PDA

View Full Version : iPhone 1.1.1 Harder to Hack?




MacRumors
Sep 27, 2007, 04:39 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

You may have noticed that talk of installing 3rd party applications onto the iPod Touch has been notably absent in the weeks since the iPod Touch launch.

Ambrosia's Andrew Welch notes (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4249296&postcount=20) that the new system will be much harder to hack, even for an application like iToner (http://www.ambrosiasw.com/utilities/itoner/):

Here's what we know. It looks like Apple is locking down the iPhone with encryption and signing, the same way they locked down the iPod Touch. We're working to see what we can find out, if there is a way around it, we will find it.

But this is not a good curve that Apple has thrown at us.



Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2007/09/27/iphone-1-1-1-harder-to-hack/)



willxm
Sep 27, 2007, 04:49 PM
Not cool. Not cool at all. 3rd party apps are what make the iphone so great. They bring more functionality and entertainment. And from what I have experienced the iphone runs 3rd party apps pretty well, makes you wonder if apple wanted to protect the stability of the iphone or if they have another agenda.

crees!
Sep 27, 2007, 04:56 PM
And from what I have experienced the iphone runs 3rd party apps pretty well, makes you wonder if apple wanted to protect the stability of the iphone or if they have another agenda. My guess would be both and rightfully so.

plumbingandtech
Sep 27, 2007, 04:56 PM
Not cool. Not cool at all. 3rd party apps are what make the iphone so great.

IYO. IMO what makes the iPhone so great is the interface, the ipod, the mail, safari, the ease of use, the seemless syncing, the iphoto camera integration........


Wonder if we will hear cries of "iToner Rebate!" if this can not be solved?

ppc_michael
Sep 27, 2007, 04:56 PM
Tsk tsk tsk.

On one hand, Apple's not selling the iPod Touch as a personal computer, so what do we expect.

On the other hand, I have not seen things as cool as the 3rd party iPhone apps in a very long time, and it's pretty idiotic to not look the other way while other people make the iPod Touch a really awesome device.

Twinkie
Sep 27, 2007, 04:57 PM
Yeah, using signing and encryption to lock down a device that constantly spews data back and forth, contains your calendar, contacts, and personal e-mail is a really stupid idea. :rolleyes:

Rot'nApple
Sep 27, 2007, 04:57 PM
Not cool. Not cool at all. 3rd party apps are what make the iphone so great. They bring more functionality and entertainment. And from what I have experienced the iphone runs 3rd party apps pretty well, makes you wonder if apple wanted to protect the stability of the iphone or if they have another agenda.

Are 3rd party apps the same as the web stuff for the iPhone using AJAX and Safari? I thought Steve said this was a way for developers to get around the iPhone's closed system. Is Apple revoking "apps" that used that method?:confused:

crees!
Sep 27, 2007, 05:02 PM
Are 3rd party apps the same as the web stuff for the iPhone using AJAX and Safari? I thought Steve said this was a way for developers to get around the iPhone's closed system. Is Apple revoking "apps" that used that method?:confused:

No. Two similar, but separate things. The "web apps" are the official way to create apps for iPhone and Apple fully supports this. The other method, the hacks you hear of, install actual apps on iPhone and void your warranty.

nato64
Sep 27, 2007, 05:06 PM
I am really torn about this.

My iPhone was hacked with 10+ awesome applications, OpenSSH so I could upload my own ringtones... it had tons of awesome stuff.

So I was pissed when I had to restore and get rid of all that stuff. But I did it because my iPhone became bloated. I don't know what it was. I cannot pinpoint a specific application I installed. But slowly things weren't running smoothly on my iPhone.

And it was never more apparent than when my iPhone first booted into 1.1.1 and it was screaming fast, simple, and sleek. It's like I forgot what it felt like.

While I think we would all benefit from a somewhat open dialogue with 3rd Party Devs, we have to remember that what Apple has always done best is protecting users from themselves.

Like I said, I'm torn. But I'm very happy with how fantastic 1.1.1 runs.

yayaba
Sep 27, 2007, 05:09 PM
I am really torn about this.

My iPhone was hacked with 10+ awesome applications, OpenSSH so I could upload my own ringtones... it had tons of awesome stuff.

So I was pissed when I had to restore and get rid of all that stuff. But I did it because my iPhone became bloated. I don't know what it was. I cannot pinpoint a specific application I installed. But slowly things weren't running smoothly on my iPhone.

And it was never more apparent than when my iPhone first booted into 1.1.1 and it was screaming fast, simple, and sleek. It's like I forgot what it felt like.

While I think we would all benefit from a somewhat open dialogue with 3rd Party Devs, we have to remember that what Apple has always done best is protecting users from themselves.

Like I said, I'm torn. But I'm very happy with how fantastic 1.1.1 runs.

It might be Summerboard. I've noticed the same. Sometimes unlocking my phone causes it to lock again really quickly when it never did that before. Other times my screen flickers on/off real quick and then locks itself for no reason.

I'll probably put 1.1.1 on when I get home. Only apps I'll really miss are Finder, NES, iBlackJack, and Customize. Actually, that's a lot :(

iWizzard
Sep 27, 2007, 05:11 PM
This relly sux, I will not buy an iphone if it is not possible to install 3d party apps. Lack of IM messenger that always run in the background is an deal breaker.

LSK6453
Sep 27, 2007, 05:12 PM
if itoner cannot work at all, are they refunding money?

They did say it would work through ALL firmware updates

I did not buy, but I am curious

plumbingandtech
Sep 27, 2007, 05:13 PM
as. I cannot pinpoint a specific application I installed. But slowly things weren't running smoothly on my iPhone.

And it was never more apparent than when my iPhone first booted into 1.1.1 and it was screaming fast, simple, and sleek. It's like I forgot what it felt like.

While I think we would all benefit from a somewhat open dialogue with 3rd Party Devs, we have to remember that what Apple has always done best is protecting users from themselves.

Well said. And that is why I have not hacked my to install apps. The same thing happend with some 3rd extensions to OS X a few years back. Turned them off, restarted. back to new speedwise.

severe
Sep 27, 2007, 05:14 PM
Is Apple revoking "apps" that used that method?:confused:

No. As a matter of fact, it's encouraged.


iPhone to Support Third-Party Web 2.0 Applications (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/06/11iphone.html)

..But I did it because my iPhone became bloated. I don't know what it was. I cannot pinpoint a specific application I installed. But slowly things weren't running smoothly on my iPhone.

I have to admit, and I couldn't pinpoint it myself, but things have gotten weird with these 3rd party apps installed. It was worth it for a minute, but who knows how bad it could have gotten?

One thing that was very noticeable was the battery drain. Compared to having no 3rd party apps installed, my battery life seemed nearly cut in half.

shadowfax
Sep 27, 2007, 05:16 PM
It might be Summerboard. I've noticed the same. Sometimes unlocking my phone causes it to lock again really quickly when it never did that before. Other times my screen flickers on/off real quick and then locks itself for no reason.

I'll probably put 1.1.1 on when I get home. Only apps I'll really miss are Finder, NES, iBlackJack, and Customize. Actually, that's a lot :(

crap, not to mention Apollo... Ugh, this is kind of aggravating. on the other hand, all encryption is crackable. The iPhone will not support encryption that can't be broken by a Core (2) Duo--a chip with probably 20-50 times the computing power of the iPhone. Remember how long openssh takes to do an RSA handshake on the darn thing? it's like a minute. This will be gotten around. And who knows, maybe it will be better for the platform overall. Sounds like a major setback, though. Time to call DVD Jon....

jonnylink
Sep 27, 2007, 05:21 PM
This makes things like Linux Phone (http://www.openmoko.com/) start to look more appealing to me.

plumbingandtech
Sep 27, 2007, 05:25 PM
One thing that was very noticeable was the battery drain. Compared to having no 3rd party apps installed, my battery life seemed nearly cut in half.

And IMO this has ALWAYS been the reason (along with lack of time for a finalized API and the use of Leopard tech?).

If apple had opened it on day one we would have had complaint after complaint about 1 hr battery life since they installed X 3rd part app. (TO say nothing of apple's update being a nightmare not because of apple but because 3rd party app X has changed or moved something in the OS.)

How to solve?

Time, finalized APIs, limit 3rdparty app CPU use AND ENCRYPTION. So a program has to go thru a certification program before being blessed by apple and the encryption can help ensure the app is the app.

PDE
Sep 27, 2007, 05:25 PM
Well said. And that is why I have not hacked my to install apps. The same thing happend with some 3rd extensions to OS X a few years back. Turned them off, restarted. back to new speedwise.


It may be that some third party apps slow the system down, but it's easy enough to remove them and get back the speed. Surely, just like in our computers, we're capable of making those decisions and, surely, Apple would avoid a lot of trouble by providing a SAFE environment in which developers can operate rather than working so hard to lock everybody out and forcing them to develop without access. I don't know much about hacking, except that it seems that nothing is completely unhackable. I hope that's the case with this too.


As much as I love my unlocked iphone, Apple's current attitude really turns me off from the iphone and makes me consider returning it and just getting a phone I can do what I want with, even if it means losing the coolness of the iphone. Anybody else feel the same way?

This makes things like Linux Phone (http://www.openmoko.com/) start to look more appealing to me.

Yes, absolutely.

benspratling
Sep 27, 2007, 05:25 PM
Yeah, using signing and encryption to lock down a device that constantly spews data back and forth, contains your calendar, contacts, and personal e-mail is a really stupid idea. :rolleyes:

What, like a computer?

shadowfax
Sep 27, 2007, 05:31 PM
IYO. IMO what makes the iPhone so great is the interface, the ipod, the mail, safari, the ease of use, the seemless syncing, the iphoto camera integration........


Wonder if we will hear cries of "iToner Rebate!" if this can not be solved? Uhh, if you think that the Mail application makes the iPhone great, I question your sanity. That program is the biggest pain in the butt! I will agree with you that the iPod, Safari, and overall ease of use are phenomenal, and I would add that the actual phone experience is one of the best parts of the whole deal.

3rd party applications certainly aren't the mainstay of the iPhone, but they added a ton of value to the iPhone. And I really hope that no one here is going to say that Web 2.0 is a decent compromise. It's a load of crap. Have you ever tried to play Bejeweled for the iPhone on your iPhone? it's choppy and crappy. Compare that to a native app like Lights Off or FiveDice--there is no comparison, Web 2.0 is slow as crap, native apps are fast and smooth.

Merlyn3D
Sep 27, 2007, 05:32 PM
And IMO this has ALWAYS been the reason (along with lack of time for a finalized API and the use of Leopard tech?).

If apple had opened it on day one we would have had complaint after complaint about 1 hr battery life since they installed X 3rd part app. (TO say nothing of apple's update being a nightmare not because of apple but because 3rd party app X has changed or moved something in the OS.)

How to solve?

Time, finalized APIs, limit 3rdparty app CPU use AND ENCRYPTION. So a program has to go thru a certification program before being blessed by apple and the encryption can help ensure the app is the app.

No, if Apple had told devs how to develop for the iPhone with an SDK things would be better. Devs would know how to minimize power consumption, etc. As it is now, Apple (officially) doesn't want any other native apps on the iPhone other than its own, and that is wrong.

The least they could do is give us some sort of indication that an SDK for 3rd party devs would be released in a given timeframe, but they haven't even committed to that. It's because know one knows if an SDK is even coming that people are literally trying to hack in to run native apps. Come on Apple, at least tell us if we're getting an SDK. No one likes this web2.0 crap apps on a mobile phone, especially on an airplane. Plus web2.0 apps have no where near the performance or functionality of NATIVE apps.

plumbingandtech
Sep 27, 2007, 05:32 PM
we're capable of making those decisions and, surely,

A computer has a plug that goes into the wall and gets unlimited power.The iphone can get drained in no time by a bad programmer. The iphone has less ram. Less space. etc..

Not exact comparisons.

Apple would avoid a lot of trouble by providing a SAFE environment in which developers can operate rather than working so hard to lock everybody out and forcing them to develop without access.

Of course. But they have not yet. The "cost" people are paying now is not their fault. (re installing apps.)

I don't know much about hacking, except that it seems that nothing is completely unhackable. I hope that's the case with this too.

Yep. Prob 2 months or less.

As much as I love my unlocked iphone, Apple's current attitude really turns me off from the iphone and makes me consider returning it and just getting a phone I can do what I want with, even if it means losing the coolness of the iphone. Anybody else feel the same way?

Their attitude is the iphone runs all the stuff they said it does, very well. If people want to hack beyond it

The product performs as advertised. If you abs. need some 3rd party app then the iphone may not be for you, if you want to "do whatever you want with it" buy another phone.

Buy an openmoko. It won't be an iphone that's for sure...

benspratling
Sep 27, 2007, 05:34 PM
As much as I love my unlocked iphone, Apple's current attitude really turns me off from the iphone and makes me consider returning it and just getting a phone I can do what I want with, even if it means losing the coolness of the iphone. Anybody else feel the same way?

No, but, waiting for a chapter of the Bible to load takes like 5 second over Edge, while everyone else in the Sunday School class had time to actually turn to the page in their physical Bibles, makes me think the iPhone is not good enough to stand in for my Bible. I guess I'll keep lugging my MacBook Pro to church... A native app would solve this problem, but I'm not "approved" by Steve Jobs.

emotion
Sep 27, 2007, 05:34 PM
No, if Apple had told devs how to develop for the iPhone with an SDK things would be better. Devs would know how to minimize power consumption, etc. As it is now, Apple (officially) doesn't want any other native apps on the iPhone other than its own, and that is wrong.

