The new iPhone OS 2.0 software has been unlocked and jailbroken. It
was released just hours ago and it has already been cracked by the
iPhone Dev Team. The first one took a couple of months, but this one
was actually unlocked before Apple released it to the public. And you
have had the proof in front of you all morning.
4phun wrote:
> The new iPhone OS 2.0 software has been unlocked and jailbroken. It
> was released just hours ago and it has already been cracked by the
> iPhone Dev Team. The first one took a couple of months, but this one
The first one was cracked within a day or so of the official release. It
happened so fast it made national news.
In message <M4Zdk.22628$LR1.4878@newsfe10.phx> Beer Drinking Dog
<photodoglv@yahoo.com> wrote:
>4phun wrote:
>> The new iPhone OS 2.0 software has been unlocked and jailbroken. It
>> was released just hours ago and it has already been cracked by the
>> iPhone Dev Team. The first one took a couple of months, but this one
>
>The first one was cracked within a day or so of the official release. It
>happened so fast it made national news.
In Apple's defense, it's not like this was the first time people saw the
new OS, the SDK and emulator might just have provided a few clues.
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008, nospam posted:
>> iPhone 3G, no. Scuttlebutt is that there is a Trusted Computing chip in
>> there to prevent tampering with the SIM lock and firmware.
> source?
Be patient. Lots of clever people are working to understand the magnitude
of the problem and how resolve it.
Nonetheless, if jailbreaking and/or SIM unlocking is important to you, you
had better wait before buying a 3G iPhone. Apple went to considerable
lengths to prevent the 3G iPhone from being unlocked or jailbroken. It
may be a while before there is a solution.
-- 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.
In article <alpine.OSX.1.10.0807130953470.10623@pangtzu.panda .com>,
Mark Crispin <mrc@Panda.COM> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008, nospam posted:
> >> iPhone 3G, no. Scuttlebutt is that there is a Trusted Computing chip in
> >> there to prevent tampering with the SIM lock and firmware.
> > source?
>
> Be patient. Lots of clever people are working to understand the magnitude
> of the problem and how resolve it.
so there's no evidence that there's a tpm chip in it.
> Nonetheless, if jailbreaking and/or SIM unlocking is important to you, you
> had better wait before buying a 3G iPhone. Apple went to considerable
> lengths to prevent the 3G iPhone from being unlocked or jailbroken. It
> may be a while before there is a solution.
Mark Crispin <mrc@Panda.COM> amazed us all with the following in
news:alpine.OSX.1.10.0807130953470.10623@pangtzu.p anda.com:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008, nospam posted:
>>> iPhone 3G, no. Scuttlebutt is that there is a Trusted Computing
>>> chip in there to prevent tampering with the SIM lock and firmware.
>> source?
>
> Be patient. Lots of clever people are working to understand the
> magnitude of the problem and how resolve it.
>
Wait a minute! Apple didn't market the ulimate consumer product in terms
of desired usability and functionality? There is a problem with the
iPhone?
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008, nospam posted:
> >> iPhone 3G, no. Scuttlebutt is that there is a Trusted Computing chip in
> >> there to prevent tampering with the SIM lock and firmware.
> > source?
>
> Be patient. Lots of clever people are working to understand the magnitude
> of the problem and how resolve it.
>
> Nonetheless, if jailbreaking and/or SIM unlocking is important to you, you
> had better wait before buying a 3G iPhone. Apple went to considerable
> lengths to prevent the 3G iPhone from being unlocked or jailbroken. It
> may be a while before there is a solution.
or just buy an iPhone 2.0 and forget about the pointless unlocking needs
of the 1.0 device. Now ANYBODY can develop for the iPhone, 1.0 or 2.0
models, so the reason to jailbreak are few and far between.
mark, anyone on the planet can now develop for the iphone for FREE!
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008, David Moyer posted:
> or just buy an iPhone 2.0 and forget about the pointless unlocking needs
> of the 1.0 device. Now ANYBODY can develop for the iPhone, 1.0 or 2.0
> models, so the reason to jailbreak are few and far between.
> mark, anyone on the planet can now develop for the iphone for FREE!
The problem with that statement is that it is totally false. There are
numerous onerous restrictions which make the Apple SDK non-free (as in
"freedom" and as in "free beer") and highly restrictive.
Applications developed with the SDK "cannot be installed or used on the
iPhone or iPod touch" without being "approved and signed with an
Apple-issued certificate". They can't even be tested on the iPhone or
iPod touch without that certificate!
