PDA

View Full Version : 3rd Party Apps Disabled in iPhone 1.1.1




MacRumors
Sep 27, 2007, 03:58 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

As expected, the iPhone 1.1.1 Update will remove all 3rd party applications when you update.

Simply reinstalling Installer.app (http://iphone.nullriver.com/beta/) will not work as the Installer.app application is firmware specific. At present only supports firmwares 1.0, 1.0.1 and 1.0.2.

We are hopeful that nullriver will be able to update their installer to support 1.1.1, but there are no guarantees. If 3rd party support is important to you, you should wait to update your iPhone to 1.1.1.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2007/09/27/3rd-party-apps-disabled-in-iphone-1-1-1/)



psychofreak
Sep 27, 2007, 04:00 PM
When will this end, this "Cat and Mouse" game is getting old...

sachamun
Sep 27, 2007, 04:12 PM
I'd have to say I'm confused as to why developers started working on native apps (and unlocking apps) when it was clear apple wasn't going to support native apps or unlocking. I'd like to see these capabilities as much as anyone, but if they don't work with the way apple wants to do it, then whats the point?? I admire the balls to go ahead and hack your expensive phone out of curiosity, but at least don't charge people for software that may not work in 2 weeks time !!!

psychofreak
Sep 27, 2007, 04:15 PM
but at least don't charge people for software that may not work in 2 weeks time !!!

They're often free apps that provide functionality that cannot be done (as well) with a web app...

severe
Sep 27, 2007, 04:23 PM
They're often free apps that provide functionality that cannot be done (as well) with a web app...

agreed.

and not all developers have jumped on. naturally, the ones that have are the only ones most know of. a few developers have openly shared their opinions not to develop until Apple supported 3 party apps.

TurboSC
Sep 27, 2007, 04:28 PM
I'd have to say I'm confused as to why developers started working on native apps (and unlocking apps) when it was clear apple wasn't going to support native apps or unlocking. I'd like to see these capabilities as much as anyone, but if they don't work with the way apple wants to do it, then whats the point?? I admire the balls to go ahead and hack your expensive phone out of curiosity, but at least don't charge people for software that may not work in 2 weeks time !!!

Street Cred. I'd be pretty happy if I could say I got a 350z and a boatload of money because I unlocked the iPhone...

madmaxmedia
Sep 27, 2007, 04:28 PM
I'd have to say I'm confused as to why developers started working on native apps (and unlocking apps) when it was clear apple wasn't going to support native apps or unlocking. I'd like to see these capabilities as much as anyone, but if they don't work with the way apple wants to do it, then whats the point?? I admire the balls to go ahead and hack your expensive phone out of curiosity, but at least don't charge people for software that may not work in 2 weeks time !!!

You're confusing unlocking with hacking (jailbreaking). No one has charged for any 3rd-party iPhone apps to my knowledge, only for unlocking the iPhone (and there's a free alternative for that anyway.)

RealKrS
Sep 27, 2007, 04:38 PM
Didn't have an unlocked phone but only AppTapp Installer and now since 1.1.1 my autocorrect doesn't work anymore :(

sachamun
Sep 27, 2007, 04:45 PM
You're confusing unlocking with hacking (jailbreaking). No one has charged for any 3rd-party iPhone apps to my knowledge, only for unlocking the iPhone (and there's a free alternative for that anyway.)

No, I'm not confusing unlocking and hacking. All I said was they're both unsupported, so expect any apps to not work in the future.

They're often free apps that provide functionality that cannot be done (as well) with a web app...

Yeah and thats great, but I'm just saying it's basically just an exercise if it's potentially going to be wiped automatically.

Chris Welch
Sep 27, 2007, 04:51 PM
Yeah and thats great, but I'm just saying it's basically just an exercise if it's potentially going to be wiped automatically.

Just because Apple doesn't support them doesn't mean Apple is making the right decision.

I stand behind the third party developers. No update for me yet.

daveporter
Sep 27, 2007, 05:00 PM
I for one am very pleased that Apple has found a way to stop hackers from being able to install applications on my iPhone.

While it may be true that there are a lot of good folks out there that will develop and provide good quality software for the iPhone if it is left unlocked, it is also true that if they can do it so can the bad guys that want to hack your iPhone for all the wrong reasons.

I feel the same way out sim unlocking...when you bought the phone you knew what the story was...now you want to change the rules....I hope that unlocking will no longer work either.

I hope Apple has found a way to really lock the phones down tight this time!

Dave

iWizzard
Sep 27, 2007, 05:05 PM
I think you have totally misunderstood this "hacking" thing.

It is not hacking like hacking an computer to be able to take control of it, it is "open" it so you self can install 3d party apps.

Chris Welch
Sep 27, 2007, 05:06 PM
I for one am very pleased that Apple has found a way to lock out hackers from being able to install applications on my iPhone.

While it may be true that there are a lot of good folks out there that will develop and provide good quality software for the iPhone if it is left unlocked, it is also true that if they can do it so can the bad guys that want to hack your iPhone for all the wrong reasons.

I hope Apple has found a way to really lock the phones down tight this time!

Dave
You choose what you install on your phone. There have been no reports or incidents of malicious third party software making it onto any iPhones. :rolleyes:

shadowfax
Sep 27, 2007, 05:08 PM
I for one am very pleased that Apple has found a way to lock out hackers from being able to install applications on my iPhone.

While it may be true that there are a lot of good folks out there that will develop and provide good quality software for the iPhone if it is left unlocked, it is also true that if they can do it so can the bad guys that want to hack your iPhone for all the wrong reasons.

I hope Apple has found a way to really lock the phones down tight this time!

DaveNo one was ever hacking "your" iphone. It has always been a complicated process that involves YOU giving the computer YOUR ROOT PASSWORD. If you are dumb enough to do that for any old app that comes along, you're bound to get your whole mac trashed someday. Wanna give me root access to your computer? I'll ssh in and delete your /System folder. Yeah, your Mac won't boot then. Maybe Apple should lock OS X down so that rootkitters can't mess up the system...

Come on, other users willfully jailbreaking their phones has NOTHING to do with the security of your own phone. Just because they can break into a phone that's plugged into their computer, that they have the password to, doesn't say anything about anyone hacking into your iPhone, or anyone else's. While that may be possible, that's a 100% separate issue.

daveporter
Sep 27, 2007, 05:10 PM
No one was ever hacking "your" iphone. It has always been a complicated process that involves YOU giving the computer YOUR ROOT PASSWORD. If you are dumb enough to do that for any old app that comes along, you're bound to get your whole mac trashed someday. Wanna give me root access to your computer? I'll ssh in and delete your /System folder. Yeah, your Mac won't boot then. Maybe Apple should lock OS X down so that rootkitters can't mess up the system...

Come on, other users willfully jailbreaking their phones has NOTHING to do with the security of your own phone. Just because they can break into a phone that's plugged into their computer, that they have the password to, doesn't say anything about anyone hacking into your iPhone, or anyone else's. While that may be possible, that's a 100% separate issue.
If no one can install programs or code of any type on an iPhone that will protect everyone.

Dave

You choose what you install on your phone. There have been no reports or incidents of malicious third party software making it onto any iPhones. :rolleyes:
Just because it has not happened to date does not mean it can't.

I use my phone for business and have a lot of confidential information on it. i don't want someone hacking into it.

If Apple locks down the iPhone that is great news for business users.

Dave

Quiara
Sep 27, 2007, 05:15 PM
Apple doesn't seem to comprehend that with something as innovative as the iPhone, you WANT 3rd party attention -- otherwise you've got yourself another NEWTON. -___-

willxm
Sep 27, 2007, 05:25 PM
Dave-
We dont want apples protection. Apple can simply state: "Installation of third party applications is not supported by Apple. installation of any non-apple applications voids your warrantee." Non Apple applications run on my macbook without a problem. A malicious application would have access to much more valuable information on here than on my iphone. I understand the risk, and I am willing to take it.

daveporter
Sep 27, 2007, 05:27 PM
Apple doesn't seem to comprehend that with something as innovative as the iPhone, you WANT 3rd party attention -- otherwise you've got yourself another NEWTON. -___-

Perhaps you feel this way, many other do not. However, the proper way to express your dismay with Apple's decision is to lobby them to change their position. Assuming enough customers want the same changes then Apple will need to consider first if they can technically accomodate the requrest, then if it is in the financial interests of Apple to do so, and lastly, is it safe to do so (from a malware point of view).

