What is Digg?163 Comments
- Weather, on 10/10/2007, -7/+80Finally an article about Apple!
- bjarkebech, on 10/10/2007, -7/+54Hope this reaches apple, like engadget's letter to palm
- llsethj, on 10/10/2007, -22/+51Apple is totally out of control now. Reselling customers music to them as ringtones, self destructing iPhones...what is next? Deleting "illegal" music and videos off of peoples machines?! I can't wait for that iTunes update!
- danielrh9, on 10/10/2007, -10/+38Quote of the article:
"You can't put your Lego model in a kid's hand and throw a fit out when they make something better than you did."
Dead. On. - ersnyder, on 10/10/2007, -12/+38If you don't like it, stop doing the Apple Updates and rely solely on the hacking community to support you phone...you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either void your warranty and use the phone the way you want and stop complaining when Apple hasn't complied with every hack you loaded on it, or use the phone the way it was intended/programed and have nothing to complain about.
- skellener, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21Just open the damn thing up already. Everybody wins...
- Apple sells more iPhones because they can do more things
- AT&T gets more subscribers because most people WON'T hack it to switch carriers
- Developers make a little cash for the really, really good apps
- Consumers are happy
So where's the problem? - mostman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20This is so humorous. "Apple is losing touch with the consumer" "Apple doesn't know what people want" "Apple will stop making money"
Folks - you do realize that 99.5 percent of consumers that Apple is targeting with the iPhone don't give a ***** about custom applications right? They don't care that the homebrewed version of the top IRC client on the market wont work on the iPhone. They don't care about not having an SSH client. They don't care about not having a top notch RSS reader. They don't CARE.
Some people in here need to take some Marketing 101 courses, because you are clearly naive. - codyman, on 10/10/2007, -5/+22Wow... talk about an essay... good points though throughout though...
- kbro, on 10/10/2007, -6/+18I have an iPhone, and Engadget does not reflect my feelings either.
I bought the iPhone knowing it did not have an API for native 3rd-party app development. That's OK, I am quite happy with the "applications" it came with (and will be updated with). The iPhone is a consumer appliance to me, not a computing platform. - Hermmunster, on 10/10/2007, -6/+18Listen, the DMCA exemption permits the unlocking of cell phones. The iPhone is a cell phone. Apple knew about the exemption before the release of the cell phone. AT&T is a cell phone service provider. They knew about the exemption before the release of the cell phone.
The DMCA exemption did not give Apple nor AT&T to right re-lock the cell phone. Nothing gives them the right to remove the explicit right that the DMCA exemption granted to consumers.
What Apple and AT&T are doing is picking and choosing which DMCA provisions they wish to comply with. They will issue cease and desist letters (as they did not long ago), and then choose to ignore the Library Of Congress exemption that permits the legal unlocking of cell phones.
This ultimately should result in lawsuits regarding the re-lock as well as the bricking of the phones (locked and unlocked alike).
There are other laws that also force any "warranty" provider to honor their warranty even if a device has been modified.
The iPhone is completely useless to anyone purchasing it unless they either unlock it or they sign up for AT&Ts 2 year contract. Keep in mind that AT&T is not top of the line when it comes to providing cell phone service.
If Apple expects customers to comply with the rule of law then Apple certainly must comply with that as well. No one gives Apple the right to pick and choose as if the laws only apply to the poor. Apple acts like they can do what they want because they know that the population is generally poor and incapable of defending itself and the rights granted to it.
Apple can't dishonor the warranty unless they can prove that the modification actually broke the phone. So far the indication is that the modifications have not broken the phones, in any sense of the word. As well Apple can't dishonor the DMCA Library of Congress exemption.
Nothing Engadget writes means a thing. Period. Because when push comes to shove, the only thing that matters is the legal grounds upon which you stand. No amount of pulling the heartstrings is going to change that.
The law applies to both the RICH and poor, Mr. Jobs - ST0N3, on 10/10/2007, -17/+27disagree 100%. You bought the phone expecting these things to happen. Shut up, enjoy your phone, and you get what you paid for. If extra apps come back, awesome, cool, good for the phone, but I had applications installed on my phone, and the more I installed the more bugs i noticed.
I'm glad 1.1.1 came around. I'm sick of being in the apple store and hearing people complain that "ApolloIM isn't working".
If you don't know how to use it, then don't. And don't go crawling to apple when stuff breaks.
Whether they did it intentionally or not is another story. My belief is that something the software update addresses caused a major change in the way the iPhone worked, thereby not letting any of the previously installed apps work on it.
DEAL WITH IT - drewmangroup, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14Yeah they will make you send in the proof of purchase and receipt for all ripped CDs.
