digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Apple: You have our blessing to hack the iPhone to bits

arstechnica.com — PC Mag spoke with Apple's Greg Joswiak and received some refreshingly candid responses to their questions about the iPhone and iPod touch. Most notably, Joswiak said that Apple doesn't oppose native software development at all, and that the company takes a neutral stance on it.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • one111one1one11, on 10/10/2007, -0/+166Hope Apple blesses us enough to keep our iPhones unlocked...
    • 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.
      • 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.
        • 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).
      • dagamer34, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2If AT&T didn''t include a clause that stated that Apple would try it's hardest to keep the iPhone locked (including updates that break unlocked iPhones), business-wise I would consider that to the be greatest gaffe of the century and AT&T shareholders are not going to be too happy about that. Regardless of digg's notion that once you buy a product, you should be able to do whatever the hell you want with it, there's something oddly fishy about selling unlocked iPhones that just screams "illegal" like no other.

        Anyway, it's AT&T's business, not mine. I'm playing the wait and see game, because like how early adopters of the iPhone were screwed last week, those unlocked iPhones aren't guaranteed for forever.
        • ricree, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3"Just something", eh? Seriously, even if it does turn out to be illegal, why shouldn't it be allowed?
      • FireAtWill, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Companies have been known to sue their own subsidiaries (BenQ for example), what is to limit them other than the law? The business of business is business, and if they don't like what's happening and if they think it will affect their bottom line in every way they have both the right and the duty (shareholders) to pursue a favourable outcome.
      • bluesdealer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You really have no clue about how that partnership works, do you? Apple isn't just making money off selling the hardware; AT&T is giving Apple a kickback from the service plans for all iPhones sold. Why else do you think adding an iPhone as an extra line on a family plan costs more than the standard rate? Apple benefits from the partnership with At&t and would lose revenue from unlocked iPhones running around... somehow I don't think T-Mobile would agree to give Apple a percent of a customer's revenue if he was using an iPhone.
    • toetagger, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1Well, why didn't ASK about unlocking?? STUPID!
    • newAccount, on 10/10/2007, -16/+12I had an Iphone for a bit when it first came out, but what I didn't like about it was that everytime I used it in public, I'd get several ***** nearby starting up on how APPLE WAS SOOOOoooOoooo COOL, AND WASN'T STEVE JOBS THE GREATEST AND DIDN'T HE LOOK HOT IN JEANS and it got so irritating that I sold it to some metrosexual for $800, and bought a dell laptop and two regular cellphones that didn't draw idiots everytime I used them. Seriously, this apple crap is just not for me.
      • BlackKatanas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Um, you're kind of a monster.
      • allegedfastluck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Apparently, periods just aren't for you either.
      • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Wow, please tell us all that you're unable to breed
        • newAccount, on 10/17/2007, -1/+0awww don't cry, you aren't the only mac fanatic out there. now don't you feel better?
      • lobbster, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5you sir, are the greatest digger in history DUGG+
    • over90000, on 10/10/2007, -7/+0Why did Apple lock the iPhone to AT&T? I never understood that.
      • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5because ATT agreed to give Apple money from monthly fees. Apple likes money just like any other company
    • laxmaniac3773, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4why the hell should apple care if you unlock it? they got there $600 out of you
      • 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.
      • 80hd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Companies LOVE recurring sales. Once an iPhone walks out the door with you and ends up on Tmobile, US cellular etc. They take their margin and thats the end of the road for them.

        If they lock you in and you hook up with ATT's data plan, Both companies get a stream of money that will keep coming for some time.
  • 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!
    • 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.
      • 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.
        • kris33, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's not like that it very secret. OS X developers have had access to the Leopard beta for several months, with the Xcode 3 beta included.
          • sholt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well, right, but this is Apple we're talking about. The company that's super ultra paranoid about their own IP.

