I think there was real debate within Apple as to when the iPhone would be openned up. I think there still is, but when the tech seemed to have an obvious target date, then Apple could announce. I bet this is just happening a year earlier than Jobs originally planned and I bet the new touch screen phones are starting to drive the marketing aspect of it.
In the mean time Apple needed to light a little fire on developers to add webbased apps and why would they do that if they knew SDK's would be released within 8 months? Now early adopters at least have some choices now, rather than wait for choices next year.
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.
Thank you. Sometimes, it's like talking to a brick wall where aegisdesign is concerned. For someone who claims to be super-intelligent, he can be awfully dense sometimes. As there have already been microphone adapters that connect through the dock connector, I don't envision Belkin or Griffin having any problems putting out a microphone for the iPod Touch. As a bonus, it could then be used with a voice recorder application, too.
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.
Those statements mean to me that they were intending to have an SDK. It seemed so obvious.
Look at what he's saying.
Third party programs, ...satisfy everyone. He also said that it would be hard work, and they hoped it would be out by the end of the year.
None of this equals the AJAX solution. It satisfies few, wasn't hard work for Apple to do, almost no work at all. It came out almost immediately, not a concern for the end of the year.
That's why I've been so sure this would have happened.
I'm pretty sure Apple intended this from the start, but became derailed because of the delays in finishing the phone's software. So much, that they said they had to borrow developers from Leopard. It only makes sense that they borrowed developers from the SDK project as well, delaying that also.
These days, what software project does NOT get delayed.
I really dobn't think it was a challange so much as not wanting to mention it until it had passed some degree of readiness.
I think there was real debate within Apple as to when the iPhone would be openned up. I think there still is, but when the tech seemed to have an obvious target date, then Apple could announce. I bet this is just happening a year earlier than Jobs originally planned and I bet the new touch screen phones are starting to drive the marketing aspect of it.
I don't think so.
This is too complex a project, and too complex a product, for that to be true.
I think Apple intended all along to open this up. Slowly at first, then more, then perhaps the floodgates.
They are very aware that putting 700 MB of OS X in a phone, and now an iPod, would be vast overkill for the apps they put on there, even if they intended to add more.
The other phone OS's have proven to handle dozens of apps with ease, showing the OS X as a delivery vehicle isn't required.
Even Safari could have been written to work without the full OS.
So, Apple could have used a really stripped down version that occupied much less space, but chose not to.
The reason for that, I believe, is that Apple is attacking, not only the smartphone industry, not just the mobile OS's, but Windows itself!
Look at the not quite successful UMPC businesses. So far, a failure, as has been the tablet businesses. I'm calling them businesses to separate them out from the more conventional machines.
Apple is out UMPCing the UMPC's, and out tableting the tablets.
Unlike what one poster here thinks, Apple is now going to get a rush of developers invading Apple's new UMTAB® space.
Every developer now writing programs for Windows Mobile, Palm, Symbian, and Blackberry, will turn and port, and write new software for the iPhone. If the SDK is out on time (Feb. 29, of course), we might see 100, 200, or more, apps during the ADC next year.
I'm willing to bet we'll see some simple versions of desktop apps as well.
I'm also willing to bet that at some point, as some analysts have said, that Apple will deliver a somewhat larger version, with a higher screen rez, a faster processor than the 600+ MHz version now, more memory, etc. And it will have more battery life than the typical 2.5 hours the UMPC's are getting now. And it will be under the $1,000 that the more expensive UMPC's cost, maybe around $599 to $699. It will serve as a mini tablet, perhaps the only real practical way of delivering one.
This is a new computing platform for Apple, and if they do it right, might even count in marketshare numbers for computers. At least, it will count for web browser count numbers.
We may be reading, after a few years, that Apple has sold 40 million OS X devices that year.
So no, I don't think there was any dispute. I think that was the entire idea.
Thank you. Sometimes, it's like talking to a brick wall where aegisdesign is concerned. For someone who claims to be super-intelligent, he can be awfully dense sometimes. As there have already been microphone adapters that connect through the dock connector, I don't envision Belkin or Griffin having any problems putting out a microphone for the iPod Touch. As a bonus, it could then be used with a voice recorder application, too.
