- Jan 3, 2005
- 8,756
- 2,418
The Droid Fires Shots At Apple
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by illionaire,
- Start date
- Sep 12, 2008
- 412
- 10
This.
- Dec 2, 2007
- 9,386
- 11
Well that was cute
- Dec 19, 2006
- 4,011
- 51
Nothing is coming close to the iPhone in the near future.Originally Posted by ninjahood
iphone can't multitaskOriginally Posted by IHeartBoost
It will fail worse than Joe Buddens e-relationship.
G1
MyTouch
Storm
Pre
They all "came for da iphone's neck" and iPhone still running the game. Yall need to stop with all that, realtalk
this N900 has FULL browser capabilities (firefox browser w/ FULL flash 9.4 support) as well as up to 1GB of applicable memory to run many many many programs/ widgets at da same time.
da g1 and mytouch were essentially "sidekick 2.0"
da storm is doo doo.
da pre isn't widely supported.
da N900 is basically a internet tablet with bolt on phone accommdations....its gonna cream da iphone
Maybe in specs, but not in sales.
People are not going to drop their iPhones and come running to T-Mobile, because they already left for AT&T for the iPhone.
- Jul 23, 2008
- 3,134
- 10
IMO, the only company that can dethrone the iphone is RIM (blackberry). it is way too difficult for a company that has had a bad rep in the past few years(motorola, HTC, etc) to suddenly gain back marketshare with a new phone; you need to already have a large, LOYAL customer base that is willing to gobble up thenew phone. from there, word of mouth will spread and eventually, maybe the iphone will no longer be the best.
it's actually very hard for me to see the iphone toppled because apple is just too much of a fan-boy brand. even if it sucks, people are still gonna get itbecause apple has already positioned its brand in the mobile phone market as a cool, hip, high-end brand. i seriously think the iphone will only fall with thefall of steve job's liver (as well as the rest of the apple company).
it's actually very hard for me to see the iphone toppled because apple is just too much of a fan-boy brand. even if it sucks, people are still gonna get itbecause apple has already positioned its brand in the mobile phone market as a cool, hip, high-end brand. i seriously think the iphone will only fall with thefall of steve job's liver (as well as the rest of the apple company).
- Feb 11, 2008
- 117,699
- 227,706
We'll see what Android does for 2010
- Dec 19, 2006
- 4,011
- 51
Just to prove my point even further...jailbroken iPhone > ___________
You said no multitask? You ask and you shall receive.
http:// http://www.iclarified.com/entry/index.php?enid=5626
You said no multitask? You ask and you shall receive.
http:// http://www.iclarified.com/entry/index.php?enid=5626
- Sep 19, 2004
- 2,047
- 10
That N900 does lookOriginally Posted by ninjahood
iphone can't multitaskOriginally Posted by IHeartBoost
It will fail worse than Joe Buddens e-relationship.
G1
MyTouch
Storm
Pre
They all "came for da iphone's neck" and iPhone still running the game. Yall need to stop with all that, realtalk
this N900 has FULL browser capabilities (firefox browser w/ FULL flash 9.4 support) as well as up to 1GB of applicable memory to run many many many programs/ widgets at da same time.
da g1 and mytouch were essentially "sidekick 2.0"
da storm is doo doo.
da pre isn't widely supported.
da N900 is basically a internet tablet with bolt on phone accommdations....its gonna cream da iphone
Can you only buy the phone outright itself, and HAVE to pay that $600+ price, or are their services (I'm on Verizon) where if you sign a 2 year contractthe price will drop down?
Me personally, I HIGHLY doubt I would pay that much for a phone I rather just stick with my BB.
- Jan 3, 2005
- 8,756
- 2,418
- Aug 1, 2004
- 70,047
- 24,226
since did i care about sales? thats like saying da nelly album is better then illmatic cuz it sold more.Originally Posted by 23MichaelJordan45
Nothing is coming close to the iPhone in the near future.Originally Posted by ninjahood
iphone can't multitaskOriginally Posted by IHeartBoost
It will fail worse than Joe Buddens e-relationship.