That certificate is issued via an iPhone Developer Program License
Agreement, which costs money (hence not free as in "free beer").
Apple "reserves the right to withold approval and signing of any
Application at its sole discretion."
The SDK may not be installed, used, or run on any non-Apple-branded
computer. Apple also prohibits "decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble,
attempt to derive the source code of, modify, decrypt, or create
derivative works of the SDK or any services provided by the SDK", so any
attempt to create a cross platform development environment is forbidden.
Apple prohibits applications from "install[ing] or launch[ing] other
executable code". Apple prohibits interpreted code. Apple prohibits
"provid[ing], unlock[ing], or enabl[ing] additional features or
functionality through distribution mechanisms other than the iTunes
Store".
Apple prohibits applications from writing data anywhere except to "the
Applications designated container area".
Apple prohibits applications from offering "real time route guidance".
Apple prohibits applications from having VoIP functionality over the
cellular network.
And the list goes on and on.
These are crippling restrictions, which explains in part why the iTunes
App Store consists mostly of crap. 2.0 won't be fully useful until there
is a jailbreak and Installer can be put on it.
iPhone 3G also requires an SIM unlock. Locked phones may be alright for
kids who never travel abroad, but are completely unacceptable for people
who travel overseas.
-- 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.
In article <alpine.OSX.1.10.0807132138360.10623@pangtzu.panda .com>,
Mark Crispin <mrc@Panda.COM> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008, David Moyer posted:
> > or just buy an iPhone 2.0 and forget about the pointless unlocking needs
> > of the 1.0 device. Now ANYBODY can develop for the iPhone, 1.0 or 2.0
> > models, so the reason to jailbreak are few and far between.
> > mark, anyone on the planet can now develop for the iphone for FREE!
>
> The problem with that statement is that it is totally false.
it's not totally false at all. anyone can download and develop for the
iphone and ipod touch.
> There are
> numerous onerous restrictions which make the Apple SDK non-free (as in
> "freedom" and as in "free beer") and highly restrictive.
it may be more restrictive than other platforms, but again, *anyone*
can develop for it.
> Applications developed with the SDK "cannot be installed or used on the
> iPhone or iPod touch" without being "approved and signed with an
> Apple-issued certificate". They can't even be tested on the iPhone or
> iPod touch without that certificate!
now that the device has shipped, they're clearing the backlog and
rapidly issuing them.
> That certificate is issued via an iPhone Developer Program License
> Agreement, which costs money (hence not free as in "free beer").
imagine that, a developer program that costs money.
> Apple "reserves the right to withold approval and signing of any
> Application at its sole discretion."
and given your claim that most of what's available in the apps store is
crap, they aren't witholding approval too readily. apple did say they
would not allow **** or malicious software, and that's not really too
surprising. there will be other avenues for those.
> The SDK may not be installed, used, or run on any non-Apple-branded
> computer. Apple also prohibits "decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble,
> attempt to derive the source code of, modify, decrypt, or create
> derivative works of the SDK or any services provided by the SDK", so any
> attempt to create a cross platform development environment is forbidden.
they have a responsibility to protect their intellectual property.
> Apple prohibits applications from "install[ing] or launch[ing] other
> executable code". Apple prohibits interpreted code. Apple prohibits
> "provid[ing], unlock[ing], or enabl[ing] additional features or
> functionality through distribution mechanisms other than the iTunes
> Store".
see above.
> Apple prohibits applications from writing data anywhere except to "the
> Applications designated container area".
what data were you wanting to write, and where?
> Apple prohibits applications from offering "real time route guidance".
yet two companies have announced it.
> Apple prohibits applications from having VoIP functionality over the
> cellular network.
no surprise there. at&t and the other cellular carriers no doubt had a
strong influence on that.
> And the list goes on and on.
>
> These are crippling restrictions,
they're hardly crippling.
> which explains in part why the iTunes
> App Store consists mostly of crap.
that has nothing to do with it. it takes more time to write something
decent (of which there's quite a few so far). at least apple isn't
picking and choosing (although they arguably should -- five flashlight
apps??).
> 2.0 won't be fully useful until there
> is a jailbreak and Installer can be put on it.
nonense. most of the jailbreak developers are 'going legit' because
they'll have a *substantially* larger potential market using the apps
store.
software that wouldn't be approved will be relegated to unofficial
methods.
