or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple fights off hackers with new iPhone 3GS firmware
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple fights off hackers with new iPhone 3GS firmware - Page 3

post #81 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

The jailbreaker mentality isn't really that peculiar. It's a combination of narcissism and sociopathy compounded by the self-esteem drivel ...

The narcissism makes it easy for them to justify ...

The sociopathy is evident in the self-centeredness that is exhibited ...

They really are no different from the guy ...

Jailbreakers like to use specious arguments like the following:

No, you gentlemen signed a license agreement ...

Spare us the self-righteous pseudo-civil rights kumbaya talk. Stand in line like the rest of us.

Someone with an appreciation of Alexander Pope,
Quote:
Who reasons wisely is not therefore wise, His pride in reasoning, not in acting lies.
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
post #82 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

The jailbreaker mentality isn't really that peculiar. It's a combination of narcissism and sociopathy compounded by the self-esteem drivel (celebrate me even if I did nothing worth celebrating) that the US educational system has foisted on two generations of Americans.

The narcissism makes it easy for them to justify what they're doing on the grounds that either they're smarter than most folks so they have more rights and privileges, or what they're doing is so cool and ingenious so we should all let them do it and marvel in awe at their feat, and not complain about how that is inconveniencing us. "We are the cool, special people so you should be celebrating us not berating us."

The sociopathy is evident in the self-centeredness that is exhibited when they claim they can use up as much bandwidth as they can, conveniently ignoring the fact that there are resource limits to any wireless network and that everyone else is penalized when too many subscribers become bandwidth hogs. The amazing thing is that when finally AT&T has to take action to manage bandwidth congestion, these same folks will howl the loudest if bandwidth metering beyond a certain threshhold is put in. They'll still be allowed to use as much bandwidth as they want mind you, they'll just have to pay for its real cost now instead of freeloading on us poor saps.

They really are no different from the guy who installs a gazillion watt stereo in his car, turns it up to bone-rattling levels, then drives down the street 'sharing' his pacemaker-jamming bass rhythms with us regular motorists. Not giving a care at all that what he is doing is extremely rude, annoying, self-centered, and antisocial. And on top of that getting all indignant about his freedoms being curtailed when a policeman issues him a citation.

Jailbreakers like to use specious arguments like the following:







No, you gentlemen signed a license agreement when you bought the phone and the data subscription. So you cannot just use the data or device as you see fit. The agreement you signed says no tethering and no unauthorized software, if you disagree with that don't get the iPhone. If you don't like Apple's tight hand, go get a different phone. Vote with your feet and your money. Nobody put a gun to anyone's head and made him buy an iPhone.

Spare us the self-righteous pseudo-civil rights kumbaya talk. Stand in line like the rest of us.


Yes sir! *salute*
post #83 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post


It is all anecdotal, but just read over the posts in this thread...how many people have said the jailbreak to steal software and how many has said the do it to run alternative software?


Perhaps you could explain what it means? Perhaps you could explain property rights law that prevents you from doing what you choose with your own property....i.e. the device that you own.



In the real world I can't imagine a whole bunch of people lining up to say, "Yes, I'm a thief, so what"?

Just because I own a house doesn't give me the "right" to do anything I want with it. "Property rights" comes with responsibilities .. always have ... always will.
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
post #84 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Well, actually, I wouldn't be breaking any law if I did that.

Driving under the influence is legal where you live? ... Wow, must be a ball wondering if everyone speeding along might be drunk or whatnot.
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
post #85 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Who is asking for anyone to be celebrated. Strawman arguments show a weak mind.


No more right...just rights. Nothing to do with cool or special, but more to so with, hey I own it, I will use it as i see fit.


Again, you are showing your confusion with facts. I have not jailbroken and I will use as much of my data as I choose, since I paid for it. Nothing to do with jailbreaking, though jailbreaker do have more options for using data.


talk about specious


So, factual is spacious to you?


Why can't you use the device as you see fit? You own the damn thing. The data, sure, you signed an agreement, but is the agreement overly restrictive? That is exactly why net neutrality has become an issue. because not every shares your opinion that the customers should always just swallow what the carriers stick in their mouths.


...and bend over. Some of us simply prefer to think for ourselves...

I am not picking on your particular situation. I was just quoting a statement you made that is typical of the jailbreaking self-rationalization.

