How to Jailbreak iPhone 4 and iPhone 4s in 5 Minutes

This post here at ijailbreak4s.com is dedicated to the Hurricane Sandy victims and their struggle to recover from the hurricane as well as the subsequent Nor’easter that brought snow to many portions of New Jersey and New York as well as other states. Before I get started, let me say that, if you are a victim of Hurricane Sandy and the Nor’easter, our thoughts are with you and your family during this difficult time. I have relatives in New York and New Jersey, not to mention Maryland and Pennsylvania – so I have some idea of what has been going on in the Northeastern section of the country.

First, a little sample of benevolence is in order. Tim Cook and the Apple Corporation decided last week to donate $2.5 million along with employee and customer donations totaling $2.5 million to the Hurricane Sandy relief fund with the American Red Cross Society. Tim Cook’s letter to the employees this past week stated the following:

“For the past week, our thoughts have been with those affected by Hurricane Sandy and its aftermath. And Apple employees and customers the world over have raised millions of dollars toward the relief effort so far. But we can always do more.”

You can read the rest of Tim Cook’s letter here.

Cam Bunton of todaysiphone.com makes a great point about Apple: at times, we point our fingers at the company and chide them for the mistakes and errors it commits. I do this on a daily basis here at the jailbreak sites. At the same time, however, Tim Cook did something that Steve Jobs failed to do – he took some of Apple’s wealth and donated it to those who stand in need of food, clothes, shelter, and other supplies. For that, I want to thank Tim Cook for his generosity in giving. It is in times like these that one sees the character of a company and the character of its CEO. If you are reading this and want to donate to the cause, you can visit iTunes and click on the white box that says, “Superstorm Sandy Relief: Donate Here” or go visit The American Red Cross.

Apple’s benevolence this past week was matched by a scam surrounding the company’s products. Sources say that a woman, Jalonta Freeman, was the target of an iPad scam by a man on the street who claimed that he had one to sell for only $200. How many times have you been to Apple’s website, seen the 16GB WiFi iPad for $399, and wished that Apple would lower its tablet prices? Jalonta Freeman had the same desire, but to no avail. When she was approached by a male individual and sold what she believed to be an iPad, she jumped at the opportunity and purchased the iPad. When she arrived home to open the package, however, she found, in the words of Cameron Buchan:

“she paid through the nose for an iPad-sized mirror, that was simply duct taped to be (roughly) the same color as its Apple counterpart, and featured an Apple logo, that had been penciled in using a stencil” (Cameron Buchan, “Scammer Sells woman a mirror for $200, claimed it was an iPad).

There have been times when all consumers have become victims of fraud; nevertheless, please keep in mind that Apple’s products will never come cheap. If you want to purchase an Apple iPad, go to a legitimate retail store or purchase it directly from Apple.com. Even if you purchase the iPad from a store that appears legitimate (a lesser-known store), the retail store does not have to honor a return policy, nor does it have to offer you some sort of product protection plan. You take a huge financial risk to obtain a tablet from a store or individual that you know little to nothing about. It is better to be safe than sorry.

If iPads are not objects of scam, they have become torture victims in and of themselves. Walmart employees in Kentucky have been fired and prosecuted as a result of their incriminating video footage of throwing around and smashing iPads while on the job. For whatever reason, these men did not consider their jobs to have more value than the iPads they smashed on the floor while in the stock room.

Apart from the benevolent acts of the company, or its products (whether new innovation or product scam), the Apple Corporation received an honorary award this past week while also being involved in additional patent lawsuits. The consulting firm Booz and Co. named Apple the “Most Innovative Company” for the third year in a row, despite the fact that companies such as Amazon, Samsung, Microsoft, IBM, and Google spend more on research and development than Cupertino. Booz and Co., however, determine the top innovative companies based on “how those R&D [research and development] funds are invested in talent, process, and tools” (Chris Hauk, “Apple Named ‘Most Innovative Company’ Third Year in a Row.” Mactrast.com. September 11, 2012).

Although Apple was named the most innovative company by this consulting firm, I think this conception of Apple is starting to wane in the tech community. This past week, there was one admission from a tech writer about his departure from iOS and entrance into other operating systems and devices that he thinks are of better quality than the iPad and iPhone. Henry Taylor-Gill of Mactrast.com writes in his article that he is leaving Apple products for a few reasons, despite the fact that the company’s products will always be top-notch “from a build quality and design perspective” (Henry Taylor-Gill, “Bad Apple: Why I’ll Be Ditching IOS and Switching to the Dark Side.” Mactrast.com). What are Taylor-Gill’s reasons for leaving iOS?

• Software vs. hardware: Apple has always been adept at providing great hardware. Now, Henry wants better software (Apple’s terrible 3D maps are evidence). Google, for instance, has the best 3D mapping application, but has taken eight years or more to perfect it. Apple’s newly-released maps have a long way to go before they even hold a candle to Google’s.
•  Advanced technology and affordability: The Nexus 4 is Google’s response to Apple’s new iPhone 5. It has both more advanced technology and a more affordable price than the iPhone 5. The Nexus 4 has Near Field Communication (NFC), wireless charging (or induction charging), and panorama mode. The Google Nexus 4 is also $299 unlocked, in contrast to Apple’s $699 unlocked iPhone 5.
• Vision: Apple has always been on the cutting edge of technology and innovation. With Scott Forstall’s release and Steve Jobs’ demise, it seems as though Apple’s products are mere tune-ups rather than newly-innovated creations. What vision for the future does Apple provide? Not much.

All of Henry’s reasons above are legitimate reasons to depart from iOS. He still thinks that Apple makes terrific products; however, he has come to believe that other products are just as good, if not better, than those of the Apple Corporation. It is amazing when I read statements such as Henry’s. There are so many tech writers in the blogosphere who are so in love with Apple that no other company comes close to what Apple can do. No matter the product, price, or features, Apple’s products will win every time when you read blogs that belong to “Apple fanboys”.

I watched a demonstration video that compared the Google Nexus 7 to the iPad Mini this week from a reputable site whose name I will not mention here. Throughout the video, the guy that compared the two tablets said that the iPad mini was “hands-down” the best tablet, saying the phrase “hands-down” several times in his video.

I sat there and watched the video on my Samsung Galaxy S3, thinking to myself, “this guy is only drinking the Apple Koolaid he’s been fed throughout his life.” I’m 28, and this tech writer can’t be any older than me (maybe 30 at the most); yet and still, he is so in love with Apple that he either is too in love to see the truth or has no idea that the tide is turning in the tech world in favor of Apple’s competitors.

My Galaxy S3 phone has not had any problems since I purchased it some 5 months ago; when compared to the iPhone 5, my phone looks like the epitome of perfection. The iPhone 5 has had a string of software defects and hardware errors, some of which pertain to purple haze appearances in photos, easily-scratched exteriors, glitches in software, and so on. I have had none of these with my S3, despite the fact that most Apple fanboys call my S3 a “plastic” phone. Maybe plastic is actually better than Apple’s use of Gorilla Glass. I’m just sayin’…

Henry’s article states his reasons as to why he wants to explore other options outside of Apple and iOS. While I do write for a jailbreak site and love iOS, I encourage you to get out and explore other companies and operating systems. Henry is right when he points out the technological and pricing advantages of Apple’s competitors; while Apple is good, there is “better” and “best” out there in the world and your bias (or love) of Apple products should not deter you from giving other companies and their products a try. I had never tried an Android product until my Samsung Galaxy S3; now that I own an S3, it will take an ocean of improvements to iOS and Apple’s iPhones before I consider purchasing an iPhone. You cannot make an accurate assessment about the strength of Apple’s products until you have other products that you have tested and tried to compare with Apple’s.

Henry is not alone in leaving iOS and Apple; according to Parmy Olson, Strategy Analytics, a Massachusetts Survey company, long-standing iPhone customers are less likely to replace their older iPhones with newer ones than usual. Parmy Olson writes:

“2012 is shaping up to be the year when the glow surrounding Apple’s mobile products suddenly got dimmer – first from the technology press, now from a survey. According to recent research by Boston, Mass.-based Strategy Analytics, fewer people who own iPhones are planning to replace them with newer models from Apple, marking the first decline since Apple released the iPhone in 2007. In Western Europe, just 75% of users will buy their next phone from Apple, down from 88% in 2011, while the proportion among American users has slipped to 88%, from 93%, according to the research.

