PDA

View Full Version : Preliminary iPhone 1.1.1 'Jailbreak', Ringtones Soon?




MacRumors
Oct 8, 2007, 11:48 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

When Apple released the iPhone 1.1.1 update, they broke a number of 3rd party hacks for the iPhone. This included all 3rd party applications as well as ringtone applications such as iToner (http://www.ambrosiasw.com/utilities/itoner/).

TUAW reports (http://www.tuaw.com/2007/10/08/announcing-a-preliminary-iphone-1-1-1-jailbreak/) that the iPhone Dev team has found a way to "jailbreak" 1.1.1. "Jailbreak"-ing is the process that allows 3rd party developers to deploy their applications to the iPhone. This accomplishment paves the way to re-open the iPhone to 3rd party apps.

The technique is very preliminary and not yet ready for public release, and will likely require developers to recompile many of the existing iPhone applications.

Meanwhile, iToner 1.0.3 will be undergoing beta testing shortly, which should re-introduce Ringtone support into iPhone 1.1.1.

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

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/10/08/preliminary-iphone-1-1-1-jailbreak-ringtones-soon/)



CWallace
Oct 8, 2007, 11:49 AM
Ambrosia has been able to get access to the user area of the iPhone under 1.1.1 again (which is how they send ringtones to the iPhone), however last I heard they were still trying to identify how Apple tags "official" ringtones so that iTunes and the iPhone will recognize them.

FireArse
Oct 8, 2007, 11:52 AM
Well done chaps - hope that gives you plenty of time for the UK's release!

F

coorspate
Oct 8, 2007, 11:54 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/1C28 Safari/419.3)

Great success! To the iPhone dev team!

CJD2112
Oct 8, 2007, 11:55 AM
Excellent. Amazing how things are progressing. :)

WallyG
Oct 8, 2007, 11:55 AM
Is anyone looking to do the same thing (I mean jailbreak) with the iPod touch? I would love to add some 3rd party apps to mine!!

BornAgainMac
Oct 8, 2007, 11:57 AM
I wish Apple would support my own Garageband tunes or my own simple sound effects. I hate to deal with these updates breaking stuff.

mozmac
Oct 8, 2007, 11:58 AM
Keep putting the pressure on, guys. Don't let Apple sleep. It's only through these efforts that Apple will see the demand and open up.

longofest
Oct 8, 2007, 11:59 AM
Is anyone looking to do the same thing (I mean jailbreak) with the iPod touch? I would love to add some 3rd party apps to mine!!

read the article via the TUAW link and you'll find out :)

FireArse
Oct 8, 2007, 12:04 PM
read the article via the TUAW link and you'll find out :)

LOL - surely you can't be asking the user to RTFA?!

Ketsjap
Oct 8, 2007, 12:11 PM
Does anyone know if this jailbreak-thing has anything to do with the unlocking process?

maxrdc
Oct 8, 2007, 12:13 PM
We should all thank dinopio, asap18, netkas, Martyn, mjc, Niacin, BloomFilter, pytey, tE_gU, pumpkin, roxfan, sam, SmileyDude, NerveGas, Nate True, Arminius, DirectriX, ixtli, kroo, zibri, xorl, and the all rest of the team who are working hard to provide us all with those great tools.

The names were copied from the tuaw.com article. I am sure there's more people to thank.

:cool:

freddiecable
Oct 8, 2007, 12:13 PM
and that this is the first step to unlock for other SIMs?
Does anyone know if this jailbreak-thing has anything to do with the unlocking process?

Quickdood
Oct 8, 2007, 12:23 PM
read the article via the TUAW link and you'll find out :)

I hope this works for the touch too, I read the article but it doesn't specifically say anything about the touch. I know of two methods they were working on, one was using a Tiff exploit which would work for the iTouch too, and the other was using a bit of code put into 1.0.2 on the iphone and then upgrading to 1.1.1 and which would not work on the itouch.

Anyone know their method and specifically will it work with the touch

DotComCTO
Oct 8, 2007, 12:25 PM
Here's my theory (because we're on the interwebz and everyone is entitled to my opinion, right? :p ):

1. I believe Apple released 1.1.1 with almost no new features as a way to test their approach to locking down the phone.

2. I'm betting Apple won't release many new apps until they know the phone is locked down.

3. The approach the iPhone Dev team is taking essentially provides Apple with a step-by-step approach for how to break into the iPhone. Apple's dev team will surely respond with a 1.2 or whatever to eliminate that 'attack' vector.

4. Most people will claim that they won't update beyond version X; however, I think Apple will convince people to upgrade by including 1 or 2 requested apps/features.

Steve Jobs has said this is a cat and mouse game. I think this is how Apple will respond. This is so strikingly similar to the PSP scene. Sony releases firmware X with new feature Y. Then the PSP dev teams break the firmware and create their own custom firmware. Except in this case, I'm betting that Apple has seen how the PSP hacking scene has evolved and they're going to attempt to make it harder than Sony has.

Time will tell. Personally, I would like a world with a real SDK and 3rd party apps that live alongside with Apple apps. My thinking is that Apple won't release that SDK publicly until they've got the iPhone well locked down.

Just my theory...

:cool:

--DotComCTO

megfilmworks
Oct 8, 2007, 12:29 PM
Groundhog Day?

twoodcc
Oct 8, 2007, 12:30 PM
sounds like good news to me. i do miss the 3rd party apps on my iPhone

FoxyKaye
Oct 8, 2007, 12:31 PM
Great news - a heartfelt congrats and thanks to the iPhoneDev Team.

You know, I really wish Apple would cut this crap out - that the iPhone can be Jailbreaked means that putting together a realistic SDK to do the same (that would most likely also be more stable and easier to use) isn't that difficult. The damn thing is running OS X, and frankly there's a lot of folks who want to take advantage of that.

I think Apple would also pursuade a lot of fencesitters if it opened up the iPhone - my Verizon contract ends at the beginning of November, and I've got 3 choices: re-up with Verizon even though they're more expensive and hate both Bluetooth and Macs; 2) Switch to a Cingular family plan with my partner and buy a Treo 680; or, 3) Switch to a Cingular family plan with my partner and buy an iPhone.

I'd much prefer the iPhone, but not if Apple keeps playing this game the way it has. And frankly, the Treo would perfectly suffice for my needs and wishes with a smartphone. I would just prefer an iPhone because of what it has the potential to do. I imagine I'm not the only person on the fence like this, and Apple needs to learn, apparently the hard way, that complete application control and nickeling and diming folks for ringtones aren't the way to capture fencesitters.

RickRAH
Oct 8, 2007, 12:33 PM
at what point did Apple take over from Microsoft as being 'the Man'? I bought my first Mac in the way back partly as a protest against the sharp practices and cartelling associated with MS.

looks like Bill Jobs and AppleSoft is little better .....

Linux anyone??

alexandr
Oct 8, 2007, 12:41 PM
lets go iToner! i want the advantages that 1.1.1 gives..

Nykwil
Oct 8, 2007, 12:49 PM
man, i really hope apple does not go the way of charging per application.
ie: you have to pay for an alarm clock application on the sidekick

:wtf:

mrweirdo
Oct 8, 2007, 12:50 PM
at what point did Apple take over from Microsoft as being 'the Man'? I bought my first Mac in the way back partly as a protest against the sharp practices and cartelling associated with MS.

looks like Bill Jobs and AppleSoft is little better .....

Linux anyone??


If only someone made a linux hybrid player/phone with a multitouch user interface with a decent gui. This seems like something palm should be working on but yet they are to busy draging way behind.

GQB
Oct 8, 2007, 12:55 PM
Frankly, the line between hacking the system via security vulnerabilities for 'good' vs doing it for 'evil' is a razor thin-line.
I'm rooting for the cat.
IMHO.

CJD2112
Oct 8, 2007, 12:56 PM
lets go iToner! i want the advantages that 1.1.1 gives..

I have a feeling that Apple has intended on selling third party applications through iTunes, but needs to lock the iPhone down in order to succeed in doing so. It makes sense, they sell everything else through iTunes: songs, videos, games, ringtones, so why not applications?

jayducharme
Oct 8, 2007, 12:56 PM
If only someone made a linux hybrid player/phone with a multitouch user interface with a decent gui. This seems like something palm should be working on but yet they are to busy draging way behind.

You mean like this:

http://www.openmoko.org/

CJD2112
Oct 8, 2007, 12:59 PM
Frankly, the line between hacking the system via security vulnerabilities for 'good' vs doing it for 'evil' is a razor thin-line.
I'm rooting for the cat.
IMHO.

Here's an article that states otherwise:

"Why I Won't Buy an iPhone (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2007/tc2007105_056012.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_technology)"

money quote:
Why all the sturm und drang? Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs will tell you opening the device could leave the network vulnerable. Carriers such as AT&T (T), Apple's U.S. iPhone provider, "don't want to see their West Coast network go down because some application messed up."

Hogwash, I say. Like many BlackBerry users, I've installed and removed scores of applications from my BlackBerry over the years, and never once heard a peep from T-Mobile (DT) about bringing down its network. No one has yet been able to explain to me how even the most ill-designed software could conceivably do such harm to the wireless network.

And really, is the iPhone so delicate that one nasty application damages its software permanently? I thought the device runs Mac OS X. If you believe Apple's marketing, the operating system is rock solid, hard to break, easy as pie to use, and so on. One bad application can do all that damage? The iPhone itself isn't just a phone or an iPod. It's really a mobile computer. Apparently one so powerful that software developers are forbidden to do anything for it, short of cute little Web-based applications, yet so sensitive that it's easy to screw up. That's one way to inspire confidence in a product.

akac
Oct 8, 2007, 01:10 PM
man, i really hope apple does not go the way of charging per application.
ie: you have to pay for an alarm clock application on the sidekick

:wtf:

WTF indeed. Lets make people work for free so you can get free stuff.

mainstreetmark
Oct 8, 2007, 01:20 PM
WTF indeed. Lets make people work for free so you can get free stuff.

Don't be that way. The "Open Source" movement is very very strong, and there are lots of quality applications out there. Entire Office and Photoshop clones exist for free. They do this to improve the quality of life for us all.

Others, of course, charge and that's cool too. If the market finds your app to be useful, then people will willingly pay (unless the price goes down after they pay, in which case, hell breaks!)

An application as simple as an alarm clock ought to be free, but we live in a consumer world where even ringtones cost money. The antithesis of open source.

OSX thrives with gobs of "free" applications that make the experience much better than Apple can out of the box. There's quicksilver, handbrake, and odds are, you're using Firefox. (and if you're using Safari, there's still a ton of "free" software in it)

CJD2112
Oct 8, 2007, 01:24 PM
WTF indeed. Lets make people work for free so you can get free stuff.

Free? So by that logic iTunes should be banned, right? And handbrake, Firefox, iSquint, VLC, Audacity, Adium, Google Earth, and on and on.

I'd certainly pay for a third party program that doesn't run through Safari on the iPhone, but with Apple officially blocking developers from working on such programs how will that be possible? It's not about the $$$, it's about development.

iJed
Oct 8, 2007, 01:36 PM
Because of this news I've just gone and bought myself a 16GB iPod touch. Its a bit of a gamble but hopefully this will be hacked as soon as or not long after the iPhone. I'd have gone for the iPhone but it is not yet available here in the UK. Also a minimum of 35 pounds per month is a little to high for me. If the second generation iPhone is still hackable (to run third party applications) then I'll probably get one of those.

Rot'nApple
Oct 8, 2007, 01:41 PM
...the iPhone Dev team has found a way to "jailbreak" 1.1.1. "Jailbreak"-ing is the process that allows 3rd party developers to deploy their applications to the iPhone. This accomplishment paves the way to re-open the iPhone to 3rd party apps.

The technique is very preliminary and not yet ready for public release, and will likely require developers to recompile of many of the existing iPhone applications.

Is this the cat portion or the mouse portion of the cat and mouse game Steve talked about?

How long will the developers give that this jailbreak allowing 3rd party apps to work will last?

What if Apple starts developing iPhone firmware for operational ability and compaitibility with future Mac OSes & products that iPhone owners will need to download versus given the phone owner a choice?

I would hate to have to go through this again if I were a iPhone owner (whcih I'm not, yet).

Hopefully some Apple solution will be affirmed soon to allow 3rd party apps, because the current situation is nothing but a big boondoggle and fiasco.

ventro
Oct 8, 2007, 01:44 PM
This is the mouse part. The mouse has found a way to get away from the cat once again!

chr1s60
Oct 8, 2007, 01:45 PM
Meanwhile, Apple is probably getting ready to release 1.1.2 which will lock the phone again. If not right now, I am certain there will probably be an update right around Leopard release time. This is going to be an everlasting battle between 3rd party developers and Apple.

Rot'nApple
Oct 8, 2007, 01:46 PM
Groundhog Day?

Actually, Columbus Day! :D:D:D

Stella
Oct 8, 2007, 01:50 PM
WTF indeed. Lets make people work for free so you can get free stuff.

If free software didn't exist, neither would OSX in its present form. In fact, it would probably be rather pathetic, in comparison.

