mikeash.com pyblog/iphone-apps-i-cant-have.html comments

Sizilien Urlaub - 2011-11-04 13:39:48

Fri, 04 Nov 2011 13:39:48 GMT

I think locking is more about collecting extra fees for things like text messages, overage, international rates (AT&T wants $20/MB for roaming internet in China!) and such. And thus why even an unsubsidized phone is locked. Subsidies are more a way to convince people to buy locked phones so they can collect this extra stuff.

I think some legislation as you mention would be a good idea. I'm not usually in favor of that sort of thing, but with only four major carriers in the country, with little differentiation between them, the cell phone market is close to an oligopoly.

Wilhelm Reuch - 2010-07-03 18:26:39

Sat, 03 Jul 2010 18:26:39 GMT

When I unlocked my iphone from the carrier-lock they (my carrier, I live in europe) just entered my phones id into their computer and a few days later it was unlocked remotely by apple when doing a normal itunes-sync. itunes even presented a nice message about it.

You have to walk into a store to request this unlock. They dont accept it over the phone or the over the net.

There is no reason I can think of that this couldnt be done for a jailbreak type unlock. The requirement to walk into a store raise the cost for the user and the store can inform him what it actually means.. And Apple knows the id:s so their support would know if a phone is officially jailbreaked.

Louis Gerbarg - 2010-05-17 21:32:00

Mon, 17 May 2010 21:32:00 GMT

Yeah, I was going to propose restructuring the subsidy/ETFas a loan, but my last post was pretty long already. At some level I don't like that because I don't like encouraging people ro carry a higher debt load, on the other hand a liability is a liability, and it is probably better to make it explicit and clear what is going on.

I imagine the cellphone companies would structure the loans in such a way to discourage leaving early (either by discounting the interest rate so long ss you have an active plan, or making the balance due as a ballon payment if you discontinue your plan), but it would be a win for those of us who would just buy phones outright.

Sean M - 2010-05-17 02:46:20

Mon, 17 May 2010 02:46:20 GMT

Apple will change none of its policies as long as it's raking in the dough and developers are flocking to its App Store.

Not sure how to change that... Perhaps if more and more developers put their apps on the Cydia Store...

mikeash - 2010-05-17 00:46:57

Mon, 17 May 2010 00:46:57 GMT

Louis Gerbarg: Yeah, simply requiring the bill to be broken out really could work anywhere. Laws that require disclosure are pretty lightweight and usually good. With only four near-identical carriers, it might require more than just that to get changes, though. I could see simply forbidding bundled phones altogether. If you want service, buy a phone from a phone store, then buy service from a service provider. If you can't afford to pay the entire purchase price up front, save your pennies or take out a loan. Given the current state of affairs, though, that could result in phone prices going up by a large factor and plans and contract lengths changing not at all....

Regarding the Senate hearings and such, I wonder how it would work to structure the subsidy like a loan instead of calling it an ETF. You pay $X for your phone, and the phone company loans you the remainder, the amount of which is listed on your bill. Each month, you pay $Y for service and an additional $Z to pay off the loan. Maybe people wouldn't get so upset about that... plus your bill would go down once you paid off the phone.

Pierre Lebeaupin: You're making what is IMO an artificial distinction between applications and system features. There's no reason an application couldn't provide most of those ideas on a more open system. Certainly pasteboard sync, macros, custom input methods, Tor, audio recording, and location/time based configuration changes can all be implemented as simple applications on a Mac. You appear to be begging the question here by assuming that "application" must mean what Apple has defined it to mean, and then saying that I'm stepping outside the box and thus don't qualify. Well, that's my whole point: Apple has put down some very narrow rules which are excluding a lot of useful things.

Regarding elitism, I think you misunderstand. I don't think such things should be reserved only for advanced users. I think they should be allowed for everyone. However, I'm in a very small minority here, and I know that position is hopeless. If given the choice between the current regime, and a regime which allows advanced users to run software of their choosing, well, the latter is way better than the former.

As far as GPS, I'm not a child, and I don't need a nanny. If I want to write software that depends on hardware features, that's my choice. It's not like Apple doesn't already provide data through CoreLocation that is unavailable on some devices: try getting altitude data on an iPod touch and see how far you get.

Of course, any chip which outputs NMEA (which is, as far as I understand it, all of them) will continue to Just Work with existing software.

This "Apple knows better than you" attitude is unbelievably irritating. Apple makes horrible choices constantly. I do not want to be beholden to Steve's idea of what's best for me.

Pierre Lebeaupin - 2010-05-16 12:22:23

Sun, 16 May 2010 12:22:23 GMT

If I may intervene (what's with the comment influx lately?), only four of these are really applications: Airfoil (and even then…), WiFi mapper, Thermal mapper, and DOSBox. The remainder are system features. Now it could be better if third-parties could provide solutions, but I don't think it should be as part of a wholesale application category which can do everything from flashlight to making coffee; I think we're entering an era of more structured third-party software offerings (e.g. bookmarklets may be a first sign of this, probably other categories will appear).

