Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Handhelds Businesses Programming Communications Apple Hardware IT Technology

Steve Jobs Announces iPhone SDK 467

Posted by Zonk
from the independent-thought-coming-soon-to-a-phone-near-you dept.
An anonymous reader writes "It finally happened. Steve Jobs announced an iPhone SDK today. The plan is to release it in February, and the suggestion is that apps will need to be digitally signed (not unlike digital signing in Leopard). Here's hoping that developing for the iPhone/Touch will be cheap (or free) enough to allow the folks who have been writing apps to continue doing so. Says Jobs: 'It will take until February to release an SDK because we're trying to do two diametrically opposed things at once--provide an advanced and open platform to developers while at the same time protect iPhone users from viruses, malware, privacy attacks, etc. This is no easy task.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Steve Jobs Announces iPhone SDK

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Finally! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by imamac (1083405) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @11:53AM (#21012487)
    Better to be done right the first time a little late than cause serious security issues. Better press this way...
  • by hypermanng (155858) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @11:55AM (#21012517) Homepage
    It makes me suspect that Steve was caught a bit flat-footed, if it'll take until then. If this was the usual Apple release, it would be a total surprise and be available Friday or something.

    Of course, it could also be that it's taken them this long for events to prove to AT&T that resistance was ultimately futile and counterproductive. Hard to say, with that crowd.
  • Re:Finally! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by arivanov (12034) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @12:00PM (#21012599) Homepage
    I think you should spell "surrender" instead.
  • Re:Waiting for... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by arivanov (12034) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @12:03PM (#21012659) Homepage
    Not likely. More likely your certificate will have to be signed by Apple which may in revoke it at any time. I would not be surprised if part of the delay is an integrating OSCP or some other form of pervasive certificate management into whatever goes for an app installer as well as preparing an OS update with this functionality. CRL checking at install is not something present in current OSX so they will have to add it to be ready to ship.
  • No, not really (Score:2, Insightful)

    by daveschroeder (516195) * on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @12:04PM (#21012681)
    Considering that the iPhone's OS is a moving target, and the majority of the frameworks and private APIs have changed from 1.0.2 to 1.1.1 (which is why many third party apps broke between 1.0.2 and 1.1.1), I don't think it's unreasonable to wait until things on that front have stabilized before you start providing developers with an SDK.

    I knew that most of the negative responses to this would be along the lines of saying that Apple was "forced" into doing an SDK because of the third party hacking community, when in reality third party development was very likely in the cards all along. :-/
  • Malware (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Aqua OS X (458522) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @12:05PM (#21012695)
    To further clarify, "malware" will consist of:
      media players that support additional audio and video codecs,
      anything that lets you install ringtones for free using your own licensed music,
    anything that lets you make calls on alternative networks.
  • Hear hear! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hypermanng (155858) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @12:05PM (#21012697) Homepage

    I hope the signing requirement will be a verifiable registration of your key with Apple and not a large fee of some sort. I've got a lot of third party apps on my iTouch that are excellent quality and free. Apple would be depriving themselves of most of that developer community by limiting things to large companies.


    Isn't that the truth! It would be even better if Apple provided a glide-path to current developers to becoming "legit" so that they're encouraged to engage rather than fight. Apple really has no reason to be a jerk about it except spite. Unfortunately, Steve has proven that he's occasionally prone to that.
  • Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by daveschroeder (516195) * on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @12:09PM (#21012741)
    Wrong.

    I love all the people who are now going to say that Apple is only doing an SDK because the brave, innovative hackers who just want us all to be able to free our hardware have forced their hand.

    Kind of like the only reason they have a battery replacement program for iPods was because of the Neistat Brothers' video, right?

    Except that it would be wrong, on both counts.

    For a device like the iPhone, Apple probably had SOME kind of SDK/third party development planned all along. But the iPhone's OS is still a wildly moving target, and it's not appropriate to have an SDK before things have calmed down with the OS APIs, frameworks, etc.

    But if you want to believe that a statistically insignificant (yes, really - most people don't care, much less even know, about this) group of hobbyists and hackers have "forced" Apple to scramble to release an SDK, go right ahead.
  • Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nexum (516661) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @12:12PM (#21012787)
    I really cannot understand the whining of people who have been so vocal about this SDK, and now that all this gnashing of teeth has forced Apple to pre-announce, people like you come along claiming this is 'long overdue'.

