digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

7 Reasons Why Keeping the iPhone Locked Down is Stupid and Arrogant

applematters.com — "The iPod is a locked down device when it comes to easily adding software. you ’ll know that with some trickery (ok, a lot of trickery) you can do things like install Linux on the iPod, and customize the interface somewhat. But all of these changes are hacks, outside the purview of the typical Apple consumer. Which leads us to the iPhone."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • schestowitz, on 10/10/2007, -7/+14There are rumours circulating that Google is talking to the Moko team, so maybe G-Phone, which has hundreds of millions going into development, will also be both open and free (ad-assisted).

    Apple could do much more by relying on developers that think outside the browser. That's how killer apps are born.
    • pixelsoup, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5*Ad-assisted* just to have something free?
      I will gladly pay NOT to have ads or do without if I can't afford it.
    • livevil, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Apple has always been enslaving their users. It's not a new thing. Regardless of how much you rant about it, anal retentive Steve Jobs will ignore the concept of fair use.
  • streak, on 10/10/2007, -8/+15Let's see, the iPhone has been available 6 weeks now. Just an ETERNITY, don't you think? Would it have been better for Apple to wait so long until a proper SDK was available before bringing the iPhone to market? The June 2007 launch window might have slipped a bit, you know?
    • mrsteveman1, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0The point is that code signing and jails, etc have nothing to do with an SDK, and have been gotten around before easily.
  • shad0walker, on 10/10/2007, -19/+12Its Apple, no matter how many reasons its stupid and arrogant I can't help but think anything else would be out of character for Apple.
    • Wilddigi, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Don't buy it
    • jrbrewin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1agreed. it's stupid and arrogant because steve jobs said so, okay!! ;)
  • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -7/+26This article was very poorly-written, with little to back up most of the arguments made, and not a whole lot of thought put into many of them. That doesn't mean that it doesn't bring up some very valid points, especially the bit about the next killer app that might never see the light of day. As a shareholder, I agree that management at Apple is being foolish by saying that the iPhone is, as a matter-of-fact, a closed platform similar to the iPod, and implying that if the iPod was successful with this limitation, that the iPhone will be as well. The difference is that the iPod is a highly specialized device, with a limited user input, and a very narrow focus as a music player, a task which is adequately addressed by the stock software. The iPhone, however, is a (relatively expensive) hand-held computer with complex user input, and a million potential uses, running a very capable operating system. Suggesting web development as an alternative to native apps is not a realistic solution, as there are many more capabilities than what can be exploited through a web browser.