The least they could do is give us some sort of indication that an SDK for 3rd party devs would be released in a given timeframe, but they haven't even committed to that. It's because know one knows if an SDK is even coming that people are literally trying to hack in to run native apps. Come on Apple, at least tell us if we're getting an SDK. No one likes this web2.0 crap on a mobile phone, especially on an airplane.

Maybe all this 1.1.1 nonsense is a prelude to an SDK for the touch devices being part of Leopard. I know, I'm a dreamer.

plumbingandtech
Sep 27, 2007, 05:35 PM
No, if Apple had told devs how to develop for the iPhone with an SDK things would be better.


And if the SDK was not ready (which is prob. the case.) what then? Pull one out of a rabbit's behind? (The internal version they use may / is not ready for public use it seems.)

The least they could do is give us some sort of indication that an SDK for 3rd party devs would be released in a given timeframe,

They have.

And the answer is. Not at this time.

emotion
Sep 27, 2007, 05:39 PM
And if the SDK was not ready (which is prob. the case.) what then? Pull one out of a rabbit's behind? (The internal version they use may / is not ready for public use it seems.)

And that's probably the real reason. They pulled devs off the Leopard team for the iPhone. I bet they went back to that project before polishing the SDK into a usable commoditisable state. Until then, batten down the hatches (1.1.1).

iWizzard
Sep 27, 2007, 05:40 PM
Have the "hackers" started to look in the firmere? To be able to stop this cat and mouse game it must be stopped at the source = the firmware.

The ideal solution is that the end user could dl an patched/hacked version of the firmware that do not cause any problems.

the scenario I imagine is that after every new appple uppdate an hacker group modefies it to make it safe to use for people with "altered" iphones.

Merlyn3D
Sep 27, 2007, 05:43 PM
They have.

And the answer is. Not at this time.

Yes, but a simple "we are pushing to finalize APIs for an SDK" or "we are actively pursuing it" wouldn't be much to ask for. People want to know that 3rd party apps will work on the iPhone in an official capacity.

PDE
Sep 27, 2007, 05:44 PM
A computer has a plug that goes into the wall and gets unlimited power.The iphone can get drained in no time by a bad programmer. The iphone has less ram. Less space. etc..

Not exact comparisons.



Of course. But they have not yet. The "cost" people are paying now is not their fault. (re installing apps.)



Yep. Prob 2 months or less.



Their attitude is the iphone runs all the stuff they said it does, very well. If people want to hack beyond it

The product performs as advertised. If you abs. need some 3rd party app then the iphone may not be for you, if you want to "do whatever you want with it" buy another phone.

Buy an openmoko. It won't be an iphone that's for sure...


Of course I realise that the iphone has the nicest interface/screen of any phone I've used. And of course it has the potential to be great. Going back to what now appears to a clunky Sony ericsson interface would not be fun. I just feel that Apple is not letting its customers make any decisions about their phones. I had no plans to add 3rd party apps, but of course I use IM all the time so that made sense. The dictionary app is also useful, as are numerous others ones. If Apple provided those it would be better, but they don't or haven't thus far. We'll see how Apple decides to develop the iphone and add functionality. Although we bought the phone 'as is' , Apple did indicate that they would be adding functionaility through updates. IMO, today's update was not very useful. Better than nothing? yes, of course, but not better than what exists already through the installer.app.

Sorry, went off topic.

donlphi
Sep 27, 2007, 05:45 PM
This relly sux, I will not buy an iphone if it is not possible to install 3d party apps. Lack of IM messenger that always run in the background is an deal breaker.

If you haven't bought an iPhone in the last two months of 3rd Party Apps, I don't see Apple getting really worried about your purchase or lack there of.

It was fun while it lasted. I hope Apple allows a couple of good companies to create some functional software for it.

SLINGPLAYER... DEAR JESUS... GIVE ME SLINGPLAYER FOR THE iPHONE!

emotion
Sep 27, 2007, 05:45 PM
Yes, but a simple "we are pushing to finalize APIs for an SDK" or "we are actively pursuing it" wouldn't be much to ask for. People want to know that 3rd party apps will work on the iPhone in an official capacity.

Stevie sure does like the big showbiz announcements though. That's not their style :)

plumbingandtech
Sep 27, 2007, 05:48 PM
Yes, but a simple "we are pushing to finalize APIs for an SDK" or "we are actively pursuing it" wouldn't be much to ask for. People want to know that 3rd party apps will work on the iPhone in an official capacity.

Acutally it would be, legally speaking. What if apple said "we hope to have the final API done in Jan."

Then (and I know this is a lousy example.) they found out of you have 15 apps open at once the iphone crawls to a snail and they make an internal decision to not release the api as promised.

Can you say class action suit?

They should NEVER announce something until they are abs. sure they can do what they say.


Apple did indicate that they would be adding functionaility through updates.

as someone mentioned in another thread. This is a "Sept" update (is that correct?) If so maybe next month will have something worthwhile to you.

For me all I want is "DELETE ALL MAILS IN MY INBOX" yikes!!!! 25 deletes just in the last few hours....done, one by one by one... ugg.

Twinkie
Sep 27, 2007, 05:48 PM
What, like a computer?Sort of, yeah.

Sbrocket
Sep 27, 2007, 05:52 PM
Did it ever occur to anyone that rather than targeting 3rd party apps, Apple was instead targeting current software unlocking methods and that the 3rd party apps got caught in the crossfire? Stop being so cynical and look at things logically. Not everything that comes out of a corporation is a lie.

QCassidy352
Sep 27, 2007, 05:52 PM
I had 3rd party apps installed on my iphone, but am updating to 1.1.1 anyway. Frankly, I just never found any of them all that useful. There are some cute ones, and there are certainly things that apple should release (games, for instance), but the 3rd party apps have not been the be-all and end-all for me that they apparently have been for some people. I think I'd rather just have an iphone that has good battery life, doesn't lock up, and is nice and snappy. Just my experience.

PDE
Sep 27, 2007, 05:52 PM
Maybe the plan is to release this update, get the hackers going, and then when a hack comes out, release a proper update....and so on and so forth...

yagrax
Sep 27, 2007, 05:57 PM
Mark my words, give them less than a week and it will be hacked again. A lot of hackers spent a lot of time developing their apps to let a small thing like encryption stop them. Axiom: no encryption scheme is strong enough to overcome. Why Apple chose this route to temporarily block these 3rd party apps is baffling to me, because they know this axiom as well as any tech follower (unless their managment said make it so...), and it's just a matter of time. 3rd party apps will be back.

As one who installed just about every 3rd party app out there, I will tell you non-installers that you don't know what you're talking about when you question the expanded capabilities that the 3rd party apps give to a lot of users. The other axiom of don't knock it till you try it comes to mind because you're really talking out your backside on the subject, be honest. The people that installed these apps are overwhelmingly very happy with them. And hardly any of them "break" the phone and give features that, honestly, Apple sorely left out. Chat, ToDo, Games and syncing Notes. None of them locked up my iPhone, ever.

Sure there will be issues of battery drain and slowness with 3rd party apps. But those will be overcome in time, or you can simply uninstall them, it's pretty easy to do. No need to just throw the entire idea away just because of a few ill-running apps here and there. A few people won't find them useful, and will comment on that, but I believe the majority of us do and won't comment on the positive as it's human nature in our country to criticize not praise.

I mean look at Apple! and the new ability to disable roaming Edge data internationally. This was probably a huge programming oversight and someone's bill came in > $1000 or more with roaming charges while overseas on a trip. Apple has now "fixed" that. Talk about a class action...


JMHO


(by the way, the bible is probably avail as an ebook with the 3rd party Book reader being able to read it on the iPhone)

francisturgeon
Sep 27, 2007, 06:15 PM
Is anyone able to restore to 1.0.2 firmware????????

I tried even disconnected from internet but I'm not able??? It could be really cool, 'cause I've lost my cell phone and so much more:mad:

Francis

CJD2112
Sep 27, 2007, 06:40 PM
I know, I was desperate, but after updating to 1.1.1 I "tried" to unshackle the phone using iFuntastic again... and guess what? Had to restore my phone... again. :eek: (yeah, the blond is natural)

megfilmworks
Sep 27, 2007, 07:35 PM
Bummer, after updating to 1.1.1 my iPhone no longer works as a remote for my garage door. Shame on you Apple!

Dagless
Sep 27, 2007, 07:58 PM
That's a shame. I was looking forward to that quasi-GPS and Apollo IM app.

rjwill246
Sep 27, 2007, 08:20 PM
Of course I realise that the iphone has the nicest interface/screen of any phone I've used. And of course it has the potential to be great. Going back to what now appears to a clunky Sony Ericsson interface would not be fun. I just feel that Apple is not letting its customers make any decisions about their phones. I had no plans to add 3rd party apps, but of course I use IM all the time so that made sense. The dictionary app is also useful, as are numerous others ones.

You are dead right. I don't buy Apple's SOLE argument that it might destabilize the network-- absurd for the most part. This is as much about Apple and ATT figuring out how to add features at a premium AND making sure it is safe to do so. Third party apps make so much sense, especially programs like ePocrates which med students, nurses and doctors use worldwide--- huge market. IMing etc was great. There is no doubt that they will be back, with Apple's blessing or not.

My guess is that Apple is working on how to get 3rd party apps on our iPhones but the issue is going to be-- how much will they charge-- these are NOT going to be free. I have no problem with that since adding anything to the iPhone is not a right, despite some people thinking so. It increases the company's bottom line and that makes me very happy.

jt2ga65
Sep 27, 2007, 08:21 PM
And IMO this has ALWAYS been the reason (along with lack of time for a finalized API and the use of Leopard tech?).

It's funny. The more applications I have installed on my iPhone, the LONGER the battery has lasted. I'm not saying that it's a cause-effect, but that when I got the phone, I hat to recharge nightly. Not I can almost go three days without charging.

Time, finalized APIs, limit 3rdparty app CPU use AND ENCRYPTION. So a program has to go thru a certification program before being blessed by apple and the encryption can help ensure the app is the app.

Apple has always been a closed architecture company. This is the one thing that has hurt them the most, and why the lion's share of free software runs on Windows or on Linux/BSD first. And many of the best programs never make it to an Apple platform. Really, it's the only reason why I can't convince myself to get an Apple laptop. I don't want to pay $1500 for a program to edit my videos when I'm using a freeware program now that has no Apple equivalently.

Apple locking the iPhone is just plain stupid, and absolutely 100% in line with the way that Apple always has been.

-jt2

elppa
Sep 27, 2007, 08:47 PM
Apple has always been a closed architecture company. This is the one thing that has hurt them the most, and why the lion's share of free software runs on Windows or on Linux/BSD first. And many of the best programs never make it to an Apple platform. Really, it's the only reason why I can't convince myself to get an Apple laptop. I don't want to pay $1500 for a program to edit my videos when I'm using a freeware program now that has no Apple equivalently.

Apple locking the iPhone is just plain stupid, and absolutely 100% in line with the way that Apple always has been.

-jt2

You just sound like you don't know what you are talking about.

The reason so many people are crying out for third party development is so they can make money from it. They can see the potential iPhone has, however so can Apple. Which is why Apple designed it, Apple developed it, Apple negotiated the contracts with the networks etc. etc. etc. See where this is going? It is Apple's phone. Therefore Apple will use it to best benefit Apple.

Bringing up Free BSD / Linux is an irrelevance as they are free, open source software and neither are a product made by one company with commercial interests. However as you bring up the case of Windows…

Microsoft look after there own interests too, they just like to appear on the surface to play nice with third parties, but then swallow them up and destroy them when they come up with a good idea. Which is why Windows users use Windows Messenger, surf the web with Internet Explorer, play videos with Windows Media, read email with Outlook, use Windows Security Centre, use the Microsoft Office productivity Suite, play games like Halo 3 via Direct X (developed solely to keep games on Windows, they could have gone for OpenGL if they were remotely interested in being "open") etc. etc. etc.

No doubt you'll just dismiss me as a rabid Apple fan, but your arguments really are laughable. You think if someone came up with a really good third party app for Windows Mobile (by your definition an "open" architecture) MS would sit back and let them profit. No, of course they wouldn't. They'd either buy the company or rip off their idea.

MacToddB
Sep 27, 2007, 08:49 PM
When the iPhone was announced, I remember Steve proudly declared "iPhone runs OS X". (Full disclosure, as a member of the press, I was actually in Vegas covering CES, but many of us had our eye on both events!)

Here's the full quote from Steve Jobs' transcript from MacWorld 2007:

"iPhone runs OS X! Why would we want to run such a sophisticated OS on a mobile device? It's got everything we need. Multitasking, networking, power management, graphics, security, video, graphics, audio core animation... It let us create desktop class applications and networking, not the crippled stuff you find on most phones, these are real desktop applications."

My Mac Mini, which cost me less than my iPhone (early adopter tax) runs OS X, which includes iChat.

Sure, I didn't expect 100% of OS X to make it into a 4GB iPhone, and have room for music, but it's shameful for a 2007-era smartphone to not have Instant Messaging!? Let alone the most anticipated smartphone? Yet 3rd party developers got IM working in a month with no documentation? This absence was the reason I bothered installing installer.app in the first place and may be the reason I stop at firmware 1.0.2, cutting Apple out of my potential WiFi iTunes revenue.

My Nokia e62, which I "upgraded" from, had Instant Messaging built-in, plus voice recording, not to mention MP3 ringtones, and Caller ID text-to-speech Name Announcing.

Yes, I knew the iPhone didn't have all of these capabilities at launch, but as Steve declared, it ran "MacOS". It should be easy for Apple or someone to add these features. And sure enough, a month later, those apps exist. Just not from Apple.

But their policy/programming disables/disallows Caller ID ringtones (text-to-speech MP3 recordings) and always-on Instant Messaging.

