What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Smart Guys Keep Their Faces Looking Young view!
howlifeworks.com - Why men have finally started to use certain anti-aging skin care products...
159 Comments
- Incom, on 10/10/2007, -13/+186"doesn't oppose" does not = blessing, buried as inaccurate title
- Ireland, on 10/10/2007, -7/+177What we really need:
1. Official Apple iPhone S.D.K.
2. 'Free' Thrid-part Apple approved apps.
3. Download section on Apple.com for all these free apps.
4. Thrid-party localized iPhone games, free and buyable on iTunes.
Now, get on it Apple! - one111one1one11, on 10/10/2007, -0/+166Hope Apple blesses us enough to keep our iPhones unlocked...
- cmgarcia, on 10/10/2007, -4/+63This kind of sensationalism in titles, descriptions, etc. is what degrades the credibility of digg. Buried.
- canewediggit, on 10/10/2007, -3/+42they certainly can't say that publicly. at&t would sue the hell out of them if they did. i would assume at&t would also have a decent case if apple does not try and cancel out any unlocking via updates.
- willcoll, on 10/10/2007, -0/+37Id hardly consider a person that can code without a SDK a ***** up
- sholt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+31official SDK would provide documentation and an easier development environment, saving time and frustration figuring out just what the ***** those classdumped headers mean. All leading, of course, to better apps.
iPhone kernel is based on Darwin 9 (Leopard), so they *can't* release an SDK yet, unless they want to make some of leopard's internal bits public before it's even released. - mshanly, on 10/10/2007, -1/+27Joswiak, is he the secret love child of Jobs and the Woz?
- geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+26What happens to the phone after it leaves Apple inc. is out of Apple's control. Unlocking it is perfectly legal in America, so there's no legal reason for Apple to prohibit the behavior. There's no reason for them to attempt to block this from happening, just as there is no reason Nokia or Samsung would try and stop it.
Besides, most of the more pressing features of the iPhone only work with AT&T anyways (the iPhone's Voicemail is incredible). - virtualball, on 10/10/2007, -5/+30Seriously? I think we don't need any of that from Apple. Right now, all the apps are free, we have a working toolchain and Installer.app is a fine catalog of apps.
- schoate09, on 10/10/2007, -2/+211. AT&T wouldn't "sue the hell out of them". Apple is still making them more revenue than they would without the iPhone, and a bad relationship between two partnering companies is NEVER good.
2. They would have NO case if they don't try to cancel out unlocking. Unless that's a term specifically included about the engineering of the product in the contract between AT&T and Apple, there is no case. - willgonz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18I love installer from Nullriver Software. Download and install apps right on the phone.
- nullcodes, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18I have a feeling the whole 99cents on top of the song's price for ringtones was asked for by the music industry. Which is trying to protect its existing ringtones income stream which is supposedly worth hundreds of millions.
Why doesn't someone stick a price gouging lawsuit on the music industry for forcing people to pay for ringtones when they already own the song? Seriously, if they are going to claim to sell you a song .. but afterwards they tell you they own what you do with it? What scheme is next ? 50 cents extra if you use the song to dance. 75 cents if you sing along ?? ($1 if your singing sucks) - jer2eydevil88, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17Neutral is a start but they really should be actively supporting development on the thing. If they release a SDK for it lots of people would flock to building applications for it.
- briankeith, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14I logged in just to say this. "Apple: You have our blessing to hack the iPhone to bits" Is far from correct. In fact the original article ( http://www.gearlog.com/2007/09/apples_joswiak_we_dont_hate_ip.php ) Has two updates;
Updated 3:15 PM: Apple says "software updates will most likely break" native apps as they go forwards.
Updated 1:15 PM: I just got a call from Joswiak who wanted to make clear: "not hate" doesn't mean "like" or "support." I think I made that clear further down, but they said that some people may not be reading all the way down this piece. So to summarize: Apple will neither forbid nor support native code on the iPhone/Touch. They will not design software updates specifically to break native apps, but if the updates happen to break native apps or your native apps turn your iPhone into a rutabaga, don't go crying to Apple, 'cause it ain't their problem. Capiche?
On top of this, maybe.. just maybe Apple will let us keep our "hacks" if we stop putting words into their mouth like, "Apple: You have our blessing to hack the iPhone to bits" which causes all kinds of confusion to marketplace. Before you say that the avg consumer isn't going to "hack" their iphone.. Have you seen how easy it is? It's simplistic as *****. My gf's mother has a hacked iphone.
Point is, don't make up things or exaggerate and force Apple to take away my beloved functionality! God.. Some of you remind me of the kid in high school who would brag about how easy Math is, because the teacher didn't do much.. Shut the ***** up. We like it the way it is. (And for those of you who say, you would rather it be a fully supported SDK, be realistic for a moment please? Wait for Iphone II.) - Dorian822, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14If Apple really doesn't mind the third party software and people unlocking their product to enjoy more completely, then I say thunderous applause are in order for a company who finally realized the truest way to ensure the market accepts you is when you give them the freedom to fully enjoy your product at all costs. PSP would learn a thing or two about how to sell a product that can be "hacked" by this move.
- GCarden, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Official SDK = Apple's blessing
- johnpaul191, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13they have been around for a while..... just that nobody seems to care.
- Pyrogen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Neutral is not support. Neutral does not get an SDK. It simply means "We don't care."
- Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Digg had credibility?
- 1iProd, on 10/10/2007, -10/+19Then give us a ***** SDK!
- johnpaul191, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Apple taking a neutral stance means they can still do some major changes to the iPhone OS, inadvertently break the 3rd party apps, and not be responsible. the phone is version 1.0, and while it's derived from OS X, there may be some major change. they at least have that option this way.
