Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 22, 2008, 09:33 AM   #1
MacRumors
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
iPhone 1.1.3 Jailbreak Debate



iPhone Atlas claims 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
MacRumors is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2008, 09:40 AM   #2
mainstreetmark
macrumors 68020
 
mainstreetmark's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Saint Augustine, FL
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.
__________________
iTunesRegistry.com <--don't bother, it's dead.
mainstreetmark is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2008, 09:46 AM   #3
bbplayer5
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
If apple screws this up and makes us pay for apps that just arent good... Ill switch phones and providers.
bbplayer5 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2008, 09:53 AM   #4
spot1701
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbplayer5 View Post
If apple screws this up and makes us pay for apps that just arent good... Ill switch phones and providers.
Make you pay?
spot1701 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2008, 09:54 AM   #5
AppleSJ511606
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
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
AppleSJ511606 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2008, 10:23 AM   #6
OS X Dude
macrumors 6502a
 
OS X Dude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Midlands, UK
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.
__________________
Self-designed and custom-built Manson 'Android'
Fender Jaguar HH
PRS Bernie Marsden Singlecut
H&K TubeMeister 18 Head
OS X Dude is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2008, 10:48 AM   #7
speakerwizard
macrumors 68000
 
speakerwizard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: London
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbplayer5 View Post
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?
__________________
mac pro octo-core, 10GB, 5.25TB, 8800GT, 30"acd
iphone 3G, Macbook pro C2D
speakerwizard is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2008, 10:49 AM   #8
mainstreetmark
macrumors 68020
 
mainstreetmark's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Saint Augustine, FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by spot1701 View Post
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.
__________________
iTunesRegistry.com <--don't bother, it's dead.
mainstreetmark is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2008, 11:17 AM   #9
TEG
macrumors 604
 
TEG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Langley, Washington
Send a message via ICQ to TEG Send a message via AIM to TEG Send a message via MSN to TEG Send a message via Yahoo to TEG Send a message via Skype™ to TEG
Charging for Applications will be up to the developers. Depending on the app it may be up to $5 per app.

TEG
__________________
Apple and Dell are the only ones in this industry making money. They make it by being Wal-Mart. We make it by innovation, - Steve Jobs
The Tegian Zone-Glass Onion Radio
TEG is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2008, 11:24 AM   #10
walnuts
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mineola, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by mainstreetmark View Post
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.
walnuts is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2008, 11:27 AM   #11
SpinThis!
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Inside the Machine (Green Bay, WI)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mainstreetmark View Post
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.
SpinThis! is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2008, 11:36 AM   #12
iSee
macrumors 68040
 
iSee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEG View Post
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?
iSee is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2008, 12:33 PM   #13
mainstreetmark
macrumors 68020
 
mainstreetmark's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Saint Augustine, FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpinThis! View Post
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.
__________________
iTunesRegistry.com <--don't bother, it's dead.
mainstreetmark is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2008, 01:33 PM   #14
tothelimit
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by OS X Dude View Post
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"
__________________
"... go to bed early you doofus. Cause when you're sleepin' there's no lonely times - there's just dreams."
-Dr. Steve Brule
tothelimit is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2008, 01:51 PM   #15
Spades
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
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.
Spades is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2008, 02:02 PM   #16
bentup
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: San Francisco
Quote:
Originally Posted by mainstreetmark View Post
...a little virtual iPhone. Wouldn't be tough at all.
Now you just need 10 mouse cursors, one for each finger
bentup is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2008, 03:00 PM   #17
kingtj
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Poolesville, MD
Send a message via ICQ to kingtj
Yeah - more or less....

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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mainstreetmark View Post
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.
kingtj is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2008, 03:19 PM   #18
TEG
macrumors 604
 
TEG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Langley, Washington
Send a message via ICQ to TEG Send a message via AIM to TEG Send a message via MSN to TEG Send a message via Yahoo to TEG Send a message via Skype™ to TEG
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSee View Post
Sounds good!

BTW, are you speaking for Apple or iPhone software developers or both?
Application Developers of course!


TEG
__________________
Apple and Dell are the only ones in this industry making money. They make it by being Wal-Mart. We make it by innovation, - Steve Jobs
The Tegian Zone-Glass Onion Radio
TEG is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2008, 09:52 PM   #19
boss1
macrumors 6502a
 
boss1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
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.

Last edited by boss1; Jan 22, 2008 at 10:00 PM.
boss1 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2008, 10:31 PM   #20
iSee
macrumors 68040
 
iSee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEG View Post
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...
iSee is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2008, 10:52 PM   #21
a1016neo
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Want iphone so badly... 3g, GPS, bigger storage!! C'mon apple!
a1016neo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2008, 07:15 AM   #22
iStefmac
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
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 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2008, 07:29 AM   #23
iStefmac
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by boss1 View Post
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.
iStefmac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2008, 02:44 PM   #24
Robbadore64
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spades View Post
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.
Robbadore64 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2008, 07:09 AM   #25
goosnarrggh
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: May 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSee View Post
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.
goosnarrggh is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
iPhone 5 on iOS6, want to jailbreak and go to 7.0.X to jailbreak! HELP PLEASE iPhone204 Jailbreaks and iOS Hacks 4 Apr 20, 2014 07:42 PM
The Iphone 4/4S looks the same debate gadget123 iPhone 19 Sep 6, 2013 10:21 AM
IPHONE 5 QUESTION? Debate? Smashin1821 iPhone 2 Jun 29, 2013 12:36 PM
iPhone: The whole Android vs iPhone debate from my point of view. The Robot Cow Alternatives to iOS and iOS Devices 75 Sep 26, 2012 06:34 PM
Debate on staying with IPhone Leewalker19 iPhone 68 Jul 30, 2012 08:31 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:59 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC