Re crashing a cell network, some friends of mine recently developed a mobile tracking application for a Motorola team building event (you know the sort of thing, give all the competitors a GPS-enabled device and have it upload their current position and status to a server so people could track how they were doing). It all worked beautifully for the first couple of hours, until it crashed two local cell towers which weren't used to handling that much data all of a sudden. And not just data - those base stations were out of action for the rest of the day, including for voice and emergency calls. So yes, it's DEFINITELY possible for a malicious or even totally innocent mobile application to have an undesirable impact on the network.
But the real point of controlling what applications can do is no doubt to protect revenue streams. The network operators make money from services like phone calls and text messages, so they're not going to allow you to undercut that, for example by using 3rd party software to make VOIP calls for free under an unlimited data plan.
Additionally, the only reason they can offer unlimited data for the iPhone is that they know that in practice users who are checking their emails and browsing the web will use much less than they theoretically could. If every iPhone user suddenly started transferring data at the maximum rate non-stop it would very quickly bring the entire network to its knees as there's only a finite capacity in practice. It doesn't seem unreasonable of Apple or the network operators to be concerned about this and restrict what you can do therefore. Would any of you rather have a situation where you can freely install any software you wanted, including VOIP, IM etc., but had to pay 10c/megabyte for all your data??
What kind of networks are you talking about and what BSS and OSS are you referring to? A modern, technologically advanced IN design dictates that data calls are dropped the moment 80% saturation is reached. 80%. Not 100%. In Finland, everyone is using GPS, HSDPA, data services and not one cell network has crashed. DNA had a crash on its Internet gateway but internal data connections functioned and voice calls carried on. Sorry but I have a hard time believing your scenario of uploading GPS data crashing cells. By design they are supposed to start sending disconnects, and refusing new connections if a threshold is reached. Also if what you say is remotely true, the provisioning manager should have been fired on the spot.
Actually, I think you both don't understand the amount of people needed to check all the little apps that will come in based on the SDK. Last I heard you don't have to pay for the SDK and anyone can program for the phone if the want to. They may limit the SDK so that critical functionality can't be crippled on the phone based on a bug in the application, but they don't have enough people to check all the apps that will be submitted to itunes... Think widgets, they wouldn't have enough people to check all of them for security or performance.
Thats just my opinion, so I won't believe anything for sure until I hear what the roadmap is and the process for filing apps for the iphone.
Steve Jobs, from day 1, has been talking about Nokia's signed codes. Qualcomm has been making a pretty good business model out of certified mobile apps.
What kind of networks are you talking about and what BSS and OSS are you referring to? A modern, technologically advanced IN design dictates that data calls are dropped the moment 80% saturation is reached. 80%. Not 100%. In Finland, everyone is using GPS, HSDPA, data services and not one cell network has crashed. DNA had a crash on its Internet gateway but internal data connections functioned and voice calls carried on. Sorry but I have a hard time believing your scenario of uploading GPS data crashing cells. By design they are supposed to start sending disconnects, and refusing new connections if a threshold is reached. Also if what you say is remotely true, the provisioning manager should have been fired on the spot.
I'm afraid I don't have that kind of information. This was in a small Mediterranean country, so I can imagine they didn't have the latest GSM infrastructure you'd find in Scandinavia, but even if a sudden excess of data traffic shouldn't crash the network I still don't think it's unreasonable for the operators to be wary of allowing uncontrolled application access to their data network under an unlimited data plan.
(In fairness I guess one should say it's possible that the cell outage and data spike were an unrelated coincidence.)
I'm afraid I don't have that kind of information. This was in a small Mediterranean country, so I can imagine they didn't have the latest GSM infrastructure you'd find in Scandinavia, but even if a sudden excess of data traffic shouldn't crash the network I still don't think it's unreasonable for the operators to be wary of allowing uncontrolled application access to their data network under an unlimited data plan.
(In fairness I guess one should say it's possible that the cell outage and data spike were an unrelated coincidence.)
