Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36
Discuss Call for a "iPhone openOS" at the iPhone "2G" (Rev. 1) - Hackint0sh.org; Originally Posted by Polo hey dev team, why don't you give it a try installing ...
  1. #11
    Senior Professional Array

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    152
    Post Thanks / Like
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Polo View Post
    hey dev team, why don't you give it a try installing openmoko and look how well it performs. i mean...nothing to loose here...
    Probably because the reason we bought iPhones is for the beautiful interface and user experience, not the hardware for the most part.


  2. #12
    Advanced Array

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    45
    Post Thanks / Like
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Ok, I might have a slightly different bias since I don't have any interest in unlocking the SIM on my phone (I'm happy with the AT&T service and the iPhone plan is actually cheaper than the one I had before), but...

    I think Apple could release a SDK which allows people to write apps which run in user mode. The whole reason why the 1.1.1 upgrade is encrypted is not to stop people from creating native apps in general -- it's to stop people from writing apps which have root access and hence can mess around with the underlying hardware of the phone (i.e. unlock it). I don't think the update was specifically aimed at disabling ALL 3rd party apps -- it was aimed at stopping unlocking apps.

    I don't see anything standing in the way of Apple allowing user mode apps. You can't unlock the phone in user mode, so there's no risk of them losing out on their deal with AT & T. There are some risks for the user, of course: I'm sure a user mode app can still dial the phone or send a SMS and hence incur usage charges. So, a malicious user mode app could text message those pay services or something and cost you a lot of money...

    But, as long as user mode, 3rd party apps are "strictly at your own risk," why not let people do it?

    Personally, I'd be happy with that. I just like being able to run 3rd party apps to do things the included software doesn't support (games, IM, etc...). The Web 2.0 apps are all completely lame... if all I want to do is play a game of Tetris or something, why do I need to connect to the Internet? That's what you have to do with a Web 2.0 app.

    My two cents...


    -vfxdude

  3. #13
    Advanced Array sparx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    31
    Post Thanks / Like
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    @vfxdude2

    I sort of agree with you -but- updating the modem firmware and being root are (mostly) unrelated since the whole process happens in a ramdisk when done the Apple way. If Apple really only wanted to relock the modems, they could easily do it without shutting down access to the file system. I think this is more an the approach they took with the iPod Touch, which has no modem, and which uses the same techniques to (attempt to) lock out 3rd party apps.

  4. #14
    Professional Array Polo's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Zurich
    Posts
    84
    Post Thanks / Like
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    dont take me wrong i LOVE the user interface. actually its the first time i can say im satisfied with a mobile phone; no huzzles no headeaches figuring out how simple things work. it just plain and simply works.
    but that's not my point. lately with al those apps coming out i must say i grew quite dependent on some. none of which is available from apple. a dictionary for instancy: i use this EVERY DAY!!, colloquy the IRC client, use it quite regularly, the terminal app to quick check the status of my system home or even VNC and have actually a look what is going on. these are apps i grew quite dependent on and cant imagine making a step back from this. it has become an integral part how i use my mobile device.
    and let's not forgett that the iphone is virtually a computer running unix with phone capabilities so there's a lot more this little thing can do but plain phoning and downloading/listening to musik.
    so my point is not to get rid of the system because i dont like it, in fact as i said it's the best software for mobiles right now on the market, but its those restrictions that are put uppon it that bug me. particularly now that the dev. community has shown in so little time what huge possibilities there are! what this phone hardware and softwarewise is capable of.
    but nooooo......we get starbucksbuysong.app instead; woohoo! sorry, but....what a crap!
    Last edited by Polo; 09-30-2007 at 10:07 PM. Reason: tipos

  5. #15
    Advanced Array

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    45
    Post Thanks / Like
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sparx View Post
    @vfxdude2

    I sort of agree with you -but- updating the modem firmware and being root are (mostly) unrelated since the whole process happens in a ramdisk when done the Apple way. If Apple really only wanted to relock the modems, they could easily do it without shutting down access to the file system. I think this is more an the approach they took with the iPod Touch, which has no modem, and which uses the same techniques to (attempt to) lock out 3rd party apps.
    Yeah, that's true... hadn't thought of that.

