iPhone 1.1.1 Aftermath

[Mock Turtleneck]

No, none. I'm not sure why you thought there was any hostility. I was simply explaining my situation compared to that of other users.

Well, I wasn't five when I first installed Windows 98, but I didn't want to give my life story.

Perhaps not any Joe-blow off the street, but I've met people who thought that the iPhone uses the same OS X on Macs, so you can't convince me that they don't exist. I suppose not everyone is either "average" or "techie."

The bolded "I" hinted to a bit of over emphasis to me, my apologies if I was mistaken.

When I approach my colleagues here in R&D they all come up with a version of "The iPhone runs a build of Mac OS." so I guess it's all from perspective. I don't see many people getting the OSes confused, perhaps if they looked more alike it'd be an issue but the iBrick OS doesn't look almost anything like OS X 10.4 or 10.5.

To each their own but I think the line between the builds of OS X are more defined here than even in OS X and OS X Server.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

A lot of people just buy things and expect them to work as advertised.

The iPhone seens to work exactly as advertised, and has even gotten some new features.

Official 3rd party applications are limited to so called Web 2.0 applications (i.e. web based, often ajax, applications). That's the only open development supported by Apple (at this time). All other so called 3rd party applications are just hacks, taking advantages of holes in the iPhone software, and Apple warned about the likelihood of these being disabled if and when the firmware was updated.

And I don't even want to try to understand what went through the heads of those who, despite being thoroughly warned NOT to upgrade their cracked open iPhones, still went ahead and did it, thus "bricking" their own phones.

 

[Selenolycus]

Installing OS's since 5 and joining MacRumors forums since yesterday.

Errr, again... didn't want to give my life story.

I wonder what this could mean.

Really though, I don't mean to add to your stress level right now since you are obviously very upset about your phone.

I don't own an iPhone, so there's no stress (from the iPhone, anyway ).

I joined this forum with another alias (mostly lurked) in 2005, but I've since decided to switch to this alias on all sites requiring registration, for the sake of consistency. I suppose a cookie expired because I wasn't logged-in automatically today, so I took the opportunity to re-register today.

 

[EagerDragon]

Ok, perhaps I am beating a dead horse here - but when did Microsoft say that the 360 runs Windows Blah, the world's most popular desktop OS?

Apple did not make it clear that third-party applications (exception being the unlocks) would brick the iPhones.

I believe the 360 does runs a flavor of windows

 

[Selenolycus]

I believe the 360 does runs a flavor of windows

I don't know about the 360, I know the original Xbox ran a stripped-down NT kernel, but that is not my point. I am sure the iPhone uses the Cocoa API to some degree and runs a modified version of the Mach kernel. Microsoft doesn't advertise the stripped-down NT kernel as being Windows. Apple does advertise the modified Mach kernel and Cocoa API as being OS X.

 

[aristobrat]

Microsoft doesn't advertise the stripped-down NT kernel as being Windows. Apple does advertise the modified Mach kernel and Cocoa API as being OS X.

Microsoft doesn't advertise the stripped-down NT kernel at all, correct?

Now between what Microsoft does advertise as Windows, there are hugggeeee differences. You're not going to have good luck getting a Windows XP application running on Windows Mobile or Windows Embedded devices, right (even though they're all "Windows")?

 

[emotion]

If Apple had been honest about the software their iPhones run then the situation would be different. Endusers want things to Just Work™. Apple has been seen for nearly three decades as a company whose technology products are simple for everyone to use.

They don't understand the security risk of running everything as root, and they didn't understand that OS X on the iPhone, though said to be the most advanced OS in the world by Apple themselves, was not capable of an eighth of the real OS X's functionality.

Apple could've released an SDK, but they didn't - and that's ok. Apple should've been more honest with their customers, but they weren't - and that is not ok.

Why are you talking in the past sense here? This phone has been out 3 months or so in only one country on this planet and you're writing it off and moaning about deception of customers by it's maker.

If you entertain the remote thought that the iPhone could be a step change in mobile computing then I'd probably be prepared to wait 6 months before I stopped paying attention to it as a product.

Honestly, this isn't an iPod with an embedded style OS (which is very closed like the iPhone currently is), this can be open if Apple let it. I think the chance they won't open things up with an SDK are fairly remote.

 

[Selenolycus]

Why are you talking in the past sense here? This phone has been out 3 months or so in only one country on this planet and you're writing it off and moaning about deception of customers by it's maker.

Because iPhones have been bricked. I am not awfully concerned about the future state of the iPhone - I don't want one, I don't see myself wanting one. I do have sympathy for those who made iPhone Paperweights™.

Why is it "moaning" if I am stating my point of view? My cynicism towards Apple's marketing is no more moaning than your optimism is cheerleading. Writing-off one's opinion as moaning brings nothing to the conversation.