Hey mate no problem about not having that kind of info. The point I am making is that many to most networks are designed to prevent what you said as happening. To be honest, the network will simply start disconnecting phones and refusing new connections when they get over-capacitied. This is why the operators pay xhundred million dollars for in OSS/BSS. I have worked in small Mid Eastern countries as well and can say that most networks are homogenous and are built to self heal.
I am not sure about the out but it could have been a perfect storm. But in reality, this "rogue" application thing is a product of Apple and AT&T*marketing to control the apps going on the iPhone and now you see what is going on based on the latest new flash.
Additionally, the only reason they can offer unlimited data for the iPhone is that they know that in practice users who are checking their emails and browsing the web will use much less than they theoretically could. If every iPhone user suddenly started transferring data at the maximum rate non-stop it would very quickly bring the entire network to its knees as there's only a finite capacity in practice. It doesn't seem unreasonable of Apple or the network operators to be concerned about this and restrict what you can do therefore. Would any of you rather have a situation where you can freely install any software you wanted, including VOIP, IM etc., but had to pay 10c/megabyte for all your data??
They put youtube on the iphone and that uses a lot of data.
They put youtube on the iphone and that uses a lot of data.
True, but I do not think that rhowarth is getting the difference. There is Internet data and then there is unlimited data connection (cell network). The Internet part has to work hand in hand with the unlimited data part as when an operator says unlimited, they generally mean a constant, always on connection that has access to the Internet. No costs for the initial connect. I pay ?9.95 for unlimited data in Finland and I use easily 100 megs or more a money. I am not the only one and the networks here are just fine. rhowarth needs to get over the marketing hype of Apple and AT&T and realize that a cell network will not crash with a rogue app.
True, but I do not think that rhowarth is getting the difference. There is Internet data and then there is unlimited data connection (cell network). The Internet part has to work hand in hand with the unlimited data part as when an operator says unlimited, they generally mean a constant, always on connection that has access to the Internet. No costs for the initial connect. I pay ?9.95 for unlimited data in Finland and I use easily 100 megs or more a money. I am not the only one and the networks here are just fine. rhowarth needs to get over the marketing hype of Apple and AT&T and realize that a cell network will not crash with a rogue app.
Not to beat a dead horse, but what difference does it make to an end-user if they are unable
to access their service if the reason is the system crashed or the reason is the system is
working fine but denying them a connection because it is over capacity? It seems like a
distinction without a difference. If a malicious application causes denial of service for
any reason, there is justification for trying to prevent it from being implemented,
Steve Jobs, from day 1, has been talking about Nokia's signed codes. Qualcomm has been making a pretty good business model out of certified mobile apps.
Actually, from day 1 Apple said that web apps were the way to go... Didn't they?
Exactly how I predicted months ago Apple would go about apps for iPhone/Touch. My questions back then remain exactly the same ...
Who sets the price of the app on the store? How much will Apple take? Is Apple sole arbitrator as to what's good enough to release? What order are apps submitted evaluated on (i.e., you send in SuperDuper App and three days later Adobe submits PhotoshopMini ... you think yours is going to get reviewed by Apple first?)? Will Apple not allow certain types of apps (Skype etc?)?
While I understand Apple's need to do this and the benefits of having all apps available via iTunes ... I don't want to bother developing apps for the platofrm that I can demonstrate lots of people want if Apple doesn't share my enthusiasm and can simply say no thanks.
Not to beat a dead horse, but what difference does it make to an end-user if they are unable
to access their service if the reason is the system crashed or the reason is the system is
working fine but denying them a connection because it is over capacity? It seems like a
distinction without a difference. If a malicious application causes denial of service for
any reason, there is justification for trying to prevent it from being implemented,
don't you think?
You just beat a dead horse that lost the race. Your premise and that of rhowarth of how a cell network functions is incorrect. I have explained it well enough in lay terms to make it clear that an application can not crash a CELL NETWORK but you continue to want to hang on to the idea that it can. So be it. Believe what AT&T, and Apple marketing tells you and be happy in knowing that they provide all the answers your life needs.