Also, the discussion on how to properly provide the possibility to run unsigned code/jailbreak/etc. is pretty pointless: while some of the "applications" you mention are advanced stuff, many would be useful for most people, and these people do require support; so it's a bit elitist demand these features for people who know what they are doing, the aim should be to provide them in a supported way to everyone (one counter-argument could be that Apple should make running unsigned code/etc. available to people who know what they are doing for them to have these features "in the meantime", but these "temporary" provisions have a tendency to remain forever).

Oh, and you ask for direct access to the GPS data? Imagine the GPS chip changes in a future model. Oh, I know you will update your application, but what about the gazillion developers who won't, or will do so very slowly? Any system that relies on completely cooperative third-party developers is doomed to fail.

Louis Gerbarg - 2010-05-16 11:45:37

Sun, 16 May 2010 11:45:37 GMT

Yeah, that wws what I meant. A somewhat unfortunate typo. Abstractly I think you are correct about the ETF being sufficient without locking the phone, though in the particular case of the iPhone things are really strange for a few reasons. The big thing is that the ETF is nowhere near the value of the subsidy (the ETF Is a max of $175, and the discount for a full subsidy is $400). In fact, the ETF for an iPhone is the same as an ETF for any feebie feature phone. Since the ETF doesn't cover the full cost of the subsidy it seems likely they want to try to recapture as many phones that break contract as possible after they are resold.

Obviously as a customer how they structure their plans so they can recoup their subsidies should not be a concern you have to worry about, aside from them giving you ann ETF appropriately sized for your device. Verizon attempted to increase their smartphone ETFs relative to their normal phones. Customers screamed and Senators called for hearings, but based on everything we know about phone pricing from other markets it seems that the fair market value of high smart phones demands a larger ETF. Consequently they structure their pricing and lockout policy to (statistically) recoup it in other ways, and pickup whatever advantage they can as well.

That is a perversion of the pricing model that is probably brought on explicitly because customers do not understand the actual cost of their devices. Ultimately having unsubsidized phones with cheaper plans and ETFs large enough directly cover the device (even if it is larger than current ETFs) is probably a win for consumers, even those eho have to pay the ETF,u, but when users can't directly see how things are accounted for they don't properly perceive costs, and demand the wrong thing from carriers (cheap phones) which they carriers happily provide by screwing them in other ways ;-)

I imagine you probably don't tend to approve of government regulation as much as I do, but I don't see heat having only 4 carriers has to do with it. Even if one believes a marketplace of informed consumers will eventually pressure companies into doing the right thing, that still depends on the consumers having information. I think that telling companies that sell complicated aggregated products and serivces that they need to itemize their billing statements is hardly onerous, and likely result in better consumer choices in a lot of industries, even ones with healthy competition.

mikeash - 2010-05-16 03:45:57

Sun, 16 May 2010 03:45:57 GMT

I'm going to guess that you meant to say that it's gross that you can buy an unsubsidized phone that's still locked.

From a purely financial standpoint, there shouldn't be any need to lock phones just because of subsidies. Add an early termination fee to the contract, and you're good. It doesn't matter if you use it with other carriers, you either keep your contract with the original, so they still get your money, or you break your contract and pay them the remainder of the cost of the phone.

I think locking is more about collecting extra fees for things like text messages, overage, international rates (AT&T wants $20/MB for roaming internet in China!) and such. And thus why even an unsubsidized phone is locked. Subsidies are more a way to convince people to buy locked phones so they can collect this extra stuff.

I think some legislation as you mention would be a good idea. I'm not usually in favor of that sort of thing, but with only four major carriers in the country, with little differentiation between them, the cell phone market is close to an oligopoly.

Louis Gerbarg - 2010-05-16 00:06:59

Sun, 16 May 2010 00:06:59 GMT

No argument from me on subsidies, i think they are awful. I also think it is pretty gross that you can buy an subsidized phone in the US, but it is still locked to AT&T.

Having said, in order for unsubsidized phones to be economically viable the carriers need to start having pricing plans that omit the subsidy payments from the default monthly fees. Unless they completely eliminate subsidized phones that would mean that people could see what the subsidy cost is, which most providers really don't want customers to see (t-mobile has unsubsidized bring your own device plans, but I suspect a big reason for that is because they can't offer a subsidized iPhone, so they need to. Offer some plan to people who import them). I imagine doing something like that would require legislation telling cellphone providers they had to list subsidies as an itemized entry in bills. Independent of all the unlocking issues in this thread, that would probably be a very good thing for consumers.

