There's no reason to believe that it's not the case. Apple must have some way of getting their own programs to run. Why not do it the way you say? No reason I can think of. It's just, right now, that there is no physical way to get those programs installed that we know of.
Also, the phone uses a different cpu.
It's already been demonstrated that you can use a different CPU and still be the same OS. I accept that happily. By API compatibility, I should have been more clear in saying that meant having source code compatibility... All the same set of system calls available, with the same argument lists, etc...
And I agree, there's been no evidence to suggest that any of what I'm asking for isn't already the case. That's exactly my point... There's no conclusive evidence of anything. Yet.
I disagree with the assessment that poor credit equals a lack of finances. Though I don't don't that the majority of people with bad credit probably should be soending their money elsewhere there are still of plenty of people with poor or no credit that are have good paying jobs.
I used to have this problem. I never used my credit card, I didn't have any debts, I had always paid cash for everything, so when I did try take advantage of interest free credit, I was always turned down because I didn't have a credit rating at all. This didn't mean that I couldn't afford what I wanted to get credit for.
I now have almost $1m worth of debts, so I no longer have a problem getting things on credit! Now that's ironic!
It's kind of funny about RSS. When it first came out, I was all over it. but, after a while, I found it to be annoying, giving less information that I actually wanted to see of the page. I haven't used it for quite a while.
I use RSS Menu on Tiger and Mail's RSS read on Leopard (is that NDA stuff?). I hate having to come to AI or any other of the dozens of websites I frequent on a daly basis to get new articles. It's why I don't use Safari's RSS as it requires to go the site first. I like having a number pop up somewhere on my desktop saying "hey, there is a new article you might want to read".
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
We don't know that the iPhone is based on Leopard. Everyone assumes that to be the case. There's nothing about the iPhone that would require Leopard.64 bits anyone?
I think the iPhone's Safari interface screams core Core Animation and resolution independence. THough these could ahve been added to Tiger too. Didn't Jobs say it was based off of Leopard?
It's already been demonstrated that you can use a different CPU and still be the same OS. I accept that happily. By API compatibility, I should have been more clear in saying that meant having source code compatibility... All the same set of system calls available, with the same argument lists, etc...
And I agree, there's been no evidence to suggest that any of what I'm asking for isn't already the case. That's exactly my point... There's no conclusive evidence of anything. Yet.
I see no reason why all system calls should be available. Its a portable device, hopefully running a very, very slimmed down version of OS X, all in the effort to save power and memory usage. Why bother including frameworks that eat up space and offer no benefit. Or including an entire BSD subsystem? Or include system calls for functions that do no good (for example, who needs multi-processor code in there if its a single-processor system?). Everything you want to run has to be ported to that processor. It wouldn't make sense to port the entire OS if parts aren't going to be used.
Also going on that, we may find out in the next few months how well OS X's underpinnings port to low-power devices. If you recall, one reviewer already said his phone got warm. Is that something we want, standard laptop warmth in our phones just so they can run a bunch of bells and whistles?
And I would think its plainly obvious that Safari on the iPhone does not have the built-in RSS reader part of Safari/Mac. Otherwise, why make the web-site? It also doesn't have a downloads window, either. But what would really suck is how you're stuck with what Apple gives you, so no PithHelmet, which means flashing banner ads all over the place!
I see no reason why all system calls should be available. Its a portable device, hopefully running a very, very slimmed down version of OS X, all in the effort to save power and memory usage. Why bother including frameworks that eat up space and offer no benefit. Or including an entire BSD subsystem? Or include system calls for functions that do no good (for example, who needs multi-processor code in there if its a single-processor system?). Everything you want to run has to be ported to that processor. It wouldn't make sense to port the entire OS if parts aren't going to be used.
While I agree with most of you points, I'm under the impression that the iPhone has 3 ARM CPUs.
Also going on that, we may find out in the next few months how well OS X's underpinnings port to low-power devices. If you recall, one reviewer already said his phone got warm. Is that something we want, standard laptop warmth in our phones just so they can run a bunch of bells and whistles?
It's already been demonstrated that you can use a different CPU and still be the same OS. I accept that happily. By API compatibility, I should have been more clear in saying that meant having source code compatibility... All the same set of system calls available, with the same argument lists, etc...
And I agree, there's been no evidence to suggest that any of what I'm asking for isn't already the case. That's exactly my point... There's no conclusive evidence of anything. Yet.
