StarDestroyer.Net BBS

SancheztheWhaler wrote:$399 for an 8GB iPhone actually, plus $140/month for service for the two of us.

So ... the first year of this service will set you back more than two thousand dollars? Does it come with a high-class hooker?

Darth Wong wrote:

SancheztheWhaler wrote:$399 for an 8GB iPhone actually, plus $140/month for service for the two of us.

So ... the first year of this service will set you back more than two thousand dollars? Does it come with a high-class hooker?

Either way he's getting fucked.

I loved the Maddox article where he featured a phone with virtually all of the features or better, that didn't involve a touchscreen interface which gets smudges, and was less than 1/3 the price.

Durandal wrote:Not on the desktop. But Google is moving the entire YouTube video library over to h.264 for the iPhone. It's a long-term process, to be sure. But the mobile web represents a fresh start, and Flash shouldn't be a part of that.

I suppose Apple could leverage its commanding marketshare of the "mobile web" to force the issue, but even ignoring Flash garbage like advertisements, it pretty much is the only cross-platform rich-content delivery system around. I think a great many developers would - at least for simple rich applications - prefer to target Flash rather than iPhone OS, Android, Symbian, et. al.

There's this void between web applications (even with AJAX) and full applications, and nobody's come up to bat to fight off Flash's domination of that niche - except for Microsoft's Silverlight.

Flagg wrote:Either way he's getting fucked.

If he's willing to shell out the money, how's he getting fucked? It's not like he's walking into this decision with blinders on.

I loved the Maddox article where he featured a phone with virtually all of the features or better, that didn't involve a touchscreen interface which gets smudges, and was less than 1/3 the price.

Personally, I haven't found a mobile phone that works as well as an iPhone. I don't have one, but played around with one at the various Apple Stores, and found them leaps and bounds more usable than any other phone I've used within seconds of picking the thing up.

Darth Wong wrote:So ... the first year of this service will set you back more than two thousand dollars? Does it come with a high-class hooker?

Even better for Apple's balance sheet, they're getting $20 (IIRC) per month from AT&T for every iPhone out there.

Durandal wrote: Then you of all people should appreciate what the iPhone can do for the Internet. And frankly, you of all people should agree with me when I say that Flash shouldn't be a part of the "real" Internet.

Honestly, I'm torn between my want to be able to watch embedded videos (Zero Punctuation's reviews, for example, are only available as embedded flash files in his site), and my utter contempt for Flash (it's slow, bulky, hard to update, and really useless out of anything except a promotional site designed solely to look pretty- and embedded video). But you're right.

Darth Wong wrote:

SancheztheWhaler wrote:$399 for an 8GB iPhone actually, plus $140/month for service for the two of us.

So ... the first year of this service will set you back more than two thousand dollars? Does it come with a high-class hooker?

Yeah, I calculated that cost out myself as well. Although comparatively speaking it's not that bad, if you compare what other companies would charge for two lines with unlimited data and whatever other options SancheztheWhaler got.

Regardless, I hate being forced into subscriptions with a passion. I don't own an XBox but if I would I would not play online simply because of the fact that Microsoft charges monthly for standard online play.

I just hacked my iPhone to work on my existing provider, T-Mobile. No extra monthly fees, I only bought the phone.

Praxis wrote:Regardless, I hate being forced into subscriptions with a passion. I don't own an XBox but if I would I would not play online simply because of the fact that Microsoft charges monthly for standard online play.

I just hacked my iPhone to work on my existing provider, T-Mobile. No extra monthly fees, I only bought the phone.

Well, if you do the annual payment it only hurts that one month out of the year and the payment comes to about 5 bucks a month so it is not that outrageous. But free online play would be better.

I do have a question about the hacked iPhone. Is is true that once you hack the iPhone, that you can no longer get updates or fixes for it?

Death from the Sea wrote:I do have a question about the hacked iPhone. Is is true that once you hack the iPhone, that you can no longer get updates or fixes for it?

