T-Mobile To Offer Android-Based Phone By Christmas

[elgrecomac]

Was that Darth Vader doing the demo?

I thought I was watching the Empire Strikes Back instead of a demo of a phone. That was some serious breathing! Must have been under intense pressure.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Well, most of the open source software used by Apple is either published under the BSD or the GPL license, which is about as open source as you can get. If you want to know what it means, the licenses are pretty straightforward to read.

True, but that wasn't my point. What I'm saying is, the word "open" is used in a variety of ways, but nearly always to mean something good. Not only is the definition of the word vague, it's arguably not always a good thing.

 

[synth3tik]

Looks like the person in the video had a hard time getting the phone to respond. Wonder if these issues will be on the production version of the phone.

 

[macsmurf]

True, but that wasn't my point. What I'm saying is, the word "open" is used in a variety of ways, but nearly always to mean something good. Not only is the definition of the word vague, it's arguably not always a good thing.

Could you be a bit more specific with regards to how your point is relevant to this discussion? I'm afraid I'm not following you.

 

[Lynxpro]

In addition, Jailbreaking your Iphone voids all your warranties. Also, I don't think AT&T offers a 5$ a month insurance plan for the Iphone ,but it DOES offer it with other smartphones. Tmobile currently offers such a plan for all their smartphones, and will likely offer the same for this Android.

And does AT&T have the same "no-tethering" clause with their other smart phones that they've instigated with the iPhone? If I didn't hate AT&T enough already, that would be the straw that broke the camel's back. Who do they think they are, Verizon of 2005 with their ridiculous crippled Bluetooth policies?

Apple should've also had a carrier-free option for sale here in the States.

 

[AidenShaw]

You do realize that large parts of OS X is open source, right?

http://www.apple.com/opensource/

That's so that I can install Apple OSX on my Dell Latitude, just like any of a dozen different Linux distributions?

"Open" in the context of Apple OSX simply means that you inherit all of the security holes from the open source code, without any of the benefits of being able to install and use it as you wish.

 

[AidenShaw]

I'm also glad the iPhone doesn't have or need one.

It *needs* one, but The Lord God Jobs says no, and the fanbois sing Hosanna to The Lord God Jobs.

I'll wager that the 3G Iphone will have a model with a slide out keyboard...

 

[macsmurf]

That's so that I can install Apple OSX on my Dell Latitude, just like any of a dozen different Linux distributions?

"Open" in the context of Apple OSX simply means that you inherit all of the security holes from the open source code, without any of the benefits of being able to install and use it as you wish.

As far as I'm aware the vast majority of security holes in OS X has been from the closed source components. There is nothing to suggest that open source is more insecure than closed source. In fact, quite the contrary.

With regards to the open source components, they are already part of OS X, so I'm not sure what you mean by installing it. If you want to get the source code, you can. If you want to change the source code, you can. If you want to recompile the changed components and reinstall them on Apple or non-Apple hardware, you can.

Not to be rude, but I don't think you know what you are talking about.

 

[7on]

It *needs* one, but The Lord God Jobs says no, and the fanbois sing Hosanna to The Lord God Jobs.

I'll wager that the 3G Iphone will have a model with a slide out keyboard...

I managed fine with a soft keyboard in 2002 with a Palm m515. Granted that keyboard was 10x better, but hopefully the iPhone's will be sped up with 2.1.

 

[GQB]

Google maps
Gmail
Google docs
Picasa
YouTube
Blogspot
Google Analytics
Google.org
$510 stock price ($85 IPO)

Yeah they stink...Most companies wish they could suck so bad.

Google does some smart programming, but they're not consumer focused.
Gmail, almost 5 years along and its still 'beta'? That's admission that they don't do 'finished products'. Just a lot of really cool experiments.

Don't fool yourselves... Google does advertising, not great consumer products.

Android will succeed only to the extent that some existing hardware manufacturer actually uses it to create a great customer experience. Now just what leads anyone to expect that they'll actually pull that off?

 

[IJ Reilly]

Could you be a bit more specific with regards to how your point is relevant to this discussion? I'm afraid I'm not following you.

