Category: Mobile

Greenpeace has really begun to show it’s colours over the last few years and now represents an organisation of media shills, hysterical hippies and, frankly, lying bastards,.

Much like the FSF and their alleging that Apple might be infringing on the GPL with their iPhone (in a pathetic attempt to get media coverage), Greenpeace exclaimed that Apple’s iPhone would be a disaster for the environment.

In a followup from Reghardware, Greenpeace was seen to admit:

The NGO bases its claims on the analysis of a single US-sourced iPhone of which, it confessed, “we were able to analyse only a small selection of the different components and materials”. It tested a “selection” of 18 internal and external materials and components in a University of Exeter lab. Only two of those 18 elements were chosen for “more specific and detailed chemical analysis”.

“All components tested appear to be compliant with the requirements of the EU RoHS directive,” Greenpeace’s 12-page write-up says. No cadmium was found. No mercury was found. The lead and chromium detected were present only “in a small proportion of samples and at relatively low concentrations”. There was “no evidence… of the most toxic and regulated form of chromium”.

So it’s yet another case of “Look Look! No Evidence Here!!!”. This kind of hysterical posturing creates a “Boy who cried Wolf” mentality which means those of us who need to care (consumers, prosumers, taxpayers, voters) just won’t care next time there’s a big headline from Greenpeace, the FSF or any other organisation that purports to be a charity but clearly has an agenda far beyond their remit.

RegHardware continues:

We’d guess it’s because Apple is an easy target, and Greenpeace knows iPhone related commentary gains press coverage. Perhaps that’s why it’s chosen to lay into the Apple handset rather than others. Greenpeace’s write-up doesn’t once compare and contrast the iPhone’s use of hazardous substances with that of any other mobile phone from any other vendor.

Which means there’s been no testing of ubiquitous K800s, RAZRs, e65s or whatever. Just sensationalist media shilldom.

Damien muses on the Google-Jaiku purchase. It’s a great jigsaw puzzle but flawed only in the way that Google tends to be a 85% company. They may have infinite money and a load of code-overbrains working for them but it seems to me that they do the first 85% and then…sit back and count the ad revenue. Why is Google Talk so unfinished? Why are maps updated so infrequently (my building isn’t even on the map and it’s been there at least 3 years)? Why has Orkut languished despite being the Google service that gets the most page views.

It seems that the overbrains at Google are either leaving things unfinished or they’ve yet to release their superplan. I’m voting for the former because I think their superplan is, ta-da, 85% complete. And like many superplans (Apple’s Pink, Taligent and Copland. The AIM Alliance’s CHRP. Palm’s Folio. Palm’s Be acquisition. Any deal with Microsoft that they don’t own you at the end.) they end up being a faerytale.

Damiens comments unintentionally riff off a load of crap I was talking about what I wanted in a phone.

If gPhone rather than iPhone does the trick, I still win. Go me!

Apple has posted a statement that “many of the unauthorized iPhone unlocking programs cause irreparable damage to the iPhone software.”

Ian Betteridge writes:

No, wait, it’s software. It’s code. By definition, “damage” to software can be undone, which is why it’s “soft” rather than “hard”. You might end up with it having to be restored to its factory state, but that’s not “irreparable”, is it? And yes, even if it’s “firmware” it’s re-flashable. That’s why it’s “firm” – it’s held in hardware, but can be re-flashed.

Either Apple doesn’t know the difference between software and hardware, or its definition of “irreparable” simply means “we’re not going to do it for you, buster”, which isn’t exactly the dictionary definition. I can’t fix a broken window, but that doesn’t mean it’s “irreparable” and I should just sit here with a draft blowing through the house for the rest of time.

I explained this to a friend.

As I understand it, there’s two types of software used in the iPhone.

There’s the System, which is the operating system and applications.
There’s the Firmware, which is the underlying software which lets the System talk to the Hardware.

iPhone update 1.1.1 does a clean install of your iPhone so it doesn’t “remove third party software” as much as it wipes the device clean to start again. It’s a System update. It doesn’t touch the Firmware.

If you add third party apps, then these will be wiped. You hacked the System.

If, however, you have modified your iPhone to, for example, remove yourself from the clutches of AT&T, then you have hacked the Firmware and hacked the System.

If you apply the iPhone update then there’s a mismatch between your hacked Firmware and your unhacked System and voilá, you have an iBrick.

Now it’s fair to say that Apple did warn people not to do this. It would also be fair for Apple to figure out a Restore for the iPhone and charge for it. That said, the number of people out there who want others to pay for their stupidity is astounding. I’ve seen the most ridiculous attempts to get accidental damage or neglect covered under warranty.

You didn’t spill anything on this laptop? Then why does it smell of coffee and have fungus growing inside it?

You didn’t damage this iPod? That big dent in the back came from where?

Removing all traces of the sticker that says “Breaking the seal wil void your warranty” does not actually mean your warranty is intact.

Bringing me a cardboard box full of rubble and telling me it’s a Macbook Pro and I should cover the warranty because you decided to dismantle it in a fit of pique is not going to wash.

Daring Fireball says this:

Apple didn’t kill or damage a single unlocked iPhone. They released a new software update which iPhone users had to agree to install, which could only be done after acknowledging a very strongly-worded warning stating that the update might render unlocked iPhones inoperable. The 1.1.1 update is not mandatory. Unlocked iPhones running the 1.0.2 software work as well today as they did a week ago.

