The cathedral plus the bazaar: Open source and Apple (design) envy

June 26, 2009 1:12 PM PDT
The cathedral plus the bazaar: Open source and Apple (design) envy

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10...=2547-1_3-0-20

"Why free software usability tends to suck."

Open-source advocates like good design as much as anyone, but the open-
source development process is often not the best way to achieve it.

Thomas now works for Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu, which
arguably offers the industry's best Linux experience for personal
computers. I got a sneak peek at a future Ubuntu release while at
dinner with Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth Wednesday night, and
it was gorgeous. Mac freak I may be, but the day Canonical releases
that version of Ubuntu is the day my devotion to Apple will be
severely tested.

Yes, it's that good.

But it's "that good" because there's a company behind it, a company
dedicated to making Linux usable for average consumers.

.....


Once a product's basic performance is more than good enough,
competition forces firms to compete on convenience or customization.
In these situations, specialist firms emerge and the necessary locus
of integration typically shifts to the interface with the customer.

Hence, Apple reigns in smartphones because it's a comparatively new
market and Apple can control the complete design of the product.
Microsoft and Google, on the other hand, will struggle to compete
because they are only delivering software, and depend heavily on the
device manufacturer. (It's likely that Apple is also exercising
significant influence over AT&T and the other wireless carriers,
influence that Apple's competitors likely lack.)

.....


comments


I would emphasize that its not the smart phone market Apple is
beginning to dominate, its the "handheld, always-connected, mobile
device market". Apple has fundamentally changed the rules because it
recognizes that its platform is really a handheld computer that is
also a phone and general-purpose communication device (every mobile
phone manufacturer believes the platform is a phone with some data
capabilities). Huge difference and huge control necessary to make the
early customer experience delightful.

.....

another comment

When I first bought my iPod touch (1st generation) about eighteen
months ago, I thought of it as a music player with e-mail and a web
browser. The game completely changed when Apple opened the App Store.

While the iPod touch does require a WiFi connection, it does plenty of
things without a network. As I've mentioned here on Cnet before, ever
since the App Store went online, I think my MacBook has left the house
twice. It *is* a small handheld computer.

While Apple certainly has had its stumbles, the overall customer
experience with this little device has been completely superior to
that of any other electronics device I've ever used.

This class of devices is where the next decade's war will be fought:
not between desktop operating systems, not even in web browser apps
running on desktop PCs. It's all about getting your content and
services to a handheld device.

....

Macs are definitely consumer machines first and Apple markets to the
mainstream consumers. That's no surprise. I am a developer, but I am
also a consumer. I love Apple's iLife suite. I have yet to find
anything that can compete, either on Windows or Linux. The hodge-podge
of crappy applications on both Windows and Linux leave much to be
desired. While I spend most of my time in an IDE or vim, I also want
the ability to watch Netflix movies, or make DVDs out of my home
movies and photos. Have you ever tried doing that on Linux or BSD?
Without dual-booting into Windows, I mean? And I don't care if the
system is closed. I just don't care. It doesn't affect my workflow. I
don't want to look at the source. I have better things to do with my
time.

As for the UNIX tools, I have everything I need. OS X took the
majority of the useful stuff and left behind the decades of cruft that
have accumulated in BSD. And for what OS X doesn't provide, there's
MacPorts. I have yet to find any of my UNIX tools that don't run on OS
X. And, for the record, I'm glad that Apple changed the filesystem
hierarchy. The old FSH is cluttered and obsolete.
.................................................. ...........................

I agree with all the above points and consider them insightful in
understanding why the iPhone is such a difficult target for other
firms to take on. It actullay justifies my opinion of those who
complain the iPhone is not like their idea of a smart phone as being
complete idiots who miss the point. The iPhone is not being bought as
a smart phone, the smart phone ala windows mobile etc. is a failed
concept in the market place.

Vic

At 28 Jun 2009 18:14:03 -0700 There's an app for that...on the $99 iPhone @
AT&T wrote:

> I agree with all the above points and consider them insightful in
> understanding why the iPhone is such a difficult target for other
> firms to take on. It actullay justifies my opinion of those who
> complain the iPhone is not like their idea of a smart phone as being
> complete idiots who miss the point.

Arguably, like most closed-minded people, you miss the point because you
only see one side- yours. the iPhonemeets your limited needs, so it's the
pinnacle of human achievement. I agree the iPhone is a nifty device and a
great mobile companion for many people. But it isnt a "mobile computer"
due to its intentional limitations.

The Apple concept of a mobile device, IMO, is actually a dangerous one. You
see the rainbows and unicorns side of "easy to use," and an app store full
of 60,000 apps, and like the sirens' song, that's pretty hard to resist.
I, however, see the dark side of a closed infrastructure driving me to the
iTunes and App stores, and "safe" pablum apps using only the official APIs,
so no real improvements can be made to the core functions of the device-
file viewers using the internal file viewer APIs, email using the email APIs,
etc. Apps can dress up the native functions in eye-catching new ways, but
since, for example, the iPod APIs only support playback of format X and Y,
your app simply ain't gonna playback format Z, no way, no how.

I see not a smartphone, but an iPod on steroids, beholden to content
providers and mobile operators above its users- an Atari 2600 for the 21st
century- running a closed architecture, using factory-approved apps
delivered by factory-approved means and using only licensed accessories.


> The iPhone is not being bought as
> a smart phone, the smart phone ala windows mobile etc. is a failed
> concept in the market place.


