Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > iPhone, iPad & iPod > iPhone, Leopard, and the rise of third party apps...

iPhone, Leopard, and the rise of third party apps...
Thread Tools
kman42
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Francisco
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 10:44 AM
 
I found it disappointing that Apple revoked all of the cool third party apps that have been popping up recently for the iPhone--things like a voice recorder, pseudo gps, tetris! But I'm keeping the faith that Apple is working on a real third party solution for us. Here's why.

First, installer.app was a way cool mechanism for installing third party apps. It listed everything available and kept tabs on updates. Very nifty. This is clearly the way to do it, although apple may have plans to use iTunes--more on that in a second.

Second, Apple has stated that they are considering a mechanism for allowing third party apps, but they clearly want some level of control as evidenced by the comments of Steve and Phil.

Third, Leopard is apparently introducing a new Software Update utility that will allow third-parties apps to stay updated. Apparently, this is being tested with HP printer drivers, but I can't imagine Apple limiting its use to only drivers. I can imagine Apple limiting its use to trusted developers like HP, Adobe, MS, etc.

We know that the iPhone is really just OSX. There's no reason to think that the underlying Software Update code couldn't be placed on the iPhone to keep apps up to date just like installer.app does. Now, apple might want to allow third parties to charge for applications by selling them through iTunes. Apple seems to want everything to go through iTunes, so this is reasonable. Of course, Apple just put the Music Store on the iPhone, so we could just as easily see apps available directly on the iPhone for download.


Wishful thinking I guess.

kman
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 11:04 AM
 
Why would you have this faith? We've just learned that Apple is making a concerted effort to destroy unlocked iPhones. Clearly, there are lots of politics here and Apple wants to micromanage exactly what people do with their iPhones and how they do it. I'm not sure what Apple is getting out of forcing people to use Safari and all that, but clearly they are getting something out of it.
     
kman42  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Francisco
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 03:41 PM
 
Well, I read the unlocked iphone issue differently. They aren't making a concerted effort to destroy them. The unlock is done through an exploit in the software and apple closed that exploit. The unlocks modify the radio firmware. It is folly to think that Apple would never update the firmware and that they would want to take the time or effort to make sure that their update works with a hack.

As for allowing third party applications, I think they are not totally closed to the idea. Every time it has been brought up they have said that they are currently allowing web apps, but are considering something more. I do think they want to keep control of it, however.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 03:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by kman42 View Post
Well, I read the unlocked iphone issue differently. They aren't making a concerted effort to destroy them. The unlock is done through an exploit in the software and apple closed that exploit. The unlocks modify the radio firmware. It is folly to think that Apple would never update the firmware and that they would want to take the time or effort to make sure that their update works with a hack

There have been several reports of SIM cards (and even replacement SIM cards) no longer working after this update, as well as this:

Steve Jobs Girds for the Long iPhone War - Bits - Technology - New York Times Blog

On Monday, Apple had issued a press release warning of “irreparable damage” to iPhones that have been modified or unlocked from the AT&T network. It also threatened users that “the permanent inability to use an iPhone due to installing unlocking software is not covered under the iPhone’s warranty.”
     
Earth Mk. II
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 04:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
We've just learned that Apple is making a concerted effort to destroy unlocked iPhones.
I find it hard to believe they're intentionally bricking unlocked phones. Trying to re-lock maybe, yes... but I doubt they'd intentionally brick one.

Why remove the potential for the phone to be activated with AT&T? Even if the original owner doesn't want a contract, he could sell it to someone who will open a new contract. It just doesn't make sense to kill your own product like that.

My hunch is that one bug was masking another wrt. the IMEI in unlocked phones. An early update to the anySIM unlocking software came out with some SMS related changes, and it seems that phones unlocked after this version was released are the ones with altered IMEIs (causing the SIM errors, even with the original iPhone SIM). Even the iphone dev team encountered this error when making their re-locking instructions.

Also, other iPhone unlocking tools are not afflicted by the same problems, Apple sure did a sloppy job of bricking the phones if they were targeting them.

Q. Why do you say it is unlocked if you can't activate a non AT&T sim?
A. There is a difference between unlocking and activation. Unlocking is related to GSM standards and allowing a sim to be used on different carriers, and activation is something made up by apple to further restrict their users. After upgrading to 1.1.1 the radio of the phone is still unlocked, meaning it can still connect to other carriers, but apple requires the phone be activated to do so.
Yeah, looks like anySIM is buggy hacking software. FUN!
/Earth\ Mk\.\ I{2}/
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 04:40 PM
 
Earth: I guess we'll have to wait a little bit to see whether or not Apple was intentionally intending to sabotage unlocked iPhones? At this point, there is a lot of information swirling around, I don't really know what to think...
     
Earth Mk. II
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 05:09 PM
 
Yeah, and I'm definitely filtering all this through my own experiences as a dev; for example, I can't count the number of times I've been absolutely certain some code I wrote worked correctly, yet as soon as a bug somewhere else was fixed, or conditions I didn't expect occured, bugs in my work started cropping up that just "shouldn't" be there or "can't" happen. Working on an undocumented systems like the iPhone and baseband firmware makes that kind of situation all the more likely.

In fact, I'm willing to bet some engineer at Apple was curious what the kids outside were up to, applied the unlock to a phone, then did some tests on it - leading to an "oh ****!" moment. He, being a responsible human being and not wanting to kill people's phones, alerted his superiors to the issue, and they coordinated with the general council's office to devise an appropriate response.

How can Apple word such a response that simultaneously warns users of unlocking tools not to update, yet does not endorse said tools?
If Apple knew this situation was unavoidable, and said nothing, would the outcry be far worse? Would they even be liable for damages due to negligence?
And, if Apple really was trying to maliciously break unlocked phones... why warn people and make a big stink about it?

It's all hypothetical, of course, but seems much more likely, to me, than a Stalinesque Steve Jobs decrying all unlocked phones be burnt because they're against the plan. Of course, it's also far less dramatic, and far less interesting.
/Earth\ Mk\.\ I{2}/
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:23 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,