Apple To Allow Third Party Apps ON iPhone
John
Oxford
> http://www.apple.com/hotnews/
yep! it was only a matter of time before apple played its heavy hand...
expect sales of WinMobile, Symbian and Blackberries to dry up within a
year. this is good news for everyone!
-
Third Party Applications on the iPhone
Let me just say it: We want native third party applications on the
iPhone, and we plan to have an SDK in developersÄ… hands in February. We
are excited about creating a vibrant third party developer community
around the iPhone and enabling hundreds of new applications for our
users. With our revolutionary multi-touch interface, powerful hardware
and advanced software architecture, we believe we have created the best
mobile platform ever for developers.
It will take until February to release an SDK because weÄ…re trying to do
two diametrically opposed things at once‹provide an advanced and open
platform to developers while at the same time protect iPhone users from
viruses, malware, privacy attacks, etc. This is no easy task. Some claim
that viruses and malware are not a problem on mobile phones‹this is
simply not true. There have been serious viruses on other mobile phones
already, including some that silently spread from phone to phone over
the cell network. As our phones become more powerful, these malicious
programs will become more dangerous. And since the iPhone is the most
advanced phone ever, it will be a highly visible target.
Some companies are already taking action. Nokia, for example, is not
allowing any applications to be loaded onto some of their newest phones
unless they have a digital signature that can be traced back to a known
developer. While this makes such a phone less than Å‚totally open,Ë› we
believe it is a step in the right direction. We are working on an
advanced system which will offer developers broad access to natively
program the iPhoneÄ…s amazing software platform while at the same time
protecting users from malicious programs.
We think a few months of patience now will be rewarded by many years of
great third party applications running on safe and reliable iPhones.
Steve
P.S.: The SDK will also allow developers to create applications for iPod
touch. [Oct 17, 2007]
Joel Koltner
news:colalovesmacs-88C...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> expect sales of WinMobile, Symbian and Blackberries to dry up within a
> year. this is good news for everyone!
Not unless prices on iPhones drop significantly. Many people just don't use
any 3rd-party applications on their phone in the first place -- probably at
least 2/3rd of them: They're buying a phone based on what it can do "out of
the box" and price.
But I agree it's good news that Apple's opening up the iPhone to proper
development.
Rick
> "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.apple.com/hotnews/
>
> yep! it was only a matter of time before apple played its heavy hand...
>
> expect sales of WinMobile, Symbian and Blackberries to dry up within a
> year.
AHAH HA hHHA HHAh AHhah hha hHA hHAHhah ahha ha hHA ah ha...
--
Rick
Kurt
"Joel Koltner" <JKolstad7...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Oxford" <colalo...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:colalovesmacs-88C...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> > expect sales of WinMobile, Symbian and Blackberries to dry up within a
> > year. this is good news for everyone!
>
> Not unless prices on iPhones drop significantly. Many people just don't use
> any 3rd-party applications on their phone in the first place -- probably at
> least 2/3rd of them: They're buying a phone based on what it can do "out of
> the box" and price.
The reason most people don't use phones with 3rd party apps is because
they didn't come installed in them.
And then they'd need to pay extra for any of the good (i.e. stable)
programs and have to go through a download and installation process.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
Ness Net
"Oxford" <colalo...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-88C...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
>
> year. this is good news for everyone!
>
> -
>
As always, you just don't get it....
Example:
Blackberry = business tool
iPhone = cool toy - NOT a business tool (unless radically changed in the
future)
Bottom line, your prediction based on today's facts is stupid.
As usual.
Oxford
> > expect sales of WinMobile, Symbian and Blackberries to dry up within a
> > year. this is good news for everyone!
>
> Not unless prices on iPhones drop significantly.
well, we all know that is going to happen within 24 months, an iPhone
nano for $199 is in the works, a $99 iPhone within 36 months. Apple
ALWAYS starts at the top and works its way down the price scale. So it's
only a question "of when" Apple sweeps out the lower handset makers.
> Many people just don't use
> any 3rd-party applications on their phone in the first place --
ah... WHAT? I think you must be using Windows. In the Apple world,
people use whatever they want since it's so EASY to try new software.
In the Windows world everyone has been "conditioned" to not try new
software, but nothing like that exists in the Apple space since there
are no penalties for using new software. The iPhone is the PERFECT
device to try new software without any risk. Plus it's FAR easier to
install / remove software on Macs / iPhones...
So I just had to LAUGH at that since that's a pure Windows issue, not an
Apple or iPhone one.
> probably at
> least 2/3rd of them: They're buying a phone based on what it can do "out of
> the box" and price.
But Apple will change all that... basically, the cell industry plays
under Apple's rule from this point forward. Everyone wants an iPhone
since it's more feature packed and far easier to use than any other cell
phone... we all know that. So once Apple moves the iPhone down the price
scale, it will remove "most" handset makers out of the market.
> But I agree it's good news that Apple's opening up the iPhone to proper
> development.
Yes, it's going to be a massive wave of innovation never before seen by
the cell industry. Never has such a large computer firm entered the cell
space, and since the cell industry is very uncompetitive, Apple will
wipe out much of what exists today... so it's going to fun to watch them
fall.
-
David Empson
> "Oxford" <colalo...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:colalovesmacs-88C...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> > expect sales of WinMobile, Symbian and Blackberries to dry up within a
> > year. this is good news for everyone!
>
> Not unless prices on iPhones drop significantly. Many people just don't use
> any 3rd-party applications on their phone in the first place -- probably at
> least 2/3rd of them: They're buying a phone based on what it can do "out of
> the box" and price.
It also applies to the iPod Touch.
For anyone wanting an advanced highly portable computer, but doesn't
need the additional features of the iPhone (or the long term contract)
this makes the iPod Touch even more interesting.
The PDA market isn't as large as the cellphone market, but the iPod
Touch, iPhone or a future slightly larger model with full PDA
functionality and third party application support will be very
competitive with other brands and platforms, and could easily take over
that market.
> But I agree it's good news that Apple's opening up the iPhone to proper
> development.
This has removed one of my main reasons for not considering an iPod
Touch or an iPhone as a potential replacement for my dying Palm Treo
600. I do use third party software on my Treo and would like to be able
to do so on a replacement device.
I don't want to go to Windows Mobile because it doesn't work well with
the Mac.
Palm has dropped the ball on PalmOS, and a device based on OS X is far
more appealing to me as a Mac user.
I want a device which has full iPod, PDA and cellphone functionality.
If I can't get all three, I'm willing to sacrifice the phone (use a
cheap cellphone instead) but keep portable music and PDA functions on
one device.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
Oxford
> As always, you just don't get it....
>
> Example:
> Blackberry = business tool
> iPhone = cool toy - NOT a business tool (unless radically changed in the
> future)
it was radically changed about 8 hours ago. didn't you get the memo?
no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone they
will be miniscule by this time next year. all business software
developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that is the future
of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance against apple at this
point in the game.
> Bottom line, your prediction based on today's facts is stupid.
What? Apple has totally altered markets before beyond recognition, this
is no different. Sure it takes awhile for people to catch up with what
I'm saying, but they always do when they see what is happening around
them.
Ness_net
>
> no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone they
> will be miniscule by this time next year. all business software
> developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that is the future
> of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance against apple at this
> point in the game.
>
Just the above statement proves you don't have even a fraction of an actual clue.
Everything runs as root on an iPhone, which will keep 95% plus percent
of the (smart anyway) IT depts away - and most do and will BAN the pretty (but flawed) toy.
They won't give a shit if 3rd party apps are loaded. The DEVICE is flawed.
You can go on and on and on like you do - you have less than ZERO credibility at this point.
Every post continues to proves it - again and again.
Like this one... Just another fantasy based wish from a deluded, fanatic fanboy.
IMHO IIRC
Oxford <colalo...@mac.com> typed:
Which is most likely within 4.5 years:
1. All cell phone users will have iPhones with ATT plans.
2. There be about the same ratio of iPhone users with ATT cell plans to
other cell phone users as there are currently users of Apple computers to
users of non-Apple computers.
I would think number 2. :D
Oxford
> > What? Apple has totally altered markets before beyond recognition, this
> > is no different. Sure it takes awhile for people to catch up with what
> > I'm saying, but they always do when they see what is happening around
> > them.
>
> Which is most likely within 4.5 years:
>
> 1. All cell phone users will have iPhones with ATT plans.
>
> 2. There be about the same ratio of iPhone users with ATT cell plans to
> other cell phone users as there are currently users of Apple computers to
> users of non-Apple computers.
>
> I would think number 2. :D
but those aren't the only 2 choices.
3) the iPhone is on all of the top 5 carriers within 2 years.
4) Apple and Google team up and buy their own part of the wireless
spectrum and do an end run around all cell carriers.
5) and many more...
most likely is No. 3 of course.... if those companies can modernize
enough to support Visual Voice Mail and very high bandwidth devices.
