 |
 | 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 / August 2008iPhone Firmware Update 2.02 released
In case anyone wasn't aware. Haven't really tested for what it might fix yet. DGI > In case anyone wasn't aware. Haven't really tested for what it > might fix yet. I installed it - don't see any difference.  Signature"...the writers, god bless them, are the only true commies we have in Hollywood." Ned Beatty MC <copespaz@mapca.inter.net> wrote in news:copespaz-A4C331.22503118082008 @news.motzarella.org: > I installed it - don't see any difference. No cut and paste yet, eh? | > In case anyone wasn't aware. Haven't really tested for what it | > might fix yet. | | I installed it - don't see any difference. Seriously? I've got more bars in more places! (Actually, that's true, but I can't see any difference in actual performance... just more bars.) --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com > | > In case anyone wasn't aware. Haven't really tested for what it > | > might fix yet. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles > www.ChainReactionBicycles.com Now you mention it I've been getting an extra bar here at my PC since I upgraded to 2.02. Mike > (Actually, that's true, but I can't see any difference in actual > performance... just more bars.) > They turned the meter up....trying to bullshit their way through all this. > In case anyone wasn't aware. Haven't really tested for what it > might fix yet. > > DGI A few people have reported that it improves the 3G connection, but many, many more (including me) report that it makes the 3G problem WORSE. I used to get 3-4 bars of 3G connection in my home, but now get either 1 bar, or "No service". If I do get lucky and get one bar, it will drop out after a few minutes with the message "Connection to your provider has been lost". I've called Apple, and they are becoming aware of the problem, but of course, won't publicly acknowledge it. Try Google - you'll see what I mean :) Oh yes - one problem they HAVE fixed is the awful lag on opening the contacts list before you can drag it up or down. Now the list can be dragged almost immediately it opens - trouble is, there is now a short delay before ANYthing appears on the screen. I think they've just shifted the lag to before the screen draw.... My recommendation - wait for the next update and skip 2.0.2 SignatureNightStalker > A few people have reported that it improves the 3G connection, but many, > many more (including me) report that it makes the 3G problem WORSE. Here is a link to a round-up of the 3G connectivity problems: http://www.iphoneatlas.com/2008/08/19/iphone-3g-connectivity-failure- roundup/ Watch out for wrap in the link as posted. Or you can use this TinyURL link: http://tinyurl.com/6gjz8j SignatureNightStalker > http://www.iphoneatlas.com/2008/08/19/iphone-3g-connectivity-failure- Those sneaky Cnet bastards rubbing salt in an open wound..... When I clicked up the URL, a BLACKBERRY movie ad popped up....right at the top of the screen! I wonder how much that cost the RIMM investors....(c; Too funny.... > My recommendation - wait for the next update and skip 2.0.2 One more time....SOFTWARE is NOT going to fix defective HARDWARE, not now, not ever.... The radio problem in iPhone is an ANALOG problem....shitty antennas feeding multipath to poorly designed and implemented receivers.....and, of course, PROPAGATION PHYSICS eating high speed data with timing errors, every time. Don't wait for another software patch. Wait for the class action suit to force a RECALL! Every user should have taken the defective product BACK to Apple or the ATT store WITHIN the return policy period..... Now you'll have to wait for the lawyers to force them....which could take years of footdragging. > One more time....SOFTWARE is NOT going to fix defective HARDWARE, not now, > not ever.... incorrect as usual larry. software can fix most any hardware issue. plus it's very doubtful there is bad hardware, looks more like a combination of att's bandwidth, apple's software and the infineon chip, any of which is fixable in the field. > The radio problem in iPhone is an ANALOG problem....shitty antennas feeding > multipath to poorly designed and implemented receivers.....and, of course, > PROPAGATION PHYSICS eating high speed data with timing errors, every time. > > Don't wait for another software patch. Wait for the class action suit to > force a RECALL! apple always does the right thing, so no need to complain until apple fixes the issue. it seems to be a very limited set of people having issues, 50,000 or less which while not great, still means 3,950,000 3G owners are quite happy with the device. >apple always does the right thing, so no need to complain until apple >fixes the issue. it seems to be a very limited set of people having >issues, 50,000 or less which while not great, still means 3,950,000 3G >owners are quite happy with the device. Always does the right thing? Like making iPod Touch users pay to have product defects fixed? Is that your definition of "the right thing? > Like making iPod Touch users pay to have product defects fixed? Is that > your definition of "the right thing? what defect was that? >> Like making iPod Touch users pay to have product defects fixed? Is that >> your definition of "the right thing? > >what defect was that? Each of the security fixes in 2.0.0 is unavailable to 1.x.x users without paying for an upgrade. > >apple always does the right thing, so no need to complain until apple > >fixes the issue. it seems to be a very limited set of people having [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Like making iPod Touch users pay to have product defects fixed? Is that > your definition of "the right thing? Apple has no choice, "It's the LAW". The logic is something like "If it enhances the product, it has to carry a price". Otherwise, if you accounted for the sale of your product on your balance sheet and later enhance the functionality, it means that your balance sheet was not correct because the product was not finished, and therefore you accounted too little. so now, all US companies must legally charge for upgrades. you can thank Enron for the mess. read all about it here. http://snipurl.com/3i1ru or http://michaelmistretta.com/2008/why-apple-charged-for-the-ipod-touch-upg rade/ "It's the law. Unfortunately, there is a horrible little law called Sarbanes-Oxley, that legally doesn't allow you to add features to products that you have already been paid for. Apple couldn't add features for free. They had to charge something for them. Apple has gotten around this for the iPhone and AppleTV, by accounting for their payments over the course of 24 months. This means that they can keep adding new features to your iPhone or AppleTV for free for up to two years. They didn't use this accounting method for the iPod Touch however. This means that legally, they can't just add apps to the iPod Touch for free." > > Like making iPod Touch users pay to have product defects fixed? Is that > > your definition of "the right thing? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > however. This means that legally, they can't just add apps to the iPod > Touch for free." Because a teenager's tech blog is a definitive guide to accounting law? Even if that story made sense, Apple could've released the apps as "optional" freeware. They could've sold them for $1 instead of $20. It was a money grab (but a fair one, IMO- it was a significant upgrade.) The Feds haven't sued any PDA manufacturers for adding extra WM6 functionality to some of their WM5 PDAs. My wife's car nav unit received two major free upgrades, (including traffic display- a new function) since I bought it, and apparently hasn't been dragged to court. Why would Apple be different? > Because a teenager's tech blog is a definitive guide to accounting law? that's just one of many articles on the subject, google around. > Even if that story made sense, Apple could've released the apps as > "optional" freeware. They could've sold them for $1 instead of $20. i'm sure the law has something to do with that. the new apps were worth $20 so apple had to charge that amount. > It was a money grab (but a fair one, IMO- it was a significant upgrade.) no, it was in order to not break the law. > The Feds haven't sued any PDA manufacturers for adding extra WM6 > functionality to some of their WM5 PDAs. My wife's car nav unit received > two major free upgrades, (including traffic display- a new function) since I > bought it, and apparently hasn't been dragged to court. Why would Apple be > different? apple is different since they follow the rules, they've always been anal about that kind of thing. fear of lawsuits help :) > Because a teenager's tech blog is a definitive guide to accounting law? > > Even if that story made sense, Apple could've released the apps as > "optional" freeware. They could've sold them for $1 instead of $20. > > It was a money grab (but a fair one, IMO- it was a significant upgrade.) It wasn't even a money grab. It added new functionality so it was legitimate, if a bit tacky, to charge the early adopters for it. This isn't the first time Apple shills have tried to blame SARBOX for upgrade charges. Apple was charging $5 to unlock WiFi capabilities in some Macs, and SARBOX was cited by someone as a reason. There actually are accounting rules that sometimes require charging something for extra features, but they have nothing to do with SARBOX. It's called "Revenue Recognition GAAP" and it's found at "http://www.sec.gov/interps/account/sab104rev.pdf" and "http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2005/405/essentials/p38.htm". Still it's a real stretch. If the new iPod Touch with the new features sold for more than the old iPod touch without the new features then those new features could be claimed to have separate value. It doesn't and they don't. David Moyer <davmoy@world.com> wrote in news:48ac2808$0$48217$815e3792 @news.qwest.net: >> >apple always does the right thing, so no need to complain until apple >> >fixes the issue. it seems to be a very limited set of people having [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > however. This means that legally, they can't just add apps to the iPod > Touch for free." There's another Federal law that covers many of these issues I'm sure Apple would rather you not know about. It's called the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Protection Act (15USC50 section 2304): http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sup_01_15_10_50.html It's in plain English, for those few Americans who can still read this language. Here's the FTC manual: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/warranty.shtm Of PARTICULAR interest is section 2304 (a)(4) which says quite plainly: "(4) if the product (or a component part thereof) contains a defect or malfunction after a reasonable number of attempts by the warrantor to remedy defects or malfunctions in such product, such warrantor must permit the consumer to elect either a refund for, or replacement without charge of, such product or part (as the case may be). The Commission may by rule specify for purposes of this paragraph, what constitutes a reasonable number of attempts to remedy particular kinds of defects or malfunctions under different circumstances. If the warrantor replaces a component part of a consumer product, such replacement shall include installing the part in the product without charge." Kindly take note at the end of line 3 where it says, quite plainly, "such warrantor must permit the consumer to elect either a refund for, or replacement without charge of, such product or part (as the case may be)." The Warrantor, Apple, Inc., must permit the CONSUMER....NOT APPLE....NOT AT&T WIRELESS....THE CONSUMER to elect whether to get ALL, not part, not a coupon, not some upgrade bullshit, HIS MONEY BACK....or....a REPLACEMENT unit, not a free carrying case, not a coupon for a discount on a fixed one....A REPLACEMENT....WITHOUT COSTING HIM A DIME....not a boostup tradein, not another Apple profit center. Hundreds, if not thousands, of court cases have determined the warrantor has THREE attempts and/or THIRTY days, which ever comes FIRST, to make it right TO THE CONSUMER, not to the guy at the ATT Store, not to the manager of the Apple Store, not even to Steve Jobs, hissef! They must make the CONSUMER happy with its performance. The FTC manual is a real education of your rights under this law. I successfully returned, to Yamaha Motors' dismay, a 1997 Yamaha Waverunner GP1200, the most powerful jetski Yam built over its many defects and poor engineering that were cracking hulls, causing Yamaha to do a complete replacement of the engine and gas tank mounts at Serial Number 5000, engine troubles that never got fixed right, parts falling off. I decided, AS THE CONSUMER in the above Federal Law, to return it to my shitty dealer for a FULL REFUND after they dicked around all summer from February to September. They tried to refuse, but I was holding all the cards....no down payment, no payment until September....THEY had possession of it under my valid, but bogus, 4-year Y.E.S. Yamaha extended warranty I paid big money for. You can't use it on sellular SERVICE, but you certainly CAN use it on DEFECTIVE HARDWARE like iPhones.....(c; If they refuse, and you used a credit card, put it in "dispute" and ask your credit card company for a "chargeback", which isn't rocket science but requires you to jump through many hoops to accomplish. Those are different laws: Go here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/index.html enter: credit card into the search box for a list of the laws scattered across the books... "We can't", isn't an option, "We won't", is against the law. We can and We must is what it says, to their dismay. >> >apple always does the right thing, so no need to complain until apple >> >fixes the issue. it seems to be a very limited set of people having [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Apple has no choice, "It's the LAW". Not at all. They have released several security fixes in the past, but now that a paid upgrade is available, the free defect fixes have dried up. >The logic is something like "If it enhances the product, it has to carry >a price". Otherwise, if you accounted for the sale of your product on [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >however. This means that legally, they can't just add apps to the iPod >Touch for free." What they could do is to charge $1.99 for the upgrade. Another option would be $20, with a $20 iTunes credit or $20 AppStore-only credit. > >> Like making iPod Touch users pay to have product defects fixed? Is that > >> your definition of "the right thing? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > They have released several security fixes in the past, but now that a > paid upgrade is available, the free defect fixes have dried up. it only applies to additional features, or "value" compared to the original shipped item, not bug fixes or maintenance releases. > >The logic is something like "If it enhances the product, it has to carry > >a price". Otherwise, if you accounted for the sale of your product on [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > What they could do is to charge $1.99 for the upgrade. Another option > would be $20, with a $20 iTunes credit or $20 AppStore-only credit. no, they would run afoul of the law by not charging an appropriate amount. and giving a "kickback" would be seen as cooking the books so that's no good either. the law obviously needs to be changed, hopefully soon so consumers aren't confused. >> >> Like making iPod Touch users pay to have product defects fixed? Is that >> >> your definition of "the right thing? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >it only applies to additional features, or "value" compared to the >original shipped item, That is correct. >not bug fixes or maintenance releases. And yet, the only way to apply the much needed security fixes to a 1.1.x device purchased a month before OS 2.0.0 came out is to pull out the credit card (or other applicable payment method) >> What they could do is to charge $1.99 for the upgrade. Another option >> would be $20, with a $20 iTunes credit or $20 AppStore-only credit. > >no, they would run afoul of the law by not charging an appropriate >amount. They're charging the same $20 as now. >and giving a "kickback" would be seen as cooking the books so >that's no good either. Loss-leaders aren't suddenly illegal are they? Sell the razor below cost, make money on the blades. Sell access to the store below cost, make money on the applications. > >it only applies to additional features, or "value" compared to the > >original shipped item, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > device purchased a month before OS 2.0.0 came out is to pull out the > credit card (or other applicable payment method) there are no critical security needed for 1.1.x you can always download it for free. http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4287476/iPod_Touch_2.0_Firmware_Upgrade > >> What they could do is to charge $1.99 for the upgrade. Another option > >> would be $20, with a $20 iTunes credit or $20 AppStore-only credit. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Sell access to the store below cost, make money on the applications. yeah, but apple has never been much on making money, it's just not their aim. >> >it only applies to additional features, or "value" compared to the >> >original shipped item, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >there are no critical security needed for 1.1.x Now I know you're either lying, or simply uninformed. There are actually quite a few, ranging from being able to crash the device remotely to spoofing, all the way up to remote code execution. 1) CFNetwork This patch affects users of iPhone v1.0 through v1.1.4, and iPod Touch v1.1 through v1.1.4. The update addresses CVE-2008-0050, a spoofing vulnerability. Apple says " A malicious HTTPS proxy server may return arbitrary data to CFNetwork in a 502 Bad Gateway error, which could allow a secure website to be spoofed. This update addresses the issue by not returning the proxy-supplied data on an error condition." 2) Kernel This patch affects users of iPhone v1.0 through v1.1.4, and iPod Touch v1.1 through v1.1.4. The update addresses the vulnerability detailed within CVE-2008-0177. Apple explains: "An undetected failure condition exists in the handling of packets with an IPComp header. Sending a maliciously crafted packet to a system configured to use IPSec or IPv6 may cause an unexpected device reset. This update addresses the issue by properly detecting the failure condition." 3) Safari This patch affects users of iPhone v1.0 through v1.1.4, and iPod Touch v1.1 through v1.1.4. The update addresses the vulnerability detailed within CVE-2008-1588. Apple explains: "When Safari displays the current URL in the address bar, Unicode ideographic spaces are rendered. This allows a maliciously crafted website to direct the user to a spoofed site that visually appears to be a legitimate domain. This update addresses the issue by not rendering Unicode ideographic spaces in the address bar." 4) Safari This patch affects users of iPhone v1.0 through v1.1.4, and iPod Touch v1.1 through v1.1.4. The update addresses the vulnerability within CVE-2008-1589. Apple says " When Safari accesses a website that uses a self-signed or invalid certificate, it prompts the user to accept or reject the certificate. If the user presses the menu button while at the prompt, then on the next visit to the site, the certificate is accepted with no prompt. This may lead to the disclosure of sensitive information." Apple credits Hiromitsu Takagi with reporting this vulnerability. 5) Safari This patch affects users of iPhone v1.0 through v1.1.4, and iPod Touch v1.1 through v1.1.4. The update addresses the arbitrary code execution vulnerability within CVE-2008-2303. Apple explains "A signedness issue in Safari's handling of JavaScript array indices may result in an out-of-bounds memory access. Visiting a maliciously crafted website may lead to an unexpected application termination or arbitrary code execution. This update addresses the issue by performing additional validation of JavaScript array indices." Apple credits SkyLined of Google for reporting the vulnerability. 6) Safari This patch affects users of iPhone v1.0 through v1.1.4, and iPod Touch v1.1 through v1.1.4. The update addresses the cross-site scripting vulnerability details within CVE-2006-2783. Apple explains "Safari ignores Unicode byte order mark sequences when parsing web pages. Certain websites and web content filters attempt to sanitize input by blocking specific HTML tags. This approach to filtering may be bypassed and lead to cross-site scripting when encountering maliciously-crafted HTML tags containing byte order mark sequences. This update addresses the issue through improved handling of byte order mark sequences." Apple credits Chris Weber of Casaba Security for reporting the vulnerability. 7) Safari This patch affects users of iPhone v1.0 through v1.1.4, and iPod Touch v1.1 through v1.1.4. The update addresses the vulnerability detailed within CVE-2008-2307. Apple says "A memory corruption issue exists in WebKit's handling of JavaScript arrays. Visiting a maliciously crafted website may lead to an unexpected application termination or arbitrary code execution." Apple credits James Urquhart for reporting the vulnerability. 8) Safari This patch affects users of iPhone v1.0 through v1.1.4, and iPod Touch v1.1 through v1.1.4. The update addresses the vulnerability detailed within CVE-2008-2317. Apple explains "A memory corruption issue exists in WebCore's handling of style sheet elements. Visiting a maliciously crafted website may lead to an unexpected application termination or arbitrary code execution. This update addresses the issue through improved garbage collection." Apple credits Peter Vreudegnhil working with the TippingPoint Zero Day Initiative for reporting the vulnerability. 9) Safari This patch affects users of iPhone v1.0 through v1.1.4, and iPod Touch v1.1 through v1.1.4. The update addresses the vulnerability detailed within CVE-2007-6284. Apple says "A memory consumption issue exists in the handling of XML documents containing invalid UTF-8 sequences, which may lead to a denial of service." 