Neowin.net

well said

Nicely said Steve, nicely said.

it's AT&T that put pressure on Apple to do this.

Of course it couldn't be "honest Steve's" fault....Apple have a deal that gives them a percentage of all call costs and line rental from iPhones used on AT&T (and indeed will have on all international deals - I believe O2 in the UK are handing over 40%!. So it is entirely in Apples interests to ensure that the iPhone is only used on the authorised networks. They want the iPhones to be used only on the networks they have deals with so that they can maintain their ongoing revenue streams.

Well, it's not exactly evil, it's just business. I'm not defending Apple in particular, of course Microsoft etc. all do apparently "evil" deeds, but if you were to put yourself in the position of a company whose primary goal is to make profit (i.e. most companies), you can't really pretend you'd do otherwise.

Of course, it's not exactly nice either, but when you go and unlock an iPhone when you know perfectly well Apple can and will try to brick your phone - well, what do you expect? There's plenty of good alternatives that don't tie you to a particular network.

As I said before, it's perfectly in their right to do this.


BUT, IU do find it dishonest of Apple to say that this was an unavoidable side-efffect of the update, Anyoen with half a brain realizes that Apple added in routines to find the hacks and brick and utilize it to disable the phone


and yeah I don't think Apple cares so much about AT%T as they care about their 40% of the profits from AT&T's subscriptions

Agreed.

Steevie is behind this 100000% that's why he can shove the whole ISuxx line up his asstunel ! He won'tr see a single cent from me anytime !

Actually , Apple can't have everyprovider they want. BEcause not every provider is willing to hand apple 40% of the profits and lick the up their back if they are havign a bad day.


Aurope didn't exactly have service providers throwing themselves at the feet of apple.


yet interestingly when it comes to iTMS apple is supposedly the great savour who throws out the companies who want to charge to much for music and movies.... yet other shops aren't charging a premium for non DRM music... I think it's time peopel stopped puting a halo over the head of Apple and Jobs.

exactly

So do you have some proof of this, or is that tinfoil hat on a bit too tight today?

Oh... there is a vision in my head... some douche Apple fanboy... oh yes, thats it!

Greed and business often go hand in hand - after all, the main goal of a company is to make as much profit as possible. Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Sun, Novell, HP, Google etc. - they all do it. It's not a nice fact, but it's a fact nonetheless, and I think it's perhaps a little naive to think you can succeed with an altruistic attitude in the business world.

Isn't that why they did the iPhone? And the AppleTV? They aren't a one-trick pony like most PC makers.

TITLE:
Apple iPhone Multiple Vulnerabilities

SECUNIA ADVISORY ID:
SA26983

VERIFY ADVISORY:
http://secunia.com/advisories/26983/

CRITICAL:
Moderately critical

IMPACT:
Hijacking, Security Bypass, Cross Site Scripting, Exposure of
sensitive information, DoS, System access

WHERE:
From remote

OPERATING SYSTEM:
Apple iPhone 1.x
http://secunia.com/product/15128/

DESCRIPTION:
Some vulnerabilities, security issues, and a weakness have been
reported in the Apple iPhone, which can be exploited by malicious
people to conduct cross-site scripting attacks, disclose sensitive
information, bypass certain security restrictions, cause a DoS
(Denial of Service), or to compromise a vulnerable system.

1) An input validation error when handling SDP (Service Discovery
Protocol) packets exists in the iPhone's Bluetooth server. This can
be exploited by an attacker in Bluetooth range to cause the
application to crash or to execute arbitrary code by sending
specially crafted SDP packets.

Successful exploitation requires that Bluetooth is enabled.

2) The problem is that users are not notified about changes of mail
servers' identities when Mail is configured to use SSL for incoming
and outgoing connections. This can be exploited e.g. to impersonate
the user's mail server and obtain the user's email credentials.

Successful exploitation requires a MitM (Man-in-the-Middle) attack.

3) It is possible to cause the iPhone to call a phone number without
user confirmation by enticing a user to follow a "tel:" link in a
mail message.

4) An error in Safari in the handling of new browser windows can be
exploited to disclose the URL of an unrelated page.