Probably true. The real problem with the smartphone concept as defined by
Palm OS and Windows CE was the software was always ahead of what the
hardware could reliably deliver- they always "bit off more than they could
chew." Blackberry got it mostly right, realizing these crappy anemic
devices can barely handle anything more than text, and proceeded to build
amazing email-centric devices that made no apologies for crummy WAP browsers,

and lack of media supprt (or even .jpg picture support on some models!)

Apple looked at the marketplace and fixed everything that could be a
potential problem... ...for APPLE! They crippled developer access to
hardware to "increase stability,"- the lockout of unapproved apps
circumventing the app store commissions was just a lucky side benefit. The
ban on "duplicate functionality" that might otherwise allow alternate media
players that could use competing music stores simply "prevents user
confusion."

John Dvorak joked in a recent column, that if Microsoft had produced the
iPhone instead of Apple, with the same restrictions, someone would've
started a class-action lawsuit already.

I'm not as funny as Dvorak, so I typically just ask aloud that if the next
line of Macs and MacBooks had the same restrictions as the iPhone - a
centralized app distribution system preventing apps to be sourced anywhere
else, no user-accessible file system, with files only available to the app
that created them, media files not transferable to other computers (because
only pirates do THAT!), and the next Mac OS preventing more than one third-
party app from running at a time, would the Mac users all agree this was
beneficial to the user experience as the iPhone users seem to believe?

I agree that Microsoft's concept of porting Windows '98 to to the 3.5"
screen wasn't anywhere near a resounding success, but the concept wasn't a
bad one. Sure the UI is a litle clumsy, but anyone who's used a Winows PC
gets the gist of navigating right away. They're not as hard to use as you
pretend. Where they screwd up, IMO, is where they didn't complete the
emulation: "X" icons that minimize apps rather than close them, for
example. It was almost like a bait and switch- first we show you "it's
just like Windows" then after you dive in we change all the rules!

Apple's start-from-scratch mobile UI was a much better idea. Where Apple
has failed completely, however, is by showing an utter lack of faith in
developers to improve the product. (Or it just might be hubris that the
product is nearly perfect as is.)

Windows Mobile developers took an awkward UI running on underpowered
hardware and made it do amazing things its designers couldn't have possibly
envisioned. Hardware manufacturers used the standard I/O ports (CF and
SDIO) to create hardware to convert simple PDAs into dedicated controllers,
diagnostic tools, measuring instruments, etc. This was an exciting time in
portable computing akin to the day when custom hardware boards, both
commercal and amateur, were being developed for Trash-80s and Apple IIs.

Apple on the other hand, treats the iPhone developers like children-
Apple's laid out their toys neatly in the sandbox. If they're naughty,
they can't go to the app store. If they want more toys, they're told Santa
might bring them next firmware release day. The jailbreaker underground
is doing their best, but rather than nudge-nudge-wink-winking them, Apple
is fighting and threatening them, and forcing mainstream development to
stay away- Sling and Skype can't play both sides and build the AT&T-
approved WiFi-only apps for app store use and also sell 3G capable versions
for the jailbreak crowd. Upstanding iPhone partners don't soil themselves
by associating with the jailbreakers, or Apple won't let them play in the
app store either.


Sure, Apple raised the bar for UI, no doubt, but at what price?

Other platforms, some that may not have even launched yet, that do not owe
any allegiances to the RIAA or MPAA, will catch up with the Apple UI but
also offer a more open and robust user experience one of these days.
Hopefully, for Apple, they'll have attained critical mass by then. Apple
still hasn't had to deal with problems other platforms have struggled with
already; major architecture/chipset changes, multiple form factors,
weighing backwards compatibility vs. improving the OS or hardware, heck,
they haven't even introduced more than one screen resolution yet! That'll
be an exciting time in the App Store approval department, when virtually
every one of 60,000 apps gets updated or additional versions for multiple
resolutions! Then the slogan might be "There's Two Apps for That!"

On 2009-06-29, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@aNOoSPAMl.com> wrote:
> Apps can dress up the native functions in eye-catching new ways, but
> since, for example, the iPod APIs only support playback of format X
> and Y, your app simply ain't gonna playback format Z, no way, no
> how.

Not inside the iPod app, no, but inside your own app you presumably
can since you *can* get streaming radio apps etc.

> John Dvorak joked in a recent column, that if Microsoft had produced the
> iPhone instead of Apple, with the same restrictions, someone would've
> started a class-action lawsuit already.

Microsoft are a monopolist with convictions for abusing that monopoly
(albeit not in the mobile marketplace). That makes a difference.

> I'm not as funny as Dvorak, so I typically just ask aloud that if the next
> line of Macs and MacBooks had the same restrictions as the iPhone - a
> centralized app distribution system preventing apps to be sourced anywhere
> else, no user-accessible file system, with files only available to the app
> that created them, media files not transferable to other computers (because
> only pirates do THAT!), and the next Mac OS preventing more than one third-
> party app from running at a time, would the Mac users all agree this was
> beneficial to the user experience as the iPhone users seem to believe?

Do you have some reason to believe that that will happen, or is that
whole paragraph just a huge pile of FUD?

> Apple's start-from-scratch mobile UI was a much better idea. Where Apple
> has failed completely, however, is by showing an utter lack of faith in
> developers to improve the product. (Or it just might be hubris that the
> product is nearly perfect as is.)

