 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / ATT Wireless / July 2008iPhone OS 2.0 Unlocked and Jailbroken
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. http://gizmodo.com/5023971/iphone-os-20-unlocked-yes http://wikee.iphwn.org/ > 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. > was actually unlocked before Apple released it to the public. And you > have had the proof in front of you all morning. > > http://gizmodo.com/5023971/iphone-os-20-unlocked-yes > > http://wikee.iphwn.org/ >> 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. > The new iPhone OS 2.0 software has been unlocked and jailbroken. OS 2.0, yes. iPhone 3G, no. Scuttlebutt is that there is a Trusted Computing chip in there to prevent tampering with the SIM lock and firmware. -- 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. > iPhone 3G, no. Scuttlebutt is that there is a Trusted Computing chip in > there to prevent tampering with the SIM lock and firmware. source? >> 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. > >> 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. supposedly it's been done already. >>> 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? The world as we know it has ceased to exist. > >> iPhone 3G, no. Scuttlebutt is that there is a Trusted Computing chip in > >> there to prevent tampering with the SIM lock and firmware. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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! join in the fun! http://developer.apple.com/iphone/ > 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. > > 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 porn 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. > 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 porn or malicious software, and that's not really too > surprising. there will be other avenues for those. Red herring. Installer is not filled with porn 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. > > 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." [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Installer is not filled with porn 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, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 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. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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. >> 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 porn 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. > get Apple to approve the application. From the crapware on the app store, I think this is just a matter of signing the revenue sharing agreement. How many flashlight programs would be approved if it's not....(c; > >> They just can't run what they develop. > > they can if they join the iphone developer program for $99. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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 porn 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. http://developer.apple.com/iphone/program/ $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. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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. >> > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >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. > >it's not totally false at all. anyone can download and develop for the > >iphone and ipod touch. > > Anyone who buys specialized niche hardware. macs are hardly 'specialized niche hardware.' >> The SDK may not be installed, used, or run on any non-Apple-branded >> computer. Apple also prohibits "decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > 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. Dennis Ferguson > 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. .....I'll guess...I'll guess! Greed? >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. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.