    There is no way a single vendor could even scratch the surface of the capabilities of the iPhone, and so it is reprehensible that Apple would actually want to keep it locked down. Trying to prevent native application development only hurts Apple, as customers are either going to buy an alternative device without this limitation (once there are roughly equivalent competitors available), or they are going to be alienated from Apple by having to jump through hoops to install the modifications they want. If Apple is stalling for time to develop a proper SDK, then they need to do a better job of communicating that developer support is coming. If they really have no plans on supporting 3rd party development, then they need to fire whoever made that decision and get cracking on an SDK. Continuing in the current direction is unacceptable. The same goes for the AppleTV as well...
    • benitojuarez, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6I own one share of planet kerjigger, so I'm entitled to some answers.
  • mattfugitive, on 10/10/2007, -14/+8If apple would drop there damn pride for a few minutes... not only would we be able to use the iPhone and iPods anyway we see fit, but we'd also have Mac OS for PC's instead of some hacked version.
    • jrbrewin, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1the minute apple legitimises the use of macos on a non-apple platform, the minute it stops being 'leet' to do so.
  • imjustabill, on 10/10/2007, -9/+36What do people expect from apple? They want to make things that "just work" for average Joe User. As a Windows Mobile user I can attest firsthand that a good most of the windows mobile apps you find are total crap, even the paid ones. They constantly crash, dont work as expected, and can just be a pain in the ass. What do 90% of people with smartphones want to do? Send email, surf the web, keep track of appointments, and make phone calls. The iPhone does all of these pretty damn well. The last thing Apple wants is for some crappy 3rd party developers to come screw up the great user experience they've created. Yeah, there are us nerds who just have to run our own apps, and you'll notice that apple isn't screaming bloody murder about people hacking their iPhones. Just like with AppleTV, they lock it down so it runs well, not so that you can't mess with it.
    • JefffN, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9One could argue it was that thinking that caused Apple to lose the OS dominance in the first place...
      • Smoozle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Market share aside, looking at both Windows (of present and past) and Mac OS X (also of present and past) were Apple wrong to think that.
    • Quaoar, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Why focus exclusively on Apple? ATT/Cingular also has a vested interest in keeping the iPhone static. Neither company wants to get into the customer service hurricane that would ensue for an unlocked iPhone. Users would find ways to "innocently" crash both the internal apps and the cell phone capability. ATT and Apple would have to accept a certain level of service responsibility for the 97.5% of users who have no clue but will crash the phone installing whatever comes down the pike. RIM doesn't unlock the Blackberry, Verizon doesn't unlock its suite of cell phone, etc, for the very same reasons - users will find a way to destroy the programming one way or another if every java app on the net could be installed in the iPhone, and most of these users will have no idea about how to correct their self-induced errors. The result would be a complete nightmare, a melt down of the iPhone's credibility, and escalating costs for customer support, making the iPhone a financial disaster.
      • Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It sounds like good reasoning on paper, but how come it works for everyone else? Is it simply because AT&T and Verizon are incompetent that they can't handle what *tons* of other network providers do as a matter of course, or is there some more adequate reason behind hit?
    • seraph582, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Good response. Dugg up. One thing to consider though -- you *have* 3rd party apps. You're still at a total advantage. Heck, anyone with a RAZR is.
  • Alegoo92, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5I only write web apps, so Apple's choice of no SDK doesn't affect me, but it bothers me. It seems like they don't trust them to write their own apps. Why not just let them write Widgets: which almost always work: unlike a Windows Mobile App.
  • doctorclack, on 10/10/2007, -13/+2I wish all you nerds would shut up. You probably all use razrs on Tmobile. Just buy one for AT&T or don't. There are way more crappier phones to go install Linux on. Come out of you're moms basement and get some sun sometime.
    • mrsteveman1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4stop talking, stop writing, and go away.
  • geuisteses, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2Do you really think Apple WANTS to keep the iPhone locked down? An unlocked phone that could be used on any carrier would only benefit them. However, since the cell phone industry is so locked down, the only way they could enter the market was through the outrageous deal that AT&T forced them to sign.
    • Avalontor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11"... outrageous deal that AT&T forced them to sign." Nobody was forced to sign anything, they did it of their own free will. now stfu and realize Apple is %50 party to a deal struck by 2 companies. So to you, all the good parts of the deal are Apples and the bad parts of the deal are AT&T. Nice try wanker and grow up. It's a PARTNERSHIP
    • Balanced, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This article appears to be mostly about the lack of a SDK for true 3rd party apps.
  • Monkeybrains, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7The goal of Apple is not to be intelligent nor is it to be humble. Their goal is to make great unholy gobs of cash, something at which they've shown some talent in the past.
    • bromac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No, Microsoft is the one that excells at that particular talent.

      Apple is about design and engineering, which helps them stay innovative. Yes, they're after the money (Thanks Captain Obvious!), but they make money by selling well designed, intelligent equipment. Would these not be goals that are complementary to making money?

      Apple's goal is certainly not to be stupid.
  • nastronomical, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4Lemme guess the losers who are saying this must be with T-mobile. Listen guys...want the iphone join ATT! Apple has the right to lock it down. Dont like it? Then dont buy it! You cant always have your way....havent you people learn this yet?
    • seraph582, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0oh god. TMobile is horrendously bad. Been there, bought the tshirt, cancelled the contract ASAP. I used to be with Cingular, too, but it hasn't been the same since the merger. Down with AT&T. Cingular was better off by itself.
  • S201, on 10/10/2007, -7/+8Just in case of that off chance...

    Apple has done this before. And they have done it with a product that redefined the company (even made it change its name), the iPod. The iPod is a locked down device when it comes to easily adding software. I say easily because if you’d read my book (iPod and iTunes Hacks) you’ll know that with some trickery (ok, a lot of trickery) you can do things like install Linux on the iPod, and customize the interface somewhat. But all of these changes are hacks, outside the purview of the typical Apple consumer.

