iPhone 1.1.1 Cracking Under 3rd Party Development Efforts

[dustywaffles]

My point was simply that since Apple -- before the iPhone even went on sale -- stated (and then visually demonstrated) pretty much everything that it could do, I just don't understand how anyone could try to make the point "but Apple compared it to a smartphone, so I bought it expecting it to be just like a smartphone, and it's not -- I expected more".

I'm not even saying I expected it to be just like a smart phone or to have full 3rd party support.

However if you're trying to make the argument that people should have assumed that apple would never add any feature besides the ones it launched with.... your wrong. It actually wouldn't make sense to assume that apple would make what they call the most advanced phone you can buy with the worlds most advanced operating system and then not do anything with it.

People were right to assume there would be more because they actually have added new features. ( i.e. double taping the home button and music store)

However they added a feature that makes them more money before adding the really basic ones. Ones that people expect from ALL mobile phones.

I've told several people who asked me if I liked the iPhone that I hated it because it hardy does anything. It's almost bizarre how almost everyone has the exact same response. First they say " What, isn't it supposed to do everything?" and when I told them what it doesn't do I get the same two words. " Thats weird."

I knew exactly what the iPhone could do when it was released. What I didn't know was what it would do 4 months later. I, along with many others, made some assumptions about that based on how apple touted it against other devices, things that every other phone with a color screen has, and our perception of apple.

We were totally wrong. However we know what apple compared the iphone to, and we know what other phones have. Thus it must have been our perception of apple that was wrong. They are greedy and out of touch.

Thats what you are getting from people, disillusionment.

Yes a lot of people had unrealistic expectations. That doesn't mean you take every one who's mad and lump them in the same category with those unrealistic expectations being our defining characteristic.

That may be why you don't understand where I'm coming from.

Some of us had very reasonable expectations about what would be patched in over the next four months.

The only thing to say to me is that it was unreasonable for me to expect something other than a black background after four months. Well thats your opinion and you have a right to it. Its my opinion that apple is the one who is unreasonable for not adding these things.

It's not that hard to understand why people expected their 300$ phone to at least have the features their first camera phone had 4 years ago.

 

[aristobrat]

However if you're trying to make the argument that people should have assumed that apple would never add any feature besides the ones it launched with.... your wrong.

Not making that point at all. Again, I'm simply stating that I don't understand how Apple having a slide showing the iPhone next to other smartphones to compare physical features would cause people to expect it to "have more functionality" when Apple did the best job I've ever seen a manufacturer do of visually demonstrating how the key features of how their product worked -- before the product ever went on sale.

Apple clearly made it sounds like we should expect more and that more was on its way.

And what did Apple clearly say that has caused some people to expect that v1.1.1 would contain every piece of "more to be added", as if Apple never planned on issuing another update in the future to add more functionality?

Yes, never on the site were the words "smartphone" used, but arent you just playing with words here now?

That is my entire point. What are the meaning of words when a manufacturer visually demonstrates the product, showing you how key features work, a week before the product goes on sale? How the iPhone uses "slide to delete" (or you have to press the Edit button) to delete emails and SMS conversations was in the demonstration videos.

 

[DMann]

Marketing

We understand your point, but are you then saying that YOUR expectations of the iPhone is that it would have a mail application that doesnt allow you to delete more then one item at a time? Were YOUR expectations of the iPhone that it would have a messaging application that is vastly inferior? Were YOUR expectations of the iPhone that it wouldnt have even the basic applications that every, EVERY current cell phone has. Yes, never on the site were the words "smartphone" used, but arent you just playing with words here now? Using your logic that they never claimed this to be a "smartphone" then I would guess you would call this a "dumbphone" since it is lacking items that a $19.99 pay-as-you-go phone purchased at 7-11 has.

Someone earlier on another post maybe said it best... Jobs set out to make the best IPOD ever that happens to also make calls when he should have produced the best cell phone that IS ALSO an IPOD... because THATS WHAT HE MARKETED!

While several smart-phone features are yet to be delivered, the ones which do exist on the iPhone are dramatically smarter than others out there; It's a highly responsive phone with multi-tasking functionality in most categories sporting a brilliant interface, an iPod which functions extremely well while running other tasks, an internet device which blows away anything I've worked with, stunning screen resolution, video playback, incredible zoom capabilities, and best of all, a platform with unlimited potential which utilizes a quantum leap in technology called 'multi-touch,' all running on OS X. (I haven't touched my Blackberry 8830 since June 29th) Sure it needs more stuff, improved mail client functionality, copy, cut, paste, more 3rd party apps, etc., but three months is a relatively short time frame to be voicing concerns about missing features. We can expect more functionality and features once Leopard is released. (and once 1.1.1 is opened up)

 

[aristobrat]

I, along with many others, made some assumptions about that based on how apple touted it against other devices, things that every other phone with a color screen has, and our perception of apple.

