Legitimate app to use iPhone memory as a Windows folder?
John Doe
be used as an ordinary Windows PC folder? I would like to be able to drag
and drop (or at least somehow easily transfer) files to the iPhone from my
PC.
Thanks.
nospam
<jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
quite a few, including air sharing, filemagnet, files, file sharing,
folders, wi-fi file sharing and harddrive. they turn the phone into a
wireless network drive to which you can copy files and even view them
on the phone.
John Doe
> <jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>> ... transfer) files to the iPhone from my PC.
> quite a few, including air sharing, filemagnet, files, file sharing,
> folders, wi-fi file sharing and harddrive. they turn the phone into a
> wireless network drive to which you can copy files and even view them
> on the phone.
Do they all require wireless transfer? Do any approved applications
facilitate going directly to/from the PC through the USB cable?
Wi-Fi? Can my home wireless router be used to transfer them to/from the PC?
Thanks.
nospam
<jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
> Do they all require wireless transfer? Do any approved applications
> facilitate going directly to/from the PC through the USB cable?
they all use wifi.
> Wi-Fi? Can my home wireless router be used to transfer them to/from the PC?
sure. as long as the iphone is on the same subnet as the computer, it
will work.
John Doe
> <jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>> Do they all require wireless transfer? Do any approved applications
>> facilitate going directly to/from the PC through the USB cable?
>
> they all use wifi.
>
>> Wi-Fi? Can my home wireless router be used to transfer them to/from
>> the PC?
>
> sure. as long as the iphone is on the same subnet as the computer, it
> will work.
Please recommend some, simple as possible. Mainly, I just want to store
files on the iPhone like a USB flash drive.
John Doe
"Files"
The first one I noticed "WiFi HD FREE" is ridiculous.
jc
Files is pretty good. Of course nothing is as good as the old system
of making it just look like a USB disk, but "Apple knows best...".
One piece of advice. Be sure to configure your router to
always assign the same ip address to your iPhone. That
way, you can create a desktop shortcut without having
to reconfigure it every time.
-jc
Davoud
> Files is pretty good. Of course nothing is as good as the old system
> of making it just look like a USB disk, but "Apple knows best...".
Uh, I would say it's the Windows world that is guiding this. You see,
before Apple realized that their mobile products _had_ to be
Windows-compatible in order to sell big, we had FireWire--superior in
speed to USB, including USB 2 (FW 800). But, as the old-time Morse-code
radio operators used to say, you have to send for the slowest guy on
the net, and since Windows-only machines have spotty FW support, Apple
switched its mobile devices to USB. Macheads understood, but were
disappointed to be dragged down once more by Windows.
> One piece of advice. Be sure to configure your router to
> always assign the same ip address to your iPhone. That
> way, you can create a desktop shortcut without having
> to reconfigure it every time.
On the Mac a network device shows up regardless of the IP address. It's
a Unix thing, the ability to display all computers on the same subnet
without the user having to configure anything.
Davoud
--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
John Doe
> jc :
>> Files is pretty good. Of course nothing is as good as the old system
>> of making it just look like a USB disk, but "Apple knows best...".
>
> Uh, I would say it's the Windows world that is guiding this. You see,
> before Apple realized that their mobile products _had_ to be
> Windows-compatible in order to sell big, we had FireWire--superior in
> speed to USB, including USB 2 (FW 800). But, as the old-time Morse-code
> radio operators used to say, you have to send for the slowest guy on
> the net, and since Windows-only machines have spotty FW support, Apple
> switched its mobile devices to USB.
IPhones had FireWire support?
The USB has been king for a long time now. Everything is USB nowadays. If
you want to continue along that line, I guess you could call it "bad
planning". My guess is that it has to do with portability, like Java. If
you are Apple, portability is all you have.
Whatever... If you want to start a PC/Apple war, knock yourselves out. I am
here because of a (preliminarily) stunningly impressive handheld device.
Good luck and have fun.
nospam
<jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
> IPhones had FireWire support?
the ipod originally was firewire only. pc support was added with the
2nd gen ipod but it required a firewire card and music match software.
usb support was added in the 3rd gen ipod when the dock connector was
introduced, along with itunes for windows a few months later. firewire
sync was dropped with the 5th gen ipods, but they could still charge
over firewire, and much faster since firewire can source far more
current than usb can. the original iphone and ipod touch supported
firewire charging, but all remnants of firewire have been dropped with
the iphone 3g and the latest ipods.
nospam
wrote:
> > One piece of advice. Be sure to configure your router to
> > always assign the same ip address to your iPhone. That
> > way, you can create a desktop shortcut without having
> > to reconfigure it every time.
>
> On the Mac a network device shows up regardless of the IP address. It's
> a Unix thing, the ability to display all computers on the same subnet
> without the user having to configure anything.
actually that's bonjour, which is built-in on macs and iphones and can
be installed for windows.
Davoud
> > Uh, I would say it's the Windows world that is guiding this. You see,
> > before Apple realized that their mobile products _had_ to be
> > Windows-compatible in order to sell big, we had FireWire--superior in
> > speed to USB, including USB 2 (FW 800). But, as the old-time Morse-code
> > radio operators used to say, you have to send for the slowest guy on
> > the net, and since Windows-only machines have spotty FW support, Apple
> > switched its mobile devices to USB.
John Doe:
> IPhones had FireWire support?
You missed the point. The iPhone _would_ have been a FW device if it
had not been necessary for Apple to cripple its mobile devices for the
all-important Windows market.
> The USB has been king for a long time now.
With you, perhaps.
> Everything is USB nowadays.
Everything that doesn't need the best possible throughput. My video
cameras, my external HD's are FireWire. Anyway, we should all be
grateful that the Windows world followed Apple's lead in installing USB
on its computers; we would be using RS232 and 5-1/4" floppies
otherwise.
> If you are Apple, portability is all you have.
That and the world's best computer operating system!
> Whatever... If you want to start a PC/Apple war, knock yourselves out. I am
> here because of a (preliminarily) stunningly impressive handheld device.
If you think the iPhone is stunningly impressive, you should try a Mac
sometime. Same company, same philosophy, same insanely great user
experience, same control over hardware and OS--because it works better
that way.
nospam
wrote:
> > IPhones had FireWire support?
>
> You missed the point. The iPhone _would_ have been a FW device if it
> had not been necessary for Apple to cripple its mobile devices for the
> all-important Windows market.
it doesn't really matter since the speed of flash is slower than either
usb or firewire. the only drawback is that charging is slower via usb.
> > Everything is USB nowadays.
>
> Everything that doesn't need the best possible throughput. My video
> cameras, my external HD's are FireWire. Anyway, we should all be
> grateful that the Windows world followed Apple's lead in installing USB
> on its computers; we would be using RS232 and 5-1/4" floppies
> otherwise.
actually pcs had usb before apple did, but since the imac had no serial
ports, manufacturers jumped on the opportunity to sell usb devices,
whereas pcs back then had old and new style ports so most people kept
using the peripherals they already had.
Todd Allcock
While very interesting, none of that explains why the iPhone doesn't
support disk mode regardless of interface: USB or Firewire, and why WiFi
kludges like Airshare are needed...
nospam
<elecc...@aNOoSPAMl.com> wrote:
> While very interesting, none of that explains why the iPhone doesn't
> support disk mode regardless of interface: USB or Firewire, and why WiFi
> kludges like Airshare are needed...
what part of the file system would you expose? there is no 'home
folder', as each app has its own.
Larry
@newsfe07.iad:
> While very interesting, none of that explains why the iPhone doesn't
> support disk mode regardless of interface: USB or Firewire, and why WiFi
> kludges like Airshare are needed...
>
>
>
It's all about "customer control".....keep them depending on us and our
servers for their digital food chain.....
--
-----
Larry
Noone will be safe until the last lawyer has been strangled by the entrails
of the last cleric.
Larry
nos...@nospam.invalid:
Create New Folder......
Rename folder......
Delete folder......
is that too hard for an iphoner to comprehend? Every Windows housewife can
use it. Sooooo simple.
Copy/Paste
Move
Delete
files?
Duhh...(c;]
Way radical stuff! Maybe in 7.2 on the 8GSX spoon-fed iPhone.
(Linux users quit trying to bluetooth files to them, dammit.)
Todd Allcock
In the OP's case, he was simply looking for an iPod-style "disk mode" to
use the device s a USB flash drive, if I understood him properly, so he
didn't necessarily need the iPhone itself to "see" the files.
nospam
<no...@home.com> wrote:
> > what part of the file system would you expose? there is no 'home
> > folder', as each app has its own.
>
> Create New Folder......
> Rename folder......
> Delete folder......
> is that too hard for an iphoner to comprehend? Every Windows housewife can
> use it. Sooooo simple.
so simple yet you totally missed answering the question.
nospam
<elecc...@aNOoSPAMl.com> wrote:
> > what part of the file system would you expose? there is no 'home
> > folder', as each app has its own.
>
> In the OP's case, he was simply looking for an iPod-style "disk mode" to
> use the device s a USB flash drive, if I understood him properly, so he
> didn't necessarily need the iPhone itself to "see" the files.
which is what air sharing and the rest of the apps do, except over wifi.
Todd Allcock
> > > what part of the file system would you expose? there is no 'home
> > > folder', as each app has its own.
> >
> > In the OP's case, he was simply looking for an iPod-style "disk mode"
to
> > use the device s a USB flash drive, if I understood him properly, so
he
> > didn't necessarily need the iPhone itself to "see" the files.
>
> which is what air sharing and the rest of the apps do, except over wifi.
Yes, and that's why it's a kludge. There's already a perfectly good file
transfer cable in the box with every iPhone; a USB cable.
