As you may have heard, everyone's favorite little phone that can has kind of a big bug that kinda sorta makes it, oh, seem like you might be protected when, in fact, your "hysterical" buddies poked holes in your entire pack of prophylactics with pins and didn't tell you until after spring break.
So, yes, it's a bad bug and, yes, Apple needs to fix it post haste. Which, of course, is license for everyone to freak out.
InfoWorld's Peter Sayer sagely notes:
One way to avoid such unauthorized access to e-mail messages or Web favorites would be not to add e-mail addresses or URLs to favorite address book entries.
Right. Don't email your friends. Become a hermit. Put the phone in a mason jar and bury it under your front porch.
Or, if you're just lazy and don't like to get a little dirt under your fingernails, you could just change the setting for Home Button to, uh, Home. Which, if the Macalope's not mistaken, is the default setting. So, you may not even have to get up.
But Pete's idea is good, too. Living a life of solitude might be good for you. What with your sex addiction. Whatever.
Again, the Macalope's not arguing that this is a bug. It's clearly a bug. It's bad. It needs to be fixed.
The Apple Blog's Bob Rudis, meanwhile, just causes the hoofed one to scratch his furry head.
As Alex Hutton points out, you can mitigate the threat by disabling the "home button double-tap" feature of your device.
Well, no, you can't "disable" it, you can only select the behavior. And by changing the behavior you can "mitigate" the threat all the way down to a little number the horny one likes to call "zero".
For the umpteenth time, Apple has a real security problem and needs to better address the issue and this is just another thing that make the company look stupid. In and of itself, though, it may not be worth phoning home about.
Although, if you need to phone home, just hit Emergency Call and double tap the Home button and...
George Ou (yes, that George Ou!) has an interesting preview of David Maynor's (yes, that David Maynor!) presentation tomorrow at DEFCON 16.
The horny one doesn't know if David's ingenious idea was inspired by the dick in a box, but to riff on a theme:
1) Get a box
2) Put a hacked iPhone attached to an external battery and running reconnaissance or penetration (ahem) tools in the box
3) Mail the box to your girl some company
4) Penetrate (the Macalope said "ahem" already!) said company
And that's how you do it!
While many companies have their shipping and receiving done at separate locations because of more traditional kaboom-related threats, this is still pretty Mission: Impossible.
The usual jokers will probably take this as another sign of why iPhones shouldn't be allowed in the enterprise.
PEOPLE the battery life appears less because YOU CAN'T PUT THE DAMNED THING DOWN.
That would pretty much explain it.
In a review of Apple's quarterly post-conference call beating on the market (yawn, SEEN IT), ZDNet's Adrian Kingsley-Hughes hits upon a gem of an idea while musing on the much-discussed upcoming "product transition".
Revamped AppleTV that's App Store compatible - Give the AppleTV a Wii Remote-like controller and it's ready to bring Super MonkeyBall to the world.
Let's ignore the fact that Apple's sold more iPhones and iPods touch ("iPod touches" just sounds wrong) than Apple TVs so Super Monkey Ball already reaches a wider audience. And let's also ignore the fact that this doesn't completely describe a transition to a lower-margin product. Instead, let's run with the remote controller idea. Because the remote controller is already in your hand.
It's the iPhone and the iPod touch. Both have the accelerometer and already act as a menu remote with Apple's Remote app. Rolling out the App Store to the Apple TV is a fabulous idea that could really add legs to an otherwise average device. Upscale the graphics and you're good to go. Game makers can create their own remote applications, allowing them to configure the buttons any way they like. Sure, there are some problems with that. Games may be a very good example of an instance where a physical button can be the difference between virtual life or death ("I thought I was pressing 'fire' and instead I was pressing 'night vision goggles'."), but the screen real estate on the iPhone and iPod touch is expansive enough that large virtual buttons could make up for this.
This is all pie-in-the-sky at this point. Maybe the product transition is an Apple TV/iPod touch bundle. Maybe it's lowering the cost of the iPod touch to where it's viably priced as a remote control.
More likely it's none of these things, but if Apple isn't going in this direction, maybe it should be.
The Macalope is sure that many of the kinks in the iPhone App Store as it exists now will get worked out over time, but one of the purported selling points was that customers would know that they're getting applications that have been vetted by Apple.
That's great and all, but if the "vetting process" means that bug fixes are slow to make it to users, it kind of tends to increase the exposure, rather than decrease it.
As you know, the Macalope's not galloping out this morning to get an iPhone 3G. Particularly since he feels like he just got a new iPhone yesterday with the 2.0 software update.
And it seems that might not be a bad idea all around. Taking a look on the Twitter, MacUser's Dan Pourhadi says AT&T's in-store activation system isn't working and they're telling people to activate at home (that won't get you a phone you can unlock, though, unless you want to pay $600 for it -- failure to activate).
Meanwhile, MacVoices' Chuck Joiner says the AT&T store he's at is out of black 16 GB models. Oh, you can order one and it'll get there in 7 days. But if a truck pulls up to the back of the store with more later in the afternoon, you still have to wait for yours to arrive next week. The Macalope's seen that model lots of places, but it never gets any less annoying.
