digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at engadget.com —

iPhone Dev Team jailbreaks firmware 2.0... before it's out

engadget.com — This is just getting silly, don't you think? The iPhone Dev Team has once again proven their totally gnarly talents by freeing up the latest firmware before it's even the latest firmware.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • grubeater, on 03/12/2008, -28/+10*****
  • nickbr00tality, on 03/12/2008, -9/+65pwned.
    • r3zonance, on 03/12/2008, -4/+19INACCURATE:

      I'd love to know how they managed that, as the firmware that ships with the iPhone simulator is 1.2.

      iPhone Dev Team has jailbroken 2.0 firmware, but only on the assumption that the SDK 1.2 firmware is the 2.0 firmware, which I highly doubt as it is missing a ton of functionality that will be in the 2.0 firmware update, and it isn't exactly the same as running on the iPhone anyway.

      1.2 is most likely just 1.1.4, but with some tweeks to get it to play nicely on the iPhone Simulator.
      • IEatHamburgers, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1What about the Enterprise beta? I thought they get the new 2.0 software if they're accepted.
        • sholt, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2Has that even been shipped to anyone yet though?

          1.2 is most likely not 2.0. If it were 2.0, it'd be called 2.0b (or something similar).
        • r3zonance, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1And you really think Apple would accept "iPhone Dev Team" (one of the biggest hacking communities on the iPhone) as a valid/legitimate "Enterprise"?

          Remember, application does not mean approval. Apple can still tell a company to sling their hook.

          Even so, doing what they've done would no doubt get them sued for breaching the licensing terms of the Enterprise agreement, no doubt.
          • jackyyll, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Just like the big movies "accept" release groups into their screener "list", right?
    • subfusc, on 03/12/2008, -1/+8phoned?
    • betobeto, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1iPwned.
      (fixed)
  • Quicksilver4648, on 03/12/2008, -2/+5Great (and sudden) news. I just hope its publicly released, even though it might not be due to Apple then being able to patch it up.
  • thesoze, on 03/12/2008, -14/+4EPIC WIN! for us!
    • r3zonance, on 03/12/2008, -1/+6Not really as it's 1.2 firmware they've cracked and not the 2.0 firmware (which won't even be ready until close to June).
  • highPhone, on 03/12/2008, -3/+110Apple is just a middleman for the Dev Team. I can see it now.... "Dev Team jailbreaks 3G iPhone firmware v3.1.2 ... before anyone at Apple starts developping it!"
  • Rictoo, on 03/12/2008, -6/+17Where did 1.3-9 go?
    • Sherman901, on 03/12/2008, -0/+27hell
    • mesasone, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3I'm guessing that the additional functionality from the SDK package and whatever firmware updates required to bring this out would qualify as a major release and thus earn the 2.0 moniker.
    • dinkola, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1V2 doesnt come out for a few months. There is time for a few bugs fixes/improvements before then.
    • corporalclegg24, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Can someone host a torrent with 2.0 firmware beta please?
    • Qumahlin, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Software versions don't work that way. You can jump from 1.2.3 to 4.3.4 depending on whats changed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning
    • likwidfuzion, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Firmware 2.0 is the alleged renamed version of Firmware 1.2 that was released to developers.
  • kromem, on 03/12/2008, -20/+48I love how far ahead the iPhone dev community has been compared to Apple.

    Like, Apple's AppStore is a blatant rip off of Installer, which took a centralized app management approach a la many of the popular linux flavors.

    The entire push for any native apps happened after the dev team jailbroke the phone and people developed awesome applications that normal iPhone users looked at and asked "hey - how'd you get that on your phone?" Before that happened, Apple was all "only webapps for the iPhone."

