Yeah, that all sounds like it's sooo simple that everyone will be going around picking servers and researching whether they should switch plans this month. So you spend a couple of cents a minute and call almost nobody.
No, most of the time I don't spend anything per minute. It's not that complex. Gizmo supports two accounts simultaneously. It's three boxes to fill in. It's one of the simplest SIP clients to use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
People who talk a few hundred minutes a month will be paying a little more than £10 over three years. Also, Sipgate doesn't do any good to people here in the US. Even if we could get the service, we wouldn't tell friends to call us at a "local" number in Europe.
Perhaps they would. But then I'd be spending more on Skype as the $30 tariff isn't available here in Europe. The UK equivalent is £1.73 a month - not bad but I still don't like their P2P data going through my network or phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
What part of "over WiFi" is difficult to understand? What part of "not using AT&T's voice or data plans"? What part of "iPod Touch"? Since when does an iPod Touch use a mobile phone plan?
If I'm at home/work, I've 3 computers and a VoIP router with two FXS lines already. Why would I use an iPod Touch (which has no Mic anyway) ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
What the hell good is it to use VoIP over AT&T's network on an iPhone, which already has a voice plan? You seem to be so hung up on hating Skype that you're not reading correctly.
Yes, sorry, I presumed you meant iPhone since there's no way it'd work on an iPod.
Using VoIP on a mobile plan doesn't cut into your allowed minutes. Using VoIP on a mobile also means the same number I use for work that looks like a land line can also be picked up on my mobile. There are many reasons to use VoIP on a mobile.
My only complaint all along has been this: Go ahead and modify, hack, and create. I really do admire that. But what bugs the hell out of me are the ones screaming on these lists to high heavens how Apple has screwed them, and those ravings making their way to mainstream media types like Leo Laporte who are now carrying an insane vendetta against Apple. Its kind of a 'keep it in the family, huh?' kinda thing.
Totally agree. Hack the iPhone and suffer the consequences quietly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss
You never did point out how your mom failed. Really revealing.
I'm sure I'm quite a disappointment in some ways but that doesn't mean I shouldn't look to change. Getting back to iPhones though...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss
If it's yours, it's yours and you can do with it as you want, at least within legal constraints of your ownership of the property.
Exactly. If it's mine I can do what I want with it. It's not Apple's anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss
Just like Apple's stuff is theirs. AND since you're a programmer I know you understand the legal ramifications of intellectual property, no matter what your opinion on the topic is.
But I'm not selling Apple's software and hardware - I'm buying it and changing it, same as if I bought a car and added fluffy dice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
There is a small very vocal minority of disappointed. So far every poll that has been taken the iPhone earns extremely high points for customer satisfaction.
People who buy expensive products aren't the most objective in the world. They have to justify to themselves why they've spent hundreds on something, even if it's not perfect. The vocal minority are the ones Apple should be listening to as those are the ones that want more out of the product. It's 'The Emperors New Clothes'.
I suppose - as a property owner - you really wouldn't appreciate a neighbor coming in and ripping it apart 'cause your house is in "their neighborhood". People who legally own property understand how, just because someone THINKS they have an investment in your property, that really doesn't make it so. If it's yours, it's yours and you can do with it as you want, at least within legal constraints of your ownership of the property. That's the law. If your neighbor doesn't agree, screw him, 'cause what's yours is yours.
Just like Apple's stuff is theirs. AND since you're a programmer I know you understand the legal ramifications of intellectual property, no matter what your opinion on the topic is.
That's the whole problem these days. Companies want to sell you products, but act like they own them.
Yes, sorry, I presumed you meant iPhone since there's no way it'd work on an iPod.
An iPod Touch (with Wi-Fi capability), and a native application able to communicate through the Line In pins of the dock connector (pins 25 and 26 for the Left and Right channels respectively, for the record) should have no conceptual problem Skyping.
