Steve Jobs keen on a world where people share WiFi

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 60
    @ zorinlynx



    That is an interesting point... I wonder what they think about that, as I'm sure they've thought of it..
  • Reply 22 of 60
    @zorinlynx



    The media make a big deal out of child porn and people sitting outside your house doing obscene things, but I still manage to have a little faith in people. If the vast majority of people who might want my bandwidth are like me, they just want to check their mail, get a map, or check the weather forecast while they are on the road. If there is a hotel nearby, they usually have wifi now, but sometimes wardriving is faster.



    FON is partnering with Skype too, so you can tack making a phone call onto the list if I ever get around to picking up one of those wifi phones.



    Not that depravity doesn't exist, and any shared system is prone to abuse, but hopefully there are still more good people than bad in this world. If you are worried, the login screen for the FON access point is customizable; you could have it say something to the effect of "anyone caught downloading pictures of little kids in front of my house will face serious physical consequences."
  • Reply 23 of 60
    Man, this has to be driving the boys over at NBC Universal nuts. First, Steve Jobs tries to provide an easy to use consumer friendly media service. And now, he wants to help provide increased low-cost internet access. I thought this guy was an executive of a major corporation. Where is his profit hungry, power grabbing sense of propriety.
  • Reply 24 of 60
    @marshall



    Excellent point. I too have some faith left.
  • Reply 25 of 60
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post


    It sounds like hardware to me. from the article:



    I think a virtual second AP can be done in software without having to have two AP radios in a box or add an AP in a separate box, but you have to have access to the firmware anyway. Some AP/rounters have open firmware, but they don't seem to be that common these days. It's easier to just supply the box and few would know the difference.



    Whether the ISPs will go along with the idea is a different question.
  • Reply 26 of 60
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    I like WiMax also (being a CLWR stockholder), but line of sight is a big issue. It will keep WiMax from widespread adoption in cities.



    That's kind of why I'm hoping that it would be used with the 700MHz spectrum, which I think is compatible. I thought the original idea was that a WiMax point would take the same slice of spectrum as one channel of TV and offer it as internet service.
  • Reply 27 of 60
    lafelafe Posts: 252member
    @zorinlynx



    What happens on the 'public' connection is not your problem.
  • Reply 28 of 60
    Quote:

    "He's extremely curious. He asks a lot of questions. He's not the nicest guy -- I mean his questions are inquisit [sic] to say the least. He's to the point."



    Did he think the visit was a social call? Hello! Steve didn't get where he sits by just shootin' the shit.



    The man is probing the guy and his business model. He's trying to figure out how to either buy the company or implement a strategy that will be compatible with their services or Google's for that matter.
  • Reply 29 of 60
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Apple, of course, sells its own brand of AirPort WiFi routers.



    Apple doesn't just sell their own wifi router/switches... they sell a whole lot of computers with wifi built in, some of which don't enable that wifi. Every iMac out there that's connected via ethernet could offer the option "become a FON access point".



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zorinlynx View Post


    One of the problems with sharing your net connection freely over WiFi is liability.



    If they're anything like the NZ outfit "Tomizone" (who do the same thing) - they log who is connected on your wifi access point at any time. Although that doesn't prove they were the ones downloading, it does prove that there were other connected people at that time.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sworthy View Post


    I wonder if any hardware changes are necessary, or if Apple could just make the change in software to support FON.



    Tomizone only requires a software update to their Routers. Appleinsider says BT can roll out a firmware update to all routers.. so it's software.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    However, Jobs's interest in FON may be driven by the prospect of ubiquitous WiFi access for owners of his company's new iPhone and iPod Touch handhelds.



    Yes it would be excellent for that. As an iPhone user - enable FON on your iMac or Airport, or buy the "new Apple iPhone Access Point (with FON)" and access WiFi anywhere another iPhone user (or Mac user) lives
  • Reply 30 of 60
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Then he must embrace the Zune- HAHA!
  • Reply 31 of 60
    mr "every ringtone costs extra" steve jobs, the man who invented the total-ripp-off iphone contracts is not interested in a free wifi community? sorry, but my bells ring - i can not believe that jobs is interested in something that is free and should STAY free...
  • Reply 32 of 60
    bsenkabsenka Posts: 799member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zorinlynx View Post


    One of the problems with sharing your net connection freely over WiFi is liability.



    What if some disturbed individual parks in front of your house and uses your open WiFi to download child pornography onto his laptop? Some server out there will have *YOUR* IP as the address that downloaded the data.



    When the server gets busted, the authorities will come after YOU for child porn. Do you really want to deal with that?



    A less extreme example would be your neighbor running p2p file sharing all day, causing you to get one of those threat letters from the RIAA.