Certain changes - especially relating to unlock functionality - may render your phone un-updatable but Apple does not go out of their way to break jailbroken or unlocked phones.

Flagg wrote:Either way he's getting fucked.

Yeah, just like the 80%+ of iPhone users who rate themselves as "very satisfied" with it. They're getting fucked all right. They paid for a product and actually like it.

I loved the Maddox article where he featured a phone with virtually all of the features or better, that didn't involve a touchscreen interface which gets smudges, and was less than 1/3 the price.

And has a UI that looks and feels like it's from 1995. Apple doesn't sell products based on bullet-point lists. They sell products based on how they work. Phones have had web browsers for a long time, now. According to you, the iPhone's browser is nothing new. Yet, for some reason, it's become the most popular mobile browser in less than 8 months.

Gee, maybe that's because MobileSafari not only offers the functionality but also makes it usable? You can have all the bullets in the world on your product, but if the user experience sucks, it doesn't matter for shit.

Yeah, the iPhone people spent 2 1/2 years designing the thing, but they weren't actually coming up with any new ideas apparently.

phongn wrote:I suppose Apple could leverage its commanding marketshare of the "mobile web" to force the issue, but even ignoring Flash garbage like advertisements, it pretty much is the only cross-platform rich-content delivery system around. I think a great many developers would - at least for simple rich applications - prefer to target Flash rather than iPhone OS, Android, Symbian, et. al.

Ideally, they wouldn't have to target any of them specifically. There should be technology in place that allows all of them to just work. We've got MPEG-4 for video, which even Flash has started supporting. Really, the first order of business is kicking Flash out of the video space. That's where it's most entrenched. Once you do that, you have one of the largest Flash consumers (YouTube) serving up content as MPEG-4 video streams rather than craptacular Flash garbage.

On the mobile side of things, Flash applications don't particularly matter. They're made for mice and keyboards, so no one uses Flash applications on their phones anyway. Video is the key because that's the content that matters to mobile phones. That's why Apple made such a big deal out of getting YouTube to serve their library up as MPEG-4.

There's this void between web applications (even with AJAX) and full applications, and nobody's come up to bat to fight off Flash's domination of that niche - except for Microsoft's Silverlight.

Out of the frying pan and into the frier. Silverlight might be better in a lot of ways, but I don't want Microsoft controlling any standardized technology (de facto or otherwise) involved in the web. And Silverlight has been a total dud thus far anyway.

Death from the Sea wrote:I do have a question about the hacked iPhone. Is is true that once you hack the iPhone, that you can no longer get updates or fixes for it?

If you hack the phone, it's understood that you're doing it at your own risk. You can apply updates, but there's no way to really predict how they'll interact with your modifications. Though lately, updates seem to have been playing nicely with jail-broken iPhones. The worst that's happened to jail-broken phones is that they become un-jail-broken after an update, I think. But once the AppStore opens, there probably won't be much of a reason to jail-break iPhones anymore except for some corner cases in app development.

Only unlocked phones were ever bricked by an update, and that was because the unlocking procedure modified a firmware function to always return true, which screwed with the updater and caused it to brick the phone.

But bricked phones were silently fixed with the 1.1.3 update. They were just locked back to AT&T afterward.

But once the AppStore opens, there probably won't be much of a reason to jail-break iPhones anymore except for some corner cases in app development.

Aside from the fact that the license for the SDK seems specifically written to lock out open source development (ironic, since components of the underlying OS, such as the kernel, were taken from open source projects that made the mistake of using permissive licensing).

EDIT: aww screw it, I'll be on a plane for 20 hours, I removed the second part of my post. It was vitriolic in nature and driven by my frustration with Steve Jobs' attitude and that of the more rampant Apple fanbois. However, for me to make a vitriolic post on the subject while having some disdain for their vitriolic remarks on the subject of other OSes would be hypocritical in the extreme.