If so, check out the info in "Settings -> General -> About -> Legal".
That doesn't necessarily make it so. Just look at the "not responsible for personal property left in cars" in every garage.
In that case, when you hand them the keys they are responsible. They just put up that sign to discourage you from exercising your rights.
Back on topic. I am glad that Apple has finally listened to this vocal minority. The iPhone will be tremendously better after structured 3rd party development takes place. There will be tremendous value added to the platform and improvements in countless ways. Until then however, I will not upgrade and will keep my 3rd party functionality intact.
That's the whole problem these days. Companies want to sell you products, but act like they own them.
They do own the part that makes the hardware work - the code. Whether that's a problem or not depends on what you want to do with what they own.
The consequences of purchasing a device that incorporates property that belongs to someone else is self inflicted. While I'm sure you can find someone who would love to discuss their personal opinion about such things, I'm not someone who choses to do so. While that might entertain some, I acknowledge that you are entitled to your opinion and that your opinion holds exactly as much weight as the opinion I hold.
I also acknowledge that where my opinion and the established social and legal code of the nation I live in vary, I'm as shit out of luck as you are with any opinion you might hold that conflicts with those codes. Sucks to be us, eh? I guess the difference between myself and someone who continues to rant against perceived injustices is - I take a longer view of things and realize that, typically, injustices usually are confronted and "right" wins out. Sort of like the SDK being announced.
If it's really a good idea and if it really is a benefit and if people really do want it, it'll happen without any teeth gnashing or mournful wailing. In fact, the gnashing of teeth and the wailing of the mournful is just irritating, especially since when it's expressed to me there's nothing I can do about it.
If so, check out the info in "Settings -> General -> About -> Legal".
Don't forget in all this, Taskiss, that Jobs has gone on record now officially stating that 3rd party native applications will be given legitimacy and support on the iPhone very soon. You're now officially arguing for the losing side of this debate.
But even before that announcement was made, I have read some arguments over the past few weeks that have led me to believe that maybe the 3rd-party application folks might actually have had a leg to stand on anyway.
Remember that the EULA of the desktop edition of Mac OS X also has the virtually the exact same license stipulation as the iPhone, saying that modifying any part of the Apple software, including the bootloader firmware, (except as permitted for the open-source components) is prohibited. But anybody who tried to argue that the act of installing 3rd-party applications on a desktop Mac is a violation of license would be laughed out of the room.
In the case of the iPhone users, I'd be interested to see exactly which binary code within Apple's software suite were actually modified in the act of installing the 3rd party software. (As opposed to being simply aggregated with that 3d party software.)
In any event, it seems quite clear by now that Apple never intended to pursue legal action against people who privately hacked their own phones. Rather, they seem content to leave them alone to curse themselves (and whoever else happens to be nearby to listen) if things go wrong.
Don't forget in all this, Taskiss, that Jobs has gone on record now officially stating that 3rd party native applications will be given legitimacy and support on the iPhone very soon. You're now officially arguing for the losing side of this debate.
Not at all. I'm arguing that it's Apple's call to do what they want. I'm arguing that the vision of what the iPhone is doesn't belong to anonymous Internet forum contributors. I'm arguing that people have their heads up their ass and are spending time being critical of an inanimate object they either openly or secretly covet.
Quote:
In the case of the iPhone users, I'd be interested to see exactly which binary code within Apple's software suite were actually modified in the act of installing the 3rd party software. (As opposed to being simply aggregated with that 3d party software.)
It doesn't matter what code was modified. The protections in place for Apple owned intellectual property was apparently circumvented by reverse-engineering the connectivity between the device and iTunes. Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that to be an act in violation of the DMCA.
Not at all. I'm arguing that it's Apple's call to do what they want. I'm arguing that the vision of what the iPhone is doesn't belong to anonymous Internet forum contributors. I'm arguing that people have their heads up their ass and are spending time being critical of an inanimate object they either openly or secretly covet.
