I think that we will see an always connected IM app. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the mail.app technically run in the background all the time if you have it set up to check for new mail every X or XX minutes?? I would think that this is especially true with the new MS Exchange abilities. It'd be running in the background all the time waiting for new mail. I'd think that the IM app would work in a similar fashion. If you hit the home button, you'd see a number on the app icon when you get a new IM. When I had my iPod touch jailbroken, the one IM app operated in this fashion. I don't see why it wouldn't work in that fashion again. I'm excited for the AOL IM app, if it actually comes out (and it better be free...). It looked really nice.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPhone 2.0 Firmware Jailbroken Already?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Unlock!!
Personally I don't care as much about the iPhone being jailbroken, since I plan to purchase or download for free apps on the iTunes Store. But what I care most is that the 2.0 version gets unlocked as fast as possible, in order to allow me to continue my great experience with this wonderful device despite living in a country where Mr. Jobs and the carriers didn't come to any fruitful deal.
Personally I don't care as much about the iPhone being jailbroken, since I plan to purchase or download for free apps on the iTunes Store. But what I care most is that the 2.0 version gets unlocked as fast as possible, in order to allow me to continue my great experience with this wonderful device despite living in a country where Mr. Jobs and the carriers didn't come to any fruitful deal.
That was one of the first things I noticed. There is also a new calculator app icon too. The buttons on the icon were square, not circular. God I hope that they aren't actually square in the app itself. It'd look stupid.
Probably why there were no applause when Jobs demoed AppStore XD.
Ahh, the wonders of big company vs tiny...grab a nice concept, change it around slightly to make it a bit better, then boom! amazing! *cough*konfabulator*cough* I'm just kidding! (no, seriously...both that and grabbing installer)
(Then again, what other look can you give AppStore =/)
I can't wait for that app! Next needs Yahoo! and MSN.
connected IM requires constant checking (like every second...instant messaging). Mail can only be set to minimum of 15 minutes. (which I'm guessing is like an invisible alarm/event where the "alarm" is to run a code that checks mail...that way not that much battery lost)
I don't know how Mail's going to change with Exchange...Maybe they've figured out how to do so without using up a lot of battery (we can only hope).
I have to disagree with you, I think Apple has to tolerate jail-breaking and unlocking. Once 1.1.2 was unlocked Apple released both 1.1.3 and 1.1.4 without trying to patch the vulnerability. Which to me says two things, ether they can't patch them fast enough and are a bit to spread in terms of programmers. Or the amount of unlocked phones being moved coupled with Apple's inability to strike deals entering new markets (China, Canada, Australia, the rest of Europe) makes it advantageous to not try and lock the phone down.
I find it interesting that you use DRM to make an arguement. DRM failed because customers want choice. They want to take their music and burn it to CD, put it in iPods, have it in the background on their crappy YouTube videos and so on. The same can be said of the coupling of iPhones to carriers. Customers wants choice and the freedom to select a carrier that meets their needs. Even if Apple managed a global rollout of iPhone, which they won't cause carriers are already hip to their scheme, there will be a demand for unlocked phones.
The SDK is already crippled, it's not the SDK Apple uses for their apps, it's full of restrictions. The perfect example being the situation with IM clients and the inability to run in the background.
Sorry, but your post is completely nonsensical. I am always one to encourage debate, but please make sure you have a good grasp of the topic.
I don't know about "circumnavigating" DRM, but it can certainly always be circumvented.
And DRM was absolutely NOT used on music files to "protect them from hackers".
DRM was placed on music to keep owners from sharing the files with others. The "hackers" are actually the saviors of the legitimate consumer, in that they allow honest people like myself, who actually purchase music, to be able to use the files in my car mp3 CD player!!!