Still, your whole rebuttal basically reveals what I described the jailbreaking mentality to be. Narcissistic and sociopathic. Everything is me, me, me, my needs, my wants, my pleasure and satisfaction. I can do anything I want, Apple's license is too restrictive in MY exulted opinion, so my signature means nothing, unlike me you other guys are pollyanish saps so I can treat you with as much contempt as I choose, I own it so I can use it as I see fit. It's all about satisfying yourself with no regard at all for the rest of humanity.

By the way, I own a huge, theatre-grade spotlight. Can I park it in front of your house all night every night and shine it into your bedroom window? After all I own it, and that's the use that I see fit for it.

Will you also be willing to pay for metered bandwidth? Net neutrality is fine and good but I have an issue with people who pretend that bandwidth is not a scarce resource and use 'net neutrality' as a cover for freeloading on everyone else. Paying for the bandwidth that you use is not a net neutrality issue.
post #86 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Which os why the comment is bullocks. I use tethering on my iPhone an rack up a solid 25GB/month without jailbreaking. I can't update to 3.1 or I lose that feature and will have to resort to jailbreaking and a complex tethering option. I'd gladly pay AT&T for the feature, but they say they can't offer it yet. Until then I'm forced to use alternative methods. I wonder how many are choosing not to update to 3.1 to retain thisbl feature.

Me too. My alternate method is to pay another $80 a month for 3G card in my MBP.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #87 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Why can't you use the device as you see fit? You own the damn thing. The data, sure, you signed an agreement, but is the agreement overly restrictive? That is exactly why net neutrality has become an issue. because not every shares your opinion that the customers should always just swallow what the carriers stick in their mouths.


To paraphrase: "Contract, sure I signed a contract, but I don't AGREE with that contract so I should be able to break the legalities of that contract in any way I like"....... I don't know, Tulkas, from where I stand, your argument doesn't hold any water.
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
post #88 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post




Some of us simply prefer to think for ourselves...


Is that anything like: interpreting the law to make it say what I want it to say?
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
post #89 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

Driving under the influence is legal where you live?

Well, not on public roads, it isn't.
post #90 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

And I see your point and could even agree with it. But, for tethering in particular, I can't bring myself to agree completely. Tethering is just passing your data through one device to another. I paid for that data. To use as I see fit. It is only theft if I am using something that i did not pay for. But I paid for the data and am simply using the data.

Sure that sounds reasonable to you but from AT&T's perspective, they structured the data plan for the iPhone based on what they thought would be typical usage patterns by a phone user. A notebook computer can consume a lot more data than someone on a phone would ever use.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #91 of 176
I'll admit that I don't understand just why/how it is that "piracy" came up in the responses this article's coverage of Apple's latest anti-jailbreaking move.

I'm confused about that. I saw some reference to the possibility of stealing apps from the Application Store, yet beyond that I'm not sure what sort of "piracy" would be facilitated by modifying firmware on the iPhone/iPod Touch. Are most apps on the App Store really worth stealing?

The only piracy that's otherwise relevant to the iPhone (as far as I can tell) is that of music and movies. Any iPhone or iPod Touch will surely play back even pirated media as long as it's in or can be converted to a format that either device knows how to play. And I suppose that a lot of us are technically guilty of this. I've watched video ripped from a DVD on my iPod Touch because it was convenient. I have the actual DVD, didn't distribute the file any further than my iPod and deleted it when I was done watching. Under the ridiculous legislation of the DMCA, I suppose that makes me a pirate and a lawbreaker.

No, I've never jailbroken my iPod Touch, nor do I intend to do so. I'd rather not have an iBrick...I've already got that but it's called a Time Capsule.

Oops. I got a little off the topic there.

While I'm at it, I take issue with those here who equate "hacking" or "being a hacker" to doing something illegal. It's not--and to say that hacking = illegal activity is not always true. If you've ever taken something apart to see how it works, studied its design or examined the software that came with it--well, you're closer than you think to an introduction to the real meaning of hacking.