    The fact that Apple is a ~15k person company with a massive variety of products means that there must be focus. In part this slim headcount and focus is what allows Apple to produce really great products. (For comparison - Apple is now roughly worth the same, by market cap., as IBM, which employs around 300,000 people worldwide).

    Think for a moment what a considerable development the iPhone is. Particularly the software, there is an ungodly amount of work and rework that has gone into producing the final product that you can pick up at the mall. The last thing that Apple was thinking about during the development phase was a clean documented publically available and stable API. No, you can bet that the iPhone API twisted and turned through the development cycle, massive rewritings, refactorings, and changes over a number of years. For Apple to release an SDK and API they have to be clean, stable, unlikely to change and break existing code - all of the things that during the development phase the internal API was not.

    When releasing an SDK and an API, massive resources must be put into considering flexibility and change 2, 5, 10 years down the line. These things take time. Apple decided, rightly, to release a finished device this Summer. All the whining in the world (and I believe we got close to that) could not push Apple's internal API into a publicly usable stable state at that time. I think, considering that this is a brand new phone platform (not something like Symbian etc. which has been around a long time), waiting 9 months for an SDK is nothing, in fact, I'm amazed they've done it in less than a year. Mark though - Apple would have been mad never to have provided one, and personally I expected this announcement for WWDC'08, but I have found it astoundingly ridiculous how people have cried and whined about the lack of an SDK without thinking for a single minute. For crying out loud, it's been only three months. The only thing 'long overdue' will, hopefully, be the shutting of the mouths of all the incessant whining.
  • by daveschroeder (516195) * on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @12:14PM (#21012827)
    Wow! Perhaps that will be one of the things that is addressed by the time third party apps are allowed, considering that they're not now? Could this perhaps be part of the reason (among many others) that third party apps aren't currently allowed?

    I mean, I know it would be unheard of for an issue to be addressed or fixed on an OS that is clearly undergoing active major change and development (as is evidenced by internals and framework changes between 1.0.2 and 1.1.1) in four months...

    Could the things that Jobs says Apple is working on to make the iPhone platform secure possibly include things like this, or does Jobs need to explicitly say they're addressing this exact problem in order for you to believe Apple might actually be working on the security of one of the most important and visible products in their history?
  • Re:No, not really (Score:3, Insightful)

    by aliquis (678370) <dospam@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @12:17PM (#21012865) Homepage
    Because they hadn't figured out how it would be done yet?

    Or maybe they was even affraid that people would break the subscription lockin if it was available from the begining.. but uhm.. that strat failed anyway ;)
  • Re:No, not really (Score:3, Insightful)

    by daveschroeder (516195) * on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @12:20PM (#21012911)
    This is probably Apple's most significant product launch since the Macintosh.

    Ever thought that there could be incremental plans at work? You know, doing one thing at a time, considering that the vast, overwhelming majority of iPhone owners know or care approximately zero about the whole third party app issue?

    Or would they have had to announce this back at the iPhone intro in order for it to be believed that it had been planned all along?

    Seriously, Apple is a pretty secretive company, and this is a major product launch that could help to determine Apple's fortunes - quite literally - for years to come, and itself is probably part of a much larger strategy. Just because the announced it now doesn't mean that they felt like they were "forced" into doing so.

    I mean, the phone is essentially running Mac OS X, for heaven's sake...you're telling me that Apple didn't have other designs for an amazing environment like this other than its own mostly mundane stock apps? This has been in the cards for a long time. Perhaps Apple was a but stunned by the robust nature of the third-party app community and accelerated its plans.

    But to pretend like this fringe hacker community that represented a vanishingly small percentage of real-world iPhone users "forced" Apple to do this, well, that just doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny or common sense.
  • by Miamicanes (730264) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @12:26PM (#21013009)
    > I hope the signing requirement will be a verifiable registration of your key with Apple
    > and not a large fee of some sort.