To be honest, the network will simply start disconnecting phones and refusing new connections when they get over-capacitied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby
You just beat a dead horse that lost the race. Your premise and that of rhowarth of how a cell network functions is incorrect. I have explained it well enough in lay terms to make it clear that an application can not crash a CELL NETWORK but you continue to want to hang on to the idea that it can. So be it. Believe what AT&T, and Apple marketing tells you and be happy in knowing that they provide all the answers your life needs.
It is not my premise. It is yours. My question is in direct response to your explanation above.
Also, I did not say that an application can crash a cell network. Rather, I asked what
difference it makes what the cause of the denial of service is. Are you claiming that
a malicious (or faulty) application cannot cause a denial of service to someone using the internet
via a cell phone? Would you prefer that Apple did not even try to keep harmful applications
It is not my premise. It is yours. My question is in direct response to your explanation above.
Also, I did not say that an application can crash a cell network. Rather, I asked what
difference it makes what the cause of the denial of service is. Are you claiming that
a malicious (or faulty) application cannot cause a denial of service to someone using the internet
via a cell phone? Would you prefer that Apple did not even try to keep harmful applications
from being made available?
If you think this about my presentation of the info then you truly do not understand what I am saying. I could not care less about the Internet portion of the connection. I am only concerned with the CELL NETWORK (BTS, OSS/BSS, MSC), etc.... An app can not crash this portion and even, rhowarth was speaking about the cell part. You made the jump to DDoS and the Internet.
If you think this about my presentation of the info then you truly do not understand what I am saying. I could not care less about the Internet portion of the connection. I am only concerned with the CELL NETWORK (BTS, OSS/BSS, MSC), etc.... An app can not crash this portion and even, rhowarth was speaking about the cell part. You made the jump to DDoS and the Internet.
Now we are getting somewhere. The point I was trying to make was that to an end-user,
it is of no significance where the malfunction originates. It is of no comfort to an end-user
that the cell network has not crashed, if it is not allowing him/her to make a connection,
as in your explanation. Similarly, if an iPhone user can't get to their brokerage account
website, because of a denial of service situation due to a malicious or incompetent
application, the status of the cell network is not what they are worried about.
Even though you could not care less about the Internet portion, Apple has to care
about the whole system top to bottom.
If they did not even attempt to prevent harmful applications from getting into circulation
via the iTunes store, they would be exposing themselves to potentially enormous liability.
(Not to mention any obligations they may have from their arrangements with AT&T). I think
you should take this into account when you are evaluating Apple's rumoured plan
to be a "gatekeeper" for iPhone apps. You can afford to be trusting of the "hacker"
community's intentions. Companies like Apple cannot.
True, but I do not think that rhowarth is getting the difference. There is Internet data and then there is unlimited data connection (cell network). The Internet part has to work hand in hand with the unlimited data part as when an operator says unlimited, they generally mean a constant, always on connection that has access to the Internet. No costs for the initial connect. I pay ?9.95 for unlimited data in Finland and I use easily 100 megs or more a money. I am not the only one and the networks here are just fine. rhowarth needs to get over the marketing hype of Apple and AT&T and realize that a cell network will not crash with a rogue app.
Give me some credit, I don't believe anyone's marketing FUD!
I think you're taking "crash the network" too literally. Perhaps people like AT&T are being sloppy in how they describe it but I assume their concerns are threefold:
people finding a way to bypass the networks established sources of revenue (phone calls and SMS)
the bad press the whole service would get if users inadvertently install malware that dials premium rate numbers etc. in the background
people suddenly using vastly more than they had before and the network has capacity for.
Even if it's not possible to literally crash the network it doesn't seem unreasonable for them to be concerned about these issues.