Whither the fall in loyalty? If you’ve been following Apple headlines for a while, you’ll know. Strategy Analytics director Paul Brown blames ‘negative press’ surrounding Apple in the last year, but also a ‘perceived lack of recent innovation’ from the company” (Parmy Olson, “IPhone Loyalty is Waning – Are You Surprised?” Forbes magazine. November 5, 2012).

Negative press and lack of innovation are responsible for the decline in iPhone loyalty with Apple’s customers. The negative press Olson mentions here pertains to the tech world and tech writers. It is no secret that companies such as Forbes Magazine and yes, even CNET (credit: Molly Wood) have been vocal about their disagreement with Apple’s legal strategies regarding standard industry patents. While companies criticize Apple for its patent insanity, consumers criticize Cupertino for its lack of innovation. As Olson writes,

“Apple, the company that was the first to bring touch screen phones and tablets to mass market, has been iterating rather [sic, should be “than” after “rather”] innovating in recent years, for example, making relatively incremental changes on size and form factor with the iPhone 5 and iPad Mini. As a result, the media’s reaction to the release of the iPhone 5 was more skeptical than it had been towards the iPhone 4, with Wired’s Mat Honan summing things up well by calling the latest phone, ‘Completely Amazing and Utterly Boring’” (Parmy Olson, “IPhone 5 Loyalty is Waning – Are You Surprised?” Forbes. November 5, 2012. Underlining mine).

Instead of providing new technology and showing consumers how much more the iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touches are worth, Apple has simply made small changes to them (such as substituting an A5X chip with an A6X chip in the iPad 4 and updating its 30-pin connector with an 8-pin “Lightning” connector). The iPad Mini, one of Apple’s newest products, comes in a 7.9-inch diagonal display (a neat dimension), but offers the customer the same 1024 x 768 screen resolution found in the iPad 2. Apple created the iPad 3 last year; why then, would it return to the second-generation iPad’s screen resolution when it could make products better? As of this week, it has been stated that Apple will create an iPad Mini with Retina display, according to Brian Tong of CNET; if Apple does this, however, the company has done nothing more than implemented another incremental update to its iPad Mini. Why didn’t the company create the original iPad Mini with Retina in the first place? It did not do this so that next Spring (2013), it can emerge with the Retina technology on its iPad Mini and call it “innovation.” This was a statement made by a commenter at CNET. I cannot remember his name or his username, but he spoke prophecy with regard to Apple’s so-called track record of innovation.

In a prior article, I discussed Phil Schiller’s response to NFC and why Apple did not include it in its newest iPhone. Schiller’s response seems to make a claim without providing any evidence as to why the claim is true. Then, in the next breath, Schiller affirms “Passbook,” which does not solve problems, either, as a solution to NFC. These are the responses that you can expect to receive when Apple does not want to do something; instead of saying, “We chose not to do it,” the company invents an excuse to criticize the new technology instead of admitting their stubborn refusal to implement the growing technology in their products.

When Apple is not iterating in its product line, the company is forced to shelve out millions of dollars in a new lawsuit for infringing upon patents that belong to other companies. The new patent lawsuit Apple faced this past week is as follows:

• Apple vs. Virnet X

Virnet X is a Texas Internet security software company that holds four patents related to virtual network technology. The patents all allow Virnet X to set up virtual, private networks based upon a domain name and interact with other individuals. Apple’s FaceTime application allows this very thing and violates four of Virnet X’s patents, according to Bloomberg. The result of these four violations was an awarded settlement to Virnet of $368.2 million, to be paid by the Apple Corporation. To make matters worse, Virnet has filed yet another lawsuit against Apple. The first lawsuit pertained to Apple’s older devices; since the iPhone 5, iPad 4, iPad Mini, iPod Touch 5G, and latest Mac Mini and iMacs have been created with FaceTime installed, these new devices also infringe upon Virnet’s four patents. The lawsuit ended on November 6, but did not pertain to these newer devices. Virnet has won against Apple earlier this month, and it looks as if the Texas company is certain to win again – which means that Apple will lose more money to Virnet X.

What the Virnet X lawsuit goes to show is that Apple is just as wrong as it claims other companies have been (Samsung among them). When Apple went to court and sued Samsung, the company put on a dignified, moralistic front and claimed that Samsung was ethically wrong. Now, how does it feel for Apple to have the shoe on the other foot? When a company stands in moral judgment of others, it must be prepared to have moral judgment placed upon itself by other companies.

With all of this news in front of us, let’s reexamine Booz and Co.’s claim that Apple is “The Most Innovative Company”. Is it true? Not according to products and lawsuits. Rather, Booz’s statement is typical of those who are in love with what Apple once was, those who cannot seem to accept that Apple is no longer “best,” but “good,” in the tech world. As Dan Lyons says in his ReadWrite article titled “The GOP, Apple and the Power of Magical Thinking”:

“There’s also a form of magical thinking that takes place in technology, when people confuse what they wish to be true with what actually is true…And now there is Apple, whose legions of supporters continue to believe that what happened to Apple in the PC market (cheaper rival comes along and grabs all the market share) won’t happen again in mobile.

But it will happen. It is happening. Heck, in some ways it already has happened. The latest numbers from IDC show that Google’s Android operating system now has 75% share in smartphones, up from 23% two years ago.

And Apple? Two years ago it had 15% share. Today it has…15%…If you start believing that we aren’t seeing the sequel to Windows-vs.-Mac, if you start ignoring the fact that Google’s platform now outsells Apple five-to-one, or pretending that this doesn’t matter – well, you might as well believe…that Mitt Romney is President.

Good luck with that” (Dan Lyons, “The GOP, Apple and the Power of Magical Thinking.” ReadWrite. November 13, 2012).

In the words of Dan Lyons, to believe that Apple is still the great “untouchable” company it once was is to believe that Mitt Romney is President – something that obviously contradicts reality. And I have to agree. Now…what was that label that Booz and Co. gave Apple again?

{ 0 comments }

Now that the iPhone 5 has arrived on the scene, a number of critiques have emerged against Apple’s latest phone wonder. Many see the iPhone 5 as “the latest and greatest” product to own; others, however, see the iPhone 5 as a product that is far behind current smartphones such as the Nokia Lumia 920, Windows Phone 8X, Samsung Galaxy S3, HTC 8X, Google’s LG Nexus 4, Nexus 7, and Nexus 10. Near field communication (NFC) is one new technology in which Apple’s arbitrary decision denied in its iPhone 5. Wireless charging, however, is another tech novelty that could place the iPhone 5 in direct competition with the best of the Android manufacturers. Still, Apple’s stubbornness and refusal to become more contemporary is a decision that may soon “eat away a hole” in Apple’s strategy and plans. If NFC and wireless charging become the moneymaking technologies in the current market, Apple will change – no matter how inconvenient or complex the technology is.

I have already discussed Phil Schiller’s response to NFC and his opinion that NFC does not solve problems (Passbook doesn’t, either); in this post, however, I want to examine Phil Schiller’s response to questions about Apple’s decision to abstain from including wireless charging in its newest flagship iPhone. Phil Schiller:

“Having to create another device you have to plug into the wall is actually, for most situations, more complicated” (Ina Fried, quoting Apple Senior VP Phil Schiller. “Interview: Phil Schiller on Why the IPhone 5 Has a New Connector but Not NFC or Wireless Charging.” All Things Digital. September 12, 2012).

To understand Schiller’s statement, we have to get a firm grasp on the nature of wireless charging and what it adds to the tech scene that other technologies past and present do not. Wireless charging is a technology that allows you to refill your smartphone battery without a USB cable or adapter. Adapters once ruled smartphones and “dumb phones” alike; USB cables came along and changed the charging source concept because you could refill your smartphone battery by way of your computer USB port on the go – without an adapter plugged into a socket in a building. USB cables made charging more of an itinerant convenience, one that is always welcome. However, USB cables still provide an inconvenience for consumers; what do you do if you find yourself in Starbucks, needing to charge your smartphone, but out of laptop battery power? Unfortunately, there is no wireless charger for your computer. There are solar chargers out there, but none of these have been proven effective in repowering your computer battery. Without a charged laptop battery, however, you cannot make use of the USB cable – which means that neither the laptop nor the smartphone can be charged. You could charge your laptop by way of a wall adapter; but where does that leave your smartphone? Out in the cold. There must be a way to charge your smartphone if you need to use the only adapter you have to charge your computer (USB cables are ineffective if the laptop has no battery by which to charge a USB source). When you have one adapter for your laptop (and cannot use your USB), there is always the convenience of wireless charging.