>
> iPhone 3G also requires an SIM unlock. Locked phones may be alright for
> kids who never travel abroad, but are completely unacceptable for people
> who travel overseas.
perhaps, but most people don't travel overseas. in fact, many don't
even have passports.
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008, nospam posted:
> it's not totally false at all. anyone can download and develop for the
> iphone and ipod touch.
They just can't run what they develop.
>> There are
>> numerous onerous restrictions which make the Apple SDK non-free (as in
>> "freedom" and as in "free beer") and highly restrictive.
> it may be more restrictive than other platforms, but again, *anyone*
> can develop for it.
But they can't run the code the developed.
>> That certificate is issued via an iPhone Developer Program License
>> Agreement, which costs money (hence not free as in "free beer").
> imagine that, a developer program that costs money.
Why should I pay Apple for the privilege of writing a program that runs on
a device which I own?
When you buy a gizmo, title to that gizmo transfers to you. The
manufacturer has NO LEGAL RIGHT to tell you what you can do with it. The
only thing that they can do is license the software, but even a software
license is limited in what it can do.
>> Apple "reserves the right to withold approval and signing of any
>> Application at its sole discretion."
> and given your claim that most of what's available in the apps store is
> crap, they aren't witholding approval too readily. apple did say they
> would not allow **** or malicious software, and that's not really too
> surprising. there will be other avenues for those.
Red herring.
Installer is not filled with **** or malicious software.
Apple prohibits applications such as Finder, Terminal, ssh, any editor.
They prohibit anything that uses a background task. Last but not least,
they forbid enterprise applications that work around the mobileme
monopoly.
That's why there is the $500 developer program. Enterprises will need
those forbidden apps. The problem is that they can build and install the
apps for themselves, but not market those apps. So every enterprise ends
up paying a $500 Apple tax, plus has to reinvent the wheel.
If the restrictions hold (meaning that the jailbreak/unlock community
fails to circumvent them), then the iPhone's long term market viability
will be limited once every fanboy has one.
This is the same mistake that Apple made 20 years ago, and is why most PCs
these days run Windows.
Apple's competitors hope that the restrictions do hold, and that the
jailbreak community withers away. It's the best way to ensure that Apple
remains an also-ran in the market.
Some of the more wild-eyed fanboys in these newgroups may very well be
agents provocateur with the specific goal of discrediting iPhone. An A.P.
on Microsoft's payroll could scarcely do a better job than Oxford.
>> The SDK may not be installed, used, or run on any non-Apple-branded
>> computer. Apple also prohibits "decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble,
>> attempt to derive the source code of, modify, decrypt, or create
>> derivative works of the SDK or any services provided by the SDK", so any
>> attempt to create a cross platform development environment is forbidden.
> they have a responsibility to protect their intellectual property.
The problem is that the laws in many jurisdictions don't allow those
restrictions (except for the derivative works one).
>> Apple prohibits applications from "install[ing] or launch[ing] other
>> executable code". Apple prohibits interpreted code. Apple prohibits
>> "provid[ing], unlock[ing], or enabl[ing] additional features or
>> functionality through distribution mechanisms other than the iTunes
>> Store".
> see above.
That has nothing to do with protecting IP. That has everything to do with
attempting to assert illegal monopoly control. If Microsoft did this, the
US Justice Department and the EU would be all over them.
Apple gets away with it today only because they are a bit player and don't
count.
>> Apple prohibits applications from writing data anywhere except to "the
>> Applications designated container area".
> what data were you wanting to write, and where?
One of my tools is a editor. Another tool allows me to upload and
download files.
Still another is a mail program which is far more capable than the pitiful
Mail.app.
>> Apple prohibits applications from having VoIP functionality over the
>> cellular network.
> no surprise there. at&t and the other cellular carriers no doubt had a
> strong influence on that.
Skype users are able to use the 3G networks with Windows Mobile phones.
Skype supports Windows Mobile, Nokia N800/N810, Playstation Portable, and
a number of dedicated Skype and dual Skype/landline devices. iPhone users
can only use Skype To Go.
>> These are crippling restrictions,
> they're hardly crippling.
Since you are a fanboy and not a developer, you really aren't in a very
good position to know what is crippling and what isn't.
>> which explains in part why the iTunes
>> App Store consists mostly of crap.
> that has nothing to do with it. it takes more time to write something
> decent (of which there's quite a few so far). at least apple isn't
> picking and choosing (although they arguably should -- five flashlight
> apps??).