I think a law like that was pasted in the last year or two in Japan, and I recall reading that it had a significant impact on consumer cell phone spending..

mikeash - 2010-05-15 23:44:54

Sat, 15 May 2010 23:44:54 GMT

I actually think that phone subsidies are a huge brake on innovation and should be eliminated. They hide the true costs of hardware, and force people to enter into expensive long-term contracts. I'd much rather pay $600 for an iPhone up-front, then have the subsidy money stay in my pocket.

If it weren't for carrier subsidies, you wouldn't have locked phones, and this whole business of smartphones having draconian rules for third-party apps probably never would have happened.

If Apple actually sold unlocked phones, I might be ok if they were the only ones that allowed it.

As it stands right now, not only are all iPhones sold locked (in this country), but Apple's control extends to lots of devices that can't even talk to the cell network (iPods touch and iPads).

Louis Gerbarg - 2010-05-15 21:58:25

Sat, 15 May 2010 21:58:25 GMT

Steve:

It is very familiar because it is entirely consistent with how Apl,e has made products for years. Traditionally Apple omits features and options that they think most users won't use, because each additional feature adds a little more code to support, and a little more confusion for the user. When it is a particular feature that you want it bites really hard, and it seems very unreasonable because often adding that one thing seems like it would not add much complexity, but in aggregate it is a substantial effect.

Obviously this is a bigger deal then most small features, and Apple does include some options for things they feel are necessary and cannot infer without user input, but those are viewed as UE failures. Apple clearly does view clean simple settings as a feature, which means removing as many options as possible, and it has been quite successful for them. The argument to make is why this feature should be an exception to that.

Mike:

If you object to paying more to unlock then then you also need to petition the mobile carrierrs. I assume you using a subsidized phone? Even if Apple allows the phone to be unlocked, I guarantee you there is no way most carriers will allow their carrier subsidized SIM locked phones to be unlocked, if only to prevent people from installing software NATs and tethering, and your contract with them almost certainly explicitly grants them that right.

I would make the assumption that if Apple ever allows an official mechanism for unlocking phones it would only work on unsubsidized devices.

Anonymous - 2010-05-15 15:14:54

Sat, 15 May 2010 15:14:54 GMT

The arguments against opening up the OS to us seem very familiar... it's almost like Apple apologists are saying "you would be less happy if you _______ so we're going to take away your right to _______ so that you will be happier."

mikeash - 2010-05-15 14:13:06

Sat, 15 May 2010 14:13:06 GMT

Nick: Yep, these are mostly system hacks. The thing is, the system hacks are the most useful software I run on my Mac. If you think the benefits of not having them are worth the loss in functionality, that's perfectly understandable, but there's no reason that should lead you to support restricting my capabilities. If you think the tradeoff is worthwhile, don't run such hacks! I don't know why, but the concept of making personal choices really seems to get lost in these debates.

I also sometimes wonder if I'm the only Mac owner out there whose Mac is completely stable and has never had any trouble with viruses or other malware. It often sounds like everybody else's Macs have constant trouble, and the iPhone is the first time they had a computing device that Just Worked. Not so for me! I actually have more instability on my iPhone OS devices than on my Mac. Of course, this means that I have to reboot them once every month or two instead of once every two or three months, so it's not exactly a big deal, I just don't get this concept that an open system has to be dangerous or difficult.

Brent: Remove the requirement to pay Apple for a developer license and I'd be right there with you.

Brent - 2010-05-15 12:48:15

Sat, 15 May 2010 12:48:15 GMT

One thing I've always wanted, and think Apple were stupid to not provide, is the ability to get root on your iPhone OS device from Xcode, perhaps requiring that special apps only be installable via Xcode.

Installing Xcode, properly configuring the device and/or the OS image for enhanced development features (including provision), accepting responsibility for what you're about to do, etc., seems reasonable to me. You have to pay for a developer license, granted, but all they would have to do is allow * as the list of devices in the provision for a dev app.

Of course this would mean people could effectively sell their hack apps directly to end-users (other developers), but something like this might still be feasible, filter out the n00bs automatically, and make everybody happy. It would be cool if someone could just crack the provisioning system to enable this.

Nick - 2010-05-15 05:48:53

Sat, 15 May 2010 05:48:53 GMT

So most of these sound like what I would call "system hacks". Essentially taking an existing part of the platform and making it work in a different way or shimming some functionality under an existing part of the system.

When I think about what is wrong with Apple's stewardship of the iPhone platform, it isn't the closed APIs or the lack of the ability to write kernel extensions or other system-level modification. I actually see that the security and stability benefits are worth the loss in functionality.

Rather, I see it as much more problematic that Apple must manually approve every program that a user might wish to run and that they have tightened their grip over time, forbidding legitimate developers tools from being used in some kind of pissing match with Adobe.

Put another way, I'm more more bothered by the fact that apps that "duplicate functionality" of Apple apps (that is to say "compete with them") are forbidden.

