The score so far: Hackers 3, Apple 2

There is every indication that this update had nothing to do with re-locking the phone and instead was simply an update to support the new languages and patch the tiff bug. The fact that hackers are already seeing success, just indicates that Apple did little to stop them with this release.

As for the open platform for developers to create killer applications, the iPhone will have that ability long before we see any Android phone. By the time the first hardware comes off the line that supports Android, iPhone version 2 will have been released.

I'm not saying that Android may not be great or that the iPhone will dominate the cell phone industry, but I don't understand the negative feelings you seem to have toward a phone that is redefining what we expect of a cell phone.

The iPhone is a great phone! Get over your envy of people who own it and enjoy what it will mean to your next phone.

Doug,
Cringe isn't necessarily saying that the iPhone or all Apple is bad, or that he's envious. He is simply stating that technology built on a closed platform is not good. iPhone v2 will not change the fact that it operates on a closed platform. I challenge that I think Microsoft would create an open-source platform cell phone before Apple will.
Why are you (or Steve Jobs) afraid of making your much touted device open to some genuinely useful applications that your core audience wants and desires. For that matter, if you truly want to flood the market with your product, make it affordable for everyone. (See early Microsoft: They made a product that was leaps above everyone else, gladly helps those that want to develop software that works on it, made it affordable, initially, and it flooded the market. They have no raised prices and are still the dominant player.)

Why is Apple so fickle at receiving criticism?

Hey, g33k, that is a bunch of revisionist history regarding Microsoft....

MS software became so popular because it used anti-competitive methods to subtly break those competitors it did not want to succeed. When you control the OS, applications that run on that OS can be victims of the whims of the OS developer if they don't want to play fair ... and MS did not play fair (the anti-trust trial proved that).

Though, MS also had a bit of luck that Apple made so many extremely stupid decisions. Decisions that ultimately drove people to Windows PCs rather than to Macs.

For the most part, Apple has learned its lesson ... and as a result is seeing a resurgent (though admittedly small so far) increase in its market share of computer purchases.

I have long been an Apple supporter. I do not own an iPhone, but I am very disappointed and surprised by Apple's actions as well as a bit frightened. The arrogance of Apple, resticting its use to one carrier and then trying so hard to defeat its customers from using a product they purchased on a carrier of their choice is unfathomable to me. I upgraded to Leopard at the launch and despite the hype, there are some very basic flaws that remain underground - Apple squelches them on their website. What has happened or have they always been this heavy handed and I just didn't notice? This has been running for any unix platform I can find, would not get an iPhone on principle and am rooting for Google's success. My world is turning upside down!

I am waiting for the Neo1973 from FIC with Openmoko. Until then, I will limp along with my Treo 650. The Neo is worth taking a look at, friends. It runs Linux, and is totally open source. Has gps, Wi-FI, BlueTooth, and is actually a telephone!

Good grief it's only a phone! Why get so excited over such a frivolous toy.

As to “Killer Applications”, you have got to be kidding. This is just a little device that sits in ones pocket or hand bag. The only thing that this will kill is time and your bank account.

What we really need is a phone that makes reliable connections. Forget the useless features that overwhelm most users. Sure you can stuff lots of features on a phone and what do you get? A device that can do lots of things O.K. but none of them very well.

I don’t know about you but I use a computer and phone all day at work. The last thing I want to do is to play on a computer or talk on the phone unless I have to.

g33k-

[Why are you (or Steve Jobs) afraid of making your much touted device open to some genuinely useful applications that your core audience wants and desires.]

Perhaps you didn't hear about the iPhone SDK that Apple has announced will be available early next year?

[if you truly want to flood the market with your product, make it affordable for everyone.]

Apple seems to be doing a pretty good iPhone business at current prices. Why would they reduce them? If sales slack off, that would be the time to reduce prices.

[Why is Apple so fickle at receiving criticism?]

In what way is Apple fickle at receiving criticism?