For more information see vulnerability #2 in:
SA23893

5) An error in Safari in the handling of "tel:" links can be
exploited to cause the iPhone to dial a different number than the one
being displayed in the confirmation dialog. Exiting Safari during the
confirmation process may result in unintentional confirmation.

6) An error in Safari can be exploited to set Javascript window
properties of pages served from other websites when a malicious web
site is viewed.

7) Disabling Javascript in Safari does not take effect until Safari
is restarted.

An error in Safari allows a malicious website to bypass the
same-origin policy using "frame" tags. This can be exploited to
execute Javascript code in the context of another site when a user
visits a malicious web page.

9) An error in Safari allows Javascript events to be associated with
the wrong frame. This can be exploited to execute Javascript code in
context of another site when a user visits a malicious web page.

10) An error in Safari allows content served over HTTP to alter or
access content served over HTTPS in the same domain. This can be
exploited to execute Javascript code in context of HTTPS web pages in
that domain when a user visits a malicious web page.

That's a very good point you know. O2 will HAVE to provide people with unlock codes when requested, it's the law... Apple can't do squat about or, OR disable the device either...

They probably get around it by adding special services tot he O2 network and claiming that the iPhone is a phone designed specifically for the O2 network and not the regular GSM net.

Why do they ?

Apple might not have the best products offered on the market, but they are highly visible because of all the marketing (advertisements, apparent superiority of the products over the others) that influence the average non-tech savvy to purchase their products.

The average user doesn't want to bother with a product with extensible functionnalities. They want to use something that works, that is intuitive according to the level of knowledge they have.

If you look carefully, most power users / system administrators doesn't use Apple products, because they are well informed and confident with their technical skills. They are willing to do more to have complete control of their products, not the other way around.

Most of time, ease of use mean to cut advanced functionnalities (perfect example: MS Paint VS Adobe Photoshop) to avoid confusing the user who want to do a simple task.

As an example, look at the iPod VS a generic flash based audio player. iTunes manage the audio library and transfer the file in a way to avoid complicated steps / potential errors from the average users. With a flash based audio player, you can do it by doing copy and paste operations (but don't ask that to a computer newbie, he'll be confused at first, because there is no clear guideline for him to follow).

In conclusion, Apple is dominating the multimedia market for 2 major reasons: marketing, and user-friendly device. As a tech-aware user, that is why I will never purchase a product from Apple: because I know how their products works and I don't want to have a software control the way I use a product that I paid for.

WELL SAID!

Actually a lot of tech-savvy "influencers" are switching to Mac because it gives them both the lickable veneer and the command line for when they want to dig around the nuts and bolts.

You are right about the first part, however I neither love my iphone nor do I ever plan on using it. That would make me an alien since according to your statement everyones loves it? I am pretty happy with my mix of Treo, Blackjack and Blackberry.

Thanks

I'm with you, Shane.

At the risk of getting flamed for injecting politics into this discussion, there's a saying I am quite fond of:

The liberal definition of rich: anyone that earns more than I do.

As applied to this discussion:

The liberal definition of greed: the act of charging more than I can afford, for a product I wish to own.

haha, awesome!

This is quite disappointing. It is upsetting that even now after 10 years the cell phone industry STILL forces its customers into buying equipment SOULY through them. The cost of these devices would cost 1/2 as much if Cell Phone companies did not have exclusivity over these kinds of products. I buy it, I own it, not my cell company if I choose to leave my cell company and go somewhere else, my phone is MINE and I can do so. I have been unlocking phones for years, even though I have had Cingluar /at for quite some time, just the fact that I CAN go anywhere I want with my phone is comforting.

I feel that the concept of locking and branding a cell phone is just as archaic as windows 3.11, it s a poor business strategy and a disappointment to someone who has been in the industry for years. If I buy a phone I want to be able to use ALL of its features, not just the ones that my provider thinks I should have.

Needless to say, I have a windows mobile device, I have unlocked, and I will never use an apple product again after my iPOD experience. Yet another crappy proprietary product from apple that I am happy I didn’t buy

~Og