Right, because it goes against the terms of service of the forums. The forums exist for users to give other users technical support. They are not there for users to bitch and moan about Apple products. There are plenty of other places on the Internet to do that. Here, for example.
"Where it's a little different in this case is that the iPhone downloads its updates automatically."
This is not true. You are advised that an update is available and can choose to download (but not install) the update, download and install the update, or do nothing.
"Second, what kind of feature phone/PDA maker creates a device that doesn't include a usable SDK and APIs so that developers can add functionality without compromising the core firmware and creating the brick-on-update problem."
My understanding was that, generally speaking, only (some) unlocked phones were bricked; third-party apps were simply removed. As for what kind of maker makes what, clearly Apple was not trying to enter the market with a typical feature phone/PDA.
It's regrettable if some users of stock iPhones are having issues of data loss, but is it really news that software updates sometimes have such unintended consequences? (Yes, it depends on how widespread the problem is, though we all know the Internet magnifies everything.) And if the context were anything but iPhone, wouldn't the standard response be "you should always back up your data"?
Another terrible car analogy, but OK, let's run with it. So Ford told you all this before you bought the Mustang, and you decided to buy it anyway (probably paid $20,000 extra for buying it two months before everyone else, but that's beside the point), *and* they warned you at the service center that you might not get a working car back, but you said, "Go for it!" and now you're mad. Who's the fool?
Well, I was born in the mid-'50's, too. I think you are free to do what you want with what you buy, but I also think if what you do turns out to be incompatible with an update from the manufacturer, it's your problem to deal with. That's the notion of "personal responsibility," supposedly also big in the '50's.
1. Having never wanted to do this before, I thought I'd try the first thing that came to my mind, and it worked. To get a song's URL in iTunes (on a Mac, anyway), right-click (or control-click or do that equivalent thing on trackpads) the song in iTunes and select "Copy iTunes Store URL." Seems to work for everything in iTunes (TV shows, movies, etc.).
2. To get a more useful search in iTunes, go to the Store menu and select "Search..."
3. Can't find this track on iTunes, I suspect because they don't have it. Whether that indicates that Amazon's selection of two million tracks has more obscure stuff than iTunes's selection of six million tracks -- and whether that is good or bad -- I can't say.
"they're doing something to check for 'tampered' phones, but still running the update anyway."
Only if the user of the "tampered" phone says s/he wants to run the update.
"There's a bunch of things Apple could have done differently, from simply not running the update to requesting that the user put the correct data in then load the new improved lock software. Like you said, the phone is not "bricked" but they deliberately leave an error they refuse to correct at the shop."
Sorry, the phone got into the condition it's in because the user decided to modify the phone and then, despite warnings, decided to run the update.
"In my opinion that is 'malicious prosecution' of the contract terms. Because the phone still physically works it is obvious that the phone COULD be fixed, Apple is refusing. Also, the update does not stop if it will fail.."
Why should Apple spend precious resources figuring out how to fix myriad iPhone issues caused by incompatible third-party software?
"To use a car analogy, this would be like having an unwarranted mod, nox, stereo equipment on your ride. When you take the car in for a routine oil change they say you're out of warranty.. and cut the offending parts off your car with a chainsaw rendering it undriveable.. when you drove it into the shop just fine. Then telling you that it's "your problem" it's not under warranty."
Analogies (to cars or otherwise) are usually painfully inadequate, but it would be more like the shop giving you this spiel before touching your car:
We have discovered that some unauthorized mods available around town may cause irreparable damage to your model of car. IF YOU HAVE MODIFIED YOUR CAR, THIS PROCEDURE MAY RESULT IN YOUR CAR BECOMING PERMANENTLY INOPERABLE. The inability to use your car due to unauthorized mods is not covered by your warranty. Do you want us to proceed?
That is a rough paraphrase of the warning Apple gives during the iPhone update process, adapted for your analogy. You can easily say "no" and drive away -- though unlike a car's need for oil, there's no indication an iPhone will stop running without periodic software updates.
"Apple is clearly self destructing at an alarming rate. . . . (I had the 20G photo they stopped updating after 3 months when 30GB video came out . . ..) Somebody is getting high off those fumes from the freshly printed money they're raking in."
Something does not compute if your history of self-destruction dates at least to a 20GB iPod photo yet they're still raking in the dough today. (Then again, one could say the same about Microsoft. My reply would be that Microsoft's cash cows are more entrenched and less easily displaced than Apple's.)