And while not every computer you might want to transfer a file to/from is
connected to a WiFi AP, virtually 100% of them have a USB port.
nospam
<elecc...@aNOoSPAMl.com> wrote:
> Yes, and that's why it's a kludge. There's already a perfectly good file
> transfer cable in the box with every iPhone; a USB cable.
>
> And while not every computer you might want to transfer a file to/from is
> connected to a WiFi AP, virtually 100% of them have a USB port.
so what part of the file system do you expose? all of it? then someone
could hack the os, something apple or the cell carriers doesn't want to
happen. there's no single home folder, so that won't work either. you
could have a shared folder, but that just complicates sandboxing the
apps.
plus, wifi is much more convenient anyway. who wants to fumble with
cables? just last week people bitched about voice control working with
headsets and not bluetooth. why would that be a problem, since the
headset comes in the box with every iphone?
Davoud
> > Everything that doesn't need the best possible throughput. My video
> > cameras, my external HD's are FireWire. Anyway, we should all be
> > grateful that the Windows world followed Apple's lead in installing USB
> > on its computers; we would be using RS232 and 5-1/4" floppies
> > otherwise.
nospam:
> actually pcs had usb before apple did
But it was Apple that popularized USB.
> but since the imac had no serial ports
Bzzzzzt! Every Mac had at least one serial port before the USB days.
nospam
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> Actually, they do have a point. The iPod touch allows disk mode, and
> its OS is the same as the iPhone's. It has the same vulnerabilities and
> safeguards as does the iPhone.
the ipod touch does not have disk mode.
> > plus, wifi is much more convenient anyway. who wants to fumble with
> > cables?
>
> What fumbling? You have to plug it in to recharge it, regardless.
> Whenever I'm at the computer, the iPhone is sitting in its dock.
and if you are not at the computer, then what? i certainly don't bring
a usb cable everywhere i go.
nospam
wrote:
> > actually pcs had usb before apple did
>
> But it was Apple that popularized USB.
it helped but it would have happened anyway.
> > but since the imac had no serial ports
>
> Bzzzzzt! Every Mac had at least one serial port before the USB days.
bzzt what? the imac was the first mac with usb and had no serial ports.
jc
> In article <Mce4m.6208$%R2.3...@newsfe07.iad>, Todd Allcock
>
> <eleccon...@aNOoSPAMl.com> wrote:
> > While very interesting, none of that explains why the iPhone doesn't
> > support disk mode regardless of interface: USB or Firewire, and why WiFi
> > kludges like Airshare are needed...
>
> what part of the file system would you expose? there is no 'home
> folder', as each app has its own.
That in itself was unusually short-sighted of Apple. I find it one of
the few really annoying things about the iPhone that apps can't
access each other's documents.
Even so, it would be useful even to have specific apps, like Files,
have both WiFi and disk mount access.
-jc
Todd Allcock
> > Yes, and that's why it's a kludge. There's already a perfectly good
file
> > transfer cable in the box with every iPhone; a USB cable.
> >
> > And while not every computer you might want to transfer a file
to/from is
> > connected to a WiFi AP, virtually 100% of them have a USB port.
>
> so what part of the file system do you expose? all of it? then someone
> could hack the os, something apple or the cell carriers doesn't want to
> happen.
How would you "hack the OS"? The firmware is in ROM?
> there's no single home folder, so that won't work either. you
> could have a shared folder, but that just complicates sandboxing the
> apps.
Which was a crappy idea in the first place! Sandboxing is a scheme used
by dumbphones' virtual machines.
> plus, wifi is much more convenient anyway. who wants to fumble with
> cables?
Good point. I'll concede when you remind me how to initiate a wireless
WiFi iTunes sync again?
That's right, APPLE wants me "to fumble with cables" by design! Wouldn't
it be easier to integrate all sync/transfer functions together, or at
least perform them all at one time when I'm forced to be cabled anyway?
> just last week people bitched about voice control working with
> headsets and not bluetooth. why would that be a problem, since the
> headset comes in the box with every iphone?
That analogy works better for my side- it was stupid not to work over BT
because similar device functions already did- I can talk via BT, why not
command Via BT? I can sync media via cable, why not data files?
I'm not anti-wireless sync in _addition_ to wired, but again, syncing
files outside of iTunes is already a kludge- doing it a completely
different way is even kludgier!
Here's one place Windows Mobile got it right a looooong time ago. Third-
party software is allowed to plug-in to Activesync, WinMo's sync
software, so if you create an app that requires files from the computer,
those can be configured to sync at the same time and in the same session
as your PIM data and media files. If apps could "hook" iTunes' sync
engine to sync files, you wouldn't need to manually transfer so much
stuff via WiFi.
John Doe
> At 05 Jul 2009 22:28:58 -0700 nospam wrote:
...
>> just last week people bitched about voice control working with
>> headsets and not bluetooth. why would that be a problem, since the
>> headset comes in the box with every iphone?
>
> That analogy works better for my side- it was stupid not to work over BT
> because similar device functions already did- I can talk via BT, why not
> command Via BT?
If you were familiar with speech recognition or at least interested in
using it, you might consider the possible reason is that wireless (versus
wired) makes speech more difficult to recognize. Having a tiny device like
the iPhone recognize any speech at all is impressive. I will be surprised
if most people are able to use iPhone speech input as advertised. Probably
has an extremely small vocabulary.
--
Google is the spammer's gateway to USENET...
Google has destroyed access to the USENET archive...
...down with Google
Todd Allcock
> >> just last week people bitched about voice control working with
> >> headsets and not bluetooth. why would that be a problem, since the
> >> headset comes in the box with every iphone?
> >
> > That analogy works better for my side- it was stupid not to work over
BT
> > because similar device functions already did- I can talk via BT, why
not
> > command Via BT?
>
> If you were familiar with speech recognition or at least interested in
> using it, you might consider the possible reason is that wireless
(versus
> wired) makes speech more difficult to recognize. Having a tiny device
like
> the iPhone recognize any speech at all is impressive. I will be
surprised
> if most people are able to use iPhone speech input as advertised.
Probably
> has an extremely small vocabulary.
I think your experience with "real" desktop speech recognition software
is prejudicing you. Speaker-independent voice dialing/control programs
have existed for dumbphones for years (and work over BT!) by keeping
vocabulary to a low, but perfectly adequate, level for it's purpose.
Presumably Apple's system works similar to Microsoft's Voice Command for
Windows Mobile. With MS' there are a few commands prebuilt into the
vocabulary (call, dial, run, show, play, etc.) and a few specialized
staus phrases ("what time is it?," "what is the battery/signal level?")
Once a command is interpreted ("call," run," or "play," for example) the
speech following the command is interpreted as an argument parsed against
data already present on the phone, and pre-analyzed for comparison
(contacts, installed apps, installed media, respectively.)
While the small number of commands are built-in and unchangeable, the
arguments recognized are as varied as the individual phone's stored
content, making the vocabulary appear infinite.
Dr Martin van Nostrum
>>> actually pcs had usb before apple did
>>
>> But it was Apple that popularized USB.
>
> it helped but it would have happened anyway.
Bollocks would it. The iMac is the reason USB became the de facto standard.
People have short memories. I can recall the many pundits in the press
who said the original iMac as doomed because it had no serial/parallel
ports and no floppy disc drive.
Sometimes people have to be led into the future. It's what Apple has
always done.
nospam
Nostrum <van.n...@theinstitute.ch> wrote:
> >>> actually pcs had usb before apple did
> >>
> >> But it was Apple that popularized USB.
> >
> > it helped but it would have happened anyway.
>
> Bollocks would it. The iMac is the reason USB became the de facto standard.
it may have accelerated it because all of a sudden there were a lot of
usb accessories, but it would have happened without the imac.
> People have short memories. I can recall the many pundits in the press
> who said the original iMac as doomed because it had no serial/parallel
> ports and no floppy disc drive.
pundits have been calling for apple's demise for decades.
nospam
<elecc...@aNOoSPAMl.com> wrote:
> How would you "hack the OS"? The firmware is in ROM?
it's in flash rom, and if disk mode starts at the root level of the
drive you can potentially hack anything.
> > there's no single home folder, so that won't work either. you
> > could have a shared folder, but that just complicates sandboxing the
> > apps.
>
> Which was a crappy idea in the first place! Sandboxing is a scheme used
> by dumbphones' virtual machines.
it has its drawbacks but it also makes the device more secure. there
is no way a rogue app can do something to affect any other app.
> > plus, wifi is much more convenient anyway. who wants to fumble with
> > cables?
>
> Good point. I'll concede when you remind me how to initiate a wireless
> WiFi iTunes sync again?
that would be nice, but it could take a while and wifi can also flake,
especially if the signal isn't strong.
> > just last week people bitched about voice control working with
> > headsets and not bluetooth. why would that be a problem, since the
> > headset comes in the box with every iphone?
>
> That analogy works better for my side- it was stupid not to work over BT
> because similar device functions already did- I can talk via BT, why not
> command Via BT? I can sync media via cable, why not data files?
i don't know why bluetooth voice control didn't make it into 3.0 but
it's apparently in 3.1.
John Doe
> At 06 Jul 2009 14:50:07 +0000 John Doe wrote:
>> ... you might consider the possible reason is that wireless
>> (versus wired) makes speech more difficult to recognize. Having
>> a tiny device like the iPhone recognize any speech at all is
>> impressive. I will be surprised if most people are able to use
>> iPhone speech input as advertised. Probably has an extremely
>> small vocabulary.
>
> I think your experience with "real" desktop speech recognition
> software is prejudicing you.
Fundamentally the same.
> Speaker-independent voice dialing/control programs
I guess that depends on what "control" means. Much of your post is
semantics IMO.