Louis Gerbarg - 2010-05-15 05:20:44

Sat, 15 May 2010 05:20:44 GMT

Well, in that case I think we can basically agree on something we both think would be an acceptable solution to us as users.

I do have one other question for you. Do you think developers should be able to restrict their apps to only locked phones? In the physical world a vendor can refuse to sell a product to an individual, and I know I have dealt with clients who I am certain would prefer their products only run on stock systems (some for perceived security reasons, some for support reasons). Assume any such limitations are disclosed in the apps metadata on the app store.

mikeash - 2010-05-15 04:08:59

Sat, 15 May 2010 04:08:59 GMT

Nat: Alas, I don't leave my Mac on when I visit China (I usually stay a while) and don't have access to an OS X server. I'd need to set something up on one of the Linux or BSD servers I have access to.

Louis Gerbarg: I'd even be fine if they required wiping the phone clean in a situation like that. I don't know if it does, but the iPhone could have something like Firewire Target Mode so that a clean, happy OS can always be forced onto the device no matter how hosed it is software-wise.

Louis Gerbarg - 2010-05-15 02:50:23

Sat, 15 May 2010 02:50:23 GMT

I just mean software, but when someone walks in with a device that is powering on but stuck at the Apple logo, or is shutting down randomly it is very hard to determine if it is a HW or SW issue. I suppose in those cases Apple could do what companies sometimes do with phone support issues where they can't tell if an issue is supported until it is diagnosed:

Tell you the fee for a software support incident
Take your credit card number
Figure out what is going on
Charge you if it turns out to be software

Nat - 2010-05-15 02:29:01

Sat, 15 May 2010 02:29:01 GMT

Good list.

I've been kicking the tires on Google Voice lately. I miss the advantages of a native dialer, but for inbound calls it's pretty transparent, and it has a call-recording feature.

When you get around to setting up a VPN server, the IPSec VPN in OSXS is far easier than most. You just need to forward some ports (500, 1701, 4500). We've successfully set up an OSXS VPN server in a VM instance before, which makes this approach pretty feasible if you already have a Mac Pro and a dev membership at your disposal.

OpenVPN support in the iPhone would be even better, but there's no sign 4.0 will deliver it.

mikeash - 2010-05-15 01:25:14

Sat, 15 May 2010 01:25:14 GMT

There are many problems with jailbreaking. First is that it's a completely unsupported procedure which appears to have a nonzero chance of destroying your device. Second is that, from what I've heard (and I could be wrong about this), it's difficult to upgrade the OS once you jailbreak. And third is that I don't want to become dependent on a system that Apple could eliminate at any time.

When you say discontinuing technical support, do you just mean phone/genius bar, or do you mean replacing defective hardware? If the former, absolutely fine. If the latter, I think it would be extremely lame, and may fall afoul of the law, but still doesn't have the disturbing control implications of the current situation.

Louis Gerbarg - 2010-05-15 00:29:03

Sat, 15 May 2010 00:29:03 GMT

Is your problem with jailbreaking really just the perceptual cost, or the fact that it might not be possible some day? I think jailbreakings perceptual cost is fine, the issue is that Apple really has to fix the holes the jailbreaking depends on as they are discovered.

The issue I was trying to convey was Apple taking away something that unlocking may make expensive for them (support) when unlocking the device. The cost I was trying to convey was discontinuing technical support for the device (in other words, making the user bear the actual cost of unlocking), the point of the signed letter was that use just tap through warnings and if a user sued over it I would suspect that simply tapping a window saying you waived technical support would not be adequate.

For my example, just imagine they included a guarantee with every iPhone they would not refuse any signed unlock request and were posting a $30 billion dollar bond to collateralize the guarantee.

Or, if you want to convert it over to your example, what if there was a hardware fuse in the device that could not be reset, and that would be blown when the device was unlocked, and Apple would refuse any technical support for devices with blown fuses?

mikeash - 2010-05-14 23:38:56

Fri, 14 May 2010 23:38:56 GMT

Sure, it's a lower perceptual cost. There's a reason why I don't want to jailbreak my phone, and want Apple to give me an official route instead! I just think that the lower cost could still be plenty high enough to make everything work well.

As for the signed letter, no, that's no good. Such a situation still gives Apple the ability to refuse, even if in practice they never exercise it. Just like the iPhone developer program gives Apple the ability to disallow developers from even installing software on their own devices, even though in practice they accept pretty much everybody.

I might go for something where you have to sign an electronic agreement (provided the agreement is reasonably narrow) on the phone (with your finger), and then it unlocks without waiting for permission from the mothership. I think such a regime would be excessive, but at least control would rest with the owner.

Louis Gerbarg - 2010-05-14 23:30:43

Fri, 14 May 2010 23:30:43 GMT

Then we basically agree, just differ in the what the relative cost needs to be. I think that anything officially supported (even if it is enabling unsupported mode) confers an attitude of safety, which makes the thing have a lower perceptual cost.