IMHO IIRC
Oxford <colalo...@smart.com> typed:
Why do you need high bandwidth? I thought everything was done with WiFi.
How long does ATT have an exclusive on the iPhone in the US? I thought it
was 5 years.
Also the iPhone is only GSM - is Apple also designing one that is CDMA?
Kevin Weaver
Goggle has more money then apple.
"Oxford" <colalo...@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-C9F...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
Kevin Weaver
"IMHO IIRC" <NOS...@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:XuzRi.341794$dA7.1...@newsfe16.lga...
down. Then they got AT&T
Oxford
> And tell us why Google would need apple ?
> Goggle has more money then apple.
Because Apple and Google are partners in crime. Eric Schmidt sits on
Apple's Board of Directors so whatever Apple says, Google does.
and no, Google has about 1/2 the cash of Apple.
-
Oxford
> > 3) the iPhone is on all of the top 5 carriers within 2 years.
> >
> > 4) Apple and Google team up and buy their own part of the wireless
> > spectrum and do an end run around all cell carriers.
> >
> > 5) and many more...
> >
> > most likely is No. 3 of course.... if those companies can modernize
> > enough to support Visual Voice Mail and very high bandwidth devices.
>
> Why do you need high bandwidth? I thought everything was done with WiFi.
80% of it is, but even AT&T choked when all the iPhones first came
online. The data infrastructure of cell firms is way behind firms like
Apple. They hide behind slow 2.5 / 3G networks currently, but once they
get a taste of unlimited 802.11g they are going to falter unless they
plan for the future. They are geared for tiny sized voice transmissions,
not huge data loads that come with all the wonderful features of the
iPhone.
> How long does ATT have an exclusive on the iPhone in the US? I thought it
> was 5 years.
Yes, it's 2 years. So it's hard to say what will happen in 18 months of
course. Steve has the upper hand now, so he can play ATT like a fiddle
for better pricing, or play them off Verizon which is desperate for the
iPhone contract, etc.
> Also the iPhone is only GSM - is Apple also designing one that is CDMA?
currently CDMA is like bad cable internet, it's good for the most part
but it's shared and at peak times your calls sound like crap.
so considering Steve is a no-nonsense kind of guy CDMA might not ever
make the cut.
we'll see.
ed
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkei...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> And tell us why Google would need apple ?
>> Goggle has more money then apple.
>
> Because Apple and Google are partners in crime. Eric Schmidt sits on
> Apple's Board of Directors so whatever Apple says, Google does.
you seem not to understand the point of a board of directors.
> and no, Google has about 1/2 the cash of Apple.
yup, but not much less in relatively liquid assets (cash & cash equivalents,
short term investments, and net receivables). and google has more long term
investments. and a lot less liabilities. i.e. if google *wanted* a higher
cash position, they'd have it.
Oxford
> >> most likely is No. 3 of course.... if those companies can modernize
> >> enough to support Visual Voice Mail and very high bandwidth devices.
> >
> > Why do you need high bandwidth? I thought everything was done with WiFi.
> > How long does ATT have an exclusive on the iPhone in the US? I thought it
> > was 5 years.
> > Also the iPhone is only GSM - is Apple also designing one that is CDMA?
> >
> They did. But Verizon being 1st in line for the iphone, shot the iphone
> down. Then they got AT&T
yes, that will likely go down as one of the top 25 biggest business
blunders of the last 50 years or so.
verizon almost had it, but failed at the end.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/29/verizon-passed-up-apple-iphone-deal/
i think they didn't yet understand that Apple sets the rules, they
don't... so they lost the game. But it's possible they may have a chance
later on.
Kevin Weaver
iphone and apple.
Your starting to sound like John Navas.
"Oxford" <colalo...@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-1CB...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
Kevin Weaver
Your so full of shit.
"Oxford" <colalo...@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-DE8...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
Kevin Weaver
"Oxford" <colalo...@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-A41...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
Kevin Weaver
thinking "Steve" would say no to Google" Fact is I don't think Google gives
a crap what apple thinks.
"Oxford" <colalo...@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-A41...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
IMHO IIRC
Oxford <colalo...@smart.com> typed:
Actually, since Eric Schmidt sits on Apple's Board, Apple does what Google
says! lol
Oxford
> You keep saying this like apple turned down Verizon. Verizon turned down the
> iphone and apple.
actually, you have it upside down, just like you mistakenly post at the
top which is the mark of a true amateur on usenet.
Verizon couldn't meet Apple's demands, so they were shown the door.
Apple has a long history of doing that if companies can't meet high
standards. Look at IBM, they failed, and Apple kicked them out.
Oxford
> Then tell us why "Steve" Wanted Verizon with there CDMA ?
>
> Your so full of shit.
learn proper grammar and how to post to usenet before you get any more
information from me. it's "their", not "there".
Kevin, you don't measure up, here is the door...
ed
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkei...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> You keep saying this like apple turned down Verizon. Verizon turned down
>> the
>> iphone and apple.
>
> actually, you have it upside down, just like you mistakenly post at the
> top which is the mark of a true amateur on usenet.
>
> Verizon couldn't meet Apple's demands, so they were shown the door.
and where did you get this tidbit- it seems every report says that verizon
*wouldn't* meet apple's demands, so they showed apple the door...
<snip>
IMHO IIRC
Oxford <colalo...@smart.com> typed:
VZW would not agree to all of Apples demands so VZW terminated the
negotiations.
Apple had nothing to do with IBM leaving the PC market ~ it was caused by
IBM PC clones which now have over 90% of the desktop computer market
compared to less than 10% for Apple. Percentages not exact - rounded off to
Apple's advantage.
Oxford
> Next you will be saying apple is worth more then Microsoft.
it's "than" microsoft. not "then" microsoft.
no wonder you use windows! duuuuuummmb!
yes, apple will be worth more than microsoft... the general consensus is
this will happen in 2-4 years. and surpass them in "revenue" within 1-2
years.
currently apple is about a $28B company, microsoft is around $49B
-
ZnU
"Ness_net" <ric...@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
> "Oxford" <colalo...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:colalovesmacs-495...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net..
> .
> >
> > no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone
> > they will be miniscule by this time next year. all business
> > software developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that
> > is the future of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance
> > against apple at this point in the game.
> >
>
>
> Just the above statement proves you don't have even a fraction of an
> actual clue.
>
> Everything runs as root on an iPhone, which will keep 95% plus
> percent of the (smart anyway) IT depts away - and most do and will
> BAN the pretty (but flawed) toy.
This is a dumb claim. Yes, everything currently runs as root on an
iPhone. But running an app in a non-multiuser OS (what most other mobile
platforms have) is the same thing as running an app as root.
OS X provides a real permissions model, sandboxing, and application
signing. I can't offhand think of a mobile platform that implements all
three. Apple is also reusing robust battle-tested code from a real
operating system. You can bet there have been a hell of a lot more hours
invested in hardening the BSD networking stack than in hardening
whatever proprietary networking code a BlackBerry has.
Security is just one of many areas where the fact that the iPhone is
using a slimmed down version of a real desktop OS gives Apple
significant advantages over its competitors. (Well, except possibly its
Linux-based competitors, but at least in the US Linux-based phones don't
seem to have gotten anywhere.)
[snip]
--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
ZnU
"Kevin Weaver" <kevinkei...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> And tell us why Google would need apple ?
> Goggle has more money then apple.
I don't know if Google *needs* Apple, and I have no idea how closely the
two companies will end up working together... but Apple sure has a lot
more experience than Google building operating systems and hardware
platforms. The two companies would in many respects be a natural fit for
each other.
Scott
news:colalovesmacs-DE8...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:
> "IMHO IIRC" <NOS...@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>> > 3) the iPhone is on all of the top 5 carriers within 2 years.
>> >
>> > 4) Apple and Google team up and buy their own part of the wireless
>> > spectrum and do an end run around all cell carriers.
>> >
>> > 5) and many more...
>> >
>> > most likely is No. 3 of course.... if those companies can modernize
>> > enough to support Visual Voice Mail and very high bandwidth
>> > devices.
>>
>> Why do you need high bandwidth? I thought everything was done with
>> WiFi.
>
> 80% of it is, but even AT&T choked when all the iPhones first came
> online. The data infrastructure of cell firms is way behind firms like
> Apple.
Apple has no daya infrastructure, moron.
> They hide behind slow 2.5 / 3G networks currently, but once
> they get a taste of unlimited 802.11g they are going to falter unless
> they plan for the future. They are geared for tiny sized voice
> transmissions, not huge data loads that come with all the wonderful
> features of the iPhone.
Oh, little Oxturd- how little you know about the world. No company on
the face of the planet is backing an unlimited 80211g initiative. Not
even Stevie Jobber is blowing that horn.
>
>> How long does ATT have an exclusive on the iPhone in the US? I
>> thought it was 5 years.
>
> Yes, it's 2 years. So it's hard to say what will happen in 18 months
> of course.