This is the comparison chart that Apple used. It was used in a press release stating that the iPhone would ship with a glass screen and a battery that lasted longer than Apple had previously announced?

How on earth did you look at the chart below and make any other assumptions other than what was presented???

 

[dustywaffles]

This is the comparison chart that Apple used. It was used in a press release stating that the iPhone would ship with a glass screen and a battery that lasted longer than Apple had previously announced?

How on earth did you look at the chart below and make any other assumptions other than what was presented???

I was talking about this comparison

"iPhone is years ahead of any other phone available today."

Once again I am not comparing the iphone to smart phones, I'm comparing it to all phones.

Interesting chart though. I wonder if honda ever put anything similar out comparing a Civic's dimensions to a Porsche. No.. that wouldn't make sense unless honda was subtly saying that a civic is comparable to a Porsche. I know it's an extreme example but have you ever heard of something called subtext?

 

[aristobrat]

However they added a feature that makes them more money before adding the really basic ones.

Did the thought ever cross your mind that the WiFi iTunes Store was a feature that was competitively important for the iPod Touch (i.e. the Zune has had WiFi for about a year now, so Apple needed to get a MP3 player on the market that had WiFi and did something with it that the Zune couldn't) and that the only reason this feature ended up in 1.1.1 (ahead of non-revenue generating features) just might have been because the application had already been designed, developed, tested and put into production on the Touch and it didn't take major work to get it running on the iPhone?

And if Apple was only just doing money-grabs in 1.1.1, why on earth would they put in a feature that allows you to turn off EDGE roaming? Since Apple makes a slice of each users monthly bill, that's going to lower their revenue, no?

 

[3282872]

This is the comparison chart that Apple used. It was used in a press release stating that the iPhone would ship with a glass screen and a battery that lasted longer than Apple had previously announced?

How on earth did you look at the chart below and make any other assumptions other than what was presented???

You're really going to use a simple chart to base your argument on? That chart doesn't state very much in terms of the iPhone's functions vs. other "smartphones" (or what have you).

I find it very interesting that people are so quick to defend Apple for taking features away from a product. That is what we are talking about right? Apple taking things away from its customers? Whether they were "supposed" to be available seems rather moot, as they certainly were available through developers (something Apple allows for their OS X platform). Why did Apple take third party applications away from its consumer base? Security? If that were the case, then none of their computers would be open to third party applications, so it can't be for security. Hmmmm. Stability? Well, if that were the case then Mac OS X would be completely closed off to Microsoft Office 2004 and other third party applications available online that Apple may not test. Hmmmm, I wonder why....

Oh, MONEY. I forgot about that one. Silly me.

 

[aristobrat]

I was talking about this comparison

"iPhone is years ahead of any other phone available today."

Once again I am not comparing the iphone to smart phones, I'm comparing it to all phones.

Interesting chart though. I wonder if honda ever put anything similar out comparing a Civic's dimensions to a Porsche. No.. that wouldn't make sense unless honda was subtly saying that a civic is comparable to a Porsche. I know it's an extreme example but have you ever heard of something called subtext?

Again, if the major functionality of the device is explicitly and prominently demonstrated before it goes on sale, where does subtext factor in?

 

[aristobrat]

That chart doesn't state very much in terms of the iPhone's functions vs. other "smartphones" (or what have you).

Thank you for stating my point for me! AFAIK, that's the only chart where Apple mentioned the word "Smartphone" or did direct comparisons of the iPhone to other phones.

How anyone could look at that chart and walk away with expectations of iPhone functionality is beyond me, but apparently people have.

 

[dustywaffles]

Again, if the major functionality of the device is explicitly and prominently demonstrated before it goes on sale, where does subtext factor in?

To answer your question plainly the subtext is in the fact that they compared its size to the size of four other smart phones. It wouldn't make sense to do this unless it were like the smart phones in some other way. It's why Honda didn't put out the same chart comparing the dimensions of a Civic with a Porsche, a M3, and a Corvette.

Actually in your defense apple probably couldn't have found four other camera phones where you can't choose a home screen background to compare sizes with. They don't exist. I guess apple really does think different.