- KevenM, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8It's already in the pipeline at Microsoft. It was originally supposed to be released in 2006. Then it got pushed back to late 2007. Last week they announced that it was being delayed to mid 2008. Sry, I mean mid 2009
- brentis, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13Hmm... If we allow people to unlock our iphones we would be able to sell iPhones to non-AT&T customers while not breaking our contractual agreement.... Hell ya - Neutral all the way - Hack away.
- MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Wow, please tell us all that you're unable to breed
- allegedfastluck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Apparently, periods just aren't for you either.
- geekee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9"Apple: You have our blessing to hack the iPhone to bits"
But the warranty is still voided. - OutThisLife, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7What'd you just say?
- FreakyD, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7reply button is your friend
- shampoovta, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9As a PSP owner who has watched Sony attack the home brew community I would like to say I will give Apple this one! If they allow the Iphone hack I would look at the Iphone more closely. Maybe even get one.
- saleem, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9thanks for typing out the most obvious reason ever.
- superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8People are already flocking to it to build applications. I would argue that an official SDK might draw more people in, sure, but they would generally be more casual people playing around than people truly serious about expanding the platform. I mean, right now you can use XCode to develop for the iPhone - it's already pretty easy for anyone interested.
- superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Ask the PSP hackers if they would prefer neutral or "actively against".
- MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5because ATT agreed to give Apple money from monthly fees. Apple likes money just like any other company
- andyduncan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Hopefully their neutrality will move towards "explicit support" once they have time to polish an SDK, and once ATT has been convinced that the iPhone is an important part of their business, 3-rd party apps or no.
- x788, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6"Jobs" + "Wozniak" = "Joswiak"
that dirty name stealer! - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5At least read the article. Buried as inaccurate.
- eyesee360, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I have little doubt that a proper SDK will come for the iPhone in time. For those who complain that one hasn't been released: an SDK is a full-blown product in its own right. Not necessarily in terms of something to be sold, but in terms of development resources.
Obviously, Apple has an SDK for their own development use. It is functional, but it may not be complete, easy or polished. It is likely meant for internal use only and not fit for consumption. Note that this kind of tool chain may not be much different than what the community has already built around the iPhone independently. Thanks to the Objective C architecture, it's even relatively easy to discover classes and methods in the API without needing anything more from Apple.
Not having released anything officially, Apple is free to change the underlying implementation or APIs at will, and adjust their software as needed. This is a good thing for them in this early stage as it means they aren't stuck with any bad decisions or hacks they've made to get the product shipped. They can improve the architecture or API as time goes on to make it better. The moment they release something they are obligated to stick with it and support it. When it comes time to release a third party SDK, they'll have a better product to offer.
Apple releasing an SDK entails them providing a development tool chain for XCode, possibly a simulator environment, a stable API and documentation. This a significant development and support effort. The same engineers who are likely to work on such a project are presently busy with the forthcoming Leopard release in October, which is a clear priority. My bet would be no official support from Apple until next year's WWDC. - zweben, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7They didn't say they would break them intentionally.
They'll probably break 3rd party apps whether they want to or not, just because they're not going to be testing them. - timlopez, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I don't forsee Apple EVER making third party apps available. Once they get third party apps involved, then the phone becomes less stable and support calls increase.
I don't think Apple will approve any apps, because then they would have to support them. If they don't approve them, then they can just tell the customer that their hacked iphones aren't supported in technical support. I'm sure it's all legal.
Look at the palm. I'm sure the palm devices would be more stable if they only ran palm created apps. Instability is the price you pay when you let third parties write on your platform. - Kazbaeden, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4If Apple really doesn't mind third party software then we shouldn't HAVE to unlock the iphone and hack it to bits. No one should be thanking Apple for maintaining a "neutral" stance on the issue. They're saying they're not going to actively try to break the hacks, but if an update just happens to ruin your iphone you're on your own.
- dagamer34, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Because it was FORCED by the music industry, it's not something Apple randomly decided to do. Because of a change last year in ringtone rights in the DMCA given to the RIAA, ringtones are a completely different product compared to songs, and therefore we have to pay for them again.
- JasonCox, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Props to Apple.
- Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5If they were actively supporting it, then they'd be responsible if anything went wrong. As much as I'd like to see official support, it doesn't make a bit of sense right now from a business perspective.
And there are already a ton of apps that have been built for it. Some are useful, some are proof-of-concept, and some are just stupid. But less than two months after the 1.0 release with no help, they've managed to reverse-engineer pretty much everything of use and piece together their own SDK of sorts. Regardless of how it's done, Apple laid a powerful framework in the way this mobile OS X was created, and these hackers have been using it to code apps that give a very uniform interface. What the user-created iUI framework did for the web apps, Apple did themselves for the actual iPhone - the difference being that the web apps are built on open standards. Apple didn't say, "here, have fun" but the tools are still there. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5you sir, are the greatest digger in history DUGG+
- missingnoh4x, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Really? I remember many hardware revisions, iTunes bug/features, firmware tweaks, etc for the iPod the tried to put more hurdles in place for those trying to install/use/develop for iPodLinux.
Remember the firmware update that nuked a linux partition on the iPod HDD if one was present? Lovely. - sleepwalkers, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Because they get a cut of every single AT&T iPhone contract.
Granted, they'll probably make more by having more iPhones sold because they can be used over any GSM network, but that's the thinking of people who believe that Apple does care whether or not it's unlocked. - jasmus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4@you, use reply.
- klethron, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I want my ZunePhone complete with URGE and some other spyware crap.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3lol i want my creative zen phone with real player and bonzi buddy.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 161 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is