Scott Forstall told Pandora to jailbreak early iPhones to get a head start on development

Posted:
in General Discussion
Ahead of the official App Store SDK, Scott Forstall told Pandora to use jailbroken iPhones to develop their music app.

Pandora
Pandora


Long before he left Apple, and has proven hard to track down, Scott Forstall promoted the then forthcoming App Store to developers. Music service Pandora's chief technology officer, Tom Conrad, says around 2007, that included advising them to start work early using jailbroken iPhones.

According to an interview in Vice, Conrad says that he and Pandora executive Tim Westergren were invited to lunch by then Apple senior vice president Scott Forstall. They met away from Apple, and reportedly talked for hours, before Conrad asked what Pandora should do next.

"What, if anything, can we do at Pandora to get ready for the next generation of iPhone that includes an App Store and native APIs?" Conrad asked

"Forstall said," reports Conrad, "[that] it wouldn't be a waste of your time to jailbreak some iPhones and use the kind of back door toolkits that were being distributed by other people to build a native Pandora app while we get our act together at Apple on something more formal."




Forstall's recommendation meant that Pandora was able to develop its app ahead of both the App Store, and of Apple's official App Store SDK. Consequently, its music app was available to on the launch day of the App Store.

According to Vice, nine months later, the Pandora app had been installed on 21% of iPhones.

Pandora most recently added Siri voice support for controlling the service via the HomePod and HomePod mini.
Dogperson

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 17
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 2,411member
    As I've been saying for months, to people who "want to run anything," Apple doesn't care if you jailbreak your iPhones. This is proof.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 17
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,653member
    As I've been saying for months, to people who "want to run anything," Apple doesn't care if you jailbreak your iPhones. This is proof.
    Well this was before the SDK.

    They do care as in it voids the warranty, and bypasses the App Store, they surely don't want it to be easy which is why they make it hard.
    avon b7lolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 17
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 2,411member
    asdasd said:
    As I've been saying for months, to people who "want to run anything," Apple doesn't care if you jailbreak your iPhones. This is proof.
    Well this was before the SDK.

    They do care as in it voids the warranty, and bypasses the App Store, they surely don't want it to be easy which is why they make it hard.
    Fair point, but my point which I made several times is also valid, that Apple won't sue you if you jailbreak your iPhone, which also makes me think they might make installation of other OSs a legit feature just like they do in macOS. They don't void the warranty if you install Windows. And if they void a warranty it's only on the jailbroken OS, not the phone itself. It's easy enough for the user or Apple to install a valid OS again later.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 17
    As I've been saying for months, to people who "want to run anything," Apple doesn't care if you jailbreak your iPhones. This is proof.
    um, no... this was 2007 and it's ONE *ex* VP who was such a raging narcissist that he wouldn't acknowledge that he fucked up Maps and got himself fired as a result.  He was also the dillhole who was behind the "skeuomorphic" elements of the iOS interface... elements that THANKFULLY got ditched when Jony Ive was given the job of revisualizing iOS...  Tim Cook firing this clown-shoe was the best thing that could have happened to Apple.  Forstall was Jobs' pet and as long as he was there there was going to be a power struggle between the guy who *thought* he should be running Apple and the guy who actually was...  the quote in the article that says "while we get our act together at Apple " says it all... he was in it for himself.
    edited March 4 lolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 17

    Fair point, but my point which I made several times is also valid, that Apple won't sue you if you jailbreak your iPhone, which also makes me think they might make installation of other OSs a legit feature just like they do in macOS. They don't void the warranty if you install Windows. And if they void a warranty it's only on the jailbroken OS, not the phone itself. It's easy enough for the user or Apple to install a valid OS again later.
    i don't think that there is a single person alive who has been afraid of being sued by apple for jailbreaking their own phone.   jailbreak your phone... you lose your warranty.  if your phone is so broken that you have to actually bring it to apple for repair then you're probably not going to be able to "install a valid OS again later" so the voided warranty is still the deterrent...

    and the idea of an officially tolerated (not even supported... just "tolerated") "OtherOS" seems pointless.  the A-series processors are so heavily customized from ARM that you'd never get the same performance or optimizations from a guest OS so it'd be easier and cheaper to just buy an Android / Windows / whatever device and get on with your life.  At least with the Macs they were running off the shelf Intel processors so are almost instantly compatible with other operating systems.
    chemengin1lolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 17
    hammeroftruthhammeroftruth Posts: 1,053member
    asdasd said:
    As I've been saying for months, to people who "want to run anything," Apple doesn't care if you jailbreak your iPhones. This is proof.
    Well this was before the SDK.

