Sprint PCS - Re: Apple To Allow Third Party Apps ON iPhone

Author

Re: Apple To Allow Third Party Apps ON iPhone

Oxford

2007-10-17, 3:33 pm

"John" <nospam@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. 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 developers¹ 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 we¹re 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 ³totally open,² 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 iPhone¹s 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

2007-10-17, 3:33 pm

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-88CE63.12564117102007@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.

Kurt

2007-10-17, 10:33 pm

Ness Net

2007-10-17, 10:33 pm

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-88CE63.12564117102007@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!
>
> -
>

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

2007-10-17, 10:33 pm

"Joel Koltner" < JKolstad71HatesSpam@
yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> 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

2007-10-17, 10:33 pm

Joel Koltner < JKolstad71HatesSpam@
yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:colalovesmacs-88CE63.12564117102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
>
> 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
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

Oxford

2007-10-17, 10:33 pm

"Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> 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

2007-10-17, 10:33 pm

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-495069.18460517102007@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.

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

2007-10-17, 10:33 pm

In news:colalovesmacs-495069.18460517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> typed:
> "Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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

Oxford

2007-10-17, 10:33 pm

"IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:

>
> 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

2007-10-17, 10:33 pm

In news:colalovesmacs-C9FB72.20143517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> typed:
> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>
> 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.

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

2007-10-17, 10:33 pm

And tell us why Google would need apple ?
Goggle has more money then apple.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-C9FB72.20143517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>
> 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.

Kevin Weaver

2007-10-17, 10:33 pm

"IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:XuzRi.341794$dA7.147612@newsfe16.lga...
> In news:colalovesmacs-C9FB72.20143517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net,
> Oxford <colalovesmacs@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?
>
They did. But Verizon being 1st in line for the iphone, shot the iphone
down. Then they got AT&T

Oxford

2007-10-17, 10:33 pm

"Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.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.

and no, Google has about 1/2 the cash of Apple.

-

Oxford

2007-10-17, 10:33 pm

"IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:

>
> 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.

Oxford

2007-10-17, 10:33 pm

"Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:

> 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/...le-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.

2007-10-17, 10:33 pm

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-A41B8B.20494617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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.

Kevin Weaver

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

You keep saying this like apple turned down Verizon. Verizon turned down the
iphone and apple.

Your starting to sound like John Navas.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-1CB861.21065717102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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/...le-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

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

Then tell us why "Steve" Wanted Verizon with there CDMA ?

Your so full of shit.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-DE8273.21025817102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> 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. 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.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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.

Kevin Weaver

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

Next you will be saying apple is worth more then Microsoft.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-A41B8B.20494617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
> -

Kevin Weaver

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

Then why is it said Google is getting into the cell phone market. By your
thinking "Steve" would say no to Google" Fact is I don't think Google gives
a crap what apple thinks.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-A41B8B.20494617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
> -

IMHO IIRC

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

In news:colalovesmacs-A41B8B.20494617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> typed:
> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
> -

Actually, since Eric Schmidt sits on Apple's Board, Apple does what Google
says! lol

Oxford

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

"Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.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.

Oxford

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

"Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:

> 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...

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-A2A390.22285617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

In news:colalovesmacs-A2A390.22285617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> typed:
> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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.

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

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

"Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.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.

currently apple is about a $28B company, microsoft is around $49B

-

ZnU

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

In article < 8NWdnRF_ccSVKYvanZ2d
nUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganew
s.com>,
"Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:colalovesmacs-495069.18460517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net..
> .
>
>
> 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

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

In article <QDzRi.5773$y21.2069@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>,
"Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.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.

--
"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

Scott

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-DE8273.21025817102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:

> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> 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.

> 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.

>
>
> 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.

>
>
> 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

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-1CB861.21065717102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:

> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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/...le-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

> so they lost the game. But it's possible they may have a
> chance later on.
>

Scott

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-A2A390.22285617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:

> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

In article < 13hcqqbi987vp68@corp
.supernews.com>,
"Joel Koltner" < JKolstad71HatesSpam@
yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:colalovesmacs-88CE63.12564117102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
>
> 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.

--
"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

Scott

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in news:colalovesmacs-
FA7034.22392217102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:

> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

In article <bIARi.4664$wF3.312@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>,
"Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.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.

--
"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

Kevin Weaver

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

I'll be waiting for you to misspell. Then look out as I'll make it a point
to show even you mistype as well. : )

Yes I top post. As others here do as well.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-0976FE.22310017102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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...

Oxford

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

"IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@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...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

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

"ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:

>
> 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.

Scott

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-B3E9D3.23413917102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:

> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> 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.

Larry

2007-10-18, 10:33 am

Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in news:colalovesmacs-
88CE63.12564117102007@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.
>
>

http://www.maemo.org/

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.

2007-10-18, 10:33 am

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-400E20.23395117102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>
> 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...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.

http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/ad....x=14&draw.y=14

<snip>

Ness_net

2007-10-18, 10:33 am

No, you MORON...

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" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-A2A390.22285617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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

2007-10-18, 10:33 am

Verizon passed on the iPhone.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-B3E9D3.23413917102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> 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.

Ness_net

2007-10-18, 10:33 am

Verizon passed on the iPhone.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-0976FE.22310017102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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...

Peter Hayes

2007-10-18, 10:33 am

ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> In article < 8NWdnRF_ccSVKYvanZ2d
nUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganew
s.com>,
> "Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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

2007-10-18, 10:33 am

In article <1i66kzq. 17de1xaime2uvN%notin
use2@btinternet.com>,
notinuse2@btinternet
.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:

> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> 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]

--
"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

Ness Net

2007-10-18, 3:33 pm

As in multiple times before - you can't support your
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" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-A2A390.22285617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
>
> actually, you have it upside down, just like you mistakenly post at the
> top which is the mark of a true amateur on usenet.
>

Ness Net

2007-10-18, 3:33 pm

There is that "deflection" again...

Can't argue the facts, so Oxford goes the chicken shit route...

Again

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-0976FE.22310017102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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...

Peter Hayes

2007-10-18, 3:33 pm

ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> In article <1i66kzq. 17de1xaime2uvN%notin
use2@btinternet.com>,
> notinuse2@btinternet
.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
>
> 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.

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

ZnU

2007-10-18, 3:33 pm

In article <1i672tb. 1txsex61guies3N%noti
nuse2@btinternet.com>,
notinuse2@btinternet
.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:

> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> 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.

>
> 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.

[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

Larry

2007-10-18, 10:33 pm

notinuse2@btinternet
.com (Peter Hayes) wrote in
news:1i66kzq. 17de1xaime2uvN%notin
use2@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

2007-10-18, 10:33 pm

In article < Xns99CDBD0C047E2noon
ehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

> notinuse2@btinternet
.com (Peter Hayes) wrote in
> news:1i66kzq. 17de1xaime2uvN%notin
use2@btinternet.com:
>
>
> 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]

--
"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

Bill Kearney

2007-10-18, 10:33 pm

> 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.

Do you just sit and home and jerk yourself off to this nonsense? Yeesh, get
a clue.

Peter Hayes

2007-10-19, 4:33 am

ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> In article < Xns99CDBD0C047E2noon
ehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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...

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

Tinman

2007-10-19, 12:33 pm

Peter Hayes wrote:
>
> 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

LinkBot