No it's not- iPhone swill be obsolete.
> Steve has the upper hand now, so he can play ATT like a
> fiddle for better pricing,
No he can't
> or play them off Verizon which is desperate
> for the iPhone contract, etc.
Except that Verizon turned away Apple once already and already has a
superior product lineup with better pricing and finctionality.
>
>> Also the iPhone is only GSM - is Apple also designing one that is
>> CDMA?
>
> currently CDMA is like bad cable internet, it's good for the most part
> but it's shared and at peak times your calls sound like crap.
And holds the lion's share of the US market, hands down. That's why
Apple won't develop one- they always use second rate technology.
>
Scott
news:colalovesmacs-1CB...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkei...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> >> most likely is No. 3 of course.... if those companies can
>> >> modernize enough to support Visual Voice Mail and very high
>> >> bandwidth devices.
>> >
>> > Why do you need high bandwidth? I thought everything was done with
>> > WiFi. How long does ATT have an exclusive on the iPhone in the US?
>> > I thought it was 5 years.
>> > Also the iPhone is only GSM - is Apple also designing one that is
>> > CDMA?
>> >
>> They did. But Verizon being 1st in line for the iphone, shot the
>> iphone down. Then they got AT&T
>
> yes, that will likely go down as one of the top 25 biggest business
> blunders of the last 50 years or so.
Based on what? Your clueless opinion? Verizon is positioned to surpass
AT&T in subscriber base and they aren't giving away money to market a
second class phone.
>
> verizon almost had it, but failed at the end.
>
> http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/29/verizon-passed-up-apple-iphone-deal/
That wasn't failure- it was very good foresight.
>
> i think they didn't yet understand that Apple sets the rules,
Where?
> they
> don't...
yet they did
Scott
news:colalovesmacs-A2A...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkei...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> You keep saying this like apple turned down Verizon. Verizon turned
>> down the iphone and apple.
>
> actually, you have it upside down, just like you mistakenly post at
> the top which is the mark of a true amateur on usenet.
>
> Verizon couldn't meet Apple's demands, so they were shown the door.
A lie insupported by the facts.
> Apple has a long history of doing that if companies can't meet high
> standards.
Such as?
> Look at IBM, they failed, and Apple kicked them out.
>
Um, no. IBM's failure was due to HP, Dell and a host of other companies.
Little player Apple wasn't the reason.
ZnU
"Joel Koltner" <JKolstad7...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Oxford" <colalo...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:colalovesmacs-88C...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> > expect sales of WinMobile, Symbian and Blackberries to dry up within a
> > year. this is good news for everyone!
>
> Not unless prices on iPhones drop significantly. Many people just don't use
> any 3rd-party applications on their phone in the first place -- probably at
> least 2/3rd of them: They're buying a phone based on what it can do "out of
> the box" and price.
You're making the mistake of comparing the iPhone's price to the price
of other phones. You might want to consider that the iPhone in the first
phone on the market which can reasonably take the place of an iPod, and
look at what people will happily pay for iPods.
(And yes, I'm quite aware there have been other music player phones, but
as we see in the music player market itself, most people don't consider
other music players to be reasonable iPod substitutes.)
Anyway, I'd expect Apple to be pretty aggressive with pricing. Because
they sell 80% of the world's music players, they can probably get better
prices on most components than their competitors.
> But I agree it's good news that Apple's opening up the iPhone to proper
> development.
Scott
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkei...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Next you will be saying apple is worth more then Microsoft.
>
> it's "than" microsoft. not "then" microsoft.
>
> no wonder you use windows! duuuuuummmb!
>
> yes, apple will be worth more than microsoft... the general consensus is
> this will happen in 2-4 years. and surpass them in "revenue" within 1-2
> years.
According to who? I find no such analysis anywhere.
>
> currently apple is about a $28B company, microsoft is around $49B
>
> -
>
Try again, nimrod.
Apple- $150B
Microsoft- $292B
Damn- you are that stupid.
ZnU
"Kevin Weaver" <kevinkei...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Next you will be saying apple is worth more then Microsoft.
It's not completely out of the realm of possibility that Apple will have
higher market capitalization than Microsoft in a couple of years. As
much as "serious" business types like to sneer at consumer products, the
markets Apple is playing in these days are actually or potentially
gigantic.
Meanwhile, Microsoft's core markets (desktop operating systems and
office software) have much lower growth rates (they're more
established), and Microsoft hasn't even been releasing particularly
compelling products in them.
Oxford
> > no wonder you use windows! duuuuuummmb!
> >
> > yes, apple will be worth more than microsoft... the general consensus is
> > this will happen in 2-4 years. and surpass them in "revenue" within 1-2
> > years.
>
> According to who? I find no such analysis anywhere.
the financial community in general, no specific firm.
> > currently apple is about a $28B company, microsoft is around $49B
> >
> > -
> >
>
> Try again, nimrod.
>
> Apple- $150B
> Microsoft- $292B
>
> Damn- you are that stupid.
scott, you goofed again.
apple is around 28B in revenue, microsoft is around $49B in revenue.
those are the "sizes" of the two firms. market cap is different.
do i have to spell EVERYTHING out to you?
it seems so.
Scott
news:colalovesmacs-0D5...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:
> Scott <how...@you.do> wrote:
>
>> > no wonder you use windows! duuuuuummmb!
>> >
>> > yes, apple will be worth more than microsoft... the general
>> > consensus is this will happen in 2-4 years. and surpass them in
>> > "revenue" within 1-2 years.
>>
>> According to who? I find no such analysis anywhere.
>
> the financial community in general, no specific firm.
No such analysis exists. You just lied again.
>
>> > currently apple is about a $28B company, microsoft is around $49B
>> >
>> > -
>> >
>>
>> Try again, nimrod.
>>
>> Apple- $150B
>> Microsoft- $292B
>>
>> Damn- you are that stupid.
>
> scott, you goofed again.
>
> apple is around 28B in revenue, microsoft is around $49B in revenue.
> those are the "sizes" of the two firms. market cap is different.
How little you know about the real world- revenue does not dictate the size
of the company, pinhead.
>
> do i have to spell EVERYTHING out to you?
Why start now? You've done such a good job of looking like an idiot.
>
> it seems so.
>
Oxford
> > 80% of it is, but even AT&T choked when all the iPhones first came
> > online. The data infrastructure of cell firms is way behind firms like
> > Apple.
>
> Apple has no daya infrastructure, moron.
daya? what the hell?
> > They hide behind slow 2.5 / 3G networks currently, but once
> > they get a taste of unlimited 802.11g they are going to falter unless
> > they plan for the future. They are geared for tiny sized voice
> > transmissions, not huge data loads that come with all the wonderful
> > features of the iPhone.
>
> Oh, little Oxturd- how little you know about the world. No company on
> the face of the planet is backing an unlimited 80211g initiative. Not
> even Stevie Jobber is blowing that horn.
that's strange, most all ISPs do, thus 802.11g provides "Unlimited Data"
just like what you get on the iPhone either via 802.11g or via EDGE.
> >> How long does ATT have an exclusive on the iPhone in the US? I
> >> thought it was 5 years.
> >
> > Yes, it's 2 years. So it's hard to say what will happen in 18 months
> > of course.
>
> No it's not- iPhone swill be obsolete.
no, Apple doesn't build products like that. Apple will update the
current iPhone for about 5-6 years, then yes... it will become older but
still like it does today and 5+ years from now. Obsolete for an Apple
product is around 7-15 years. Sounds like you are a windows user and
aren't to long product lives.
> > Steve has the upper hand now, so he can play ATT like a
> > fiddle for better pricing,
>
> No he can't
He now holds the golden phone, ATT's top selling smart phone and
strongest source for new users to ATT. Yes, he has a lot of power over
them, he was even able to kick out the CEO just before the iPhone
launched, remember. That's power!
> > or play them off Verizon which is desperate
> > for the iPhone contract, etc.
>
> Except that Verizon turned away Apple once already and already has a
> superior product lineup with better pricing and finctionality.
Verizon doesn't have any product at the level of the iPhone, they got
screwed since they didn't realize how popular the iPhone would become,
especially so quickly. Pricing is the same, but your right,
"fictionality" isn't as strong on the iPhone :)
> >> Also the iPhone is only GSM - is Apple also designing one that is
> >> CDMA?
> >
> > currently CDMA is like bad cable internet, it's good for the most part
> > but it's shared and at peak times your calls sound like crap.
>
> And holds the lion's share of the US market, hands down. That's why
> Apple won't develop one- they always use second rate technology.
actually, Apple examines technology to the extreme before they make a
move. The fact it doesn't have CDMA shows it's not worthy enough of a
high end device. Yes, that could change, but it illustrates flaws within
that approach so it cannot yet be used. Apple is the king maker, so what
they "say" goes for the rest of the industry. It's how they work and
it's how "you will work" once you move up to an iPhone.
You can thank them later.