G1
MyTouch
Storm
Pre
They all "came for da iphone's neck" and iPhone still running the game. Yall need to stop with all that, realtalk
this N900 has FULL browser capabilities (firefox browser w/ FULL flash 9.4 support) as well as up to 1GB of applicable memory to run many many many programs/ widgets at da same time.
da g1 and mytouch were essentially "sidekick 2.0"
da storm is doo doo.
da pre isn't widely supported.
da N900 is basically a internet tablet with bolt on phone accommdations....its gonna cream da iphone
Maybe in specs, but not in sales.
People are not going to drop their iPhones and come running to T-Mobile, because they already left for AT&T for the iPhone.
specs on da N900 embarrass da iphone......what part of FULL flash 9.4 via firefox didn't u get?
and you want incentive for people to drop AT&T like a bad habit? 2 words.....Project Dark
50 dollars unlimited everything for voice, data.
�
- Jul 26, 2006
- 2,218
- 11
"If you go at the king you best not miss" Omar
- Aug 1, 2004
- 70,047
- 24,226
too bad apple is doin ALL it can possible do to squelch da jail breaking community.
soon jail broken iphones will be a lot rarer then today.
[h2]Apple tries to patent method to lock down your mobile device[/h2]
Hate that carriers often cripple mobile devices by selectively removing features with custom firmware? Apple has applied for apatent on a system that would let carriers do the same thing for smartphones. The anti-consumer practices that such a system enables are the last thing Appleneeds while mired in an FCC investigation over iPhone app rejections.
One of the ways Apple's iPhone succeeded where other phones failed is that it doesn't let carriers install custom firmware that locks out features of the phone. However, Apple doesn't appear to be above giving carriers a way to be able to do that, even with the iPhone. The company filed a patent application earlier this year (published yesterday) for "provisioning" services on a mobile device based on a custom carrier profile.
In the patent filling, revealed by Slashdot, Apple describes a unified system for allowing a carrier-defined list of approved and unapproved features and applications to be uploaded to the device during activation, essentially allowing carriers to restrict whatever features or applications it decided not to "allow" on its network. "[M]obile devices often have capabilities that the carriers do not want utilized on their networks," according to the patent application. "For example, a mobile device may be designed with Bluetooth functionality, but the carrier may wish to prevent its users from taking advantage of that capability. Various applications on these devices may also need to be restricted."
Using a carrier profile to accomplish this has two main "benefits" over using custom firmware. One is that it works on systems, like Apple's iPhone, that require that code be digitally signed by a "trusted authority." In the past, carriers could cripple the features of mobile devices by tweaking its firmware. Custom firmware from AT&T wouldn't have Apple's signature, and would therefore not run. The other is that it allows easy customization for each carrier. Otherwise, Apple would have to be in charge of creating custom versions of iPhone OS, and likely implementing some system that would limit each version of the firmware to customers of each particular carrier-both would be a real hassle for Apple, and possible for carriers and users.
When the iPhone was released, none of its features were disabled, since Apple controlled the firmware and it was the same for every device. In fact, Apple was even able to get carriers to implement additional functionality to enable its famed Visual Voicemail feature. The move suggested that Apple had turned the table on carriers-instead of carriers dictating phone features to manufacturers, manufactures could instead innovate by building in the features they thought would bring the best value to users. And for the most part, the iPhone has fulfilled that promise.
However, we have seen at least a few counterexamples of this. One is the disabling of tethering capability included in iPhone OS 3.x in some areas (like *cough* the US), which is in fact controlled by the very carrier profile mechanism that Apple proposes. Also, certain applications, such as SlingPlayer, have been limited from streaming video over the 3G network due to AT&T's requirements (and we note that this is despite the fact that some applications are allowed to do it). Perhaps even more unfair is the fact that the restriction persists even in areas where there is no restriction on streaming video over the cell network. Apple's proposed system would at least allow the capability to work on regions where it is not restricted, and that is about the nicest thing we can say about what Apple proposes.
