TomTom for iPhone lives; Jobs' true health; green iPhone 3G?

Posted:
in iPhone edited January 2014
Despite reports to the contrary, TomTom is still working on a GPS app for the iPhone. Meanwhile, Steve Jobs' thin look may be permanent evidence of his cancer cure, Greenpeace is concerned about a toxic iPhone 3G. And a growing number of would-be iPhone programers are attacking Apple's backlog in approving their full developer status.



TomTom iPhone still in the works



Dutch GPS maker TomTom is still very much involved in developing its own GPS utility for the iPhone, the company's French press chief Yann Lafargue said in an interview on Friday.



Contradicting unofficial reports that the company had nothing official, Lafargue says that TomTom has been developing a version of its Navigator software for the iPhone ever since the release of the SDK and that the software works "very well."



Whether or not it will be releasable is still up in the air, he warns. The company could find itself blocked from offering the software through the App Store either as a potential competitor to Apple's own software or else as a rival to a chosen partner of the iPhone maker.



TomTom doesn't foresee a clause in the SDK guidelines against real-time tracking as affecting its development: Apple is simply protecting itself against legal threats from users who land themselves in trouble using navigation software, the representative claims.



Jobs' thin frame the result of treatment: report



Apple co-founder Steve Jobs' "common bug" and resulting gaunt appearance at this year's WWDC may have been compounded by the steps taken to eliminate his pancreatic cancer years ago, Fortune magazine's Philip Elmer-DeWitt explains.



Jobs is believed to have received a special treatment, known as a Whipple, that cuts off the tumorous part of the pancreas and reattaches the rest to the small intestine while also connecting the bile duct and stomach in a new manner.



This allows the remaining pancreas to perform normally but has a number of potential side effects, according to doctors, including the tendency to lose between five and 10 percent of body mass regardless of the patient's diet.



Crucially, however, the loss is not a sign of a worsening condition. Proper exercise and diet can let these cancer survivors "live a normal life," according to Dr. Dilip Parekh of the University of Southern California.



Apple has never publicly described how Jobs' cancer was cured or whether it would produce adverse reactions.



Greenpeace raises concerns over iPhone 3G



When Apple pledged that it would illustrate its environmental improvements, the assumption was made that this would carry through to every new product. That wasn't the case with the iPhone 3G, Greenpeace tells ZDNet France.



The activist group's toxics campaign head Zeina Al-Hajj notes that Apple has been curiously silent on progress (if any) made in eliminating harmful substances in the new iPhone. It suggests that Apple hasn't evolved its design to be more eco-friendly, she says.



A lack of progress would be worrying to Greenpeace, as the organization found late last year that cabling in the iPhone contained toxic chemicals, albeit in small amounts.



Observers have noted that the iPhone 3G's plastic back is a step backwards in recyclability for the Apple handset, whose shell was originally made of the same aluminum that Apple has touted as being desirable for recycling.



Critics blast Apple's continued iPhone dev program backlog



Over the more than three months since Apple first began accepting applications for its iPhone development program, the company still hasn't shown signs of coping with the large number of applicants., according to observations by Rogue Amoeba's Paul Kafasis.



Although his company has a longstanding history of developing for Macs, it and "a number of other respected Mac software companies" still haven't been accepted as official developers and received the signing certificate needed to test code on an actual device and thus bring the software closer to completion.



The delay would be understandable given unprecedented demand but is simply frustrating given the inconsistency and lack of communication from Apple, Kafasis says. The Cupertino-based electronics maker has so far fast-tracked individual applications while leaving teams at larger companies without answers. Little if any communication arrives from Apple regarding the status of the projects, leaving prospective companies wondering whether they should continue development or back out earlier.



"We don't know if we should invest our time in a platform for which we may not even be allowed to release software," Kafasis says.
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 90
    bderwestbderwest Posts: 36member
    "When Apple pledged that it would illustrate its environmental improvements, the assumption was made that this would carry through to every new product. That wasn't the case with the iPhone 3G, Greenpeace tells ZDNet France."