10) Safari This patch affects users of iPhone v1.0 through v1.1.4, and iPod Touch v1.1 through v1.1.4. The update addresses the vulnerability detailed within CVE-2008-1767. Apple says "A memory corruption issue exists in the libxslt library. Viewing a maliciously crafted HTML page may lead to an unexpected application termination or arbitrary code execution." Apple credits Anthony de Almeida Lopes of Outpost24 AB, and Chris Evans of Google Security Team for reporting the vulnerability. 11) WebKit This patch affects users of iPhone v1.0 through v1.1.4, and iPod Touch v1.1 through v1.1.4. The update addresses the vulnerability detailed within CVE-2008-1590. Apple says "A memory corruption issue exists in JavaScriptCore's handling of runtime garbage collection. Visiting a maliciously crafted website may lead to an unexpected application termination or arbitrary code execution." Apple credits Itzik Kotler and Jonathan Rom of Radware for reporting the vulnerability. 12) WebKit This patch affects users of iPhone v1.0 through v1.1.4, and iPod Touch v1.1 through v1.1.4. The update addresses the vulnerability detailed within CVE-2008-1025. Apple says "An issue exists in WebKit's handling of URLs containing a colon character in the host name. Accessing a maliciously crafted URL may lead to a cross-site scripting attack. This update addresses the issue through improved handling of URLs." Apple credits Robert Swiecki of the Google Security Team, and David Bloom for reporting the vulnerability. 13) WebKit This patch affects users of iPhone v1.0 through v1.1.4, and iPod Touch v1.1 through v1.1.4. The update addresses the vulnerability detailed within CVE-2008-1026. Apple says "A heap buffer overflow exists in WebKit's handling of JavaScript regular expressions. The issue may be triggered via JavaScript when processing regular expressions with large, nested repetition counts. This may lead to an unexpected application termination or arbitrary code execution." Apple credits Charlie Miller of Independent Security Evaluators for reporting the vulnerability >> >and giving a "kickback" would be seen as cooking the books so >> >that's no good either. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >yeah, but apple has never been much on making money, it's just not their >aim. How much money do you think Apple is making from the AppStore? According to Apple, $30 million in sales, $21 million of which gets paid out to the applicatoin authors. Now ignoring whatever profit Apple can make on that money in the period between making the sale and paying the author, that still leaves $9 million in the first month. Give away the razor (that's the OS upgrade), sell the blades (the apps) > Now I know you're either lying, or simply uninformed. LOL, you just figured that out? > >> And yet, the only way to apply the much needed security fixes to a 1.1.x > >> device purchased a month before OS 2.0.0 came out is to pull out the [quoted text clipped - 131 lines] > termination or arbitrary code execution." Apple credits Charlie Miller > of Independent Security Evaluators for reporting the vulnerability you've list a few bugs, but no serious security issues. learn the difference. > >> >and giving a "kickback" would be seen as cooking the books so > >> >that's no good either. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Give away the razor (that's the OS upgrade), sell the blades (the apps) yes, but money isn't the goal, changing the world is... and Apple is the top company by that measurement. yes, money is fine because it allows your vision to be realized faster, but money has never been much of a draw to apple or steve jobs, it's a side effect of making great products. >you've list a few bugs, but no serious security issues. > >learn the difference. Do you know what "arbitrary code execution" means? > >you've list a few bugs, but no serious security issues. > > > >learn the difference. > > Do you know what "arbitrary code execution" means? yes, it means in a controlled, clean room environment with full access to the device a potential vulnerability could exist. but when you get back into the real world, it's easy to see there could never be an exploit using said code. learn the difference. David Moyer <davmoy@world.com> wrote in news:48afe3e0$0$33226$815e3792 @news.qwest.net: >> >you've list a few bugs, but no serious security issues. >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > back into the real world, it's easy to see there could never be an > exploit using said code. learn the difference. Boy, are YOU in for a shock.... http://members.aol.com/drshors/virus/virus.html http://www.expresscomputeronline.com/20030120/security.shtml Of course, there's the WORST "arbitrary code execution" on the iPhone: http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2008/08/apple_to_i phone.html Nothing can beat your computer company being part of the problem. Wait until the bad guys crack that little back door open....(c; > David Moyer <davmoy@world.com> wrote in news:48afe3e0$0$33226$815e3792 > @news.qwest.net: <snip> >> but when you get >> back into the real world, it's easy to see there could never be an >> exploit using said code. learn the difference. <snip> > Nothing can beat your computer company being part of the problem. > Wait until the bad guys crack that little back door open....(c; I had to use a lot of self-control to not to scream at some of the programmers and chip designers that would be in a meeting and pipe out with "in the real world no one will ever see this problem, there's no need to fix it" excuse. I don't know if "David Moyer" is as naive as he makes himself out to be or not, but _never_ believe that a known vulnerability will not appear "in the real world" intentionally or not. Invariably any time someone got away with the "in the real world" rationalization, six months down the road a customer would come back to us with "we think there's a problem with your chip, some of our units are failing in the field." Any issue brushed under the table with "it'll never happen "in the real world" is certain to be a problem that indeed _will_ happen when you get thousands of the units out on the market. It doesn't matter if it's Apple, Microsoft, Intel, or whoever. Remember the major vulnerability with DNS? Most vendors released patches in early July to fix it. One vendor waited more than a month to fix it, and was chastised in the media for their delay. >> >you've list a few bugs, but no serious security issues. >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >back into the real world, it's easy to see there could never be an >exploit using said code. learn the difference. Well, it's a good theory, except that the way JailBreaks have been implemented so far is through browser based vulnerabilities, which show that not only is it possible to execute arbitrary code, it's a well known process. > >yes, it means in a controlled, clean room environment with full access > >to the device a potential vulnerability could exist. but when you get [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that not only is it possible to execute arbitrary code, it's a well > known process. yes, if you have direct access to the device you can do anything, no news there, but doing something remotely is where an actual "security issue" would come into play, and so far, nothing. >> >yes, it means in a controlled, clean room environment with full access >> >to the device a potential vulnerability could exist. but when you get [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >news there, but doing something remotely is where an actual "security >issue" would come into play, and so far, nothing. The security issue would come into play when you, the device owner, happen to navigate to a compromised website. At least one of the exploits was image based, so there are a number of attack vectors, even advertising banners would do the trick. Another option would be to add an IMG tag linking to an infected image to the comments of a blog likely to be read by iPhones and you'd gain control of a ton of devices. > >yes, if you have direct access to the device you can do anything, no > >news there, but doing something remotely is where an actual "security > >issue" would come into play, and so far, nothing. > > The security issue would come into play when you, the device owner, > happen to navigate to a compromised website. but that is entirely unlikely that a user would ever visit one of those sites. so it's simply not an issue. > At least one of the exploits was image based, so there are a number of > attack vectors, even advertising banners would do the trick. Another > option would be to add an IMG tag linking to an infected image to the > comments of a blog likely to be read by iPhones and you'd gain control > of a ton of devices. gain control? no, perhaps crash a few browsers on a few iphones, but gaining control would require physical access to each and every iphone. simply not going to happen. you do realize the iphone is based on UNIX, not windows don't you? David Moyer <davmoy@world.com> wrote in news:48b17117$0$89387$815e3792 @news.qwest.net: > you do realize the iphone is based on UNIX, not windows don't you? Oh, great! Then it will run UNIX software? NOT! > David Moyer <davmoy@world.com> wrote in news:48b17117$0$89387$815e3792 > @news.qwest.net: > > > you do realize the iphone is based on UNIX, not windows don't you? > > Oh, great! Then it will run UNIX software? NOT! it does. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:240820081248533342% nospam@nospam.invalid: >> David Moyer <davmoy@world.com> wrote in news:48b17117$0$89387$815e3792 >> @news.qwest.net: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > it does. Bullshit. If it did, they'd never sell what's for free elsewhere. Apple is stupid, but not THAT stupid. Let me know when you get Abiword running on it. I wanna see the youtube video. http://www.abisource.com How about Open Office? Let's run that on it, too. http://www.openoffice.org/ Lemme know when you post the video and its Url. Lemme know when you learn what 'porting software' means.... Tell you what, port these to iPhoney. Everyone will want it. You'll be a hero! Business will buy it if you port it, even Apple will love you. The source code is on both websites for you to use free. Bullshit..... > >> > you do realize the iphone is based on UNIX, not windows don't you? > >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Bullshit. If it did, they'd never sell what's for free elsewhere. Apple > is stupid, but not THAT stupid. it's not apple who is stupid. > Let me know when you get Abiword running on it. I wanna see the youtube > video. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Lemme know when you post the video and its Url. nothing prevents anyone who has the time and inclination from doing that. you seem to have an abundance of free time, perhaps you should take it on as a project. > Lemme know when you learn what 'porting software' means.... i fully understand what it means. what you fail to understand is that just because nobody has ported open office to the iphone does not mean it cannot be done. > Tell you what, port these to iPhoney. Everyone will want it. You'll be > a hero! Business will buy it if you port it, even Apple will love you. i am quite certain that not everyone wants open office or abiword on the iphone. >> >yes, if you have direct access to the device you can do anything, no >> >news there, but doing something remotely is where an actual "security [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >gaining control would require physical access to each and every iphone. >simply not going to happen. Proof of concept is that every iPhone OS so far has been jail broken, and this is done through browser based exploits. >you do realize the iphone is based on UNIX, not windows don't you? And? BSD actually, not UNIX, although they both have strong POSIX roots. However, as long as the OS is capable of running arbitrary code, and the potential exists to inject code into the device, there is a potential issue. e: > >> >you've list a few bugs, but no serious security issues. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > that not only is it possible to execute arbitrary code, it's a well > known process. duH! i once heard a story where a guy through a BRICK at a window of a house and then BROKE IN! Can you believe it!!!!! then he tried to throw that same BRICK at a house from Cleveland to Phoenix, he didn't succeed. duh! OS X security works in a similar fashion since unless you have physical access, there really is no way to break in. >e: >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >fashion since unless you have physical access, there really is no way to >break in. Do you know what "arbitrary code execution" means? >>you've list a few bugs, but no serious security issues. >> >>learn the difference. > > Do you know what "arbitrary code execution" means? An Apple backdoor into iPhone to trash it?.....(c; Isn't "I Am Rich" "arbitrary code"?....(c; > Apple has no choice, "It's the LAW". > http://michaelmistretta.com/2008/why-apple-charged-for-the-ipod-touch-upg > rade/ > "It's the law. Unfortunately, there is a horrible little law called > Sarbanes-Oxley, that legally doesn't allow you to add features to > products that you have already been paid for. Nonsense. SOX says no such thing. The teenager whose blog you quote is just parroting Apple apologists. The reason why Apple charges for the upgrade is because they can get away with it. SOX is a convenient excuse; most Apple apologists don't work in SOX compliance much less have any legal training. Let's explain it in the way that even an Apple apologist can understand. The law says that you can not steal. There is a fire. It is small enough to fight with a fire extinguisher, and there is one at hand. You refuse to do so, claiming that the law says that it would be theft to take and use the fire extinguisher to fight the fire. Such would be a ridiculous interpretation of the law, and no court would follow such an interpretation. There is a whole body of jurisprudence involved in rejecting ridiculous legal interpretations. The argument that SOX forces Apple to charge for iPod Touch upgrades is similarly ridiculous. Apple can charge, or not charge, at its whim. Apple could even pay the customer to install the upgrade. The actual argument that Apple used in the past (Apple has never actually used the SOX argument for iPod Touch upgrades) to charge for an AP firmware upgrade "due to SOX" was a rather elaborate kludge tower based upon how they booked their revenues. Apple has a history of doing creative accounting, and the feds have not looked kindly upon it. Using the SOX argument at that time was a way to kill two birds with one stone (pretend to the feds that they are following the rules AND make more money). Apple has NOT used the SOX argument for the iPod Touch upgrades; it is just speculation on the part of Apple apologists that it applies here. It is likely that Apple can't use