Apple is out UMPCing the UMPC's, and out tableting the tablets.
I'm also willing to bet that at some point, as some analysts have said, that Apple will deliver a somewhat larger version, with a higher screen rez, a faster processor than the 600+ MHz version now, more memory, etc. And it will have more battery life than the typical 2.5 hours the UMPC's are getting now. And it will be under the $1,000 that the more expensive UMPC's cost, maybe around $599 to $699. It will serve as a mini tablet, perhaps the only real practical way of delivering one.
Agreed. Apple has struck the proper note between a pure smartphone OS (Palm, say) and a desktop OS (as UMPCs/tablets use) when they could have stuck with a smartphone OS. Instead they've incorporated as much of OS X as seems reasonable.
Yep. The Mobile OS X space has a lot of room for product. You have your iPhone/iPhone 3G for the smartphone + small mobile computer space, iPod Touch for small mobile computer + multimedia/PDA, iNewton for the UMPC/tablet space, and perhaps a Mobile OS X iBook (iNewton + keyboard) which delivers an Asus Eee/Palm Foleo/eMate type device under a grand with excellent battery life (though care would have to be taken as it wouldn't be a Mac, since it can't run regular Mac programs).
Mobile OS X is a whole new platform for them, separate but connected to Mac OS X. They get to innovate in the UI space with Multitouch, they get rid of most of OS X's overhead (=longer battery life, and runs on slower processors). Furthermore ports from Mac OS X can't be lazy, because they require an entire UI rethink + optimization for a smaller memory/CPU footprint.
Incidentally they kinda need a new word for Mobile OS X if they do decide to expand it beyond iPhone/iPod. You wouldn't want to buy something thinking it could run regular Mac OS X programs and finding out it can only run Mobile OS X programs, now would you? (I suggest Newton . Ok, probably not. Pippin?)
Mobile OS X is a whole new platform for them, separate but connected to Mac OS X. They get to innovate in the UI space with Multitouch, they get rid of most of OS X's overhead (=longer battery life, and runs on slower processors). Furthermore ports from Mac OS X can't be lazy, because they require an entire UI rethink + optimization for a smaller memory/CPU footprint.
From your comments and use of the term "Mobile OS X", it seems that you view the iPhone version of OS X as significantly different. I'm curious, what is this based on? (honest question)
If you look at the active processes on OS X, the ones creating "overhead", it doesn't seem that there is significant overhead to strip away. It was my understanding that the two OS are nearly identical, but with unneeded files being left off of the iPhone install. Granted, there are also new software components on the iPhone. But otherwise, I see the two as nearly identical. Don't you love my heuristic analysis?
In my opinion, it would be in Apple's best interest to maintain a clean and common code base. There really isn't anything different other than choosing which files, libraries and kexts can be excluded for desktop or phone use.
From your comments and use of the term "Mobile OS X", it seems that you view the iPhone version of OS X as significantly different. I'm curious, what is this based on? (honest question)
It may be conjecture on Electric Monk's part.
From the code snippets I've seen for It uses different or modified frameworks vs. what you'd find in the code for a simple Mac program. I haven't looked at it that hard though. I think it makes sense to do that too.
If so, check out the info in "Settings -> General -> About -> Legal".
I don't. Not available in the UK yet. But if you're pointing me at a EULA then you do realise that means nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison
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.
Just an aesthetic one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss
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.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.
A) I'm in the UK - DMCA means squat.
The DMCA doesn't apply as you're not circumventing copy protection to add your own apps.
C) The DMCA explicitly excludes phones in relation to ringtones
D) It still comes down to it being my phone and I can do what I want with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
Thank you. Sometimes, it's like talking to a brick wall where aegisdesign is concerned. For someone who claims to be super-intelligent, he can be awfully dense sometimes. As there have already been microphone adapters that connect through the dock connector, I don't envision Belkin or Griffin having any problems putting out a microphone for the iPod Touch. As a bonus, it could then be used with a voice recorder application, too.
