Re: Apple To Allow Third Party Apps ON iPhone

"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> http://www.apple.com/hotnews/

yep! it was only a matter of time before apple played its heavy hand...

expect sales of WinMobile, Symbian and Blackberries to dry up within a
year. this is good news for everyone!

-

Third Party Applications on the iPhone

Let me just say it: We want native third party applications on the
iPhone, and we plan to have an SDK in developers¹ hands in February. We
are excited about creating a vibrant third party developer community
around the iPhone and enabling hundreds of new applications for our
users. With our revolutionary multi-touch interface, powerful hardware
and advanced software architecture, we believe we have created the best
mobile platform ever for developers.

It will take until February to release an SDK because we¹re trying to do
two diametrically opposed things at once‹provide an advanced and open
platform to developers while at the same time protect iPhone users from
viruses, malware, privacy attacks, etc. This is no easy task. Some claim
that viruses and malware are not a problem on mobile phones‹this is
simply not true. There have been serious viruses on other mobile phones
already, including some that silently spread from phone to phone over
the cell network. As our phones become more powerful, these malicious
programs will become more dangerous. And since the iPhone is the most
advanced phone ever, it will be a highly visible target.

Some companies are already taking action. Nokia, for example, is not
allowing any applications to be loaded onto some of their newest phones
unless they have a digital signature that can be traced back to a known
developer. While this makes such a phone less than ³totally open,² we
believe it is a step in the right direction. We are working on an
advanced system which will offer developers broad access to natively
program the iPhone¹s amazing software platform while at the same time
protecting users from malicious programs.

We think a few months of patience now will be rewarded by many years of
great third party applications running on safe and reliable iPhones.

Steve

P.S.: The SDK will also allow developers to create applications for iPod
touch. [Oct 17, 2007]

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-88CE63.12564117102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> expect sales of WinMobile, Symbian and Blackberries to dry up within a
> year. this is good news for everyone!

Not unless prices on iPhones drop significantly. Many people just don't use
any 3rd-party applications on their phone in the first place -- probably at
least 2/3rd of them: They're buying a phone based on what it can do "out of
the box" and price.

But I agree it's good news that Apple's opening up the iPhone to proper
development.

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:56:41 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.apple.com/hotnews/
>
> yep! it was only a matter of time before apple played its heavy hand...
>
> expect sales of WinMobile, Symbian and Blackberries to dry up within a
> year.

AHAH HA hHHA HHAh AHhah hha hHA hHAHhah ahha ha hHA ah ha...

--
Rick

In article <13hcqqbi987vp68@corp.supernews.com>,
"Joel Koltner" <JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:colalovesmacs-88CE63.12564117102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> > expect sales of WinMobile, Symbian and Blackberries to dry up within a
> > year. this is good news for everyone!
>
> Not unless prices on iPhones drop significantly. Many people just don't use
> any 3rd-party applications on their phone in the first place -- probably at
> least 2/3rd of them: They're buying a phone based on what it can do "out of
> the box" and price.


The reason most people don't use phones with 3rd party apps is because
they didn't come installed in them.

And then they'd need to pay extra for any of the good (i.e. stable)
programs and have to go through a download and installation process.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-88CE63.12564117102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
>
> expect sales of WinMobile, Symbian and Blackberries to dry up within a
> year. this is good news for everyone!
>
> -
>

As always, you just don't get it....

Example:
Blackberry = business tool
iPhone = cool toy - NOT a business tool (unless radically changed in the
future)

Bottom line, your prediction based on today's facts is stupid.

As usual.

"Joel Koltner" <JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > expect sales of WinMobile, Symbian and Blackberries to dry up within a
> > year. this is good news for everyone!
>
> Not unless prices on iPhones drop significantly.

well, we all know that is going to happen within 24 months, an iPhone
nano for $199 is in the works, a $99 iPhone within 36 months. Apple
ALWAYS starts at the top and works its way down the price scale. So it's
only a question "of when" Apple sweeps out the lower handset makers.

> Many people just don't use
> any 3rd-party applications on their phone in the first place --

ah... WHAT? I think you must be using Windows. In the Apple world,
people use whatever they want since it's so EASY to try new software.

In the Windows world everyone has been "conditioned" to not try new
software, but nothing like that exists in the Apple space since there
are no penalties for using new software. The iPhone is the PERFECT
device to try new software without any risk. Plus it's FAR easier to
install / remove software on Macs / iPhones...

