Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Hardware Hacking Businesses Handhelds Apple Hardware

First iPhone 3rd Party GUI App Compiles 196

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the getting-closer-now dept.
CmputrAce writes "Well, it's here now. The #iphone-dev team has compiled the first third-party application for the iPhone. Of course, it is the standard "Hello, world." application, but it's native to the iPhone and uses the iPhone's GUI. This opens up the iPhone for development by anyone who can forge through the process of cracking the iPhone, installing the iPhone "Toolchain", writing an application, compiling, translating, and finally installing the application to the iPhone. With the pace of development at present, expect to see commercial "jailbreak" (mod-enabling) applications soon as well. You can already get high-quality applications (Mac) to theme the iPhone and add your own ring tones (Win) for the phone."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

First iPhone 3rd Party GUI App Compiles

Comments Filter:
  • It's not like they had to subsidize iPhones for people to buy them. Though AT&T might care if people can unlock the phone, but what can they do?
    • Of course they care. Apple has always liked to have lockdown and control on their hardware. Look for cease and desist letters to be flowing from Apple's legal department as people start putting up 3rd party apps. Worse yet, they could use iTunes to disable 'modded' phones, or to just rollback changes by deleting 'illegal' software.
  • How does this sit with the DMCA with regards to reverse engineering?

    • Re:DMCA (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Joe The Dragon (967727) on Sunday July 29, 2007 @09:56AM (#20031685)
      The DMCA says that you can hack a phone to unlock it so it will not get in the way of that kind of hacking.
      • Re:DMCA (Score:4, Interesting)

        by morcheeba (260908) on Sunday July 29, 2007 @01:06PM (#20032825) Journal
        The DMCA exemption is exceedingly narrow -- it only allows you to connect to a network, not run your own apps. It's so limited that a PC-based unlocking program wouldn't be allowed to bypass the DMCA to install the (temporarily legal) firmware, because the exemption applies only to firmware that runs on the phone and not regular computer software. The DMCA is still a major roadblock to fair use.

        Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network. ---- exemption 5, expires October 2009 (source) [copyright.gov]
      • by ceejayoz (567949)
        The DMCA doesn't say, of course, that you'll likely incur millions in legal fees if you try to exercise those rights.
  • by BitZtream (692029) on Sunday July 29, 2007 @09:30AM (#20031533)
    I don't suppose anyone bothered to read/honor this simple request knowing the effect /. can have on a website.

    http://iphone.fiveforty.net/wiki/index.php/Popular ity_Problem [fiveforty.net]
  • by aldheorte (162967) on Sunday July 29, 2007 @09:41AM (#20031611)
    Apple made a big strategic blunder in choosing Cingular/AT&T as an exclusive partner. If they had made a multi-band phone and sold it SIM-less, they could well have cracked the carrier market wide open. All the carriers would have scrambled to offer voice and data plans for it on launch because a subscriber is a subscriber in the end. Game theory would have led to one of the players 'cheating' on refusing to offer plans for a non-locked phone and as soon as the first one had cheated on the tacit collusion they currently engage in with all the other carriers, they would have all had to follow suit. Apple would have opened up the market for selling SIM-less phones and not constrained themselves to a very limited U.S. market.

    What does this have to do with the devkit? If Apple had done this, they would have been able to officially open up the devkit and application developers would have created a legitimate cottage industry around it, making it into a extremely versatile mobile communicator. The iPhone would have been revolutionary (literally) rather than a overpriced, though flashy, paperweight for anyone but those foolish enough to sign a contract with Cingular/AT&T (I don't view the use of it just for wifi as really relevant since then it must simple be viewed as a PDA and not a general communications device, and there are far better PDA solutions out there).

    The last hope for a healthy carrier market now lies with Google's attempt to force itself into the spectrum auction.
    • by Iphtashu Fitz (263795) on Sunday July 29, 2007 @10:09AM (#20031741)
      If they had made a multi-band phone and sold it SIM-less, they could well have cracked the carrier market wide open.