The wrong way to try to get what you want is to try to hack or unlock the phone yourself or install unauthorized 3rd party software not approved by Apple/

Those that tried the unlocking are now realizing that it was a big mistake.

Dave

Quiara
Sep 27, 2007, 05:28 PM
Just because it has not happened to date does not mean it can't.

I use my phone for business and have a lot of confidential information on it. i don't want someone hacking into it.

If Apple locks down the iPhone that is great news for business users.

DaveWe're not talking about making your information accessible to anyone any more than it already is. You don't want 3rd party apps on your iPhone? DON'T INSTALL THEM. But others who are willing to take the "risk"? Let them. Opening the OS to development is not the same as "OMG I'm going to hack ur iphone!!!!1one!"

daveporter
Sep 27, 2007, 05:29 PM
Dave-
We dont want apples protection. Apple can simply state: "Installation of third party applications is not supported by Apple. installation of any non-apple applications voids your warrantee." Non Apple applications run on my macbook without a problem. A malicious application would have access to much more valuable information on here than on my iphone. I understand the risk, and I am willing to take it.

But I'm not and leaving the iphone open puts my interests in jeopardy. Your desire to have something Apple has deemed not authorized does not outweigh the security that the rest of us relied on when we purchased our phones.

Dave

We're not talking about making your information accessible to anyone any more than it already is. You don't want 3rd party apps on your iPhone? DON'T INSTALL THEM. But others who are willing to take the "risk"? Let them. Opening the OS to development is not the same as "OMG I'm going to hack ur iphone!!!!1one!"
If NO ONE can install 3rd party code to an iPhone, period, then no one can install malware (via a web browser, or email client, etc) either.

Apple has obviously agreed with me on this since they have seemed to effectively totally secured the iPhone this time.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Dave

Quiara
Sep 27, 2007, 05:34 PM
What don't you understand about this?

If NO ONE can install 3rd party code to an iPhone, period, then no one can install malware (via a web browser, or email client, etc) either.

Apple has obviously agreed with me on this since they have seemed to effectively totally secured the iPhone this time.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Dave


Why don't you lobby Apple to lock down OS X to iApps only? Certainly you want the same level of "security" on your Mac, don't you?

iamdmann
Sep 27, 2007, 05:41 PM
But I'm not and leaving the iphone open puts my interests in jeopardy. Your desire to have something Apple has deemed not authorized does not outweigh the security that the rest of us relied on when we purchased our phones.

Dave

but the iphone is only open after you as the owner take measures that require both a computer and the phone connected to it. this isn't something that can be done over an internet connection. if you're most worried about security then you made the right move by not loading any of the third party apps, and you made the right move by updating since the update patches holes in safari and mail.app. but if to others functionality and control over one's own device is more important than the level of security you prefer i can't see how this makes things worse for everyone. if nothing else you should be happy because apple will keep changing things to keep the iphone crippled but also probably work on other fixes and features to keep people updating the phones. that way you get the security improvements you seem to consider a priority and those of us who don't want to be told what programs we can run on a device we own (the eula only covers the software for which i may only have a license to run, but since there's no discount on my phone there's not even the hint of the argument i give away any of my ownership rights to the physical unit)

willxm
Sep 27, 2007, 05:44 PM
Dave-
We understand your point, you want security. We all like security. But is the decision by Apple to "lock down" the iphone, if it really is locked down, a security standpoint? It is the responsibility of apple to clearly state the risk of installing unsupported applications. They shouldn't lock it down to protect us. Is Apple locking us out for good? Are they working on a more secure way for us to gain phone functionality? Sure alot of the apps out there are games and of entertainment value but what about the legitimate apps? I would love you see a native Medical application, it would make the iphone 3x as functional for me. We all know the iphone is capable of supporting applications, we understand the risk it involves. I willingly installed applications to my phone, functional applications, and now that is gone. If apple make a more secure/approved/certification installation process then fine. Otherwise i will be happy to reinstall older firmware and continue the way i was. i do not want apple to "grant" me access such amazing updates such as the wifi store. I bought the phone because of its capabilities, hacking or not.

shadowfax
Sep 27, 2007, 05:48 PM
What don't you understand about this?

If NO ONE can install 3rd party code to an iPhone, period, then no one can install malware (via a web browser, or email client, etc) either.

Apple has obviously agreed with me on this since they have seemed to effectively totally secured the iPhone this time.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Dave

Dude, people don't need to install programs to screw things up. they just need to get it to run code. and having code that YOU install yourself has NOTHING to do with forcefully installed/run software. And there's no disagreeing. There's no such thing as totally secure, especially with a lightweight device like the iPhone.

Marcjcd
Sep 27, 2007, 05:49 PM
I for one am very pleased that Apple has found a way to stop hackers from being able to install applications on my iPhone.

While it may be true that there are a lot of good folks out there that will develop and provide good quality software for the iPhone if it is left unlocked, it is also true that if they can do it so can the bad guys that want to hack your iPhone for all the wrong reasons.

I feel the same way out sim unlocking...when you bought the phone you knew what the story was...now you want to change the rules....I hope that unlocking will no longer work either.

I hope Apple has found a way to really lock the phones down tight this time!

Dave

What you seem to be missing here Dave is that if you CHOOSE not to allow 3rd party applications on your phone... THEN YOU DONT! It's not like they automatically will sync to your phone like some iPhone form of SPAM. You dont want them, you dont download them... PERIOD! But your philosophy makes no sense for the many that want and/or need other applications that as of right now Apple is not providing.

Be aware that any time ANYONE tries to block ANYTHING from ANYTHING it creates more of a need and want to do it! This cat-and-mouse game is just motivating more 3rd party application software writers to come... reference PROHIBITION!

daveporter
Sep 27, 2007, 06:00 PM
Dave-
We understand your point, you want security. We all like security. But is the decision by Apple to "lock down" the iphone, if it really is locked down, a security standpoint? It is the responsibility of apple to clearly state the risk of installing unsupported applications. They shouldn't lock it down to protect us. Is Apple locking us out for good? Are they working on a more secure way for us to gain phone functionality? Sure alot of the apps out there are games and of entertainment value but what about the legitimate apps? I would love you see a native Medical application, it would make the iphone 3x as functional for me. We all know the iphone is capable of supporting applications, we understand the risk it involves. I willingly installed applications to my phone, functional applications, and now that is gone. If apple make a more secure/approved/certification installation process then fine. Otherwise i will be happy to reinstall older firmware and continue the way i was. i do not want apple to "grant" me access such amazing updates such as the wifi store. I bought the phone because of its capabilities, hacking or not.

I do understand that you would like Apple to "open" the phone to 3rd party developers so that additional applications could be developed. However, when Apple announced the iPhone they made it clear that it would not do so. Therefore, we all knew what we were buying and what its capabilities were. We also knew that there was a very likely chance that any future added capabilities would have to come from Apple. If one did not agree to that scenario, then one should not have purchased an iPhone.

Now, if sufficient iPhone users want a new feature or application, the only way to have Apple CONSIDER providing it is to ask them. They are under no obligation to provide it, however, market conditions hopefully will assist them in making the right choice if enough customers demand the same features and/or new applications.

However, hacking the phone or trying to unlock it are just plain wrong, no matter why one "needs" or "wants" something that the iPhone does not offer. And Apple should not be taken to task just because it is taking steps to force a small percentage of iPhone users that have broken the rules to comply. The majority of iPhone users have not attempted to hack or unlock their phones because the either don't see the need or understand the rules they agreed to when the purchased the phone or, hopefully, both.

Dave

willxm
Sep 27, 2007, 06:10 PM
What "rules" were stated when i purchased the phone? I was aware apple did not actively support 3rd party applications but when i purchased the iphone they weren't actively locking down the phone. I didn't break any rules. As far as "unlocking" an iphone to work on another network, i can almost see apple doing this. Apple agreed to an exclusive deal with AT&T, they may be obligated to block this action. As far as installing a free game... apple has no definite obligation to stop this. If my iphone slows down (which it hasnt really) then that is my problem.