So I just had to LAUGH at that since that's a pure Windows issue, not an
Apple or iPhone one.

> probably at
> least 2/3rd of them: They're buying a phone based on what it can do "out of
> the box" and price.

But Apple will change all that... basically, the cell industry plays
under Apple's rule from this point forward. Everyone wants an iPhone
since it's more feature packed and far easier to use than any other cell
phone... we all know that. So once Apple moves the iPhone down the price
scale, it will remove "most" handset makers out of the market.

> But I agree it's good news that Apple's opening up the iPhone to proper
> development.

Yes, it's going to be a massive wave of innovation never before seen by
the cell industry. Never has such a large computer firm entered the cell
space, and since the cell industry is very uncompetitive, Apple will
wipe out much of what exists today... so it's going to fun to watch them
fall.

-

Joel Koltner <JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:colalovesmacs-88CE63.12564117102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> > expect sales of WinMobile, Symbian and Blackberries to dry up within a
> > year. this is good news for everyone!
>
> Not unless prices on iPhones drop significantly. Many people just don't use
> any 3rd-party applications on their phone in the first place -- probably at
> least 2/3rd of them: They're buying a phone based on what it can do "out of
> the box" and price.

It also applies to the iPod Touch.

For anyone wanting an advanced highly portable computer, but doesn't
need the additional features of the iPhone (or the long term contract)
this makes the iPod Touch even more interesting.

The PDA market isn't as large as the cellphone market, but the iPod
Touch, iPhone or a future slightly larger model with full PDA
functionality and third party application support will be very
competitive with other brands and platforms, and could easily take over
that market.

> But I agree it's good news that Apple's opening up the iPhone to proper
> development.

This has removed one of my main reasons for not considering an iPod
Touch or an iPhone as a potential replacement for my dying Palm Treo
600. I do use third party software on my Treo and would like to be able
to do so on a replacement device.

I don't want to go to Windows Mobile because it doesn't work well with
the Mac.

Palm has dropped the ball on PalmOS, and a device based on OS X is far
more appealing to me as a Mac user.

I want a device which has full iPod, PDA and cellphone functionality.

If I can't get all three, I'm willing to sacrifice the phone (use a
cheap cellphone instead) but keep portable music and PDA functions on
one device.
--
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

"Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> As always, you just don't get it....
>
> Example:
> Blackberry = business tool
> iPhone = cool toy - NOT a business tool (unless radically changed in the
> future)

it was radically changed about 8 hours ago. didn't you get the memo?

no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone they
will be miniscule by this time next year. all business software
developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that is the future
of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance against apple at this
point in the game.

> Bottom line, your prediction based on today's facts is stupid.

What? Apple has totally altered markets before beyond recognition, this
is no different. Sure it takes awhile for people to catch up with what
I'm saying, but they always do when they see what is happening around
them.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-495069.18460517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
>
> no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone they
> will be miniscule by this time next year. all business software
> developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that is the future
> of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance against apple at this
> point in the game.
>


Just the above statement proves you don't have even a fraction of an actual clue.

Everything runs as root on an iPhone, which will keep 95% plus percent
of the (smart anyway) IT depts away - and most do and will BAN the pretty (but flawed) toy.

They won't give a shit if 3rd party apps are loaded. The DEVICE is flawed.

You can go on and on and on like you do - you have less than ZERO credibility at this point.

Every post continues to proves it - again and again.

Like this one... Just another fantasy based wish from a deluded, fanatic fanboy.

In article <8NWdnRF_ccSVKYvanZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
"Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:colalovesmacs-495069.18460517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net..
> .
> >
> > no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone
> > they will be miniscule by this time next year. all business
> > software developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that
> > is the future of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance
> > against apple at this point in the game.
> >
>
>
> Just the above statement proves you don't have even a fraction of an
> actual clue.
>
> Everything runs as root on an iPhone, which will keep 95% plus
> percent of the (smart anyway) IT depts away - and most do and will
> BAN the pretty (but flawed) toy.

This is a dumb claim. Yes, everything currently runs as root on an
iPhone. But running an app in a non-multiuser OS (what most other mobile
platforms have) is the same thing as running an app as root.