    Which leads us to the iPhone. Steve tells us it runs OS X, and the number of inventive hackers out there have confirmed that this thing does indeed power itself with all the glory and sparkle that is OS X. Like on the desktop, this is a tantalizing discovery, an operating system powered by the rock solid Unix combined with the user interface (UI) prowess that is Apple. But, even with all this power, or in spite of it, Apple has still decided to keep the iPhone locked down. Which is stupid. And arrogant. So, without further adieu I present to you the 10 reasons why locking down the iPhone is, well, stupid, and arrogant.

    1. Stupid Reason #1: It alienates developers

    Developers are the most imaginative and powerful users any platform can have. They are passionate advocates who are an extension of the corporate family. By not allowing the numerous creative and innovative developers out there in the Apple community access to the iPhone Apple is simply stifling innovation. There is a lot of work that could be done bringing the desktop experience to the iPhone. Off the top of my head:

    - FTP (Transmit is my favorite)
    - Chat (Yes, FlickIM is a good work-around but imagine Adium on the iPhone!)
    - Third-party calendars that people actually use (Now-Up-To-Date)
    - The office suite
    - Any number of interesting iTunes add-ons and additions
    - Social software, ie, tie-ins to Facebook, Digg, Macitt, etc. that Apple would never do

    2. Arrogant Reason #2: Coverflow

    Remember coverflow? Thought that little gem of UI goodness came from the Gods at Cupertino? Think again. Even Steve couldn’t imagine up coverflow. Rather it came from a developer. A one person shop who, because Apple gave him access to the various API’s underpinning OS X could take what he imagined and bring it to the Mac. It was so good that Apple acquired the company, sucked the whole thing into iTunes and has even made it a darling of Apple’s upcoming Leopard. Wait, iTunes. Apple must have developed the applications that defined the software side of the iPod and iTunes?! Thing again. iTunes was an acquisition. Apart from the numerous examples of Apple acquiring software there are also numerous examples of brilliant software that Apple hasn’t acquired. By shutting off 3rd party development Apple shuts off an innovation channel that could produce the next Coverflow, iTunes, or Omnigraffle.

    3. Arrogant Reason #3: Its like Verizon. And people hate Verizon

    From a brand experience standpoint nothing beats the arrogance of Verizon. Verizon is so wonky that they take any interface designed by any mobile device (including the much-lauded Blackberry) and make it their own. How? By painting everything blood red, and mucking up the interface wherever they can. And, to top everything off Verizon locks down the device harder than a maximum security prison. Sound familiar? Well, thankfully the iPhone is a delight to use, and is lacking in the color red. But the locked down part is the same. And, people hate locked down. They want to (in the words of a past editor of mine, Rael), twiddle with a device. Stretch it, personalize it. And by not even allowing people to change, within reason, interface elements Apple risks becoming a Verizon.

    4. Stupid Reason #4: Niche markets and use-cases are lost

    Apple has shown a bizarre indifference to the corporate market over the years. I truly believe that Apple just doesn’t care about the corporate market. Which is fine, I suppose (except for shareholders of which I am one). Macs and traditional corporate America (and the corporate world, for that matter) are like oil and water. Which is very unlike the Blackberry experience. The corporate world loves Blackberries, and for good reason. They are reliable in a rock-solid kind of way, and can be customized to meet the needs of corporate security. The idea of customized iPhones, stripped of certain functions probably makes Steve quiver in his sleep. And because of that Apple is missing a huge market. Is there any reason why iPhones couldn’t be used in hospitals, by UPS Fed-ex, etc, by professionals in the workplace as their primary mobile device, etc. The only reason right now is that the iPhone is locked down, and until companies can customize the iPhone and, shiver-me-timbers, write custom applications for it, the iPhone will miss out on a plethora of niche markets and use-cases.