MrT8064
Oct 8, 2007, 02:10 PM
OK, i got an iPhone arriving really soon... do i unlcock on 1.0.2 or wait a few days for 1.1.1?

thanks

pyramid6
Oct 8, 2007, 02:19 PM
It seems obvious to me. AT&T doesn't want iChat installed. AT&T makes a ton of money off text messaging. Something like 1000% profit. If they open up the iPhone, then you can bypass text messaging.

Someone will develope an VoIP application for the iPhones soon enough. Then you won't need your minutes either.

They have the phone locked down because they don't want applications to run on it. Not because they can't.

P6

sblasl
Oct 8, 2007, 02:28 PM
These are two different animals in many cases, as has been the case since the iPod touch was released, there are very few resources & people, if any at this time, trying to hack the iPod touch. I think you are very mistaken by purchasing an iPod touch with expectations of it being hacked in the short or long term.

Because of this news I've just gone and bought myself a 16GB iPod touch. Its a bit of a gamble but hopefully this will be hacked as soon as or not long after the iPhone. I'd have gone for the iPhone but it is not yet available here in the UK. Also a minimum of 35 pounds per month is a little to high for me. If the second generation iPhone is still hackable (to run third party applications) then I'll probably get one of those.

peharri
Oct 8, 2007, 02:31 PM
It seems obvious to me. AT&T doesn't want iChat installed. AT&T makes a ton of money off text messaging. Something like 1000% profit. If they open up the iPhone, then you can bypass text messaging.


Great conspiracy theory, but AT&T doesn't generally lock down what applications the cellphones it sells can run. Most, indeed, incorporate a J2ME (MIDP) environment.

The iPhone is the big exception: it does appear to be Apple, not AT&T that wants the system locked down. (Well, AT&T wants it SIM locked, but that's another issue and not relevant to the above.)

sblasl
Oct 8, 2007, 02:33 PM
I think the release of Leopard will be the nail in the coffin as it relates to the 3rd party applications. I believe that when someone adopts Leopard and they are the owner of an iPhone, there will be a required update to the iPhone that will for all intents & purposes be the final curtain call for the "cat & mouse" games.

How many out there that have been screaming for the release of Leopard are now going to hold off updating?

Is this the cat portion or the mouse portion of the cat and mouse game Steve talked about?

How long will the developers give that this jailbreak allowing 3rd party apps to work will last?

What if Apple starts developing iPhone firmware for operational ability and compatibility with future Mac OSes & products that iPhone owners will need to download versus given the phone owner a choice?

I would hate to have to go through this again if I were a iPhone owner (which I'm not, yet).

Hopefully some Apple solution will be affirmed soon to allow 3rd party apps, because the current situation is nothing but a big boondoggle and fiasco.

Meanwhile, Apple is probably getting ready to release 1.1.2 which will lock the phone again. If not right now, I am certain there will probably be an update right around Leopard release time. This is going to be an everlasting battle between 3rd party developers and Apple.

sanford
Oct 8, 2007, 02:47 PM
Groundhog Day?

Chance of repeating this whole stupid, time-consuming, people should know better, iPhone damaging process again: 100%.

MacsRgr8
Oct 8, 2007, 02:47 PM
This is the mouse part. The mouse has found a way to get away from the cat once again!

Yep, once again.

.. and it will get around Cat version 1.1.2 too, but only after another couple of weeks.
Once Cat reaches 2.0.0 it will probably be months and months before dah Mouse gets around him again, and IMHO I think the Mice will get tired sometime soon...

Let's hope by that time Apple has given the Cat an SDK so that the Mice don't have to find a way around him anymore, but given them a nice little (commercial) wheel to run around in, so that the Mice can develop gr8 Apps instead of having to dodge the fierce Cat.
BTW.. CatsRcute and particularly one über-Cat called Leopard.

artalliance
Oct 8, 2007, 02:48 PM
I believe that when someone adopts Leopard and they are the owner of an iPhone, there will be a required update to the iPhone that will for all intents & purposes be the final curtain call for the "cat & mouse" games.


I don't think they will/can force you to update.

sanford
Oct 8, 2007, 02:49 PM
You can already bypass SMS with numerous, full-featured web-based solutions, like meebo.

It seems obvious to me. AT&T doesn't want iChat installed. AT&T makes a ton of money off text messaging. Something like 1000% profit. If they open up the iPhone, then you can bypass text messaging.

Someone will develope an VoIP application for the iPhones soon enough. Then you won't need your minutes either.

They have the phone locked down because they don't want applications to run on it. Not because they can't.

P6

alebar14
Oct 8, 2007, 02:51 PM
You know what I think, Apple should make another iPhone product such as iPhone Nano with SDK and 3rd application capabilities - that way, AT&T customer contract-related would be still appreciated.

lazyrighteye
Oct 8, 2007, 03:00 PM
OK, i got an iPhone arriving really soon... do i unlcock on 1.0.2 or wait a few days for 1.1.1?

thanks

Depends on how important it is for you to download some select, protected audio from the iTunes Store to your iPhone.
Until one can download DRM-free music form iTS, this 'feature' is of zero interest to me.

Now, 1.1.1 does bring a couple of nifty tricks (double-click Home Button, double-tap Space Bar, etc.). But 1.0.2 offers much more flexibility. From what I have seen.

Ex: a city counsel person (Denver, CO) my wife saw last week, gave his entire PPT presentation on a projector via his iPhone.
He made some joke about "hope I don't get a call during this."
Ha ha.

SIde note: over the weekend, I noticed all of the iPhones in the Aspen Grove Apple Store were still running 1.0.2.
Weird?

PDE
Oct 8, 2007, 03:02 PM
This is all great news, but I suspect that, as somebody pointed out, Apple is already working on plugging this for the next update. The Iphone dev team is giving themselves away by providing information online.

I only hope that the more Apple tries to lock it down, the more that approach backfires and encourages people to try to break it. This is not just about breaking in for fun - it's about a philosophical discrepancy between Apple's control-freak world and those who believe in more flexibility and openness. I hope the latter win this stupid game and that Apple quickly learns a lesson or two.

deepakhj
Oct 8, 2007, 03:04 PM
I keep saying this, the lack of SDK or major updates right now is because Apple's developers are spread thin between the iPhone, iPod Touch, Leopard, etc.

MacBoySeattle
Oct 8, 2007, 03:09 PM
What a fiasco the iPhone is turning out for Apple. Lol. I can only laugh. In the time Apple has been trying to sell one million of it's overpriced carrier-proprietary piece of crap-ware, tens of millions of other phones have been sold. It's bad enough that it's priced in a segment where no normal cell user is even going to consider it, but now it's locked down as well, as it relates to both software and carrier. Lol. I don't think one company is the least bit worried anymore that they didn't get to be the exclusive carrier of iPhone. It's a drop in the bucket. Do you know how many blackberries have been sold in the time that the crap iPhone has been out? It'd blow your mind. My frickin Pearl that I got FREE on contract has Instant Messaging clients for AOL, Yahoo, ICQ, and MSN, and it has picture messaging, and the crap iPhone doesn't? Lol. And the company is desperately trying to keep people from adding these features for a multi-hundred dollar phone? Double lol.

goosnarrggh
Oct 8, 2007, 03:15 PM
Does anyone know if this jailbreak-thing has anything to do with the unlocking process?

With the previous incarnation, Jailbreaking was the first step to installing 3rd party software on the iPhone.

It was necessary to install some such software before you could start going about the business of applying the SIM unlock so that the iPhone could work on other networks.

CJD2112
Oct 8, 2007, 03:38 PM
Never mind lol

kingtj
Oct 8, 2007, 03:43 PM
I have yet to see *anyone* make an "unhackable computer". If it's truly not hackable, it's a very limited system that's not WORTH hacking into. Anything that can function as a full-fledged computer, allowing you to place your own
code on it and run it there, can be hacked.

This may well continue to be a "cat and mouse game", if that's how Apple insists on playing it. But every time they make code changes in a firmware update, they risk creating NEW attack vectors that didn't exist before.

If all else fails, someone will probably discover a technique to "glitch" the iPhone's processor by plugging it into a specially engineered "dock". (They did this at one point to get into locked-down satellite cards.)

What it comes down to, ultimately, is that Apple can keep spending time and energy on delaying people's access to the iPhone's software and OS, or they can render it a "non issue" by sanctioning the outside development of software. (If they like, keep the phone locked down - but let people submit code to be centrally published through iTunes, either as freeware or shareware where Apple gets a cut of each sale?)



Here's an article that states otherwise:

"Why I Won't Buy an iPhone (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2007/tc2007105_056012.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_technology)"

money quote:

xelphy
Oct 8, 2007, 03:43 PM
So I followed a MacWorld article on how to unlock my iPhone, which I did. I used it in Europe last week on a Vodafone SIM, worked beautifully. I also love my 3rd party apps...

So, no reason for me to ever upgrade to 1.1.1, because I'd lose my apps but also I think it'd get bricked because I unlocked it!

GQB
Oct 8, 2007, 03:45 PM
What a fiasco the iPhone is turning out for Apple. Lol.

AAPL: 167.91 ( +6.4601 )

The market is saying the exact opposite. Ultimately, consumer-electronics buyers (and they're the market, not the water-into-wine crowd that hangs out on this kind of forum) will vote for a system that provides ease-of-use to the most commonly needed features, and will see new Apple (or approved partner) provided applications that come along as 'value-add'.

Frankly, I've been through tech phases myself where I want to slap a V-8 on my lawnmower, but Apple will (wisely, IMHO) provided ease-of-use for primary features.

This crowd makes the mistake of thinking that they're still the prime market. Apple tried that in the 80s-90s. How'd that work out?

MacBoySeattle
Oct 8, 2007, 03:53 PM
AAPL: 167.91 ( +6.4601 )

The market is saying the exact opposite. Ultimately, consumer-electronics buyers (and they're the market, not the water-into-wine crowd that hangs out on this kind of forum) will vote for a system that provides ease-of-use to the most commonly needed features, and will see new Apple (or approved partner) provided applications that come along as 'value-add'.

Frankly, I've been through tech phases myself where I want to slap a V-8 on my lawnmower, but Apple will (wisely, IMHO) provided ease-of-use for primary features.

This crowd makes the mistake of thinking that they're still the prime market. Apple tried that in the 80s-90s. How'd that work out?

Heh I had to laugh. Do you think MMS (picture messaging) and IM clients are high tech? Lol they are on every FREE phone out there dude. Do you know how many picture messages are sent out every day by the 18 to 25 demographic? Oh but wait this overpriced crap ware called iPhone isn't targetted at any normal people is it? With that price you've gotta be kidding me. The stock market is always behind but let me say this, I can tell you for a fact that not one major carrier even has a second thought about iphone exclusivity. Its turned into an overpriced niche product with increasingly bad publicity and if you had any idea how many smartphones like the blackberry are dominating sales over the iphone you'd know apple is riding on market highs FOR NOW. Just wait.

TurboSC
Oct 8, 2007, 03:58 PM
yea can't wait til someone finds a ringtone workaround and then the apps start flooding in :)

AmbitiousLemon
Oct 8, 2007, 04:03 PM
What a fiasco the iPhone is turning out for Apple. Lol. I can only laugh. In the time Apple has been trying to sell one million of it's overpriced carrier-proprietary piece of crap-ware, tens of millions of other phones have been sold. It's bad enough that it's priced in a segment where no normal cell user is even going to consider it, but now it's locked down as well, as it relates to both software and carrier. Lol. I don't think one company is the least bit worried anymore that they didn't get to be the exclusive carrier of iPhone. It's a drop in the bucket. Do you know how many blackberries have been sold in the time that the crap iPhone has been out? It'd blow your mind. My frickin Pearl that I got FREE on contract has Instant Messaging clients for AOL, Yahoo, ICQ, and MSN, and it has picture messaging, and the crap iPhone doesn't? Lol. And the company is desperately trying to keep people from adding these features for a multi-hundred dollar phone? Double lol.

Delusional much?

RIMM added 1.45 million new subscribers last quarter. Thats in 120 countries served by over 300 carriers. In the same time frame Apple sold a similar number of iPhones while only being available in 1 country on a single carrier (far more phones than the Pearl).

Currently Apple is outselling RIMM's new subscribers, attracting more customers in 1 country on a single carrier with a single model of phone than RIMM can with all their models in the entire world market.

In the current quarter RIMM expects to add 1.65 million new subscribers (again this is globally with over 300 carriers), while Apple is on target to surpass 2 million.

Those facts alone should put your ridiculous post into perspective, but looking at future projections things get even more rosey for the iPhone. Apple is expected to have sold 10 million iPhones by the summer of 2008 while RIMM (with its decades of operations) is just now barely over 10 million total subscribers.

I don't think anyone who understands the situation is pleased that Apple has chosen to block third party development on the iPhone, but to try to take your angst about this poor decision and try to paint the iPhone as a failure does your argument no service.

MacBoySeattle
Oct 8, 2007, 04:08 PM
Delusional much?

RIMM added 1.45 million new subscribers last quarter. Thats in 120 countries served by over 300 carriers. In the same time frame Apple sold a similar number of iPhones while only being available in 1 country on a single carrier (far more phones than the Pearl).