Apple!! Microsoft!! There, I've said it again! Let the vitriol begin!
Why does every Mac/MS propellerhead have to take offense when someone mentions the other platform? Is this kindergarten? Get a life - there is life beyond the OS and the toys for cryin' out loud. Enough, already with the "my dog's bigger than your dog" stuff.

I don't see the issue with Apple attempting to manage the use of the software on the phones. I can only imagine that the rights remain those of Apple, even after purchasing the phone.

Think of the End User License Agreements (EULA) when you buy an application or operating system. The fact that you purchased the software doesn't give you ownership of the code.

In the case of the iPhone (or any similar product), you have to understand that there is a balance that must be struck.
-On the one hand, you did buy the phone and it's worthless without the software - so one would be pissed if a $400 investment stopped working.
-On the other hand, Apple and AT&T have a right to control who accesses thier software and hardware. Again refer to the EULA's for each.

Now lets play the paranoid security card here... What if Apple decided to let thier phone be accessed by any programmer (hacker). Would you feel safe using a device that has been hacked?
-What if the software has been hacked?
-Or how about vulrnerbility exploits that can be gained only through reverse engineering of the code.
! AT&T would justified in such concerns as this would likely have serious implications on thier wireless infrastructure.
#####
I encourage you to take a look at the big picture. My gut tells me that there is good being done through the updates, to protect users AND protect R&D investments.

enginerds

I suspect that Apple is more concerned with support than locking folks out. With third-party apps, and no documented API, it would be a support nightmare.

I view that a little like the fact that the warranty didn't cover breaking the sound card when I did some hands-on upgrading of my Mac-mini.

That said, I hope when the iPhone gets to be stable, Apple will release an API for third-party apps.

Some of the commentators need to go back and review PC History 101. While Apple made a good product, it was always costly. Back in the 70s and 80s, you could find good things in a lot of products, Commodore, Atari, RS Color Computer, etc. They were also cheap when compared to an Apple product. I guess back then, paying a higher price made the "sheeple" feel like they had a superior product. What made Microsoft was IBM. Once the PC was made a "legitimate business tool" and NOT a "kids's toy", people who used it at work also decided to use it at home (yes, people worked at home, even back then). It was not because the Microsoft OS was leaps above everything else, it was because IBM "legitimized" the PC in the business world. Of course, according to the events at the time, IBM was "stabbed in the back" (during the OS/2 era) as, eventually were many other software companies that "shook hands with Microsoft". At the time, you could say the Apple PCs were superior, BUT they were not "legitimized" in the business world - after all, if you spent the entire workday on the PC, and brought work home, you
weren't able to do it on an Apple. It was tough for Apple when an IBM salesman was pitching IBM PCs, along with mainframe support to its customers and Apple could not.

As far as EULAs, while I would agree with the decompiling the binaries, I don't go along with restriction that I don't own the binary code that I bought. I'm not condoning piracy or making copies for friends, but if I happen to buy a new PC and want to install the OS I have been using (assuming it runs on the new hardware), I should be able to do so. Can you imagine Detroit telling you you could not make any changes to the car you bought? Why even the government (and patent office) might be against that. Yet the ignorance in government is just what is allowing this to take place in the software world. You youngsters might find this hard to believe, but most software was the equivalent of "open source" years ago. Granted, it may have only run on specific mainframes, but the source code was readily available for modification. And, yes, you could make the argument that the cost of the software was buried in the cost of the mainframe on which it ran, but you could still have access to the source and make whatever modifications you wished for your installation.

I could add a lot more, but this subject is too complex for a simple post.

bobc4012,
Well said!
In addition, while Apple may very well make a superior product two attitudes have kept it a 'second-class' company. The first - 'do it my way or the highway' - is just too restrictive for a lot of people. And don't try to say MS is the same. MS may be restrictive, but Apple has taken it to an art form and the folks at MS are amateurs in comparison.
The second - 'WE control the equipment. WE decide what you need and don't need. And if you want more, well, expect to PAY!' - makes their hardware
more expensive than the competition. While it's loosened up some, the Mac is still not nearly as open as the PC is. MS may have problems with their OSs, but that has a lot to do with having to support a huge number of different vendor products on a single platform. Some of Apple's vaunted stability is due to it's restrictions on what can and cannot be put into Apple equipment - both software and hardware. It's always easier to stabilize a closed, completely known platform than an open, almost anything goes platform. But guess which one is actually more versatile?
:)
Both platforms have their merits. And both have their problems. The iPhone is just an extension of the Mac and Apple philosophy - the same attitudes prevail. And without a basic change in attitude, at some point Apple will lose the advantage its innovation gave it to more versatile, more open, and less restrictive, less expensive devices...
Just as it did to the PC.