    They do care as in it voids the warranty, and bypasses the App Store, they surely don't want it to be easy which is why they make it hard.
    It doesn’t void the warranty as long as it doesn’t damage the hardware. If you jailbreak your device and need Apple to fix it, either under warranty or out of warranty, you need to put Apple’s firmware back on it and it will need to be able to be accessed by Apple’s diagnostic tools in order to receive service. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 17
    hammeroftruthhammeroftruth Posts: 1,053member

    As I've been saying for months, to people who "want to run anything," Apple doesn't care if you jailbreak your iPhones. This is proof.
    um, no... this was 2007 and it's ONE *ex* VP who was such a raging narcissist that he wouldn't acknowledge that he fucked up Maps and got himself fired as a result.  He was also the dillhole who was behind the "skeuomorphic" elements of the iOS interface... elements that THANKFULLY got ditched when Jony Ive was given the job of revisualizing iOS...  Tim Cook firing this clown-shoe was the best thing that could have happened to Apple.  Forstall was Jobs' pet and as long as he was there there was going to be a power struggle between the guy who *thought* he should be running Apple and the guy who actually was...  the quote in the article that says "while we get our act together at Apple " says it all... he was in it for himself.
    That’s not entirely how it went. 

    Forestall was the fall guy for taking the blame of the cobbled together piece of shit called Maps. Apple had bought several map related companies and wanted to piece them together to make Maps. It wasn’t ready to be released when Cook decided to announce and released it anyway. 
    Once the public tried it and saw it was crap, Cook was forcing Forestall to apologize and take the blame when Forestall knew it wasn’t ready and objected to releasing it.
    If you look at the following Apple event, you can see Forestall in the audience just seething that they muzzled him and were counting the minutes before firing him. 

    At least that’s how it was explained to me by some friends that worked there. 

    Karma came back to bite Apple when Ive’s ios 7 was released and hundreds of users bricked their iPhones trying to update and most didn’t have a backup. To make matters worse, that version kept corrupting itself forcing customers to erase and setup as new, thus losing anything outside of their iCloud synchronization. 
    edited March 4 mike54
  • Reply 8 of 17
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,341member
    Was Scott Forstall officially authorized to say this to Pandora or shooting from the hip?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 17
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 2,411member
    MacPro said:
    Was Scott Forstall officially authorized to say this to Pandora or shooting from the hip?
    The only person above Scott was Tim Cook. Is Tim the only person authorized to speak for Apple?
    chemengin1
  • Reply 10 of 17
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 2,411member


    Fair point, but my point which I made several times is also valid, that Apple won't sue you if you jailbreak your iPhone, which also makes me think they might make installation of other OSs a legit feature just like they do in macOS. They don't void the warranty if you install Windows. And if they void a warranty it's only on the jailbroken OS, not the phone itself. It's easy enough for the user or Apple to install a valid OS again later.
    (1) i don't think that there is a single person alive who has been afraid of being sued by apple for jailbreaking their own phone.   jailbreak your phone... you lose your warranty.  if your phone is so broken that you have to actually bring it to apple for repair then you're probably not going to be able to "install a valid OS again later" so the voided warranty is still the deterrent...

    (2) and the idea of an officially tolerated (not even supported... just "tolerated") "OtherOS" seems pointless.  the A-series processors are so heavily customized from ARM that you'd never get the same performance or optimizations from a guest OS so it'd be easier and cheaper to just buy an Android / Windows / whatever device and get on with your life.  At least with the Macs they were running off the shelf Intel processors so are almost instantly compatible with other operating systems.
    (1) I highly doubt that anyone has physically damaged their iPhone by installing a different OS, so that's not a realistic situation you are describing. If you don't know how to restore iOS onto a corrupted device, just google it. It's not hard to find.

    (2) "not as high performance" does not make something "pointless". To the contrary, if doing this gets regulators off Apple's back, because it lets users install any software they want, then having an alternate OS that runs inefficiently is the ENTIRE POINT. How ironic that you missed that point.
    edited March 4
  • Reply 11 of 17
    crowleycrowley Posts: 8,279member
    MacPro said:
    Was Scott Forstall officially authorized to say this to Pandora or shooting from the hip?
    It was in Apple's interest to have buzz around the app store, and apps ready to go on day 1, so either he was authorised, or at the very least senior people wouldn't have criticised him for it.  He was head of iOS software development after all, so good developer relations for launch likely fell within his remit.

    Providing it wasn't widely known, as it could have been seen as broad encouragement of jailbreaking, then there wasn't really a downside for Apple.
    mike54
  • Reply 12 of 17
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 2,411member

    As I've been saying for months, to people who "want to run anything," Apple doesn't care if you jailbreak your iPhones. This is proof.
    um, no... this was 2007 and it's ONE *ex* VP who was such a raging narcissist that he wouldn't acknowledge that he fucked up Maps and got himself fired as a result.  He was also the dillhole who was behind the "skeuomorphic" elements of the iOS interface... elements that THANKFULLY got ditched when Jony Ive was given the job of revisualizing iOS...  Tim Cook firing this clown-shoe was the best thing that could have happened to Apple.  Forstall was Jobs' pet and as long as he was there there was going to be a power struggle between the guy who *thought* he should be running Apple and the guy who actually was...  the quote in the article that says "while we get our act together at Apple " says it all... he was in it for himself.
    I see not a shred of evidence that Forstall's departure changed Apple's views on replacing an OS. And you offered no proof. All you did was rant about your opinions.
    mike54
  • Reply 13 of 17
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 11,400member

    As I've been saying for months, to people who "want to run anything," Apple doesn't care if you jailbreak your iPhones. This is proof.
    um, no... this was 2007 and it's ONE *ex* VP who was such a raging narcissist that he wouldn't acknowledge that he fucked up Maps and got himself fired as a result.  He was also the dillhole who was behind the "skeuomorphic" elements of the iOS interface... elements that THANKFULLY got ditched when Jony Ive was given the job of revisualizing iOS...  Tim Cook firing this clown-shoe was the best thing that could have happened to Apple.  Forstall was Jobs' pet and as long as he was there there was going to be a power struggle between the guy who *thought* he should be running Apple and the guy who actually was...  the quote in the article that says "while we get our act together at Apple " says it all... he was in it for himself.
    That’s not entirely how it went. 