Currently Apple is outselling RIMM's new subscribers, attracting more customers in 1 country on a single carrier with a single model of phone than RIMM can with all their models in the entire world market.

In the current quarter RIMM expects to add 1.65 million new subscribers (again this is globally with over 300 carriers).

Those facts alone should put your ridiculous post into perspective, but looking at future projections things get even more rosey for the iPhone. Apple is expected to have sold 10 million iPhones by the summer of 2008 while RIMM (with its decades of operations) is just now barely over 10 million total subscribers.

I don't think anyone who understands the situation is pleased that Apple has chosen to block third party development on the iPhone, but to try to take your angst about this poor decision and try to paint the iPhone as a failure does your argument no service.
That RIM number is utter absolute crap. Go track the number of BlackBerry Pearl sales alone on all major carriers and it'll blow away your iphone sales like they are the crap they are. And that doesn't even include other the curve and other models. Do you even know that most blackberries are not even added to a RIM subscription plan? So that number is absolute crap.

GQB
Oct 8, 2007, 04:09 PM
Heh I had to laugh. Do you think MMS (picture messaging) and IM clients are high tech? Lol they are on every FREE phone out there dude. Do you know how many picture messages are sent out every day by the 18 to 25 demographic? Oh but wait this overpriced crap ware called iPhone isn't targetted at any normal people is it? With that price you've gotta be kidding me. The stock market is always behind but let me say this, I can tell you for a fact that not one major carrier even has a second thought about iphone exclusivity. Its turned into an overpriced niche product with increasingly bad publicity and if you had any idea how many smartphones like the blackberry are dominating sales over the iphone you'd know apple is riding on market highs FOR NOW. Just wait.

Yup... probably even more 'features' (really need that ability to download java crapware.)
But if these features are unusable (which to normal users, they by and large are) then they're just bloatware.
If the features are not usable, it doesn't matter how cool they are. I've yet to meet a joe/jane user who is not essentially blown away by the iPhone.

Listen... you clearly hate all things Apple and want a do-it-yourself kit. Good on ya'. Apparently you're not alone.

I personally think Motorola/Nokia/et al phones are so far beyond crap that its embarrassing. Buried features, inconsistent, amateurish interfaces, unusable without a manual.. it's hysterical. And right out of the box, Apple comes up with usability that blows them all out of the water, yet they are suddenly Satan. Very odd.

You don't like the iPhone, then quit your bitchin' and buy the platform that apparently DOES do what you want.

But this vitriol has long since entered into some bizarre pathology on this list.

artalliance
Oct 8, 2007, 04:12 PM
That RIM number is utter absolute crap. Go track the number of BlackBerry Pearl sales alone on all major carriers and it'll blow away your iphone sales like they are the crap they are. And that doesn't even include other the curve and other models. Do you even know that most blackberries are not even added to a RIM subscription plan? So that number is absolute crap.

When you are arguing numbers, how about a source link?

sblasl
Oct 8, 2007, 04:15 PM
Those are RIM's own numbers reported last week.

That RIM number is utter absolute crap. Go track the number of BlackBerry Pearl sales alone on all major carriers and it'll blow away your iphone sales like they are the crap they are. And that doesn't even include other the curve and other models. Do you even know that most blackberries are not even added to a RIM subscription plan? So that number is absolute crap.

MacBoySeattle
Oct 8, 2007, 04:19 PM
Those are RIM's own numbers reported last week.
Those are subscriptions. Not handset sales. Go read that same press release and read the number that says handset sales during the quarter. 2.5 million in just Q1. By the way, apple, tracking handset sales too not subscriptions. Nice try lol.

CJD2112
Oct 8, 2007, 04:20 PM
Yup... probably even more 'features' (really need that ability to download java crapware.)
But if these features are unusable (which to normal users, they by and large are) then they're just bloatware.
If the features are not usable, it doesn't matter how cool they are. I've yet to meet a joe/jane user who is not essentially blown away by the iPhone.

Listen... you clearly hate all things Apple and want a do-it-yourself kit. Good on ya'. Apparently you're not alone.

I personally think Motorola/Nokia/et al phones are so far beyond crap that its embarrassing. Buried features, inconsistent, amateurish interfaces, unusable without a manual.. it's hysterical. And right out of the box, Apple comes up with usability that blows them all out of the water, yet they are suddenly Satan. Very odd.

You don't like the iPhone, then quit your bitchin' and buy the platform that apparently DOES do what you want.

But this vitriol has long since entered into some bizarre pathology on this list.

I think some people are getting too emotional and personal on this iPhone business. If people didn't like the iPhone and all things Apple, would they be loyal posters to a Macrumors site? Personally, I love Apple and always will. I have owned countless Apple products and machines, after years of custom building PC's and coding. The dilemma is that Apple has entered a new market and seems bent on stifling the creativity it so boldly embraced as their corporate philosophy in their "Think Different" campaign when Steve Jobs regained control as CEO in 1997. Since then, Apple has re-invented itself, over and over, to astonishing success. I just don't like this new direction that seems to wreak of Microsoft control and cynicism. I realize as a new product that we should give Apple the benefit of the doubt and time, but as they are actively seeking to control a device that has SOOO much potential, it is a bit mind boggling. I refuse to give a company I have invested a lot of financial stock in and personal pride into a pass. More importantly, if we all acquiesce and give in, then Apple will never get the customer feedback that will essentially push it further above and beyond the competition. It's about expecting more, and this isn't a tall glass of water as developers have already easily tapped into the devices power, whether it was advertised or not. Jobs himself hinted and stated that the iPhone has the ability to run OS X desktop applications, not crippled applications. It is not about people "crying" and "whining". It's about people expecting more, demanding more, and getting what Apple has historically proven, superior products that exceed people's expectations. If we just roll over and stop pushing, then Apple may become just another "Inc.", something I would hate to see happen.

I'm all Apple, and I will defend them when reasonable. I will not blithely let someone dictate what I can and can not do with a product I spent $599 to OWN, not rent.

freddiecable
Oct 8, 2007, 04:27 PM
in the long run I don't think it's good for apple to "close" the iPhone. I would gladly buy the iPhone for 699 or similar to get it "non-subsidized". Like a regular iPod. And, as someone earlier pointed out - OSX is pretty stable etc. Why can't they open it for 3rd party developers when there is an obvious upside?

and avoiding becoming a high-end/PDA/smartphone-player they soon have to do what they did with the iPod - release a lower segment phone (iPhone nano 2.5"?).

skellener
Oct 8, 2007, 04:36 PM
So how exactly is it copy infringement to have song you already own play when your phone rings? I'm still not clear on that? It's already sitting there on a music playing device. I own it. If I want it to play when a call comes in on my device, that's my business, not Apple's, AT&T's or even the artist's for that matter.

szark
Oct 8, 2007, 04:40 PM
I am happy to see that they are making progress on getting applications back onto the iPhone.

However, if they are relying on some buffer overflow or other exploit to gain access to the phone, I fully expect Apple to patch that security flaw in the next update.

sananda
Oct 8, 2007, 04:47 PM
So how exactly is it copy infringement to have song you already own play when your phone rings? I'm still not clear on that? It's already sitting there on a music playing device. I own it. If I want it to play when a call comes in on my device, that's my business, not Apple's, AT&T's or even the artist's for that matter.

apparently you own a license to play the music that does not include playing it as a ringtone.

skellener
Oct 8, 2007, 05:14 PM
apparently you own a license to play the music that does not include playing it as a ringtone. Talk about splitting hairs. Just because someone came up with a name for it does not make it "different". The term ringtone did not even exist a few years ago. Playing a song is playing a song. Whether I trigger it to play or the device triggers it, is a ridiculous distinction. I suppose that it's infringement when you set up an alarm clock to play a song. I suppose that it's infringement when listening to songs at random also, since I am not triggering each song myself. This is absolutely absurd. This ringtone phenomenon is a complete scam. I'd say it's all covered under fair use. It's mine, it's paid for, I'll do whatever I want with it.

Of course, there's no mention about creating your own songs or sounds and wanting to use them as ringtones. I guess they don't feel that's an option. They wouldn't want anyone creative to have any options in their little scam.

/dev/toaster
Oct 8, 2007, 05:20 PM
apparently you own a license to play the music that does not include playing it as a ringtone.

The music industry is by far the most greedy bunch of executives that I can't wish enough bad things for. Its unbelievable the crap they pull. I was reading an article recently that they are starting to go after hair salons in canada for playing CDs without paying royalties.

Few months back, right before the super bowl ... a friend of mine warned me not to have friends over since I have a 61" HD TV. Apparently, the nut jobs actually think that I need to pay them because my TV is over 50". (If I am inviting more then 4 people over)

I really wonder where this world is heading. It will be a cold day in hell before I pay for a song that I have already purchased to be played on my phone or any other device I own. Keep in mind, I am not the type of person who approves of ripping off content, but in this case I make an exception :D

sachamun
Oct 8, 2007, 05:22 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/1C28 Safari/419.3)

Great success! To the iPhone dev team!

HAHAHA - iphone keypad typo??

minik
Oct 8, 2007, 05:32 PM
Here we go again.... Leave the iPhone alone.

Bosunsfate
Oct 8, 2007, 05:34 PM
What a fiasco the iPhone is turning out for Apple.


AAPL: 167.91 ( +6.4601 )


I'm sure Steve Jobs is just loosing sleep over how he's going to spend his money

The stock market is always behind but let me say this, I can tell you for a fact that not one major carrier even has a second thought about iphone exclusivity.


For a fact huh? I'm sure you are just "dialed" into to what the major carriers are thinking and doing.:rolleyes:


Its turned into an overpriced niche product with increasingly bad publicity and if you had any idea how many smartphones like the blackberry are dominating sales over the iphone you'd know apple is riding on market highs FOR NOW. Just wait.

Since you clearly are unable to supply any verifiable facts, here is the RIMM quarterly report. (http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/research-in-motion-reports-second/n20071004161909990004)

With 1.45 new subscribers and 3 million new devices I would not say that they are wiping the floor with the iPhone. I could supply more numbers but suspect that you don't really get into such details.;)

ncbill
Oct 8, 2007, 05:39 PM
Forgetting 3rd party apps...what is Apple going to do about those countries that require phones to be unlocked?

Skip those markets and focus on the U.S.?

What if a major U.S. state (e.g. Kalifornia) adopts "must-unlock" legislation?

Delusional much?
Apple is expected to have sold 10 million iPhones by the summer of 2008 while RIMM (with its decades of operations) is just now barely over 10 million total subscribers.

/dev/toaster
Oct 8, 2007, 05:44 PM
It seems obvious to me. AT&T doesn't want iChat installed. AT&T makes a ton of money off text messaging. Something like 1000% profit. If they open up the iPhone, then you can bypass text messaging.

Someone will develope an VoIP application for the iPhones soon enough. Then you won't need your minutes either.

They have the phone locked down because they don't want applications to run on it. Not because they can't.

P6

Why doesn't Apple create iChat and use your SMS text message count as billing ? T-Mobile used to (maybe still does) use SMS as a gateway to AIM or what not. So, each message is "billed" as an SMS (incoming and outgoing).

Now of course, they offered an unlimited plan for this as well. I am sure plenty of people would pay $9.99 a month for unlimited texts and IMs. AT&T still gets their money (and Apple gets their cut), not to mention it actually creates happy customers. *gasp*

VOIP is another matter ... but honestly, I doubt more then a hand full of people would do this. I don't want to be tethered to an access point during a phone call. That is why I use my cell phone *WAY* more then my house phone. I have used the house phone *maybe* 3 times in the past 4 months.

czeluff
Oct 8, 2007, 05:46 PM
Lol, "the stock market is always behind?" Boy, if that were true, there'd be no reason for CNBC, no reason for tens of thousands of stock analysts, and no reasons NOT to invest.

If that were the case, profiting 15% per year from stocks wouldn't be considered "amazing"; it'd be considered "utter crap."

Take some classes in economics and businesses. If it were easy, we would call it "pwning the stock market", not "playing the stock market".

Whoever posted that should just delete their macrumors account right now....stat!

/dev/toaster
Oct 8, 2007, 05:47 PM
Forgetting 3rd party apps...what is Apple going to do about those countries that require phones to be unlocked?

Skip those markets and focus on the U.S.?

What if a major U.S. state (e.g. Kalifornia) adopts "must-unlock" legislation?

Pretty much ... they will skip those countries and I doubt any state would ever be able to pull that off. The FCC would over ride that, not to mention the carriers would fight the crap out of it. Even if it passed, I am willing to get those carriers would pull out of that state very fast, at the cost of many jobs which would only make matters worse.

Sad thing is, we are stuck with it in the US and it will never change.

elgruga
Oct 8, 2007, 05:50 PM
Not sure what this forum was about today, but MacBoySeattle decided to liven it up with his comments.

Trouble is, MacBoySeattle, you didnt attach any FACTS or FIGURES, did you?

We know that Apple outsold ALL other 'smartphones' in the time that its been available, and we have some numbers from AmbitiousLemon who has some track record here.

I'll go with his numbers - unless you have some to post?