            I wouldn't expect an SDK to even be seeded until Leopard's released... and that's if Apple decides to do it at all.
      • Jacobdd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I agree with sholt. The one thing keeping me from buying a iPhone or an iPod touch is the lack of sdk for developers. I am a medical student and I need access to a specific app: epocrates. Without it I would still have to carry around a PDA or other smartphone. I know apple isn't gearing this towards me, but with how stagnant the pda market is I can't help but hope that they will throw some crumbs my way. Otherwise my next phone will be another windows mobile piece.
    • superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Why do we "need" that? What we have works pretty well. It would be nice to have official Apple support, but so much progress has been made without it... apps to load our own ringtones, even the ability to compile and deploy our own applications.
    • schoate09, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Never will happen. Apple wants to keep a uniform product, and they really don't want 3rd party apps to become part of the business plan. They just aren't opposed to letting enthusiasts create their own 3rd party apps, if they're in a small segment of the market that really wants that.
    • 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.
      • Alegoo92, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They're just like widgets though.. widgets almost never cause problems.
        • Dokkodo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Exactly. There are already hundreds of third party widgets available for OS X.
    • HonoredMule, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Only one 3rd party application needs to run on the iPhone/Touch platform. Linux. Then everything is open, the world is your oyster, and you don't have to rely on Apple to do anything but supply the hardware.

      Ability to run something like the OpenMoko's distro (particularly the matchbox window manager and supporting libraries) with multitouch input support would put the iPod Touch on my "buy" list very quickly.
      • arcticblue, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I love Linux and run Ubuntu on my Macbook, but I think putting it on an iPhone/iPod Touch would not give the best user experience. It might be fun for the developers, but for the people are want to actually USE it I forsee it being a nightmare.

        I'm basing this off of almost every Linux experience I've had on mobile devices. Sure, it will work, BUT button X doesn't work. It will work, BUT to get multi-touch working you have to do X, Y, and Z. It will work, BUT your screen resolution is going to be wrong and 3d stuff will crash your system... Rev B devices have console only. Wireless doesn't work.

        Sure, it will be more open and you will have more control over it, but I really don't think it will be an experience like the factory OS.
        • HonoredMule, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's kind of like saying the idea is bad because the implementation was poor. But you may have a point, since I am, after all, saving my cash for the first CDMA OpenMoko I can get (post-creation, obviously), which will have a factory installed Linux OS with funding and community behind it to ensure that clean, functional without hassle experience.
    • ilgaz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1If people gets used to applying unofficial hacks to their device to get features, one day, some evil guy will release a trojan promising something else.

      Apple has lot to learn from Sony , especially PSP.

      • sliggy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1erm, no. Sony has made a ***** of dumb decisions in the past. For example, the walkman could have been the biggest hit, better than the iPod, but virtually nobody knows it even exists nowadays. As for the PSP, there are only a handful of games for it that arn't ports from other consoles, making it horrible. And the PS3? Rediculiously priced, I don't want to pay $700 for a gaming console that I also need to buy $70 games for. So to sum it up Apple has nothing to learn from Sony, if anything, it's Sony who needs to be learning.
  • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
      • lharrod, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Very good points.
      • sholt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2No, they'd really only be responsible if one of their libraries was doing something wonky, which they already are. And to say that "there are already apps without official support" is a cop-out. Those apps would be better and developed faster if a public API with documentation were available.