OS X provides a real permissions model, sandboxing, and application
signing. I can't offhand think of a mobile platform that implements all
three. Apple is also reusing robust battle-tested code from a real
operating system. You can bet there have been a hell of a lot more hours
invested in hardening the BSD networking stack than in hardening
whatever proprietary networking code a BlackBerry has.

Security is just one of many areas where the fact that the iPhone is
using a slimmed down version of a real desktop OS gives Apple
significant advantages over its competitors. (Well, except possibly its
Linux-based competitors, but at least in the US Linux-based phones don't
seem to have gotten anywhere.)

[snip]

--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

In article <13hcqqbi987vp68@corp.supernews.com>,
"Joel Koltner" <JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:colalovesmacs-88CE63.12564117102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> > expect sales of WinMobile, Symbian and Blackberries to dry up within a
> > year. this is good news for everyone!
>
> Not unless prices on iPhones drop significantly. Many people just don't use
> any 3rd-party applications on their phone in the first place -- probably at
> least 2/3rd of them: They're buying a phone based on what it can do "out of
> the box" and price.

You're making the mistake of comparing the iPhone's price to the price
of other phones. You might want to consider that the iPhone in the first
phone on the market which can reasonably take the place of an iPod, and
look at what people will happily pay for iPods.

(And yes, I'm quite aware there have been other music player phones, but
as we see in the music player market itself, most people don't consider
other music players to be reasonable iPod substitutes.)

Anyway, I'd expect Apple to be pretty aggressive with pricing. Because
they sell 80% of the world's music players, they can probably get better
prices on most components than their competitors.

> But I agree it's good news that Apple's opening up the iPhone to proper
> development.

--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in news:colalovesmacs-
88CE63.12564117102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:

> Some companies are already taking action. Nokia, for example,
is not
> allowing any applications to be loaded onto some of their
newest phones
> unless they have a digital signature that can be traced back to
a known
> developer. While this makes such a phone less than ütotally
open,ý we
> believe it is a step in the right direction. We are working on
an
> advanced system which will offer developers broad access to
natively
> program the iPhoneûs amazing software platform while at the
same time
> protecting users from malicious programs.
>
>

http://www.maemo.org/

The Linux community has provided me with some beautiful
applications for my new Nokia N800 that still amaze and keep me
interested......at no cost, should I choose not to participate.

Thank you, Nokia.....and Skype.....(c;


Larry
--
You can tell there's extremely
intelligent life in the universe
because they have never called Earth.

ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> In article <8NWdnRF_ccSVKYvanZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> "Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
> > "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:colalovesmacs-495069.18460517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net..
> > .
> > >
> > > no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone
> > > they will be miniscule by this time next year. all business
> > > software developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that
> > > is the future of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance
> > > against apple at this point in the game.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Just the above statement proves you don't have even a fraction of an
> > actual clue.
> >
> > Everything runs as root on an iPhone, which will keep 95% plus
> > percent of the (smart anyway) IT depts away - and most do and will
> > BAN the pretty (but flawed) toy.
>
> This is a dumb claim. Yes, everything currently runs as root on an
> iPhone. But running an app in a non-multiuser OS (what most other mobile
> platforms have) is the same thing as running an app as root.

It most certainly isn't.

> OS X provides a real permissions model, sandboxing, and application
> signing. I can't offhand think of a mobile platform that implements all
> three. Apple is also reusing robust battle-tested code from a real
> operating system. You can bet there have been a hell of a lot more hours
> invested in hardening the BSD networking stack than in hardening
> whatever proprietary networking code a BlackBerry has.

I suspect the iPhone runs a multi-user os set up as a single-user system
but not as root. To run it as root is playing with fire.

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

In article <1i66kzq.17de1xaime2uvN%notinuse2@btinternet.com >,
notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:

> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <8NWdnRF_ccSVKYvanZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> > "Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
> > > news:colalovesmacs-495069.18460517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net..
> > > .
> > > >
> > > > no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone
> > > > they will be miniscule by this time next year. all business
> > > > software developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that
> > > > is the future of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance
> > > > against apple at this point in the game.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Just the above statement proves you don't have even a fraction of an
> > > actual clue.
> > >
> > > Everything runs as root on an iPhone, which will keep 95% plus
> > > percent of the (smart anyway) IT depts away - and most do and will
> > > BAN the pretty (but flawed) toy.
> >
> > This is a dumb claim. Yes, everything currently runs as root on an
> > iPhone. But running an app in a non-multiuser OS (what most other mobile
> > platforms have) is the same thing as running an app as root.
>
> It most certainly isn't.