Here is where Phil Schiller’s statement comes to light. Notice that he calls wireless chargers “another device you have to plug into the wall.” Is this true? Well, in one sense. There are some wireless chargers such as charging pads and charging mats that require a wall plug. However, there are other sources such as wireless charger cases that do not require a wall plug to operate. Somehow, Schiller did not mention these in his discussion on wireless charging.

One such example of an alternative wireless charging device (apart from charging mats and pads) is the wireless charging case, as mentioned above. The wireless charging case provides two conveniences: (1) a protective case by which your device can be protected from dirt, dust, and the other natural elements (water included); (2) extra battery that can be used wirelessly to charge your device. Unlike wireless charging pads, which require the use of a wall plug, wireless charging cases need no plug and run by way of a USB cable. If you find yourself out and about on a hiking or camping trip, a wireless charging mat or pad will not aid you in any way. Wireless pads and mats bring more cords with them; if this is what Schiller means by complicating the charging process instead of simplifying it, then Schiller is correct.

As I said, wireless charger pads and mats are not the only wireless charging devices today; there are wireless charger cases as well. If wireless charger cases exist, why then, would Apple not create a wireless charger case for its iPhone 4/4S (and now iPhone 5) and sell it at Apple’s online store and numerous retail stores worldwide? The only reason that can suffice for Apple’s refusal to do this has to do with the company’s own reluctancy to invest in a novel technology that has yet to be perfected and sharpened for large consumer use. Jay Yarow both agrees and disagrees with Schiller when it comes to wireless charging:

“This [Schiller’s statement] is classic Apple. It’s both true and untrue. He’s right that wireless charging isn’t some sort of panacea. It’s probably harder to move a wireless charging station around than a cord. But if you do have a wireless charging station at home, plugging it in and having it sit there isn’t that big a pain in the butt” (Jay Yarow, “APPLE: We Aren’t Doing Wireless Charging Because It’s Not Actually Easier.” Business Insider. September 12, 2012; underlining mine).

This statement is true about wireless pads and mats; however, if you are in the comfort of your own home and do not want to trip over wires (as I do), pads and mats are the ideal item for smartphone or tablet charging. Wireless charging would not only make smartphone and tablet charging easier (without wires or cables); it would also perform the following benefits:

• Eliminate the need for a wall adapter
• Eliminate dependence on recycled batteries
• Improve electric car charging

The first benefit (no need for a wall adapter) is one of the reasons why wireless charging is a step in the right direction, contra Phil Schiller. The dependence on recycled batteries would decline because, with automatic charging, there would be no need to recharge a battery. Smartphones and tablets would instead rely on a battery, after which, a wireless charger case would recharge the battery in the smartphone or tablet.

In my Schiller posts I wrote recently, I talked about Apple’s lag behind the other smartphone and tablet manufacturers. The same applies here. Nokia, Google, Samsung, LG, and HTC have begun the process whereby smartphones are made with wireless charging. The LG Nexus 4 and Nokia Lumia 920 (not to mention the HTC 8X+) come with wireless charging capabilities. All of these manufacturers are heading into the future with new technologies that excite their customers – every manufacturer is heading towards wireless charging, except for Apple. In recent research, I have discovered that NFC and wireless charging are not the only technologies in which the company lags behind its competition; other technologies that place Apple back in the “dark ages” include blue-ray disc players (for its MacBook lineup) and touchscreen laptops. Is it not ironic that the company that has made the touchscreen such a smash hit in the tech world is one that will take Retina displays to its laptops but not touchscreens?

Apple’s refusal to allow these technologies into its products may anger you some. It should. A company that has always been on the cutting edge looks rather suspicious when it denies its products the technology that is making splash waves with similar products of other manufacturers. Until recently, Apple customers were denied wireless charging. Today, however, wireless charging with your current iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, or iPhone 5 is possible. One wireless charger case that I recommend is the Mophie Juice Pack Battery Case for iPhones 4 and 4S. The Mophie Juice Pack provides extra battery life (in-built within a phone case) to charge your iPhone when the phone’s battery dies out. It is wireless in that the case is all you carry, and it is convenient in that the case provides protection from dust and dirt – as would any phone protector case. Where Mophie’s differs from regular phone cases is that it works as a recharger for your phone battery, whereas the regular cases do not. Purchase the Mophie wireless charger case and you have purchased two items in one! The Mophie Juice Pack Battery Case costs anywhere from $79.95 to $149.95, depending on your preference and fashion.

Lastly, there is a new wireless charger bag for the iPhone 4/4S that is already in hot demand. Called the world’s first charger purse, the EverPurse allows you to place your phone in what looks to be a small “moneybag”; after you do so, the small bag charges the phone automatically. If you purchase the EverPurse, you will also need to purchase the charging pad that comes with it. The smart purse takes six hours to charge on the charging pad, but it will provide double the battery life you currently experience. The EverPurse will come in two kinds: fabric ($99) and leather ($129). An iPhone 5-compatible EverPurse is said to be on the way from the product’s inventors, but it will take some time before it surfaces.

You cannot change the fact that Apple refuses to go with the times; however, you can take advantage of the times and purchase the technology in the here and now – without waiting for Apple to change its mind.

{ 0 comments }

This week, Apple introduced its new collection of iPads for the consumer public to see and drool over. The event took place on Tuesday, October 23, 2012 in a San Francisco theater. It was a small theater, but the audience was alert and excited about the tech gadget “goodies” that were soon to be announced. Apple offered the event live on the Apple.com website; you can still go there to watch it if you want to validate the claims of this blog post.

The first iPad to be revealed was the iPad Mini, the first Apple device of its kind. The device comes with the following tech specifications and features:

• 7.9-inch diagonal display
• IOS6
• 16GB, 32GB, and 64GB versions (both WiFi and 4G)
• Aluminum metal backing (the same as the fifth-generation iPod Touch and the iPhone 5)
• 1024 x 768 screen resolution (identical to the iPad 2)
• A5 processor chip
• WiFi (802.11 a/b/g/n) and 4G (cellular network)
• Prices: $329 for 16GB, $429 for 32GB, and $529 for 64GB versions (WiFi)
• Prices: $459 for 16GB, $529 for 32GB, and $659 for 64GB versions (4G cellular)

By all intents and purposes, the iPad Mini is a smaller version of the iPad 2. It contains the same A5 processor chip and screen resolution as does the iPad 2. The iPad Mini is placed in direct contrast to the iPad 3 with Retina display, which has twice the screen resolution of the iPad 2 and Mini (2048 x 1536 vs. 1024 x 768, respectively). It can be said that Apple wants to offer consumers a smaller iPad 2, but it does not explain the pricing surrounding the tablet. According to numerous tech writers and experts, the iPad 2 was created for the sole purpose of reaching the seven-inch tablet market where rivals Google and Amazon have prevailed for some time. This week, Apple was interviewed about its 7.9-inch tablet and responded favorably. The company did not create a 7-inch tablet because of its conviction that seven inches was too small for the gaming experience. Rather, a 7.9-inch tablet would serve the consumer well and provide sufficient space for screen reading and gaming. This is one of the reasons why Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller compared the iPad Mini to the Google Nexus 7 (although he did not mention the name of the tablet he compared to the iPad Mini).

Schiller says that the new iPad Mini provides more reading space on each webpage than does Google’s Nexus 7; the iPad Mini is also thinner than Google’s Nexus 7 tablet.

In Schiller’s mind, the light and thin nature of the new iPad mini as well as the extra reading space are what make the iPad Mini the best “mini” tablet on the market at this time. However, a question should be asked here: if you look at the picture of the Google Nexus 7 and the iPad Mini with regard to the Guggenheim Museum, you will see that the iPad Mini does show more of the webpage than that of the Google Nexus 7. The question to ask, however, is this: does the iPad Mini provide more text for viewing than does the Google Nexus 7? This is not clear. In the Guggenheim picture above, you will see that the iPad Mini shows more of the photo on the front page of the museum website; what it does not show, however, is more of the text below the photo. In the end, the iPad Mini and Google Nexus 7 show no words on the screen that lie below the photo. While it may be awesome to see the entire photo with one scroll down the page, it does not help the reader who also wants to read more words with fewer scrolls required.