I say with a measure of pride that I've looked inside numerous devices to see how they work, studied the datasheets for components to find out how they work, done a little bit of circuit modification, have built a few devices, soldered on motherboards and other parts, read technical manuals, modified some other devices, done "interesting things" to keep older systems on the road, and thought about designing devices of my own to overcome shortcomings that I see in what's on the market now. There's nothing illegal about any of that, and most of it would qualify as "hacking" in some way. (I've never been much on programming, though.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Today's project: making a better Time Capsule from an old computer and parts:
http://greyghost.mooo.com/timecapsule-vs-freenas/ (hope nobody minds the link)
post #92 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

Is that anything like: interpreting the law to make it say what I want it to say?

Or, paraphrasing Tundraboy ... justifications for selfishness.
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
post #93 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

. Now, thinking of the items in your home that you own outright, third parties are allowed to arbitrarily restrict your usage?


I'm guessing that if I use a gun, that I legally own, to shoot a neighbor that, in my mind, deserves it, some third party, might want to "arbitrarily restrict" that usage.
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
post #94 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Perhaps you could explain what it means? Perhaps you could explain property rights law that prevents you from doing what you choose with your own property....i.e. the device that you own.

Clearly, there is a massive amateurish Misunderstanding regarding what exactly you own.
You own a black or white plastic brick with a glass screen. You don't own the software, or any aspects of it whatsoever.
post #95 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

In the real world I can't imagine a whole bunch of people lining up to say, "Yes, I'm a thief, so what"?

people have no problem on internet forums proclaiming just that. Look at how many people used to discussing torrents online.

Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

Just because I own a house doesn't give me the "right" to do anything I want with it. "Property rights" comes with responsibilities .. always have ... always will.

Responsibilities are not the same as arbitrary restrictions put on your usage by a external, non-governmental entity....

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #96 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

I am not picking on your particular situation. I was just quoting a statement you made that is typical of the jailbreaking self-rationalization.

Still, your whole rebuttal basically reveals what I described the jailbreaking mentality to be. Narcissistic and sociopathic. Everything is me, me, me, my needs, my wants, my pleasure and satisfaction. I can do anything I want, Apple's license is too restrictive in MY exulted opinion, so my signature means nothing, unlike me you other guys are pollyanish saps so I can treat you with as much contempt as I choose, I own it so I can use it as I see fit. It's all about satisfying yourself with no regard at all for the rest of humanity.

When you have paid for your property, it isn't about you? It has nothing to do with disrespecting other users, as you seem to be saying. How you can read that is beyond me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

By the way, I own a huge, theatre-grade spotlight. Can I park it in front of your house all night every night and shine it into your bedroom window? After all I own it, and that's the use that I see fit for it.

Well, beyond that being a dick move, I guess if the law permits...don't expect me to me a great neighbour afterwards though. Would you like your ISP telling you what sites you are allowed to visit? Perhaps it is easier when you just let others think and decide for you. After all, to think for yourself is Narcissistic and sociopathic, right? I mean, thinking for yourself is all about you (to use your 'spacious' logic).


Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

Will you also be willing to pay for metered bandwidth? Net neutrality is fine and good but I have an issue with people who pretend that bandwidth is not a scarce resource and use 'net neutrality' as a cover for freeloading on everyone else. Paying for the bandwidth that you use is not a net neutrality issue.

But using the bandwidth that you paid for is. I have a problem with people think it is OK for companies to determine what is OK and what is taboo....you know, sort of the definition of netneutrality.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #97 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

Is that anything like: interpreting the law to make it say what I want it to say?

No, it is like someone confusing laws the restrict usage with external, arbitrary restrictions.

But, I am not surprised some people don't understand what 'thinking for yourself' means.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #98 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

Clearly, there is a massive amateurish Misunderstanding regarding what exactly you own.
You own a black or white plastic brick with a glass screen. You don't own the software, or any aspects of it whatsoever.

Which is why I clearly used the word device.

Once a person can differentiate between the device and the OS the discussion changes. At that point, a rational person realizes property laws and how you may be restricted to use it,. apply. From there they can form an opinion of things like copyrights on software and the restrictions on them, if they are enforceable when overly restrictive, etc.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #99 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

To paraphrase: "Contract, sure I signed a contract, but I don't AGREE with that contract so I should be able to break the legalities of that contract in any way I like"....... I don't know, Tulkas, from where I stand, your argument doesn't hold any water.

You seem very easily confused. Perhaps I should repeat what you replied to:
Quote:
The data, sure, you signed an agreement, but is the agreement overly restrictive? That is exactly why net neutrality has become an issue. because not every shares your opinion that the customers should always just swallow what the carriers stick in their mouths.