- GreenAlien, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15If there is public interest then what's the problem with Engadget blogging about it. If you don't like the Apple updates then skip over them. Why do some people find it so hard to skip over topics that don't interest them!
- SPThom, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Mac != iPhone. OS X is still a great operating system and its BSD underpinnings make it as open as you want it to be. As much as Apple looks like the bad guy here, I tend to think their biggest fault is bowing to the demands of AT&T and music companies. But those are some of the compromises that come out of entering a new market.
Don't let it dissuade you from making the switch, though. - alperea, on 10/10/2007, -7/+14you're a slave, dude
- ersnyder, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Well that would be a valid point if the Palm or your computer and the iPhone had the same warranty wouldn't it. Also, your computer, which I will assume is Windows and or OS X, has an official SDK which gives you the guidelines to develop software for the platform that will comply with the updates that are released for it.
- gregdigg, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9I don't think it was ever in question that Apple and Microsoft are equally evil. They're both corporate entities whose primary goal is to make money. Apple just makes better products is all.
- rebotfc, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Did you even read the article, from Day 1 Steve Jobs said that the iphone running OS X would allow 'Desktop Class' applications. It was only later he brought in the safari webpage thing.
- noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8I hope it also reach all of the customers.
- a5tr0cr3ep, on 10/10/2007, -8/+14to me it seems that apple had its niche with there loyal fans and that they were all about a quality product. while microsoft was the big evil corporation hell bent on billions of dollars. after the success of the ipod i have seen itunes go from a great product that made editing your mp3 tags very very easliy and a nice alternative to windows media player and winamp. but as time goes i see itunes using more and more system resources and being updated at a daily rate and packages quicktime...and to top it all off it puts quicktime in my start up menu every update. so now itunes takes like 30-40 seconds to come up and quicktime is trying its best to slow down my start up. it seems apple got a taste of money and they want more...everything that made them great and different from microsoft they are losing the difference i see now is packaging and marketing, business practices are identical IMHO
- deadbaby, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11How did they screw their customers? They made it clear the iPhone was an AT&T exclusive without third party apps. Anyone who bought the phone to unlock and use third party apps on was fully warned ahead of time. Why buy a product that doesn't meet your needs and then act like a victim ? If you want an unlocked phone with third party apps you shouldn't own an iPhone.
- pcgeek101, on 10/10/2007, -8/+14At least Microsoft provides SDKs and free tools (Visual Studio Express, SQL Server Express, etc. etc.) to develop on their platform. Pretty impressive stuff out there on the Microsoft side for developers ... C#/.NET anyone? :-)
- deadbaby, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11Bad analogy though... Apple made it clear from day one the iPhone was AT&T exclusive with no third party apps.
- crees!, on 10/10/2007, -18/+23Engadget is on an iPhone-frenzy ego-trip. Enough of these 1.1.1 update postings.
- smhill, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Their behavior is legal and within their rights. And since the iPhone is selling like hotcakes even with these restrictions, it is obviously acceptable to the customer base.
Either case, comparing this to first amendment rights is such a freaking stretch it is retarded. You choose to accept their terms when you buy the damn thing. If you don't like don't buy. First amendment rights are not 'optional'. - jammach, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Apple have released a firmware update adding functionality to the iPhone. They have no responsibility whatsoever to write their firmware to take into account people hacking their iPhones and installing third party applications. End of story. Are you seriously telling me that Apple's engineers should start doing compatibility testing between their own software releases and hacker's applications? Developers have the responsibility of writing applications within Apple's software guidelines for the iPhone, not the other way around. If you decide to add on a NO2 package to your car and then the engine blows up after it's first service, would you expect the Garage to honour your warrenty? Nope.
Do I think they purposefully wrote this firmware update to brick hacked iPhones? Personally, I don't but your opinion may vary. In any case, they warned you. You had an opportunity to restore your phone. You didn't, you left it hacked, you then updated it, it bricked. Your choice. - adamgamble, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Dude you can hardly call this a self destructing iPhone. These people did something with their device that it was not intended for, and also were warned before hand, then the user had to install (
- holdencaulfield, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Don't use "status quo" if you don't know what it means.
- ersnyder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Nowhere in there did I hear him say, "It's ok to Hack the iPhone."
- Kitsune818, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4So why did you give 400-600 USD to a company who doesn't support that freedom, instead of to a company who does? You're part of the problem.
- ersnyder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4More like they are so totally self centered to think that everyone who buys an iPhone cares as much about the geekery of hacking an iPhone as they do.
- RoflMyWaffle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4the way i see it its just like dropping a modchip in a video game console... once its in, your warranty is gone and its never going to change.
- arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -7/+11I don't buy it. I'm sorry, but I just do not believe that the bricking of the phones is due to some lazy ***** at Apple who didn't check his code. They are purposefully bricking phones. There is absolutely no reason to think otherwise. Apple wants to control everything you do with the things you buy from them. I mean, look at the new iPods with the encryption that has disabled third-party syncing apps and third party peripherals - that right there says they don't want you to use anything else on their hardware than what they want you to use.
I simply cannot take the optimistic apporach here to believe that this is inadvertant. Apple's track record really proves that false. - spiffytech, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Engadget has an iPhone-less feed for anyone who's tired of iPhone news.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/20/tired-of-iphone ... - MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4At what point did Apple say that you could put on third-party programs that would be compatible with any updates? Oh, that's right, they didn't. If being locked into ATT and strictly following Apple's intended usage for this phone isn't something you can deal with, pick another phone.
I personally don't care for the iPhone myself, and like most reasonable people made a desicion to not buy one. It really is that easy. - noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8You didn't even read the article did you? It is likely Apple hasn't intentionally screwed anyone.
- MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Windows is an Operating system meant to work with third-party programs. If they could get away with it, I'm sure they would lock out other browsers. The DOJ and Europeans are already looking for MS to do something like that so they can slam them. Apple on the other hand came out with a cell phone. They promised interactions with third-party developement exactly when?
Having sold a million+ phones doesn't make them a market leader and they have promised nothing they haven't delivered on in regards to the iPhone (including the possibility that it could be bricked if you mess with it).
If you don't like Apple or the iPhone, please buy something else. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3What, if like me, you bought an iPhone after Apple said they wouldn't block third party apps, only to have it blocked and the apps deleted?
It's too late for me. But if you want an as new iPhone cheap, let me now. - dvandewalle, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5the customers screwed themselves by installing applications they knew voided there license agreement
- ersnyder, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Just don't expect them to try and QA every hack app out there to make sure it works with their update. They have every right to assume you haven't hacked your phone and update it accordingly. You don't HAVE to run the update.
- dgblackout, on 10/10/2007, -8/+11Apple really needs to get their finger out before it comes out in the UK, if they manage that, i'll be in line waiting for one, otherwise, i'm waiting until it's hacked again.
- rmwimpee, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6you mean :::::bends over::::
- HerbSolo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3There's a flaw in engadget's argument. - They claim, the update just randomly bricked iPhones, regardless of them being hacked or not. They back that up by online-surveys, that seem to show the number of unmodded phones to get bricked just as high as the number of modded phones get bricked.
What they forgot in their argument: what's the number of hacked iPhones that survived the 1.1.1 update without being bricked? - r00ts, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3As far as I know, Apple didn't force this update on anyone. It was optional. You could still have your unlocked iPhone if you didn't install the update.
Besides, the DMCA says it's not criminal for a user to unlock their phone. It says nothing about phone companies being forced to allow this to happen, only that if someone unlocks a phone they can't get in any sort of trouble for it.
Apple was completely in their legal bounds upon releasing this update. You knew there were risks when you MODIFIED your iPhone to run unofficial applications. So stop complaining now that those risks came true. - znicket, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Amen to that. This mass geek hysteria is completely foreign to me.
- KSUdesigner, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5"The bottom line here is that Apple owns the iPhone and its innards"
That's where you're wrong. What do people pay all that money for then? Sure you have to agree to their terms of use, but violating those terms should only void your warranty, nothing more, nothing less. Voided warranty simply means that you are no longer eligible for service and support from Apple, it does not mean that Apple has the right to render your device useless. That said, if you are going to hack your iPhone, it's probably wise not to run any software updates on the device. This applies to any device, not just the iPhone. - Kitsune818, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3The only argument I hear about why Apple should allow this is that people paid a lot of money for their iPhone. At what point will people switch from "I got ripped off!" to "I personally made a poor choice spending 600 bucks on a shiny 1st gen phone!". You paid the bleeding-edge tax. The rest of us either have a phone we are happy with or 600 bucks in the bank.
- monkeyrun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Apple never hinted about 3rd party apps before iPhone was released.
In fact Apple said they don't want 3rd parties on the iPhone because of security issues.
Whatever your parallel universe Steve Jobs told you probably only exist in that universe. - znicket, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You still own the iPhone - its just a simple lump of hardware now with an inoperable OS - because you didn't buy the OS, it was licensed to you with some hefty restrictions. Take a look at clause 1. in your EULA.
There is nobody stopping you from designing your own OS and installing it in your iPhone... good luck with that. - haydesigner, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3If you installed an app that hacked the Palm OS, would you expect Palm to support that app? No.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 163 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is