There is another problem with Phil Schiller’s presentation: he compared two tablets of different dimensions. Google’s Nexus 7 tablet is 7 inches, while the iPad Mini’s is 7.9 inches. While both tablets lie within the seven-inch range, one tablet is nearly an entire inch wider (diagonally) than the other – and will have more reading space on the pages of the screen than the other. This is no more logical than comparing a two-door and four-door Sedan: while both vehicles are in the same car family and come from the same manufacturer, the four-door Sedan will have more room than the two-door vehicle every time. Schiller’s comparison of the two tablets with unequal dimensions puts the Google Nexus at an automatic disadvantage. This is basically the practice of “stacking the deck” or “building a straw man.” When one stacks the deck (as is done often in poker or solitaire, or some other game of cards), one individual deliberately controls certain factors of the game (one of them being the specific cards he or she receives from the dealer) in order to win against his or her opponents. In the side-by-side comparison, Schiller (and thus, Apple) stacks the deck by saying, “Our tablet provides more viewing space than this other tablet we shall not name.” Of course Apple’s tablet provides more viewing space; it’s bigger! We wouldn’t expect any less.

Schiller makes comparisons between the two tablets, but he also leaves out some important information. One piece of information he neglects to inform the audience about concerns the two tablet prices. The iPad Mini costs $329 with the minimum 16GB storage; the Google Nexus 7 16GB costs $199. For $249, you can get a Google Nexus 7 32GB tablet, TWICE the memory storage of the iPad Mini. Not only do you get twice the storage with the Nexus than you do the Mini; you also save $80. Can you beat saving $80 while getting a tablet that has twice the storage? I think not. Additionally, Schiller attacks the Google Nexus 7 as being “made of plastic” but does not point out that the Nexus 7 is made of Corning Gorilla Glass with a Kevlar backing while the iPad Mini is made of aluminum metal backing and a liquid crystal display (LCD). Corning’s Gorilla Glass material is far more exquisite to own on a tablet than LCD technology is, but Apple will not tell you this because the goal is to make you think that Google’s tablet is made of “plastic” and that Apple’s tablet is better and worth the higher price. When has Gorilla Glass ever been termed “plastic”? When has Kevlar been labeled inferior to aluminum metal?

Apple’s bashing of Google, however typical of tech rivals, is somewhat unusual. In years past when Steve Jobs was CEO, Jobs knew that Apple’s technology was above the competition; yet and still, however, he considered Google to be no rival of Apple’s. Rather, Google was a “copycat” that Jobs wanted to spend all his money to eliminate. In the mind of Steve Jobs, Google was a cheap imitation of all that Apple had worked for and invented over the years. With Schiller’s presentation on the iPad Mini, however, it was apparent that Google has proven to be a formidable foe of the Cupertino, California company – such that Apple can no longer stand by and remain silent. Google’s Nexus 7 tablet was the hottest sale in the US this past summer 2012, and a few months later, is still a formidable opponent to the iPad Mini and original iPad collection. If Samsung was the formidable foe in this situation, Apple would never have mentioned the company. Samsung is the top smartphone manufacturer in the world (far ahead of Apple in the smartphone department), but Apple has never mentioned Samsung in its presentations as a formidable foe. Apple did not explicitly mention Google’s name this time either, but the company did have the nerve to place the Nexus 7 tablet on the screen for all the media and Apple developers to see. If I were a hardcore Android gamer and loved the Android gaming experience, I would purchase the Nexus 7 tablet (32GB) and save some serious cash. Since I have fallen in love with the iOS gaming experience, however, I choose to pay approximately $500 for a 32GB tablet and spends several dollars on game apps from the App Store. With that said, my reasons for remaining with Apple and iOS have to do with the experience I’ve had so far and my comfort with it, rather than my belief or not that Apple is the better company.

Alongside of the new iPad Mini, Apple also released the fourth-generation iPad this past Tuesday morning. The iPad 4 is similar to the iPad 3 with Retina in the following ways:

• iPad 3 had Retina display; iPad 4 does as well
• iPad 3 had a 9.7-inch diagonal screen; iPad 4 does as well
• iPad 3 came in both black and white; the same goes for iPad 4
• iPad 3 had a 2048 x 1536 screen resolution; iPad 4 does as well
• iPad 3 came in both WiFi and 3G (cellular) versions; iPad 4 does as well

There are, however, four areas in which the iPad 3 and iPad 4 differ:

• Processor chip: iPad 3 had an A5X chip, while the iPad 4 has an A6X chip
• Adapter: iPad 3 had a 30-pin adapter, while the iPad 4 has an 8-pin adapter (“Lightning”)
• Nomenclature: the iPad 3 was labeled officially as “the new iPad,” while the iPad 4 is called “iPad with Retina display”
• Operating System: the iPad 3 ran on iOS5, while the iPad 4 runs on iOS6

The iPad 4’s A6X chip makes the fourth-generation iPad the newest device with the best battery power (over that of the iPhone 5). Of course, this makes sense when you consider that the iPad is much larger than the iPhone 5 and thus, needs more power to operate. With regard to the nomenclature, Apple’s labeling of the iPad 3 as “the new iPad” may have been the company’s way of declaring its short-term life. The iPad 4 has been named “iPad with Retina display.” It does not sound creative enough, but it will work for now. Hopefully, Apple can gain a creative side and name its iPhones and iPads with creative names – similar to Google: “Gingerbread,” “Ice Cream Sandwich,” “Jelly Bean,” and “Key Lime Pie” are a few examples.

The iPad 4 has a new, eight-pin Lightning adapter that replaces the former 30-pin adapter that the iPad 3 had. While Apple has placed the iPad 3 on its list of refurbished products, iPad 3 prices have only dropped by about $30-$100 at the Apple.com website. It pays to purchase the new iPad 4 with the Lightning adapter, rather than purchase a refurbished iPad 3 for $100 or so less than the iPad 4 and have an old adapter that is incompatible with Apple’s newest product lineup. The eight-pin adapter is reversible and works for all new iOS devices. This means that you can take your adapter out of your iPhone 5 and place it in your iPad 4 or iPod Touch 5G. The universality of the Lightning adapter for all of Apple’s iOS devices means that you will not have to spend so much money on adapters. In the same way, I want to suggest that you purchase the iPad Mini under certain conditions. If you want a small reading device that you can hold in your hands and place in a gym bag or purse, then the iPad Mini is for you. However, if you are a hard-core gamer and love your Retina display (as I do), then I would suggest that you wait for another 6-8 months until Apple produces an iPad Mini with Retina display. At that point and time, I will look to purchase the iPad Mini.

One thing that Apple should have done with the new, fourth-generation iPad is increased the screen resolution. While the iPad 3 was a quality product (as is the iPad 4), the fourth-generation presents a new operating system and a better processor chip. This may not be enough to drive customers to purchase the iPad 4 (since it is so close to the iPad 3 in its specs). The Lightning adapter and overhaul of the old thirty-pin adapter may be just the thing to yield numerous iPad 4 purchases in large numbers.

Apple presented new iMacs, a Mac Mini, and a new 13.3-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display at Tuesday’s announcement. All eyes, however, were on the iPad 4 and the iPad Mini. Apparently, the iPad Mini has made history already: according to Gizmodo, Apple sold out of its white iPad Minis in about twenty minutes.

{ 0 comments }

The iPad Mini has been one of the most talked-about items in the Apple community; in fact, the Mini iPad was predicted long before talk of the iPhone 5 surfaced. This week, Apple issued another famous (yet mysterious) media invitation with the words, “We’ve got a little more to show you” at the bottom with the Apple logo surrounded by a rainbow color background. The “little more” that Apple will reveal connects the iPhone 5/iPod Touch 5G presentation from last month to what Apple intends to reveal this week. Sources say that Apple will unveil a few things this coming Tuesday, October 23, at its media presentation:

• IPad Mini
• IPad 3 with Lightning connector (a connector-compatible version of the current Retina iPad)
• iMac?
• 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina

First, let’s get the most non-portable objects out of the way. The iMac has not been revamped for some time, but sources say that Apple could unveil the iMac this coming Tuesday at its media invite. Tech sources report that we do not know what the new iMac will look like, but this is what makes Apple invites so exciting: you get a “little something more” that is unexpected with a little bit of the predictable. The iMac was predicted to appear at the iPhone 5 presentation last month, but it did not. It is still believed that the iMac will not bear the retina display technology found in the iPad and iPhone.