    Sadly, it will almost certainly be worse -- it'll probably require payment of a large fee to AT&T, AND require approval of your specific app by AT&T itself. So you can forget freeware, anything remotely controversial, or that doesn't mesh with their Grand ARPU-increasing strategy of the week. (ARPU = Average Revenue Per User)

    It's sad, but Windows Mobile is actually the most open platform available to freedom (as in liberty) minded developers and phone owners today. Symbian? Locked up tighter than Tori Spelling's chastity belt during 90210's filming. J2ME? Just as bad. Linux? Either crippled into uselessness by the hardware itself (a.k.a. GreenPhone's glacial GPRS and total lack of EDGE and/or 3G), or locked down even tighter than Symbian (a.k.a. just about every phone made by Motorola). The fact is, phones are one of the few areas where Microsoft uses its might to beat up its customers (the carriers themselves) for a morally worthy cause (the liberty of the phones' purchasers). Not even Sprint & Verizon can robustly defy Microsoft... they might wink at the carrier and ship the phone with certain features disabled by default, but anyone with a registry editor can re-enable them within a matter of minutes.

    As for Palm... sigh. Palm. Or maybe Access. As much as I wish them the best (I was a hardcore member of the Palm camp for almost a decade, and have phones all the way back to a zero-day Samsung SPH-i300), I don't think god himself could save them at this point. Short of Access releasing a SDK that allows the latest generation of HTC's PDA phones (Mogul, TyTN, etc) to be reflashed (with or without the carrier's blessing or approval) to get ALP *INSTANTLY* into the hands of the few remaining Palm developers who still care, it's "game over".
  • by x_codingmonkey_x (839141) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @12:27PM (#21013027)
    Remember how unwillingness Steve had been about native apps? He even went out on a leg to try and make Web Apps easy to get to by creating that apps repository.... Well it seems that the _large_ number of people who are jailbreaking their iPod Touches and iPhones to install third party apps have been heard. They probably weren't planning on releasing an SDK until Steve realized how popular native apps are/would be.

    I never really understood the resistance to third party apps in the first place. The iPhone could not only take a chunk of the phone market, but it could take over the entire smart phone market. The same goes for the iPod Touch and the PDA market.

    This puts me in a tough position though... I want a Touch right now, but what if Steve screws current Touch owners by making the SDK cost money? Or only allows for proprietary apps to be installable (locking out the Open Source developers)? or something else... hmmm
  • by Altus (1034) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @12:30PM (#21013075) Homepage

    if it doesnt cost anything to sign an application (assuming the signature is only to establish who wrote the code and not actually certifying that it wont fuck with your iPhone or the network) then there is no reason to create unsigned apps unless you are writing viruses.
  • Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by suv4x4 (956391) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @12:36PM (#21013169)
    Mark though - Apple would have been mad never to have provided one, and personally I expected this announcement for WWDC'08, but I have found it astoundingly ridiculous how people have cried and whined about the lack of an SDK without thinking for a single minute. For crying out loud, it's been only three months. The only thing 'long overdue' will, hopefully, be the shutting of the mouths of all the incessant whining.

    Steve could have announced the SDK for February 2008 from the very beginning and you'd not see the bitter remarks you rant about.

    The strategy Jobs uses for announcing products only when 100% done has its benefits with consumers, but developers hate when you cut them off and don't give them a clear roadmap for what to expect ahead.

    Learn from this, don't just add another rant to the thousands.
  • Re:Finally! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by semiotec (948062) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @12:45PM (#21013297)

    But if you want to believe that a statistically insignificant (yes, really - most people don't care, much less even know, about this) group of hobbyists and hackers have "forced" Apple to scramble to release an SDK, go right ahead.

    Wrong.

    I love all the people who think Apple (particularly Jobs) is some sort of prophetic visionary. They react to the market as much as any other profit-seeking companies.

    Geek cred is a small but significant factor in tech gadgets and Apple knows this, given that one of the primary reasons for Apple's rising popularity is due to OS X, and one of the reason for OS X's rising popularity is the *nix code base.

    That particular video may not have been the sole factor for the Apple's battery replacement program, but it was certainly part of the increasing public awareness of the defects in the Apple devices. However, (and I say this in deep admirations) Apple nevertheless found a way to extract even more money out of its blindly loyal customers while at the same time somewhat-sorta-maybe addressing the criticisms.