Of course it is. Running as root simply means there are no user-based
permissions that prevent processes from doing whatever they like.
Single-user operating systems don't have user-based permissions at all,
therefore there obviously can't be any user-based permissions that
prevent processes from doing whatever they like.

The "don't run anything as root" mantra has been repeated so many times
that people have some sort of irrational fear of it. It's true that it's
less secure than the alternatives offered by multi-user operating
systems... but running OS 9 or Windows 98, one was essentially always
running as root, and the same is true of most mobile operating systems
today.

[snip]

--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2191348,00.asp

First, the iPhone root password was broken. OK, it happens. But now it seems
that all applications run on the iPhone as root. Can you say biggest
security blunder of the 21st century to date?



"ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:znu-3F7E6C.00393118102007@news.individual.net...
> In article <8NWdnRF_ccSVKYvanZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> "Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>> "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
>> news:colalovesmacs-495069.18460517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net..
>> .
>> >
>> > no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone
>> > they will be miniscule by this time next year. all business
>> > software developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that
>> > is the future of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance
>> > against apple at this point in the game.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Just the above statement proves you don't have even a fraction of an
>> actual clue.
>>
>> Everything runs as root on an iPhone, which will keep 95% plus
>> percent of the (smart anyway) IT depts away - and most do and will
>> BAN the pretty (but flawed) toy.
>
> This is a dumb claim. Yes, everything currently runs as root on an
> iPhone. But running an app in a non-multiuser OS (what most other mobile
> platforms have) is the same thing as running an app as root.
>
> OS X provides a real permissions model, sandboxing, and application
> signing. I can't offhand think of a mobile platform that implements all
> three. Apple is also reusing robust battle-tested code from a real
> operating system. You can bet there have been a hell of a lot more hours
> invested in hardening the BSD networking stack than in hardening
> whatever proprietary networking code a BlackBerry has.
>
> Security is just one of many areas where the fact that the iPhone is
> using a slimmed down version of a real desktop OS gives Apple
> significant advantages over its competitors. (Well, except possibly its
> Linux-based competitors, but at least in the US Linux-based phones don't
> seem to have gotten anywhere.)
>
> [snip]
>
> --
> "More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War
> coming
> out any other way."
> --George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4,
> 2007
>

In article <x6ednZmsveuoPoranZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@giganews.com>,
"Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

[top-posting fixed]

> "ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message
> news:znu-3F7E6C.00393118102007@news.individual.net...
> > In article <8NWdnRF_ccSVKYvanZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> > "Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
> >> news:colalovesmacs-495069.18460517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net..
> >> .
> >> >
> >> > no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone
> >> > they will be miniscule by this time next year. all business
> >> > software developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that
> >> > is the future of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance
> >> > against apple at this point in the game.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Just the above statement proves you don't have even a fraction of an
> >> actual clue.
> >>
> >> Everything runs as root on an iPhone, which will keep 95% plus
> >> percent of the (smart anyway) IT depts away - and most do and will
> >> BAN the pretty (but flawed) toy.
> >
> > This is a dumb claim. Yes, everything currently runs as root on an
> > iPhone. But running an app in a non-multiuser OS (what most other mobile
> > platforms have) is the same thing as running an app as root.
> >
> > OS X provides a real permissions model, sandboxing, and application
> > signing. I can't offhand think of a mobile platform that implements all
> > three. Apple is also reusing robust battle-tested code from a real
> > operating system. You can bet there have been a hell of a lot more hours
> > invested in hardening the BSD networking stack than in hardening
> > whatever proprietary networking code a BlackBerry has.
> >
> > Security is just one of many areas where the fact that the iPhone is
> > using a slimmed down version of a real desktop OS gives Apple
> > significant advantages over its competitors. (Well, except possibly its
> > Linux-based competitors, but at least in the US Linux-based phones don't
> > seem to have gotten anywhere.)
>
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2191348,00.asp
>
> First, the iPhone root password was broken. OK, it happens. But now it seems
> that all applications run on the iPhone as root. Can you say biggest
> security blunder of the 21st century to date?

Did you not understand anything I wrote above?