Granted. But for all practical purposes, I suspect that no Tom, Dick, or Harry is ever going to go to jail or be required to pay Apple any damages because they used unofficial hacks to install Chess on their iPhone. So, running around quoting the EULA makes you come off sounding just as annoying as all the whiners you are complaining about.
Granted. But for all practical purposes, I suspect that no Tom, Dick, or Harry is ever going to go to jail or be required to pay Apple any damages because they used unofficial hacks to install Chess on their iPhone. So, running around quoting the EULA makes you come off sounding just as annoying as all the whiners you are complaining about.
Ah, but it's been explained to me that such behavior is totally justified and, in fact, has a noble purpose.
#1 reason SDK wasn't announced before is due to lack of developers.
Lack of developers? Under that theory, no platform would ever have developers.
The most likely explanation...
Apple didn't want to release the iPhone and immediately portray it as unfinished. Doing so would have caused customers to put off buying an iPhone until it was "finished". News stories would have always had at least one sentence mentioning the how the iPhone was "unfinished".
The alternative is for a company to release and market products in their current state. There would have been no customer benefit for apple to announce their upcoming SDK plans. Perhaps a few people could have kept their panties out of a wad, but that is all.
Developers haven't been hurt either. Apple specifically told them that updates are likely to break 3rd party hacks. Developers already know that they're trying to develop software for a rapidly evolving platform and that a more finalized API set is under development.
Then again, think of the vast amount of learning that has occurred organically as a result of the iphone hack.
When Apple finally releases the SDK there will have been 9 months of unofficial hacking and many beta apps ready to go live in Feb. Win win.
Apple gave the dev community, intentionally or unintentionally, a challenge and they rose to it.
It will be nice to see polished apps for the iphone even if it means paying some amount for the added functionality.
On another note, this will be the beginning of the end for Apple/ATT partnership. As soon as Voip clients start springing up on the iPhone and more importantly on the Touch,
the game changes. Apple goes out in front again.
Steve always hated dealing with the orifices that are the cell phone companies. I am sure he has a plan to circumvent att just like the motorola fiasco that was the first iTunes phone.
iphone/iTouch + Airport +.mac= all in one solution for home communication
Architects who make plans available for public purchase, do NOT give a warrantee with those plans. They are floor plans, not detailed construction plans. They are available through house plan magazines, and other places.
You can modify the plans to your hearts content.
But the architect has no responsibility for the finished product. You can't call him to complain. You can't sue him (well, you can, but you'd lose, assuming the judge didn't simply throw your case out).
However, the architect does own the copyright to the original plan sold. But, all that means is that you're not allowed to pass the plan off as your own, or make minor modifications, and pass it off as your own, or sell copies. Or give them away for the purpose of building another house.
Q: All indications appear that the iPhone is closed, we'd love to develop apps...
This is an important tradeoff between security and openness. We want both. We're working through a way... we'll find a way to let 3rd parties write apps and still preserve security on the iPhone. But until we find that way we can't compromise the security of the phone.
I've used 3rd party apps... the more you add, the more your phone crashes. No one's perfect, and we'd sure like our phone not to crash once a day. If you can just be a little more patient with us I think everyone can get what they want.
This was posted Posted May 30th 2007, a month before the first iPhone went on sale.
If ANYthing, the challenge was "Wait just a bit 'till we're ready" and the dev community stomped it's feet and wrote code that ended up bricking phones 'cause it made the devices incompatible with future updates of the OS.
This was posted Posted May 30th 2007, a month before the first iPhone went on sale.
If ANYthing, the challenge was "Wait just a bit 'till we're ready" and the dev community stomped it's feet and wrote code that ended up bricking phones 'cause it made the devices incompatible with future updates of the OS.
It's not the third party software that caused the locking ruckus. It was the carrier unlocking. From what I've read, those that only added software only saw their software either deleted or hidden. But it was a problematic update because even some people that didn't touch the iPhone at all with unauthorized anything had bricked phones.