There are many phones out there that do various things - trouble is they all do them:

(A) on Windows mobile or other terrible OS/UI combinations.

(B) Badly and buried 8 menus deep.

(C) screens the size of postage stamps

(D) No inter-connections between apps, the way Apple does it.

One report said that it took a person with a Nokia 4 HOURS to configure his email, as opposed to approx. 2 minutes on the iPhone.

95% of people think the iPhone is the best thing since sliced bread - FAR better than all the others.

I believe they are right.

As for the unlocking attempts in play now, I dont think its going to be as easy as the first one (which took 6 weeks) and the issue here is also the unlocking of the SIM which seems to be impossible.

Of course the iPhone will be hacked, but the effort/reward ratio looks increasingly unattractive.

Like most, I will stick with 1.0.2 until Apple sell in Canada, then I will join the club.

Perhaps the Revolution might be saved for bigger issues than this.....?

elgruga
Oct 8, 2007, 05:53 PM
AAPL: 167.91 ( +6.4601 )

Frankly, I've been through tech phases myself where I want to slap a V-8 on my lawnmower,

Good post.

Er...do you have that V-8/Briggs and Stratton replacement schematic?

nukiduz
Oct 8, 2007, 06:07 PM
Just now from #iTouch on irc.isx86.hu:

17:48 < Niacin_work> ok so we just verified it
17:48 < Niacin_work> the itouch has been cracked
17:48 < Niacin_work> :)
17:48 < Niacin_work> www.toc2rta.com start the donations hehe

This is no further than a couple of hours :D

CJD2112
Oct 8, 2007, 06:09 PM
I recall reading a rumor on here that Apple might be releasing a multi-touch PDA next year or so, something in the view of Newton II. Maybe Apple wants to keep third party applications out of the iPhone to make a pure PDA more marketable if that rumor were true? Just a random thought...

elgruga
Oct 8, 2007, 06:18 PM
I need to go for a bike ride, its a holiday up here in the Icy North aka, the Wet Coast, BUT - one more post:

I just want to say that the iPhone is SO MUCH better than ALL the other phones out there.

I have used many of them, and I dread the crap I have to go through to get them to do what I want.

I had a Sony Ericsson MP3 phone a couple of months back - the W810i.
Couldnt listen to MP3's without a big hassle, couldnt see the keys (too small) - I was amazed at its crapness - then I remembered Windows and all the pain we have to go through because of M$ and other greedy lazy fools.

Anyway, it was so bad, I sold it, and brought my Razr back into operation.
So the Razr, my iPod, and my Palm TX. Missed phone calls, too many adaptors and BS - aaaaargh!

Then the iPhone - got one from a guy who had brought them from Seattle, unlocked, plugged into Rogers GSM network (Canada).
Happiness!

Gave the iPod to a friend, sold the Palm TX, sold the Razr.

Then yesterday, I saw the new ads - and there is that guy saying 'just one thing'.
'I take my wallet and my iPhone' - YES, thats the point!

offwidafairies
Oct 8, 2007, 06:47 PM
ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT IPHONE HACKS?????????????????????
arrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

manu chao
Oct 8, 2007, 06:49 PM
It seems obvious to me. AT&T doesn't want iChat installed. AT&T makes a ton of money off text messaging. Something like 1000% profit. If they open up the iPhone, then you can bypass text messaging.

Someone will develope an VoIP application for the iPhones soon enough. Then you won't need your minutes either.


Sure, Apple also keeps the iPhone closed for user experience and stability reasons but VoIP (and to a lesser extent IM) would denigrate the carriers to ISPs. The main difference between the iPhone and most other phones is that the iPhone runs a pretty fully-fledged Unix.

LastZion
Oct 8, 2007, 06:57 PM
Just now from #iTouch on irc.isx86.hu:

17:48 < Niacin_work> ok so we just verified it
17:48 < Niacin_work> the itouch has been cracked
17:48 < Niacin_work> :)
17:48 < Niacin_work> www.toc2rta.com start the donations hehe

This is no further than a couple of hours :D

Great news, I surely will be donating once everything is opened up again.
Thanks for all your hard work everyone!

madmaxmedia
Oct 8, 2007, 07:19 PM
Breaking: iPod touch root read access achieved
http://www.tuaw.com/2007/10/08/breaking-ipod-touch-root-read-access-achieved/

And here's a screen grab of a Jailbroken 1.1.1 iPhone to whet your appetite-

(from http://www.hackint0sh.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10373)

http://images27.fotki.com/v1024/photos/8/887083/5465184/111inocenseremoved-vi.jpg

GQB
Oct 8, 2007, 07:30 PM
The dilemma is that Apple has entered a new market and seems bent on stifling the creativity it so boldly embraced as their corporate philosophy in their "Think Different" campaign

What? Civilized discourse in the midst of 'Apple is SATAN'?... I'm sooo confused. :)

I agree with your premise, but not your conclusion.
Apple has indeed entered a new market. A market of people who want to open the box, and without hours of study, make a call, take a picture, play a song, browse the web, see a movie or send an email. (BTW.... just think about that for a second.)
These users are neither dumb nor uncreative. They simply want their focus to be on their lives and tasks, not on the device.
Those who argue for the right to hack into a 12-week old operating system and firmware would surely like to (lets face it) establish technical reputation, get in on the ground floor of a nascent $10 crapware market, or drive the direction of the platform.
Very creative and diligent folks. Hats off.

But again... you're not the market. And if you want a phone on another network, then there are dozens out there for you to choose from. (Oh yeah, none of them hold a candle to the iPhone... thats why you're hell-bent using only it.)
I repeat... I submit that the more the Apple cat keeps bitch-slapping the trespassing mice, the more users with an interest in platform stability will embrace it.

EagerDragon
Oct 8, 2007, 07:33 PM
Here we go again.

You know this wont last at all, do you?
When Leopard comes out in about 3 weeks there is going to be another patch, a real compeling one, those that hacked the phone will be salivating over it and cursing that they cant update.

I expect a lot more bricks.

Virgil-TB2
Oct 8, 2007, 07:36 PM
You mean like this:

http://www.openmoko.org/No multi-touch with that though.

just plain old touch. :(

Chris Welch
Oct 8, 2007, 07:49 PM
Here we go again.

You know this wont last at all, do you?
When Leopard comes out in about 3 weeks there is going to be another patch, a real compeling one, those that hacked the phone will be salivating over it and cursing that they cant update.

I expect a lot more bricks.

Why does it seem like some of you are so against people getting third party apps on this thing?

And 1.1.1 didn't brick most "hacked" phones in the first place. Well, as long as you didn't unlock the phone.

CJD2112
Oct 8, 2007, 07:51 PM
What? Civilized discourse in the midst of 'Apple is SATAN'?... I'm sooo confused. :)

I agree with your premise, but not your conclusion.
Apple has indeed entered a new market. A market of people who want to open the box, and without hours of study, make a call, take a picture, play a song, browse the web, see a movie or send an email. (BTW.... just think about that for a second.)
These users are neither dumb nor uncreative. They simply want their focus to be on their lives and tasks, not on the device.
Those who argue for the right to hack into a 12-week old operating system and firmware would surely like to (lets face it) establish technical reputation, get in on the ground floor of a nascent $10 crapware market, or drive the direction of the platform.
Very creative and diligent folks. Hats off.

But again... you're not the market. And if you want a phone on another network, then there are dozens out there for you to choose from. (Oh yeah, none of them hold a candle to the iPhone... thats why you're hell-bent using only it.)
I repeat... I submit that the more the Apple cat keeps bitch-slapping the trespassing mice, the more users with an interest in platform stability will embrace it.

Totally agree. Solid points. I suppose my only issue is with Apple relentlessly blocking third party applications (as a Cingular customer before the iPhone was released, my issue isn't with unlocking it for use on another network, as you stated, if you want a phone on another network, there are plenty to chose from). Of course it makes sense that these development teams may interfere with the iPhone's basic structure in attempting to hack it (either for third party applications or unlocking the SIM) and I'm sure some of them are doing so only to challenge and/or prove themselves to others. However, I wish Apple would open the device for third party applications or at least sell them through the iTunes store, I'd be willing to pay for regulated applications that Apple has tested to ensure stability and performance are not hindered. Yet, the other side to all this is that OS X is already an open platform on all other Mac devices (iPod's excluded), and there are no issues with third party applications adversely effecting Mac OS X (or at least none that come to mind). Ugh, I don't know lol. So much to consider. In the end, opening up the iPhone and working with developers to ensure a positive result does seem like a fair option. I wonder why Apple isn't releasing a true SDK. Time will tell.

CJD2112
Oct 8, 2007, 07:53 PM
No multi-touch with that though.

just plain old touch. :(

You know, as great as multi-touch is I was wondering how useful this really is on such a small screen as the iPhone. I love it, don't get me wrong, it's FANTASTIC that Apple has this technology and I would love to see it in larger devices. However, as I have used the iPhone the only application that really uses two finger gestures is the Photo application, and there isn't much screen room to work with that warrants it even then. Ok, I know I will be flamed for this lol. Just a thought.

Ok, update, I take it back. Google maps, multi-touch is perfect when I use it. Ok, so that's two lol. :o

Mackan
Oct 8, 2007, 08:16 PM
If the iPhone will not be unlocked before next update, it will be interesting to see whether the update will break the jailbreak... Apple said they would stay neutral to 3rd party applications. And even more interesting to see what happens with the iPod touch...

Bosunsfate
Oct 8, 2007, 08:24 PM
You know, as great as multi-touch is I was wondering how useful this really is on such a small screen as the iPhone. I love it, don't get me wrong, it's FANTASTIC that Apple has this technology and I would love to see it in larger devices. However, as I have used the iPhone the only application that really uses two finger gestures is the Photo application, and there isn't much screen room to work with that warrants it even then. Ok, I know I will be flamed for this lol. Just a thought.

Ok, update, I take it back. Google maps, multi-touch is perfect when I use it. Ok, so that's two lol. :o

The multi-touch is the hidden gem in all of this. IMO.

And I too, look forward to what new devices will utilize it as well. In our development shop there are a lot of ideas about other practical applications for multi-touch capabilities. But that's another thread.

As for the iPhone, I think there is still alot more to come. After all it is the 1st gen. Look at what 5 generations of the iPod has brought.

One argument for 3rd party applications is that more people looking at how to utilize that power will yield more fruit.

But I still maintain that tight control is better than an open door. What Apple should do...I hope that this is in their plans, is to provide a SDK for the multi-touch side of things. Especially if it allows us to create our own gestures.

TitoC
Oct 8, 2007, 08:29 PM
You know, as great as multi-touch is I was wondering how useful this really is on such a small screen as the iPhone. I love it, don't get me wrong, it's FANTASTIC that Apple has this technology and I would love to see it in larger devices. However, as I have used the iPhone the only application that really uses two finger gestures is the Photo application, and there isn't much screen room to work with that warrants it even then. Ok, I know I will be flamed for this lol. Just a thought.

Ok, update, I take it back. Google maps, multi-touch is perfect when I use it. Ok, so that's two lol. :o

Here's a few more for ya:
(3) Email
(4) Email attachments
(5) Safari

CJD2112
Oct 8, 2007, 08:39 PM
Here's a few more for ya:
(3) Email
(4) Email attachments
(5) Safari

LOL Yeah, yeah, I get it now. Safari, definitely, it makes zooming in and out easy, BUT I happen to like the "double tap" feature better. Double tapping pulls up just the section you want to zoom into perfectly, taking away the need for stretching with multi-touch.

Email, haven't used multi-touch in that other than to look at attachments. Reading email, not so much although I would like landscape mode for emails, it'd be a lot easier to read in widescreen mode. Otherwise, Safari, Photo's and Google Maps, definitely, multi-touch helps, so I bow to you, I have been proven wrong. :o (although I still think it would be great for use in a monitor, not as the only HID, but as an additional alternative in photoshopping and such, it'd be awesome).

pake
Oct 8, 2007, 08:41 PM
If the iPhone will not be unlocked before next update, it will be interesting to see whether the update will break the jailbreak... Apple said they would stay neutral to 3rd party applications. And even more interesting to see what happens with the iPod touch...

This is what seems obvious to me: Like with the music labels (if DRM gets cracked), Apple has an agreement with AT&T, that if the phone gets unlocked, they have some weeks to fix it; this is maybe why the 1.1.1 update was delayed a little, because it coincided with the unlocking of the device. So they will stay neutral to applications but not to unlocking, now, if to stop the unlocking they break the 3rd party applications, well it's like they said "they are not going to maliciously design updates, but they won't care if they break them."

I just wanted to give all the people working on getting the 3rd party applications and unlocking on 1.1.1 best of lucks! I really appreciate all the work you're investing in.

CJD2112
Oct 8, 2007, 08:42 PM
But I still maintain that tight control is better than an open door. What Apple should do...I hope that this is in their plans, is to provide a SDK for the multi-touch side of things. Especially if it allows us to create our own gestures.

That would be great! Never thought of that, configuring your own gestures. Wasn't there a patent that Apple filed for a multi-touch pad with configurable gestures posted on Macrumors? Sounds familiar.