Agreed. Consider, however, that Apple has been *extremely clear and consistent* in talking about the OS on the iPhone as "OS X", and the OS on Macintoshes as "Mac OS X". As I see it, OS X is being positioned as a multi-device, multi-pronged OS family, with one base core. Mac OS X = OS X + Mac specific bits. OS X (iPhone) = OS X + iPhone specific bits. There's no guarantee of crossover between the Mac-specific and the iPhone-specific bits. I don't believe we'll see one be a subset of the other, but they'll intersect in the OS X core.
Now, that's not to say that Apple couldn't migrate certain technologies (WebKit, for example) from the Mac side over to the iPhone side, or even the other way around (multi-touch tablet?). But I think we need to stop thinking that OS X == Mac OS X, because that equality just stopped holding true.
It may be semantics, but it's important to read between the lines in a lot of this. The iPhone can be running 100% OS X, and yet still not offer the Mac-APIs that we'd expect from what we previously, colloquially and informally, referred to as "OS X".
Basically, expectations are out the window at this point. Brave new world, etc, etc, etc.
It's already been demonstrated that you can use a different CPU and still be the same OS. I accept that happily. By API compatibility, I should have been more clear in saying that meant having source code compatibility... All the same set of system calls available, with the same argument lists, etc...
And I agree, there's been no evidence to suggest that any of what I'm asking for isn't already the case. That's exactly my point... There's no conclusive evidence of anything. Yet.
Of course it's the same OS. Powermac's and Intel based machines use the same OS as well. However, programs don't work on the cpu they weren't designed for.
The only reason PPC programs work on Intel Macs, and many of them don't, and the others run at 50% speed, at best, is because of Rosetta.
This means that even with the same OS, the programs won't run. At the very least, they would need a compile for the new cpu.
But, for most programs, that won't do at all. Almost the entire interface will have to be rewritten from scratch. Chances are that much of the rest would have to be rewritten, as the phyical part of the device is so different as well. Most programs are also written for what are now far more powerful machines than the iPhone is, that has to be taken into account as well.
Agreed. Consider, however, that Apple has been *extremely clear and consistent* in talking about the OS on the iPhone as "OS X", and the OS on Macintoshes as "Mac OS X". As I see it, OS X is being positioned as a multi-device, multi-pronged OS family, with one base core. Mac OS X = OS X + Mac specific bits. OS X (iPhone) = OS X + iPhone specific bits. There's no guarantee of crossover between the Mac-specific and the iPhone-specific bits. I don't believe we'll see one be a subset of the other, but they'll intersect in the OS X core.
Now, that's not to say that Apple couldn't migrate certain technologies (WebKit, for example) from the Mac side over to the iPhone side, or even the other way around (multi-touch tablet?). But I think we need to stop thinking that OS X == Mac OS X, because that equality just stopped holding true.
It may be semantics, but it's important to read between the lines in a lot of this. The iPhone can be running 100% OS X, and yet still not offer the Mac-APIs that we'd expect from what we previously, colloquially and informally, referred to as "OS X".
Basically, expectations are out the window at this point. Brave new world, etc, etc, etc.
You're right, with the proviso that the binaries are different as well.
I disagree with the assessment that poor credit equals a lack of finances. Though I don't don't that the majority of people with bad credit probably should be soending their money elsewhere there are still of plenty of people with poor or no credit that are have good paying jobs.
Exactly. Having a good credit, at least in the US, means that in the past or at present your name has been or is still somehow associated with debt. Trully rich means zero debt even if you have to live from payckeck to paycheck .
Anyway, Apple is not your personal financial advisor, just wants to sell iPhones. Credit, no credit, iPhone should be available to everybody, right? I am tired of this credit check shit . Here's the cash, give me my iPhone and STFU.
I used to have this problem. I never used my credit card, I didn't have any debts, I had always paid cash for everything, so when I did try take advantage of interest free credit, I was always turned down because I didn't have a credit rating at all. This didn't mean that I couldn't afford what I wanted to get credit for.
I now have almost $1m worth of debts, so I no longer have a problem getting things on credit! Now that's ironic!
But hey, you still have enough dough left for an iPhone, right?
I used to have this problem. I never used my credit card, I didn't have any debts, I had always paid cash for everything, so when I did try take advantage of interest free credit, I was always turned down because I didn't have a credit rating at all. This didn't mean that I couldn't afford what I wanted to get credit for.
I now have almost $1m worth of debts, so I no longer have a problem getting things on credit! Now that's ironic!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delfoniq
But hey, you still have enough dough left for an iPhone, right?
Sure he does, that's why its 'almost $1m'. Its going to push him over the top!
Agreed. Consider, however, that Apple has been *extremely clear and consistent* in talking about the OS on the iPhone as "OS X", and the OS on Macintoshes as "Mac OS X". As I see it, OS X is being positioned as a multi-device, multi-pronged OS family, with one base core. Mac OS X = OS X + Mac specific bits. OS X (iPhone) = OS X + iPhone specific bits. There's no guarantee of crossover between the Mac-specific and the iPhone-specific bits. I don't believe we'll see one be a subset of the other, but they'll intersect in the OS X core.
It may be semantics, but it's important to read between the lines in a lot of this. The iPhone can be running 100% OS X, and yet still not offer the Mac-APIs that we'd expect from what we previously, colloquially and informally, referred to as "OS X".
And that's the whole problem, though. Apple talks up OS X as what you get out of the OS X box when you buy it in October (and update it in december and January to fix all those vx.5.0 bugs). But what you're talking about is that OS X is the core OS, the underpinnings (this is also how the geeks look at it, and get pretty annoying pointing it out at times), and not the interface, UI, or anything on top.
While Jobs can say "its running OS X", I see it more running the OS X kernel, and then various parts tacked on that's needed for the iphone to work (or to make it look 'cool', not necessarily 'needed', like they do in OS X a lot)
But you're not going to convince anyone but the hardcode types to start calling OS X "Mac OS X" to differentiate it from other closed instances of "OS X".
And that's the whole problem, though. Apple talks up OS X as what you get out of the OS X box when you buy it in October (and update it in december and January to fix all those vx.5.0 bugs). But what you're talking about is that OS X is the core OS, the underpinnings (this is also how the geeks look at it, and get pretty annoying pointing it out at times), and not the interface, UI, or anything on top.
While Jobs can say "its running OS X", I see it more running the OS X kernel, and then various parts tacked on that's needed for the iphone to work (or to make it look 'cool', not necessarily 'needed', like they do in OS X a lot)
But you're not going to convince anyone but the hardcode types to start calling OS X "Mac OS X" to differentiate it from other closed instances of "OS X".
The kernel is just a little part of it, even without the other bits that I said would be left off. Remember that it still occupies 700 MB
What's uncertain is whether the adapters will be available immediately upon the iPhone's launch. There has been concern on the part of Apple and accessory makers over possible complications between iPhone and the speaker systems, where interference could come into play.
Another reason I'm waiting for the HSDPA version of the iPhone - it won't give any interference.
Ironic that they check credit for the go phone plan, which specifically states "no credit checks"
I'm going to find a way to get an iphone via the gophone plan
That should be pretty easy. A recent federal law went into effect that states you don't have to divulge your SSN to be considered for credit. Almost every company will then classify the applicant in the worst credit risk category, thus requiring the highest deposits (I know that Alltel and Verizon does this).
If iTunes will offer the GoPhone plan to customers with the highest deposits (worst credit), then I would either refuse to give my Social Security Number, or make one up.
So let me get this straight. People who want to "buy" the iPhone but don't have good credit get to NOT be locked in for 2 years. I don't get the logic. You should have a choice if this is really true which I rather doubt at the moment. I smell a lawsuit.
Second someone with poor credit should NOT be spending 499 or 599 + 250 deposit (850-950 with taxes) in the FIRST PLACE!
Besides most Apple users by all measures are more educated and far wealthier than the average user.
So let me get this straight. People who want to "buy" the iPhone but don't have good credit get to NOT be locked in for 2 years. I don't get the logic. You should have a choice if this is really true which I rather doubt at the moment. I smell a lawsuit.
Second someone with poor credit should NOT be spending 499 or 599 + 250 deposit (850-950 with taxes) in the FIRST PLACE!
Besides most Apple users by all measures are more educated and far wealthier than the average user.
That's right. Apple as it turns out is trying to be considerate of all those educated, albeit very poor fanatics of iPhone. Let all the others with the good credit (and the debts) pay up. Don't see anything wrong with that .
In any case, who's more worthy, someone who's net worth is negative but has a high credit score or someone with no credit history but with loads of cash?