        If you write or install bad software, that's your own damn fault, not Apple's. Besides, it's nothing a restore can't ever fix.
        • anonym41414, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"It's their own damn fault" is rarely a good way to keep customers happy.
  • Incom, on 10/10/2007, -13/+186"doesn't oppose" does not = blessing, buried as inaccurate title
    • TastyBaconTreat, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5but then the original poster wouldn't have a flashy title to get more diggs from the apple fan boys that don't read the article
    • Pritchard, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0"doesn't oppose" = does not screw themselves over
    • GCarden, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Official SDK = Apple's blessing
      • w3bsmith, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No, Official SDK means Apple's encouragement. Apple's blessing is not actively trying to search and destroy holes that allow you to develop on it.
    • FoxOrian, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I guess you can complain about it, but it doesn't make sense to bury the article if it was Ars Technica that used the word in THEIR articles title... therefore the Digg article isn't inaccurate since it uses the real article name. Seems like you never clicked on the link to actually look it over.
      • OandA, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Just because arstechnica used it doesn't make it accurate.
  • 1iProd, on 10/10/2007, -10/+19Then give us a ***** SDK!
    • Pyrogen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Neutral is not support. Neutral does not get an SDK. It simply means "We don't care."
    • superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Ask the PSP hackers if they would prefer neutral or "actively against".
    • deadbaby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2They kind of already have. All the hacked iPhone apps use native API calls reverse engineered. It may not be as elegant as a full SDK but there's nothing stopping people from making fully featured iPhone apps.
  • willgonz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18I love installer from Nullriver Software. Download and install apps right on the phone.
    • JoeDiggsIt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's so simple, I felt bad at my noobishness trying to install an app, pre-Installer.
    • sliggy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Amen. Summerboard is also great! miPhone is sexier than it was to start with because of it :D.
  • cmgarcia, on 10/10/2007, -4/+63This kind of sensationalism in titles, descriptions, etc. is what degrades the credibility of digg. Buried.
    • dragon76, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2digg is a collective. Since when in history has a collective been noted with credibility?
    • secleinteer, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Well, the title is just copied from Ars Technica, so it's not like it's Digg's fault.
    • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Digg had credibility?
    • neferiousrich, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2First: Digg is user controlled, so it has no credibility anyway.
      Second: Why does sensationalism degrade credibility? If you need to worry about credibilty, wouldn't you see through glossy titles to the real story?
  • FreakyD, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5You people just wait for the "PC"phone
    • johnpaul191, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13they have been around for a while..... just that nobody seems to care.
    • 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
    • supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Uh, it sucks and its been around since just after Windows 95. You can get windows based phones everywhere, but nobody wants them they suck.
    • Photar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1lol dig parent up
  • B1shop, on 10/10/2007, -12/+0Incom, don't be a prick.
  • 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.
    • saleem, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9thanks for typing out the most obvious reason ever.
  • Wilddigi, on 10/10/2007, -10/+6Still no FLASH
    • jayhawk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1this is being dugg down???

      i long for flash as well.
      • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I would prefer Wonder Woman myself
    • Photar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually it has 8 GIGS of FLASH! Noob.
  • 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.
    • 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.
      • w3bsmith, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If Apple didn't "lock" it, then no vendor would risk taking them on. That's the cell phone business. By staying neutral they are digitally raising their middle finger towards the same provider that they have a contract with; while at the same time proving a point - that vendors cannot lock the consumers down when they want something bad enough. You've got to appreciate that.
    • judsond, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I expect *substantially* more from Apple than Sony. Sony is an incompetant terrible company, that doesn't mean that I should be happy with what I get from Apple. From apple I want an SDK and honesty.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • digital81, on 09/05/2008, -8/+2@FreakyD, do you live in the dark ages? PocketPC and Windows Mobile, Smartphone, etc devices have been around for years.
    • jasmus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4@you, use reply.
      • digital81, on 09/05/2008, -0/+0Thank you for the information. My script blocking addon was blocking the reply links for some reason. Fixed.
  • Octanum, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0"Most notably, Joswiak said that Apple doesn't oppose native software development at all, and that the company takes a neutral stance on it."

