6 Comments

Summary:

This week, Apple deviated from their usual biweekly update schedule and released yet another installment of the iPhone OS 3.0 beta. As of last week, the beta has been accompanied by an iTunes 8.2 pre-release build, and an updated version of that accompanies the beta firmware […]

3_0software

This week, Apple deviated from their usual biweekly update schedule and released yet another installment of the iPhone OS 3.0 beta. As of last week, the beta has been accompanied by an iTunes 8.2 pre-release build, and an updated version of that accompanies the beta firmware and the SDK. Aside from the single-week interval, the beta is also unusual in that it was released on a Wednesday night, instead of a Tuesday, when Apple has usually released new iterations in the past.

There are a few different reasons Apple might be stepping up the release schedule. First, WWDC is coming up very soon, and they might be speeding up the development schedule in order to get a stable product out the door come early June. They might also have picked up on a nasty security vulnerability before anyone else did for once, and therefore a quick patch along with any bug fixes completed to date was required.

There’s a final reason for the early release, which seems to be best supported by the information available to date. It looks like Apple has tried to block MMS access entirely for Beta users by preventing people from being able to switch carrier .IPCC files via iTunes. With all earlier builds, it was possible to do a force restore to an edited version of the file, which users had managed to hack in order to enable tethering and MMS on their devices, which were not meant to be available to users until the full version of the OS is released. The update also hides MMS features in the iPhone’s GUI for U.S. users. The MMS functions have never been visible on my iPhone, which is Canadian.

Apple looks to have pushed out an early release specifically to stop users from fooling around with hacked .IPCC files, and given the odd timing of the release, probably at the insistence of AT&T and/or others of their carrier partners. It’s possible that the early iTunes build was introduced specifically to stop this, and that the first build either didn’t succeed or was introduced early just to allay suspicion as to its ultimate purpose. This also seems to indicated that the beta pool is large enough that unauthorized MMS and tethering usage was actually having a significant effect on carriers.

Either way, we’ll have to wait and see if developers come up with another workaround. If not, there’s only a month left before WWDC ’09, so users anxious to get MMS and tethering up and running won’t have long to wait.

You’re subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

  1. “This also seems to indicated that the beta pool is large enough that unauthorized MMS and tethering usage was actually having a significant effect on carriers.” This is not a conclusion that you can draw, as it is a premise on which your conclusion rests that Apple updated the iphone os primarily to kill MMS and tethering. You cannot use a statement as premise for a conclusion, and then derive from the conclusion your original statement. It is called circular reasoning.

  2. Dude, journalism is not just “making stuff up” nor is it just stating a lot of stuff you have no evidence to support. If you use your “journalistic voice” and say something like “this probably means that,” even though you don’t back it up people will assume that you have the evidence to back it up somewhere but are keeping it back because of journalistic principles etc.

    In fact you have no basis for anything you are saying here. This quote in particular:

    “… Apple looks to have pushed out an early release specifically to stop users from fooling around with hacked .IPCC files, and given the odd timing of the release, probably at the insistence of AT&T and/or others of their carrier partners. …”

    Is complete BS. You don’t know anything about development cycles and software houses if you think that a slight deviation from an *unannounced* and *informal* schedule necessarily means that the intent was to “stop users from fooling around.” When you add “probably at the insistence of (AT&T)” your just being ridiculous.

    Sure, these things are possible, but you either have to have some *basis* for stating them, or you should leave that journalist voice behind and phrase the article as what it really is, which is a random opinion of YOU, based on nothing but what YOU THINK. A simple, “I think the evil AT&T might be the cause …” would cover your ass because it’s then clear that this is just some random thought of yours, not a fact that you are passing on.

    I know I harp on your stuff a lot, but you literally have no idea how to write a proper article. You pretend that you are some kind of serious reporter when all your doing is regurgitating rumours you heard. Pick a side dude.

    Either your a journalist and you should start thinking of writing more responsibly and doing some research, or your just an opinionated individual with “something to say.” Either is fine, but pretending your some kind of serious journalist instead of just stating your opinion like any commenter on a blog, is getting a bit old IMO.

  3. I too was going to rip the article apart, but the two previous commenters did a masterful job dissecting the drivel contained in this ‘article.’

    BDI

  4. iPhone OS Beta 5 Now Available, Kills Carrier File Switching « BeastBlogger Presents TheBlogUnion Friday, May 8, 2009

    [...] ———-} CLICK TO READ MORE YOU TECH BUFF YOU! [...]

  5. This really depends on whether the author is “Reporting” or “Editorializing”. Reporting is based on the presentation of facts from either first hand knowledge or credible sources. Editorializing allows for conjecture and opinions and should not be confused with fact based reporting. Same goes for talk show hosts.

    That’s the problem with most of this “blogging” nation is that anyone with a few bucks for a website can call themselves a reporter even though they have no idea how to actually be a journalist. I see this sort of thing all over the web and it’s sickening.

    I agree with the other posters. Keep your theories to yourself or make sure that you don’t publish your articles as news instead of editorials.

  6. If you need help getting your UDID activated on a developers account i found the website that i linked to my name above actually found them in facebook, just click on my name to go there. They had me up and running in no time and i now have complete access to their Apple developers account with my own user ID and password. It was worth it, just my 2 cents for anyone who is in the same boat i was.

    http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=71676963591&h=YCI3S&u=81pvK&ref=mf

Comments have been disabled for this post