that argument, as it would open them to a class action suit. [Charging fees based upon bogus "legal requirements" is a great way to get whalloped in court.] The bottom line is that Apple charges for the upgrade because it wants to, not because of any legal requirement. Apple doesn't need any legal requirement to charge the fees -- the suckers pay them anyway. There's a lot in SOX; and an entire industry has sprung up around SOX compliance. But that doesn't mean that SOX does everything attributed to it. -- 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. > > Apple has no choice, "It's the LAW". > > http://michaelmistretta.com/2008/why-apple-charged-for-the-ipod-touch-upg [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > compliance. But that doesn't mean that SOX does everything attributed to > it. no Mark, this policy was born out of the options backdating issue in conjunction with SOX, so apple was being exceedingly careful not to appear in an state of impropriety. my brother is a tax and accounting attorney who works for the IRS and he explains that Apple's rationale for charging for the update is a legitimate interpretation of the (Enron inspired) accounting rules. now that the options issue has blown over it will interesting to see if Apple will relax, resume free feature upgrades (without accounting for them), and try and fight the letter of law if they are ever hauled into court. but until then, VERY strictly speaking, "it's the law". ----------------- David Moyer <davmoy@world.com> wrote in news:48ad7608$0$89389$815e3792 @news.qwest.net: > now that the options issue has blown over it will interesting to see if > Apple will relax, resume free feature upgrades (without accounting for > them), and try and fight the letter of law if they are ever hauled into > court. Wow! Nokia is in REAL trouble! They just gave me my SECOND free Operating System, Maemo Linux OS2008 Diablo. It's just LOADED with really neat new features we users have been begging for these last 6 months. They better be careful or someone's gonna haul Nokia into court! They're giving away tons of free upgrades with sellphones, loaded with new features. NONE of the customers have been complaining, however....(c;. ....including ME! Thanks, Nokia! > > now that the options issue has blown over it will interesting to see if > > Apple will relax, resume free feature upgrades (without accounting for [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Thanks, Nokia! nokia isn't an american company larry, thus are not governed by the SOX law. please THINK larry. David Moyer <davmoy@world.com> wrote in news:48ae4e31$0$33214$815e3792 @news.qwest.net: > nokia isn't an american company larry, thus are not governed by the SOX > law. please THINK larry. Nokia does business in the USA, pays USA taxes on business it does in the USA and IS SUBJECT TO USA LAW UNDER ITS USA BUSINESS, just like every other international company doing business in the USA. Somebody at Yamaha Motors said Yamaha was not subject to the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Protection Act because they are Japanese when I returned my defective GP1200 Waverunner. They were wrong, also....(c; Think David.... > > nokia isn't an american company larry, thus are not governed by the SOX > > law. please THINK larry. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Think David.... it's not a Tax or Warranty issue Larry, it's a corporate governance issue and the US has basically no control over how Noika is run. And just so you know, Noika is based in Finland, not the US, so you might want to update your brain so you can understand who the SOX law would affect. >>> now that the options issue has blown over it will interesting to see if >>> Apple will relax, resume free feature upgrades (without accounting for [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > nokia isn't an american company larry, thus are not governed by the SOX > law. please THINK larry. Larry? Think? Aren't those contradictory terms? >> My recommendation - wait for the next update and skip 2.0.2 > > One more time....SOFTWARE is NOT going to fix defective HARDWARE, not now, > not ever.... There are often software workarounds to hardware problems. > The radio problem in iPhone is an ANALOG problem....shitty antennas feeding > multipath to poorly designed and implemented receivers.....and, of course, > PROPAGATION PHYSICS eating high speed data with timing errors, every time. The iPhone phone section works. It may not be the best GSM phone in terms of the radio section, but it works well enough for most users. No one that cares about the best cellular service is on AT&T in the first place. >>> My recommendation - wait for the next update and skip 2.0.2 >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > one that cares about the best cellular service is on AT&T in the first > place. Well it appears to me that many of the issues are US-based. Now that could be because AT&T have a crap 3G network (likely), or US citizens are more likely to complain :) Come on downunder - it seems to work well here. Of course, no cellular network is bulletproof and even CDMA and more traditional networks arent always perfect either. And of course you can reset or change the behaviour of hardware with software upgrades - but you cant replace abd hardware with software. Nigel - Downunder > Well it appears to me that many of the issues are US-based. Now that could > be because AT&T have a crap 3G network (likely), Very true. > > Well it appears to me that many of the issues are US-based. Now that could > > be because AT&T have a crap 3G network (likely), > > Very true. some more theories - About 200-300kbit/s seems to be a typical connection speed in the US, with some people reporting much worse performance (on the fringes of coverage). However, according to Wired's 3G iPhone performance map, many users in Europe are getting 1-2Mbit/s quite easily. Various fingers of blame are being pointed - is it the AT&T (T) network in the US? Is it the Infineon (IFX) chipset? Or is this just another manifestation of my favorite bugbear - the disconnect between mobile network designers and device developers (and thus by extension the 'real' user experience)? Is it simply the case that the original usage cases envisaged for HSDPA didn't include the type of rich, demanding applications (and implied traffic patterns) that iPhones generate? Some thoughts: - First, this could well be a manifestation of the HSDPA "idle mode" latency I discussed a few weeks ago. For iPhone users used to always-on, instant-connect WiFi, or even a nailed-up EDGE connection on a matured & optimized network - the initial "time to connect" could well be notably worse. - Second, in many countries, 3G is deployed in a higher frequency band than 2G (1900MHz vs. 850MHz for AT&T, or 2100MHz vs 900/1800MHz in Europe). This means it will have shorter range, lesser coverage, and crucially worse indoor penetration. - The audience of 3G iPhone users is fairly self-selecting: almost all actually use the data capabilities. While some of that is attributable to the phone's usability, it's also the case that it has attracted existing data-oriented users. It also tends to come bundled with data plans. This contrasts with most other popular 3G phones, for which only a small minority regularly use data (or even have a data plan). I'll bet the average Nokia (NOK) N95 or SonyEricsson K-series user wouldn't notice a lousy 3G signal, because they only fire up the browser once