    Then why would they encrypt the 2nd Gen iPod Nano?
    • jasmus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"received some refreshingly candid responses to their questions about the iPhone and iPod touch"
      • Octanum, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Yeah, I know the article is about those two products, but he said that the company takes a neutral stance on native software. He never stated that the company has a neutral stance on it only for the iPhone and iPod Touch.
  • 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)
    • 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.
    • deadbaby, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"forcing people to pay for ringtones"

      1) No one is forcing you to buy them.
      2) Like it or not, the music industry does own the content. They are free to ask whatever price they want
      3) People actually DO buy ringtones for even more than 99 cents. Why should the music industry walk away from profits? They have an obligation to their share holders to make money.
      • rabbitracer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2their ownership of the content is questionable as they used a loophole to even get out of having to pony up anything to the artists. so it's the record companies alone who get anything from the ring tones, the whole thing is fishy even under our more lax readings of the copyright code.
      • jeffchuck, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I don't know a whole lot about copyright law, but your second point is at the very least debatable.
        If you have purchased music and are legally able to listen to it while your phone is in "iPod mode", shouldn't you be able to listen to it in "cell phone mode" as well?
        • anonym41414, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Nope. Music licensors chose to give Apple the right to sell music for you to listen to on your computer or your iPod, or for you to burn to CD. Explicitly excluded from the license agreement is making ring tones out of the music. Because the licensors hold the rights, they are free to sell them in whatever way they want, including selling only limited rights.

          This is a consequence of how property rights are protected by law. The exact same legal framework that allows, say, a computer programmer to license his work with the GPL allows music owners to license their music however they want. You can't have one without the other.
    • Schelske, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2This is an issue that a lot of people don't understand. Under current Intellectual Property law, you don't actually "own the song." You own a specific recording of the song that you can use in a specific way. I'm a songwriter and every time I license a song to a recording artist, they get a "Mechanical" license from me that allows them to record the song on their CD and sell it to you. If someone wants to produce sheet music of that song, that requires a different license. If they want to use the song as the background track in a video, that's still another license. The ring-tone is a completely different application that requires a separate license.

      As you can see the current state of intellectual property law really doesn't have the faintest idea how to deal with digital media that can be used simultaneously in different applications. Does the system need to be changed? Probably so. But right now, using that audio file to create a new ring-time file is legally the same as ripping a CD and creating a new file for a different use.

      Every different application requires a different license. Every new license costs someone money. That's why Apple and other providers have to charge.
      • BossKey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Yes.

        Here is an exercise for the doubters. Start a company. Sell ringtones based on music. See how far you get, and when the lawyers start emerging from the darkness, see how far you have to bend over to continue your business. Now you will find yourself in exactly the same position as Apple or anyone else.
    • rjcarr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I agree ... I was thinking there is no way apple would charge to create a ringtone. There is no communication back to the server, the clip is xferred right onto the phone ... it is typical of the RIAA of making you pay again for a license you've already purchased.

      It is a strange precedent ... you're essentially paying $0.99 to use the software. You're not getting any new bits from the network, the software is already in place, and the xfer happens over USB. Pay per use software ... hmm, not sure I like that.
    • desqjockey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Definitely, I remember reading investment analyst reports predicting that selling ringtones would be a 4 billion dollar industry by 2012 or some crap. Theres no way to stop people making their own from sources they already own .
  • mshanly, on 10/10/2007, -1/+27Joswiak, is he the secret love child of Jobs and the Woz?
    • skyfire1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I am going to have a nightmare now...
  • JasonCox, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Props to Apple.
  • taxali, on 10/10/2007, -13/+7More and more proof that Apple is the greatest tech company ever created.
    • nroth, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I like apple and all, plus I just purchased an iphone as soon as the software unlocking came out, but with that statement I hope that you were poking fun, and asking to get flamed lol.
    • LtJimDangle2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2eh... google wins.
  • Christo88, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3If it's one thing Apple and Steve Jobs loves, it's control. And control only comes when you have leverage. Apple can force the recording industry into their terms because they have a huge amount of leverage in the number of ipods out here and the simple distribution method they own.