    There are some legitimate legal reasons why Apple needs to prevent people from messing around with the baseband; I mean, reasons other than their commitment to AT&T. The FCC requires all devices which are "intentional radiators" -- that is, any device which actually transmits information -- to be rigorously certified. By messing around with the baseband firmware, you can actually change the frequencies at which a phone transmits. That could cause interference in frequency bands in which AT&T is not legally allowed to operate. So, I can see how Apple could potentially expose themselves to legal action from the FCC if they didn't take "good faith" measures to prevent their phones from operating outside the conditions under which they were certified by the FCC.

    But, I don't really see what that would have to do with the iTouch. Sure, you could mess up the iTouch's baseband, too, but that would really just result in it not working as a wi-fi device. I doubt you could actually re-program the baseband in such a way that it caused the radio to transmit in licensed bands (the 2.4GHz band in which wi-fi operates is unlicensed). You could probably push it a little out of the 2.4GHz band, but I'm pretty sure the radios for these devices are tuned to operate within that band and would simply break if you tried to push them into other bands. Also, wi-fi is fairly low power compared to a cellular signal. The risk on the iPhone is that you could actually push the radio out of its intended frequency band and cause it to transmit high power signals into other licensed bands.

    So, maybe the whole point -- in addition to stopping people from messing with the iPhone baseband -- was simply to have a unified software architecture for the iTouch and iPhone.

    Or something...? Who knows what Apple is up to these days....

    -vfxdude


  6. #16
    Professional Array Polo's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Zurich
    Posts
    84
    Post Thanks / Like
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vfxdude2 View Post
    Yeah, that's true... hadn't thought of that.

    There are some legitimate legal reasons why Apple needs to prevent people from messing around with the baseband; I mean, reasons other than their commitment to AT&T. The FCC requires all devices which are "intentional radiators" -- that is, any device which actually transmits information -- to be rigorously certified. By messing around with the baseband firmware, you can actually change the frequencies at which a phone transmits. That could cause interference in frequency bands in which AT&T is not legally allowed to operate. So, I can see how Apple could potentially expose themselves to legal action from the FCC if they didn't take "good faith" measures to prevent their phones from operating outside the conditions under which they were certified by the FCC.

    But, I don't really see what that would have to do with the iTouch. Sure, you could mess up the iTouch's baseband, too, but that would really just result in it not working as a wi-fi device. I doubt you could actually re-program the baseband in such a way that it caused the radio to transmit in licensed bands (the 2.4GHz band in which wi-fi operates is unlicensed). You could probably push it a little out of the 2.4GHz band, but I'm pretty sure the radios for these devices are tuned to operate within that band and would simply break if you tried to push them into other bands. Also, wi-fi is fairly low power compared to a cellular signal. The risk on the iPhone is that you could actually push the radio out of its intended frequency band and cause it to transmit high power signals into other licensed bands.

    So, maybe the whole point -- in addition to stopping people from messing with the iPhone baseband -- was simply to have a unified software architecture for the iTouch and iPhone.

    Or something...? Who knows what Apple is up to these days....

    -vfxdude
    but come on, there's huge gap between hacking the baseband and developing software for the enduser. one thing is to change the way the device behaves (basbandhacking) which can be abused and another thing is developing a UI; the connection between the normal person using the device and the device itself.

  7. #17
    Advanced Array

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    45
    Post Thanks / Like
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Polo View Post
    but come on, there's huge gap between hacking the baseband and developing software for the enduser. one thing is to change the way the device behaves (basbandhacking) which can be abused and another thing is developing a UI; the connection between the normal person using the device and the device itself.

    Well, yeah. That's why I think Apple should release a user-mode SDK and some method of installing programs written with that SDK to the phone. That way, there wouldn't be any need to gain root access to the phone. So, people could happily develop 3rd party native apps without having to hack into root mode; prolem solved for everybody

    I was just hypothesizing that perhaps Apple just used a "big hammer" approach because 1) They had to release a software update anyway and wanted to unify the iphone/itouch dev trees; and 2) They had to relock the baseband. So, not at all an elegant solution, but it worked.