      From what I understand the carrier (AT&T) had to do a lot of work on their end to support the phone. The visual voicemail system alone required AT&T to update how their voicemail system works. By picking an exclusive partner Apple ensured that all these changes would work properly with the iPhone. If they simply dumped an unlocked phone on the market then a lot of the fancy gimmicks they've been touting wouldn't work for the vast majority of people, and you'd end up with a lot of people griping about how the phone doesn't work the way it was advertised.

      Tying the iPhone to a single carrier is only to be expected considering Apple's history. They've always held tight control over their hardware and peripherals, and they're basically doing the same thing here.
      • by suv4x4 (956391) on Sunday July 29, 2007 @11:23AM (#20032169)
        The visual voicemail system alone required AT&T to update how their voicemail system works. By picking an exclusive partner Apple ensured that all these changes would work properly with the iPhone. If they simply dumped an unlocked phone on the market then a lot of the fancy gimmicks they've been touting wouldn't work for the vast majority of people

        "All the fancy gimmicks" - it's the voice mail only. That's only fancy gimmick that requires carrier coop. Not a lot to lose I think.
        • "All the fancy gimmicks" - it's the voice mail only. That's only fancy gimmick that requires carrier coop. Not a lot to lose I think.

          Random-access voice mail, that you can access on a plane away from cell signals, is in fact very handy.

          But what you are really ignoring is the potentital for Apple to add other features like Visual Voicemail that require carrier support. Apple gets to mold a carrier API for FIVE YEARS to end up with a featureset they like in carrier support, and then force other carriers to o
        • by kiddailey (165202) on Sunday July 29, 2007 @02:54PM (#20033561) Homepage
          Having actually USED visual voicemail, I can assure you that it is no gimmick.

          That is unless of course you enjoy listening to the automated "message received at... press x to listen... press y to delete" crap after being forced to wade through and delete old voicemail before listening to that new one you just received.
          • Having actually USED visual voicemail, I can assure you that it is no gimmick. That is unless of course you enjoy listening to the automated "message received at... press x to listen... press y to delete" crap after being forced to wade through and delete old voicemail before listening to that new one you just received.

            And the more you use voicemail, the more glorious this becomes. My girlfriend gets off of work every day and can have 3-7 voicemails from friends and family waiting for her. She was wait

          • by KZigurs (638781)
            well, to start with - first thing I have done on my last few cellular contracts - disabled voicemail. Outright. Call waiting can remain, but if you fucking want to reach me - be so kind and call me during reasonable hours when I am picking up my phone. See, no need to listen to voicemail systems or try to decipher what somebody on a bad line speaking mandarin tries to say ether.
      • by hxnwix (652290)

        The visual voicemail system alone required AT&T to update how their voicemail system works.

        Have you heard the quality of messages stored by this system? They are compressed beyond coherency - imagine trying to comprehend a phone call in a shoe box in a tin can underwater in a flushing toilet bowl. It's about 1000x worse than that. And, in all respects, AT&T's customer support is even less coherent.

        Tying the iPhone to a single carrier is only to be expected considering Apple's history.

        When has Apple tied their other offerings to specific carriers? Would this be comparable to how Apple does not die their desktop offerings to AOL? Please elaborate.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by suv4x4 (956391)
          When has Apple tied their other offerings to specific carriers? Would this be comparable to how Apple does not die their desktop offerings to AOL? Please elaborate.

          He means: Apple always limits the options of their customers to retain control of the offer and the final experience.

          They don't allow you to install OSX on custom hardware. They don't allow people to build Apple-compatible hardware. They have locked down almost everything in their OS interface, and the options are limited.

          Initially they had all p
          • by Graff (532189) on Sunday July 29, 2007 @04:46PM (#20034539)

            They don't allow you to install OSX on custom hardware. They don't allow people to build Apple-compatible hardware. They have locked down almost everything in their OS interface, and the options are limited.