Final edit: minor grammar

RThurmont wrote:

But once the AppStore opens, there probably won't be much of a reason to jail-break iPhones anymore except for some corner cases in app development.

Aside from the fact that the license for the SDK seems specifically written to lock out open source development (ironic, since components of the underlying OS, such as the kernel, were taken from open source projects that made the mistake of using permissive licensing).

There is nothing in the SDK license that prevents you from open-sourcing your application. At all. As to the BSD folks' "mistake", why don't you ask them how much they regret Apple using FreeBSD in Mac OS X? (Hint, if they thought it was a mistake, they would've changed the license on future versions to prevent Apple from merging those changes in.)

Yeah, I bet they're really pissed that their system is at the heart of the most popular Unix distribution on the planet. Do you even think about this shit before writing it, or do you just assume that all corporations are out to screw all open source projects over?

EDIT: aww screw it, I'll be on a plane for 20 hours, I removed the second part of my post. It was vitriolic in nature and driven by my frustration with Steve Jobs' attitude and that of the more rampant Apple fanbois. However, for me to make a vitriolic post on the subject while having some disdain for their vitriolic remarks on the subject of other OSes would be hypocritical in the extreme.

Final edit: minor grammar

I'm so sad I missed yet more of your uninformed drivel.

Death from the Sea wrote:
I do have a question about the hacked iPhone. Is is true that once you hack the iPhone, that you can no longer get updates or fixes for it?

Not exactly. You just shouldn't update directly. There's a chance the updates might conflict with some of your hacks and break the software- although modern unlock methods don't modify anything really low level like the firmware, so if you render the phone unusable you can always do a software restore.

When updates come out, I usually just wait a week and check a discussion board. Generally, the updates break the unlock, and someone has the new firmware hacked in three days. You can either use an upgrade script that installs the update over the hacked phone, or just do a restore, then update, then re-hack.

Only unlocked phones were ever bricked by an update, and that was because the unlocking procedure modified a firmware function to always return true, which screwed with the updater and caused it to brick the phone.

It's worth noting that the newer unlock methods (ZiPhone) can not brick your phone. There has yet to be one instance of a phone being bricked by ZiPhone and being unrecoverable. At WORST you can screw up the software to render the phone unusable, but then plug the iPhone into your PC and do a restore and it's working again.

There is nothing in the SDK license that prevents you from open-sourcing your application.

The SDK is fundamentally GPL-incompatible; it prevents users from modifying the software without paying Apple a $99 fee to get it onto the device, and Apple's license for the system imposes restrictions which by themselves would be incompatible with the GPL. If you wrote your own original app using the SDK, and GPLed it, it would be legal, yet pointless, as your users would not be able to benefit from the freedoms the GPL conveys. Porting existing GPLed applications to the iPhone using the SDK is absolutely out of the question (and such apps can only be ported to jailbroken phones).

Yeah, I bet they're really pissed that their system is at the heart of the most popular Unix distribution on the planet.

Linux almost certainly has a larger installed base than OS X, considering its commanding marketshare in servers, and the fact that in desktops alone, depending on who you ask, it has between 0.5% and 1% marketshare (about 10-20% the size of the OS X installed base I reckon; considering that very few people outside of Apple use OS X on servers). Linux runs on a vast array of embedded devices as well, such as Linksys NAS storage units and routers, Buffalo routers and NAS units, TiVos, and other products.

OS X is likely the no. 2 Unix-like OS in terms of installed base and popularity, I suspect. Oh, and please don't pull the "It's certified UNIX" argument, given that z/OS is certified UNIX. Any OS that implements a two-bit crappy UNIX userland environment and that ponies up $$$ can pass that test, but Linux, which implements a very UNIX-like environment, and FreeBSD, which is a direct descendant of the original (and by your own admission, the source of OS X's Unixness) are not.

Do you even think about this shit before writing it, or do you just assume that all corporations are out to screw all open source projects over?