    If the iPhone ends up becoming an amazing, must have mobile platform, it will be because of the dev-team's efforts, and in spite of Apple's efforts.
    • zeeky, on 03/12/2008, -7/+23but aren't you happy this happened? i mean app store is gonna be ***** loads better than installer.
      • phoomp, on 03/12/2008, -0/+8Perhaps, but perhaps not. The App Store is gonna be better than Installer.app *right now*. But, Installer.app will improve with the SDK as well. I fully expect to see expanded greatness from the development community on the Jailbreak front. Installer.app will remain to be the free-est way for developers to distribute their apps as Installer doesn't require a $99/year hosting fee.
        • mcnearcj, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1I'm excited about the App Store. I do have my phone jailbroken but only for a few games and IM chat. I tossed on a few themes because I can but I could care less about the themes. I'd rather not have to jailbreak my phone but if it offers better things then that is what I'll use.
        • Vash265, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1I don't think App Store will either if you're submitting the programs for free, which I assume is what the vast majority(if not all) of the jail broken apps already are.
        • r3zonance, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1I don't expect any of the jailbroken required apps to get "better", as a lot of the function calls etc. that they used have now been removed from the publically available calls, and are sat hidden away in the protected areas. It will be made a lot more difficult for these "hack apps" to have a presence on the phone, least of all with the requirement of signed applications (either unsigned don't work or are severely restricted in what they can do).
          • mcnearcj, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1I could be wrong but I'd bet that they figure something out.
      • tehjarvis, on 03/12/2008, -1/+5How do you even know it will be better? You haven't seen it.
      • betobeto, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Define "better" ...
    • Firehed, on 03/12/2008, -0/+12I think everyone was expecting from the beginning that iPhone apps would run through iTunes. Is it the slightest bit surprising that they're going to put an app store on the phone? It's not as though there's a whole lot of change you can make to an interface for buying stuff. Popular, recommended, search.

      In any case, I think the current layout of Installer didn't show up until after the iTunes Store on the iPhone/iTouch. It's been a while so I can't say for sure, but it doesn't really matter because that's the natural result of progression given the set of interface guidelines and features that have been present since day one.

      And people had been bitching for native app support since day one. The movement just gained a bit more steam once native apps started showing up after the jailbreaking happened.
    • r3zonance, on 03/12/2008, -4/+5"If the iPhone ends up becoming an amazing, must have mobile platform, it will be because of the dev-team's efforts, and in spite of Apple's efforts."

      Not really, Apple had provided a nice PRIVATE SDK, that the iPhone Dev Team discovered and poked around with. It's not like the iPhone Dev Team made the SDK/APIs themselves.
    • MrViklund, on 03/12/2008, -7/+15kromem. Use your brain. Apple had Applications planed for the iPhone long before you even were born. The thing is that Apple never tell what they are up to, for the most part. The web applications were just a diversion.
      • phoomp, on 03/12/2008, -1/+5Or, Apple truly did have their head in the sand and AT&T pushed for web-apps. If Apple *did* have native apps in mind, they certainly took their time getting them out, while the dev community was able to develop some *amazing* applications with *zero* support from Apple.
        • Kerrigore, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3Yeah, not like it's harder or any different to create a powerful SDK that allows a wide range of developers to easily create applications than it is for a small group of hackers to make a few apps using the private built-in SDK.
          • phoomp, on 03/12/2008, -2/+1iPhone OS is a stripped down MacOS. MacOS has SDKs. Do the math.
        • mesasone, on 03/12/2008, -2/+2No, I think this is just a standard Apple tactic... hold back/cut features so you can release them to great fanfare and publicity at a later date. It's a great PR tactic to keep hype up on their products and make them look like they are user-orientated.
      • Lyph5, on 03/12/2008, -0/+4"Apple had Applications planed for the iPhone long before you even were born."
        Apple said that non-webapps would NEVER exist for the iPhone, and that only a "small group" would be interested in them. It is the popularity of installer.app that made change their mind about that. If they had been planning Apps since day one, they would have given the SDK out before the iPhone was launched. They're covering their asses now, since Apple misjudged what the people wanted.
    • rossisdead, on 03/12/2008, -3/+8How exactly is the AppStore a rip off of Installer? Because it's a program on the phone that'll give you a list of ***** to download? How else are they supposed to do it?
      • Kerrigore, on 03/12/2008, -2/+6They were supposed to throw up their hands and just go "Wow iPhone dev team, you're so awesome that we're going to buy your app and development efforts for $100million because they are so much better than anything we've been working on."

        /sarcasm
    • azpat, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1If that's the case, they should focus thier attention to the Open Source phone, openmoko.
      • nailer, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Or Android, which is OSS and has way more support.
    • utahnkid, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2I think there's waaaay more chances of ol steve wanting to cash in on the possibility of people developing and distributing apps but wanted to wait until his own people had a system up and running that could control everything.. Apple isn't doing as well as it does at predicting future markets because they get ideas from "dev teams"
  • markwilcox, on 03/12/2008, -9/+1I lol'd
  • monkeestylee, on 03/12/2008, -6/+5epic. yay iphone devs.
  • laurabay, on 03/12/2008, -11/+3News are wrong. Gizmodo has the whole story.