"Not to mention they sacrificed their core OS Leopard to make this 'innovation' happen? I like Tiger better than Win XP but Leopard is way late... should have been out in the spring and it's holding up development for the core group of Apple fanbois that just want to do cool stuff."
Assuming Leopard ships in October, I wouldn't call four months "way late." For a baby, sure. For an operating system, not so much.
I don't lack a sense of humor -- your comment is amusing -- but why is it Apple's responsibility to be all things to all people? How many different cell phones would you say are on the market? How is Apple restricting user choice by offering one model of cell phone in the way they see fit?
If Apple wanted to offer an SDK, they would. If they wanted to offer unlocked phones, they would. They don't, and why should they? Yes, they might make more money with these things, but they might not.
In any event, Apple has decided what product they want to offer. Part of that offering is the ability to update the software periodically to add new features. From what I understand, this is unusual in the cell phone industry. It's fine if people want to hack their phones -- as is said repeatedly, you bought it, you own it, you can do what you want with it -- but why should Apple have to support the changes you make on your own? This is the part of the disgruntled hackers' argument that I don't understand. (N.B. I'm not saying all hackers are disgruntled.)
You bought it, you own it, you did what you wanted with it, and -- as Apple made abundantly clear in advance and at the time of installation -- it's now incompatible with Apple's latest update. Deal (by not updating and/or by waiting for the hacker community to resolve all the issues).
"It's like people acting surprised that Microsoft installed a stealth update that's wrecked a few systems, even when they turned off automatic updates."
Actually, it's not like that at all. The imminent arrival of the iPhone update was well-publicized, the possible negative consequences (for those who actively chose to circumvent the warranted use of the device) were well-publicized, and the update procedure itself includes a warning and the option not to install the update.
"Perhaps a few more people will now understand why closed proprietary is intrinsically evil, regardless of whether it's actually convenient for you right now or not."
I don't see anything in this story to support your questionable definition of evil. Perhaps a few more people will now understand why heeding warnings (as in waiting to update later or not updating at all -- or even, God forbid, purchasing a device that does what you want it to instead of hoping to make it something it isn't and getting enraged when your experiment hits a bump in the road) is a good idea.
You said, "Apple has always sold itself on the premise 'buy this thing with the Apple logo and you will be a happier person! And you will have friends too!'"
Besides some obvious answers like "because they can [have songs as ringtones]," or "because it's cool," or the novelty factor of having some control over technology, or to personalize a mass-produced object, ringtones serve a need, which is to determine whose phone is ringing. When the phones stayed in one place, a standard ring was all that was needed, but now that they're mobile, with multiple phones scattered around a room, how else would you easily determine which phone to answer and who should answer it?
Granted, I wish people had better taste and some sensitivity to the issues involved, but that's true with most things in life.
The eternal mentality of Apple is to make things easy to use. Some people don't like that, because they prefer choice over simplicity. Some people enjoy figuring things out as much as they enjoy using them.
Neither one is necessarily right. But for people who enjoy choice and challenge, they have many choices besides Apple. For people who enjoy simplicity, strangely enough, there aren't too many choices.
You make no sense. iPods are a huge success in part because they work well with Windows. Ditto for iTunes, and presumably iPhones. Hell, even MacBooks (nee iBooks) work with Windows! The "gated suburban community" analogy is an easy one for Apple-haters to glom onto, but it's feeble. Less chaos among my personal electronics means more time to enjoy the real diversity of the city.
What we're talking about is what words mean. Your analogy describes fraud. Getting an iPhone that only works on AT&T's network is not fraud, especially since anyone who buys an iPhone will know this is how it works.
You may think the iPhone is a ripoff (your original misused word) because it costs twice as much as some other phone that has the same or more features, in which case you would at least have a defensible position. But the iPhone is not a ripoff simply because it only works with AT&T (and, from what I understand, rate plans are competitive).
In short, ripoffs are about lack of value for money. What you're complaining about is that the iPhone doesn't do what you want it to do. In fact, if you didn't think it was worth the money, you wouldn't care if it could be unlocked.
I think the iPhone's initial appeal is that it is quite pro-consumer -- meaning, ordinary people can figure out how to use all of its many features. It remains to be seen if OpenMoko will be able to say the same.
You have entitlement issues. Just because a given product doesn't do everything you want it to doesn't make it a ripoff. If I, a Coke drinker, take a 12-hour flight on an airline that only serves Pepsi, that doesn't make my airfare a ripoff. Grow up!