CCStandUpFan
Sep 27, 2007, 06:13 PM
What don't you understand about this?

If NO ONE can install 3rd party code to an iPhone, period, then no one can install malware (via a web browser, or email client, etc) either.


I don't see that there's been any proof of that. No indication anyone has been able to install malware, but that doesn't equal impossible.


Apple has obviously agreed with me on this since they have seemed to effectively totally secured the iPhone this time.

It's totally secured? Ok (makes hand wiping motion). I guess we're done then. Attention iPhone developers who want to go outside Web 2.0: Please just stop now. It's a totally secured system.

Apple is under no obligation to support 3rd party, but if people want to try it, that's really their business. It's a little bit like hunting down and shutting down people who want to overclock a processor.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Dave

"I don't agree to that."

Marcjcd
Sep 27, 2007, 06:24 PM
I do understand that you would like Apple to "open" the phone to 3rd party developers so that additional applications could be developed. However, when Apple announced the iPhone they made it clear that it would not do so. Therefore, we all knew what we were buying and what its capabilities were. We also knew that there was a very likely chance that any future added capabilities would have to come from Apple. If one did not agree to that scenario, then one should not have purchased an iPhone.

Now, if sufficient iPhone users want a new feature or application, the only way to have Apple CONSIDER providing it is to ask them. They are under no obligation to provide it, however, market conditions hopefully will assist them in making the right choice if enough customers demand the same features and/or new applications.

However, hacking the phone or trying to unlock it are just plain wrong, no matter why one "needs" or "wants" something that the iPhone does not offer. And Apple should not be taken to task just because it is taking steps to force a small percentage of iPhone users that have broken the rules to comply. The majority of iPhone users have not attempted to hack or unlock their phones because the either don't see the need or understand the rules they agreed to when the purchased the phone or, hopefully, both.

Dave

I was given no set of "rules" when I purchased iPhone. I think your really throwing two different issues into one basket.

I TOTALLY AGREE that you should not be able to unlock the phone to use with any other cellular service. Apple has every right to block or disable any program that allows you to use a different cellular service. They are in business with AT&T, made it clear that AT&T was the sole US provider for iPhone for the first two years, and are contractually obligated with AT&T to do anything to insure the security of iPhone's being used with AT&T service only.

That said, I TOTALLY DISAGREE that 3rd party applications should be an issue here. Let me ask you this, if Apple's next update had a "APP PACK" that cost $19.99 which included task lists, audio notes, etc. would that be ok? Well if you think so, then as a consumer dont you search for less expensive or (GOD FORBID) free options to things you want? Why would Apple care what we install on our phones if it doesnt cost them financially in any way? For that matter, why should anyone care what I put on MY PHONE? I'm not forcing anyone else to download anything.

So I ask you... have you ever downloaded "freeware" to your mac/pc? That's a 3rd party app right?

iJed
Sep 27, 2007, 06:24 PM
What don't you understand about this?

If NO ONE can install 3rd party code to an iPhone, period, then no one can install malware (via a web browser, or email client, etc) either.


There is simply no way that the iPhone will ever be 100% secure against malicious attacks. If Apple software can write to the device then so can someone else's. Its just a matter of time. So if the user can allow Apple to install software on their iPhone is there any real difference in allowing third party software chosen (by the user) from reputable sources?

There is also no good reason for Apple to stop users from installing third party software (other than possible financial gain through selling software in the future.) After all, basically every other phone made today can run third part native binaries as well as client side J2ME applications.


Apple has obviously agreed with me on this since they have seemed to effectively totally secured the iPhone this time.


No it looks like Apple is again trying to control everything. The frequency and extent with which they seem to be doing this is getting more and more worrying as time goes on. Apple should be opening up and standardising its technologies to as great an extent as is possible. I do not want to see OS X embedded marginalised in the same way as the Mac has been.


Now, if sufficient iPhone users want a new feature or application, the only way to have Apple CONSIDER providing it is to ask them. They are under no obligation to provide it, however, market conditions hopefully will assist them in making the right choice if enough customers demand the same features and/or new applications.


Or they could just allow third party development.


However, hacking the phone or trying to unlock it are just plain wrong, no matter why one "needs" or "wants" something that the iPhone does not offer. And Apple should not be taken to task just because it is taking steps to force a small percentage of iPhone users that have broken the rules to comply. The majority of iPhone users have not attempted to hack or unlock their phones because the either don't see the need or understand the rules they agreed to when the purchased the phone or, hopefully, both.


It is seriously worrying that there are people around who actually believe this! It is fair enough that you have to complete the AT&T contract. Since this is part of paying for the iPhone. But for hacking the device in any other way: you paid for it. It is yours. Apple does not own your iPhone. You have the right to do whatever you want with your iPhone, which you bought, with your own money!

daveporter
Sep 27, 2007, 06:33 PM
So I ask you... have you ever downloaded "freeware" to your mac/pc? That's a 3rd party app right?

To be totally honest, no. There isn't a piece of software, a song, a movie, a photo, or any other media on any of my computers at home, or any software on any of the machines at my office (I own the company) that has any free or stolen software on them.

I prefer to deal with those that have a responsibility to provide quality and service with their products, so, I pay for them. That is not to say that there are not some quality software applications that someone has produced as a labor of love, however, in business, I would not use them for a number of reasons.

Dave

crisc
Sep 27, 2007, 06:38 PM
Maybe there is a another point everyone is missing.

With this cat and mouse game, Apple is having to spend more time and resources to lock down the phone, leaving less time for them to do real work like new features and bug fixes.

So everyone who cries why can't I copy and paste or do this or that, needs to be aware that Apple isn't giving 100% attention to the things we want and need with the iphone.

So go ahead and be selfish and hack your phone, it is only going to delay more updates we need

Quiara
Sep 27, 2007, 06:38 PM
To be totally honest, no. There isn't a piece of software, a song, a movie, a photo, or any other media on any of my computers at home, or any software on any of the machines at my office (I own the company) that has any free or stolen software on them.

I prefer to deal with those that have a responsibility to provide quality and service with their products, so, I pay for them. That is not to say that there are not some quality software applications that someone has produced as a labor of love, however, in business, I would not use them for a number of reasons.

Dave


Is there a single app that is not proprietary by the same company that manufactured your OS? Are you running a single 3rd party app?

iJed
Sep 27, 2007, 06:42 PM
To be totally honest, no. There isn't a piece of software, a song, a movie, a photo, or any other media on any of my computers at home, or any software on any of the machines at my office (I own the company) that has any free or stolen software on them.

I prefer to deal with those that have a responsibility to provide quality and service with their products, so, I pay for them. That is not to say that there are not some quality software applications that someone has produced as a labor of love, however, in business, I would not use them for a number of reasons.

Dave

Your sig says otherwise. Mac OS X is filled with free open source software. From your networking to many of the APIs and even the security software.

As a software engineer I am the exact opposite of you. I would be very wary of using commercial proprietary software in any of my projects. Companies are seldom truly accountable for their actions, especially in software. I have seen very expensive projects killed overnight when the one proprietary maker of a component stops updating it.

Marcjcd
Sep 27, 2007, 06:45 PM
Maybe there is a another point everyone is missing.

With this cat and mouse game, Apple is having to spend more time and resources to lock down the phone, leaving less time for them to do real work like new features and bug fixes.

So everyone who cries why can't I copy and paste or do this or that, needs to be aware that Apple isn't giving 100% attention to the things we want and need with the iphone.

So go ahead and be selfish and hack your phone, it is only going to delay more updates we need

Oh you mean they didnt have enough time to put together a copy/paste application but they had more then enough time to roll our their mobile music store while partnering with Starbucks huh?

Are you that naive that you dont understand that this ALL has to do with REVENUE? They spent the time on the Wi-Fi music store because the Wi-Fi music store makes them MONEY! They spent the time on blocking unlockers because unlocking for a different cellular service COSTS THEM MONEY. You do understand that they get a % of every AT&T bill! THATS WHERE THEIR FOCUS IS!

