I don't think Apple "confused" of "conflated" the difference between unlocking and third-party apps at all. Unfortunately, EVERYONE seemed to be doing this. Leo Leporte went on a diatribe about it on MacBreak, merging the two concepts so seamlessly, you'd think AppTap had caused his Visual Voicemail to stop working. The only thing Apple didn't do, is provide a glossary at the beginning of the press release. Engadget itself even said that Apple came "close" to putting an onus on 3rd party development, but seemed pretty clear they were referring to unlockers, and the specific modifications unlocking made. I honestly think the REAL story here, that NO ONE is talking about, is whether the unlocking process truly messed up the IMEI numbers on phones, in part, or in whole (in ANY way). TUAW commented that this tendency to see munged IMEI numbers didn't seem connected to unlocks, yet did note that this was more common during early unlocking attempts. Altering the IMEI number in and of itself is actually against the law, as it could constitute an attempt to "clone" a phone, or otherwise masquerade the device using its serial number.
I'd love to call it like I see it, and say Apple did wrong. It DID NOT. If they did ANYthing wrong, it was not immediately coming out and saying, #1.) DO NOT HACK the iPhone with 3rd party applications. We are currently working on the security model of the device, and any alterations to these areas will likely be reset during major firmware updates, as we tighten security. #2.) Please be patient (already said), but we are planning 3rd party native application support in 2008. We will have more details when they're available. Until then, please take advantage of the level of support we can currently guarantee. We thank yo for your business.
Everything else is justifiable and expected. Look up UNLOCKING on the Internet. In some countries, its a "right". Here in the U.S., it is an "exemption" from prosecution under the DMCA. Doesn't that sound like we should be working on the LAWS, and not the individual business models of companies that work inside of the status quo? Currently, unlocking phones is a MINEFIELD, and if you're on the CDMA network (Verizon), you're more than likely out of luck if they decide to keep their network groovy for only "approved" devices "optimized" by excluding support for your phone.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I don't think Apple "confused" of "conflated" the difference between unlocking and third-party apps at all. Unfortunately, EVERYONE seemed to be doing this. Leo Leporte went on a diatribe about it on MacBreak, merging the two concepts so seamlessly, you'd think AppTap had caused his Visual Voicemail to stop working. The only thing Apple didn't do, is provide a glossary at the beginning of the press release. Engadget itself even said that Apple came "close" to putting an onus on 3rd party development, but seemed pretty clear they were referring to unlockers, and the specific modifications unlocking made. I honestly think the REAL story here, that NO ONE is talking about, is whether the unlocking process truly messed up the IMEI numbers on phones, in part, or in whole (in ANY way). TUAW commented that this tendency to see munged IMEI numbers didn't seem connected to unlocks, yet did note that this was more common during early unlocking attempts. Altering the IMEI number in and of itself is actually against the law, as it could constitute an attempt to "clone" a phone, or otherwise masquerade the device using its serial number.
I'd love to call it like I see it, and say Apple did wrong. It DID NOT. If they did ANYthing wrong, it was not immediately coming out and saying, #1.) DO NOT HACK the iPhone with 3rd party applications. We are currently working on the security model of the device, and any alterations to these areas will likely be reset during major firmware updates, as we tighten security. #2.) Please be patient (already said), but we are planning 3rd party native application support in 2008. We will have more details when they're available. Until then, please take advantage of the level of support we can currently guarantee. We thank yo for your business.
Everything else is justifiable and expected. Look up UNLOCKING on the Internet. In some countries, its a "right". Here in the U.S., it is an "exemption" from prosecution under the DMCA. Doesn't that sound like we should be working on the LAWS, and not the individual business models of companies that work inside of the status quo? Currently, unlocking phones is a MINEFIELD, and if you're on the CDMA network (Verizon), you're more than likely out of luck if they decide to keep their network groovy for only "approved" devices "optimized" by excluding support for your phone.
Come on people. Big picture now.