I don't recall claiming anything. Still, I can't see many people wanting to buy a Mic adaptor for an iPod Touch when they could just buy an iPhone in the first place. Just seems highly unlikely to me. If only they'd put bluetooth in the iPod Touch in the first place eh? They give it wifi, but not bluetooth. Bizarre.
I can accept that. But that's a far cry from "there's no way it'd work on an iPod". Your exact words.
Quote:
C) The DMCA explicitly excludes phones in relation to ringtones
There is no such exemption.
In fact, there is a DMCA exemption on the books regarding cell phones. But it deals with an entirely different area of hacking. It simply allows private users immunity from prosecution if they use software means to SIM-unlock a phone when the manufacturer doesn't provide an alternate, legitimate means.
From the code snippets I've seen for It uses different or modified frameworks vs. what you'd find in the code for a simple Mac program. I haven't looked at it that hard though. I think it makes sense to do that too.
A lot of this is because of the hardware, which is significantly different from Apple's, uh, well, "normal" computer platform. Plus the fact that it is also a simplified hardware platform..
With the possibility of Apple moving to an Intel based platform by 2009, who knows what they'll do?
I thought you were more worldly than you apparently are. Forgive me from overestimating you.
You might want to read up on international copyright and obligations of WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.
Sorry but you're way off base. Copyright and Intellectual Property laws only apply if I were to be selling other people's work as my own.
If I bought the Mona Lisa and drew a moustache on it, that's perfectly within my rights to do so. Copying the Mona Lisa and passing it off as an original isn't. Adding my own software to an iPhone is the former, not the latter. Copyright and IP law do not apply to adding moustaches.
Apple may have a EULA in place that places restrictions on what I'm allowed to do and still receive service from Apple or the carrier but if I want to break that, it's my lookout. If it bricks a phone then that's my problem. It's still not illegal.
Again, I'm astounded by the 'roll over and die' attitude. Do people not write their own code anymore?
I like programming, but right now, it's just microcontrollers, but if I find a good beginner's book on Obj-C and Cocoa, then I'll give that another shot. I can do C just fine (right now, for the uCs), even C++, but Obj-C just throws me for a loop. Part of it is my impatience, but I'm certain that part of it is that it hasn't been very well explained in the books & docs that I've tried so far.
Apple may have a EULA in place that places restrictions on what I'm allowed to do and still receive service from Apple or the carrier but if I want to break that, it's my lookout. If it bricks a phone then that's my problem. It's still not illegal.
Absolutely correct. You can do what you want with it, just don't expect Apple to service your self caused problems.
Quote:
Again, I'm astounded by the 'roll over and die' attitude. Do people not write their own code anymore?
Ah, well, this is different. Almost no one has ever wrtten their own code. If you're talking about that 99.999% of the population other than the professional coders, who DO write their code to suddenly begin to do so, well good luck, it ain't gonna happen.
That said, the implications could be far-reaching. All EU member nations were required to implement the EU's copyright directive, which defines a technological measure as being effective if "where the use of a protected work or other subject-matter is controlled by the rights-holders through application of an access control or protection process, such as
encryption, scrambling or other transformation of the work or other subject-matter or a copy control mechanism, which achieves the protection objective."
Know Your Rights: Is it illegal to unlock my iPhone? - by copyright attorney Nilay Patel.
Just because Apple and AT&T can't sue you for violating the DMCA, there's nothing saying they can't sue you under some other law. Remember, all the ruling says is that cellphone firmware isn't protected under the DMCA when you unlock to lawfully connect to a wireless network. That's a pretty narrow rule, and it's most certainly not the same as a rule saying it's legal to unlock your cellphone.
Comments
In the mean time Apple needed to light a little fire on developers to add webbased apps and why would they do that if they knew SDK's would be released within 8 months? Now early adopters at least have some choices now, rather than wait for choices next year.
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.
Thank you. Sometimes, it's like talking to a brick wall where aegisdesign is concerned. For someone who claims to be super-intelligent, he can be awfully dense sometimes. As there have already been microphone adapters that connect through the dock connector, I don't envision Belkin or Griffin having any problems putting out a microphone for the iPod Touch. As a bonus, it could then be used with a voice recorder application, too.
