[griffman]

"And if you worked for any other company, you would be FIRED on the spot for installing unauthorized software on something that was provided to you by your employer."
If that statement were true, I would have been forced to fire 99.5% of the employees in my last company, all of whom had some form of unauthorized software on their machines. But since the things they added weren't illegal -- no Kazaa, etc. -- and seemed to help with both productivity and morale, we let them have their music players, slideshow viewers, theming applications, and other such toys.
My employer -- even if it were my prior employer and not Macworld -- wouldn't fire me for adding this stuff to the iPhone if doing so helped me be more productive and do things for them that I otherwise couldn't (i.e. remote support via ssh from the iPhone, VNC via the iPhone, etc.).
"And boy would people be [censored] if they installed a new app that crashed the phone."
Quite a few of the apps I've installed have crashed on my iPhone. Not once did I get angry at Apple. Ask anyone who has modified their iPhone, and not one of them will blame Apple for any form of instability related to the apps they installed. We know what we're doing, and we know that Apple won't support issues related to it. For those who are doing this type of thing, there's not really a supportable position there, as we don't get angry at Apple for things our own explorations have caused.
"I have never installed any Mac OS X hacks, and I have never had any problems with any system updates or Apple apps. "
Over the last seven years, I have installed probably 500ish hacks and tweaks, and I have never had any problems with system updates or Apple apps. But the point here is that I could do those things, at my own discretion, and live with the consequences if there were issues. On the iPhone, if I upgrade, that choice no longer exists.
-rob.

[edmetric]

Quote:

---

...for the 98.9% (or whatever) that don't care about such things, that's fine: they don't need to care. But for those who do want to use their phones to their full potential (really, is recording voice notes and using iChat "out there" in terms of desired uses for a communications device?), it would be very nice if we at least had the capability to do so.
-rob.

---

Your personal use of your phone is your business. Geek/hack away.
Linking MacWorld to a policy of readers ignoring contract agreements is not. Recommending an unlock with unsuppoted apps is not. Ripping Apple is not. You have readers asking you not to go there. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif
You and Breen and Frakes are showing that you don't listen to your base any more than how you say Apple doesn't listen.
I don't question that having a whiz bang iPhone is good. Your methods I question. Don't get there by hackery. Get there by the traditional high standards of journalism. Advocacy if you wish. Behind the scenes too if you can. Powerful writing always. Not by hackery. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[griffman]

Ummmm .... errr .... ahhh ... this was an opinion piece, in case you missed that fact in the "Editor's Notes" header of the article. Or are you saying that Macworld employees are not entitled to have and express opinions?
For the record, my editorial is just that: mine. My coworkers may agree or disagree with it, and they are free to express their opinions in their own editorial pieces. (Jason Snell did just that, both agreeing and disagreeing with portions of my piece.)
However, to think that my editorial somehow "represents" Macworld is complete fallacy. It no more speaks for Macworld's policies than does an Andy Rooney opinion piece on 60 Minutes speak for CBS' policies.
At Macworld, editors are encouraged to share our opinions, in addition to doing our usual objective reporting on hardware and software. Having the ability to not only report on the nuts and bolts of the industry, but to also let readers know how certain decisions make us feel personally, is one of the things I like most about this job: I really think it helps connect the editors with the readers. If you disagree, I suggest you skip any piece with the "Editor's Notes" header in the future, as there's a chance you may disagree with the opinions expressed in the article.
-rob.

[Chris Breen]

What specifically would you have us do? Should we ignore stories about iPhone hacking as if it didn't exist because Apple might not like it? Should we not test these hacks to see if they are effective or destructive? Should we be forbidden from editorializing on the subject of hacking an iPhone?
And if so, whose "traditional high standards of journalism" are you referring to?

[lkrupp]

Quote:

---

Apple released an iPhone software update last week, but Rob Griffiths doesnt plan on ever upgrading to it.