No, I think it's because they're targetting a different market.
Which they have every right to do, and by the looks of it, was
a very good decision!

> Apple on the other hand, treats the iPhone developers like children-
> Apple's laid out their toys neatly in the sandbox. If they're naughty,
> they can't go to the app store. If they want more toys, they're told Santa
> might bring them next firmware release day. The jailbreaker underground
> is doing their best, but rather than nudge-nudge-wink-winking them, Apple
> is fighting and threatening them,

Are they? I got the impression it was much more along the "nudge nudge
wink wink" lines, with Apple doing the minimum necessary to keep the
carriers happy. They rattle the sabre as required every now and again,
but the OS upgrades have repeatedly *failed* to screw over the
jailbreak people when they easily could have.

> Upstanding iPhone partners don't soil themselves by associating with
> the jailbreakers, or Apple won't let them play in the app store either.

Do you have a reference for that?

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote in message news:slrnh4h0l
o.v6q.jon+usenet@snowy.squish.net...
> On 2009-06-29, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@aNOoSPAMl.com> wrote:
>> Apps can dress up the native functions in eye-catching new ways, but
>> since, for example, the iPod APIs only support playback of format X
>> and Y, your app simply ain't gonna playback format Z, no way, no
>> how.
>
> Not inside the iPod app, no, but inside your own app you presumably
> can since you *can* get streaming radio apps etc.


Of the streaming apps I've seen or tried, they all seem to play streams in
formats (MP3, AAC) the iPhone handles natively already, at least judging by
what comes over my PC from the same sources (NPR, etc.)

>> John Dvorak joked in a recent column, that if Microsoft had produced the
>> iPhone instead of Apple, with the same restrictions, someone would've
>> started a class-action lawsuit already.
>
> Microsoft are a monopolist with convictions for abusing that monopoly
> (albeit not in the mobile marketplace). That makes a difference.

Really? You'd rather be mugged by a "nice guy" rather than a mean one?

Apple doesn't get a "pass" because they're Apple.


>> I'm not as funny as Dvorak, so I typically just ask aloud that if the
>> next
>> line of Macs and MacBooks had the same restrictions as the iPhone - a
>> centralized app distribution system preventing apps to be sourced
>> anywhere
>> else, no user-accessible file system, with files only available to the
>> app
>> that created them, media files not transferable to other computers
>> (because
>> only pirates do THAT!), and the next Mac OS preventing more than one
>> third-
>> party app from running at a time, would the Mac users all agree this was
>> beneficial to the user experience as the iPhone users seem to believe?
>
> Do you have some reason to believe that that will happen, or is that
> whole paragraph just a huge pile of FUD?

It was neither. Read it slowly: it was a hypothetical- hence the use of the
word "if". "IF the next Macs were as locked down as the iPhone, WOULD users
agree..." I'm not suggesting this a slippery slope Apple will ride up to
Macs- I'm just saying a lot of people here are defending practices employed
on the iPhone that they'd be horrified to see on a computer.


>> Apple's start-from-scratch mobile UI was a much better idea. Where Apple
>> has failed completely, however, is by showing an utter lack of faith in
>> developers to improve the product. (Or it just might be hubris that the
>> product is nearly perfect as is.)
>
> No, I think it's because they're targetting a different market.
> Which they have every right to do, and by the looks of it, was
> a very good decision!

We'll never know that. It might have been a better decision to have had a
real GPS app a year ago- maybe the iPhone would be the largest selling PND
right now!


>> Apple on the other hand, treats the iPhone developers like children-
>> Apple's laid out their toys neatly in the sandbox. If they're naughty,
>> they can't go to the app store. If they want more toys, they're told
>> Santa
>> might bring them next firmware release day. The jailbreaker underground
>> is doing their best, but rather than nudge-nudge-wink-winking them, Apple
>> is fighting and threatening them,
>
> Are they? I got the impression it was much more along the "nudge nudge
> wink wink" lines, with Apple doing the minimum necessary to keep the
> carriers happy. They rattle the sabre as required every now and again,
> but the OS upgrades have repeatedly *failed* to screw over the
> jailbreak people when they easily could have.

I'm not sure it'd be that easy to "screw them over" when they could simply
flash back to "legit" before upgrading. And Apple is fighting to make
jailbreaking illegal in the next DMCA
<http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/responses/apple-inc-31.pdf> That's not
sabre-rattling.


>> Upstanding iPhone partners don't soil themselves by associating with
>> the jailbreakers, or Apple won't let them play in the app store either.
>
> Do you have a reference for that?

Not at all- just observation. Sling poo-pooed the idea of a jailbroken
version when asked, as did Tom Tom when making noise in the press that they
had an iPhone version "ready to roll" a year ago. There seems, from casual
observation, to be a (perfect logical) incentive to keep a business partner
like Apple happy, and not undermine their business model. This is why a
single point of distribution is dangerous. The shake-the-baby app is FUNNY
(and I'm a father of three!); why should Apple, or anyone else, stop YOU
from buying porn if you want to? Why should AT&T have ANY say in the app
store? (AT&T is perfectly within their right to tell you not to use it on
their network, of course, and even build a technological barrier to enforce
that, but to ask for an app to modified or removed?) If logic like that
applied to computers, we'd never have seen a DVD backup app- Sony would've
asked Apple and Microsoft to "pull it from their app stores."