I understand Apple's motivations, and I could live with a locked down iPhone. But for work, I NEED real instant messaging, not delayed messaging. And I'd like to use non-music ringtones like "Your wife is calling", etc.

Maybe Steve should add some celebrity generic ringtone announcements to iTunes? Like Donald Trump, "Your boss is calling...answer it or YOU'RE FIRED!'

Oh, I'd also like Bluetooth syncing, which my Nokia had. I'd walk into my office and it'd start syncing my calendar, etc. You take things like that for granted and really miss them when they're gone.

jt2ga65
Sep 27, 2007, 08:49 PM
My guess is that Apple is working on how to get 3rd party apps on our iPhones but the issue is going to be-- how much will they charge-- these are NOT going to be free. I have no problem with that since adding anything to the iPhone is not a right, despite some people thinking so. It increases the company's bottom line and that makes me very happy.

I agree that Apple's probably trying to figure out how to CHARGE you for free software. Apple's gone so far beyond many other corporations into the GREED business model. It's hard to believe that this is the company that was co-founded buy a guy that didn't even want to charge money for the computers he build in his garage. Of course, Jobs was always a greedy bastard. Even while he was playing "peace and love" to the hippies, he was saying that he thought there should be an Apple on every student's desk. I'm happy that he was able to realize his dream of being rich, but people need to realize that he's not the great beneficial god of the people that he pretend to be.

And I guess I don't have any right to install software on my computer either? I don't think that any company is going to even try to touch that one. Not even Microsoft has bothered to try to shut down people installing custom software on the original xbox.

-jt2

jt2ga65
Sep 27, 2007, 08:59 PM
You just sound like you don't know what you are talking about.
Oh please.

Microsoft look after there own interests too, they just like to appear on the surface to play nice with third parties, but then swallow them up and destroy them when they come up with a good idea. Which is why Windows users use Windows Messenger, surf the web with Internet Explorer, play videos with Windows Media, read email with Outlook, use Windows Security Centre, use the Microsoft Office productivity suite, play games like Halo 3 via Direct X (developed solely to keep games on Windows, they could have gone for OpenGL) etc. etc. etc.
Yeah, I guess you are right. Afterall, I guess I'm not using firefox to post this, and Thunderbird to check my email while chatting with my friends on AOL IM using Pidgin IM client, or using OpenOffice to edit my documents.

No doubt you'll just dismiss me as a rabid Apple fan, but your arguments really are laughable. You think if someone came up with a really good third party app for Windows Mobile (by your definition an "open" architecture) MS would sit back and let them profit. No, of course they wouldn't they'd either buy them or copy it.

Actually, there are plenty of third party apps that are available for the TREO that runs Windows Mobile. Plenty more for the TREO that runs PalmOS. Neither of those are free, but there are those applications. Many of them aren't from a company that charges for them. AND those phones sync a whole lot better. Why do I need iTunes to sync my calendar?

I never said that Apple had no right to charge for software they develop, or didn't have a right to make money, I've just said that they have always had a closed architecture for the express purpose of making as much money as they possible could. Good business model, but not really all that friendly to their customers needs and desires.

-jt2

And I'm a HUGE Apple fan. Not a fan of the company, but a fan of the hardware and OS. Always have been. I just can't afford it.

elppa
Sep 27, 2007, 09:26 PM
Yeah, I guess you are right. Afterall, I guess I'm not using firefox to post this, and Thunderbird to check my email while chatting with my friends on AOL IM using Pidgin IM client, or using OpenOffice to edit my documents.

Good for you, the majority will be using IE, Outlook, Messenger and Office. I didn't say, "All Windows Users", I just said "Windows Users".

Actually, there are plenty of third party apps that are available for the TREO that runs Windows Mobile. Plenty more for the TREO that runs PalmOS. Neither of those are free, but there are those applications. Many of them aren't from a company that charges for them. AND those phones sync a whole lot better. Why do I need iTunes to sync my calendar?

With due respect, Windows Mobile and Palm combined do not create the same sort of interest or have the potential that iPhone clearly has.

I've just said that they have always had a closed architecture for the express purpose of making as much money as they possible could. Good business model, but not really all that friendly to their customers needs and desires.

I think Apple knows what their customers want, which extends to a wider base than people who post on internet forums like us. Why was there so much interest in iPhone if it is so "unfriendly" to customers desires?

There are also many examples of where Apple has been friendly to the consumers needs and desires. As well as having the most liberal DRM licensing on the market, Apple also managed to persuade EMI to sell DRM free tunes. They also favour open standards in OS X: Open GL is one I have already mentioned, but there is also H.264, AAC, CalDAV, Open LDAP, Kerberos, Bonjour (http://developer.apple.com/opensource/internet/bonjour.html), the zero configuration network technology is open source. etc. etc. etc.


And I'm a HUGE Apple fan. Not a fan of the company, but a fan of the hardware and OS. Always have been. I just can't afford it.

The philosophies of the company are ingrained in the Hardware and OS. Your desperate plea of "oh please" still doesn't hide the fact you are mainly shooting from ignorance. I suggest a little research before your type.

Andrmgic
Sep 27, 2007, 09:35 PM
Third party developers are who made OS X what it is today, not Apple and it got that way through the SDK provided and the ingenuity of mac users. The same thing could happen (and has, albeit, without Apple's permission) on the iPhone.

Without third party Applications, the iPhone is an application wasteland, doomed to half-assed updates for the remainder of the phone's lifespan.

We got more stuff from third party developers in a week than we have from Apple yet, even with this new update.

We've got textedit, games, terminal, ftp, a vnc client, IRC client, two great IM applications (best part about these is phone calls can actually come through, unlike the web-based IM versions that are constantly transferring data, which prevents calls from coming in unless you're on Wifi), an application that lets you sync your iphone to more than one itunes library, custom wallpapers, themes, icons and ringtones, pocket dictionary, Finder (all it lacks is a search function), apps that let you e-mail files to people that aren't pictures and reside on your phone.

Apple has nothing on that, imho. Come on Apple, give us a real SDK, and then see what these talented people can do.

James L
Sep 27, 2007, 09:44 PM
No. As a matter of fact, it's encouraged.


iPhone to Support Third-Party Web 2.0 Applications (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/06/11iphone.html)


This is a joke. Web sites, no matter how advanced, are NOT what people are looking for when they ask for applications.

It is completely unpractical to demand people be online to use an "application", especially when more often than not the connectivity will be over a slow network like EDGE.

Why do you think you will still see thousands of doctors and med students using old palms and Windows Mobile devices?

Saying that 3rd party application development is available on the iPhone, when it is simply just saying "make websites" is a joke. That is why you could hear a pin drop at WWDC when Steve announced it too.

Stella
Sep 27, 2007, 09:45 PM
Apple will never allow 3rd party applications. They like to control their platforms. End of Story.

maknik
Sep 27, 2007, 09:46 PM
It's a little dismaying to see how many people there are defending Apple's behavior here. Their most-repeated claim, that third-party apps destabilize the network, is patently false (obviously other phones do it fine). The other arguments about it being "for our own good" don't make any sense either: if too many apps slow my iPhone or eat up the battery, I am free to uninstall apps. I don't need "protection" from my choices. And the encryption arguments fail for both kinds of reason: if I want encryption, I should be able to choose to have it or not, and in any case, other phones manage quite fine. Sure, I understand corporate-greed arguments for why Apple wants the revenue of apps for itself, but that's not a justification, just an (obvious) explanation. And I don't see any reason for any user to prefer having fewer choices, since any restriction Apple might enforce, one could simply choose. There is no good argument for restricting our freedom to do what we want with our own computer.

(Obligatory flame-retardant: I've used Macs since my Mac Plus in 87.)

elppa
Sep 27, 2007, 09:54 PM
Third party developers are who made OS X what it is today, not Apple and it got that way through the SDK provided and the ingenuity of mac users

Apple spent 6 years modifying the OS they brought from NeXT (which would sell for $129) so it could work with third party software from Adobe, Quark, Microsoft (which sold for $400+).

All this work was done because those great third parties companies "who made OS X what it is today" didn't want to do the work (which they would have to do eventually anyway!) to port their apps across to the new system.

When Mac OS X was released there were initially very few 3rd party apps (Stone Design, Omni, Panic, the usual suspects excluded).

Apple produced apps to add value on to the OS. First with iLife, then the Pro Apps (like Final Cut, Aperture) and now with their productivity apps (iWork). These helped keep the Mac platform strong.

During this time third parties have begun to take more of an active interest. I completely agree with what you are saying. There are some very talented developers out there and the more great software they produce all the better for us as users. But I would caution dressing up the all third party developers as the knights in shining armour and "saviours of Mac OS X".

shrimpdesign
Sep 27, 2007, 10:00 PM
Yes, but a simple "we are pushing to finalize APIs for an SDK" or "we are actively pursuing it" wouldn't be much to ask for. People want to know that 3rd party apps will work on the iPhone in an official capacity.

You know Apple. Tight lipped until it's ready. When it's ready, it'll be announced. If they announced it now, everyone would whine, "When is it coming?!" all the time. It would be awful.

daze
Sep 27, 2007, 10:17 PM
Without third party Applications, the iPhone is an application wasteland, doomed to half-assed updates for the remainder of the phone's lifespan.


Just wait folks. Soon as the next iPhone model is released with features we'd really like to have, then... guess what? The previous iPhone model will not get any software upgrades.

Yeah. Anyone remember the time when adding songs to a on-the-go playlist came to the next gen iPod but not the previous? Exactly... This kind of crap I don't agree with.

Lionheart
Sep 27, 2007, 10:28 PM
Mark my words, give them less than a week and it will be hacked again. A lot of hackers spent a lot of time developing their apps to let a small thing like encryption stop them. Axiom: no encryption scheme is strong enough to overcome. Why Apple chose this route to temporarily block these 3rd party apps is baffling to me, because they know this axiom as well as any tech follower (unless their managment said make it so...), and it's just a matter of time. 3rd party apps will be back.

As one who installed just about every 3rd party app out there, I will tell you non-installers that you don't know what you're talking about when you question the expanded capabilities that the 3rd party apps give to a lot of users. The other axiom of don't knock it till you try it comes to mind because you're really talking out your backside on the subject, be honest. The people that installed these apps are overwhelmingly very happy with them. And hardly any of them "break" the phone and give features that, honestly, Apple sorely left out. Chat, ToDo, Games and syncing Notes. None of them locked up my iPhone, ever.

Sure there will be issues of battery drain and slowness with 3rd party apps. But those will be overcome in time, or you can simply uninstall them, it's pretty easy to do. No need to just throw the entire idea away just because of a few ill-running apps here and there. A few people won't find them useful, and will comment on that, but I believe the majority of us do and won't comment on the positive as it's human nature in our country to criticize not praise.

I mean look at Apple! and the new ability to disable roaming Edge data internationally. This was probably a huge programming oversight and someone's bill came in > $1000 or more with roaming charges while overseas on a trip. Apple has now "fixed" that. Talk about a class action...


JMHO


(by the way, the bible is probably avail as an ebook with the 3rd party Book reader being able to read it on the iPhone)

Amen, and well said! 3rd party apps have added value and enjoyment to my phone, and I'll pass on any future updates until they give me more value than I'm losing by giving up my 3rd party apps and the ability to customize the look and sound of my phone. That didn't happen in this update, for sure!

And...yes, there a several text versions of the Bible out there. I use the Books app and the WEB version, pending a real native Bible app (see my thread on this topic elsewhere in this forum). Works great for the time being.

Hopefully Apple will spend some development time on some new, truly useful apps that are noticeably absent at this time and transform this phone from the coolest phone on the block to the most useful handheld device ever made, which it certainly has the potential to become.

In the meantime...I'm a happy guy with a pretty cool phone. All you party line hackhaters just leave me alone and keep watching your YouTube videos.
:cool:

jt2ga65
Sep 27, 2007, 10:47 PM
With due respect, Windows Mobile and Palm combined do not create the same sort of interest or have the potential that iPhone clearly has.
I agree. So I am baffled why Apple insists on not allowing the full potential of the iPhone to be realized by 3rd party apps. Even if they weren't free, and Apple got a cut, it would be better than the lack of features that are on a currently unhacked iPhone.
I think Apple knows what their customers want, which extends to a wider base than people who post on internet forums like us. Why was there so much interest in iPhone if it is so "unfriendly" to customers desires?
Marketing rarely gets the answer right. I remember someone telling me once that our cable modem users were downloading pirated music and videos because they wanted digital content. When he tried to tell me that these same users would be happy to PAY a premium for that same content, I told him he was missing the point, and to leave me out of his twisted dreams.

The philosophies of the company are ingrained in the Hardware and OS. Your desperate plea of "oh please" still doesn't hide the fact you are mainly shooting from ignorance. I suggest a little research before your type.
I didn't call you a fanboy, so why call me ignorant? I'm not ignorant. I've watched Apple for a long time, and they are doing exactly what a corporation SHOULD do. That doesn't mean that I agree with it, and it doesn't mean that I think that they shouldn't allow 3rd party apps.

Wow, there are too many posts on this. I'm wasting my time here instead of doing more important things.

-jt2

scotty1024
Sep 27, 2007, 11:15 PM
Not all the 3rd party application developers were irresponsible. But all it takes is a very small few that abuse the freedom to ruin it for everyone else.

The iPhone Development IRC channels were a horror.

People freely talking about how to write DDoS back doors into applications such as NES.app. There you are munching dots in Pac Man and some ******* is making money selling access to your iPhone to some russian mobsters so they could charge someone to use your iPhone (and thousands of others) to DDoS some network.

Other folks were talking about how to write SPAM software, others viruii..