Again... many of you are confusing unlocking with using 3rd party applications.

daveporter
Sep 27, 2007, 06:50 PM
It is seriously worrying that there are people around who actually believe this! It is fair enough that you have to complete the AT&T contract. Since this is part of paying for the iPhone. But for hacking the device in any other way: you paid for it. It is yours. Apple does not own your iPhone. You have the right to do whatever you want with your iPhone, which you bought, with your own money!

What you don't seem to understand is that when Apple developed the iPhone it was not for fun or altruistic reasons; it was a business decision. A business decision ultimately is based a number of factors, however, the ability of the product to produce a profit is on the top of the list.

When Apple decided the price point for the iPhone, it chose to collect revenue from each user in a number of ways to pay for the development costs for the phone, the overhead costs and to provide a profit. First, there was the cost of the phone. Then they planned to reap a piece of the monthly charge that ATT collects from each user. Finally, they planned to sell users ring tones, accessories, iTunes content and most likely, applications.

By hacking the phones to be able to add your own ring tones and programs and by unlocking it so that you can go to a cell phone service provider other than ATT, your preventing Apple from collecting all the revenue it contemplated in its iPhone business plan. If this continues, Apple may consider that iPhone a failure and kill the product. That is what happens in a capitalist society when a company can not make the profit margin needed to justify continuing to offer a product.

To all of you that complain that "Apple is just trying to control things," your darned right. And why is that wrong? This if their product which they offered to you. They told you how they planned to work with you on the sale and use of the phone and in essence entered into a contract with you based on those conditions. You were not forced to buy the phone, your chose to.

Apple is doing exactly the right thing here. i, and many other Apple stock owners expect Apple to require its customers to comply with their agreements and for Apple to obtain a good return on investment on the iPhone.

Dave

shadowfax
Sep 27, 2007, 06:54 PM
Maybe there is a another point everyone is missing.

With this cat and mouse game, Apple is having to spend more time and resources to lock down the phone, leaving less time for them to do real work like new features and bug fixes.

So everyone who cries why can't I copy and paste or do this or that, needs to be aware that Apple isn't giving 100% attention to the things we want and need with the iphone.

So go ahead and be selfish and hack your phone, it is only going to delay more updates we need

Oh yeah, smart one, there. Apple is getting delayed on updates you "need" because they are wilfully playing cat and mouse with us "hackers." Never mind that the company used to fly a pirate flag over its HQ. Never mind the obvious fact that the iPod Touch (which is binary compatible with the iPhone) has been running the same kind of lockdown software on it for weeks now, so obviously it's not like Apple was rushing their little solution out the door for the iPhone--they've been sitting on it for some other reason.

Apple NEVER gives "100%" attention to the things we want. Where's my non-crappy email application? Hell, 4 months ago half this board were whining about how evil the iPhone is because it's "delayin Leopard," and that was actually confirmed by the horse's mouth. STOP BLAMING HACKERS FOR EVERYTHING. Jeez! It's Apple's choice to lock their system down and work their butts off on a futile effort that will soon be rebutted. And moreover, there is no evidence--not one shred--that Apple delayed the release of this update due to hackers.

The only group of people you could possibly blame for the delays to getting these updates that you "need" is Apple itself. Write a nasty letter to them.

briand05
Sep 27, 2007, 06:56 PM
The best solution is to REFUSE the update, it's your phone.

JD914
Sep 27, 2007, 07:04 PM
The best solution is to REFUSE the update, it's your phone.

Exactly! I'm glad I waited for the post update results. My phone is working better than any Apple updated phone and on T Mobile! WGAS about Itunes Wi Fi store anyway?

kingtj
Sep 27, 2007, 07:05 PM
I'm with you here! If Apple wants to keep making changes that screw up the carrier unlocking hacks, that's one thing. (I'm not fond of that, yet I understand why Apple would feel pressured to do it. When you have to partner with another big corp. to launch a product, you have to make certain concessions you might not be happy about. It's no different than iTunes having DRM on many songs they sell.)

BUT, purposely breaking 3rd. party software that was loaded on the phone is NOT cool, in my opinion. Steve Jobs himself was originally quoted as saying Apple was going to take a neutral stance on that whole thing .... not "endorsing" any of the development, but not actively "fighting" it either.

It looks to me like he now thinks he spoke too soon (perhaps after getting pressure from AT&T after they realized 3rd. parties might develop voice over IP telephony apps for iPhone which bypass the need to use up minutes on the cellular network?), so he's purposely wiping the 3rd. party stuff out with the upgrades.

I won't be doing this update either (despite realizing headset and speaker volume IS too low and it needs to be patched!), unless/until AppTap installer can be upgraded to work with it properly.

The iPhone is simply too useful with all these 3rd. party freeware add-ons to give that all up. It was the promise of these exciting, unofficial apps that made me buy my iPhone in the first place!


Just because Apple doesn't support them doesn't mean Apple is making the right decision.

I stand behind the third party developers. No update for me yet.

CWallace
Sep 27, 2007, 07:06 PM
I suppose it will eventually be possible for those with malicious intent to develop malware for the iPhone that could then be sent to others via SMS/e-mail/whathaveyou as has happened with "desktop" OS' and systems, but I tend to think the likelihood of it happening is about the same on a phone never touched by non-Apple approved software/content as it would be on one that has been heavily-modified with non-Apple approved software/content.

On the subject of ringtones, most of mine are not available in the iTunes store. However, I'd be more then happy to send Apple $2 a ringtone if they'd send me a license for iTunes that will let me keep the things more then one version.

shadowfax
Sep 27, 2007, 07:12 PM
Steve Jobs himself was originally quoted as saying Apple was going to take a neutral stance on that whole thing .... not "endorsing" any of the development, but not actively "fighting" it either.

Technically, it was phil schiller that said that. I guess he jumped the gun, because Steve certainly seemed to contradict him at the interview in London.

Quiara
Sep 27, 2007, 07:20 PM
They're still THIRD PARTY APPS, Dave. Non-proprietary, non-commissioned by the source of the OS. Would you feel better if all the people who developed little games and such for the iPhone up to this point had charged $5/pop for them? Would that make your capitalist heart happy? THEY'RE STILL THIRD PARTY APPS. The point is whether or not Apple allows 3rd party apps - NOT whether Apple allows FREE 3rd party apps.

Yes, Apple should be able to undo unlocking - they have a contract with AT&T. Lovely. I'm not contending that. But are you really so naive as to think that the thing that makes your particular 3rd party apps safe is because you PAID for them?

People pay for crap all the time. Some of life's best things are free. Apple knows this - half the widgets they incorporate were freeware before Apple ate them up. And that's only one example. Apple is a HUGE FAN of freeware - it gives them a ton of stuff to build into the next release of their OS - just like everybody else.

IDANNY
Sep 27, 2007, 07:31 PM
I think this is a bad move by apple and very unapple. It will be hacked again soon enough anyway

CWallace
Sep 27, 2007, 07:35 PM
They're still THIRD PARTY APPS, Dave. Non-proprietary, non-commissioned by the source of the OS.

I'm not really interested in all the "moral and legal" arguments being tossed around, but this statement I felt did deserve a comment.

These third-party OS X apps may not originate from Apple, but they have been developed with Apple's blessing (more or less) through Apple releasing SDKs and other information about how the operating system is designed and structured, using services and functions provided by Apple for the purpose of developing such applications.

Apple has specifically denied this information to developers for the iPhone. As such, developers are attempting to "reverse-engineer" the codebase, as well as operate under the assumption that "since it's based on Leopard, let's use the Leopard SDK and see what happens". They're obviously smart people, but they don't have the full story. If they did, Apple's firmware and supporting software (iTunes) updates wouldn't keep breaking all their stuff. But instead, Apple is changing code and then they have to scramble to reverse-engineer the changes and modify their code to work with the new system code.

Quiara
Sep 27, 2007, 07:41 PM
I'm not really interested in all the "moral and legal" arguments being tossed around, but this statement I felt did deserve a comment.