> have existed for dumbphones for years (and work over BT!) by
> keeping vocabulary to a low, but perfectly adequate, level for
> it's purpose.
>
> Presumably Apple's system works similar to Microsoft's Voice
> Command for Windows Mobile. With MS' there are a few commands
> prebuilt into the vocabulary (call, dial, run, show, play, etc.)
> and a few specialized staus phrases ("what time is it?," "what
> is the battery/signal level?")
>
> Once a command is interpreted ("call," run," or "play," for
> example) the speech following the command is interpreted as an
> argument parsed against data already present on the phone,
Yeah, and...
All speech recognition simply recognizes (chooses from) a list of
words.
> While the small number of commands are built-in and
> unchangeable, the arguments recognized are as varied as the
> individual phone's stored content, making the vocabulary appear
> infinite.
Whatever you mean by "appear infinite", the vocabulary is tiny
compared to dictation.
You are going haywire. Your original argument, the one I replied
to, was "I can talk via BT, why not command Via BT?"
Maybe programming for Bluetooth can be done as easily as
programming for a wired microphone, but there is a difference. It
would be a programming choice, depending on resources.
Davoud
> > > but since the imac had no serial ports
Davoud:
> > Bzzzzzt! Every Mac had at least one serial port before the USB days.
nospam again:
> bzzt what? the imac was the first mac with usb and had no serial ports.
My mistake. I misread and misinterpreted your phrase as "but since the
(early) Macs had no serial ports..."
Todd Allcock
> > How would you "hack the OS"? The firmware is in ROM?
>
> it's in flash rom, and if disk mode starts at the root level of the
> drive you can potentially hack anything.
I suspect anyone with that level of ability/nefariousness won't be
stopped by lack of root access. Look at Windows Mobile- they offer full
access to the file system, but the "ROM" (like the iPhone, WinMo devices
actually use flash memory to simulate ROM) is off limits and can only be
updated by special OEM-supplied applications, just like the Phone/iTunes.
> > > there's no single home folder, so that won't work either. you
> > > could have a shared folder, but that just complicates sandboxing the
> > > apps.
> >
> > Which was a crappy idea in the first place! Sandboxing is a scheme
used
> > by dumbphones' virtual machines.
>
> it has its drawbacks but it also makes the device more secure. there
> is no way a rogue app can do something to affect any other app.
Yet your desktop OS doesn't try to "benefit" from similar security since
the negatives outweigh the positives.
> > > plus, wifi is much more convenient anyway. who wants to fumble with
> > > cables?
> >
> > Good point. I'll concede when you remind me how to initiate a
wireless
> > WiFi iTunes sync again?
>
> that would be nice, but it could take a while and wifi can also flake,
> especially if the signal isn't strong.
So my 50MB transfer of 'The Monkees Greatest Hits' deserves "reliable"
USB sync, but a 5MB PDF doesn't?
Todd Allcock
"John Doe" <jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in message
news:000b4559$0$2256$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>>> ... you might consider the possible reason is that wireless
>>> (versus wired) makes speech more difficult to recognize. Having
>>> a tiny device like the iPhone recognize any speech at all is
>>> impressive. I will be surprised if most people are able to use
>>> iPhone speech input as advertised. Probably has an extremely
>>> small vocabulary.
>>
>> I think your experience with "real" desktop speech recognition
>> software is prejudicing you.
>
> Fundamentally the same.
The same by a few orders of magnitude perhaps, like a kid's "finger paint"
program is the same as CAD application! ;) The relatively tiny
vocabularies employed by phone-based voice command programs, the lower need
for accuracy, and the relatively short commands vs. the whole paragraphs you
might rattle off dictating make them dissimilar from a processing power
standpoint, making the former possible on the limited processing power and
memory of a phone, vs. trying to pull off something like Dragon Naturally
Speaking for dictation.
The smaller the vocabulary, the quicker a match can be found, and the less
accuracy needed to select a pre-defined vocabulary word. Consider a program
requiring "yes" or "no" as input to a question. Is this not easier to parse
than the words "yes" or "no" would be in a dictation scenario? In the
former case, anything I say is compared to just "yes" or "no" and the
closest match is selected. In the latter, "yes" and "no" are but two of the
several hundred thousand words I might possibly utter.
>> Speaker-independent voice dialing/control programs
>
> I guess that depends on what "control" means. Much of your post is
> semantics IMO.
I apologize for not making myself clearer. Again, I have no direct
experience with Apple's implementation yet (our iPhone 2G doesn't support
it, I don't believe) but it seems similar to MS' approach.
The actual vocabulary of MS' product "out of the box" is probably a few
dozen words- the "commands" it recognizes. This vocabulary is so small, it
is parsed very easily. The commands are carefully chosen to not sound like
other "legal" commands to increase the chance of a distinct hit. (Dictation
software doesn't have the luxury of asking you to use distinctive sounding
vocabulary words to avoid confusion!)
Everything following a recognized "command" is considered an "argument" that
needs to be compared to a lookup table that is created locally on the phone
by processing the contacts, media (artist, album, and playlist names,) and
installed application names at the phone's initial startup to create a
finite list of "legal" words, and any other input is simply ignored as
unrecognized, and prompts the software to ask you to "please repeat..."
Again, dictation software can't really stop you every four or five words for
necessary clarification, so I'd argue that "command" software isn't that
similar to dictation software.
As an analogy phones use a "Scott Adams adventure game"-style "verb-noun"
language ("Call Mom," "Play The Beatles") that is much easier to parse than
natural speech ("Four Score and seven years ago...," "The quick brown fox
jumped over...")
>> Presumably Apple's system works similar to Microsoft's Voice
>> Command for Windows Mobile. With MS' there are a few commands
>> prebuilt into the vocabulary (call, dial, run, show, play, etc.)
>> and a few specialized staus phrases ("what time is it?," "what
>> is the battery/signal level?")
>>
>> Once a command is interpreted ("call," run," or "play," for
>> example) the speech following the command is interpreted as an
>> argument parsed against data already present on the phone,
>
> Yeah, and...
>
> All speech recognition simply recognizes (chooses from) a list of
> words.
Right, but dictation software might need a list of 200,000-300,000 words
because the software has no idea in advance what you might want to say, but
is expected to recognize any "legal" word in the speaker's language. Plus,
many of these words might be very similar and need a high degree of accuracy
to tell them apart: (marry, Mary, merry, etc.) Most importantly, the
accuracy must be continuous. If the software is only, say, 95% accurate for
each word, a three-word command is far more likely to be understood without
_any_ error (0.95 x 0.95 x 0.95 = 86%) , than a forty word paragraph (0.95 ^
40 = 13%). 95% is "good enough" for phone voice control, but not nearly
good enough for dictation.
Stacking the deck in its favor, MS' Voice Command already "knows" everything
you might possibly say, because the entire vocabulary you're _allowed_ to
utter is already present on the phone. If my phone only has one contact,
named "Joe Hippopotamus," no added applications software, and no media
library, the program only has a vocabulary of two added words: "Joe" and
"Hippopotamus" (other than the couple of dozen "commands" built in.) Given
a "closest match is good enough" assumption, "Call Moe Rippatotamus" will
likely generate a "match" with "Call Joe Hippopotamus," which would be
perfectly acceptable for a phone voice control/dial program, but
unacceptable in a dictation program.
If I have 1000 contacts, 50 apps and 500 artists/albums and playlists, the
device creates a vocabulary of maybe 3000 words- still the tiniest fraction
of a desktop dictation program's vocabulary, yet already large enough to
start to slow down and reduce the recognition accuracy of the device!
>> While the small number of commands are built-in and
>> unchangeable, the arguments recognized are as varied as the
>> individual phone's stored content, making the vocabulary appear
>> infinite.
>
> Whatever you mean by "appear infinite", the vocabulary is tiny
> compared to dictation.
Of course. What I mean by "appear infinite" is that I can add _any_ word I
like, regardless of how obscure, by simply creating a new contact or adding
media. Someone completely oblivious to how voice regognition software works
might be VERY impressed that my phone could recognize the obscure words
"Zbigniew" and "Brzezinski" if I had added the former Carter-era National
Security Advisor to my phonebook, but equally mystified it couldn't
recognize "Joe Smith" if there were no Joe Smiths in my phonebook.
Desktop dictation software would be useless if it only harvested its
vocabulary from content already present on my computer. But that's not only
acceptable for phone "control" software, it's even desirable from a
performance standpoint!
> You are going haywire. Your original argument, the one I replied
> to, was "I can talk via BT, why not command Via BT?"
And I was, (apparently badly!) explaining that "voice command" software, vs.
dictation software is so relatively simplistic, that BT command recognition,
isn't much more difficult than wired recognition, because the inherent
problem with BT recognition (low audio quality, comparitively) is virtually
a non-issue with a very limited vocabulary looking for "closest match"
between disimilar words, as opposed to seeking a high hit probability among
similar words in a MUCH larger vocabulary.
> Maybe programming for Bluetooth can be done as easily as
> programming for a wired microphone, but there is a difference. It
> would be a programming choice, depending on resources.
All it should require is redirecting the BT audio input into the parsing
engine, and perhaps rigging the software to "lower the accuracy bar" if
deemed necessary. The relatively low (8-bit, IIRC?) sound quality the
program would be forced to parse would be offset by the puny vocabulary that
it's looking through for a "close enough" match. Unlike dictation, accuracy
isn't critical- spelling certainly doesn't count, and the limition to using
words in the "dictionary," is desirable rather than a shortcoming of the
dictionary (e.g. trying to call a contact that doesn't exist in the
phonebook is a legitimate error condition- not a "failure" of the program,
whereas an unrecognized, but "legal" word in a dictation program is a
failure) so serving up the "closest match" on the phone will be good enough
(and "correct") the vast majority of the time.