Part of Apple's marketing genius is helping to keep their product names in the news.

Apple doesn't give a damn if people hack the apple iphone.

As long as Apple can eventually tactically "lose" the fight with hackers who tout that they're doing it for the good of the people, it helps the apple market branding.

What are you buying when you buy a cell phone/web device? Service? A connection? A piece of hardware? A contract or a promise? Some of all of the above-

It isn't just Apple that plays the proprietary game- when you buy almost any companies phone, they lock down the features, and force you to use their network to move your tunes, ringtones and photos around- for a price, of course. Why can't I take my camera phone and download photos by USB? Or program my own custom ringtones without paying extra for that 'service'?

Even if the phone manufacturers build a totally open, programmable phone, will any cell network company be willing to allow it onto their network? I doubt if I would if I was in their place, with their control also comes (some) security- As much as I want an open device, I can at least understand why Verizon/Cingular/ATT/Sprint want to keep the network devices locked down-

"It isn't just Apple that plays the proprietary game- when you buy almost any companies phone, they lock down the features, and force you to use their network to move your tunes, ringtones and photos around- for a price, of course"

When you buy a phone from a cellular company, they are usually subsidizing the cost of the phone. Nobody says that you have to buy the from the cellular carrier with the features "locked down".

"As much as I want an open device, I can at least understand why Verizon/Cingular/ATT/Sprint want to keep the network devices locked down"

AT&T tried that decades ago with their "wired network" and they lost the Codafone(sp?) vs AT&T lawsuit allowing you to run down to your local Wall-Mart and buy your own phone and hook it up to their network via that little jack on the wall of your bedroom.

Wait, you're telling me that Apple is more closed than Microsoft? Yeah, right. Apple uses Apache Web server, Postfix, and lots of other open source software. They even contribute back. Konqueror is much better because of Apple's development of Safari.

You say Apple, which is locking phones like every other carrier, is evil for doing what the rest do? Please, spare us the histrionics. Apple will be releasing an SDK soon, no doubt for free. Try getting free development tools from Microsoft. Then anybody can write applications for the iPhone. And they'll be secure.

Worry about security? Apple is damned if they do and damned if they don't. Release the SDK too early and they don't care enough - according to truth-compromised pundits Enderle, Thurrott, and well as the Microsoft astroturfing pseudo-press.

Wait until February and they're evil according to all the childish whiners who want it now! So why wouldn't Apple do what they please? They can't make everyone happy no matter what they do.

And if you think the Google Phone could touch the iPhone with a ten foot pole, you really are dreaming. The old saying comes to mind. "A camel is a horse designed by a committee." Apple, at least, has never suffered from that problem. Good and bad, that's the reality.

"It isn't just Apple that plays the proprietary game- when you buy almost any companies phone, they lock down the features, and force you to use their network to move your tunes, ringtones and photos around- for a price, of course. Why can't I take my camera phone and download photos by USB? Or program my own custom ringtones without paying extra for that 'service'?"

Ummmm, I use a Pocket PC phone. Guess what? I can modify the features all that I want, without paying. I can add ringers, customize caller ID ringtones, take pictures, transfer using a USB cable, and add programs . . . All independent of whatever carrier I choose to use the phone on.

If I muck with the actual programming of the phone and I break it, I won't be heartbroken if the manufacturer tells me they will not support it. I understand Apple wants to keep the iPhone platform 'stable', but writing things that actively seek and destroy anything that isn't there's is a malicious practice. If I want to add/alter something on the hardware device that I purchased, I should be allowed to. If you won't support it after I do that, then so be it. But, don't you dare force down something that wipes out anything that I have done on MY device.