Where do I say the contract should be broken? My argument is that because the contracts are becoming so overly restrictive, this is a reason why net neutrality has become an issue. You don't agree with that argument? OK, you explain why it is not a reason why net neutrality has become an issue. You think it is because people are happy with the restrictions in place?

Let me know if you need me to repeat this again. I 'd like you to be able to keep up.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #100 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

I'm guessing that if I use a gun, that I legally own, to shoot a neighbor that, in my mind, deserves it, some third party, might want to "arbitrarily restrict" that usage.

You really are having difficulty with simple concepts presented, aren't you?

Do I again, have to explain to you that govenment restrictions, i.e. laws are what prohibit you from shooting someone? I really hope that I don't have to explain that to you again. Please tell me you understand legislated restrictions imposed by the government and restriction put in place by an external, third party (i.e. not the government for the slow)

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #101 of 176
Tulkas, with your thinking, I'd advise you to never buy a house with a home owners association.
post #102 of 176
I've jailbroken my phone and haven't pirated anything. In fact I think there are websites that you can download all the apps without the DRM without jailbreaking (and I remember reading that Saurik banned some of some people who were promoting pirated apps from doing so via Cydia). Jailbreaking does allow me to have more than one app open at once, change the theme on my iPhone, and to use my 3G phone to shoot video etc. all of which are legal and don't affect your bandwidth in any way.
post #103 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

This wouldn't be necessary if Apple ran an open platform and allowed people to install whatever they liked ON THEIR OWN HARDWARE.

Apple brought jailbreaking upon themselves, and long may it continue.

This is EXACTLY what I want to say. I run a jailbroken iPhone because I want to be able to do what I want with MY hardware. Apple doesn't own my iPhone, I do. It's unethical for them to try to tell me what I can and can't run on MY hardware.

If I want to give up a bit of battery life and let something I consider important, I can. If I want to run code on MY hardware, I can. And Apple should be prohibited from doing anything that might stop me. They're welcome to put up scary warnings when I install something unapproved, but they shouldn't be able to even attempt to stop me.
post #104 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Sure that sounds reasonable to you but from AT&T's perspective, they structured the data plan for the iPhone based on what they thought would be typical usage patterns by a phone user. A notebook computer can consume a lot more data than someone on a phone would ever use.

True enough. What that equates to is that they structured and offered their data plans with the assumption that you would not use it fully. If you buy 12 apples, it should be expected that you might want all of them. If they only let you take take home 5, then they shouldn't have charged you for 12. Ignoring tethering, AT&T's entire structure for data was flawed as is evidenced by their own statements on how they did not expect the surge in data usage that the average iPhone user generated. They anticipated and based their plans around the assumption that people would not use what they paid for, but they would charge for it fully regardless.

Notebook can use up more data, but if the usage levels are within you plan, shouldn't you be entitled to use that data? Should they then be prohibiting tethering?

But, as tundraboy believes, using what you paid for is sociopathic.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #105 of 176
I've read some of this thread, but can't really bear to read any more comments degrading and flat out blaming the jailbreaking community for a number of problems.

I honestly don't think that the few people who have jailbroken their phone to use the slingbox app over th 3G network are really contributing that much to the overall network congestion. All the 14 year old girls that have never heard of jailbreaking, but are addicted to youtube probably contribute more. What we have here is an arbitrary restriction on bandwidth that is based on one additional non bandwidth related criteria: who provides the app? Why is it that if Apple provides an app, it can be a bandwidth hog, but others can't?

Don't get me wrong, I fully recognize Apples right to restrict apps to protect and shape the user experience for the majority of their customers as they see fit. However, I also recognize that some people desire more out of their phones, and why shouldn't they be able to get it if they have the means to (at their own risk of course)? Things such as piracy should be dealt with separately and are already illegal anyway. If you jailbrake your phone to steal apps, you are doing something illegal. I however, don't see anything morally wrong with jailbreaking your phone to use an app that was not approved for the app store, or to unlock additional functions of the phone. I don't know American laws, but if the process of jailbreaking a phone, is/ever becomes illegal, it will be a very sad day for the consumer.

When I bought my iPhone, I expected to jailbrake it, but thus far I haven't felt the need to. I do however acknowledge and support those who do.

