PDA

View Full Version : iPhone 1.1.3 Jailbreak Debate




MacRumors
Jan 22, 2008, 09:33 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

iPhone Atlas claims (http://www.iphoneatlas.com/2008/01/21/more-iphone-113-jailbreak-details-emerge/) that while the jailbreak method for 1.1.3 has reached a state that is suitable for end users, the developers of the jailbreak are still debating whether or not to release it ahead of Apple's official SDK release.

There appears to be some limitations to the 1.1.3 jailbreak, with applications running in "restricted user mode" meaning that the popular Installer application will not run properly in its current form.


Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2008/01/22/iphone-1-1-3-jailbreak-debate/)



mainstreetmark
Jan 22, 2008, 09:40 AM
of course, it would also be nice to know if the current applications will even work with the SDK out of the box. There'll likely be some sort of rehosting activity involved.

...and, I don't think ANYONE knows how Apple plans to handle application distribution. Hopefully, they'll let us, the users, do it, just as they have done with the Mac for all these years.

bbplayer5
Jan 22, 2008, 09:46 AM
If apple screws this up and makes us pay for apps that just arent good... Ill switch phones and providers.

spot1701
Jan 22, 2008, 09:53 AM
If apple screws this up and makes us pay for apps that just arent good... Ill switch phones and providers.
Make you pay?

AppleSJ511606
Jan 22, 2008, 09:54 AM
I think the best thing that can happen is that Apple let's users make apps for free (with the option of charging) and apple gives us some random free (Crappy) apps and charges us for all the good ones.

The worst thing that can happen is EXTEREMLY high limitations in the SDK and apple charges $$$$ everywhere

But knowing apple and seeing how they REALLY don't f*#@ up anything, they'll probably come to a happy point somewhere in the gray area where it's all good (if not semi) with users and all good in Apple's court

OS X Dude
Jan 22, 2008, 10:23 AM
If they release the SDK to your Joe Average and let them make freeware for the iPhone/iPod Touch, there'll be no need to hack it anyway.

If we keep pushing, I bet we can make the SDK publicly available over time.

speakerwizard
Jan 22, 2008, 10:48 AM
If apple screws this up and makes us pay for apps that just arent good... Ill switch phones and providers.

you could just pay for the good ones unless someone is forcing you?

mainstreetmark
Jan 22, 2008, 10:49 AM
Make you pay?

He, like me, is afraid that Apple will make *all* apps go through Apple.com/iTunes in order to get to the phone. There seem to be a lot of people who want apple to control them, but I need the phone to be "open", so I can create and distribute apps on my own network. Through iTunes, locally, is fine -- through Apple.com is not.

if Apple requires all apps to go through them, it's not a free and open system, and the quality will, paradoxically, suffer.

TEG
Jan 22, 2008, 11:17 AM
Charging for Applications will be up to the developers. Depending on the app it may be up to $5 per app.

TEG

walnuts
Jan 22, 2008, 11:24 AM
He, like me, is afraid that Apple will make *all* apps go through Apple.com/iTunes in order to get to the phone. There seem to be a lot of people who want apple to control them, but I need the phone to be "open", so I can create and distribute apps on my own network. Through iTunes, locally, is fine -- through Apple.com is not.

if Apple requires all apps to go through them, it's not a free and open system, and the quality will, paradoxically, suffer.

I also agree. Its unfortunate, but I think the apps from this sdk will be limited in both access to the phone and type.

By access to the phone I mean that these apps could only use the interface, the processor, and the internet. No one could write something that could use bluetooth for example. To the end-user, the only difference between a native app and a web app would be no safari and the ability to use multi-touch gestures. The sdk would never give us the bluetooth headphones or MMS that people want. I also really doubt that this would have any sort of finder access (no document editing capability).

In function, the sdk likely won't let us do some things that apple wouldn't want us to like access their competitors like pandora, rhapsody, or streaming ad-based video.

Overall, I'm really not expecting much. I'm looking towards a big disappointment.

SpinThis!
Jan 22, 2008, 11:27 AM
I need the phone to be "open", so I can create and distribute apps on my own network. Through iTunes, locally, is fine -- through Apple.com is not.
Well obviously developers will require an iPhone for testing. And it would be just silly to have to upload an application to iTunes or Apple everytime you make a code change that requires testing. I'm sure Apple will give everyone the tools to mess around locally.

iSee
Jan 22, 2008, 11:36 AM
Charging for Applications will be up to the developers. Depending on the app it may be up to $5 per app.

TEG

Sounds good!

BTW, are you speaking for Apple or iPhone software developers or both? ;)

mainstreetmark
Jan 22, 2008, 12:33 PM
Well obviously developers will require an iPhone for testing. And it would be just silly to have to upload an application to iTunes or Apple everytime you make a code change that requires testing. I'm sure Apple will give everyone the tools to mess around locally.