A 13.3-inch MacBook Pro with Retina could become the newest MacBook laptop on the market as of this week, and the newest member of the Pro family will certainly come with the beautiful retina technology that has made Apple’s game and photo graphics incredible. NPD DisplaySearch claims that Apple started work on the new Pro some weeks ago and that the price tag will be lower than $2199 (the price of the 15-inch model). In addition to a reduced price, the 13.3-inch MacBook Pro with retina will also have a lower pixel resolution than the 15.4-inch model (2560 x 1600 vs. 2880 x 1800, respectively). The 15.4-inch model, reviewed by many tech experts and writers, seems not to have the confidence of many in the tech community. From what Apple reveals about the laptop, it is made for photographers and journalists, those who want to get gorgeous photos and have careers involving photography (or degrees that make such displays necessary); when it comes to the average individual, purchasing a MacBook Pro without retina (and paying less than $2,199) is the best option. You do not have to purchase an Apple item just because it becomes available or goes on the market. Antone Gonsalves writes:

“…I want to point out that I looked at the value of the MacBook Pro with Retina from the perspective of what is best for the average computer user. Professional designers, developers, photographers, graphic artists and video editors do not need me to tell them whether Apple’s latest concoction is right for them. Such sophisticated users are capable of deciding for themselves which system to buy.

For everyone else, I maintain that Retina is as much a marketing feature as it is a product enhancement. Let me explain. Apple is one of the best design companies in the tech industry. The beauty of its products leaves people with the feeling that the hardware is the most advanced and the most innovative. That feeling is not always justified when you separate the look from the components.

An ultra-high resolution display is not innovation and is not worth paying more for. Why? Because if studies stemming from the introduction of high-definition TVs are any indication, most people won’t be able to tell the difference between today’s HD displays and the Retina screen.

In addition, Retina won’t deliver a better Web experience, a key function for any personal computer. That’s because the ultra-high resolution of the Retina display will produce blurry Web graphics and text in all browsers except Apple Safari” (Antone Gonsalves, How consumer-friendly is the MacBook Pro with Retina? ; bold print mine).

Gonsalves’s article (titled “Yes, MacBook Pro’s Retina Display is Brilliant, But Not For the Average User”), is one that I think every consumer should read before heading out to purchase the 15.4-inch or 13.3-inch MacBook Pro with Retina laptops. Gonsalves does not want you to be deceived: Apple’s retina display may look great in its appearance, but it disappoints because the industry has not caught up with its high-resolution displays. Just think about the possibility; let’s say that you purchase the new Retina MacBook Pro. What is going to happen when you produce photos and pictures on your Retina display that look hideous and horrible on a Sony, Toshiba, or Dell laptop? Your retina display may look gorgeous, but printing out photos on other computer monitors will only hurt your photos and distort them. The majority of screen resolutions are sufficient for great photos and videos, such that the Retina MacBook Pro is not a necessary tool for business professionals – or average consumers. Those who purchase the new Retina laptop are either professional photographers and web designers (who know what they need the device for) or those who want any product and all products that bear the five letters  “A-P-P-L-E.” As Gonsalves says, Apple has hooked people on its products due to its effective marketing strategy. Just ask yourself: why does any company market its products? The answer has nothing to do with enhancing your life, or making you more productive, or caring about your well-being (although companies tend to do that). The real reason has a lot to do with the company’s financial success. Apple wants your money; it did not raise $110 billion in six months without strategy!

Apple sells its products by way of its marketing methodology. The company knows that, if it can make consumers feel as if they are someone else when purchasing the new iPad with Retina or iPhone 5, consumers will purchase the new products without hesitation. If you do not think that Apple cares about its marketing strategy, take a look at Apple’s Genius Training Manual that teaches employees about hand mannerisms, listening ears, certain words to speak (or not), and so on. Gizmodo says it best:

“Sales, it turns out, take a backseat to good vibes—almost the entire volume is dedicated to empathizing, consoling, cheering up, and correcting various Genius Bar confrontations. The assumption, it’d seem, is that a happy customer will buy things” (Sam Biddle, “How to Be a Genius: This is Apple’s Secret Employee Training Manual.” Gizmodo. August 28, 2012. Bold mine).

You should remember this the next time you plan to make a purchase at a local Apple store.

Next on the list of gadgets for Apple’s Tuesday presentation is a lightning adapter-compatible iPad 3 with retina display. The Lightning connector is named “Lightning” because it allows you to send information from your phone to your computer (and vice versa) in “lightning” time at “lightning” speed—in short, transfer time is fast. The new Lightning connector was rumored by virtually all of the tech community prior to the September 12, 2012 iPhone 5 announcement. The rumor spread about the new pin dock connector was that it would be a 9-pin connector and replace the former 30-pin dock connector. The new Lightning connector, however, has only 8 pins. Although Apple announced the price of the lightning connector ($29) at the media event, the company promised its customers that a free lightning connector would be included with the iPhone 5 when the phone shipped to the public. Steve Dent of Engadget provided the initial pre-order statement by Apple, as written below:

“Your iPhone includes a Lightning to 30-pin Adapter for connecting 30-pin accessories to devices featuring the Lightning connector. Purchase this additional adapter to have a second adapter for your home or office” (Apple’s pre-order statement, published in the article “Apple’s IPhone 5 will arrive with a free Lightning to 30-pin adapter.” Engadget. September 14, 2012).

At first, the company assured customers who pre-ordered early that they would receive a lightning connector along with their iPhone 5. The language at the Apple.com website read, “your iPhone 5 includes a Lightning to 30-pin Adapter.” The advertisement then told customers to “purchase this additional adapter to have a second adapter,” indicating that the above language meant that customers would receive a free Lightning connector along with their iPhone 5. After some time, however, Steve Dent was told that the statement was incorrect:

“Well, the plot thickens. We’re now hearing reports that the above wording is a mistake, and that the adapter isn’t included after all. The information comes via a reader of The Next Web, who advises [sic] Apple sales support informed them it was an error. Of course, we’re reaching out to get the final word on the matter. However, that won’t be much consolation to those who made a purchase based on incorrect info” (Steve Dent).

It seems that Apple was generous with the Lightning connector initially, but then withdrew the offer right after pre-order sales turned numerous. I do not know why Apple did this (and whether or not a legitimate error was committed), but the withdrawal of the original “free” adapter made Apple appear greedy and stingy –something that should not plague the company that has $110 billion in financial assets. Business Insider proposed some time ago that iPhone 5 customers seek a $17 adapter at Amazon.com that would solve the problem, but many others have decided to order the $30 adapter despite the price tag. Apple started shipping the Lightning adapter orders on October 9, 2012, and the new adapters will now come with the iPad 3 as of Tuesday’s announcement.

It seems as though, with the new iPad 3 Lightning compatibility, Apple is overhauling its adapter product system completely and starting afresh. The Wall Street Journal has accused Apple of creating what many Apple customers call “upgrade fatigue” with its devices; Apple continues to “exhaust” its customers with new devices and accessories. If 31 devices produced within a five-year period are not enough to exhaust any tech writer, tech lover, or ordinary consumer, I do not know what will.