Since Zbigniew Brzezinski is not in my Contacts, I'm extremely unlikey to
ask my phone to ring him up, and if I were stubborn enough to ask the phone
to call him anyway, the response would (correctly) be a "please repeat"
response, because he isn't a valid phonebook entry. BT might throw me a few
more "please repeats" or wrong matches than a wired mic if I have, say, a
John Smith, Don Smith, Ron Smith and Yan Smith all in my contacts, but in
most instances, it shouldn't be a problem.
Hopefully that is a better and clearer explanation of the background behind
my question "but why doesn't work via bluetooth?"
John Doe
...
> Hopefully that is a better and clearer explanation of the
> background behind my question "but why doesn't work via
> bluetooth?"
I think most of what you are doing is fishing for answers.
Unfortunately, there is not much on USENET about speech
recognition. The big Windows Vista group is about it. If you look
on the open Internet, you might find someone to answer the
questions you are afraid to ask.
Or maybe you really are not interested in speech recognition that
all, maybe all you are doing is proving your right to freedom of
speech.
Whatever.
Davoud
> The same by a few orders of magnitude perhaps, like a kid's "finger paint"
> program is the same as CAD application! ;)
You are probably aware that an iPhone app, "Brushes," (finger painting)
was used to create a cover for The New Yorker Magazine. Getting one's
art on a New Yorker cover is a _major_ coup in the art world. This is
the first reported instance of any art created on a telephone appearing
on the cover of a magazine. :-)
Todd Allcock
"John Doe" <jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in message
> "Todd Allcock" <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> Hopefully that is a better and clearer explanation of the
>> background behind my question "but why doesn't work via
>> bluetooth?"
>
> I think most of what you are doing is fishing for answers.
> Unfortunately, there is not much on USENET about speech
> recognition. The big Windows Vista group is about it. If you look
> on the open Internet, you might find someone to answer the
> questions you are afraid to ask.
Ever have one of those conversations where the person you're talking to
seems to suddenly be in a different conversation? That's how I feel right
now.
What questions, prey tell, am I "afraid to ask"? Other phones, many of
which are far less capable than the iPhone in both processor and memory,
pull off speaker-independent speech recognition, (in the limited capacity
phones use it) over bluetooth every day, more or less sucessfully, or at
least equally as sucessfully as direct input.
> Or maybe you really are not interested in speech recognition that
> all, maybe all you are doing is proving your right to freedom of
> speech.
Actually I'm quite interested- I've been using it on phones for quite a few
years, and am quite impressed with the progress phones are making, again,
given their limited power and abilities. I'm also impressed by the current
trend to offload the actual processing from the phone itself via cellular
data and letting sportier servers do the heavy lifting and return the output
back to the phone.
I'm certainly no expert in the field, however, nor do I pretend to be, so if
I made any blatant factual errors, I certainly apologize, and you're more
than welcome to correct them. Or, this being usenet, you're equally welcome
to simply add a few more vague snarky comments. It's your nickel...
> Whatever.
That about sums it up. Don't hesitate to jump back in when you have
something else equally authoritative to add...
jc
> At 05 Jul 2009 12:27:23 -0400 Davoud wrote:
>
>
>
> > jc :
> > > Files is pretty good. Of course nothing is as good as the old system
> > > of making it just look like a USB disk, but "Apple knows best...".
>
> > Uh, I would say it's the Windows world that is guiding this. You see,
> > before Apple realized that their mobile products _had_ to be
> > Windows-compatible in order to sell big, we had FireWire--superior in
> > speed to USB, including USB 2 (FW 800). But, as the old-time Morse-code
> > radio operators used to say, you have to send for the slowest guy on
> > the net, and since Windows-only machines have spotty FW support, Apple
> > switched its mobile devices to USB. Macheads understood, but were
> > disappointed to be dragged down once more by Windows.
>
> > > One piece of advice. Be sure to configure your router to
> > > always assign the same ip address to your iPhone. That
> > > way, you can create a desktop shortcut without having
> > > to reconfigure it every time.
>
> > On the Mac a network device shows up regardless of the IP address. It's
> > a Unix thing, the ability to display all computers on the same subnet
> > without the user having to configure anything.
>
> While very interesting, none of that explains why the iPhone doesn't
> support disk mode regardless of interface: USB or Firewire, and why WiFi
> kludges like Airshare are needed...
Questions like this highlight the two types of posters that dominate
this group:
- The ones that hate Apple and are constantly posting flame bait
about how other phones are cheaper and better. For this
questions, they will probably tell you iPhone users are
too stupid to understand a file system.
- The ones that will defend *any* decision by Apple, no matter
how illogical. These are the ones that argued that the 3G
didn't really need video and voice dialing, and now go on about
how great it is that the 3GS has it. On this question, they
will post a lot of irrelevant stuff (eg Firewire) and ultimately
blame Windows.
There are very few "This is a cool thing, but it has a few annoying
quirks"
people out there.
I've been looking for the answer to your question, and haven't found
it.
iPods mounted like disks, and this was a very handy way to move
files around, back when internet connections were slower and
60 Gb was *a lot* of disk space. That's less important now, but
it would be nice to have a common file system on the iPhone, such
that apps could share documents, and you could, eg, download
web content so you could access it later, out of 3G coverage.
I consider this and the lack of voice dialing the biggest
drawbacks of the 3G (the lack of video is just weird and
inexplicable; I don't really care, personally).
Anyway, with such a file system, it would be natural to let the
iPhone mount like a disk.
Why didn't they do this? I don't know, but I think that in this
case the "Apple doesn't think iPhone users are smart enough"
may not be far off the mark.
-jc
Todd Allcock
"jc" <cire...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b123f62a-bd72-416f...@t33g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
Oh, I don't know. I think that Apple truly did try to balance the wants and
needs of users, mobile operators, content providers and their own revenue
stream. Like the old joke says, you know you've reached a compromise when
everyone is equally unhappy. ;)
I think Apple made the same mistake Microsoft made when they released the
original handheld Palm-Sized PC (which morphed into "Pocket PC" and then
"Windows Mobile")- they seriously underestimated what people would try to do
with the device. It took a long time for Microsoft to treat Windows Mobile
as a portable computer rather than the "PDA/mobile file viewer" they
originally envisioned it as. In the early days it was third-party
developers that "unlocked" the power of the devices and turned them from
simple peripherals to autonomous mobile computing devices. Luckly for
Windows Mobile and it's users, those third-party devs weren't hampered by
"sandboxes" or mandated interface/functionality guidelines or restrictions.
I know the die-hard fans here think the App store and SDK were all part of
the "master plan" but I think it was a lucky marketing
mistake-turned-accidental-success a la "New Coke." I think Apple honestly
thought "webapps" were the way to go, especially considering the
"always-connected" nature of the device, and only after the audible moan
from the developer community and snide comments in the tech press, did they
rethink their position and throw together the SDK and app store.
Since there was no need for a user-accessible file system in the original
iPhone vision of combo iPod/web tablet/email/phone, it was never part of the
OS, and it was kind of too late to open it up now without a major rethinking
of the entire device, and probably a ground-up rewrite of the firmware. The
iPhone sandbox that apps run in plays the role of a virtual machine- an
"emulator" that lets the original "webapp" vision reside on the phone
(although greatly expanded now), allowing access to many of the device's
functions and features, without letting developers get too close to the nuts
and bolts of the iPhone or it's OS. It has the added benefit of being
"portable"- allowing for future devices to use the same virtual machine even
if the underlying hardware and OS are radically different in design. I
believe the rumors that an iPhone-like netbook or table are in the
not-too-distant future- it just makes sense to leverage the existing app
store infrastructure.
While I continually complain about it, this method does have some advantages
for security and stabilty- I just don't think those are worth the tradeoff
of disadvantages of the awkward workarounds devs have to implement to make
useable productivity apps.
It's ironic, at least to me, that the iPhone, seemingly accidentally,
represents a throwback to 90's computing- Apple, with the Mac, practically
invented the modern file-based computing paradigm we use today, where you
select the files you want to work with, and the OS figures out which program
to open to work on it, rather than the command-line paradigm of running a
program then selecting a compatible file from within the app. On a GUI
interface, you click a media file, and your media player opens, you click a
text document and your word processor opens, etc. The iPhone, instead, is a
return to the program-centric olden-days when you ran an app like
WordPerfect, or Lotus 1-2-3 first, and then selected the document you wished
to work on from the "captive" file list within the program. The iPhone OS
is basically 20th-century "DOS" computing, with a 21st-century facade of
GUI-goodness.
nospam
<elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> I know the die-hard fans here think the App store and SDK were all part of
> the "master plan" but I think it was a lucky marketing
> mistake-turned-accidental-success a la "New Coke."
without question, the full sdk and apps store were part of a master
plan.
apple announced there would be a native sdk in october 2007, just four
months after the iphone shipped, with full details to be revealed in
february, 2008. however, they missed that by a week and it turned out
to be the first week in march. that announcement included not just the
iphone sdk, but the developer program, the apps store and the entire
infrastructure behind it. quite a lot of planning and work went into
that, far more than a few months of 'oh shit, we need to rethink this.'
> I think Apple honestly
> thought "webapps" were the way to go, especially considering the
> "always-connected" nature of the device, and only after the audible moan
> from the developer community and snide comments in the tech press, did they
> rethink their position and throw together the SDK and app store.
web apps were definitely an interim solution, as the real sdk was
roughly a year into the future at that point and not ready for public
consumption.
