Chrome OS Arrives On the iPad — No, Seriously! 325
Thinkcloud writes "A user named Hexxeh has posted a video online of the iPad running Google's upcoming Chrome OS. Hexxeh was able to put Chrome OS on an iPad because the open source code for the operating system is available in its Chromium state, but it's not necessarily true that Apple will allow iPads to run other operating systems going forward. That's typically not a level of openness found in the Apple playbook. Nevertheless, it's worth considering what it might mean to have a robust OS like Apple's on the same tablet as one that runs a cutting-edge operating system like Chrome OS. Why wouldn't users love that?"
go direct to the source luke (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Idiotic Summary (Score:4, Informative)
...Yet you trust a company which basically says "Hey, we might brick your phone just to spite you"
Apple has discovered that many of the unauthorized iPhone unlocking programs available on the Internet cause irreparable damage to the iPhone's software, which will likely result in the modified iPhone becoming permanently inoperable when a future Apple-supplied iPhone software update is installed. Apple plans to release the next iPhone software update, containing many new features including the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store (www.itunes.com), later this week. Apple strongly discourages users from installing unauthorized unlocking programs on their iPhones. Users who make unauthorized modifications to the software on their iPhone violate their iPhone software license agreement and void their warranty. The permanent inability to use an iPhone due to installing unlocking software is not covered under the iPhone's warranty.
You read it that way, I read it as "hey, if you're going to install new firmware and then also install our firmware updater, we aren't responsible if it screws something up. I mean, we haven't even seen your code... how can we possibly know ahead of time if our updater won't wipe some important part of the memory of your homebrew firmware? Look, if you're going to modify the guts of your phone, it's all your responsibility if it fails. Don't come crying to us."
At a basic level, if you jailbroke your phone, then why would you also install an iOS update? That'd be like installing OSX on a computer and then running a Win7 security update. It could do nothing, or it could wipe out the kernel.
Re:Idiotic Summary (Score:2, Informative)
Their "long-running battles" extend only to voiding the warranties of jailbroken devices.
No it hasn't. Apple has repeatedly blocked jailbreaks. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Idiotic Summary (Score:3, Informative)
mod parent up (Score:3, Informative)
Parent is pointing to the original author's blog, no idea why this is moderated as troll ..
Re:Idiotic Summary (Score:3, Informative)
Which is basically what Apple does. The ONE incident where jailbroken phones were bricked involved not just a jailbreak but some extra "weird-ass system level shit" (as the GP put it), and Apple said ahead of time that the update might brick some jailbroken phones. If you a) updated and b) didn't bother to restore your phone to factory settings before you did, you kind of deserved it.
Oh, and by "brick" they meant "temporarily disable until you went into a store and we fixed it for you for free."
Re:Idiotic Summary (Score:5, Informative)
Come on, that's outright dishonest. They have outright threatened to cripple devices that were unlocked in the past (see, for example, here),
Wait wait, now THAT's outright dishonest.
Specifically, Apple didn't threaten to cripple devices.
Apple posted a warning that they found out that the baseband update code is broken on unlocked devices and doesn't function correctly.
In other words, Apple didn't cripple your device, the unlockers screwed up.
Says who? Says people who worked on the unlocks in the first place.
http://code.google.com/p/iphone-elite/wiki/iPhoneBrick [google.com]
Re:What's to love? (Score:3, Informative)
1) iOS has a file manager. Complete with rm, cp, mv etc.
2) iOS can run whatever you want. It just has to be compiled for ARM. If you want a GUI, it has to use the included GUI toolkit, or OpenGL.
3) Has nothing to do with the OS.
4) Sure you can. ps is there, as is top, etc.
Your problem is that Apple doesn't want you to (trivially) access any of these things. That doesn't mean that iOS doesn't have them. They're easily available if you jailbreak. And you're going to have to do more than jailbreak to run Chrome.
Re:Idiotic Summary (Score:3, Informative)
Do you mean the bit that says "You may obtain development-related digital certificates from Apple, subject to a maximum number as reasonably determined by Apple, that will allow Your Application to be installed and tested on Authorized Test Devices. You may also obtain, during the Term, one or more production digital certificates from Apple, subject to a maximum number as reasonably determined by Apple, to be used for the sole purpose of signing Your Application(s) prior to submission of Your Application to Apple or limited distribution of Your Application for use on Registered Devices."?
Or how about in the bit that says "Applications developed under this Agreement may be distributed in two ways: (1) through the App Store, if selected by Apple, and (2) distribution for use on a limited number of Registered Devices"
For reference, "limited number of registered devices" refers to "Distribution on Registered Devices (Ad Hoc Distribution) Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, You may also distribute Your Applications to individuals within Your company, organization, educational institution, group, or who are otherwise affiliated with You "
And "No Other Distribution Authorized Under this Agreement Except for the distribution of freely available Licensed Applications and the distribution of Applications for use on Registered Devices as set forth in Sections 7.1 and 7.2 above, no other distribution of programs or applications developed using the Apple Software is authorized or permitted hereunder. In the absence of a separate agreement with Apple, You agree not to distribute Your Application to third parties via other distribution methods or to enable or permit others to do so."
Do you want to read those statements and see whether you can spot anywhere that Apple might be doing something to limit your distribution of apps outside the App Store? If I want to develp an app and make it available to the general public to download outside the App Store, do you think the above licence allows me to do that?
Maybe you might want to read it before providing it as evidence.
Please feel free. I always find it amusing when people provide links to articles that directly contradict their own claims (that "The only thing Apple is refusing to do is provide storage, distribution, and payment systems for apps they don't approve of", in case you've lost track).
Again, I want to make it clear - I'm not saying that Apple is necessarily wrong for doing this. But they do it. Unless you want to breach Apple's terms of use, you are tightly restricted in your right to distribute apps.