---

So Rob, what do you plan to do about the TEN security flaw patches provided by the 1.1.1 update? When a really nasty iPhone exploit surfaces and Apple releasers a patch for it will you simply stop using your iPhone because it's no longer safe? Will you resign yourself to being pwned by the bad guys?
Just wondering.

[johnnydo]

to those who say
oh its only a phone... think again.
it WILL eventual replace the lap top and desk top, only this time the computer manufacturers will have total control.
i do professional level stuff on the mac, as time goes by more and more of my programs are made by apple..... video-final cut, music-logic. what's left some graphics by adobe. the trend is Apple will eventual write and OWN all the software you will need to function at a high level. will you need the platform open to 3rd part developers-no. will you care-no.
will Big Brother be here-yes. do you care-no. its a free market any one is free to develop a computer and write software do i care no because i will be happily working away with great software.
and Big Brother will be here and i will be very content.
that was Orwell's real fear.
who's Orwell. ha ha

[Dan Frakes]

Quote:

---

Linking MacWorld to a policy of readers ignoring contract agreements is not. Recommending an unlock with unsuppoted apps is not. Ripping Apple is not. You have readers asking you not to go there. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif
You and Breen and Frakes are showing that you don't listen to your base any more than how you say Apple doesn't listen.

---

How are we not listening to our base? Plenty of Macworld readers want to know what the options are out there. They want to know if they work and how they work. As KPOM responded to you in another thread, we'd being doing a pretty bad job if we didn't cover these topics.

[griffman]

"So Rob, what do you plan to do about the TEN security flaw patches provided by the 1.1.1 update? When a really nasty iPhone exploit surfaces and Apple releasers a patch for it will you simply stop using your iPhone because it's no longer safe? Will you resign yourself to being pwned by the bad guys?"
If that time comes, then I'll have to make that decision. It would really depend on what the hack is -- if it's something like "come within 100 yards of a Windows machine running the iPhonePwn app, and the entire contents of your iPhone will be dumped to that machine's hard drive," then yes, I'd bite the bullet and give up the third party apps.
If it's more like "visiting a malicious web page may reveal your passwords," then I probably wouldn't bother. Keep in mind that I work from home, so my phone has a much lower exposure level than many others might -- there is no train commute, no sitting in a large office building where wireless signals may reach from floor to floor.
So I'll pay attention to the security announcements and make a "go/no-go" decision based on how much of a threat I feel my phone might be under. But yes, there are scenarios where I could see giving up the apps for improved security, if the flaw is large enough.
-rob.

[tomburton56]

While puritanical comments of a few of my fellow readers amuse me, my main take is that iPhone's closed system is a real, practical problem. That's valuable info. Thanks. I have the luxury of waiting because, for now, ATT's service is so poor in my area that paying for data is out of the question. ATT claims service will improve. Griffman's article pushes me to delay until an SDK is available.

[Craig_A]

Quote:

---

While puritanical comments of a few of my fellow readers amuse me, my main take is that iPhone's closed system is a real, practical problem. That's valuable info. Thanks. I have the luxury of waiting because, for now, ATT's service is so poor in my area that paying for data is out of the question. ATT claims service will improve. Griffman's article pushes me to delay until an SDK is available.

---

You realize that the existence of an SDK and the ability to unlock the iPhone from AT&T are completely different issues, yes? Confusing them, well, just adds to the considerable confusion of an already seriously confused thread. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Spark]

Apple really should be developing an SDK for the iPhone, and I still believe it will happen. The best reason for its lack of existence is Leopard. Apple most likely has "all hands on deck" for the completion of their flagship software. That Apple publicly admitted that they pulled Leopard developers to work on iPhone point to two probable truths:
1. Apple has limited resources and cannot achieve all their objectives as quickly as we'd like; and
2. The expansion of iPhone capabilities is tied to Leopard; either by integration with that OS or the availability of programming resources after its completion.
I predict an iPhone SDK before 2008 MacWorld Expo

[Luke_Macwalker]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Different target markets entirely.