I've historically been known as the most pro-business guy on Stardestroyer.net, so no. Most corporations (Microsoft and Apple included) have benefitted from various open source projects, and many contribute in return; while RMS is a flaming liberal hippie, many others in the realm of open source are not, and certainly the idea of pooled collaborative development of open, standardized software has become very appealing to a large number of businesses.

I personally have made quite a bit of money since getting involved in open source, via business deals with open source companies, so I think its a great way to make money, as well as a great way to write software (and morally satisfying as well).

Durandal wrote:

Flagg wrote:Either way he's getting fucked.

Yeah, just like the 80%+ of iPhone users who rate themselves as "very satisfied" with it. They're getting fucked all right. They paid for a product and actually like it.

The iPhone strikes me as the telephony equivalent of a Gucci handbag. I'm sure the owners are all very proud of them.

RThurmont wrote:

There is nothing in the SDK license that prevents you from open-sourcing your application.

The SDK is fundamentally GPL-incompatible; it prevents users from modifying the software without paying Apple a $99 fee to get it onto the device, and Apple's license for the system imposes restrictions which by themselves would be incompatible with the GPL.

Since when are "open source" and "GPL" the same thing?

If you wrote your own original app using the SDK, and GPLed it, it would be legal, yet pointless, as your users would not be able to benefit from the freedoms the GPL conveys. Porting existing GPLed applications to the iPhone using the SDK is absolutely out of the question (and such apps can only be ported to jailbroken phones).

Anyone who's interested in working on open source iPhone software will have a certificate. Then they can just compile your source, sign the binary with their certificate and put it on their phone. It's $99, one-time, for Christ's sake. It's not the end of the world. And it's nothing that other mobile platforms don't already do.

Linux almost certainly has a larger installed base than OS X, considering its commanding marketshare in servers, and the fact that in desktops alone, depending on who you ask, it has between 0.5% and 1% marketshare (about 10-20% the size of the OS X installed base I reckon; considering that very few people outside of Apple use OS X on servers). Linux runs on a vast array of embedded devices as well, such as Linksys NAS storage units and routers, Buffalo routers and NAS units, TiVos, and other products.

Arguing about what is and isn't Unix is a red herring. The point is that the FreeBSD people are happy with the way their software is being used by Apple because their code is being deployed on a popular and successful platform. Your intimation that someone Apple is hoodwinking them because they chose the wrong license is not only baseless but also flagrantly unsupported by any statements out of the FreeBSD people. They're not weak and impotent cowards who are at Apple's mercy. They could can license the code however they choose.

I've historically been known as the most pro-business guy on Stardestroyer.net, so no. Most corporations (Microsoft and Apple included) have benefitted from various open source projects, and many contribute in return; while RMS is a flaming liberal hippie, many others in the realm of open source are not, and certainly the idea of pooled collaborative development of open, standardized software has become very appealing to a large number of businesses.

I personally have made quite a bit of money since getting involved in open source, via business deals with open source companies, so I think its a great way to make money, as well as a great way to write software (and morally satisfying as well).

That doesn't answer my question. Do you even think about this crap before you write it?

Darth Wong wrote:

Durandal wrote:

Flagg wrote:Either way he's getting fucked.

Yeah, just like the 80%+ of iPhone users who rate themselves as "very satisfied" with it. They're getting fucked all right. They paid for a product and actually like it.

The iPhone strikes me as the telephony equivalent of a Gucci handbag. I'm sure the owners are all very proud of them.

So because a company puts time and effort into making a product look good, it must be nothing more than a good-looking product?

What's with this attitude that functional technology has to be boxy and crappy looking?

Durandal wrote:So because a company puts time and effort into making a product look good, it must be nothing more than a good-looking product?

Oh, come on. Apple sells a lot of iProducts simply because they are trendy and popular.

What's with this attitude that functional technology has to be boxy and crappy looking?

