Locking down the iPhone

Sep 30, 2007 11:00

A while ago I wrote a post in defense of Apple's TPM. I defined the bright line between "good DRM" and "bad DRM" as the difference between "optional DRM" and "compulsory DRM". (Some disagreed, and I respect your arguments.) In an optional-DRM system you can use your device however you want. Your can play DRM'ed media if you have a good reason, ( Read more... )

drm, iphone

Leave a comment

Comments 19

catbear September 30 2007, 18:11:37 UTC
I am extremely interested in the Nokia N800 as an Touch contender. The price is equal, storage is expandable, it is open source and it runs a Linux variant. It's a little larger in size, but does have more goodies. I need to know more about its audio quality, though, but right now I'm just waiting because....

There are significant rumours that the N800 successor (or a variant) will have a WiMax modem. The platform already supports not just VOIP, but video calling due to a built-in camera. With a device like this, I will be quite content, I think.

Reply

catbear September 30 2007, 18:12:23 UTC
I think "open source" is an exaggeration. It's an open platform, and development is heavily encouraged and supported by Nokia through a forum and SDK support.

Reply


bsdcat September 30 2007, 18:27:42 UTC
Regarding X11... it looks like you're saying the whole OS X GUI is built on X11, but it's not. It's a custom graphics architecture which uses PDF to draw graphical primitives (at least at a high level; Wikipedia seems to think it isn't present at the bottom of the graphics stack). The X Window Server present in OS X is about the same quality as the free X Window Servers available for Windows, and about as integrated into the rest of the operating system as well.

On the larger point, Wil Shipley had an interesting take on the iPhone recently - very much echoing your thoughts: Contain or Disengage? You might particularly enjoy it for its analogies to Cold War-era realpolitik responses to communism.

I share your view; I was getting very close to buying an iPhone on the promise of what else I could do with it.

Reply

tongodeon September 30 2007, 18:54:19 UTC
I know that Apple uses Quartz and that its X server is running on top of Quartz. I meant that Apple includes an X11 server in its operating system which really opened the whole thing up to third party development. That's what OpenOffice (not NeoOffice) uses along with a few other apps. It was a great move - it let a whole ecosystem of free software run on OSX with minimal porting and left the door open for special OSX-specific ports.

Apple could have left the X11 server out of OSX and counted on third-party developers to write something, but then there would be even more confusion over how to install X11, which distribution to use, etc. And of course Apple could have gone a bit further and put a bunch of DRM into OSX to prevent any legitimate user from installing their own X11 software or compiling X11-friendly applications, but that would be stupid.

Reply

bsdcat September 30 2007, 19:45:20 UTC
OK, so you're more clear than I was worried about, but you've still got a few inaccuracies in there: X11.app started life as XDarwin, the result of the XonX open source project to get X11 on OS X. X11.app is, in my opinion, crappy enough to use that it does far less to open up OS X to third party development than giving developer tools away for free. I can sort of see the analogy you're trying to draw, but I think X11 isn't really the right component in that analogy.

I'm not disagreeing with your general claims, just trying to correct the record on the details of history for X11 on OS X. I hope it's interesting or at least informative. :-)

Reply

tongodeon September 30 2007, 20:21:27 UTC
you've still got a few inaccuracies in there: X11.app started life as XDarwin, the result of the XonX open source project to get X11 on OS X

Regardless of how X11.app started what I think is important is where it ended up: as a standardized, sanctioned, cross platform compatible part of the system that everyone could install, and it had a lot to do with one particular circle of my friends ditching Windows and Linux for OSX. A circle of friends which has developed a lot of really interesting software (and value) as a result of Apple going in that direction.

X11.app is, in my opinion, crappy enough to use that it does far less to open up OS X to third party development than giving developer tools away for free.

True, but it wasn't an either-or decision for Apple. They bundled an X server into OSX *and* they gave away X11-friendly developer tools for free, making both gestures stronger. It was part of a whole strategy that seems not just absent but antithetical to the direction they're taking the iPhone.

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

tongodeon October 4 2007, 04:37:06 UTC
This has always been bullshit, and now you begin to understand why I've consistently been saying so.

Data point: the midget and I have been looking into Helio, a company that doesn't even try to disguise this. I asked them "How much for a non-subsidized phone?" and they don't even recognize the concept. They don't sell one, nor do they say their phones are subsidized, nor do they offer anything other than a two year contract. You want to do any sort of business with them? Two years. I'm less annoyed at Helio than at an industry that's so unpleasant to deal with as a whole that this can be considered a reasonable offer.

Reply


Also deeptape September 30 2007, 20:48:51 UTC

usernameguy September 30 2007, 22:04:12 UTC
I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere:

I think that Apple is locking down this iteration of the iPhone to discourage investment in this architecture. They plan on switching to a pure x86 stack across their platforms ASAP. Intel is lining an x86 iPhone up for Apple as we speak ( ... )

Reply

usernameguy September 30 2007, 22:05:31 UTC
(In short: I think Apple got caught with its pants down with this hardware platform. They want to be on Intel, and they will be, within 18 months or less.)

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

usernameguy October 1 2007, 05:45:22 UTC
I think they had to get it out. They had to start the branding exercise, they had to gain the top end of the market and start moving down, they had to start the clock on the 2 years of AT&T contract.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up