    5. Arrogant Reason #5: No one else will come along and do it

    OS X is marvelous. It is hands-down the best user-experience of any modern operating system out there. But yet it garners but a minority of market-share. Why? Arrogance. Arrogance was the reason Apple didn’t have the business vision to do what Bill Gates did, divorce the operating system from the hardware that it was running on. Arrogance and, I think, a little bit of greed. Turns out this was the wrong decision. Woefully wrong. No matter though, say the Apple fanboys, OS X still rocks. And it does! But not from a business standpoint. Why did the lack of business foresight happen with the Mac in the first place? Simple. Arrogance. The Mac experience was too good. There was nothing else like it! All true. Until Windows came along. Sure, Windows 95 sucked (and Vista still, arguably does). But for the majority it provided access to the real innovation behind the Mac operating system, a WYSIWYG interface.

    Right now Apple has the advantage with the only mobile-device with a true multi-touch interface. But that market advantage will inevitably erode. And who ever comes through next will no doubt have an open system that developers will flock to.

    6. Stupid Reason #6: Its bad for the user

    We all know Steve likes to control. But it’s kind of like that Police song, if you love someone, set them free. We know you love the iPhone, Steve. We know only someone like you could have overseen the creation of it. But your blind love is getting in the way of the end user. You’ve got to let that end user free. Free to experience mobile computing applications in a way they have never been experienced! As we proved in Reason #2, there is no way Apple can think of every innovation, and meet every use-case out there for the iPhone. Keeping the iPhone locked down right now is simply bad for the end user. It will limit choice in the long-run, and, inevitably, another company will come along with that choice.

    7. Stupid Reason #7: Money

    The iPod accessory market is a billion dollar ecosystem of cases, chargers, water-proof speaker sets, bluetooth headsets, and way way way more stuff than one can even imagine (even a toilet-roll speaker set!). And Apple makes a mint of it thanks to the, “Made for iPod” tax than anyone with a smidgen of a reputation (and a desire to be distributed at Apple Retail stores and sold at Apple.com) has to buy into. It’s a license (literally) to print money. Now, I am not suggesting that Apple start charging a fee for the right for companies to develop on the iPhone (although that could be an interesting model). I am just making the point that because of 3rd parties Apple has an auxiliary income for which it does little to nothing for! Same with the iPhone. If you let developers develop for it there will be more users, more people hooked into the product which means more money.
  • Wilddigi, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3No, it's stupid to buy a locked phone. If you don't want to kiss Apple's ass, don't buy it. It's their product and they can do what the hell they want. Don't ***** buy it if it doesn do what you want.
    • mrsteveman1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0You arent bright are you.....

      That stupid "dont use it if you dont like it" argument doesn't work in the real world and effectively tries to end discussion of the very thing we are debating.
      • jabberwolf, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0You would think its an obvious argument but he makes this because Apple fans tend to buy products even in support ( and make excuses for its missing functions) rather then if its a product they truly like over another.
        • meatmcguffin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No they don't tend to do that but Apple haters tend to make up crap like this.

          Look at the Newton, the Cube and the Pippin - how well did they sell?
      • paulgibson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yeah I think that it is quite relevant too, If you don't want to spend money on the device because it cant do the things that you want it too...why get worked up about it, just don't buy it and find something else that suits you better. I admit that I love the phone, because it does everything that I was wanting it to do (and more). I am not making excuses for any functionality that wasn't there for you guys, but there are a lot of folk that don't need anything else from it. Even tho apple delivered (almost!) everything everyone was wanting (e.g. full touch screen, full apple integration, Internet access, ipod..etc) there is always something that someone else wants from it. I just feel that Apple cannot win with some of you!
  • skyscape, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Which is why iPHone sucks, because no decent businessman is going to hack his iPhone. Hacking is for kids living in a basement who can't afford a decent job.
    • Sakumi, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2You can't be serious...

      If so then wow, you need to wake up to the world my friend.
    • moisie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Maybe they aren't targetting businessmen. Yet?
  • NSResponder, on 10/10/2007, -10/+7Oh, for Christ's sake. I'm a Mac developer, I have an iPhone, and I'm not "alienated". Apple's got to take their best guess at what to offer when introducing a product, and from the reception the iPhone's had, they've guessed very well indeed.

    Maybe Apple will offer an SDK for the phone, maybe they won't, but they're under no obligation to do so at all. The author of this screed needs to quit his snivelling.