I don't think Mike was arguing that at all.

phongn wrote:

Durandal wrote:So because a company puts time and effort into making a product look good, it must be nothing more than a good-looking product?

Oh, come on. Apple sells a lot of iProducts simply because they are trendy and popular.

What's with this attitude that functional technology has to be boxy and crappy looking?

I don't think Mike was arguing that at all.

If this was the case, then why did previous trendy cell phones (Motorola's RAZR, the Sidekick, various flavors of Blackberry) not have such stratospherically high customer satisfaction as well? I bought into the RAZR trend; I won't lie. But after using the thing, I grew to just hate it.

With something as ubiquitous in your life as a cell phone, you can't get past the first week on "Oooh shiny" alone. If it's a nightmare to use, people will notice. Yes, even the ones who bought it as a fashion accessory.

Durandal, isn't h.264 relatively processor-intensive? Wouldn't that cause problems on portable platforms?

Stark wrote:Durandal, isn't h.264 relatively processor-intensive? Wouldn't that cause problems on portable platforms?

No more processor-intensive than Flash vector art, which is what everyone seems to be clamoring for. However, there are plenty of chips out there that do hardware accelerated h.264 decoding for mobile devices, including the one that's in the iPhone.

And Mike, Phong was right. I read too much into your comment. My apologies for jumping to conclusions.

Stark wrote:Durandal, isn't h.264 relatively processor-intensive? Wouldn't that cause problems on portable platforms?

On weaker ones, yes, it would. That said, most mobile platforms that support H.264 video are restricted to lower-resolution, lower-bitrate video without the more advanced compression features. MPEG-4 is also widely supported. Finally, some mobile-device processors have hardware decoder support - and it's not like someone is going to play HD video on these things.

Ah I see. I wasn't sure what kind of grunt FLC needed, I just remembered the xvid -> h.264 increase in CPU usage. I'm surprised that mobile devices are starting to have the dedicated hardware for it though, that's pretty awesome.

I guess I should have thought of my iPod that can play h.264: it's got lowend hardware but it handles it fine. Don't mind me, I don't know what I'm talking about.

Durandal wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:

Durandal wrote: Yeah, just like the 80%+ of iPhone users who rate themselves as "very satisfied" with it. They're getting fucked all right. They paid for a product and actually like it.

The iPhone strikes me as the telephony equivalent of a Gucci handbag. I'm sure the owners are all very proud of them.

So because a company puts time and effort into making a product look good, it must be nothing more than a good-looking product?

You REALLY think that's what I was saying, don't you?

What's with this attitude that functional technology has to be boxy and crappy looking?

Wow, your powers of telepathy are growing by the second, I see.

Darth Wong wrote:

Durandal wrote:

Flagg wrote:Either way he's getting fucked.

Yeah, just like the 80%+ of iPhone users who rate themselves as "very satisfied" with it. They're getting fucked all right. They paid for a product and actually like it.

The iPhone strikes me as the telephony equivalent of a Gucci handbag. I'm sure the owners are all very proud of them.

Faulty comparison. Unlike the Gucci handbag, the iPhone actually provides more functionality or usability. A Gucci handbag does nothing better than a normal handbag except cost more money.

RThurmont wrote: Linux almost certainly has a larger installed base than OS X, considering its commanding marketshare in servers, and the fact that in desktops alone, depending on who you ask, it has between 0.5% and 1% marketshare (about 10-20% the size of the OS X installed base I reckon; considering that very few people outside of Apple use OS X on servers). Linux runs on a vast array of embedded devices as well, such as Linksys NAS storage units and routers, Buffalo routers and NAS units, TiVos, and other products.

Are you seriously using embedded versions of Linux on storage units, routers, and TiVo's as a measurement of Linux installed base?

I assume that installed base is only a useful measurement if you assume the users are actually using the platform. A user who has a router running Linux may have no idea they have Linux and will never, ever use Linux software or browse the internet using a browser- they're a useless statistic and don't affect developers.