If you entertain the remote thought that the iPhone could be a step change in mobile computing then I'd probably be prepared to wait 6 months before I stopped paying attention to it as a product.

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble understanding your point here. The iPhone's future as a port-able device is not the issue in the cases of currently bricked iPhones that Apple will not repair or replace.

Honestly, this isn't an iPod with an embedded style OS (which is very closed like the iPhone currently is), this can be open if Apple let it. I think the chance they won't open things up with an SDK are fairly remote.

I don't believe they are that remote. Apple hasn't shown the slightest interest in opening the phone in a truly meaningful way to third-party developers. Their primary concern seems to be maintaining contractual obligations to AT&T and other wireless providers, and I imagine, eventually, releasing their own shareware applications for the product.

 

[Bosunsfate]

Here's my take. I love Apple products. The team of Ive and Jobs has produced products that are reliable, aesthetically pleasing and amazing blends of ergonomics and powerful machinery. However, when people stop asking questions and begin accepting things as they are, that is when progress may halt and complacency begins. The American consumer has experienced this in the mobile phone industry, and especially in the oil and gas arena. If we blithely accept what we are handed and treat certain companies as untouchable Gods, then we simply become sheep. As for the iPhone, I don't like being sold a product at full price with a locked contract and then be told how I can use said product. It's tantamount to buying a car and being told I can old drive it in certain states, and if I drive it in unauthorized states my engine will seize. If the phone was discounted/subsidized/whatever, sure, but not for the original asking price of $599 (and before you begin Apple's stance at the time of purchase was a "hands-off", "we'll look the other way" in regards to third party app's, etc).

This just boils down to another company wanting more money and control from the consumer. I wish Apple fanboy's would appreciate that instead of defending Apple at every turn, it gets tired, and in the end, you're just a number to Steve Jobs, he doesn't fall asleep dreaming of his iPhone owners like some people dream of Jobsy.

Wow, what a totally bizarre take on things in my opinion.

If you buy a car that is not designed to be taken off road do you blame the auto company when you want to hit some dirt trails? The way your post reads you'd be complaining all the way to the CEO of GM.

More impotantly, do you blame GM for when you totally destory your transmission when do you go off road?

As someone who works in this industry I whole heartly agree with Apple's positions. In fact, they go far beyond what any normal company does, to keep you people informed as to the risks of hacking your phone.

Do you get the same kind of information from Nokia? From Microsoft? From Sun? Nope..

 

[3282872]

Wow, what a totally bizarre take on things in my opinion.

If you buy a car that is not designed to be taken off road do you blame the auto company when you want to hit some dirt trails? The way your post reads you'd be complaining all the way to the CEO of GM.

More impotantly, do you blame GM for when you totally destory your transmission when do you go off road?

As someone who works in this industry I whole heartly agree with Apple's positions. In fact, they go far beyond what any normal company does, to keep you people informed as to the risks of hacking your phone.

Do you get the same kind of information from Nokia? From Microsoft? From Sun? Nope..

Ugh, that is an old post, and through debating my opinion has changed, you should read my other posts more, they clarify my standing on this issue.

 

[Bosunsfate]

Here is a scenerio nobody has considered.

I was in the apple store the other day and there was a very upset customer with a bricked phone. Here is his story.


He had a problem with the initial activation. Remember the activation problems of yore??? Well he took his ATT sim out of his old ATT phone and put it in the iphone and activated it and it worked. (I too had done this but saw the problem with voicemail and went to cingular to get another iphone sim). Well when he updated it it bricked his phone because it wasn't an iphone sim. He put back the original sim but it won't activate. It has been permanately bricked by apple. No new sim will fix this. Its like getting a spanking from apple for not listening to them. So apple refused to give him a new phone. They accused him of hacking. He was yelling something horrible.

This is the problem. Apple is purposely bricking phones that do not follow their plan. Its wrong folks.

It's wrong that I've read 13 pages of nothing informative except people complaining that someone broke their toy..... classic American comsumer...no personal reponsibility.

Someone get Ralph Nader on the phone...I"m sure he'll fix this for us.

 

[aristobrat]

Because iPhones have been bricked. I am not awfully concerned about the future state of the iPhone - I don't want one, I don't see myself wanting one. I do have sympathy for those who made iPhone Paperweights™.

What baffles me is that "bricks after an update" have been happening since updateable devices have been out.

New iPod firmware? Posts about bricks.
New AppleTV update? Posts about bricks.
New Wii update? Posts about bricks.
Verizon releases a new ROM for the Windows Mobile PPC6700? Posts about bricks.

Why all of the concern and sympathy now for iPhone owners?

 

[emotion]

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble understanding your point here. The iPhone's future as a port-able device is not the issue in the cases of currently bricked iPhones that Apple will not repair or replace.