Stella
Oct 8, 2007, 08:44 PM
Functionality over looks

(A) on Windows mobile or other terrible OS/UI combinations.


My Nokia, which has a reputation for not having a good UI but that goes 3 deep - i think your over exaggerating, with the 8 levels.


(B) Badly and buried 8 menus deep.


Again, another exaggeration, plenty of phones have large enough screens - certainly larger than postage stamps.

(C) screens the size of postage stamps


Then you haven't used enough cell phones.

(D) No inter-connections between apps, the way Apple does it.



Another report said someone thought the iPhone sucked.... To configure my Nokia for email for 3 email addresses took me 5 minutes. If it took them for 4 hours then they are complete retards. Its not that difficult.

One report said that it took a person with a Nokia 4 HOURS to configure his email, as opposed to approx. 2 minutes on the iPhone.


Over 90% of desktop computing is windows based. So windows must be the best.

95% of people think the iPhone is the best thing since sliced bread - FAR better than all the others.


It took me LESS than 5 minutes to upload my ringtones from my previous phone, and set up the tones for SMS, MMS ( Oh, iPhone can't do MMS ), incoming calls, etc. Oh sorry, iPhone can't do that - Apple ( and Apple alone - not RIAA enforced ) forces you to re-purchase your ring tones from iTunes.

When I went abroad, to save on calls, I could change my SIM card to a local SIM card. Oops, iPhone can't do that either - you have to pay for expensive roaming.

A lot of basic functionality you can get from a cheap cell phone, strangely, is lacking from the $399 iPhone. Very, very, very strange indeed.

Nokia allows me to freely install the many many excellent *native* 3rd party applications out there that enrich the phones ability. I don't drop calls, crash the eastern Rogers network or brick my phone as a result. If I want to, I can also install widgets ( like OSX widgets ) too.

rjwill246
Oct 8, 2007, 08:51 PM
1. Apple has produced a phone that works with only one carrier and that is because there was no other way to make this business plan work.
2. ATT deserves to have some time to recoup on its investment.
3. Apple has every right to update the phone whenever and however it wants. If that breaks all applications that Apple does not sanction and bricks unlocked phones, that is not Apple's problem nor ATT's, since all of these maneuvers are legal.
3. After a period of time- 90 days it seems for ATT- the iPhone should be able to be unlocked. That is ATT's very OWN standard and I can't see how they can defend any other practice.
4. Apple can still update the iPhone and stop the unlocking process legally. Apple is after all, the maker, not the carrier. This is why this relationship- Apple and ATT is so interesting- since it almost creates a grey area of responsibility. The glutinous lawyers of the Class Action Suit ilk are taking advantage of that.
5. Glutinous lawyers of the CAi, are parasites since there has not been one shred of merit expressed in any of the complaints.
6. Greedy consumers want to use Apple/ATT as a lottery ticket. Good luck- may you lose.
7. Immature nitwits posting on here do not understand the basis of risk/reward and thus have no sympathy for companies that go out on a limb to provide a new and extraordinary experience. Let my bias show-- I bet these people do P2P... why not? It is the "what is mine is mine and what is yours is mine too and NO I won't pay you" mentality. It's very discouraging because these might be people I have to deal with in a business transaction.. er, wait... no!! They couldn't put a dime and nickel together to make 15 cents. Whew!! I got worried or a moment.

Similar lines of thinking coming out of schizophrenic China where greedy rampant capitalism is aided and abetted by deep seated Communism. thus, all the pirating.
Thus, the rash of lawsuits against Apple-- has anyone noted who has instigated many of the suits? And no, I am not a racist but when it quacks it's a duck-- prove me wrong!
8. ATT, stop ripping off roamers.

EagerDragon
Oct 8, 2007, 08:55 PM
Why does it seem like some of you are so against people getting third party apps on this thing?

And 1.1.1 didn't brick most "hacked" phones in the first place. Well, as long as you didn't unlock the phone.

Simple Apple created the phone with the intention that it was not hacked. I have no issue with putting applications on the iPhone, but doing it via a bug / security flaw is dangerours and will be closed shortly. Just like you can install a nice application you can also end up installing a virus, trojan horse or worm. Uses the same exact principle. How do you know the place you are downloading these programs from have not been penetrated?

Sorry, I do understand the desire for more apps, they are coming, have patience, dont put yourself and others at risk.

CJD2112
Oct 8, 2007, 08:58 PM
7. Immature nitwits posting on here do not understand the basis of risk/reward and thus have no sympathy for companies that go out on a limb to provide a new and extraordinary experience. Let my bias show-- I bet these people do P2P... why not? It is the "what is mine is mine and what is yours is mine too and NO I won't pay you" mentality. It's very discouraging because these might be people I have to deal with in a business transaction.. er, wait... no!! They couldn't put a dime and nickel together to make 15 cents. Whew!! I got worried or a moment.

Easy there champ, we're all friends here having a calm discussion, let's all get along :)

CJD2112
Oct 8, 2007, 09:00 PM
Simple Apple created the phone with the intention that it was not hacked. I have no issue with putting applications on the iPhone, but doing it via a bug / security flaw is dangerours and will be closed shortly. Just like you can install a nice application you can also end up installing a virus, trojan horse or worm.

Hmmm, interesting point, never thought about that. Is that how the development team is "getting into" the device? Through a security leak? I thought it was simply breaking the encryption (which, I guess is essentially finding a flaw). How exactly are they getting into the iPhone? :confused:

EagerDragon
Oct 8, 2007, 09:02 PM
If the iPhone will not be unlocked before next update, it will be interesting to see whether the update will break the jailbreak... Apple said they would stay neutral to 3rd party applications. And even more interesting to see what happens with the iPod touch...

They are neutral, however they are required to fix all security flaws, the method to get the programs there take advantage of a security flaw in Safari. These holes will be closed as soon as possible after they are discovered. You are likely to see a very impresive patch when leopard is released in 3 weeks, it is going to have a lot of nice features that people are going to want. Some will be able to upgrade some may brick the phone. Everytime you install something on the phone you risk getting a brick at the next upgrade, you are gambling, but it is your phone to gamble with. I EXPECT A LOT MORE BRICKS SOON, EVEN SOME THAT ARE NOT UNLOCKED.

EagerDragon
Oct 8, 2007, 09:11 PM
Hmmm, interesting point, never thought about that. Is that how the development team is "getting into" the device? Through a security leak? I thought it was simply breaking the encryption (which, I guess is essentially finding a flaw). How exactly are they getting into the iPhone? :confused:

Yes they are feeding a malformed image file, Safari or one of its components croaks and starts executing the code that was in the "image" file. This is very old school, it is called a buffer overflow. They could feed it any code they want including something you may not want.

The problem (buffer overflow) occurs when you write into a memory location more data that it was allocated for. This corrupts other variables in memory and sooner or later the program croacks. If done right you can then get it to execute part of the information it copied into memory (a payload). What is inside of there is anyones guess. Besides, you never know if your next update will result in a brick, even if you never unlocked the phone.

It is a gamble, some people will end up loosing.

CJD2112
Oct 8, 2007, 09:14 PM
Yes they are feeding a malformed image file, Safari or one of its components croaks and starts executing the code that was in the "image" file. This is very old school, it is called a buffer overflow. They could feed it any code they want including something you may not want.

Ooooo, I didn't know that. In my mind, that definitely changes the tune. I won't be hacking my phone for third party applications, even though the chance is slim that someone would hack or do something wrong (and besides, I have nothing to hide, they can steal all they want lol). Thanks!

EagerDragon
Oct 8, 2007, 09:21 PM
Ooooo, I didn't know that. In my mind, that definitely changes the tune. I won't be hacking my phone for third party applications, even though the chance is slim that someone would hack or do something wrong (and besides, I have nothing to hide, they can steal all they want lol). Thanks!

They set up a malicius site (probably local) that host the malformed tiff file, then direct the iPhone to browse to that page, bingo big buffer overflow. Then once they have found the buffer overflow they have to craft code that will execute (very hard to do, my hat to them). The code has to be in the correct part and end up with the address of the code in the stack where the return address from a call would be. It is easier on a computer because you can run the code in the debugger so you learn easier where the correct spot is. With the iPhone it is harder but they maybe able to run a debugger in a previous version of the iPhone and figure it out.

See http://www.iphonehacks.com/2007/10/iphone-hacks.html#more

Portion below:

"Discovery of a TIFF buffer overflow exploit:

iPhone hackers have taken a cue from the PSP (Sony PlayStation Portable) cracking efforts to discover a TIFF buffer overflow exploit that can cause MobileSafari on the iPhone software/firmware 1.1.1 to crash which essentially means that arbitrary code can be written to the device.

However, with the buffer overflow methodology one needs to figure out a way to invoke a jailbreak for it to be useful which some iPhone hackers are currently not too optimistic. The other issue is that the methodology as the name suggests "TIFF buffer overflow exploit" is a security flaw.

"

rjwill246
Oct 8, 2007, 10:19 PM
Easy there champ, we're all friends here having a calm discussion, let's all get along :)

No we are not-- thank Heavens-- I would not want to be in the same room with these intellectually bereft buffoons... I detest people's inability to recognize champions to the extent that they would do anything to derail them.
Many of the posters here would love to stick a crowbar through Lance Armstrong's bike, and that makes my skin crawl. They certainly want Apple to crash and ATT too, though they would have a million empty reasons why that would not be so... that however comes from the minds of the diapered!

My beef is with all who would destroy the very fragile hold that Apple and ATT have in this world of telephony. The buggers who would derail that are insolent little twirps... forget defending them. They suck!

cohibadad
Oct 8, 2007, 11:01 PM
What a fiasco the iPhone is turning out for Apple. Lol. I can only laugh. In the time Apple has been trying to sell one million of it's overpriced carrier-proprietary piece of crap-ware, tens of millions of other phones have been sold. It's bad enough that it's priced in a segment where no normal cell user is even going to consider it, but now it's locked down as well, as it relates to both software and carrier. Lol. I don't think one company is the least bit worried anymore that they didn't get to be the exclusive carrier of iPhone. It's a drop in the bucket. Do you know how many blackberries have been sold in the time that the crap iPhone has been out? It'd blow your mind. My frickin Pearl that I got FREE on contract has Instant Messaging clients for AOL, Yahoo, ICQ, and MSN, and it has picture messaging, and the crap iPhone doesn't? Lol. And the company is desperately trying to keep people from adding these features for a multi-hundred dollar phone? Double lol.

I'm an iphone user and I love it. I also use a blackberry and for what it is it works well. My carrier took forever to allow any windows smartphones on their system due to "virus concerns" for however valid that is. I wanted the smartphone to use a couple of pieces of software for my business and my carrier even gave me a blackberry server to tide me over until they approved the smartphone. Now that was pretty nice given the price of BES. I see they finally released a Q and now I hope they don't ask for the BES back because I can't bring myself to buy a Q after using my iphone. Safari on the iphone replaces one of the 2 apps I wanted the Q for and I can do without the other. With the leopard integration I should essentially get the function of the blackberry with a much better experience on the iphone. Crap-ware? hardly. Nothing compares to it on the market and the potential is huge. I wish the hacking community the best but functionality is going to be continually broken unless an SDK is released and my iphone is destined for replacing my blackberry so I only need to carry one device. My belief is that the iphone will truly begin to shine even brighter with Leopard client/server.

EDIT: FYI seeqpod.com on the iphone is sweet

MacTheSpoon
Oct 8, 2007, 11:14 PM
You know, it is a bummer that *so far* there is no SDK and that Apple is locking out 3d party apps with their updates. But I don't think they deserve to get bashed for it; this is all about pleasing AT&T, I'm sure. Just the same way that Apple got bashed for having DRM on their iTunes songs, until Steve Jobs posted his open letter pleading with the record companies to drop DRM.

I remember a rumor about an Apple engineer dropping innuendo at a party that an SDK would be forthcoming, and I'm still waiting to see. This phone has only been out for three months, and they just barely got it done in time for the ship date, and had to pull Leopard engineers off their project to make it happen. Have patience, everyone.

sanford
Oct 8, 2007, 11:16 PM
Heh I had to laugh. Do you think MMS (picture messaging) and IM clients are high tech? Lol they are on every FREE phone out there dude. Do you know how many picture messages are sent out every day by the 18 to 25 demographic? Oh but wait this overpriced crap ware called iPhone isn't targetted at any normal people is it? With that price you've gotta be kidding me. The stock market is always behind but let me say this, I can tell you for a fact that not one major carrier even has a second thought about iphone exclusivity. Its turned into an overpriced niche product with increasingly bad publicity and if you had any idea how many smartphones like the blackberry are dominating sales over the iphone you'd know apple is riding on market highs FOR NOW. Just wait.

Can't afford one, huh?

JPyre
Oct 9, 2007, 01:12 AM
How do you know the place you are downloading these programs from have not been penetrated?

Ummm... because it would be removed from my installer list by the dev community so I wouldn't be able to download it.

Besides, you never know if your next update will result in a brick, even if you never unlocked the phone.

It is a gamble, some people will end up loosing.