--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:17:00 -0700, "Ness Net"
<richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

>First, the iPhone root password was broken. OK, it happens. But now it seems
>that all applications run on the iPhone as root. Can you say biggest
>security blunder of the 21st century to date?

Wasn't W re-elected in 2004?

-- Larry

ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> In article <1i66kzq.17de1xaime2uvN%notinuse2@btinternet.com >,
> notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
> > ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > But running an app in a non-multiuser OS (what most other mobile
> > > platforms have) is the same thing as running an app as root.
> >
> > It most certainly isn't.
>
> Of course it is. Running as root simply means there are no user-based
> permissions that prevent processes from doing whatever they like.
> Single-user operating systems don't have user-based permissions at all,

The iPhone uses a version of OS X, so we're told, which certainly isn't
a single-user OS. Do you believe Apple's developers turned it into a
single-user OS? I very much doubt it, that would be throwing away major
development potential further down the line, like a multi user
permissions based iPhone, possibly using fingerprint access.

> therefore there obviously can't be any user-based permissions that
> prevent processes from doing whatever they like.

Why not? Separate root processes from user processes with only Apple
updates having root access.

With third party apps now available, how long do you suppose it'll be
before some enterprising hacker creates an exploit to record calls and
e-mail them to him? Most would be boring as hell, but dropping that
exploit on Jobs' iPhone might be very interesting, or even Sweaty's,
assuming he'd get one... Easier to implement if you know the user is
running as root.

> The "don't run anything as root" mantra has been repeated so many times
> that people have some sort of irrational fear of it.

The mantra is there for a very good reason, and if people have an
irrational fear of running as root that's because they don't understand
why.

> It's true that it's
> less secure than the alternatives offered by multi-user operating
> systems... but running OS 9 or Windows 98, one was essentially always
> running as root, and the same is true of most mobile operating systems
> today.

And look at the shambles that was Windows 98 security. MacOS had its
fair share of exploits too.

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

In article <1i672tb.1txsex61guies3N%notinuse2@btinternet.com> ,
notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:

> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <1i66kzq.17de1xaime2uvN%notinuse2@btinternet.com >,
> > notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> >
> > > ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But running an app in a non-multiuser OS (what most other mobile
> > > > platforms have) is the same thing as running an app as root.
> > >
> > > It most certainly isn't.
> >
> > Of course it is. Running as root simply means there are no user-based
> > permissions that prevent processes from doing whatever they like.
> > Single-user operating systems don't have user-based permissions at all,
>
> The iPhone uses a version of OS X, so we're told, which certainly isn't
> a single-user OS. Do you believe Apple's developers turned it into a
> single-user OS? I very much doubt it, that would be throwing away major
> development potential further down the line, like a multi user
> permissions based iPhone, possibly using fingerprint access.

I don't believe they cut the multiuser features out of OS X on the
iPhone. They're just not currently using them for anything, by all
accounts.

> > therefore there obviously can't be any user-based permissions that
> > prevent processes from doing whatever they like.
>
> Why not? Separate root processes from user processes with only Apple
> updates having root access.
>
> With third party apps now available, how long do you suppose it'll be
> before some enterprising hacker creates an exploit to record calls and
> e-mail them to him? Most would be boring as hell, but dropping that
> exploit on Jobs' iPhone might be very interesting, or even Sweaty's,
> assuming he'd get one... Easier to implement if you know the user is
> running as root.

I think this is the way they'll probably go when they officially open
the phone to third-party apps. They're not doing it now, though.

And all of this is beside the point. The discussion was whether running
as root on a multiuser OS was any more dangerous than the normal state
of affairs on a single-user OS. It's not, therefore the fact that the
iPhone currently runs everything as root doesn't represent any kind of
security problem for the iPhone *relative to most other mobile devices*,
contrary to what the iPhone's detractors have tried to claim.

[snip]

--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

1st - top posting - bite me. Self appointed Usenet cops can
kiss my ass.

2nd - I read it and contend that you are not correct.


"ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:znu-281E90.15014618102007@news.individual.net...
>
> [top-posting fixed]
>
>
> Did you not understand anything I wrote above?
>

notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote in
news:1i66kzq.17de1xaime2uvN%notinuse2@btinternet.c om:

> I suspect the iPhone runs a multi-user os set up as a single-user system
> but not as root. To run it as root is playing with fire.
>
> -

Isn't root access what Apple and ATT have, with a backdoor service
accessible over the air....and what YOU have is the one user it supports,
with lots of stuff locked away you cannot access because you are never
root?