Not that this is a viable option, but I am curious if you would find it acceptable:

What if you needed to send a signed letter to Apple requesting the device unlock and waiving all software support for the device?

mikeash - 2010-05-14 22:43:43

Fri, 14 May 2010 22:43:43 GMT

I don't see why these two things have to be mutually exclusive. After all, jailbreaking is widely available, yet normal users aren't suffering. I don't ask that the ability to run arbitrary code be made widespread, but I just want it to exist, officially.

On the Mac, users get an admin account by default. They're conditioned to type their password for everything. There's no difference, in the GUI, between an app that wants to twiddle permissions on something and an app that wants to install a dangerous kext.

On the iPhone, bury the "allow arbitrary code" or "give me root" switch deep. Surround it with warnings. Require using iTunes to install software, if you must. That won't be any more dangerous than now, but it will let me do what I want with my stuff.

Louis Gerbarg - 2010-05-14 21:24:04

Fri, 14 May 2010 21:24:04 GMT

Let me lay out the scenario that I think Apple wants to avoid. If you can provide a way for Apple to let phones be easily unlocked without the following being possible then I will happily argue for that solution, but if you can't then I think lack of a button that lets software do things that most users don't understand is in fact a feature and jailbreaking is the appropriate mechanism for people who actually know what they are doing:

Remember the Logitech drivers that screwed up Leopard installs because they did completely unsupported things with an old version of APE? Who bore the initial PR costs of that, and the support costs of it? Apple did. Most users never even conceived they were doing anything risky, they just typed in their password when the installer from a big manufacturer asked them to. What happens when some popular app does the exact same thing the phone, and a new firmware comes out the places the phone in an unbootable state because of unsupported software mucking with the system in unsupported ways? The answer is that Apple gets bad PR for the new firmware, and ends up having a lot of extra genius appointments and RMAs, not to mention a bunch of pissed off users for whom running unsupported code turned out to be a serious misfeature since their phones are bricked and need a DFU.

If you can have a proposal that does what you want while still preventing that situation then you have a serious case to make, until then I just think you are arguing that you want a feature (running arbitrary code) that Apple sees in opposition to a feature they want to provide to most users (reliability, without having to understand computers), and that whenever two features are in opposition one group of users will be pissed.

mikeash - 2010-05-14 20:01:53

Fri, 14 May 2010 20:01:53 GMT

dpc: The Kindle brightness control quite obviously does not affect the hardware backlight. To see this, just notice how the View Options panel that the slider is in remains at full brightness even when you turn the slider all the way down. This is impossible if it were adjusting the backlight. Another obvious clue: the iBooks slider affects the entire device, even after you leave the app. Kindle's slider doesn't. You're misinterpreting what you're seeing, and then telling other people they're lazy and wrong because of it.

dpc - 2010-05-14 19:45:56

Fri, 14 May 2010 19:45:56 GMT

Kindle app brightness control behaves eerily similarly to iBooks brightness control on my iPad.

Could it be that early reports to the contrary on private APIs being the only way to do this are incorrect?

mikeash - 2010-05-14 17:10:54

Fri, 14 May 2010 17:10:54 GMT

dave: I'd agree with you if Apple weren't doing their damnedest to prevent me from jailbreaking. Every hardware and software update has new stuff to keep me out. If they'd just leave well enough alone that might be ok, but they're trying their best to prevent jailbreaking. Imagine if Toyota refused to fix their accelerator problems for anyone who used aftermarket tires! That's how I see Apple treating iPhone owners.

Brent: Taking your points out of order, I don't have any idea for a coherent strategy either. I think that making posts like this and getting the word out is something that may help. I think a lot of people are unaware of the problems Apple is causing but would be sympathetic if they understood, and a lot of other people don't like what Apple is doing but feel that they're alone. As far as worst-case thinking goes, you might be right, and I don't think it's inevitable, but I do see it as a high probability event. Apple has actually opened up smartphones a great deal compared to how things were before the iPhone, and that's great, but after that huge initial swing, they seem to be going back the other way, and everyone else is trying to emulate them.

alastair: I understand what you're getting at. If I really need it, I'll certainly look into setting up a VPN. When I was in China, I just used my computer to visit blocked sites, and that was good enough. Maybe next time I go I'll figure out how to set up a VPN. I'd still like to be able to make my own choices for how to accomplish this stuff, but you're right that there are other ways.

alastair - 2010-05-14 15:28:42

Fri, 14 May 2010 15:28:42 GMT

Fair point - and I do appreciate what you're saying in your blog post; I was only trying to point out that you could achieve your goal (privacy/immunity from the Great Firewall of China) through another means. VPN servers aren't hugely difficult to set up, and they should be quite a lot faster than Tor too.