    And your "moving target" theory is just BS. 1) OS X as a platform has been around for long enough, and Apple took pride in announcing that their phone and new iPod runs on the same platform, and being the first non-smart phone to require some 800mb of OS codes. 2) it didn't take lots of arm-twisting for Symbian, Nokia and (dare I say) Microsoft and other companies to release SDKs for their mobile platforms. While they may have varying validation protocols and so on, they didn't parade some random wild BS theory about their OS being "uncertain". Even Jobs wasn't saying this in his bit. If the API's have been settled, they wouldn't and shouldn't have released the product.

    As usual, they were just testing the market to see if they can make even more money out of 3rd parties and customers, which is after all, the goal of every profitable company.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @12:52PM (#21013401)
    "The last thing that Apple was thinking about during the development phase was a clean documented publically available and stable API."

    First of all, you're making that up.

    But second of all, even if you are right, then Apple would have to be the dumbest development company ever. Here's a company that has a 30 year history of making products that have API's (yes, even the Apple ][ had API's of a sort), but on their latest computer, the one they saw had a huge strategic impact, they never gave it a thought?

    Seriously, what you're suggesting is so ridiculous, that I'm guessing you're trolling or astroturfing.

    My guess is there never was going to be a publicly available API, but Apple finally realized if they didn't make it available, they'd be overwhelmed by people who actually want to use what they bought in the way the want to.
  • Re:Finally! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Bigbluejerk (535787) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @12:52PM (#21013417)
    Wrong again. If geek cred is so important, Apple would've made Apple TV a much better product, with DivX/Xvid support out of the box. But they haven't and they won't. Geek cred means very little to Apple. Gamers are a much, much larger market than geeks and Apple has never made the Mac a game-friendly or game developer-friendly platform. They don't give a crap about geeks or gamers.
  • Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Genevish (93570) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @01:00PM (#21013545) Homepage
    Because if he announced there would be an SDK, but not until next year, some people would wait to buy it until then. The same reason Apple says noting about new computer models until they're released. Actually, I'm surprised they announced the SDK early at all.
  • by danigiri (310827) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @01:10PM (#21013719)
    "Sadly, it will almost certainly be worse -- it'll probably require payment of a large fee to AT&T, AND require approval of your specific app by AT&T itself. So you can forget freeware, anything remotely controversial, or that doesn't mesh with their Grand ARPU-increasing strategy of the week. (ARPU = Average Revenue Per User)"

    Come on, I'd say it's pointless and whinning until it is released and the final terms are known. It reminds me too much of the "no-SDK" whinning. A decent SDK takes time. You run the risk of getting this kind of whinning: "Yeah, they released this SDK along with the iPhone, but it's beta software at best, the API keeps changing, there are a lot of system updates, my iPhone keeps crashing and OMG there are exploits in the wild. They should have waited until it was ready, sheesh."

    Observe, know the facts, react accordingly.

    dani++

  • by DdJ (10790) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @01:14PM (#21013785) Homepage Journal
    App signing cannot require in all cases the involvement of AT&T.

    Why?

    AT&T is not involved with the iPod Touch or with European iPhones at all. Apple made a point out of saying this SDK is for both the iPhone and the iPod Touch. That's meaningful.

    My prediction is that it'll be a lot like some Java handhelds. There will be a key repository. It will come with the public key of Apple and, for iPhones, for the carrier from which you currently get service. Developers will be issued a key pair, one to go onto the device they use for development, and one to sign the apps they're developing, but installing the pubic keys onto arbitrary devices will be non-trivial.

    My prediction based on that is, anyone who cares about running a wide variety of apps will register as a developer and get a key pair, and freeware apps will have to be open source, because in order to get them signed correctly, people will have to compile them from source so that they're properly signed for their own devices.

    If registering as a developer is cheap/free, I am not sure that's a bad thing...
  • by burris (122191) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @01:22PM (#21013907)
    Every time one of these stories comes out I point out that the situation will be the same as with the iTunes SDK: to get the SDK you'll have to sign an agreement that gives Apple veto power over your application. Every time people flamed me. It still looks like I'm right.

