What is Digg?145 Comments
- radicaldementia, on 10/10/2007, -5/+157So wait, Steve Jobs secretly supports iPhone hackers because 35 years ago he hacked a phone system that he didn't own? Are you kidding me, this is more like apple propaganda than actual news. Jobs is a corporate bigwig just like any other and is trying to balance his product's integrity against customer appeal. That's why he won't flat out support or condemn the hackers, because he knows either way he's going to piss off someone.
- otatop, on 10/10/2007, -1/+94"Why would Jobs take a stand against iPhone/AT&T hackers now?"
Because he wasn't losing money back when he and Woz were blue boxing. - JK124, on 10/10/2007, -3/+88When someone is a CEO/President, or any executive at a company, the most important thing to them is profits. Regardless of what they did in the past it's inevitable that most of them will change. You can take the same example as Google execs who "don't do evil." Now, if Apple didn't please their shareholders, they won't have the money coming in from them to continue their R&D for the newer iPods, Macs, etc. I'm not a Apple hater nor a Apple fan, but lets just try to look at this logically.. Regardless of what the past holds, when a business contract is made agreements need to be made (unless loopholes exist). :-)
SO, the whole point... Regardless of the past, MONEY TALKS! - carrera594, on 10/10/2007, -4/+68Thats what happens when you get billions of dollars.
This can all be fixed if he gives it to me. - Ghostsfp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+36I believe the term is "Phreaker"
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+36You mean "shudder"? Shutters are the little doors on windows.
- neoneddy, on 10/10/2007, -9/+37will someone think of the children!
- jdee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+22lol speaking of "grammar and spelling errors" ... I think you meant "article"
- thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12"Why would Jobs take a stand against iPhone/AT&T hackers now?"
Because he won't make money off of it. - KibibyteBrain, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Or maybe just when you get a job. Just because Steve is CEO doesn't mean he can do whatever he wants. He has a job to do, and has to do it as much as you have to do things for you job if you disagree with them or don't care about them personally. Jobs is a perfect example, as he was obviously fired before, so its not like Steve Jobs = the will of Apple.
- KSUdesigner, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I think he meant *shudders* too.
Edit: probably should've scrolled down, evenson beat me to it. - clearzen, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Steve Jobs is a corporate sellout. He cares about the $$$ thats it. Digg me down, but it's the truth. If it wasn't he would be helping people develop apps and not trying to lock people into proprietary systems to limit the choice of those with his products. That being said I still like Woz.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Yes, but does he run unbuntu, play bioshock, vote for ron paul, and slam creationists with his wordpress theme ideas?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Apple apologist alert.
- ThankTheCheese, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Woz goes into great detail about he and Jobs' phone hacking escapades in his book iWoz. it's a great book.
as a side note, while it was Wozniak that built the blue box, he made a point of still using the phone legally when calling people. He only used the blue box for calls he wouldn't have made anyway. I'm not sure Jobs was quite so honest. - fezzasus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Er yes.... because people don't change in 36 years?
The jump from 'he used a hack to get free calls' to 'not against iphone hackers' is impressivly ignorant.
Here's one reason why he is for it - Apple make money from the AT&T (and now O2 and T-mobile) contracts. - alex7575, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8I got the podcast version of the article, all you can hear is:
BAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!! - tobsterius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7It stands to reason that since Apple is rumored to have a profit sharing deal with AT&T (and probably the European carriers) they'll actually make *more* money with the phone locked to one carrier.
- msjacoby, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Um, because he's a BILLIONAIRE now?
- ben0x4a, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Both actions are motivated by one thing: Greed.
Then they *sold* blue boxes to make money.
Now he wants to prevent hacking to make money. - trunkster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Exactly, he was actually making money of the blueboxes then.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10it's just another apple apologist.
- bansai, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6USING PROFANITIES AND CAPS TO INSINUATE YOUR POINT IS NOT VERY NICE
- nodonoug, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Besides, Woz is the one who built the damn thing based on specs from the guys who figured it out in the first place.
