PDA

View Full Version : iPhone 1.1.1 Aftermath




Pages : [1] 2 3

MacRumors
Sep 30, 2007, 03:39 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

With the consequences of the iPhone 1.1.1 update (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/09/27/apple-releases-iphone-1-1-1-update/), there's been no shortage of opinions on Apple's latest move to lock down the iPhone from unlockers and 3rd party developers. Before the update, 3rd party application installation on the iPhone had become so easy that David Pogue demonstrated its ease of use and utility in a video segment (http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=60063a68a1418ed080c995b01a36efb853a11417) for the NYTimes.

Apple's latest software update, however, has made it significantly more difficult (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2007/09/27/iphone-1-1-1-harder-to-hack/) for developers to install 3rd party applications, install custom ringtones, and, of course, unlock the iPhone from AT&T. While it had been expected that Apple would specifically fight SIM unlocking software on the iPhone, there had been some early hope (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/09/11/apples-joswiak-on-the-iphone-ipod-touch-3rd-party-apps/) that they would choose to simply ignore unofficial 3rd party application development efforts.

Long standing Apple users may recall that this sort of lock-down attitude is not necessarily new to Apple, and certainly not to Steve Jobs, who has historically been against user expansion of Apple hardware. Even as early as 1984, Steve Jobs's opinion on user expandability (http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Diagnostic_Port.txt&characters=Steve%20Jobs&sortOrder=Sort%20by%20Date&detail=medium&showcomments=1) was clear:
Apple's other co-founder, Steve Jobs, didn't agree with Jef about many things, but they both felt the same way about hardware expandability: it was a bug instead of a feature. Steve was reportedly against having slots in the Apple II back in the days of yore, and felt even stronger about slots for the Mac. He decreed that the Macintosh would remain perpetually bereft of slots, enclosed in a tightly sealed case, with only the limited expandability of the two serial ports.

Meanwhile, Nokia is taking advantage of this moment to start running "Open to anything" ads (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=362519) which promise phones "Open to applications. Open to widgets. Open to anything" (at nseries.com/open (http://nseries.com/open)).

Early efforts (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2007/09/29/method-to-downgrade-from-iphone-1-1-1-to-1-0-2/) to unlock the iPhone 1.1.1, or at least provide a downgrade option to 1.0.2 are undeway, but Apple's position on this is clear.

Ongoing iPhone coverage at MacRumors.com/iPhone (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/).

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/09/30/iphone-1-1-1-aftermath/)



DeaconGraves
Sep 30, 2007, 03:43 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)



Long standing Apple users may recall that this sort of lock-down attitude is not necessarily new to Apple, and certainly not to Steve Jobs, who has historically been against user expansion of Apple hardware. Even as early as 1984, Steve Jobs's opinion on user expandability (http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Diagnostic_Port.txt&characters=Steve%20Jobs&sortOrder=Sort%20by%20Date&detail=medium&showcomments=1) was clear:

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/09/30/iphone-1-1-1-aftermath/)

I'm just bracing myself for the wave of "But Jobs got started by hacking phones!" comments to come roaring in.... :p

rdowns
Sep 30, 2007, 03:46 PM
As I recall, Jobs never hacked anything, Woz did. Jobs just took credit.

Mitthrawnuruodo
Sep 30, 2007, 03:47 PM
I'm more or less behind SJ's assessment on hardware expandability, and I like the idea that all software being installed on a small portable device needs to be pre-approved by the device manufacturer (see below), but why cannot I use whatever sounds I want...?!? That wouldn't

"Open to anything"...?

86325

:D

brewcitywi
Sep 30, 2007, 03:48 PM
I still believe that users are overreacting to the closed status of the iPhone. You aren't buying an external hard drive! Plus, Apple is most likely legally protecting their relationship with AT&T by proving that the SIM card can't be replaced in a simple way.

In the long run, the iPhone will probably have many of the boundaries soften, maybe even with multiple carrier options. Heck, maybe with the release of Leopard, Apple may even have some tricks up their sleeve in order to begin to open up more ability for the installation of 3rd party apps and widgets...could it be that they just want to let Leopard get out there for a bit?

But does every developer and tech user have to call Apple out on each move? I mean, the iPhone has only been out for about 4 months.

D 5
Sep 30, 2007, 03:49 PM
Developers should just go on an iPhone strike:D

RedDragon870503
Sep 30, 2007, 03:49 PM
Call me shortsighted, but I do not understand the economical reason behind locking a device.

What difference does it make to Apple?

It's not like they are trying to push their OWN software (not yet at least)

Someone explain; there has GOT to be a reason.

DeaconGraves
Sep 30, 2007, 03:49 PM
As I recall, Jobs never hacked anything, Woz did. Jobs just took credit.

I guess I need to stop believing everything I read on these forums :D

macenforcer
Sep 30, 2007, 03:50 PM
I smell a lawsuit coming and fast. I was just in the apple store and a guy was in there with his locked iphone because of this update. They told him he hacked it and there was nothing he could do. He was yelling like mad. I felt bad for him. Its freakin wrong of apple and they deserve to get sued.

guzhogi
Sep 30, 2007, 03:52 PM
I can understand this. Steve probably wants Macs as simple as possible and when you add more things, the more complicated it becomes. Partially b/c of that, it's harder to make everything well together. Look at Windows.

On the other hand, people like to customize their things. Being locked into one way of doing thing is hard. There's so many different ways I'd like to do things, but Apple's like "Do it our way or leave." I'd love to build my own computer, but it's locked down to Apple hardware. :mad: If I were good at programming, I'd make my own OS, but since I'm not, I'll stick w/ Mac OS X (and go w/ Windows only for the games).

Jetson
Sep 30, 2007, 03:54 PM
This closed iPhone policy is a high profile disaster in the making.

It certainly is customer-unfriendly.

I understand that O/S or firmware updates can break user added apps. But what we are talking about here is a hostility to iPhone owners who have a legitimate desire to expand the capability of THEIR phones. To intentionally disable a customer's phone is definitely NOT the way to keep customers. Maybe Jobs doesn't care about keeping customers anymore?

By extension, I would expect that owners of the new iPod Touch would also experience the same kind of treatment should they dare to install non-Apple approved apps on THEIR iPods.

LaMerVipere
Sep 30, 2007, 03:55 PM
I just bought an iPhone yesterday and love it, but I am debating whether or not I want to update the firmware.

I haven't loaded any 3rd party apps onto it yet because I am going to see how I enjoy using it with just what shipped on it.

For AIM I am using FlickIM, which is working great.

I would like some of the features that shipped with 1.1.1 though.

Decisions, decisions.

island
Sep 30, 2007, 03:57 PM
To be honest, I have no problem with what they are doing. If you want a phone to hack or mess with, go with a different company. If Apple doesn't want you to mess with there stuff, why would you buy it to hack in the first place?

DeaconGraves
Sep 30, 2007, 03:57 PM
Call me shortsighted, but I do not understand the economical reason behind locking a device.

What difference does it make to Apple?

It's not like they are trying to push their OWN software (not yet at least)

Someone explain; there has GOT to be a reason.

Its much more complex then this, but two basic reasons:

For locking it from third-party apps: As of right now, Apple hasn't released an SDK to developers. That means any apps developed are done for the most part on a trial and error basis with no guarantee what any particular one will do to the phone. Apple locks the phone up from these things so they don't have to incur the costs of servicing any phones that a user might break by installing one of these apps (I know that there aren't any major examples of this but it is a possible explanation).

For locking it to AT&T/O2: Apple wants a chunk of the fees you pay each month. Through negotiation, AT&T (and O2 in the UK) agreed to this, but wanted to be the exclusive network of the phone for the next (five?) years. Apple has to at least show good faith that they are keeping all iPhones on the AT&T network to uphold their end of the bargain. I'm guessing Apple could have released the phone unlocked for all networks, but then they'd be missing out on the subscription revenues (as well as having to deal with a handful of Verizon/Sprint subscribers wondering why the GSM phone wouldn't work on their network).

plumbingandtech
Sep 30, 2007, 03:58 PM
To intentionally disable a customer's phone is definitely NOT the way to keep customers.


intentionally? Or just upgrading software and reseting basic parts of the OS THAT HAVE BEEN HACKED... ?


This closed iPhone policy is a high profile disaster in the making.


Would be the same policy that apple has had since day one (sans web apps)?

That same policy that has sold a million + iphones in three months making it one of the most successful electronic launches ever?

That policy?

A bunch of complainers by a subset of users does not a high profile disaster make.

emotion
Sep 30, 2007, 04:00 PM
I smell a lawsuit coming and fast.....Its freakin wrong of apple and they deserve to get sued.

:D

I love this forum. That was a joke yes?


I think Apple may want to establish selling software through iTMS for these devices before eventually opening up wth an SDK.

Remember the iPhone was essentially a rush job and they drafted people in from the Leopard work (hence slip). Now that project is coming to fruition the resources can go back into the iPhone project. A (documented) SDK might come from this yet.

I also think that something Jobs said about DRM and how to make it work properly you need control over the platform (well, control over the 'secrets'). This much control perhaps?

siurpeeman
Sep 30, 2007, 04:00 PM
I just bought an iPhone yesterday and love it, but I am debating whether or not I want to update the firmware.

I haven't loaded any 3rd party apps onto it yet because I am going to see how I enjoy using it with just what shipped on it.

For AIM I am using FlickIM, which is working great.

I would like some of the features that shipped with 1.1.1 though.

Decisions, decisions.

if i were you and were curious, i'd install 3rd party apps just to see what you'd be missing out on. if it seems like you can do without, upgrade the firmware.

synth3tik
Sep 30, 2007, 04:06 PM
The thing that really gets me about the 1.1.1 update,

I gained a crappy wifi store that is no fun to use

I lost my ringtones.

I am not someone who likes songs as ringtones, but I also don't like horrible ringtones. I had a good amount of ringtones that were not annoying and can no longer use them. Shame on Apple.

gomatt
Sep 30, 2007, 04:06 PM
think people are forgetting about the deal between apple and att. an iphone without att is like selling it for $50. apple looses money. but is it enough to offset the money by selling more devices to people who are planning to unlock?.....no

matt

nagromme
Sep 30, 2007, 04:08 PM
Apple's PUBLIC position is clearly pro-3rd-party apps: they have recognized the demand, they have said they will consider supporting it in future (which they can't very well do until the newborn iPhone platform/OS stabilizes and becomes less of a moving target), they have in the meantime actively promoted one limited form (Web apps), and they've said they will not take steps to break 3rd-party apps. Nor will they do the work of making sure 3rd-party apps keep working after each iPhone update--that task falls to the 3rd parties.

Is there evidence of another, secret position? Is Apple actively blocking 3rd party apps? Or are they merely allowing them to break by inaction, which is different? I wouldn't want Apple to waste their time testing to make sure unofficial hacks keep working. And I REALLY wouldn't want Apple to modify or complicate their software updates to benefit hackers. The iPhone OS is young and should be free to mature--THEN developer tools and official support will make sense.

There have been a lot of early claims thrown around, with too little evidence.

I HOPE that Apple's public position is truthful--I can't see any advantage to them in taking that position if they don't mean it.

If it IS truthful, then 3rd party apps will still break, casualties of changes to the iPhone, rather than victims of intentional attacks by Apple.

Let me be clear that I whole-heartedly support hacking 3rd-party apps on the iPhone--and, in future, official 3rd-party apps that won't need hacking. I hope to get an iPhone, and the more apps the better! But I don't see evidence that Apple is secretly spending time attacking 3rd-party iPhone native apps. I only see evidence that Apple isn't spending time fixing them.

(And I note the difference between 3rd-party apps, and SIM unlocks which Apple may well be combatting actively. I also note the difference between 3rd-party apps and ringtones.)

JoachimC
Sep 30, 2007, 04:10 PM
small notice : Steve's quote indiquates his reluctance towards hardware expandability, there's nothing about software expandability in it

guzhogi
Sep 30, 2007, 04:11 PM
For locking it from third-party apps: As of right now, Apple hasn't released an SDK to developers. That means any apps developed are done for the most part on a trial and error basis with no guarantee what any particular one will do to the phone. Apple locks the phone up from these things so they don't have to incur the costs of servicing any phones that a user might break by installing one of these apps (I know that there aren't any major examples of this but it is a possible explanation).

Good point. I think that SDKs are a good thing. They help make sure the software runs well together. Hopefully, Apple would release an SDK for the iPhone/iPod Touch.

For some reason, this made me think of copyrights & intellectual property. Why copyrighting helps prevent people from taking credit for other people's work, it also helps people be more creative. Creativity is a good thing, but right now, Apple isn't letting people be creative. It would be great if Apple let people write software for for all it's products. In order to make sure it doesn't trash the system, Apple should test the software and do a digital signing thing, but let digitally unsigned apps still work. With unsigned apps, there should be an error message that says "This is not endorsed by Apple. Use at your own risk," or something along those lines. This way, people can be creative, but there is some protection from it trashing your computer.

macenforcer
Sep 30, 2007, 04:14 PM
:D

I love this forum. That was a joke yes?


No, it wasn't.

WannaGoMac
Sep 30, 2007, 04:15 PM
I think this joke sums up SJ's actions with the iPhone nicely. It's the OLD Apple mentality that made me never want to buy an Apple computer -- lately, I am beginning to wonder if this is back at Apple?

http://webaugur.com/bibliotheca/field_stock/os-airlines.html

Mac Airlines
All the stewards, stewardesses, captains, baggage handlers, and ticket agents look the same, act the same, and talk the same. Every time you ask questions about details, you are told you don't need to know, don't want to know, and would you please return to your seat and watch the movie.

Don.Key
Sep 30, 2007, 04:17 PM
intentionally? Or just upgrading software and reseting basic parts of the OS THAT HAVE BEEN HACKED... ?


Reseting basic parts should at MAX return your device to pre-hacked state. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason for the update to brick devices.
Do not even try to tell me that bricking was not intended.

In the end effect the bricking failed because downgrade is possible now but the attempt was made, this alone stinks to heaven.

LaDirection
Sep 30, 2007, 04:19 PM
Apple's position on teh iPhone unlocking is pretty rough, but understandable. Every cell phones gets unlocked soon after it's release, but Apple isn't every cell phone maker.

As for 3rd party applications, I agree that Apple should definitely test everything before it gets release, but not allowing 3rd party applications at all will bite em in the (rear) end. Imagine if we had great touch control games from Sega, or a portable Office reader/editor, or an iPhone VLC to watch divx & xvid etc. All these things would make the iPhone so much more appealing to so many more people.

guzhogi
Sep 30, 2007, 04:21 PM
small notice : Steve's quote indicates his reluctance towards hardware expandability, there's nothing about software expandability in it

True, but there's no indication in the quote that h's for software expandability, either.

There's a lot of Windows-only hardware out there I'd love to use, but isn't available for Mac. Video cards, sound cards, PhysX cards and specialty stuff. As I said earlier in this thread, it's hard to make all of this hardware to work together well, but not necessarily impossible.

Kinsella217
Sep 30, 2007, 04:22 PM
I bought an iPhone the day it came out. I clearly remember the activation process requiring me to agree to terms of useage, which clearly stated stipulations to the effect that I agree to not alter the hardware or software and if I did, I would lose access to warranty service.

If I was to -not- agree to those terms, I should return the unit where I purchased it. I clicked on the button indicating that I read the agreement and that I agreed to it's terms.

I presume that everyone had to go through that same process?

No one made any individual buy this $400 to $600 phone. It was a consumer's individual choice to make. Agreeing to the terms and conditions was an individual's choice to make. No one made anyone violate those terms and conditions... it was an individual's choice to make.

Furthermore, the software update posted by Apple wasn't mandatory. In days leading up to the release of the update, Apple publically warned iPhone users online that the software was likely to break phones that had been tampered with, in ways violating the original terms and conditions. In front of me, I have a screenshot of a notice offered by the 1.1.1 update. It reads "Warning: Apple has discovered that some of the unauthorized unlocking programs available on the internet may cause irreparable damage.... making unauthorized modifications to the software on your iPhone violates the iPhone software license agreement, and the inability to use your iPhone due to unauthorized software modifications is not covered under your iPhone's warranty".

No one made any iPhone owner disregard that notice, some of which was typed in boldface fonts, and install the update, anyway.

If, for some reason, I decided to violate those terms and conditions, I would hope that I would be enough of an adult to live with the consequences of my decision. At a very minimum, I would hope that people wouldn't yell at retail employees for something that the retail employee had no involvement with. The employee didn't force anyone to buy the phone, the employee didn't force anyone to agree to the terms and conditions of service, the employee didn't encourage anyone to violate those terms and conditions, the employee didn't blind anyone to the public warnings, the employee didn't force anyone to apply the update, and the employee certainly didn't write those terms and conditions.

If there's a lawsuit to be found in this, I only hope that the employee files assualt charges against the customer. That's not very realistic, obviously, but it's the only thing that makes any basic sense to me, in this scenario...


I smell a lawsuit coming and fast. I was just in the apple store and a guy was in there with his locked iphone because of this update. They told him he hacked it and there was nothing he could do. He was yelling like mad. I felt bad for him. Its freakin wrong of apple and they deserve to get sued.

Mitthrawnuruodo
Sep 30, 2007, 04:23 PM
Mac Airlines
All the stewards, stewardesses, captains, baggage handlers, and ticket agents look the same, act the same, and talk the same. Every time you ask questions about details, you are told you don't need to know, don't want to know, and would you please return to your seat and watch the movie.The only way to travel... ;)

DeaconGraves
Sep 30, 2007, 04:27 PM
Reseting basic parts should at MAX return your device to pre-hacked state. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason for the update to brick devices.
Do not even try to tell me that bricking was not intended.


So Apple should be required to put in more work to make sure that its firmware updates correct every possible firmware change that the unlocking programs may have done?

With software loaded on the software, its simple to just clear it out. But seeing how a proper method to "re-lock" the iPhone hasn't really been found yet, why should Apple have to solve it?

Right or wrong (from a moral/greed sense, not a legal one), the path that apple chose is much more efficient.



As for 3rd party applications, I agree that Apple should definitely test everything before it gets release, but not allowing 3rd party applications at all will bite em in the (rear) end. Imagine if we had great touch control games from Sega, or a portable Office reader/editor, or an iPhone VLC to watch divx & xvid etc. All these things would make the iPhone so much more appealing to so many more people.

Yes indeed. And Apple hasn't said that 3rd party support isn't coming in the future. My guess is MacWorld '08 might show some change on this front.

Don.Key
Sep 30, 2007, 04:32 PM
So Apple should be required to put in more work to make sure that its firmware updates correct every possible firmware change that the unlocking programs may have done?


Simple corrections to your sentence:

Apple should not put in more work to make sure that its firmware updates break every possible firmware change that the unlocking programs may have done!

megfilmworks
Sep 30, 2007, 04:32 PM
Mac Airlines
All the stewards, stewardesses, captains, baggage handlers, and ticket agents look the same, act the same, and talk the same. Every time you ask questions about details, you are told you don't need to know, don't want to know, and would you please return to your seat and watch the movie.
But the plane leaves on time, works beautifully and gives you what you paid for. "Just leave the flying to us." :)

CJD2112
Sep 30, 2007, 04:33 PM
Here's my take. I love Apple products. The team of Ive and Jobs has produced products that are reliable, aesthetically pleasing and amazing blends of ergonomics and powerful machinery. However, when people stop asking questions and begin accepting things as they are, that is when progress may halt and complacency begins. The American consumer has experienced this in the mobile phone industry, and especially in the oil and gas arena. If we blithely accept what we are handed and treat certain companies as untouchable Gods, then we simply become sheep. As for the iPhone, I don't like being sold a product at full price with a locked contract and then be told how I can use said product. It's tantamount to buying a car and being told I can old drive it in certain states, and if I drive it in unauthorized states my engine will seize. If the phone was discounted/subsidized/whatever, sure, but not for the original asking price of $599 (and before you begin Apple's stance at the time of purchase was a "hands-off", "we'll look the other way" in regards to third party app's, etc).

This just boils down to another company wanting more money and control from the consumer. I wish Apple fanboy's would appreciate that instead of defending Apple at every turn, it gets tired, and in the end, you're just a number to Steve Jobs, he doesn't fall asleep dreaming of his iPhone owners like some people dream of Jobsy. :rolleyes:

nagromme
Sep 30, 2007, 04:33 PM
Apple's position on teh iPhone unlocking is pretty rough, but understandable. Every cell phones gets unlocked soon after it's release, but Apple isn't every cell phone maker.

As for 3rd party applications, I agree that Apple should definitely test everything before it gets release, but not allowing 3rd party applications at all will bite em in the (rear) end. Imagine if we had great touch control games from Sega...

iPhone/iPod games that use multitouch and the tilt sensors will be GREAT! Not revisions of existing games, but whole new types of games were you touch and stretch and twist and spin and tilt things physically. (And these games will come--officially or otherwise! There are already demo games that use the tilt function.)

sananda
Sep 30, 2007, 04:34 PM
But the plane leaves on time, works beautifully and gives you what you paid for. "Just leave the flying to us." :)

but you cannot use any other airline for 5 years. even if it's cheaper. not even for one little flight.

DeaconGraves
Sep 30, 2007, 04:34 PM
But the plane leaves on time, works beautifully and gives you what you paid for. "Just leave the flying to us." :)

Unless the pilot for their Leopard flight gets shifted to the iPhone flight, delaying the former to October. :p

nagromme
Sep 30, 2007, 04:36 PM
However, when people stop asking questions and begin accepting things as they are, that is when progress may halt and complacency begins.

It seems to me that those who are 100% certain Apple is spending time working to disable native 3rd-party iPhone apps have stopped asking questions... long before answers have arrived :o

elgruga
Sep 30, 2007, 04:36 PM
The iPhone has TWO distinct parts - one is a mini-computer, I guess thats the 'i', and the other is the phone, which, according to the general behaviour of wireless providers and various legal rulings, can be, and very often is, unlocked - usually during a contract.
This allows the user to put a different SIM onto the phone when travelling, so as to avoid the alarming cost of 'roaming'.

Although this unlocking isnt formally legislated, as yet, it is a shoe-in for a class-action suit because it has become a normal practise, one that any cell phone user can reasonably expect.

The reasonable expectations of consumers are typically used to prove that there is a de facto 'right' to the action that is in question.
There is no doubt that Apple will, at some point, be forced to offer SIM unlocking codes.

Backwards on our consumer expectations we dont go.

AT&T offer it after 90 days of a contract, as a matter of course. Call them and they will tell you that Apple havent given them the unlock codes. Naughty Apple!

All the wireless providers will unlock your phone, at your request, and with some financial penalty, or its free.

The 'i' part is Apple's to do what they want with - and here is their big problem (as they see it) - when the SIM is unlocked, the iphone doesnt behave in exactly the way Apple wants it to. (In fact, it is only missing Visual Voice Mail. Every single other thing can be done, including EDGE on ANY other GSM provider.)

The rights and wrongs are all mixed up - because the iPhone is two objects together, a breakthrough cross-over device.

At some point Apple will have to accept that the SIM unlock will occur.

I dont see that will affect the AT&T contract too much; AT&T have the iphone, most users are happy to leave the thing alone, but there are a SIGNIFICANT number of users, probably around 10 %, who want/need SIM unlocking for overseas travel.

So to all of you who think that 'hackers' deserve what they get, I humbly suggest that this is NOT about 3rd party apps and 'hackers' - its about the right of a consumer to put a different SIM in his/her iPhone, a right that allows the consumer to save LARGE amounts of cash when travelling, a right that is already available with EVERY other phone.

As a legal argument, it will be tough for Apple to prove that they, and they alone, must have locked phones, expecially as it is rather obvious that the Baseband firmware (cell radio) and the actual OSX are EASILY separated out.

Shades of Windows and IE and the EU, anyone?

As for third party apps - well IMHO, that is a battle that Apple and the 'hackers' can enjoy and continue to fight over, if thats what turns their respective little cranks.....

MacYang
Sep 30, 2007, 04:36 PM
Check this out :

http://andreas.louca.org/2007/09/30/iphone-unlock-frenzy/

Football1maniac
Sep 30, 2007, 04:39 PM
With everyone out there complaining about their new iBrick, why do you come here to complain about YOUR mistake. It's not Apple's fault, it's yours. Apple even told everyone days before it came out that this software update may damage your iPhone, but no, you decide to continue and download and install it anyway. Yes, Apple is being aggressive over this matter, but wouldn't you be too? Let's say you created this muffin. (I know lame) But this muffin was the most amazing muffin ever. You took lots of pride in this muffin, and the flavors of this muffin was amazing. But, every muffin needs flour. You agree to a deal with Flour CO. (what ever is out there now-a-days). But then, some other people come out and create things for this muffin that you don't want in it. Soon, you get frustrated and so does Flour CO. So you decide to clean up the mess by sending out a "Muffin Update." Soon, peoples muffins are becoming useless everywhere. They cry to you, but it's their fault. They broke the rules that they agreed on with you. Apple has performed the same procedures, and if they did do something illegal, (which they didn't) then many people would be knocking on their door.