It's not the third party software that caused the locking ruckus. It was the carrier unlocking. From what I've read, those that only added software only saw their software either deleted or hidden. But it was a problematic update because even some people that didn't touch the iPhone at all with unauthorized anything had bricked phones.
My post was directly in response to TednDi's suggestion that Apple challenged the dev community. I make no excuses for the failure of the Apple update where unmodified devices are concerned, nor do I have to - Apple took responsibility for their update. If they broke it, they'll fix it free.
My post was directly in response to TednDi's suggestion that Apple challenged the dev community. I make no excuses for the failure of the Apple update where unmodified devices are concerned, nor do I have to - Apple took responsibility for their update. If they broke it, they'll fix it free.
OK, so I misunderstood you. I think TenDi's use of challenged might be a little different from what you are interpreting, indirect vs. direct. For some unknown reason, I can't get to the Engadget page so I can't get the full context of what you mean or what you are intending to point out.
OK, so I misunderstood you. I think TenDi's use of challenged might be a little different from what you are interpreting, indirect vs. direct. For some unknown reason, I can't get to the Engadget page so I can't get the full context of what you mean or what you are intending to point out.
The point is that Apple has always intended to provide developers with the ability to write apps as soon as they figured out a way to do so, with the caveat that iPhone stability is more important than 3rd party apps.
A current survey posted on this board states that 82% of iPhone customers feel "Very Satisfied with their purchase". That's without 3rd party apps. I think people that are complaining need to realize that they don't speak for the multitudes they appear to claim they represent.
Comments
Yeah, that all sounds like it's sooo simple that everyone will be going around picking servers and researching whether they should switch plans this month. So you spend a couple of cents a minute and call almost nobody.
No, most of the time I don't spend anything per minute. It's not that complex. Gizmo supports two accounts simultaneously. It's three boxes to fill in. It's one of the simplest SIP clients to use.
People who talk a few hundred minutes a month will be paying a little more than £10 over three years. Also, Sipgate doesn't do any good to people here in the US. Even if we could get the service, we wouldn't tell friends to call us at a "local" number in Europe.
Perhaps they would. But then I'd be spending more on Skype as the $30 tariff isn't available here in Europe. The UK equivalent is £1.73 a month - not bad but I still don't like their P2P data going through my network or phone.
What part of "over WiFi" is difficult to understand? What part of "not using AT&T's voice or data plans"? What part of "iPod Touch"? Since when does an iPod Touch use a mobile phone plan?
If I'm at home/work, I've 3 computers and a VoIP router with two FXS lines already. Why would I use an iPod Touch (which has no Mic anyway) ?
What the hell good is it to use VoIP over AT&T's network on an iPhone, which already has a voice plan? You seem to be so hung up on hating Skype that you're not reading correctly.
Yes, sorry, I presumed you meant iPhone since there's no way it'd work on an iPod.
Using VoIP on a mobile plan doesn't cut into your allowed minutes. Using VoIP on a mobile also means the same number I use for work that looks like a land line can also be picked up on my mobile. There are many reasons to use VoIP on a mobile.
My only complaint all along has been this: Go ahead and modify, hack, and create. I really do admire that. But what bugs the hell out of me are the ones screaming on these lists to high heavens how Apple has screwed them, and those ravings making their way to mainstream media types like Leo Laporte who are now carrying an insane vendetta against Apple. Its kind of a 'keep it in the family, huh?' kinda thing.
Totally agree. Hack the iPhone and suffer the consequences quietly.
You never did point out how your mom failed. Really revealing.
I'm sure I'm quite a disappointment in some ways but that doesn't mean I shouldn't look to change. Getting back to iPhones though...
If it's yours, it's yours and you can do with it as you want, at least within legal constraints of your ownership of the property.
Exactly. If it's mine I can do what I want with it. It's not Apple's anymore.