These third-party OS X apps may not originate from Apple, but they have been developed with Apple's blessing (more or less) through Apple releasing SDKs and other information about how the operating system is designed and structured, using services and functions provided by Apple for the purpose of developing such applications.

Apple has specifically denied this information to developers for the iPhone. As such, developers are attempting to "reverse-engineer" the codebase, as well as operate under the assumption that "since it's based on Leopard, let's use the Leopard SDK and see what happens". They're obviously smart people, but they don't have the full story. If they did, Apple's firmware and supporting software (iTunes) updates wouldn't keep breaking all their stuff. But instead, Apple is changing code and then they have to scramble to reverse-engineer the changes and modify their code to work with the new system code.

That much I will acknowledge as a point. I know Apple has not (as yet) released any SDK for the iPhone. My discussion is more based on the more abstract elements of the situation, though. Not "has Apple allowed this." The answer to that is emphatically "no!" Obviously Apple has not.

Does that mean all attempts to implement 3rd party solutions for things Apple is not yet willing and/or able to provide for us as consumers? I don't think so.

Mainyehc
Sep 27, 2007, 08:01 PM
Perhaps you feel this way, many other do not. However, the proper way to express your dismay with Apple's decision is to lobby them to change their position. Assuming enough customers want the same changes then Apple will need to consider first if they can technically accomodate the requrest, then if it is in the financial interests of Apple to do so, and lastly, is it safe to do so (from a malware point of view).

The wrong way to try to get what you want is to try to hack or unlock the phone yourself or install unauthorized 3rd party software not approved by Apple/

Those that tried the unlocking are now realizing that it was a big mistake.

DaveRemember when Apple introduced the first Intel-based Macs, not long ago?

Yeah, it was only after a bounty was created for the first person to hack the hell out of EFI and successfully boot Windows XP on a Mac, and said person managed to accomplish that feat, that Apple released their official, sanctioned, non-warranty-voiding method, BootCamp.

So, in short, no, hacking the iPhone, while illegal as far as license agreements are concerned, is not a big mistake, far from it. It is actually a great idea, and also much more effective than the "lobbying" you mentioned.

slinky0390
Sep 27, 2007, 08:02 PM
yeah, but i'm going to go out on a limb (dont flame me for being wrong if i am) but, wouldnt it be hard for someone to hack into a phone that they do not have infront of them, the only way they could put anything along the lines of malware is if you allow somone to. simply put, if you dont want to risk it, do not hack your phone.. i personally think the lock down is lame. if people want to possibly dammage their phones by unlocking or hacking, let them. they bought the phone, let them do what they want with it.

daveporter
Sep 27, 2007, 08:07 PM
yeah, but i'm going to go out on a limb (dont flame me for being wrong if i am) but, wouldnt it be hard for someone to hack into a phone that they do not have infront of them, the only way they could put anything along the lines of malware is if you allow somone to. simply put, if you dont want to risk it, do not hack your phone.. i personally think the lock down is lame. if people want to possibly dammage their phones by unlocking or hacking, let them. they bought the phone, let them do what they want with it.

If Apple provides encryption level protection for the iPhone that prevents anyone from installing unauthorized applications (as it does now to a certain extent for the system folder components in OS X) then that will also make it very difficult for hackers to comprimise my iPhone when they try to deliver a payload via a web brouser, email client, sim messaging, or any other means.

Dave

Remember when Apple introduced the first Intel-based Macs, not long ago?

Yeah, it was only after a bounty was created for the first person to hack the hell out of EFI and successfully boot Windows XP on a Mac, and said person managed to accomplish that feat, that Apple released their official, sanctioned, non-warranty-voiding method, BootCamp.

So, in short, no, hacking the iPhone, while illegal as far as license agreements are concerned, is not a big mistake, far from it. It is actually a great idea, and also much more effective than the "lobbying" you mentioned.

Who is to say that Apple was not planning to offer such a feature when the time was right? I doubt that anyone can force Apple to do anything it does not want to do.

Dave

FunkyMonkey
Sep 27, 2007, 08:22 PM
Wow! Has anyone seen this???

I found this article and my jaw dropped.

Apple marketing boss, Greg Joswiak, says Apple won't support the hacking of its products, but it won't purposely try to stop hackers either.

He considers Apple's stance neutral, neither in support or against third party development for the iPhone and iPod Touch, although, he mentions that Apple is always analyzing its position on such matters. If a software update does break any third party software, Apple did not do it intentionally.

http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/09/11/apple-wont-try-to-stop-iphone-and-ipod-touch-hackers/

clevin
Sep 27, 2007, 08:34 PM
When will this end, this "Cat and Mouse" game is getting old...

ugly natural of apple corporate never really change since 1990.

SJ anti-corporate god, anyone?

Chip NoVaMac
Sep 27, 2007, 08:39 PM
I for one am very pleased that Apple has found a way to stop hackers from being able to install applications on my iPhone.

While it may be true that there are a lot of good folks out there that will develop and provide good quality software for the iPhone if it is left unlocked, it is also true that if they can do it so can the bad guys that want to hack your iPhone for all the wrong reasons.

I feel the same way out sim unlocking...when you bought the phone you knew what the story was...now you want to change the rules....I hope that unlocking will no longer work either.

I hope Apple has found a way to really lock the phones down tight this time!

Dave

I understand where you are coming from. But much effort is being taken by Apple not to allow the power of the iPhone to be used. Why not a chat client for AIM/iChat at least?

I have not looked at all the apps that have been made for the iPhone by 3rd parties, but Apple needs to look at what people are wanting from the iPhone and make it available via updates...

Mainyehc
Sep 27, 2007, 08:41 PM
Who is to say that Apple was not planning to offer such a feature when the time was right? I doubt that anyone can force Apple to do anything it does not want to do.

Dave

Such as offering a $100 credit for disgruntled users?

It doesn't matter if they already had planned both BootCamp and the store credit as a PR stunt... What matters is that Apple actually takes notice of what their user-base does with its products.

And while on the subject of capitalism... I don't know how big a cut Apple makes from each game sold on iTS (I'm speaking about games because, looking in hindsight, they may very well be just a trial for future iPhone software distribution), but I'll tell you two things:

1) Maybe selling software through iTunes is a good idea, security-wise, but there's probably no technical reason to stop them from creating a web-page like the one they have for OS X Widgets, or a podcast directory-like system, and have downloadable 3rd-party apps be checked by iTunes (possibly through digital signatures or something like that). Remember, Dashboard already includes a sandbox for you to test your widgets before permanently installing them, so why not have the same kind of "emulation" embedded into iTunes?

Also, that "free" or "semi-free" system could exist alongside the iTS, much like you can buy music from the iTS but also from AmazonMP3 or on CD and put it into your library or, better yet, you can buy 3rd-party software from both on-line and brick-and-mortar Apple Stores, as well as from Apple Authorized Resellers, Amazon or the developers' websites themselves.

2) Having said that, if having iTS as the sole source for buying iPod games was bad enough, MARKET-WISE (as I said, it's capitalism we're talking about), then what do you have to say about Apple forcing 5G iPod owners to rebuy their whole stuff just because the measly x.x.1 updates they released for the iPod classic weren't free (or reasonly priced) for previous version owners?? I guess you would be happy, being a shareholder, for the increased revenue (I think not, though, as those folks, at least those still using PCs, are now potential *back-switchers*, possibly looking for alternatives from Creative, SanDisk et. al., and while I'm at it, thinking of buying crappy hardware from HP or Dell all over again when they were previously considering switching... As for the Macheads, well, they'll just skip the classic, which translates into less units sold anyway).

The disagreement between this board and you is not on whether Apple should or not allow 3rd-party development or not. No, I'm guessing that for you it would be fine if Apple allowed it, as long as THEY [Apple] got a cut for each title sold, AM I RIGHT?

So, translated into plain English, if that scenario came into fruition, Apple would be employing MONOPOLISTIC, M$-style tactics, as far as iPhone software distribution is concerned!!!

And that's what we (I'm thinking that I speak for most of the people on this forum) don't agree with! :mad:

poiriern1
Sep 27, 2007, 08:45 PM
If you added custom ringtones onto the iPhone using Brickr, does it automatically delete these ringtones after updating 1.1.1?