Final point: Get over it. No matter what Apple gives you, you want more. Look at the $100 credit, look at this software update. Apple could just not give you an update to bring new features to the iPhone, but they want to. Because they want you to have the best product anywhere.

Sorry about the poor analogy, but hey a point is a point.:apple:

ddubbo
Sep 30, 2007, 04:39 PM
Try to imagine if a cars were done the way the iPhone is. The car has no steering wheel and gear and managed by brain impulses. You paid twice vs car with similar performance. You can't ignite the car if you're drunk or your license expired. You can fill it up only at the stations of a certain oil company, with the special fuel that costs twice than a regular one. When you try to put the same fuel from other company, the car doesn't ignite. The tires glued to the wheels. When you need to replace it, you should to get to the special garage and live your car for a week. The car will not turn to the rural road because bad surface could damage the car.
Do you want to afford one?

DeaconGraves
Sep 30, 2007, 04:40 PM
Here's my take. I love Apple products. The team of Ive and Jobs has produced products that are reliable, aesthetically pleasing and amazing blends of ergonomics and powerful machinery. However, when people stop asking questions and begin accepting things as they are, that is when progress may halt and complacency begins. The American consumer has experienced this in the mobile phone industry, and especially in the oil and gas arena. If we blithely accept what we are handed and treat certain companies as untouchable Gods, then we simply become sheep.

I agree 100%.

But where most people's logic seems to fail in this issue is when they further conclude that the only way to effect change is to do it themselves.

In a sense this is more counterproductive. Apple still sells phones which gives it the opportunity to publish its sales numbers, state "everything is ok, lets keep with the status quo" and keep moving on.

Meanwhile, if everyone who bought a phone–solely for the purpose of hacking it or adding the features they wanted–instead bought someone else's phone (that worked for their network or had the features they wanted), Apple suddenly has missed their sales goal and perhaps shifts its focus faster.

Might I propose that the people who hack the iPhone, seemingly because they have to have one, are the real sheep?

arn
Sep 30, 2007, 04:43 PM
It seems to me that those who are 100% certain Apple is spending time working to disable native 3rd-party iPhone apps have stopped asking questions... long before answers have arrived :o

I think what is clear is Apple has made the iPhone (and iTouch) intentionally more difficult to hack, by changing and adding further encryption to the software that resides on the devices.

In this respect, Apple is intentionally preventing 3rd party applications on the iPhone.

Now, you could argue that this is only a side effect of them not wanting more unlocking hacks... but the end result is the same. I don't think it's particularly paranoid/conspiracy-theorizing to come to the conclusion that Apple is intentinonally breaking 3rd party hacking of the iPhone by this action.

arn

boss1
Sep 30, 2007, 04:45 PM
Obviously there are several factors decluding 3rd party apps that seem to be issues between the consumer and Apple's actions' inactions.

All those things aside, talking about more/3rd party apps:

There seems to be a lot of tension between consumer and company as of late. IMO 75% of the heat admist would simmer down if Apple does the following soon!:

Apple should roll out an SDK already, and start creating a way for developers to get their programs to iPhone users, even if it has to go through a strict Apple approval process. OR Apple should step up the pace here and start pumping out apps of their own already.

over the past 30 days we've seen dozens of apps developed by persons of little experience in the field and by more established SW developers. Everything from apps that function as real chat (AIM) to programs that run freakin Nintendo on your phone.

You mean to tell me that the people who created the phone and it's OS to begin with can't roll out a checklist app (to dos) for ex?



My point is... 1.1.1 wouldn't be so bad if they offered solutions for the kind of Apps they just effectively disabled. After seeing the speed at which non apple 3rd party developers were able to create software for the iPhone without support from Apple, it makes one question the argument that Apple is waiting for the OS to stabilize. I think that argument is BS.

ssajous
Sep 30, 2007, 04:48 PM
I still believe that users are overreacting to the closed status of the iPhone. You aren't buying an external hard drive! Plus, Apple is most likely legally protecting their relationship with AT&T by proving that the SIM card can't be replaced in a simple way.

In the long run, the iPhone will probably have many of the boundaries soften, maybe even with multiple carrier options. Heck, maybe with the release of Leopard, Apple may even have some tricks up their sleeve in order to begin to open up more ability for the installation of 3rd party apps and widgets...could it be that they just want to let Leopard get out there for a bit?

But does every developer and tech user have to call Apple out on each move? I mean, the iPhone has only been out for about 4 months.

The bottom line guys is that the big bucks is not in giving **** away. The Mac communitiy has always treate M$ of being the evil empire and the truth is that Jobs preaches one thing and does another, he says he is for openess, but has never done anything for it. One of the reason why I never owned any apple software before the iphone is because of that.

That being out of pure speculation since I am did not see the contract Apple has with AT&T, I am pretty sure that somewhere in there, AT&T told Apple that if they to get that fee that they get for every new subscriber, there has to be some assurances that people are not going to use the phone with other subscribers, since they want to use the product's potential success to get more ATT contracts, it just makes perfect sense. I don't see why people are surprised that Apple is trying to prevent them from doing something they are not allowed to do in the first place.

rjwill246
Sep 30, 2007, 04:48 PM
1. Apple has no right to lock the phone. Really? A manufacturer can set its devices to any criterion it wants, so long as the product performs as advertised. In fact, the iPhone was always promised to be locked.

2. ATT has no right to not unlock the iPhone. Perhaps true, it seems, because of the 90 day unlock it has provided other customers using other phones. Might that not open ATT up to some legal leverage by those who want the phone unlocked? In this case, ATT is going against its own precedents and that makes for an interesting situation-- one where a lawsuit might actually be useful... even if only to force ATT's hand and make it take a stand and not sit in no-man's land, as the company appears to be doing right now.

3. 1 and 2 might put Apple and ATT at odds with each other as customers get angrier and angrier.

4. Given that Apple owns and controls the OS from which the phone operates and ATT and Apple have agreed to keep the phone locked, and the customer who buys the phone and uses iTMS to begin making the phone functional has agreed to all of the above, it is IMPOSSIBLE to argue that it is not fair or immoral, or whatever the wording, for Apple and ATT to apply the rules to which the purchaser agreed.

5. Presumably, one could buy the iPhone and never use the iTMS to activate it, if a 3rd party hack became available to allow such a by-pass but that should void the warranty and it probably violates Apple's usage agreement with that customer, though one could argue this for a very long time. The Brits and Euros would support the hack as their right, no doubt and some meddling court in Brussels would agree to pursue it.
Not going there.

6. To argue that Apple should have just released the iPhone like it did iPods is untenable as there would have been few, if any, carriers willing to take it on. What would the complainers have said then? I just bought a phone for $600 and NO ONE will activate it for me. Or the data charges would have been too high? Or, the Internet, Wi-Fi option would have been locked out and thus become an upgradeable option-- at a price!

7. The ATT/Apple relationship has proven to be the correct course and has made the iPhone desirable by other carriers. That too, will require some lock-out period in order for those carriers to get back some of their investment in this enterprise.

8. I am amazed at how some folk don't seem to understand that when companies break new ground-- as Apple seems to do, over and over, that they need time and means to recoup their investment. Much of the unlocking-- not the hacking-- is to deprive ATT in particular of the rewards it rightly deserves for having taken a huge risk. After all, the iPhone was being decried as a complete failure prior to its launch by pretty much everyone, except Apple and ATT. Even across the pond. Boy, has that tune changed! Now the same people want to take away the European carriers profits by having the phone unlocked on day one of its European appearance. Punish the adventurous.... an exciting way to ensure future improvements happen, right?

9. And could someone tell me why the unlockers are correct in what they are doing-- apart from the travelers who have a strong case to be made for some sort of means whereby they are not screwed when they roam? After all, the vast majority of the whiners actually don't need this device--- it's not a life or death issue and there are thousands of other phones out there for them to buy. Not buying the iPhone is surely the way to go, for all of these folks. Apple is going to sell millions of iPhones, without any purchases at all from the folk who are angry with Apple and ATT et al.
To all of you, I say, leave your anger at home-- DO NOT, under ANY circumstances consider buying this device. It will never make you happy, and life is too short for that.

10. AND Apple--- for crying out loud, release the bloody SDK and let this iPhone do its job. There are so many needed programs that would encourage even more sales. It IS a computer, SJ and your saying it isn't is disingenuous at the very least.

ATT--- stop screwing roamers. That goes for O2, Orange and T-mobile and all future Apple partners. You could easily let SIMS from areas that you DO NOT serve work in the iPhone and instead of looking like vultures and behaving like turkeys, you might look like eagles! Be noble and it will decrease the need for people to keep attacking the iPhone. In every way, you guys are inviting these hacks---

arn
Sep 30, 2007, 04:49 PM
With everyone out there complaining about their new iBrick, why do you come here to complain about YOUR mistake.

Most people aren't complaining about bricking their iPhone. Many of the complaints are about Apple closing off their system to 3rd party apps etc...

arn

Cleverboy
Sep 30, 2007, 04:49 PM
Check this out :
http://andreas.louca.org/2007/09/30/iphone-unlock-frenzy/
Mm, hm. Good article. I also recommend searching the Internet for IMEI code "004999010640000". It would seem that the iPhone doesn't exactly mark the first appearance of this number.
http://gsmhosting.com/vbb/archive/index.php/t-223129.html

Also, regarding unlocking, a lot of people might find this article very illuminating:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235602,00.html
Most people aren't complaining about bricking their iPhone. Many of the complaints are about Apple closing off their system to 3rd party apps etc...
arn I've thrown in the towel. I doubt the average user even knows there's much of a difference between the two things. Moreover, 3rd party app hacking is the first step to unlocking, unfortunately. They're very intimately tied, and I'm at a loss to attempt to differentiate the two for people when public tech industry commentators like Leo Leporte freely switch between the two concepts when discussing the topic.

~ CB

CJD2112
Sep 30, 2007, 04:50 PM
They cry to you, but it's their fault. They broke the rules that they agreed on with you. Apple has performed the same procedures, and if they did do something illegal, (which they didn't) then many people would be knocking on their door.

What "rules"? No where, at the time of my purchase, did it state I could not use third party apps in the iPhone. In fact, when asked, Jobs said Apple would "look the other way". Then things changed. Fast. Att? Apple? Who knows, either way, the consumer isn't the only person to blame. Personal responsibility? Absolutely. When it is appropriate. Being told how to use something you have full ownership of seems more akin to a parent telling their child how to do their homework and chores, then taking away their allowance or toys for punishment. Sorry Apple, I'm not one for a company "chiding" me for using my fully paid for device as the "OS X" run mobile "revolutionary" product as it was intended. This idea that it is illegal, rubbish. Pure rubbish, and more fodder for the 5% of Apple fanatics to baaaaaaah their way into saying "I told you so" to other people. :rolleyes:

TC Schiller
Sep 30, 2007, 04:51 PM
Apple's statement that they aren't actively locking down hackers is still very true. If they were, all iPhone users would be forced to update. The update is still of course optional.

rdowns
Sep 30, 2007, 04:52 PM
Would you buy an iPhone again, knowing what you know now?
Vote:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=362795

How many threads are you going to post this in? Take my poll.
:rolleyes:

iJed
Sep 30, 2007, 04:52 PM
Its lucky that Apple released 1.1.1 when they did. I was just about to buy an iPod touch expecting to soon be able to install third party apps. Now there is no chance of me buying an iPhone or iPod touch until apple release an SDK!

iMikeT
Sep 30, 2007, 04:53 PM
Apple promised the features that they would deliver and they did just that, right? The phone works great and most people are happy, right?

I realize that there are a few things missing on the iPhone and I think that a majority of us can live with that. Out of the 1 million + users who already have an iPhone, how many of them actually care about the hacks? What, 1,000 , 2,000 , 3,000 users?

If you want a platform that's completely open to anything and everything but is a pain to use, go with a Microsoft product.

CJD2112
Sep 30, 2007, 04:55 PM
Most people aren't complaining about bricking their iPhone. Many of the complaints are about Apple closing off their system to 3rd party apps etc...

arn

Exactly. If you're phone is bricked, chances are you unlocked it illegally. I'm arguing for using third party apps on the phone and such, not for illegally using said device an another network, which I have mixed opinions on (personally I would like to see it unlocked, but regardless I have been a Cingular/ATT customer for over a year now since I left Verizon and I have no complaints with them).

elgruga
Sep 30, 2007, 04:58 PM
Enough with the terrible analogies already!

( OK, OK, I liked the Muffin; but it ONLY applies to the computer part.)

The iPhone is not analogous with anything that came before- if it was, we wouldnt be having this argument.
Its TWO devices in one!

A PHONE that MUST be SIM unlocked!

A COMPUTER that does NOT have to be 'unlocked'!

There are TWO freakin issues here! Stop mixing 'em up!

WAIT! There are THREE freakin issues!

IS Apple guilty of criminal damage with 1.1.1?

Er, I think yes, but it all just clouds the arguments horribly.....

I am going to have a nap.

*

emotion
Sep 30, 2007, 04:58 PM
Apple promised the features that they would deliver and they did just that, right? The phone works great and most people are happy, right?

I realize that there are a few things missing on the iPhone and I think that a majority of us can live with that. Out of the 1 million + users who already have an iPhone, how many of them actually care about the hacks? What, 1,000 , 2,000 , 3,000 users?

80,000 dls of iNdependence. That's quite a lot.


If you want a platform that's completely open to anything and everything but is a pain to use, go with a Microsoft product.

Microsoft open? Try linux phones.

I'm patient, I can wait to see what happens over the next few months. I bet things get better than they are now. Whether that's thorugh Apple's actions or not.

NEiMac
Sep 30, 2007, 04:58 PM
I can understand the locking the iPhone to Att, but keeping 3rd party apps off of it is just stupid, and really could keep it from being as popular as it could be. It really could backfire on apple and make the iPhone a flop.

gnasher729
Sep 30, 2007, 04:59 PM
I understand that O/S or firmware updates can break user added apps. But what we are talking about here is a hostility to iPhone owners who have a legitimate desire to expand the capability of THEIR phones. To intentionally disable a customer's phone is definitely NOT the way to keep customers.

Do you have any evidence that Apple is doing any intentional damage to any iPhones? For that, you would have to prove or give reasonable evidence that (a) iPhone unlocking software does not cause any damage to the phone that will show itself the next time any upgrade is performed, and (b) if damage is caused by an Apple upgrade, that this damage is intentional.

Keep in mind that if any damage was intentional, then developers would know about it, and I can assure you that it would not stay secret for long.

skunk
Sep 30, 2007, 05:01 PM
Being told how to use something you have full ownership of seems more akin to a parent telling their child how to do their homework and chores, then taking away their allowance or toys for punishment. Sorry Apple, I'm not one for a company "chiding" me for using my fully paid for device as the "OS X" run mobile "revolutionary" product as it was intended.You are not "Being told how to use something you have full ownership of". You were simply warned that if you used it differently by hacking the software, you could not guarantee that further updates provided by Apple would still be compatible. If you choose to mess with the OS software you can't seriously expect Apple - or anyone - to ensure that subsequent software updates work around your modifications. You complain about being treated like a child, yet you are behaving like a petulant, spoiled brat. Get real.

audiohhh
Sep 30, 2007, 05:02 PM
that it really isn't at all Apple's choice to unlock it or not. THey are contractually obligated to keep it locked to ATT so they don't get sued by ATT for breach of contract. In the process of making the firmware airtight against hacking they are going to have to shut out the software hacks too. They aren't going to use up all of the genius bar real estate dealing with people coming back in with bricked phones. Steve is not sleeping well at nights. He knows the neg publicity but maybe he should have thought about this when demanding apple get a cut of the service itself from whatever provider they struck their deal with. Perhaps getting att to upgrade their network for VV wasn't worth it.

HLdan
Sep 30, 2007, 05:03 PM
Call me shortsighted, but I do not understand the economical reason behind locking a device.

What difference does it make to Apple?

It's not like they are trying to push their OWN software (not yet at least)

Someone explain; there has GOT to be a reason.

Yes, you are shortsighted. You are not seeing the point like many others aren't. Just understand that it's not all about Apple. Please people look outside of Apple.
All people keep saying is, "Apple screwed us". "Apple wants control on how I use my phone", "What difference does it make to Apple what I do with the phone, they still get paid".

See the point is it's not Apple, it's AT&T but so many people here feel the need to blame only the manufacturer of the phone and somehow leave poor AT&T alone.
AT&T is losing business, and Apple gets a cut from AT&T for every activation so they get nothing if the phone is illegally activated. Apple has a contract with AT&T and pressure is getting put on Apple by AT&T to protect the commitment they have.
If Apple sells 1 million iPhones and AT&T only received 500k activations then something's wrong here. There has to be at least an 80% activation rate against iPhone sales or the commitment is being breached.

Stop blaming Apple all the time, look beyond that and be sensible to what's really going on.

FoxyKaye
Sep 30, 2007, 05:03 PM
Its much more complex then this, but two basic reasons:

For locking it from third-party apps: As of right now, Apple hasn't released an SDK to developers. That means any apps developed are done for the most part on a trial and error basis with no guarantee what any particular one will do to the phone. Apple locks the phone up from these things so they don't have to incur the costs of servicing any phones that a user might break by installing one of these apps (I know that there aren't any major examples of this but it is a possible explanation).

For locking it to AT&T/O2: Apple wants a chunk of the fees you pay each month. Through negotiation, AT&T (and O2 in the UK) agreed to this, but wanted to be the exclusive network of the phone for the next (five?) years. Apple has to at least show good faith that they are keeping all iPhones on the AT&T network to uphold their end of the bargain. I'm guessing Apple could have released the phone unlocked for all networks, but then they'd be missing out on the subscription revenues (as well as having to deal with a handful of Verizon/Sprint subscribers wondering why the GSM phone wouldn't work on their network).
Yeah, I was thinking along similar lines, but blocking the installation of your own ring tones without having to pay Apple twice? That seems a little harsh. I mean, I can even install my own ringtones (granted, in a roundabout way) on my Verizon Bluetooth-crippled Moto e815. I am pondering switching to AT&T for an iPhone early next year when I'm out of contract with Verizon, but if it's going to be that much of a PITA to use music I've already paid for and own for ring-tones, and Apple still doesn't release a proper SDK for the iPhone, I'll stick with the devil I know and re-up with Verizon.

slughead
Sep 30, 2007, 05:04 PM
Call me shortsighted, but I do not understand the economical reason behind locking a device.

What difference does it make to Apple?

iPhone's revenue for Apple comes in two parts: The handsets themselves, and all the ongoing upkeep and bills.

Apple gets a cut of SMS messaging, ringtones, and AT&T's monthly service fee on the iPhone

Therefore:
1. Instant Messaging is basically like a freer and faster SMS
2. Custom ringtones mean you don't pay Apple
3. Using T-Mobile or other non-AT&T providers prevent Apple from making money.

50% of the profit (or more) on the iphone likely comes from these other revenue streams. It's no wonder Apple is trying to keep people from bypassing it for cheaper alternatives.

I don't own an iPhone and I probably never will, but this will probably bring in more profit than the iPod ever did.

As far as this ridiculous 'fairness' issue brought up by some people... for God's sake, deal with it. You bought the iPhone knowing full well what you were getting into. They're not going to change anything for you because guess what: There isn't anything you can do about it. Especially since most iPhone users give it a positive review even with all the lock-down. People are still buying into this lock-in, so there's no reason Apple should change.

X38
Sep 30, 2007, 05:05 PM
I bought an iPhone (my first digital phone) within the first half hour of going on sale and have been extremely pleased with it. So pleased that I was not one bit offended by the quick price drop and I did not understand all the whining about the price cut.

However, the iPhone very obviously is not all that it can be and I have been rather intrigued by the 3rd party application developments. I held off trying any to see what Apple was going to do with their first software upgrade. I normally update all of my Apple software as soon as any new version comes out, but iPhone 1.1.1 is so pathetically anemic compared to what the 3rd party developers are doing, I decided two days ago to stick with 1.0.2 and start installing the 3rd party stuff. So far, I am amazed at all the new things my iPhone can do and how well they work. I am just as pleased as I have been with the iPhone itself. Unless 1.1.1 can be made compatible with the 3rd party applications, there is no way I will ever install it.

I've been a loyal Apple customer & fan since the days of the Apple II+ and in my opinion I have to say that iPhone 1.1.1 breaking 3rd party applications and ringtones is THE WORST and most INCREDIBLY STUPID thing that Apple has ever done. I can understand their commitments with AT&T motivating them to break the network unlocking stuff and am not in the slightest bothered by that as I have no problem with AT&T. But why in the world does Apple want to break third party applications & ringtones?!

Whatever they think they have to gain by doing so is trivial compared to the beating they are going to take in the cell phone market by making this choice. The iPhone is obviously the best cell phone yet made and everyone who sees mine gets jealous; however, other companies will come up with competitive products, and Apple will get killed if they persist with such a customer surly attitude.

I remember well the early days of the Mac when the initial excitement died down and Mac sales plateaued because Steve Jobs refused to believe there was a market for a customer expandable Mac. It was not until the Mac II that they really started to make inroads into the market with the GUI concept. Unfortunately, Steve Jobs was so stubborn about keeping the Mac locked down that they had to force him out of the company in order to bring the Mac II to market. Looks like its time for somebody to slap some sense into that boy again.

Right now Apple is so far out in front of the industry that they are on the verge of owning the pocket computer device market for a very long time, but if they persist in their ignorant attitude on this issue they are once again going to get shoved aside into being a niche player in yet another market. The honchos at Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, etc. have clearly been in a panic since the iPhone came out, but I expect they all gave a big sigh of relief last week when they saw Apple once again show signs of self destruction.

With a little luck, the independent developer community will break the secrets of 1.1.1 quickly and save Apple from itself.

elgruga
Sep 30, 2007, 05:07 PM
Exactly. If you're phone is bricked, chances are you unlocked it illegally.

Its NOT illegal to tamper with your own property. Not at all.

It is almost certainly anti-consumer rights (and soon, I think, illegal) for Apple to lock the SIM, and it may also be illegal right now for Apple to damage phones with an update, no matter how many warnings they put out.

You cant be held to a waiver that destroys your property or your life.
Thats the law.

Man updates phone, tries to call Wife to tell her he left the oven on - phone doesnt work due to 1.1.1 - no call - house burns down.
Man sues Apple.

audiohhh
Sep 30, 2007, 05:08 PM
you know what I mean. He seems to relish in the underdog digital folk hero status and how "for the consumer" his company is. But he's got himself in a Catch 22. Get sued by your userbase or the Evil Cellular monstrosity you signed this exclusive contract with. It seems a lose lose for him right now. I haven't seen this much bad press on apple since.....?

Daremo
Sep 30, 2007, 05:12 PM
IS Apple guilty of criminal damage with 1.1.1?

Er, I think yes, but it all just clouds the arguments horribly.....

So, if you can clearly read the sign that says "WARNING, ELECTRIC FENCE CAN BE FATEL IF TOUCHED" and you touch it anyway, the damage is criminal?

If you climb into a lion den at the zoo, and you're mauled, clearly disregarding the warning signs, and your own common sense, it's the fault of the Zoo?

Come on...

Stella
Sep 30, 2007, 05:13 PM
Old Apple has returned. Total device lock down. Didn't they learn the first time around?

There is absolutely no excuse ( not even the RIAA* ) for the ring tone lock down - you have to buy your ringtones again for the iPhone.

*If RIAA was clamping down on the Apple, they would go after Nokia, SE etc first - but this isn't the case. The sale of iPhones is a drop in the ocean in comparison.

slughead
Sep 30, 2007, 05:13 PM
Apple's statement that they aren't actively locking down hackers is still very true. If they were, all iPhone users would be forced to update. The update is still of course optional.

Uh. Actually, if they forced the update on people it'd probably be both inconvenient and illegal.

It's very silly to say all these minor updates required Apple to lock down the phones. How come EVERY third party thing was broken and not just a few? Look at the bug fixes and new features and think about it: did they REALLY need to take away your apps and brick non AT&T phones?

The answer is no. They did it to lock you out. The only reason the update is optional is because THEY COULD BE SUED if it weren't.

nja247
Sep 30, 2007, 05:14 PM
That being out of pure speculation since I am did not see the contract Apple has with AT&T, I am pretty sure that somewhere in there, AT&T told Apple that if they to get that fee that they get for every new subscriber, there has to be some assurances that people are not going to use the phone with other subscribers, since they want to use the product's potential success to get more ATT contracts, it just makes perfect sense. I don't see why people are surprised that Apple is trying to prevent them from doing something they are not allowed to do in the first place.

Putting aside the possible Antitrust law implications of such an agreement, there is no way to hold Apple liable for a third party 'breaching' the contract. Simply by not offering unlocks to customers and by creating some type of protection to prevent the process to unlock, whether later broken or not would suffice in fulfilling such a obligation legally. They are going above and beyond any possible legal obligation they have.