On 2009-06-29, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>> Microsoft are a monopolist with convictions for abusing that monopoly
>> (albeit not in the mobile marketplace). That makes a difference.
>
> Really? You'd rather be mugged by a "nice guy" rather than a mean one?

No, but we haven't been "mugged", you're just raising the spectre that
we *might* be in the future. If it was Microsoft doing it, we would
know they can't be trusted. If it's any non-monopolist, then the
market will probably do a good job of keeping them in line.

>> Do you have some reason to believe that that will happen, or is that
>> whole paragraph just a huge pile of FUD?
>
> It was neither. Read it slowly: it was a hypothetical- hence the use of the
> word "if". "IF the next Macs were as locked down as the iPhone, WOULD users
> agree..." I'm not suggesting this a slippery slope Apple will ride up to
> Macs- I'm just saying a lot of people here are defending practices employed
> on the iPhone that they'd be horrified to see on a computer.

That makes even less sense. An phone is not a desktop computer.
Why *should* what's done on one be appropriate for the other?

> I'm not sure it'd be that easy to "screw them over" when they could simply
> flash back to "legit" before upgrading.

.... 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.

> Not at all- just observation. Sling poo-pooed the idea of a jailbroken
> version when asked, as did Tom Tom when making noise in the press that they
> had an iPhone version "ready to roll" a year ago. There seems, from casual
> observation, to be a (perfect logical) incentive to keep a business partner
> like Apple happy, and not undermine their business model.

Or they just don't want to undermine their own brand by making "dodgy"
products.

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Todd Allcock posted:
> And Apple is fighting to make
> jailbreaking illegal in the next DMCA
> <http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/responses/apple-inc-31.pdf> That's not
> sabre-rattling.

That is, however, quite enough reason never to buy an iPhone. Not even
Microsoft is that evil.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

At 29 Jun 2009 11:25:44 -0500 Jon Ribbens wrote:

> >> Microsoft are a monopolist with convictions for abusing that monopoly
> >> (albeit not in the mobile marketplace). That makes a difference.
> >
> > Really? You'd rather be mugged by a "nice guy" rather than a mean one?
>
> 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, (though presumably
connecting to Zune software or WMP instead of iTunes, of course!) with all
of its software coming from the "Microsoft App store," requiring MS'
approval to be included, the entire industry would've been screaming bloody
murder.


> If it was Microsoft doing it, we would
> know they can't be trusted. If it's any non-monopolist, then the
> market will probably do a good job of keeping them in line.

Hence "mugged by a nice guy." Apple has never been a monopolist in
computers because they've never been in that power position, (though they
threw their weight around plenty battling clone makers in the Apple II days)
but power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Look at the
iPod infrastructure, where Apple is in a near-monopoly position. 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.

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!

> >> Do you have some reason to believe that that will happen, or is that
> >> whole paragraph just a huge pile of FUD?
> >
> > It was neither. Read it slowly: it was a hypothetical- hence the use
of the
> > word "if". "IF the next Macs were as locked down as the iPhone, WOULD
users
> > agree..." I'm not suggesting this a slippery slope Apple will ride up
to
> > Macs- I'm just saying a lot of people here are defending practices
employed
> > on the iPhone that they'd be horrified to see on a computer.
>
> 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,
so excuses that some of the restrictions, like prohibiting background
execution, are due to "limited RAM/power, etc." make less sense given that
context.

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?


> > I'm not sure it'd be that easy to "screw them over" when they could
simply
> > flash back to "legit" before upgrading.
>
> ... 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? Upgrading an unlocked
phone legitimately, relocks the phones. I'm not aware of that happening
with any other flashable phone. Except for the iPhone, SIM unlocks, like
diamonds, are forever.


> > Not at all- just observation. Sling poo-pooed the idea of a jailbroken
> > version when asked, as did Tom Tom when making noise in the press that
they
> > had an iPhone version "ready to roll" a year ago. There seems, from
casual
> > observation, to be a (perfect logical) incentive to keep a business
partner
> > like Apple happy, and not undermine their business model.
>
> Or they just don't want to undermine their own brand by making "dodgy"
> products.


That's a perfectly valid theory as well. I'll concede that point to you.

"There's an app for that...on the $99 iPhone @ AT&T"
<vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in news:1b54f0d2-b488-48f0-b127-
27aad24b312b@x5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:

> Open-source advocates like good design as much as anyone, but the
open-
> source development process is often not the best way to achieve it.
>

Open source is horrible. All their fantastic software is just awful.

Case in point:
http://www.openoffice.org/
http://www.abisource.com/
http://flac.sourceforge.net/
http://www.vorbis.com/
http://openbossa.indt.org/canola/
http://maemo.org/
http://www.kde.org/
http://sourceforge.net/
http://code.google.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codebase

It's all horrible, buggy, crashes, impossible to run, cryptic, fun,
amazing, impressive, and will keep you from any productive work for
years and years....

Never install open source software. Only genuine Applesauce is fit to
run on your shiny boxes, irregardless of price. It's only money.





SET TONGUE-IN-CHEEK TO OFF
-----
Larry

Congrats on your discovery of Ubuntu. Just think what a Linux expert
you would have been if you'd cast off the OSX training wheels a week
after you first booted it.

Got Root?

Mark Crispin <mrc@panda.com> wrote in
news:alpine.OSX.2.00.0906291042020.10452@hsinghsin g.panda.com:

> http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/r...ple-inc-31.pdf

Remember when lots of DOS software use to come packaged with serial port
dongles, hardware locks you had to have or the programs wouldn't even boot?