Brent - 2010-05-14 15:24:05

Fri, 14 May 2010 15:24:05 GMT

Mike: I support you. I would be happy to contribute if I had 1) confidence in the long view (the future being unpredictable at best, but more likely, so different that you never had a chance of preparing for it), and 2) any idea for a coherent strategy. Grassroots? Competition? Perhaps you are in fact falling victim to worst-case thinking (an great blog post about which you recently linked to).

dave - 2010-05-14 15:10:04

Fri, 14 May 2010 15:10:04 GMT

"Apple has decided that's all they'll let me use, on hardware which I bought and is now mine, not theirs?"

But that's not correct. You can jailbreak your phone, which is yours, and do whatever you want with it. You can write any software you want and run it.

What Apple isn't doing is selling that software in their store. You bought the hardware and can do anything you want with it. They built the store and can sell/not sell whatever they want.

mikeash - 2010-05-14 14:36:37

Fri, 14 May 2010 14:36:37 GMT

John Wang: If it requires the cooperation of the target app, it's not very useful, because most target apps won't implement what's necessary. I guarantee that Safari, for example, will never implement the appropriate delegate methods.

Louis Gerbarg: I won't deny that the current regime is good for Apple in a lot of ways. Obviously they're enjoying enormous success. But that doesn't make me feel any better about how their choices impact me.

Nik: I don't care about safe, uninstallable, or future-compatible. Apple doesn't need to protect me from myself, I can handle that.

I think the point you're missing is that all of these apps are things that third parties could build without any help from Apple, if Apple would let us. Yes, these are largely things that could be done with the appropriate API. But there is no appropriate API, and no sign that one is coming. On the Mac, I have tons of useful software that does things for which no official API is available. Yet, they accomplish them anyway. Is this dangerous? A bit, yes. Is this future-compatible? Not too much. And yet, this software is incredibly useful despite that. I would much rather sacrifice some safety so that I can have this power. If you'd rather make the opposite tradeoff, that's your right; nobody would force you.

Jesper: Why is GPS disallowed on a flight? I'm not talking about an airliner, I'm talking about my own personal airplane. The silly no-electronics rules for airliners do not apply.

agaddo: You're absolutely right. I'm a power user, and the iPhone is not for power users. The thing is, the Mac is for power users, and also for normal people. Apple managed to build a platfor that's fantastic for both. Now they're abandoning me. I don't want them to abandon me, I want them to build another awesome power-user platform.

Dpc: No, not an example of yet another myth being perpetuated by lazy people, just an example of yet another lazy person failing to read and understand before commenting on an article.

Brent: I take the long view. In the long view, I see Apple driving an industry-wide move toward closed platforms. In a few decades, everything will be closed, and they'll have locked out the jailbreakers. Then where will we be? I agree that the odds of changing Apple's strategy are extremely small, but that doesn't mean I won't try.

alastair: I know it supports VPN connections, but I don't know how to set up a VPN server. I could learn, but I'd rather use what I'm familiar with. Why should I have to use a completely different technique just because Apple has decided that's all they'll let me use, on hardware which I bought and is now mine, not theirs?

alastair - 2010-05-14 12:27:55

Fri, 14 May 2010 12:27:55 GMT

As regards Tor, you know that iPhones support VPN connections? So you could just set up a VPN link. You'll get better performance than Tor, and you can use it from anywhere you like (including China, as far as I'm aware).

Brent - 2010-05-14 11:20:15

Fri, 14 May 2010 11:20:15 GMT

I'm not happy with the iPhone, either, for similar reasons, except that it's way down the scale of importance to me because I'm just not that mobile.

I can see a possible direction to take from here to there: convincing enough people to demand it. But it would have to positively affect Apple's bottom line. Actually, Apple (Jobs and Forstall) would have to believe it would have a significant probability of taking market share away from Android.

It looks like Android market share gains come down to price at the moment. Apple doesn't want to compete on price, thankfully. So they have to be able to make significant gains in features without offsetting those gains with other costs--like support, as Louis mentioned, or legal, or a much more involved app approval process, or by being able to charge a reasonable pro-user upgrade fee.

I think you have to make a good sell that opening up the phone will sell more units and more apps. But there is one possibly even bigger obstacle. But we know that as soon as the device is easily unlocked, the AppStore loses its relative monopoly. I can't claim to understand the revenue implications, but I think the new Ad framework is probably pretty tied into it, and I suspect they expect that to make a lot of money.

The big unknown, from Apple's point of view, is whether opening up the iPhone would damage the brand by eroding the user's confidence in its reliability and ease of use. I guess Jobs is pretty sure it would damage it a lot. His attitude comes from his intuition, and we all know that his intuition is pretty powerful, and unlikely to be affected by any amount of noise or argument from so-called pro users.

