iPhone 1.1.1 Harder to Hack?

Discussion in 'iOS Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Sep 27, 2007.

  1. macrumors bot


    Apr 12, 2001

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

    Ambrosia's Andrew Welch notes that the new system will be much harder to hack, even for an application like iToner:

    Article Link
  2. macrumors member

    Feb 12, 2007
    Not cool. Not cool at all. 3rd party apps are what make the iphone so great. They bring more functionality and entertainment. And from what I have experienced the iphone runs 3rd party apps pretty well, makes you wonder if apple wanted to protect the stability of the iphone or if they have another agenda.
  3. macrumors 68000


    Jun 14, 2003
    My guess would be both and rightfully so.
  4. macrumors 68000

    Jun 20, 2007
    IYO. IMO what makes the iPhone so great is the interface, the ipod, the mail, safari, the ease of use, the seemless syncing, the iphoto camera integration........

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


    Apr 26, 2005
    Los Angeles, CA
    Tsk tsk tsk.

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

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

    Feb 9, 2005
    Milford, MI
    Yeah, using signing and encryption to lock down a device that constantly spews data back and forth, contains your calendar, contacts, and personal e-mail is a really stupid idea. :rolleyes:
  7. macrumors 65816


    Dec 27, 2006
    I DID build that!
    Are 3rd party apps the same as the web stuff for the iPhone using AJAX and Safari? I thought Steve said this was a way for developers to get around the iPhone's closed system. Is Apple revoking "apps" that used that method?:confused:
  8. macrumors 68000


    Jun 14, 2003
    No. Two similar, but separate things. The "web apps" are the official way to create apps for iPhone and Apple fully supports this. The other method, the hacks you hear of, install actual apps on iPhone and void your warranty.
  9. macrumors member

    Mar 14, 2006
    Orange, CA
    I am really torn about this.

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

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

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

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

    Like I said, I'm torn. But I'm very happy with how fantastic 1.1.1 runs.
  10. macrumors 6502

    Apr 24, 2007
    San Francisco Bay Area
    It might be Summerboard. I've noticed the same. Sometimes unlocking my phone causes it to lock again really quickly when it never did that before. Other times my screen flickers on/off real quick and then locks itself for no reason.

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

    Mar 24, 2007
    This relly sux, I will not buy an iphone if it is not possible to install 3d party apps. Lack of IM messenger that always run in the background is an deal breaker.
  12. macrumors member

    Aug 16, 2006
    if itoner cannot work at all, are they refunding money?

    They did say it would work through ALL firmware updates

    I did not buy, but I am curious
  13. macrumors 6502a

    May 23, 2007
    No. As a matter of fact, it's encouraged.

    iPhone to Support Third-Party Web 2.0 Applications

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

    One thing that was very noticeable was the battery drain. Compared to having no 3rd party apps installed, my battery life seemed nearly cut in half.
  14. macrumors 68000

    Jun 20, 2007
    Well said. And that is why I have not hacked my to install apps. The same thing happend with some 3rd extensions to OS X a few years back. Turned them off, restarted. back to new speedwise.
  15. macrumors 603


    Sep 6, 2002
    Houston, TX
    crap, not to mention Apollo... Ugh, this is kind of aggravating. on the other hand, all encryption is crackable. The iPhone will not support encryption that can't be broken by a Core (2) Duo--a chip with probably 20-50 times the computing power of the iPhone. Remember how long openssh takes to do an RSA handshake on the darn thing? it's like a minute. This will be gotten around. And who knows, maybe it will be better for the platform overall. Sounds like a major setback, though. Time to call DVD Jon....
  16. macrumors 6502

    Jul 15, 2007
    This makes things like Linux Phone start to look more appealing to me.
  17. macrumors 68000

    Jun 20, 2007
    And IMO this has ALWAYS been the reason (along with lack of time for a finalized API and the use of Leopard tech?).

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

    How to solve?

    Time, finalized APIs, limit 3rdparty app CPU use AND ENCRYPTION. So a program has to go thru a certification program before being blessed by apple and the encryption can help ensure the app is the app.
  18. PDE
    macrumors 68020

    Nov 16, 2005

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

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

    Yes, absolutely.
  19. macrumors 6502

    Jan 16, 2006
    What, like a computer?
  20. macrumors 603


    Sep 6, 2002
    Houston, TX
    Uhh, if you think that the Mail application makes the iPhone great, I question your sanity. That program is the biggest pain in the butt! I will agree with you that the iPod, Safari, and overall ease of use are phenomenal, and I would add that the actual phone experience is one of the best parts of the whole deal.

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

    May 15, 2006
    No, if Apple had told devs how to develop for the iPhone with an SDK things would be better. Devs would know how to minimize power consumption, etc. As it is now, Apple (officially) doesn't want any other native apps on the iPhone other than its own, and that is wrong.

    The least they could do is give us some sort of indication that an SDK for 3rd party devs would be released in a given timeframe, but they haven't even committed to that. It's because know one knows if an SDK is even coming that people are literally trying to hack in to run native apps. Come on Apple, at least tell us if we're getting an SDK. No one likes this web2.0 crap apps on a mobile phone, especially on an airplane. Plus web2.0 apps have no where near the performance or functionality of NATIVE apps.
  22. macrumors 68000

    Jun 20, 2007
    A computer has a plug that goes into the wall and gets unlimited power.The iphone can get drained in no time by a bad programmer. The iphone has less ram. Less space. etc..

    Not exact comparisons.

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

    Yep. Prob 2 months or less.

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

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

    Buy an openmoko. It won't be an iphone that's for sure...
  23. macrumors 6502

    Jan 16, 2006
    No, but, waiting for a chapter of the Bible to load takes like 5 second over Edge, while everyone else in the Sunday School class had time to actually turn to the page in their physical Bibles, makes me think the iPhone is not good enough to stand in for my Bible. I guess I'll keep lugging my MacBook Pro to church... A native app would solve this problem, but I'm not "approved" by Steve Jobs.
  24. macrumors 68040


    Mar 29, 2004
    Manchester, UK
    Maybe all this 1.1.1 nonsense is a prelude to an SDK for the touch devices being part of Leopard. I know, I'm a dreamer.
  25. macrumors 68000

    Jun 20, 2007
    And if the SDK was not ready (which is prob. the case.) what then? Pull one out of a rabbit's behind? (The internal version they use may / is not ready for public use it seems.)

    They have.

    And the answer is. Not at this time.

Share This Page