And of course the unlockers. Before the public unlock was released Phil was willing to take a neutral stance on 3rd party apps. But certain individuals showed Apple their collective asses and taunted Apple to shut them down.

Well Apple showed them who had the real power today.

Someday someone will write a book or a play, title it something like "The rise and fall of the JesusPhone". Such figures as Geohot, Erica Sadun, Martyn will be there carrying spears and poking them into the side of the JesusPhone, forcing its death/re-birth.

Hopefully the responsible individuals will get a shot at working for Apple. I personally already miss Navizon, eDict, Blackjack, Apollo, Book... hopefully in the coming weeks Apple can reach out to these projects and find some way to work with them to bring those technologies to the iPhone.

shadowfax
Sep 27, 2007, 11:28 PM
Apple will never allow 3rd party applications. They like to control their platforms. End of Story.

I'm pretty sure they have distributed 3rd party software for the iPod in the form of games through iTunes. I don't believe all the iPod games were developed in-house. Then there's the obvious, that OS X on macs is a pretty amazingly open OS in terms of who can develop for it. Not so much in terms of what they let their software be on, but that's a very different issue.

I doubt Apple will make an SDK. If they do, it'll probably be in 5 years. But it's not a foregone conclusion, not the end of the story.

shadowfax
Sep 28, 2007, 12:00 AM
Not all the 3rd party application developers were irresponsible. But all it takes is a very small few that abuse the freedom to ruin it for everyone else.

The iPhone Development IRC channels were a horror.

People freely talking about how to write DDoS back doors into applications such as NES.app. There you are munching dots in Pac Man and some ******* is making money selling access to your iPhone to some russian mobsters so they could charge someone to use your iPhone (and thousands of others) to DDoS some network.

Other folks were talking about how to write SPAM software, others viruii..

And of course the unlockers. Before the public unlock was released Phil was willing to take a neutral stance on 3rd party apps. But certain individuals showed Apple their collective asses and taunted Apple to shut them down.

Well Apple showed them who had the real power today.

Someday someone will write a book or a play, title it something like "The rise and fall of the JesusPhone". Such figures as Geohot, Erica Sadun, Martyn will be there carrying spears and poking them into the side of the JesusPhone, forcing its death/re-birth.

Hopefully the responsible individuals will get a shot at working for Apple. I personally already miss Navizon, eDict, Blackjack, Apollo, Book... hopefully in the coming weeks Apple can reach out to these projects and find some way to work with them to bring those technologies to the iPhone.

I don't think Apple showed them anything, sorry. They might have pulled a "gotcha" on a couple of (frankly incompetent human beings) who thought that they could just update. For the vast majority of other unlockers, I would say they still have their butts held high and bare towards 1 Infinite Loop. The iPhone is arguably much more useful with Apollo IM, Pushr, some amazing games, and a developing software platform of 3rd party stuff, than it's going to be with a couple of keyboard niceties, a slightly louder speaker, and a crippled little version of the iTunes Music Store. unlockers still have their phones, and working just fine, and there is nothing Apple can do about it. Apple's just punching at the water, and I think they're just going to aggravate their most loyal users. The guys that are so into their iPhones that they customize them up are apple's biggest fans, no question.

And I really, really don't see any kind of amnesty for 3rd party apps, especially not the most useful ones--IM clients. Apple would get strung up by their heels by AT&T over that--cutting into our SMS revenues, how dare you!

ChronoIMG
Sep 28, 2007, 01:31 AM
It might be Summerboard. I've noticed the same. Sometimes unlocking my phone causes it to lock again really quickly when it never did that before. Other times my screen flickers on/off real quick and then locks itself for no reason.
I have all of these issues and have NEVER EVER installed a single hack on my virgin iPhone running 1.0.2. I seriously think the iPhone OS was rushed.

ChronoIMG
Sep 28, 2007, 01:32 AM
Just wait folks. Soon as the next iPhone model is released with features we'd really like to have, then... guess what? The previous iPhone model will not get any software upgrades.

Yeah. Anyone remember the time when adding songs to a on-the-go playlist came to the next gen iPod but not the previous? Exactly... This kind of crap I don't agree with.
Oh I remember, such BS. And you're dead right about things like that happening to the iPhone. But I'm much more willing to shell out cash for another phone than another iPod. Still sucks though.

Svennig
Sep 28, 2007, 02:03 AM
crap, not to mention Apollo... Ugh, this is kind of aggravating. on the other hand, all encryption is crackable. The iPhone will not support encryption that can't be broken by a Core (2) Duo--a chip with probably 20-50 times the computing power of the iPhone. Remember how long openssh takes to do an RSA handshake on the darn thing? it's like a minute. This will be gotten around. And who knows, maybe it will be better for the platform overall. Sounds like a major setback, though. Time to call DVD Jon....

All encryption is crackable given sufficient time.

A distributed computing project took 1765 days to crack a length 64 key. They say that :

"Our peak rate of 270,147,024 kkeys/sec is equivalent to 32,504 800MHz Apple PowerBook G4 laptops or 45,998 2GHz AMD Athlon XP machines or (to use some rc5-56 numbers) nearly a half million Pentium Pro 200s."

Thats for a 64 bit key. Lets make a decent estimate and say that a c2d is 6x as gast as an 800mhz g4. Thats stilll more than 5000 machines working for almost 2000 days.

Now imagine that you have an AES encryption system with a 128 length key.
That requires 2^64 times longer (about 2 x 10^19)

I can create an AES (Rijndael, which is a much stronger system than RSA) keypair and use it to encrypt something. If I pick the right key length, it can't be cracked before the end of the universe.

If they want to encrypt the firmware, you can't just crack it.

Stella
Sep 28, 2007, 08:19 AM
I'm pretty sure they have distributed 3rd party software for the iPod in the form of games through iTunes. I don't believe all the iPod games were developed in-house. Then there's the obvious, that OS X on macs is a pretty amazingly open OS in terms of who can develop for it. Not so much in terms of what they let their software be on, but that's a very different issue.

I doubt Apple will make an SDK. If they do, it'll probably be in 5 years. But it's not a foregone conclusion, not the end of the story.

Yes, you are right - 3rd parties have created software for the iPod, but Apple have done this in a controlled way - they pick and choose. They don't like plain old Joe or Kate creating killer apps ( by killer I don't mean apps that will brick the device!! :) ) for iPod, iPhone that will make these devices even more attractive to consumers.

Virgil-TB2
Sep 28, 2007, 10:22 AM
I don't think Apple showed them anything, sorry. They might have pulled a "gotcha" on a couple of (frankly incompetent human beings) who thought that they could just update. For the vast majority of other unlockers, I would say they still have their butts held high and bare towards 1 Infinite Loop. ...This is exactly what pisses me off about this whole situation though.

A bunch of juvenile idiots crack into the iPhone, unlock it, and make a bunch of crappy apps that would be at home on a palm pilot. Whoop-de-do. Big deal. They are smart enough to cover their butts and also enough to avoid getting caught when Apple pulls out the 1.1.1 update.

The problem is though, these jerks aren't just hacking for their own purposes, they are selling the hacks and spreading them far and wide. They are telling people absolute lies like "Apple can't do anything" and "this will work through any firmware update." Because of the immense popularity of the iPhone we are talking about a very large number of people here also. It's not like only five or six geeks are affected here.

The people really getting screwed over here are the average joes and janes that took these hacker idiots at their word and installed this stuff on their iPhones or purchased the unlock from "some dude on eBay."

How typical, that you refer to these folks as "frankly incompetent." :rolleyes:

There is a "frankly incompetent" person on another thread that just "played" with an unlock program he found advertised once and it did nothing. But now with the update, their $600 iPhone is a useless piece of junk and they are screwed, while the hackers are laughing all the way to the bank.

A lot of people are being screwed over here, and it's not Apple that's doing it. It's a bunch of irresponsible idiots with the attitude of a twelve year old, lost in some fantasy "war" against an evil empire (Apple) that doesn't even exist.

The only thing we haven't seen yet is for these doorknobs to actually try to sue Apple over the damage that they themselves have caused.

Should happen in ten... nine... eight...

Don.Key
Sep 28, 2007, 10:43 AM
This is exactly what pisses me off about this whole situation though.

A bunch of juvenile idiots crack into the iPhone, unlock it, and make a bunch of crappy apps that would be at home on a palm pilot. Whoop-de-do. Big deal. They are smart enough to cover their butts and also enough to avoid getting caught when Apple pulls out the 1.1.1 update.

The problem is though, these jerks aren't just hacking for their own purposes, they are selling the hacks and spreading them far and wide.

All "juvenile idiots" I know of unlocked their phone themselves or had them unlocked for free by others. Did not sell it to anyone ether. None of us updated to 1.1.1, we are still happily use our unlocked iphones and will see how everything develops, if no solution comes up, we will live with our working iphones + "crappy apps", from which there will be more and more.

And you know what? IF this update has finally killed unlocking effords: Our iphones just got much more valuable. Watch prices on ebay skyrocket in some weeks, as soon as dealers run out of 1.02 iphones stocks.

maxrdc
Sep 28, 2007, 10:44 AM
Hello Guys:

If anyone can give me an answer, I would be really appreciated.

I use firmware 1.0.2 and I only use customized ring tones, I did upgrade to itunes 7.4.2 but I went back to 7.4.1 to get my ring tones working again. I know that I will willing to upgrade to firmware 1.1.1 and I know I will lost my custom ringtones due to the fact that I might need to upgrade to itunes 7.4.3, It's ok, but what I wanted to know, is that, will my phone get bricked???!!!, I just use customize ringtones, I didnt hack the phone to use it with another carrier. If anyone can have an answer for me, or idea, I would love to know.
Thanks guys, and all of you here are awsome, kudos!!!!

maxrdc

BUXEY
Sep 28, 2007, 10:45 AM
Is anyone able to restore to 1.0.2 firmware????????

I tried even disconnected from internet but I'm not able??? It could be really cool, 'cause I've lost my cell phone and so much more:mad:

Francis

I have the same problem,

when I (on a mac) choose RESTORE while holding the apple/option key i get:

>> are you sure you want to restore...//...newest version of the iPhone software will be installed <<

so, i don't get this option to choose for firmware versions... and I am too chicken to proceed... does this option (to choose a firmware version manually) appear AFTER clicking the <upgrade and restore> button?

I'm using iTunes 7.4.1

thanks, GJ

seedster2
Sep 28, 2007, 11:04 AM
All "juvenile idiots" I know of unlocked their phone themselves or had them unlocked for free by others. Did not sell it to anyone ether. None of us updated to 1.1.1, we are still happily use our unlocked iphones and will see how everything develops, if no solution comes up, we will live with our working iphones + "crappy apps", from which there will be more and more.


Exactly, I think people WANT to think that the majority of unlockers updated, but they didnt. So unlocked phones are still working as they did before the update was released. You have to allow Apple to brick your phone.

Virgil-TB2
Sep 28, 2007, 11:14 AM
Exactly, I think people WANT to think that the majority of unlockers updated, but they didnt. So unlocked phones are still working as they did before the update was released. You have to allow Apple to brick your phone.You and Donkey are both missing the entire point of my post.

Sure, people like you are safe from the "evil" Apple, but I'll repeat the salient point for you:

The people being screwed here are those "incompetent" (i.e. - regular) users who bought the bill of goods you and others like you are promoting.

Donkey even implies now that he will essentially "screw them again" by selling his unlocked iPhone on eBay. Your comment on the other hand is basically just a bit of braggadocio about how your smarter than Apple. If either one of you spent a second to think about anyone but yourselves you might find life a little more pleasant in the long run.

Why not just act a little more mature and be a little more circumspect in regards what you are saying and promoting to other iPhone users? How about *not* screwing anyone over at all?

Apple sure isn't. :)

Don.Key
Sep 28, 2007, 11:47 AM
The people being screwed here are those "incompetent" (i.e. - regular) users who bought the bill of goods you and others like you are promoting.

Donkey even implies now that he will essentially "screw them again" by selling his unlocked iPhone on eBay.

That is quite a bold statement you do here, Virgil, without knowing me or my background.

I do not know any unlocked iPhone user which was not aware of the consequences of the unlock, one does not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that.

If either one of you spent a second to think about anyone but yourselves you might find life a little more pleasant in the long run.


Thank you for showing us the way out of our misery.

PDE
Sep 28, 2007, 11:58 AM
All "juvenile idiots" I know of unlocked their phone themselves or had them unlocked for free by others. Did not sell it to anyone ether. None of us updated to 1.1.1, we are still happily use our unlocked iphones and will see how everything develops, if no solution comes up, we will live with our working iphones + "crappy apps", from which there will be more and more.

And you know what? IF this update has finally killed unlocking effords: Our iphones just got much more valuable. Watch prices on ebay skyrocket in some weeks, as soon as dealers run out of 1.02 iphones stocks.

Absolutely true. I know a lot of people who have unlocked their phones themselves, including myself, for free and who have unlocked other phones for free too. I'm happily using my iphone today with AIM and MSM IM, several dictionaries, remote access to streaming music from my computer at home and much more - thank god for third party apps! My phone is fast, stable and has no battery issues at all.

It's also true that our unlocked phone will skyrocket on ebay if there is no new solution in the immediate future - how sweet!

quinney
Sep 28, 2007, 12:04 PM
The guys that are so into their iPhones that they customize them up are apple's biggest fans, no question.