I had a live Iphone, that wasn't a demo, in my hands at a cafe while the
medical student that owned it was perusing my Nokia N800 Linux box on wifi.
It had a really neat protective skin on it I wish I had for my N800 besides
the leather case. I think I really liked it because it was FLAT BLACK
making the display appear much brighter without your eyes being blinded by
the glitz.

He said he was ordering an N800 and two 8GB SDHC cards from buy.com
tonight....(c; Oops!


Larry
--
You can tell there's extremely
intelligent life in the universe
because they have never called Earth.

In article <SZidnUkJxMCKQ4ranZ2dnUVZ_uygnZ2d@giganews.com>,
"Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> 1st - top posting - bite me. Self appointed Usenet cops can
> kiss my ass.
>
> 2nd - I read it and contend that you are not correct.

Please explain how using a user account that ignores user-based
permissions on a multiuser OS is meaningfully different form the normal
state of affairs on an OS that doesn't have user-based permissions.

> "ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message
> news:znu-281E90.15014618102007@news.individual.net...
> >
> > [top-posting fixed]
> >
> >
> > Did you not understand anything I wrote above?

--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

In article <Xns99CDBD0C047E2noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

> notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote in
> news:1i66kzq.17de1xaime2uvN%notinuse2@btinternet.c om:
>
> > I suspect the iPhone runs a multi-user os set up as a single-user
> > system but not as root. To run it as root is playing with fire.
> >
> > -
>
> Isn't root access what Apple and ATT have, with a backdoor service
> accessible over the air....and what YOU have is the one user it
> supports, with lots of stuff locked away you cannot access because
> you are never root?

Everything on an iPhone currently runs as root. The reason you can't do
whatever you like with this access is simply because there's no
interface (graphical or otherwise) that lets you do it.

[snip]

--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

> Yes, it's going to be a massive wave of innovation never before seen by
> the cell industry. Never has such a large computer firm entered the cell
> space, and since the cell industry is very uncompetitive, Apple will
> wipe out much of what exists today... so it's going to fun to watch them
> fall.

Do you just sit and home and jerk yourself off to this nonsense? Yeesh, get
a clue.

In article <v0cfh35jevpt3ihk9n0icga82610rif1fm@4ax.com>, pltrgyst
<pltrgyst@spamlessxhost.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:17:00 -0700, "Ness Net"
> <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
> >First, the iPhone root password was broken. OK, it happens. But now it seems
> >that all applications run on the iPhone as root. Can you say biggest
> >security blunder of the 21st century to date?
>
> Wasn't W re-elected in 2004?
>
> -- Larry


From outside the US...LOL and bravissimo!

ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> In article <Xns99CDBD0C047E2noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
> > notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote in
> > news:1i66kzq.17de1xaime2uvN%notinuse2@btinternet.c om:
> >
> > > I suspect the iPhone runs a multi-user os set up as a single-user
> > > system but not as root. To run it as root is playing with fire.
> > >
> > > -
> >
> > Isn't root access what Apple and ATT have, with a backdoor service
> > accessible over the air....and what YOU have is the one user it
> > supports, with lots of stuff locked away you cannot access because
> > you are never root?
>
> Everything on an iPhone currently runs as root. The reason you can't do
> whatever you like with this access is simply because there's no
> interface (graphical or otherwise) that lets you do it.

So the first app to write for it is Terminal...

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

On Oct 17, 7:48 pm, Oxford <colalovesm...@mac.com> wrote:
> Everyone wants an iPhone
> since it's more feature packed and far easier to use than any other cell
> phone... we all know that. So once Apple moves the iPhone down the price
> scale, it will remove "most" handset makers out of the market.

Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves. The iPhone has a great touch-
screen interface and a great browser, and that's why I got one. But as
an actual phone it kinda sucks. The form factor is unwieldy and too
slippery, the earpiece is too quiet, the ring is too quiet, the
vibration setting can be barely felt, and the crippled SMS
functionality was clearly designed by someone who knows nothing about
how people actually use text messaging. It's a cool gadget, but it's
NOT a good phone.