-
Kevin Weaver
to show even you mistype as well. : )
Yes I top post. As others here do as well.
"Oxford" <colalo...@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-097...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
ed
> Scott <how...@you.do> wrote:
>
>> > 80% of it is, but even AT&T choked when all the iPhones first came
>> > online. The data infrastructure of cell firms is way behind firms like
>> > Apple.
>>
>> Apple has no daya infrastructure, moron.
>
> daya? what the hell?
not bright enough to figure it out, oxford? ;D
<snip>
Oxford
> VZW would not agree to all of Apples demands so VZW terminated the
> negotiations.
well, they still lost the ability to sell the iPhone which has put a
drag on the company's stock compared to ATT.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=T&t=1y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=vz
> Apple had nothing to do with IBM leaving the PC market ~ it was caused by
> IBM PC clones which now have over 90% of the desktop computer market
> compared to less than 10% for Apple. Percentages not exact - rounded off to
> Apple's advantage.
no, i didn't mean them leaving the PC market in that previous comment. i
meant that IBM lost the big Apple account for the PowerPC chips about
1.5 years ago... it caused quite a stir inside IBM and laid off 100's.
they just couldn't keep up with Apple.
Oxford
> > Verizon couldn't meet Apple's demands, so they were shown the door.
>
> and where did you get this tidbit- it seems every report says that verizon
> *wouldn't* meet apple's demands, so they showed apple the door...
yes, they failed at meeting high standards and lost the iPhone in the
process. perhaps they'll wisen up and win a contract in the future.
ZnU
<colalovesmacs-E63...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <colalo...@smart.com> wrote:
> Scott <how...@you.do> wrote:
[snip]
> no, Apple doesn't build products like that. Apple will update the
> current iPhone for about 5-6 years, then yes... it will become older but
> still like it does today and 5+ years from now. Obsolete for an Apple
> product is around 7-15 years. Sounds like you are a windows user and
> aren't to long product lives.
It remains to be seen whether the iPhone will be treated more like a Mac
(5-6 years worth of compatible updates -- but you have to pay for some
of them) or more like an iPod (rarely any updates for old models once
new models come out).
Expecting a 7-15 year life from a cell phone is nuts, though.
[snip]
> actually, Apple examines technology to the extreme before they make a
> move. The fact it doesn't have CDMA shows it's not worthy enough of a
> high end device. Yes, that could change, but it illustrates flaws within
> that approach so it cannot yet be used. Apple is the king maker, so what
> they "say" goes for the rest of the industry. It's how they work and
> it's how "you will work" once you move up to an iPhone.
You're being bizarre again. It's virtually certain that Apple picked a
cell phone network operator first and then built the phone to use a
compatible technology, rather than the other way around. While there are
some things GSM does better than CDMA, the reverse is also true, and
honestly their capabilities are similar enough that most people have no
reason to care. (Unless they want to roam overseas.)
Scott
> Scott <how...@you.do> wrote:
>
>> > 80% of it is, but even AT&T choked when all the iPhones first came
>> > online. The data infrastructure of cell firms is way behind firms
like
>> > Apple.
>>
>> Apple has no daya infrastructure, moron.
>
> daya? what the hell?
Sorry- I should have known that a simpleton like you would need exact
spelling. And playing the spelling card as you have simply shows that
you have nothing of merit to contribute- it's a rather juvenile thing to
do.
The fact is- Apple has no data infrastructure.
>
>> > They hide behind slow 2.5 / 3G networks currently, but once
>> > they get a taste of unlimited 802.11g they are going to falter
unless
>> > they plan for the future. They are geared for tiny sized voice
>> > transmissions, not huge data loads that come with all the wonderful
>> > features of the iPhone.
>>
>> Oh, little Oxturd- how little you know about the world. No company
on
>> the face of the planet is backing an unlimited 80211g initiative.
Not
>> even Stevie Jobber is blowing that horn.
>
> that's strange, most all ISPs do,
No they don't.
> thus 802.11g provides "Unlimited Data"
> just like what you get on the iPhone either via 802.11g or via EDGE.
>
>> >> How long does ATT have an exclusive on the iPhone in the US? I
>> >> thought it was 5 years.
>> >
>> > Yes, it's 2 years. So it's hard to say what will happen in 18
months
>> > of course.
>>
>> No it's not- iPhone swill be obsolete.
>
> no, Apple doesn't build products like that. Apple will update the
> current iPhone for about 5-6 years, then yes... it will become older
but
> still like it does today and 5+ years from now. Obsolete for an Apple
> product is around 7-15 years. Sounds like you are a windows user and
> aren't to long product lives.
Sounds like you are an idiot and don't know anything about the market.
Your little fantasies are nothing more than that. Bring some documented
facts to the table next time, newbie.
>
>> > Steve has the upper hand now, so he can play ATT like a
>> > fiddle for better pricing,
>>
>> No he can't
>
> He now holds the golden phone,
a fad
> ATT's top selling smart phone and
> strongest source for new users to ATT.
And yet Verizon is getting ready to overtake them. Hmmmmm,,,,,
> Yes, he has a lot of power over
> them, he was even able to kick out the CEO just before the iPhone
> launched, remember. That's power!
No- that's delusion on your part.
>
>> > or play them off Verizon which is desperate
>> > for the iPhone contract, etc.
>>
>> Except that Verizon turned away Apple once already and already has a
>> superior product lineup with better pricing and finctionality.
>
> Verizon doesn't have any product at the level of the iPhone,
You're right- they sell much more functional product.
> they got
> screwed since they didn't realize how popular the iPhone would become,
> especially so quickly. Pricing is the same, but your right,
> "fictionality" isn't as strong on the iPhone :)
Again with the spelling. Does mommy know you're staying up so late?
>
>> >> Also the iPhone is only GSM - is Apple also designing one that is
>> >> CDMA?
>> >
>> > currently CDMA is like bad cable internet, it's good for the most
part
>> > but it's shared and at peak times your calls sound like crap.
>>
>> And holds the lion's share of the US market, hands down. That's why
>> Apple won't develop one- they always use second rate technology.
>
> actually, Apple examines technology to the extreme before they make a
> move.
Which is why the iPhone is missing key functionality.
> The fact it doesn't have CDMA shows it's not worthy enough of a
> high end device.
Based on what?
Scott
news:colalovesmacs-B3E...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:
No- they met all standards. They turned down the phone.
Oxford
> > no, Apple doesn't build products like that. Apple will update the
> > current iPhone for about 5-6 years, then yes... it will become older but
> > still run like it does today and 5+ years from now. Obsolete for an Apple
> > product is around 7-15 years. Sounds like you are a windows user and
> > aren't used to long product lives.
>
> It remains to be seen whether the iPhone will be treated more like a Mac
> (5-6 years worth of compatible updates -- but you have to pay for some
> of them) or more like an iPod (rarely any updates for old models once
> new models come out).
yes, but my Gen 1 iPod works with iTunes in Leopard, so that's basically
6 years of "support"... and I'd expect it to work for several more years
as well. Sure, no major firmware or software upgrades, but it's still as
functional as it was the day it was purchased.
> Expecting a 7-15 year life from a cell phone is nuts, though.
yes, although i remember my dad had an old sprint phone that he used for
a little over 5 years, replace a battery year 4, kinda like what i had
to do with my iPod.
another advantage of the iPhone is there are no buttons to become
obsolete, so just put on a new OS/Apps and it's a new phone, no other
smart phone can work that way since it's "locked down" by its button
filled design.
> [snip]
>
> > actually, Apple examines technology to the extreme before they make a
> > move. The fact it doesn't have CDMA shows it's not worthy enough of a
> > high end device. Yes, that could change, but it illustrates flaws within
> > that approach so it cannot yet be used. Apple is the king maker, so what
> > they "say" goes for the rest of the industry. It's how they work and
> > it's how "you will work" once you move up to an iPhone.
>
> You're being bizarre again. It's virtually certain that Apple picked a
> cell phone network operator first and then built the phone to use a
> compatible technology, rather than the other way around. While there are
> some things GSM does better than CDMA, the reverse is also true, and
> honestly their capabilities are similar enough that most people have no
> reason to care. (Unless they want to roam overseas.)
nah, i just have more inside info that most. apple has been working on a
phone for about 20 years, (and as you know, some of apple's startup
money in 1976 came from phreaking ATT's network) so much of the
development and knowledge came from years of learning the phone/cell
market.
my hunch is ATT simply has a better long term infrastructure, has deeper
pockets than verizon, tmobile, etc... and is into other things besides
just phones. so it's a better fit for apple's future products anyway.
then there is the cultural aspect as was learned by the O2 rollout.
Verizon probably didn't have the talent Steve was looking for so... he
walked when they couldn't deliver.
-
Kevin Weaver
Did you not learn to use a capital at the beginning of a sentence ?
Oxford
> > yes, they failed at meeting high standards and lost the iPhone in the
> > process. perhaps they'll wisen up and win a contract in the future.