Comments
There's no reason to believe that it's not the case. Apple must have some way of getting their own programs to run. Why not do it the way you say? No reason I can think of. It's just, right now, that there is no physical way to get those programs installed that we know of.
Also, the phone uses a different cpu.
It's already been demonstrated that you can use a different CPU and still be the same OS. I accept that happily. By API compatibility, I should have been more clear in saying that meant having source code compatibility... All the same set of system calls available, with the same argument lists, etc...
And I agree, there's been no evidence to suggest that any of what I'm asking for isn't already the case. That's exactly my point... There's no conclusive evidence of anything. Yet.
I disagree with the assessment that poor credit equals a lack of finances. Though I don't don't that the majority of people with bad credit probably should be soending their money elsewhere there are still of plenty of people with poor or no credit that are have good paying jobs.
I used to have this problem. I never used my credit card, I didn't have any debts, I had always paid cash for everything, so when I did try take advantage of interest free credit, I was always turned down because I didn't have a credit rating at all. This didn't mean that I couldn't afford what I wanted to get credit for.
I now have almost $1m worth of debts, so I no longer have a problem getting things on credit! Now that's ironic!
It's kind of funny about RSS. When it first came out, I was all over it. but, after a while, I found it to be annoying, giving less information that I actually wanted to see of the page. I haven't used it for quite a while.
I use RSS Menu on Tiger and Mail's RSS read on Leopard (is that NDA stuff?). I hate having to come to AI or any other of the dozens of websites I frequent on a daly basis to get new articles. It's why I don't use Safari's RSS as it requires to go the site first. I like having a number pop up somewhere on my desktop saying "hey, there is a new article you might want to read".
We don't know that the iPhone is based on Leopard. Everyone assumes that to be the case. There's nothing about the iPhone that would require Leopard.64 bits anyone?
I think the iPhone's Safari interface screams core Core Animation and resolution independence. THough these could ahve been added to Tiger too. Didn't Jobs say it was based off of Leopard?
It's already been demonstrated that you can use a different CPU and still be the same OS. I accept that happily. By API compatibility, I should have been more clear in saying that meant having source code compatibility... All the same set of system calls available, with the same argument lists, etc...
And I agree, there's been no evidence to suggest that any of what I'm asking for isn't already the case. That's exactly my point... There's no conclusive evidence of anything. Yet.
I see no reason why all system calls should be available. Its a portable device, hopefully running a very, very slimmed down version of OS X, all in the effort to save power and memory usage. Why bother including frameworks that eat up space and offer no benefit. Or including an entire BSD subsystem? Or include system calls for functions that do no good (for example, who needs multi-processor code in there if its a single-processor system?). Everything you want to run has to be ported to that processor. It wouldn't make sense to port the entire OS if parts aren't going to be used.
Also going on that, we may find out in the next few months how well OS X's underpinnings port to low-power devices. If you recall, one reviewer already said his phone got warm. Is that something we want, standard laptop warmth in our phones just so they can run a bunch of bells and whistles?
And I would think its plainly obvious that Safari on the iPhone does not have the built-in RSS reader part of Safari/Mac. Otherwise, why make the web-site? It also doesn't have a downloads window, either. But what would really suck is how you're stuck with what Apple gives you, so no PithHelmet, which means flashing banner ads all over the place!
I see no reason why all system calls should be available. Its a portable device, hopefully running a very, very slimmed down version of OS X, all in the effort to save power and memory usage. Why bother including frameworks that eat up space and offer no benefit. Or including an entire BSD subsystem? Or include system calls for functions that do no good (for example, who needs multi-processor code in there if its a single-processor system?). Everything you want to run has to be ported to that processor. It wouldn't make sense to port the entire OS if parts aren't going to be used.
While I agree with most of you points, I'm under the impression that the iPhone has 3 ARM CPUs.
Also going on that, we may find out in the next few months how well OS X's underpinnings port to low-power devices. If you recall, one reviewer already said his phone got warm. Is that something we want, standard laptop warmth in our phones just so they can run a bunch of bells and whistles?
That was in the Newsweek review:
One weird effect: if you’ve been using the iPhone a lot it feels warm on your cheek. Not laptop-catch-on-fire hot. But still.
So distinctly not "standard laptop warmth." When I've been talking on my Nokia for half an hour, it feels warm, too.
It's already been demonstrated that you can use a different CPU and still be the same OS. I accept that happily. By API compatibility, I should have been more clear in saying that meant having source code compatibility... All the same set of system calls available, with the same argument lists, etc...