The iPhone is different because in order for it to work as a phone, Apple is dependent on another company. You could argue that Apple could have sold the iPhone unlocked, but to me that response by itself doesn't weigh all the variables involved in launching a successful product. (For one, Jobs seems to really value visual voicemail as a differentiating feature, which reportedly depends on carrier enhancements.)
Apple hasn't shown a great interest in quashing others' experiments with AppleTV or putting Linux on an iPod. (If they release a software update which kills some of the tinkerers' efforts, it still doesn't prove an intent to interfere instead of a mere side effect.) As for Boot Camp, I don't know how you know that Apple hadn't planned it all along -- though even if they hadn't, its appearance would indicate a willingness to give their customers what they've shown they want rather than illustrate a "my way or the highway" attitude.
It remains to be seen to what extent Apple will protect the exclusivity of its partner carriers with the iPhone, though if Apple is reaping the revenue from them that is reported, I would expect Apple to protect that exclusivity vigorously (especially if they are contractually obligated to do so).
Ironically, Macs are the best choice for people who don't know and don't care to know much about computers. Maybe after the people who do know and care get the message, the rest will follow.
I don't know anything about this guy, but somehow I don't think he was looking for credibility as Fake Steve Jobs. (Can't blame him if people gave it to him anyway.)
I would agree that Paris Hilton has done nothing that impacts human existence. But I would say that the iPod has impacted human existence, perhaps not benignly, and perhaps in a way we have yet to fully understand. The iPhone has drawn so much attention because of the iPod's success, as another product from the same creative group. (You're only as good as your last hit. What was Paris Hilton's last hit again?)
The iPhone is not only the next-generation iPod, it is much more. Time will tell if it's enough more to remark on years from now.
Yes, taking from the evil technology innovators and giving to the impoverished geeks who can't survive without the latest gizmo delivered on their terms. Robin Hood my ass!
I don't think I've ever heard the term "piracy" used to describe making copies of music you've paid for, for personal use (as opposed to, say, for millions of your closest Internet-enabled "friends"). Even if the president of the RIAA him(her?)self said it, it's not a widely-accepted definition.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, because it goes against the terms of service of the forums. The forums exist for users to give other users technical support. They are not there for users to bitch and moan about Apple products. There are plenty of other places on the Internet to do that. Here, for example.
"Where it's a little different in this case is that the iPhone downloads its updates automatically."
This is not true. You are advised that an update is available and can choose to download (but not install) the update, download and install the update, or do nothing.
"Second, what kind of feature phone/PDA maker creates a device that doesn't include a usable SDK and APIs so that developers can add functionality without compromising the core firmware and creating the brick-on-update problem."
My understanding was that, generally speaking, only (some) unlocked phones were bricked; third-party apps were simply removed. As for what kind of maker makes what, clearly Apple was not trying to enter the market with a typical feature phone/PDA.
It's regrettable if some users of stock iPhones are having issues of data loss, but is it really news that software updates sometimes have such unintended consequences? (Yes, it depends on how widespread the problem is, though we all know the Internet magnifies everything.) And if the context were anything but iPhone, wouldn't the standard response be "you should always back up your data"?
Another terrible car analogy, but OK, let's run with it. So Ford told you all this before you bought the Mustang, and you decided to buy it anyway (probably paid $20,000 extra for buying it two months before everyone else, but that's beside the point), *and* they warned you at the service center that you might not get a working car back, but you said, "Go for it!" and now you're mad. Who's the fool?
Well, I was born in the mid-'50's, too. I think you are free to do what you want with what you buy, but I also think if what you do turns out to be incompatible with an update from the manufacturer, it's your problem to deal with. That's the notion of "personal responsibility," supposedly also big in the '50's.
I'm glad AmazonMP3 is working for you. I'd love to know how Apple tried to force you to buy an iPod.
1. Having never wanted to do this before, I thought I'd try the first thing that came to my mind, and it worked. To get a song's URL in iTunes (on a Mac, anyway), right-click (or control-click or do that equivalent thing on trackpads) the song in iTunes and select "Copy iTunes Store URL." Seems to work for everything in iTunes (TV shows, movies, etc.).
2. To get a more useful search in iTunes, go to the Store menu and select "Search..."
3. Can't find this track on iTunes, I suspect because they don't have it. Whether that indicates that Amazon's selection of two million tracks has more obscure stuff than iTunes's selection of six million tracks -- and whether that is good or bad -- I can't say.