> Since there was no need for a user-accessible file system in the original
> iPhone vision of combo iPod/web tablet/email/phone, it was never part of the
> OS, and it was kind of too late to open it up now without a major rethinking
> of the entire device, and probably a ground-up rewrite of the firmware.
or it wasn't really needed. why do you need access to the entire file
system? just what are you going to do in the system folder? the only
issue is sharing files among apps, and that is a tradeoff versus
sandboxing, and you don't really need full file system access for that
anyway.
Todd Allcock
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:070720091256372031%nos...@nospam.invalid...
> In article <keN4m.22878$Qk7....@newsfe22.iad>, Todd Allcock
> <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
>> I know the die-hard fans here think the App store and SDK were all part
>> of
>> the "master plan" but I think it was a lucky marketing
>> mistake-turned-accidental-success a la "New Coke."
>
> without question, the full sdk and apps store were part of a master
> plan.
>
> apple announced there would be a native sdk in october 2007, just four
> months after the iphone shipped, with full details to be revealed in
> february, 2008. however, they missed that by a week and it turned out
> to be the first week in march. that announcement included not just the
> iphone sdk, but the developer program, the apps store and the entire
> infrastructure behind it. quite a lot of planning and work went into
> that, far more than a few months of 'oh shit, we need to rethink this.'
Then why not tell developers that "webapps" were an interim solution when
they started screaming bloody murder? Why not announce a "full SDK" would
come "eventually" at the original keynote? I suspect a lot of quick
planning and fast work went into it AFTER a few months of "oh shit, we need
to rethink this!" ;)
>> I think Apple honestly
>> thought "webapps" were the way to go, especially considering the
>> "always-connected" nature of the device, and only after the audible moan
>> from the developer community and snide comments in the tech press, did
>> they
>> rethink their position and throw together the SDK and app store.
>
> web apps were definitely an interim solution, as the real sdk was
> roughly a year into the future at that point and not ready for public
> consumption.
And. apparently, not ready for public announcement, either? That seems like
a glaring oversight particularly considering the dog and pony show Steve
Jobs put on introducing the iPhone as the Second Coming of Wireless in Jan.
'07.
Webapps were first unveiled as if that was the way it was it was going to
be- not as some sort of stopgap while Apple's best and brightest put the
finishing touches on the SDK. There would've certainly been no shame or
embarrasment in announcing an unfinished SDK at launch that wouldn't be
available for 8 or 9 months. What did Apple possibly have to gain by
"pretending" the iPhone was going to use webapps, wasting a bunch of
developers' time and efforts learning how to effectively use them, then
waiting a few months and saying "we're just kidding- there's a real SDK, but
you can't have it for 5 MORE months!"
An application of Occam's Razor would seem to indicate they blew it with
webapps and scrambled to throw together an SDK and the app store in the five
months between announcing them and releasing them, rather than planned and
built the SDK and app store in secrecy, released webapps as an interim
solution, then threw secrecy out the window when webapps were met with
somewhat less than wild enthusiasm. Despite the original iPhone's early
success, Apple was getting a lot of pressure in the tech press for not
having "real" apps like other platforms. As I said, it sounds an awful lot
like a "New Coke" success story to me- a lucky break that would've been
genius if it'd actually been planned!
>> Since there was no need for a user-accessible file system in the
original
>> iPhone vision of combo iPod/web tablet/email/phone, it was never part of
>> the
>> OS, and it was kind of too late to open it up now without a major
>> rethinking
>> of the entire device, and probably a ground-up rewrite of the firmware.
>
> or it wasn't really needed. why do you need access to the entire file
> system? just what are you going to do in the system folder? the only
> issue is sharing files among apps, and that is a tradeoff versus
> sandboxing, and you don't really need full file system access for that
> anyway.
I'm not suggesting users have access to the "system folder" (though, if
protected, it wouldn't really matter- grab a Windows Mobile phone and try to
delete, or even copy a ROM-based file - you can't, even with third-party
utilities) just that a "Finder/File Explorer" type app that has access to
the entire _user_ storage area makes perfect sense. There is great power in
allowing multiple apps to share data- particularly doc viewer/editors and
email programs, as well as PIM enhancements. Sandboxing ruins those
relationships and is probably why we haven't seen a good doc editor yet-
there's no point editing a doc if you can't easily send it somewhere else.
Part of the problem, I suspect, is that the iPhone is still, first and
foremost, "the best iPod ever"- given unadulterated access to user storage,
the Forces of the Ungodly could do Bad Things(tm) like email or beam a song
(or, heaven forbid, an app!) to another iPhone. Of course, this ability
already exists with our desktops, laptops and netbooks (as well as virtually
any other smartphone), but if an iPhone could do it (*gasp*), our
civilization would surely collapse in a puff of hedonism.
nospam
<elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> > apple announced there would be a native sdk in october 2007, just four
> > months after the iphone shipped, with full details to be revealed in
> > february, 2008. however, they missed that by a week and it turned out
> > to be the first week in march. that announcement included not just the
> > iphone sdk, but the developer program, the apps store and the entire
> > infrastructure behind it. quite a lot of planning and work went into
> > that, far more than a few months of 'oh shit, we need to rethink this.'
>
> Then why not tell developers that "webapps" were an interim solution when
> they started screaming bloody murder? Why not announce a "full SDK" would
> come "eventually" at the original keynote? I suspect a lot of quick
> planning and fast work went into it AFTER a few months of "oh shit, we need
> to rethink this!" ;)
probably because at the time they didn't know exactly how long it would
take to iron out all of the details and they didn't want to say 'there
will be an sdk sometime, we're just not sure when.' plus, apple likes
to keep things under wraps until it's done or mostly done.
> Webapps were first unveiled as if that was the way it was it was going to
> be- not as some sort of stopgap while Apple's best and brightest put the
> finishing touches on the SDK. There would've certainly been no shame or
> embarrasment in announcing an unfinished SDK at launch that wouldn't be
> available for 8 or 9 months. What did Apple possibly have to gain by
> "pretending" the iPhone was going to use webapps, wasting a bunch of
> developers' time and efforts learning how to effectively use them, then
> waiting a few months and saying "we're just kidding- there's a real SDK, but
> you can't have it for 5 MORE months!"
why would they say 'oh this is a stopgap, anything you do will be
replaced in several months with native apps' ?? and i disagree about
wasting their time. web apps have their place, but with the obvious
limitation of needing a data connection. there's even a native app
that tracks all the web apps.
> An application of Occam's Razor would seem to indicate they blew it with
> webapps and scrambled to throw together an SDK and the app store in the five
> months between announcing them and releasing them, rather than planned and
> built the SDK and app store in secrecy, released webapps as an interim
> solution, then threw secrecy out the window when webapps were met with
> somewhat less than wild enthusiasm. Despite the original iPhone's early
> success, Apple was getting a lot of pressure in the tech press for not
> having "real" apps like other platforms. As I said, it sounds an awful lot
> like a "New Coke" success story to me- a lucky break that would've been
> genius if it'd actually been planned!
having worked with the sdk, it is in no way the result of a few months
of work. it's very clear that a lot of thought went into not just the
sdk but the store and how everything all fits together. they probably
wanted it to happen earlier, but for whatever reason it slipped and web
apps was 'something'.
> There is great power in
> allowing multiple apps to share data- particularly doc viewer/editors and
> email programs, as well as PIM enhancements. Sandboxing ruins those
> relationships and is probably why we haven't seen a good doc editor yet-
> there's no point editing a doc if you can't easily send it somewhere else.
it's a tradeoff. you also gain a lot of security with sandboxing. it's
basically impossible for one app to do anything that would affect any
other app, particularly malware. i also don't think their goal is for
the iphone to replace a desktop or laptop computer, so editing
documents is not terribly high on the priority list.
> Part of the problem, I suspect, is that the iPhone is still, first and
> foremost, "the best iPod ever"- given unadulterated access to user storage,
> the Forces of the Ungodly could do Bad Things(tm) like email or beam a song
> (or, heaven forbid, an app!) to another iPhone. Of course, this ability
> already exists with our desktops, laptops and netbooks (as well as virtually
> any other smartphone), but if an iPhone could do it (*gasp*), our
> civilization would surely collapse in a puff of hedonism.
they aren't about to let you beam songs to another user since that is
likely a copyright infringement and until recently, the song was drm-ed
so even if you could beam it, it wouldn't play. apps are also copy
protected, so that won't work either.
Todd Allcock
> > Then why not tell developers that "webapps" were an interim solution
when
> > they started screaming bloody murder? Why not announce a "full SDK"
would
> > come "eventually" at the original keynote? I suspect a lot of quick
> > planning and fast work went into it AFTER a few months of "oh shit,
we need
> > to rethink this!" ;)
>
> probably because at the time they didn't know exactly how long it would
> take to iron out all of the details and they didn't want to say 'there
> will be an sdk sometime, we're just not sure when.' plus, apple likes
> to keep things under wraps until it's done or mostly done.
Yet, when pressured by bad pres and screaming devs they'll fold like a
house of cards and announce a half-year early?
> > Webapps were first unveiled as if that was the way it was it was
going to
> > be- not as some sort of stopgap while Apple's best and brightest put
the
> > finishing touches on the SDK. There would've certainly been no shame
or
> > embarrasment in announcing an unfinished SDK at launch that wouldn't
be
> > available for 8 or 9 months. What did Apple possibly have to gain by
> > "pretending" the iPhone was going to use webapps, wasting a bunch of
> > developers' time and efforts learning how to effectively use them,
then
> > waiting a few months and saying "we're just kidding- there's a real
SDK, but
> > you can't have it for 5 MORE months!"
>
> why would they say 'oh this is a stopgap, anything you do will be
> replaced in several months with native apps' ??
To not piss off those who you're counting on to support your then-new
platform?
> and i disagree about
> wasting their time. web apps have their place, but with the obvious
> limitation of needing a data connection. there's even a native app
> that tracks all the web apps.