And I agree, there's been no evidence to suggest that any of what I'm asking for isn't already the case. That's exactly my point... There's no conclusive evidence of anything. Yet.
Agreed. Consider, however, that Apple has been *extremely clear and consistent* in talking about the OS on the iPhone as "OS X", and the OS on Macintoshes as "Mac OS X". As I see it, OS X is being positioned as a multi-device, multi-pronged OS family, with one base core. Mac OS X = OS X + Mac specific bits. OS X (iPhone) = OS X + iPhone specific bits. There's no guarantee of crossover between the Mac-specific and the iPhone-specific bits. I don't believe we'll see one be a subset of the other, but they'll intersect in the OS X core.
Now, that's not to say that Apple couldn't migrate certain technologies (WebKit, for example) from the Mac side over to the iPhone side, or even the other way around (multi-touch tablet?). But I think we need to stop thinking that OS X == Mac OS X, because that equality just stopped holding true.
It may be semantics, but it's important to read between the lines in a lot of this. The iPhone can be running 100% OS X, and yet still not offer the Mac-APIs that we'd expect from what we previously, colloquially and informally, referred to as "OS X".
Basically, expectations are out the window at this point. Brave new world, etc, etc, etc.
It's already been demonstrated that you can use a different CPU and still be the same OS. I accept that happily. By API compatibility, I should have been more clear in saying that meant having source code compatibility... All the same set of system calls available, with the same argument lists, etc...
And I agree, there's been no evidence to suggest that any of what I'm asking for isn't already the case. That's exactly my point... There's no conclusive evidence of anything. Yet.
Of course it's the same OS. Powermac's and Intel based machines use the same OS as well. However, programs don't work on the cpu they weren't designed for.
The only reason PPC programs work on Intel Macs, and many of them don't, and the others run at 50% speed, at best, is because of Rosetta.
This means that even with the same OS, the programs won't run. At the very least, they would need a compile for the new cpu.
But, for most programs, that won't do at all. Almost the entire interface will have to be rewritten from scratch. Chances are that much of the rest would have to be rewritten, as the phyical part of the device is so different as well. Most programs are also written for what are now far more powerful machines than the iPhone is, that has to be taken into account as well.
No, not an easy job as well.
Agreed. Consider, however, that Apple has been *extremely clear and consistent* in talking about the OS on the iPhone as "OS X", and the OS on Macintoshes as "Mac OS X". As I see it, OS X is being positioned as a multi-device, multi-pronged OS family, with one base core. Mac OS X = OS X + Mac specific bits. OS X (iPhone) = OS X + iPhone specific bits. There's no guarantee of crossover between the Mac-specific and the iPhone-specific bits. I don't believe we'll see one be a subset of the other, but they'll intersect in the OS X core.
Now, that's not to say that Apple couldn't migrate certain technologies (WebKit, for example) from the Mac side over to the iPhone side, or even the other way around (multi-touch tablet?). But I think we need to stop thinking that OS X == Mac OS X, because that equality just stopped holding true.
It may be semantics, but it's important to read between the lines in a lot of this. The iPhone can be running 100% OS X, and yet still not offer the Mac-APIs that we'd expect from what we previously, colloquially and informally, referred to as "OS X".
Basically, expectations are out the window at this point. Brave new world, etc, etc, etc.
You're right, with the proviso that the binaries are different as well.
I disagree with the assessment that poor credit equals a lack of finances. Though I don't don't that the majority of people with bad credit probably should be soending their money elsewhere there are still of plenty of people with poor or no credit that are have good paying jobs.
Exactly. Having a good credit, at least in the US, means that in the past or at present your name has been or is still somehow associated with debt. Trully rich means zero debt even if you have to live from payckeck to paycheck
Anyway, Apple is not your personal financial advisor, just wants to sell iPhones. Credit, no credit, iPhone should be available to everybody, right? I am tired of this credit check shit
I used to have this problem. I never used my credit card, I didn't have any debts, I had always paid cash for everything, so when I did try take advantage of interest free credit, I was always turned down because I didn't have a credit rating at all. This didn't mean that I couldn't afford what I wanted to get credit for.
I now have almost $1m worth of debts, so I no longer have a problem getting things on credit! Now that's ironic!
But hey, you still have enough dough left for an iPhone, right?
