At 29 Jun 2009 18:41:52 -0500 Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2009-06-29, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@aNOoSPAMl.com> wrote:
> >> No, but we haven't been "mugged", you're just raising the spectre that
> >> we *might* be in the future.
> >
> > No, the iPhone is locked-down now. You seem to have missed Dvorak's
point-
> > if Microsoft had released the exact same iPhone
>
> How can you think I have missed that point when we have been
> specifically discussing it?


I wondered that myself, but you referred to the "future."


> > The Pre debuts with the ability to sync with iTunes, (which everyone
> > now considers the de facto "standard" in music management) and Apple
> > immediately responds with warnings that future iTunes updates could
> > break third-party sync functionality.
>
> Er, of course they said that. They presumably don't have access to the
> Pre source code, they don't know how it works, they have no way of
> guaranteeing that it will work (not to mentiom very little motivation
> to come up with such a guarantee, of course ;-) ).


Apple didn't have to say anything. If Palm wants to claim their product
works with iTunes, Windows 8, Goodyear Tires, Heinz Ketchup, or whatever,
it's Palm's problem to insure continued compatiblity. Apple was simply
issuing a not-so-veiled threat. Between that and their "we protect our
patents" statement when Palm announced it'd do multi-touch, I have to
wonder if Apple is more worried about the Pre than the tech press feels
they should be!


> This surely is actually a point considerably in favour of Apple - they
> have managed to get most (all?) of the music on iTunes to be DRM-free,
> so you can use iTunes to purchase your music no matter what phone you
> use.


Yes, but Palm took it a step further, didn't they, and added syncing as well.
That's what triggered the threat- if the iTunes store is more about
supporting high-margin iPod hardware sales than a profit center in its own
right, Apple has a vested interest in keeping it "in the family" rather
than allow it to become a generic music sync tool like Windows Media Player
is.


> > If Palm had built the Pre to sync with Zune, MS would be dancing in the
> > streets because it would mean someone might actually use it!
>
> I thought Microsoft had shut down their music sales business?


Not at all. They're stil pushing their $15/month unlimited download
subscription service.

> >> That makes even less sense. An phone is not a desktop computer.
> >> Why *should* what's done on one be appropriate for the other?
> >
> > An iPhone has the power of Wintel and Mac OS laptops built several
years ago,
>
> Which still doesn't make it a desktop computer.

True, but that doesn't really give a coherent reason _not to_ either. It's
not a PSP, but it plays games...


> > And limiting app distribution to a single "source seems to be a
universal
> > sin of closed platforms like game consoles. Why does that make any more
> > sense on a "mobile computing platform" than on a computer?
>
> Apparently it does make a difference, because as you say people
> wouldn't tolerate it on a desktop computer, but most people seem to be
> fine with it on the iPhone or on games consoles.


I'm not so sure. The jailbreak community is small by comparision, but it
exists because NOT everyone is "satisfied." "Satisfied" and "accepting"
are two vastly different things. The iPhone is a huge success _despite_
its flaws and limitations, not _because_ of them! I'm certainly not making
a case to close the app store! It's a phenominal idea, executed well. I'm
just asking why distribution is _limited_ to it (for all intents- I'm
ignoring internal corporate distribution as outside the point of this
discussion.)

I shouldn't have to specify that last point, but whenever I ask why Apple
doesn't dothis or that, I'm constantly told it's because the Apple
implementation is "better" (e.g. when I ask why there's no drag and drop
music loading in "disk mode" without using iTunes.) Apple's implementation
may be better, but that doesn't answer why alternates shouldn't be available.



Even in game consoles there's a thriving hacking community- XBoxes and
handheld NDS devices have been broken to allow 3rd-party unofficial apps to
be run. I'd say "most people" are accepting, not satisfied.


> >> ... and the upgrade could easily remove the non-official stuff.
> >> But it doesn't, because Apple didn't make it do that, even though they
> >> easily could.
> >
> > What "non-official stuff" are you referring to?
>
> The non-official apps the user has installed on the phone.


Those ARE wiped out with every upgrade! (Though you can't really blame
Apple- an pgrade wipes the entire device, and only Apple's excellent
backup/restore mechanism in iTunes gives the illusion the OS is upgraded
"in place" without disturbing data. The data, in fact, is simply restored.
We could hardly expect Apple to properly backup and restore "unauthorized"
data added via alternate methods Apple might be unaware of. All jailbreak
apps must be reinstalled post-upgrade.)


> > Upgrading an unlocked phone legitimately, relocks the phones. I'm
> > not aware of that happening with any other flashable phone.
>
> You seem to be confusing SIM unlocking, and jailbreaking.


No, I was just making the point- I assumed it was self-evident that Apple
undid all jailbeaking and erased those apps and data with each upgrade. My
apologies.


> > Except for the iPhone, SIM unlocks, like diamonds, are forever.
>
> As far as I'm aware, that's because most SIM unlocks work by setting
> the SIM lock flag to "off", whereas the iPhone SIM unlock hacks work
> by disabling the code which enforces the SIM lock. So when you
> re-flash the code, the flag is still set to "locked" and the lock
> comes back.


I assumed it must be some sort of "bypass" rather than a true unlock since
it doesn't "stick"- thanks for the clarification.