Wrong, you're misinformed. Upgrading has never bricked a phone that has had 3rd party apps, INCLUDING 1.1.1 which only removed the apps. The exception is iFuntastic, which is a piece of garbage, which does brick phones, it is an external app though, not a native app.

I EXPECT A LOT MORE BRICKS SOON, EVEN SOME THAT ARE NOT UNLOCKED.

Sorry, I do understand the desire for more apps, they are coming, have patience, dont put yourself and others at risk.

The only people at risk of bricking an iPhone are sim-unlockers and iFuntastic users.


You're misleading people, and I don't like it. The only things that have bricked phones are sim unlocks and iFuntastic. I challenge you to provide proof of AppTapp/Installer.app or any program on installer.app that has bricked a phone.

If you want to argue that the update, itself, bricked un-modded phones thats a different story, and mightve happened, but thats an Apple error not a 3rd party error.

I've been in these forums and Apple's on a daily basis and the only people getting bricked are sim-unlockers and iFuntastic users.

What you're saying is simple untrue and just scaring normal people that are upset Apple didn't include such simple things as: a voice recorder, an AIM client, and of course the must haves NES and Tap Tap Revolution.

Sincerely,
Successful 1.1.1 to 1.0.2 dowgrader. Anti-sim-unlocker.


PS: If anyone needs help or guidance downgrading or putting apps on their phone I will help you just pm me, and I will buy you a new phone if it gets un-restoreable. This offer does NOT include iFuntastic or sim-unlocks, that, I am whole heartedly against, because they're the main reason we can't have 3rd party apps now.

GQB
Oct 9, 2007, 01:20 AM
The only people at risk of bricking an iPhone are sim-unlockers and iFUntastic users.


You're misleading people, and I don't like it. The only things that have bricked phones are sim unlocks and iFuntastic. I challenge you to provide proof of AppTapp/Installer.app or any program on installer.app that has bricked a phone.

Um, so all of those great little apps are perfectly safe, except for... those that aren't?

Good night, and thanks for playing "I'll make your case FOR you!"

JPyre
Oct 9, 2007, 01:22 AM
Um, so all of those great little apps are perfectly safe, except for... those that aren't?

Thank you, and thanks for playing "I'll make your case FOR you!"

Sim-Unlocking and iFuntastic are not little apps, They are WinXP and MacOS apps. You can't use either of them in the phone itself. I see your sarchasim but I don't see your point....

My point? Installer.app and every app in installer.app's list are safe, and can also be safely upgraded to a new firmware, they just might get erased, which doesnt brick the phone, just removes the apps.

You should try installer.app sometime, you might feel better, and not cheated out of a great phone. Like I said, i'll buy you a new phone if installer.app bricks yours. I've already put it on 3 of my friend's, told them not to upgrade to 1.1.1 for a little while till it's updated, they've had no issues and have been a lot happier. Did someone say YAHTZEE! - inside (five dice) joke ;)

HiddenWolf
Oct 9, 2007, 01:38 AM
Keep putting the pressure on, guys. Don't let Apple sleep. It's only through these efforts that Apple will see the demand and open up.

It is only though these efforts that Apple will learn how to make osx safer. There are many things that linux and the bsd's are doing that osx would do well to emulate with regards to security.

These hackers are finding bugs in osx that show that the os is (easily) hackable. That should make Jobs and his team look critically at the mac osx codebase and start making osx more safe.

And yes, I know there are no virusses and malware out there yet, but as soon as enough macs are sold the bad guys will certainly keep trying.
I'd rather see Apple learn from benevolent hackers wanting to run things on their own phones than from cybercrooks wanting to sell me pills and such.

emotion
Oct 9, 2007, 01:55 AM
ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT IPHONE HACKS?????????????????????
arrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

!

You clicked on the thread what did you expect?

EagerDragon
Oct 9, 2007, 04:39 AM
Ummm... because it would be removed from my installer list by the dev community so I wouldn't be able to download it.



Wrong, you're misinformed. Upgrading has never bricked a phone that has had 3rd party apps, INCLUDING 1.1.1 which only removed the apps. The exception is iFuntastic, which is a piece of garbage, which does brick phones, it is an external app though, not a native app.





The only people at risk of bricking an iPhone are sim-unlockers and iFuntastic users.


You're misleading people, and I don't like it. The only things that have bricked phones are sim unlocks and iFuntastic. I challenge you to provide proof of AppTapp/Installer.app or any program on installer.app that has bricked a phone.

If you want to argue that the update, itself, bricked un-modded phones thats a different story, and mightve happened, but thats an Apple error not a 3rd party error.

I've been in these forums and Apple's on a daily basis and the only people getting bricked are sim-unlockers and iFuntastic users.

What you're saying is simple untrue and just scaring normal people that are upset Apple didn't include such simple things as: a voice recorder, an AIM client, and of course the must haves NES and Tap Tap Revolution.

Sincerely,
Successful 1.1.1 to 1.0.2 dowgrader. Anti-sim-unlocker.


PS: If anyone needs help or guidance downgrading or putting apps on their phone I will help you just pm me, and I will buy you a new phone if it gets un-restoreable. This offer does NOT include iFuntastic or sim-unlocks, that, I am whole heartedly against, because they're the main reason we can't have 3rd party apps now.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, dear sir.

However you sound like you are making a warranty that if the phone is not unlocked, it will never get bricked. But hey, they can all come knock on your door if it does happend.

Just because it has not happend yet, it does not mean it will not happen, based on your own post you are stating that im flat out wrong based on observing the post here and the Apple site. I would have expected that you would call me wrong from real knowledge and not observation of less than 100 days of posts. You are plotting the future based on past data. But you are entitled to it. BTW how about posting your phone number, home address and credit card information so people can contect you for their new phone?

demallien
Oct 9, 2007, 05:19 AM
And yes, I know there are no virusses and malware out there yet, but as soon as enough macs are sold the bad guys will certainly keep trying.
I'd rather see Apple learn from benevolent hackers wanting to run things on their own phones than from cybercrooks wanting to sell me pills and such.

The cynic in me can't help wondering if that wasn't part of Apple's motivation - all the hackers are too busy actually doing something useful with security flaws to actually write viruses. Apple gets a whole host of security researchers working for them for free.

To put it another way, if Apple let you put 3rd party apps on the iPhone, all those hackers would have nothing better to do than write viruses...

EagerDragon
Oct 9, 2007, 05:29 AM
Most of you may not believe what I am about to post here, that is fine, believe what you want, I make zero money from this.

What has made these hacks possible has been security weaknesses in the code base, hackers are taking advantage of a security flaw to provide you a way to hack your phone. They are also advocating that you downgrade the phone to pre 1.1.1 version.

This leaves your iPhone vulnerable to attacks by malicious hackers and malicious web sites. This is how windows started in their for ever cycle of hacks and fixes.

The iPhone has bluetooth, wifi connectivity and can go to just about any site. If it has vulnerable code as has been shown, the same unpatched vulnerabilities can be used to load malicious software into your phone. The iPhone is a big target for malicious hackers and you are placing yourself at risk by not patching the vulnerabilites.

While it is true that as of yet, there have been not a single case of bricking due to the non-unlocking hacks, it does not mean that it will not happend. You spend 399 to 599 for the phone, do you care if it gets bricked? Maybe you have the money to get another one, but others may not be able to.

Telling people to walk around with an iphone that has published vulnerabilities due to lack of patching, is not responsible.

If you can, get your iPhone patched and keep patching it as they come out. Not patching is risking your iPhone, the data in it, and putting others as risk as your iPhone could be used as part of a BotNet network to cause problems to others in the Internet. It is not just your problem, others can be affected also,

Attack away, flame all you want. I will not be responding, as I have done what I could to make you listen. Now it is up to you.

PS I do not work for Apple, and I do not have any of their stock. However I been doing security for a long time now and I am providing you with conservative and responsible advice.

eVolcre
Oct 9, 2007, 05:51 AM
Most of you may not believe what I am about to post here, that is fine, believe what you want, I make zero money from this.

What has made these hacks possible has been security weaknesses in the code base, hackers are taking advantage of a security flaw to provide you a way to hack your phone. They are also advocating that you downgrade the phone to pre 1.1.1 version.

This leaves your iPhone vulnerable to attacks by malicious hackers and malicious web sites. This is how windows started in their for ever cycle of hacks and fixes.

The iPhone has bluetooth, wifi connectivity and can go to just about any site. If it has vulnerable code as has been shown, the same unpatched vulnerabilities can be used to load malicious software into your phone. The iPhone is a big target for malicious hackers and you are placing yourself at risk by not patching the vulnerabilites.

While it is true that as of yet, there have been not a single case of bricking due to the non-unlocking hacks, it does not mean that it will not happend. You spend 399 to 599 for the phone, do you care if it gets bricked? Maybe you have the money to get another one, but others may not be able to.

Telling people to walk around with an iphone that has published vulnerabilities due to lack of patching, is not responsible.

If you can, get your iPhone patched and keep patching it as they come out. Not patching is risking your iPhone, the data in it, and putting others as risk as your iPhone could be used as part of a BotNet network to cause problems to others in the Internet. It is not just your problem, others can be affected also,

Attack away, flame all you want. I will not be responding, as I have done what I could to make you listen. Now it is up to you.

PS I do not work for Apple, and I do not have any of their stock. However I been doing security for a long time now and I am providing you with conservative and responsible advice.

Interesting signature you have there especially given this post. :D

lwongveros
Oct 9, 2007, 06:26 AM
What a fiasco the iPhone is turning out for Apple. Lol. I can only laugh. In the time Apple has been trying to sell one million of it's overpriced carrier-proprietary piece of crap-ware, tens of millions of other phones have been sold. It's bad enough that it's priced in a segment where no normal cell user is even going to consider it, but now it's locked down as well, as it relates to both software and carrier. Lol. I don't think one company is the least bit worried anymore that they didn't get to be the exclusive carrier of iPhone. It's a drop in the bucket. Do you know how many blackberries have been sold in the time that the crap iPhone has been out? It'd blow your mind. My frickin Pearl that I got FREE on contract has Instant Messaging clients for AOL, Yahoo, ICQ, and MSN, and it has picture messaging, and the crap iPhone doesn't? Lol. And the company is desperately trying to keep people from adding these features for a multi-hundred dollar phone? Double lol.

It's sad to see this logic, what do you consider a normal cell user? There are many phones on the market that are priced far above the iPhone and are still purchased as they are desirable (eg. "fashion"/luxury oriented Nokia 8800 first retailed for over €1000 and is still sold today for over €700).

Regarding features and specifications of the iPhone. Absolutely, seen on paper, the iPhone does not appear advanced at all... no 3G, no GPS, not even MMS! However, Apple has been known to do this - they are not in the business of creating an all-singing, all-dancing device - they are concerned about providing core functionality that works. Take the iPod... out of the box there is no FM radio, no recording and no support for other audio formats such as OGG and WMA. Has that affected them? No... the end-user experience here is what Apple is concerned about, they have created an end-to-end experience in conjunction with iTunes that means that Apple has an approximately 70% of the MP3 market - this is unprecedented in almost any sector. To be honest, I prefer it that way - if you have an iPhone, you will notice it's not perfect, but it is a joy to use in its simplicity.

By the way, something that is free demonstrates no value to the consumer. If so many phones are being offered free today, you would think the iPhone would have no buyers. Instead, it sells over a million in how long, 74 days? Show me any company that has sold that many mobile phones of it's first model it has ever produced, let alone in that timeframe. And if no carriers were the least bit interested, then why are they partnering up with Apple? You would think that the fact that a company with no track-record in the mobile phone business that has the audacity to demand a revenue sharing model would get shut out of all the mobile operators. Interestingly, AT&T, O2 and T-Mobile have all signed up for now...

Some of these posts require some reality checks.

milo
Oct 9, 2007, 07:13 AM
Great conspiracy theory, but AT&T doesn't generally lock down what applications the cellphones it sells can run. Most, indeed, incorporate a J2ME (MIDP) environment.

Most people don't understand the situation at all.

ATT and Apple need the phone locked to only ATT sims, or they both lose out on monthly income.

The record companies insist that Apple only allow ringtones that are paid for, and that they enforce it.

In my opinion, the lockdown on apps comes because of SIM and ringtone hacking. If apps had focused on functionality instead of freeloading, we probably wouldn't be seeing this lockdown. Putting on my flame retardant suit now...

metoo6000
Oct 9, 2007, 07:37 AM
What has made these hacks possible has been security weaknesses in the code base, hackers are taking advantage of a security flaw to provide you a way to hack your phone. They are also advocating that you downgrade the phone to pre 1.1.1 version.

This leaves your iPhone vulnerable to attacks by malicious hackers and malicious web sites. This is how windows started in their for ever cycle of hacks and fixes.

The iPhone has bluetooth, wifi connectivity and can go to just about any site. If it has vulnerable code as has been shown, the same unpatched vulnerabilities can be used to load malicious software into your phone. The iPhone is a big target for malicious hackers and you are placing yourself at risk by not patching the vulnerabilites.


I totally agree this part. Unfortunately, full unlocking without using security flaw may not possible because you need a root privilege to get it done. So until Apple accept the demand of freedom this cat and mouse game will be continued, and many of us will enjoy to use the hacks...