While a Lightning adapter-compatible iPad 3 will be announced on Tuesday, there are other surprises on the list of Apple’s announcement (according to tech rumors). One new addition to the list of products Apple will announce is the iPad Mini. The iPad Mini is expected to have a 7.85-inch display (as opposed to that of the iPad 3, 9.7 inches) as well as a smaller, A5 processor chip in contrast to the iPad 3 with retina’s A5X processor chip. The 7.85-inch iPad Mini will stand out from other comparable tablets on the market, such as Amazon’s Kindle Fire and Google’s seven-inch Nexus 7 tablet and may even cost a bit more than the others. The rationale for the higher-priced iPad Mini (as opposed to other seven-inch tablets) pertains to the price of Apple’s new iPod Touch 5G—which currently costs $299 for a 32GB version. If, however, the new iPad Mini (or iPad Air, as some believe) comes in the traditional 16GB, 32GB, and 64GB versions, the device may cost $249 as a base price (for the 16GB version, the smallest of the three memory storage capacities offered). Here are all the rumors surrounding the iPad Mini:

• 7.85-inch display
• A5 processor chip
• Could be called “IPad Air” or “IPad Mini”
• Screen resolution of 1024 x 768
• Thinner than the current iPad 3, but possess a thicker frame at the top and bottom
• Lightning connector-compatible
• Pre-order date: October 26, 2012; Official Arrival: November 2, 2012

The iPad Mini will run on an A5 chip, making it slower in its speed than the current iPad 3. Sources say that the iPad Mini will have less impressive specifications than the current iPad 3 with retina display because of the affordable price Apple has placed on the device for the consumer market. Consumers have made it clear (by purchasing tablets such as the Google Nexus 7 and Amazon Kindle Fire) that $200-$300 price tablets are hot commodities, products they are willing to purchase. If Apple wants to compete in these areas, the company must “water down” its hottest devices and sell them at a price comparable to that of Amazon and Google. To keep costs down, Apple will not only place a slower processor chip (A5) into the iPad Mini but also remove Retina technology. This means that the iPad Mini will not be the iPad 4 in any shape, form, or fashion, as I reveal in a post I wrote some weeks ago.

An iPad 4 is rumored to emerge this Tuesday, as well. We do not know much about the new device, but we know that it will presumably have Siri integration, iOS6, Facebook integration, and other features that we know and love about the current iPad. Whatever happens on October 23, 2012, we here at ijailbreak4s.com will be here to present you with all the announcements from the media presentation. Stay tuned for more iPhone 4S jailbreak news.

{ 0 comments }

 [old and new maps, courtesy of Mashable]

This week in iPhone 4S jailbreak news features iPhone 5 flaws, changes to iOS6, as well as other Apple admissions. The emergence of Apple’s latest flagship phone, the iPhone 5, has caused quite a stir. Although the majority of consumers seem to love the phone (and care little about the phone’s flaws), the iPhone 5’s shortcomings have not gone unnoticed in the tech community.

First, let’s discuss the iPhone 5’s operating system, iOS6. IOS6 has not been the object of affection of the tech community since the update for the iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPod Touch 4G, iPad 2, and the new iPad arrived on September 19, 2012. At Apple’s media announcement on September 12, 2012, Apple touted its newest operating system, calling it the most advanced in the world. It seemed advanced – until it was released to the public. When the public got a taste of iOS6, it seemed as though the public was willing to spit out what it had been told was “good medicine”. The new Apple 3D mapping application was one of the worst decisions Apple ever made; the maps app featured missing streets and landmarks. Tim Cook issued an apology on the Apple website some time ago, but it does not change the fact that Apple brought the 3D maps app from behind the curtain as though it was a tried-and-true application that was ready for consumer use. The matter turns ugly when you consider that Apple was warned about the terrible maps application by one of its own developers. As one developer stated:

“I posted at least one doomsayer rant after each beta, and I wasn’t alone. The mood amongst the developers seemed to be that the maps were so shockingly bad that reporting individual problems was futile. What was needed wasn’t so much an interface for reporting a single point as incorrect, but for selecting an entire region and saying ‘all of this – it’s wrong!’” (David Thier, “Apple Was Warned About its Disastrous Maps Application”. Forbes. October 10, 2012; underline mine).

According to the developer (who remained anonymous), many Apple developers agreed that the Maps app was terrible and should not be released to the public. The fact that Apple continued with the maps app shows its stubborn commitment to its products, even at the expense of the company name. If Apple was a small company that did this, we would applaud them and say “good try”; the fact that Apple did this, however, makes us wonder whether or not the company is losing its edge in the United States.

This week, to the amazement of many, Apple improved the Statue of Liberty at the map’s New York location. This is only the beginning of Apple’s commitment to improve what, for some, was one of Apple’s worst moments in history. Google’s maps, in return, have only gotten better in the weeks since Apple’s “flop”. If Google’s map app proves anything, it proves that IOS6 may not be the most advanced operating system yet. Nevertheless, customer demand for the product has not ceased and, according to Steve Kovach of Business Insider, “90% of customers who either bought an iPhone 5 or upgraded their current iPhone software say they aren’t bothered by the new Maps” (Steve Kovach, “Customers Still Want the IPhone 5 Even Though Apple’s New Map App Stinks”).

While Apple’s maps app cannot get the Cupertino, California company sued, its iOS6 clock icon for the iPad can. The Swiss Federal Railway Service filed a lawsuit against Apple three weeks ago alleging that the iPad’s iOS6 clock icon was a rip-off of its own Swiss clock icon. The company claimed that it alone held the patent over the design and had done so since 1944 when the clock was invented by a Railway service employee (Hans Hilfiker). Apple has been accused of ripping off numerous companies before and is currently under lawsuits filed by companies such as Noise Free Wireless (over noise cancellation technology). This week, Apple decided to settle its debt with the Swiss Federal Railway Service (SBB) by paying the company for the Swiss design, according to Business Insider and GigaOM. Although Apple did the right thing in the end, the question still remains: why would Apple steal a design it knew belonged to the SBB? The same question could be asked in regards to Apple’s theft over the name “IPAD” from the Shenzhen Proview company some few months ago or the “Snow Leopard” name (belonging to Apple’s former Mac OS) from a household cleaning company, “Jiangsu Xuebao” (Chinese for “Snow Leopard”). Research on Steve Jobs indicates that the former Apple CEO was a lover of European tastes and designs, so it seems usual that Apple would steal a European design and pass it off on an American product. However, this leaves a tarnished stain on the reputation for the Apple Corporation. At this point, however, jailbreakers sit back and say, “We knew it all along. Apple has done it to us before”.

There have been numerous iPhone 5 flaws since the smartphone arrived in electronics stores across the United States and the world: a purple haze in photos, scratches and scruffs on the anodine aluminum coating, a WiFi cellular bug that increased cellular data costs for iPhone 5 users, and so on. The scratches on the aluminum metal backing (coated aluminum) explain why fewer iPhones are in production. Apple has decided to slow down iPhone 5 production in order to produce iPhones that have no coating scratches or scruffs. This week, the tech community added one more flaw or defect to the iPhone 5: glitches on screens and keyboards. Whenever a pop-up window opens for a person to type some form of text, the screen “jumps” suddenly without reason. To make matters worse, keyboards look on the iPhone 5 screen as though they are somewhat distorted; that is, certain keys and images appear as though they are blurry, and there seems to be a flashing line that stretches through the top half of the second row of keys on the iPhone 5. The white line flashes through the row that bears the dash (-), slash (/), colon (:), semicolon (;), end parentheses ( ), dollar sign ($), “and” (&), “at” (@), and end quote (“) keys. The glitch has been attributed to software holes that need patching, as confirmed on the Apple Support Forum site by one user:

“She [Apple Corporate Executive Relations department rep] said that Apple is aware of the issue & that they’re working on it. It will be patched in an upcoming iOS update. It’s confirmed to be a software issue. Why it only happens on some devices, she didn’t have details. The bottom line is that they’re working on it now & we will have a solution” (Matthew Panzarino, “Graphics Glitches seen on iPhone 5 screens and keyboards are likely a software issue, not hardware”. The Next Web. October 12, 2012. Underline mine).

While it may comfort the hearts and minds of tech geeks who seem to love their iPhone 5s, it does not comfort the hearts and minds of consumers who paid $199.99 and signed a new two-year contract with their current phone carrier to experience the mass of problems the iPhone 5 has created since its arrival. Again, what happened while the software and phone were in beta testing? Did these things go unnoticed? And if Apple knew about them, does that not implicate them in a deceptive scheme of some kind? I’m not trying to insinuate that Apple knew; I’m simply asking these questions because every consumer currently frustrated with his or her iPhone 5 is asking the same ones.