>
> No- they met all standards. They turned down the phone.
incorrect. story is, they wouldn't pay the monthly amount back Apple, so
Apple had no choice but to let them go. They probably could technically
meet Apple's higher needs, but they couldn't follow the financial rules
so they lost. A similar thing happened to NBC a month or so ago, now NBC
is without about 1/3rd of their web revenue. Ouch.
Kevin Weaver
What ? Another typo ? "aren't to long product lives" ? Should I get out me
decoder ring ?
Dennis Ferguson
(Or unless they want to sell mobile phones outside the US)
Apple has actually picked three mobile phone network operators
now, AT&T in the US, O2 in the UK and T-Mobile in Germany. If
they'd built a CDMA phone they wouldn't have any mobile phone
network operators selling it in the UK or Germany, or in most
of the rest of the countries on the planet, until they finished
a GSM model. Building the GSM model first may hence have been
smarter.
Dennis Ferguson
Oxford
> >> Apple has no daya infrastructure, moron.
> >
> > daya? what the hell?
>
> Sorry- I should have known that a simpleton like you would need exact
> spelling. And playing the spelling card as you have simply shows that
> you have nothing of merit to contribute- it's a rather juvenile thing to
> do.
>
> The fact is- Apple has no data infrastructure.
daya and data is fairly far apart. in the mac world there used to be a
company called Dayna. (i think Intel bought them later) so that's why i
didn't make the connection of "data" i wasn't playing the "spelling
card", i was just confused since you had a typo. i don't fault you on
that, it happens to all of us, but no, Apple has one of the largest data
delivery networks on the planet. 1000's of terabytes flow through Apple
each day, "and their contractors, like Akamai" Verizon has nothing like
it. iTunes ALONE is probably much larger in daily traffic than Verizon.
> >> even Stevie Jobber is blowing that horn.
> >
> > that's strange, most all ISPs do,
>
> No they don't.
Comcast does, Qwest does, Earthlink does, etc, etc, etc.
> > no, Apple doesn't build products like that. Apple will update the
> > current iPhone for about 5-6 years, then yes... it will become older
> but
> > still like it does today and 5+ years from now. Obsolete for an Apple
> > product is around 7-15 years. Sounds like you are a windows user and
> > aren't to long product lives.
>
> Sounds like you are an idiot and don't know anything about the market.
> Your little fantasies are nothing more than that. Bring some documented
> facts to the table next time, newbie.
ah, I've been in this market for about 30 years, i know my markets,
Apple stuff simply lasts longer than any other PC vendor, but certainly
you know that.
> >> No he can't
> >
> > He now holds the golden phone,
>
> a fad
yeah, kinda like when printers said the "internet is a fad", radio
stations said the iPod was a "fad", using a mouse on a computer, just a
fad, on and on... and Apple is behind every one of these shifts.
now they are in the cell market in a big way, and won't stop until it is
reshaped to their specifications.
> > ATT's top selling smart phone and
> > strongest source for new users to ATT.
>
> And yet Verizon is getting ready to overtake them. Hmmmmm,,,,,
not with the iPhone in their pocket, verizon is now fading away month by
month, loosing its customer base since it doesn't have access to the
iPhone.
> > Yes, he has a lot of power over
> > them, he was even able to kick out the CEO just before the iPhone
> > launched, remember. That's power!
>
> No- that's delusion on your part.
What? It did happen, no delusion.
> >> > or play them off Verizon which is desperate
> >> > for the iPhone contract, etc.
> >>
> >> Except that Verizon turned away Apple once already and already has a
> >> superior product lineup with better pricing and finctionality.
> >
> > Verizon doesn't have any product at the level of the iPhone,
>
> You're right- they sell much more functional product.
someday you'll touch an iPhone and see how foolish your comments are.
> > they got
> > screwed since they didn't realize how popular the iPhone would become,
> > especially so quickly. Pricing is the same, but your right,
> > "fictionality" isn't as strong on the iPhone :)
>
> Again with the spelling. Does mommy know you're staying up so late?
it was your typo... "finctionality", (see above) which made me think of
"fictionality"... which is so much of what you spew.
> >> And holds the lion's share of the US market, hands down. That's why
> >> Apple won't develop one- they always use second rate technology.
> >
> > actually, Apple examines technology to the extreme before they make a
> > move.
>
> Which is why the iPhone is missing key functionality.
Like what? GPS yes, but that technology might not be ready yet, or to
explain it to you. Apple might not be ready to revolutionize it yet.
> > The fact it doesn't have CDMA shows it's not worthy enough of a
> > high end device.
>
> Based on what?
Apple didn't pick it. Sure if it's tied to Verizon losing the iPhone
account that's another thing, but likely for "technical" reasons it
wasn't up to Apple's standards, so it couldn't be used at this time.
-
Oxford
> (Or unless they want to sell mobile phones outside the US)
>
> Apple has actually picked three mobile phone network operators
> now, AT&T in the US, O2 in the UK and T-Mobile in Germany. If
> they'd built a CDMA phone they wouldn't have any mobile phone
> network operators selling it in the UK or Germany, or in most
> of the rest of the countries on the planet, until they finished
> a GSM model. Building the GSM model first may hence have been
> smarter.
actually the T-Mobile deal is not finalized, but the Orange one with
France is...
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/10/16orange.html
so either there will be a european iphone model, or it's already in
there, but not turned on.
specs for the UK iphone look the same...
Oxford
> > no, Apple doesn't build products like that. Apple will update the
> > current iPhone for about 5-6 years, then yes... it will become older but
> > still like it does today and 5+ years from now. Obsolete for an Apple
> > product is around 7-15 years. Sounds like you are a windows user and
> > aren't to long product lives.
>
> What ? Another typo ? "aren't to long product lives" ? Should I get out me
> decoder ring ?
problem is, mine were typos, but you actually used incorrect grammar.
"then microsoft", and "there software"
those aren't typos, those are pure mistakes from a poor education.
at least you are learning how to correctly post on usenet!
Oxford
> >> > 80% of it is, but even AT&T choked when all the iPhones first came
> >> > online. The data infrastructure of cell firms is way behind firms like
> >> > Apple.
> >>
> >> Apple has no daya infrastructure, moron.
> >
> > daya? what the hell?
>
> not bright enough to figure it out, oxford? ;D
not when there is/was a communication company called "Dayna" in the mac
world... which you had no clue about...
http://www.intel.com/support/dayna/
he made a typo, no big deal.
Elmo P. Shagnasty
<colalovesmacs-C2C...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <colalo...@smart.com> wrote:
> nah, i just have more inside info that most.
Who is Adele Goldberg, and what crucial role did she play in Steve
Jobs's world?
You know so much, you have so much insider information, you know so much
about the history of Apple (20 years now they've been working on a phone
right?) and interactive personal computing, so tell us all:
who is Adele Goldberg, and what crucial role did she play in Steve
Jobs's world?
Here's a safe bet: you won't answer this, because you can't answer it,
because you DON'T KNOW.
Here's an even safer bet: you won't (can't!) acknowledge that you DON'T
KNOW, so you'll dance around the subject in front of everyone.
ed
> Scott <how...@you.do> wrote:
>
>> > yes, they failed at meeting high standards and lost the iPhone in the
>> > process. perhaps they'll wisen up and win a contract in the future.
>>
>> No- they met all standards. They turned down the phone.
>
> incorrect. story is, they wouldn't pay the monthly amount back Apple, so
> Apple had no choice but to let them go.
not paying apple is failing to meet apple's high standards? hahahahaaaa!
<snip>
Larry
88CE63.125...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:
> Some companies are already taking action. Nokia, for example,
is not
> allowing any applications to be loaded onto some of their
newest phones
> unless they have a digital signature that can be traced back to
a known
> developer. While this makes such a phone less than ütotally
open,ý we
> believe it is a step in the right direction. We are working on
an
> advanced system which will offer developers broad access to
natively
> program the iPhoneûs amazing software platform while at the
same time
> protecting users from malicious programs.
>
>
The Linux community has provided me with some beautiful
applications for my new Nokia N800 that still amaze and keep me
interested......at no cost, should I choose not to participate.
Thank you, Nokia.....and Skype.....(c;
Larry
--
You can tell there's extremely
intelligent life in the universe
because they have never called Earth.
ed
> "IMHO IIRC" <NOS...@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>> VZW would not agree to all of Apples demands so VZW terminated the
>> negotiations.
>
> well, they still lost the ability to sell the iPhone which has put a
> drag on the company's stock compared to ATT.
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=T&t=1y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=vz
a drag? they're about even in that chart. vz only lagged t in the hype
following the iphone intro, up to the actual launch, and vz outperforms t
since the actual iphone release.
<snip>
Ness_net
Verizon passed on the iPhone. Or passed on the
terms Apple was demanding. These are the facts.
Just because some fanboy like you inverts it, it doesn't
make it the truth.