One additional comment. I'm of the opinion that carrier locking should be illegal, or at the very least unlocking should be legal and unlocking services must be provided (at the point of sale) for phones that are not being subsidized by the carrier. If you buy a phone outright, why should it be restricted to a certain carrier? The phone is yours, the carrier you purchased it from is simply a vendor. Similarly if you complete the terms of your contract, or pay the termination fee, the carrier should have no further influence on who you get your cell service from. Again the phone is yours to keep and your relationship with the cell carrier has ended, yet they attempt to keep you through locking your phone to their cell service. Jailbreaking to unlock your phone for use with another carrier should not be required in the first place. In Canada we had proposed legislation that would have made it illegal to unlock a phone, and that is completely the wrong direction (again I don't know the American law, maybe someone could enlighten me).
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #106 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by amtwwg View Post

What a ridiculous, ignorant comment. I jailbreak and don't use any of those applications. Jailbreaking isn't for running illegal applications, it's for having CONTROL over the device i BOUGHT, meaning I own it. ...

Good for you if you don't rip off apps, but this is a specious argument you are making here.

1) You *do* have control over the phone, you can install Linux on it, hammer nails with the case, ... whatever you want.
2) You don't "own" the software on the phone, you only license it.
3) When you licence the software you agree to the contract.

The only study I'm aware of done by anyone into the details of whether apps are ripped off by jail-breakers came back with a figure of over 90% (theft). An app maker tracked the apps usage by having it call home and it turned out that over 90% of all the people using his app did not actually buy it. 90% for cripes sake!

So yeah, jail-breaking your phone is not *necessarily* done to steal apps, but give the average idiot the possibility of getting all the apps for free and guess what happens?
post #107 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by JupiterOne View Post

Tulkas, with your thinking, I'd advise you to never buy a house with a home owners association.

And I would be adverse to ever buying a home in a neighbourhood with restrictive covenants. That leads to things like idiots sending veterans letters telling them they have to take down their little garden flags. Asinine restrictions are just asinine restrictions.

Some people like to have others think for them. It makes them worm and fuzzy I guess or maybe thinking it just to hard. (tundraboy, newbee, etc). They are likely the type that would opt for a homeowners association that would instruct them on how to act, think and behave...otherwise they risk being sociopathic, narcissistic, thieves...or people capable of their own thoughts, but that might be a little to edgy for them.

Actually, you make a very good point. The people raging against jailbreaking do seem to share a common trait, but I wasn't able to really put my finger on it until your post. They really are like those that love homeowner associations with really restrictive covenants...unthinking zombies...

It's the Stepford Wives.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #108 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

You really are having difficulty with simple concepts presented, aren't you?

Do I again, have to explain to you that govenment restrictions, i.e. laws are what prohibit you from shooting someone? I really hope that I don't have to explain that to you again. Please tell me you understand legislated restrictions imposed by the government and restriction put in place by an external, third party (i.e. not the government for the slow)

Perhaps my "attempt" at humor was over the top/ your head ... I would have thought the placement of TWO LAUGHING ICONS would have been a big enough hint. ...my bad.
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
post #109 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I installed a tethering profile freely available over the internet. It installs from the iPhones browser and allows tethering. worked the same way for MMS. It doesnt require bypassing any of the locks in place in the OS and doesnt allow for anything else than adding that specific profile to the iPhone. However, this only worked up until 3.0.1, after that the profiles were signed making tethering a complex setup even for jailbroken phones running 3.1 or later. There is a very distinct difference between adding a profile, unlocking and jailbreaking.


Thanks for clearing that up for me .... who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks?
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
post #110 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

There is no way for AT&T to determine if an Iphone is jailbroken or not and whether the app using bandwidth was purchase or not. What AT&T is say which is the case even for computer and the internet, it is only a small % of the users who actually use most of the bandwidth. Their concerns are what happen if this trend changes and a larger % start using more bandwidth.

BTW the same was true 20 yrs again what only a small % use most of the phone bandwidth. Phone networks were only designed to handle 1/3 of all the possible calls if everyone tried making a call at once.