And what about the purple haze in photos? Matt Gastel of Gizmodo wrote Apple Support about the mysterious color in his photos that were taken in direct sunlight. Apple Support thought it strange first, including an Apple Support Senior representative. After passing the request or complaint on to Apple’s engineering team, Gastel received the response of “it’s normal” from Apple engineers. According to Apple, the purple haze exists in photos taken with the iPhone 5 because of the angle at which the camera is turned. While Apple believes the purple haze is normal, many tech writers believe the purple haze is due to the sapphire lens cover that exists on the iPhone 5. It could be the case that the purple haze is not only an iPhone 5 occurrence, but a normal iPhone occurrence as well. To see if this is the case or not, read my new article titled “The Purple Haze Controversy: Normal or Strange?,” coming up in my next post at ijailbreak3gs.com.

Apple responded this week with its own rationale as to why the purple haze appears in the flagship phone’s photos. Matt Brian of The Next Web records Apple’s explanation:

“Most small cameras, including those in every generation of iPhone, may exhibit some form of flare at the edge of the frame when capturing an image…this can happen when a light source is positioned at an angle (usually just outside the field of view) so that it causes a reflection off the surfaces inside the camera module and onto the camera sensor. Moving the camera slightly to change the position at which the bright light is entering the lens, or shielding the lens with your hand, should minimize or eliminate the effect” (Matt Brian, “Apple Posts Support Advisory to Explain and Ease iPhone 5 purple lens flare worries”. The Next Web. October 7, 2012).

For Apple at least, the purple haze is a normal occurrence for not only the iPhone 5, but also every iPhone from the iPhone 1 through the iPhone 4S model. I will explore this in the Purple Haze controversy post I intend to write. Stay tuned to ijailbreak4s.com for that article.

While I often tell you that an iPhone 4S jailbreak is amazing, do not take my word for it: ask Steve Wozniak, Steve Jobs’s fellow co-founder of the Apple Corporation. Just this past week, Wozniak made an open statement in support of the jailbreak community:

“When asked about the even more controversial open versus closed source/platform question, Wozniak unsurprisingly stood by the former, and declared he supports the jailbreak community:

‘There is no one right opinion. I’m for more openness. I believe that you can create the best most innovative products even when they are open…I suggest that maybe 80% of us or more are technophobes and scared to admit how little we know. I’m thinking of our moms and dads a lot in this thought. Apple is the safest haven for them not to get confused…yeah, on Android you can do anything for fun and announce it to the whole world and that’s very motivating. So keep it up. I have always given my support to the jailbreak community because they remind me of myself when I met Steve Jobs and how we were, then and for the years leading to Apple’” (Emil Protalinski, “Apple Co-founder Steve Wozniak gives jailbreaking the thumbs up, wishes iTunes supported Android”. The Next Web. October 2, 2012; underline mine).

According to Wozniak, jailbreaking reminds him of adventure, his beginning as a techie, and how adventure is often the breeding ground for innovation. Perhaps Apple, in its attempts to quell jailbreaking, has forgotten what it’s like to be young and dreamy.

{ 0 comments }

When Apple announced the iPhone 5 on September 12 before its developers and the media, you would have thought that the hottest thing since slice bread had come to earth. The pomp and circumstance of the event was simply astounding, and Apple was at its best. The iPhone 5 was the prized object everyone had been waiting for, and Apple made sure to give the iPhone 5 great attention on the projection screen so that its developers and journalists could “ooohhh” and “aaahhh” over the iPhone 5’s slender design. The iPhone 5 was projected to sell somewhere between 6-10 million iPhones according to Piper Jaffray and other financial analysts and looked to be everything and more the smartphone world could ever want.

Despite the iPhone 5’s debut, however, the iPhone has experienced nothing but dark days ever since. The first attacks on the iPhone 5 were from customers (and even tech writers!) who had damaged iPhones straight from the unwrapping. Cracked screens, dents, scratches on the aluminum metal back (placed there easily by car or house keys), and other damages to iPhones were the surprise of many who unwrapped their iPhones for the first time. To make matters worse, many of the damages incurred on iPhones were located under the protective film that Apple places on its iPhones at the factory. This suggests that the workers themselves committed the errors – or, that the errors were all too easy to commit because of the soft materials used to build the iPhone 5.  Can you imagine the anger of so many iPhone customers, many of whom waited in line for the iPhone 5? If that had been me, I would be angry, too. Other customers were angry about how quickly the Apple stores across the country ran out of available iPhone supply. It is good when demand for the iPhone is great; however, where was the supply? Why did Apple stores have so few iPhones? If you ordered online, the response was even worse: UPS issued a response less than three days after the first pre-order day, telling iPhone customers that they would have to wait 3-4 weeks if they decided to pre-order. At this point, the iPhone 5 was soon to debut in stores, so they did not need to pre-order the iPhone 5 any longer.

Cracks, dents, paint smears and scratches, and other “oops” moments with the iPhone 5 were followed by defective software. That’s right: iOS6 fared no better than the iPhone 5 in its performance. I received the iOS6 update (as did all Apple customers) on September 19, 2012, and sat in my apartment looking at my iPad 3 screen while anticipating all that I would experience in the new operating system. I was told that Siri would come to the iPad (I was so excited!), as well as Apple’s new 3D mapping system provided by Apple’s partnership with maps manufacturer TomTom. If you watched Scott Forstall’s presentation, you were impressed with the new map’s “Flyover” function. Unfortunately, “Flyover” was nothing more than a “conover” (con over) method by which Apple sold its shabby maps. The moment iOS6 was released, customers who updated to the new OS reported that streets, buildings, and even cities were missing on the new maps application. Scott Forstall gave developers and journalists a tour of “Big Ben” in London when he presented the 3D maps application, but he did not tell the crowd that the only landmarks he could show off in 3D were the few that Apple had perfected within the year’s time the company spent working on the product. In other words, do not expect your neighborhood government building to look as nice in 3D as Big Ben does on-screen!

Apple’s 3D maps application was so abhorred by both the tech media and iPhone owners that many started to clamor for the return of Google Maps. CNET and other tech sites offered videos that would help iPhone users get Google’s map app back on their desktop screens, and Apple CEO Tim Cook offered a letter of apology for the company’s 3D maps fiasco. In his letter, Tim Cook admits the following about Apple’s maps feature:

“We launched Maps initially with the first version of iOS. As time progressed, we wanted to provide our customers with even better Maps including features such as turn-by-turn directions, voice integration, Flyover and vector-based maps. In order to do this, we had to create a new version of Maps from the ground up.”

{ 3 comments }

Some weeks ago, I wrote an article that was titled “Master of Hype?”, an article in which I agree with David Thier that Apple consumes itself with hype about how great the company is, how it stands head and shoulders above the rest, and how its products are always quality. When it has bragged about its “incredible” or “gorgeous” Retina display, its “mind-boggling” seven million downloaded apps in the App Store, or “the world’s most advanced operating system” (iOS6), Apple has made its iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad experience seem ethereal and second to none. In the iPhone 5 presentation this past September 12, Tim Cook used charts to show that Apple was above its competition in tablet sales. He responded in a paraphrase, “I don’t know what the competition is doing. Maybe their tablets lie in drawers of consumers and never see the light of day”. The presentation for the iPhone 5 and Apple’s other iOS devices started with Siri providing jokes to warm up the crowd. Siri’s jokes consisted of jabs against Google, amongst other companies. It seems as though the former, Steve Jobs-led corporation cannot say too many kind words about itself. This is either a case of complete honesty or absolute egotism.

During the Apple presentation, Tim Cook also made it clear that Apple’s 3D maps were so much better than anything else. Immediately before the launch of the iPhone 5, Apple went public about its decision to cut Google Maps from the list of desktop applications (icons) it provides on the iDevices’ home screen. No need to worry, however: Apple’s 3D maps and “Flyover” feature would come in and save the day. Scott Forstall presented Apple’s newest operating system, iOS6, and dazzled the crowd as he zoomed in on Big Ben in London, showing them how gorgeous the landmark and the surrounding architecture was on the new, four-inch screen display on the iPhone 5. It was astounding to see the graphics and dream of how my virtual tour of the world would turn out to be.