Verizon passed on the iPhone.
"Oxford" <colalo...@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-A2A...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkei...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> You keep saying this like apple turned down Verizon. Verizon turned down the
>> iphone and apple.
>
> actually, you have it upside down, just like you mistakenly post at the
> top which is the mark of a true amateur on usenet.
>
> Verizon couldn't meet Apple's demands, so they were shown the door.
> Apple has a long history of doing that if companies can't meet high
> standards. Look at IBM, they failed, and Apple kicked them out.
Ness_net
"Oxford" <colalo...@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-B3E...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
Ness_net
Oxford
> > nah, i just have more inside info that most.
>
> Who is Adele Goldberg, and what crucial role did she play in Steve
> Jobs's world?
>
> You know so much, you have so much insider information, you know so much
> about the history of Apple (20 years now they've been working on a phone
> right?) and interactive personal computing, so tell us all:
>
> who is Adele Goldberg, and what crucial role did she play in Steve
> Jobs's world?
>
> Here's a safe bet: you won't answer this, because you can't answer it,
> because you DON'T KNOW.
>
> Here's an even safer bet: you won't (can't!) acknowledge that you DON'T
> KNOW, so you'll dance around the subject in front of everyone.
the answer is NONE. she was there to play hostess to apple when they
paid to visit PARC, but other than that, she had no influence in apple's
or steve's world.
so once again Elmo is playing a game he can never win since facts are
not on his side. too funny!
Peter Hayes
> In article <8NWdnRF_ccSVKYva...@giganews.com>,
> "Ness_net" <ric...@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
> > "Oxford" <colalo...@mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:colalovesmacs-495...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net..
> > .
> > >
> > > no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone
> > > they will be miniscule by this time next year. all business
> > > software developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that
> > > is the future of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance
> > > against apple at this point in the game.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Just the above statement proves you don't have even a fraction of an
> > actual clue.
> >
> > Everything runs as root on an iPhone, which will keep 95% plus
> > percent of the (smart anyway) IT depts away - and most do and will
> > BAN the pretty (but flawed) toy.
>
> This is a dumb claim. Yes, everything currently runs as root on an
> iPhone. But running an app in a non-multiuser OS (what most other mobile
> platforms have) is the same thing as running an app as root.
It most certainly isn't.
> OS X provides a real permissions model, sandboxing, and application
> signing. I can't offhand think of a mobile platform that implements all
> three. Apple is also reusing robust battle-tested code from a real
> operating system. You can bet there have been a hell of a lot more hours
> invested in hardening the BSD networking stack than in hardening
> whatever proprietary networking code a BlackBerry has.
I suspect the iPhone runs a multi-user os set up as a single-user system
but not as root. To run it as root is playing with fire.
--
Immunity is better than innoculation.
Peter
ZnU
Dennis Ferguson <dcfer...@pacbell.net> wrote:
I suspect if Apple had gone with a CDMA provider in the US, they'd have
had a GSM version ready as well by this time anyway.
ZnU
noti...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <8NWdnRF_ccSVKYva...@giganews.com>,
> > "Ness_net" <ric...@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Oxford" <colalo...@mac.com> wrote in message
> > > news:colalovesmacs-495...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net..
> > > .
> > > >
> > > > no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone
> > > > they will be miniscule by this time next year. all business
> > > > software developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that
> > > > is the future of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance
> > > > against apple at this point in the game.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Just the above statement proves you don't have even a fraction of an
> > > actual clue.
> > >
> > > Everything runs as root on an iPhone, which will keep 95% plus
> > > percent of the (smart anyway) IT depts away - and most do and will
> > > BAN the pretty (but flawed) toy.
> >
> > This is a dumb claim. Yes, everything currently runs as root on an
> > iPhone. But running an app in a non-multiuser OS (what most other mobile
> > platforms have) is the same thing as running an app as root.
>
> It most certainly isn't.
Of course it is. Running as root simply means there are no user-based
permissions that prevent processes from doing whatever they like.
Single-user operating systems don't have user-based permissions at all,
therefore there obviously can't be any user-based permissions that
prevent processes from doing whatever they like.
The "don't run anything as root" mantra has been repeated so many times
that people have some sort of irrational fear of it. It's true that it's
less secure than the alternatives offered by multi-user operating
systems... but running OS 9 or Windows 98, one was essentially always
running as root, and the same is true of most mobile operating systems
today.
[snip]
ZnU
> ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > no, Apple doesn't build products like that. Apple will update the
> > > current iPhone for about 5-6 years, then yes... it will become older but
> > > still run like it does today and 5+ years from now. Obsolete for an Apple
> > > product is around 7-15 years. Sounds like you are a windows user and
> > > aren't used to long product lives.
> >
> > It remains to be seen whether the iPhone will be treated more like a Mac
> > (5-6 years worth of compatible updates -- but you have to pay for some
> > of them) or more like an iPod (rarely any updates for old models once
> > new models come out).
>
> yes, but my Gen 1 iPod works with iTunes in Leopard, so that's basically
> 6 years of "support"... and I'd expect it to work for several more years
> as well. Sure, no major firmware or software upgrades, but it's still as
> functional as it was the day it was purchased.
You said above "Apple will update the current iPhone for about 5-6
years". That doesn't mean the same thing as "Apple will keep iTunes
compatible with the iPhone for 5-6 years".
[snip]
> > You're being bizarre again. It's virtually certain that Apple picked a
> > cell phone network operator first and then built the phone to use a
> > compatible technology, rather than the other way around. While there are
> > some things GSM does better than CDMA, the reverse is also true, and
> > honestly their capabilities are similar enough that most people have no
> > reason to care. (Unless they want to roam overseas.)
>
> nah, i just have more inside info that most. apple has been working on a
> phone for about 20 years, (and as you know, some of apple's startup
> money in 1976 came from phreaking ATT's network) so much of the
> development and knowledge came from years of learning the phone/cell
> market.
There was absolutely no indication Apple was working on a phone until
three or four years ago, when postings started showing up on their job
boards looking for people with cell phone hardware experience.
> my hunch is ATT simply has a better long term infrastructure, has deeper
> pockets than verizon, tmobile, etc... and is into other things besides
> just phones. so it's a better fit for apple's future products anyway.
But Apple, by all accounts, approached Verizon first.
> then there is the cultural aspect as was learned by the O2 rollout.
> Verizon probably didn't have the talent Steve was looking for so... he
> walked when they couldn't deliver.
--
ed
totally irrelevant, given the context (you had written 'data
infrastructure' the line above where he wrote 'daya infrastructure').
> he made a typo, no big deal.
wow, you CAN figure it out (given enough time and a little
prodding)! :D
ed
<snip>
> nah, i just have more inside info that most. apple has been working on a
> phone for about 20 years, (and as you know, some of apple's startup
> money in 1976 came from phreaking ATT's network) so much of the
> development and knowledge came from years of learning the phone/cell
> market.
>
> my hunch is ATT simply has a better long term infrastructure, has deeper
> pockets than verizon, tmobile, etc...
you might want to check out their statements (especially vz) instead
of relying on your 'hunch' about deeper pockets.
> and is into other things besides
> just phones. so it's a better fit for apple's future products anyway.
what does att do that verizon doesn't? off the top of my head, att's
main plays are internet, home phone, wireless phone, and cable.
verizon does internet, home phone, wireless phone, and is moving into
tv (they have fios tv (otherwise bundle directv) (and their fiber
architecture is obviously way better than att's, so they're better
placed for future home delivery of various services)).
<snip>
ed
> Scott <how...@you.do> wrote:
<snip>
> > The fact is- Apple has no data infrastructure.
>
> daya and data is fairly far apart. in the mac world there used to be a
> company called Dayna. (i think Intel bought them later) so that's why i
> didn't make the connection of "data" i wasn't playing the "spelling
> card", i was just confused since you had a typo. i don't fault you on
> that, it happens to all of us, but no, Apple has one of the largest data
> delivery networks on the planet. 1000's of terabytes flow through Apple
> each day, "and their contractors, like Akamai" Verizon has nothing like
> it. iTunes ALONE is probably much larger in daily traffic than Verizon.
akamai is available to whoever wants to pay, and they partner closely
with verizon (they promote each others services in a partnership), so
saying that verizon has nothing like it is quite a stretch.
<snip>
> not with the iPhone in their pocket, verizon is now fading away month by
> month, loosing its customer base since it doesn't have access to the
> iPhone.
well, verizon has had the lowest churn rate of the large carriers for
the last several years. we'll see what happens when carriers report
this month- i expect vz' churn to be a little bit higher than typical
for this past quarter from the initial hype, then return to normal,
but i'd be willing to bet you a SERIOUS chunk of cash that verizon's
customer base is UP this past quarter, rather than down.
<snip>
nospamatall
> And tell us why Google would need apple ?