I still got one despite all this because I wanted the big screen with
Google Maps and a full(er) browser, but it was a compromise for me.
The iPhone could be so much more than what it is.

That said, I'm excited about Apple allowing 3rd party software. Maybe
someone will fix the piss-awful SMS application that doesn't allow
sending text messages to more than one person at a time, or even
forwarding text messages, or even sending/receiving MMS.

Hmm... Now I wonder if Apple crippled the iPhone on purpose so they
could make money from 3rd-party apps. I bet that Apple will set things
up so they'll get a cut from every 3rd-party app sold.

-Gniewko

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, lubecki@hotmail.com wrote:
> Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves. The iPhone has a great touch-
> screen interface and a great browser, and that's why I got one. But as
> an actual phone it kinda sucks.

Well, duh! What did you expect? The iPhone is a high-end iPod that is
also a phone and Internet access device. As such, it is first and
foremost an iPod. Telephony and Internet are afterthoughts.

> I still got one despite all this because I wanted the big screen with
> Google Maps and a full(er) browser, but it was a compromise for me.

It is not only not a particular good phone, it also is not a particularly
good Internet access device. The screen resolution is too tiny.

The Nokia N800 or a UMPC (such as the Sony UX series) make much better
Internet access devices. Nobody who has either a Nokia N800 or UMPC is
particularly impressed with the iPhone's Internet capability. What's
more, both are open platforms: Linux on the Nokia N800 (and you can
develop your own applications for it) and Windows on a UMPC.

> The iPhone could be so much more than what it is.

Of course, but it won't; Steve Jobs wants to make it as cheaply as
possible and sell for as much as possible.

Apple is absolutely NOT interested in having open development for the
iPhone. They made that abundantly clear.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Peter Hayes wrote:
>>
>> Everything on an iPhone currently runs as root. The reason you can't
>> do whatever you like with this access is simply because there's no
>> interface (graphical or otherwise) that lets you do it.
>
> So the first app to write for it is Terminal...

Uh, it's been out since July.

The Chicken Littles are still confused why the world hasn't come to an end
and AT&T's "West Coast network" has not been taken down.


--
Mike

Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:

> Well, duh! What did you expect? The iPhone is a high-end iPod that is
> also a phone and Internet access device. As such, it is first and
> foremost an iPod. Telephony and Internet are afterthoughts.

Mark Crispin, always the clueless wonder. The iPod is the afterthought,
the phone is a marvel, best in class of any smartphone. The internet is
the "primary" focus.

> > I still got one despite all this because I wanted the big screen with
> > Google Maps and a full(er) browser, but it was a compromise for me.
>
> It is not only not a particular good phone, it also is not a particularly
> good Internet access device. The screen resolution is too tiny.

Don't you realize with a flick of two fingers you can increase the size
of any page on the web? And these are REAL pages, not crappy "phone"
sized pages... but the REAL way you see it. Plus you much better
resolution on the iPhone compared to any other smartphone. Everything is
crisp and clear.

> The Nokia N800 or a UMPC (such as the Sony UX series) make much better
> Internet access devices. Nobody who has either a Nokia N800 or UMPC is
> particularly impressed with the iPhone's Internet capability. What's
> more, both are open platforms: Linux on the Nokia N800 (and you can
> develop your own applications for it) and Windows on a UMPC.

Only if you don't have a lot of demands. The N800 is like looking at a
decade old device compared to the iPhone. And linux on a phone will
never take off, it's just not a robust enough platform for such a small
device. The graphics alone make a linux based phone unusable.

> > The iPhone could be so much more than what it is.
>
> Of course, but it won't; Steve Jobs wants to make it as cheaply as
> possible and sell for as much as possible.

As of this moment the iPhone is the best built smart phone in the world,
best batter life, thinnest, best screen, etc, etc. And it's the cheapest!

The fat openmoko has a tiny screen, poor battery life, and is going to
be $450 with less than HALF the iPhone features.

> Apple is absolutely NOT interested in having open development for the
> iPhone. They made that abundantly clear.

Apple is more concerned with making a USABLE phone by millions, so that
means developers must step up to a higher level and not try and cheat
the user like Linux and Nokia love to do.

Mark, you are clearly out of touch with what is happening. The iPhone
will be the primary phone for the next 20 years or so, so LEARN to
develop for it... it's PURE UNIX under the hood, not amateurish Linux.

-