    http://digg.com/apple/iPhone_2_0_Jailbroken_Unlock ...
  • frickinfreezing, on 03/12/2008, -3/+3Kinda less than half the story here, its actually unlocked and jailbroken and pretty awesome.
  • foxhaze, on 03/12/2008, -9/+2I would normally say that Apple sucks, but that's pretty cool.
  • macwac, on 03/12/2008, -5/+7I'm still waiting for the iPhone to come to my country.. this is getting pathetic! Steve get your thumb out and stop with the stupid contracts and sell the phone like any other cell product.
    • r3zonance, on 03/12/2008, -6/+2What, like the XDA (oh hang on that's O2 only), or the SPV (oh hang on they are Orange exclusives).
      • mesasone, on 03/12/2008, -0/+4Oh, come on. His meaning was obvious, carrier exclusivity sucks.
        • r3zonance, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Well he should have said that then. Instead his point came across as something completely different.

          However, do you really think you'd be able to use the iPhone on cheaper contracts even if it was available to other carriers? My guess is no, because the iPhone is a sought after product. There's a high demand, and poeple would be willing to pay a high price to get one on other carriers.

          Really, what is the point of having the iPhone if you haven't got Visual Voicemail or a pretty much unrestricted, unlimited data plan? Most of the appeal of the device (on its merits) goes out the window.
    • dave911la, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2haha. just give me an extra 100$ and ill get one for you and mail it to you!
    • KennMac, on 03/12/2008, -0/+31. eBay
      2. Unlock phone.
      3. ???
      4. Profit.
  • chislev, on 03/12/2008, -16/+1Old News. Tell me when they put linux on the Iphone.
  • thebrokenlight, on 03/12/2008, -2/+5Can't wait for this firmware to leak. :)
  • jcr223, on 03/12/2008, -14/+8I farted
  • Zorn85, on 03/12/2008, -3/+12So I'm curious, if they managed to jailbreak the 2.0 firmware, that must mean they actually *have* said firmware. If that's the case, why not release it for all of us? I would love to FINALLY be able to connect to Ohio State's 802.1x wireless and not wait till June.
    • Firehed, on 03/12/2008, -0/+18Because that WILL get them sued.
    • incognit0, on 03/12/2008, -2/+23Someone should *anonymously* leak it onto BT. once it drops there's no stopping the spreading.
      • keozen, on 03/12/2008, -0/+6Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I know the versions of the firmware in the SDKs will be watermarked in some way like the internal apple ones usually are pre-release. So if someone DID leak it to BT they'd know who.
    • r3zonance, on 03/12/2008, -5/+3They don't have said 2.0 firmware. It is an assumption that the 1.2 firmware shipped with the SDK is the 2.0 firmware that will be made publically available. I doubted that would be the case before, and it's almost an impossibility now.

      If the articles said "1.2 firmware jailbroken", it wouldn't have grabbed the headline as well.

      As usual, sensationalist, melodramatic journalistic *****. As they always say "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story".
      • Zorn85, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2So there's a firmware included with the SDK labeled as 1.2? With new features (since the screens show a Parental Controls preference)?
        • bigsteve, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1It's the one loaded on the simulator.
        • r3zonance, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1"So there's a firmware included with the SDK labeled as 1.2? With new features (since the screens show a Parental Controls preference)?"

          Basically...YES
      • phoomp, on 03/12/2008, -0/+4The firmware shipping with the SDK will have to be pretty close to the 2.0 firmware. Otherwise, it defeats the point.
        • r3zonance, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Not really, all it has to do is have the ability to load applications onto it. All other functionality (except for Parental Controls) may not available until 2.0

          What the firmware has to do is give developers the ability to install the applications, nothing more. None of the enterprise features are required to install applications. They are two discretely different pieces of functionality, that server completely different purposes.

          The SDK isn't go to have any massive changes to it, so 1.2 will be about 95+% compatible with 2.0. For example 486 code would still execute on a Pentium (as long as there weren't any "code hacks"), but Pentium specific instructions wouldn't work on a 486 EVER.

          Apple will have only given you the absolute minimum that is required to do the whole "app installing" bit.
  • antiorblkflag9, on 03/12/2008, -7/+11Bitching. As an iPod touch user I refuse to pay twice for software updates that new iPod users get for free and all iPhone users have already had.
    • r3zonance, on 03/12/2008, -11/+4iPod Touch owners need to stop complaining, ever thought that some of the "cut" Apple is getting from the network operators each month is paying for the iPhone updates?

      Probably not, because that is logical idea rather than a conspiracy theory. And the conspiracy theory is a lot more juicy.