Apple knows the hackers will always be able to jailbreak the device; therefore I would think that they would want to discourage iPhone customers from utilizing these jailbreaks. One way to do that would be to allow the SDK to have as much functionality as possible, while remaining secure of course, to ensure that developers can officially develop and distribute all of the apps that customers will want thus keeping the vast majority of iPhone customers using the official App store exclusively for new software.
Apple is getting more restrictive because of jailbreaking? That is complete and utter speculation. And more restrictive with what? The only thing that has happened since Jailbreaking has started is more firmware updates and the announcement of an SDK being made available.
I don't know about "circumnavigating" DRM, but it can certainly always be circumvented.
And DRM was absolutely NOT used on music files to "protect them from hackers".
DRM was placed on music to keep owners from sharing the files with others. The "hackers" are actually the saviors of the legitimate consumer, in that they allow honest people like myself, who actually purchase music, to be able to use the files in my car mp3 CD player!!!
Again, that just doesn't make any sense to me.
Apple knows the hackers will always be able to jailbreak the device; therefore I would think that they would want to discourage iPhone customers from utilizing these jailbreaks. One way to do that would be to allow the SDK to have as much functionality as possible, while remaining secure of course, to ensure that developers can officially develop and distribute all of the apps that customers will want thus keeping the vast majority of iPhone customers using the official App store exclusively for new software.
Why? How many other people think that the installer.app doesn't have people quite close to Apple working on it? It makes more sense to me, that Apple doesn't shut them down, but lets them do it. This allows Apple to see flaws and gaps in the market, before officially releasing them. i.e. a great IM client through a jailbroken handset will come to the iphone. Someone other than Apple might create a way to copy and paste... You shouldn't be so naive as to think the jailbreakers and Apple are not a lot closer than you might think.
If something happens to the software on a jailbroken iPhone, Apple are safe - yet they have many millions of guinea pigs out there, testing iPhone apps and security for free. They only have to look after the people that haven't jailbroken. It's win - win for Apple in my eyes.
You are being a bit naive - hackers are not circumventing DRM so that they can help people put cds they own on their car stereos. They do it so they (and by extension the people who download music for free) don't have to pay money to the artists who created the music (and of course the evil bloated corporate record company which owns them). The issue is not a black and white one - if DRM was more reasonable/flexible less people would try and get round it. We all know that it is not 'fair' to the artist to download a track we haven't paid for, but how many people can say that they have paid for ALL the digital content they have on their computers/iPods?
what if...
What if you owned a company that had a great product and sold it to people... had an agreement with another company to get it out to people. But then someone breaks the idea and sells it to someone else? But its still your product? What now? ...... I'm curious to know how you all feel.
I'm a Graphic Artist / Artist / Illustrator
What if you owned a company that had a great product and sold it to people... had an agreement with another company to get it out to people. But then someone breaks the idea and sells it to someone else? But its still your product? What now? ...... I'm curious to know how you all feel.
I'm a Graphic Artist / Artist / Illustrator
Me
(for reals...and all from iTunes)But yeah, I agree. If the DRM was more flexible, then that'd be a lot better. It's good to see that Apple is moving to DRM-free, though (and higher quality). I think that they should convert the DRM songs to DRM-free (even make it more expensive if the companies want it...but DRM-free).
Apple sells about 4 million Mac's per year, iPhone and Touch combined probably 15 million the first year and hopefully going up in the next 4 years to 100-150 million annual sales. (Buy Apple stock people)
That is a huge target for hackers and malware, several 3P apps on the Mac have security holes but are undocumented or unused by obscurity. The iphone also doesn't authenticate with every app, nor has it user adjustable rootmode and different users on 1 device. It doesn't have the protection the full desktop osX has and we don't want a 100MB security update every month, its a different device all together.
Java, Flash and other scripting languages are also a security danger because
Apple doesn't control them, one webapp can erase your user folder or robotize it after clicking OK and we don't want that on billions of phones.