There are many more decent applications available via Installer.
A few have crossed over. What's amusing are the applications which are
free via Installer, but cost money in the iTunes Apps Store. I understand
this perfectly -- anyone stupid enough to rely upon the iTunes store is
stupid enough to pay money. I'd use the same pricing model myself.
>> 2.0 won't be fully useful until there
>> is a jailbreak and Installer can be put on it.
> nonense. most of the jailbreak developers are 'going legit' because
> they'll have a *substantially* larger potential market using the apps
> store.
Those developers who have fee-based applications that comply with Apple's
excessive restrictions, yes. So most of the games will be ported.
Many applications will not be ported, since they violate one of Apple's
rules: customize the interface, allow file transfer and/or UNIX level
access, are alternative media players, etc. etc.
>> iPhone 3G also requires an SIM unlock. Locked phones may be alright for
>> kids who never travel abroad, but are completely unacceptable for people
>> who travel overseas.
> perhaps, but most people don't travel overseas. in fact, many don't
> even have passports.
I'm sorry to hear that your parents won't let you travel abroad. I've
been traveling abroad for over 40 years now. You learn many things that
you won't learn at home; among which is an adversion to international
roaming charges.
I guess that's a good new sales motto for Apple...
iPhone: the choice of insular kids worldwide!
-- 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.
In message <130720082239573172%nospam@nospam.invalid> nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <alpine.OSX.1.10.0807132138360.10623@pangtzu.panda .com>,
>Mark Crispin <mrc@Panda.COM> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008, David Moyer posted:
>> > or just buy an iPhone 2.0 and forget about the pointless unlocking needs
>> > of the 1.0 device. Now ANYBODY can develop for the iPhone, 1.0 or 2.0
>> > models, so the reason to jailbreak are few and far between.
>> > mark, anyone on the planet can now develop for the iphone for FREE!
>>
>> The problem with that statement is that it is totally false.
>
>it's not totally false at all. anyone can download and develop for the
>iphone and ipod touch.
Anyone who buys specialized niche hardware. Oh, and they can't actually
try their creation on their purchased physical device either.
>> There are
>> numerous onerous restrictions which make the Apple SDK non-free (as in
>> "freedom" and as in "free beer") and highly restrictive.
>
>it may be more restrictive than other platforms, but again, *anyone*
>can develop for it.
I can't.
>> Apple prohibits applications from writing data anywhere except to "the
>> Applications designated container area".
>
>what data were you wanting to write, and where?
Reading/writing to the calendar might be neat.
>> Apple prohibits applications from offering "real time route guidance".
>
>yet two companies have announced it.
Indeed. Not quite a smoke filled room, but not an open market place
either.
>> These are crippling restrictions,
>
>they're hardly crippling.
They are if you're a VoIP specialist.
>> iPhone 3G also requires an SIM unlock. Locked phones may be alright for
>> kids who never travel abroad, but are completely unacceptable for people
>> who travel overseas.
>
>perhaps, but most people don't travel overseas. in fact, many don't
>even have passports.
How about up to Canada? I'm from Canada and travel to the US regularly,
so the same applies.
On 2008-07-14, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> The SDK may not be installed, used, or run on any non-Apple-branded
>> computer. Apple also prohibits "decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble,
>> attempt to derive the source code of, modify, decrypt, or create
>> derivative works of the SDK or any services provided by the SDK", so any
>> attempt to create a cross platform development environment is forbidden.
>
> they have a responsibility to protect their intellectual property.
>
>> Apple prohibits applications from "install[ing] or launch[ing] other
>> executable code". Apple prohibits interpreted code. Apple prohibits
>> "provid[ing], unlock[ing], or enabl[ing] additional features or
>> functionality through distribution mechanisms other than the iTunes
>> Store".
>
> see above.
Well, "intellectual property" is certainly worth protecting but you have
a choice of how to go about doing that. You can protect your "intellectual
property" with your engineers, by having them develop utilities and
applications which are so good that people wouldn't consider using something
else, or you can protect your "intellectual property" with your lawyers by
having them try to squash or tax anyone who would dare to try to compete with
better ideas.
I know which of these choices is better for consumers. I kind of wish
Apple weren't so scared of that.
>> iPhone 3G also requires an SIM unlock. Locked phones may be alright for
>> kids who never travel abroad, but are completely unacceptable for people
>> who travel overseas.