If Apple stopped at this, Apple consumers would have remained loyal to the products alone. Instead of ending the emphasis of Apple’s greatness after the introduction of the iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5G, and iPod Nano, Apple started to show how much of a difference the Cupertino, California company was making in the world. Those that watch an Apple video where children are playing on iPads and learning, professors are lecturing from their iPads and enlightening their students, and parents are tutoring their disabled children will have a warm and fuzzy feeling in their hearts for the company. Everyone wants to know that they are making a difference in the world; for the video watcher who sees Apple making a difference, he or she wants to “join the bandwagon” and become part of that experience. If Apple sells an experience, as some tech writers seem to believe, the company sells it in such a warm and understanding way that it is camouflaged beneath the tech presentations and engineering talk. In brief, an unsuspecting Apple consumer or video watcher would fall in love with Apple under duress and not even know it!

The media did not help Apple’s egotistical self-concept, either: although the iPhone 4S fell from its smartphone crown some weeks before the iPhone 5 was introduced, many tech writers (including some at CNET) were in full assurance that Apple would take back the smartphone crown from the Samsung Galaxy S3 when the phone debuted in Apple and retail stores across the country and world. Tech writers even went so far as to excuse away Apple’s fall beneath predicted Wall Street earnings ($35.2 billion instead of $37.2 billion in the last quarter). Apple sold only 29 million iPhones instead of the 35 million Wall Street predicted the company would sell last quarter; how were the numbers treated? As though they did not exist; rather, Apple sold fewer iPhones than predicted because “the company was assumed to be in the process of manufacturing the iPhone 5” and Apple consumers would turn down the 4S to wait for the sixth-generation iPhone. Tech writers assured readers such as myself that the iPhone 5 would come and blow out its competition; the iPhone 5 would help Apple increase its financial earnings and reputation by leaps and bounds. Did I mention that Apple was made to seem as though it was ethereal? If this is the second time I have mentioned the word “ethereal,” know that my mention is intentional. Take the hint.

When the week of the iPhone 5 arrival came, analyst group Piper Jaffray took to the media to report that Apple would sell 6-10 million iPhones in its first weekend. Despite the impressive 20-million Galaxy S3 statistic in Samsung’s pocket, Samsung and the Galaxy S3 were overlooked in the press in favor of Apple’s predicted iPhone sales. Samsung claimed that it would sell 30 million of its S3 phones by the end of the year, but this “paled” (according to Apple tech writers) in comparison to the number of phones Apple would sell in the first three days. If Apple could sell 10 million iPhones, it would turn its nose down at Samsung and say, “You thought your 20 million sales were hot; give me three months, and I will surpass your number”. Again, the message provided to the media and consumer audience was that Apple is the best and produces only the best.

However, Apple “tooted its own horn” rather presumptuously. After the statistics were gathered for Apple’s iPhone 5 advent weekend, they were not as positive as Piper Jaffray and other analysts had been: Apple sold only 5 million iPhones instead of the 10 million many tech experts had predicted. What happened? Why did Apple’s numbers fall below the expected amount? Many Apple fans did not take time to answer this question, but chose to focus on the fact that Apple sold 5 million iPhones and claimed, “Apple doesn’t owe an explanation; it’s the top smartphone manufacturer, so what does it need to prove?”. Apparently, there are some Apple fans that do not check worldwide statistics. If they did, they would know that Android is the top OS in the world and that Samsung is the top smartphone manufacturer worldwide. Apple fanboys may call Samsung’s Galaxy S3 a “cheap plastic” smartphone (in response to Samsung’s “It Doesn’t Take a Genius” ad), but the cheap plastic has a following and a smartphone that has become the biggest rival to Apple’s iPhone since the iPhone debuted on the American market in 2007. Finally, the “kid gloves” iPhone has a taste of healthy competition!

The disappointing numbers in iPhone sales were not enough by itself to reflect Apple in a negative way; how many companies dip below their predicted sales on a daily basis? Apple was no different in this than any other company. It was the response from Apple’s “fan club” that was different from that of any other company’s supporters and customers: Apple lovers felt the need to defend the company against all attacks and critics.

At the same time that Apple’s iPhone sales numbers were defended, however, the company also faced criticism because of the horrible discovery about Apple’s iPhones: many were being purchased by consumers in Apple stores and coming damaged right out of the box. Everything from dents to cracks and scruffs and scratches marked the newest iPhones on the American market. Nicholas Carson of Business Insider reports that any scratch damage done to the iPhone 5 will also change the color of the metal backing by exposing a different color underneath the painted aluminum metal backing of the sixth-generation iPhone. One UK Apple customer took a SIM card and keys, scratched his iPhone 5, and removed a portion of the paint job from his new smartphone. This is pretty sad when you consider that Apple replaced its glass back with a metal back to make the phone more sturdy and durable. The tech site Pocket-Lint said in its iPhone 5 review that it had seen scratches and scruffs on both black and white versions of the iPhone 5 and was “ruling out a fluke manufacturing error”. In brief, Pocket-Lint did not believe the iPhone was made with scratches and scruffs; the material by which the iPhone 5 was made is to blame for the scratches and scruffs some iPhone 5s have endured. This does not bode well for a company that has now placed “sapphire crystal” lenses in its iPhone and iPod Touch cameras. What it shows is that Apple has not spent as much time on its materials for its smartphone collection as the company would like you to believe.

According to Jeff Blagdon at The Verge, Apple’s choice of aluminum metal is the prime reason behind the scruffs and scratches on iPhone 5s:

“When Apple VP Phil Schiller took the stage on September 12 to talk about the company’s new iPhone 5 hardware he went on at length about the exacting level of precision that goes into its manufacture. But despite Apple’s insistence that its tolerances are measured in microns, several iPhone 5 owners are reporting that their new devices are arriving with a variety of scuffs and scrapes out of the box (myself included, pictured above)…an informal poll in the MacRumors forums indicates that out of some 1260 respondents, more than a third are reporting some kind of damage…the iPhone 5’s case is made out of anodized (i.e., coated) aluminum, which, while being lighter than the stainless steel used in the iPhone 4 and 4S, is also softer and appears to be more susceptible to scratching” (Jeff Blagdon, “IPhone 5 Owners Report Scuffs and Scratches Out of the Box.” The Verge. September 24, 2012. Underlining mine.).

Forbes Magazine’s Adrian Kingsley-Hughes provides proof that the scratches originated at the factory prior to shipment:

“The damage was underneath the protective film that Apple applies to its devices and couldn’t have been caused in transit” (Adrian Kingsley-Hughes, “Check Your New IPhone 5 for Scratches.” Forbes. September 24, 2012. Underlining mine.).

The protective film is applied last, since it is on the outside of the phone. If iPhones have scratches and scruffs under the protective layer, then it implicates factory workers in the production of flawed iPhones. Factory workers, however, are not entirely to blame; if the materials used to produce the iPhones are durable, then the product will be durable. If scratches, scruffs, and even screen cracks are caused by assembly-line workers, what type of care is being taken towards the product so that customers get the quality products for which they pay? There will be more work on the factory workers and the iPhone later.

Since the iPhone 5’s metal backing comes coated (painted), the paint can be scratched off – in the same way that a vehicle paint job can be scratched off with a car key or house key. This is no different with the iPhone 5, but it becomes even more troubling when you consider that the iPhone 5s are coming scratched before they go home with consumers. If the coating is this vulnerable at the factory, how much more vulnerable will it become as the iPhone is dropped on the floor over the next two years or collides with your home and car keys occasionally?

As Blagdon mentions in his article, Phil Schiller’s presentation focused on how meticulous Apple’s engineers were to handcraft the iPhone 5’s design, look, and feel; how can consumers match Schiller’s words to the product if the product itself looks as though Apple spent more time on iOS6 (which has a multitude of problems) than it did the iPhone 5’s external features?

When you consider that Apple has such a name in the tech world, it is appalling to see that Apple takes more care towards lawsuits and presentations than it does quality products for its customers. In many ways, Apple’s current iPhone defects and flaws seem to undo Jony Ive’s words about Apple in the company’s announcement video on the front page of Apple.com. While we want to believe that Apple cares for its customers and only produces quality products, we must pause and ask ourselves: could it be true that, underneath the hype and pomp and circumstance, Apple is no greater than its competitors? Does the company care more about money and marketing or its consumers? Only time will tell if Apple’s recent failures are a slump in the road or the start of a dangerous trend.

{ 0 comments }