Just like Apple's stuff is theirs. AND since you're a programmer I know you understand the legal ramifications of intellectual property, no matter what your opinion on the topic is.
But I'm not selling Apple's software and hardware - I'm buying it and changing it, same as if I bought a car and added fluffy dice.
There is a small very vocal minority of disappointed. So far every poll that has been taken the iPhone earns extremely high points for customer satisfaction.
People who buy expensive products aren't the most objective in the world. They have to justify to themselves why they've spent hundreds on something, even if it's not perfect. The vocal minority are the ones Apple should be listening to as those are the ones that want more out of the product. It's 'The Emperors New Clothes'.
I suppose - as a property owner - you really wouldn't appreciate a neighbor coming in and ripping it apart 'cause your house is in "their neighborhood". People who legally own property understand how, just because someone THINKS they have an investment in your property, that really doesn't make it so. If it's yours, it's yours and you can do with it as you want, at least within legal constraints of your ownership of the property. That's the law. If your neighbor doesn't agree, screw him, 'cause what's yours is yours.
Just like Apple's stuff is theirs. AND since you're a programmer I know you understand the legal ramifications of intellectual property, no matter what your opinion on the topic is.
That's the whole problem these days. Companies want to sell you products, but act like they own them.
But I'm not selling Apple's software and hardware - I'm buying it and changing it, same as if I bought a car and added fluffy dice.
Do you own an iPhone?
If so, check out the info in "Settings -> General -> About -> Legal".
Yes, sorry, I presumed you meant iPhone since there's no way it'd work on an iPod.
An iPod Touch (with Wi-Fi capability), and a native application able to communicate through the Line In pins of the dock connector (pins 25 and 26 for the Left and Right channels respectively, for the record) should have no conceptual problem Skyping.
Do you own an iPhone?
If so, check out the info in "Settings -> General -> About -> Legal".
That doesn't necessarily make it so. Just look at the "not responsible for personal property left in cars" in every garage.
In that case, when you hand them the keys they are responsible. They just put up that sign to discourage you from exercising your rights.
Back on topic. I am glad that Apple has finally listened to this vocal minority. The iPhone will be tremendously better after structured 3rd party development takes place. There will be tremendous value added to the platform and improvements in countless ways. Until then however, I will not upgrade and will keep my 3rd party functionality intact.
Thanks Steve.
That's the whole problem these days. Companies want to sell you products, but act like they own them.
They do own the part that makes the hardware work - the code. Whether that's a problem or not depends on what you want to do with what they own.
The consequences of purchasing a device that incorporates property that belongs to someone else is self inflicted. While I'm sure you can find someone who would love to discuss their personal opinion about such things, I'm not someone who choses to do so. While that might entertain some, I acknowledge that you are entitled to your opinion and that your opinion holds exactly as much weight as the opinion I hold.
I also acknowledge that where my opinion and the established social and legal code of the nation I live in vary, I'm as shit out of luck as you are with any opinion you might hold that conflicts with those codes. Sucks to be us, eh? I guess the difference between myself and someone who continues to rant against perceived injustices is - I take a longer view of things and realize that, typically, injustices usually are confronted and "right" wins out. Sort of like the SDK being announced.
If it's really a good idea and if it really is a benefit and if people really do want it, it'll happen without any teeth gnashing or mournful wailing. In fact, the gnashing of teeth and the wailing of the mournful is just irritating, especially since when it's expressed to me there's nothing I can do about it.
Do you own an iPhone?
If so, check out the info in "Settings -> General -> About -> Legal".
Don't forget in all this, Taskiss, that Jobs has gone on record now officially stating that 3rd party native applications will be given legitimacy and support on the iPhone very soon. You're now officially arguing for the losing side of this debate.
But even before that announcement was made, I have read some arguments over the past few weeks that have led me to believe that maybe the 3rd-party application folks might actually have had a leg to stand on anyway.