    -jcr
    • colincornaby, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7I'm alienated. I wanted to port my custom asset management app to the iPhone so I didn't have to carry around my laptop everywhere. Apple's security excuse is piss poor, and honestly their suggestion to use JavaScript is almost insulting. Do they really think developers are that stupid?
      • moisie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Of course they don't think developers are stupid, they're just offering the current solution as being a good one for certain things. They're not marketing this as a replacement for your laptop. If you want your phone to be that then you're free to build your own or design apps for another phone that allows it.
    • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I have an iPhone, and I'm alienated by having to jump through hoops to modify it. Make no mistake, this is the best phone and hand-held computer I've ever used, but there are just so many untapped capabilities in this device that disallowing open native development is unacceptable. This is the next major general computing platform (smart phones in general), and trying to pretend it's a closed vertical solution is just living in denial.

      While Apple's actions to this point might be completely reasonable given the challenges they face, their lack of communication on future plans of expandability are extremely frustrating, as it leaves the possibility that current customers will have no supported method of adding software to the thing. They have made a wonderful product, but unfortunately for their plans of avoiding this issue, they made it too good to not have 3rd party software running on it, given the possibilities for such software. Already, some of the hacked native apps coming out for the iPhone are demonstrating the wonderful capabilities that an unmodified iPhone will never attain.
  • iburl, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1I agree that the iPhone should be unshackled from AT+T for many reasons, but give Apple some time. Compare the first generation B+W 5G ipod from less than 6 years ago to today's iPod and iPhone. The iPhone is just an infant out of the womb. It came out 3 months ago. It is the most amazing handheld device of all time, isn't that enough? If the answer is "no", then stop whining and start supporting a miracle hack... I know it can be done. May the force be with you.
    • undetected, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4It's pretty obvious you didn't read the article. At the very least, read the copy/paste job done by S201 above.
    • CLShortFuse, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4read the article next time. it doesn't once talk about the AT&T provider lock
  • jman583, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1the irony is that steve jobs was one of the original "hackers" and started one of the first hacker clubs
    • seraph582, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0yeah yeah, steve jobs invented the moon and round house kicked god in the jaw. We've heard it all from the mactards before...
  • Velnich, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Is spite a good enough reason to hate the iphone?
  • GREEDOnvrFIRED, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5This article reads like "7 Reasons Why Keeping the iPhone Locked Down is a Pretty Clever Idea."
    It plainly points out that even when "locked down" Apple products will attract developers and manufacturers who will develop features and add-ons by hook or by crook. Apple then chooses those breakthroughs it deems worthy and absorbs them, licenses them or taxes them. This way they have their cake and eat it too. They have rigorous control of how the product is perceived and over how it will evolve. Seems win/win to me... and this article helped me see that.
    • seraph582, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, Bravo Apple. So far you have a ***** Nintendo emulator to "absorb." Woo ***** hoo. I see the light now.
  • nailPuppy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14Can your phone place calls?
    A: Yes
    B: No
    If you answered A, your phone is working properly.
  • agentjj, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11 Reason Why The Having iPhone Locked Down is Smart:

    Smart Reason #1. Apple would have had no ***** chance to score a contract with any of the major cell phone service providers.

    None of the major providers would want people to sign up for their service, use the lowest minutes plan, and then have the user using Skype/VoIP applications working over WiFi to talk most of the time. It's possible Apple doesn't want developers making apps for the iPhone for simplicity/ease of use/quality assurance reasons also, but I doubt they have much of an option here anyway.
    • streak, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10How do you explain Skype running on Windows Mobile devices which are sold by major carriers?
  • CLShortFuse, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I hate Verizon's policy on lockdown and which is why I enjoy AT&T. With my personal webserver and I can download/stream music/videos on to my cellphone. iPhone would be a step back since it wouldn't even let me download and store an MP3 off a web page. Unfortunately, many of us AT&T customers are afraid the NEW AT&T will be like Verizon. =/
  • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7iPhone people sure do complain a lot about a product that they just had to wait in line for.
  • AnnaBay21, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2you people have to wait for ages for it to be delivered and you start complaining...and continue doing it till it breaks completesly so that you have nothing to complain about
  • jleems86, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0the reason that the phone is so locked down is probably not apple's choice. the telcos HATE third party apps because they see them as a threat to they're revenue (they want to be the ones to sell you every bit and byte in your phone).