    Anything they don't like, gone. They say its to protect users from spyware and other forms of malware but it'll be used to eliminate anything they don't like. Just like there isn't any decent music sharing functionality in iTunes, there won't be anything on the iPhone that doesn't settle well with the ultraconservatives in Apples Ivory Tower. Instead you'll get crippled functionality, like music sharing with ridiculous limits on the number of people/playbacks per day. As if all of their developers and customers are children who can't be given responsibility. Children don't own copyrights, so they don't need the discretion to share music beyond what Apple believes is "fair enough."

    People are still going to flame me saying that we should wait and see. Well, I've been waiting and I see no way to set an mp3 on your iPhone as a ringtone. Is there any reason not to give this functionality other than to protect Apple's new ringtone business? Why would any reasonable person believe that Apple won't do the same thing when granting ISVs permission to deploy applications on iPhone?

    The argument that phones are somehow more vulnerable than any other network connected computer and need to be controlled by a central authority is specious.

    "Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you..."
  • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @01:50PM (#21014311) Journal
    How exactly is J2ME locked up?
  • by Space cowboy (13680) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @02:03PM (#21014463) Journal
    Let me get this straight. Apple released a product that contains an operating system that's still in alpha?

    No. Their OS works well and will have passed QA before they shipped. Like any humans, Apple make mistakes, but they generally at least try to adhere to "it just works".

    They ported their (stable) OS to a new architecture. The internal developers put up with the codebase (with any extant foibles), and they wrote a completely new UI framework (based on, but different to, Cocoa). They did sufficient QA to get the built-in applications working correctly, and then shipped the device, hitting their target.

    Now that it's out, and there's less pressure, they've been tidying it up, and polishing the UI framework, the compilers, any OS routines, and they've announced they're opening it up to 3rd parties. Presumably this means they've been patching the areas they worked around internally.

    There's nothing too surprising in any of the above, in fact I'm surprised the "official" SDK will be available so soon. Porting an OS and writing a good accelerated UI framework is a non-trivial task.

    Simon.
  • Re:Finally! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by LWATCDR (28044) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @02:22PM (#21014723) Homepage Journal
    "Instead, now we have hackers who have already worked on third-party native apps, there's all kinds of web-apps to keep those who won't jailbreak busy in the meantime."
    Give me a break. Sorry but that is uber spin of the worst sort. Apple didn't tell anyone that they where going to release and SDK to encourage development! Sorry but one of the reasons I didn't buy an iPhone was the lack of an SDK. Do you really think that anyone said "I really want more apps on the iPhone but since they are not going to release and SDK will get one now instead of later!"
    Good heavens!

  • Re:Another thought (Score:3, Insightful)

    by shmlco (594907) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @02:37PM (#21014913) Homepage
    Perhaps some faction at Apple truly thought that web-apps would be enough. Or they couldn't release an iPhone, Leopard, and a SDK all at the same time. Or the web-based SDK was a trial balloon, floated to see if they really needed to do all of that work after all.
  • by SuperKendall (25149) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @03:11PM (#21015489)
    [flame]but, but, but! Apple can't get viruses? They say so in the commercials![/flame]

    You have confused two very different things.

    No one is saying OS X *cannot* get viruses. There are always security holes.

    What we are all saying is that you *don't* get viruses, because there are none. Pick your reason - better security model, faster TTF (time to fix), smaller marketshare - the thing is there are no viruses in teh wild to catch right now. That may change but that's how it is currently and has been for years.

    Until you can understand the distinction between security flaws and active exploits, you really should refrain from commenting on anything security (or even Mac) related.
  • Re:Finally! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by larkost (79011) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @03:40PM (#21015939)
    I think you are partially right, that the iPhone is still in flux, and thus difficult to make a real API for. But I also think that the more important point is that since the iPhone uses the MacOS X kernel and lower layers that the same team that was working on the iPhone also has the 10.5 rollout on its plate, and so has not had time to work on the API for the iPhone.

    Notice the timing: the MacOS X development team is just winding down from the marathon to get MacOS X 10.5 out the door, and so now are available to do things like this. Personally I think that February is pushing it a bit for this. I was surprised that it would be so soon.
  • Re:Digital signing (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @03:45PM (#21016021)
    Apple doesn't use signing the same way Microsoft does.

    Microsoft tries to use signing for trust, which is usually a bad idea, because it leads towards the whole model of 'pay me to trust you so our users trust you' that Windows and Windows Mobile currently have.