>
> perhaps, but most people don't travel overseas. in fact, many don't
> even have passports.
You do know that the iPhone is sold in countries other than the US,
right? Where I am right now you can't travel more than 20 miles in
any direction without entering another "country" (certainly from your
phone's, and your home carrier's, point-of-view) and I'd venture a
guess that virtually everyone here has the papers required to cross the
borders. Because SIM-locked phones are such a waste even the carriers
here don't sell them that way, since their customers would just forgo
the subsidy (and the contract commitment) and buy the more useful unlocked
versions at the manufacturers' stores instead. Of course now there is
apparently an exception to this.
I don't know why Apple can't just sell you a piece of equipment and
let you do what you want (or need) with it.
In message <slrng7o73n.55.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com> Dennis Ferguson
<dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
>I don't know why Apple can't just sell you a piece of equipment and
>let you do what you want (or need) with it.
1) Jobs is a control freak. The only way to get carriers to bend over
and take it up the arse is to make certain concessions to the carriers.
2) The carriers are control freaks. The only way to keep people paying
their bills without actually providing better service then the
competition is to provide an incentive. Contracts are one, locked
hardware is another. Oh, and excessive roaming rates are a sweet cash
cow, so all the more reason to lock down the phones.
In article <alpine.OSX.1.10.0807140932150.10623@pangtzu.panda .com>,
Mark Crispin <mrc@Panda.COM> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008, nospam posted:
> > it's not totally false at all. anyone can download and develop for the
> > iphone and ipod touch.
>
> They just can't run what they develop.
they can if they join the iphone developer program for $99. if that's
too expensive, then they can use the unofficial sdk for free. since
you apparently think that jailbreaking will be the dominate method of
distribution, i fail to see what the obstacle is.
now, i agree apple's sdk is more restrictive than writing for other
platforms, but there is *no* restriction on *who* can develop for it.
>
> >> That certificate is issued via an iPhone Developer Program License
> >> Agreement, which costs money (hence not free as in "free beer").
> > imagine that, a developer program that costs money.
>
> Why should I pay Apple for the privilege of writing a program that runs on
> a device which I own?
one reason is because of the potential market for sales. if you don't
think it will be worth your time to have apps for the iphone in the
apps store, then use the unofficial sdk, or even write for another
platform.
>
> >> Apple "reserves the right to withold approval and signing of any
> >> Application at its sole discretion."
> > and given your claim that most of what's available in the apps store is
> > crap, they aren't witholding approval too readily. apple did say they
> > would not allow **** or malicious software, and that's not really too
> > surprising. there will be other avenues for those.
>
> Red herring.
>
> Installer is not filled with **** or malicious software.
i never said it was. what i said was that software which apple won't
approve will find itself with a different distribution method.
>
> Apple prohibits applications such as Finder, Terminal, ssh, any editor.
> They prohibit anything that uses a background task. Last but not least,
> they forbid enterprise applications that work around the mobileme
> monopoly.
>
> That's why there is the $500 developer program. Enterprises will need
> those forbidden apps.
the $500 level of the developer program has nothing to do with
forbidden apps for enterprise users.
> The problem is that they can build and install the
> apps for themselves, but not market those apps. So every enterprise ends
> up paying a $500 Apple tax, plus has to reinvent the wheel.
there is no '$500 apple tax' and if an enterprise really wants to
market the apps, then $99 for a key is just noise in the budget. also,
developing for the mac is free.
the $500 level of the apple developer program does offer a number of
things that are useful for developers (and a higher level membership
even more so), but it's not required for mac or iphone development.
> If the restrictions hold (meaning that the jailbreak/unlock community
> fails to circumvent them), then the iPhone's long term market viability
> will be limited once every fanboy has one.
nonsense. the vast majority of people will be buying/downloading apps
from the apps store. not only will it be more available (on virtually
every device), but it's also far simpler for the end user than the
installer.
> This is the same mistake that Apple made 20 years ago, and is why most PCs
> these days run Windows.
it's nothing at all like it. mac software development never had any
restrictions and the documentation was readily available, originally in
book form and later on line.
apple made many mistakes in the 80s and 90s, but restricting mac
development wasn't one of them.
> Since you are a fanboy and not a developer, you really aren't in a very
> good position to know what is crippling and what isn't.
not only is that a baseless insult, but it's also a very mistaken
assumption. my interest in the iphone is for development, and having
been (and still am) a software developer for both macintosh and
windows, i am in a *very* good position to know what is crippling and
what is not.