MSN MESSENGER ON iPOD TOUCH
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.
Those statements mean to me that they were intending to have an SDK. It seemed so obvious.
Look at what he's saying.
Third party programs, ...satisfy everyone. He also said that it would be hard work, and they hoped it would be out by the end of the year.
None of this equals the AJAX solution. It satisfies few, wasn't hard work for Apple to do, almost no work at all. It came out almost immediately, not a concern for the end of the year.
That's why I've been so sure this would have happened.
I'm pretty sure Apple intended this from the start, but became derailed because of the delays in finishing the phone's software. So much, that they said they had to borrow developers from Leopard. It only makes sense that they borrowed developers from the SDK project as well, delaying that also.
These days, what software project does NOT get delayed.
I really dobn't think it was a challange so much as not wanting to mention it until it had passed some degree of readiness.
I think there was real debate within Apple as to when the iPhone would be openned up. I think there still is, but when the tech seemed to have an obvious target date, then Apple could announce. I bet this is just happening a year earlier than Jobs originally planned and I bet the new touch screen phones are starting to drive the marketing aspect of it.
I don't think so.
This is too complex a project, and too complex a product, for that to be true.
I think Apple intended all along to open this up. Slowly at first, then more, then perhaps the floodgates.
They are very aware that putting 700 MB of OS X in a phone, and now an iPod, would be vast overkill for the apps they put on there, even if they intended to add more.
The other phone OS's have proven to handle dozens of apps with ease, showing the OS X as a delivery vehicle isn't required.
Even Safari could have been written to work without the full OS.
So, Apple could have used a really stripped down version that occupied much less space, but chose not to.
The reason for that, I believe, is that Apple is attacking, not only the smartphone industry, not just the mobile OS's, but Windows itself!
Look at the not quite successful UMPC businesses. So far, a failure, as has been the tablet businesses. I'm calling them businesses to separate them out from the more conventional machines.
Apple is out UMPCing the UMPC's, and out tableting the tablets.
Unlike what one poster here thinks, Apple is now going to get a rush of developers invading Apple's new UMTAB® space.
Every developer now writing programs for Windows Mobile, Palm, Symbian, and Blackberry, will turn and port, and write new software for the iPhone. If the SDK is out on time (Feb. 29, of course), we might see 100, 200, or more, apps during the ADC next year.
I'm willing to bet we'll see some simple versions of desktop apps as well.
I'm also willing to bet that at some point, as some analysts have said, that Apple will deliver a somewhat larger version, with a higher screen rez, a faster processor than the 600+ MHz version now, more memory, etc. And it will have more battery life than the typical 2.5 hours the UMPC's are getting now. And it will be under the $1,000 that the more expensive UMPC's cost, maybe around $599 to $699. It will serve as a mini tablet, perhaps the only real practical way of delivering one.
This is a new computing platform for Apple, and if they do it right, might even count in marketshare numbers for computers. At least, it will count for web browser count numbers.
We may be reading, after a few years, that Apple has sold 40 million OS X devices that year.
So no, I don't think there was any dispute. I think that was the entire idea.
Thank you. Sometimes, it's like talking to a brick wall where aegisdesign is concerned. For someone who claims to be super-intelligent, he can be awfully dense sometimes. As there have already been microphone adapters that connect through the dock connector, I don't envision Belkin or Griffin having any problems putting out a microphone for the iPod Touch. As a bonus, it could then be used with a voice recorder application, too.
If Apple only added Bluetooth. Oh well.
Apple is out UMPCing the UMPC's, and out tableting the tablets.
I'm also willing to bet that at some point, as some analysts have said, that Apple will deliver a somewhat larger version, with a higher screen rez, a faster processor than the 600+ MHz version now, more memory, etc. And it will have more battery life than the typical 2.5 hours the UMPC's are getting now. And it will be under the $1,000 that the more expensive UMPC's cost, maybe around $599 to $699. It will serve as a mini tablet, perhaps the only real practical way of delivering one.