Remember that the EULA of the desktop edition of Mac OS X also has the virtually the exact same license stipulation as the iPhone, saying that modifying any part of the Apple software, including the bootloader firmware, (except as permitted for the open-source components) is prohibited. But anybody who tried to argue that the act of installing 3rd-party applications on a desktop Mac is a violation of license would be laughed out of the room.
In the case of the iPhone users, I'd be interested to see exactly which binary code within Apple's software suite were actually modified in the act of installing the 3rd party software. (As opposed to being simply aggregated with that 3d party software.)
In any event, it seems quite clear by now that Apple never intended to pursue legal action against people who privately hacked their own phones. Rather, they seem content to leave them alone to curse themselves (and whoever else happens to be nearby to listen) if things go wrong.
Don't forget in all this, Taskiss, that Jobs has gone on record now officially stating that 3rd party native applications will be given legitimacy and support on the iPhone very soon. You're now officially arguing for the losing side of this debate.
Not at all. I'm arguing that it's Apple's call to do what they want. I'm arguing that the vision of what the iPhone is doesn't belong to anonymous Internet forum contributors. I'm arguing that people have their heads up their ass and are spending time being critical of an inanimate object they either openly or secretly covet.
In the case of the iPhone users, I'd be interested to see exactly which binary code within Apple's software suite were actually modified in the act of installing the 3rd party software. (As opposed to being simply aggregated with that 3d party software.)
It doesn't matter what code was modified. The protections in place for Apple owned intellectual property was apparently circumvented by reverse-engineering the connectivity between the device and iTunes. Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that to be an act in violation of the DMCA.
Not at all. I'm arguing that it's Apple's call to do what they want. I'm arguing that the vision of what the iPhone is doesn't belong to anonymous Internet forum contributors. I'm arguing that people have their heads up their ass and are spending time being critical of an inanimate object they either openly or secretly covet.
Granted. But for all practical purposes, I suspect that no Tom, Dick, or Harry is ever going to go to jail or be required to pay Apple any damages because they used unofficial hacks to install Chess on their iPhone. So, running around quoting the EULA makes you come off sounding just as annoying as all the whiners you are complaining about.
Granted. But for all practical purposes, I suspect that no Tom, Dick, or Harry is ever going to go to jail or be required to pay Apple any damages because they used unofficial hacks to install Chess on their iPhone. So, running around quoting the EULA makes you come off sounding just as annoying as all the whiners you are complaining about.
Ah, but it's been explained to me that such behavior is totally justified and, in fact, has a noble purpose.
I'm apparently making the world a better place.
#1 reason SDK wasn't announced before is due to lack of developers.
Lack of developers? Under that theory, no platform would ever have developers.
The most likely explanation...
Apple didn't want to release the iPhone and immediately portray it as unfinished. Doing so would have caused customers to put off buying an iPhone until it was "finished". News stories would have always had at least one sentence mentioning the how the iPhone was "unfinished".
The alternative is for a company to release and market products in their current state. There would have been no customer benefit for apple to announce their upcoming SDK plans. Perhaps a few people could have kept their panties out of a wad, but that is all.
Developers haven't been hurt either. Apple specifically told them that updates are likely to break 3rd party hacks. Developers already know that they're trying to develop software for a rapidly evolving platform and that a more finalized API set is under development.
When Apple finally releases the SDK there will have been 9 months of unofficial hacking and many beta apps ready to go live in Feb. Win win.
Apple gave the dev community, intentionally or unintentionally, a challenge and they rose to it.
It will be nice to see polished apps for the iphone even if it means paying some amount for the added functionality.
On another note, this will be the beginning of the end for Apple/ATT partnership. As soon as Voip clients start springing up on the iPhone and more importantly on the Touch,
the game changes. Apple goes out in front again.