Chip NoVaMac
Sep 27, 2007, 08:58 PM
I TOTALLY AGREE that you should not be able to unlock the phone to use with any other cellular service.

To a degree in some respect. I do think that if I am doing international travel I should be able to buy a SIM that allows me to use my iPhone overseas

That said, I TOTALLY DISAGREE that 3rd party applications should be an issue here. Let me ask you this, if Apple's next update had a "APP PACK" that cost $19.99 which included task lists, audio notes, etc. would that be ok? Well if you think so, then as a consumer dont you search for less expensive or (GOD FORBID) free options to things you want? Why would Apple care what we install on our phones if it doesnt cost them financially in any way? For that matter, why should anyone care what I put on MY PHONE? I'm not forcing anyone else to download anything.

The iPhone is not a Treo Palm device. Palm built their model on opening things up to others. Apple wants a closed system for some reason. Security, stability, or profit - it does not matter. The 'hackers" have responded to a missing market. I would gladly pay for a APP PACK that gave me what I feel is missing from the iPhone at this point.

twoodcc
Sep 27, 2007, 09:08 PM
i'm sure that they'll get it working on 1.1.1

jt2ga65
Sep 27, 2007, 09:20 PM
Perhaps you feel this way, many other do not.
That sums it up right there. End of story. Some people feel that they should be able to install third party apps on their hardware. Those that don't want to don't HAVE to.

The wrong way to try to get what you want is to try to hack or unlock the phone yourself or install unauthorized 3rd party software not approved by Apple
What exactly makes it unauthorized? It's my phone. I authorize the third party application to be on there. It's my choice, not Apples. Not, it it was Apple's phone, and not mine, if I didn't OWN the phone, then it would be a different story. As far as I can tell, I OWN the phone, not lease it. I don't recall seeing LEASE clause, and I didn't sign one. EULA doesn't mean squat, and can't be enforced. Hardware does not fall under DMCA. I see nothing that Apple can legally do. They can release software that undoes the hacks, but I don't have to authorize it to be on my phone. They can keep me from iTunes, but who cares? iTunes has nothing to offer me personally.

Those that tried the unlocking are now realizing that it was a big mistake.DaveThe mistake that they made was installing both the hack and the update that breaks the functionality of their phone while adding very little in return.

Just my opinion. I'm not installing an update from Apple until they have the functionality that I expect to be there. If they don't ever release the update I'm looking for, the 3rd party software will be fine. If Apple does something to make my life hell, I'll take my business somewhere else. I think I'm going to give AT&T $150 anyways to avoid paying an extra $800 over the next 22 months anyways for the extra $40/month that I'm paying for the family plan over a single line.

-jt2

To all of you that complain that "Apple is just trying to control things," your darned right. And why is that wrong? This if their product which they offered to you. They told you how they planned to work with you on the sale and use of the phone and in essence entered into a contract with you based on those conditions. You were not forced to buy the phone, your chose to.
What contract? I don't remember one? I certainly never signed one. Besides, let them take me to court for hacking MY iPhone. They will spend a lot of money, and get nowhere. I guess you are also saying that Starbucks can tell me how to eat my muffin too.

Apple is doing exactly the right thing here. i, and many other Apple stock owners expect Apple to require its customers to comply with their agreements and for Apple to obtain a good return on investment on the iPhone.I have my iPhone. I'm happy with my 3rd party Apps. If apple stock went to $0.02 tomorrow, I don't really care. If Steve Jobs got attacked by a hippie tomorrow, I'm sure the sun would still rise in the east on Saturday. I'm pretty sure my 3rd party apps would still be working. Otherwise, I really don't care.

-jt2

skabadelic
Sep 27, 2007, 10:48 PM
While you're all arguing about the same thing for the 1,000th time, I just need to know if having Installer.app on my phone will brick it with 1.1.1.

I don't even have any 3rd party apps installed. Just installer. Will updating bust the phone? If so, will a restore+update be safe?

Mainyehc
Sep 27, 2007, 10:56 PM
While you're all arguing about the same thing for the 1,000th time, I just need to know if having Installer.app on my phone will brick it with 1.1.1.

I don't even have any 3rd party apps installed. Just installer. Will updating bust the phone? If so, will a restore+update be safe?


AFAIK, the only thing that can brick your iPhone is a SIM-unlock hack... The 3d-party apps and Installer.app are just overwritten...

You might wanna keep backups of your notes, photos and e-mail, but that'd just be a normal and wise procedure, regardless of some data-loss stories that have been circulating around... ;)

rasputinj
Sep 28, 2007, 12:40 AM
Apple did what they said they were going to do, you have a choice not to upgrade your phone, that is what I am going to do.

Apple does not have to keep their system open. I hope they will eventually fill in the gaps and provide a productivity suite, games, ichat, mms. Until then I stick it out with my old software.

kironin
Sep 28, 2007, 05:04 AM
All of this discussion is pretty funny given David Pogue's latest NY Times video on hacking the iPhone that just came out Thursday before the iPhone update,

http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=60063a68a1418ed080c995b01a36efb853a11417


Some of the best programs I have ever used or am using are freeware or open source. Journler is an excellent example. Of course Apple endorses the use of free widgets.

of course Mac OS X itself is full of open source freeware.

As an American scientist, I have used a large number of free 3rd party programs over the years to on PCs and Macs to do my research. Often I need to know exactly what a program is doing and if what is available is all commercial proprietary stuff, I have to end up writing my own program just to be confident in the results. So I always very much appreciate open source software. It saves grant money for other things (read your tax dollars) or even in some cases means giving back money not used because we were so efficient in doing our work.

Proprietary commercial 3rd party software for very specific small markets often is far inferior to freeware supported by the community that the commercial enterprise is trying to target. I have seen expenditures of upwards of $250,000 for commercial applications and PC based hardware that ended up not being used because they did not live up to the sales job. (A private grant gave us a bucket load of extra money to do something with or lose.) After a great deal of frustration, we went back to the non-commercial community software on Macs. Lesson learned. I can only think the commercial stuff exists because of corporate R&D where there is an excess of funds and deficit in the tech. knowledge to make a more educated purchasing decision. Hardly capitalism at it's finest.


All 3rd party developers, keep being creative. You are appreciated !

devilot
Sep 28, 2007, 06:34 AM
Please keep this thread ON TOPIC. Thanks.

ccrandall77
Sep 28, 2007, 10:12 AM
I don't begrudge Apple breaking 3rd party apps if it was "necessary" to do in order to implement their other changes. For instance, if they needed to change a framework that then renders older apps broken, then so be it. But if they are doing on purpose, then that's just wrong.

Apple could've nipped this whole thing in the bud by doing one or two of 3 things:

1.) Partner with people like Dataviz to offer 3rd party commerical apps
2.) Provide Dashboard for the iPhone/iPod Touch
3.) Provide a full SDK and maybe an approval process so apps can be certified to run on the platform (with the latter maybe coming with a fee for the commericial developer).

I suspect, though, that the real intention behind Apple's upgrade breaking 3rd party apps is that they are either going to offer apps for a fee in the near future or they are going to offer the rumored PDA and don't want people turning their iPhones/Touches into full PDAs.

wizard
Sep 28, 2007, 01:02 PM
If no one can install programs or code of any type on an iPhone that will protect everyone.

Sounds just like the belief that if guns didn't exists people wouldn't kill people. Guns as does the ability to access the iPhone have nothing to do with the respective problem commonly associated with them. One could even argue that hacking will get even more malicious if Apple locks these devices to tightly, just as crime actually goes up in places with very tight gun control laws.

In the end your point of view is the totally invalid liberal idea that government and corporations need to protect you personally. It is crap as far as a way to live a life and frankly a bit offensive.


Dave


Just because it has not happened to date does not mean it can't.

And you really believe that what Apple has done will protect the iPhone and you in the future? Be honest now!


I use my phone for business and have a lot of confidential information on it. i don't want someone hacking into it.

Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about. If people want your information they will get it and it has nothing to do with any actions Apple takes.


If Apple locks down the iPhone that is great news for business users.