            Initially they had all proprietary ports for peripherals even, and you had to buy special Apple printers and what not (now they're more liberal in that department).
            Both of these are related to the fact that Apple is mostly a hardware company (well really a total solution company). Most of their business comes from hardware sales. Anything that would hurt the hardware sales is not encouraged, such as selling you a copy of Mac OS to run on someone else's hardware. Yes they do sell copies of Mac OS separate from the hardware but that is intended for people who already own a Macintosh and are looking to upgrade their operating system.

            Apple also had good reason for what type of connections they used for their peripherals. The first Mac used a DB-9 port, RJ11 connector for the Macintosh Keyboard, two RS-232/RS-422 serial ports, and a sound port for external audio amplifier or headphones. These are all standard ports. Throughout the years Apple tried several different types of ports, almost all of them were non-proprietary standards. Even the "proprietary" printer port was a standard Mini-DIN 8 port. Oh and you didn't need a special Apple printer, most Apple computers of that era had standard SCSI ports and many printers worked just fine with the proper parallel to SCSI cable.

            The difference is that Apple sometimes made choices that the non-Apple computer manufacturers didn't adopt. This is mostly because Apple was willing to try new standards in order to make a better product. A good example of this is USB. Prior to the iMac almost no computers were made with USB ports. The iMac abandoned almost all types of ports out there and just had USB ports. This was a very risky move on Apple's part but it caught on and now USB is the de-facto standard.
            • by MBCook (132727) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Sunday July 29, 2007 @07:03PM (#20035835) Homepage

              I agree with your points. The one thing I would like to point out is USB ports. Many computers had them before the iMac, not the majority but many. I know my computer certainly did. That said, no one used them. There were essentially no USB products on the market, if you wanted to see more than 2 or three you had to go look online (shopping online was of course much less common then).

              Then the iMac came out.

              Within months there were USB everything, and more importantly, you could actually go down to a store and BUY the stuff. Apple wasn't the first to put USB ports on computers, but they were the ones to actually get them used. I wonder just how long it would have taken for USB to get used if Apple hadn't done that. Dell/Gateway/HP/Compaq/etc didn't have the guts to do it.

          • The only reason that the printer ports on old Macs are different to those on PCs is because they date back to the original Mac.
            Back then there were many different incompatible computers with no clear market leader. Every computer had it's own ports.

            They did not require you to buy "special Apple printers". Although Macs initially only shipped with drivers for Apple printers (later Macs also included drivers for HP printers). The serial ports were RS-232 compatible, so, with an adaptor and the correct drivers
    • Apple made a big strategic blunder in choosing Cingular/AT&T as an exclusive partner. If they had made a multi-band phone and sold it SIM-less, they could well have cracked the carrier market wide open.

      Hmmmm, I don't think it's so black-and-white. Without partnering with a carrier (who itself was willing to make system and software changes to accommodate iPhone-specific functionality), will the iPhone be more or less successful? Since Apple went down the AT&T path, we'll never know, but we will be
    • by Vexorian (959249)
      Wasn't making these blunders what apple excels at? IMHO I hate OS/X but I think it is better at the desktop than windows, they would probably have done waaaayyy better if OS/X wasn't only for their silly computers...
    • by NDPTAL85 (260093) on Sunday July 29, 2007 @02:03PM (#20033195)
      I think Steve Jobs knows how to run his business just fine, thank you very much. Apple has very long term plans for the iPhone and you'll be eating crow in about 4 years when millions have shifted from their carriers to AT&T just to get the iPhone. There have been a LOT of good replies to your initial comment, why have you yet to respond?