---

Actually, I feel it's the exact SAME market... people who want things that "just work".

---

By your definition, I would conclude that cars, refrigerators, microwave ovens, watches and TV sets are all in the same market, and the same market as the iPod and Mac.
Strangely, I think not...

[trip1ex]

Quote:

---

"Also folks have to realize that not only does Apple want to control the phone, but AT&T wants to control their network. So some of these decisions aren't just Apple's alone. For example, AT&T wants to protect their ringtone and messaging business. Apple too no doubt wants to protect their iTunes business."
Prior to owning my iPhone, I had a Palm. On AT&T's network. With custom (and free) MP3 ringtones. With a chat app. So what's different now that I have an iPhone? The fact that they share some revenue with Apple? If so, they should want to sell as many iPhones as possible, which means making them appeal to as many users as possible.
Sorry, but the AT&T bit just doesn't hold up well when you consider what any non-iPhone smartphone can do on the same network.
-rob.

---

I hear ya, but I don't see the Palm in everyone's hands. Do you? So obviously putting every app on there didn't help it get out of the 'geek' audience. Also just because ringtone programs and chat programs were on the Palm doesn't mean AT&T was happy about that. I'm sure AT&T didn't make those programs and probably didn't favor them.
Do you really think Apple is purposely holding back an iChat like program if there's no clause against it in their contract with AT&T? I think not. And so if AT&T has no problem with it then I'm sure you'll see iChat in the future (again Apple is spreading out the revenue from the sale of an iPhone over 2 years to account for the fact they'll be continualy updating and enhancing the phone,) but if not I can't see anything other than AT&T being the reason.
Also other companies charge for ringtones. Yes they can give it away for free. Personally I think it's a croc that I have to pay another $1 for ringtones. But Apple and AT&T aren't doing that with the iPhone. So you can't for a second think Apple ain't going to break any ringtone program out there. They certainly aren't going to put out an SDK and allow 3rd parties to crap on that business.
I also don't buy that supporting 3rd party apps will increase the audience for the phone. It's likely many customers will be [censored] off from dealing with 3rd party apps and [censored] off at Apple if one causes their phone to break. Apple also will not be able to move forward as fast if they have to support an army of legacy 3rd party apps going forward. Don't forget why Apple was so successful with the iPod. Ease of use.

TVs, DVD players, stereos, and regular 'ole cellphones sell just fine without sdks. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Matter of fact I hear the iPhone is the best selling (smart) phone in 3 months than any other. So it doesn't seem to me they need to pick up some bread crumbs from the 'geek' crowd and risk damaging the prestige that their brand has with the meat of the market.
My parents and most folks I know just have regular phones. I think the iPhone as it stands would be massive upgrade of features for them. I don't think Apple needs all this and the kitchen sink to sell these folks, who represent the mainstream, an iPhone. I mean you guys quickly forget what makes Apple Apple. Really I think they are setup perfectly to make these types of consumer electronics devices for the digital age. They have the right combination of software/hardware experience.

[NewGuyontheMac]

Quote:

---

By your definition, I would conclude that cars, refrigerators, microwave ovens, watches and TV sets are all in the same market, and the same market as the iPod and Mac.

---

Within each one of those market segments you will find those to whom "Tweaking" is most important, those to whom "Resolution" is most important, "Size", "Power", "Economy" etc. Some of those are valid for several of the items you listed, though possibly for different reasons. For example, "Size" can be an important and determining factor beyond which a product has lost it's appeal to a particular customer (be it "too large" or "too small"). By the same token "Just Work" (or the more marketspeak "Ease of Use") can also cross all of the above segments. There are some people that don't care how easy it is to use as long as it has a lot of features, others won't even CONSIDER a device that at first glance seems too complex.
Apple has shown a unique skill for creating technically advanced products that still, underneath it all, "Just Works". I can't read the tea leaves and tell anyone why an SDK isn't available, but, I can guess that since to "USE" the iPhone doesn't require an SDK, that might push that down the list.