    It's entirely possible apple WANTS to support 3rd party apps at some point, but maybe they just want to wait until there's enough iphones sold to force developers into certain prices or using the itunes store like they did for game development on the previous ipod. It sounds kind of evil, but it seems to be the way they work, and I'm not paying $50 for an ipod game, or $5 for a song, so I'm happy.

    It's also possible they want to sell enough phones and touch ipods to warrant building a 3rd party support team and an xcode for the iphone. Or maybe they just want to hit version 2 or 3 of the iphone os before letting potentially buggy or malicious 3rd party apps into the scene. You have to admit there's a ton of crappy phone applications out there, so they might want to set the standard or boundaries for iphone apps before letting anyone else play and possibly weighing down the launch with buggy apps.
    • anonym41414, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0If there's one thing Apple and Steve Jobs love, it's making and selling products that they really like. And that means making them their way. What you call "control" is just a side effect of "We do it like this because that's how we like 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.)
    • sn00kie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Dude, your grandfather's mother is still alive?
    • sholt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11) What does a hardware revision, which will likely be mostly homogenous with the current platform, excepting some hardware changes that would likely get abstracted through drivers anyway, have to do with a SDK?

      2) What Apple is really saying here is: Do what you like with the software, but we're going to do what we like with our own software too, and our changes may break your things. So don't come crying if that happens.

      There's no malice here. At all. Things are always changing in the private stuff, and no one ever tells you. Usually, and mostly for the sake of the sanity of Apple's own developers, the API's aren't changed too much. But sometimes they do, your App breaks, and you gotta play catchup. This is what any developer should expect when working with private frameworks, and *all* of the iPhone's frameworks are private.

      Honestly, you sound like the kid who never believed that math really *is* easy for some people.
      • briankeith, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I don't know how you read my comment and yet, you completely missed what I was talking about.
  • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9"Apple: You have our blessing to hack the iPhone to bits"

    But the warranty is still voided.
  • DarkPrince11, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I believe the reason Apple hasn't released an SDK yet is because the iPhone's os is Darwin 9, which is leapord. An SDK will probably come around early November.
    • jeffchuck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Do you have any evidence to support this?
      • sholt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11) Jobs has said that the OS X on the iPhone is based on Leopard.

        2) if you install the BSD Subsystem and a terminal emulator on the phone, uname -a reports Darwin Kernel Version 9.0.0d1

        Any comments about the possible future release of an SDK are complete guesses. However, this is at least an educated guess.
  • SD929, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Then stop ***** with ringtones! Christ almighty all I want is my 24 / CTU ringtone!
    • anonym41414, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0You and eight hundred thousand other people who think they're being unique and cool and clever.

      Jesus pete. It's just a damn phone. What does it matter what it sounds like when it rings?
  • TimmyGUNZ, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I wonder if they will try and stop iToner.
  • 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.
  • dupswapdrop, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Apple is not going to let 3rd party's make money off of them.
    They have been that way from the first apple on.
    • superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3That would make any sense if you didn't know about the huge number of third party accessories for the iPod (some that make use of the dock connector Apple publishes specs for), or about the third party software market for OS X, or any of the other many ways that Apple helps third parties make money.
    • DeFex, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1what about the real apps you have to buy to do serious work. (not itoys) you know, photoshop, pro tools and all that?
  • SirZRX, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4when the iphone first came out, i was an iphone hater, i am about to buy a new phone and i started to research, and i considered 3 phone, Tmobile Wing, THC touch and the iPhone, i watched videos and reviews of all of them, and i realized the potential of the Iphone.... and its just 300USD. no other phone on the market comparable for the same price. With a SDK im pretty sure that the iphone will run all kind applicatios.
  • deadbaby, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Smart move by Apple, as usual. How many iPhone users actually hack their phones? 10% (at most?) Who cares? Apple has nothing to lose or gain here.
  • TheMacThinker, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1This is exactly what we are thinking and hoping for.
    -------
    Unlocked iPhones at http://iphoneunlocked.mostofmymac.com
  • mikeazorin, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Thank you Apple for respecting one of the most essential rules of consumer products. If I bought it, I can do whatever the hell I want with it.
  • 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.
  • x788, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6"Jobs" + "Wozniak" = "Joswiak"
    that dirty name stealer!
    • firsttube, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think you're the first person to ever do that. Ever.