      Basically, if it's not a security update, it looks like the iPod Touch users will be paying for it. Would you buy a car, and then demand they fit climate control to your car because it comes as standard with the same model a year down line? No you wouldn't, because you have no legal standing to do so.
      • franklymister, on 03/12/2008, -4/+3Careful, you're suggesting that corporations in a capitalist society be allowed to actually profit!
      • psychoace, on 03/12/2008, -0/+18I bought Crysis for $50. I am getting free updates on that product. I pay $300 for the Ipod Touch and I have to pay for updates. If some game companies can do it with much less of a profit margin on each product they sell, then I am sure Apple can do it.
        • r3zonance, on 03/12/2008, -6/+2Crysis is software, the iPod Touch is a piece of hardware. Although the iPod Touch requires software to run, don't confuse the two. Crysis is buying software and the iPod is buying hardware.

          I bought GTA 3, doesn't give me the right to a free copy of "GTA: Vice City" (which was basically GT3 with different locations, missions and vehicles).

          And with nearly all games software, you have to PAY for "Expansion Packs" (unless you use BT :P)
          • BryanJK, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3no, your updating the software on the ipod
          • r3zonance, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1"no, your updating the software on the ipod"

            Really, where are the enterprise features in the current iPod Touch?

            How can you upgrade a part of the system that doesn't actually exist (i.e. the Enterprise functionality).

            Moving the icons around on your home screen was an upgrade, because the home screen actually existed on the iPod. However, Mail and Maps certainly weren't on the iPod hence why it was a paid for upgrade.

            Basically, you can't always get something for nothing.
      • bsonline, on 03/12/2008, -3/+2The real comparison should be the lease v purchase model. iPhones are basically leased for the first 2 years. What do you pay? With your lockin to a contract. Updates to the iPhone are subidized through the 15-20 bucks per month ATT pays apple for exclusive rights.
        Who is paying apple to lower the price on your Touch? No one. But, the updates are frequent enough you could probably call it defective and return it to the store where you bought it and get the update that way... :-)

        And, to top off my original comparison... when you buy a car, you have that car. You pay for any upgrades that way. With a lease, you can trade the car in periodically for an updated model.
        • r3zonance, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Damn fine analogy all round, even the car one makes sense (which probably a digg first).
      • bigsteve, on 03/12/2008, -1/+2You gotta knock it off with this "logic." This is digg, my friend. Just say "Apple should open it up to all networks! Their greedy!" And you'll get back in the positives.
    • ipitydafool, on 03/12/2008, -8/+4Jerks want everything for free. Pay your dues *****!
    • phoomp, on 03/12/2008, -0/+6No worries ... with the Jailbreak, you don't have to pay.
    • DarkDx, on 03/12/2008, -1/+2Maybe because Activesync COSTS to license? There's no excuse for the past update tough.
  • frosted, on 03/12/2008, -8/+2Apple just doesn't understand that popular products will be hacked.
    • insertAliasHere, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1I think that Apple understands this fact perfectly.
  • adrianc1982, on 03/12/2008, -3/+3This was a major release for apple, i wonder if apple is going to speed things up and maybe do something to lock the phones again.
  • physivic, on 03/12/2008, -2/+7On the contrary, frosted, Apple knows it. They have to keep it managed to please AT&T & their shareholders. Stock prices are picky; investors (stockholders &c.) don't know so much, on the whole, about these details. Better to fail to explain this exigency of hardware manufacturing, no?

    Think about it: the development is done with a very similar tool set to the one they depend upon for all Mac development, their major platform! They *know* that plenty of coders are experts in it. They have to make some effort for the At&t people's satisfaction.
    • trekkie, on 03/12/2008, -1/+3Yeah I'm not sure I understand all the ' ha ha ***** you apple' type responses. It doesn't appear to me that they are actively going out of their way to stop people from hacking the thing.

      Sure, they come out with updates and/or bug fixes and some of the hacks could/did blow up if you tried to put the update on it, but I seriously doubt this was on the order of magnitude of 'DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run' of days gone by.

      I'm happy people can and do hack and they get something out of it, personally, I've not seen anything come out of the community that has made me want to jailbreak the phone...I mean TMObile doesn't exist in my area, and AT&T works fine for me, so I don't need to be 'unlocked' and I've not seen an app yet that I felt was worth it to me.