Just to note, I do not think Apple should tread lightly to not break 3rd party apps or unlocks, however I hope that they are not intentionally working to break phones that have been unlocked. Not only is that bad business, but bad karma and a waste of resources (they're supposedly on their new 'green' trip). Further if it were proven (unlikely) that Apple did actively work to break working phones that were unlocked (which is not illegal, but only a breach of a contractual 'terms and conditions'), then there would be a basis for legal action. It would only be in this highly improbable scenario that I could see a real cause of action.

My 2p.
Nick

slughead
Sep 30, 2007, 05:14 PM
Its NOT illegal to tamper with your own property. Not at all.

To break DRM, actually, yes it is.

If you rip a DVD YOU OWN and bypass the copy protection to do it, you're breaking the law.

Read the DMCA sometime.

Stella
Sep 30, 2007, 05:15 PM
Microsoft open? Try linux phones.
[/QUOTE]

In regards to their smartphones yes. Just like, Symbian, Palm etc they allow 3rd party applications and encourage developers because they know this will enrich their platforms.

megfilmworks
Sep 30, 2007, 05:20 PM
but you cannot use any other airline for 5 years. even if it's cheaper. not even for one little flight. I don't fly regionals
so that restriction works for me. :) If someone told me I had to fly 1st class on BA (or Virgin, sorry Sir Richard) the rest of my life I would be very happy.

mambodancer
Sep 30, 2007, 05:20 PM
How is this any different from any software update that Apple or Microsoft has issued in the past that would break compatibility with any number of software applications I might have on my computer?

Either I upgrade the OS (10.2.x to 10.3.x to 10.4.x to 10.5 or XP to Vista) for the features those upgrades give me knowing that some of my applications may not be compatible or...I wait until the SW developer announces compatibility with the new OS and then upgrade.

I'm fairly confident a few things are going to happen sometime in the near future:
-An official SDK will be released from Apple.
-Apple will begin offering additional functionality by releasing new programs that run on the iPhone that will make the updates even more desireable to have. (Improved customer service by enhancing features)
-The iPhone product line will be expanded with support from different carriers (I'm sure T-Mobile wants to have a piece of this pie now)
-Third party developers will update their ringtone and other software to support the 1.1.1 iphone update and anything else that might come from apple in the future.

nja247
Sep 30, 2007, 05:21 PM
To break DRM, actually, yes it is.

If you rip a DVD YOU OWN and bypass the copy protection to do it, you're breaking the law.

Read the DMCA sometime.

However phone unlocking has a special exception under that law. So maybe you should read up as well.

elgruga
Sep 30, 2007, 05:21 PM
that it really isn't at all Apple's choice to unlock it or not. THey are contractually obligated to keep it locked to ATT so they don't get sued by ATT for breach of contract.

No.

Thats simply wrong. AT&T WILL unlock your iPhone after 90 days. Call them if you dont believe me.

Unfortunately, Apple has not given them the unlock codes for the SIM.

What a mess this is - write these points down and read them over and over again until you get it:

1 SIM and OSX computer are separate objects and issues.
2 Criminal damage is not OK just because you issued a warning.
3 Its not illegal to unlock your damn iphone.
4 AT&T offer unlocking for the SIM after 90 days - call them.
5 3rd party Apps are great, but its at your own risk.
6 IF you could still make calls after 1.1.1, people wouldnt be so mad.
7 $400 is a lot to lose just because a nice man said you could have Sudoku on your iphone.


BTW, good post X38!

GQB
Sep 30, 2007, 05:23 PM
I smell a lawsuit coming and fast. I was just in the apple store and a guy was in there with his locked iphone because of this update. They told him he hacked it and there was nothing he could do. He was yelling like mad. I felt bad for him. Its freakin wrong of apple and they deserve to get sued.

I don't feel sorry for him in the least.
http://www.iphoneatlas.com/2007/09/12/iphone-unlocks-use-buffer-overflow-nearly-guaranteed-to-be-broken-by-next-apple-firmware-update/

Let see... he installs hackware that exploits a buffer flow vulnerability on the device, and when Apple fixes the vulnerability (or aren't they supposed to do that?), ka-boom. As a stockholder, if Apple were to cave to that, I'd go thermal.

You want a 'smart phone' on which you can install malware and adware to your heart's content? There are a million of them out there. My guess is 99% of users don't want their device to cater to the fringe base.

X38
Sep 30, 2007, 05:24 PM
I bought an iPhone the day it came out. I clearly remember the activation process requiring me to agree to terms of useage, which clearly stated stipulations to the effect that I agree to not alter the hardware or software and if I did, I would lose access to warranty service.

If I was to -not- agree to those terms, I should return the unit where I purchased it. I clicked on the button indicating that I read the agreement and that I agreed to it's terms.



So what? Once the notion gets lodged in the public psyche that Apple will prevent you from customizing your phone but Nokia et. al. will let you do whatever you want, the iPhone will be dead meat in the market place. It doesn't even matter if it's true; it only matters if most people believe it. If Apple doesn't straighten up and fly right real quick on this one, they will go down in flames.
1.1.1 is on the verge of turning the iPhone from a Mustang into an Edsel.

CJD2112
Sep 30, 2007, 05:24 PM
You are not "Being told how to use something you have full ownership of". You were simply warned that if you used it differently by hacking the software, you could not guarantee that further updates provided by Apple would still be compatible. If you choose to mess with the OS software you can't seriously expect Apple - or anyone - to ensure that subsequent software updates work around your modifications. You complain about being treated like a child, yet you are behaving like a petulant, spoiled brat. Get real.

LMAO @ you. "Get real"? First, no, installing third party apps is NOT messing with the phone's native software. Second, if any one is acting inappropriately it is you. Show some respect, do NOT talk to me like that, I do not deserve it and neither would you. If anyone needs a lesson in acting like an adult, it is you. :mad:

megfilmworks
Sep 30, 2007, 05:25 PM
With a little luck, the independent developer community will break the secrets of 1.1.1 quickly and save Apple from itself.
Do you really think Apple needs saving?? From a fringe customer base?
Why does everyone think an innovator like Apple just makes snap, stupid decisions? They are all over this and they are making the decisions that are best for their future and their stockholders' futures (i.e. the iPhones future). Nokia, Sony/Erricson, Moto, etc., are facing a very uncertain future, and the hacker community can not rescue them or "save" Apple.

ssajous
Sep 30, 2007, 05:25 PM
Putting aside the possible Antitrust law implications of such an agreement, there is no way to hold Apple liable for a third party 'breaching' the contract. Simply by not offering unlocks to customers and by creating some type of protection to prevent the process to unlock, whether later broken or not would suffice in fulfilling such a obligation legally. They are going above and beyond any possible legal obligation they have.

Just to note, I do not think Apple should tread lightly to not break 3rd party apps or unlocks, however I hope that they are not intentionally working to break phones that have been unlocked. Not only is that bad business, but bad karma and a waste of resources (they're supposedly on their new 'green' trip). Further if it were proven (unlikely) that Apple did actively work to break working phones that were unlocked (which is not illegal, but only a breach of a contractual 'terms and conditions'), then there would be a basis for legal action. It would only be in this highly improbable scenario that I could see a real cause of action.

My 2p.
Nick

First of all I am not a lawyer and I did not say that they could be held liable, but correct me if I am wrong, didn't apple have to have an agreement similar to that in order to sell music on itunes. Last I checked when I buy music from itunes it does not have a built in feature for me to give that music away, I have to use clever tricks to do that.

Also, this is a capitalist country, companies will do what makes sense for them to make money and keep their shareholders happy, most of the people who complain about this or that company not being open do not work from free, last I checked. How much R&D money did any of the complainers invest into any of the products M$ or Apple has ever put out. I think that if our taxes were paying for the development of those products , then they would have an arguement, other than that, enjoy the iphone for what it is: A LUXURY, not a god given right.

nja247
Sep 30, 2007, 05:27 PM
No.

Thats simply wrong. AT&T WILL unlock your iPhone after 90 days. Call them if you dont believe me.

Unfortunately, Apple has not given them the unlock codes for the SIM.

What a mess this is - write these points down and read them over and over again until you get it:

1 SIM and OSX computer are separate objects and issues.
2 Criminal damage is not OK just because you issued a warning.
3 Its not illegal to unlock your damn iphone.
4 AT&T offer unlocking for the SIM after 90 days - call them.
5 3rd party Apps are great, but its at your own risk.
6 IF you could still make calls after 1.1.1, people wouldnt be so mad.
7 $400 is a lot to lose just because a nice man said you could have Sudoku on your iphone.


BTW, good post X38!

Read my post about this obligation theory and how a third party cannot breach such a contract.

1) ?
2)Regarding criminal damage, you'd have to be able to prove Apple intentionally set out to break the phone. If they did, shame on them (for many reasons, see my post above p.3)
3) Correct.
4) Yes and no. The dummy who answers the phone simply says they don't have an unlock code, though official policy may be something different.
5) Exactly. I don't believe any sane or rational person expects Apple to protect 3rd party apps when upgrading firmware.
6 and 7) Yea!

elgruga
Sep 30, 2007, 05:28 PM
To break DRM, actually, yes it is.

If you rip a DVD YOU OWN and bypass the copy protection to do it, you're breaking the law.

Read the DMCA sometime.

How in the sweet and somewhat warm-ish world of Hades are you 'breaking DRM' by unlocking your bloody iphone?

DRM means digital rights management - applies to music and DVD's, not phones.

I hate to get personal, but I suspect a case of Recto-Cranial Inversion here.....

SiliconAddict
Sep 30, 2007, 05:28 PM
Jobs is a tool. Period. End of story. That company is getting to the point where I may very well look at ditching Apple in '09 when I start shopping for a new laptop. I don't need to stick with a company who has the attitude that they know best, and if you don't like it tough. These [bleep]hats need to remember: I'm the customer. They are the company. Frankly the arrigance of this company and Steve "I'm God" Jobs is quite amazing. Microsoft doesn't come close to Apple in terms of overall arrogance.
Ahh but there are too many Apple lapdogs out there who won't tell Apple to bugger off they they pull some underhanded crap. They will just make up some sort of BS excuse and argue it until heck freezes over. Which is why they continue to do this. (When the child is not punished for bad behavior they do not discontinue it.) This is your fault people. Thanks a lot. :mad:

Marcjcd
Sep 30, 2007, 05:30 PM
No.

Thats simply wrong. AT&T WILL unlock your iPhone after 90 days. Call them if you dont believe me.

Unfortunately, Apple has not given them the unlock codes for the SIM.

What a mess this is - write these points down and read them over and over again until you get it:

1 SIM and OSX computer are separate objects and issues.
2 Criminal damage is not OK just because you issued a warning.
3 Its not illegal to unlock your damn iphone.
4 AT&T offer unlocking for the SIM after 90 days - call them.
5 3rd party Apps are great, but its at your own risk.
6 IF you could still make calls after 1.1.1, people wouldnt be so mad.
7 $400 is a lot to lose just because a nice man said you could have Sudoku on your iphone.


BTW, good post X38!


THANK YOU Elgruga!!! Quick, to-the-point, and any educated person cannot come up with any responce to those TOTALLY LEGITIMATE POINTS!

Also, I have heard enough from the Apple stockholders on here talking how proud they are with Apple and how they would "loose it" if Apple caved in to the 3rd party Apps... ENOUGH ALREADY... DROP THE POM-POMS!!! If you think for a moment that SJ is doing any of this for the stockholders... I've got a bridge for you all to invest in.

Dagless
Sep 30, 2007, 05:32 PM
It is a bit of a shame, it hasn't deterred me from my iPhone plans (I'll be in the queue on day 1). 3rd party apps make it that little bit better. I wasn't planning on going overboard I just wanted a portable IM.

I hope Apple see the potential and release iChat for use in WiFi only areas as to not tread on 02's toes.

Ah well! Roll on whenever it's launched in England :)

irun5k
Sep 30, 2007, 05:32 PM
I've been a loyal Apple customer & fan since the days of the Apple II+ and in my opinion I have to say that iPhone 1.1.1 breaking 3rd party applications and ringtones is THE WORST and most INCREDIBLY STUPID thing that Apple has ever done. I can understand their commitments with AT&T motivating them to break the network unlocking stuff and am not in the slightest bothered by that as I have no problem with AT&T. But why in the world does Apple want to break third party applications & ringtones?!


Great post. You're exactly right. Disabling third party apps did nothing but lower the market value of the phone! Perhaps it WAS just an innocent side effect of trying to block people from unlocking the phone- we'll never know I guess. I really wish that people would have never tried to unlock the phone. It clearly has major legal implications for everyone where as installing third party apps does not. And the result is we're all penalized now.

Of course, hacking aside, the larger issue that you alluded to is the attitude of not wanting to allow 3rd party apps and not providing an SDK.

I bought an iPhone, and I know what I bought. I won't complain, sue, ask for my money back, etc. I'm actually happy with the phone in general. But as I use the phone I'm realizing how under-utilized it really is. It was very cool, for a short while, to be able to install 3rd party apps. It would be so nice if this was a formal, supported way of doing business.

These developments have really flushed out the true, die hard Apple fan boys. Look, we all like Apple stuff here. Most of us are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt when something questionable happens. But some of the recent developments have been an order of magnitude larger than anything we've seen in the last few years. The true fan boys are clearly willing to ride the ship down. The rest of us see the writing on the wall- that this could be very bad for Apple if they don't loosen up a little. We're trying to send them a message. Sticking by someone who does stupid things doesn't help them any.

I compare this to the fact that some people think you should stand by your best friend no matter what. No matter what he does, you're not supposed to criticize him and you should always his decisions. Even if he's abusing his wife or something. I'm the type of person who doesn't buy that crap at all. If my friend is doing something stupid, I'm going to tell him in no uncertain terms.

HLdan
Sep 30, 2007, 05:33 PM
Its NOT illegal to tamper with your own property. Not at all.

It is almost certainly anti-consumer rights (and soon, I think, illegal) for Apple to lock the SIM, and it may also be illegal right now for Apple to damage phones with an update, no matter how many warnings they put out.

You cant be held to a waiver that destroys your property or your life.
Thats the law.

Man updates phone, tries to call Wife to tell her he left the oven on - phone doesnt work due to 1.1.1 - no call - house burns down.
Man sues Apple.

You are only saying those words because you live outside the U.S. and probably are one of the iPhone users that got hosed (in your opinion). Was there anything in the book of rules that forced anyone to sit the phone on the cradle and update it, you knew what would happen so quit crying. :p

danny_w
Sep 30, 2007, 05:34 PM
Last I checked when I buy music from itunes it does not have a built in feature for me to give that music away, I have to use clever tricks to do that.
You call burning a cd a "clever trick"? I feel sorry for you.

Also, this is a capitalist country, companies will do what makes sense for them to make money and keep their shareholders happy, most of the people who complain about this or that company not being open do not work from free, last I checked.
That assumes that all company decision making is faultless. What happens when the company tries to do what is best for the company and its shareholders and ends up making a mistake? That can happen, you know (and does every day of the week).

EricBrian
Sep 30, 2007, 05:35 PM
I think it was a mistake on Apple's part to make the phones unusable. They should have checked to see if the phone is in the condition it needs to be in to upgrade and if not, the update process should have raised an exception and stopped.

In any case, I am talking people out of buying the iPhone and instead of buying it, to go with the Nokia N95.... my German friends, that is. :)

X38
Sep 30, 2007, 05:35 PM
Apple promised the features that they would deliver and they did just that, right? The phone works great and most people are happy, right?

I realize that there are a few things missing on the iPhone and I think that a majority of us can live with that. Out of the 1 million + users who already have an iPhone, how many of them actually care about the hacks? What, 1,000 , 2,000 , 3,000 users?

Apparently at least 9377 as of this moment, but the numbers have been increasing rapidly every time I check: http://www.apptapp.com/survey/




If you want a platform that's completely open to anything and everything but is a pain to use, go with a Microsoft product.

The 3rd party applications on the iPhone work extremely well, in no way increase the difficulty of using the phone, and fill in a lot of the holes that Apple left.

slughead
Sep 30, 2007, 05:36 PM
I don't feel sorry for him in the least.
http://www.iphoneatlas.com/2007/09/12/iphone-unlocks-use-buffer-overflow-nearly-guaranteed-to-be-broken-by-next-apple-firmware-update/

Let see... he installs hackware that exploits a buffer flow vulnerability on the device, and when Apple fixes the vulnerability (or aren't they supposed to do that?), ka-boom. As a stockholder, if Apple were to cave to that, I'd go thermal.

Yeah but did they need to fix the vulnerability AND remove access to the apps. You use the buffer overflow to put the programs ON there, not to KEEP them on there.

They removed the apps because of Instant messaging.

GQB
Sep 30, 2007, 05:37 PM
So what? Once the notion gets lodged in the public psyche that Apple will prevent you from customizing your phone but Nokia et. al. will let you do whatever you want, the iPhone will be dead meat in the market place. It doesn't even matter if it's true; it only matters if most people believe it. If Apple doesn't straighten up and fly right real quick on this one, they will go down in flames.
1.1.1 is on the verge of turning the iPhone from a Mustang into an Edsel.

You totally overestimate the degree to which the audience for this device gives a hoot about 'customizing'.
Over the course of the next year, iPhone/Touch users will find new applications (many filling gaps we all know about) popping up in their home screen regularly.
I've looked for years at the drivel available as 'applications' on existing phones, and wouldn't install them if my life depended on it (which it would have to, since app installation on most phones requires an advanced CS degree.)
Sorry, but this is a replay of the rebate whining. Apple has it right on this.

slughead
Sep 30, 2007, 05:40 PM
How in the sweet and somewhat warm-ish world of Hades are you 'breaking DRM' by unlocking your bloody iphone?

DRM means digital rights management - applies to music and DVD's, not phones.

I hate to get personal, but I suspect a case of Recto-Cranial Inversion here.....

Digital rights management doesn't just refer to media.

Look it up. Here I'll save you the trouble.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
"Digital rights management (DRM) is an umbrella term that refers to access control technologies used by publishers and other copyright holders to limit usage of digital media or devices."

DMCA (passed in 1998) says breaking DRM in most circumstances is illegal.

There is no exemption for the iphone, like someone else said.

EDIT:

I should add that I'm totally against the DMCA and I could give a crap what Apple does. You should have the right to do what you want and they should have the right to try and stop you. DMCA limits that liberty which really pisses me off.

elgruga
Sep 30, 2007, 05:42 PM
1) ?
2)Regarding criminal damage, you'd have to be able to prove Apple intentionally set out to break the phone. If they did, shame on them (for many reasons, see my post above p.3)
3) Correct.
4) Yes and no. The dummy who answers the phone simply says they don't have an unlock code, though official policy may be something different.
5) Exactly. I don't believe any sane or rational person expects Apple to protect 3rd party apps when upgrading firmware.
6 and 7) Yea!

I agree with your take on criminal damage.

My point 1 is that the iphone is a computer and communications device.
The computer bit is a non-essential, at this point in history, but the phone is an essential device, and even with no SIM, you still MUST have the ability to make an emergency call.
By bricking the whole dog and pony show, Apple may well be guilty of something a bit nasty - and illegal.

But, as X38 says above - its not what is right or wrong or illegal etc - its what the market believes - the headlines are on every lousy bad news sites already - APPLE destroys phones!

APPLE - PHONE WRECKER!

Thats what counts, and its dumb of Apple not to see this.

As someone aid, Nokia et al must be having a relaxing week-end on this 1.1.1 update news.

GQB
Sep 30, 2007, 05:42 PM
Yeah but did they need to fix the vulnerability AND remove access to the apps. You use the buffer overflow to put the programs ON there, not to KEEP them on there.

They removed the apps because of Instant messaging.

1) If my OS provider allows potential malware that's been installed via a security hole to remain, they're negligent.
2) You have no proof for your last statement.

nja247
Sep 30, 2007, 05:43 PM
First of all I am not a lawyer and I did not say that they could be held liable, but correct me if I am wrong, didn't apple have to have an agreement similar to that in order to sell music on itunes. Last I checked when I buy music from itunes it does not have a built in feature for me to give that music away, I have to use clever tricks to do that.

Also, this is a capitalist country, companies will do what makes sense for them to make money and keep their shareholders happy, most of the people who complain about this or that company not being open do not work from free, last I checked. How much R&D money did any of the complainers invest into any of the products M$ or Apple has ever put out. I think that if our taxes were paying for the development of those products , then they would have an arguement, other than that, enjoy the iphone for what it is: A LUXURY, not a god given right.

I don't get all these analogies on here? iTunes sales have nothing to do or is it even remotely similar to unlocking a phone? If Apple gave away music they would have broken their agreements, etc etc and would have to pay for those songs. However if Apple sells a phone which is locked to a carrier (per agreement) and they make it a difficult process to unlock it then they've fulfilled their obligations (if they even exist; I haven't seen the deal). A third party cannot come in and breach a contract between Apple and ATT. So working with your analogy, if Apple gave away music to you then they are liable since they have the agreement. You have not broken any agreement with the music supplier because you have no contract with them. Sure, you may have received stolen property, but that is something totally different. Continuing though, if Apple locks the phone and makes it hard to unlock it they're golden. They're going above and beyond any possible obligation they have.

Second, if you don't know this most countries are capitalist, including the UK. I read and re-read your paragraph and don't understand exactly what you're attempting to say. However, I don't see how 3rd party apps hurt shareholders? In fact it increases the products' appeal to some. Unlocking, may or may not actually hurt the bottom line since it's possible they'll sell a hell of a lot more phones if they can be unlocked. I mean selling phones potentially world-wide sounds more profitable to me than a small share of user tariffs in four countries.

Again I don't advocate that Apple should work to protect 3rd party apps and unlocks in their updates, but it would be quite sad if they are working to intentionally break a working product (bad business, and a waste of resources).

wackattack
Sep 30, 2007, 05:44 PM
I still believe that users are overreacting to the closed status of the iPhone. You aren't buying an external hard drive! Plus, Apple is most likely legally protecting their relationship with AT&T by proving that the SIM card can't be replaced in a simple way.



The huge problem for me with the iPhone is that I will be forced to deal with the telco that puts the most money on the table. I'm used to deal with Apple and I have no problem wit this company what so eve. I have chosen Apple to be my sole supplier of electronics all because of their history, but with the iPhone Apple forces me to like their new bride of whom i also know the history. And that's the big mistake in this lock up. Everybody has different histories with telco's. The iPhone is not yet out in my country but if they choose another provider than my provider we have a problem as all other companies in my country can't top my providers service. Switching to another provider is like going back to windows and this scenario seems to be very posible as Apple seems to choose in telco's in europe not based on service, support or history but solely based on how much money they will get out of it. If i see companies in europe even rolling out EDGE for this phone I know for sure Apple is dealing with stupid people in europe.

I will not switch to another provider to be the owner of an iPhone!

megfilmworks
Sep 30, 2007, 05:44 PM
Microsoft doesn't come close to Apple in terms of overall arrogance.


What does MS have to be arrogant about? Hmmm. Lousy software? Hardware by multiple 3rd party developers that all work poorly? People don't buy Apple because of Jobs. They buy it because they love the product. If I want malware and mickey mouse apps, I'll switch to the Gate squad (or open windows on my mac). Until then, no thanks!

HLdan
Sep 30, 2007, 05:45 PM
Jobs is a tool. Period. End of story. That company is getting to the point where I may very well look at ditching Apple in '09 when I start shopping for a new laptop. I don't need to stick with a company who has the attitude that they know best, and if you don't like it tough. These [bleep]hats need to remember: I'm the customer. They are the company. Frankly the arrigance of this company and Steve "I'm God" Jobs is quite amazing. Microsoft doesn't come close to Apple in terms of overall arrogance.
Ahh but there are too many Apple lapdogs out there who won't tell Apple to bugger off they they pull some underhanded crap. They will just make up some sort of BS excuse and argue it until heck freezes over. Which is why they continue to do this. (When the child is not punished for bad behavior they do not discontinue it.) This is your fault people. Thanks a lot. :mad:

Huh?? Are you serious?? You are willing to inconvenience yourself by getting a non-Apple laptop (something you truly may not want) just because you don't like the company's attitude and they don't practice business they way YOU want them to?
That's BS, that's like saying I won't buy from Sony because they cut trees down trees that are going extinct so I'll get something else even though I prefer Sony. I feel sorry for you guys sometimes.

russellb
Sep 30, 2007, 05:45 PM
Personally I think it is very sad what's happening.

1) Apple fighting SIM unlocking.

I don't like it ! but I understand it. I live outside the US and have an unlocked Iphone but I totally understand and have no problem that they choose to protect their device from unlocking.

2) 3rd party apps

Now thats different

The Iphone is such a great device and until you use it you don't understand how great it is. To apple saying they have to protect the AT&T network etc CRAP then how about all the other smart PDA phones out there with free 3rd party apps and development ...