The dongle backlash pretty much destroyed that concept when the computing
public simply stopped buying dongle-protected software, no matter how
wonderful it was.

A similar public backlash needs to result before Apple will stop this shit.
As long as the really stupid fanbois will continue to shell out for locked
up products with built in box offices....nothing will change.

There appears to have been great success in the "dumbing down of America"
as the buyers of this crapware seem to be the victims of our wonderful
Sheeple Education System.....who will do as they are told without question.



--
-----
Larry

If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something,
is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him?

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:45:53 -0700, Mark Crispin <mrc@panda.com> wrote
in <alpine.OSX.2.00.0906291042020.10452@hsinghsing.pa nda.com>:

>On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Todd Allcock posted:
>> And Apple is fighting to make
>> jailbreaking illegal in the next DMCA
>> <http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/responses/apple-inc-31.pdf> That's not
>> sabre-rattling.
>
>That is, however, quite enough reason never to buy an iPhone. Not even
>Microsoft is that evil.

Oh really? From the standard Microsoft License Agreement:

Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation,
you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this
agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical
limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain
ways. For more information, see
www.microsoft.com/licensing/userights. You may not:

* work around any technical limitations in the software;

* reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and
only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite
this limitation;

--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do fans keep making excuses for it?

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:09:54 -0600, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@aNOoSPAMl.com> wrote in <Ly72m.981$KM3.83@newsfe02.iad>:

>At 29 Jun 2009 11:25:44 -0500 Jon Ribbens wrote:

>> 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,
>so excuses that some of the restrictions, like prohibiting background
>execution, are due to "limited RAM/power, etc." make less sense given that
>context.

More to the point, standard cell phones with far less resources do such
multitasking easily.

One problem, of course, is that Mac OS X isn't a true RTOS. (iFans will
of course claim it is everything, but then they don't know what a true
RTOS actually is and why that matters.)

--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do fans keep making excuses for it?

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?

> 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 ;-) ).

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.

> 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?

>> 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.

> 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.

>> ... 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.

> 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.

> 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.

In article <2tei45dio7n3dfu9cej18gmfk2okm5g1ip@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> More to the point, standard cell phones with far less resources do such
> multitasking easily.

the iphone multitasks very easily and standard cell phones don't have
the horsepower to do cool stuff, such as multitouch or having a gpu.

> One problem, of course, is that Mac OS X isn't a true RTOS.

ah yes, 'true rtos' like 'true multitasking.' the fact remains that
iphone os works fine. not perfect, but nothing is.

and what about google android? certainly linux is not a good choice
for phones because it's not a 'true rtos' either, right? yet nobody
seems to bash that.

> (iFans will
> of course claim it is everything, but then they don't know what a true
> RTOS actually is and why that matters.)

it actually doesn't matter as much as you think it does, as the iphone,
google android and now the palm pre show.

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.

In article <cSe2m.19027$KQ4.18304@newsfe18.iad>, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@aNOoSPAMl.com> wrote:

> > > 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.

it does stick on the 2g iphone.

At 29 Jun 2009 22:41:49 -0400 nospam wrote:

> > > > 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.
>
> it does stick on the 2g iphone.

Are you positive? I thought it only remained unlocked after the last
couple of updates because the baseband radio wasn't being updated (like on
the 3G.) I assume the radio finally gets updated in 3.0 (just guessing- I
haven't looked seriously yet.) I've always "reunlocked" with each update
anyway just to be safe.

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:41:52 -0500, Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote in
<slrnh4ika0.bd8.jon+usenet@snowy.squish.net>:

>On 2009-06-29, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@aNOoSPAMl.com> wrote:

>> 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 ;-) ).

That's not the issue, and is at best disingenuous, since Apple has an
interest in preventing (breaking) syncing of non-Apple products with
iTunes.

>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.

Not really -- DRM-free MP3 was available from Amazon before iTunes went
DMR-free.

--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do fans keep making excuses for it?

In article <n5ti45p65l7obh2889uf75d63tla4q2qet@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >> More to the point, standard cell phones with far less resources do such
> >> multitasking easily.
> >
> >the iphone multitasks very easily and standard cell phones don't have
> >the horsepower to do cool stuff, such as multitouch or having a gpu.
>
> Shows how little you know about these phones.

the iphone very definitely multitasks and how many cellphones have
hardware such as a multi-touch interface, graphics coprocessor and a
multi-axis accelerometer, with dual core cpus expected next year?

> >> (iFans will
> >> of course claim it is everything, but then they don't know what a true
> >> RTOS actually is and why that matters.)
> >
> >it actually doesn't matter as much as you think it does, as the iphone,
> >google android and now the palm pre show.
>
> It actually matters a great deal, as shown by how much processing power
> and battery the iPhone needs to not even measure up to much lesser
> phones.

you have that backwards. the iphone has power and it is used. remind me
again how many cellphones have opengl es 2.0. also, the palm pre uses
the same cpu as the iphone, why no hatred for that?

On 2009-06-30, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>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 ;-) ).
>
> That's not the issue, and is at best disingenuous, since Apple has an
> interest in preventing (breaking) syncing of non-Apple products with
> iTunes.

Not much of an interest - there's no way they could prevent Palm
(or anyone) providing some trivial tiny app that syncs the iTunes
music library with any device they want to, given that the iTunes
music files are just unprotected files on the computer.