And how many of these useful webapps have you used in the last month?
Six months? A year?
> > An application of Occam's Razor would seem to indicate they blew it
with
> > webapps and scrambled to throw together an SDK and the app store in
the five
> > months between announcing them and releasing them, rather than
planned and
> > built the SDK and app store in secrecy, released webapps as an
interim
> > solution, then threw secrecy out the window when webapps were met
with
> > somewhat less than wild enthusiasm. Despite the original iPhone's
early
> > success, Apple was getting a lot of pressure in the tech press for
not
> > having "real" apps like other platforms. As I said, it sounds an
awful lot
> > like a "New Coke" success story to me- a lucky break that would've
been
> > genius if it'd actually been planned!
>
> having worked with the sdk, it is in no way the result of a few months
> of work. it's very clear that a lot of thought went into not just the
> sdk but the store and how everything all fits together. they probably
> wanted it to happen earlier, but for whatever reason it slipped and web
> apps was 'something'.
Perhaps the SDK existed for internal use, and it took just five months to
strip the more powerful features out of it! ;) Considering the
bazillion new features they add t it at every firmware revision, I
suspect they could've slapped it all together in 5 months if necessary,
particularly if the right turtlenecked individual was lighting fires
under the appropriate asses...
> > There is great power in
> > allowing multiple apps to share data- particularly doc viewer/editors
and
> > email programs, as well as PIM enhancements. Sandboxing ruins those
> > relationships and is probably why we haven't seen a good doc editor
yet-
> > there's no point editing a doc if you can't easily send it somewhere
else.
>
> it's a tradeoff. you also gain a lot of security with sandboxing. it's
> basically impossible for one app to do anything that would affect any
> other app, particularly malware.
Is malware really such a problem on a device that boots from ROM, and can
be returned to out-of-box state with a simple reset, without the need for
OS reinstallation? To think that potential malware scenarios are part of
the iPhone design is little paranoid. What would malware do on a phone?
Make prank calls? In nearly a decade of Palm, WinMo, Symbian and
Blackberry pones I don't think there's been a single successful exploit
in the wild on any significant scale- just the typical "in the lab" proof-
of-concept stuff designed solely to sell AV software.
> i also don't think their goal is for
> the iphone to replace a desktop or laptop computer, so editing
> documents is not terribly high on the priority list.
It wasn't MS' goal with WinMo either The user and dev communities made
it possible. Apple isn't providing the tools to allow the iPhone's
communities to repeat that "mistake."
> > Part of the problem, I suspect, is that the iPhone is still, first
and
> > foremost, "the best iPod ever"- given unadulterated access to user
storage,
> > the Forces of the Ungodly could do Bad Things(tm) like email or beam
a song
> > (or, heaven forbid, an app!) to another iPhone. Of course, this
ability
> > already exists with our desktops, laptops and netbooks (as well as
virtually
> > any other smartphone), but if an iPhone could do it (*gasp*), our
> > civilization would surely collapse in a puff of hedonism.
>
> they aren't about to let you beam songs to another user since that is
> likely a copyright infringement and until recently, the song was drm-ed
> so even if you could beam it, it wouldn't play. apps are also copy
> protected, so that won't work either.
The songs purchased in the iTunes store were DRM'd, not the media ripped
from your CDs. I don't like nanny-ware. OS X doesn't block you from
transferring media from one Macbook to another- why does "OS X Mobile"
get this special status as RIAA/MPAA enforcer? Is it possible that just
maybe a user-inaccesible file system is more about protecting Sony and
RCA than protecting your phone and its data?
nospam
<elecc...@aNOoSPAMl.com> wrote:
> Yet, when pressured by bad pres and screaming devs they'll fold like a
> house of cards and announce a half-year early?
obviously there was a demand for it. in fact, people were asking for
the sdk before the thing even shipped.
> > why would they say 'oh this is a stopgap, anything you do will be
> > replaced in several months with native apps' ??
>
> To not piss off those who you're counting on to support your then-new
> platform?
i think telling people that web apps were just a stop gap would piss
them off more.
so what do you think about google chrome os, announced yesterday?
that's web apps. nobody seems to be whining like they did with the
iphone's web apps and there doesn't appear to be anything beyond web
apps with that either.
> > and i disagree about
> > wasting their time. web apps have their place, but with the obvious
> > limitation of needing a data connection. there's even a native app
> > that tracks all the web apps.
>
> And how many of these useful webapps have you used in the last month?
> Six months? A year?
do the couple i've written count? :) people may consider them second
class citizens but some apps could actually be better done as a web
app.
> Perhaps the SDK existed for internal use, and it took just five months to
> strip the more powerful features out of it! ;) Considering the
> bazillion new features they add t it at every firmware revision, I
> suspect they could've slapped it all together in 5 months if necessary,
> particularly if the right turtlenecked individual was lighting fires
> under the appropriate asses...
the sdk existed from the beginning but it really wasn't polished enough
for public consumption, nor was there a store in which to sell the
apps. a lot of it was in flux, and still is to an extent. however, i
do think they need to overhaul how itunes supports apps, that clearly
was rushed.
> Is malware really such a problem on a device that boots from ROM, and can
> be returned to out-of-box state with a simple reset, without the need for
> OS reinstallation?
how often do you want to reboot your phone? and it's not exactly
instant booting either. plus if the malware affects the system files
it won't be out of box no matter what you do.
> To think that potential malware scenarios are part of
> the iPhone design is little paranoid. What would malware do on a phone?
destroy user data or compromise the functionality of the device.
> It wasn't MS' goal with WinMo either The user and dev communities made
> it possible. Apple isn't providing the tools to allow the iPhone's
> communities to repeat that "mistake."
was it really a mistake? there are 60k iphone apps in one year, versus
roughly 20k winmo in nine years. the iphone may not be able to edit
and share documents very well but it can do a lot of things other
devices can't and it's selling at a much more fervent pace.
<http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/03/iphone-now-has-more-applicati
ons-than-windows-mobile.ars>
> The songs purchased in the iTunes store were DRM'd, not the media ripped
> from your CDs.
doesn't matter. copying songs is still infringing unless you own the
rights to them which almost always is not the case.
> I don't like nanny-ware. OS X doesn't block you from
> transferring media from one Macbook to another- why does "OS X Mobile"
> get this special status as RIAA/MPAA enforcer?
why should they make it easy to make an illicit copy? if someone wants
to do that they'll find a way.
> Is it possible that just
> maybe a user-inaccesible file system is more about protecting Sony and
> RCA than protecting your phone and its data?
that probably was part of it. after all, it is part ipod and they are
in bed with the record companies, but regardless, you are asking for
the ability to make an illicit copy which is going to be *very* low on
the list, if it's even *on* the list.
Todd Allcock
> so what do you think about google chrome os, announced yesterday?
> that's web apps. nobody seems to be whining like they did with the
> iphone's web apps and there doesn't appear to be anything beyond web
> apps with that either.
No one is whining, IMO, because no one cares. Netbooks aren't sexy, and
are essentially just tiny, anemic, laptops. Devs screamed when Apple
threw "webapps" at them because they desperately wanted to develop for
the iPhone and exploit its capabilities- not build browser widgets.
I doubt any devs outside of Google are getting excited about Chrome OS-
"wow, a laptop with circa-2003 functionality, speed, and display
resolution! After I code for this, let me see if my Amiga is still in
the closet!"
> > Is malware really such a problem on a device that boots from ROM, and
can
> > be returned to out-of-box state with a simple reset, without the need
for
> > OS reinstallation?
>
> how often do you want to reboot your phone?
You forget. I use Windows Mobile. I'm used to rebooting often! ;)
> and it's not exactly
> instant booting either. plus if the malware affects the system files
> it won't be out of box no matter what you do.
That's just it- malware can't infect/alter/replace the system (firmware)
files- that's the point.
> > To think that potential malware scenarios are part of
> > the iPhone design is little paranoid. What would malware do on a
phone?
>
> destroy user data or compromise the functionality of the device.
Pretty hard to accomplish on mobile "ROM"-based architecture; even harder
with a closed "app store" distribution system. You'd really have to rely
on users doing something pretty stupid, like accepting a download of a
malware app and executing it intentionally.
> > It wasn't MS' goal with WinMo either The user and dev communities
made
> > it possible. Apple isn't providing the tools to allow the iPhone's
> > communities to repeat that "mistake." >
> was it really a mistake? there are 60k iphone apps in one year, versus
> roughly 20k winmo in nine years. the iphone may not be able to edit
> and share documents very well but it can do a lot of things other
> devices can't and it's selling at a much more fervent pace.
I'll certainly give you the "fervent pace," but also redirect you to the
inherent irony of your comment: with three times the available apps,
there still are entire categories it fails to do well because of the
intentional limitations. Doc editing, file transfer, use as a portable
disk drive, streaming, navigation...
And, honestly, what function can the iPhone actually perform that other
phones can't? I can't really think of any application categories unique
to the iPhone? Certainly game X, Y, or Z only runs on the iPhone, but I
can't think of any actual functionality that's unique.
> > The songs purchased in the iTunes store were DRM'd, not the media
ripped
> > from your CDs.
>
> doesn't matter. copying songs is still infringing unless you own the
> rights to them which almost always is not the case.
Copying from one of my devices to another without using a computer as a
go-between isn't. Besides, I'm not asking for the ability to illicitly
copy media, I'm asking for the ability to legally copy documents and files.
The fact that it might also make illegal transfers possible shouldn't be
an honest user's problem any more than a woodsman should lose acess to
his axes and hatchets because they could also be used for murder!
> > I don't like nanny-ware. OS X doesn't block you from
> > transferring media from one Macbook to another- why does "OS X Mobile"
> > get this special status as RIAA/MPAA enforcer?