Look at the fantastic 3rd party development thats happened so quickly. That in itself must be some sort of record for developers adopting a platform ??

The Iphone if allowed to be open and grow could be one of the fastest and booming smart PDA phones out there and for some reason Apple is choosing to stunt it's growth.

Apple should come out with an SDK for the Iphone

If they are that worried about problems from 3rd party Apps then they should come up with their own Installer App, charge developers and vet all apps before allowing them onto the Apple installer.

Apple needs to get their act together and do what they need to do to allow 3rd party apps on the Iphone

IF THEY DONT, people will not put up with a locked , restricted Iphone for long.

At the moment everyone is putting up with it due to the fact that it's new, it's a great device and we can see the amazing possibilities for it.

But people won't put up with it forever. As fantastic as it is I find myself looking at Apple competitors and wondering if their open devices might better fill my needs.

Apple get your act together and don't stuff up your lead on a truly great product. We all know that just because a device is good does not mean it succeeds in the market long term.

We saw that the first time around with Macs and PC's, PC's were more open and had more 3rd party apps and programs and even though the PC was an inferior product it succeeded on the long run.

Stella
Sep 30, 2007, 05:46 PM
How in the sweet and somewhat warm-ish world of Hades are you 'breaking DRM' by unlocking your bloody iphone?

DRM means digital rights management - applies to music and DVD's, not phones.

I hate to get personal, but I suspect a case of Recto-Cranial Inversion here.....

The orginal poster is wrong.

You are not breaking the DMCA by unlocking your phone. Cell phones are excluded!

Hardware by multiple 3rd party developers that all work poorly?

Are you really suggesting the all PC hardware sucks. Over generalisation.

slackpacker
Sep 30, 2007, 05:46 PM
right now 3 party apps suck they are just toys... who cares... I tried them..

X38
Sep 30, 2007, 05:46 PM
Do you really think Apple needs saving?? .

Remember, this is the company that ushered in the personal computer era (Apple I & II) and the now universal GUI (LISA & Mac), yet somehow managed to fall to a low of 2% market share in the market that they more than any other company created. Much of that remarkable slide was self inflicted.

Yes, from time to time they do need saving from themselves.

Mac OS X Ocelot
Sep 30, 2007, 05:46 PM
I don't know anything about cell phones. I loathe phones, and my hate is magnified a hundred-fold of the cellular variety, but I was of the impression that there are dozens of cell phones that have to be used with certain carriers. Like the Razr or Krazr or anything with zr and a lot of others. The only reason people care about the iPhone's lockdown is because it's also an iPod. But the point of the iPhone is not that its an iPod but that it's a phone that plays music (with an iPod-like interface and nifty touch controls). If you don't like AT&T, then buy a Razr and an iPod Touch. Or buy an iPhone, hack it, and lose all support and updates from Apple and live with the knowledge that you're doing Satan's work.

nja247
Sep 30, 2007, 05:47 PM
Digital rights management doesn't just refer to media.

Look it up. Here I'll save you the trouble.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
"Digital rights management (DRM) is an umbrella term that refers to access control technologies used by publishers and other copyright holders to limit usage of digital media or devices."

DMCA (passed in 1998) says breaking DRM in most circumstances is illegal.

There is no exemption for the iphone, like someone else said.

EDIT:

I should add that I'm totally against the DMCA and I could give a crap what Apple does. You should have the right to do what you want and they should have the right to try and stop you. DMCA limits that liberty which really pisses me off.

Go here http://www.copyright.gov/1201/index.html and read exemption 5.

colinmack
Sep 30, 2007, 05:48 PM
Digital rights management doesn't just refer to media.

Look it up. Here I'll save you the trouble.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
"Digital rights management (DRM) is an umbrella term that refers to access control technologies used by publishers and other copyright holders to limit usage of digital media or devices."

DMCA (passed in 1998) says breaking DRM in most circumstances is illegal.

There is no exemption for the iphone, like someone else said.

Sorry, you're wrong, unlocking a phone to use on a different network is most definitely allowed as an exemption under the DMCA...

Look it up. Here I'll save you the trouble.

"The Exempted Classes
...
5. Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network."

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/docs/1201_recommendation.pdf

elgruga
Sep 30, 2007, 05:49 PM
Digital rights management doesn't just refer to media.

Look it up. Here I'll save you the trouble.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
"Digital rights management (DRM) is an umbrella term that refers to access control technologies used by publishers and other copyright holders to limit usage of digital media or devices."

DMCA (passed in 1998) says breaking DRM in most circumstances is illegal.

There is no exemption for the iphone, like someone else said.

Read some more - the exemption is if the lock is ONLY for the purposes of a business model.
Apple and all wireless phones can NOT lock just to protect their business model, ie, their cash flow.
They can ONLY lock to protect their software, but locking the SIM is not part of their software.

Thats been my point through out this messy discussion.

Apple have NO RIGHT to lock the phone, but they have the right to defend their software; however making the CALLING operation of the phone break is easily criminal damage, imho.

Unlocking is CLEARLY allowed in the DMCA.

GQB
Sep 30, 2007, 05:49 PM
Jobs is a tool. Period. End of story. That company is getting to the point where I may very well look at ditching Apple in '09 when I start shopping for a new laptop. I don't need to stick with a company who has the attitude that they know best, and if you don't like it tough. These [bleep]hats need to remember: I'm the customer. They are the company. Frankly the arrigance of this company and Steve "I'm God" Jobs is quite amazing. Microsoft doesn't come close to Apple in terms of overall arrogance.
Ahh but there are too many Apple lapdogs out there who won't tell Apple to bugger off they they pull some underhanded crap. They will just make up some sort of BS excuse and argue it until heck freezes over. Which is why they continue to do this. (When the child is not punished for bad behavior they do not discontinue it.) This is your fault people. Thanks a lot. :mad:

Yeah... Apple was SOOOOO much better under Sculley and Gil when they gave away the store every time you turned around.
Apple is firing on all cylinders, and while a few geeks are crying about their custom porn viewer being wiped off of their phone, the entertainment and Consumer electronics industries are messing their diapers.

chicagostars
Sep 30, 2007, 05:51 PM
I smell a lawsuit coming and fast. I was just in the apple store and a guy was in there with his locked iphone because of this update. They told him he hacked it and there was nothing he could do. He was yelling like mad. I felt bad for him. Its freakin wrong of apple and they deserve to get sued.

Sued on what grounds? If you hack something, you need to live with the consequences of your actions.

pale9
Sep 30, 2007, 05:53 PM
...when you had a perfectly good 1.02 with app.tap and maybe even simfree! while i am sure there will eventually be some kindof new hack, it would have been a way of 'sticking it to the man' if all of us just would have said NO to this update.

also hello to all apple shills on this site that have shown incredible creativity by coming up with 1001 reasons why a locked phone & att is good and why apple can simply do no harm....

offwidafairies
Sep 30, 2007, 05:53 PM
Wow this thread has created a lot of heat!
Lucky for me I think the iPhone is a big fat RIP OFF!!!
I hate any contract, especially phone contracts. I much prefer to live day by day and change my mind about things as better deals come up.
I think Apple has made a mistake by using one company per country. Silly. When I need a new phone I will buy it outright and it will not be locked to any contract. :eek:

megfilmworks
Sep 30, 2007, 05:53 PM
Yeah... Apple was SOOOOO much better under Sculley and Gil when they gave away the store every time you turned around.
Apple is firing on all cylinders, and while a few geeks are crying about their custom porn viewer being wiped off of their phone, the entertainment and Consumer electronics industries are messing their diapers.

Absolutley! Stock is way up as well. Forget the mickey mouse 3rd party apps. I want a secure, reliable iPhone, with 3rd party apps approved by and/or developed by Apple. No hobbyists need apply!

nja247
Sep 30, 2007, 05:53 PM
Read some more - the exemption is if the lock is ONLY for the purposes of a business model.
Apple and all wireless phones can NOT lock just to protect their business model, ie, their cash flow.
They can ONLY lock to protect their software, but locking the SIM is not part of their software.

Thats been my point through out this messy discussion.

Apple have NO RIGHT to lock the phone, but they have the right to defend their software; however making the CALLING operation of the phone break is easily criminal damage, imho.

Unlocking is CLEARLY allowed in the DMCA.

Actually they CAN lock the phone, and they can continue to lock it, but it's not illegal for you to unlock it. What would be illegal is, again, if you could PROVE Apple broke your phone via an update solely because you legally unlocked it.

sjo
Sep 30, 2007, 05:57 PM
See the point is it's not Apple, it's AT&T but so many people here feel the need to blame only the manufacturer of the phone and somehow leave poor AT&T alone.

well it actually is apple. they chose to enter into contract with att instead of selling the phone truly contract free. users gained visual voicemail (which actually could be implemented without the operator in most, if not all networks based on gsm), but if all this mess is just because of apples contract with att, it seems to me that users lost a lot more than they gained through the agreement.

apple could have changed the cell phone business, they chose not to because they wanted their part of the subscription fees, i.e., because of pure corporate greed. (for which they of course are entitled, but which usually is not a good consumer business practice in the long run).

elgruga
Sep 30, 2007, 05:58 PM
You are only saying those words because you live outside the U.S. and probably are one of the iPhone users that got hosed (in your opinion). Was there anything in the book of rules that forced anyone to sit the phone on the cradle and update it, you knew what would happen so quit crying. :p

Er - I do live outside the US, but I am still a human being, although not as good as I would be if only I were AMERICAN!

I didnt brick my iPhone - its working fine thanks, on 1.0.2.

I am not crying, although when I think of how much better I would be if I were an American, I do have to weep a little..........!

With Love from Canada, your slightly less arrogant neighbour to the North (thats the opposite way to Mexico)

mikeinternet
Sep 30, 2007, 05:59 PM
1. games (lights out- such a great easy time-killing phone game, NES simulator, taptap revolution not my fav but well done enough to make it fun. and others.)

2. AIM (works so much nicer than any webapp)

3. not to mention a more customizable UI, voice note taking, sendsong - email songs plus ring-tone support directly from phone.

these alone are more important to me than mobile itunes store.

(OPEN 3RD PARTY DEVELOPMENT! PLEASE.)

megfilmworks
Sep 30, 2007, 06:00 PM
it would have been a way of 'sticking it to the man' if all of us just would have said NO to this update.
also hello to all apple shills on this site If you want to "stick it to the man" then build your own iPhone. By the way the word "shill" implies being employed by Apple, while pretending not to be so one can profess a point beneficial to their employer.
Don't think there are any shills here. Just honest opinions on both sides.

crees!
Sep 30, 2007, 06:01 PM
Developers should just go on an iPhone strike:D Considering there is no official SDK (forget the AJAX-Web dev) I don't think your suggesting would matter much since Apple is the only official developer.

LMAO @ you. "Get real"? First, no, installing third party apps is NOT messing with the phone's native software. Second, if any one is acting inappropriately it is you. Show some respect, do NOT talk to me like that, I do not deserve it and neither would you. If anyone needs a lesson in acting like an adult, it is you. :mad:

Cry a little? You are messing with the native software by installing apps. Where's Mencia when you need him.

Mac OS X Ocelot
Sep 30, 2007, 06:02 PM
Er - I do live outside the US, but I am still a human being, although not as good as I would be if only I were AMERICAN!

I didnt brick my iPhone - its working fine thanks, on 1.0.2.

I am not crying, although when I think of how much better I would be if I were an American, I do have to weep a little..........!

With Love from Canada, your slightly less arrogant neighbour to the North (thats the opposite way to Mexico)

Don't use sarcasm on Americans. We INVENTED sarcasm. Go back to your corner and think about why you weren't born American.

elgruga
Sep 30, 2007, 06:06 PM
Actually they CAN lock the phone, and they can continue to lock it, but it's not illegal for you to unlock it. What would be illegal is, again, if you could PROVE Apple broke your phone via an update solely because you legally unlocked it.

Yeah, sorry, I am getting a bit overheated!

Interesting though - I did legally unlock my phone.
Apple did deliberately send out 1.1.1 to glitch that.

Can I prove that last part - well, if I can prove that the Baseband is separate from the OSX part, then maybe.

Seems to me that the Baseband (radio part) uses a different firmware flash than the iPhone apps part - and Apple changed BOTH of them.

Why didnt they leave the Baseband firmware alone and just change the OS?
Then I would have a working cell phone that I could re-flash BACK to 1.0.2.

(I didnt use 1.1.1 of course, my iphone is doing great up here in the frozen north.

X38
Sep 30, 2007, 06:07 PM
You totally overestimate the degree to which the audience for this device gives a hoot about 'customizing'.
Over the course of the next year, iPhone/Touch users will find new applications (many filling gaps we all know about) popping up in their home screen regularly.
I've looked for years at the drivel available as 'applications' on existing phones, and wouldn't install them if my life depended on it (which it would have to, since app installation on most phones requires an advanced CS degree.)
Sorry, but this is a replay of the rebate whining. Apple has it right on this.

In the first place, anything I said is not a replay of the price cut whining. I did not post here about it, but I was emphatically of the opinion that the complaints about the price cut were unjustified whining and I was still perfectly happy with the price I paid even after the cut. (Thanks SJ for the $100 certificate anyhow.)

I've only been delving into the iphone 3rd party scene for less than 48 hours myself and already I have come across tons of stuff that makes me say "how did I ever live without that?!"
Go to http://iphone.nullriver.com/beta/ and give it a try. You will be amazed at how much more your iPhone can do. Even if you don't want to give it a try, at least look at what is available before complaining that you've never seen useful 3rd party phone apps.

The truly amazing thing is how quickly this developer community has sprung up, especially since they are essentially working in a hostile environment. Apple is being STUPID BEYOND BELIEF not to take advantage of this kind of enthusiasm!

As I said before, it doesn't matter a hoot if Apple is "within their rights". All that matters in the long run is how the marketplace perceives this issue.

colinmack
Sep 30, 2007, 06:12 PM
Sued on what grounds? If you hack something, you need to live with the consequences of your actions.

But...if you *legally* unlock your phone (specifically exempted in the DMCA), and Apple bricks it on purpose and damages it functionally as a result, they could most definitely be on shaky legal ground. Given that they are forcing a deactivation and altering the IMEI codes to flag the phones for refused service, it would be hard for them to argue that they aren't intentionally bricking it (changing the IMEI codes certainly implies that it's not an unintended side effect of the update).

Whether it bites them or not (either legally or through bad PR) is another matter entirely.

mike12806
Sep 30, 2007, 06:14 PM
Wasn't SJ clear enough from the start that he only wanted applications via Safari? And that the iPhone was exclusive to ATT? No one was misled about anything. To the contrary, Apple shouldn't have to shoulder the burden of fixing iphones that might have been damaged by unauthorized apps/sim unlocking.

ddubbo
Sep 30, 2007, 06:16 PM
Absolutley! Stock is way up as well. Forget the mickey mouse 3rd party apps. I want a secure, reliable iPhone, with 3rd party apps approved by and/or developed by Apple. No hobbyists need apply!
You want, so don't install any apps except ones of Apple. And I want to do with my product anything I want, once I paid.If I want to make it less stable but more customized and user friendly - it' my right.

skunk
Sep 30, 2007, 06:17 PM
No you didnt.
You speak english (sort of) and sarcasm originated in Greek, finding its way through Latin to French in c1500 - original meaning 'bitter words';Original meaning was "burning flesh". Much more fun.

ddubbo
Sep 30, 2007, 06:18 PM
What does MS have to be arrogant about? Hmmm. Lousy software? Hardware by multiple 3rd party developers that all work poorly? ...
About 90% PC marketshare

GQB
Sep 30, 2007, 06:18 PM
The Iphone if allowed to be open and grow could be one of the fastest and booming smart PDA phones out there and for some reason Apple is choosing to stunt it's growth.

Um, it already IS the fastest booming 'smart PDA phone out there'.
The business plan is working just fine, thank you.
I'll put the business judgement of Steve up against the interests of a handful of open source (read 'unemployed') programmers any day.

uaaerospace
Sep 30, 2007, 06:21 PM
It would be great if Apple let people write software for for all it's products. In order to make sure it doesn't trash the system, Apple should test the software and do a digital signing thing, but let digitally unsigned apps still work. With unsigned apps, there should be an error message that says "This is not endorsed by Apple. Use at your own risk," or something along those lines. This way, people can be creative, but there is some protection from it trashing your computer.

Do you have any idea how much time and manpower it would take for Apple to check and sign off on every app written for the platform? And what happens if they miss a problem in an app and the OKed app causes problems with a system? This is most definitely NOT a good idea.

megfilmworks
Sep 30, 2007, 06:22 PM
About 90% PC marketshare
Quality over quantity any day. Nissan has a bigger market share than Porsche. And while Nissan makes a good car (better than MS can make software) I think I'll stick with the Porsche.
As has been stated in other places, Apple's share is larger than BMW or Mercedes in their markets. Works for me. Apple stock has been a much better investment as well, so I guess it works on all levels. Quality first!

mike12806
Sep 30, 2007, 06:22 PM
You want, so don't install any apps except ones of Apple. And I want to do with my product anything I want, once I paid.If I want to make it less stable but more customized and user friendly - it' my right.

It is you're right....it's also Apple's right to deny you software updates as well....

Stella
Sep 30, 2007, 06:27 PM
LOL! and may I apologise if I caused any offence to all the fine Yanks that I know and love - Seriously.

If we didnt have the USA, we would have to invent it - and we wouldnt have Apple, or Northern California, a place I wish I could legally live.....

There would be no Apple, but there would be an alternative.

Just as if there was no microsoft, there would be a company that would have taken its place at the time.

Kinsella217
Sep 30, 2007, 06:28 PM
So what? Once the notion gets lodged in the public psyche that Apple will prevent you from customizing your phone but Nokia et. al. will let you do whatever you want, the iPhone will be dead meat in the market place. It doesn't even matter if it's true; it only matters if most people believe it. If Apple doesn't straighten up and fly right real quick on this one, they will go down in flames.
1.1.1 is on the verge of turning the iPhone from a Mustang into an Edsel.

Boy, wait until people discover you can't add expansion cards or an internal floppy into an iMac... I smell "Edsel"... *sighs*

Now listen, lets dispel a few notions here. Apple didn't cause criminal damage...or any damage at all to anyone's iPhone, unless you were forced, against your will and without any written warning, to upgrade to 1.1.1.

Now to the point of consumer rights... there are a few issues dealing with morality, responsibility, and consumerism, that we have to touch on, here.

If you believe that Apple flagrantly defied the law in the form of selling you a device that violated laws concerning SIMs and unlocking, it is incumbent upon you to contact a lawyer and initiate a lawsuit. I don't pretend to understand laws surrounding locked phones, so I won't hazard a guess about the outcome of such a suit, but I do know that in a market economy, no one will look out for your rights, if you don't.

There are three possible outcomes here, as I see it:

!) A court finds that Apple is in violation of a certain law and must remunerate all iPhone/AT&T customers in some manner.

2) A court makes precendent and reverses an unjust situation, likewise forcing Apple to compensate iPhone/AT&T customers in some way.

3) A court finds against you.

In that final case, the person filing the lawsuit, at best, is exposed as a customer who shirked their own responsibility to know what they were buying.

Now lets also talk about ownership...

I paid $600 for my iPhone. I knew what the product was, when I bought it. I knew it's advantages, I knew it's shortcomings, and I knew it's limitations. If I was willing to fork over that much money without doing my due diligence; well, as the expression goes, "A fool and his money are soon parted".

Let's talk about what I bought, shall we? I purchased an iPhone, a neat headphone/mic combo, a dock, and a cable. I did not purchase the iPhone OS. That would require probably somewhere in the neighborhood of several billion dollars, seeing where Apple's market cap is $133 billion dollars, as I write this. I did purchase a license to use the software.

... and therein lay the terms and conditions that we all agreed to. I didn't see the part where Apple declared that they were responsible for alterations that we made to the software. Seeing as where there is no SDK or developer tools of any nature... seeing as where Apple has stated publicly that they (at current) are not opening the platform to third party developers outside of the whole Safari deal, I am not capable of such a leap of logic that I hold Apple accountable for not breaking software they never declared they would support.

Now I haven't heard of anyone's iPhone being bricked because of third party software other than SIM unlocking tools. Said third party software simply doesn't work. I can't imagine how hard it might be to prove in a court of law that Apple intentionally disabled all third party software. Apple is, as anyone can plainly understand, not responsible for software that they didn't write. Therefore, I don't see where there's a debate to be found, here.

The bottom line, as I see it, is that Apple made a device available for sale. They were plainly upfront about what it did, what it didn't do, and how it worked. I made an evaluation of the benefits, limitations, and terms of useage. I bought the phone at the price point that it was sold at.

I don't believe that Apple is in violation of any laws that limit my rights as a consumer. If you do believe it, you have two choices... you can vent in a web forum or you can stand up for what you believe are your rights and challenge Apple in a court of law.

Any takers?

colinmack
Sep 30, 2007, 06:29 PM
It is you're right....it's also Apple's right to deny you software updates as well....

Agree - but it is not Apple's right to intentionally damage a phone that has been legally unlocked - an important distinction.

mdriftmeyer
Sep 30, 2007, 06:29 PM
Apple is contractually bound to the terms by AT&T concerning locking down the phones.

The more they adhere to this agreement an agitate the consumer the more motivation the Consumers Class Action suits ensue and how does this work for Apple?

Apple will then have to comply with the Courts to open up their contractual evidence that AT&T HAS THEM BOUND TO THIS. Then this will put the Telco in the hotseat.

Apple has everything to gain. Consumers have everything to gain.

The only way Apple is going to force Consumers to have the option to use the phone, by any Telco and thus allow Apple to sell more product is to have the US Congress pass a Telecommunications Reform Act that mandates Choice for Consumers by allowing Phones to be unlocked.

Verizon, AT&T, Sprint/Nextel & T-Mobile want this to go away.

The Telcos lobby to get the rights to dictate control of choice.

Keep breaking your phones. When enough swell arises the legal action will ensue and Apple will be in the enviable position of being at no fault.

Watch Telcos lobby the crap out of Congress to make this go away.

Apple is the first company to make a product so damn desired and wanted, with being able to be hacked and enhanced that AT&T will have to decide whether it wants to amend it's relationship or face court battles and public exposure to their inner business processes.

GQB
Sep 30, 2007, 06:33 PM
In the first place, anything I said is not a replay of the price cut whining. I did not post here about it, but I was emphatically of the opinion that the complaints about the price cut were unjustified whining and I was still perfectly happy with the price I paid even after the cut. (Thanks SJ for the $100 certificate anyhow.)

I've only been delving into the iphone 3rd party scene for less than 48 hours myself and already I have come across tons of stuff that makes me say "how did I ever live without that?!"
Go to http://iphone.nullriver.com/beta/ and give it a try. You will be amazed at how much more your iPhone can do. Even if you don't want to give it a try, at least look at what is available before complaining that you've never seen useful 3rd party phone apps.

The truly amazing thing is how quickly this developer community has sprung up, especially since they are essentially working in a hostile environment. Apple is being STUPID BEYOND BELIEF not to take advantage of this kind of enthusiasm!

As I said before, it doesn't matter a hoot if Apple is "within their rights". All that matters in the long run is how the marketplace perceives this issue.

Listen... I have been a developer. I know how much it must hurt to be able to see the potential for this little gem and not have it all there, right now. I do get it.
But I'm now an investor, user, and (I think) someone who doesn't want all of the weeping and gnashing of teeth to derail the damned thing before Apple gets it solidly on-track. Its 3 months old today for chrissakes!!!

C'mon... we've all seen this show before. Feature initially missing, feature gets added. The overwhelming majority of actual users (as opposed to the tech-obsessed-in-a-good-way voices on forums such as this) have orders of magnitude more functionality on the iPhone AS IT IS than they do on the open-bloatware crapPhones that make use of those features impossible.

mike12806
Sep 30, 2007, 06:36 PM
Agree - but it is not Apple's right to intentionally damage a phone that has been legally unlocked - an important distinction.

Legally unlocked?? I'm sure you forfeited that right in that wonderful Terms of Service no one reads.....

cliffjumper68
Sep 30, 2007, 06:37 PM
Um, it already IS the fastest booming 'smart PDA phone out there'.
The business plan is working just fine, thank you.
I'll put the business judgement of Steve up against the interests of a handful of open source (read 'unemployed') programmers any day.

I am still hoping Steve will do the right thing here and announce a sdk. The iphone is a bit misleading since it is a product-subscription hybrid. You do not get a price break on the device, does not work fully without subscription, and has very little real world warranty. With apple receiving future revenues from each iPhone they should be actively developing the platform, and that includes a sdk, major format support (flash) and third party battery support, other wise they are simply greedy and close minded. I am hoping... we will see in the coming days whether faith in apple was justified, I hope it is.

Cleverboy
Sep 30, 2007, 06:37 PM
The Telcos lobby to get the rights to dictate control of choice.

Keep breaking your phones. When enough swell arises the legal action will ensue and Apple will be in the enviable position of being at no fault.