Semantics aside, in particular I am wondering about the security model for Android. Apple really sweated this for the iPhone and it is by no means a given that Android being "open" makes this any easier for Google to manage. Harder, I suspect.

 

[macsmurf]

Semantics aside, in particular I am wondering about the security model for Android. Apple really sweated this for the iPhone and it is by no means a given that Android being "open" makes this any easier for Google to manage. Harder, I suspect.

Well, Android runs on top of a Linux kernel, so the basic security mechanisms are in place. There's really no basis to the belief that it's easier to make a secure closed source platform than an open source one. Security by obscurity is not a very good strategy and, in general, more eyes on the code equals better security. I've heard that all apps on the iPhone runs with root privileges, which is why it is so easy to jailbreak, and that seems like a particularly bad choice. Maybe Google can do better.

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/10/iphone_windows

 

[jammerjames15]

i have tmoible and this isn't going to happen.

 

[yourfan]

The breathing is really annoying.

 

[SiliconAddict]

Android is somewhat of a rip-off of the iPhone OS, but has a little bit of a windows look and feel. Lots o' bugs so far. (simalar to vista copy of OSX)
The dream is cheap and flimsy. The screen has a texture to it and gets pretty dirty.

Lets examine this outright biased retarded comment

1. Only a handful of people in the freaking world have seen the dream in prototype format. So you are calling it cheap and flimsy based on???? Oh I forgot. You are a zealot. Next.

2. Android buggy? Like iPhone has been since day one? Next.

3. So I guess the iHype's screen is never dirty? I guess that is why Apple packages a cleaning cloth with the thing. Right. And where the heck are you getting this FUD that it has a texture? If true I welcome it. Some form of feedback other then a slick glass surface would be welcome. But hey. Its not Apple so obviously its not a good idea.

I'm so sick of the handful of zealots destroying Apple for the rest of us. Instead of treating Apple as just another company, who should be held up to the spotlight and told YOU ARE WRONG when they do questionable things, people have to suck up to them. Instead of calling Apple out for a bad decision, they justify their actions.
Why is it that the fracking fanbois have to come out of the woodworks anytime a competitor shows up. Are you that insecure about your OS\Device\Hardware\Company that you have to start flinging poo every time something new comes out that is remotely like the iWhatever?
Here's an original concept: Think for yourself. Instead of letting unkie Steve think for you. Neither the Dream nor Android are out. Both look promising, however unlike you I'm not condemning it until I see it in person. However I have formed an opinion on the iPhone based on use of a friends over the weekend and simply Apple's craptastical business practices.
My opinion is based on fact. Yours is based on what someone tells you to think. Who's do you think is better and doesn't come off as a zealot. So in short: Grow up....please.

 

[SiliconAddict]

Google does some smart programming, but they're not consumer focused.
Gmail, almost 5 years along and its still 'beta'? That's admission that they don't do 'finished products'. Just a lot of really cool experiments.

Don't fool yourselves... Google does advertising, not great consumer products.

Android will succeed only to the extent that some existing hardware manufacturer actually uses it to create a great customer experience. Now just what leads anyone to expect that they'll actually pull that off?

Google leaves their wares in beta so they can point and say its still beta when something goes wrong. Take for instance G-mail's outtage last week. I think the practice is crap. But there are many things about big G that are crap. I still am scratching my head on the fact that Google Groups doesn't have a calender system in place.

 

[AidenShaw]

As far as I'm aware the vast majority of security holes in OS X has been from the closed source components
...
Not to be rude, but I don't think you know what you are talking about.

7 of the 12 fixes in http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2647 were in closed source components, so I don't think that you can call it a "vast majority".

 

[eastcoastsurfer]

Google leaves their wares in beta so they can point and say its still beta when something goes wrong. Take for instance G-mail's outtage last week. I think the practice is crap. But there are many things about big G that are crap. I still am scratching my head on the fact that Google Groups doesn't have a calender system in place.

Google does some smart programming, but they're not consumer focused.
Gmail, almost 5 years along and its still 'beta'? That's admission that they don't do 'finished products'. Just a lot of really cool experiments.