 

[MacToddB]

When Steve Jobs introduced the "Breakthrough Internet Communications Device", in January 2007, he compared it to several devices, including my Nokia e62. All of them had native Instant Messaging.

Here's more:

"Now, software on mobile phones is like baby software. It’s not so powerful, and today we’re going to show you a software breakthrough. Software that’s at least five years ahead of what’s on any other phone. Now how do we do this? Well, we start with a strong foundation. iPhone runs OSX. Now, why would we want to run such a sophisticated operating system on a mobile device? Well, because it’s got everything we need. It’s got multi-tasking. It’s got the best networking. It already knows how to power manage. We’ve been doing this on mobile computers for years. It’s got awesome security. And the right apps. It’s got everything from Cocoa and the graphics and it’s got core animation built in and it’s got the audio and video that OSX is famous for. It’s got all the stuff we want. And it’s built right in to iPhone. And that has let us create desktop class applications and networking. Not the crippled stuff that you find on most phones. This is real, desktop-class applications."

It's shameful that native Instant Messaging is absent, with no indication that Apple plans to remedy this. iChat is part of OSX. Yet it took independent developers to deliver native IM apps, and they did it in weeks, with no SDK!

For those of you who will suggest Web based IM is sufficient, keep in mind that they rely on logging in to a page (which can be overwritten by another app), with a browser that doesn't cache logins/passwords, and can't alert you when in other apps, etc.

BTW, my Nokia e62 was "crippled" with these abilities: MP3 ringtones, text-to-speech Caller ID name announcing, customizable screens, in addition to native IM, Bluetooth music (Not A2DP, but bluetooth nonetheless), and my personal favorite, Bluetooth syncing...just walk into my office and it would sync. No docking, no cables.

For those of you who will point the finger at me, keep in mind that when I bought my iPhone, native IM was indeed available, from third parties. So I'm staying at 1.0.2 for this reason. Indeed, an argument could be made that those of you who HAVE upgraded firmware are the ones who weren't satisfied with what you bought! The interface of the iPhone is far superior and the hardware is far more responsive than anything else. But the functionality has a way to go. Apple has their priorities (WiFi music, etc.). I prefer my iPhone, but specifically, I prefer it at 1.0.2 where I can leverage the development of tools that Apple hasn't prioritized, in particular native IM.

 

[aristobrat]

To answer your question plainly the subtext is in the fact that they compared its size to the size of four other smart phones.

Can you please explain to me how there was anything that could be construed as "subtext" after Apple started putting videos demonstrating the features of the iPhone?

Out of curiosity, have you even seen the videos?

 

[dustywaffles]

Can you please explain to me how there was anything that could be construed as "subtext" after Apple started putting videos demonstrating the features of the iPhone?

Out of curiosity, have you even seen the videos?

You posted an add comparing the size of the iphone with other smartphones. I said THAT add had subtext. It was clear that size comparison was what I claimed had subtext, as that was what I was responding to and I never mentioned videos in the post.

Your asking me to back up a claim I never made.

If that was not your intention then your point is that apple's instructional videos should have overridden any other subtext or implications in all the information, and statements apple made.

It doesn't work like that. those videos did not exist in a vacuum. People didn't take those videos to mean these are the only features the iphone will ever have, nor did apple intend for that to be the point of the videos. If they did they were lying because ITMS wasn't in the original videos. I know because I watched them. They added that.

Even if apple DID want people to think iPhone would never have a feature not demonstrated in those videos apple should have made that clear. If people thought the iphone would never do anything not in those videos a huge chunk would have never have bought it.

As to your question as to if I ever watched those videos. Well that question has a subtext as well which I interpret as an attack on me instead of my argument. If that is where this is going then I will have to withdraw myself from what was a stimulating debate.

 

[3282872]

Can you please explain to me how there was anything that could be construed as "subtext" after Apple started putting videos demonstrating the features of the iPhone?

Out of curiosity, have you even seen the videos?