Apple is also protecting there own interests but allowing free apps in the iTunes store and a cheap open API is nice gesture to the programmers/hackers community. Those who don't want the extra security will always be able to jailbreak the phone. In my opinion Apple made the best decisions possible for the moment.
Jailbreaking does nothing but bring a smile to Apple execs from what I've read and is hardly illegal from that perspective.
But, here's a point that's often missed when talking about changing cell phone carriers and this applies to Apple's iPhone and jailbreaking the iPhone for T-Mobile 3G or other cell phone carriers in the U.S. ...
Why has the U.S. government's FCC allowed for such lack of competition and bad consumer choices by allowing such incompatible technologies and allocating incompatible frequencies and in effect thus fragmenting the cell phone market and allowing every cell phone corporation to reap incredible profits at the needless expense of dumbfounded paying customers who have no clue that they can't use the same phone with a different service until they actually attempt to change and pay the huge price thanks to the U.S. government and the FCC?
Anybody got an answer to that one?
But, here's a point that's often missed when talking about changing cell phone carriers and this applies to Apple's iPhone and jailbreaking the iPhone for T-Mobile 3G or other cell phone carriers in the U.S. ...
Why has the U.S. government's FCC allowed for such lack of competition and bad consumer choices by allowing such incompatible technologies and allocating incompatible frequencies and in effect thus fragmenting the cell phone market and allowing every cell phone corporation to reap incredible profits at the needless expense of dumbfounded paying customers who have no clue that they can't use the same phone with a different service until they actually attempt to change and pay the huge price thanks to the U.S. government and the FCC?
Anybody got an answer to that one?
The copyright is to restrictive to be practicable, the artist (read label) can restrict the place and time we can listen to the music. Forbid reselling and force us to buy the media again and again with every new disk format or digital device. I have about 10.000 vinyl records, can i legally download the same music and use it 100% legally in a discotheque? No.
Is it legal for the labels to give 1% of the profit to the artist and screw them over? Yes.
Don't feel sorry for the artists when downloading, they don't get payed by the labels anyway. They earn a living with privately funded special editions and concerts, not retail CD sales.
Simple, the corporations pay the political parties and so effectively controlling a big part of the legislation. The US isn't a democracy nor a police-state, the big corporations run it.
edit: and the lawyers.
Well you misinterpreted what I meant, or I wasn't very clear. I didn't mean to imply that the drm crackers were necessarily doing it for the sole benefit of helping music owners use their music in other devices, but it probably is one of a few different reasons. I'm a developer, and have dabbled around security a bit. Most of these guys do it for the challenge, and aren't cracking DRM so they "don't have to pay the artist". Like you said, it is by no means black and white, but don't lump the DRM crackers in with pure music pirates.
I might not have paid for all the media i have, but I usually pay for most of the music I have. The unfortunate (or fortunate?) part is that artists tend to
make most of their money from concerts/promotions and usually don't make much from album sales. With the need of physical distribution gone, hopefully more and more artists can find better deals with new "marketing only" record companies and even going it alone when they are popular.
iPhone SDK, DRM, and the Open Tool Chain
May be because jailbreaking your phone allows it to be more useful? After you have jailbroken your phone you can install a gazillion of insanely useful tools;
- AFP: Yes. You read that right. Your phone will appear in the finder just like any of your other networked-macs allowing you to copy files from/to your phone. WITH ZERO CONFIGURATION.
- Mobile Terminal: If you work a lot of with servers and need to ssh in to get some job done remotely, A MobileTerminal/iPhone combo is a godsend.
- Mobile Chat: supporting .mac, xmmp, ICQ, MSN, AOL. Enough said.
- Games.
- etc etc etc.
The iPhone dev team is not doing this so they can go rob banks. And till this date they didn't do a single release that included Apple copyrighted material. Please see below for an interesting post from NerveGas about the sdk and the open toolchain.