    Wow, talk about regurgitating a press release, AI. Don't give these publicity mongers fuel! Here's a hint: Apple is not, as Greenpeace would have us believe, making things especially toxic! ALL ELECTRONICS HAVE THIS STUFF IN THEM. So stop trying to jump on the Apple bandwagon to try and sell us your snakeoil!



    Go "witness" a whale hunt.
  • Reply 2 of 90
    jimzipjimzip Posts: 444member
    "Critics blast Apple's continued iPhone dev program backlog"



    This was a silly idea on the part of Apple.

    I assume the whole reason Apple is doing this is a two-parter. One, so Apple can control the content allowed on the iPhone (perhaps to protect future interests? Or just to stop malware..) and two, so that they can earn a little extra cash.



    I think it should work in reverse, and remove that bottleneck. Devs should upload the programs they make for the iPhone to some kind of central Apple repository (like widgets and to a greater degree the iTunes Store) that iPhone users have a mechanism to download from. If something is considered 'dangerous' it's simply flagged, reviewed by apple, and removed if necessary.



    This would stop all this nonsense of Apple having to approve people before development starts. That just doesn't make sense... \



    Thoughts?



    Jimzip
  • Reply 3 of 90
    dluxdlux Posts: 666member
    I guess Greenpeace will only be satisfied when Apple produces a phone made out of yak dung. What do they say about Nokia, Motorola, SE, etc.? Are those manufacturers so clean that they don't warrant complaints, or does Greenpeace just whine about everyone?



    As for the plastic back - sorry, Apple hasn't invented a magical alloy of aluminum that is completely transparent to radio signals yet. I assure you that they are throwing every resource at their disposal at the problem though...
  • Reply 4 of 90
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dlux View Post


    I guess Greenpeace will only be satisfied when Apple produces a phone made out of yak dung. What do they say about Nokia, Motorola, SE, etc.? Are those manufacturers so clean that they don't warrant complaints, or does Greenpeace just whine about everyone?



    As for the plastic back - sorry, Apple hasn't invented a magical alloy of aluminum that is completely transparent to radio signals yet. I assure you that they are throwing every resource at their disposal at the problem though...



    I agree. And it's not as if plastic isn't recyclable. WTF? I'd like to see comparisons in the energy consumption and environmental impact of aluminum vs. common industrial plastics. I do know that a tremendous amount of energy is needed to convert ore to aluminum, that's why it's so expensive. Aluminum is more common than iron in the crust, yet iron & steel are so much cheaper because of this difference in turning ore into a useable metal.
  • Reply 5 of 90
    tantrumtantrum Posts: 41member
    JeffDM and Dlux,

    The iPhone is a phone first and needs good signal strength. I agree with you that Greenpeace may be complaining about the wrong thing when it comes to aluminum casings on iPhone but dismissing them in the way you just have is exactly the wrong thing to do. Greenpeace is as sophisticated as Apple in shaping public opinion and dismissiveness on Apple's part could hurt the Apple brand in Europe.
  • Reply 6 of 90
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tantrum View Post


    JeffDM and Dlux,

    The iPhone is a phone first and needs good signal strength. I agree with you that Greenpeace may be complaining about the wrong thing when it comes to aluminum casings on iPhone but dismissing them in the way you just have is exactly the wrong thing to do. Greenpeace is as sophisticated as Apple in shaping public opinion and dismissiveness on Apple's part could hurt the Apple brand in Europe.



    As far as I'm concerned, Greenpeace is a bottom-feeding organization that makes the real environmentalists look bad. GP shouldn't be ignored for similar reasons that malaria shouldn't be ignored, they both rely on parasitism to continue.
  • Reply 7 of 90
    crebcreb Posts: 276member
    I do not give a damn about anything else listed in this topic other than Jobs health that I wish all the best. I have consistently owned a Mac for twenty-eight years straight, and both Jobs and the Woz both influenced my life.
  • Reply 8 of 90
    joedrcjoedrc Posts: 86member
    All electronics manufacturers use some toxic chemicals/materials in the construction of their products, not intentionally as stated by an earlier poster.



    Maybe Green Peace should research or develop alternatives instead of complaining?