    Forestall was the fall guy for taking the blame of the cobbled together piece of shit called Maps. Apple had bought several map related companies and wanted to piece them together to make Maps. It wasn’t ready to be released when Cook decided to announce and released it anyway. 
    Once the public tried it and saw it was crap, Cook was forcing Forestall to apologize and take the blame when Forestall knew it wasn’t ready and objected to releasing it.
    If you look at the following Apple event, you can see Forestall in the audience just seething that they muzzled him and were counting the minutes before firing him. 

    At least that’s how it was explained to me by some friends that worked there. 
    Nah, I don't think anyone outside of those directly involved can say what happened. Even Apple employees - there are almost 150,000 employees, so unless they knew Forstall personally, the "telephone game" & rumors will distort anything into anything. I work at a software company and I have no idea how our executives feel or what their motivations are. Speculation at best.
    lolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 17
    lightbowlightbow Posts: 16member
    Keep in mind the "Wild West" of pre-SDK iPhone development. Even within Apple, there were employees (myself included) told by their manager / director to just jailbreak their own iPhones to get a head start on development, knowing they would receive zero information or help internally from the iPhone team. It was just easier that way. It sounds insane, but an era I remember fondly.
    lollivermangakattenwatto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 17
    mike54mike54 Posts: 442member
    Scott Forstall gave the correct advice at that time. Official or not it benefited Apple. I would of done the same. Unofficial decisions are made by company employees all the time.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 17
    designrdesignr Posts: 581member

    As I've been saying for months, to people who "want to run anything," Apple doesn't care if you jailbreak your iPhones. This is proof.
    um, no... this was 2007 and it's ONE *ex* VP who was such a raging narcissist that he wouldn't acknowledge that he fucked up Maps and got himself fired as a result.  He was also the dillhole who was behind the "skeuomorphic" elements of the iOS interface... elements that THANKFULLY got ditched when Jony Ive was given the job of revisualizing iOS...  Tim Cook firing this clown-shoe was the best thing that could have happened to Apple.  Forstall was Jobs' pet and as long as he was there there was going to be a power struggle between the guy who *thought* he should be running Apple and the guy who actually was...  the quote in the article that says "while we get our act together at Apple " says it all... he was in it for himself.
    That’s not entirely how it went. 

    Forestall was the fall guy for taking the blame of the cobbled together piece of shit called Maps. Apple had bought several map related companies and wanted to piece them together to make Maps. It wasn’t ready to be released when Cook decided to announce and released it anyway. 
    Once the public tried it and saw it was crap, Cook was forcing Forestall to apologize and take the blame when Forestall knew it wasn’t ready and objected to releasing it.
    If you look at the following Apple event, you can see Forestall in the audience just seething that they muzzled him and were counting the minutes before firing him. 

    At least that’s how it was explained to me by some friends that worked there. 
    Nah, I don't think anyone outside of those directly involved can say what happened. Even Apple employees - there are almost 150,000 employees, so unless they knew Forstall personally, the "telephone game" & rumors will distort anything into anything. I work at a software company and I have no idea how our executives feel or what their motivations are. Speculation at best.
    You're correct that unless you were there you cannot know for sure. That said, I've seen this same scenario unfold more than once in my own experience. It rings more likely than not from my point of view. Grand plans and missions are launched with unrealistic objectives. It (predictably) fails. The top guy isn't going to take the fall. Someone must. That may not be what happened with Scott Forstall (and I'm no fan of him BTW), but this seems plausible to me.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 17
    As I've been saying for months, to people who "want to run anything," Apple doesn't care if you jailbreak your iPhones. This is proof.
    um, no... this was 2007 and it's ONE *ex* VP who was such a raging narcissist that he wouldn't acknowledge that he fucked up Maps and got himself fired as a result.  He was also the dillhole who was behind the "skeuomorphic" elements of the iOS interface... elements that THANKFULLY got ditched when Jony Ive was given the job of revisualizing iOS...  Tim Cook firing this clown-shoe was the best thing that could have happened to Apple.  Forstall was Jobs' pet and as long as he was there there was going to be a power struggle between the guy who *thought* he should be running Apple and the guy who actually was...  the quote in the article that says "while we get our act together at Apple " says it all... he was in it for himself.
    Whatever went down, it is a real surprise and a welcome change that Scott dropped off the radar (apart from his opera stint) and didn't start bad-mouthing the company.

    Chances are that he may write a tell-all sometime in the future, but I respect him for keeping mum, whatever the reasons may be. 
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.