Philip Littlewood, potential switcher writes a blog post about his second thoughts about switching to the Mac.

His reasons are below but ca be summed up as Apple having lost it’s soul. I must say I agree (which, if you know me, is a bit deal).

His criticisms:

Overcharge for the iPhone

Is it an overcharging? The Nokia N800 doesn’t have a phone component and yet cost the same (UK pricing). The smartphones out there are not cheap either. What are we comparing it with? I don’t think it’s too expensive for what it is.

Reduce the iPhone bye $200 after only 2 months

It seems sudden but don’t think the rebate for early adopters was not previously thought of. Apple seldom is caught by surprise. They’ll have had measures in place. Technology will always get cheaper. It seems sudden but you’re talking about some of the fastest moving technology areas.

Charges an extra 99 cents for a ringtone

I hear you but we get charged £3.50 for a ringtone whether or not we have previously purchased the song over here in the UK. That said – I think it’s criminal that we can’t just use GarageBand to whip our own ringtones. But this is like other things – Apple is working with the two most consumer-hostile markets – telecoms and the music business. You can be sure that Jobs both checks for his wallet and for the blood in his veins after negotiating with these people.

Putting a chip in the new iPods that renders nearly all 3rd party video accessories useless.

There’s a lot of fluff here. It’s not quite as cut and dried here. Any why worry about it? I’m not particularly upset about the accessories I’ve bought over the years for my various mobile phones. Sure, I’d love to be able to re-use some of them but it’s not the end of the world by any means. Note – not ALL video products are disabled (as you say “nearly all”) so it can’t just be due to “a chip” and may be more to do with cost-cutting on the part of the manufacturer of the video cable (maybe they’re not using the right pin-outs).

Releasing an update for the iPhone to deliberately break 3rd party apps.

I disagree strongly here. Especially the reason you give. It’s a limited, first generation device with a whole new API. You want to hack it, fine, you change essential system files and voila you have access to the system and can do neat things. Apple releases a software update and expressly says they will not be testing to see if their update breaks applications but will not be deliberately trying to break third party apps. Some apps break. Sometimes they just need rehacked.

I don’t believe Apple is doing this deliberately. They’re just not willing or able to put the time and effort into certifying their software updates with every hack out there.

His main criticism seems to be:

attitude of the sales staff in the Apple Stores, now I don’t know if this just applies to the Netherlands and Belgium, the staff just do not seem interested in whether you buy something or not.

Philip – these people are NOT employees of Apple. They’re employees of small businesses which sell or repair Apple products. You should really take your criticism to the owner of the business and make it known. I own a Apple-Authorised Service Provider and I’m always interested to hear when my employees are not acting in the best interests of our customers. I’m happy to say that the guys will often put themselves out and even lose a sale if it serves the customer best. But then we come from a lineage of people who love the Mac and love to see people making the best of it.

Now he admits he has only tried Mac OS in a hacked X86 version on a third party laptop but seems underwhelmed at how it looks so basic and sees unsure about the everpresent menu bar at the top. And resizing only from one corner – yes, Philip, Apple could make it so you could resize from any edge or corner. It’s not for techical reasons that the Mac OS has always resized from the same corner.

Philip – either you get it or you don’t. Not everyone is going to love the Mac just like not everyone is going to be happy with Windows.

Sometimes when you read an article on the BBC News web site you have to wonder if their journalists get gifts from Microsoft every week or if they just live in 5-star hotels at the expense of the Redmond giant.

RoughlyDrafted tears BBC Columnist a new rectum regarding his recent article comparing Apple to Microsoft.

It’s bad enough that the BBC needs to bend facts to support fear, uncertainty and doubt about the iPhone. Now consider that the BBC–as a public corporation funded by British TV license taxes–is building its web video strategy on failed, proprietary technology propped up by an internationally convicted monopolist. At the same time, its publishing a uninformed rant based on speculation and conjecture that accuses Apple of doing things that approach the gravity of its own activities.

This hypocrisy slows from the words of Bill Thompson, who followed the crowd in reporting that Microsoft’s failed appeal in its EU monopoly case says less about Microsoft’s established, anticompetitive practices spanning the last thirty years than it does about Apple’s iPod popularity over the last five.

Thompson weeps for Microsoft because “its every move is examined for evidence that it might be making life difficult for its rivals,” while noting that “some of its competitors seem to get a very easy ride.” One might expect the BBC to make excuses for the crimes of its iPlayer partner as it giggly walks lockstep with Microsoft in using the company’s proprietary and Windows-only DRM for video distribution of its publicly funded content.

Read RoughlyDrafted and don’t bother going to the BBC web site. If they’re not making up facts to help the Government justify a war then they’re doing infomercials about their business partners.

Twunts.

Apple revamped the entire iPod line last night.

iPod shuffle. New colours. Nice.

iPod Nano. New shape. Now supports video. Nice.

IPod classic. The old iPod shape and supports up to 160 GB. Nice

iPod touch. Basically an iPhone with wifi but without the phone bit. Or Google Earth. Or, oddly, an email client.

We’ve seen a whole raft of people producing IM applications in web-apps as well as natively for iPhone so we can expect their attention to turn to production of an email client for the iPod touch.

Whoodathunkit that producing an email client would again be exciting (or even relevant).