Yeah, a fair statement. The SDK could come with a simulator, however -- a little virtual iPhone. Wouldn't be tough at all.

tothelimit
Jan 22, 2008, 01:33 PM
If they release the SDK to your Joe Average and let them make freeware for the iPhone/iPod Touch, there'll be no need to hack it anyway.

If we keep pushing, I bet we can make the SDK publicly available over time.

i think this is the reason why the SDK isn't available already. because apple doesn't want it the hands of Joe Average in a sense. Thats what this whole security/digital signature stuff is about I thought. They want to know who is making what applications - or else every forum topic would become "OMG 6 YR OLD WRITES iPHONE DAVINCI VIRUS"

Spades
Jan 22, 2008, 01:51 PM
The iPhone should be no more or less vulnerable to viruses than any computer. If they developed the OS of the iPhone right it should be as secure as desktop OS X.

Digital signing of binaries should be used more often, but only in places with an IT department with the time and capability to manage the binaries. It doesn't belong on a consumer product.

bentup
Jan 22, 2008, 02:02 PM
...a little virtual iPhone. Wouldn't be tough at all.

Now you just need 10 mouse cursors, one for each finger :p

kingtj
Jan 22, 2008, 03:00 PM
Honestly, I can't see how Apple would do anything BUT work things this way; requiring all "signed" apps to be distributed via the iTunes store. They very well might be quite "open" to freeware - but they probably want people to submit the source code to them first, for approval, and then will handle the distribution themselves.

If you don't get Apple's approval and "digital signature" on the app, then there's no way to install it on an iPhone (short of hacks).

This is pretty much parallel with how most other cellphones work today. My US Cellular Razr was like this. You had to buy your apps through USC's online "store", where they were then downloaded onto your phone with DRM, ensuring they'd only run on that specific phone. (Attempts to dump the file to a computer and then re-upload the image to another USC phone would result in an app that refused to work on the 2nd. phone.)

The thing is, most *smartphones* don't work this way. Companies treat them differently, like more of a pocket computer than a phone. But so far, it sounds like Apple isn't willing to handle the iPhone in that manner.


He, like me, is afraid that Apple will make *all* apps go through Apple.com/iTunes in order to get to the phone. There seem to be a lot of people who want apple to control them, but I need the phone to be "open", so I can create and distribute apps on my own network. Through iTunes, locally, is fine -- through Apple.com is not.

if Apple requires all apps to go through them, it's not a free and open system, and the quality will, paradoxically, suffer.

TEG
Jan 22, 2008, 03:19 PM
Sounds good!

BTW, are you speaking for Apple or iPhone software developers or both? ;)

Application Developers of course!
:)

TEG

boss1
Jan 22, 2008, 09:52 PM
if the iPhone sold 10 million + to date then I could see Apple going down the road of charging insane prices and restricting the SDK severely to 'apple knows best' .

However, the fact is that while the phone is revolutionary and a took a gigantic piece of market share by industry standards it isn't a behemoth just yet.


the iPhone market share is relatively small and at best a large fraction of subcategory: smart phone market share. the competition is quickly and aggressively duplicating and attempting to offer alternatives.


Point is, the smart thing to do for Apple, would be to work to make sure this SDK attempt is welcome, accessible, and accepted by everyone. Consumer needs focused approach. A successful SDK means it has to be a well accepted SDK and could really help to solidify iPhone as a premier phone among phones. What better pool of developers could you pick to show the competition how to create truly amazing mobile apps then the mac development community? so why restrict them?



if Junk Applications is a concern then I say : The solution to junk applications isn't restricting the SDK and distribution to select or willing to pay tons of cash developers. The solution is creating a pipeline where the outstanding stand out in the spotlight and the 100's of mediocre reside however still accessible.

iSee
Jan 22, 2008, 10:31 PM
Application Developers of course!
:)

TEG

Heh, I was joking around a little, but I hope you are right. The stuff SJ said about protecting the platform and signed apps makes me a little nervous. Those things don't mean Apple has to charge $, but they might not be able to restrain themselves.

I wouldn't mind a nominal fee (in the hundreds of dollars, not thousands) to, say, buy the SDK or a certificate to sign apps. But it would really stink if Apple took a piece of every app installed...

a1016neo
Jan 22, 2008, 10:52 PM
Want iphone so badly... 3g, GPS, bigger storage!! C'mon apple!

iStefmac
Jan 23, 2008, 07:15 AM
To those with confidence in Apple that they won't screw this up, I hope you're right, but you're probably not.

Apple will charge for ALL apps, and some will be as useless and featureless and Stocks.

Others may be on par with YouTube but likely won't benefit from the slow data connection.

--


This is the first time I'm complaining about a product NOT going into v2 soon enough.


We need 3G w/ 30 gb of storage!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Come on APPLE!

iStefmac
Jan 23, 2008, 07:29 AM
if the iPhone sold 10 million + to date then I could see Apple going down the road of charging insane prices and restricting the SDK severely to 'apple knows best' .