"they're doing something to check for 'tampered' phones, but still running the update anyway."
.) Somebody is getting high off those fumes from the freshly printed money they're raking in."
Only if the user of the "tampered" phone says s/he wants to run the update.
"There's a bunch of things Apple could have done differently, from simply not running the update to requesting that the user put the correct data in then load the new improved lock software. Like you said, the phone is not "bricked" but they deliberately leave an error they refuse to correct at the shop."
Sorry, the phone got into the condition it's in because the user decided to modify the phone and then, despite warnings, decided to run the update.
"In my opinion that is 'malicious prosecution' of the contract terms. Because the phone still physically works it is obvious that the phone COULD be fixed, Apple is refusing. Also, the update does not stop if it will fail.."
Why should Apple spend precious resources figuring out how to fix myriad iPhone issues caused by incompatible third-party software?
"To use a car analogy, this would be like having an unwarranted mod, nox, stereo equipment on your ride. When you take the car in for a routine oil change they say you're out of warranty.. and cut the offending parts off your car with a chainsaw rendering it undriveable.. when you drove it into the shop just fine. Then telling you that it's "your problem" it's not under warranty."
Analogies (to cars or otherwise) are usually painfully inadequate, but it would be more like the shop giving you this spiel before touching your car:
We have discovered that some unauthorized mods available around town may cause irreparable damage to your model of car. IF YOU HAVE MODIFIED YOUR CAR, THIS PROCEDURE MAY RESULT IN YOUR CAR BECOMING PERMANENTLY INOPERABLE. The inability to use your car due to unauthorized mods is not covered by your warranty. Do you want us to proceed?
That is a rough paraphrase of the warning Apple gives during the iPhone update process, adapted for your analogy. You can easily say "no" and drive away -- though unlike a car's need for oil, there's no indication an iPhone will stop running without periodic software updates.
"Apple is clearly self destructing at an alarming rate. . . . (I had the 20G photo they stopped updating after 3 months when 30GB video came out . . .
Something does not compute if your history of self-destruction dates at least to a 20GB iPod photo yet they're still raking in the dough today. (Then again, one could say the same about Microsoft. My reply would be that Microsoft's cash cows are more entrenched and less easily displaced than Apple's.)
"Not to mention they sacrificed their core OS Leopard to make this 'innovation' happen? I like Tiger better than Win XP but Leopard is way late... should have been out in the spring and it's holding up development for the core group of Apple fanbois that just want to do cool stuff."
Assuming Leopard ships in October, I wouldn't call four months "way late." For a baby, sure. For an operating system, not so much.
I don't lack a sense of humor -- your comment is amusing -- but why is it Apple's responsibility to be all things to all people? How many different cell phones would you say are on the market? How is Apple restricting user choice by offering one model of cell phone in the way they see fit?
If Apple wanted to offer an SDK, they would. If they wanted to offer unlocked phones, they would. They don't, and why should they? Yes, they might make more money with these things, but they might not.
In any event, Apple has decided what product they want to offer. Part of that offering is the ability to update the software periodically to add new features. From what I understand, this is unusual in the cell phone industry. It's fine if people want to hack their phones -- as is said repeatedly, you bought it, you own it, you can do what you want with it -- but why should Apple have to support the changes you make on your own? This is the part of the disgruntled hackers' argument that I don't understand. (N.B. I'm not saying all hackers are disgruntled.)
You bought it, you own it, you did what you wanted with it, and -- as Apple made abundantly clear in advance and at the time of installation -- it's now incompatible with Apple's latest update. Deal (by not updating and/or by waiting for the hacker community to resolve all the issues).
"It's like people acting surprised that Microsoft installed a stealth update that's wrecked a few systems, even when they turned off automatic updates."
Actually, it's not like that at all. The imminent arrival of the iPhone update was well-publicized, the possible negative consequences (for those who actively chose to circumvent the warranted use of the device) were well-publicized, and the update procedure itself includes a warning and the option not to install the update.
"Perhaps a few more people will now understand why closed proprietary is intrinsically evil, regardless of whether it's actually convenient for you right now or not."
I don't see anything in this story to support your questionable definition of evil. Perhaps a few more people will now understand why heeding warnings (as in waiting to update later or not updating at all -- or even, God forbid, purchasing a device that does what you want it to instead of hoping to make it something it isn't and getting enraged when your experiment hits a bump in the road) is a good idea.
You said, "Apple has always sold itself on the premise 'buy this thing with the Apple logo and you will be a happier person! And you will have friends too!'"