    Apple's Leopard signing is closer to a SHA1 hash + signature for validity of application updates. If version 1.0 is signed, and version 1.1 is correctly signed using the same private key, then OS X will treat the two versions as the /exact/ same app instead of popping up a dialog asking: "The app changed, and wants permission to access passwords the old version stored on your computer, are you sure this app was updated and should be allowed to read them?"

    And if the signature becomes invalid, the application can no longer access your keychain passwords, meaning a virii-infected signed app will actually be blocked from accessing personal data it had permission to access just moments before.

    Signing for trust and signing for validation are two different problems, and come with their own pros and cons. Not saying Apple is innovating here, but that the purpose of signing is quite different, and provides different benefits.
  • by Scrameustache (459504) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @03:59PM (#21016235) Homepage Journal

    did Jobs say there will be only [arstechnica.com] web based [gizmodo.com.au] sdk?
    No, he did not say that.
  • by Scrameustache (459504) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @04:02PM (#21016275) Homepage Journal

    The strategy Jobs uses for announcing products only when 100% done has its benefits with consumers, but developers hate when you cut them off and don't give them a clear roadmap for what to expect ahead.
    When devs start putting out finished software on schedule, THEN they can have an opinion on this matter. In the meantime, y'all STFU and get back to crunch time.
  • Re:Misinformation (Score:2, Insightful)

    by graviplana (1160181) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @04:48PM (#21016879)
    Agreed. Best rebuttal of the thread. Mod +5 Informative
  • Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mike Buddha (10734) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @05:05PM (#21017121)

    For a device like the iPhone, Apple probably had SOME kind of SDK/third party development planned all along. But the iPhone's OS is still a wildly moving target, and it's not appropriate to have an SDK before things have calmed down with the OS APIs, frameworks, etc.

    But if you want to believe that a statistically insignificant (yes, really - most people don't care, much less even know, about this) group of hobbyists and hackers have "forced" Apple to scramble to release an SDK, go right ahead.
    So if they were planning it all along as you assert, why did they wait for 3 months after the release to announce it? It's not like they're saying "Here's the SDK right now! Surprise! Have at it!". They announced it'll be available in 4 months. You don't make any sense. One of the biggest blemishes on the iPhone release was the lack of third party apps. Every review I've read of the device has slammed Apple for it. All that they had to say to get rid of this was to say "The SDK will be ready in February" and all of that criticism disappears. But they didn't.

    I don't believe that the hackers were solely the cause for the SDK, but make no mistake, market pressure forced Apple to capitulate. They weren't planning this. They were blindsided with negative press and pressure from their customers and potential customers. At first they attempted to lay this at the feet of AT&T saying that AT&T was concerned with network stability, but that proved to be a big pile of BS, as evidences by AT&T's software development site assisting in software development for every phone in it's lineup except Apples.

    And to say that the Apple battery replacement program wasn't directly influenced by that video... well, I see you've drank a little too much of the Steve Jobs Kool-Aid. Enjoy the dreams that he's told you will come.
  • Re:Digital signing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by earthbound kid (859282) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @06:08PM (#21017995) Homepage

    Of course, I'm sure that some Mac fan is going to point out how this is another Apple innovation.


    Sure, Artie MacStrawman will, but the sophisticated fanboy will make two points:

    1) Sometimes Microsoft actually gets stuff right before Apple. For example, until 10.4, OS X only had UNIX-style permissions, which are inferior to NTFS-style permissions. But,

    2) How things are put into practice matters, too. Microsoft has had a good permissions system in place since, what was it, NT 4.0? However, it wasn't until Vista that Microsoft actually started, you know, using them on consumer systems to separate users as has been done in Unix forever.

    So yes, sometimes MS is ahead of the curve, like with this applications signing thing, but the question is how are these things put to use? Has MS used application signing to prevent security problems? Pre-Vista, the answer was no. I don't know enough about Vista to say if they're being put to good use now.
  • by stewbacca (1033764) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @08:40PM (#21019637)
    I'm confused. I have the latest version of iTunes, and the "share my library" funtion is still there and still fully functional. How did Apple "quckly remove" this, when it is still here?

Be careful when a loop exits to the same place from side and bottom.

Working...