      Maybe with the SDK out and people wanting to stay away from the App Store there might be a few things, but I really don't see why (Other than GPL Zealotry) you wouldn't want the exposure/revenue potential of using the App store unless you want to sell porn (which I disagree with Apple's policy on that, talk about a money maker)
  • digitallysick, on 03/12/2008, -4/+5I think im going to sit this one out, my last jail breaking experience wasn't so great. I used ziphone, but my mail app would crash and summerboard themes wouldn't work. Finally i just wiped it clean and started over, looks like i will have to do without the jailbreaking from here on out.
    • r3zonance, on 03/12/2008, -1/+3And that's why Apple doesn't want to give you a "completely open platform to install any apps you like" onto.

      I wish people would see that, although that's another argument altogether.
      • gyronic, on 03/12/2008, -1/+2Riiiiiiiiight... Would you buy a Mac if it was locked down so you could only use Safari?!?
        Use your brain.
        People struggle with the same issues on their laptop and desktop, keeping their anti-virus up-to-date and not visting .ru P0rn sites.
        The iPhone is a connected device just like your pc/mac.... deep thought.. i know.
        Apple wont give you "a completely open platform to install any apps you like" because its a revenue stream for them.
    • phoomp, on 03/12/2008, -0/+6funny ... Jailbreaking was dead simple for me.
    • Phatt138, on 03/12/2008, -0/+4Digitallyslick - you could always try again. Sometimes things just don't work the first time around. Since iTunes backs up your data and restores it like new, it's only an hour or so of time you'd be losing for your effort. Plus - not sure if you're aware - certain SummerBoard themes need an update (available via Installer, of course), to show up in 1.1.3 & 1.1.4. They 'work,' they just don't show up on the list w/o the patch.
      • tyywebb, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2Still on 1.1.2 here... : D
      • digitallysick, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2I've tried a few times, but i keep running into issues mail app crash, or cant click links in safari. I was fine until 1.1.4, might stick with 1.1.3
  • MrViklund, on 03/12/2008, -15/+9I think that the iPhone Dev Team should get a life, stop hacking, use the Apple SDK and stop think that they are so cool.
    • phoomp, on 03/12/2008, -1/+6*I* think the iPhone Dev Team should keep on being so cool!
    • Newportbeachguy, on 03/12/2008, -2/+2*thinking
    • Phatt138, on 03/12/2008, -0/+5MrVik - then you don't understand why people hack -or- why people want the iPhone to -be- hacked. The thing's like a handheld computer, and is limited only by the restrictions that Apple places on it (well, that and its hardware capabilities, of course). The ability to 'hack' it simply allows you to use it in whatever way you want. If you don't like that, just STFU and enjoy your weather applet and push email.
      Even after the SDK release, Apple will undoubtedly refuse to officially publish applications that do anything outside of the ordinary, such as allowing terminal emulation. Were you aware, for instance, that you can use your iPhone to log in to your computer remotely (yes, even over Edge), transfer files, play your entire music library from your home computer, etc etc? -You- may not care about these things, but -I- do, and I paid my money just like everyone else. If I own my phone, I should be able to do whatever I want within its capability, and -that's- what hacking the iPhone is all about, and it will still be quite relevant even after the SDK becomes more widely available.
  • Sheff, on 03/12/2008, -5/+9Once the iPhone is open to use on any network without having to hack it, then I will actually consider buying one.
    • r3zonance, on 03/12/2008, -1/+2Only 3-4 years to wait then, depending on which country you live in).
    • Twee, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1Why not just get an iPod touch?
  • TheHogester, on 03/12/2008, -5/+3Apple are either doing something very clever here, or something very stupid. I'm still not sure which.....
  • DownFromTheDeep, on 03/12/2008, -2/+3is this for ipod touch as well?
  • fuhcough, on 03/12/2008, -1/+3man a friggin iPhone 101 would be great to explain all this jailbraking/unlocking to the rest of us who aren't as plugged in as the rest. :)
  • rdas7, on 03/12/2008, -8/+2Man, this is awesome news. I'm so excited about the prospect of spending my time and effort to develop an iPhone native app and give it away for free rather than getting paid for it! Suck on that, Apple! With any luck, everyone with an iPhone will be able to get all their software like that — so even if greedy developers *want* to get paid for their software, we can still all use it for free! Haxxorz FTW!!
    • subliminalurge, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1Wanting to get paid for your work makes you greedy?