Don't fool yourselves... Google does advertising, not great consumer products.

Android will succeed only to the extent that some existing hardware manufacturer actually uses it to create a great customer experience. Now just what leads anyone to expect that they'll actually pull that off?

Actually leaving things in 'Beta' is just Google being honest. No software is ever finished. You either continue to improve upon it or you throw it away. Would it make you feel better if Google labeled Gmail 'Production' instead? Leopard was labeled production and look at how many people waited for multiple point releases before updating. Apple would have been better off labeling the original release of Leopard 'beta'. Look at the recent release of Mobile Me. Definitely 'beta'. Again, Google is just being honest about how software development works.

 

[Edmar]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_0_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5B108 Safari/525.20)

my wife saw a demo of android, she then went and bought an iPhone 3g.

 

[macsmurf]

7 of the 12 fixes in http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2647 were in closed source components, so I don't think that you can call it a "vast majority".

I understood your point to be that open source is less secure than closed source. While it's true that you inherit the open source bugs you also inherit the features. Also, it is unclear if you mean the components used by Apple but not produced by them, or the stuff they produce themselves.

The OSS produced by Apple does not seem particularly useful if you want to build your own OS X, but the point made in the post you commented on seemed refer to the OSS Apple got from others. Clearly, Apple has found OSS to be incredibly useful.

So if one wants to make the argument that OSS is for idiots that would seem to include the people who built OS X.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure I misunderstood you at some point, so it's not clear to me where we disagree.

 

[AidenShaw]

I understood your point to be that open source is less secure than closed source.

I don't want to argue the point about the relative security of open vs. closed source - we'll be able to find opinions on both sides of the issue and won't get anywhere.

I think the point for Apple using open source, however, is that when a security problem in an OSS component is made public - Apple OSX is at risk until a patch is issued. Apple can't control the publicity, unlike their closed components (assuming that the bug is reported to Apple privately first).

OSX users are at risk during that window, such as the recent delay in fixing the DNS problem on OSX.

 

[ert3]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone 8gb: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_0_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5B108 Safari/525.20)

this preview just barely shows a fully functional phone. It's like it was stolen out of r&d like the photos of the boomerangs ps3 controller.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Well, Android runs on top of a Linux kernel, so the basic security mechanisms are in place. There's really no basis to the belief that it's easier to make a secure closed source platform than an open source one. Security by obscurity is not a very good strategy and, in general, more eyes on the code equals better security. I've heard that all apps on the iPhone runs with root privileges, which is why it is so easy to jailbreak, and that seems like a particularly bad choice. Maybe Google can do better.

That's great, so long as no applications are installed. Once applications are installed, anything can happen. Apple has instituted controls that will prevent malicious applications from proliferating even if they are created. What has Google done? I would say there's really no basis to the belief that it's easier to make a secure open source platform than a secure closed one.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Definitely 'beta'. Again, Google is just being honest about how software development works.

I doubt it. I look at the quality of what they've done, and often beta is the best description of the product. I pointed out the horrors of Google Earth, which never seem to improve, and the deficiencies of Google Maps, which are also left unfixed. The truth is, Google is trying to do too much at once, and it shows.

 

[macsmurf]

I don't want to argue the point about the relative security of open vs. closed source - we'll be able to find opinions on both sides of the issue and won't get anywhere.

I think the point for Apple using open source, however, is that when a security problem in an OSS component is made public - Apple OSX is at risk until a patch is issued. Apple can't control the publicity, unlike their closed components (assuming that the bug is reported to Apple privately first).

OSX users are at risk during that window, such as the recent delay in fixing the DNS problem on OSX.

The DNS problem may or may not be a good example. It was kept secret in order to give the manufactures time to fix it, but leaked before it was supposed to be made public. Also, AFAIK, it didn't have anything to do with OSS/closed source.

With regards to the rest, you describe the problem of relying on components that you have gotten from somewhere else. Whether it be open or closed source you still have the same problem.

You seem to suggest that Apple should make everything themselves, and that does not seem feasible. It would result in code with more security holes than external components that have withstood the test of time.