>>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.
>
> Not really -- DRM-free MP3 was available from Amazon before iTunes went
> DMR-free.

"That's not the issue, and is at best disingenuous."

On 2009-06-30, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@aNOoSPAMl.com> wrote:
> 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.

Well, yes, of course. That's my point - even though it's not
necessarily in their own interests, Apple did what was in their
customers' interests and changed iTunes to deliver DRM-free music.
Once they did that, it became impossible for them to prevent other
companies making their devices sync with that music - whether
directly through iTunes or through some tiny add-on makes little
difference.

>> > 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.

I was thinking of "MSN Music store", which they shut down.
When they did so, they screwed over everyone who had ever bought music
from it, by shutting down the DRM servers too.

>> 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."

I did deliberately say "most people" not "all people" ;-)

> The iPhone is a huge success _despite_ its flaws and limitations,
> not _because_ of them!

I think you have that wrong. Everything about the iPhone is a
compromise between the competing interests of mobile phone companies,
media companies, consumers, and Apple itself. I think Apple have done
a pretty good job of balancing these interests, and this is what has
lead directly to the iPhone being a success.

For example, the iPhone has the "flaw/limitation" that you can't
tether it (or, in 3.0, you can but only if the carrier lets you).
This is obviously done to make the carriers happy, but in return
it means that iPhone carrier contracts tend to offer genuinely
unlimited data access (barring roaming). So this "flaw" enables
a benefit for the consumer (no hidden/unexpected charges).

> 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.)

Why are you asking this when you know the answer? (a) Apple want to
protect the reputation of their product (which is a reasonable goal),
and (b) they make a margin on all sales (which in my view is
reasonable for the service that they are providing the app developer).

You're perfectly free to disagree with their decision and say they
should have done something else, but it's fairly obvious why they
have done things the way they have, and I don't think any of it
is particularly consumer-hostile.

> Those ARE wiped out with every upgrade!

Ah, OK, I haven't tried jailbreaking my phone. I just haven't heard of
any complaints from jailbreak users due to Apple going out of their
way to stop them. At the very least, for example, when updating the
iPhone OS iTunes could detect the jailbreak and refuse to update
("phone in non-standard state, warranty voided, cannot upgrade").

With other phones, unlocking them was always a rather nervous affair
as there was the possibility of bricking the phone or causing some
other hard-to-undo problem, but with the iPhone as far as I'm aware it
doesn't matter what you do, you can always just reset and restore from
backup. It practically encourages hacking! ;-)

> (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.

Indeed, it is very pleasing when I get a replacement phone and
I take it out of the box, plug it into iTunes and twenty minutes later
it's magically turned into "my" phone. So much better than previous
phones I had where I had to spend ages re-entering my entire contact
list.

In article <slrnh4n8th.c30.jon+usenet@snowy.squish.net>, Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:

> On 2009-06-30, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@aNOoSPAMl.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Well, yes, of course. That's my point - even though it's not
> necessarily in their own interests, Apple did what was in their
> customers' interests and changed iTunes to deliver DRM-free music.
> Once they did that, it became impossible for them to prevent other
> companies making their devices sync with that music - whether
> directly through iTunes or through some tiny add-on makes little
> difference.

other devices can certainly access the music but apple could make it
very difficult to access the itunes library which contains playlists,
song ratings, etc.

> > The iPhone is a huge success _despite_ its flaws and limitations,
> > not _because_ of them!
>
> I think you have that wrong. Everything about the iPhone is a
> compromise between the competing interests of mobile phone companies,
> media companies, consumers, and Apple itself. I think Apple have done
> a pretty good job of balancing these interests, and this is what has
> lead directly to the iPhone being a success.

well put.

> > Those ARE wiped out with every upgrade!
>
> Ah, OK, I haven't tried jailbreaking my phone. I just haven't heard of
> any complaints from jailbreak users due to Apple going out of their
> way to stop them. At the very least, for example, when updating the
> iPhone OS iTunes could detect the jailbreak and refuse to update
> ("phone in non-standard state, warranty voided, cannot upgrade").

but you could put the device into recovery mode and install a stock
firmware, so it's not worth bothering to do that.

> With other phones, unlocking them was always a rather nervous affair
> as there was the possibility of bricking the phone or causing some
> other hard-to-undo problem, but with the iPhone as far as I'm aware it
> doesn't matter what you do, you can always just reset and restore from
> backup. It practically encourages hacking! ;-)

early unlock attempts did sometimes brick the phones, but that's
because the unlock was so primitive and the hackers didn't really
understand what they were doing. now it's fairly reliable, with the
issue being that apple keeps patching the exploits that the unlock
methods use.

> > (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.
>
> Indeed, it is very pleasing when I get a replacement phone and
> I take it out of the box, plug it into iTunes and twenty minutes later
> it's magically turned into "my" phone. So much better than previous
> phones I had where I had to spend ages re-entering my entire contact
> list.

yep, and it's not just contacts, but *everything*.

On 2009-07-01, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
> On 2009-06-30, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@aNOoSPAMl.com> wrote:
>> The iPhone is a huge success _despite_ its flaws and limitations,
>> not _because_ of them!
>
> I think you have that wrong. Everything about the iPhone is a
> compromise between the competing interests of mobile phone companies,
> media companies, consumers, and Apple itself. I think Apple have done
> a pretty good job of balancing these interests, and this is what has
> lead directly to the iPhone being a success.
>
> For example, the iPhone has the "flaw/limitation" that you can't
> tether it (or, in 3.0, you can but only if the carrier lets you).
> This is obviously done to make the carriers happy, but in return
> it means that iPhone carrier contracts tend to offer genuinely
> unlimited data access (barring roaming). So this "flaw" enables
> a benefit for the consumer (no hidden/unexpected charges).