I ask, "Are there companies that don't do this?"
Besides some obvious answers like "because they can [have songs as ringtones]," or "because it's cool," or the novelty factor of having some control over technology, or to personalize a mass-produced object, ringtones serve a need, which is to determine whose phone is ringing. When the phones stayed in one place, a standard ring was all that was needed, but now that they're mobile, with multiple phones scattered around a room, how else would you easily determine which phone to answer and who should answer it?
Granted, I wish people had better taste and some sensitivity to the issues involved, but that's true with most things in life.
The eternal mentality of Apple is to make things easy to use. Some people don't like that, because they prefer choice over simplicity. Some people enjoy figuring things out as much as they enjoy using them.
Neither one is necessarily right. But for people who enjoy choice and challenge, they have many choices besides Apple. For people who enjoy simplicity, strangely enough, there aren't too many choices.
You make no sense. iPods are a huge success in part because they work well with Windows. Ditto for iTunes, and presumably iPhones. Hell, even MacBooks (nee iBooks) work with Windows! The "gated suburban community" analogy is an easy one for Apple-haters to glom onto, but it's feeble. Less chaos among my personal electronics means more time to enjoy the real diversity of the city.
What we're talking about is what words mean. Your analogy describes fraud. Getting an iPhone that only works on AT&T's network is not fraud, especially since anyone who buys an iPhone will know this is how it works.
You may think the iPhone is a ripoff (your original misused word) because it costs twice as much as some other phone that has the same or more features, in which case you would at least have a defensible position. But the iPhone is not a ripoff simply because it only works with AT&T (and, from what I understand, rate plans are competitive).
In short, ripoffs are about lack of value for money. What you're complaining about is that the iPhone doesn't do what you want it to do. In fact, if you didn't think it was worth the money, you wouldn't care if it could be unlocked.
I think the iPhone's initial appeal is that it is quite pro-consumer -- meaning, ordinary people can figure out how to use all of its many features. It remains to be seen if OpenMoko will be able to say the same.
You have entitlement issues. Just because a given product doesn't do everything you want it to doesn't make it a ripoff. If I, a Coke drinker, take a 12-hour flight on an airline that only serves Pepsi, that doesn't make my airfare a ripoff. Grow up!
The iPhone is different because in order for it to work as a phone, Apple is dependent on another company. You could argue that Apple could have sold the iPhone unlocked, but to me that response by itself doesn't weigh all the variables involved in launching a successful product. (For one, Jobs seems to really value visual voicemail as a differentiating feature, which reportedly depends on carrier enhancements.)
Apple hasn't shown a great interest in quashing others' experiments with AppleTV or putting Linux on an iPod. (If they release a software update which kills some of the tinkerers' efforts, it still doesn't prove an intent to interfere instead of a mere side effect.) As for Boot Camp, I don't know how you know that Apple hadn't planned it all along -- though even if they hadn't, its appearance would indicate a willingness to give their customers what they've shown they want rather than illustrate a "my way or the highway" attitude.
It remains to be seen to what extent Apple will protect the exclusivity of its partner carriers with the iPhone, though if Apple is reaping the revenue from them that is reported, I would expect Apple to protect that exclusivity vigorously (especially if they are contractually obligated to do so).
Ironically, Macs are the best choice for people who don't know and don't care to know much about computers. Maybe after the people who do know and care get the message, the rest will follow.
I don't know anything about this guy, but somehow I don't think he was looking for credibility as Fake Steve Jobs. (Can't blame him if people gave it to him anyway.)
I would agree that Paris Hilton has done nothing that impacts human existence. But I would say that the iPod has impacted human existence, perhaps not benignly, and perhaps in a way we have yet to fully understand. The iPhone has drawn so much attention because of the iPod's success, as another product from the same creative group. (You're only as good as your last hit. What was Paris Hilton's last hit again?)
The iPhone is not only the next-generation iPod, it is much more. Time will tell if it's enough more to remark on years from now.
Yes, taking from the evil technology innovators and giving to the impoverished geeks who can't survive without the latest gizmo delivered on their terms. Robin Hood my ass!
If you're interested in a cure for cancer, I wouldn't waste my time here.
I don't think I've ever heard the term "piracy" used to describe making copies of music you've paid for, for personal use (as opposed to, say, for millions of your closest Internet-enabled "friends"). Even if the president of the RIAA him(her?)self said it, it's not a widely-accepted definition.