Agreed. Apple has struck the proper note between a pure smartphone OS (Palm, say) and a desktop OS (as UMPCs/tablets use) when they could have stuck with a smartphone OS. Instead they've incorporated as much of OS X as seems reasonable.
Yep. The Mobile OS X space has a lot of room for product. You have your iPhone/iPhone 3G for the smartphone + small mobile computer space, iPod Touch for small mobile computer + multimedia/PDA, iNewton for the UMPC/tablet space, and perhaps a Mobile OS X iBook (iNewton + keyboard) which delivers an Asus Eee/Palm Foleo/eMate type device under a grand with excellent battery life (though care would have to be taken as it wouldn't be a Mac, since it can't run regular Mac programs).
Mobile OS X is a whole new platform for them, separate but connected to Mac OS X. They get to innovate in the UI space with Multitouch, they get rid of most of OS X's overhead (=longer battery life, and runs on slower processors). Furthermore ports from Mac OS X can't be lazy, because they require an entire UI rethink + optimization for a smaller memory/CPU footprint.
Incidentally they kinda need a new word for Mobile OS X if they do decide to expand it beyond iPhone/iPod. You wouldn't want to buy something thinking it could run regular Mac OS X programs and finding out it can only run Mobile OS X programs, now would you? (I suggest Newton
Mobile OS X is a whole new platform for them, separate but connected to Mac OS X. They get to innovate in the UI space with Multitouch, they get rid of most of OS X's overhead (=longer battery life, and runs on slower processors). Furthermore ports from Mac OS X can't be lazy, because they require an entire UI rethink + optimization for a smaller memory/CPU footprint.
From your comments and use of the term "Mobile OS X", it seems that you view the iPhone version of OS X as significantly different. I'm curious, what is this based on? (honest question)
If you look at the active processes on OS X, the ones creating "overhead", it doesn't seem that there is significant overhead to strip away. It was my understanding that the two OS are nearly identical, but with unneeded files being left off of the iPhone install. Granted, there are also new software components on the iPhone. But otherwise, I see the two as nearly identical. Don't you love my heuristic analysis?
In my opinion, it would be in Apple's best interest to maintain a clean and common code base. There really isn't anything different other than choosing which files, libraries and kexts can be excluded for desktop or phone use.
From your comments and use of the term "Mobile OS X", it seems that you view the iPhone version of OS X as significantly different. I'm curious, what is this based on? (honest question)
It may be conjecture on Electric Monk's part.
From the code snippets I've seen for It uses different or modified frameworks vs. what you'd find in the code for a simple Mac program. I haven't looked at it that hard though. I think it makes sense to do that too.
Apple is out UMPCing the UMPC's, and out tableting the tablets.
Unlike what one poster here thinks, Apple is now going to get a rush of developers invading Apple's new UMTAB® space.
I'm surprised Mel. I was saying this right after the iPhone was announced and you seemed to disagree with that rational. Now you seem to agree.
Do you own an iPhone?
If so, check out the info in "Settings -> General -> About -> Legal".
I don't. Not available in the UK yet. But if you're pointing me at a EULA then you do realise that means nothing.
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.
Just an aesthetic one.
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.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.
A) I'm in the UK - DMCA means squat.
C) The DMCA explicitly excludes phones in relation to ringtones
D) It still comes down to it being my phone and I can do what I want with it.
Thank you. Sometimes, it's like talking to a brick wall where aegisdesign is concerned. For someone who claims to be super-intelligent, he can be awfully dense sometimes. As there have already been microphone adapters that connect through the dock connector, I don't envision Belkin or Griffin having any problems putting out a microphone for the iPod Touch. As a bonus, it could then be used with a voice recorder application, too.
I don't recall claiming anything. Still, I can't see many people wanting to buy a Mic adaptor for an iPod Touch when they could just buy an iPhone in the first place. Just seems highly unlikely to me. If only they'd put bluetooth in the iPod Touch in the first place eh? They give it wifi, but not bluetooth. Bizarre.
Just an aesthetic one.