I guess it must be a love/hate relationship if they also

"still have their butts held high and bare towards 1 Infinite Loop"

daneoni
Sep 28, 2007, 12:17 PM
So hack team won't be able to break this after all or will take them another 3/4 months at least.

mrfett
Sep 28, 2007, 12:21 PM
the ringtone thing is the biggest issue, imo. it was pretty cool having custom ones, and it is such a no-brainer for the device. btw, the update doesn't "brick" your phone if you had custom ringtones installed. it just doesn't let you select them if you go to the sounds setting. in fact, if you do go to even view the list of ringtone options it defaults you back to "Marimba".

the apple-ologists on here are funny. these are some seriously customer-hostile policies Cupertino has chosen to embrace. the iLounge editorial is spot-on.

there is a difference between making honest money and forcing your customers to pay you twice for services they do not need. yes, it is the record companies who are behind this, but that doesn't excuse Apple for purposely locking out owners of the phone from playing THEIR OWN audio that ALREADY RESIDES on the phone. This action directly reflects a serious shift in policy at our beloved computer company. People can try to justify it, but the actions are inexcusable.

Many have mentioned the two items left off of the iPhone's feature list that show Apple customers where the company's priorities lie:
1. custom ringtones
2. iChat mobile

The only reasons for these applications' exclusion is that Apple is supporting their partners' business models that rely on double-billing customers for services they already paid for. We pay for unlimited data, therefore we should be able to IM, not SMS. Likewise, we have purchased/made music we like. There is no reason we should have to purchase a 30-second clip of that music AGAIN in order to have it play when we receive a call.

Yes, customers can vote with their wallets and not buy the iPhone if they don't want to put up with these policies. But for the million people who are already locked into a 2-year contract with AT&T, that is not a viable option. Therefore, customers are well within their right to voice their opposition to the blatantly hostile anti-customer turn that the company has taken.

Just my $.02 of course :cool:

MarceePauff
Sep 28, 2007, 12:29 PM
We pay for unlimited data, therefore we should be able to IM, not SMS.

Or... we pay for unlimited data, therefore we should be getting unlimited SMS (in addition to unlimited IM).

That's what "unlimited data" meant on T-Mobile.

dookie852
Sep 28, 2007, 12:38 PM
Question: I know that the upgrade disabled all third party apps but I also believe that it's just a matter of time before the hackers break the code. For when that happens, where did you all find your 3rd party apps??

I can only find web bases applications which are pretty much useless on EDGE.

Thanks to all who answer.

wizard
Sep 28, 2007, 12:48 PM
No. As a matter of fact, it's encouraged.


iPhone to Support Third-Party Web 2.0 Applications (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/06/11iphone.html)

It might even be useful if the was a local web server on the iPhone. In a nut shell this is the RDF working at its best. Web pages simply aren't apps in the way most people think of them.




I have to admit, and I couldn't pinpoint it myself, but things have gotten weird with these 3rd party apps installed. It was worth it for a minute, but who knows how bad it could have gotten?

Or how good it could have gotten! This sort of argument is total BS. First; there is already evidence that Apples update has introduced new bugs of its own. Second; there are good and bad free apps; one only has to look at Linux to see where a bunch of good apps can go. It is all matter of doing a little research and keeping in touch with the developers.


One thing that was very noticeable was the battery drain. Compared to having no 3rd party apps installed, my battery life seemed nearly cut in half.

Yeah so what? Really if your machine is doing more for you and working harder it certainly will drain more power from the battery. If you have an app gone wild that is one thing if you have an app you installed doing something neat that is another. In a nut shell this means nothing because it is so dependent on the apps installed and their usage. Imagine this if you turn off the power to your device the batteries will last a very long time.

wizard
Sep 28, 2007, 01:10 PM
This makes things like Linux Phone (http://www.openmoko.com/) start to look more appealing to me.

Yes it does. So does Motorola's efforts at Linux based phones. I especially like OpenMoko though. It is very open with only a few tiny hardware issues.

The problem with OpenMoko is simply this they need to get development moving faster. I'm hoping that we see viable software and hardware buy the end of the year.

In any event I've had the emulator working from time to time and OpenMoko does look good and is progressing forward. The only issue I can see is that it doesn't hardware wise have enough storage capacity. Storage is the one thing that Apple has gotten right.

Dave

shadowfax
Sep 28, 2007, 01:29 PM
Question: I know that the upgrade disabled all third party apps but I also believe that it's just a matter of time before the hackers break the code. For when that happens, where did you all find your 3rd party apps??

I can only find web bases applications which are pretty much useless on EDGE.

Thanks to all who answer.

try googling app tapp installer.

cah87
Sep 28, 2007, 01:33 PM
Apple will never allow 3rd party applications. They like to control their platforms. End of Story.
so what about all MAC OS X third party apps?

wizard
Sep 28, 2007, 01:36 PM
Did it ever occur to anyone that rather than targeting 3rd party apps, Apple was instead targeting current software unlocking methods and that the 3rd party apps got caught in the crossfire? Stop being so cynical and look at things logically. Not everything that comes out of a corporation is a lie.

I see no reason to believe this at all.

As to the lies well lets be honest here, we have people representing Apple saying publicly just a few days before this update that their attitude is neutral with respect to third party apps. That was obviously a lie. This update is very far from being a neutral response to third party apps, it can only be seen as a broadside attack on the whole idea.

In any event it is just another reason to make me wonder why I follow Apple at all as a company and take interests in their products. When the VP indicated that Apple was neutral with respect to third party app, I can't believe he didn't know what was coming. It puts into question the credibility of the whole company as an organization you would want to deal with.


Dave

gmeddles
Sep 28, 2007, 02:06 PM
"iPhone runs OS X! Why would we want to run such a sophisticated OS on a mobile device? It's got everything we need. Multitasking, networking, power management, graphics, security, video, graphics, audio core animation... It let us create desktop class applications and networking, not the crippled stuff you find on most phones, these are real desktop applications."



With no SDK or public API's for the iPhone, does it matter if it runs OSX or not? Operating Systems are important for extensible platforms, not closed systems.

wizard
Sep 28, 2007, 02:18 PM
This is exactly what pisses me off about this whole situation though.

A bunch of juvenile idiots crack into the iPhone, unlock it, and make a bunch of crappy apps that would be at home on a palm pilot. Whoop-de-do. Big deal. They are smart enough to cover their butts and also enough to avoid getting caught when Apple pulls out the 1.1.1 update.

Obviously you haven't used those apps.

But what is this issue with getting caught? They are producing software for a phone they own, there is nothing wrong with that. Further they share said software. You seem to have a very bad attitude with respect to people that help their fellow man.


The problem is though, these jerks aren't just hacking for their own purposes, they are selling the hacks and spreading them far and wide. They are telling people absolute lies like "Apple can't do anything" and "this will work through any firmware update." Because of the immense popularity of the iPhone we are talking about a very large number of people here also. It's not like only five or six geeks are affected here.

Who is selling these hacks? From what I can see the overwhelming majority of the apps out there are developed in a very open manner. For the most part everything is free. So I have to wonder what you interest is in this disinformation?



The people really getting screwed over here are the average joes and janes that took these hacker idiots at their word and installed this stuff on their iPhones or purchased the unlock from "some dude on eBay."

There will always be stupid and easy to exploit people in this world, why do you give a damn about them?


How typical, that you refer to these folks as "frankly incompetent." :rolleyes:

A fitting term if you ask me.

Lets put it this way anyone that went out and purchased a iPhone without think about its unfinished and limited state and Apples stated limitations is either incompetent or willing to go the extra mile to get fuller functionality out of the device.


There is a "frankly incompetent" person on another thread that just "played" with an unlock program he found advertised once and it did nothing. But now with the update, their $600 iPhone is a useless piece of junk and they are screwed, while the hackers are laughing all the way to the bank.

Ok tell us how these so called hackers are laughing all the way to the bank for software that is free. Tell us how they are being enriched with each download. The only organization here doing any screwing is APPLE.

What is even worst is Apple up and lied about their neutral stance with respect to third party apps. So who do you trust more the hackers offering you software for exploiting hardware you own or Apple bricking the hardware you own.

The problems with this update are clearly Apples. The reality is they could have relocked the phones with this update and went ahead with the rest of the install without bricking the phones. This is precisely and example of meanness from a large corporation and shows a very public disdain for its customers.

Whine all you want but the hackers have nothing to do with the bricked iPhones.


A lot of people are being screwed over here, and it's not Apple that's doing it. It's a bunch of irresponsible idiots with the attitude of a twelve year old, lost in some fantasy "war" against an evil empire (Apple) that doesn't even exist.

Yes it is Apple that is bricking the iPhones and it has nothing to do with the hackers, none of whom is twelve. All the hackers really wanted to do was run software on a computer they own - there is nothing wrong with that. You seem to bee very angry and are directing that anger at the wrong group.


The only thing we haven't seen yet is for these doorknobs to actually try to sue Apple over the damage that they themselves have caused.

The only one causing damage here is Apple. I haven't seen any hackers publishing an iBrick program. Apple has done that though with their upgrade.


Should happen in ten... nine... eight...

Maybe a reboot is in order here.

Dave

maxrdc
Sep 28, 2007, 02:25 PM
Well, I guess if I want to get all the new "standard" features, I will have to give up my custom ringtones. That sucks, due to the fact that my custom ringtomes are mainly voices. Hopefully Apple will understand that sound effects are also good ringtones, and should allow us to do that on our phones. (doesn't sound funny to ask for permision to do something to our phone???)

:confused:



the ringtone thing is the biggest issue, imo. it was pretty cool having custom ones, and it is such a no-brainer for the device. btw, the update doesn't "brick" your phone if you had custom ringtones installed. it just doesn't let you select them if you go to the sounds setting. in fact, if you do go to even view the list of ringtone options it defaults you back to "Marimba".

Just my $.02 of course :cool:

akac
Sep 28, 2007, 02:50 PM
I'm pretty unhappy with Apple locking iPhones to not allow custom ring tones and software. But I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

When 10.2 came out, Apple came out with a private API for the systemwide Addressbook. Many people wrote software to use it. But it was private and unsupported. Then in 10.3 Apple provided a supported API to use it. Internally they wanted 10.2 to be their testbed for the API. Same with "CoreText" that is in leopard. Its also in Tiger, but a private framework. They used the time between 10.4 and 10.5 to beef it up and make it into a public API.

So my hope is that the iPhone is in that state where things are too fluid to make into a public SDK yet. When the OS gets more stable (not in terms of reliability but the API changing) they will release an SDK.

wizard
Sep 28, 2007, 02:51 PM
the ringtone thing is the biggest issue, imo. it was pretty cool having custom ones, and it is such a no-brainer for the device. btw, the update doesn't "brick" your phone if you had custom ringtones installed. it just doesn't let you select them if you go to the sounds setting. in fact, if you do go to even view the list of ringtone options it defaults you back to "Marimba".

The funny thing is that my interest in the iPhone really has little to do with ring tones or music. This is probably why I see a lot of squandered potential in this device.


the apple-ologists on here are funny. these are some seriously customer-hostile policies Cupertino has chosen to embrace. the iLounge editorial is spot-on.

You use the word funny and frankly I think you are being way to kind to the "apple-ologists". Stupid and gullible come to mind real quick, with a lot of even nastier things real quick afterwards. Really hard hard does one have to be whacked over the head before you do something to save yourself?


there is a difference between making honest money and forcing your customers to pay you twice for services they do not need. yes, it is the record companies who are behind this, but that doesn't excuse Apple for purposely locking out owners of the phone from playing THEIR OWN audio that ALREADY RESIDES on the phone. This action directly reflects a serious shift in policy at our beloved computer company. People can try to justify it, but the actions are inexcusable.

Record companies in part I would say. I suspect there is a very big element of Apple in these sorts of decisions. Either way I agree the actions taken by Apple are inexcusable. I just hope the coming alternatives can grab significant market share against Apple.


Many have mentioned the two items left off of the iPhone's feature list that show Apple customers where the company's priorities lie:
1. custom ringtones
2. iChat mobile

The only reasons for these applications' exclusion is that Apple is supporting their partners' business models that rely on double-billing customers for services they already paid for. We pay for unlimited data, therefore we should be able to IM, not SMS. Likewise, we have purchased/made music we like. There is no reason we should have to purchase a 30-second clip of that music AGAIN in order to have it play when we receive a call.

I'm not sure what the problem is. It is nice to blame everything on ATT but that doesn't explain the iPod Touch. I can't see the record companies as a problem here either as I can't imagine how instant messaging or some of the other apps deleted or prevented from installation on the Touch could impact the record labels.

In the end it would take some body with a lot of power and influence to get Apple to publicly detail what they are thinking. Maybe a Ralf Nader of the Electronics world is needed.


Yes, customers can vote with their wallets and not buy the iPhone if they don't want to put up with these policies. But for the million people who are already locked into a 2-year contract with AT&T, that is not a viable option. Therefore, customers are well within their right to voice their opposition to the blatantly hostile anti-customer turn that the company has taken.

Frankly I see it as an obligation to express displeasure with Apple and its rather blatant turn to the dark side. I expect to see more posts like yours once people digest what has happened to them.

As to the two year agreements, well I can only say this: BOY I"M GLAD I PUT OFF THE iPHONE PURCHASE. Apples has clearly demonstrated that I and I suspect many others, need to think long and hard about doing business with them anymore.

People need to think long and hard about what is happening here. Imagine taking a new car into the dealership after 6 months and having them rip out the car radio because the CEO of XYZ car builder decided that you don't need it. This is exactly what Apple is doing with this update. They are taking behaviors that they sold you months ago and eliminating them. I'm not sure how people can defend Apple.


Just my $.02 of course :cool:

A few more sense from me. All I can say at this point is that if you have a need for a smart phone Apple has clearly demonstrated that they don't want to play in that arena. Here is to Nokia, Motorola, FIC and whomever else has a true smart phone on the way. I hope one of them "gets it" with respect to consumer needs.