    I'm all for the environment and I recycle, turn lights off when not being used etc. but Green Peace go a bit too far in my opinion (scaling fences and jumping on airplanes and causing considerable disruption for travellers is one example)



    I'm quite pleased to see that Jobs is well! and to be honest I don't care about TomTom at the moment!
  • Reply 9 of 90
    pomopomo Posts: 51member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jimzip View Post


    "Critics blast Apple's continued iPhone dev program backlog"



    This was a silly idea on the part of Apple.

    I assume the whole reason Apple is doing this is a two-parter. One, so Apple can control the content allowed on the iPhone (perhaps to protect future interests? Or just to stop malware..) and two, so that they can earn a little extra cash.



    I think it should work in reverse, and remove that bottleneck. Devs should upload the programs they make for the iPhone to some kind of central Apple repository (like widgets and to a greater degree the iTunes Store) that iPhone users have a mechanism to download from. If something is considered 'dangerous' it's simply flagged, reviewed by apple, and removed if necessary.



    This would stop all this nonsense of Apple having to approve people before development starts. That just doesn't make sense... \



    Thoughts?



    Jimzip



    Actually, I think that if the app store were to be dealt with in the manner in which the widgets are currently dealt with, I'm afraid that it would be too messy. There's 2 reasons why:



    1. Too many apps- I know that evryone wants to see all the apps that the debs have to offer asap, but think about it this way, try to find a specific app on the apple web app site and you'll realize how difficult it is- even though many of these websites are great. So, too much chaos and clutter. Which leads to reason 2.



    2. Marketing- you want to advertise and highlight certain apps at a given time. That way, everyone see that such apps actually do exist.



    My 2 pennies
  • Reply 10 of 90
    tantrumtantrum Posts: 41member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    As far as I'm concerned, Greenpeace is a bottom-feeding organization that makes the real environmentalists look bad. GP shouldn't be ignored for similar reasons that malaria shouldn't be ignored, they both rely on parasitism to continue.



    If Apple listened to your advice about framing an attitude to approach Greenpeace, it would be doing a disservice to stockholders. I'm no fan of Greenpeace but I've seen governments and companies lose big time by treating them with contempt. Greenpeace is like Obama's fundraising political social network movement on global steroids.
  • Reply 11 of 90
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jimzip View Post


    This would stop all this nonsense of Apple having to approve people before development starts. That just doesn't make sense... \

    Thoughts?



    You idea would piss even more people off and may cause lawsuits. If they took everyone's $99 certificate fee and later retracted their app or cert they would piss off developers. If the average, non-tech-savvy user purchased an iPhone app that was untested by Apple and caused the handset stability issues or ran down the battery they would have numerous customers saying it was a POS. Most pundits are not tech-savvy, even the ones reporting on it, so such a situation may get a lot more press than expected.



    They have processed 4000 companies (not apps) in 12 weeks between the SDK keynote and the WWDC keynote. That is a lot! It's 16% of the total that applied. Now, we won't see ready apps from all these developers come v2.0 launch day, but even if we have a 25% of that we will have one-thousand apps to peruse on the iPhone. How many total apps have other mobile platforms?



    Plus, there are about 5 weeks between the WWDC keynote and the 3G iPhone launch. Taking the mean average we may see a 40% increase to 5600 certified developers. That is over 22% of the applicants approved, and many of them probably just wanted v2.0 ahead of time (that is why I signed up ) Any objective way you look at it, it's a lot of developers.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dlux View Post


    What do they say about Nokia, Motorola, SE, etc.? Are those manufacturers so clean that they don't warrant complaints, or does Greenpeace just whine about everyone?



    A least one article stated that Greenpeace knows that Apple is better than most, but are targeted more because they are high-profile. That rings true to me.
  • Reply 12 of 90
    i'm starting to really get sick of the whole green / enviro / healthy lifestyle crap floating around. it's a god damn phone - so unless this thing implants toxic waste into your ear when you make a call, or baby seals die every time you connect to GPS, you can fuck off and worry about other things, like (imho) the eradication of fossil fuels in passenger vehicles.
  • Reply 13 of 90
    dimmokdimmok Posts: 359member
    Woah if the aluminum was not good for transmission, then why did they put it in the iPhone in the first place?
  • Reply 14 of 90
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DimMok View Post


    Woah if the aluminum was not good for transmission, then why did they put it in the iPhone in the first place?