I can accept that. But that's a far cry from "there's no way it'd work on an iPod". Your exact words.
C) The DMCA explicitly excludes phones in relation to ringtones
There is no such exemption.
In fact, there is a DMCA exemption on the books regarding cell phones. But it deals with an entirely different area of hacking. It simply allows private users immunity from prosecution if they use software means to SIM-unlock a phone when the manufacturer doesn't provide an alternate, legitimate means.
A) I'm in the UK - DMCA means squat.
C) The DMCA explicitly excludes phones in relation to ringtones
D) It still comes down to it being my phone and I can do what I want with it.
I thought you were more worldly than you apparently are. Forgive me from overestimating you.
You might want to read up on international copyright and obligations of WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.
It may be conjecture on Electric Monk's part.
From the code snippets I've seen for It uses different or modified frameworks vs. what you'd find in the code for a simple Mac program. I haven't looked at it that hard though. I think it makes sense to do that too.
A lot of this is because of the hardware, which is significantly different from Apple's, uh, well, "normal" computer platform. Plus the fact that it is also a simplified hardware platform..
With the possibility of Apple moving to an Intel based platform by 2009, who knows what they'll do?
I'm surprised Mel. I was saying this right after the iPhone was announced and you seemed to disagree with that rational. Now you seem to agree.
Did I? I really don't remember. I do think on things over time, and with new facts, I may change the way I look at the issue.
The situation has evolved. So have my opinions.
I thought you were more worldly than you apparently are. Forgive me from overestimating you.
You might want to read up on international copyright and obligations of WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.
Sorry but you're way off base. Copyright and Intellectual Property laws only apply if I were to be selling other people's work as my own.
If I bought the Mona Lisa and drew a moustache on it, that's perfectly within my rights to do so. Copying the Mona Lisa and passing it off as an original isn't. Adding my own software to an iPhone is the former, not the latter. Copyright and IP law do not apply to adding moustaches.
Apple may have a EULA in place that places restrictions on what I'm allowed to do and still receive service from Apple or the carrier but if I want to break that, it's my lookout. If it bricks a phone then that's my problem. It's still not illegal.
Again, I'm astounded by the 'roll over and die' attitude. Do people not write their own code anymore?
Do people not write their own code anymore?
It's a fairly specialized activity.
I like programming, but right now, it's just microcontrollers, but if I find a good beginner's book on Obj-C and Cocoa, then I'll give that another shot. I can do C just fine (right now, for the uCs), even C++, but Obj-C just throws me for a loop. Part of it is my impatience, but I'm certain that part of it is that it hasn't been very well explained in the books & docs that I've tried so far.
Apple may have a EULA in place that places restrictions on what I'm allowed to do and still receive service from Apple or the carrier but if I want to break that, it's my lookout. If it bricks a phone then that's my problem. It's still not illegal.
Absolutely correct. You can do what you want with it, just don't expect Apple to service your self caused problems.
Again, I'm astounded by the 'roll over and die' attitude. Do people not write their own code anymore?
Ah, well, this is different. Almost no one has ever wrtten their own code. If you're talking about that 99.999% of the population other than the professional coders, who DO write their code to suddenly begin to do so, well good luck, it ain't gonna happen.
I say we call a truce and party.
This is one of the best posts I've ever read here.
That said, the implications could be far-reaching. All EU member nations were required to implement the EU's copyright directive, which defines a technological measure as being effective if "where the use of a protected work or other subject-matter is controlled by the rights-holders through application of an access control or protection process, such as
encryption, scrambling or other transformation of the work or other subject-matter or a copy control mechanism, which achieves the protection objective."
Know Your Rights: Is it illegal to unlock my iPhone? - by copyright attorney Nilay Patel.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/24/k...ock-my-iphone/
Just because Apple and AT&T can't sue you for violating the DMCA, there's nothing saying they can't sue you under some other law. Remember, all the ruling says is that cellphone firmware isn't protected under the DMCA when you unlock to lawfully connect to a wireless network. That's a pretty narrow rule, and it's most certainly not the same as a rule saying it's legal to unlock your cellphone.