>
> why should they make it easy to make an illicit copy? if someone wants
> to do that they'll find a way.
That's not really my point- it's a baby-with-the-bathwater issue- if the
lack of a user-accessible file system was really about "security" or
protecting data from stupid users' errors, that's an honest, but misguided,
design decision. If preventing all file manipulation was really just a
lazy/easy way to prevent media transfer to protect content providers'
copyrights, then it was an unconscionable crippling of features to the
end-users' detriment to protect parties that didn't pony up the $200-300
to buy the phone.
> > Is it possible that just
> > maybe a user-inaccesible file system is more about protecting Sony and
> > RCA than protecting your phone and its data?
>
> that probably was part of it. after all, it is part ipod and they are
> in bed with the record companies, but regardless, you are asking for
> the ability to make an illicit copy which is going to be *very* low on
> the list, if it's even *on* the list.
No- I'm asking for the ability to copy data files, and wondering if
preventing "legal" file system access was primarily designed to block
illicit transfers. If so, that's punishing honest users to mildly
inconvenience dishonest users, who can just run back to their computer
and illicitly share files by CD-R, USB key, email, FTP, Rapidshare, etc.
Hell, they could even do it by controlling their computer right from the
iPhone remotely using LogMeIn. Again, Mac OS has no such "illicit media
transfer prevention" mode built-in, why does a mobile OS need it? As I
often say, my phone isn't nearly as sexy as your iPhone, but at least it
knows who owns it.
nospam
<elecc...@aNOoSPAMl.com> wrote:
> > so what do you think about google chrome os, announced yesterday?
> > that's web apps. nobody seems to be whining like they did with the
> > iphone's web apps and there doesn't appear to be anything beyond web
> > apps with that either.
>
> No one is whining, IMO, because no one cares.
an awful lot of tech websites are talking about it...some people care.
> Netbooks aren't sexy, and are essentially just tiny, anemic, laptops.
yet they're one of the hottest selling products.
> Devs screamed when Apple
> threw "webapps" at them because they desperately wanted to develop for
> the iPhone and exploit its capabilities- not build browser widgets.
so why would google develop an entire operating system for something in
which developers have shown little interest?
> I doubt any devs outside of Google are getting excited about Chrome OS-
> "wow, a laptop with circa-2003 functionality, speed, and display
> resolution! After I code for this, let me see if my Amiga is still in
> the closet!"
a lot of people just surf the net and check email and their calendar
and they don't need a whole lot of power to do that, thus the
popularity of the netbook.
> > how often do you want to reboot your phone?
>
> You forget. I use Windows Mobile. I'm used to rebooting often! ;)
it crashes that often???
> > and it's not exactly
> > instant booting either. plus if the malware affects the system files
> > it won't be out of box no matter what you do.
>
> That's just it- malware can't infect/alter/replace the system (firmware)
> files- that's the point.
but it can. that's what a lot of the jailbreak apps do - add new
features that apple didn't provide, such as 5 icons in the dock or
folders (aka categories) and they do that by modifying the system
itself. there's little stopping someone from doing something useful to
writing an app that can compromise the device. it could even upload
personal data somewhere.
> Pretty hard to accomplish on mobile "ROM"-based architecture; even harder
> with a closed "app store" distribution system. You'd really have to rely
> on users doing something pretty stupid, like accepting a download of a
> malware app and executing it intentionally.
but it's not in rom, it's in writable flash-rom. you *can* modify
parts of it. if the whole file system was opened up (as with a
jailbreak) you could modify the system itself which is how a lot of
jailbreak apps do interesting things.
> I'll certainly give you the "fervent pace," but also redirect you to the
> inherent irony of your comment: with three times the available apps,
> there still are entire categories it fails to do well because of the
> intentional limitations. Doc editing, file transfer, use as a portable
> disk drive, streaming, navigation...
the fact that there are several times as many apps in a fraction of the
time should tell you that most people don't find what you think are
limitations to be much of a limitation or particularly important.
those who do need those particular features can buy a different phone.
> And, honestly, what function can the iPhone actually perform that other
> phones can't? I can't really think of any application categories unique
> to the iPhone? Certainly game X, Y, or Z only runs on the iPhone, but I
> can't think of any actual functionality that's unique.
apps that use opengl, especially in conjunction with the accelerometer,
or the compass in the 3gs (the second phone of which i'm aware to have
a compass).
for instance, here's a very slick use of the gps and compass (turn down
the volume for the youtube video, it's loud):
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2uH-jrsSxs>
<http://www.acrossair.com/apps_nearesttube.htm>
> > > The songs purchased in the iTunes store were DRM'd, not the media
> > > from your CDs.
> >
> > doesn't matter. copying songs is still infringing unless you own the
> > rights to them which almost always is not the case.
>
> Copying from one of my devices to another without using a computer as a
> go-between isn't.
it can be, depending on the circumstances.
> Besides, I'm not asking for the ability to illicitly
> copy media, I'm asking for the ability to legally copy documents and files.
you can do that now by using any of numerous apps.
> The fact that it might also make illegal transfers possible shouldn't be
> an honest user's problem any more than a woodsman should lose acess to
> his axes and hatchets because they could also be used for murder!
true, but if the typical use is illicit then it's hard to justify it.
bittorrent has legal uses but a scant few use it that way.
Larry
nos...@nospam.invalid:
>> Netbooks aren't sexy, and are essentially just tiny, anemic, laptops.
>
> yet they're one of the hottest selling products.
>
>
The number one selling product on Amazon is a NETBOOK.
--
-----
Larry
Noone will be safe until the last lawyer has been strangled by the entrails
of the last cleric.
Todd Allcock
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <DIe5m.6868$%R2....@newsfe07.iad>, Todd Allcock
> <elecc...@aNOoSPAMl.com> wrote:
>
>> > so what do you think about google chrome os, announced yesterday?
>> > that's web apps. nobody seems to be whining like they did with the
>> > iphone's web apps and there doesn't appear to be anything beyond web
>> > apps with that either.
>>
>> No one is whining, IMO, because no one cares.
>
> an awful lot of tech websites are talking about it...some people care.
From the (admittedly very little) I've read about it, it seems more about
providing Google's cloud services, like GMail, Google Calendar, Google Docs,
etc. on a netbook without needing XP and Outlook (or a Linux distro and
Thunderbird), more than creating a general purpose "robust" OS. Sort of an
"Android" for Netbooks- a good choice if you're a Google cloud products
user, and a pain to work around if you're not. ;)
>> Netbooks aren't sexy, and are essentially just tiny, anemic, laptops.
>
> yet they're one of the hottest selling products.
There's nothing wrong with netbooks- I have one and it's fine. It's just
not an exciting or sexy product.
>> Devs screamed when Apple
>> threw "webapps" at them because they desperately wanted to develop for
>> the iPhone and exploit its capabilitirobably es- not build browser
>> widgets.
>
> so why would google develop an entire operating system for something in
> which developers have shown little interest?
The future? The netbook is one potential target, but lots of devices will
run browsers from here on out. This could be a sort of J2ME for browsers.
Again, I see it, at least initially, as a method to make netbooks and
smaller devices more dependent on Google services.
>> I doubt any devs outside of Google are getting excited about Chrome OS-
>> "wow, a laptop with circa-2003 functionality, speed, and display
>> resolution! After I code for this, let me see if my Amiga is still in
>> the closet!"
>
> a lot of people just surf the net and check email and their calendar
> and they don't need a whole lot of power to do that, thus the
> popularity of the netbook.
Yes, and netbooks already do all that stuff, plus can also run mainstream
commonly available apps, be it either Linux or XP. If this was the first
netbook ever, it might be impressive, but why would I trade in my perfectly
functional XP netbook for a browser OS-based one? Just to trade
functionality for bleeding edginess?
>> > how often do you want to reboot your phone?
>>
>> You forget. I use Windows Mobile. I'm used to rebooting often! ;)
>
> it crashes that often???
It was (mostly) a joke. Some third-party WinMo apps "leak" memory- refuse
to return it to the OS when closed, and running those apps a number of times
slowly erodes the device's free memory, and a reboot reclaims it. I had to
reboot my old HTC Wizard (only 64MB RAM) every 2 or 3 days. My current Tilt
(128MB RAM) runs pretty indefinitely, unless a third-party app crashes (my
NNTP usenet reader, QMail, likes to crash at least once a week! It's also a
"leaker.") Internet Explorer Mobile will hang on some websites with a lot
of scripting- most times you just need to terminate it and open it again,
but occasionally it'll just refuse to close, so I have to reboot to use it
again.
>> > and it's not exactly
>> > instant booting either. plus if the malware affects the system files
>> > it won't be out of box no matter what you do.
>>
>> That's just it- malware can't infect/alter/replace the system (firmware)
>> files- that's the point.
>
> but it can. that's what a lot of the jailbreak apps do - add new
> features that apple didn't provide, such as 5 icons in the dock or
> folders (aka categories) and they do that by modifying the system
> itself. there's little stopping someone from doing something useful to
> writing an app that can compromise the device. it could even upload
> personal data somewhere.
Unless Apple was playing the security through obscurity card, I'd be VERY
surprised if the flash memory the firmware resides in isn't protected in
some way. Windows Mobile, for example, locks the firmware. It "looks" like
files to the OS, but the entire firmware image is unalterable by the OS.
The files can't be viewed, copied, or overwritten- just executed. It's
unalterable except as an entire image flashed at once from an external PC or
a memory card (some devices have an "emergency" update function that allows
a firmware image to be loaded from a specially formatted file on a flash
card.)
You can not overwrite a "ROM" file on a Windows Mobile device (lord knows
we've tried!)