Here the implications are quite ominous. Imagine you could only use the GPS on your iPhone with AT&T's Navigator app-no TomTom, no Navigon, no other options, period. The app is free (for now), but you'd be stuck with a $10 per month charge to use it, and it only works where there is a data connection to access map data. Imagine further that AT&T decided to kill GPS capabilities in the included Maps app-it's not the greatest way to do real-time navigation, but it works in a pinch. Let's just say we think such a scenario would pretty much suck, and we can only imagine the backlash it would cause from users.
With the method described in the patent, Apple appears to be giving carriers free rein to disable whatever feature or application it decides it could otherwise "monetize" by providing its own service. This tactic is one that has drawn the most ire from mobile customers, and one that the iPhone itself had originally prevented. It flies in the face of net neutrality principles, which according to FCC chairman Julius Genachowski should extend to wireless networks as well. The realities of the current mobile market may make such methods an unpleasant necessity in the short term, but Apple shouldn't be building and patenting systems that allow mobile carriers to continue their most egregious anti-consumer practices. And it certainly can't endear a company that is still under FCC investigation related to the Google Voice app rejection.
- Sep 19, 2004
- 2,047
- 10
Thats the whole thing about Nokia's, and what ninjahood
is talking about as far as not wanting to subsidize the phone.
If dropped on TMob u might be able to finance it without contracts.
Other than that, u would have to straight up buy it.
I figured that's what it was, was hoping for the opposite though
That's a pass for me than, won't see myself dropping that much cash on a phone. Unless I'm magically in 4x better financially situation thanI'm in right now
- Dec 29, 2005
- 4,748
- 186
You can do almost anything with a jailbroken iPhone.
iPhone > Every phone out right now (no fanboy)
iPhone > Every phone out right now (no fanboy)
- Aug 1, 2004
- 70,047
- 24,226
read da article i posted.
apple is dropping a remote control locking system based on da preferences of da carrier...so if u unlock da phone, as soon as you get da carrier signal
its gonna adjust according to what da carrier wants to cripple on da phone.
- Jul 16, 2002
- 7,925
- 914
android
- Jan 22, 2008
- 13,868
- 44
it only took one for apple to take over
lobotomybeats
Supporter
- Jan 8, 2004
- 9,254
- 18,843
- Dec 29, 2005
- 4,748
- 186
yeah but that's for future iPhones right? Right now anyone who is unlocked on Tmobile is cool as long as they don't update their firmware.
- Aug 1, 2005
- 2,699
- 10
Until other companies get their $%*+ together on the UI and apps/widgets, nothing is touching the iphone even if Apple/ATT/Jesus locked it down.
Flash on mobile right now is trash (might not be in the future but right now?
)
I just re-upped my contract for an iphone 3GS and there is no phone out right now that's comparable in terms of snappiness and convenience.
When the Xperia X3 comes out maybe then I might change my tune.
Flash on mobile right now is trash (might not be in the future but right now?
I just re-upped my contract for an iphone 3GS and there is no phone out right now that's comparable in terms of snappiness and convenience.
When the Xperia X3 comes out maybe then I might change my tune.
D
Deleted member 38182
Guest
am i the only one who thought that the title meant, "a rogue android went loose on a killing rampage at the Apple store"?
- Oct 6, 2003
- 6,241
- 10
I still want an iphone
- Aug 1, 2004
- 70,047
- 24,226
with da techology that apple is cooking up..it won't matter if you update your firmware or not....its gonna be controlled remotely be da carriers based
on there preferences. da iphone will adjust based on what da "signal tells it to do"
- Sep 22, 2008
- 18,677
- 7,659
I know CDMA phones with sim cards are world phones so you can go anywhere throughout the world any and put the sim card in and access the networkor something like that.
I know in a review for Sprints TouchPro2, they were able to put in a AT&T sim card and it worked but it didn't work for Verizon.
I'm not really sure as far as going to unlock a phone and putting it on VZW.
- Jan 30, 2007
- 23,386
- 6,006
C'mon son, you worse than Verizon and Blackberry with all this reaching at Apple, article is damn near 3 weeks old tooOriginally Posted by ninjahood
too bad apple is doin ALL it can possible do to squelch da jail breaking community.
soon jail broken iphones will be a lot rarer then today.