      Apple's goal isn't to open the carrier market for YOUR purposes. You are applying your wishful thinking onto Apple's business plans. First of all why are you saying Apple limited themselves to the US Market? Have you been in a cave that has prevented you from knowing that European and Asian launches are coming in 2008 if not sooner? As for offering the phone SIM-less thats not Apple's style. Apple makes things EASY and SIMPLE to use. If the purchaser of the phone has to figure out what carrier they're going to use and then find a SIM card for it thats just not easy enough. Its too hard. I know you're going to scoff because you are a geek but you aren't Apple's target market. No geek is. Ease of use, ease of use, ease of use. Thats Apple's DNA. Your method introduces uncessary complexity.

      When you purchase the iPhone, you take it home, connect it to your computer and iTunes pops up to take you thru the activation process. Its EXTREMELY simple. Now imagine had it been sold SIM less. Each person would have to get the appropriate SIM for the carrier they wanted to go with. Thats just far too messy for Apple's tastes.

      Ironically long term Apple will still bring about a healthy carrier market anyway. When the 5 year contract with AT&T is up the other carriers will certainly jump to offer the iPhone just to stop the bleeding of their own subscriber numbers. I wouldn't bet on Google coming to the rescue. They've got a lot of industry inertia and lobbyists to combat against which could take YEARS.
    • by Guy Harris (3803)

      If they had made a multi-band phone

      What bands were you thinking of in addition to 850, 900, 1800, and 1900 MHz [apple.com]?

  • by eclectro (227083) on Sunday July 29, 2007 @10:29AM (#20031835)
    Apple reales the iphone. Shortly thereafter the command prompt is achieved, and on July 28 a 'hello world' program is written. They now have a working compiler, and decide to program extra functionality into the iphone. The iphone modifications happen exponentially until the iphone becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug. The iphone has no plug. Before the batteries discharge, the iphone fights back and dials Norad commencing a nuclear exchange.
  • by Shag (3737) on Sunday July 29, 2007 @11:44AM (#20032289) Homepage

    You can already get high-quality applications (Mac) to theme the iPhone and add your own ring tones (Win) for the phone.
    Ah yes, the different schools of thought.

    Mac users want high-quality applications.

    Windows users want ringtones.

    It's all clear now.
  • My Hope (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rgraham (199829) on Sunday July 29, 2007 @01:00PM (#20032783) Homepage
    My hope is that we'll see a replay of what happened when Apple first released Intel based Macs and a contest was established to see who could be the first to boot XP on the machines (and collect ~$14K in prize money). As soon as a winner was announced [slashdot.org] it wasn't long before Apple released BootCamp. Hopefully with this announcement we'll see Apple release their SDK for the iPhone.
  • Great, until... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eagl (86459) on Sunday July 29, 2007 @01:48PM (#20033091) Journal
    I'll probably get modded down for speaking an unpleasant truth, but...

    This is all great, until Apple and AT&T remotely shut off the phones due to violating the terms of service. How many console and other online accounts have been disabled due to cheating or other "legit" modding? It's just a matter of time before we hear the first reports of people having their iphones cut off, with no subscription fee refund.

    If Apple is really smart, they'll figure out how to shut off the phone and continue to charge any subscription fees until the original service plan expires. Free money for them, and no legal recourse for anyone who willfully violated the TOS.

    Yea it's not very nice but they have a business plan that probably doesn't include having customers bypassing the fee-based services they provide. Unlike the iopener fiasco, the iphone is cool enough that it'll keep selling no matter how many people lose their service after hacking/modding/whatever their iphone.
    • Their ToS and SLA's are unable to alter the inherent right to use your property as you see fit. That makes them unenforceable, at least in part. I have no doubt that there's a portion of the ToS and SLA's that says "if you hack your phone you can't use our service". That would be enforceable, as the service itself is the property of AT&T. But to charge you for services not rendered would be a clear contract violation, and there's no way in hell it would stand up in court if they said "if you hack your p
  • Let's hope that this powerful but so often neglected language will become popular with iPhone!

Time sharing: The use of many people by the computer.

Working...