I find it interesting that others have made very interesting points regarding the iPhone, and specifically one user quoting Steve Jobs word for word on how the iPhone is basically a small computer device running a version of OS X and thus is capable of running applications most other phones can not, and yet you glaze over those valid points by going back to this "smartphone" non-sense. Your comment that the chart has very little information and thus defends your stance that making assumptions that the iPhone can do more works both ways, as the chart has little information who is to say that it CAN NOT do all those things and more. Further, Steve Jobs himself stated that the iPhone has:

- "Runs OS X"
- "Multi-tasking"
- "Desk-top class applications"

and on and on. Those were his exact words. Based on that early press release, how is it erroneous to assume that the iPhone was not marketed to "do more"? As someone else stated, the whole principle of the device is its software driven OS, which allows for changing and adapting to allow new features and applications, precisely the reason the iPhone is revolutionary (one of the reasons). Even more, developers were able to get great app's on the device without SDK's, and yet Apple said "No, even though we stated the iPhone could do those things and you did get it do run those app's, we're not going to let you. In fact, we're going to offer updates with new features you will want but tethered to those updates will be firmware to cripple the iPhone and lock it down". Um, what? That's tantamount to Apple updating the software on my Mac Pro to cripple it so only certain applications work. Again, didn't Jobs say the iPhone was great cause "It’s got all the stuff we want. And it’s built right in to iPhone. And that has let us create desktop class applications and networking. Not the crippled stuff that you find on most phones. This is real, desktop-class applications." ... So, um, why take away the ability for developers to make programs for the iPhone as they can for Mac OS X? No one has explained that to me yet, and made sense.

 

[3282872]

While several smart-phone features are yet to be delivered, the ones which do exist on the iPhone are dramatically smarter than others out there; It's a highly responsive phone with multi-tasking functionality in most categories sporting a brilliant interface, an iPod which functions extremely well while running other tasks, an internet device which blows away anything I've worked with, stunning screen resolution, video playback, incredible zoom capabilities, and best of all, a platform with unlimited potential which utilizes a quantum leap in technology called 'multi-touch,' all running on OS X. (I haven't touched my Blackberry 8830 since June 29th) Sure it needs more stuff, improved mail client functionality, copy, cut, paste, more 3rd party apps, etc., but three months is a relatively short time frame to be voicing concerns about missing features. We can expect more functionality and features once Leopard is released. (and once 1.1.1 is opened up)

Totally agree. The device has a lot of great functions and a fantastic UI that is leaps and bounds ahead of the competition. I sincerely hope Apple does open the device up, while releasing new features with Leopard would be a fantastic follow through (and would explain why Jobs wanted Leopard people on the iPhone team as they may/will tie together). I just don't understand the logic behind Apple aggressively locking and encrypting a device that was marketed to do more and was successfully doing so through developers without even an SDK. It's control. It's greed, and if I see Apple release third party applications for sale on iTunes I will be very disgusted.

Ooooo, and you have an 8-core Mac Pro. I was tempted in buying two quad-core chips and just popping them into my Mac Pro (got it last December, should have waited), but then I would break my warranty and that wouldn't be cute. I'm jealous lol.

 

[djgamble]

Don't be so naive. Anything can be cracked, if there is the will.

In terms of your claim that I am naive... I think my comments show that I have experience with things that haven't been cracked.

The 2nd gen nano cannot have iPod Linux and the 6th gen iPods can't have linux either. People have been trying really hard with the 2nd gen nano. Maybe one day it will be cracked... but I'm ruling out a cat and mouse game where Apple is so shocked by the talent of the hackers that it is scrambling to produce patches every month.

Apple's ahead of the hackers, and I think it will be a while until newer iPhones (that came with 1.1.1 installed) and iPod touches will see 3rd party apps.

I'm not against the cause, I really want 3rd party apps on my iPod Touch! But look at the 2nd gen nano... why hasn't anyone been able to hack the encrypted firmware? We all know it's possible, but it's not a game of cat and mouse between Apple and the hackers, it's a game of Apple being a big fat cat sitting on top of the mouse while it sits there unsuccessfully trying to get out from under it. One day it might bring up the strength to get out, but it won't be all that quick.

Getting access to the flash RAM using a loophole with previous versions of the firmware is hardly "as good as done"... there are many other cravats and even if it did work instantly it still isn't a solution for iPod Touch owners.

I think the quick hacking of the iPhone exposed a lot of naive people (like yourself) to the hacking world who are quick to make the assumption that hacking the iPhone is easy and when there's a will there's always a quick and easy way. People are starting to think that Apple is clumsy and will be releasing useless updates every few weeks because the hackers are far ahead of them due to the quick initial hacking. This is simply not the case, at first Apple left the iPhone exposed, now its put in a measure that people are yet to crack and it will probably be quite some time until someone finds a simple way around it.

If the encryption of the 2nd gen iPod nano is any indicator then it could be a long time, by which stage people will have moved onto other devices or given up.