Watch Telcos lobby the crap out of Congress to make this go away.

Apple is the first company to make a product so damn desired and wanted, with being able to be hacked and enhanced that AT&T will have to decide whether it wants to amend it's relationship or face court battles and public exposure to their inner business processes. Cheers, mate. :D Couldn't have put it better myself. Substitute "phones" for "DRM music", and set this in France, and you have an all too familiar scenario. The company with the superior product is the sole beneficiary of "OPEN" environments. Personally, I'm still hoping the government will go ahead and reserve that section of the wireless spectrum Google has been lobbying for.
Link (http://www.forbes.com/home/digitalinfrastructure/2007/06/08/wireless-fcc-auction-tech-intel-cx_bc_0611wireless.html)
Think Apple's iPhone is cool? You haven't seen anything yet, tech entrepreneurs promise--that is, if the phone companies would just get out of their way. And they're asking the Feds to help them out.

This year the Federal Communications Commission will auction off another chunk of wireless spectrum; the U.S. Senate will hold hearings on the plans for the sale this week. Now a band of technology veterans and wireless entrepreneurs is asking the FCC to set aside a chunk of that spectrum as a kind of sandbox for entrepreneurs.It's a big game being played.

Listen... I have been a developer. I know how much it must hurt to be able to see the potential for this little gem and not have it all there, right now. I do get it. But I'm now an investor, user, and (I think) someone who doesn't want all of the weeping and gnashing of teeth to derail the damned thing before Apple gets it solidly on-track. Its 3 months old today for chrissakes!!! LOL. All I can do to not post that as my signature or something. 90 days. Brand new mobile platform. Uber powerful. Security implications still in flux. Be patient, folks!

~ CB

GQB
Sep 30, 2007, 06:40 PM
Agree - but it is not Apple's right to intentionally damage a phone that has been legally unlocked - an important distinction.

Prove it or stop making slanderous accusations.

megfilmworks
Sep 30, 2007, 06:43 PM
There is nothing illegal about locking a phone during the service agreement term, in this case, 2 years. In 2 years, revisit this issue. Until then it's a moot point.

colinmack
Sep 30, 2007, 06:44 PM
Keep breaking your phones. When enough swell arises the legal action will ensue and Apple will be in the enviable position of being at no fault.

Interesting post...you may be right, although I would think Apple would prefer it take a while, so that it doesn't disrupt their initial revenue cut (if you unlock and switch providers, Apple still sells the phone, but loses a cut of the monthly revenue pie).

Apple may be nudging the issue by bricking the phones, in order to force the issue legally and end up allowing them a way out of their exclusive relationship. Timing-wise, a 3G iPhone might be out by then, their initial development costs could be recouped, and they might make more from increased hardware sales than the monthly AT&T revenue would provide...they could be itching to have it unlocked by then... :confused:

MacinDoc
Sep 30, 2007, 06:47 PM
Agree - but it is not Apple's right to intentionally damage a phone that has been legally unlocked - an important distinction.
AFAIK, Apple is not legally bound to ensure that software updates are compatible with an OS that has been modified without Apple's advice, assistance or consent. Various laws require that a wireless provider unlock a cell phone on request by a consumer, but they do not make a provider responsible for damage caused by a third party. It was actually the mods that bricked the affected iPhones. Prior to the update, the modded iPhones were simply ticking time bombs.

Now if Apple unlocked the phones and then subsequently bricked them, then it would be liable.

megfilmworks
Sep 30, 2007, 06:48 PM
Agree - but it is not Apple's right to intentionally damage a phone that has been legally unlocked - an important distinction.
Closing up holes (that the hackers pointed at and published freely) is not breaking phones. It is REQUIRED for security of the authorized user.
Your only action is against the unauthorized app developer, which I'm sure had an ironclad agreement during the download telling you the risks you were taking and their lack of responsibility. So the only responsible party left after that is in the mirror.

GQB
Sep 30, 2007, 06:53 PM
I am still hoping Steve will do the right thing here and announce a sdk. The iphone is a bit misleading since it is a product-subscription hybrid. You do not get a price break on the device, does not work fully without subscription, and has very little real world warranty. With apple receiving future revenues from each iPhone they should be actively developing the platform, and that includes a sdk, major format support (flash) and third party battery support, other wise they are simply greedy and close minded. I am hoping... we will see in the coming days whether faith in apple was justified, I hope it is.

See, that's where we disagree. I don't agree at all that an sdk is a good idea. Do you have any idea of the size of a team it takes to build and maintain an sdk? And Apple should do that why? So that it can turn into MS Vista, which even today has to program around its Registry and SDK contracts that must now be obeyed in perpetuity in order to not break legacy apps?

Nah, for right now, I'm perfectly happy letting Steve run the show, make a really cool and useful product, and make me lots of $$ in AAPL.

YMMV

megfilmworks
Sep 30, 2007, 06:56 PM
You want, so don't install any apps except ones of Apple. And I want to do with my product anything I want, once I paid.If I want to make it less stable but more customized and user friendly - it' my right.
You do have a right to take your iPhone and use it as a hammer if you want. But don't involve Apple in your decision.
Besides, this isn't your phone, it's Steve's phone and your lucky to get one to use. LOL

colinmack
Sep 30, 2007, 06:59 PM
Prove it or stop making slanderous accusations.

"Bob killed Susan." and "Bob cannot legally kill Susan." clearly don't mean the same thing ;)

I said "it is not Apple's right to intentionally damage a phone that has been legally unlocked", not that they were doing it - two very different things. What I said was obviously not slanderous (false/injurious), so why don't we all chill out.

Having said that, unlocking a phone to use on another carrier is demonstrably legal in the US as per the DMCA exemptions. Refusing to service it, warranty it, or provide updates for it may very well be within Apple's rights.

Legally though, I would think intentionally rendering it non-functional for no other reason than the fact that it was legally unlocked...that's the murky bit where Apple should be careful (oh, and that was also neither false nor injurious).

GQB
Sep 30, 2007, 07:07 PM
"Bob killed Susan." and "Bob cannot legally kill Susan." clearly don't mean the same thing ;)

I said "it is not Apple's right to intentionally damage a phone that has been legally unlocked", not that they were doing it - two very different things. What I said was obviously not slanderous (false/injurious), so why don't we all chill out.

Having said that, unlocking a phone to use on another carrier is demonstrably legal in the US as per the DMCA exemptions. Refusing to service it, warranty it, or provide updates for it may very well be within Apple's rights.

Legally though, I would think intentionally rendering it non-functional for no other reason than the fact that it was legally unlocked...that's the murky bit where Apple should be careful (oh, and that was also neither false nor injurious).

Peace.
(Although the undercurrent of this entire thread is that Apple DID do this intentionally.)
But the reason I'm spending this lovely Autumn day at my keyboard rather than in the Fall air is this...
I tuned into Leo Laporte's show on KGO in SF today. Leo has been doing the tech guru of the airways schtick for decades now and he holds sway with a lot of consumers.
So what do I hear today but a full-segment frothing-at-the-mouth tirade about Apple INTENTIONALLY bricking what (if you didn't know the back-story) sounded like EVERYONE's iPhone!
So I'm just pissed that the kind of vitriol being spewed by not just the normal trolls, but by people who need to get a grip (one forum member refers to this as somehow threatening his very life!).

colinmack
Sep 30, 2007, 07:08 PM
There is nothing illegal about locking a phone during the service agreement term, in this case, 2 years. In 2 years, revisit this issue. Until then it's a moot point.

Agree - although that's the fuzzy part for me though. My interpretation would be that Apple can legally lock it, fix software loopholes and re-lock it as often as they want...and the consumer can then legally unlock it as often as they want, and nobody is stepping over the line.

But to intentionally brick it solely because it was legally unlocked (as opposed to just fixing the hole and re-locking it), is I think where the difference lies. If someone felt like making a legal case out of it, they would need to prove that the bricking was intentional, and Apple could counter-argue that it was simply an unintended side effect of their perfectly harmless update.

That's where I *think* the potential problem lies.

kitki83
Sep 30, 2007, 07:13 PM
wow I thought I was gonna read flaming apple iphone people but actually skimming through this. I saw a major decrease, unless my ignore list is finally kicking in. Interesting topics about it. I wonder if this situation can be compared to sampling, to what degree of borrowing and tweaking is ok until it taking away someone else's property.

trukurt
Sep 30, 2007, 07:17 PM
How many users actually WANT to hack their iPhone? I'm pretty geeked, but I have NO desire to spend my time hacking my phone so it will play some stupid game. I've got a desktop and laptop that are crammed with apps. Why would I want to spend time working spreadsheets or large graphic files on my phone? Get real folks. And while I'm at it, I could give a damn about custome ring tones. I mean REALLY!!! Who cares!? Some of this stuff is just plain silly. I absolutely love my iPhone, and I know that Apple will continually make the best communication device ever invented even BETTER. A bunch of you better take a chill pill.

wizard
Sep 30, 2007, 07:17 PM
I still believe that users are overreacting to the closed status of the iPhone.

Nope can't support you here one bit. People have a right to express themselves and to point out what is a very disgusting & deplorable move on Apples part.

You aren't buying an external hard drive! Plus, Apple is most likely legally protecting their relationship with AT&T by proving that the SIM card can't be replaced in a simple way.

Frankly I don't give two hoots about their relationship with AT&T.


In the long run, the iPhone will probably have many of the boundaries soften, maybe even with multiple carrier options. Heck, maybe with the release of Leopard, Apple may even have some tricks up their sleeve in order to begin to open up more ability for the installation of 3rd party apps and widgets...could it be that they just want to let Leopard get out there for a bit?

So you want to do business with a company that is constantly jerking your chain? You know let it out a bit then snap, jerk that gullible customer by the chain and keep him in a constant state of bewilderment.


But does every developer and tech user have to call Apple out on each move? I mean, the iPhone has only been out for about 4 months.

You are damn right we need to call Apple out on this. The potential for this device is huge but it needs to be able to adapt easily to a specific users need. That involves loading software on to the device.

Dave

DMann
Sep 30, 2007, 07:17 PM
Most people aren't complaining about bricking their iPhone. Many of the complaints are about Apple closing off their system to 3rd party apps etc...

arn

I chose NOT to update to 1.1.1, not out of concern that I might brick the device -- I'm staying with 1.0.2 so that I can continue to use 3rd party apps, which have increased the usefulness of the iPhone ten-fold. Let's hope that 1.1.1 can be worked around soon, so that developers have an incentive to continue. Apple's role of playing Good Cop/Bad Cop for AT&T seems to be the motivating factor behind the 3rd app lock-out. (Skype, VOIP, etc.) Time and persistence are on our side, however, and a workaround is bound to surface soon.

colinmack
Sep 30, 2007, 07:21 PM
Peace.
(Although the undercurrent of this entire thread is that Apple DID do this intentionally.)
But the reason I'm spending this lovely Autumn day at my keyboard rather than in the Fall air is this...
I tuned into Leo Laporte's show on KGO in SF today. Leo has been doing the tech guru of the airways schtick for decades now and he holds sway with a lot of consumers.
So what do I hear today but a full-segment frothing-at-the-mouth tirade about Apple INTENTIONALLY bricking what (if you didn't know the back-story) sounded like EVERYONE's iPhone!
So I'm just pissed that the kind of vitriol being spewed by not just the normal trolls, but by people who need to get a grip (one forum member refers to this as somehow threatening his very life!).

:cool: Fair enough, and sorry if I came off the wrong way (not sure if I'm one of the frothing-at-the-mouth vitriols?), but if so let me clarify:

I'm not accusing Apple of intentionally breaking everyone's phones, but I do think there is an arguable difference between closing security holes and re-locking unlocked phones with a software update, and bricking a consumer item that someone legitimately purchased and legally unlocked, to the extent that it is rendered inoperable.

To me, this is interesting more as a legal debate, not as a tirade...

GQB
Sep 30, 2007, 07:27 PM
I chose NOT to update to 1.1.1, not out of concern that I might brick the device -- I'm staying with 1.0.2 so that I can continue to use 3rd party apps, which have increased the usefulness of the iPhone ten-fold. Let's hope that 1.1.1 can be worked around soon, so that developers have an incentive to continue. Apple's role of playing Good Cop/Bad Cop for AT&T seems to be the motivating factor behind the 3rd app lock-out. (Skype, VOIP, etc.) Time and persistence are on our side, however, and a workaround is bound to surface soon.

Ten-fold!?
I've GOT to see the apps you're running. One of them a transporter?

chr1s60
Sep 30, 2007, 07:27 PM
Call me shortsighted, but I do not understand the economical reason behind locking a device.

What difference does it make to Apple?

It's not like they are trying to push their OWN software (not yet at least)

Someone explain; there has GOT to be a reason.

Two economical reasons. 1. It leaves open the possibility to release their own software at a later date. 2. They make money from AT&T for being exclusive with them.

Stella
Sep 30, 2007, 07:28 PM
Given the revenue from ringtones world wide, it seems a lot of people actually give a damn and want custom ring tones!!!

Its not a case of spreadsheets and graphics editing on your phone, there's a lot of smaller and very very useful applications on open smartphone platforms that enrich user experience - should they wish so. Those that don't care about 3rd party apps have the option of not installing these in the first place.

Small games are also great on phones, passing the time whilst on a bus, subway, plane etc.

Those people who are saying 'so what' about 3rd party applications probably havn't used smartphones to their full extent (read: ignorant ). Of course, there will be others who aren't ignorant and genuinely aren't interested.

How many users actually WANT to hack their iPhone? I'm pretty geeked, but I have NO desire to spend my time hacking my phone so it will play some stupid game. I've got a desktop and laptop that are crammed with apps. Why would I want to spend time working spreadsheets or large graphic files on my phone? Get real folks. And while I'm at it, I could give a damn about custome ring tones. I mean REALLY!!! Who cares!? Some of this stuff is just plain silly. I absolutely love my iPhone, and I know that Apple will continually make the best communication device ever invented even BETTER. A bunch of you better take a chill pill.

megfilmworks
Sep 30, 2007, 07:30 PM
Agree - although that's the fuzzy part for me though. My interpretation would be that Apple can legally lock it, fix software loopholes and re-lock it as often as they want...and the consumer can then legally unlock it as often as they want, and nobody is stepping over the line.

But to intentionally brick it solely because it was legally unlocked (as opposed to just fixing the hole and re-locking it), is I think where the difference lies. If someone felt like making a legal case out of it, they would need to prove that the bricking was intentional, and Apple could counter-argue that it was simply an unintended side effect of their perfectly harmless update.

That's where I *think* the potential problem lies.I agree with you. IMHO, Apple in no way intentionally bricked phones by plugging up holes and using encryption. If a non hacked phone gets bricked and they fail to support it, then that is a horse of a different color. I would love to see apps on the phone, but they better be by Apple or an approved 3rd party. No bloatware or malware by hobbyists!

wizard
Sep 30, 2007, 07:34 PM
How many users actually WANT to hack their iPhone? I'm pretty geeked, but I have NO desire to spend my time hacking my phone so it will play some stupid game.

First off one can hardly call loading apps onto a computer hacking a iPhone. The iPHone is a computer there is no way to get around that. Everything about the device tell you that it is a computer that is also a cell phone.

I've got a desktop and laptop that are crammed with apps. Why would I want to spend time working spreadsheets or large graphic files on my phone?

Well because some of us simply don't need or want a laptop at this point in time. The reality is that the iPhone with a bit of applications flexibility would solve a good deal of all of my portable computing needs. For the technical I have a laptop supplied by work and frankly I have little desire to carry one for any other reason. E-Mail, web and other internet technologies are becoming more and more important as time goes by. The iPhone had the potential to solve most of those internet related things very well. Now Apple has in effect bricked the unit as far as advanced usage goes.

Get real folks. And while I'm at it, I could give a damn about custome ring tones. I mean REALLY!!! Who cares!? Some of this stuff is just plain silly.

Frankly I don't give two hoots either with respect to ring tones. It is something that I'd like to see disappear from the planet myself.

I absolutely love my iPhone, and I know that Apple will continually make the best communication device ever invented even BETTER.

That is not likely to happen anytime soon. The problem is that Apple went and mad ethe unit worst not better. This update is very much a regression.

A bunch of you better take a chill pill.
Some people need to think long and hard about what they are defending.

Dave

X38
Sep 30, 2007, 07:35 PM
It is you're right....it's also Apple's right to deny you software updates as well....



You apologists just don't seem to get it so let me make it simple for you.

It doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't matter what Ambrosia, Nullriver, et. al. think. It doesn't matter what Apple and AT&T think. It doesn't matter what the courts think. It doesn't even really matter what the press thinks.
The only thing that matters in the end is what the marketplace thinks. And right now the cell phone marketplace is on the verge of thinking "don't trust that new kid on the block who seemed really cool at first".

The iPhone was one of the biggest leaps in consumer products in a long time and arguably got the most free positive press of any new product ever. Apple even made a remarkable (and possibly unnecessary) recovery on the price drop thing that bought themselves invaluable good will with potential customers. Apple had all the ingredients for a success of historic proportions. This weekend they are on the verge of destroying it all by loosing the trust of the marketplace through their own myopic and arrogant actions on a measly point update.

In order to keep from turning a potential historic success into a disaster of epic proportions, Apple needs to call the independent developer folks immediately and give them the passwords, codes, or whatever it is those folks need to get their stuff working with 1.1.1. If they don't, all us current iPhone owners will have to settle for the curiosity value of our soon to be orphaned niche devices. Might as well call it Son of Newton.

megfilmworks
Sep 30, 2007, 07:36 PM
Re: The iPhone being 10x better with third party apps

Ten-fold!?
I've GOT to see the apps you're running. One of them a transporter?

LOL
Glad to see that a sense of humor can exist in a heated discussion.

minik
Sep 30, 2007, 07:36 PM
Nothing wrong to me regarding to the iPhone lockdown.

russellb
Sep 30, 2007, 07:41 PM
Forget the mickey mouse 3rd party apps. I want a secure, reliable iPhone, with 3rd party apps approved by and/or developed by Apple. No hobbyists need apply!


But I think thats the point. A lot of people would most likely agree that they want a secure reliable phone but Apple should be out in the front leading approved, stable, secure, 3rd party apps.

Apple should have it's own approved version of an installer app on the phone.

Come on if the open developer community can come up with a great installer / uninstaller you can't tell me apple can't do the same.

Apple already have itunes that could manage 3rd party app purchase and they already have the WiFi Itunes store, a ready made way to purchase apps from the Iphone for the Iphone.

Apple are simply dropping the ball here. They could have a killer phone, a killer 3rd party development community and a product that could wipe the competition off the face of the planet.

Instead they have a revolutionary product that COULD possibly compete with the competition but at the moment they are tying the Iphones hands behind it's back and holding it back. They are allowing their competitors to catch up draw customers away because of the Iphones shortcomings.

get you act together Apple !!

megfilmworks
Sep 30, 2007, 07:43 PM
I chose NOT to update to 1.1.1, not out of concern that I might brick the device -- I'm staying with 1.0.2 so that I can continue to use 3rd party apps, which have increased the usefulness of the iPhone ten-fold.
Now I see, you're the tenfold guy.
Hope waiting for more malware is worth it because the update has my iPhones running very smoothly and fast. The fixes have really smoothed things out. The earpiece level alone is worth dumping the apps for. I ran apps and loaded ringtones, changed my home screen around the first 2 months. No more. It was a mess.
Been there, Done that. I'll wait for the real thing so my phone will run at top speed with less glitches.

kzin
Sep 30, 2007, 07:43 PM
I think there's an elephant in the room.

Why would Apple so intentionally cripple both the iPod-Touch and the iPhone, such that neither is a full PDA, but just gives you a hint of PDA potential? Why does the 'Touch not have the big storage capacity of the Classic, basically meaning that the touch is a second tier (nano class) iPod, and not a high end iPod?

When you look at all of the things that Apple easily could, and should, have done with these two products ... it leaves this hole in their market offerings. This Newton 2 shaped hole.


Why no 3rd party apps like a real PDA phone? because the iPone is NOT Apple's PDA plan.

Why no 80 or 160 GB 'Touch? Because the 'Touch is also not Apple's PDA plan.

Why a severely reduced set of apps on the 'Touch, compared to even the iPhone? Because the 'Touch is not Apple's PDA plan.

Why no support for bluetooth HID or DUN roles (HID = keyboard support, DUN = "phone as modem" support)?

Why no open SDK for either, like every other PDA that isn't just a throw-away 'electronnic organizer'?

Because these two products are NOT Apple's Smartphone/PDA offering. When you compare their features, expandability, and non-subsidized cost to other mid-range phones, it makes a lot more sense.

And then the choices make more sense as well. Adding those features to the iPphone or iPod-Touch, or allowing the features to be hacked in to them, will cannibalize the intended market for their actual PDA product line. This isn't just satisfying AT&T, this is protecting the market for the Newton II.

Which leads me to expect that the N2 will have those missing pieces. Third party apps, Classic size storage, full SDK, bluetooth HID support, etc. And hopefully, not much bigger than the 'Touch or iPhone. And I expect to see the N2 have both a phone version and a non-phone version.

That will be Apple's entry in to the smartphone market ... it's the only way the whole crippling makes sense.

irun5k
Sep 30, 2007, 07:46 PM
See, that's where we disagree. I don't agree at all that an sdk is a good idea. Do you have any idea of the size of a team it takes to build and maintain an sdk? And Apple should do that why? So that it can turn into MS Vista, which even today has to program around its Registry and SDK contracts that must now be obeyed in perpetuity in order to not break legacy apps?

I'm not sure you mean the same thing as everyone else when you say "SDK." Apple already has an API that they they used to develop the existing 12 or 13 apps that are currently on the phone. To me (FWIW I'm a software engineer), the SDK begins with this internal API. Next, they'd give some further thought as to which classes and functions should be public. Finally they would wrap things up with some documentation about the API, which probably already exists but needs to be polished. The would also provide some standard way to install apps that are written. And that is about it. The hard part is already done.

In my experience as an engineer, whenever I've had to tighten up an API and turn it into a public SDK as mentioned above, it has increased the productivity of internal development as well. By this, I mean that Apple could probably develop their own apps for the phone quicker as well.

GQB
Sep 30, 2007, 07:46 PM
right now the cell phone marketplace is on the verge of thinking "don't trust that new kid on the block who seemed really cool at first".


Well, I'll agree that to the degree that main-stream news echoes the hysterics found on forums, that impression could very well take hold.

But any user in the target demographic (wants to make calls easily, use visual voice mail, and have a camera/media player that actually works for a change) is not going to be phased by the fact that
1) a few hardcore power users who wanted to jump the gun on features that will be along soon enough (Apple is not, believe it or not, stupid), or
2) Suduku junkies
can't get their features RIGHT NOW!!!! (stomp footsies for emphasis.)

Gee AAPL over $150 despite this and the 'catastrophic' price cut. Go figure.

wizard
Sep 30, 2007, 07:48 PM
AFAIK, Apple is not legally bound to ensure that software updates are compatible with an OS that has been modified without Apple's advice, assistance or consent. Various laws require that a wireless provider unlock a cell phone on request by a consumer, but they do not make a provider responsible for damage caused by a third party.

In this case the damage is being done by Apple.

It was actually the mods that bricked the affected iPhones.

This is so wrong that I have to wonder if you are on Apples payroll. I don't know of one App that has bricked an iPhone. The only thing we have on record is that Apples update has bricked iPhones.

Prior to the update, the modded iPhones were simply ticking time bombs.

This is total garbage. iPhones with third party apps are running perfectly fine today simply because the owners have avoid Apples update. apps do not equal bombs.


Now if Apple unlocked the phones and then subsequently bricked them, then it would be liable.

I have to disagree here. It is pretty hard to imagine a programming group so incompetent, at apple, that these bricks would result due to an upgrade.

Of course the easy way to resolve what is going on here would be to get Apples source code to the installer / updater. Personally I think Apple would pay big time to keep from having to release that info.

Dave

DMann
Sep 30, 2007, 07:49 PM
How many users actually WANT to hack their iPhone? I'm pretty geeked, but I have NO desire to spend my time hacking my phone so it will play some stupid game. I've got a desktop and laptop that are crammed with apps. Why would I want to spend time working spreadsheets or large graphic files on my phone? Get real folks. And while I'm at it, I could give a damn about custome ring tones. I mean REALLY!!! Who cares!? Some of this stuff is just plain silly. I absolutely love my iPhone, and I know that Apple will continually make the best communication device ever invented even BETTER. A bunch of you better take a chill pill.