> >> which explains in part why the iTunes
> >> App Store consists mostly of crap.
> > that has nothing to do with it. it takes more time to write something
> > decent (of which there's quite a few so far). at least apple isn't
> > picking and choosing (although they arguably should -- five flashlight
> > apps??).
>
> There are many more decent applications available via Installer.
perhaps today there's more 'decent' apps (a subjective assesment), but
that's rapidly changing. the apps store has been open four days, while
the installer has had many months behind it. it'll catch up and
surpass what's available in the installer.
there's also a lot of crap in the installer list as well, and some of
the installer apps require other packages to be installed. very few
people are interested in dealing with dependencies like that.
now, the apps store is not perfect either. i'm not enamoured with the
central distribution model, it's difficult to distribute trial and
evaluation copies, and i don't think the store can scale that well as
it grows in size. time will tell how well it works.
> A few have crossed over. What's amusing are the applications which are
> free via Installer, but cost money in the iTunes Apps Store. I understand
> this perfectly -- anyone stupid enough to rely upon the iTunes store is
> stupid enough to pay money. I'd use the same pricing model myself.
imagine that, wanting to get paid for one's work.
> >> 2.0 won't be fully useful until there
> >> is a jailbreak and Installer can be put on it.
> > nonense. most of the jailbreak developers are 'going legit' because
> > they'll have a *substantially* larger potential market using the apps
> > store.
>
> Those developers who have fee-based applications that comply with Apple's
> excessive restrictions, yes. So most of the games will be ported.
>
> Many applications will not be ported, since they violate one of Apple's
> rules: customize the interface, allow file transfer and/or UNIX level
> access, are alternative media players, etc. etc.
what will remain will be niche products. there's nothing wrong with
that; it's always nice to have options.
> >> iPhone 3G also requires an SIM unlock. Locked phones may be alright for
> >> kids who never travel abroad, but are completely unacceptable for people
> >> who travel overseas.
> > perhaps, but most people don't travel overseas. in fact, many don't
> > even have passports.
>
> I'm sorry to hear that your parents won't let you travel abroad. I've
> been traveling abroad for over 40 years now. You learn many things that
> you won't learn at home; among which is an adversion to international
> roaming charges.
>
> I guess that's a good new sales motto for Apple...
> iPhone: the choice of insular kids worldwide!
since you can't refute my claim about passports, you resort to insults.
i never said anything about *my* travel (and as a platinum elite, it's
quite a bit, not that it's relevant). i only stated that most people,
which i should have clarified as americans, not worldwide, do not have
passports and do not travel overseas. if you have evidence to the
contrary (without the ad hominem), let's see it.
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, nospam posted:
>> They just can't run what they develop.
> they can if they join the iphone developer program for $99.
No they can't.
They have to pay $99 AND get Apple to sign their applications before they
can run their own applications.
> if that's
> too expensive, then they can use the unofficial sdk for free.
That has nothing to do with the problem that unsigned applications can not
be installed without jailbreaking; that to get applications signed it is
necessary to pay a tax to Apple AND get Apple to approve the application.
> since
> you apparently think that jailbreaking will be the dominate method of
> distribution, i fail to see what the obstacle is.
Ah, another Apple fanboy who uses circular arguments rather than
addressing the issue. Microsoft really loves Apple fanboys, they do a
great job of killing Apple's market.
> now, i agree apple's sdk is more restrictive than writing for other
> platforms, but there is *no* restriction on *who* can develop for it.
It is useless to develop an application if you can't run it.
>> Why should I pay Apple for the privilege of writing a program that runs on
>> a device which I own?
> one reason is because of the potential market for sales.
I don't care about sales.
> if you don't
> think it will be worth your time to have apps for the iphone in the
> apps store, then use the unofficial sdk, or even write for another
> platform.
I write for many platforms. iToy is just one, very minor, platform.
>> Installer is not filled with **** or malicious software.
> i never said it was. what i said was that software which apple won't
> approve will find itself with a different distribution method.
Which Apple now blocks in iPhone 3G since is apparently using Trusted
Computing.
> the $500 level of the developer program has nothing to do with
> forbidden apps for enterprise users.
It has everything to do with that purpose. The $500 level allows an
enterprise to sign its own applications without begging Apple, but only
for its internal use.
> there is no '$500 apple tax'
It's on Apple's web page.