Anyway just an opinion... please prove me wrong hackers and keep up the good work this message is more to general consumers as a reminder that hacks don't just happen and limited success should not be treated as full success. Be patient guys

 

[Stella]

iPhone v1.1.1 exploits starting to surface:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/07/iphone-v1-1-1-exploits-starting-to-surface/

--

Maybe the 2 second gen nano isn't interesting enough compared to the iPhohne and Touch!

In terms of your claim that I am naive... I think my comments show that I have experience with things that haven't been cracked.

The 2nd gen nano cannot have iPod Linux and the 6th gen iPods can't have linux either. People have been trying really hard with the 2nd gen nano. Maybe one day it will be cracked... but I'm ruling out a cat and mouse game where Apple is so shocked by the talent of the hackers that it is scrambling to produce patches every month.

Apple's ahead of the hackers, and I think it will be a while until newer iPhones (that came with 1.1.1 installed) and iPod touches will see 3rd party apps.

I'm not against the cause, I really want 3rd party apps on my iPod Touch! But look at the 2nd gen nano... why hasn't anyone been able to hack the encrypted firmware? We all know it's possible, but it's not a game of cat and mouse between Apple and the hackers, it's a game of Apple being a big fat cat sitting on top of the mouse while it sits there unsuccessfully trying to get out from under it. One day it might bring up the strength to get out, but it won't be all that quick.

Getting access to the flash RAM using a loophole with previous versions of the firmware is hardly "as good as done"... there are many other cravats and even if it did work instantly it still isn't a solution for iPod Touch owners.

I think the quick hacking of the iPhone exposed a lot of naive people (like yourself) to the hacking world who are quick to make the assumption that hacking the iPhone is easy and when there's a will there's always a quick and easy way. People are starting to think that Apple is clumsy and will be releasing useless updates every few weeks because the hackers are far ahead of them due to the quick initial hacking. This is simply not the case, at first Apple left the iPhone exposed, now its put in a measure that people are yet to crack and it will probably be quite some time until someone finds a simple way around it.

If the encryption of the 2nd gen iPod nano is any indicator then it could be a long time, by which stage people will have moved onto other devices or given up.

Anyway just an opinion... please prove me wrong hackers and keep up the good work this message is more to general consumers as a reminder that hacks don't just happen and limited success should not be treated as full success. Be patient guys

 

[123]

The 2nd gen nano cannot have iPod Linux and the 6th gen iPods can't have linux either.

1) These are toy devices compared to an iPhone. All it takes is a single Safari exploit, Mail exploit, Quicktime exploit, syncing exploit... relatively easy to find.

2) As long as Apple has to provide an upgrade path from a cracked version to a non-cracked version of their software, the final software image will always more or less be known. This helps to crack phones with the newest software already on them. The assembly is available, the file structure is known, and cracked phones are available for testing stuff. Combine this knowledge with 1) and you have a crack for the newest version.

 

[JPyre]

I personally feel mislead by the above picture's and the below picture's subtext. artistrobrat you have no argument. Yes we all saw the videos and the majority of us didn't think "is that it?...." We, the majority, felt the videos didn't even touch the tip of the iceberg. We were wrong. iPhone has been compared to smartphones by Apple itself in multiple situaltions, I, and many others, assumed since they were comparing them to smartphones, that they'd meet or exceed smartphones. Many of us are dissaponited to find out that only the GUI and the Safari and the iPod functions are the only things that exceed other smartphones, nothing else. With the phone, camera, and 3rd party support not exceeding or meeting other smartphones by any streatch of the imagination. Not to mention no moble flash, no im, and no voice recorder, which smartphones have had for years.

 

[cal6n]

@JPyre

Sorry, but could you post a bigger version of that image at a lower resolution as I can almost make sense of it...

 

[JPyre]

@JPyre

Sorry, but could you post a bigger version of that image at a lower resolution as I can almost make sense of it...

I appreciate the sarchasim but um, it was a high res image of a low res video

Fixed. Still cant make it out though, the chart is a "not easy"-"easy to use" / "smart"-"dumb" chart.

My beef is with the smart dumb part, nobody is arguing that iphone isnt easy to use.... its just dumb comapred to other smart phones...