You say you use 100 MB of mobile data a month (I assume that's what you meant) and that seems quite reasonable and well within what the network might expect under an unlimited data plan. But let's say someone develops a web cam application or something that continuously uploads video from wherever you are, so instead of downloading 100MB a month you're suddenly uploading 10 GB. And everybody else is doing it too. You expect the network to be able to cope without a significant degradation in service for everyone? Unlimited is unlimited, right? :-)
If you think this about my presentation of the info then you truly do not understand what I am saying. I could not care less about the Internet portion of the connection. I am only concerned with the CELL NETWORK (BTS, OSS/BSS, MSC), etc.... An app can not crash this portion and even, rhowarth was speaking about the cell part. You made the jump to DDoS and the Internet.
sapporobaby,
I think we are all talking pass each other. In an earlier thread I backed off of this subject because I know absolutely nothing about cell networks and their vulnerabilities. On the other hand you sounded like you knew. But now you are making the mistake of experts, you are taking in jargon and acronyms. What do these strings of letters mean? How do they apply to the subject at hand? And what is this IN Cell Network you have repetitively mentioned? Please remember that most of the people here are more familiar with LANs, WANs and Enterprise networks than they are with cell networks.
Now we are getting somewhere. The point I was trying to make was that to an end-user,
it is of no significance where the malfunction originates. It is of no comfort to an end-user
that the cell network has not crashed, if it is not allowing him/her to make a connection,
as in your explanation. Similarly, if an iPhone user can't get to their brokerage account
website, because of a denial of service situation due to a malicious or incompetent
application, the status of the cell network is not what they are worried about.
Even though you could not care less about the Internet portion, Apple has to care
about the whole system top to bottom.
If they did not even attempt to prevent harmful applications from getting into circulation
via the iTunes store, they would be exposing themselves to potentially enormous liability.
(Not to mention any obligations they may have from their arrangements with AT&T). I think
you should take this into account when you are evaluating Apple's rumoured plan
to be a "gatekeeper" for iPhone apps. You can afford to be trusting of the "hacker"
community's intentions. Companies like Apple cannot.
Hello quinney,
If you do not mind, I will also answer rhowarth as well to save space.
@ both of you. I agree with you. I think in many ways we are talking about the same thing but maybe different components within the cell network. My topic is limited to only the cell portion, air interface and not the traffic that heads out the door to the Internet. I agree that the same dangers that are present in the PC (yuck) and Mac (hooray) could be present on the iPhone as well. An application that might have the intention of starting a DDoS could surely bottle neck at the gateway and start a chain reaction to lock up an operator from delivering traffic. The cell portion of the network will remain intact while the Internet gateway side will possibly experience hard times.
rhowarth: mucho respect and credit. It many have taken a few posts but I think we actually see eye to eye. We may have just seen it from different points of view.
I think we are all talking pass each other. In an earlier thread I backed off of this subject because I know absolutely nothing about cell networks and their vulnerabilities. On the other hand you sounded like you knew. But now you are making the mistake of experts, you are taking in jargon and acronyms. What do these strings of letters mean? How do they apply to the subject at hand? And what is this IN Cell Network you have repetitively mentioned? Please remember that most of the people here are more familiar with LANs, WANs and Enterprise networks than they are with cell networks.
Fair point. I should have gone into more detail or explanation. I concede your point. Sorry about that.
Since its beginning Apple offered a choice among computers and operating systems?this was a major appeal as people like choices. Now, Apple is acting more like other large corporations with their hand in everything when it come to what you can and cannot put on your iPhone. Long live hackers! More power to Android!
Clearly, you can't be more than 16 years old. From it's beginning, Apple has always been criticized for being proprietary and inflexible, especially regarding upgradablity of their hardware. They have ALWAYS exercised this type of control over their products. They tried allowing Mac clones and that was a disaster.
The bottom line is that Apple must control he quality of the iPhone and everything that can officially be installed on it. Look at Microsoft. They have wasted countless man-hours over the years having to deal with issues when people install crappy software on Windows.
No one is forced to buy an iPhone. No one can stop you from doing whatever you want with your iPhone, but Apple doesn't have to approve or help you when you screw it up.