    Apple was simply told this was the way it had to be by AT&T and didn't feel strongly enough about keeping the phone open to risk losing the deal over it (Verizon had already turned Apple down before they approached AT&T)
    • Avalontor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wow, welcome to digg!. Why is someone so far up the food chain at Apple or AT&T writing comments on this humble site? For you to know that "Apple was simply told this was the way it had to be by AT&T" means you have had privileged access to information. Maybe you should have started the sentence with "Maybe"
  • Qenton, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Let see... 6 weeks of nothing but user generated publicity for the iPhone. I think it was pretty smart of Apple/AT&T to keep it bundled up. Most of the poeple who by them (Lawyers, CEOs, Doctors ... could care less about closed source) Doesn't mean I like it, just from a business stand point it was brilliant for both AT&T and Apple.

    I hope gPhone Smashes it and all the competition works overtime to catch up and passes it. Sony, Microsoft, Google, IBM, HP, get with it and be more innovative than Apple. It would do you good.
    • seraph582, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I whole heartedly agree with the last 3 sentences of your post, sir!
  • superKduper, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6You don't get it. APPLE IS BETTER. IT'S BETTER. You are not THINKING DIFFERENT. What's wrong with you? And you're going to get kicked off of DIGG for saying anything bad about Apple. Apple is HOLY.
  • lordshank, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why is it that mac blogs love to use the word irreverent in the heading? Quit being cute and put out facts. The whole reason is VOIP. Buried.
  • OandA, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1How long till we see "7 reasons why locking down the iphone was a brilliant idea"?
  • Cyber_Akuma, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4The apple fanboy brigade is already well on their way of buring any comment that dares mention the iPhone might not be perfect.

    I am sure they will target me as well.
    • livevil, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Looking at your comment vote, they've already sent the scouts.
  • databoy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Apple is making money and the small minds who blog about it are wunna bees (want to be). Get a real job and work in the real word.
  • jbond, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Perhaps we should really ask why the iPhone is not available outside N.A. And why it isn't 3G. And why it's got a hardwired battery.
    • johnpaul191, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2because we know those answers:
      1) it will be when they work out a deal with other carriers
      2) the 3G is spotty, and unlike other 3G phones, there is not room in an iPhone to add both a 3G and an EDGE chipset. also most iPhone users live in populated areas and we all have tons of WiFi networks. you only really need the 3G for web browsing, and that would be way faster through WiFi anyway.
      3) to make a case with a opening battery compartment would make the phone a bit bigger. in the case of the iPhone, that "bigger" would be more significant that most other phones. the battery life seems pretty good, and all ***** lawsuits aside, the battery is going to still be at 80% capacity in a few years. that's not too bad. maybe future revisions will address this, like they did with the old iBooks. the clamshell iBooks did not have auser replacable battery, later models did (whent hey became the "icebook" iBook.
  • Visarga, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3What I would need from iPhone:
    * SSH to remote login and reboot my server when there are problems and I am not at the desktop (and SFTP)
    * access to the iPhone file system and internal shell to play with it
    * an easy internal scripting language (Perl ?) that would build quick and dirty user apps for various personal uses
    * possibility to download MP3s from the net, put them in the music player, use them as ringtones
    * GPS (or at least cell tower triangulation) integrated with the maps
    * universal instant messenger running in the bg
    * integration with various picture hosting, blogging, social networking sites
    * dictionary - it has a lot of Flash memory, more than enough to host huge dictionaries
    -------------------------------
    Sum = it should be open just like the full Mac OS
    • jabberwolf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Wow that sounds kinda like what Windows mobile already does.
    • johnpaul191, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2true GPS sucks on cell phones. it takes forever, and it destroys batteries. if you have ever actually used a GPS device, you would know it's not nearly as cool as it seems. it takes forever to use and something as obstructive as a car roof will block the signal, let alone being inside a building. it's great if you are outside on foot, or have it out on your dashboard so it can look "up" (but i have had issues with that at times). it doesn't always work super well in big cities like NYC because of the buildings.
      i don't know how accurate cell tower triangulation is, and if that can currently integrate with something like maps.google. i would think that's not too hard to work out, and probably the best bet for phone performance. i don't know how precise the cell tower triangulation would be in something like a city where signals bounce off buildings.
    • moisie, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Why do you actually need any of that on a phone? access to the shell to play with! Consumers don't need that. You might want it but that doesn't mean Apple have to provide every little thing. They have to provide enough to suit the market they're targetting and to make the product a success. If they added all this crap for no reason than it would end up like so many other phones. Sometimes less is more.
  • skingers, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Well point 1 and 2 are pretty much the same thing and point 5 is overly MS fanboyish.