Actually it is just the opposite. A locked iPhone, free from alternative apps, just means that you can't leverage the device in your business. This is very bad for business users many of whom had already put third party apps to work for them.

In many cases the lack of third party apps will compel people to carry a second device around with them to make up for those restrictions. That device might be a laptop computer. Carrying all this extra stuff just makes you an easier target for exploitation. There is good business justification to minimize the amount of hardware you carry around.

Simply put this restriction on third party apps is just about the worst thing that could happen to iPhone business users.


Dave

Another Dave

clevin
Sep 28, 2007, 02:28 PM
I don't begrudge Apple breaking 3rd party apps if it was "necessary" to do in order to implement their other changes. For instance, if they needed to change a framework that then renders older apps broken, then so be it. But if they are doing on purpose, then that's just wrong.


Its obviously the later, check what they added, I see none of them need to re-lock the phone.

spend $499 to "rent" a phone you can control? no wonder gizmodo.com verdict on iphone as "Don't buy it".

Apple is just repeating the defeat in 1990s, closed up try to grab all money all to itself isn't how this world works now, after taking advantages from free world, open source community, its sad and ugly to see apple turns back to its ugly natural.

If apple so much like all by itself, maybe open source community should change their licenses, let apple try to make a new OS by itself for a change.

kj4hi
Sep 28, 2007, 05:43 PM
I just had a thought. If Apple sells you a phone and you own it with the understanding that you agree to use AT&T as the provider, then what you decided to do with YOUR iPhone is your business. If Apple requires that all software, ringtones and other 3rd party materials must go through them, then that sounds like restraint of trade. Having the ability to use any software that will run on my iPhone knowing that unless Apple certifies it, could void your warranty and/or won't support it. Now, that is another story. I just wish Apple would spend more time developing product that enhance and support their new device, rather than playing world cop. Do you think Steve Jobs is really Bill Gates evil twin? Apple's attitude is sounding very Microsoftish lately!
Just my rant.

Phil

dustywaffles
Sep 28, 2007, 07:08 PM
Dave

"He who would sacrifice freedom for security deserves neither" Benjamin Franklin

If cars were illegal then there would never be a car accident. However, if you are afraid of getting in an accident the right thing to do is not drive yourself. Not tell everyone else they can't drive. No one can jailbrake your phone over edge Dave. Your logic is faulty.

You made a personal choice not to take the risk of installing apps. Wonderful. Yet for some reason you don't think I should have the right to make that decision for myself. When you publicly support people being robbed of a personal choice in this country there is no agreeing to disagree.

APPLE

As long as Im not steeling the software I am installing no company has the legal or moral right to sell me a computer and tell me I cant install what I want on it. You can only use programing to try make it hard but I will always support the people who protect my ability to choose what is best for me.

I bought the phone making the reasonable assumption that apple would add the very basic and important features it was missing in a timely manner. (ie a to do list, wall paper) things you can do on a 20$ phone. Instead of adding these basic features apple choose spend its time on ITMS, another way for me to give them money. To add a music store before a to do list or even allow the deletion of more than one e-mail at a time is a totally irresponsible way for apple to treat it's customers.

I would not be too upset about using a closed system where I had to buy my apps through apple VIA the ITS. They spent a lot of time and money making the phone and they have a right to make money off of it. Also while my choices in apps would be more limited those apps may have better security and quality control. But the way apple is proceeding is greedy and out of touch with peoples wants/needs to the point of total mismanagement. I feel like apple sees me like a walking money clip. I'm mean I can spend money where ever I am but I can't have any other wallpaper but plain black?

I for one am going to give my money to the people who are actually trying to improve my user experience and thus life. It just totally confounds me that some people actually enjoy being treated like a walking wallet who is incapable of making his own decisions.

McGiord
Sep 28, 2007, 08:33 PM
As many other companies the most important thing for Apple is to earn money.
What we have received from Apple as comsumers has been evolving year after year, some may say we lost some nice features and we gain others in our loved Apple products.

Besides all the other products in this thread we must focus on the iPhone.

The iPhone as described by Mr. Jobs is the Best Phone ever made and a combination of an iPod + Internet Navigator + Phone.

We always want more than what we get, and we know there are many possible features that we want in our beloved iPhones.

We were used to receive from a cellphone: all what we have on the iPhone: address book, SMS, speakerphone, camera. We want all that plus ringtones (they came out into the cellphone business after some years). Some manufacturer allow you to customize it, we want more customization possibilities and Apple do knows we want that, and wants to make a profit of it.

What were we used to receive from an iPod: play all the digital music + videos + podacasts, etc you want in your portable player. We also want more and if its free much better.

What were we used to receive from an Internet Navigator: we have many options, not all are free, not all are portable, some are very slow, some are fast enough to do what wanted to do on the go.

We wanted the ability to do more with our portable devices, we wanted to integrate all what we were used to do with many different gadgets into a single device.
We believe we can have it all with our iPhones, and Apple just want to make a profit of it.

The 3rd party software developers give us either free open source software or "show me the money" software, and they started to satisfy the demands of the iPhone users.

And like in any other business, in what market sector will a company like Apple prefer to invest its money? Into what gives them more money.

Let's be realistic:
- Not all iPhone owners are interested into installing 3rd party apps, or do something beyond syncing its iPhone with iTunes.
- Not all iPhone owners get into forums like this one.
- Many of the iPhone owners and members of this forum do want to continue receiving free open source software, me included.
- Some iPhone owners prefer to pay for the software they want to use on their iPhones:
+ to be safe
+ to avoid a "hack"
+ to be able to have a liable target in case of a loss
+ beacuse doesn't want to loose time doing things they don't understand in order to gain more features or functionality
+ whatever other reason you may have.
- We don't know how many persons are in each category
- Apple may have a good idea how big its their target market
- Not only the USA is the market for the iPhone
- Many people around the globe do want an iPhone to be able to use it with their local carriers.
- Many GSM phones are unlocked and you can use any SIM with them, from any carrier -> Apple don't want that due to its strategic partnerships.
- Apple may want to create an iPhone effect that all other carriers want to make a deal in Apple terms, so they will be able to satisfy the iPhone demand from their customers.
- Many features we find in other products are not present in the iPhone, and some of us are missing them, and waiting to get it soon.
- Some of us do want something that differs from what others want and may be different from what apple wants.
- Some of us will keep the 1.02 firmware running in ou iPhones and wait for an update to gain the new apple produced features + the free stuff

Who is right?
Who will win?
who has more power?
Who creates the product?
who buys it?
Who pays for more?
who gets more for free?

We don't know it all, we are just end consumers with many desires that the iPhone give us all what we want, and that it will be the ultimate have it all portable device.
________
Honda Shadow 600 specifications (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Honda_Shadow_600)

MacFanboy.Grady
Sep 28, 2007, 10:00 PM
Not only does he take away some nice and value-adding 3rd party apps, but then only adds software to enable me to give more of my money to him. Not even MMS! It is absolutely ridiculous that on my IPHONE i have to go to a website, login with some ridiculous random id & pw simply to view a picture message. Even my treo 600 had MMS.

Now I'm genuinely hoping Steve's former colleagues now at Palm help Palm create an iphone killer.

cmcbridejr
Sep 28, 2007, 11:07 PM
Like most corporations (Microsoft, IBM, Apple), they tend to lose focus and the ability to understand consumers when they get too big and start trying to control everything.

The brand name simply does not sell the product. In the end, only the users will decide what is best.

Please start checking out any flavor of Linux and start supporting it.

Linux may not be there yet in terms of everyday functionality for every type of user, but as far as a competing product, it will be there VERY SOON.

Linux is open source, and I am willing to bet that this will be the OS for the next generation (until another great open-minded group of developers comes along and creates something better). Why not use a great OS with hardware that YOU choose and configure the software how you want?

As we are all tainted by now, I know that the next generation of young tech savvy users will realize the potential. I love computers and I think they should be used to make you feel free and happy with what what you want to accomplish.

Thank you to the hardworking developers for creating a platform to show off the potential of the underdog! Screw the money-hungry, micro-management corporations!