      Spoken like someone who's mommy and daddy still buy his groceries.
    • gep642, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Dumb. Make a program worth buying and people will buy it. Make a program that anybody can look at and program themselves, and they will. Then it's their choice whether or not to release it for free.
  • HepDogz, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1This is just a beta release that's been hacked. I'm sure once the final release comes out, Apple will "fix" this. Of course, I doubt we'll see the final out for less than a day before the iPhone dev team works their magic again.
    • phoomp, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1And, after they "fix" that, the dev team will just break it in a few days again.
    • KingChronic, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2You do know that it only took them a day to jailbreak this starting when they obtained it from the source?
  • franklymister, on 03/12/2008, -3/+27With only AT&T and T-Mobile as GSM options in America, I'm happy staying with AT&T, not to mention being able to use Visual Voicemail, so I don't need unlocking anyway.

    I had my phone jailbreak'd for a few months to be able to use third-party apps, but I'd much rather be running apps made with the official SDK. Navizon and Apollo were great when there was no other option, but damn they crashed my phone a lot.

    A big thank you to all the hackers who kept the iPhone interesting in the pre-SDK days, I hope they resurface as "official" Apple developers so that we can benefit from their continued work, and maybe they can finally get a buck themselves.
    • mlavergn, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Actually, Cingular is not technically the same as AT&T, even though they are owned by AT&T. Also, there are many regional GSM carriers: http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/cou_us.sht ...
      The primary use for unlocking, apart from T*Mobile and Cingular subs, is international travellers. They don't sell them here, but most other countries offer prepaid SIM cards that you simply buy from a shop, pop in your phone, and you have local service, no roaming, no extra charges. There's really no good reason for a company to lock a SIM under that to bind you to a particular carrier. If you don't travel, or don't mind paying for international roaming, and are happy with AT&T, then more power to you. However, it's nice to know you at least have the option of swapping out the SIM if you want / have to.
      • franklymister, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Or you can just do like I do, and have a cheap unlocked handset that you take overseas for phone calls, and use your iPhone in WiFi only mode while you're there.
    • chrisc801, on 03/12/2008, -0/+5$60 a Month Minimum... No thanks
    • Wootstapler, on 03/12/2008, -1/+4I wish I had AT&T. Gayrizon blows ass. Every friend of mine that has AT&T always has reception when I don't. I guess their commercial doesn't lie when they say more bars in more places...
  • 0x90, on 03/12/2008, -6/+4Where can I get a copy of the 2.0 firmware?
    • sholt, on 03/12/2008, -2/+1You can't, it's not released.

      Apple released 1.2 to developers, but it's only an assumption that the final version (2.0), 2 months away from release, will be based on this.
    • paloooz, on 03/12/2008, -2/+3Torrent, please. kthxbai
    • KingChronic, on 03/12/2008, -2/+2No, it has not been released to the general public, nor has it been leaked to the public. Nor has it been given to devs. Nor has it been given to enterprise customers. It was obtained by an inside source
  • keozen, on 03/12/2008, -1/+4As long as I can get the following for free or cheap-ish when the sdk apps come I'll stay un-jailbroken, if not then jailbreaking for me:
    a decent ebook reader (that I can import my own files to), a decent multi IM client & a decent RSS feed reader
  • InorganicMatter, on 03/12/2008, -0/+8This is getting almost as funny as the PSP scene is. The "firmware updates" are quickly becoming nothing more than key changes to break the old cracks, and it's decrypted before it's even released.
    • KingChronic, on 03/12/2008, -1/+3No, I'm afraid this is different. There are many new features in this. All the ones that Jobs showed at the 3.6.08 event plus many more. I will be publishing a video with a walkthrough of it
      • chrozz, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1listen to this guy! good working with the jalbreaking :) .
  • ipitydafool, on 03/12/2008, -2/+2What's the point of jailbreaking anymore if those same hackers can just publish their apps legit through the SDK and distribute them for free?
    • mlavergn, on 03/12/2008, -0/+7... because Apple won't allow ALL types of applications via their distribution method. So, no SIM unlock, no Terminal, no Skype, no apps to leverage the existing Calendar, no apps to work with Contacts, etc. If Apple opened up the iPhone the way Mac OS X is open, then you'd be right. On that note, maybe Apple will eventually open up the iPhone that way, but in the meanwhile, the official SDK and XCode integration is really very well done.
    • phoomp, on 03/12/2008, -0/+7Because, $99/year to host isn't "free"
  • sholt, on 03/12/2008, -4/+6Inaccurate.