Dave

MacsRgr8
Sep 28, 2007, 02:56 PM
All "juvenile idiots" I know of unlocked their phone themselves or had them unlocked for free by others. Did not sell it to anyone ether. None of us updated to 1.1.1, we are still happily use our unlocked iphones and will see how everything develops, if no solution comes up, we will live with our working iphones + "crappy apps", from which there will be more and more.

And you know what? IF this update has finally killed unlocking effords: Our iphones just got much more valuable. Watch prices on ebay skyrocket in some weeks, as soon as dealers run out of 1.02 iphones stocks.

Totally agree.

You might even get the weird situation that the "hackers" stop trying to jailbreak the newer firmwares, but just try to find a way to get firmware 1.0.2 on newer phones.

If not, legal Eurpean iPhone owners might feel screwed for never being able to fool around with 3rd party fun-apps... ;)

daniel2828
Sep 28, 2007, 03:19 PM
The bottom line is that iToner actually still works. You can upload ringtones and delete ringtones just as one has always been able to do. The ringtones just don't show up in the list and are therefore can't be selected. So it seems to me Apple couldn't really find a way to "break" iToner itself. It does still work. They just did some tricky work-around so that only their original and iTunes-purchased ringtones show up in the list. One would think one work-around could be overridden by another work-around, and if anyone can, Ambrosia can.

mrfett
Sep 28, 2007, 04:23 PM
I'm not sure what the problem is. It is nice to blame everything on ATT but that doesn't explain the iPod Touch. I can't see the record companies as a problem here either as I can't imagine how instant messaging or some of the other apps deleted or prevented from installation on the Touch could impact the record labels.

Dave,

I think it does explain the lack of features on the Touch, actually, and that's the sad thing. They make gobs of money on the AT&T contract, therefore they want to sell the iPhone, not the Touch. That point has been beaten to death. The Touch is an iPhone "teaser". As such, they purposely cripple it in order to drive iPhone sales. They can't make the Touch a true multifunction device, because then everyone would buy one and not the iPhone. It HAS to be inferior to support their business model. Their method of making money directly depends on releasing crippled products. So next time Steve jokes that "Leopard will come in an Ultimate version, a Student version, and a Home version, all for the same price" it can only be funny in a bitterly ironic way. They've adopted the Redmond model hook, line, and sinker.

I have a T-Shirt I got at the Infinite Loop Corporate Store that reads, "Cupertino: 300 miles and 180 degrees from Redmond" (the mileage may be off, I'm going on memory). Sadly, it just isn't true any longer. Better home computer and server products, but the playbooks look identical (with the exception of the XBox division, which is for all intents and purposes an entirely separate company).

The Amazon Store couldn't have come at a better time. Absolute Power.... perhaps some genuine competition will bring the Cupertino Gods back to this realm?

Unspeaked
Sep 28, 2007, 04:37 PM
I have a T-Shirt I got at the Infinite Loop Corporate Store that reads, "Cupertino: 300 miles and 180 degrees from Redmond" (the mileage may be off, I'm going on memory). Sadly, it just isn't true any longer. Better home computer and server products, but the playbooks look identical (with the exception of the XBox division, which is for all intents and purposes an entirely separate company).

The Amazon Store couldn't have come at a better time. Absolute Power.... perhaps some genuine competition will bring the Cupertino Gods back to this realm?

This is one of the brightest posts I've read all week.

Sometimes, I'm amazed at how complacent Apple fans have become.

I love Apple's products and have always stood by them, and gladly pay a premium for their computers because their operating system is a pleasure to use, but the way they've been going about things in other parts of their business is very Microsoft-like.

I'm appalled that so many people hear sit back and don't mind, or worse - take sides and defend the company against everyday consumers like you and I (and them) who are concerned less about profits and more about sensibility and common good and having an exceptional product.

It makes you wonder what would happen to the computer hardware and operating system if they ever got a majority market-share, huh?

stacybre
Sep 28, 2007, 04:47 PM
If you are as angry as I am that I can't use my own personal ringtone collection on the iPhone, then please sign the petition I setup at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/custom-ringtones-for-the-iphone

Even if you aren't that upset but you think it is silly that we can't!!

Thanks.

jhuck
Sep 28, 2007, 05:10 PM
I've used many of these web 2.0 applications, and many of them are nice - WHEN you have a connection to the web. I tried using a web 2.0 To Do list and needed to call it up when I was in a building and found out that because there was no WiFi and I had no good phone signal, I couldn't get to my To Do list - This happened too many times for me to appreciate these apps. The function great when you have a good connection to the web, but since they aren't native, you can't always use them. One HUGE drawback if you ask me.

mrfett
Sep 28, 2007, 05:49 PM
... many of these web 2.0 applications ... are nice - WHEN you have a connection to the web ... One HUGE drawback if you ask me.

lol it's UNIVERSALLY recognized as a huge drawback by EVERYONE EXCEPT the apple-ogists who've spent far too long at the fount of yellow "kool-aid" coming from Cupertino (hint - that strange odor should've clued you in to the fact they're not handing out free drinks).
;)

flyingdoctor
Sep 28, 2007, 07:58 PM
Here's an idiot's view on it all. First off let me say I have never been an Apple fan. In fact I have avoided them like the plague. Then the iPhone came out and I played with one and bingo I "saw the light". Cool phone, great interface and the possibility of apps. No more need to carry a phone, PDA, MP3 player and jump drive. Problem was I didn't want to spend 60 bucks a month for the honour.

Wait a minute my company Blackberry is AT&T with I'm assuming unlimited data for the push email and web access. Hmmmm, what to do? Buy it and unlock it. Voids warranty, user agreement and posibility of update bricking. Hey, my choice (gamble). So that's what I did. Actually it was fun doing the early non GUI unlock. Felt quite the techno dude. Now i'm wondering if maybe I could have done a deal with AT&T to activate my iPhone based on the company account. Oh well, too late now.

First issue with it. iTunes. Jeez was that a bugger to get to grips with. But I figured it out and it works fine. Still prefer the old MP3 way of it just showing as a drive in Windows.

Next issue. The iPhone can't be used as a jump drive. Rats!! Still need the jump drive. Using iBrickr, I had a root around and it looks like a Linux file system. So I could actually have limited data carrying if I wanted. Ipod music and movie player is superdeluxobril. Watching movies on the plane, listening to audiobooks and music is great and a far better experience than the ancient MP3 player I had. Next issue. The keyboard sucks for Johnny stubby fingers, especially the o and p. No landscape mode in email and no bulk delete. Blackberry is far better. No push email (Thank God) but I just hit our webmail and it works great.

Apps. Stumbler, Dictionary / Thesaurus and ebook reader. Work great. No slowdown or battery chewing. Even had Apollo IM on for a while but never used it so dumped it.

The coolness factor was at an all time high as far as I was concerned. I got a nice leather case and was loving the experience, then along came update 1.1.1. Hmmmmmmm, totally underwhelmed by the update. Email in landscape. Nice. Turn off EDGE when travelling. Brilliant. Other than that no big deal. TV out, not for me. WiFi Itunes to buy songs. Yea right! Double click button and space bar... so what? Totally locked down system and step backwards in my opinion. Definite up **** creek if anything bad happens like a hardware failure. Hmmmm, starting to lose the gloss it once had. Never liked Apple stuff anyway.

Apple warned people and the word on the street was the update may do damage to unlocked phones. So what do people do? They update unlocked phones and now they don't work....... are ya daft or what? Please don't put your finger in that fire, you might get burned. What? This fire? OOOOOWWWWWWW!!!!

Lots of people didn't update. They disabled the auto check in iTunes and will stay with 1.02 until the Dev team or whoever rehacks the system.... don't hold your breath on that one. They are happy with the "unenhanced" firmware. I'm one of them. If Apple have encrypted and serialised the system and blocked the existing access then it will be pretty hard to rehack. Obviously iTunes gets in to do whatever and I suppose an unlimited amount of hackers with an unlimited amount of time will break the system but unless they find a new backdoor, I believe they next unlock may take quite a while. In the mean time the apps scene dies and the iPhone just becomes another phone with a fancy interface.

Is the iPhone still a wonder of the universe? Nope, in fact the glamour is fading. It doesn't rid me of the need to take a PDA or a jump drive, but actually it is no big deal. The PDA has a load of medical stuff the iPhone would never have anyway. The apps are good but still not there there yet. If the phone dies am I SOL for servivce, waranty etc? Yep, but my choice and gamble. No complaints from me. It was nice to have at least some street cred with my kids for a while but once that goes, I may even go back to the Blackberry......aaaarrrrgggghhhhhh.

Sorry for the ramble.

jhuck
Sep 28, 2007, 08:16 PM
Flying Doc,

I agree with you - to a point. I left PCs 2 years ago and never looked back. I have been SO incredibly happy being a Mac computer owner. I can't describe the joy of the Mac OS, and the new iMacs out rival any other computer on the market - check out reviews on CNET and ZDNET.

The iPhone - for the most part - has made me happy. I, unlike you, was able, for the first time in my life, to get rid of my PDA, my MP3 player and my phone - I just had one device to carry - the first TRUE pocket computer ever made - running a real and very upgradeable OS. THIS has all been good, but the iPhone isn't without its faults. It has great email, and superb web surfing capabilities - the music and video player are wonderful - I just wish Apple would relinquish some control over the darn thing. What they are doing is ridiculous and is more reminiscent of Redmond than Cupertino. I'm an overall Apple fan - not an Apple-ogist - and I'm feeling a little jilted and disappointed

shadowfax
Sep 28, 2007, 08:16 PM
All encryption is crackable given sufficient time.

A distributed computing project took 1765 days to crack a length 64 key. They say that :

"Our peak rate of 270,147,024 kkeys/sec is equivalent to 32,504 800MHz Apple PowerBook G4 laptops or 45,998 2GHz AMD Athlon XP machines or (to use some rc5-56 numbers) nearly a half million Pentium Pro 200s."

Thats for a 64 bit key. Lets make a decent estimate and say that a c2d is 6x as gast as an 800mhz g4. Thats stilll more than 5000 machines working for almost 2000 days.

Now imagine that you have an AES encryption system with a 128 length key.
That requires 2^64 times longer (about 2 x 10^19)

I can create an AES (Rijndael, which is a much stronger system than RSA) keypair and use it to encrypt something. If I pick the right key length, it can't be cracked before the end of the universe.

If they want to encrypt the firmware, you can't just crack it.

Usually when you have the device in hand, brute forcing is not required. I am well aware that encryption with large keys is usually intractable to brute-force, but most attacks rely on something simple like the birthday attack. AES is vulnerable to the "related key" attack as well as the chosen plaintext attack. Now, granted, you can't really test this when you have no access to the system that encrypted the segments you want to crack, but, that's a moot point: if the iPhone uses some method of encryption to store segments of its software, then SOMEWHERE in the phone is software that decrypts those segments. Somewhere the key is stored or generated, and it's just a matter of finding where that is.

You could encrypt your data with 4096-bit Rijndael for all I care, as long as you put your secret on the device that's reading it (which you have to do for the device to read it). An encryption scheme is only as good as its weakest link, and if the enemy has its hands on the thing you use to decrypt your messages, then you pretty much might as well have never bothered.

I know a reasonable bit about encrypted executables. they are a royal pain in the butt, and that's why big software companies and virus writers employ them. However, if one can "watch" the execution of the software, one can break the encryption simply by rebuilding the binary from what they saw. Sometimes you can even figure out what method was used to encrypt it and you can mimic that. This is very, very, very different from communication-line security where Alice is trying to talk to Bob, and Eve is trying to listen in on them. This is Alice trying to talk to Bob, when Eve has Bob in her pocket. That's inherently insecure.

winterspan
Sep 29, 2007, 03:04 AM
No, but, waiting for a chapter of the Bible to load takes like 5 second over Edge, while everyone else in the Sunday School class had time to actually turn to the page in their physical Bibles, makes me think the iPhone is not good enough to stand in for my Bible. I guess I'll keep lugging my MacBook Pro to church... A native app would solve this problem, but I'm not "approved" by Steve Jobs.

Using a iPhone to study the bible? ugh....

winterspan
Sep 29, 2007, 03:13 AM
I had 3rd party apps installed on my iphone, but am updating to 1.1.1 anyway. Frankly, I just never found any of them all that useful. There are some cute ones, and there are certainly things that apple should release (games, for instance), but the 3rd party apps have not been the be-all and end-all for me that they apparently have been for some people. I think I'd rather just have an iphone that has good battery life, doesn't lock up, and is nice and snappy. Just my experience.

hence the argument they just need to release an SDK.
The reason you didn't find them useful is because they are hard to develop with no specifications/instructions/guides for minimizing process/memory/battery usage and optimizing for the platform, using the right APIs etc. Of course 3rd party apps will suck when they are all hacked on there from random people. If it was an OPEN platform, there would be 100 companies with professional developers and alot of resources to throw at making absolutely Rock-hard, stable, fast, and innovative applications.

I think its a crime to come out with a such an incredible phone that now makes it actually useful to have internet access, 'smartphone' applications, etc in a mobile device and then LOCK THE PLATFORM???? WTF?
The worst idea EVER!

winterspan
Sep 29, 2007, 03:32 AM
You just sound like you don't know what you are talking about.
The reason so many people are crying out for third party development is so they can make money from it.
Wrong. How many people on this forum are Cocoa ObjC developers vs dissatisfied iPhone consumers? 1:10 maybe?

... Apple designed it, Apple developed it, Apple negotiated the contracts with the networks etc. etc. etc. See where this is going? It is Apple's phone. Therefore Apple will use it to best benefit Apple.