      No, really.
  • johncern, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5At least read the article. Buried as inaccurate.
  • Brawle, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Of course their Neutral....take this for example...If you hack your Iphone or Iproduct then...
    1. You can use your Iphone for other phone services which would make people buy more Iphones. The Fact that apple hasnt made it possible to unlock their phone is because they have a contract with AT&T...YOUR DOIN THE WORK FOR EM!
    2. If you hack it, its out of Warranty.......so yeah....the only way your fixing your Iproduct is buying a new one...or...(http://www.pdasmart.com/ipodpartscenter5g.htm) Send it into a 3rd party repair for a 100g upgrade! Love it...
  • ztaylor5273, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Think about their stance like this...

    If they start actively supporting and marketing toward the third party market or the homebrew market, they stand a good chance of alienating a good portion of the technically handicapped market that already uses their products. People that view the iPod or IPhone as user friendly will turn the other cheek if they see it marketed toward 'hackers'. 'Hackers' on the other hand have plenty of support from thier own communities and know good and well what products work for them and which don't.

    Apple has more to gain in securing their less tech savvy market than going after the 'hacker' or third party development market. It CERTAINLY wouldn't hurt for them to release a small sdk but it makes sense that they wouldn't go out of their way to support that market,
  • 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.
    • anonym41414, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0So you're suggesting that Apple's firmware updates should just magically avoid non-factory software that some Norwegian kid happened to install?

      Apple's position on the iPhone is the same as their position on the Apple TV and the iPod: Install what you want. If you break it, Apple won't give you a new one. And if Apple's software breaks it, tough. But within those limits, whatever, man. It's your free time.
  • klethron, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I want my ZunePhone complete with URGE and some other spyware crap.
    • DeFex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3lol i want my creative zen phone with real player and bonzi buddy.
  • mvpimpao, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0apple get its money from the selling of the iPhone.. not from xboxlive kinda thing (wtf lol)... thats AT&T´s problem. i could bet as Apple dont give a rat crap if people unlock their phones.
  • Dognutz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1bad title. Stoopid , bury. Who taught you to write titles??? FOX NEWS HAHHAHAHAHAAHAAHHAHA
  • tomis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Lack of a unified/documented SDK is just a sign that a platform is still in beta. Why buy a phone that's still in beta in the first place?
  • Jaymoon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Could it be that they aren't minding this one bit because there's no way on earth they are going to meet their projected 10mil. iPhones sold by the end of the year?

    Once the modding community builds up, sales start to rise, all the while Apple pretends it happened by pure chance... Pfffft.
  • jim1977, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Hmmm... saying the right things in the right places isn't the same as open source or releasing an SDK; it's just marketing talk for "we have a big wall, climb it if you want to, but it's not going away and it might move or get bigger."
  • Lazer32, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Its a Trap!
    • Mischa, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1A Mon Calamari Cruiser could take a Star Destroyer any day...

      and it took an armada of Cruisers to take down the Death Star 2.0. It worked. And it worked here. Keep the faith.
  • m2paper, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I wonder if they will try and stop iToner.
  • carl25, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1does it really matter ? they obviously can't stop people from hacking it.
  • HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1They reversed field.

    http://digg.com/apple/Apple_changes_mind_now_says_don_t_hack_iPhone
  • broodking, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0wow at last a good new age device that the company lets u hack there product

    now I'm only waiting for Sony to allow u to hack the PSP
  • penguincentral, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well, this is a surprising turn from the worst...
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 57 of 57 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.