Well, bright side, iPhone hackers make iPhone more secure as someone mentioned before. :)

goosnarrggh
Oct 9, 2007, 08:08 AM
Not sure what this forum was about today, but MacBoySeattle decided to liven it up with his comments.

Trouble is, MacBoySeattle, you didnt attach any FACTS or FIGURES, did you?

We know that Apple outsold ALL other 'smartphones' in the time that its been available, and we have some numbers from AmbitiousLemon who has some track record here.
FALSE.

MacBoySeattle attached a figure of 2.5 million Blackberries delivered in Q1 2007.

If you read RIM's financial statement, they reported 3 million handsets delivered in Q2 2007 (That is June, July, August.)
http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/research-in-motion-reports-second/n20071004161909990004

A naive extrapolation would be that they sold 1 million handsets per month.

Contrast that with the iPhone, which was only available for 2 full months during that period - July and August.

By the beginning of September, they had not yet delivered their 1 millionth iPhone.

That means that RIM handsets outsold the iPhone by a ratio of more than 2:1 during the months of July and August.

Remember, the "1.45 million subscriber" figure doesn't account that many RIM handhelds are sold without RIM service agreements - apparently many consumers are buying them for their other smartphone features, not for RIM's push email network.

Stella
Oct 9, 2007, 08:12 AM
The record companies insist that Apple only allow ringtones that are paid for, and that they enforce it.


Proof please?

Once again I'll ask- why aren't the record companies going after the likes of Nokia, SE, Motorola et al who sell tens of millions more phones per quarter than Apple? They even ship ring tone editors! Even phones coming out don't prevent the user from uploading ring tones ( that they may have purchased legally ).

So, where's your evidence?


---
"
Originally Posted by elgruga
Not sure what this forum was about today, but MacBoySeattle decided to liven it up with his comments.

Trouble is, MacBoySeattle, you didnt attach any FACTS or FIGURES, did you?

We know that Apple outsold ALL other 'smartphones' in the time that its been available, and we have some numbers from AmbitiousLemon who has some track record here.
"

Why would people be comparing sales of iPhones and smartphone since it [iPhone] isn't a smartphone ( according to some people )?

sananda
Oct 9, 2007, 08:18 AM
Proof please?

Once again I'll ask- why aren't the record companies going after the likes of Nokia, SE, Motorola et al who sell tens of millions more phones per quarter than Apple? They even ship ring tone editors! Even phones coming out don't prevent the user from uploading ring tones ( that they may have purchased legally ).

So, where's your evidence?

apple are in business with the record companies via the itunes store. apple wants to be apple to have music in the store. the music companies will only provide it with a license that excludes ringtones. so apple can't allow iphone to make ringtones out of music not having a ringtone license. otherwise they will be annoying the record companies. who might then not want to work with itunes music store.

Stella
Oct 9, 2007, 08:23 AM
apple are in business with the record companies via the itunes store. apple wants to be apple to have music in the store. the music companies will only provide it with a license that excludes ringtones. so apple can't allow iphone to make ringtones out of music not having a ringtone license. otherwise they will be annoying the record companies. who might then not want to work with itunes music store.

Thats your opinion, its not hard proof / evidence.

pjh
Oct 9, 2007, 08:31 AM
Proof please?

Once again I'll ask- why aren't the record companies going after the likes of Nokia, SE, Motorola et al who sell tens of millions more phones per quarter than Apple? They even ship ring tone editors! Even phones coming out don't prevent the user from uploading ring tones ( that they may have purchased legally ).

So, where's your evidence?



I don't think there is any evidence for this, but I think it is the logicaly postion to take. Apple is in bed with the record labels and is in the process of trying to woo the film studios. This puts them in a very difficult postion, if they don't at least attempt to meet their demands, they risk a messy divorce. For sure both parties would lose out, but in my opinion Apple has the most to lose. The record labels current business model is relic from the past and they are desperately trying to sustain it. This is a battle that they will lose in the end, what is still up in the air is who will replace them. This is the position I think Apple is trying to position itself in and the labels know it.

In short Apple needs to keep them sweet. Nokia and the rest don't, as the labels have no leverage against them. So it's not unreasonable to assume that they are applying the pressure.

sananda
Oct 9, 2007, 08:33 AM
Thats your opinion, its not hard proof / evidence.

i'm offering you an explanation.

you know that apple run a huge music selling business. you know the music sold doesn't include a ringtone license. if you were look it up you would see that ringtones are a huge money spinner for music companies. they outsell singles by a massive margin. yes, it's my opinion that the music companies would want to protect this revenue stream and would be very keen that one of the world's biggest music shops doesn't allow a way for them to miss out of ringtone revenue. i think it's a pretty solid conclusion. i don't see how you expect me to provide hard evidence of the thinking of a record company or which part you think is unlikely to be true.

sananda
Oct 9, 2007, 08:36 AM
In short Apple needs to keep them sweet. Nokia and the rest don't

particularly as nokia and the rest do not have massively successful and important music selling business

diamond.g
Oct 9, 2007, 08:43 AM
i'm offering you an explanation.

you know that apple run a huge music selling business. you know the music sold doesn't include a ringtone license. if you were look it up you would see that ringtones are a huge money spinner for music companies. they outsell singles by a massive margin. yes, it's my opinion that the music companies would want to protect this revenue stream and would be very keen that one of the world's biggest music shops doesn't allow a way for them to miss out of ringtone revenue. i think it's a pretty solid conclusion. i don't see how you expect me to provide hard evidence of the thinking of a record company or which part you think is unlikely to be true.

I don't think there is any evidence for this, but I think it is the logicaly postion to late. Apple is in bed with the record labels and is in the process of trying to woo the film studios. This puts them in a very difficult postion, if they don't at least attempt to meet there demands, they risk a messy divorce. For sure both parties would lose out, but in my opinion Apple has the most to lose. The record labels current business model is relic from the past and they are desperately trying to sustain it. This is a battle that they will lose in the end, what is still up in the air is who will replace them. This is the position I think Apple is trying to position itself in and the labels know it.

In short Apple needs to keep them sweet. Nokia and the rest don't, as the labels have no leverage against them. So it's not unreasonable to assume that they are applying the pressure.
Those explainations work quite well for Nokia and Motorola. But what about Sony Ericsson? Why are they not hamstrung like Apple?

particularly as nokia and the rest do not have massively successful and important music selling businessPretty sure Sony is pretty successful with selling music and movies.

aristobrat
Oct 9, 2007, 08:46 AM
Once again I'll ask- why aren't the record companies going after the likes of Nokia, SE, Motorola et al who sell tens of millions more phones per quarter than Apple? They even ship ring tone editors!
How could the record companies go after the likes of Nokia, SE, Motorola et al? The ring tone editor itself isn't illegal, is it?

Stella
Oct 9, 2007, 08:47 AM
I don't think there is any evidence for this, but I think it is the logicaly postion to take. Apple is in bed with the record labels and is in the process of trying to woo the film studios. This puts them in a very difficult postion, if they don't at least attempt to meet their demands, they risk a messy divorce. For sure both parties would lose out, but in my opinion Apple has the most to lose. The record labels current business model is relic from the past and they are desperately trying to sustain it. This is a battle that they will lose in the end, what is still up in the air is who will replace them. This is the position I think Apple is trying to position itself in and the labels know it.

In short Apple needs to keep them sweet. Nokia and the rest don't, as the labels have no leverage against them. So it's not unreasonable to assume that they are applying the pressure.

Nokia are starting up a music store too...

Another logical explanation is that they wish to squeeze every penny from the iPhone customer as possible, thus forcing you to buy from iTMS.

EagerDragon
Oct 9, 2007, 08:48 AM
You may find this article interesting.
http://www.itsj.com/launchpage.aspx?CID=16007&EXPID=206854038&ITSJID=892446&PROSPID=0&ISSUEID=8380287

diamond.g
Oct 9, 2007, 08:52 AM
How could the record companies go after the likes of Nokia, SE, Motorola et al? The ring tone editor itself isn't illegal, is it?

The same way the movie industry went after the DVD copying program (I forget the name). If product creates something that is illegal (we of course are assuming that creating ringtones is illegal if you don't pay RIAA/Artist) should the product itself be sold?

pjh
Oct 9, 2007, 09:00 AM
I suspect SE is different because they are not trying to bring build a Multimedia megastore like itunes and hence are not a treat to the current business model of the labels/studios.

Sony certainly has it's finger in the pie with it's record label and online music store (Though didn't sony recently announce they were closing it?), but it is certainly not a leader in the electronic delivery of media. And as they are part of the club, they have vested interest in maintaining the current status quo.

Ironically, Sony could have easily have been the dominant player today. Manufacturer of portable music players, inhouse studios, inhouse record label! They were in a prime position to dominate the market, but through a lack of foresight and wishful thinking , they failed to see the impact the internet would have on their business.

sananda
Oct 9, 2007, 09:06 AM
Those explainations work quite well for Nokia and Motorola. But what about Sony Ericsson? Why are they not hamstrung like Apple?

Pretty sure Sony is pretty successful with selling music and movies.

but they sell it through other company's shops and those shops aren't intimately tied to a mobile phone. if they were i bet they would offer separate ringtones and then make that work with the phone is question.

aristobrat
Oct 9, 2007, 09:37 AM
The same way the movie industry went after the DVD copying program (I forget the name). If product creates something that is illegal (we of course are assuming that creating ringtones is illegal if you don't pay RIAA/Artist) should the product itself be sold?
I thought it was the fact that the DVD copying program circumvented the DMCA (by unencrypting protected DVD content) that was the legal basis for the movie studios going after DVD CopyX?

nickbates
Oct 9, 2007, 10:51 AM
Pretty sure Sony is pretty successful with selling music and movies.

Actually, no they're not, which is why they are in the process of closing their Sony Connect music store:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070830-sony-euthanizes-sony-connect.html

diamond.g
Oct 9, 2007, 10:59 AM
Actually, no they're not, which is why they are in the process of closing their Sony Connect music store:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070830-sony-euthanizes-sony-connect.html

I wasn't referring to their store. I was referring to the studio's (both music and movie) that Sony owns. You would think with having all of that in house that Sony would be harder on themselves than on others.

Of course I imagine Ericsson has some pull in this situation. After all they (SE) are the 2nd most profitable phone seller (behind Nokia, and according to Wiki). So they have to be doing something right. EDIT: found that they are number 4 in the manufacturing of phones behind Nokia, Motorola, and Samsung.

kingtj
Oct 9, 2007, 11:29 AM
What you've just said, below, is exactly what I *always* hear from those in the "computer security" field. There's nothing about it that's technically "wrong". However, computer security people make a living trying to recommend "best practices" and in pursuit of a constant reduction in potential "vulnerabilities" for whatever products they're in charge of working with.

I work in I.T. (but not in a role of "security expert"). Rather, I do general systems administration - where security is part of my responsibility, along with everything else related to the hardware, software and network.

It's my belief that for most people, a balance is desired that gives the most flexibility and functionality out of a given device, while still making some effort at "security". Just as in the case of the small company I work for not being able to cost-justify hiring a "security expert" as part of our staff, the typical iPhone user can't "cost justify" the loss of all those 3rd. party applications *just* because a few security flaws are patched in the new firmware.

A lot of lip-service is paid to the wisdom of patching security flaws in advance of them being exploited by someone. Yet in reality, companies like mine have had considerable "downtime" due to Windows update patches that broke critical software, or even created problems for the OS itself afterwards. By contrast, in all the time I've worked here, I can't show a single instance where staying on top of one of these security patches prevented a security breach or outside "attack".

Fact is, a "security expert" could walk through my home right now and probably suggest 50 expensive steps I could take to "better secure" my home against intruders. Yet I don't care! I have locks on my doors and windows, and I keep them locked when I leave. Sure, I *may* still get my house burglarized someday .... but I'll take that relatively low risk vs. all the cost and inconvenience of a burglar alarm, extra locks and other measures.


Most of you may not believe what I am about to post here, that is fine, believe what you want, I make zero money from this.

What has made these hacks possible has been security weaknesses in the code base, hackers are taking advantage of a security flaw to provide you a way to hack your phone. They are also advocating that you downgrade the phone to pre 1.1.1 version.

This leaves your iPhone vulnerable to attacks by malicious hackers and malicious web sites. This is how windows started in their for ever cycle of hacks and fixes.

The iPhone has bluetooth, wifi connectivity and can go to just about any site. If it has vulnerable code as has been shown, the same unpatched vulnerabilities can be used to load malicious software into your phone. The iPhone is a big target for malicious hackers and you are placing yourself at risk by not patching the vulnerabilites.

While it is true that as of yet, there have been not a single case of bricking due to the non-unlocking hacks, it does not mean that it will not happend. You spend 399 to 599 for the phone, do you care if it gets bricked? Maybe you have the money to get another one, but others may not be able to.

Telling people to walk around with an iphone that has published vulnerabilities due to lack of patching, is not responsible.