... Bringing up Free BSD / Linux is an irrelevance as they are free, open source software and neither are a product made by one company with commercial interests.


I think its hilarious that you go into how Apple created the device therefore they are the only ones that should profit off of it but then immediately transition to dismissing the comment about Free BSD/Linux...
I assume you know what makes up 75% of OSX

Microsoft look after there own interests too...
No doubt you'll just dismiss me as a rabid Apple fan, but your arguments really are laughable. You think if someone came up with a really good third party app for Windows Mobile (by your definition an "open" architecture) MS would sit back and let them profit. No, of course they wouldn't. They'd either buy the company or rip off their idea.

I'm no fan of Microsoft, but what makes you sound ESPECIALLY like a fan boy is your empty argument.
Since when did buying a company with a legitimate product become a bad thing for that company? The argument that Microsoft is "not letting them profit" by buying the whole **** company is just OUTRAGEOUS!

Thats not even in the same ballpark as completely locking down a system and NOT ALLOWING the companies to create applications in the first place which could be so useful that Apple would buy the whole company!

the comment "you don't know what you're talking about" should be used with great discretion.

winterspan
Sep 29, 2007, 04:03 AM
There are also many examples of where Apple has been friendly to the consumers needs and desires. They also favour open standards in OS X: Open GL is one I have already mentioned, but there is also H.264, AAC, CalDAV, Open LDAP, Kerberos, Bonjour....

Of the standards and protocols mentioned above, how many did Apple create and donate to the community?
HAHAHHAA! Since when did profiting off the open source community's efforts become a noble offering to the open source/open systems philosophy??

The only new Apple-created defacto 'standard' I've seen lately is DAAP, which is closed and proprietary. They even LOCKED OUT 3rd-party iTunes streaming music clients (open-source linux) in the last Itunes update after some devs reverse engineering DAAP. And yet they don't even PROVIDE ITUNES FOR LINUX.

As many others have said, Its more and more apparent to me how greedy Apple really is, and how they are becoming less and less interested in their customers needs and desires than ever before.

Must be related to their recent successes... Once you get big, rich and mainstream, who needs to please those 'demanding' loyal customers that used to keep them afloat?

irun5k
Sep 29, 2007, 04:35 AM
At $600 (and even at $400) the iPhone was/is a very expensive device for its class. Perhaps not the most expensive but it is definitely up there.

All that money for 12-13 apps with no approved way to add more? It just doesn't make sense. This phone could be so much more. It would be like buying a high end computer for $2000 and not being able to load any software. Or buying a Porsche and living in a place where the max speed limit is 35 MPH.

Hey, I own one of these things. I've also got Apple stuff all over the house. I have to say, this is the first major, major mis-step I've seen Apple take since the "re-invention" of the company. The AT&T exclusive deal was marginal... but I was willing to lend the benefit of the doubt. Not this time though.

Jobs really does not understand the phone/PDA market. I got so much use out of my old Palm OS PDAs because it was easy to add well-designed, safe applications to the device. I truly hope Apple gets a wake up call. I'm a bit concerned lately. I just tried the Amazon music store and it is great. I have to wonder why Jobs couldn't broker a deal like that. I wonder if excessive arrogance held them back. You would have to be a complete idiot to buy a song on the iTMS now if it is available for less on Amazon.

Anyway, think of how easy it would be to sell an iPhone if there were thousands of great apps out there (any many of them free!)

fourthtunz
Sep 29, 2007, 08:29 AM
At $600 (and even at $400) the iPhone was/is a very expensive device for its class. Perhaps not the most expensive but it is definitely up there.

All that money for 12-13 apps with no approved way to add more? It just doesn't make sense. This phone could be so much more. It would be like buying a high end computer for $2000 and not being able to load any software. Or buying a Porsche and living in a place where the max speed limit is 35 MPH.

Hey, I own one of these things. I've also got Apple stuff all over the house. I have to say, this is the first major, major mis-step I've seen Apple take since the "re-invention" of the company. The AT&T exclusive deal was marginal... but I was willing to lend the benefit of the doubt. Not this time though.

Jobs really does not understand the phone/PDA market. I got so much use out of my old Palm OS PDAs because it was easy to add well-designed, safe applications to the device. I truly hope Apple gets a wake up call. I'm a bit concerned lately. I just tried the Amazon music store and it is great. I have to wonder why Jobs couldn't broker a deal like that. I wonder if excessive arrogance held them back. You would have to be a complete idiot to buy a song on the iTMS now if it is available for less on Amazon.

Anyway, think of how easy it would be to sell an iPhone if there were thousands of great apps out there (any many of them free!)

I hear you but I disagree. What the iphone does it does very well, which is what most people bought it for.
The iphone is pretty new, there's more to come for sure:D
The amazon music store suck imo, I went there not nearly as fun to shop for music. The prices are the same for what I was looking for and mp3 is inferior soundwise to aac. So I guess I'm a complete idiot:eek:

megfilmworks
Sep 29, 2007, 09:19 AM
It seems this thread has wandered off track. Is the iPhone harder to hack now? Some other sites have mentioned it may be next to impossible to keep up with the new encryption schemes. Also does anyone know if the sim hacks change the IMEI? That would really alter the iPhone's owners rights.

headspace
Sep 29, 2007, 09:54 AM
It seems this thread has wandered off track. Is the iPhone harder to hack now? Some other sites have mentioned it may be next to impossible to keep up with the new encryption schemes. Also does anyone know if the sim hacks change the IMEI? That would really alter the iPhone's owners rights.

I was reading that the reason that why even legit AT&T SIM cards (the ones that came pre-installed) could not be used to activate a previously unlocked iPhone could maybe be because the IMEI number had been modified by the unlocking software. This could possibly have resulted in some kind of mismatch between the phone and it's original SIM.

I don't know for certain whether this is the case, but while we all know unlocking itself isn't illegal, I'm sure I heard a while back that modifying IMEI numbers is.

BlackMR2
Sep 29, 2007, 10:25 AM
What happens at the end of a 2 year AT&T contract in the US with the iphone? Are they obliged to sim unlock it then or do you still have to take one of AT&T's options out to use the phone?

sananda
Sep 29, 2007, 10:29 AM
What happens at the end of a 2 year AT&T contract in the US with the iphone? Are they obliged to sim unlock it then or do you still have to take one of AT&T's options out to use the phone?

i would very much like to know the answer to that question.

megfilmworks
Sep 29, 2007, 11:15 AM
What happens at the end of a 2 year AT&T contract in the US with the iphone? Are they obliged to sim unlock it then or do you still have to take one of AT&T's options out to use the phone?
This is a good question, one would hope that at that point an authorized unlock would be provided to the customer. It is at this point that some of the lawyers posting here have said Apple will tread into legal issues if they do not provide an unlock. I'm sure that Apple's very well paid legal team is all over these issues.

Virgil-TB2
Sep 29, 2007, 11:18 AM
That is quite a bold statement you do here, Virgil, without knowing me or my background. ...Your right. I might have got a bit carried away there, attributing that intention to you personally when, as you say, I don't really know you. I didn't mean it as a personal attack, I was just trying to describe the overall intentions and attitudes of a social group or sub-group to which you seemed to belong.

Seemed to me that you were saying that you were going to make a buck on the thing by selling it on eBay which is certainly in the same ballpark. I guess it depends on the selling price however as to whether you are "screwing someone over" or not.

Virgil-TB2
Sep 29, 2007, 11:31 AM
Here's what we know. It looks like Apple is locking down the iPhone with encryption and signing, the same way they locked down the iPod Touch. We're working to see what we can find out, if there is a way around it, we will find it.

But this is not a good curve that Apple has thrown at us.Has anyone but me wondered why Apple did not do this stuff with the original iPhone though?

I mean if Apple knew that by using encryption and signing they could essentially keep everyone out forever, why bother with leaving it open in the first place?

We now know that some of the people on the hacking lists and IRC were reporting directly back to Apple - or at least it seems that way - so was it all just a Trojan Horse operation?

Were they trying to identify the hackers?
Was Apple just looking to see what the most popular hacks were so they could add them themselves?
Was it a PR campaign so they could show that the iPhone could be "attacked" but then Apple can prevail and lock it down with an update?

megfilmworks
Sep 29, 2007, 11:46 AM
Has anyone but me wondered why Apple did not do this stuff with the original iPhone though?

I mean if Apple knew that by using encryption and signing they could essentially keep everyone out forever, why bother with leaving it open in the first place?
Encryption and signing is not a good way to keep multiple syncs with multiple machines simple and error free. It would be much better if the system could remain open and nobody would take advantage of it. It would be nice to leave my front door unlocked as well...but. We will all pay the price for unauthorized hackers who, after all, are just trying to make a quick buck off of Apple's hard work and our investment in the iPhone.

Chip NoVaMac
Sep 29, 2007, 12:05 PM
No. Two similar, but separate things. The "web apps" are the official way to create apps for iPhone and Apple fully supports this. The other method, the hacks you hear of, install actual apps on iPhone and void your warranty.

One would think that AT&T would be all over Apple to allow true apps vs web apps to lighten the network load...

irun5k
Sep 29, 2007, 12:58 PM
I hear you but I disagree. What the iphone does it does very well, which is what most people bought it for.

Well, for me, the phone is getting boring. Yeah I can make calls, use safari, and check the weather. And I can do it "in style." (Reminds me of Buzz Lightyear... "this isn't flying... this is FALLING, with STYLE!")

On my Palm devices, I had an app that gave me tide information, an astronomy/night sky star locator type thing, lots of games, etc. Sadly, my iPhone is the most powerful device I've ever held in my hand but it can't do any of those things. Not even a single game of any sort! Webapps just don't cut it. Can't use them on a plane or anywhere where your cell signal sucks, and even then you're doing it over Edge usually which is klunky.

Look, I'm still happy with my iPhone. But again, its like buying a Ferrari and it coming chipped with a speed regulator of 45 mph. It makes absolutely no sense- Apple has went off the deepest of deep ends when it comes to being control freaks.

P.S. By all means, buy your music where you see fit. But I think a lot of blind listening tests will show that Amazon's content is better quality, and a lot of the songs are in fact cheaper, and best of all, NO DRM. What does this mean? I can burn all the files I buy to a CD and my wife can FINALLY play this in her car's factory stereo! Try explaining to a non-computer person why they can't do that with music they legally paid for from some other source. Plus you don't have to worry about "bricking your music" in 20 years when iPods are a thing of the past. Probably more likely that you'll find open source stuff in 20 years for playing stuff like MP3's, even if it is an old format at that time. Although, I have a little hope in my mind that if DRM ever becomes obsolete, Apple would work a deal to help us automatically strip the DRM from the stuff we bought.

jt2ga65
Sep 29, 2007, 01:33 PM
It has great email, and superb web surfing capabilities - the music and video player are wonderful - I just wish Apple would relinquish some control over the darn thing.
I feel that the email application is lacking some very critical features, like the ability to sort or search your email, and the ability to select which email address (not account) to use when you respond to email or send a new email. To me, these are critical features, and they have crippled the usefulness of the iphone. I can only use the iphone to respond to about 1/4 of the email that I can read on it. There are not any 3rd party applications to fix this, so I'm beginning to wonder if the iPhone was really worth the cost and the hassle.

I hear you but I disagree. What the iphone does it does very well, which is what most people bought it for.
The iphone is pretty new, there's more to come for sure:D
The amazon music store suck imo, I went there not nearly as fun to shop for music.
I hope there will be more to come for the iPhone, and I hope that it actually comes quick. I really like the user interface, but the stock applications are all not all they are cracked up to. The only stock ones that I use on a regular basis are mail and safari, and both are extremely limited in their usefulness, as described above, plus the lack of flash support in Safari.

We will all pay the price for unauthorized hackers who, after all, are just trying to make a quick buck off of Apple's hard work and our investment in the iPhone.
I'm not sure who people think are supposed to be "authorizing" people to develop applications for computers. If everything waited for this, then there wouldn't even be an Apple Corp to begin with. Steve Wozniak, himself, was basically an "unauthorized" hacker when he came up with the prototype of the Apple computer, and it wasn't to make a profit, but to impress the other members of the homebrew computer club that he belonged to. This Steve deserves my respect. The other one, the more famous face of Apple, Inc... Well, he's certainly a briliant marketing genius.

As far as the iPhone eliminating the devices I carry...I only wish it was true. Before the iPhone, I carried my Garmin iQue PDA/GPS, a 6mp Canon camera, my 5G 60 gig ipod and my RAZR. The iPhone doesn't have GPS, only has a 2mp camera without flash and can't store all my music. It DID save me from deciding to carry ANOTHER mobel device to check my email and browse the web, but I technically could have done that on the RAZR. On an average day, I might be able to do without the GPS and the 6mp camera, but they can't ever be very far from me, in case I need it.

I guess the iPhone really is marketed to those with less requirements than me, although it's really a shame. It could be SO much more. It's too bad if Apple is trying to limit it's function be making it harder to develop for.

-jt2

megfilmworks
Sep 29, 2007, 02:13 PM
I think you're right about it being less phone than you need. I think people have to find the product that fits their needs. I can't mix a movie soundtrack on my iPhone, and that makes me unhappy.

pedroistheman
Sep 29, 2007, 07:58 PM
when will 1.1.1 be hacked?:confused:

I was about to get an iPhone, but an iphone w/ out 3rd party apps isn't what i was looking for.

lord patton
Sep 29, 2007, 08:56 PM
Has anyone but me wondered why Apple did not do this stuff with the original iPhone though?

I mean if Apple knew that by using encryption and signing they could essentially keep everyone out forever, why bother with leaving it open in the first place?


Maybe to have the best of both worlds.

