CardinalFang;168971 Wrote: > Time magazine, engadget, gizmodo I watched the updates on engadget yesterday getting updated and updated and updated... I assume we speak about this here? http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/09/the-apple-iphone Where exactly does it tell about batteries or memory extensions? Except in dozens of contradicting user comments?
CardinalFang;168971 Wrote: > Cellular networks do not allow downloading of any content, only > operator-approved content that they get a cut of. Interesting... am I doing something illegal then? We've developed a cellphone application that downloads updated from the Internet (for both Symbian and Windows CE/Mobile). I'm pretty sure Vodafone (the one I use for testing) hasn't approved, and I'm even more sure I don't pay them a cut of it. And this application has been tested with dozens of other providers by our users. Granted, its not "media" content, but then, every advanced smartphone browser can view any media available through http (the Keynote was very clear on the topic that Safari would NOT be crippled in any way compared to the desktop version). I could easily write applications that do download any file through http as well - OS like Symbian and Windows Mobile support standard Internet access routines. So, where do networks currently have to approve? Do they filter contents through a proxy? Doubt so, you can use browsers to access a lot they don't get a share for. Detecting the accessing software? Doubt so as well, Opera might have made a secret deal about that, but the Mozilla foundation couldn't possible hide such tricks in their software, since its open source - and the Minimo can browse a lot of media content where Vodafone doesn't get a cut. So, sorry to tell you ;) but the cellphone world has evolved quite a lot since iMode and WAP, and the big networks around here even advertise fully-featured flatrates as primary home Internet access, so I seriously doubt networks are still limiting content (except maybe for old, outdated WAP, can't say a thing about that)... Granted, it might be difficult to bring the downloaded content to work in the shipped applications, but that is another topic, and I'm kind of thinking that stuff like VLC could be ported to the iPhone quite soon. CardinalFang;168971 Wrote: > It's a walled garden to a large extent for apps. The clostest attempt to walling a smartphone off are Windows smartphones that allow only code-signed applications. Still, you could always insert your own root certificate or turn that off, or just by a certificate at VeriSign, no big strings attached. And contrary to Windows, the kernel of MacOSX (Darwin) is - imho - still under the BSD license, which puts some limits on the way of implementing the limitations. I only have to think about MacOSX for Intel... how long did it actually took them to get to run on ANY (well, those with specific hardware) Intel PC? Or it might be that I - as a software developer developing for mobile platforms as well - have watched so many ups and downs of different mobile Operating Systems and found that 3rd party apps where what made some of them strong (Palm lived on just that for years, the more "modern" Windows Mobile did only pass it with .Net that allowed more "standard" developers to code for it, Symbian lives only thanks to good public documentation on interfaces, and the GNU compiler), that I just can't believe they would make a device for geeks that could not be extended by those same geeks, making it only half as geeky :D -- CCRDude ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CCRDude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=8478 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31507 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