I used to have this problem. I never used my credit card, I didn't have any debts, I had always paid cash for everything, so when I did try take advantage of interest free credit, I was always turned down because I didn't have a credit rating at all. This didn't mean that I couldn't afford what I wanted to get credit for.
I now have almost $1m worth of debts, so I no longer have a problem getting things on credit! Now that's ironic!
But hey, you still have enough dough left for an iPhone, right?
Sure he does, that's why its 'almost $1m'. Its going to push him over the top!
Agreed. Consider, however, that Apple has been *extremely clear and consistent* in talking about the OS on the iPhone as "OS X", and the OS on Macintoshes as "Mac OS X". As I see it, OS X is being positioned as a multi-device, multi-pronged OS family, with one base core. Mac OS X = OS X + Mac specific bits. OS X (iPhone) = OS X + iPhone specific bits. There's no guarantee of crossover between the Mac-specific and the iPhone-specific bits. I don't believe we'll see one be a subset of the other, but they'll intersect in the OS X core.
It may be semantics, but it's important to read between the lines in a lot of this. The iPhone can be running 100% OS X, and yet still not offer the Mac-APIs that we'd expect from what we previously, colloquially and informally, referred to as "OS X".
And that's the whole problem, though. Apple talks up OS X as what you get out of the OS X box when you buy it in October (and update it in december and January to fix all those vx.5.0 bugs). But what you're talking about is that OS X is the core OS, the underpinnings (this is also how the geeks look at it, and get pretty annoying pointing it out at times), and not the interface, UI, or anything on top.
While Jobs can say "its running OS X", I see it more running the OS X kernel, and then various parts tacked on that's needed for the iphone to work (or to make it look 'cool', not necessarily 'needed', like they do in OS X a lot)
But you're not going to convince anyone but the hardcode types to start calling OS X "Mac OS X" to differentiate it from other closed instances of "OS X".
And that's the whole problem, though. Apple talks up OS X as what you get out of the OS X box when you buy it in October (and update it in december and January to fix all those vx.5.0 bugs). But what you're talking about is that OS X is the core OS, the underpinnings (this is also how the geeks look at it, and get pretty annoying pointing it out at times), and not the interface, UI, or anything on top.
While Jobs can say "its running OS X", I see it more running the OS X kernel, and then various parts tacked on that's needed for the iphone to work (or to make it look 'cool', not necessarily 'needed', like they do in OS X a lot)
But you're not going to convince anyone but the hardcode types to start calling OS X "Mac OS X" to differentiate it from other closed instances of "OS X".
The kernel is just a little part of it, even without the other bits that I said would be left off. Remember that it still occupies 700 MB
Sure he does, that's why its 'almost $1m'. Its going to push him over the top!
What's uncertain is whether the adapters will be available immediately upon the iPhone's launch. There has been concern on the part of Apple and accessory makers over possible complications between iPhone and the speaker systems, where interference could come into play.
Another reason I'm waiting for the HSDPA version of the iPhone - it won't give any interference.
Ironic that they check credit for the go phone plan, which specifically states "no credit checks"
I'm going to find a way to get an iphone via the gophone plan
That should be pretty easy. A recent federal law went into effect that states you don't have to divulge your SSN to be considered for credit. Almost every company will then classify the applicant in the worst credit risk category, thus requiring the highest deposits (I know that Alltel and Verizon does this).
If iTunes will offer the GoPhone plan to customers with the highest deposits (worst credit), then I would either refuse to give my Social Security Number, or make one up.
It would be interesting
Sure he does, that's why its 'almost $1m'. Its going to push him over the top!
lol, exactly!
Second someone with poor credit should NOT be spending 499 or 599 + 250 deposit (850-950 with taxes) in the FIRST PLACE!
Besides most Apple users by all measures are more educated and far wealthier than the average user.
So let me get this straight. People who want to "buy" the iPhone but don't have good credit get to NOT be locked in for 2 years. I don't get the logic. You should have a choice if this is really true which I rather doubt at the moment. I smell a lawsuit.
Second someone with poor credit should NOT be spending 499 or 599 + 250 deposit (850-950 with taxes) in the FIRST PLACE!
Besides most Apple users by all measures are more educated and far wealthier than the average user.
That's right. Apple as it turns out is trying to be considerate of all those educated, albeit very poor fanatics of iPhone. Let all the others with the good credit (and the debts) pay up. Don't see anything wrong with that
In any case, who's more worthy, someone who's net worth is negative but has a high credit score or someone with no credit history but with loads of cash?