Apple's decision to lock iPhone down suddenly makes sense?

Discussion in 'Jailbreaks and iOS Hacks' started by GFLPraxis, Oct 3, 2007.

  1. GFLPraxis macrumors 604

    GFLPraxis

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    #1
    After reading the rumor about Intel chips for the iPhone, I suddenly realized something that might be a very good argument against opening up the iPhone.

    The moment you open a platform to development, you have to keep the hardware somewhat standardized. For example, look at the iPod. The 6G iPod changed internal hardware so it could handle the newer GUI, but the result of it is that all 5G iPod games don't work.

    That's why we have to run Rosetta on all the Intel Macs.

    That's why the XBox 360 can't run most XBox games (Intel to PowerPC processor switch, and they have to patch games with PowerPC binaries to make them work).

    Meanwhile, the Nintendo DS can run GBA games because it includes the GBA's processor. The Wii can run GameCube games because it's hardware is based on the same.

    That means that if Apple were to open the iPhone up as a platform, if they ever changed the hardware inside it, they'd have to either:
    1) Break all existing applications
    or
    2) Include the old hardware inside the new one, increasing cost

    However, if everything is web based...it doesn't matter. Apple can change the hardware in the iPhone at will without having to worry about breaking everything.
     
  2. gkarris macrumors 604

    gkarris

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Location:
    "No escape from Reality..."
  3. bdj21ya macrumors 6502a

    bdj21ya

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    #4
    This is ridiculous. When you develop for the iPhone you don't develop for the processor. Do you honestly think we're writing these things in assembly code? No, we're using Apple's libraries and c code, which can be made to compile for any instruction set.

    A better argument would be that apple is still completely unsure about their libraries and how they might change them, and don't want to commit to anything yet. Even then it's a silly argument, since they could just as easily say, use at your own risk, these methods and classes may change.
     
  4. GFLPraxis thread starter macrumors 604

    GFLPraxis

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    #5
    But therein lies the problem. NO DUH you can compile for any instruction set. But the moment Apple changes the chips inside, all of a sudden everyone needs to recompile all their applications.

    Not the same thing and you know it. I'm talking about platforms.

    Windows users still need to use the x86 platform.

    Mac users can use PowerPC and Intel because of Universal Binaries, but if Apple wanted to make their apps run on a third platform everyone would have to recompile again.

    Apple was locked in to PowerPC for a while until Rosetta came along because there was no viable way to switch to another platform (Intel's x86 chips) without lots of problems, and they probably don't want to repeat such vender lock-in. Nintendo can't just switch the chips in the Nintendo DS at any time, and Microsoft can't just switch the chips in the XBox 360 any time; they're locked in to that, since every game would have to be recompiled to use different hardware.


    Apple has had transitions twice; first to the PowerPC processor, then to the Intel processor. Each one was a major event. If Apple had no intention of sticking to the ARM processor, they probably didn't want to deal with the problems that arise with the transition with each update.


    Don't be closed minded on this; the iPod update broke all compatibility with all 5G iPod binaries. I wouldn't be surprised if the 2G iPhone changed processor architecture enough that it broke compatibilty with 1G iPhone binaries too.
     
  5. cah87 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
  6. Cinemagic macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    #7
    I don't buy it at all. Apple's only reason for 1.1.1 was financial gain. They added the Adware (iTunes Store) icon to your phone so that it would be easier for you to give them money. They prevented unlocking so they they would increase their revenue not only from AT&T, but also from the overseas deals they've made. They increased their potential revenue by bricking phones so that the use would have to buy another (if they really loved the iPhone) and go with AT&T (also increasing revenue). They gave us a bug in the calculator and supposedly fixed speaker volume. We still don't have stereo bluetooth, but when Apple sells a bluetooth stereo headset, we'll get that update (but not before). Apple's sole motivation is greed.
     
  7. plumbingandtech macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    #8
    - iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store

    Extension of an existing product? Nope, financial gain!

    - Louder speakerphone and receiver volume

    Help people hear better? Nope, financial gain!

    - Home Button double-click shortcut to phone favorites or music controls

    Help people pause and unpause their ipod in the iphone? Nope, financial gain!

    - Space bar double-tap shortcut to intelligently insert period and space

    Easier typing? Nope, financial gain!

    - Mail attachments are viewable in portrait and landscape

    Better email viewing? Nope, financial gain!