Of course, the significant difference is that you pay for each call. If you make more calls and use more bandwidth, you pay more. In the case of the iPhone and data usage, everyone pays the same amount, and yet some use significantly more bandwidth than others. But this applies to whether the iPhone was jailbroken or not, so it doesn't really matter in the context of this conversation unless it can be shown that jailbroken phones (and the apps then installed on them) use a disproportionate share of the bandwidth.
post #111 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

True enough. What that equates to is that they structured and offered their data plans with the assumption that you would not use it fully. If you buy 12 apples, it should be expected that you might want all of them. If they only let you take take home 5, then they shouldn't have charged you for 12.

Not exactly how I think they intended. Lets say a grocery store runs an ad that says apples 1 cent each. Limit 5 per customer. The 5 apples is ok because the store knows your are going to buy milk and eggs while you are there getting your bargain apples. Sure you can come back every 2 minutes and buy just 5 more apples but it isn't very convenient for you to do that. The store isn't going to let you back up a truck and buy apples all day long at 1 cent each, they would lose money.

AT&T wants to charge you as much as the market will bear for unlimited data knowing you can only download so much on a phone, but if you back up your (truck) notebook that messes up their economics of the original offer.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #112 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

... They really are like those that love homeowner associations with really restrictive covenants...unthinking zombies...

.

I think you'd find that HOA supporters are not at all about being "unthinking". Quite the opposite. It's more about forethought (because they need to read the CC&Rs to determine the implications of the restrictions) and retention of objective property value, in addition to use of HOA amenities. In the past, I found resident participation at HOA meetings generally demonstrates thoughtful (though sometimes vituperative), tempered concern and consideration for the community above individual rights. Not quite the same as you characterize it or them. As with the iPhone and services, your contractual agreement is a matter of choice. One's subjective agenda doesn't alter the nature of an agreement.

Aside from legalities, perhaps the iPhone usage disagreement simply comes down to where one applies the "greater good" concept ... as, in life.
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
post #113 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

Perhaps my "attempt" at humor was over the top/ your head ... I would have thought the placement of TWO LAUGHING ICONS would have been a big enough hint. ...my bad.

It was clear that it was an attempt at humour. But it was so irrelevant and showed such a complete misunderstanding of the issue, that it deserved a response.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #114 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Not exactly how I think they intended. Lets say a grocery store runs an ad that says apples 1 cent each. Limit 5 per customer. The 5 apples is ok because the store knows your are going to buy milk and eggs while you are there getting your bargain apples. Sure you can come back every 2 minutes and buy just 5 more apples but it isn't very convenient for you to do that. The store isn't going to let you back up a truck and buy apples all day long at 1 cent each, they would lose money.

AT&T wants to charge you as much as the market will bear for unlimited data knowing you can only download so much on a phone, but if you back up your (truck) notebook that messes up their economics of the original offer.

More similar to the grocery store advertising them as 5 cents each, unlimited quantity and then imposing restrictions on how you may carry them, because they expect you will only take 5. If their business plan is based around the economics of each customer only ever taking 5, then they should not advertise it as unlimited. And if they do impose a limit on how many you may take, how you take it should be irrelevant.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #115 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by CurtisEMayle View Post

I think you'd find that HOA supporters are not at all about being "unthinking". Quite the opposite. It's more about forethought and retention of objective property value, in addition to use of HOA amenities. In the past, I found resident participation at HOA meetings generally demonstrates thoughtful (though sometimes vituperative), tempered concern and consideration for the community above individual rights. Not quite the same as you characterize it or them. As with the iPhone and services, your contractual agreement is a matter of choice. One's subjective agenda doesn't alter the nature of an agreement.

Aside from legalities, perhaps the iPhone usage disagreement simply comes down to where one applies the "greater good" concept ... as, in life.

The thing about 'common good' is it never seems to work well when imposed.

I am quite certain there are those that love the idea of HOA. I do not.

I try to live very concerned about how my decisions affect those around me. I like to think I am concerned about the 'common good' of my community, neighbourhood, etc. But, I also like to think I still have freedom of choice in my own home, within the law (it is unfortunate that I have to make this obvious qualification, but...), even if this freedom is only imagined.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #116 of 176
Man over 100 posts. Tulkas, I give you the cookie for (sort-of, maybe, probably not in the right way, trying) to fight the good fight but I think you're fighting a losing battle with this crowd. Unless of course you're actually trying to encourage crazy response rates to this article and make apple insider enough ad money to power the servers for the year heh.

