What is Digg?Sponsored by wix.com
7 Comments
- inactive, on 02/07/2008, -1/+4I don't mind people criticizing Apple, but can we get some critics that at least can hold up a coherent argument. First, this guy says that the iPhone comes with a complicated list of rules and then he proceeds to give exactly 2 rules: you can't unlock the phone and you can't put unauthorized third party apps on it (currently). That doesn't seem terribly complicated to me.
And then the guy goes on to repeat the old myth about Apple "bricking" phones. I thought hacked firmware caused the bricking of phones. And didn't Apple warn people ahead of time that installing the update on hacked phones would brick them?
And then he suggests that Apple has a monopoly on their own product. Oh my God! Really? I just assumed that every company has a monopoly on their own product. Christ. Tell me this guy didn't get paid to write this.
But his next point takes the cake. He suggests that by controlling what applications go on the phone, Apple is creating "lock-in." I don't understand this point at all. So allowing other companies to make applications on the phone would create less lock-in? Correct me if I'm wrong, but when Apple finally allows third party apps for your iPhone, how the hell will that create less "lock-in." Wouldn't that mean that you're more likely to stick with your iPhone, rather than other smart phones, because you can suddenly get all the applications you want, instead of the few that Apple provide by default? This guy's argument makes absolutely no sense. - DaffyDuck, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2Maybe you should hold your judgement until the end of the month when the SDK ships.
- dssstrkl, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2I'm usually in complete agreement with Schneier, but he's completely off the mark on this one. Bricked phones were caused by unlocking apps altering the phone's baseband firmware in unknown ways. Apple even went so far as to add code in the 1.1.3 firmware to unbrick phones, as was noticed by Gizmodo and Engadget the day it was released.
Apple's control of the iPhone software (even remembering that no one knows how the native apps will work yet) has no effect on any lock-in. If you buy an iPhone, you are locked into a standard carrier contract. If you want an unlocked phone, either hack your iphone and update at your peril, or choose another manufacturer.
It seems like the editors at Wired have some beef against Apple, and get all of their columnists, even respectable ones like Bruce Schneier, to constantly bash them over non-existent issues. - thirdoptical, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2exactly.
3rd party apps written for the iPhone won't work on ANY other device (and not because of "authorization" but for the same reasons nintendo games won't play on a playstation, obviously) because iPhone apps won't be generic JAVA apps, they'll be full-blown applications.
So when we start getting nice 3rd party tools that either aren't available AT ALL, or don't work the same on other devices, we'll be even further "locked in" to the iPhone.
Somehow these pundits can't see the difference between "lock in" and "creating a compelling device, albeit with some limitations which most users are willing to accept as a trade off for what is otherwise far better than the competition." - thirdoptical, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2"Your iPhone comes with a complicated list of rules about what you can and can't do with it. You can't install unapproved third-party applications on it. You can't unlock it and use it with the cellphone carrier of your choice. And Apple is serious [blah blah blah...]"
wow. 2 rules. how totally complicated. how can anyone know what to expect!?
"A software update released in September 2007 erased unauthorized software and -- in some cases -- rendered unlocked phones unusable."
ANY software update will "erase unauthorized software" ...in fact, it will erase all everything, because a software update erases the filesystem and installs the new one. It's not as if Apple specifically programmed the updater to seek out and erase "unauthorized" applications, they just didn't bend around backwards for the few people who went ahead and did what Apple told them was unsupported. Apple even went as far as to WARN people that if they ignored their usage agreement, the update might not work as intended.
There is a big difference between "unauthorized" and "unsupported" - rgsteele, on 02/07/2008, -3/+2I'm sure I'm not the only one who is torn about the iPhone. On the one hand, it looks like an amazing device. On the other hand, Apple's attempts to control what you can do with it leave a bad taste in my mouth. The fact it still hasn't arrived in Canada yet may be a blessing in disguise, as it's forcing me to really think about whether I really want to buy one when Apple finally does release it here.
- dgaking, on 02/08/2008, -2/+0I thought it was great that people were coming up with "unauthorized" software for the iphone. I saw some cool stuff coming out, and that made me more interested in buying one. Now I am not so sure I will.
When you restrict users from coming up with their own software, you block creative ideas from letting the product reach its full potential. Your customers might also be happier with being able to customize the product for themselves. That is one thing that has often frustrated me with my Apple products.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is