Benefit compared to what? The $15 dumbphone and $30 smartphone data
plans AT&T had prior to the iPhone, and still have, also offer genuinely
unlimited data access (those terms are identical to the iPhone plan)
but don't prevent you from using a phone capable of tethering (and most
of the phones AT&T sold were capable). The only thing new about
iPhone tethering is that they gave AT&T the ability to turn it off
with an AT&T SIM in the phone, even on iPhones not purchased from
AT&T. While having the firmware enforce what was formerly just a
contractual T&C issue might be a benefit to someone, that someone
is definitely not the person who paid for the phone.

>> Those ARE wiped out with every upgrade!
>
> Ah, OK, I haven't tried jailbreaking my phone. I just haven't heard of
> any complaints from jailbreak users due to Apple going out of their
> way to stop them. At the very least, for example, when updating the
> iPhone OS iTunes could detect the jailbreak and refuse to update
> ("phone in non-standard state, warranty voided, cannot upgrade").
>
> With other phones, unlocking them was always a rather nervous affair
> as there was the possibility of bricking the phone or causing some
> other hard-to-undo problem, but with the iPhone as far as I'm aware it
> doesn't matter what you do, you can always just reset and restore from
> backup. It practically encourages hacking! ;-)

Um, unlocking with every other GSM phone I've purchased from a US
carrier has been a matter of phoning the carrier and asking for
the subsidy password. If that had bricked the phone I would have
taken it back to the carrier and got it fixed or replaced. The
innovation introduced for the iPhone sold by AT&T, at least compared
to the way other phones are sold now, is the inability to get the
carrier to remove the SIM lock at all. Since being able to use
random SIMs in a phone with good band coverage is hugely useful
when you travel it is no wonder this feature encourages hacking.
The beneficiary of this iPhone feature is, again, not the person
who paid for the phone.

More than this, you changed topics between the above two paragraphs.
My wife's iPhone came from Apple with no SIM lock, and hence requires
no unlocking, yet she still can't choose to use applications other
than those blessed by Apple on a device someone paid big bucks for.
As I understand the state of things the need to jailbreak the
phone, no matter where you bought the phone, is a feature which may
be unique to the iPhone, so I'm not exactly clear what you are
comparing the iPhone's ease of jailbreaking to. Not having to
do it at all is much, much easier.

As far as I can see Apple bent over backwards to make the carriers
and itself happy, entirely at the expense of those who pay for
the phones.

Dennis Ferguson

On 2009-07-01, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> other devices can certainly access the music but apple could make it
> very difficult to access the itunes library which contains playlists,
> song ratings, etc.

They could, but they don't - it seems to be a simple XML file
"iTunes Music Library.xml". In fact, not only do they not try and
hide this information - they deliberately make it easy to get at!
According to http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1660 :

"The purpose of the iTunes Music Library.xml file is to make your
music and playlists available to other applications on your
computer."

>> Ah, OK, I haven't tried jailbreaking my phone. I just haven't heard of
>> any complaints from jailbreak users due to Apple going out of their
>> way to stop them. At the very least, for example, when updating the
>> iPhone OS iTunes could detect the jailbreak and refuse to update
>> ("phone in non-standard state, warranty voided, cannot upgrade").
>
> but you could put the device into recovery mode and install a stock
> firmware, so it's not worth bothering to do that.

Only because Apple let you. They could have made it so that the
"recovery mode" could be disabled, if they'd wanted to.

>> With other phones, unlocking them was always a rather nervous affair
>> as there was the possibility of bricking the phone or causing some
>> other hard-to-undo problem, but with the iPhone as far as I'm aware it
>> doesn't matter what you do, you can always just reset and restore from
>> backup. It practically encourages hacking! ;-)
>
> early unlock attempts did sometimes brick the phones,

Do you mean "brick" as in it simply made the phone not work anymore
until you wiped it and restored it, or do you really mean the proper
meaning of the word, i.e. it became permanently unusable unless
returned to the manufacturer (or similar)?

On 2009-07-01, Dennis Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> For example, the iPhone has the "flaw/limitation" that you can't
>> tether it (or, in 3.0, you can but only if the carrier lets you).
>> This is obviously done to make the carriers happy, but in return
>> it means that iPhone carrier contracts tend to offer genuinely
>> unlimited data access (barring roaming). So this "flaw" enables
>> a benefit for the consumer (no hidden/unexpected charges).
>
> Benefit compared to what? The $15 dumbphone and $30 smartphone data
> plans AT&T had prior to the iPhone, and still have, also offer genuinely
> unlimited data access (those terms are identical to the iPhone plan)
> but don't prevent you from using a phone capable of tethering (and most
> of the phones AT&T sold were capable).

I don't know anything about AT&T - it doesn't operate in my country.
But from what other people have said in this group, and from common
sense, I believe you are mistaken.

> While having the firmware enforce what was formerly just a
> contractual T&C issue might be a benefit to someone, that someone is
> definitely not the person who paid for the phone.

It is a benefit for the people who don't want tethering and don't want
to have to pay for it.