- akf2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5This article is rubbish, cobbled together from some ***** that happened 20 years ago that has no bearing on what happens today, and it's firmware not "firm wire".
- zeptobyte, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Two hours is awfully slow for a pro-Steve Jobs article on Digg.
- korea, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Not to be an iconoclast, but let's not forget that Steve Jobs using someone else's homebrew devices for phone pranks is as much hacking as a teenager in the mid/late 90s picking up an IGMP pinger and 'hacking' win95 boxes or using an aimbot in counter-strike. zomg fonehax.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5so why did they decide to go exclusively to att and lock the phone in the first place?
- cozb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4shhh, Jobs has a secret bluebox function in the iphone , it only works on att's network.
- protium, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Wow, you fan boys are ridiculous, steve jobs is the greatest person in the world! he can do no wrong.. lets blow steve... yey Apple.
- airwalkery2k, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Why would Jobs have allowed an exclusive deal with AT&T in the first place if he were against AT&T?
- brufleth, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4By your logic developers would never do exclusive agreements on anything. No single carrier phones, no single platform games, etc. That isn't how things work.
- sweintraub, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3http://9to5mac.com/steve-jobs-hacks-phones-2345564 ...
this is a hack copy and paste of the original article - stellarceltic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You sure about that? They stand to lose a significant amount of income from AT&T. Enough to want to prevent unlocking? Probably.
- dtreichler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Revenue sharing. Some estimate that Apple sees as much as $360 per iPhone from AT&T.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/losing-mo ... - CannedMango, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3His ideas and opinions changed over the past 36 years?
The two situations are in a completely different context?
Say it ain't so! - OrangeTide, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3ethically it works (somewhat), legally it does not. Woz never said what he did was legal. Although at that time many people were not sure if it was legal or not. Once a judge figured out that it was equivalent to sticking a slug in a vending machine it quickly become illegal.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Anyone remember Apple's famous commercial about how IBM was the "big-brother"?
Seems like Steve is the big brother now... and he kind of looks like the guy on the big screen! - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3No, it meant blue boxes. Maybe it's before your time (it's also before mine, and I'm 30 - they didn't work by the time I heard about them at 13). But, it's where the name of the magazine 2600 (the frequency of the tone) and the pseudonym "Captain Crunch" (John Draper, who discovered that a whistle in a Cap'n Crunch box emitted the tone) arise. It allowed operator access on AT&T lines. The blue box stopped working long before the red box.
Actually, the 2600 tone worked when I was 13, but AT&T was aware of it and another operator would cut in if you played it. - Ravish, on 10/10/2007, -9/+12Apple will make more money by letting people unlock their iPhone. Moreover, there is no way Apple can stop them. The only thing they can do is to continue the cat-and-mouse game by releasing new firm ware versions.
- Juntistik, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You're the one coming off as A ***** NITWIT.
Who the hell uses nitwit anymore anyway? - Samji, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4His company loses money if so. That's why he's against it.
- jonshipman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2haha, double post
I heart digg comment system - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I GOT THE LOOT STEVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- specialK16, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3He isn't against AT&T.... Perhaps he was many years ago, but nowdays, AT&T gives him lots of cash. I don't know about you, I wouldn't be against someone who gives me lots of cash.
- mpancha, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2an entire article based on speculation... lovely. What Jobs/Woz did in the past is irrelevant to Jobs' decisions today.
- PabloMac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2See that pic of Woz holding the blue box...isn't he starring in that new "Cavemen" show?
- fowleryo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4totally agreed... browsing macrumors, it's pretty sad how people are sooo willing to drink the kool-aid, one of them even mentioning that Apple knows best and he'll enjoy whatever they give him.
- louiemantia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2bigwig? have you seen his hair?!
- Butros, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Billionaire is someone who is worth billions.... how is that an understatement? He's not a trillionaire... geesh
-
Show 51 - 100 of 145 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is