Really? Yikes!

I hope I can use the Google search for addresses too. One of the major flaws of Navigon (still the best GPS on the iPhone) is searching, which remains stuck in the state-city-street-number hierarchy, instead of allowing simple address and POI search. It can be a real pain, and often makes it not worth the effort for short trips, especially if you don't know what "city" a rural or suburban location falls under.

The other problems are no route overview, too many tiny road names unreadably displayed on the screen, and of course too slow (to load and search). Also, the accuracy of TomTom's voice lane guidance has recently surpassed Navigon's (though N's pictures are better) -- Navigon needs to add more "keep right" kind of tips.

On the one hand, the jailbreak people should have done more to actively encourage users to change the password, such as making it a standard part of the pwnage app. On the other hand, given that these things can only spread via local networks, and given how few phones (relatively speaking) have been jailbroken, I don't see how even the vast majority of jailbreakers are in even the slightest danger. Apple et. al. love the story, since it makes the jailbreakers seem like everything they warned us about, but it's really not a significant real-world danger (even if it sucks should it happen to you).

The world is filled with d-bags. The challenge for the rest of us is how to structure our society to avoid being overly damaged or annoyed by their destructive behavior. The problem in this case is not just this random psycho, but how he was dealt with: by automatically acceding to his stupid demands, Apple allowed him to hurt a lot of developers, and encouraged others to behave equally stupidly. I don't blame the individual app store employees for this, of course -- the fundamental problem is the general policy, to reject apps at the slightest provocation. Given the volume that Apple deals with, I understand why such a general policy is necessary. But the downside is that idiots like this one can get away with a lot of crap before anyone can do anything about it. And that is a direct result, once again, of the monolithic control Apple has chosen to exercise.

Oy. Well, this thread is dead, but I'll reply to that terrible argument:

@Girish:

Here is what you do: ask yourself "Does my argument apply equally to any computer?" Then ask yourself "If I'm against it for personal computers, why am I for it for pocket computers?"

Amazingly, Macs and PCs can run arbitrary code, yet are not overwhelmed with apps that ask you for your private information and then send it to third parties. How is that possible? Don't we need a nanny looking out for us? Who is protecting the grandmothers? Yet somehow it works. And it works on phones without nannies too. Just because you can come up with an argument why Apple's gatekeeping might be necessary in some case, doesn't mean that it actually is necessary. Think it through, people! This matters a lot for the future of computing.

This has nothing to do with the Facebook app. The point is that the review and gatekeeping process is onerous and inefficient. Nor is it necessary: every person advocating it uses arguments that apply equally to personal computers. Do you all really want a gatekeeper for your Mac as well? If not, then please try to develop an argument about why a six-inch computer is so fundamentally different from a 13-inch one. (And no, "bringing down the network" or "viruses" is not going to cut it.)

So remind me again, all ye Apple defenders, why it's in our best interests not to have (well-sandboxed) code-running apps? It seems to me it would be nice to be able to run my various little c programs on my iPhone, and even write new ones while traveling.

"To us, it appears that Apple is just trying to maintain and improve security for the iPhone platform, something that will benefit all iPhone owners."

C'mon, you just threw that out there to boost the comment rate on this non-news, right? Saying something that is patently untrue ("all") not just of your readership, but even of that editorial "us", as we all well know. Please correct your error -- or wade into the deep politics of telling us how something we don't want is nevertheless better for us.

"Why should apple cater to you when you don't purchase their hardware? "

Because most of these "you"s are heavy purchasers of Apple hardware in general? And indeed, it makes little sense for Apple to piss of anyone if it doesn't lead to increased (hardware) sales. So the question is, does Apple make more people buy its stuff by preventing them from buying cheaper alternatives, than it looses from pissed-of heavy purchasers (like Erica) foreswearing their next Apple purchase in pique?

Apple is probably gambling that the loyalists are probably not going to leave Apple hardware en masse over this. But that's the logic Apple has to use: not, does this act make me a bit more cash now, but does this action lead to long-term profit maximization. A single instance of hardware not purchased from Apple does not mean that those users are purchasing none -- as Erica clearly illustrates. So don't make such simplistic defenses of Apple. They are a rapacious greedy corporation, like any corporation, care only for their profits, and have no actual concern for their users despite what their billions of dollars of ads might suggest -- there I agree with you. (Though it's strange that so many clear-eyed capitalists frequent such fan publications as this one.) But at least try to understand the logic of greed with a bit more nuance.

Two laptops have been lost to the kick-the-wire-down-comes-the-lappy; thankfully, the magsafe has fixed that. The only really annoying one was a laptop they refused to fix because it had water damage -- not from having ever spilled on it (not that they believed me) but because it resided in a room next to the bathroom, and the shower steam, as best I can judge, eventually caused one microscopic dot of corrosion invisibly on the motherboard (none of the water detecters were ever tripped). And they even had the temerity to call it coffee (I don't drink the stuff) because the dot was reddish (it was rust!). Sigh.