    Of course, if they did release a user mode SDK, it might diffuse the need to hack the phone and take some wind out of the unlocking sails... That would really be Apple's best move.

    -vfxdude

  8. #18
    Professional Array Polo's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Zurich
    Posts
    84
    Post Thanks / Like
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vfxdude2 View Post
    Well, yeah. That's why I think Apple should release a user-mode SDK and some method of installing programs written with that SDK to the phone. That way, there wouldn't be any need to gain root access to the phone. So, people could happily develop 3rd party native apps without having to hack into root mode; prolem solved for everybody

    I was just hypothesizing that perhaps Apple just used a "big hammer" approach because 1) They had to release a software update anyway and wanted to unify the iphone/itouch dev trees; and 2) They had to relock the baseband. So, not at all an elegant solution, but it worked.

    Of course, if they did release a user mode SDK, it might diffuse the need to hack the phone and take some wind out of the unlocking sails... That would really be Apple's best move.

    -vfxdude
    o completely agree. apple realeasing a serious SDK without restrictions would be the golden path but this aint happening since this would mean that in no time there would be tons of voip apps arround crippeling att and THUS apples revenues. this is a a purely economical problem. and crippled sdk are worth nothing, not even mentioning "the web 2.0 way".
    and in the past apple has schown not to be very upright and correct with their implementation and interpretation of open source wich actually 90% percent of their devices run on. this would mean that the second, something is in conflict with apples interests, they would be able to cut it right there. thus am i so loudly promoting the indipendisation of theirs Closed Source OS (which ironically is based on open source).
    the point is im feeling like having a Sun SPARC running this third world windows starter edition (regarding the crippeling of the os, not the UI)
    Last edited by Polo; 10-01-2007 at 01:38 AM. Reason: tipo

  9. #19
    Board Hero Array gaz919's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,124
    Post Thanks / Like
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Rep Power
    65

    Default

    at the moment I don't think apple will ever open up the SDK bag for the iphone they are centered solely aroung making a profit on these phones and one of the conditions of their contracts with the telcos they use is that the phone remains locked. I would expect they will never open this model iphone for app support, maybe they might do it with a different model but the chances are slim. it would mean a new Itunes with app adding support for sync and all. I just can't see them doing it.

    In reference to the open os for iphone it is a good idea if we can workout how to restore without itunes, but it would be difficult to compete with the update flow of apple as the phone has only been out a short time and they have already updated three times. Maybe when the updates are only comming every six months a better restore may be gained from an open source package , but this would most likelly be against the law as I think fcc or somebody must approve software as well as hardware to make sure people don't turn the iphone into a "free call phone" that can steal other phones info from the air and then alter its sim to use other peoples phone details. The posibilities of the iphone would be alot as open source because of the solid hadware backing.

  10. #20
    peu
    peu is offline
    Respected Professional Array peu's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Buenos Aires Argentina (I like ribs)
    Posts
    501
    Post Thanks / Like
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Rep Power
    34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 997TT View Post
    Guys, you seem to forget one very important thing: WM6 and OSX are NOT Open Source, meaning that Microsoft and Apple can sue our asses big time.
    You may be right, but what you say, at least for the WM6 crew at XDA-Developers forum, does not stop them from having the best custom ROMS for a lot of devices updated almost every week...

    EDIT: forgot to add, but besides custom ROMs, you also have a plethora of radio/GSM versions to choose from...

    cheers!
    Last edited by peu; 10-01-2007 at 02:52 AM. Reason: more info


 

 
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 28
    Last Post: 03-31-2012, 06:00 PM
  2. [NETWORK/PRIVACY] "UDID faker" - "Anti- Call Home" Apps
    By macfr3ak in forum iPhone Developer Exchange
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-12-2009, 02:08 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-23-2009, 11:38 AM
  4. "Unlock.app" can fix "no service","no wifi","IMEI 049.."
    By max9241 in forum iPhone "2G" (Rev. 1)
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 11-11-2007, 04:12 PM
  5. Missed call displays "Call failed"
    By heavensblade in forum General
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-07-2007, 01:45 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO
(c) 2006-2012 Hackint0sh.org
All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:58 PM.
twitter, follow us!