    They have firmware 1.2. Firmware 2.0 is roughly 2 months away from it's expected release date, lots can change in that time. The assumption that 2.0 will be similar to 1.2 is just that: an assumption. I see no reason to believe 1.2 == 2.0.
    • bigsteve, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1A great big reason to believe that they're at least very similar would be so that apps written now -actually work- when 2.0 ships, and not negate the great big head-start that Apple gave developers. I think that'd be a good reason. I'm speculating without seeing the 1.2 included with the simulator, but it probably just includes the underpinnings required to identify and run signed apps, and doesn't include all the other neat business-class features (Exchange, Cisco IPSec VPN, etc).
  • rillo561, on 03/12/2008, -1/+0I would like a custom firmware, like the PSP scene
  • pond70, on 03/12/2008, -2/+3COME ON !!! they are blowing Apple's revenue and marketing model ..what will the share holders say ? and how the hell will they pay for the next round of "apple i-lifestyle" adverts ..i need more retarded one hit apple advert songs to keep humming
  • drewie123, on 03/12/2008, -2/+1two words: ***** YEEES!
  • ramsinks.com, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1Wow, sounds like a 5yo wrote that article.
  • protoZ, on 03/12/2008, -1/+4I think its awsome.
    But even more awsome it lol-zibri's reaction on his site

    "ZiPhone has been proved
    to work on 2.0 beta firmware

    I will not release a new version
    until it will be officially out.
    I am not as stupid as other people."

    He has no 2.0 firmware and he prolly dont have any clue how to jailbreak it. He is such a tard
    • KingChronic, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2True and true. The ramdisk exploit that Zibri uses has been patched on 1.2.0
  • gyronic, on 03/12/2008, -2/+3Do you guys really think Apple is going to allow apps that interfere with their business model?
    I think not.
    Free your itunes? NO.
    Swap files? NO.
    Buy content from other outlets? NO.
    Free VOIP? NO.

    Microsoft already tried this "software signing", they failed.
    Apple is next in line to fail with the same model.
    Limited SDK access to their platform is a JOKE. No matter how neatly wrapped it is.
    Apple gave "developers" a reach around.

    Especially with an open system like android/GOOG hot on their tail.
    • bigsteve, on 03/12/2008, -2/+2Apple actually didn't mention VOIP over wifi (they specifically said no VOIP -over EDGE-, which them specifying even that much leaves things open for wifi) as something that they'd block.

      I'm not sure what you mean by limited. The access to the SDK isn't limited, anyone can download it free, make iPhone binaries, and test them on a simulator. The SDK has well-documented access to all the system's sensors and features. Every API is broken down and explained.

      If you want a cert to test it on a real device, then you pay the $99, and with that, get your program hosted on the app store that will be in -everyone's hands-. Microsoft never put anything similar together, I think maybe 1 in 20 Pocket PC users- certainly very few that I've met, and I've supported lots- know they can even load apps onto their devices. All it would take even my 68 year old father is to say "hey, what's this button." He clicks it, is presented with a store where he can easily search categories of apps, I'm sure it won't take him long to stumble upon a $5 Blackjack game of some sort, and with one click he has a new shiny button on his home screen.

      The -only- thing that makes this similar to the awful Pocket PC is the use of a certificate. Everything else about the app store is pretty much a game changer. If android team can do better, that means competition and a better product for everyone. I wish them luck... I think they're going to need it.
      • gyronic, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1You are missing the point. They could/should offer both.
        A "store" for your "68 year old father" AND allow developers low level/FULL access to the device.

        The SDK is limited in its technical scope, not access to download it.
        Read up on the sdk and the API's offered... after you do some research you will see what I mean. Apple is not allowing developers compete access to the phone. All in-all we will see continued development on "the jailbroken side" because of this.

        As for the VOIP, its just an example of their restrictions.
        They like their revenue streams...
        What better revenue stream is there for them? 30% off the top for doing nothing but hosting the repository and checking apps for malware/viruses.

        Again, Microsoft tried this and it ended with complete FAIL.
        Good luck to Apple, they are gonna need it!
        • bigsteve, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Read up on the SDK? I'm using it. What more access do you want to hardware? What's missing? Yea, you can write things like P2P clients via the jailbroken method of software delivery, not because of the SDK's limitation to hardware, but because of Apple's limitation to allowing "bandwidth hogging" softwares on their store.

          VOIP over EDGE isn't barely possible technologically, ever tried it? Make a Skype call over 56k and let me know how it goes. Apple in their SDK TOS specifically says "No EDGE VOIP." If the decision was based on the AT&T partnership business model, it would have said "No VOIP." and not specified the delivery method. Wifi VOIP is NOT A THREAT to the AT&T partnership. If you think so, you're delusional. Who will use it? Who will set it up? Who has accounts with internet telephony providers, or has their own Asterisk box set up? Who is the iPhone owner savvy enough to know what SIP is, and how to tweak it? 0.05% of the iPhone installed base, maybe?