> Um, unlocking with every other GSM phone I've purchased from a US
> carrier has been a matter of phoning the carrier and asking for
> the subsidy password.

Obviously, I was talking about unlocking "unofficially".
Unlocking "officially" tends to cost money, if it's available at all.

> The innovation introduced for the iPhone sold by AT&T, at least
> compared to the way other phones are sold now, is the inability to
> get the carrier to remove the SIM lock at all.

That's surely up to AT&T, not Apple. You can get officially unlocked
iPhones, so it's clearly possible.

> As I understand the state of things the need to jailbreak the
> phone, no matter where you bought the phone, is a feature which may
> be unique to the iPhone, so I'm not exactly clear what you are
> comparing the iPhone's ease of jailbreaking to.

You're confusing unlocking and jailbreaking again. I wasn't comparing
the ease of jailbreaking to anything.

At 01 Jul 2009 11:58:03 -0500 Jon Ribbens wrote:

> Not much of an interest - there's no way they could prevent Palm
> (or anyone) providing some trivial tiny app that syncs the iTunes
> music library with any device they want to, given that the iTunes
> music files are just unprotected files on the computer.


Arguably, the "value" of iTunes syncing is notthe use of the library- on my
PC, iTunes, WMP and Zune all point to the same set of files- but working
within the bulk of the iTunes feature set- smart playlists, etc.

For people who exploit iTunes' features to their fullest, upgrading from
one iPod to another or to an iPhone is a no-brainer to preserve that
desired functionality. Enter the Pre, that will sync with iTunes, and be
compatible with not only your music files, but playlists as well, and
you've potentially got an alternate upgrade path for users wanting to
graduate from an iPod to n "iPod phone." Sure the "true believers"
probably won't consider a third-party device, but it might convince a few
in the US to stick with Sprint and a Pre as their MP3 phone rather than
jump to AT&T for an iPhone.

Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote in
news:slrnh4n5cr.c30.jon+usenet@snowy.squish.net:

> DRM-free MP3

DRM free MP3s have been available on usenet since the third day MP3 was
released as a codec...(c;]

We've moved on to DRM-free FLAC and OGG, now. FLAC is best....but large
and totally unnecessary on a portable box with a cheap pair of ear buds
plugged into them on a white cord.


--
-----
Larry

If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something,
is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him?

On 2009-07-01, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
> Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote in
> news:slrnh4n5cr.c30.jon+usenet@snowy.squish.net:
>> DRM-free MP3

No I didn't.

On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:13:34 -0500, Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote in
<slrnh4ndau.c30.jon+usenet@snowy.squish.net>:

>Obviously, I was talking about unlocking "unofficially".
>Unlocking "officially" tends to cost money, if it's available at all.

Unlocking officially is free here in the USA.
It's unofficial unlocking that costs money.

--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do fans keep making excuses for it?

In article <slrnh4nck5.c30.jon+usenet@snowy.squish.net>, Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:

> > other devices can certainly access the music but apple could make it
> > very difficult to access the itunes library which contains playlists,
> > song ratings, etc.
>
> They could, but they don't - it seems to be a simple XML file
> "iTunes Music Library.xml". In fact, not only do they not try and
> hide this information - they deliberately make it easy to get at!

right now it's easy, but if they really wanted to shut people down,
they could encrypt it, for example

> >> Ah, OK, I haven't tried jailbreaking my phone. I just haven't heard of
> >> any complaints from jailbreak users due to Apple going out of their
> >> way to stop them. At the very least, for example, when updating the
> >> iPhone OS iTunes could detect the jailbreak and refuse to update
> >> ("phone in non-standard state, warranty voided, cannot upgrade").
> >
> > but you could put the device into recovery mode and install a stock
> > firmware, so it's not worth bothering to do that.
>
> Only because Apple let you. They could have made it so that the
> "recovery mode" could be disabled, if they'd wanted to.

right, but there's no point in disabling a normal firmware upgrade
unless you also disable the recovery mode, and that would make fixing
them harder. updates do reset the jailbreak, and with the 3gs, they've
made some changes that might potentially affect the ability to
jailbreak in the future. it would not surprise me at all that one day
you won't be able to jailbreak right away, if at all.

> >> With other phones, unlocking them was always a rather nervous affair
> >> as there was the possibility of bricking the phone or causing some
> >> other hard-to-undo problem, but with the iPhone as far as I'm aware it
> >> doesn't matter what you do, you can always just reset and restore from
> >> backup. It practically encourages hacking! ;-)
> >
> > early unlock attempts did sometimes brick the phones,
>
> Do you mean "brick" as in it simply made the phone not work anymore
> until you wiped it and restored it, or do you really mean the proper
> meaning of the word, i.e. it became permanently unusable unless
> returned to the manufacturer (or similar)?

some of the phones could be fixed with a restore but apple did warn
that the possibility existed that unlocking could cause 'irreparable
damage'. i don't know how many phones actually were bricked (any
definition), but early unlock attempts were rather buggy. later unlock
schemes were not as fragile.

<http://www.macworld.com/article/60181/2007/09/iphoneunlock.html>

In article <0mmn459cchguadufpa7jrdr6dkqo0h492a@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >Obviously, I was talking about unlocking "unofficially".
> >Unlocking "officially" tends to cost money, if it's available at all.
>
> Unlocking officially is free here in the USA.
> It's unofficial unlocking that costs money.

unofficially unlocking an iphone is free.