1) By putting out encrypted software in 1.1.1, they stay in compliance with their carrier contracts. Thus, they keep getting the kickbacks from AT&T and (soon) 02, T-Mobile, et.al.

2) They've let a hackable OS out into the open, which will push sales of the iPhone much higher, as plenty of people across the globe buy themselves iPhones. Apple knows they won't be able to work out carrier agreements in every country, so they might as well sell them some hardware.

Robbpell
Sep 30, 2007, 02:06 AM
........We will all pay the price for unauthorized hackers who, after all, are just trying to make a quick buck off of Apple's hard work and our investment in the iPhone.

why is it you think anyone is trying to make a buck off apple or take from them we have payed 400$ 500$ and 600$ so the dollar ringtones are not what makes us upset they don't let 3rd party apps in fact if apple were to allow them and work with the developers they could sell the apps for download and make mega-money the fact that we have to hack our very expensive phones to get 3rd party apps sucks and apple needs to suck it up and let other people develop there product because they are not developing it fast enough what after 3+ months the greatest update is ringtones and double tap for .

Svennig
Sep 30, 2007, 02:17 AM
Usually when you have the device in hand, brute forcing is not required. I am well aware that encryption with large keys is usually intractable to brute-force, but most attacks rely on something simple like the birthday attack. AES is vulnerable to the "related key" attack as well as the chosen plaintext attack. Now, granted, you can't really test this when you have no access to the system that encrypted the segments you want to crack, but, that's a moot point: if the iPhone uses some method of encryption to store segments of its software, then SOMEWHERE in the phone is software that decrypts those segments. Somewhere the key is stored or generated, and it's just a matter of finding where that is.

You could encrypt your data with 4096-bit Rijndael for all I care, as long as you put your secret on the device that's reading it (which you have to do for the device to read it). An encryption scheme is only as good as its weakest link, and if the enemy has its hands on the thing you use to decrypt your messages, then you pretty much might as well have never bothered.

I know a reasonable bit about encrypted executables. they are a royal pain in the butt, and that's why big software companies and virus writers employ them. However, if one can "watch" the execution of the software, one can break the encryption simply by rebuilding the binary from what they saw. Sometimes you can even figure out what method was used to encrypt it and you can mimic that. This is very, very, very different from communication-line security where Alice is trying to talk to Bob, and Eve is trying to listen in on them. This is Alice trying to talk to Bob, when Eve has Bob in her pocket. That's inherently insecure.

You're assuming the keys are held in software. This is what "Trusted Computing" and the TPM chip is all about: keys in hardware, almost impossible to extract.

megfilmworks
Sep 30, 2007, 02:24 PM
why is it you think anyone is trying to make a buck off apple or take from them we have payed 400$ 500$ and 600$ so the dollar ringtones are not what makes us upset they don't let 3rd party apps in fact if apple were to allow them and work with the developers they could sell the apps for download and make mega-money the fact that we have to hack our very expensive phones to get 3rd party apps sucks and apple needs to suck it up and let other people develop there product because they are not developing it fast enough what after 3+ months the greatest update is ringtones and double tap for .I'm sure if they didn't have to spend as much time dealing with the sim hacks (I think Apple is working on 3rd party apps by the way) and security issues, then we could have more useful features sooner. The hackers are costing you features and riding the backs of you and Apple for profit.
I think Apple has the right to decide if they want unauthorized hacked apps or their own on the phone. You can decide if it is the right phone for you.

pedroistheman
Sep 30, 2007, 03:49 PM
I'm sure if they didn't have to spend as much time dealing with the sim hacks (I think Apple is working on 3rd party apps by the way) and security issues, then we could have more useful features sooner. The hackers are costing you features and riding the backs of you and Apple for profit.
I think Apple has the right to decide if they want unauthorized hacked apps or their own on the phone. You can decide if it is the right phone for you.

so when are these 3rd party apps that APPLE is working on going to come out? Why couldn't they wait to have their own apps ready before preventing their own customers from using use the already existing 3rd party apps? It just seems like they have pissed everyone off.

megfilmworks
Sep 30, 2007, 07:52 PM
so when are these 3rd party apps that APPLE is working on going to come out? Why couldn't they wait to have their own apps ready before preventing their own customers from using use the already existing 3rd party apps? It just seems like they have pissed everyone off.

Everybody is a pretty inclusive word.
I'd say they pissed off a few people.
Most probably are happy about it or don't care. We all want apps. I don't want 3rd part junk though.
I would like numbers supported, vcs file support.
flash, 3g (actually not), copy and paste, iChat, etc. but I don't want unsupported malware. Apple will develop the products that they feel will make people buy their products and generate income. It's just that simple.

morgana
Oct 1, 2007, 07:55 PM
I've seen a lot of discussion on this forum and wanted to clarify regarding iToner. First, it did not reside on the iPhone, so never breaks Apple's rule about third party apps being on the iPhone. iToner resides on the Mac. It uses iTune's functions to update the iPhone. If it resided on the iPhone, it would be a native app, and could be used by Microsoft Windows users too.

Updating the ring tone list is not about storage space as some have suggested, because even with a video of my youngest granddaughter's foray into the water on a trip to the Gulf and all the photos I've uploaded (over a thousand at this point) of both my granddaughters, son, daughter-in-law, and the cat (mustn't forget the cat), there's still over 5gb available on my 8gb iPhone. So not storage space.

It's not that I can't personalize my iPhone--that's okay with Apple. Although they are much more expensive storage-wise than ringtones, I can attach a picture to each person on my contact list and this facility was one of the things that moved me off my old phone (a Samsung) to the iPhone. I'm already an AT&T customer (have been, since about 1998-99, through all their reincarnations), so didn't object to that. Music is just static content, like photos. Not like some .exe file on the PC that will infiltrate the system and break it, as some have suggested. Particularly when the app syncing those tunes does not even reside on the iPhone. Even the photos weren't enough to move me to the iPhone, however. It was the combination of photos and the ability to download my own ringtones. The latter didn't happen until iToner came out, since I'm opposed to jailbreaks and hacking my phone. So not about a 3rd party app on the iPhone.

I'm a little disappointed. Very disappointed really. I have tinnitus and with the chimes going 24 hours a day, I can't really appreciate the nuances of various tunes to clarify who's attempting to contact me--I can't even hear some of the tunes, because the chimes win every time. What I can do is distinguish human voices (unless they're very melodic, then sometimes, the chimes win). When my son calls, I want to hear his voice, say "Mom, it's me. On the phone. Pick it up." -- or whatever.

I was excited about the iPhone being able to sync to iTunes. I could make my own ringtones on the Mac--standard audio files, after all, and I have tools on my Mac that can catch and create tones--Apple publishes them, and other 3rd party developers recognized by Apple. All the back and forth doesn't change the fact that it could be done before the 1.1.1 upgrade. I can still do it, because I'm not upgrading. And I don't have to install any third party apps on my phone, or hack it, or use jailbreaks. Just a program that uses the calls from Apple's own published functions, but sends over more from my iTunes playlist, than iTunes alone does.

So if the tones don't break the phone, and iTunes holds them just fine, and these static (i.e., non-executable) files don't break my Mac, I'm left swayed by the agruments of those who feel that it's just the new Apple (we can now join the Lemmings in Apples 1984-85 commercials) who no longer desire to empower their customers but only to feed more money to the criminals at the RIAA--who, by the way, have historically only given lip service to the needs of their artists, who having signed away their rights to their music to get recognition when they were young, now frequently find that they have no rights at all and generally see very little income from their efforts.

And for those who believe that all third party developers are part of the evil dark side, remember that Apple holds a developer conference every year and that those developers are not only sanctioned by Apple, but also pay Apple for membership to that club. Ambrosia has been around a long time. Maybe, I'm making inaccurate assumptions, but I'm assuming that Ambrosia and many, if not all of their outside developers, with numerous applications for the Mac on the market, have paid those dues like so many other Mac developers. Apple makes money off third party developers or they wouldn't support them. Third party applications draw people to the Mac--they tend to be innovative and functional. So, technically, third-party developers sell systems for Apple in many cases. In the same way, iToner (a Mac application), was my reason for buying the iPhone.

In any case, my snippet of my son's voice, certainly doesn't belong to the RIAA and like the photos attached to my contacts, and the wallpaper image of my daughter-in-law and granddaughters, should be attachable to him on my contact list. I filled out a survey for AT&T 2 weeks ago, right after I bought the iPhone, and indicated that I thought Apple was very innovative--I've been using Macs at home since 1984, and in my business since well before it was incorporated in 2000. I'm just disappointed that all Steve's empowerment speeches over the years turn out to be nothing more than posturing--not much different, it seems in the end than Scully. Ah, well.

cazlar
Oct 1, 2007, 08:50 PM
I was reading that the reason that why even legit AT&T SIM cards (the ones that came pre-installed) could not be used to activate a previously unlocked iPhone could maybe be because the IMEI number had been modified by the unlocking software.

I just wanted to clarify this from what I know (which may not necessarily be correct as I have just picked it up from reading many forum posts). The way the dev team unlock works is by setting an fake "unlock token" in the phone, then having the modem firmware ("baseband") patched slightly, so that when this token is checked, it passes inspection, even though it is the wrong number. It doesn't actually change the IMEI at all. However, when that modem firmware is updated to an unpatched version (say with the 1.1.1 update), the unlock token is detected as being incorrect, and the phone puts itself into a sort of "lockdown" mode where it shows a generic warning IMEI. This is why if you remove the SIM and restart, the normal IMEI will show, as the phone is not running the unlock check.

So if this is all correct, it should be simply a matter of Apple removing the unlock token during the update, then all would work fine (of course the phone would go back to being locked!). Why Apple chose to not do this is unclear to me, but they've decided to leave it there and cause the "bricks" instead.

rasputinj
Oct 1, 2007, 11:28 PM
I've used many of these web 2.0 applications, and many of them are nice - WHEN you have a connection to the web. I tried using a web 2.0 To Do list and needed to call it up when I was in a building and found out that because there was no WiFi and I had no good phone signal, I couldn't get to my To Do list - This happened too many times for me to appreciate these apps. The function great when you have a good connection to the web, but since they aren't native, you can't always use them. One HUGE drawback if you ask me.

I also tried the ToDoList online, it was slow and it took too long to connect via EDGE. My office is in a basement level with no EDGE and no Wifi. Now I have the ToDistList App, it is fast works well.

Web 2.0 will not cut it.

Fast Shadow
Oct 2, 2007, 02:02 AM
I was reading that the reason that why even legit AT&T SIM cards (the ones that came pre-installed) could not be used to activate a previously unlocked iPhone could maybe be because the IMEI number had been modified by the unlocking software. This could possibly have resulted in some kind of mismatch between the phone and it's original SIM.

I don't know for certain whether this is the case, but while we all know unlocking itself isn't illegal, I'm sure I heard a while back that modifying IMEI numbers is.

The unlocks aren't modifying the IMEI. What's happening is that some of the unlocks (iUnlock/AnySim) rewrite a section of the firmware code that is used to validate what a phone's IMEI is. When their unlock patches are applied, this modification has no effect and the correct IMEI is readable. When the patch is removed, part of that modification still exists and the phone is unable to determine its IMEI - so it reverts to a factory default IMEI, the "0049" number.

MacsRgr8
Oct 2, 2007, 04:49 PM
Who would be in favour of Apple giving us the options:

Get iPhone with 1.0.2 Firmware: giving us cool 3rd party apps, but leaving us vulnerable, or
Get iPhone with 1.1.1 Firmware: no 3rd party apps, but safe and stable.

The problem is that Apple doesn't give us the options.... Once it has been "updated" to the 1.1.1 Firmware (or rather OS update AND Firmware update to be precise) you can't go back.

Give me the choice, and I will be happy.

PlayWithTV
Oct 2, 2007, 05:37 PM
As an iPod Touch owner, I'm glad the iPhone has been given the same hard-to-hack software as the iPod Touch. I've have my IPT for three weeks now, but no progress has been made to add 3rd party apps to it, because everyone is busy with the iPhone. Now that they are finally practically identical (tamper-proof wise), I'm confident whatever hacks are released now will likely work on BOTH iPhone and Touch.

MacToddB
Oct 3, 2007, 11:02 AM
"This version of the iPhone software (1.0.2) is the current version."
- iTunes, Oct 3rd, 2007

Unless Apple has pulled 1.1.1 from the shelves, I believe this is because 1.1.1 uses encryption, and requires a newer version of iTunes. I have an older version of iTunes (7.3.0.54) on my Windows PC at work, which I use to sync Calendar and Contacts. I have disabled automatic updating for iTunes. I have the current iTunes on my Mac at home and sync my media with that. I use iToner on the Mac and I had to use an older (pre-ringtone) version of iTunes on Windows because Ambrosia's iTunes on Mac plug-in that allows them to transfer ringtones isn't available for Windows.

http://www.rocsoft.com/img/iTunes.JPG

jt2ga65
Oct 3, 2007, 02:47 PM
"This version of the iPhone software (1.0.2) is the current version."
- iTunes, Oct 3rd, 2007
This is weird, my work PC says the same thing, with iTunes 7.3.2.6 that I just reinstalled.

-jt2

megfilmworks
Oct 4, 2007, 08:40 PM
The unlocks aren't modifying the IMEI. What's happening is that some of the unlocks (iUnlock/AnySim) rewrite a section of the firmware code that is used to validate what a phone's IMEI is. When their unlock patches are applied, this modification has no effect and the correct IMEI is readable. When the patch is removed, part of that modification still exists and the phone is unable to determine its IMEI - so it reverts to a factory default IMEI, the "0049" number.Very interesting. I had the same question regarding IMEI changes in the firmware. Thanks!