    Bill gates did not "have the vision" to separate hardware and software, he simply didn't have a hardware product to "separate". Agreed it worked out well for him(!), but please it was a happy coincidence at best.

    Just look at the current MS Zune strategy - closed. Even to previous "plays for maybe" partners...

    ...and the O/S for the do it yourself XBOX-360 hardware? No sorry. Appears Microsoft have altered their consumer electronics approach to be more like Apple...

    If Apple does set the mobile phone world on fire with iPhone (jury is still out there) then expect a nice closed ZunePhone to follow.....
    • jabberwolf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Zune should have been Windows Mobile.
      But saying that, we are talking about mobile phones, and MS does have WINDOWS MOBILE on smartphones.
      Try comparing that now, and see how your argument holds any water, it doesnt.

      But nice try as a Macfan to try try and change the subject to Zune .

      As for MS fanboys? No one is really.
      People just use what works, and not follow the sheepish mactards.
      • skingers, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I understand that MS has WINDOWS MOBILE (your caps). What I am saying is that they also had an open platform for music players and disregarded it in favour of a closed one.

        All I'm saying is that closed devices have their place and even MS do some.

        The jury is still out on wether closed is the right approach for the 6 week old iphone.


    • seraph582, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0how many times do I have to tell you people - there's no such thing as an MS fanboy.
  • dcutting, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Adieu? ADIEU?! It's "without further ADO". ARGH!! WTF does "without further goodbye" mean?! Fine, bury me.
  • Terrk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2If everyone would just go Open Source, we'd all be happy;-)
    • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Except the people who actually have to use the things... There's a place for closed source software, but that doesn't mean user modification must be closed off. All these bits of software should live together happily, with the license only being a small part of the equation.
  • phogasmic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Give them some time to get the SDK and distribution channel right. They know Apple developers rock, and are efficent and responsible. I am certain they are going to open it up. I bet they build a store for developers to distribute they're wares. I don't want it to be a free for all like Windows Mobile, most of the apps built for that platform suck a$$, and crash frequently. Thinking back, I can't think of one WM app that I couldn't live without, at least not enough to put up with the slowdown and crashes.
    • paulgibson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Yeah that's my thoughts on it too, I would rather that it worked correctly and was stable and usable (and did what it does well) than have it become like my last symbian device (Sony p990) which started to lock up and slow down considerably whenever I installed anything. On the other hand I also understand why folk want to be able to start developing for the device as I feel that its got so much more potential (even If I feels its perfect already).
    • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why would you want the vendor to serve as a gate keeper for what apps can be installed? I'm fine with them controlling what can be distributed through iTunes, but I, as a user, should be able to install any app I want from another source (including one I made myself). If I screw up my phone's stability, then I have only myself to blame, and Apple even made a nice and simple "Restore iPhone" option in iTunes, in case I screw up too badly. I'm sure that Apple would like us to think they are about empowering individual users, and they've done a good job of doing this on Macs, so I don't know why blocking those same users from installing the application they want on their iPhone is an advantage...
  • cmadach, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4This is my $0.02:
    Maybe, just maybe, Apple *wants* the iPhone to stay how it developed it. Just like Colonel Sanders wants his secret blend of 11 herbs and spices to stay how he developed it. If you don't like it, don't buy it. The market is the only place to have your voice heard. But I'd bet that the majority--vast majority-- is perfectly happy with how the iPhone is now.
    I wish my truck came with wings, or at least had little slots where i could attach wings, but it didn't.
    • paulgibson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1yeah exactly!! I'm happy to live with it
  • havesometea, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It isn't stupid and arrogant from a support perspective. Unlocking it would allow all sorts of stupid things to be done on the phone to which the stupid end user with call support and say..."muh phone be's broken"...and when the tech support person tries to figure out what is wrong they find the stupid end user installed who knows what on their phone.
    • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1A simple solution to this would be to have a 'safe mode' boot option that disables all third party software, that could be used for diagnosis of problems and for being able to access your phone in case you're away from your computer and have something screwy going on. 3rd party software would go in a corralled sandbox, and it could be simple to test if that's the issue. A complete lack of support for native apps just means that adventurous users will have to modify the stock software, possibly introducing further instability than if they had a contingency for adding applications in a supported manner.
  • techmaster7b, on 10/10/2007, -5/+51 reason for buying the iPhone, ignorance.
  • xqb4dpx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1do you think ALL the cellphone companies in the world want to implement Visual Voicemail?
    • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes... Visual Voicemail is freaking awesome!
  • jeffyjones, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This and other similar opinions lack context. I can say with a great deal of certainty that the reason this is a closed platform is because of technical concerns, namely keeping the phone a stable platform. Most people who write code know this is the case, and while they might be frustrated with it, they understand it.