Oh, and by the way, is anyone else getting sick of the narrow-minded Apple fanboys that stick up for every single decision made by their god, Steve Jobs?

Anyway, Bill Gates is much cooler and a more genuine person than the egocentric Steve Jobs. I would rather have a beer and some shots with him at party than Steve Jobs. At least he uses his money for the good, instead of just counting it. Apple is only around because Bill left Microsoft and let his idiotic college roommate, Steve Ballmer, run the show.

Remember, if it was not for generous and open-minded people like Bill Gates, Apple would not have received the financial boost to keep them around as a competitor to Microsoft and progress computer technology.

Trip on that, fool!

Oh, by the way, listen to "The Great British Moan" by MC Wrec. Great song.

McGiord
Sep 29, 2007, 10:14 AM
A nice and intelligent way for Apple business to keep us happy and generate more iPhone buzz, will be to include some of the nice apps in their firmware update. We all know that :apple: is very good adding and improving new features.


How do you think this could happen?
And how far could it be for free?

Please elaborate on the way of doing it and please refrain to post many Mr. Jobs lovers' sentences like: it's not gonna happen, or when something impossible occurs.
Remember that we the called "early adopters" demanded a refund due the price difference and we obtained something, therefore we may also have some influence on this one.

I suggest a Poll:
Are you willing to pay for iPhone software, if so how much?
1) All the iPhone apps should be free because :apple: don't want any 3rd party to work on the iPhone for software.
2) Some key apps like the basic ones missing for the PDA-smartphone function on the iPhone should be free: task manager, notes, MMS. For others we may pay.
3) Apple should buy the 3rd party apps and release them in the next firmware update, or through the ITMS:
3.1 For free
3.2 Asking for money to recover the investment: man hours and/or purchase cost
3.2.1 Maximum price $0.99
3.2.2 Maximum price $1.99
3.2.3 Maximum price $2.99
3.2.4 Maximum price $4.99
4) Apple should create their own apps to include nice features like the 3rd party apps available for free, using a similar scheme for # 3).

One final question: what do you think should be the criteria to define the borderline between the free apps by Apple and the ones that you have to pay for?
________
drug test kit (http://drugtestingkit.org)

jt2ga65
Sep 29, 2007, 11:57 AM
One final question: what do you think should be the criteria to define the borderline between the free apps by Apple and the ones that you have to pay for?
If there is a free app available, generally speaking, it is better than the ones that are developed and sold. There are a few really good killer applications out there that do not have a freeware option that is better. Honestly, I can only think of a couple myself, and those are not valuable to all people, but have wide-spread acceptance, such as Microsoft Office suite. There are free alternatives to it, but none that combine all aspects of it.

The reason why free software is so great really has nothing to do with the price that is charged for it. It's more about the love and devotion that the developer put into it.

Many corporate software programmers hate their jobs, and the only reason why they are doing it is because they are getting paid. Many develop software that they don't really care about. Not all of them certainly, but many.

Almost all developers of free software do it because they love to do it, and want to develop a great product.

Almost all corporations have people in the middle, between the consumer and the developers. These people are marketing types, project managers, financial types, CEOs, etc. that either think they know what the consumer wants, or is trying out how to twist it so as to make as much profit as possible. The developers get the requirements and desires of their consumers through these channels as twisted bits of information that bares little resemblance to what the consumers really want.

Almost all developers of free software are involved with the distribution of the software and the community of consumers that will use it. They have a much better concept of what consumers want, and if it sounds like a good idea, many will step up to the challenge.

The sad thing is that many people in the US don't know the truth, or have developed the attitude of laziness. They either don't care to go look for better options or believe in the marketing hype that the corporations know what you want. Most also trust that the corporations have their best interests in mind.

Do I think that Apple will produce the products that e desire to be on the iPhone? Maybe, but only if there is financial justification for doing such a thing. Does Apple care about the people that have already purchased an iPhone? I seriously doubt that the desired of the iPhone owners are keeping anyone at Apple up at night, except when it creates negative press, and possibly affects new sales potential.

What I DO know for certain is that there are developers that are writing applications for the iPhone today that are doing so out of love for both the iPhone and the creation of a great quality application. I would gladly use these applications over anything that Apple may dream up. I'd even PAY for them, as long as the act of paying for it does not alter the motivation of the developers.

-jt2

jjblair
Sep 29, 2007, 01:27 PM
I'm just really annoyed that I can't play solitaire as a stand alone app. Really, Apple. How hard is that to do? Give me something to do on the plane, please.

Quiara
Sep 29, 2007, 11:17 PM
I feel so cheated. I was promised so much more. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xXNoB3t8vM)

;)

pedroistheman
Sep 29, 2007, 11:59 PM
I was just about to buy an iPhone, especially with the new 1.1.1 improvements but w/out the 3rd party apps I am really torn. Has anyone heard news about a nullriver update for 1.1.1?

shadowfax
Oct 1, 2007, 12:10 AM
I was just about to buy an iPhone, especially with the new 1.1.1 improvements but w/out the 3rd party apps I am really torn. Has anyone heard news about a nullriver update for 1.1.1?

http://iphone.fiveforty.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

That seems to be the best place to look for the latest updates. There is a lot more encrypted stuff in 1.1.1 (mind you, there was encrypted stuff in 1.0, 1.0.1, and 1.0.2, just different, and probably easier as well. They are hard at work on this, and there is an advantage speedwise this time that the community has had 3 months to mature and develop relationships and communication lines. They seem like they are all at once close and far away. Very hard to say. I would strongly expect that as soon as they can jailbreak 1.1.1 the rest--3rd party stuff at least--will come pretty fast. That's total speculation, though.

FoxBJK
Oct 1, 2007, 08:23 AM
I would strongly expect that as soon as they can jailbreak 1.1.1 the rest--3rd party stuff at least--will come pretty fast. That's total speculation, though.

I'm not for or against third party apps (I like the iPhone as it is, but having iChat and some more games again would be nice), but here's the thing with Apple's lockdown.

Whether or not they encrypted the phone to prevent third party apps is unknown, but my best guess is that Apple still didn't intend to destroy them. They were forced to do something about the SIM unlocks though, because if they ignored that, AT&T could've (and probably would've) sued Apple for breach of contract and would've made a lot of money. Encrypting the code was probably the best way Apple found to prevent SIM unlocking in the future, and the loss of third party apps is an unfortunate side effect.

I'd like to assume that after the holiday season is over and Macworld approaches, pressure will be placed on Apple by the entire market to either open the phone up to third party app development, or be left in the dust by Palm, RIM, Nokia, and Motorola for their exclusion of what is an absolute necessity in Smartphones.

:apple:Mac Pro (2.66 GHz)
:apple:4GB iPhone
:apple:5th and 3rd gen iPod Classic

shadowfax
Oct 1, 2007, 01:07 PM
I'm not for or against third party apps (I like the iPhone as it is, but having iChat and some more games again would be nice), but here's the thing with Apple's lockdown.

Whether or not they encrypted the phone to prevent third party apps is unknown, but my best guess is that Apple still didn't intend to destroy them. They were forced to do something about the SIM unlocks though, because if they ignored that, AT&T could've (and probably would've) sued Apple for breach of contract and would've made a lot of money. Encrypting the code was probably the best way Apple found to prevent SIM unlocking in the future, and the loss of third party apps is an unfortunate side effect.

I'd like to assume that after the holiday season is over and Macworld approaches, pressure will be placed on Apple by the entire market to either open the phone up to third party app development, or be left in the dust by Palm, RIM, Nokia, and Motorola for their exclusion of what is an absolute necessity in Smartphones.

:apple:Mac Pro (2.66 GHz)
:apple:4GB iPhone
:apple:5th and 3rd gen iPod Classic

I heartily agree, but it's interesting to note that they were using encryption before, and I think it will be very soon that they find a hole in that. What will be truly interesting figuring out if they do some kind of "digital signature verification to run apps. It would surprise me, actually, because I would imagine that would make it near-impossible to use third-party apps but still possible to unlock the phone. But something is telling me that I would think they would have done more than just encrypting more files in a different format. It doesn't even appear they've done something like encryption with the checksum of some portion of it as the key.