 

[donlphi]

I personally feel mislead by the above picture's and the below picture's subtext. artistrobrat you have no argument. Yes we all saw the videos and the majority of us didn't think "is that it?...." We, the majority, felt the videos didn't even touch the tip of the iceberg. We were wrong. iPhone has been compared to smartphones by Apple itself in multiple situaltions, I, and many others, assumed since they were comparing them to smartphones, that they'd meet or exceed smartphones. Many of us are dissaponited to find out that only the GUI and the Safari and the iPod functions are the only things that exceed other smartphones, nothing else. With the phone, camera, and 3rd party support not exceeding or meeting other smartphones by any streatch of the imagination. Not to mention no moble flash, no im, and no voice recorder, which smartphones have had for years.

iPhone has been compared to a smart phone, but has never been classified as or called an iSmartphone... it's better than a smart phone.

The phone is still young. Be patient or figure out how to hack the phone.

 

[matticus008]

So once again, why did Apple compare iPhone against smartphones?
[...]
PS. The only thing the iPhone is ahead of is the UI, and nothing else. It does not show other functionality beyond any other phone on the market.

You've answered your own question.

However if you're trying to make the argument that people should have assumed that apple would never add any feature besides the ones it launched with.... your wrong.

No, he's not. It's called being a sensible and practical consumer. If you have no evidence whatsoever as to future features, you can't reasonably apply your personal expectations to a device. You must purchase it with the assumption that it will never do anything worthwhile that it doesn't right out of the box.

You have no way of knowing what or how much will be added in the future or whether it will be the least bit interesting, useful, or innovative. They very well could have been referring solely to the WiFi Music Store. Maybe there's no more to come after that at all--there's nothing dispositive to the contrary. Obviously, that's unlikely, but if you bought it assuming they would add things you think are essential, you're rather foolish.

Thats what you are getting from people, disillusionment.

Only because you created runaway expectations from a device, got in a large group of other over-excited Internet people, and created an iPhone in your collective heads that doesn't reflect reality. You blame all the hype, but you're forgetting that it's people like you who drove the hype in the first place.

Further, Steve Jobs himself stated that the iPhone has:

- "Runs OS X"
- "Multi-tasking"
- "Desk-top class applications"

and on and on. Those were his exact words. Based on that early press release, how is it erroneous to assume that the iPhone was not marketed to "do more"?

Because you can't get from the specified features to "open platform" without a number of serious leaps of logic and major assumptions.

AppleTV runs OS X; it is not an open platform. The new iPods run OS X. They're not an open platform. Multitasking doesn't get you anywhere--it just specifies that you can switch seamless between applications on the phone. You can play music while checking the weather or texting. "Desktop class applications" simply refers to the quality of what's installed--YouTube and Safari are quite comprehensive, and Google Maps is full-featured. I won't lump Mail in this category because it sucks. It doesn't say "desktop application support" or anything at all about development.

So, um, why take away the ability for developers to make programs for the iPhone as they can for Mac OS X? No one has explained that to me yet, and made sense.

No, you just refuse to listen because you hear what you want to hear. You can't take away a feature that never existed. There are any number of practical considerations to consider for why the platform is closed. The software is clearly unfinished, and you don't write APIs for a moving target. The software is also heavily based on some Leopard technologies, and Leopard was far from finished throughout the entire development process. You can go from there to stability issues and memory management (the device can't handle large numbers of open applications, and many of the ones written caused a general slowdown and unresponsiveness). Then there are business concerns--an unlimited data plan coupled with VOIP would degrade service quality of the data network, and would simultaneously lower demand for voice services.

It's obvious that third-party software will be coming officially to the iPhone at some point, but it was always foolhardy to believe that would be before the release of Leopard. Did you ever stop to consider the "future updates" might not be immediate?

I personally feel mislead by the above picture's and the below picture's subtext.

I don't see how. The iPhone is easy to use. It also has a great deal more sophistication in "smart" applications. If it said something about "number of applications" or development in any way, shape, or form, you might have a position that makes more sense.

You're linking "smart" with "open"--a clear fallacy. The "smartness" of the phone refers to the level of its functions; Google Maps is a clear example of this. It automatically locates points of interest and provides immediate access to directions and to call from the screen. Smart applications and ease of use are highly correlated, since often similar functions on Windows Mobile are quite complex.

 

[megfilmworks]

Another sensible post by Matticus!

 

[3282872]

Another sensible post by Matticus!

Never mind. On second thought, no matter what I write it will be twisted, misinterpreted and slammed. This debate will be between the individuals who love Apple and expect more from them and those who drank too much kool-aid and will defend Apple at every turn, even if it means expecting less and getting just that, less. Besides, it just seems to fan the flames.