[h2]Apple tries to patent method to lock down your mobile device[/h2]
Hate that carriers often cripple mobile devices by selectively removing features with custom firmware? Apple has applied for a patent on a system that would let carriers do the same thing for smartphones. The anti-consumer practices that such a system enables are the last thing Apple needs while mired in an FCC investigation over iPhone app rejections.
One of the ways Apple's iPhone succeeded where other phones failed is that it doesn't let carriers install custom firmware that locks out features of the phone. However, Apple doesn't appear to be above giving carriers a way to be able to do that, even with the iPhone. The company filed a patent application earlier this year (published yesterday) for "provisioning" services on a mobile device based on a custom carrier profile.
In the patent filling, revealed by Slashdot, Apple describes a unified system for allowing a carrier-defined list of approved and unapproved features and applications to be uploaded to the device during activation, essentially allowing carriers to restrict whatever features or applications it decided not to "allow" on its network. "[M]obile devices often have capabilities that the carriers do not want utilized on their networks," according to the patent application. "For example, a mobile device may be designed with Bluetooth functionality, but the carrier may wish to prevent its users from taking advantage of that capability. Various applications on these devices may also need to be restricted."
Using a carrier profile to accomplish this has two main "benefits" over using custom firmware. One is that it works on systems, like Apple's iPhone, that require that code be digitally signed by a "trusted authority." In the past, carriers could cripple the features of mobile devices by tweaking its firmware. Custom firmware from AT&T wouldn't have Apple's signature, and would therefore not run. The other is that it allows easy customization for each carrier. Otherwise, Apple would have to be in charge of creating custom versions of iPhone OS, and likely implementing some system that would limit each version of the firmware to customers of each particular carrier-both would be a real hassle for Apple, and possible for carriers and users.
When the iPhone was released, none of its features were disabled, since Apple controlled the firmware and it was the same for every device. In fact, Apple was even able to get carriers to implement additional functionality to enable its famed Visual Voicemail feature. The move suggested that Apple had turned the table on carriers-instead of carriers dictating phone features to manufacturers, manufactures could instead innovate by building in the features they thought would bring the best value to users. And for the most part, the iPhone has fulfilled that promise.
However, we have seen at least a few counterexamples of this. One is the disabling of tethering capability included in iPhone OS 3.x in some areas (like *cough* the US), which is in fact controlled by the very carrier profile mechanism that Apple proposes. Also, certain applications, such as SlingPlayer, have been limited from streaming video over the 3G network due to AT&T's requirements (and we note that this is despite the fact that some applications are allowed to do it). Perhaps even more unfair is the fact that the restriction persists even in areas where there is no restriction on streaming video over the cell network. Apple's proposed system would at least allow the capability to work on regions where it is not restricted, and that is about the nicest thing we can say about what Apple proposes.
Here the implications are quite ominous. Imagine you could only use the GPS on your iPhone with AT&T's Navigator app-no TomTom, no Navigon, no other options, period. The app is free (for now), but you'd be stuck with a $10 per month charge to use it, and it only works where there is a data connection to access map data. Imagine further that AT&T decided to kill GPS capabilities in the included Maps app-it's not the greatest way to do real-time navigation, but it works in a pinch. Let's just say we think such a scenario would pretty much suck, and we can only imagine the backlash it would cause from users.
With the method described in the patent, Apple appears to be giving carriers free rein to disable whatever feature or application it decides it could otherwise "monetize" by providing its own service. This tactic is one that has drawn the most ire from mobile customers, and one that the iPhone itself had originally prevented. It flies in the face of net neutrality principles, which according to FCC chairman Julius Genachowski should extend to wireless networks as well. The realities of the current mobile market may make such methods an unpleasant necessity in the short term, but Apple shouldn't be building and patenting systems that allow mobile carriers to continue their most egregious anti-consumer practices. And it certainly can't endear a company that is still under FCC investigation related to the Google Voice app rejection.
Similar threads
