取消电脑

Leo Laporte戏剧与iPhone有关的“假设”游戏,或多或少地会问为什么有人会购买不支持用户可安装应用程序并被锁定到某个特定商业网络的计算机他是正确的因为iPhone,从技术上讲,一台电脑还有Apple可以如此推广它并且,如果他们这样做了,我们中的许多人 - 我们的意思是“我们”,我指的是像Leo这样的人,我和你,一个像万博manbetx贴吧那样书呆子的网站的读者 - 会很高兴。

但事情就是这样:Apple并没有将iPhone作为通用掌上电脑销售或推广所以,就像与Macworld的Rob Griffiths一起 如果我们想要开发和安装第三方应用程序,购买另一个品牌的智能手机,Apple希望我们做什么?问题,答案真的是,如果您觉得必须能够在其上安装和修改软件,那么截至今天的iPhone并不适合您各种其他设备本质上是技术上的计算机,但不是出售,推广或销售的。比方说,TiVos和ipod。

我认为,iPhone的独特之处在于,在1.1.1更新发布之前的几个星期,我们了解了iPhone作为开放计算平台的用途But the fact that clever iPhone hackers figured out how to do it with the 1.0.x iPhone software in no way obligated Apple to support these techniques going forward.

拉波特问道:

What if the company that made the computer sent down an update that checked to see if you had installed your own applications and deleted them if so?

这是一种常见的情绪对于1.1.1更新——它删除第三方应用程序但这不是一个公平的描述所有iPhone的更新,包括早期1.0.1和1.0.2中更新,安装完整的清洁安装整个系统One of the advantages of a closed system is that it’s far easier to create upgrades for — a “just wipe the whole system clean and re-install the new one from scratch” installer is far easier to write than a “let’s carefully update only those files that are new and leave everything else, including third-party stuff we don’t even know about, in place” installer.

认为Apple应该已经安装了第三方应用程序和黑客,是为了争辩说Apple应该花费一些工程资源来支持他们既没有认可也没有鼓励的东西。你可以认为他们应该这样做,理由是它会使iPhone黑客爱好者快乐,但这一论点逻辑线索追溯到认为苹果应该支持,至少默许,使用iPhone作为一个通用的掌上电脑。

很明显,Apple知道1.1.1更新会删除任何额外的或修改过的iPhone软件,并且会阻止现有的恢复方法但是,同样清楚的是,每个参与iPhone黑客行为的人,从开发人员编写iPhone应用程序到安装它们的用户,都充分意识到这是通过颠覆进行的。

拉波特:

你会吗?信任这样的公司吗?

这是从1.1.1更新得出的错误结论Frustrating? Disappointing? SureFoolish? Time will tellBut nefarious, dishonest, or even at all surprising? Not in the least如果有的话,要吸取的教训是Apple非常值得信赖 - iPhone 1.1.1就是苹果公司宣称iPhone的确如此To be trustworthy is to do what you say you will do; to do whatever someone else祝福你要做的就是ob媚。

Laporte对购买的奶牛进行了第二次比喻:

假设你卖给我一头奶牛You tell me that that cow is being sold for the express purpose of making milkI agree, and buy the cow.

后来我决定自己喜欢做奶酪You say that’s a violation of our agreement and kill my cow.

但这根本不公平Apple没有杀死或损坏一个未锁定的iPhone他们发布了一个新的软件更新,iPhone用户必须同意安装,这只能在确认一个措辞非常强烈的警告声明更新可能导致解锁的iPhone无法运行后才能完成1.1.1更新不是强制性的运行1.0.2软件的解锁iPhone现在和一周前一样有效。

很难将“软件更新”的概念变成牛的比喻,但是这里有:你愿意购买一头奶牛,这头母牛的供应商明确表示,它只是用来生产牛奶。你买它并找出制作奶酪的方法Two months later the purveyor of the cow offers you a pill, free of charge, which, if administered to the cow, will result in slightly better-tasting milk, but which pill comes with a stern and plainly worded warning that, if administered to a cow that had been used to produce cheese (which, recall, was made clear from the outset the cow was not intended for), the pill might kill the cow, and that, even if it doesn’t kill the cow, will prevent all previously known cheese-making hacks from working进一步,我们规定,没有医疗或牛药理避孕药不可能而不是被设计以这样一种方式,它将使生产更好喝的牛奶still allow the previously discovered cheese-producing hacks to continue unabated — that the reason for this frustrating limitation is, at best, marketing, and at worst, spite — and so that, in some way, the whole situation is, undeniably, at least somewhat shitty.

不管你怎么努力不同意的决定导致升级药丸被以这种方式设计,和anti-cheese-making限制首先,避孕药是它是什么,如果你选择管理这个药丸hacked-to-produce-cheese牛,这并不是说牛的承办商进入你的仓库并杀死它它相当于杀死你的牛。

(并且,再次,为了记录,你的谦虚类比担架本身非常迷恋于允许这些聪明的奶牛生产奶酪的想法。)