a month. - Various blogs have commented on the new 2.0.2 firmware release, wondering whether it contains changes to the radio stack. Some have claimed that they're seeing more bars of signal strength subsequently - although the cynic in me suspects it's easier to change the signal-strength indicator software, than the underlying radio. - AT&T has not previously had the consumer 3G dongle phenomenon take off the same way it has in many other countries (reflecting different pricing strategies). So its network engineers may be a little behind the curve on dealing with massive, sudden ramp-ups of data traffic growth, often in new and unexpected geographic locations. They're probably faced with a whole range of optimisation headaches, and may even be needing to split cells & find new locations. - Expectations of WiFi-like performance by end users reading about HSDPA's "headline" speeds may have been unrealistic. Normally, WiFi AP's only have 1-3 users attached simultaneously, whereas a 3G base station might have hundreds with the available capacity in a sector shared amongst them all. Then there's another set of questions about the backhaul capacity from the cell site, in comparison with WiFi which usually has a home/office broadband connection to exploit. - Somewhere there must be some side-by-side comparisons of an iPhone running next to another 3G handset (Nokia, Moto (MOT), whatever) connected to the same operator's network. If there was a big performance delta, that would point the finger of blame clearly at the phone/chipset rather than the network. - It could be that the radio chip or antenna has worse performance on AT&T's 1900MHz band than on most European operators' 2100MHz for some reason. - I'd imagine that the density of iPhone users in the US is higher than in most other countries, and thus more likely to put a strain on AT&T's network in dense urban areas. Based on what I've been reading, I'm more inclined to point the finger at AT&T than at Infineon. Its 3G network has (to date) been geared more towards corporate PC + datacard users - and I suspect it's realizing that mass-market consumer usage patterns are very different indeed. David Moyer <davmoy@world.com> wrote in news:48ac2f7f$0$48228$815e3792 @news.qwest.net: > type of rich, demanding applications (and implied traffic patterns) that > iPhones generate? List some of them for us.... NO file sharing.... NO online gaming.... NO user streaming because the codecs aren't supported....Realmedia, DivX, Windows media, etc. NO servers, except to sell you something from ATT or Apple.... NO massive downloading because there's no media to store it on..... Which "demanding applications" are you talking about, flashlights?? I-Am- Rich?? > List some of them for us.... > > NO file sharing.... you can share any file via email > NO online gaming.... yes, there are online games > NO user streaming because the codecs aren't supported....Realmedia, DivX, > Windows media, etc. it streams radio, video just fine. > NO servers, except to sell you something from ATT or Apple.... ??? > NO massive downloading because there's no media to store it on..... what? the iphone has massive amounts of storage, collectively the most of any cell model. > Which "demanding applications" are you talking about, flashlights?? I-Am- > Rich?? again, collectively, the iphone is far and away the most data demanding device on cell networks today, it's crushing the feeble cell data network that's all. >> List some of them for us.... >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > demanding device on cell networks today, it's crushing the feeble cell > data network that's all. Come on, David. You're not that naive. File Sharing is not emailing me a photo. File sharing is Gigabytes of movies/music/stuff and YOU KNOW IT. Online games are eating cable internet systems. Iphone's little toy games are NOT online gaming...and YOU KNOW IT. How does it stream radio and video it doesn't support over a system that typically provides 200-300Kbps?? Oh, you're NOT gonna tell me about iTunes, are you? I noticed you conveniently forgot to LIST THE DEMANDING APPLICATIONS and went into a company sales promotion. It is NOT the most data demanding device, and you are VERY aware of its lack of anything that uses BANDWIDTH, as it was designed to do. The most bandwidth it uses is to load the spam GIFs off a webpage. Did you type in that list of apps, yet? > some more theories - > > About 200-300kbit/s seems to be a typical connection speed in the US, > with some people reporting much worse performance (on the fringes of > coverage). However, according to Wired's 3G iPhone performance map, many > users in Europe are getting 1-2Mbit/s quite easily. It's not as roy in Europe as you claim. Speeds are higher perhaps, but speed isn't the complaint- it's dropped connections and lousy 3G reception causing the phone to fallback to 2G. > Various fingers of blame are being pointed - is it the AT&T (T) network > in the US? Is it the Infineon (IFX) chipset? T-Mobile Netherlands places the blame squarely on the phone: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10015661-37.html > Or is this just another manifestation of my favorite bugbear - the > disconnect between mobile network designers and device developers (and > thus by extension the 'real' user experience)? Is it simply the case > that the original usage cases envisaged for HSDPA didn't include the > type of rich, demanding applications (and implied traffic patterns) that > iPhones generate? Bullplop- 3G (pre-iPhone), at least here in the states was primarily used by data cards in laptops. Are you suggesting the iPhone runs "richer, more demanding applications" or more traffic than COMPUTERS do? > - The audience of 3G iPhone users is fairly self-selecting: almost all > actually use the data capabilities. As are data card users, who are a self-selected group that 100% of use data since the cards don't do voice1 >While some of that is attributable > to the phone's usability, it's also the case that it has attracted [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > notice a lousy 3G signal, because they only fire up the browser once a > month. Oh please, again- data cad users use a lot of data. And no one carries a data plan on the phone to fire up a browsr once a month. Cut the nonsense- this is very simple: the networks adhere to a standard that connected equipment has to comply with, just like a home phone works in any residential jack you plug it into. Some iPhone users across the globe are having connectivity issues on various networks where other device and data card users aren't, period. This is 100% on Apple. Period. Now is it a big deal? IMO, no- Apple will fix it one way or another and make it right, fairly quickly by whatever means necessary- to much is at stake this early in their mobile business to leave a defect, even one only affecting a few % of users, hanging. > - AT&T has not previously had the consumer 3G dongle phenomenon take off > the same way it has in many other countries (reflecting different [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > with a whole range of optimisation headaches, and may even be needing to > split cells & find new locations. Again, connectivity issues have been reported in Europe as well- this isn't AT&T's fault, (except for the slow speeds!) > > some more theories - > > [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > Again, connectivity issues have been reported in Europe as well- this isn't > AT&T's fault, (except for the slow speeds!) go complain here ------- http://seekingalpha.com/article/91791-is-at-t-to-blame-for-3g-s-performan ce-in-the-iphone > > Again, connectivity issues have been reported in Europe as well- this > > isn't AT&T's fault, (except for the slow speeds!) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > http://seekingalpha.com/article/91791-is-at-t-to-blame-for-3g-s-performan > ce-in-the-iphone Why is it you never post the source of your "info" until someone shoots holes through it? > > go complain here ------- > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Why is it you never post the source of your "info" until someone shoots > holes through it? nobody has shot holes through it, thought you could figure it on your own. >> > Again, connectivity issues have been reported in Europe as well- >> > this isn't AT&T's fault, (except for the slow speeds!) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Why is it you never post the source of your "info" until someone > shoots holes through it? Because conjecture and dreams have no source?? > The iPhone phone section works. It may not be the best GSM phone in > terms of the radio section, but it works well enough for most users. "The iPhone--it's just plain good enough." > One more time....SOFTWARE is NOT going to fix defective HARDWARE, not now, > not ever.... Depends on the defect- often software can "patch" the symptom, which solves the problem. Besides, since so many chipsets themselves have flashable code on them, it's hard to know wher the "hardware" ends and the "firmware" begins these days. > The radio problem in iPhone is an ANALOG problem....shitty antennas feeding > multipath to poorly designed and implemented receivers.....and, of course, > PROPAGATION PHYSICS eating high speed data with timing errors, every time. Not much different than any number of tiny phones cramming in several different radios transmitting and receiving half-a-dozen bands. My Tilt is quadband GSM, tri-band UMTS, WiFi, BT, and GPS, just lke an iPhone. It's WiFi and BT range are limited compared to my laptop, the GPS receiver seems slighly less sensitive than my BT puck, and it's phone reception, while not lousy, certainly isn't Nokia quality. But then again, the scissors and screwdriver on my Swiss Army Knife aren't that great either- convenience and convergence comes with a price! > Don't wait for another software patch. Wait for the class action suit to > force a RECALL! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Now you'll have to wait for the lawyers to force them....which could take > years of footdragging. And after the $500 million dollar lawsuit is settled, the lawyers keep half, and the affected consumers get a "$25 off an iPhone 4G" coupon... As a law school prof I know jokes, "a class-action lawsuit is like a river of money, and the lawyer's job is to wade in and fill as many buckets as he can..." >Depends on the defect- often software can "patch" the symptom, which solves >the problem. > >Besides, since so many chipsets themselves have flashable code on them, >it's hard to know wher the "hardware" ends and the "firmware" begins these >days. Indeed -- In this case, imagine that the only problem is that the iPhone doesn't use enough power transmitting due to poor traces between the chipset and antenna. It might be possible to recalibrate the amount of power used to resolve the issue. On the other hand, if it's an actual hardware detect that software cannot compensate, it will be interesting to see how/if Apple handles it. > On the other hand, if it's an actual hardware detect that software > cannot compensate, it will be interesting to see how/if Apple handles > it. Can you imagine how much a recall of 3 million 3G's will cost them? They are also in trouble with the Nano melting or catching fire. Glad I sold it....Someone's gonna take a real bath if Stevie can't bullshit his way out of recalls. > They are also in trouble with the Nano melting or catching fire. there have only been 3 nanos with this problem out of millions, so it's less than a $300 problem, and besides, sony would have to pay, not apple. >> On the other hand, if it's an actual hardware detect that software >> cannot compensate, it will be interesting to see how/if Apple handles >> it. > >Can you imagine how much a recall of 3 million 3G's will cost them? More then doing QA properly next time around. That's the point. > > My recommendation - wait for the next update and skip 2.0.2 > > One more time....SOFTWARE is NOT going to fix defective HARDWARE, not now, > not ever.... and you know this how? did you take apart one and determine the cause and a fix? didn't think so. there is nothing conclusive that says whether it's hardware, software or a combination thereof. a financial analyst claimed it's hardware, but this same guy claimed last year's iphone had a defective screen, something which turned out to be false. not a whole lot of credibility there. > The radio problem in iPhone is an ANALOG problem....shitty antennas feeding > multipath to poorly designed and implemented receivers.....and, of course, > PROPAGATION PHYSICS eating high speed data with timing errors, every time. exactly what is the error rate? did you buy one and put it on a test bench? let's see some numbers. oh wait, you don't have any. Yeah, good question. What exactly is the error rate? Never mind, I wouldnt know what the answer means anyway. So, should I keep my 1st Generation iPhone? >> > My recommendation - wait for the next update and skip 2.0.2 >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > exactly what is the error rate? did you buy one and put it on a test > bench? let's see some numbers. oh wait, you don't have any. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >Yeah, >good question. What exactly is the error rate? Never mind, I wouldnt know >what the answer means anyway. > >So, should I keep my 1st Generation iPhone? Unless you need a new phone, I'd wait and see right now. That being said, I haven't had any real significant problems, no dropped calls. > Yeah, > good question. What exactly is the error rate? Never mind, I wouldnt > know what the answer means anyway. > > So, should I keep my 1st Generation iPhone? Never buy early production of any complex product, be it a smart phone, a vehicle, digital camera, etc. Always wait six months to a year (don't buy the first year of any new model vehicle). There are always problems that are found by the early adopters, and corrected in later production. It's often not possible to fix the early production with recalls. Usually the problems are such that they affect the usability and reliability, but not to a degree where they are so unusable that they have to be recalled. Sometimes the long-term reliability is affected, but the producer won't make any repairs unless it actually breaks, maybe extending the warranty slightly, but not enough. Often a bug in one of the large scale integrated circuits will be found that can only be corrected in a new rev of the chip. Revving a chip can easily take six months between the time the bug is found, the problem solved, new masks made, new wafers run, packaging, testing, and production. > Yeah, > good question. What exactly is the error rate? Never mind, I wouldnt know > what the answer means anyway. > > So, should I keep my 1st Generation iPhone? 2% or about 60,000 units. the 2.0.2 updated fixed most of them, but not all. |
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.