    That's the problem with being generous with your connection. Anything illegal done on it by "war drivers" can come back to haunt you later.



    This could be a good thing. It will up the burden of proof to a level that it should already be. It doesn't matter what IP address was used, you still need proof of who actually did the thing they are accussed of. I lend my car to my buddy, and he gets in an accident, he gets charged, not me.
  • Reply 33 of 60
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    Did he think the visit was a social call? Hello! Steve didn't get where he sits by just shootin' the shit.



    The man is probing the guy and his business model. He's trying to figure out how to either buy the company or implement a strategy that will be compatible with their services or Google's for that matter.



    He wasn't complaining in the least. He says lots of good things about Steve - and then twice he says he's not the nicest guy and once in spanish he's not "sympatico" (sympathetic). I got the feeling that he wanted to say something like "Steve's not all buddy-buddy, he didn't treat me like an old friend - rather Steve was inquisitive and asked pointed questions"



    I hope the quotes of Steve not being the nicest don't get misinterpreted too much! If you watch the video it makes more sense.
  • Reply 34 of 60
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bodypainter View Post


    mr "every ringtone costs extra" steve jobs, the man who invented the total-ripp-off iphone contracts is not interested in a free wifi community? sorry, but my bells ring - i can not believe that jobs is interested in something that is free and should STAY free...



    Let me straighten something out for you.



    Ringtones cost extra because the music industry says they have too.



    iPhone contracts are expensive because Apple *not Steve Jobs* is raping phone companies by taking profits from the sale of the phone, thus causing the carriers to up prices of the contracts to help make some money.
  • Reply 35 of 60
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bsenka View Post


    This could be a good thing. It will up the burden of proof to a level that it should already be. It doesn't matter what IP address was used, you still need proof of who actually did the thing they are accussed of. I lend my car to my buddy, and he gets in an accident, he gets charged, not me.



    If that was the case then every criminal in the world would be pulling that excuse.
  • Reply 36 of 60
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bodypainter View Post


    mr "every ringtone costs extra" steve jobs, the man who invented the total-ripp-off iphone contracts is not interested in a free wifi community? sorry, but my bells ring - i can not believe that jobs is interested in something that is free and should STAY free...



    you dont know steve, his business or his philosophies very well then.

    "every ringtone costs extra" that is content providers conditions of trade(not steve jobs).



    Other than a proprietary top layer of an operating system, much if not most of Apple technologies rely on open systems. Far much more than people give Apple credit for.
  • Reply 37 of 60
    ipilyaipilya Posts: 195member
    To: SpamSandwich and others



    Not sure how it is in other areas, but CLWR is not WiMax (at least not so in Seattle - but soon to be upgraded).



    The big problem I see with WiMax in the iPhone is battery consumption. I remember reading through industry papers on WiMax before its ratification.. and I am sure battery consumption is still much worst then 3g. Curious to know what the real world battery consumption is for WiFi users...



    I agree with everyone stating concerns about the legal aspect. A federal law would need to be passed in order to address this issue and place responsibility on the appropriate entity. Fat chance I guess concerning how much lobbying would go on to block this.



    Btw - this would not be a hardware change.... The article clearly states that they are flash/firmware updates. It sounds like a very simple process of providing two separate networks on a single router... one being secured.. while the other being open... both on different channels. I would assume (and hope) that they do some sort of usage priority so lechers dont pull too much of your bandwidth.
  • Reply 38 of 60
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iPilya View Post


    I would assume (and hope) that they do some sort of usage priority so lechers dont pull too much of your bandwidth.



    In countries where we have a download limit (mine is 7GB), I'd really like to make sure that the hypothetical neighbour, who may have is own FON access point, doesn't connect to me instead when he downloads torrents...using up all my bandwidth.



    I'd hope I could prevent people from using torrents. I'd also like to restrict anyone connected to a maximum of eg:150MB/day. (If they want to permanently use my access point, lets have a chat and I'll upgrade my quota and they can pay half!)



    Otherwise what's to stop me from getting a hellishly slow but very cheap ADSL connection which I share using FON, and then using neighbour's high speed and download quota? Apart from my high ethics!
  • Reply 39 of 60
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bodypainter View Post


    mr "every ringtone costs extra" steve jobs, the man who invented the total-ripp-off iphone contracts is not interested in a free wifi community? sorry, but my bells ring - i can not believe that jobs is interested in something that is free and should STAY free...



    Obviously, your ignorance is superseded by your rudeness.
  • Reply 40 of 60
    irelandireland Posts: 17,785member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider


    "He's extremely curious. He asks a lot of questions. He's not the nicest guy -- I mean his questions are inquisit [sic] to say the least. He's to the point."



    Oh Steven, be nice you wicked man you.
Sign In or Register to comment.