Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The tethering process is a lot easier after I created a profile (with the ip / subnet from the previous posts) in the Access Connection program on my Lenovo laptop with window 7 pro. Now I can switch back and forth between my wifi and tethering on my laptop without manually changing the wireless adapter properties and internet proxy. However, I can only get internet on my Chromo browser when I am connected to my iphone. Not sure why it doesn't work on IE for me. I haven't tried other browsers.
 
///this is posted after your edit but I'll post it anyway.

You and I both know the sole reason you got said app was for the tether abilities.
My reason for purchasing the application is none of your concern, but that isn't to say that others didn't purchase it for it's exceptional lighting abilities.

How would you be "injured" if Apple killed said app and issued you a refund? Especially if you truely though it was just a flashlight app at which point, you could use your refund and get the many other .99 or free alternatives
I would suffer in the following ways:
• Inability to use the application of which it is unique in it's five color pallet.*
• Pain and suffering.
• Emotional distress.
• Expenses incurred for time spent looking for an application with similar capabilities or paying to develop the application in house.
• Expenses incurred for additional bookkeeping to stay in accordance with GAAP, since we expensed the purchase and expected to depreciate accordingly as it's usage in my firm (my pocket) lessened.

In what scenario would it be plausible for Apple to use a killswitch? Seeing as this is a first of a kind that blatantly misrepresented itself and violated the agreement the developer had with Apple, it would not surprise me if this would be cause for such action by Apple.

This Application does not behave like a malware of any kind which is what the "kill switch" is believed to be utilized for.*



Yes speculation as it is a first of a kind of an app not being what it advertises to be and worse yet, going against the sdk that apple expects all developers to abide by
A mere oversight by a otherwise well meaning developer is no reason to remove the Application from our devices. A simple version update to remove the offending functionality would suffice .
I invite you to look at the history of the Elgato EyeTV application for the iPhone. Without going into detail, the 1.0 version allowed the user to stream live television from their macs over 3G, which at the time was a violation of the terms of service . It too was in an Easter egg fashion.

It happily sits in the App store, and , yes, Mr.Dukebound85, the version 1.0 .ipa still functions on my hardware. The application is Just as offending as this app if not more so thanks to the heavy data usage required to stream the video data and programming information.

Just don't be shocked if they did is all I am saying

I will let you know personally.

Good day to you, sir.
 
Jeez, could someone just do a similar "easter egged" app that is designed to tether an iPad to an iPhone? Maybe one with a bandwidth counter like mywi and background function?

They could do a bunch of similar apps with a few diffent "dummy" front ends on multiple dev accounts so they can "cat and mouse" with apple long enough to get them to people through the app store.

It's really silly that in this day in age that we can't have free tethering to other iOS devices on data plans that we already pay for. It's our data, let us use it as we choose.
 
///this is posted after your edit but I'll post it anyway.


My reason for purchasing the application is none of your concern, but that isn't to say that others didn't purchase it for it's exceptional lighting abilities.


I would suffer in the following ways:
• Inability to use the application of which it is unique in it's five color pallet.*
• Pain and suffering.
• Emotional distress.
• Expenses incurred for time spent looking for an application with similar capabilities or paying to develop the application in house.
• Expenses incurred for additional bookkeeping to stay in accordance with GAAP, since we expensed the purchase and expected to depreciate accordingly as it's usage in my firm (my pocket) lessened.



This Application does not behave like a malware of any kind which is what the "kill switch" is believed to be utilized for.*




A mere oversight by a otherwise well meaning developer is no reason to remove the Application from our devices. A simple version update to remove the offending functionality would suffice .
I invite you to look at the history of the Elgato EyeTV application for the iPhone. Without going into detail, the 1.0 version allowed the user to stream live television from their macs over 3G, which at the time was a violation of the terms of service . It too was in an Easter egg fashion.

It happily sits in the App store, and , yes, Mr.Dukebound85, the version 1.0 .ipa still functions on my hardware. The application is Just as offending as this app if not more so thanks to the heavy data usage required to stream the video data and programming information.



I will let you know personally.

Good day to you, sir.


Lol, you have too much time on your hands.. Don't let people on the internet get you so riled up!
 
Is it at all possible to obtain Handy Light through any means other than the Apple Store? Never really thought about this before. Can one obtain the app from another person in any way?
 
Is it at all possible to obtain Handy Light through any means other than the Apple Store? Never really thought about this before. Can one obtain the app from another person in any way?

did you see my post above?
 
It's really silly that in this day in age that we can't have free tethering to other iOS devices on data plans that we already pay for. It's our data, let us use it as we choose.

You're preaching to the choir here. Tell that to AT&T rumors. :p
 
///this is posted after your edit but I'll post it anyway.

Hmm? Not sure what this has to do with anything as my edit was made well before this post.

My reason for purchasing the application is none of your concern, but that isn't to say that others didn't purchase it for it's exceptional lighting abilities.

I will stand by what I said. In fact, I imagine you never even heard of the app until you read it allowed for tethering and quickly decided to get it while still up. Call it a hunch lol

I would suffer in the following ways:
• Inability to use the application of which it is unique in it's five color pallet.*
• Pain and suffering.
• Emotional distress.
• Expenses incurred for time spent looking for an application with similar capabilities or paying to develop the application in house.
• Expenses incurred for additional bookkeeping to stay in accordance with GAAP, since we expensed the purchase and expected to depreciate accordingly as it's usage in my firm (my pocket) lessened.

I hope you are kidding.