True, but some 3rd party apps are actually great, and do not interfere with the responsiveness of the OS. ToDoList, for instance, is highly functional, much more than Notes, VoiceRecorderNotes is very useful, TextEdit is great for composing and viewing documents, Books is a wonderful eBook file reader, WeDict is great for accessing references such as multiple dictionaries, thesauruses, encyclopedias, iFlashCards is a helpful tool for studying, and SummerBoard is an excellent interface organizer for the home screen, allowing the user to streamline the UI - one can remove the names of the apps, clear the bottom row, and to scroll to reveal the 3rd party apps. Some of them may be silly, but Sketches has turned out to be a useful drawing app for design, etc. If 3rd party apps function as an indirect motivator for Apple to develop more for the iPhone, all the better. Where would iTunes be today without the design of Robbin and Kincaid's SoundJam App?

russellb
Sep 30, 2007, 07:53 PM
The only thing that matters in the end is what the marketplace thinks. And right now the cell phone marketplace is on the verge of thinking "don't trust that new kid on the block who seemed really cool at first".

If they don't, all us current iPhone owners will have to settle for the curiosity value of our soon to be orphaned niche devices. Might as well call it Son of Newton.

Well said.

The Iphone as great as it is could just as easily drift into obscurity as did the Newton if the wider marketplace does not continue to adopt it. It could just be a quick fad soon to be gone as people work out it won't do what they need.

The average punter does not want to have to risk stuffing their phone with non approved workarounds.

The average punter wants a legitimate way to install 3rd party apps

The average punter WILL NOT bother with the Iphone if it does not let them do what they need.

Hell my wife would only buy an Ipone if I assured her it could be unlocked to play Sudoko AND shut up Apple .. we do not want to have to run all our apps while connected to the internet via Safari.

She used to use her Windows Mobile PDA to run medical apps and wants to know when she will be able to do the same with the Iphone

Multiply that times each person , each business , each professional who needs to run apps on the machine and NOT over the internet. There goes your market Apple down the toilet if you wont allow developers to give people what they want.

I can understand if Apple are running a bit behind in getting their act together and getting an SDK out. BUT they should come out publicly and clearly state that they WILL release an SDK with a timeline.

They should publicly support and applaud all their 3rd party developers. Hell look at their Intel transition , without 3rd party developers it would have failed. Why is the Iphone any different ?

Stella
Sep 30, 2007, 07:57 PM
Originally Posted by megfilmworks
Forget the mickey mouse 3rd party apps. I want a secure, reliable iPhone, with 3rd party apps approved by and/or developed by Apple. No hobbyists need apply!

Its easy - if you don't want 3rd party apps - then don't install them. But, don't stop others.

HOWEVER, like hobbyist applications on OSX and other smartphone platforms - such applications can be very good in both of functionality and quality. You are being derogatory.

winterspan
Sep 30, 2007, 07:59 PM
Mm, hm. Good article. I also recommend searching the Internet for IMEI code "004999010640000". It would seem that the iPhone doesn't exactly mark the first appearance of this number.
http://gsmhosting.com/vbb/archive/index.php/t-223129.html

Also, regarding unlocking, a lot of people might find this article very illuminating:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235602,00.html
I've thrown in the towel. I doubt the average user even knows there's much of a difference between the two things. Moreover, 3rd party app hacking is the first step to unlocking, unfortunately. They're very intimately tied, and I'm at a loss to attempt to differentiate the two for people when public tech industry commentators like Leo Leporte freely switch between the two concepts when discussing the topic.

~ CB

Although many people do not understand the difference between the two,
uploading and running third party applications has NOTHING to do with unlocking the phone (modifying the baseband firmware).

I have not torn into the iPhone, but for all the material I have read, Apple COULD easily digitally encrypt and sign the part of the baseband firmware that controls the "AT&T lock" of the phone, but allow third party applications to be located and function in the normal file system.

Whether it was intentional or not to steam roll over the third party apps in the last update (anyone know the answer?), they COULD have limited/focused the encryption and other lock down methods to the "AT&T lock".

megfilmworks
Sep 30, 2007, 08:02 PM
Originally Posted by megfilmworks
Forget the mickey mouse 3rd party apps. I want a secure, reliable iPhone, with 3rd party apps approved by and/or developed by Apple. No hobbyists need apply!

Its easy - if you don't want 3rd party apps - then don't install them. But, don't stop others.

HOWEVER, like hobbyist applications on OSX and other smartphone platforms - such applications can be very good in both of functionality and quality. You are being derogatory.
You're right I am being derogatory, for effect. I'm sure there are some good 3rd party apps and super smart developers out there. I liked some of the apps. I have no problem with people loading them, just with their ranting and blaming the manufacturer for there own science experiment. The phone needs to be secure. That is the most important issue. I have stored passwords etc. I want security and that may stop the unapproved and unsupported hard work of others.

tekcor
Sep 30, 2007, 08:03 PM
That will be Apple's entry in to the smartphone market ... it's the only way the whole crippling makes sense.

Back in November before the official iPhone announcement, I heard information from a friend inside Apple. He said that the iPhone was going to be announced in January - which was true. He also told me that the first model was a more restricted, kind of "Light" model. The "real" or more smartphone-like model was coming later and would co-exist. So far, after reading this and the newton 2 rumors, and his previous record of being right (he told me about 802.11n and the 24-inch iMac as well) - I think this is what is really going on here.

iPhone Pro.

winterspan
Sep 30, 2007, 08:03 PM
Apple's statement that they aren't actively locking down hackers is still very true. If they were, all iPhone users would be forced to update. The update is still of course optional.

That is absolutely incorrect. How would the "force" anyone to update? Disable all the GSM serial numbers on AT&Ts network? yea... talk about a lawsuit

The truth is they did "actively lockdown" hackers by encrypting and digitally signing the new firmware. Its like replacing a wooden front door and deadbolt with six feet of steel-reinforced concrete.

X38
Sep 30, 2007, 08:03 PM
Ten-fold!?
I've GOT to see the apps you're running. One of them a transporter?


I'm a mechanical designer by trade and am always jotting down sketches on scraps of paper. For years I have wanted a convenient pocket sized device able to make electronic sketches. For me the new 'Sketches' application that is now available for the iPhone will be invaluable in my work, all the more so because it lets me sketch on top of things that I take a picture of and then send those sketches out by email. Sure, this is probably a niche product for most people that Apple may never get around to on their own, but it dramatically increases the usefulness of the iPhone for me. I'm sure there are and will be other applications which are just as important to other groups of folks. Which after all is the whole point of 3rd party development, is it not? If it were otherwise, we'd all be using descendants of the Ti99/4A on our desktops.

I don't buy this just be patient apology for one second. Apple made a big deal about the iPhone being the first phone with a 'real' computer OS. An OS with years of 3rd party development experience. But they went deliberately out of their way to prevent that development community from providing products for this new device. Apple is certainly one of the better companies out there and they have made some wonderful products, but they have also made mistakes. This is one of their biggest mistakes and they have a very limited window in which to regain consumer confidence

russellb
Sep 30, 2007, 08:04 PM
1) a few hardcore power users who wanted to jump the gun on features that will be along soon enough (Apple is not, believe it or not, stupid), or

2) Suduku junkies
can't get their features RIGHT NOW!!!! (stomp footsies for emphasis.)
.

Again I think thats the point , "will be along soon enough (Apple is not, believe it or not, stupid)"

Apple should already have it in place .. if the open community can come up with a system, installer, uninstaller etc from scratch in such a short amount of time .. While Apple has had years to develop the product THEY ARE SIMPLY DROPPING THE BALL.

RE: "Suduku junkies"

While I am not one and have never played it ... look how popular it is ! If a silly game (sorry Suduko fans) can sell hunders of thousands of Iphones then it's not such a silly game ...

Apple need to give the market what it wants .. not what Apple thinks the market needs.

Look at Itunes and Movies ... Itunes music caught everyone in the market and their competitors off guard and they got a massive lead. BUT movies are different , the competition and certain suppliers have worked to block and stop Apple being a massive success with moves and TV as they were with music.

With the Iphone many competitors etc will be working hard to counter it and stop them getting a lead .... If Apple don't give the market what they want RIGHT NOW Apple's competitors will dilute the market with inferior products but good enough to draw customers away.

It may be a great product, It may be ahead of it time and anything else in the market

BUT that does not mean it will succeed.

wizard
Sep 30, 2007, 08:09 PM
To be honest, I have no problem with what they are doing. If you want a phone to hack or mess with, go with a different company. If Apple doesn't want you to mess with there stuff, why would you buy it to hack in the first place?


Err... for one thing once you buy it, it becomes YOUR STUFF.

Second; the iPhone at least a week of so ago was the first really powerful platform that you could pocket. For many of us the iPhone would, with the proper auxiliary software (third party apps) would nearly eliminate the need for any sort of laptop.

In any event if Apple doesn't change its tune there certainly will be new phones on the market to compete with the iPhone. Unfortunately there is nothing yet that really matches the hardware feature set of an iPhone. There is stuff coming but such is likely still months away. The iPhone use to represent the best platform available to build an hand held computing device on. Now it is pretty much in the same league as a $19 cell phone.

Dave


Dave

slinky0390
Sep 30, 2007, 08:09 PM
i can see the big deal about unlocking the phone, even though some say it is illegal to not let someone unlock their phone. but to completely close off the iphone to 3rd party software is pretty dumb in my book. its almost like the whole censorship of the media thing, if you dont like it, change the channel.. if people didnt want a hacked iphone, they didnt need to do it. people that did want to hack theirs and install software for personal use or development should be able to do so. ive seen people buy a mac and use boot camp to run vista as a primary os, thats their decision. i personally think apple should lighten up. but its their product their choice.

Stella
Sep 30, 2007, 08:11 PM
I want security and that may stop the unapproved and unsupported hard work of others.

That is the function of the OS. If mobile-OSX cannot give you that security then its not mature.


Look at the security model of Symbian. If your application is self signed then you are limited to how you can access the OS and phone firmware. If you want more, then you have to have your application assessed and thus getting a more priviledged certificate for your application.

DMann
Sep 30, 2007, 08:11 PM
Hope waiting for more malware is worth it because the update has my iPhones running very smoothly and fast. The fixes have really smoothed things out. The earpiece level alone is worth dumping the apps for. I ran apps and loaded ringtones, changed my home screen around the first 2 months. No more. It was a mess.
Been there, Done that. I'll wait for the real thing so my phone will run at top speed with less glitches.

You're right - After installing Dock 2, things slowed down noticeably. After dumping those apps which bogged down overall snappiness, I've kept 12 really useful apps running with no slowdown at all. Raising the earpiece sound level is hardly an incentive to update, since my hearing is still good, and WiFi access to the iTunes store ain't worth giving up the lot.

russellb
Sep 30, 2007, 08:13 PM
Um, it already IS the fastest booming 'smart PDA phone out there'.
.

umm sorry for that .. It is already the fastest selling PDA smart phone out there BUT that in no way indicates that it will stay that way or continue to do so.

Hell if you have such a vocal and enthusiastic market why would you choose to work against that.

All I can say is if Windows mobile , Palm etc can be open and allow 3rd party Apps how can Apple not expect an uproar when they release the best PDA phone in history and lock it down ?

Stupid

jstad
Sep 30, 2007, 08:13 PM
I can understand Apple's move to block attempts at unlocking the phone from AT&T, but the 3rd party development part just seems kind of stupid unless they are going to have some way for 3rd-party devs to get their app like "iPhone certified"

kzin
Sep 30, 2007, 08:14 PM
Back in November before the official iPhone announcement, I heard information from a friend inside Apple. He said that the iPhone was going to be announced in January - which was true. He also told me that the first model was a more restricted, kind of "Light" model. The "real" or more smartphone-like model was coming later and would co-exist. So far, after reading this and the newton 2 rumors, and his previous record of being right (he told me about 802.11n and the 24-inch iMac as well) - I think this is what is really going on here.

iPhone Pro.

Yup. Makes a lot more sense.

The iPhone is a mid-range phone that beats mid-range phones on their own feature-sets. Better Web browser. Better basic PIM capability. Better music player. But that's all it is. Apple even said so: "It's an iPod, a phone, and an internet [browsing] device". They didn't say "this is our PDA", did they?

The iPod Touch is just a 2nd tier (storage capacity wise) iPod with a better interface than the wheel based iPods, wifi, and a web-browser. And, again, they said "it's an iPhone without the phone" ... which I took, in the past to mean "smartphone - phone = PDA" ... but if the iPhone isn't intended to be a smartphone, then that equation changes quite a bit.

It would also make sense to me that these two products are, in some sense, testing the waters for Apple, and their return to the PDA market. Both in terms of "will our interface and platform be well received?" and "what missing features will the market demand we put into them?"

I really think that whatever is coming next (iPhone Pro, Newton 2, whatever) will be the PDA and Smartphone offering.

GQB
Sep 30, 2007, 08:24 PM
Gotta bail on this fun discussion (I know, I know... don't let the door hitcha and all that.)
But one parting thought...
A lot of us (even myself at times) have to get used to the fact that the company's name is now Apple Inc... not Apple Computer Inc. That was not an insignificant change. Its a consumer electronics company now.

As long ago as 1984, I remember Steve referring to his desire to produce a computing 'toaster'. We all know that he sees the road to ruin as allowing too many hands in the soup. (mixed, <and painful> metaphors.) He wants to make great appliances, not live in the little slice of heaven we know as the 'developer community.'

To think that he's going to take a tabla rasa platform like this and just throw it open to uncontrolled development right out of the gate is flat out silly.

The vast population that will form the financial bedrock for this product really don't care about anything except what it does out of the box, or when those mysterious bonus things arrive via update over the next year or two.

And finally, don't pretend that Apple is or ever has been an open platform. Apple software exists to sell Apple hardware. If Jobs decides that 3rd party apps will sell more iPhones, they'll be enabled quicker than you can blink. Those who think Apple is misjudging the market clearly have keener insight than does the company that's had an 80% rise in stock value since January.

I'd advise you to start your own company.
Until then, buy one of those nifty keen-o chiclet phones.

I'll keep my iPhone.

megfilmworks
Sep 30, 2007, 08:24 PM
YRaising the earpiece sound level is hardly an incentive to update, since my hearing is still good, and WiFi access to the iTunes store ain't worth giving up the lot.
Being an ex rocker, I guess my hearing isn't:(, and I like my iTunes wifi.
Hopefully a couple of years out we will have awesome apps and a evolving form factor.

mmulin
Sep 30, 2007, 08:41 PM
i agree on locking down the possibility to use another sim in the phone. however, having now a proper OS on the device, inclusive the iPt, it is beyond my grasp why apple doesn't want to provide a legal way for users to expand the devices to needs and liking. it is just a difference between a very cool HW & SW, imho, but artificially crippling the platform. i hope mr. jobs will get behind the thought eventually. after all, my mac doesn't only run ilife and fcp as well.

X38
Sep 30, 2007, 08:44 PM
Being an ex rocker, I guess my hearing isn't:(, and I like my iTunes wifi.
Hopefully a couple of years out we will have awesome apps and a evolving form factor.


A couple of days back we ALREADY had 'awsome apps and an evolving form factor', but now (for no good reason) we don't. (Except those of use who refuse to downgrade to 1.1.1.) That is the whole point of why Apple is being so stupid in this case.

kzin
Sep 30, 2007, 08:47 PM
A couple of days back we ALREADY had 'awsome apps and an evolving form factor', but now (for no good reason) we don't. (Except those of use who refuse to downgrade to 1.1.1.) That is the whole point of why Apple is being so stupid in this case.

I'm willing to bet that, a couple days ago, no, you didn't have the product you thought you had. What you had was a light version of the product you wanted ... and you were willing to hack it until it was able to be the product you wanted.

But, as I stated a few posts back, I think the product you (and I, and everyone else who finds the missing pieces to be a huge void) want is coming out next year.

scoobierules
Sep 30, 2007, 08:54 PM
the only issue i have is the way they are handling ringtones. i just paid 1.29 for a song and then .99 to covert it to a ringtone so that i would not have to use the crappy one that came with the phone. Not to mention that i already owned the song that i bought again since they disabled itoner. I am really losing my loyalty to apple since they seem to care about nothing but profits and forget taking care of the customers. the iphone has been a disaster from day one and I am sure it will continue. Let the lawsuits begin! Isn't that what microsoft got sued for, not allowing access to their system?


not to mention the caps key does not work on my new imac!!!!!!!!!!:mad:

megfilmworks
Sep 30, 2007, 08:57 PM
The iPhone I want hasn't been invented yet, but until then I will just have to make do with the one that has.

GQB
Sep 30, 2007, 09:01 PM
the only issue i have is the way they are handling ringtones. i just paid 1.29 for a song and then .99 to covert it to a ringtone so that i would not have to use the crappy one that came with the phone. Not to mention that i already owned the song that i bought again since they disabled itoner. I am really losing my loyalty to apple since they seem to care about nothing but profits and forget taking care of the customers. the iphone has been a disaster from day one and I am sure it will continue. Let the lawsuits begin! Isn't that what microsoft got sued for, not allowing access to their system?


not to mention the caps key does not work on my new imac!!!!!!!!!!:mad:

Have you ever bought a ringtone for another phone?
Apple's price is cheap compared to most I've seen.
Also, vent at the Music Labels, not Apple if you're so pissed off. Apple does not set conditions of use for copyrighted material.
I look forward to being able to convert my own sounds to tasteful ringtones.
Finally, anyone who uses whole snippets of songs as 'ringtones' should be shot.

Stella
Sep 30, 2007, 09:10 PM
Have you ever bought a ringtone for another phone?
Apple's price is cheap compared to most I've seen.
Also, vent at the Music Labels, not Apple if you're so pissed off. Apple does not set conditions of use for copyrighted material.
I look forward to being able to convert my own sounds to tasteful ringtones.
Finally, anyone who uses whole snippets of songs as 'ringtones' should be shot.

There's no reason why Apple shouldn't let users freely upload ringtones.

As I said before, RIAA would be going after SE, Nokia et al - but they aren't. iPhone sales is chicken feed in comparison to the market leaders.

twoodcc
Sep 30, 2007, 09:15 PM
well hopefully they'll get apptapp on 1.1.1 soon

c.greene914
Sep 30, 2007, 09:34 PM
What gets me is the people who read what the update entails on this forum, update their iPhone anyway, and then whine and complain because it's not what the want it to be. If you know full and well what to expect from Apple, the company who released the product, and quite honestly, has the right to do anything they want with it, why be ******** from an update you know is going to disable your hacks that were against contractually agreements in the first place. Either deal with it like an adult, or don't update the firmware.

I don't have any problem with what Apple is doing. They developed the product, spent all the R&D perfecting it, and released it for them to make money. Apple is still a profitable company, no matter how some idealistic forum members may have built them up. Granted, I wish I could put free ringtones on my iPhone, but I understand the reasons why I can't, yet.

I also understand that when I bought the iPhone, I bought a phone that was exclusively Apple, and exclusivle AT&T from the get-go. It was very clear. I didn't get into anything I wasn't expecting and neither should anyone else have. Before it was ever released, the expectations that came along with the iPhone were well stated, and clearly outlined.

I'll admit the iPhone is not perfect, but maybe if Apple could spend the time developing updates to enhance the capabilities of the iPhone instead of figuring out ways to stop consumers from hacking into their product, the phone would already be better than it is. Instead, time is spent preventing 3rd party apps that may or may not be detrimental to the functionality of them phone, instead of improving the functionality of the phone.

I for one, would like to see all the whining and complaining about the iPhone come to a stop, although I know that won't happen. But, at least, maybe, we can handle it like adults, and expect reasonable things from a company that gives reasonable products to its consumers.

/rant

rjwill246
Sep 30, 2007, 09:36 PM
There's no reason why Apple shouldn't let users freely upload ringtones.

As I said before, RIAA would be going after SE, Nokia et al - but they aren't. iPhone sales is chicken feed in comparison to the market leaders.

Really?? Wrong as usual. The music companies do not consider the making of ringtones from songs you own a fair use. Personally, I think that is terrible but the music companies ARE terrible. To get just what you want onto many phones requires a hack of some sort and, as I have tried unsuccessfully with a number of colleagues' phones, many simply won't allow any song to be added as a ringtone. So, this shutout is NOT an Apple exclusive.

Now, should you be able to add bought songs for nothing? I think so, but that is NOT an Apple issue re: the iPhone. Should you also be able to add any sounds that are not covered by royalties to your iPhone via iTunes?-- you bet and here Apple is being silly.

X38
Sep 30, 2007, 09:41 PM
[...] But, as I stated a few posts back, I think the product you (and I, and everyone else who finds the missing pieces to be a huge void) want is coming out next year.




Yes, I read those posts; 'Newton 2' and such. I thought it the perfect analogy for this situation. Apple once again invented an entire new product category (PDA) with an incredibly advanced technology (Newton). But due to their own arrogance and refusal to bend to the desires of the market, they ended up being driven from the market they created and losing a ton of money on a could-have-been product that nearly wrecked the company. As I said in a previous post, 1.1.1 has pointed the iPhone towards the path of being Son of Newton.

Apple has the technology lead now and they need to move on it now. Next year their competitors will just be that much closer to catching up and maybe even passing them. If they still had work to do, it would be understandable, but they don't. The point is that Apple is just being arrogant and stubborn; to repeat myself, the same situation that killed the original Newton.

Besides, I already spent my $600. I don't want to spend it again when the product I have can already do what I want. No company in a competitive market can afford to treat its customers with that kind of greed.

F.D.
Sep 30, 2007, 09:44 PM
I smell a lawsuit coming and fast. I was just in the apple store and a guy was in there with his locked iphone because of this update. They told him he hacked it and there was nothing he could do. He was yelling like mad. I felt bad for him. Its freakin wrong of apple and they deserve to get sued.

No they don't. Apple made it very clear that AT&T was an exclusive carrier, and that the phone was locked. Unlocking is at the owner's risk. Just like getting your Playstation chipped.

Stella
Sep 30, 2007, 09:47 PM
You didn't answer my question, since when do you see RIAA going after Nokia et al? They don't. Some phones even come with ring tone editor software!!

If some one creates their own ring tone ( musician ) or have previously purchased ring tones for a previous phone, why should they not be able to freely load these on to the iPhone? Why? Answer me that!!!

Your experience of ring tones and phones is very very strange. Every phone I've come across is able to add ring tones, even phones from 1998!! Some of those phones even have ring tone composers built in! Maybe you bought an extremely basic, dirt cheap phone on contract?

Apple is charging for ring phones for pure and utter greed.

Oh, btw I'm ignoring your flame baits -
"wrong as usual"

EDIT:
You live in the states? well, no wonder you've seen some crap phones. I wouldn't touch a lot of them with a barge poll, or neither would I take them if I was paid..! :-)

Some times the phones have the capable, but that capable is crippled by the carrier - they will disable functionality that will take away revenue for added services such as ringtones, wallpapers etc.

Really?? Wrong as usual. The music companies do not consider the making of ringtones from songs you own a fair use. Personally, I think that is terrible but the music companies ARE terrible. To get just what you want onto many phones requires a hack of some sort and, as I have tried unsuccessfully with a number of colleagues' phones, many simply won't allow any song to be added as a ringtone. So, this shutout is NOT an Apple exclusive.

Now, should you be able to add bought songs for nothing? I think so, but that is NOT an Apple issue re: the iPhone. Should you also be able to add any sounds that are not covered by royalties to your iPhone via iTunes?-- you bet and here Apple is being silly.

TurboSC
Sep 30, 2007, 09:51 PM
yea I know a lot of people are complaining, just give it some time.. it'll be back to the way it was.

HLdan
Sep 30, 2007, 09:51 PM
I smell a lawsuit coming and fast.

Oh I hope so, so that those idiots that cracked their iPhone can tell the judge how they disregarded Apple EULA and even after being warned their phone is jacked. The judge will probably lock them up instead of Apple. :D

unity
Sep 30, 2007, 09:54 PM
I am just trying to figure out who has been FORCED to update to 1.1.1. I mean really, dont want an iBrink and want to use apps? DONT UPGRADE!

rjwill246
Sep 30, 2007, 10:03 PM
You didn't answer my question, since when do you see RIAA going after Nokia et al? They don't. Some phones even come with ring tone editor software!!



"Some" is not universal-- go look at the specific websites that are there to help you get ringtones to your phone--- the list of phones is huge-- all of them when purchased preventing you from adding ringtones. You are dead wrong that the universal experience is to freely add ringtones FOR NOTHING. Why, may I ask is there such a massive industry based on the sale of ringtones if everyone could do it for nothing?
And, I don't have to have an answer about the RIAA-- I don't in any case but it is irrelevant. If 1+1=2 it matters not if 2+2=4.

Apple is not the culprit here as much as you love to demonize the company. Indeed, Apple does so much that is right, the few, but glaring, anomalies in how Apple has handled the iPhone is befuddling. The company is new to this area and is being a little overzealous in protecting itself. Hopefully that will change.

I have no problem with bricked phones-- all who have one asked for it to happen. No tears shed here but you have to wonder at the brains or lack thereof, of knowingly turning your phone into non-functional aluminum and glass. The category for the Darwin awards needs to be expanded---

X38
Sep 30, 2007, 10:05 PM
What gets me is the people who read what the update entails on this forum, update their iPhone anyway, and then whine and complain because it's not what the want it to be. [...]