Comments
Re crashing a cell network, some friends of mine recently developed a mobile tracking application for a Motorola team building event (you know the sort of thing, give all the competitors a GPS-enabled device and have it upload their current position and status to a server so people could track how they were doing). It all worked beautifully for the first couple of hours, until it crashed two local cell towers which weren't used to handling that much data all of a sudden. And not just data - those base stations were out of action for the rest of the day, including for voice and emergency calls. So yes, it's DEFINITELY possible for a malicious or even totally innocent mobile application to have an undesirable impact on the network.
But the real point of controlling what applications can do is no doubt to protect revenue streams. The network operators make money from services like phone calls and text messages, so they're not going to allow you to undercut that, for example by using 3rd party software to make VOIP calls for free under an unlimited data plan.
Additionally, the only reason they can offer unlimited data for the iPhone is that they know that in practice users who are checking their emails and browsing the web will use much less than they theoretically could. If every iPhone user suddenly started transferring data at the maximum rate non-stop it would very quickly bring the entire network to its knees as there's only a finite capacity in practice. It doesn't seem unreasonable of Apple or the network operators to be concerned about this and restrict what you can do therefore. Would any of you rather have a situation where you can freely install any software you wanted, including VOIP, IM etc., but had to pay 10c/megabyte for all your data??
What kind of networks are you talking about and what BSS and OSS are you referring to? A modern, technologically advanced IN design dictates that data calls are dropped the moment 80% saturation is reached. 80%. Not 100%. In Finland, everyone is using GPS, HSDPA, data services and not one cell network has crashed. DNA had a crash on its Internet gateway but internal data connections functioned and voice calls carried on. Sorry but I have a hard time believing your scenario of uploading GPS data crashing cells. By design they are supposed to start sending disconnects, and refusing new connections if a threshold is reached. Also if what you say is remotely true, the provisioning manager should have been fired on the spot.
Actually, I think you both don't understand the amount of people needed to check all the little apps that will come in based on the SDK. Last I heard you don't have to pay for the SDK and anyone can program for the phone if the want to. They may limit the SDK so that critical functionality can't be crippled on the phone based on a bug in the application, but they don't have enough people to check all the apps that will be submitted to itunes... Think widgets, they wouldn't have enough people to check all of them for security or performance.
Thats just my opinion, so I won't believe anything for sure until I hear what the roadmap is and the process for filing apps for the iphone.
Steve Jobs, from day 1, has been talking about Nokia's signed codes. Qualcomm has been making a pretty good business model out of certified mobile apps.
What kind of networks are you talking about and what BSS and OSS are you referring to? A modern, technologically advanced IN design dictates that data calls are dropped the moment 80% saturation is reached. 80%. Not 100%. In Finland, everyone is using GPS, HSDPA, data services and not one cell network has crashed. DNA had a crash on its Internet gateway but internal data connections functioned and voice calls carried on. Sorry but I have a hard time believing your scenario of uploading GPS data crashing cells. By design they are supposed to start sending disconnects, and refusing new connections if a threshold is reached. Also if what you say is remotely true, the provisioning manager should have been fired on the spot.
I'm afraid I don't have that kind of information. This was in a small Mediterranean country, so I can imagine they didn't have the latest GSM infrastructure you'd find in Scandinavia, but even if a sudden excess of data traffic shouldn't crash the network I still don't think it's unreasonable for the operators to be wary of allowing uncontrolled application access to their data network under an unlimited data plan.
(In fairness I guess one should say it's possible that the cell outage and data spike were an unrelated coincidence.)
I'm afraid I don't have that kind of information. This was in a small Mediterranean country, so I can imagine they didn't have the latest GSM infrastructure you'd find in Scandinavia, but even if a sudden excess of data traffic shouldn't crash the network I still don't think it's unreasonable for the operators to be wary of allowing uncontrolled application access to their data network under an unlimited data plan.
(In fairness I guess one should say it's possible that the cell outage and data spike were an unrelated coincidence.)