> and if an enterprise really wants to
> market the apps, then $99 for a key is just noise in the budget.
It's not $99 for a key. It's $99 for Apple to consider signing your
application, but only if Apple approves of what your application does.
> also,
> developing for the mac is free.
Who cares? Macintosh is a bit player.
> the $500 level of the apple developer program does offer a number of
> things that are useful for developers (and a higher level membership
> even more so), but it's not required for mac or iphone development.
It's the only level that allows a developer to run the application that he
wrote on his own iToy without begging Apple to approve it.
>> If the restrictions hold (meaning that the jailbreak/unlock community
>> fails to circumvent them), then the iPhone's long term market viability
>> will be limited once every fanboy has one.
> nonsense. the vast majority of people will be buying/downloading apps
> from the apps store.
The vast majority will buy the crap that is on the iTunes Apps Store.
Like the half dozen flashlight applications.
Right. And the SS Titanic had a triumphant arrival in New York Harbor.
And Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman.
> not only will it be more available (on virtually
> every device), but it's also far simpler for the end user than the
> installer.
Talk about fanboy spin. "Far simpler than the installer". I guess that
is what happens when fanboys drink too much of the Kool-Aid.
>> This is the same mistake that Apple made 20 years ago, and is why most PCs
>> these days run Windows.
> it's nothing at all like it. mac software development never had any
> restrictions and the documentation was readily available, originally in
> book form and later on line.
Say what?
I remember Mac development issues in the 1980s quite well, including the
fights that were necessary to pry Apple to release the SDKs. Apple had a
habit of pretending to release everything, but withholding critical
components.
Apple frequently saw third-party developers as competition. Eventually,
developers got tired of Apple's games, and developed exclusively for
Microsoft.
>> Since you are a fanboy and not a developer, you really aren't in a very
>> good position to know what is crippling and what isn't.
> not only is that a baseless insult
Since you walk like a duck, and talk like a duck, you're a duck.
> but it's also a very mistaken
> assumption. my interest in the iphone is for development, and having
> been (and still am) a software developer for both macintosh and
> windows, i am in a *very* good position to know what is crippling and
> what is not.
I'm a software developer for those and several other platforms.
Why is iToy the only platform that blocks my installing my applications
without paying a tax and beggin the device manufacturer to sign it?
Given that Apple sees third-party developers as competition, why do
developers have to disclose their products in advance to Apple?
> There are many more decent applications available via Installer.
> perhaps today there's more 'decent' apps (a subjective assesment), but
> that's rapidly changing. the apps store has been open four days, while
> the installer has had many months behind it. it'll catch up and
> surpass what's available in the installer.
Evidence? The Apps store SDK has been available for months now, yet
Apple only has signed the crap that is there now.
> now, the apps store is not perfect either. i'm not enamoured with the
> central distribution model, it's difficult to distribute trial and
> evaluation copies, and i don't think the store can scale that well as
> it grows in size.
Then why do you defend it?
>> A few have crossed over. What's amusing are the applications which are
>> free via Installer, but cost money in the iTunes Apps Store. I understand
>> this perfectly -- anyone stupid enough to rely upon the iTunes store is
>> stupid enough to pay money. I'd use the same pricing model myself.
> imagine that, wanting to get paid for one's work.
I like getting paid for my work too. But sometimes I give things away.
And if I charge money for something through one means, and give it away
through another means, that is simply a stupidity tax charged on the fools
who insist upon using the pay means. Stupid people deserve to pay the
stupidity tax,
>> Many applications will not be ported, since they violate one of Apple's
>> rules: customize the interface, allow file transfer and/or UNIX level
>> access, are alternative media players, etc. etc.
> what will remain will be niche products. there's nothing wrong with
> that; it's always nice to have options.
Evidence?
Currently, when viewing the catalog in Installer and the catalog in the
Apps store, the good stuff is in Installer and the crap is in the Apps
store.
> i only stated that most people,
> which i should have clarified as americans, not worldwide, do not have
> passports and do not travel overseas.
More than 70 million Americans currently have valid passports. A somewhat
larger number have had a passport in the past, but allowed it to expire.
A even greater larger number travel to foreign countries where, until
recently, passports were not required (e.g., most countries in North and
South America). A passport may not be required, but using a US mobile
phone still entails international roaming rates.
Nor does your argument justify the locking of iToys in Europe.
-- 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.