Go reread my posts. My iPhone is still at 1.0.2, it is working great, installer.app is working great, and I can do things which are much more valuable to me than anything offered exclusively in 1.1.1. In other words, I am perfectly happy with my iPhone just the way it is and I am not whining about it at all.

If you will pay attention to what I am saying for a second, you will realize that the point is what you & I think doesn't matter. Word on the street is that Apple screws their customers. Doesn't matter for a second if it's true or not, it only matters if people believe it since nobody is obliged to buy Apple's products.

I agree with the earlier post that it was extremely childish for an irate customer to yell at a poor Apple store clerk who has no control over company policy. But how many potential iPhone customers do you think were scared off when they overheard Apple refusing service on a product perceived to still be under warranty? How many potential customer friends did they tell? How many potential customers have read about it in the news?
Who cares if Apple is 'right'? They can't afford to be 'right' at the expense of their customers.

The only good thing about all of you apologists on this thread who stubbornly refuse to see the obvious is that at least you have prolonged the conversation sufficiently to make Apple's mistake glaringly obvious for all open minded observers.

atomwork
Sep 30, 2007, 10:16 PM
Its NOT illegal to tamper with your own property. Not at all.

It is almost certainly anti-consumer rights (and soon, I think, illegal) for Apple to lock the SIM, and it may also be illegal right now for Apple to damage phones with an update, no matter how many warnings they put out.

You cant be held to a waiver that destroys your property or your life.
Thats the law.

Man updates phone, tries to call Wife to tell her he left the oven on - phone doesnt work due to 1.1.1 - no call - house burns down.
Man sues Apple.


....and the man is now very upset because the house burned down he takes a gun and shoots someone, then sues the goverment for making up laws/agreements like 23.4.1 prohibiting him to use the gun the way he wants;) .... and so on....

;)

DMann
Sep 30, 2007, 10:25 PM
well hopefully they'll get apptapp on 1.1.1 soon

And apps to install while using it........

technicolor
Sep 30, 2007, 10:32 PM
Why does the 'Touch not have the big storage capacity of the Classic, basically meaning that the touch is a second tier (nano class) iPod, and not a high end iPod?

Show me an affordable place to buy 160 gigs of flash memory?

or show me how responive iphone/touch would be with a hard disk?

:rolleyes:

CJD2112
Sep 30, 2007, 10:35 PM
Cry a little? You are messing with the native software by installing apps. Where's Mencia when you need him.

Whatever. I had written something more poignant but realized I would be lowering myself to your level.

Where are the Macrumors moderators? Shouldn't someone be enforcing the rules and regulations in regards to how people address each other on these forums? The lack of civility and respect is astonishing, it's disgusting. Would you treat someone this way in person whom you just met? Chances are if you did, you wouldn't do it much often.

PJF13
Sep 30, 2007, 10:35 PM
To be honest, I have no problem with what they are doing. If you want a phone to hack or mess with, go with a different company. If Apple doesn't want you to mess with there stuff, why would you buy it to hack in the first place?

I agree 100%

Please folks I mean no offense...but this is is the deal with this mobile phone and Apple in general. For anyone even remotely familiar with Apple it should not come as a surprise. I loved my iPhone before the update and even more so after.

There are plenty of other places to get what you want. If it were me I would go there. This complaining and whining insults your intelligence.

There are much bigger things in the world to be upset about.

JGowan
Sep 30, 2007, 10:39 PM
In my opinion, Apple is doing the right thing by focusing in on what they need to do with the phone and letting the chips fall where they may for 3rd party developers. True, Apple may be actually writing their update code to dash the hacks of 3rd party folks, that's their right. They need to protect their property.

As they offer more and more Applications on the phone, it's important for the features to be substantial and very desirable as it drives further sales for more phones. If Apple's updates are just one out of 1,000 (them vs 3rd party), then the new Application is totally missed. For instance, if they suddenly offer Instant Message on the phone... "BIG DEAL. COOLIPHONESOFTWARE CAME OUT WITH THAT MONTHS AGO". When they upgrade the software, it's got to be a big deal. Also, they want to keep the phones of the same Quality standards. I can't blame at all for this.

zoltamatron
Sep 30, 2007, 10:52 PM
All of this phone locking/unlocking mess is a total scam between cell phone manufacturers and carriers and I have no sympathy for the companies that engage in it. The fact that you *purchase* a phone and then are forbidden from altering it to work on another carrier is ridiculous. It's *YOUR* phone. There has only recently been a DMCA exception that allows people to unlock their cell phones, but apparently there is nothing stopping the companies from breaking the unlocked phones with "updates".

The only thing that all of this locking nonsense has done is create a lot more waste in the form of used phones and suck money out of the consumers that have to buy them. The manufacturers and the carriers both get their cut and rake in the money. I don't believe that there is any need to lock phones to recoup discounts made at the time of purchase since you have a pay a hefty early termination fee if you don't fulfill your contract.

I will boycott the apple iPhone as long as it's locked and closed and I don't care how cool it is. I love my apple computers that I've used since the '80s, but this is a tactic to suck money from the consumer without giving them any innovation in return. I wish that steve jobs, the "environmentalist", would realize how wasteful it is to engage in this locking game and get out. I also don't see how locking can't be considered anticompetitive and prosecutable since you are basically using software tricks to break a piece of hardware that would otherwise work on a competitor's network.

compuguy1088
Sep 30, 2007, 10:56 PM
Have you ever bought a ringtone for another phone?
Apple's price is cheap compared to most I've seen.
Also, vent at the Music Labels, not Apple if you're so pissed off. Apple does not set conditions of use for copyrighted material.
I look forward to being able to convert my own sounds to tasteful ringtones.
Finally, anyone who uses whole snippets of songs as 'ringtones' should be shot.

But what about certain songs that cannot be bought on the itunes music store, like cd's from your quartet's concert, for example. The itunes service limits us to their songs.

flieschut
Sep 30, 2007, 10:57 PM
To be honest, I have no problem with what they are doing. If you want a phone to hack or mess with, go with a different company. If Apple doesn't want you to mess with there stuff, why would you buy it to hack in the first place?

...I haven't ever felt the need to make a comment here, though I read the news almost every day, but this is something I feel rather strongly about. And I suppose I agree with this, and will never buy an Iphone until they change their policy. And while I've always been a loyal mac user, I'm seriously starting to look @ some form of unix as an alternative for OS....I'm so incredibly disappointed with Apple's pursuit of closed systems, w/ itunes, w/ the pods, w/ the phone. And I cannot possibly see how limiting 3rd party development is going to help the iPhone, and I don't see a way that the apps necessary to make it a vital device will ever emerge. It could have been such a slam dunk! The world was behind apple. But they are blowing it big time, and there are all kinds of people like me who are seeing them as the new Microsoft and beginning to shy away. And I am so sorry to say it, it really does make me sad!

(The other more mundane thing that bugs me about the iphone isof course, the closed ringtone policy. My sony phone is kind of a pain to sync up with itunes, but, I can make my own ringtones, put my own songs as ringtones, and I really like that.)

Rot'nApple
Sep 30, 2007, 10:58 PM
Back in November before the official iPhone announcement, I heard information from a friend inside Apple. He said that the iPhone was going to be announced in January - which was true. He also told me that the first model was a more restricted, kind of "Light" model. The "real" or more smartphone-like model was coming later and would co-exist.

Didn't give an idea as to when this "real" or more smartphone-like model might be coming out? "Later" is so undefinitive.:(


(he told me about 802.11n and the 24-inch iMac as well)

I wish I knew about the 24" iMac. Purchased the first gen Intel 20" iMac, the largest screen reale state iMac they had at the time and 6 months later came the 24"... arrgh, damn Apple's secrecy, I really would have wanted that instead!:mad:

CoreWeb
Sep 30, 2007, 10:59 PM
I think third party applications should be allowed for the iPhone, just as they are for the Mac. While I do believe that it is Apple's right to prevent such applications from being made, I do not believe they should.

In fact, I go so far as to consider the disabling of 3rd party applications in 1.1.1 a bug. Hopefully, Apple will someday realize that they should fix it. Currently, they're under the delusion that it's a feature.

There must be a way around security concerns... sandboxing, perhaps? Perhaps products should be verified and tested, etc, and any that aren't will produce a warning that they could break the iPhone to where it could need a restore? In my opinion, Apple is either currently working on a way to allow true third party applications, or simply lazy.

peestandingup
Sep 30, 2007, 11:14 PM
Guys, this is obviously about much more than just the iPhone mess & its not so much that it bothers me to never update my iPhone's firmware again. Its just the simple principal of the matter.

After 8 years of being a loyal customer, I simply DO NOT feel comfortable giving Apple anymore of my $$. I dont want to "rent" my products & thats exactly what they are started to do here. If we keep buying into them, its like saying "Thank you sir. May I have another" while they gang rape us from behind. So, its never gonna stop unless we just stop.

I mean, obviously they dont care about what their customers want. So if thats the case, then I sure as fu*k dont care about them. There are way too many options out there to screw around with them anymore.

Im already in the process of selling my MacBook, my ExtremeN & Express routers, my 12" PowerBook that I use for a media center, my iPod HiFi, etc. Im going totally open-source, thats it. Thats what its come to.

Im damn serious about this, so if anyone wants to make me an offer on any of that stuff, lemme know cause they are going on eBay this week.

Rot'nApple
Sep 30, 2007, 11:20 PM
A couple of days back we ALREADY had 'awsome apps and an evolving form factor', but now (for no good reason) we don't. (Except those of use who refuse to downgrade to 1.1.1.) That is the whole point of why Apple is being so stupid in this case.

A couple of days back you had what you had due to either "jailbreaking', "hacking", "unlocking", or "installing 3rd party apps" and I'm willing to bet that that's not Apple's roadmap for the iPhones future.

I hear often, "I paid for it, it's my phone to due as I please". True. You can also buy a car, it's yours, if you please, to juice up with a turbocharger or get fancier rims, etc. However, there still are "rules of the road" everyone must follow in order to prevent a calamitous trainwreck or in this case, a 40 car pile up.

Didn't Steve say that a SDK for the iPhone wouldn't be released until it was assured that security and operability wouldn't be compromised and shortly came out with the Safari web apps solution in the interim? And that Apple is not entirely against SDK for the future?

Is it Apple's fault for some people's impatience? I bet you're the one passing me on the freeway because 65 mph in a 55 mph is still not fast enough for you! Just watch out for pile-ups...

LizKat
Sep 30, 2007, 11:29 PM
I think third party applications should be allowed for the iPhone, just as they are for the Mac.
*snip*
There must be a way around security concerns... sandboxing, perhaps? Perhaps products should be verified and tested, etc, and any that aren't will produce a warning that they could break the iPhone to where it could need a restore? In my opinion, Apple is either currently working on a way to allow true third party applications, or simply lazy.

I really think Apple will end up selling iPhone apps in iTunes Store. Via WiFi, even, and your choice whether you want to install it now or DL it to your laptop when you get home and sync-install it. I'm ready to buy them!

peestandingup
Sep 30, 2007, 11:30 PM
I hear often, "I paid for it, it's my phone to due as I please". True. You can also buy a car, it's yours, if you please, to juice up with a turbocharger or get fancier rims, etc. However, there still are "rules of the road" everyone must follow in order to prevent a calamitous trainwreck or in this case, a 40 car pile up.
Well, you better tell that to Nokia, Blackberry's, etc cause they are breaking the "rules". That analogy just doesnt hold water, dude. Apple is setting their own rules on this one. "Think Different" indeed.

kzin
Sep 30, 2007, 11:48 PM
All of this phone locking/unlocking mess is a total scam between cell phone manufacturers and carriers and I have no sympathy for the companies that engage in it. The fact that you *purchase* a phone and then are forbidden from altering it to work on another carrier is ridiculous. It's *YOUR* phone.


Actually, you've been able to buy unlocked phones, at their unsubsidized price, all along. I'm about to do that (to use the phone as a modem with my N800). Motorola KRZR K1m for EV-DO speed internet. It'll cost me $200, instead of getting it for $50 with a contract.

But that's the trade you make: pay less and be locked into a contract, pay more for the freedom you think you should have gotten by paying less.

Cleverboy
Oct 1, 2007, 12:13 AM
Although many people do not understand the difference between the two, uploading and running third party applications has NOTHING to do with unlocking the phone (modifying the baseband firmware). Nothing? I hate to tell you this, but did you know that there is a reason the iPhone wasn't unlocked, and THEN had 3rd party apps start coming out? The unlocking software was accomplished due to the efforts that produced 3rd party app support, including the building of the toolchain. Without the ability to build 3rd party apps, the iPhone would NEVER have been unlocked. Does that make sense?
I have not torn into the iPhone, but for all the material I have read, Apple COULD easily digitally encrypt and sign the part of the baseband firmware that controls the "AT&T lock" of the phone, but allow third party applications to be located and function in the normal file system.Easily. Interesting word. Freedom to write applications allows very extensive probing for weaknesses in any "signing" or "encryption".
Whether it was intentional or not to steam roll over the third party apps in the last update (anyone know the answer?), they COULD have limited/focused the encryption and other lock down methods to the "AT&T lock".You realize that getting into the phone in the first place, was always a "break-in" based on a flaw in the iPhone software? This flaw allowed the installation of apps and the eventual unlocking of the phone altogether. As I was saying, the two things are intimately related, and there are enough people out there that can't distinguish the term "jailbreak" and "unlock", that I don't even think its worthwhile defending anymore. I was even angry about it at one point, but I've given up.

If Apple began support for 3rd party apps at some point (hopefully soon), all of this will become a moot point to MOST people, and "unlocking" would truly become its own category... one MOST iPhone users would not care about.

~ CB

GQB
Oct 1, 2007, 12:17 AM
Guys, this is obviously about much more than just the iPhone mess & its not so much that it bothers me to never update my iPhone's firmware again. Its just the simple principal of the matter.

After 8 years of being a loyal customer, I simply DO NOT feel comfortable giving Apple anymore of my $$. I dont want to "rent" my products & thats exactly what they are started to do here. If we keep buying into them, its like saying "Thank you sir. May I have another" while they gang rape us from behind. So, its never gonna stop unless we just stop.

I mean, obviously they dont care about what their customers want. So if thats the case, then I sure as fu*k dont care about them. There are way too many options out there to screw around with them anymore.

Im already in the process of selling my MacBook, my ExtremeN & Express routers, my 12" PowerBook that I use for a media center, my iPod HiFi, etc. Im going totally open-source, thats it. Thats what its come to.

Im damn serious about this, so if anyone wants to make me an offer on any of that stuff, lemme know cause they are going on eBay this week.

Adios, peestandingup.
Enjoy yourself over on the Windows forums. Much lower hanging fruit to turn into whine about over there. Vista, Zune, Windows Mobile. Soooo much innovaton over there.
:apple:

goantelope
Oct 1, 2007, 12:23 AM
Maybe it's just me trying to give Apple the benefit of the doubt, but I can certainly think of one reason that 3rd party apps aren't supported: VOIP.
Since we don't know all the intricacies of the deal with at&t I might guess that true 3rd party support could have been one of at&t's core demands. After all, I have unlimited date on my phone, but get reamed for talk minutes. The second someone comes up with a viable voip (skype mobile anyone?) solution, the providers lose control of their core cash collection scheme.

If you think about it, this theory is somewhat supported as well by the lack of a mobile ichat service. Text messages were in part popularized by young people who wanted to chat a lot but couldn't afford the cell bills. Now at&t have jacked up rates on those once cheap SMS messages and make good money up-selling heavy texters with really silly plans. Apple's ichat-like interface for SMS makes it clear that this is their texting solution for at least a while... don't expect a "legit" IM solution anytime soon on the iphone.

One can only hope that the success of the iphone and eventual release from the at&t contract will allow Apple to set their own solutions separate from vampire-like service providers. This is a big dirty market that Apple has entered into. I can't say that I'm 100% satisfied with their actions so far, but they're not doing bad for being the latest entrant into the market.

koobcamuk
Oct 1, 2007, 12:27 AM
Adios, peestandingup.
Enjoy yourself over on the Windows forums. Much lower hanging fruit to turn into whine about over there. Vista, Zune, Windows Mobile. Soooo much innovaton over there.
:apple:

Errrr......???

He said he was "going totally open source", so to me, that sounds like Linux or something, not Windows...

NiteWaves77
Oct 1, 2007, 12:34 AM
Early efforts to hack iPhone 1.1.1, or at least provide a downgrade option to 1.0.2 are underway, but Apple's position on this is clear.

Noooo. Apple's position on this is a result of your speculation.

Blame it only on yourselves, you big children. You were told the iPhone was not going to support native 3rd party applications. You were told the iPhone was locked to AT&T. You didn't read the user agreements (yes, I expect you to read them -- I don't care how many pages they are). And you bought it anyway, because you need the latest Apple gizmo to fill your empty lives.

And now you're all crying in your milk because you can't bend reality to your whims. You were so sure you could get by with your "hacks". You were convinced you'd be able to ride scott-free on T-Mobile, free from the "tyranny of AT&T".

And now you're wrong, stuck with a device you don't want and a servce you can't cancel -- despite every warning post you came across before you signed on the dotted line.

You all make me sick.

Bitjockey
Oct 1, 2007, 12:46 AM
It astonishes me to hear all the griping about a company that has been completely up front about it's products feature set and who fulfills it's promises to it's customers. Did any of you actually go out and plunk down good money with a full expectation that the iPhone was unlockable and could have 3d party applications installed? And now you are all put out and going to sue because you can't do these things? Man what planet are you all from? If you don't think Apple told you the truth, sold you a reliable product, or provided adequate customer service, it's your duty to complain or even to sue. That is not the case here. The iPhone is all Apple said it would be and more. I'd pay big money to see the look on the judges face when you all tell him Apple misled you and that they owe you something. I love the iPhone for what it is now and for what it will be tomorrow and what that is is RELIABLE.

Cleverboy
Oct 1, 2007, 12:48 AM
After 8 years of being a loyal customer, I simply DO NOT feel comfortable giving Apple anymore of my $$. I dont want to "rent" my products & thats exactly what they are started to do here. If we keep buying into them, its like saying "Thank you sir. May I have another" while they gang rape us from behind. So, its never gonna stop unless we just stop. Considering Steve Jobs has been calling for "patience", and that we're only 90 days into the iPhone platform, I think you're being more than a bit foolish (if your love of the Macintosh platform has any degree of depth in your life, you won't escape these issues elsewhere). If after 12 months, Apple made NO moves towards opening up the platform, I might be inclined to agree with you. As it stands, those that begin making rash decisions about highly politicized issues surrounding media convergence, are being more than a little naive in my opinion about the state of things.

Read this article written by FoxNews on cellphone UNLOCKING, before the iPhone was even announced:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235602,00.html
Now that the U.S.Copyright Office has given a green light to unlock your GSM or iDen cell phone (click here for details) you can save money on a new phone — provided you can find it unlocked, or unlock it yourself.
Many more recent phones either require hardware modifications or aren't unlockable at all, according to Evan Silbert, president of Warlocks Wireless (http://www.iunlock.com) in Boston.

Regarding the "right" to unlock, read this article by PC Magazine, as it tries to get comment from the various carriers on the new provisions for unlocking in the DMCA:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2064707,00.asp
While this is certainly good news for consumers who want to use the same phone even if they opt for a different service provider, the cellular carriers will likely have a different reaction.

While representatives from Cingular and T-Mobile did not return PC Magazine's calls, both companies, as well as other cellular providers, have previously argued that the software on their phones should be considered a copyrighted work, despite the recent decision. Anyone who tries to unlock it for use on another network is breaking DRM and violating the statutory prohibition on circumvention, or so the argument goes. Joe Farren, a CTIA spokesman, would not comment directly on the recent decision but said that the organization's attorneys are still reviewing it.

"It's clear that the decision does not prohibit carriers from locking phones," said Farren. "It essentially allows consumers to unlock their phones without carriers being able to intervene."
Now, let's be clear about the term "intervene". It doesn't prevent firmware updates that make unlocking more difficult, it prevents legal moves aimed at individuals taking advantage of, or disseminating methods to do so. They can't sue you or stop you from sharing information about unlocking. In some cases however, they may still claim copyright if 3rd parties SELL solutions... although the territory is nebulous.
While last week's decision does make unlocking legal here in the U.S., it is not permanent. The DMCA exemption process repeats every three years. According to the government, it is up to people who want these exemptions to continue arguing for them. If that is not done, exemptions can just as easily be overturned, as was the case this year with a 2003 ruling that allowed an exemption for researchers attempting to uncover the blacklists used by Internet filtering software. Our consumer rights seem to be hanging by a thread, and while the self-righteous amongst us, think that choosing to disavow support or patronage of companies like Apple or AT&T has ANY significance, the more pragmatic and well-informed amongst us, see the larger context, and make plans to contact the FCC regularly, and rile up others to keep the pressure on.

http://www.tuaw.com/2007/09/28/90-days-later/
"So where does that leave us? Michael suggested that customers send their complaints directly to the FCC (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/complaints_general.html) (1-888-CALL-FCC). He thinks that after 1 year, the FCC will force AT&T and Apple to provide unlocks for their customers."
General complaints page:
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/complaints_general.html

FCC Form 475 - General Communications related Issues:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cib/fcc475.cfm

General complaints by email (be sure to include your full contact information and coherent description of the nature of your complaint):
fccinfo@fcc.gov (mailto:fccinfo@fcc.gov)

It's up to everyone to figure out exactly where they truly think they can make a difference, and where a stand is even appropriate.

~ CB

peestandingup
Oct 1, 2007, 12:58 AM
Errrr......???

He said he was "going totally open source", so to me, that sounds like Linux or something, not Windows...
Exactly. I guess some people on these forums don't read so good. ;)

Cleverboy
Oct 1, 2007, 01:01 AM
Adios, peestandingup.
Enjoy yourself over on the Windows forums. Much lower hanging fruit to turn into whine about over there. Vista, Zune, Windows Mobile. Soooo much innovaton over there. I challenge anyone to say that a company like Microsoft, who agreed to pay studios like Universal $1 for each sale of a Zune, actually has consumers' best interests in mind (more than Apple, or when compared to studio interests). While Microsoft DRM had such early flops as PressPlay, it took Apple's patience and compromise to release the success that has become the iTunes music store.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5939600/steve_jobs_the_rolling_stone_interview/
"When we first went to talk to these record companies -- you know, it was a while ago. It took us 18 months. And at first we said: None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.'s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content." - Steve Jobs, Rolling Stones

Windows DRM has been SO restrictive, I cannot entertain ANY notion of purchasing content/movies/music from Amazon Unboxed. 5 machines? Not even half as many. Put it on unlimited portable devices...? No... 2 max. Mark my words, as PlayReady shows up as a method of distributing music, any legacy "free ringtone" ability will vanish as well.

~ CB

slughead
Oct 1, 2007, 01:10 AM
Sorry, you're wrong, unlocking a phone to use on a different network is most definitely allowed as an exemption under the DMCA...

What about unlocking a phone to put on apps?

That is certainly not exempt.

celavato
Oct 1, 2007, 01:18 AM
Im already in the process of selling my MacBook, my ExtremeN & Express routers, my 12" PowerBook that I use for a media center, my iPod HiFi, etc. Im going totally open-source, thats it. Thats what its come to.

You'll be back in three months. Make it two. Do you seriously think you're going to get the same experience from Linux? Everyone needs to chill out and recognize a few inevitabilities:

1. Steve Jobs once said no one wanted to watch video on a tiny screen. He also derided flash memory, saying that the iPod's strength was its ability to carry your entire library with you. Apple will allow third-party software on the iPhone, first via hand-selected partners and then someday through an SDK. If you can't wait, get a Windows Mobile device.

2. Someone said that if amateurs could develop iPhone applications in a few months so could Apple. True, but amateurs don't have to file copyright and patent applications, work with the marketing department, run several stages of tests, including the Does Steve Approve test, etc. -- large company stuff that slows time to market.

3. When have you ever used a 1.0 product that did everything you wanted? The iPhone comes closer than any other 1.0 product I've used (Keynote 1.0 was my previous pick for best 1.0).

4. Those of you who post here are not mainstream consumers. As Apple grows larger, you are no longer the apple of its eye. You need to come to terms with Apple's increasing focus on mainstream consumers, which I define as people who don't post in forums, don't know what an SDK is, are thrilled to have email on their phone, don't know what DRM stands for, think $1.98 for a permanent ringtone is a good deal, etc. Steve Jobs always wanted to build products for the mass market, not nerds and geeks like us. Now he's fulfilling his dream.

peestandingup
Oct 1, 2007, 01:32 AM
You'll be back in three months. Make it two. Do you seriously think you're going to get the same experience from Linux?
Actually, I've been using Ubuntu for the last 3 months natively on a separate partition on my MacBook, so I am well aware of what Im getting into. Do I think its as refined as OS X?? No, but that doesn't mean its bad either. Its actually quite good.