As with the last launch, AT&T stores are going to be far easier to get into than Apple Stores. Unless you're looking for a 3-hour meetup with your Apple-loving brethren, get thee to an AT&T store.
Or wait until this afternoon. Or tomorrow.
Reports to the contrary notwithstanding, waiting a few hours for one isn't going to kill you. Really. Well, at least there's not direct proof that it will kill you.
UPDATE: Also, the horny one is seeing reports that the iPhone 2.0 update is now available through iTunes, but it's effectively bricking peoples' iPhone since the Store is down. The update gets installed, but the phone can't reactivate. Probably want to wait on that one, too.
Time's Anita Hamilton wonders why you can't have your iPhone application cake and eat it, too (tip o' the antlers to John Gruber via email).
It's probably been a while since you bought new software.
Is a month and a half a long time?
That's because so many tech firms -- buoyed by ads placed in Web-based applications like the Google Docs word processor and the thousands of apps on Facebook -- can now afford to give their programs away for free. But don't expect the same deal when you're shopping for add-ons to bling out your iPhone.
Right. Well, except for the free ones.
Oh, and the kids aren't saying "bling" anymore. Also out are "rad", "extreme" and doing the Lindy.
On July 11, Apple will launch its hotly anticipated iPhone App Store -- and it'll be anything but a bargain.
Yeah! That paying for things you use and get value out of is for suckers! Next time you're in the grocery store, just stuff a ham down your pants! It's a great way to beat the system and the summer heat!
Sure, customers will get to gorge on hundreds of new games and utilities for their iPhones. But they'll have to pay for many of the goodies they find there.
Indeed! What happened to the Communist paradise of each working to provide for free what he or she is able to make and receiving the like in turn from his or her comrades as was promised us by the great thinkers of the 19th century?
And who put International Socialist Review in the Macalope's Time?
So why can't all iPhone apps be free?
Totally! And what's all this crap the Macalope's been hearing about fair market value?!
Well, quite simply, because people are still willing to pay for them.
Send them to the camps for reeducation!
Apple currently generates most of its revenue from up-front sales -- whether it's for MacBooks, iTunes or iPhones. And the pay approach for mobile games, ringtones and videos has long been used by other tech purveyors like Verizon and Research In Motion, and even third-party app stores like Handango. "It is a historical business model," notes Kevin Burden of ABI Research.
That's probably because Apple is mostly a company that sells products and not services. Hamilton also missed the point that there are several other business models at play here. Google gives applications away to end users and makes its money by ad sales and by selling its back-end solutions to companies. Other vendors give away applications by showing you ads in the software.
Buyers are willing to pony up, though, because of the cachet of the Apple brand.
Um, no. Buyers have been willing to pony up because Apple's products are worth something.
If Apple ever does decide to let all iPhone apps be free, it would be a radical departure from its typical way of doing business. To switch to an ad-supported model, it would have to partner with a company that already has a huge inventory of interactive ads. Google would be the most obvious choice, but the search giant is already poised to be Apple's top rival in the mobile arena once its Android handsets go on sale this fall. Such an alliance might be a little too close for comfort.
Why would Google care? All Google wants to do is put the ad in front of you. That's why they made Android in the first place. That's why they're giving it away. If Apple decided to go with ads, Google would be thrilled to get them on the iPhone. After all, the number of current iPhone users is counted in the millions while the number of current Android users is counted in the, well, zeros.
It still makes little sense for Apple because its customers generally prefer a user experience that isn't crapped up by forcing you to chase an animated bunny (the bunny of real savings at the Larchmont Outlet Mall!) across the screen before you can use an application.
The Macalope keeps hearing from so-called analysts how the future will be ruled by ad-based software services that everyone will love because they'll be "free!" (with ads!). Personally, he thinks you can keep your Buy n Large future. He's happy to pay for a better user experience.
UPDATE: Mr. Gruber, who gets invited to more and better parties than the Macalope does (that's the problem with being elusive), says :
There will be free-but-with-ads apps from the App Store, but the ads will be sold by the developers of the apps.
UPDATE 2: Dan Moren gets more philosophical on the issue.
On Friday, John Gruber noticed the Macalope's point that iPhone unlocking is in danger of extinction.
Today Jason Kottke checks out eBay (if you don't remember what eBay is, ask your parents about it!) and notices iPhones are going for a premium. The ability to unlock can net you $200 over the price of an iPhone 3G.
OK, not everyone's going to get that much. But, just for fun, let's say you bought an 8 GB iPhone the day they were released for $599. Months later you got an Apple Store gift certificate for $100 when the price was cut, meaning you're effectively out only $499 (yes, assuming you were going to buy something from the Apple Store anyway). Now, you turn around and sell it on eBay for $400.
Your total cost for that 8 GB iPhone?
$99 plus tax.
The Macalope doesn't know about you, but he's trying really hard to feel like a sucker and it's just not working.
Maybe he's doing it wrong.
Now, dear readers, you know why the Macalope drinks.