Apple had their chance and blew it. Back before there was a Mac, there was the Apple II. This was an open machine - fully documented. Lots of people bought one and, finding that it could not do something, built a card to make it do what they needed. Many of these people started companies selling these enhancements. So you were pretty much able to do anything you wanted by buying a few off-the-shelf parts.

Now when you have hundreds of cards and peripherals available, no mom & pop local store is going to be able to stock even a sizable percentage of them. They were available from mail order companies only.

And then Apple decided to placate its brick & mortar dealers by cutting off the mail order dealers. Almost overnight mail order sales of Apple PCs dried up. Mail order firms were not able to get Apple PCs to sell, and so they stopped carrying cards and peripherals for them. With no outlet for their wares, most of the companies making things for the Apple PC went out of business. Most of the rest switched to add-ons of another open standard computer that had come out about that time - the IBM PC.

And so, basically, Apple gave IBM a huge gift - the bulk of their PC market. And before anyone mentions the Mac, at that time it was a joke. It had only 128K of memory, a tiny black & white screen, and no expansion capability. It didn't become a serious machine until after Apple got rid of Steve Jobs.

Enginerds wrote:
"Would you feel safe using a device that has been hacked?"

_You_ don't seem to have any problem with that, do you? Or were you posting from VMS?

I've been an Apple fan since forever, but the iPhone debacle is the biggest since the Apple ///. Why did they lock in with AT&T? Those were the same folks who said that packet switching was unfeasable and whose penchant for monopoly is well-known (as is Apple's arch rival (and partial owner) Microsoft). So, Apple is forcing Apple-philes to switch service-providers to have the pleasure of the price-fickle iPhone. They're as clueless as the folks who brought us Zune (or whatever the MS iPod is called).

One of the big advantages of working with Macs is that the hackers haven't spent much time devising viruses for them, and they tend to be cleaner because of it. However, the iPhone is becoming hack-central just because of the 1-provider only rule that Apple concocted w/ AT&T. It's not too much of a leap from hacking iPhones to open them up for one's own cell service provider to sending viruses and spam over iPhones that rival those on Windows.

Let's not forget that the DOS-loaded PC came out in 1981, and the Mac came out in 1984. For those 3 years the PC was competing against Apple II+'s and LC's. Those Apple II's had been out since, what, 1978?

Then when the Mac came out, it was locked up tight, but it's interface was clearly superior. Apple had a de-facto 5 year monopoly on graphical interfaces. Despite the initially under-powered Mac hardware, any sane computer analyst had to give credit to Apple.

Apple has often been in the position of having a better system, technically speaking. And they have never been able to make it the dominant platform. Whining about how Microsoft "abused a monopoly/oligopoly position" fails to explain how MS established this in the first place. It certainly didn't start out that way.

Reminds me of a quote from IBM, I think it was Thomas Watson Jr. Paraphrasing very loosely, it went "over and over again competitors released better systems than IBM. However they were never able to overcome our business, service and marketing systems."

Let's take a step or two back, revisit the basic issue, and dispence with all the virulence. (1)Apple offers software upgrades for the iPhone. (2) Those upgrades, for whatever reason, can "break" unauthorized third-party applications. That problem has been well publicised. (3) Nobody is forced to apply any iPhone upgrade. (4) Anyone with a "hacked" iPhone can reasonably expect that an upgrade will cause them problems, but they choose to do so anyway. So (5) where's the problem????

This is such a non-issue. Apple made improvements to the phone and warned users of hacked phones that they might lose functionality if they upgraded. It's a hacked phone! What do you expect? That's like loading Linux on a new PC and expecting it never to break with an upgrade (which is exactly what happened the first time I upgraded Ubuntu).

As for them only going with one service provider, too bad for them. I'm not switching to AT&T no matter what. If Apple wants my business, they'll have to court Verizon since almost everyone I know is on Verizon and my In minutes are free. Guess I'll be sticking with my PocketPC phone for a while longer.