If you can, get your iPhone patched and keep patching it as they come out. Not patching is risking your iPhone, the data in it, and putting others as risk as your iPhone could be used as part of a BotNet network to cause problems to others in the Internet. It is not just your problem, others can be affected also,

Attack away, flame all you want. I will not be responding, as I have done what I could to make you listen. Now it is up to you.

PS I do not work for Apple, and I do not have any of their stock. However I been doing security for a long time now and I am providing you with conservative and responsible advice.

kresh
Oct 9, 2007, 12:05 PM
We heard a rumor not to long ago that Intel procs are coming to the iPhone.

I wonder if Apple will sandbox every app on the iPhone once really powerful, ultra low power, processors hit the market from Intel.

This would go a long way to stop these hacks that take advantage of buffer overruns.


edit: link - http://www.macrumors.com/2007/10/03/intel-inside-future-iphone/

kornyboy
Oct 9, 2007, 12:18 PM
I wish Apple would support my own Garageband tunes or my own simple sound effects. I hate to deal with these updates breaking stuff.

Likewise.

GQB
Oct 9, 2007, 12:21 PM
You should try installer.app sometime, you might feel better, and not cheated out of a great phone. Like I said, i'll buy you a new phone if installer.app bricks yours. I've already put it on 3 of my friend's, told them not to upgrade to 1.1.1 for a little while till it's updated, they've had no issues and have been a lot happier. Did someone say YAHTZEE! - inside (five dice) joke ;)

Fact is, I enjoy watching the propeller-head crowd having fun with the iPhone. Ultimately, its a toy (albeit a useful one) and people should wring all the enjoyment out of it that they can.
My problem is twofold
1) exploiting a security hole AND then making Apple the devil for closing it. (and saying 'but they should leave all the artifacts of that hole in place) is downright silly.
2) Apple has taken a pretty significant risk (as noted by pre-release critics who gleefully predicted the phone's spectular failure) in entering a new market with a radically new (for them) platform. The thing has been out little over 12 weeks, and I guarantee that the plan is for incremental feature releases (e.g. touch gesture library, maybe even an SDK). I just think that they should have fairly exclusive rights in the beginning to perfect their platform. When I finish a painting and sell it to you, I don't have much say about what you do with it. But if I'm letting you display it as I work on it, and you come along and add your own scribbles that I have to erase, it really impedes the work. (OK, I'm joining the stupid analogy crowd.:) )

Finally, I think that anyone who would eschew updates clearly designed to patch security holes is an idiot. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

Impatience is understandable, but the rush to wrest ownership of the platform from Apple this early is just a little premature.

Unlike a lot of the geniuses on this forum, I don't think Apple is run by idiots. At least not any more.

blackcrayon
Oct 9, 2007, 12:37 PM
<snippitysnappity>
Finally, I think that anyone who would eschew updates clearly designed to patch security holes is an idiot. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)


"Hey great, I have the latest update! Makes the phone boring and much less useful for me, but at least it's secure!" :rolleyes:

Is someone an idiot for not updating to Mac OS X 10.4.10 if, say, it breaks their favorite application? Even if there are lots of security updates in 10.4.10? This happens pretty often...

GQB
Oct 9, 2007, 12:45 PM
<ringtones> outsell singles by a massive margin. y

Admittedly as one who thinks use of songs as ringtones is the stupidest, most annoying thing short of turned-on phones in performances and opening a brightly lit phone screen in a dark theatre), I have to ask...

Just how many ****** ringtones does anyone use that .99 per is going to break them? What lack of a life does this obsession imply?

Just asking.

GQB
Oct 9, 2007, 12:51 PM
I work in I.T. (but not in a role of "security expert"). Rather, I do general systems administration - where security is part of my responsibility, along with everything else related to the hardware, software and network.

It's my belief that for most people, a balance is desired that gives the most flexibility and functionality out of a given device

Ah, the song of one who apparently doesn't need his job.
I'll make you a bet.
You skip the next Windows security patch, and tell your management that you're doing so because you can't prove that anyone has tried to exploit the previously patched exploits in your environment. Also add that you want to skip it because it would prevent you from installing this cool shareware app on everyone's computer. (Or better yet, that you've already exploited the hole yourself to install cool apps in the environment, and as a result, the patch might hose the network.)

See you on the unemployment line.

SirusB1
Oct 9, 2007, 12:59 PM
Admittedly as one who thinks use of songs as ringtones is the stupidest, most annoying thing short of turned-on phones in performances and opening a brightly lit phone screen in a dark theatre), I have to ask...

Just how many ****** ringtones does anyone use that .99 per is going to break them? What lack of a life does this obsession imply?

Just asking.

A lack of a life? Must you insult people with different wants than your own?
It's nice to be able to hear who is calling without picking up the phone to look. I'd prefer the caller ID on my Mac screen option that I've had on other phones via BluePhoneElite, but that's not a feature on the iPhone.
What lack of friends does your perception imply?

GQB
Oct 9, 2007, 01:02 PM
"Hey great, I have the latest update! Makes the phone boring and much less useful for me, but at least it's secure!" :rolleyes:

Is someone an idiot for not updating to Mac OS X 10.4.10 if, say, it breaks their favorite application? Even if there are lots of security updates in 10.4.10? This happens pretty often...

??
Phone, browser, photos, movies, music, PDA, Maps (etc etc), and ground-breaking ease-of-use and integration of all of the above.

Please do tell the share app (or collection thereof) that carries more value than the above core functionality.
I'm breathlessly waiting.

Again... Its your lump of plastic and glass to break as you wish. My point is that its not the responsibility of Apple or its stockholders to finance the work necessary to tippy-toe around your play-time.

And leaving a known buffer overflow vulnerability in place? Yes, that is idiotic. Sorry.

GQB
Oct 9, 2007, 01:04 PM
A lack of a life? Must you insult people with different wants than your own?
It's nice to be able to hear who is calling without picking up the phone to look. I'd prefer the caller ID on my Mac screen option that I've had on other phones via BluePhoneElite, but that's not a feature on the iPhone.
What lack of friends does your perception imply?

Fine... The 15 second long intrusions into the space of everyone within hearing distance of the latest piece of pop crap represents a high point in civilization.
But yes, I should not resort to the ad-homonim. mea Culpa.
Carry on.

colombiano176
Oct 9, 2007, 01:09 PM
]I just bought my iphone about a month ago i have version 1.1.1 so as right now theres no way of unlocking it? also if i downgrade to 1.0.2 would i still be able to use all my phone functions ??

GQB
Oct 9, 2007, 01:11 PM
]I just bought my iphone about a month ago i have version 1.1.1 so as right now theres no way of unlocking it? also if i downgrade to 1.0.2 would i still be able to use all my phone functions ??

banging.head.against.wall.weeping.

SirusB1
Oct 9, 2007, 01:16 PM
Fine... The 15 second long intrusions into the space of everyone within hearing distance of the latest piece of pop crap represents a high point in civilization.

Carry on.

I, as well as many who support custom ringtones agree with you, I detest garbage ringtones as much as the next guy.
I just don't think it's fair to lump all custom ringtone proponents in the same group.
IMO, the only option Apple has for "custom" ringtones is comprised mostly of pop crap, and personally, Marimba, et al. are intrusive and annoying to me.

elcid
Oct 9, 2007, 01:20 PM
]I just bought my iphone about a month ago i have version 1.1.1 so as right now theres no way of unlocking it? also if i downgrade to 1.0.2 would i still be able to use all my phone functions ??

If you have 1.1.1 then you have all your phone functions. You never had anything more. Your best bet is not to go back and not open up the can of worms that is 1.0.2 just to start complaining about 1.1.1. Be happy with 1.1.1 and don't worry about it.

GQB
Oct 9, 2007, 01:24 PM
I, as well as many who support custom ringtones agree with you, I detest garbage ringtones as much as the next guy.
I just don't think it's fair to lump all custom ringtone proponents in the same group.
IMO, the only option Apple has for "custom" ringtones is comprised mostly of pop crap, and personally, Marimba, et al. are intrusive and annoying to me.

And to join you, subtle, custom ringtones that let you distinguish your own phone from the crowd is indeed useful. I use a clicking tone on my company supplied Nokia (yeccchhhh) that no one else even notices, but I hear immediately. So point taken.

But patience, grasshopper. This is a 1st rev, fully software-based system. New features are going to be coming fast and furious, especially if Apple dev doesn't have to spend its time tap-dancing around a potential mine-field of hacks every time they want to push to the 99% of users who haven't commandeered their firmware.

EagerDragon
Oct 9, 2007, 01:32 PM
What you've just said, below, is exactly what I *always* hear from those in the "computer security" field. There's nothing about it that's technically "wrong". However, computer security people make a living trying to recommend "best practices" and in pursuit of a constant reduction in potential "vulnerabilities" for whatever products they're in charge of working with.

I work in I.T. (but not in a role of "security expert"). Rather, I do general systems administration - where security is part of my responsibility, along with everything else related to the hardware, software and network.

It's my belief that for most people, a balance is desired that gives the most flexibility and functionality out of a given device, while still making some effort at "security". Just as in the case of the small company I work for not being able to cost-justify hiring a "security expert" as part of our staff, the typical iPhone user can't "cost justify" the loss of all those 3rd. party applications *just* because a few security flaws are patched in the new firmware.

A lot of lip-service is paid to the wisdom of patching security flaws in advance of them being exploited by someone. Yet in reality, companies like mine have had considerable "downtime" due to Windows update patches that broke critical software, or even created problems for the OS itself afterwards. By contrast, in all the time I've worked here, I can't show a single instance where staying on top of one of these security patches prevented a security breach or outside "attack".

Fact is, a "security expert" could walk through my home right now and probably suggest 50 expensive steps I could take to "better secure" my home against intruders. Yet I don't care! I have locks on my doors and windows, and I keep them locked when I leave. Sure, I *may* still get my house burglarized someday .... but I'll take that relatively low risk vs. all the cost and inconvenience of a burglar alarm, extra locks and other measures.

Completly right, you have to examine what is being placed at risk, its value, etc against the cost of the security measure. It does not makes sense to spend $10.00 to protect something that cost a dollar.

As to patches .... Most iphones are not production servers, also waiting a day or two to see what others ran into is not a bad idea.

We test our patches before we roll them out to production, not sure what your set up is.

SirusB1
Oct 9, 2007, 01:40 PM
New features are going to be coming fast and furious, especially if Apple dev doesn't have to spend its time tap-dancing around a potential mine-field of hacks every time they want to push to the 99% of users who haven't commandeered their firmware.

I really hope so. I'm on the fence about 3rd part apps, etc. I like the fact that users have the option to install them if they'd like, but I do realize that it causes Apple to use more resources to combat it, like you mentioned.
I'm still running 1.0.2, strictly for the use of iToner. I've entertained the idea of installing 3rd party apps, but I, unlike many, heed the "use at your own risk" warning. I think Apple should proceed with their updates, and not even bother tap-dancing as you say. I'm becoming annoyed with the people who admittedly "hack" their iPhone and then worry and complain about official updates causing them problems.

Like I said, I like the fact that there are options, but people must understand that, at this point, those options come with risk.

GQB
Oct 9, 2007, 01:59 PM
Like I said, I like the fact that there are options, but people must understand that, at this point, those options come with risk.

With THIS crowd? C'mon. :)

grappler
Oct 9, 2007, 06:05 PM
I suppose one side effect of all these games with 1.1.1 could be improved security. With a lot of bright people hammering away in a race to break in, and posting about their experiences on the web, Apple can take note of exactly where the weaknesses are.

Then, assuming they release an SDK later, maybe they will have used all this free security testing to help lock down the areas of the phone that really should be secure to guard against malicious code.

A guy can hope...

Bosunsfate
Oct 9, 2007, 09:40 PM
That would be great! Never thought of that, configuring your own gestures. Wasn't there a patent that Apple filed for a multi-touch pad with configurable gestures posted on Macrumors? Sounds familiar.

I don't know about that patent, but there is certainly a future for this type of thing.

FALSE.
Remember, the "1.45 million subscriber" figure doesn't account that many RIM handhelds are sold without RIM service agreements - apparently many consumers are buying them for their other smartphone features, not for RIM's push email network.

Your logic is not quite accurate. Most of those sales are for users who already have subscriptions and are replacing an older handset.

]I just bought my iphone about a month ago i have version 1.1.1 so as right now theres no way of unlocking it? also if i downgrade to 1.0.2 would i still be able to use all my phone functions ??

Please take your iPhone to the nearest Apple store and return it.:rolleyes:

longofest
Oct 10, 2007, 02:44 PM
A lot of lip-service is paid to the wisdom of patching security flaws in advance of them being exploited by someone. Yet in reality, companies like mine have had considerable "downtime" due to Windows update patches that broke critical software, or even created problems for the OS itself afterwards. By contrast, in all the time I've worked here, I can't show a single instance where staying on top of one of these security patches prevented a security breach or outside "attack".


I hear what you're saying about applying security updates that break software. However, I really have a hard time believing that you can't identify ONE time that applying a patch did not save an outbreak.

Are we that far away from the Sasser outbreak? Microsoft patched the hole, and two weeks later Sasser (and variants) hit... millions of unpatched computers are affected and begin restarting.