In article <alpine.OSX.1.10.0807150002050.10623@pangtzu.panda .com>,
Mark Crispin <mrc@Panda.COM> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, nospam posted:
> >> They just can't run what they develop.
> > they can if they join the iphone developer program for $99.
>
> No they can't.
>
> They have to pay $99 AND get Apple to sign their applications before they
> can run their own applications.
wrong.
the $99 is for a key, and once the key is loaded into xcode, you can
write all the software you want for your own device. it also entitles
you to developer tech support.
if you want to distribute your apps through the apple store, then you
will need to submit them for approval. if you're satisfied with using
them on your own device, then no approval is necessary.
you can also use ad-hoc distribution and certify up to 100 devices,
where you can continue to write anything you want and share them among
the group.
> > if that's
> > too expensive, then they can use the unofficial sdk for free.
>
> That has nothing to do with the problem that unsigned applications can not
> be installed without jailbreaking; that to get applications signed it is
> necessary to pay a tax to Apple AND get Apple to approve the application.
wrong. see above.
> > now, i agree apple's sdk is more restrictive than writing for other
> > platforms, but there is *no* restriction on *who* can develop for it.
>
> It is useless to develop an application if you can't run it.
it's also useless to keep saying things that are demonstrably false.
> >> Why should I pay Apple for the privilege of writing a program that runs on
> >> a device which I own?
> > one reason is because of the potential market for sales.
>
> I don't care about sales.
that's fine. don't knock those who do.
> >> Installer is not filled with **** or malicious software.
> > i never said it was. what i said was that software which apple won't
> > approve will find itself with a different distribution method.
>
> Which Apple now blocks in iPhone 3G since is apparently using Trusted
> Computing.
rumours claim it's already been jailbroken.
> > the $500 level of the developer program has nothing to do with
> > forbidden apps for enterprise users.
>
> It has everything to do with that purpose. The $500 level allows an
> enterprise to sign its own applications without begging Apple, but only
> for its internal use.
the $500 is for adc membership, which is useful to many developers, but
it is not required for iphone development.
> > there is no '$500 apple tax'
>
> It's on Apple's web page.
$99 for the standard program and $299 for enterprise.
> > and if an enterprise really wants to
> > market the apps, then $99 for a key is just noise in the budget.
>
> It's not $99 for a key. It's $99 for Apple to consider signing your
> application, but only if Apple approves of what your application does.
you keep saying this, but it's still wrong.
> > the $500 level of the apple developer program does offer a number of
> > things that are useful for developers (and a higher level membership
> > even more so), but it's not required for mac or iphone development.
>
> It's the only level that allows a developer to run the application that he
> wrote on his own iToy without begging Apple to approve it.
once again, adc membership is not required for iphone development.
> >> This is the same mistake that Apple made 20 years ago, and is why most PCs
> >> these days run Windows.
> > it's nothing at all like it. mac software development never had any
> > restrictions and the documentation was readily available, originally in
> > book form and later on line.
>
> Say what?
>
> I remember Mac development issues in the 1980s quite well, including the
> fights that were necessary to pry Apple to release the SDKs. Apple had a
> habit of pretending to release everything, but withholding critical
> components.
which critical componets did they withold?
anyone could buy inside macintosh at most bookstores. the complete
documentation is currently all on-line (including the deprecated stuff
from the 80s), for anyone to access, no adc membership required.
> > now, the apps store is not perfect either. i'm not enamoured with the
> > central distribution model, it's difficult to distribute trial and
> > evaluation copies, and i don't think the store can scale that well as
> > it grows in size.
>
> Then why do you defend it?
i try to point out both good and bad points.
the real question is why do you blindly hate it, to the point of not
even understanding how it works?
> I like getting paid for my work too. But sometimes I give things away.
>
> And if I charge money for something through one means, and give it away
> through another means, that is simply a stupidity tax charged on the fools
> who insist upon using the pay means. Stupid people deserve to pay the
> stupidity tax,
that has nothing to do with apple.
> > i only stated that most people,
> > which i should have clarified as americans, not worldwide, do not have
> > passports and do not travel overseas.
>
> More than 70 million Americans currently have valid passports. A somewhat
> larger number have had a passport in the past, but allowed it to expire.
then with a population of 300 million, 230 million do not have valid
passports, or 77%. and the fact that people let them expire is further
evidence that most people don't need them that often. thank you for
confirming my point.
iPhone OS 2.0 Unlocked and Jailbroken 
Linear Mode