Hey mate no problem about not having that kind of info. The point I am making is that many to most networks are designed to prevent what you said as happening. To be honest, the network will simply start disconnecting phones and refusing new connections when they get over-capacitied. This is why the operators pay xhundred million dollars for in OSS/BSS. I have worked in small Mid Eastern countries as well and can say that most networks are homogenous and are built to self heal.
I am not sure about the out but it could have been a perfect storm. But in reality, this "rogue" application thing is a product of Apple and AT&T*marketing to control the apps going on the iPhone and now you see what is going on based on the latest new flash.
Additionally, the only reason they can offer unlimited data for the iPhone is that they know that in practice users who are checking their emails and browsing the web will use much less than they theoretically could. If every iPhone user suddenly started transferring data at the maximum rate non-stop it would very quickly bring the entire network to its knees as there's only a finite capacity in practice. It doesn't seem unreasonable of Apple or the network operators to be concerned about this and restrict what you can do therefore. Would any of you rather have a situation where you can freely install any software you wanted, including VOIP, IM etc., but had to pay 10c/megabyte for all your data??
They put youtube on the iphone and that uses a lot of data.
They put youtube on the iphone and that uses a lot of data.
do people really use that?
They put youtube on the iphone and that uses a lot of data.
True, but I do not think that rhowarth is getting the difference. There is Internet data and then there is unlimited data connection (cell network). The Internet part has to work hand in hand with the unlimited data part as when an operator says unlimited, they generally mean a constant, always on connection that has access to the Internet. No costs for the initial connect. I pay ?9.95 for unlimited data in Finland and I use easily 100 megs or more a money. I am not the only one and the networks here are just fine. rhowarth needs to get over the marketing hype of Apple and AT&T and realize that a cell network will not crash with a rogue app.
True, but I do not think that rhowarth is getting the difference. There is Internet data and then there is unlimited data connection (cell network). The Internet part has to work hand in hand with the unlimited data part as when an operator says unlimited, they generally mean a constant, always on connection that has access to the Internet. No costs for the initial connect. I pay ?9.95 for unlimited data in Finland and I use easily 100 megs or more a money. I am not the only one and the networks here are just fine. rhowarth needs to get over the marketing hype of Apple and AT&T and realize that a cell network will not crash with a rogue app.
Not to beat a dead horse, but what difference does it make to an end-user if they are unable
to access their service if the reason is the system crashed or the reason is the system is
working fine but denying them a connection because it is over capacity? It seems like a
distinction without a difference. If a malicious application causes denial of service for
any reason, there is justification for trying to prevent it from being implemented,
don't you think?
Steve Jobs, from day 1, has been talking about Nokia's signed codes. Qualcomm has been making a pretty good business model out of certified mobile apps.
Actually, from day 1 Apple said that web apps were the way to go... Didn't they?
Who sets the price of the app on the store? How much will Apple take? Is Apple sole arbitrator as to what's good enough to release? What order are apps submitted evaluated on (i.e., you send in SuperDuper App and three days later Adobe submits PhotoshopMini ... you think yours is going to get reviewed by Apple first?)? Will Apple not allow certain types of apps (Skype etc?)?
While I understand Apple's need to do this and the benefits of having all apps available via iTunes ... I don't want to bother developing apps for the platofrm that I can demonstrate lots of people want if Apple doesn't share my enthusiasm and can simply say no thanks.
Not to beat a dead horse, but what difference does it make to an end-user if they are unable
to access their service if the reason is the system crashed or the reason is the system is
working fine but denying them a connection because it is over capacity? It seems like a
distinction without a difference. If a malicious application causes denial of service for
any reason, there is justification for trying to prevent it from being implemented,
don't you think?
You just beat a dead horse that lost the race. Your premise and that of rhowarth of how a cell network functions is incorrect. I have explained it well enough in lay terms to make it clear that an application can not crash a CELL NETWORK but you continue to want to hang on to the idea that it can. So be it. Believe what AT&T, and Apple marketing tells you and be happy in knowing that they provide all the answers your life needs.