>> Pretty hard to accomplish on mobile "ROM"-based architecture; even harder
>> with a closed "app store" distribution system. You'd really have to rely
>> on users doing something pretty stupid, like accepting a download of a
>> malware app and executing it intentionally.
>
> but it's not in rom, it's in writable flash-rom. you *can* modify
> parts of it. if the whole file system was opened up (as with a
> jailbreak) you could modify the system itself which is how a lot of
> jailbreak apps do interesting things.
Again, Windows Mobile manages to protect the ROM- I'd be VERY surprised if
Apple didn't employ similar protections.
>> I'll certainly give you the "fervent pace," but also redirect you to the
>> inherent irony of your comment: with three times the available apps,
>> there still are entire categories it fails to do well because of the
>> intentional limitations. Doc editing, file transfer, use as a portable
>> disk drive, streaming, navigation...
>
> the fact that there are several times as many apps in a fraction of the
> time should tell you that most people don't find what you think are
> limitations to be much of a limitation or particularly important.
No, I think developers are choosing to go where the customers go. If 30
million Atari 2600 consoles were sold in the last 2 years, devs would be
developing for Atari!
I think devs are frustrated by the SDK limitations, but will work with what
they're given.
> those who do need those particular features can buy a different phone.
Of course. I never suggested otherwise. I acknowledge most people are
perfectly happy with the iPhone despite its limitations.
>> And, honestly, what function can the iPhone actually perform that other
>> phones can't? I can't really think of any application categories unique
>> to the iPhone? Certainly game X, Y, or Z only runs on the iPhone, but I
>> can't think of any actual functionality that's unique.
>
> apps that use opengl, especially in conjunction with the accelerometer,
> or the compass in the 3gs (the second phone of which i'm aware to have
> a compass).
A lot of devices have graphics acceleration, many now have accelerometers,
and only the newest iPhone has a compass- that's a phone feature, not a
platform feature. Any app that requires it will find itself incompatible
with 30 million pre-existing iPhone OS devices.
Besides, I asked for functions, not design elements- e.g. geocaching,
streaming, VoIP, gaming, astronomy, whatever- what can you do with any of
those 60,000 apps that you can't do on another platform?
> for instance, here's a very slick use of the gps and compass (turn down
> the volume for the youtube video, it's loud):
>
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2uH-jrsSxs>
> <http://www.acrossair.com/apps_nearesttube.htm>
Neat. Looks like Google Maps Street View on Android, except using the
device camera. Pretty slick.
>> > > The songs purchased in the iTunes store were DRM'd, not the media
>> > > from your CDs.
>> >
>> > doesn't matter. copying songs is still infringing unless you own the
>> > rights to them which almost always is not the case.
>>
>> Copying from one of my devices to another without using a computer as a
>> go-between isn't.
>
> it can be, depending on the circumstances.
What circumstances would those be? If I can sync multiple iPhones, iPods,
Zunes, etc. with the same computer and load the same songs on both, what
can't I transfer a song on iPhone A to iPhone B without the computer?
>> Besides, I'm not asking for the ability to illicitly
>> copy media, I'm asking for the ability to legally copy documents and
>> files.
>
> you can do that now by using any of numerous apps.
And send them to you via email? Receive one by email, mark it up and send
to someone else?
>> The fact that it might also make illegal transfers possible shouldn't be
>> an honest user's problem any more than a woodsman should lose acess to
>> his axes and hatchets because they could also be used for murder!
>
> true, but if the typical use is illicit then it's hard to justify it.
> bittorrent has legal uses but a scant few use it that way.
True. But my PC doesn't prevent a Bit Torrent client from operating (nor my
phone, for that matter!)
nospam
<elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> Again, Windows Mobile manages to protect the ROM- I'd be VERY surprised if
> Apple didn't employ similar protections.
people bitch about the sandboxing, but on a stock iphone you can't do
much outside of the sandbox so it's fairly secure. if you jailbreak it
and get access to everything, you gain the benefit of features apple
didn't include but you also open yourself up to malware since the
sandbox is basically gone.
> I think devs are frustrated by the SDK limitations, but will work with what
> they're given.
they don't have much choice :)
> >> > > The songs purchased in the iTunes store were DRM'd, not the media
> >> > > from your CDs.
> >> >
> >> > doesn't matter. copying songs is still infringing unless you own the
> >> > rights to them which almost always is not the case.
> >>
> >> Copying from one of my devices to another without using a computer as a
> >> go-between isn't.
> >
> > it can be, depending on the circumstances.
>
> What circumstances would those be? If I can sync multiple iPhones, iPods,
> Zunes, etc. with the same computer and load the same songs on both, what
> can't I transfer a song on iPhone A to iPhone B without the computer?
because copyright law is convoluted and arcane. for instance, you can
make a backup of a software dvd but not a movie dvd, even though they
are both dvds.
Todd Allcock
> > Again, Windows Mobile manages to protect the ROM- I'd be VERY
surprised if
> > Apple didn't employ similar protections.
>
> people bitch about the sandboxing, but on a stock iphone you can't do
> much outside of the sandbox so it's fairly secure. if you jailbreak it
> and get access to everything, you gain the benefit of features apple
> didn't include but you also open yourself up to malware since the
> sandbox is basically gone.
But again, I suspect even if jailbroken, overwriting the firmware without
the appropriate tools (a computer running a legitimate or illegitimate
flashing utility) is impossible, reducing the damage malware could cause
you the device's data (which is backed up at each sync anyway!) So
sandboxing seems like an extreme solution to a so far non-existent problem.
Beides, sandboxing doesn't require single-point distribution (app store)
or vice-versa, so the app store is arguably a sufficient malware blocker.
> > I think devs are frustrated by the SDK limitations, but will work
with what
> > they're given.
>
> they don't have much choice :)
Exactly. That was my point!
> > >> > > The songs purchased in the iTunes store were DRM'd, not the
media
> > >> > > from your CDs.
> > >> >
> > >> > doesn't matter. copying songs is still infringing unless you
own the
> > >> > rights to them which almost always is not the case.
> > >>
> > >> Copying from one of my devices to another without using a computer
as a
> > >> go-between isn't.
> > >
> > > it can be, depending on the circumstances.
> >
> > What circumstances would those be? If I can sync multiple iPhones,
iPods,
> > Zunes, etc. with the same computer and load the same songs on both,
what
> > can't I transfer a song on iPhone A to iPhone B without the computer?
>
> because copyright law is convoluted and arcane. for instance, you can
> make a backup of a software dvd but not a movie dvd, even though they
> are both dvds.
So legitimate uses (and users) are completely blocked in order to
slightly inconvenience the Forces of the Ungodly, who can just run to
their computers to do all the things the iPhone disallows to "protect"
third-parties.
Jon Ribbens
> But again, I suspect even if jailbroken, overwriting the firmware without
> the appropriate tools (a computer running a legitimate or illegitimate
> flashing utility) is impossible, reducing the damage malware could cause
> you the device's data (which is backed up at each sync anyway!)
As far as I'm aware, jailbroken iPhones can run background processes,
including as root, so I should imagine there is little practical limit
on the "evil" that code on a jailbroken phone can do, whether or not
it can directly overwrite the native OS and apps.
This is not to say that I think jailbroken users should be paranoid
about such things, but I do think your attitude above is overly
complacent.
John Doe
Is there a significant risk to using the iPhone as a server through
your Wi-Fi home network like a Homeportal 1000S?
Thanks.
Larry
nos...@nospam.invalid:
> you can
> make a backup of a software dvd but not a movie dvd, even though they
> are both dvds.
>
I can make a backup of a movie DVD. I CAN, but I'm not supposed to, which
is two different things....(c;]
Alcohol 120...."What copy protection??"
Todd Allcock
> > the Forces of the Ungodly
>
> You a Leslie Charteris fan?
Yes, an indulgence of my youth. You're the first person who's ever
recognized the reference when I've slipped it into a Usenet post.
John Doe
> In article <y_V6m.5801$mc4...@newsfe07.iad>,
> Todd Allcock <elecc...@aNOoSPAMl.com> wrote:
>> > > the Forces of the Ungodly
>> >
>> > You a Leslie Charteris fan?
>>
>> Yes, an indulgence of my youth. You're the first person who's
>> ever recognized the reference when I've slipped it into a
>> Usenet post.
>
> That's because I've been a fan since my late teens. Well, it's
> the reason I recognized it; I don't know why I'm the first,
> though.
Because you are special, Mitch.
Todd Allcock
> That's because I've been a fan since my late teens. Well, it's the
> reason I recognized it; I don't know why I'm the first, though.
For the same reason all the books have been out of print for over two
decades, I guess! :(
Marc Stibane
But it was only that it was made on the iPhone what qualified that
finger painting to be cover worthy - not the application itself. If the
app were running on Windows or MacOS, they never would have put the same
result on the cover.
--
In a world without walls and fences,
who needs windows and gates?
nadia...@gmail.com
> Is there a legitimate Apple approved application that allows the iPhone to
> be used as an ordinary Windows PC folder? I would like to be able to drag
> and drop (or at least somehow easily transfer) files to the iPhone from my
> PC.
>
> Thanks.
Jon
but they are some great third-party apps like iExplorer
http://www.macroplant.com/
Zaidy036
Urs Beeli
explorer integration but allows relative simple (though slow) access to the
iPhone's file structure.
I use this method to upload custom POI files to my TomTom app.
Cheers
/urs
--
"Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine." -- R.C.Gallagher
Laszlo Lebrun
not on iCensored devices dude!
--
One computer and three operating systems, not the other way round.
One wife and many hotels, not the other way round ! ;-)
Zaidy036
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2038214/review-syncios-takes-over-for-itunes.html#tk.nl_down