> Goggle has more money then apple.
etc etc etc
These occasional crossposts with groups of people who get really excited
about things like mobile phones really make me appreciate CSMA. Even the
trolls here don't get anywhere near the boringness and thoughtlessness
of those dick heads.
Andy
Ness Net
First, the iPhone root password was broken. OK, it happens. But now it seems
that all applications run on the iPhone as root. Can you say biggest
security blunder of the 21st century to date?
"ZnU" <z...@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:znu-3F7E6C.0...@news.individual.net...
> In article <8NWdnRF_ccSVKYva...@giganews.com>,
> "Ness_net" <ric...@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>> "Oxford" <colalo...@mac.com> wrote in message
>> news:colalovesmacs-495...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net..
>> .
>> >
>> > no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone
>> > they will be miniscule by this time next year. all business
>> > software developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that
>> > is the future of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance
>> > against apple at this point in the game.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Just the above statement proves you don't have even a fraction of an
>> actual clue.
>>
>> Everything runs as root on an iPhone, which will keep 95% plus
>> percent of the (smart anyway) IT depts away - and most do and will
>> BAN the pretty (but flawed) toy.
>
> This is a dumb claim. Yes, everything currently runs as root on an
> iPhone. But running an app in a non-multiuser OS (what most other mobile
> platforms have) is the same thing as running an app as root.
>
> OS X provides a real permissions model, sandboxing, and application
> signing. I can't offhand think of a mobile platform that implements all
> three. Apple is also reusing robust battle-tested code from a real
> operating system. You can bet there have been a hell of a lot more hours
> invested in hardening the BSD networking stack than in hardening
> whatever proprietary networking code a BlackBerry has.
>
> Security is just one of many areas where the fact that the iPhone is
> using a slimmed down version of a real desktop OS gives Apple
> significant advantages over its competitors. (Well, except possibly its
> Linux-based competitors, but at least in the US Linux-based phones don't
> seem to have gotten anywhere.)
>
> [snip]
Ness Net
feeble argument, so you pull out the threadbare
top post crap - again.
Sorry, you cannot deflect the truth
Verizon turned DOWN the iPhone. Told Apple to stick it.
"Oxford" <colalo...@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-A2A...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
Ness Net
Can't argue the facts, so Oxford goes the chicken shit route...
Again
"Oxford" <colalo...@smart.com> wrote in message
ed
> "IMHO IIRC" <NOS...@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
> > > 3) the iPhone is on all of the top 5 carriers within 2 years.
<snip>
> > Also the iPhone is only GSM - is Apple also designing one that is CDMA?
>
> currently CDMA is like bad cable internet, it's good for the most part
> but it's shared and at peak times your calls sound like crap.
says the guy who said "Everything is going EVDO or WiFi, so it was
good that the US never got stuck with old fashioned 3G like Europe
did."? (c'mon oxford, what does evdo ride on top of?)
> so considering Steve is a no-nonsense kind of guy CDMA might not ever
> make the cut.
> we'll see.
Oxford
the "iPhone is selling 4 to 1 compared to Blackberry!"
yep! just like everyone thought, Blackberry will now die off.
too funny!
John
Only a wuss would use the wimpy Blackberry.
Oxford
> > apple is around 28B in revenue, microsoft is around $49B in revenue.
> > those are the "sizes" of the two firms. market cap is different.
>
> How little you know about the real world- revenue does not dictate the size
> of the company, pinhead.
scott, you are completely clueless.
when talking about a "company's size", it is always said in terms yearly
revenue. that's been the norm for hundreds, perhaps 1000's of years.
nobody every says "microsoft is a $291 billion company" based on its
stock price, they always say a $49 billion company based on prior year's
revenue.
it wouldn't make sense to say it any other way.
-
ZnU
"Ness Net" <ric...@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
[top-posting fixed]
Did you not understand anything I wrote above?
Oxford
> > not when there is/was a communication company called "Dayna" in the mac
> > world... which you had no clue about...
> >
> > http://www.intel.com/support/dayna/
>
> totally irrelevant, given the context (you had written 'data
> infrastructure' the line above where he wrote 'daya infrastructure').
but i wasn't re-reading my comment... just his, and you got stuck into
thinking it meant something else, when it just meant "data". it was a
typo and yes, I got confused, he got confused, and you got confused.
> > he made a typo, no big deal.
>
> wow, you CAN figure it out (given enough time and a little
> prodding)! :D
no, I always figure it out, but i have a lot more info in my head than
you do on this industry so this is another example where you made a fool
of yourself for no reason... other than you "thought", daya was some
acronym for a cell protocol, or some other cell term.
you clearly goofed and thought i didn't know what "daya" was, and yep I
didn't since it wasn't an actual thing (like you did) it was a typo you
later learned.
pltrgyst
<ric...@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>First, the iPhone root password was broken. OK, it happens. But now it seems
>that all applications run on the iPhone as root. Can you say biggest
>security blunder of the 21st century to date?
Wasn't W re-elected in 2004?
-- Larry
Peter Hayes
> In article <1i66kzq.17de1xaime2uvN%noti...@btinternet.com>,
> noti...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
> > ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > But running an app in a non-multiuser OS (what most other mobile
> > > platforms have) is the same thing as running an app as root.
> >
> > It most certainly isn't.
>
> Of course it is. Running as root simply means there are no user-based
> permissions that prevent processes from doing whatever they like.
> Single-user operating systems don't have user-based permissions at all,
The iPhone uses a version of OS X, so we're told, which certainly isn't
a single-user OS. Do you believe Apple's developers turned it into a
single-user OS? I very much doubt it, that would be throwing away major
development potential further down the line, like a multi user
permissions based iPhone, possibly using fingerprint access.
> therefore there obviously can't be any user-based permissions that
> prevent processes from doing whatever they like.
Why not? Separate root processes from user processes with only Apple
updates having root access.
With third party apps now available, how long do you suppose it'll be
before some enterprising hacker creates an exploit to record calls and
e-mail them to him? Most would be boring as hell, but dropping that
exploit on Jobs' iPhone might be very interesting, or even Sweaty's,
assuming he'd get one... Easier to implement if you know the user is
running as root.
> The "don't run anything as root" mantra has been repeated so many times
> that people have some sort of irrational fear of it.
The mantra is there for a very good reason, and if people have an
irrational fear of running as root that's because they don't understand
why.
> It's true that it's
> less secure than the alternatives offered by multi-user operating
> systems... but running OS 9 or Windows 98, one was essentially always
> running as root, and the same is true of most mobile operating systems
> today.
And look at the shambles that was Windows 98 security. MacOS had its
fair share of exploits too.
ZnU
noti...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <1i66kzq.17de1xaime2uvN%noti...@btinternet.com>,
> > noti...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> >
> > > ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But running an app in a non-multiuser OS (what most other mobile
> > > > platforms have) is the same thing as running an app as root.
> > >
> > > It most certainly isn't.
> >
> > Of course it is. Running as root simply means there are no user-based
> > permissions that prevent processes from doing whatever they like.
> > Single-user operating systems don't have user-based permissions at all,
>
> The iPhone uses a version of OS X, so we're told, which certainly isn't
> a single-user OS. Do you believe Apple's developers turned it into a
> single-user OS? I very much doubt it, that would be throwing away major
> development potential further down the line, like a multi user
> permissions based iPhone, possibly using fingerprint access.
I don't believe they cut the multiuser features out of OS X on the
iPhone. They're just not currently using them for anything, by all
accounts.
> > therefore there obviously can't be any user-based permissions that
> > prevent processes from doing whatever they like.
>
> Why not? Separate root processes from user processes with only Apple
> updates having root access.
>
> With third party apps now available, how long do you suppose it'll be
> before some enterprising hacker creates an exploit to record calls and
> e-mail them to him? Most would be boring as hell, but dropping that
> exploit on Jobs' iPhone might be very interesting, or even Sweaty's,
> assuming he'd get one... Easier to implement if you know the user is
> running as root.
I think this is the way they'll probably go when they officially open
the phone to third-party apps. They're not doing it now, though.
And all of this is beside the point. The discussion was whether running
as root on a multiuser OS was any more dangerous than the normal state
of affairs on a single-user OS. It's not, therefore the fact that the
iPhone currently runs everything as root doesn't represent any kind of
security problem for the iPhone *relative to most other mobile devices*,
contrary to what the iPhone's detractors have tried to claim.
ZnU
Bob Campbell <b...@bob.bob> wrote:
> In article
> <colalovesmacs-F91...@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net>,
> Well, like *you* thought, anyways,
>
> The iPhone and BlackBerry are in different markets. BlackBerry is
> THE choice for corporations/governments who need Enterprise level
> connectivity via the tight Outlook/Calendar/Scheduling/Exchange
> integration. The iPhone has no such capability.
>
> The BlackBerry is not going to "die off" because of the iPhone.
Yes, the two devices are aimed at different markets. What a lot of
people don't seem to understand, though, is that the market the iPhone
is in is potentially much larger.