If you are not, you do realize they reserve this right to remotely kill apps in their TOS that you had agreed to when you use the app store right? That nullifies all your points right off the bat, never mind they were simply grasping at straws in the first place if Apple did indeed do this.

Also ,you would not be out anything for a couple reasons
1) Apple would refund you your money if they killed it
2) There are numerous other apps that accomplish the same function (being a flashlight)

This Application does not behave like a malware of any kind which is what the "kill switch" is believed to be utilized for.*

You nor I know what reasons Apple needs to utilize this. I happen to think that having an app that violates the sdk/TOS and also misrepresenting itself that hurts their business partnership with ATT may be reason enough. We shall see

A mere oversight by a otherwise well meaning developer is no reason to remove the Application from our devices.
I would hardly call enabling tethering into a flashlight app and then having the developer post a video on how to enable it be called a "mere oversight"
A simple version update to remove the offending functionality would suffice.
Yes, I agree here
I invite you to look at the history of the Elgato EyeTV application for the iPhone. Without going into detail, the 1.0 version allowed the user to stream live television from their macs over 3G, which at the time was a violation of the terms of service . It too was in an Easter egg fashion.

True but tethering has not been approved in the time since Netshare. There is now a way to have that functionality via an approved ATT method.

The case you speak of has since been allowed in the TOS depending on the usage
It happily sits in the App store

No longer it does
, and , yes, Mr.Dukebound85, the version 1.0 .ipa still functions on my hardware. The application is Just as offending as this app if not more so thanks to the heavy data usage required to stream the video data and programming information.

Not quite. One (streaming) is permitted in the TOS and the other (tethering) is not (other than going through ATT to enable tethering)



Good day to you, sir.

To you as well:)
 
Hmm? Not sure what this has to do with anything as my edit was made well before this post.



I will stand by what I said. In fact, I imagine you never even heard of the app until you read it allowed for tethering and quickly decided to get it while still up. Call it a hunch lol



I hope you are kidding.

If you are not, you do realize they reserve this right to remotely kill apps in their TOS that you had agreed to when you use the app store right? That nullifies all your points right off the bat, never mind they were simply grasping at straws in the first place if Apple did indeed do this.

Also ,you would not be out anything for a couple reasons
1) Apple would refund you your money if they killed it
2) There are numerous other apps that accomplish the same function (being a flashlight)



You nor I know what reasons Apple needs to utilize this. I happen to think that having an app misrepresent itself that hurts their business partnership with ATT may be reason enough as well as violating the TOS. We shall see. Kudos if they don't but I wouldn't be surprised


I would hardly call enabling tethering into a flashlight app and then having the developer post a video on how to enable it be called a "mere oversight"

Yes, I agree here


True but tethering has not been approved in the time since Netshare. There is now a way to have that functionality via an approved ATT method.

The case you speak of has since been allowed in the TOS depending on the usage


No longer it does


Not quite. One (streaming) is permitted in the TOS and the other (tethering) is not (other than going through ATT to enable tethering)





To you as well:)


Same goes to you.. Do you realize how unproductive arguing with people on the internet is?

Why are you getting yourself so worked up? Do you just like to argue...


It's a wednesday, half way through the week. Only 2 more days to go.

Relax, enjoy life, have a beer!
 
I'm working on the thin hope that some other ballsy dev decides that they want to release a tethering easter egg in a crap app. Maybe next time I won't miss it.
 
Clicked open with Itunes for some reason witht he .rar file. Now need to know how to get it back to the original state and how to get the app on my iPhone. Someone help? Haha.
 
Clicked open with Itunes for some reason witht he .rar file. Now need to know how to get it back to the original state and how to get the app on my iPhone. Someone help? Haha.


As the readme states, this APP is the original file and needs to BE CRACKED.

If you opened the rar file and selected itunes as the default program to open rar files- then you need to download and install winrar again which will restore the file associations.
 
Finally!!!!

I was able to snag a copy of Handylight yesterday while it was available but I was unable to get it to work in Windows 7 after playing around with different settings last night. I got some time today to try the Firefox method that a member posted on this forum earlier, and I finally got it to work! I am posting this right now from my tethered connection. Yippee!
 
Why? Are you AT&T CEO or something? Or you just want everything to be exactly as Apple wants it?

Who made you the AT&T waterboy? Did they give you a free microcell or something?

Nope, just someone who wants developers to fully disclose what their apps do and not cheat the system that they and subsequently us agreed to

I would have the same sentiments over any app that misrepresented itself. The fact that the easter egg happens to be tethering should make no difference in regards to this as it could have been worse
 
You have to unrar the file and hopefully gives you an .ipa output file. However, I don't think you can install it without JB your iDevices in order to use it.

Clicked open with Itunes for some reason witht he .rar file. Now need to know how to get it back to the original state and how to get the app on my iPhone. Someone help? Haha.
 
Why? Are you AT&T CEO or something? Or you just want everything to be exactly as Apple wants it?
"As Apple wants it?" Do you think Apple doesn't want tethering? I've had tethering on my iPhone for over a year now here in Scandinavia. Carriers in 20+ countries enabled tethering the day that iPhone OS 3.0 was released last June. AT&T was absent from the list, and one year down the line nothing has happened. It's hardly Apple's fault that the home of free market capitalism has a cell infrastructure worthy of a third world country. Apple is the #1 entity putting pressure on AT&T to move forward, they would be 10 years behind the rest of the developed world if it weren't for the iPhone boom, now they're only 5 years behind.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.