May be because jailbreaking your phone allows it to be more useful? After you have jailbroken your phone you can install a gazillion of insanely useful tools;
- AFP: Yes. You read that right. Your phone will appear in the finder just like any of your other networked-macs allowing you to copy files from/to your phone. WITH ZERO CONFIGURATION.
- Mobile Terminal: If you work a lot of with servers and need to ssh in to get some job done remotely, A MobileTerminal/iPhone combo is a godsend.
- Mobile Chat: supporting .mac, xmmp, ICQ, MSN, AOL. Enough said.
- Games.
- etc etc etc.
The iPhone dev team is not doing this so they can go rob banks. And till this date they didn't do a single release that included Apple copyrighted material. Please see below for an interesting post from NerveGas about the sdk and the open toolchain.
AT&T's 3G implementation is not compatible with T-Mobile's future US 3G network because they are on separate frequencies. And the frequency T-Mobile is using for its 3G network is exclusive to the US. Unless Apple is kind enough to make sure the network chip specifically supports T-Mobile's USA network, don't count on it.
The odd thing however is that Europe uses a completely different frequency from ANY USA 3G network. It makes me think that Apple is either going to have to create 2 "3G iPhones" or make a 3G iPhone that works in both the USA and Europe.
Jailbreaking is ultimately in place for unlockers now that the SDK is around.
Come June we will have most of the apps we need/want on the iphone, this is my reasoning behind my first statement.
Secondly i think, pretty soon unlocking will be very difficult.
I say this because i have heard a few stories now about AT&T or O2 stores insisting on activating the iPhone contracts in store when you buy your phone!
This practice has been the norm in the uk since i can remember and the iphone was the first exception to the rule.
You have to pay through the nose to cancel your iphone contract once its setup so it doesn't seem like a good option to setup and cancel only to unlock it.....
Time will tell.
Come June we will have most of the apps we need/want on the iphone, this is my reasoning behind my first statement.
Secondly i think, pretty soon unlocking will be very difficult.
I say this because i have heard a few stories now about AT&T or O2 stores insisting on activating the iPhone contracts in store when you buy your phone!
This practice has been the norm in the uk since i can remember and the iphone was the first exception to the rule.
You have to pay through the nose to cancel your iphone contract once its setup so it doesn't seem like a good option to setup and cancel only to unlock it.....
Time will tell.
It makes more sense that Apple make a triband phone. 3G is widely used all over the world; Asia, Europe and the USA are years behind. Apple will definitely not make 2 different phones (roaming wouldn't work) but will make a triband phone - like pretty much every other phone on the market. The USA should not and will not govern how the well defined European and Asian networks operate.
It's clear that you don't understand what the metaphor "jailbreaking" means (or you're pretending not to understand for the sake of a very mediocre joke). "Jailbreaking" an iPhone is the process of exploiting a flaw in the iPhone's application architecture in order to install unsupported third party applications. So far as I am aware, there is no enforcable limitation on what the end user can install on his own device; the enforcable limitations are on applications' use of AT&T's network and on Apple's SDK - I don't know if any existing applications do attempt to use AT&T's network, and most of the jailbreaking work occurred before the release if the SDK. Nothing is being stolen. Maybe an argument could be made that unlocking is in violation of the sale agreement for the iPhone (because it is stated that a two-year commitment to AT&T is required), but I'm skeptical even of that (since there is no subsidy for the iPhone).
The reason Apple is controlling access to the phone in a way that makes jailbreaking necessary is likely because they have to serve as gatekeepers to the AT&T network, and AT&T is afraid of malware and of VOIP over EDGE (i.e., of people buying the plan with unlimited data and the fewest minutes and still get unlimited voice everywhere the AT&T network is available). If a jailbreaker isn't doing either of those things, there's nothing morally questionable going on anyway, since those are the things likeliest to impact other users and likeliest to affect AT&T's bottom line, respectively.
This is a non-lawyer's interpretation of such things; if you are concerned about the legality of such things, please consult your attorney before acting.