And incidentally, I expect the iPhone *will* have enterprise e-mail,
calendaring, etc. shortly after the doors are thrown open to third-party
apps.
It might even eventually have them as first-party features, though
probably based around CalDAV (which Apple is leveraging in Leopard)
rather than Microsoft's proprietary protocols.
ZnU
Bob Campbell <b...@bob.bob> wrote:
> In article <znu-0A3620.1...@news.individual.net>,
> ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
> > It might even eventually have them as first-party features, though
> > probably based around CalDAV (which Apple is leveraging in Leopard)
> > rather than Microsoft's proprietary protocols.
>
> Then it's not going to replace the BlackBerry is it?
Unless companies abandon Exchange in favor of the open CalDAV standard.
(Or, as I mentioned above, third-parties support Exchange on the iPhone.
Or hell, even Apple might; they're adding some support in OS X.)
> If you want to get rid of "proprietary", the last vendor you want is
> Apple. Give up proprietary software for proprietary software *and*
> hardware?
If you move from Exchange to CalDAV and IMAP, Apple solutions are not
the only ones you can use to access your enterprise communications data.
Apple's software generally tends to leverage open standards to a larger
extent than Microsoft's does. And vendor lock-in most often occurs at
the level of file formats and protocols, so this kind of openness is
probably the single most important kind.
Ness Net
kiss my ass.
2nd - I read it and contend that you are not correct.
"ZnU" <z...@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:znu-281E90.1...@news.individual.net...
>
> [top-posting fixed]
Larry
news:1i66kzq.17de1xaime2uvN%noti...@btinternet.com:
> I suspect the iPhone runs a multi-user os set up as a single-user system
> but not as root. To run it as root is playing with fire.
>
> -
Isn't root access what Apple and ATT have, with a backdoor service
accessible over the air....and what YOU have is the one user it supports,
with lots of stuff locked away you cannot access because you are never
root?
I had a live Iphone, that wasn't a demo, in my hands at a cafe while the
medical student that owned it was perusing my Nokia N800 Linux box on wifi.
It had a really neat protective skin on it I wish I had for my N800 besides
the leather case. I think I really liked it because it was FLAT BLACK
making the display appear much brighter without your eyes being blinded by
the glitz.
He said he was ordering an N800 and two 8GB SDHC cards from buy.com
tonight....(c; Oops!
Larry
--
You can tell there's extremely
intelligent life in the universe
because they have never called Earth.
ZnU
"Ness Net" <ric...@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
> 1st - top posting - bite me. Self appointed Usenet cops can
> kiss my ass.
>
> 2nd - I read it and contend that you are not correct.
Please explain how using a user account that ignores user-based
permissions on a multiuser OS is meaningfully different form the normal
state of affairs on an OS that doesn't have user-based permissions.
> "ZnU" <z...@fake.invalid> wrote in message
> news:znu-281E90.1...@news.individual.net...
> >
> > [top-posting fixed]
> >
> >
> > Did you not understand anything I wrote above?
--
ZnU
Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
> noti...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote in
> news:1i66kzq.17de1xaime2uvN%noti...@btinternet.com:
>
> > I suspect the iPhone runs a multi-user os set up as a single-user
> > system but not as root. To run it as root is playing with fire.
> >
> > -
>
> Isn't root access what Apple and ATT have, with a backdoor service
> accessible over the air....and what YOU have is the one user it
> supports, with lots of stuff locked away you cannot access because
> you are never root?
Everything on an iPhone currently runs as root. The reason you can't do
whatever you like with this access is simply because there's no
interface (graphical or otherwise) that lets you do it.
[snip]
ed
> ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > > not when there is/was a communication company called "Dayna" in the mac
> > > world... which you had no clue about...
>
> > >http://www.intel.com/support/dayna/
>
> > totally irrelevant, given the context (you had written 'data
> > infrastructure' the line above where he wrote 'daya infrastructure').
>
> but i wasn't re-reading my comment... just his, and you got stuck into
> thinking it meant something else, when it just meant "data". it was a
> typo and yes, I got confused, he got confused, and you got confused.
nope, you were the only one confused.
> > > he made a typo, no big deal.
>
> > wow, you CAN figure it out (given enough time and a little
> > prodding)! :D
>
> no, I always figure it out, but i have a lot more info in my head than
> you do on this industry so this is another example where you made a fool
> of yourself for no reason... other than you "thought", daya was some
> acronym for a cell protocol, or some other cell term.
uh, no, i *knew* 'daya' was a typo for 'data' from the beginning- in
what world did something i say give you reason to believe i thought it
was some sort of cell protocol or term?
> you clearly goofed and thought i didn't know what "daya" was, and yep I
> didn't since it wasn't an actual thing (like you did) it was a typo you
> later learned.
hahahaa, you sure are delusional!
Bill Kearney
> the cell industry. Never has such a large computer firm entered the cell
> space, and since the cell industry is very uncompetitive, Apple will
> wipe out much of what exists today... so it's going to fun to watch them
> fall.
Do you just sit and home and jerk yourself off to this nonsense? Yeesh, get
a clue.
Mark Crispin
> Oxford <colalo...@smart.com> wrote in news:colalovesmacs-
> FA7034.223...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:
>> currently apple is about a $28B company, microsoft is around $49B
> Try again, nimrod.
Please don't insult hunters ("nimrod" means "hunter") by calling Oxford a
nimrod.
Being an idiot, Oxford would not be allowed to possess firearms...
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
OldSage
<pltr...@spamlessxhost.org> wrote:
From outside the US...LOL and bravissimo!
Peter Hayes
> In article <Xns99CDBD0C047...@208.49.80.253>,
> Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > noti...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote in
> > news:1i66kzq.17de1xaime2uvN%noti...@btinternet.com:
> >
> > > I suspect the iPhone runs a multi-user os set up as a single-user
> > > system but not as root. To run it as root is playing with fire.
> > >
> > > -
> >
> > Isn't root access what Apple and ATT have, with a backdoor service
> > accessible over the air....and what YOU have is the one user it
> > supports, with lots of stuff locked away you cannot access because
> > you are never root?
>
> Everything on an iPhone currently runs as root. The reason you can't do
> whatever you like with this access is simply because there's no
> interface (graphical or otherwise) that lets you do it.
So the first app to write for it is Terminal...
lub...@hotmail.com
> Everyone wants an iPhone
> since it's more feature packed and far easier to use than any other cell
> phone... we all know that. So once Apple moves the iPhone down the price
> scale, it will remove "most" handset makers out of the market.
Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves. The iPhone has a great touch-
screen interface and a great browser, and that's why I got one. But as
an actual phone it kinda sucks. The form factor is unwieldy and too
slippery, the earpiece is too quiet, the ring is too quiet, the
vibration setting can be barely felt, and the crippled SMS
functionality was clearly designed by someone who knows nothing about
how people actually use text messaging. It's a cool gadget, but it's
NOT a good phone.
I still got one despite all this because I wanted the big screen with
Google Maps and a full(er) browser, but it was a compromise for me.
The iPhone could be so much more than what it is.
That said, I'm excited about Apple allowing 3rd party software. Maybe
someone will fix the piss-awful SMS application that doesn't allow
sending text messages to more than one person at a time, or even
forwarding text messages, or even sending/receiving MMS.
Hmm... Now I wonder if Apple crippled the iPhone on purpose so they
could make money from 3rd-party apps. I bet that Apple will set things
up so they'll get a cut from every 3rd-party app sold.
-Gniewko
Mark Crispin
> Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves. The iPhone has a great touch-
> screen interface and a great browser, and that's why I got one. But as
> an actual phone it kinda sucks.
Well, duh! What did you expect? The iPhone is a high-end iPod that is
also a phone and Internet access device. As such, it is first and
foremost an iPod. Telephony and Internet are afterthoughts.
> I still got one despite all this because I wanted the big screen with
> Google Maps and a full(er) browser, but it was a compromise for me.
It is not only not a particular good phone, it also is not a particularly
good Internet access device. The screen resolution is too tiny.
The Nokia N800 or a UMPC (such as the Sony UX series) make much better
Internet access devices. Nobody who has either a Nokia N800 or UMPC is
particularly impressed with the iPhone's Internet capability. What's
more, both are open platforms: Linux on the Nokia N800 (and you can
develop your own applications for it) and Windows on a UMPC.
> The iPhone could be so much more than what it is.
Of course, but it won't; Steve Jobs wants to make it as cheaply as
possible and sell for as much as possible.
Apple is absolutely NOT interested in having open development for the
iPhone. They made that abundantly clear.
Tinman
>>
>> Everything on an iPhone currently runs as root. The reason you can't
>> do whatever you like with this access is simply because there's no
>> interface (graphical or otherwise) that lets you do it.
>
> So the first app to write for it is Terminal...
Uh, it's been out since July.
The Chicken Littles are still confused why the world hasn't come to an end
and AT&T's "West Coast network" has not been taken down.
--
Mike