    - Stocks and cities in Stocks and Weather can be re-ordered

    More personalization? Nope, financial gain!

    - Apple Bluetooth Headset battery status in the Status Bar

    My favorite helpful feature in 1.1.1? Nope, financial gain!

    - Support for TV Out

    See above. Nope, financial gain!

    - Preference to turn off EDGE/GPRS when roaming internationally

    Turn off edge potentially saving their customers thousands $$$$ Nope, financial gain!

    - New Passcode lock time intervals

    Financial gain!

    - Adjustable alert volume

    Handy? Nope. Financial gain!
     
  8. balamw Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #9
    LOL!

    I still think the best compromise would be to allow limited native apps written in something like Dashcode. This would provide enough abstraction to avoid any code changes due to changes in the underlying hardware.

    B
     
  9. Cinemagic macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    #10
    Gee, I guess that Apple really does care about us more than it does money. So the WiFi iTunes icon is not really Adware they placed on my phone after all. They were doing me a favor by making it easy for me to buy their low priced songs without having to do it through my computer. How thoughtful of them. I'll have to write Apple and tell them how thankful I am for all the things they have done for me with 1.1.1. Why I never knew all those things were broken in the $599 iPhone I bought in the first place.
     
  10. bdj21ya macrumors 6502a

    bdj21ya

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    #11
    This still makes absolutely no sense to me. Compiling for iPhone takes no time at all. There's no reason why they couldn't implement a program allowing free updates--OR not even worry about such a program. In other words, why the hell not just have the policy that you buy the software for the current iPhone version? As long as that is the clear standard from the start, we're all still better off with the iPhone open. Your argument just doesn't hold any water for me. Sorry.

    Recompiling seems like a real issue when software is distributed on physical media. When software is distributed wirelessly to always connected devices, recompiling isn't really the issue at all!
     
  11. ellsworth macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    #12
    They got rid of 3rd Party apps because they want to come out with their own apps and charge an @$$-load to get them....
     
  12. vga4life macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    #13
    Yep. And to keep VOIP and IM off. C@cknozzles.
     
  13. megfilmworks macrumors 68020

    megfilmworks

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2007
    Location:
    Sherman Oaks
    #14
    To get rid of unauthorized apps, keep the os stable, and buy supported apps for $5-10.
    Sounds great to me.
    I paid $9.00 for iphoneringtonemaker and it is useless now.
     
  14. Cinemagic macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    #15
    iToner is history (I paid for that), but iPhone ringtonemaker is not dead. UninstalliTunes and install 7.4.0. Then you can still put fully funcional ringtones on a 1.1.1 phone. The specific instructions are on this forum. I works great.
     
  15. vga4life macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    #16
    Enjoy your $5 solitaire game. I'll just be over here talking on my VOIP phone or using real, free IM instead of paying per message and per minute.

    Just because you're dumb enough to buy something to do for you what you could do for free yourself doesn't mean everyone else is.
     
  16. Lionheart macrumors regular

    Lionheart

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #17
    This is unnecessary. Those who choose to support 3rd party developers financially should be applauded, not chided.

    The truth is, this thing IS about profits...for Apple and for developers. Ultimately it appears that some lucky developers will be blessed by King Steve and will get to share the profits of their labors with Apple. In spite of their efforts to keep them out, others will develop truly useful apps that will run without the blessing. Some will be free, others will cost money.

    I will gladly pay reasonable prices for useful 3rd party apps, whether they are blessed by Apple or not, once the dust has settled, which shouldn't be long.

    There will be an iPhone2 in the not too distant future, and a brand new game will begin. Might as well enjoy the journey and be thankful for the incredible device that we have. It's a new day, and the future is bright!
     
  17. ellsworth macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    #18
    I understand where you're coming from and you're probably right but the way I see it is... Apple has never charged for widgets on personal computers and has never stop people from creating them. I know the iphone has a more case-sensitive overall system... but still no excuses.
     
  18. speakerwizard macrumors 68000

    speakerwizard

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #19
    The main reason for the iphone lock down is the 'apple experience', there are no big conspiracies or anything, apple is ALL about the end user experience, and 1st they want people buying the iphone to have unlimited web access, to 'force' them into using the new features and to kick them into the 21st century. Also they want apps that work, and work well, they will approach 3rd parties to make apps, like they have with youtube/google.
     

Share This Page