          And of course they like their "revenue streams." They're under CONTRACT OBLIGATION to their shareholders. Welcome to being capitalism and a publicly traded company. Apple isn't going to do what's 100% very best for their customers and make a perfect solution because they make shiny things.

          Again, I have no idea how you're drawing a parallel between this and Mircosoft's failed cert-to-run abomination. The only thing they have in common is the word "certificate." That's it. No store, no 70/30, no incentive, awful documentation, no two-click downloads, no push. It's as if MS doesn't care that their platform can even run 3rd party apps.

          Fortune 500 Apple is going to be just fine without business tips from the digg peanut gallery. I'm sure they got a research guy on the payroll who's heard of Windows Mobile's certificate service.
  • KingChronic, on 03/12/2008, -3/+8I can not go into too much detail, but I've been working on this with the dev team and it is real. It will not be released, the .IPSW is only available to a tightly-knit group in the dev team, and nobody else.

    By the way, it is not out to devs nor enterprise customers yet. It has been obtained by a person who would like to simply be known as "R", and I can't say anything else.
    • Wootstapler, on 03/12/2008, -1/+2You're cool.
    • ackermannc, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1That's more of a disservice to limit it than anything if it has that kind of functionality.
  • yanivalfasy, on 03/12/2008, -0/+4I don't imagine there would be any problem leaking it now. I don't think apple is *trying* to break unlocked iphones, I think they update their code as necessary and if it breaks an unlocked phone, then it breaks, but they certainly aren't catering to developing around jailbreaking techniques. Therefore, there's no reason to wait to leak this type of jailbreak software.
    • gyronic, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1Apple will sue their ass off.. without a doubt.
      Hell, they spent over $2 mil chasing after some kid that was only leaking PR announcements.
  • l33tforlif3, on 03/12/2008, -4/+3This was a TRIUMPH!
  • InnerBlueAbyss, on 03/12/2008, -4/+3Zune 2.0 FTW!
  • ensert13, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1Why would you even want to jailbreak 2.0, they are ALLOWING us to use 3rd party apps fresh off the firmware. I guess for the sheer fact of just saying its possible?
    • gyronic, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2ummm they are ALLOWING 3rd party apps THEY APPROVE OF.
      There is a HUGE difference.
      (see my comment above)
    • bigsteve, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2Write access to the volumes, services like ssh, free ringtones, apps Apple deems "restricted," etc etc. Will I jailbreak mine? Maybe. Really depends on the apps available via the app store vs. the "alternate route." If there's still a significant reason to do so, then why not... doesn't hurt anything.
    • bohemian03, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1we want more free apps... at least i do.

      when i jailbroke my 1.1.4 firmware, there were great apps to install but i also wanted to install apps that apple provided so being able to install apps from both sources will be great for me.
  • robodork, on 03/12/2008, -1/+2maybe if they let people use their own apps people wouldn't need to hack it...good thing i already hacked 4.0 before they developed it
  • dizilbdog, on 03/12/2008, -1/+2Steve is mad how dare they use that SDK to hack the iphone , and make there apps better..
  • guttertrash, on 03/12/2008, -0/+4rofl. Has it actually occured to anyone here, that for apple to introduce the iphone, they needed a carrier, and at&t pretty much dicked them into that exclusive contract.
    they "could" make the iphone so secure you would have to hardware hack it to break in, but they wont. why? because they want people to be able to jailbreak it. they want people to be able to do whatever they want with their hardware.
    apple is, and for the most part has always been, a HARDWARE company. osx is a great operating system, but they make their money on selling hardware. and they don't really care what you do with it.
    they have to put some sort of rudimentary barrier in there so that at&t doesn't lose its rag at them, but i think you will find that the people who make the iphone os are well aware of the techniques used to jailbreak, and are intentionally doing a poor job of preventing people getting in. :)

    just a thought.
    • NuclearBunny, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1It costs Apple $266 to build an iPhone (at least from the standpoint of it's h/w components). Apple gets $18/month from AT&T for every iPhone contract. That's $432 over the life of a contract.

      It is Apple's best interest to keep the iPhone locked to AT&T's networks.
      • mattpotts, on 03/13/2008, -1/+0Steve Jobs has been quoted saying though that Apple is a SOFTWARE company.
  • SpookyApplePie, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1SWEET
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 58 of 58 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.