However, the fact is that while the phone is revolutionary and a took a gigantic piece of market share by industry standards it isn't a behemoth just yet.


the iPhone market share is relatively small and at best a large fraction of subcategory: smart phone market share. the competition is quickly and aggressively duplicating and attempting to offer alternatives.


Point is, the smart thing to do for Apple, would be to work to make sure this SDK attempt is welcome, accessible, and accepted by everyone. Consumer needs focused approach. A successful SDK means it has to be a well accepted SDK and could really help to solidify iPhone as a premier phone among phones. What better pool of developers could you pick to show the competition how to create truly amazing mobile apps then the mac development community? so why restrict them?



if Junk Applications is a concern then I say : The solution to junk applications isn't restricting the SDK and distribution to select or willing to pay tons of cash developers. The solution is creating a pipeline where the outstanding stand out in the spotlight and the 100's of mediocre reside however still accessible.


You are not very familiar with Apple's business model.

They are not going to pass up an opportunity to begin selling apps regularly to 4 million potential users.

If the apps are the lowest price imaginable for such a thing, $4.99/ea...

Apple will still make 20 million dollars if every iPhone user buys 1. More accurately you can figure that about half of iPhone users will actually buy apps, and over year, you can bet the average number of $5 apps bought by one user will be around 10-20.

Figure those numbers out. (Over $90,000,000 per year in apps, minimum) Apple isn't going to miss out of all that revenue. Promised. They'll find a way to make it "worth it", though.

Robbadore64
Jan 23, 2008, 02:44 PM
The iPhone should be no more or less vulnerable to viruses than any computer. If they developed the OS of the iPhone right it should be as secure as desktop OS X.

Digital signing of binaries should be used more often, but only in places with an IT department with the time and capability to manage the binaries. It doesn't belong on a consumer product.

No offense to Apple as it IS a more secure OS, the primary reason the desktop OS is safe and secure thus far is because no one really cares about dropping viruses on us etc. When it comes to the iPhone, thats a whole other animal.

goosnarrggh
Jan 28, 2008, 07:09 AM
Heh, I was joking around a little, but I hope you are right. The stuff SJ said about protecting the platform and signed apps makes me a little nervous. Those things don't mean Apple has to charge $, but they might not be able to restrain themselves.

I wouldn't mind a nominal fee (in the hundreds of dollars, not thousands) to, say, buy the SDK or a certificate to sign apps. But it would really stink if Apple took a piece of every app installed...

Everybody is assuming that the digital signatures are intended as a way of locking everything down so that nobody can do anything without Apple's active review and consent. And perhaps that's true to some extent. But I'm hopeful that it's only part of the story.

Maybe it isn't totally a case of risk prevention. Maybe there's also an aspect of blame assignment:
Rather than imposing corporate editorial review, limiting the developer's ability to create content, maybe Apple will give away digital signing utilities to everybody who asks for one. People can sign all their own apps and just drag-n-drop them into iTunes for installation. The catch would be that every digital signature contains an identifying tag with which can be used by authorities to trace any malicious code back to the individual who created it.

Perhaps Apple would institute multiple levels of digital signatures, so that the non-reviewed code is prevented from accessing some of the most critical components from a competitive standpoint, such as the microphone of Bluetooth -- if you wanted to access that stuff, you'd have to submit your code to Apple for review.

But if you didn't need access to any of the "restricted" systems, then the free digital signature would be all you'd need - and the fact that it would be uniquely traceable back to you would be enough to keep you honest and not do any intentional harm to users' security or privacy.

jshbckr
Jan 29, 2008, 11:39 AM
Everybody is assuming that the digital signatures are intended as a way of locking everything down so that nobody can do anything without Apple's active review and consent. And perhaps that's true to some extent. But I'm hopeful that it's only part of the story.

Maybe it isn't totally a case of risk prevention. Maybe there's also an aspect of blame assignment:
Rather than imposing corporate editorial review, limiting the developer's ability to create content, maybe Apple will give away digital signing utilities to everybody who asks for one. People can sign all their own apps and just drag-n-drop them into iTunes for installation. The catch would be that every digital signature contains an identifying tag with which can be used by authorities to trace any malicious code back to the individual who created it.

Perhaps Apple would institute multiple levels of digital signatures, so that the non-reviewed code is prevented from accessing some of the most critical components from a competitive standpoint, such as the microphone of Bluetooth -- if you wanted to access that stuff, you'd have to submit your code to Apple for review.

But if you didn't need access to any of the "restricted" systems, then the free digital signature would be all you'd need - and the fact that it would be uniquely traceable back to you would be enough to keep you honest and not do any intentional harm to users' security or privacy.

This seems like it would be the best deal for them to have. Make a free digital signature for the more simple apps, and a submission signature for something that requires use of sensitive features (mic, e-mail information, etc). That way when you download that Pac-Man knockoff, you won't actually be getting your personal information stolen!