Originally Posted by aresee
Ah, but your post implied that because it wasn't developed by Apple, Apple would charge for it just because it was non-Apple. I pointed out that this isn't being done for podcasts. Sure there are a few podcasts that you have to pay for, and maybe Apple is even getting a cut (or charging a money handling service fee), but the vast majority of podcasts in the iTMS are free.
I don't know the cell phone industry, not do I know it technical architecture, but our cell phones are much different than you and I sitting at our own computers. If an app goes bad on our computers, it takes out our computer and leaves everybody else alone. If it goes crazy on the net our ISP can quickly identify it and disconnect it without impacting anybody else. Cell phones are different, they are always connected and broadcasting. If they go crazy they may be able to take out a cell tower affect many other users. And as we move through the city this outage will move with us affected many thousands of people. So it is understandable that the FCC and ATT will both be concerned about any possible impacts to the cell system. So your assumption that Jobs, and only Jobs is vetting this software is incorrect. He is a part of a partnership that includes two others with a very high interest in keeping outsiders out. He can't filly, nilly throw the whole cell phone network open to all comers just on his say so. Especially when one of the interested parties can bar him and Apple from the full industry. Besides, being a newcomer to the industry, and showing the conservatism they have to government regulations (i.e. accounting rules that charged the Touch owners $20), I bet that Jobs and Apple are following the FCC rules and regulations to the letter.
But like you say, we are both speculating.
On the iTunes issue I concur. This is just a way to make money and this is fine by me. I could go the long route, use Audio Hijack Pro and copy the streams that I want but I do not mind paying $10 a month and have the podcasts delivered fresh to my Mac daily.
On the other issue, I completely disagree. In the interim between answering your post, I contacted several friends at Nokia, and SE (network designers and engineers) to ask them about the possibility of a cell phone (even en masse) crashing a network. They all concur that this is not possible especially with the IN built into the network. If you have any data to prove that there has been a recorded case of a cell phone crashing a network we would like to see it. Even in labs, there is no known case of a normal phone or even a Smartphone crashing a network. Putting all things aside, I have to say that this is one argument from Apple and AT&T that holds no water. The FCC did not come up with the GSM standard. It was developed from a consortium of groups, countries, organization with ratification coming from the ITU-T. In all likelihood, the FCC is following their recommendations. If Apple has a cell phone on the market, it has gone through a rigorous certifcation process that would insure that the iPhone possed no danger to indiviual users or the network operators.
As I said, I think that the SDK, attempting to hack proof the phone are just ways that Apple is trying to guarantee the next iPhone associated revenue stream, and there is nothing wrong with trying to leverage a hot item. I guess it's all in the way you do it. Oh by the way, I do not believe that Apple is really trying to hack proof the iPhone. Reason being, they make money for every iPhone sold, either by AT&T or in their stores. As they have now found a software hack that only takes 30 mins to implement, I would bet that AT&T and Apple stores (big smile on Steves face) are hemorraging iPhones before Apple issues another "lock".
****** Thanks for a good discussion. ******