To be honest, the network will simply start disconnecting phones and refusing new connections when they get over-capacitied.
You just beat a dead horse that lost the race. Your premise and that of rhowarth of how a cell network functions is incorrect. I have explained it well enough in lay terms to make it clear that an application can not crash a CELL NETWORK but you continue to want to hang on to the idea that it can. So be it. Believe what AT&T, and Apple marketing tells you and be happy in knowing that they provide all the answers your life needs.
It is not my premise. It is yours. My question is in direct response to your explanation above.
Also, I did not say that an application can crash a cell network. Rather, I asked what
difference it makes what the cause of the denial of service is. Are you claiming that
a malicious (or faulty) application cannot cause a denial of service to someone using the internet
via a cell phone? Would you prefer that Apple did not even try to keep harmful applications
from being made available?
It is not my premise. It is yours. My question is in direct response to your explanation above.
Also, I did not say that an application can crash a cell network. Rather, I asked what
difference it makes what the cause of the denial of service is. Are you claiming that
a malicious (or faulty) application cannot cause a denial of service to someone using the internet
via a cell phone? Would you prefer that Apple did not even try to keep harmful applications
from being made available?
If you think this about my presentation of the info then you truly do not understand what I am saying. I could not care less about the Internet portion of the connection. I am only concerned with the CELL NETWORK (BTS, OSS/BSS, MSC), etc.... An app can not crash this portion and even, rhowarth was speaking about the cell part. You made the jump to DDoS and the Internet.
If you think this about my presentation of the info then you truly do not understand what I am saying. I could not care less about the Internet portion of the connection. I am only concerned with the CELL NETWORK (BTS, OSS/BSS, MSC), etc.... An app can not crash this portion and even, rhowarth was speaking about the cell part. You made the jump to DDoS and the Internet.
Now we are getting somewhere. The point I was trying to make was that to an end-user,
it is of no significance where the malfunction originates. It is of no comfort to an end-user
that the cell network has not crashed, if it is not allowing him/her to make a connection,
as in your explanation. Similarly, if an iPhone user can't get to their brokerage account
website, because of a denial of service situation due to a malicious or incompetent
application, the status of the cell network is not what they are worried about.
Even though you could not care less about the Internet portion, Apple has to care
about the whole system top to bottom.
If they did not even attempt to prevent harmful applications from getting into circulation
via the iTunes store, they would be exposing themselves to potentially enormous liability.
(Not to mention any obligations they may have from their arrangements with AT&T). I think
you should take this into account when you are evaluating Apple's rumoured plan
to be a "gatekeeper" for iPhone apps. You can afford to be trusting of the "hacker"
community's intentions. Companies like Apple cannot.
True, but I do not think that rhowarth is getting the difference. There is Internet data and then there is unlimited data connection (cell network). The Internet part has to work hand in hand with the unlimited data part as when an operator says unlimited, they generally mean a constant, always on connection that has access to the Internet. No costs for the initial connect. I pay ?9.95 for unlimited data in Finland and I use easily 100 megs or more a money. I am not the only one and the networks here are just fine. rhowarth needs to get over the marketing hype of Apple and AT&T and realize that a cell network will not crash with a rogue app.
Give me some credit, I don't believe anyone's marketing FUD!
I think you're taking "crash the network" too literally. Perhaps people like AT&T are being sloppy in how they describe it but I assume their concerns are threefold:
- people finding a way to bypass the networks established sources of revenue (phone calls and SMS)
- the bad press the whole service would get if users inadvertently install malware that dials premium rate numbers etc. in the background
- people suddenly using vastly more than they had before and the network has capacity for.