Look, if you used somone's hack for a phone at least be l33t enough to be careful of a firmware update for that device that the company said would brick the device.

Do I have sympathy? A little yes, and in no way do I think Apple should have done this deliberately. There's a PR problem and it's put me off a little for sure.

Really though how many bricked phones are there?

Look, I'm watching this from the viewpoint of a computing professional not a fanboi (why must that always reduce to that term?). You must admit to thinking that this is a revolutionary device. Even if it's only on the level of a market catalyst?

I don't believe they are that remote. Apple hasn't shown the slightest interest in opening the phone in a truly meaningful way to third-party developers. Their primary concern seems to be maintaining contractual obligations to AT&T and other wireless providers, and I imagine, eventually, releasing their own shareware applications for the product.

All I'm saying is that it's way too early to write of either point of view. Both your's and mine.

If Apple understand the potential of this product they'll be opening it up, or not. Time will tell.

 

[3282872]

It's wrong that I've read 13 pages of nothing informative except people complaining that someone broke their toy..... classic American comsumer...no personal reponsibility.

Someone get Ralph Nader on the phone...I"m sure he'll fix this for us.

Wait, back up. The customer did NOTHING wrong. How is he not taking personal responsibility? Explain that to me, I'm waiting with bated breath.

 

[gr8tfly]

Wait, back up. The customer did NOTHING wrong. How is he not taking personal responsibility? Explain that to me, I'm waiting with bated breath.

Wrong?

In case you missed all the threads and posts:

Ignoring requirements for use.
Ignoring and violating the EULA.
Ignoring the public warning prior to the release of 1.1.1
Ignoring the bolded warning in the update itself, prior to authorizing the update.
Authorizing the update - disregarding all the above.

There isn't a font bold enough to put proper emphasis on "DOH!".

 

[macenforcer]

Wrong?

In case you missed all the threads and posts:

Ignoring requirements for use.
Ignoring and violating the EULA.
Ignoring the public warning prior to the release of 1.1.1
Ignoring the bolded warning in the update itself, prior to authorizing the update.
Authorizing the update - disregarding all the above.

There isn't a font bold enough to put proper emphasis on "DOH!".

I think you are the one who is wrong. All the customer did was insert his old sim into his phone. He violated no such requirements. Infact it was being suggested at the time of the outage from ATT the people do that.

 

[skunk]

Infact it was being suggested at the time of the outage from ATT the people do that.

By whom?

 

[3282872]

Wrong?

In case you missed all the threads and posts:

Ignoring requirements for use.
Ignoring and violating the EULA.
Ignoring the public warning prior to the release of 1.1.1
Ignoring the bolded warning in the update itself, prior to authorizing the update.
Authorizing the update - disregarding all the above.

There isn't a font bold enough to put proper emphasis on "DOH!".

Actually, you are wrong. When ATT had issues with iPhone activations, they actively told people to use their cingular/att to see if it'd work (my friend was one of them).

 

[macenforcer]

By whom?

By AT&T.

 

[cliffjumper68]

Looks like apple will not be helping developers and iphone owners to regain some of the functionality of their handsets. I was hoping for more.

 

[skunk]

By AT&T.

In that case, those who did so should clearly be catered for.

 

[cliffjumper68]

It's wrong that I've read 13 pages of nothing informative except people complaining that someone broke their toy..... classic American comsumer...no personal reponsibility.

Someone get Ralph Nader on the phone...I"m sure he'll fix this for us.

Now where is it you are writing from... oohh.... well.... guess that nationalistic slander might have been hasty. I am sure our UK Buddies would not welcome this in their iphone's either.

 

[gr8tfly]

Actually, you are wrong. When ATT had issues with iPhone activations, they actively told people to use their cingular/att to see if it'd work (my friend was one of them).

Sorry if I missed what the "wrong" was, but you said 13 pages. The bulk of those/these pages are full of references to hacks and the results of applying update 1.1.1 - not the use of other AT&T SIMS.

 

[3282872]

Sorry if I missed what the "wrong" was, but you said 13 pages. The bulk of those/these pages are full of references to hacks and the results of applying update 1.1.1 - not the use of other AT&T SIMS.

No worries, this whole thread has gotten out of hand lol. It's given me a head ache.

 

[BobtheTomato]

Well, here we go again

In a couple of years when someone else has made a 90% there copy of the iPhone that is wide open, no doubt Steve will discover the virtues of openness. Why not make the same mistakes more than once? It'll take less time than it took for Apple to get from the Mac to the Mac II but it'll still be too late. I imagine the fanboys in a couple years will be griping how someone "stole" the iPhone interface an d everyone else will roll their eyes and buy the "good enough" device that is at a fair price and open to expansion. Apple is burning the geeks (i.e. the ones everyone else turns to for advice) and they will pay for it for years.