Todd starts by rightly dinging the horny one for failing to note that he did say Jobs did not actually go so far as to literally say iPhone purchasers were suckers, even though Todd put it in quotes. So the Macalope will agree he shouldn't have bothered making an issue of that particular point.
The rest, however, is like getting sprayed in the face with a bottle full of carbonated stupid.
1st iPhone came out and was priced for purchasers at $499. New iPhone comes out and I can buy it at $199. In Macland this is more expensive...
Here is where he plays with facts. The phone IS $300 cheaper.
You're right, again, Todd. The iPhone 3G is cheaper... assuming you don't want to actually use it. As a paperweight, it is $300 cheaper.
[Commenter colonelpanic points out that Todd is calculating off a different base by going back to the iPhone's original price, so his number don't jibe with Gizmodo's or the Macalope's. Some of this may be confusion over the Macalope's use of "original iPhone" to mean the original hardware at the May 2008 price. The Macalope has already conceded that the price drop from the iPhone's launch price to the price as of three weeks ago was necessary to stay competitive, the point is that Steve Jobs effectively announced no real price drop at WWDC, contrary to Sullivan's posts of last Monday. Todd's trying to reset the goal posts to justify his contention that the iPhone 3G is "cheaper". Sure, it's cheaper than it was last July, but it's not cheaper than it was three weeks ago.]
But depending on your data usage plan with AT&T, you may end up spending about the same or $100 or so more AFTER TWO YEARS.
No, not "may", "will". The data plan for the 3G starts at $10 more. You must buy a data plan to use the phone. OK, if you use no SMS, the Macalope supposes you don't have a charge there, but even without that it's still $40 more expensive after two years than the original iPhone.
If you are not a heavy text user, the phone and its plan are CHEAPER.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. It's still $40 more. The math is not that hard here, Todd. Read Gizmodo's chart.
Or, better yet, please, for the love of God, just stop writing about the iPhone.
Todd would have you ignore the total cost of the iPhone and focus solely on what you shell out to get the device in your hand. Who makes decisions like this? The Macalope can only imagine what life is like at the Sullivan house.
"Dad, can I get a zeppelin?"
"A zeppelin? I don't know. Sounds expensive. How much is it?"
"It's free! [With a $6,000 per month payment for five years. Some restrictions may apply. Void where prohibited by law. Adjustable rate loan, monthly payment may fluctuate as high as $9 bazillion.]"
"Free?! Well, sure, honey! Have fun! And watch out for cell towers! Ha-ha! Kids!"
(See, that was all obviously ironic as opposed to not obviously ironic, so... oh, never mind.)
Also Mac, what about the 1/4 to 1/3 of iPhones purchased that are eventually unlocked? Aren't they stunningly cheaper, or are we just ignoring them because they do not fit our argument?
Actually, those would be cheaper, obviously... if you can actually get out of the door with one without being tasered by AT&T's jack-booted thugs. See, Todd, AT&T has wised up and will be forcing customers to activate their phones before leaving the store.
Got it? You won't be able to leave the store without a contract. A two-year contract. One you must pay for. Contractually. For two years. With money.
Sure, some are still going to "fall off of a truck" in the Bronx every now and again and it might be possible to still get phones out of the store without a contract in other countries -- all of which have different hardware and plan prices which the Macalope won't go into because we're just talking about the U.S. here -- but if you are buying an iPhone 3G from Apple or AT&T in the U.S. it will be more expensive than its predecessor.
It's like beating your antlers against a brick wall.
The Macalope has been putting this off for days but, as he's often said, this is the beat he chose and there's no use crying about it now.
After last week's announcement that the iPhone 3G would sell for $199 in the U.S., the pointy one realized there'd be one silly pundit who would be crowing over this as some kind of victory for his steel trap of a mind. Apple had dropped the price, as was long foretold in his dire prophecies!
Well, you can see why the brown and furry one put off surfing over to Todd Sullivan's place. He cleaned his woodland home. He finally got around to finishing those thank-you cards he's been meaning to get out. He buffed his hooves. Twice. He read some National Geographic magazines that had been piling up since 1972.
But it had been over a week and, well, there just isn't anything left to do here. So, the Macalope finally bit the bullet.
Turns out he was wrong! Todd didn't jump on the Internets right after Jobs' keynote and throw out his rotator cuff giving himself a hearty pat on the back for a job well done!
He did it on Monday morning before the keynote. Then he threw out the other rotator cuff patting himself on the other shoulder just after the keynote and jacktastically put quotes around "suckers" as if it were something that Jobs actually called people who bought the original iPhone. Quotation marks, Todd. They mean something. You might want to brush up on their proper ironic usage.
Sadly, Todd's brilliant analysis would hold a little more weight were the iPhone 3G not actually more expensive than the original iPhone. Of course, it provides more functionality so there's no reason why it shouldn't be a little more expensive. As John Gruber has noted, if you don't already own an iPhone, it's a compelling buy. If you do already own one, it may or may not be, depending on how much you use the AT&T network and think you'll use GPS.
Well, the Macalope's sure it's just a mistake and Todd will be issuing a correction post haste.
Or not. Whatever.