For my own anecdotal experience, I don't know of anyone who has a jailbroken device that steals applications. They usually would do this to enable applications which apple would reject. However, has time has progressed, most of my friends and associates don't even bother anymore. Most of what the iphone offers are "good enough" not to bother. The only things they lament on are: "Where's my Google Voice App" and "Show me the tethering!!". Unfortunately these "friends" have not given me a Voice invite so I can't join that choir and I think AT&T would price tethering out of the range of usefulness anyway. Not to mention 3G is so damned slow for anything.

I see jailbreaking as the "competitor" to the sanctioned Apple Apps which Apple has to compete with. While for me personally, its too much of a pain in the arse to bother with, if it encourages Apple to actually offer the functionally in sanctioned Apps then I'm all for it.

However, my overall view on the topic is, "What the hell do I care what someone else does with their phone?". Jailbreaking is Apple's problem; not mine.
post #117 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

The thing about 'common good' is it never seems to work well when imposed.

I am quite certain there are those that love the idea of HOA. I do not.

I try to live very concerned about how my decisions affect those around me. I like to think I am concerned about the 'common good' of my community, neighbourhood, etc. But, I also like to think I still have freedom of choice in my own home, within the law (it is unfortunate that I have to make this obvious qualification, but...), even if this freedom is only imagined.

"Imposed" is one of those emotional triggers. In the analogy of an HOA, and with the iPhone usage agreement, I was under the impression an agreement was being discussed, not an imposition (implicitly or explicitly). That then comes down to pre-purchase choice. If I'm mistaken and it's about an imposition of unstated limitations, then that would be a different matter.

As a recent poster pointed out regarding iPhone ownership, there are restrictions on both ownership and licensing. Agreed, the same is true for community standards, regulations, and laws ... both internal and external to the residence structure and property. Freedom of choice is not absolute, but it should be clearly stated, or appropriately rectified when in dispute. But, getting wound up on how usage should be, in order to justify one's actions, seems faulty.
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
post #118 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

You seem very easily confused. Perhaps I should repeat what you replied to:


Where do I say the contract should be broken? My argument is that because the contracts are becoming so overly restrictive, this is a reason why net neutrality has become an issue. You don't agree with that argument? OK, you explain why it is not a reason why net neutrality has become an issue. You think it is because people are happy with the restrictions in place?

Let me know if you need me to repeat this again. I 'd like you to be able to keep up.

First of all, all of my previous posts have been against jailbreaking, hence my references to contracts. If I have mistakenly assumed that your take on jailbreaking was that it's ok then I apologize for that. (It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong btw)

Secondly, on net neutrality and restrictions. While, on the surface, total freedom on the use of the internet seems like a worthy goal. The problem , as I see it, would be the same as always. Some people will try to abuse it by posting offensive material, by hogging bandwidth, etc. Let's face it, if I am surrounded by a few hundred people downloading/uploading 24/7, I'm guessing my internet provider will want to charge them more or, what's worse, charge me more for a small amount of usage. So I think we are in for some restrictions, if we like it or not. The trick now is to properly define "overly restrictive". Good luck with that one. P.S. Don't worry about me keeping up. I may be slow, but I'm not stopped.
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
post #119 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

More similar to the grocery store advertising them as 5 cents each, unlimited quantity and then imposing restrictions on how you may carry them, because they expect you will only take 5. If their business plan is based around the economics of each customer only ever taking 5, then they should not advertise it as unlimited. And if they do impose a limit on how many you may take, how you take it should be irrelevant.

Actually, as far as analogies on the economics of the AT&T data plan goes, it's more like an "all you can eat" buffet. You can eat as much as you want, while you are there, but you can't take a "doggy bag" home with you, nor can two people share a plate. It's priced based on the expectation that the average person can only eat so much. Tethering your notebook is like sharing your plate with a competitive eater.

Anyway, the data plan is part of the overall service agreement, which does include unlimited data, but also forbids tethering, so obviously, it's only unlimited within that context.
post #120 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

It was clear that it was an attempt at humour. But it was so irrelevant and showed such a complete misunderstanding of the issue, that it deserved a response.


Humor doesn't HAVE to be relevant, just funny. Jeeesh even, take a vallium, would you?
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple fights off hackers with new iPhone 3GS firmware