Steve always hated dealing with the orifices that are the cell phone companies. I am sure he has a plan to circumvent att just like the motorola fiasco that was the first iTunes phone.
iphone/iTouch + Airport +.mac= all in one solution for home communication
You heard it here first folks
You heard it here first folks
Eh? People have been talking about VOIP wifi handsets for many years now. Neither Apple nor the carriers are oblivious to the implications.
Good topic.
Architects who make plans available for public purchase, do NOT give a warrantee with those plans. They are floor plans, not detailed construction plans. They are available through house plan magazines, and other places.
You can modify the plans to your hearts content.
But the architect has no responsibility for the finished product. You can't call him to complain. You can't sue him (well, you can, but you'd lose, assuming the judge didn't simply throw your case out).
However, the architect does own the copyright to the original plan sold. But, all that means is that you're not allowed to pass the plan off as your own, or make minor modifications, and pass it off as your own, or sell copies. Or give them away for the purpose of building another house.
I do agree, and thanks for filling in the blanks.
Apple gave the dev community, intentionally or unintentionally, a challenge and they rose to it.
What are you talking about?
http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/30/s...e-from-d-2007/
Q: All indications appear that the iPhone is closed, we'd love to develop apps...
This is an important tradeoff between security and openness. We want both. We're working through a way... we'll find a way to let 3rd parties write apps and still preserve security on the iPhone. But until we find that way we can't compromise the security of the phone.
I've used 3rd party apps... the more you add, the more your phone crashes. No one's perfect, and we'd sure like our phone not to crash once a day. If you can just be a little more patient with us I think everyone can get what they want.
This was posted Posted May 30th 2007, a month before the first iPhone went on sale.
If ANYthing, the challenge was "Wait just a bit 'till we're ready" and the dev community stomped it's feet and wrote code that ended up bricking phones 'cause it made the devices incompatible with future updates of the OS.
What are you talking about?
http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/30/s...e-from-d-2007/
This was posted Posted May 30th 2007, a month before the first iPhone went on sale.
If ANYthing, the challenge was "Wait just a bit 'till we're ready" and the dev community stomped it's feet and wrote code that ended up bricking phones 'cause it made the devices incompatible with future updates of the OS.
It's not the third party software that caused the locking ruckus. It was the carrier unlocking. From what I've read, those that only added software only saw their software either deleted or hidden. But it was a problematic update because even some people that didn't touch the iPhone at all with unauthorized anything had bricked phones.
It's not the third party software that caused the locking ruckus. It was the carrier unlocking. From what I've read, those that only added software only saw their software either deleted or hidden. But it was a problematic update because even some people that didn't touch the iPhone at all with unauthorized anything had bricked phones.
My post was directly in response to TednDi's suggestion that Apple challenged the dev community. I make no excuses for the failure of the Apple update where unmodified devices are concerned, nor do I have to - Apple took responsibility for their update. If they broke it, they'll fix it free.
My post was directly in response to TednDi's suggestion that Apple challenged the dev community. I make no excuses for the failure of the Apple update where unmodified devices are concerned, nor do I have to - Apple took responsibility for their update. If they broke it, they'll fix it free.
OK, so I misunderstood you. I think TenDi's use of challenged might be a little different from what you are interpreting, indirect vs. direct. For some unknown reason, I can't get to the Engadget page so I can't get the full context of what you mean or what you are intending to point out.
OK, so I misunderstood you. I think TenDi's use of challenged might be a little different from what you are interpreting, indirect vs. direct. For some unknown reason, I can't get to the Engadget page so I can't get the full context of what you mean or what you are intending to point out.
The point is that Apple has always intended to provide developers with the ability to write apps as soon as they figured out a way to do so, with the caveat that iPhone stability is more important than 3rd party apps.
A current survey posted on this board states that 82% of iPhone customers feel "Very Satisfied with their purchase". That's without 3rd party apps. I think people that are complaining need to realize that they don't speak for the multitudes they appear to claim they represent.