I know what Im doing. Obviously, I dont just make decisions like this willy nilly given my 8 years of being a Mac user. So, no. I wont be back sadly.

ucfgrad93
Oct 1, 2007, 01:42 AM
it would have been a way of 'sticking it to the man' if all of us just would have said NO to this update.

No, you 'stick it to the man' by not buying the product. As the old saying goes, money talks and BS walks.

Apple was very upfront about what you couldn't do with the iPhone. If you bought one and tried to do something that Apple said you can't and bricked your phone, its your own damn fault.

MedRed
Oct 1, 2007, 02:05 AM
I smell a lawsuit coming and fast. I was just in the apple store and a guy was in there with his locked iphone because of this update. They told him he hacked it and there was nothing he could do. He was yelling like mad. I felt bad for him. Its freakin wrong of apple and they deserve to get sued.

Why should Apple get sued? We iPhone users agreed to a software user agreement when we set up our phones. Apple is well within its legal rights... We were hoping for hacks but it has been hack at your own risk from day one.

Cleverboy
Oct 1, 2007, 02:05 AM
Actually, I've been using Ubuntu for the last 3 months natively on a separate partition on my MacBook, so I am well aware of what Im getting into. Do I think its as refined as OS X?? No, but that doesn't mean its bad either. Its actually quite good.
I know what Im doing. Obviously, I dont just make decisions like this willy nilly given my 8 years of being a Mac user. So, no. I wont be back sadly. If you let 90 days decide your withdrawal from the Mac community, you really DO seem to make decisions willy nilly. Instead of sticking around and fighting for what you believe in (if you've indeed worked that out), you're withdrawing to another platform with the expectation that your decision has some coherent impact, when Apple is selling more laptops than ever.

Clearly, something else more substantial is influencing your decision than a 3 month span where Apple is deciding how and when to expand its developer options for a new platform. Many Mac users have access to Ubuntu, as its ready to install by default with VMWare.

What if in January Apple released a stable 3rd party SDK for native iPhone applications? What if in June of next year, they have a fully realized platform for delivering new paid/free applications to iPhone via iTunes? Would that make your decision now SMART or UNINFORMED? You might criticise Apple for not disclosing its long-term plans, but I certainly don't. That's what competition, trade secrets, and lead time are all about.

~ CB

cal6n
Oct 1, 2007, 02:14 AM
Adios, peestandingup.
Enjoy yourself over on the Windows forums. Much lower hanging fruit to turn into whine about over there. Vista, Zune, Windows Mobile. Soooo much innovaton over there.
:apple:

Did you even read his post? Open source, the man said, and he could be right. I've been thinking about it since Apple dropped RISC and their attitude to the iPhone is pushing me further in that direction. It's good to see I'm not alone.

*edit* I suffered from premature exclamation there but my point stands. It is beginning to seem like closed source benevolence is restricted to underdogs. As soon as the marketshare grows, so does the arrogance. I, too have been running Ubuntu as well as OS X. In my case it's been for over a year. Will I miss OS X? Of course but Apple's "way" and my principles have been gradually parting company for a while now...

macUser2007
Oct 1, 2007, 02:19 AM
:...Steve was reportedly against having slots in the Apple II back in the days of yore, and felt even stronger about slots for the Mac. He decreed that the Macintosh would remain perpetually bereft of slots, enclosed in a tightly sealed case, with only the limited expandability of the two serial ports...."

And that, boys and girls, is the reason why, even though better built and with a better operating system, the Mac is barely a blip on worldwide computer sales. And why Steve Jobs really made his money from Pixar (well, and from Next.)

I think the iPhone UI is light years ahead of everything else. I also think that within a year, we'll see every major player copying it and adding to it.

When they do, the bitter taste left from this will drive some away from the iPhone. To boot, the iPhone is the first exposure to Apple for many, and this will make them think twice about getting another Apple product.

Only a truly religious fanboy can make excuses for this.

kitki83
Oct 1, 2007, 02:28 AM
wow.... wow I thought this was going in such a good direction, sigh I fooled myself. We have here someone giving up on Apple because of iPhone policy which was always known upfront on what they stood. We have people sourcing Fox, sorry Fox is not something to even waste time reading. Wow apple fanboys are starting to scare me lately. Time to crawl away from MR

Cleverboy
Oct 1, 2007, 02:43 AM
*edit* I suffered from premature exclamation there but my point stands. It is beginning to seem like closed source benevolence is restricted to underdogs. As soon as the marketshare grows, so does the arrogance. I, too have been running Ubuntu as well as OS X. In my case it's been for over a year. Will I miss OS X? Of course but Apple's "way" and my principles have been gradually parting company for a while now... I'd much prefer people who wish to leave the Mac platform just GO and not talk about going because they don't understand the context of what is going on. Discuss why you left Mac on some Ubuntu forum somewhere, but if you're here, at least show that you understand what's really being fought here. Right now, we have TWO mainstream consumer operating systems. Windows and MacOS. Apple could disengage from major studios, content providers, and carrier agreements, and declare that iTunes and iPhone are DRM free and that they are shipping their phone unlocked, and hope carriers provide most of their services to the phone in the absence of any direct agreements with Apple. They could concentrate their music efforts on Independant labels like eMusic does, and satisfy themselves with being a very niche player in the broader scope of things.

Or they can FIGHT. They can compromise and broker "deals" that while far from ideal, actually push the consumer experience and expectations higher and farther than it has been up to that point. It's what they do best. You can have fun with your Ubuntu as your SOLE platform. Maybe you'll appreciate the isolation and relative obscurity. Personally, I get excited whenever I see Macs being used in mainstream media, and I'm encouraged whenever I see a company catar to products I already own. What use is being "open", when your disconnected from the mainstream? For most people, its much better to PUSH the mainstream (however hard it might be), than to retreat from it and wait for other consumer voices to do all the heavy lifting.

~ CB

peestandingup
Oct 1, 2007, 02:56 AM
If you let 90 days decide your withdrawal from the Mac community, you really DO seem to make decisions willy nilly. Instead of sticking around and fighting for what you believe in (if you've indeed worked that out), you're withdrawing to another platform with the expectation that your decision has some coherent impact, when Apple is selling more laptops than ever.

Clearly, something else more substantial is influencing your decision than a 3 month span where Apple is deciding how and when to expand its developer options for a new platform. Many Mac users have access to Ubuntu, as its ready to install by default with VMWare.

What if in January Apple released a stable 3rd party SDK for native iPhone applications? What if in June of next year, they have a fully realized platform for delivering new paid/free applications to iPhone via iTunes? Would that make your decision now SMART or UNINFORMED? You might criticise Apple for not disclosing its long-term plans, but I certainly don't. That's what competition, trade secrets, and lead time are all about.

~ CB
Its not only the iPhone mess, trust me. There are other factors that are playing in me wanting to move away from OS X in favor of Linux.

Im not under the impression that Apple is supposed to tuck me in at night & tell me a bedtime story. They are a company, they have shareholders, Steve is CEO, his job is to make them all happy, capitalism, etc. Apple has always been in that business. I totally get that.

However, lately it seems different, to me anyways. They always cared about making money, but they also cared about their loyal customers like no other company I can remember. And they were the most "open" out of all the computer companies too since back in the IBM vs Apple days. They preached freedom A LOT back in those days. And I honestly truly think they believed this sorta thing & it was part of their values.

Nowadays, they seem to be doing the exact opposite. And apparently Steve's idea of "freedom" is trading one proprietary locked-in company for another. Every update of OS X, iLife, etc seem to get a bit more proprietary instead of promoting openness. The "locked-in" feeling is becoming more & more apparent.

I feel like its 1984 all over again. I always felt that Macintosh & iPhone have a lot of eerie similarities. If you look back in history, Jobsey was also holding on too tight to his baby at that time as well (Macintosh) as far as 3rd party software development, etc & even though it was a groundbreaking machine, it flopped hard for quite a while & people eventually went with the other guys cause they were open to developers, other brands of machines, etc & Apple became a niche in the market that they once dominated with the Apple II. Jobs was canned, Gates "borrowed" Apple's OS & had a deal with IBM for his Windows, so here we are.

I feel like he's doing the same damn thing with iPhone. Even the launch, all the crazy hype, the controversy, etc are all pretty similar to then & now in a creepy way. I just hope he doesn't make the same mistake twice, but I think he is & believe history is repeating itself.

So, this IS a big deal to me. Im not happy about it & really wish things could be different. And im positively sure they will not miss me one bit & will continue to innovate & sell a ton of products. But, I cant get behind a company who pulls these sorta things. I'd rather struggle a bit tweaking an open-source OS then to just settle for one that I've grown to love but don't believe in the company who produces it anymore. I take this stuff pretty serious. So, iPhone wasnt the sole reason, it was just "the straw" so to speak.

I personally dont like the direction Apple is going. I think they are giving in to corporate greediness. Its just my opinion though.

ddubbo
Oct 1, 2007, 03:14 AM
Quality over quantity any day. Nissan has a bigger market share than Porsche. And while Nissan makes a good car (better than MS can make software) I think I'll stick with the Porsche.
As has been stated in other places, Apple's share is larger than BMW or Mercedes in their markets. Works for me. Apple stock has been a much better investment as well, so I guess it works on all levels. Quality first!
Apple neither Porsche nor BMW. Those cars have superior performance, powerful engines, and very expensive parts. Apple have nothing of powerful and expencive, except design and perfect user interfaces. Apple rather like Fiat in a body of Alfa Romeo

Tara Davis
Oct 1, 2007, 03:22 AM
Wow. They hysteria here is really something.

Anybody who bought an iPhone expecting it to be anything more than a flash-based iPod with a phone and a web browser bolted on it (and tied to an expensive and tightly-locked provider) was being a little foolish.

Anybody SCREAMING about how horrible Apple is because this 1.0 phone product failed to meet their wild expectations (even though it meets every promise Apple has ever made about it) is being ridiculous.

Any "long-time Apple user" proclaiming they are taking their ball and going home, in particular holding a fire-sale of all their Apple products just so they can divorce themselves of a company who they have abruptly decided to dislike... are either lying or they are complete idiots.

I saw the iPhone and said, "huh... No SDK, no SIM-swapping, limited ring-tone support, tiny storage due to lack of a hard drive, slow data network, expensive provider... No thanks." If the *next* iPhone is a little better (or if the current one is improved over time), I'll take another look and maybe even buy one.

I currently tote around an 80GB iPod and a RAZR everywhere I go, and also a laptop to MOST of the places I go. If there was a single pocket-size gadget which could replace all three of these gadgets effectively 100 percent of the time, I would gladly shell out a fortune for it.

Basically, my dream phone is an OS X version of the Newton with Wi-Fi & GSM connectivity. Here's hoping the 2nd Generation iPhone is something more like that.

Abraxx
Oct 1, 2007, 03:45 AM
I bought an iPhone the day it came out. I clearly remember the activation process requiring me to agree to terms of useage, which clearly stated stipulations to the effect that I agree to not alter the hardware or software and if I did, I would lose access to warranty service.

If I was to -not- agree to those terms, I should return the unit where I purchased it. I clicked on the button indicating that I read the agreement and that I agreed to it's terms.

I presume that everyone had to go through that same process?

No one made any individual buy this $400 to $600 phone. It was a consumer's individual choice to make. Agreeing to the terms and conditions was an individual's choice to make. No one made anyone violate those terms and conditions... it was an individual's choice to make.

Furthermore, the software update posted by Apple wasn't mandatory. In days leading up to the release of the update, Apple publically warned iPhone users online that the software was likely to break phones that had been tampered with, in ways violating the original terms and conditions. In front of me, I have a screenshot of a notice offered by the 1.1.1 update. It reads "Warning: Apple has discovered that some of the unauthorized unlocking programs available on the internet may cause irreparable damage.... making unauthorized modifications to the software on your iPhone violates the iPhone software license agreement, and the inability to use your iPhone due to unauthorized software modifications is not covered under your iPhone's warranty".

No one made any iPhone owner disregard that notice, some of which was typed in boldface fonts, and install the update, anyway.

If, for some reason, I decided to violate those terms and conditions, I would hope that I would be enough of an adult to live with the consequences of my decision. At a very minimum, I would hope that people wouldn't yell at retail employees for something that the retail employee had no involvement with. The employee didn't force anyone to buy the phone, the employee didn't force anyone to agree to the terms and conditions of service, the employee didn't encourage anyone to violate those terms and conditions, the employee didn't blind anyone to the public warnings, the employee didn't force anyone to apply the update, and the employee certainly didn't write those terms and conditions.

If there's a lawsuit to be found in this, I only hope that the employee files assualt charges against the customer. That's not very realistic, obviously, but it's the only thing that makes any basic sense to me, in this scenario...


100% agree,
its about time that some egoistic people honor the contracts they do or just don't buy the product or service, start taking responsiblity for your actions damn! I just think that most of the consumers deserve the brick they created themselves. Stop mess around with things were you have no clue about what your are doing and especially if you have been warned and agreed to a deal BEFORE!
:p

With regards to the sim unlocking dealers/hackers, they are just free-riders making their profit on your risk. no basis to complain :confused:
Rather sue them :)

3rd party apps, will come just be patient....just don't hack them into the iphone but rather should the developers make them browser based.
I for my part prefer a more secure and stable product even if I sacrifice some apps for the time being until it is properly implemented or available.
If you can't live without those hacks, face the risk of loosing them with an update. Likely that some nice SW will be sold via the wifi store in the future anyhow... :)

Abraxx
Oct 1, 2007, 03:53 AM
Well, you better tell that to Nokia, Blackberry's, etc cause they are breaking the "rules". That analogy just doesnt hold water, dude. Apple is setting their own rules on this one. "Think Different" indeed.

Yes they are setting them, its their product and you agreed to the terms if you bought it, so the analogy is quite good.
Buy the Nokia or Blackberry instead if you feel their terms are better for you. Its your free choice, thats how the market works.

peestandingup
Oct 1, 2007, 04:02 AM
100% agree,
its about time that some egoistic people honor the contracts they do or just don't buy the product or service, start taking responsiblity for your actions damn! I just think that most of the consumers deserve the brick they created themselves. Stop mess around with things were you have no clue about what your are doing and especially if you have been warned and agreed to a deal BEFORE!
Well, what do you have to say to the people who bought the phone straight up at the Apple Store, didn't activate the phone through iTunes & didnt agree to the terms in the first place??

And before anyone says it, nobody agreed to any terms by actually buying the phone. They didn't sign anything. They paid their money, took THEIR equipment home & that was it.

Is it fair that they have a bricked phone now?? Most who did this didnt expect Apple to roll out the red carpet & support them, but I dont think anyone really expected end up with a dead phone by Apple's hand.

The 3rd party apps didnt brick the phone, Apple did. If it was just an "accident", then why did they lock down this version's firmware tighter than a nun's hooha??

doemel
Oct 1, 2007, 04:07 AM
But the plane leaves on time, works beautifully and gives you what you paid for. "Just leave the flying to us." :)

Not to mention the stewardesses look drop dead gorgeous ;)

skunk
Oct 1, 2007, 04:21 AM
And before anyone says it, nobody agreed to any terms by actually buying the phone. They didn't sign anything. They paid their money, took THEIR equipment home & that was it.You don't have to sign anything for a contract to exist.

Dagless
Oct 1, 2007, 04:56 AM
I think there should be a way to at least get Garageband and Logic songs as ringtones. The boss tune from the game I'm working on would be quite nice as a ringtone.

kzin
Oct 1, 2007, 05:29 AM
I saw the iPhone and said, "huh... No SDK, no SIM-swapping, limited ring-tone support, tiny storage due to lack of a hard drive, slow data network, expensive provider... No thanks." If the *next* iPhone is a little better (or if the current one is improved over time), I'll take another look and maybe even buy one.

I said something similar, but a different specific list. But, basically, "closed application ecosystem, no bluetooth keyboard support, tiny storage, bad provider, no thanks". And when the iPod Touch came out, more of the same. And my research lead me to the Nokia N800.


I currently tote around an 80GB iPod and a RAZR everywhere I go, and also a laptop to MOST of the places I go. If there was a single pocket-size gadget which could replace all three of these gadgets effectively 100 percent of the time, I would gladly shell out a fortune for it.

Basically, my dream phone is an OS X version of the Newton with Wi-Fi & GSM connectivity. Here's hoping the 2nd Generation iPhone is something more like that.

I don't need/expect 1 device to do all of it. I like the unix ideal: each (program/device) does one thing exceedingly well, and uses standard interfaces to interact with each other. What I don't want is to have to juggle all 3 devices (MP3 storage, PDA, cell phone). Luckily, bluetooth solves that problem.


In the unix command-line world, the standard interface is done via the pipe. Every program doesn't need to have a built-in "sort" option. You just do "program1 | sort". Similarly, they don't need to all have pagination programs, just "program1 | sort | more". And since it's a standard, well documented interface (STDIN/STDOUT), program1 doesn't need to know anything about the existence of sort or more. Similarly, sort doesn't need to know about the others, nor does more. In fact, I can drop in to that pipeline a replacement, if a better one comes along. Such as "program1 | sort | less". I can extend the functionality of any STDIN/STDOUT program without knowing anything about the internal workings of the other programs in the pipeline. I just need to know the exact format of the data it reads in, or spits out.

In the Nextstep/OSX world, this is done via Filters&Services (a tragically unsung part of the environment since Apple acquired the OS). Filters&Services is exactly the GUI analog to the unix pipeline.

In the mobile device world, it's done via bluetooth.

I don't need an 80GB mp3 player. I need any good solid MP3 player, and a device like the Seagate D.A.V.E. (bluetooth hard drive).

For me, the dream is:

1) a cellular/wimax/wwan and maybe wifi wireless gateway device that talks wifi and/or bluetooth to other tightly bound devices. It doesn't need to have ANY direct user interface at all, but a very basic phone interface is probably a good idea. Otherwise, it's just going to sit in my pocket/backpack/briefcase/etc. I will never touch it except to plug it in for recharging.

2) a wireless storage device, like the D.A.V.E., which will hold my music and/or documents, etc. If I can have 2 or 3 of them, I might have 1 for music, 1 for documents, 1 for my "home directory environment".

3) a user interface device. In my current view, a Nokia N800 with the following added to it:
a) a SIP phone client (coming soon, it's in beta)
b) a Bluetooth Handset client (ie. use the Nokia as the mic/speakers/dialer/caller-id display for the wireless gateway device; they make devices that do that for your car, so why not software for that on your PDA?)
c) more/better syncing options for syncing local contacts, bookmarks, calendar, and to do lists with your desktop and/or online services (like google apps, .mac, etc.).
d) there's some rumors the next gen will have a slide-out keyboard... I'm agnostic about it, as I see them as not very ergonomically sound... but a micro-laptop/tablet format, where the screen can twist to face away from the keyboard ... that I'd love.
In order for the iPhone or the "Newton 2" to fill this role, it would need all of that, plus those 3rd party apps (not because 3a-3d require it, but because that's already there on the Nokia, so I didn't need to list it).


As a long time Linux hater, and hater of X-Windows based GUI's, I'm very surprised at just how much I really love the N800 and the "hildon" UI. At this point, I don't care if the above user facing device is delivered by Apple or by Nokia as the next-gen of the N800. That's how much I like the N800. After 15 years thinking that Nextstep/OSX were lightyears ahead of any other UI on the planet ... I've found a Linux UI I can live with.


Now, with some finesse, Apple could in fact deliver all 3 of those devices next year:

a) Add bluetooth to the iPod classic, letting it export music to other Apple devices.

b) Allow the iPhone to be remote controlled, via bluetooth, by other Apple devices ... and allow other devices to route IP traffic through the iPhone (bluetooth DUN tethering, and/or bluetooth PAN).

c) Release the Newton 2 as an iPod-Touch with 3rd party app capability, more bluetooth support (DUN, SPP, HDI, and PAN), and the full suite of iPhone apps (with the bluetooth remote dialer/handset capabilities I outlined above, in place of the direct phone capability). Or, if the Newton 2 is going to be a bigger-than-iPhone device, still do this, but also expand the capabilities iPod-Touch to fill the same role. So, basically the iPod Touch becomes a "Newton 2 lite" (in terms of size, but not in terms of software). You can choose to have a PDA (expanded iPod Touch) or a note-pad side tablet (same capabilities in a larger screen size).



Then you leave the iPhone in your backpack/briefcase/purse/jacket-pocket, along with your iPod Classic .... and use your iPod Touch or Newton 2 to control all of it.

In that case, each device excels at a particular niche of the ecosystem:

1) iPod Classic for storage and basic solid music player. It's your mobile storage system.

2a) Newton 2 (small form factor) / iPod Touch (with extras I mention above) for superior UI (compared to the Classic) and app suite flexibility (compared to the iPhone); it's your PDA.

or

2b) Newton 2 (larger tablet form factor) for larger workspace capability

3) iPhone for communication with the world. It's your wireless network gateway.


Each can stand alone. #'s 2-3 all have wifi, web browser, iTunes music store. #1 is the same basic and useful iPod we're all used to, with gobs more storage than #'s 2-3. You can use #1 as the same iPod you've been using for years, only with 80-160 GB of storage. You can use #2 as a standalone PDA with add-on applications, and as a 8-16 GB music player. You can use #3 as a cell phone with a limited (non-expanding) suite of software, and as a 8-16GB music player.

But, together, connected to each other via bluetooth, they become something more. It becomes a flexible mobile application environment that has a good amount of storage, an expandable application suite, and a solid and stable WAN interface. Add a bluetooth keyboard and a stand for the #2, and you've got a micro-workstation, as well.

Unfortunately for Apple, Nokia has a head start. The N800 plus any bluetooth DUN enabled cell phone and a Seagate D.A.V.E. will pretty much give you the same thing. The only question is whether or not the N800 has support for D.A.V.E. (I don't know). But, at least the N800 lets me swap around the flash storage, in the mean time.

mdriftmeyer
Oct 1, 2007, 05:30 AM
Its not only the iPhone mess, trust me. There are other factors that are playing in me wanting to move away from OS X in favor of Linux.

Im not under the impression that Apple is supposed to tuck me in at night & tell me a bedtime story. They are a company, they have shareholders, Steve is CEO, his job is to make them all happy, capitalism, etc. Apple has always been in that business. I totally get that.

However, lately it seems different, to me anyways. They always cared about making money, but they also cared about their loyal customers like no other company I can remember. And they were the most "open" out of all the computer companies too since back in the IBM vs Apple days. They preached freedom A LOT back in those days. And I honestly truly think they believed this sorta thing & it was part of their values.

Nowadays, they seem to be doing the exact opposite. And apparently Steve's idea of "freedom" is trading one proprietary locked-in company for another. Every update of OS X, iLife, etc seem to get a bit more proprietary instead of promoting openness. The "locked-in" feeling is becoming more & more apparent.

I feel like its 1984 all over again. I always felt that Macintosh & iPhone have a lot of eerie similarities. If you look back in history, Jobsey was also holding on too tight to his baby at that time as well (Macintosh) as far as 3rd party software development, etc & even though it was a groundbreaking machine, it flopped hard for quite a while & people eventually went with the other guys cause they were open to developers, other brands of machines, etc & Apple became a niche in the market that they once dominated with the Apple II. Jobs was canned, Gates "borrowed" Apple's OS & had a deal with IBM for his Windows, so here we are.

I feel like he's doing the same damn thing with iPhone. Even the launch, all the crazy hype, the controversy, etc are all pretty similar to then & now in a creepy way. I just hope he doesn't make the same mistake twice, but I think he is & believe history is repeating itself.

So, this IS a big deal to me. Im not happy about it & really wish things could be different. And im positively sure they will not miss me one bit & will continue to innovate & sell a ton of products. But, I cant get behind a company who pulls these sorta things. I'd rather struggle a bit tweaking an open-source OS then to just settle for one that I've grown to love but don't believe in the company who produces it anymore. I take this stuff pretty serious. So, iPhone wasnt the sole reason, it was just "the straw" so to speak.

I personally dont like the direction Apple is going. I think they are giving in to corporate greediness. Its just my opinion though.

Hate to piss in your Wheaties, but the bulk of Linux progress comes from Major World Corporations. The lead Linux Developers are all working for companies ranging from OSI to Google, to Apple, to IBM, to RedHat, to AMD, to Novell, etc.

The bulk of the platform support for KDE and GNOME comes from Corporate sponsorship and Governments.

Linux is every bit about making money as OS X. It's how the pie is focused that varies.

Linux isn't Hardware: They focus on Services since Shrinkwrap isn't their market, ala Microsoft.

In the end, No Money, no Game, No Jobs, Economies crash.

: Run Debian Sid for the past 6 years. Run OS X since NeXTSTEP 3.1. Ran Windows from 3.0 to XP. Ran MacOS from 7.x - 9. Ran DEC OSF/1 and HP-UX for work and university back in the days.

Worked for NeXT and Apple.

If you get this excited about a Phone I can't imagine what it would do to you if something that really mattered in life didn't fit your demands.