Even if it's not possible to literally crash the network it doesn't seem unreasonable for them to be concerned about these issues.You say you use 100 MB of mobile data a month (I assume that's what you meant) and that seems quite reasonable and well within what the network might expect under an unlimited data plan. But let's say someone develops a web cam application or something that continuously uploads video from wherever you are, so instead of downloading 100MB a month you're suddenly uploading 10 GB. And everybody else is doing it too. You expect the network to be able to cope without a significant degradation in service for everyone? Unlimited is unlimited, right? :-)
If you think this about my presentation of the info then you truly do not understand what I am saying. I could not care less about the Internet portion of the connection. I am only concerned with the CELL NETWORK (BTS, OSS/BSS, MSC), etc.... An app can not crash this portion and even, rhowarth was speaking about the cell part. You made the jump to DDoS and the Internet.
sapporobaby,
I think we are all talking pass each other. In an earlier thread I backed off of this subject because I know absolutely nothing about cell networks and their vulnerabilities. On the other hand you sounded like you knew. But now you are making the mistake of experts, you are taking in jargon and acronyms. What do these strings of letters mean? How do they apply to the subject at hand? And what is this IN Cell Network you have repetitively mentioned? Please remember that most of the people here are more familiar with LANs, WANs and Enterprise networks than they are with cell networks.
Now we are getting somewhere. The point I was trying to make was that to an end-user,
it is of no significance where the malfunction originates. It is of no comfort to an end-user
that the cell network has not crashed, if it is not allowing him/her to make a connection,
as in your explanation. Similarly, if an iPhone user can't get to their brokerage account
website, because of a denial of service situation due to a malicious or incompetent
application, the status of the cell network is not what they are worried about.
Even though you could not care less about the Internet portion, Apple has to care
about the whole system top to bottom.
If they did not even attempt to prevent harmful applications from getting into circulation
via the iTunes store, they would be exposing themselves to potentially enormous liability.
(Not to mention any obligations they may have from their arrangements with AT&T). I think
you should take this into account when you are evaluating Apple's rumoured plan
to be a "gatekeeper" for iPhone apps. You can afford to be trusting of the "hacker"
community's intentions. Companies like Apple cannot.
Hello quinney,
If you do not mind, I will also answer rhowarth as well to save space.
@ both of you. I agree with you. I think in many ways we are talking about the same thing but maybe different components within the cell network. My topic is limited to only the cell portion, air interface and not the traffic that heads out the door to the Internet. I agree that the same dangers that are present in the PC (yuck) and Mac (hooray) could be present on the iPhone as well. An application that might have the intention of starting a DDoS could surely bottle neck at the gateway and start a chain reaction to lock up an operator from delivering traffic. The cell portion of the network will remain intact while the Internet gateway side will possibly experience hard times.
rhowarth: mucho respect and credit. It many have taken a few posts but I think we actually see eye to eye. We may have just seen it from different points of view.
sapporobaby,
I think we are all talking pass each other. In an earlier thread I backed off of this subject because I know absolutely nothing about cell networks and their vulnerabilities. On the other hand you sounded like you knew. But now you are making the mistake of experts, you are taking in jargon and acronyms. What do these strings of letters mean? How do they apply to the subject at hand? And what is this IN Cell Network you have repetitively mentioned? Please remember that most of the people here are more familiar with LANs, WANs and Enterprise networks than they are with cell networks.
Fair point. I should have gone into more detail or explanation. I concede your point. Sorry about that.
Since its beginning Apple offered a choice among computers and operating systems?this was a major appeal as people like choices. Now, Apple is acting more like other large corporations with their hand in everything when it come to what you can and cannot put on your iPhone. Long live hackers! More power to Android!
Clearly, you can't be more than 16 years old. From it's beginning, Apple has always been criticized for being proprietary and inflexible, especially regarding upgradablity of their hardware. They have ALWAYS exercised this type of control over their products. They tried allowing Mac clones and that was a disaster.
The bottom line is that Apple must control he quality of the iPhone and everything that can officially be installed on it. Look at Microsoft. They have wasted countless man-hours over the years having to deal with issues when people install crappy software on Windows.
No one is forced to buy an iPhone. No one can stop you from doing whatever you want with your iPhone, but Apple doesn't have to approve or help you when you screw it up.