the original Sputnik actually probe anything? I thought it just was just a way for the USSR to demonstrate to the USA that it was capable of putting something into orbit and, by inference, put an ICBM on Eisenhower's front porch if it wanted to.
If you don't want flash on your iphone than you could, for example, not install applications that use it and disable it in your browser.
Of course I could. But then I couldn't use his app, which I might like. Plus, I don't want Flash to even get it's foot in the door on the iPhone. It's bad enough on a Macintosh.
Why should you care what the underlying implementation is?
Why can't the developer be free to write their application in the best language / tool for the job? You may not agree that Flash is the best for this purpose, but you're not the developer.
I really don't care what tools a developer uses but if his product requires me to install software from another party before I can use it, it then becomes my concern. It is my computer, after all.
If you'd ever used Flash on a Macintosh, you'd understand this. Adobe has a long history of producing second-rate Flash implementations for Apple products./p.
If I was Mark I wouldn't re-submit. Screw Apple they made their choice. Let them live with it. There is always Android.
Sure, give up the largest smartphone software market in order to spite Apple. Smart business decision.
Look, I agree--his app should never have been rejected. Dumb move on the part of some lower-level employee. And, of course, Apple should remove the portion of their developer agreement that says apps shouldn't ridicule public figures. Hey, Apple: there's a great and long-standing American tradition of poking fun at public figures and courts have repeatedly ruled that once you enter public life, you're free game. Bad corporation, bad.
But even with all that, the guy would have to be an utter moron to pass on all the potential income, especially after he's gotten a shitload of free publicity. Apple's rejection of his app might end up paying off handsomely for him in the long run, perhaps better than if it hadn't been rejected in the first place.
Oh, and by the way: I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro. I've been using Macs since 1989 and currently own three, along with two iPhones, so you know I'm not an Apple hater However, I'm not a fanboy either. When Apple screws up, they should be called on it. In this case, they screwed up.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right--Felicity Huffman. Good catch.
Indeed, really speaks to the large "grew up in a totalitarian society where you did what you were told by a faceless voice without question"
"You vill read dis book now, jah? Nein? Vell, ve haf vays of making you read it..."
They were often the same people, too, e.g. Woz was both varieties of hacker (which weren't that strongly differentiated anyway).
That's true. Wozniac and Jobs got their start in the tech industry building and selling blue boxes. While neither one of them denies that, they generally don't make a point of bringing it up either. Of course, the devices hadn't yet been outlawed at that point.
(For you youngsters out there, a blue box was a device that allowed you to control a telco's electronic long-distance circuit switches to your advantage.)
Lorraine Bracco, the actress who played the shrink on The Sopranos, too. Never realized that until I checked out that IMDB link just now.
One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game
If that's true, I have managed to make pretty much any video game I've ever played into art.
You can't see this post, oh wait, maybe you can...
Yes, I can, but 1.5 posts below where it actually is.
Not that a little bit of paranoia isn't healthy, mind you...
The only thing that makes me suspicious is that I cant find any report on what chip it is using.
That and the fact that despite reporting that there were Apple-labled components inside, there were no photographs of them. Gizomodo not publishing the most obvious proof their theory seems a little odd to me.
Why would that be far more likely? Why the heck would someone go to that length to make counterfeit unannounced iPhones? No. It is far more likely that this is the real thing.
I dunno. Why not ask any of the manufacturers of these fine items? Perhaps they could explain it to you.
this bug and vulnerabilities are bad, even severe, but dangerous?
Considering the WebOS has only about 5% of the smartphone market, it's probably not very dangerous at all.
But congrats on your semi-paranoid stance.
"In related new, tinfoil futures are trading up sharply today due to increased demand by hat makers."
Employees who lose engineering prototypes, mostly.
Doesn't mean they can't, either.
True enough, but the same thing could be said about a RIM Blackberry. I was just pointing out that there's no need to be overly paranoid about it.
Wouldn't that be fairly bad for Gizmondo?
Oh, sure. But it's not like Gizmondo has any credibility to begin with...
I think there's some shenanigans at work here. Maybe something along the lines of: Apple: Hey gizmoto, we're going to "lose" an iPhone at a bar (really just hand it to you) then you write up a review of what you find
While I'd never put it past any corporation to attempt some sort of viral marketing, Apple's extreme secrecy and past history of actually physically locking down new devices makes me doubt that's what happened in this case. My guess is that it's one of those Chinese knockoffs and Gizmondo knows that it is but is playing it up for the page hits. Everybody's gotta make a buck.
$5 says its some wannabe iPhone killer, just waiting for everyone to say how great it is before they go "tada!
I sure wouldn't bet against you on that. The case design looks like a step backwards from Apple's current design trend; I suspect it's a Chinese knock-off.
Does it not creep anyone out that Apple is willing to show off that it can wipe its phones remotely?
Anyone who owns an iPhone and has a me.com account has the ability to wipe the data remotely. The phone in question--assuming it really is a prototype--would be registered to Apple, hence they were able to wipe it. I don't think that means Apple can wipe somebody else's phone.
Uhhh. How do you think we first explored space? We sent probes (aka satellites) up there (Sputnik ring any bells?).
Did the original Sputnik actually probe anything? I thought it just was just a way for the USSR to demonstrate to the USA that it was capable of putting something into orbit and, by inference, put an ICBM on Eisenhower's front porch if it wanted to.
Huh... the four major satellites are noting four major satellites? That's a bit of tautological recursion.
"Stamp out redundancy and do away with it."
If you don't want flash on your iphone than you could, for example, not install applications that use it and disable it in your browser.
Of course I could. But then I couldn't use his app, which I might like. Plus, I don't want Flash to even get it's foot in the door on the iPhone. It's bad enough on a Macintosh.
Why should you care what the underlying implementation is?
Why can't the developer be free to write their application in the best language / tool for the job? You may not agree that Flash is the best for this purpose, but you're not the developer.
I really don't care what tools a developer uses but if his product requires me to install software from another party before I can use it, it then becomes my concern. It is my computer, after all.
If you'd ever used Flash on a Macintosh, you'd understand this. Adobe has a long history of producing second-rate Flash implementations for Apple products./p.
Well, not exactly
Verrrry interesting. Thanks for the info.
interesting I read both the 3g and 3gs were getting the 4.0 upgrade
They will, but the 3G won't run all the new features. I know--I have one.
The first and second generation iPhones have little discernable difference in CPU speed or ram. Why is the 1st generation too old, and the 2nd isn't?
The second generation (iPhone 3G) is too old. It won't be able to utilize many of the new capabilities of the iPhone OS 4.0, including multitasking.
If I was Mark I wouldn't re-submit. Screw Apple they made their choice. Let them live with it. There is always Android.
Sure, give up the largest smartphone software market in order to spite Apple. Smart business decision.
Look, I agree--his app should never have been rejected. Dumb move on the part of some lower-level employee. And, of course, Apple should remove the portion of their developer agreement that says apps shouldn't ridicule public figures. Hey, Apple: there's a great and long-standing American tradition of poking fun at public figures and courts have repeatedly ruled that once you enter public life, you're free game. Bad corporation, bad.
But even with all that, the guy would have to be an utter moron to pass on all the potential income, especially after he's gotten a shitload of free publicity. Apple's rejection of his app might end up paying off handsomely for him in the long run, perhaps better than if it hadn't been rejected in the first place.
Oh, and by the way: I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro. I've been using Macs since 1989 and currently own three, along with two iPhones, so you know I'm not an Apple hater However, I'm not a fanboy either. When Apple screws up, they should be called on it. In this case, they screwed up.