This is a pretty hard sell. And since you apparently already bought an iPhone, you have a terrible negotiating position, unless you are willing to pay a hundred bucks or more for more openness, or a whole lot more for a special pro model with a different legal agreement. But then you're in a very small minority. Not only are most users not going to do that, thus making it unattractive to Apple, but very few (paid) apps are going to be written with you in mind, meaning a net financial loss for them (anytime a company does anything that is not a significant gain, it's a loss in terms of potential revenue).

You are much better off to just jailbreak your phone already.

Anonymous - 2010-05-14 11:00:49

Fri, 14 May 2010 11:00:49 GMT

Maybe the iPhone OS will grow up to that point, maybe it won't. But certainly that list would have been longer 12 months ago. Some problems were solved by new APIs.

That's just the issue at hand: it's ridiculous that we need to wait for Apple's express permission to do anything currently not supported by APIs and by their license, if and when they give it. I think that's what many of us are upset about.

Anonymous - 2010-05-14 10:56:10

Fri, 14 May 2010 10:56:10 GMT

Dpc:

Mike stated that the Kindle does have a "brightness control" but that it fakes brightness by changing the background color. It's not real brightness control, and that's the fault of Apple for only providing the true brightness control to themselves, and no one else (as it's a private API). Not sure how you missed all of this from Mike's post, he was extremely succinct. Or perhaps you intentionally "misunderstood" in order to find any excuse you can to defend Apple?

Dpc - 2010-05-14 10:39:17

Fri, 14 May 2010 10:39:17 GMT

There IS hardware brightness control built into Kindle iPad app. In the font size control (it's not a fault of Apple that Amazon's app has less than perfect UI) Example of yet Another myth being perpetuated by lazy people?

Anonymous - 2010-05-14 09:27:22

Fri, 14 May 2010 09:27:22 GMT

agaddo:

That's a really lame false dilemma. Why can't an iPhone be simple enough for most people but powerful/flexible enough for power users? And don't use the argument that doing so gives people the power to make their phones crappy or not work properly. That's like like telling an adult they must use butter knives to cut everything, and can't use steak knives because they might cut themselves.

Mike:

Just last night I was thinking how helpful it would be to be able to script my iPhone. See, I wake up every day at 5am and start working after 10 mins so I can call it an early day around 2:30ish. But this means I need to go to sleep at 9:30 sharp. And to wake myself up, I use the iPhone's built in alarm and put my phone on vibrate. It's nearly fool proof. BUT, last night at around 10am I was awoken from almost being asleep, because my phone vibrated from an email it received. You can imagine my eagerness to find a setting I can toggle in the clock app that would turn off vibrations for everything except the alarm. But of course, Apple left that out of the clock app for whatever reason. Instead, you have to go into Settings.app and turn off vibrations manually, and them turn them on manually in the morning. This is where the scripting comes in. Not a difficult thing to script, if Apple would just allow me to do so. Then I could get a solid night's sleep without the possibility of accidentally missing vibrating phone calls if I forget to turn the phone off silent mode.

agaddo - 2010-05-14 08:55:03

Fri, 14 May 2010 08:55:03 GMT

well sounds like you are a power user, mike. the iphone is not for you.

Jesper - 2010-05-14 08:12:45

Fri, 14 May 2010 08:12:45 GMT

"When I'm flying, I don't want incoming calls at all." That level of location-awareness could be unfeasible. Every method of determining location relies on a method that could be disallowed on a flight (GPS, cell tower triangulation and Wi-Fi triangulation). If it could automatically turn off while the plane was on the ground, it couldn't sniff for an opportunity to turn it on.

I fully agree with everything else, along with the ability to be given free reign on the device. I get what Nik says that there's a difference between a supported configuration and blue-sky hackability, but no one's saying Apple has to support this. You should be able to use private APIs at your own peril for your own use; even for others' use, as long as they are aware of the risks. Matt's got it right.

Nik - 2010-05-14 06:43:50

Fri, 14 May 2010 06:43:50 GMT

I was surprised by this list. I was expecting a list of App Store policy violation candidates. Instead it was mostly a list of things for which no API is available, things that are rather plug-ins than apps or things the OS should provide.

While jailbreakers are probably able to hack most of these things, making them possible in a safe, uninstallable, distributable and future-compatible way is not just the trivial task of changing policy. It's also the difference between a simplified OS and a desktop OS.

Maybe the iPhone OS will grow up to that point, maybe it won't. But certainly that list would have been longer 12 months ago. Some problems were solved by new APIs.

Totally agree on the lack of emulation, though.

Louis Gerbarg - 2010-05-14 06:16:11

Fri, 14 May 2010 06:16:11 GMT

I think the fundamental issue is that Apple doesn't want to be in a position it has to provide support to people who do arbitrary things to their phone. They currently refuse warranty service on devices they see are jailbroken. In some ways that is harsh, because a lot of stuff on jailbroken devices is benign, and in some ways it is not, since once you jailbreak a phone you have a lot more ways to hang yourself and get into a position where you phone is non-bootable. It also means no one ever walks into an Apple Store with a phone running trojans or rootkits to deal with.