    What it most certainly is not, as some will imply, is some kind of goofy power game on the part of Apple.
  • liuping, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I've had various smart phones over the years, but whether it's Palm OS based or MS Mobile, once I start add even a few simple apps, they get unstable.

    I think Apple will release a widget SDK at some point, but not until they have it so tightly secure that it cannot cause any problems with the over all function of the phone.

    The main market for the iPhone is not the hackers, and gear heads. it's meant to be the smart phone my mom would like and use. and in that regard it is succeeding.
    • colincornaby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3OS X doesn't become more unstable when you install 3rd party apps. The iPhone is running OS X. Therefore, 3rd party apps won't make the iPhone unstable.
      • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Tell that to people who installed any Norton products...
  • THEMACGOD, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2It's their first god damn phone... let them make sure they've got it right before they let everyone in with potentially damaging software.

    This won't even be an issue in a year's time.
  • turbovince, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Buried for redundant as *****. Nothing new in there.
  • mikesown, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0They're almost positively developing an SDK as we speak. Apple isn't stupid- it knows what its customers want. The problem with developing an SDK is that it's tough. Apple doesn't have to just maintain the API bearly enough for its own programs to run- it has to maintain them well enough that ANY program will run without a hitch. Moreover, they have to polish their development tools. For internal development, they probably have a much more complicated system than a traditional SDK has. Additionally, they have to make up documentation. For the limited number of applications which they made in house, they probably didn't need (much) documentation. But to create, document, and maintain a stable API is hard work. Much harder than most people think.

    It's also not something that should be rushed. If Apple released their internal SDK towmarrow, you can bet that people would instantly start creating apps the day it came out. What happened if Apple then decided it wanted to deprecate a large portion of the APIs a month from when it was released. Developers would be very mad at Apple: "What!??! I spent a month and hired 5 people to develop my application and NOW you say I have to rewrite half of it?"

    Apple probably wants to have a stable API that works well along with tools to support it. I applaud them for taking their time in this matter, as it is one for which a lot of time is required.
    • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That would be fine, but they need to COMMUNICATE...
  • fuzzywitman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I can see why it's stupid but arrogant? Dugg down just for the retarded title.
  • hadi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1and unlock it now ,here is a HOWTO:http://hadi.wordpress.com/2007/08/14/iphone-unlocked/
  • dgruzew, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0I really don't get all this press over a phone that plays music and has a browser. Who cares. Quit writing articles about this damn device. If you think its stupid buy a blackberry or windows mobile device - they do the same thing and more, cost less and have more software.

    I am so sick of the iphone, someone should write an article about why I cant cant listen to a tech podcast or read tech blog without this damn device being discussed

    dugg down cause iphone sux ass and I don't want to hear about it anymore
    • phogasmic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1dude theipone rocks I'm using it to reply to you.
  • whiteyMcBrown, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't understand the amount of complaining.. If you don't like what this device has to offer, buy a different one. There are a lot of good phones out there. Apple's offering is plainly laid out on the table. Don't act like you're worse off than before... Every other device that you loved is still out there. Think of this thing along the same lines as an iMac... Before you purchase it, understand the limitations and see if you're willing to live within them.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.