    If you recall, the back was not completely aluminium; the bottom part was a black, radio-transparent plastic. It was rumoured long before the photos were around that the back would have to be completely radio transparent to allow for the more complex and sensitive radio in an HSDPA model. This also allows Apple engineers to move the antenna around more freely and should give us better reception. While not bad by any measure, people did expect great reception from a $400 phone.
  • Reply 15 of 90
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tantrum View Post


    If Apple listened to your advice about framing an attitude to approach Greenpeace, it would be doing a disservice to stockholders. I'm no fan of Greenpeace but I've seen governments and companies lose big time by treating them with contempt.



    I think that's history now though, it seems that their influence has waned considerably.
  • Reply 16 of 90
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,614member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shawnathan View Post


    i'm starting to really get sick of the whole green / enviro / healthy lifestyle crap floating around. it's a god damn phone - so unless this thing implants toxic waste into your ear when you make a call, or baby seals die every time you connect to GPS, you can fuck off and worry about other things, like (imho) the eradication of fossil fuels in passenger vehicles.



    What I don't get is why so many people get all hot under the collar when Greenpeace raises a point. There is so much crap going on in this world - so why the vitriol when the word Greenpeace is mentioned? We all know the iPhone is used for publicity - so what? If the result is a greener apple then good. If it highlights issues, small as they may be, and reinforces the idea that green thinking should be part of every design decision that takes place, then good. For Greenpeace it just means another headline with their name in it. If the 'attack' results in a debate on the green-ness of the iPhone, then mission accomplished. A debate on the green-ness of the iPhone means a debate on the greening of the IT industry by implication. People thinking about green issues is good thing, regardless. I understand that people jump to the defence of Apple - so do I - but mention Greenpeace and the tone changes.
  • Reply 17 of 90
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    Greenpeace acts in support of a VERY important cause.



    And they need to stop harming that cause with made-up vague fears, when REAL data on important issues is to be found elsewhere.



    And they need to stop acting like the APPEARANCE of environmental responsibility is more important than the reality.
  • Reply 18 of 90
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by paxman View Post


    What I don't get is why so many people get all hot under the collar when Greenpeace raises a point. There is so much crap going on in this world - so why the vitriol when the word Greenpeace is mentioned? We all know the iPhone is used for publicity - so what?



    The problem is that their ranking system has been rigged to make Apple look like they're the worst, for publicity. If Apple is in reality, the best, and Dell is worse, aren't people doing a disservice if they buy a Dell because a rigged ranking system "showed" that Dell was better?



    In short, it's a PR farce and should not be supported by arguments such as yours. They make Apple's PR look honest in comparison.



    The boy who cries wolf will eventually be ignored. Credibility is important here, which is why I am a harsher critic of GP than I am of Apple's PR division.
  • Reply 19 of 90
    dattyx26dattyx26 Posts: 10member
    Wow I'm surprised you people are not discussing TomTom. I sure hope Apple allows TomTom to develop for the iPhone. That would make it even more killer. If they don't, then boo for Apple for choosing an unfair route. I'm sure Google's map is adequate, though, but imagine having the features of TomTom, yumm.
  • Reply 20 of 90
    Just on the issue of the environmental desirability of the aluminum vs. the plastic back:



    It takes 20 kWh of electricity to smelt 1 kg of aluminum. If this electricity is produced by a (being very generous here) 35% efficient thermal plant burning oil, that's about 57 kWh, or about 76.6 hp-h. There's maybe 48hp-hr in a gallon of oil, or ~13.2 in a kilogram. 76.6/13.2=5.8 kg, about. So every pound of aluminum requires 5.8 times its weight in oil to produce. That doesn't count the energy to dig it up, transport it, stamp it, etc. And all the carbon in that oil is going into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide (or worse.) I'd need convincing that the plastic back takes 5.8 times its weight in oil to produce, and even if it did, the carbon is locked up in a solid, not being released to the atmosphere. Maybe a little arithmetic class would help people not make fools of themselves...nah!
Sign In or Register to comment.