If they officially allow any mechanism that effectively jailbreaks the device, then they are in a position where they are likely to have to provide support, since it almost certainly untenable for them to put a switch in the UI that unlocks the device and cancels your warranty.

There should be a way for serious users to unlock their devices, but allowing it to be done easily and in a widespread manner has tangible costs for a platform vendor. Honestly, I think the hassle of jailbreaking is actually an appropriate cost, the only problem is that the feasibility of jailbreaking could go away at any time because it fundamentally depends on exploits that should be fixed. On the other hand just putting a switch in the UI to do it is too cheap, users enter their passwords whenever they are asked, lots of users would hit the switch when some app told them to without ever understanding the consequences. Unfortunately, I don't have a suggestion for an appropriate way to directly and immediately convey the cost to them, short of actually charging them money or disabling other functionality.

John Wang - 2010-05-14 06:08:19

Fri, 14 May 2010 06:08:19 GMT

The TextExpander Touch SDK actually does allow for the text macro that you're looking for, but it does require you to have the TextExpander Touch app on your device and also the other app to implement the appropriate delegate methods. It works with Tweetie2 on the iPhone.

mikeash - 2010-05-14 04:53:19

Fri, 14 May 2010 04:53:19 GMT

Nathan Nutter: I am not well versed in Android, but many of these do. PDANet does the WiFi router thing, more or less. Tor can probably be done easily. WiFi mapping ought to be straightforward, and probably detailed GPS output. I know I've read about location-based settings in Android (that's where I got the idea in the first place).

Robert Paulson: What was the point of posting that link?

Louis Gerbarg: I tend to side with Matt here. Disable anything remotely dangerous by default, but don't take away the switch. I should be able to get root on my iPhone device. From there, I can do anything. If that makes it more dangerous, that's my own problem. I've never had a virus/trojan problem on the Mac, and haven't heard of any major problems on jailbroken iPhones.

I fully support sandboxing by default, and creating a safe, easy App Store that normal users can download from in confidence. I'd be fine if none of these apps ever showed up on the App Store. All I want is the ability to use an alternative distribution mechanism without having to hack my phone first.

Matt Gallagher - 2010-05-14 04:40:07

Fri, 14 May 2010 04:40:07 GMT

@Louis,

A desire for security is a reason for procedure, process and some protective default settings. It is not a good reason to remove capabilities entirely.

To claim that Apple's wilful removal of user freedom in the name of security/quality is appropriate is, at best, an apologist view; at worst it enables an arrogant authoritarian attitude towards iPhone OS customers.

Louis Gerbarg - 2010-05-14 04:12:04

Fri, 14 May 2010 04:12:04 GMT

Some of those are quite reasonable and could be done right now from a technical perspective. On the other hand, a number of them are technically feasible given major rearchitecture of parts of the system, but implementing them today on iPhone would involve weakening the system sandboxing significantly and introduce genuine security risks.

For example, the custom input methods. I agree that I want them as a user (I would love to try out Swype on the iPhone), and if I could convince Apple to implement them as out of process plugins in a hosted input server where the system manages RPC and what not that would be great. But in order to implement such a thing on the system today you would need to have the system load code bundles into apps which means letting foreign code into an app's sandbox. There is no in-process access control, that is the perfect place to hide a trojan or a worm.

So yes, I agree with your premise that there are plenty of things Apple doesn't allow that would be cool, but I dispute your claim that there are no technical challenges. I would claim there are no technical challenges to implementing them in they have been done on previous OSes (Windows and Mac OS X), with all the inherent security issues that those OSes have because of them, but there are genuine technical issues involved with doing them in a way that doesn't open the OS up to the sorts of structural vulnerabilities that exist in desktop OSes.

That doesn't means I think you should stop pushing for the capabilities you want, but I personally want them to be introduced as they are thought through with respect to the security implications they entail, not just because we know how to do them on legacy OSes that have legacy security problems.

For reference, there is no way in hell I want apps being able to muck with user input, audio routing, or network routing until Apple comes up with a coherent mechanism and UI for the security policy of the system. Conveying security concerns and access controls to the user in a way they can understand is in fact a very hard a problem.

Robert Paulson - 2010-05-14 03:50:16

Fri, 14 May 2010 03:50:16 GMT

http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/documentation/userexperience/conceptual/applehiguidelines/XHIGDesignProcess/XHIGDesignProcess.html

Nathan Nutter - 2010-05-14 03:14:53

Fri, 14 May 2010 03:14:53 GMT

Hit post a bit too fast. I know a couple do (scripting and alternate keyboard) but I'm curious about the others.

Nathan Nutter - 2010-05-14 03:13:19

Fri, 14 May 2010 03:13:19 GMT

I'm being lazy here...do any of those apps exist on Android?