or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › iPad 'jailbreak' demoed, compatible with iPhone 3GS, iPod touch
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iPad 'jailbreak' demoed, compatible with iPhone 3GS, iPod touch

post #1 of 81
Thread Starter 
Members of the iPhone hacking community have demonstrated a way to jailbreak Apple's iPad -- as well as the iPhone 3GS and third-generation iPod touch -- with a public release of the software said to be forthcoming.

Known as the "Spirit" jailbreak, the software allegedly works with iPhone OS 3.2, currently available for the iPad only, as well as iPhone OS 3.1.3 for the iPhone and iPod touch. It could also allow users of the latest hardware revision of the iPhone 3GS to unlock their handset for use on alternative carriers.

A member of the iPhone Dev Team who goes by the handle "MuscleNerd" revealed the hack in a video posted to YouTube just a day after the iPad launched. The video shows the user gaining root access to the iPad and using it to command the iPad to close the Maps application.

The demonstration with the iPad came soon after another hacker, George "Geohot" Hotz, demonstrated a new method to jailbreak the iPhone 3GS and third-generation iPod touch. The hacker said his method would "probably" work on the iPad, but hasn't provided any updates since the hardware was released.

While iPhone users can rely on jailbreaking to unlock their handset for use with unauthorized carriers, the 3G-capable version of the iPad, scheduled to arrive in late April, ships unlocked by default. However, its 3G frequencies are only compatible with AT&T in the U.S.

But the warranty-voiding jailbreak process can also allow users to run software Apple does not allow. Hackers have created their own custom applications that allow features, like multitasking, which not currently permitted within the iPhone OS.



Late last year, Apple quietly updated the BootROM in the iPhone 3GS to thwart potential hackers. It marked the first time ever that the handset maker had modified its hardware in the middle of a product line, without a new model released.

The new BootROM, known as iBoot-359.32, has proven challenging for hackers, who have only been able to publicly release a tethered jailbreak, which requires users to connect their iPhone to a computer via USB every time they reboot the device.

Of course the battle between hackers who want to run modified versions of the iPhone OS and Apple will continue, with the Cupertino, Calif., company set to unveil the latest update to its mobile operating system, iPhone OS 4.0, at an event scheduled for Thursday. As with previous updates to the mobile operating system, the new version will likely include new security measures designed to thwart hackers.

Apple and the jailbreaking community have gone back and forth for some time, as the iPhone maker has looked to close avenues used by hackers. One of the main concerns about jailbreaking is piracy, as the procedure can allow users to steal software from the App Store.
post #2 of 81
How much of a security threat is a jailbreak? I am under the impression it's huge potential trapdoor for users, but I could be misinformed.
post #3 of 81
jailbreaking --> installous --> stealing.

i do not mind ethical uses of JB'ing, but to many kids out there want to JB so they can get free apps.
post #4 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh.B. View Post

Jailbreaking does NOT "allow users to steal software from the App Store". Are there any other "main concerns"? It seems telling that the one and only "main concern" that was mentioned is a total fabrication.

So why does Apple use its limited resources to thwart jailbreaking? Why is it necessary for owners of Apple devices to jailbreak in the first place?

Just as Microsoft protects content on the Xbox 360 and Sony (who have removed 'other OS' support' from the PS3, which was presenting as a security issue) protect their systems from hacking so must Apple. No publisher wishes to produce content for a platform which can be easily hacked enabling the user/pirate to run copied software. This is what jailbreaking enables whether you run pirate software or not.

Its ALL about piracy and the pressure placed on platform owners by publishers of any copyrighted media.
post #5 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post

How much of a security threat is a jailbreak?

Zero.
Quote:
Originally Posted by s4mb4 View Post

jailbreaking --> installous --> stealing..

This is the same stupid analogy like "people who smoke pot will do crack someday".
post #6 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by emulator View Post

Zero.

That's a pretty confident statement, care to back it up?
post #7 of 81
"Warranty voiding"? Not if you restore the regular firmware.

AppleInsider seems to have a very negative attitude about jailbreaking. Why is that?
post #8 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by emulator View Post

{How much of a security threat is jailbreaking?} Zero.

This is absolutely false. There are known exploits that affect jailbroken iPhones, but not other iPhones. Jailbreaking clearly adds a new security issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh.B. View Post

So why does Apple use its limited resources to thwart jailbreaking? Why is it necessary for owners of Apple devices to jailbreak in the first place?

A variety of reasons, but mostly related to ensuring a standard, uniformly positive user experience.

What happens when someone tries to update a jailbroken phone and bricks it? They blame Apple.

What happens when someone has a jailbroken phone and it doesn't work properly? They blame Apple.

What happens when a jailbroken phone gets a virus? People (especially 'tech' writers) blame Apple.

What happens when someone with a jailbroken phone calls Apple for help? It costs Apple money to fix something they should have to fix in the first place (even if they tell the customer it's not covered by warranty, it still costs Apple money to make that determination).

Apple is all about consistency and user experience. Jailbroken phones damage that so don't expect Apple to support you - or encourage you in any way. It just doesn't make sense for them to do so.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #9 of 81
Of course, by the time Jailbreak comes out, iPhone OS 4.0 will be revealed and hopefully fewer reasons to jailbreak.
post #10 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post

How much of a security threat is a jailbreak? I am under the impression it's huge potential trapdoor for users, but I could be misinformed.

It depends. The issues cropping up last year were jailbreakers who also installed SSH and then never changed their default SSH password. Then there are issues with an app that hasn't been vetted by Apple and the holes being exploited themselves.. Overall, it's pretty safe but the user has to be knowledgeable enough to know what they are doing. I'm not opposed to more hoops setup to jailbreak. GeoHot made it too simple.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #11 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh.B. View Post

Jailbreaking does NOT "allow users to steal software from the App Store". Are there any other "main concerns"? It seems telling that the one and only "main concern" that was mentioned is a total fabrication.

So why does Apple use its limited resources to thwart jailbreaking? Why is it necessary for owners of Apple devices to jailbreak in the first place?

I may be wrong but I was of the understanding apps can be shared and loaded into a jail-broken iPhone (so presumably iPad). Newsgroups and the like carry many already so I assume they work although I have no idea if they do or not. If not they are certainly wasting bandwidth uploading them!
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #12 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

Its ALL about piracy and the pressure placed on platform owners by publishers of any copyrighted media.

No, it's not! I run a small company with 20 employees. Simply put: I rely on Apple to protect me from loads of viruses, problems the user can't solve themselves and other unwanted support issues. Apples protective ways saves me money and time. And gives me the right arguments to choose Apple in front of Windows. I am willing to pay a premium for that if necessary. Since I do not need other stuff like virus programs, support and other problems.
post #13 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

It depends. The issues cropping up last year were jailbreakers who also installed SSH and then never changed their default SSH password. Then there are issues with an app that hasn't been vetted by Apple and the holes being exploited themselves.. Overall, it's pretty safe but the user has to be knowledgeable enough to know what they are doing. I'm not opposed to more hoops setup to jailbreak. GeoHot made it too simple.

Potential full read-write access to the entire filesystem, and people rarely change their SSH password. You tell ME how safe that is.
post #14 of 81
I jailbroke my ipod and I will jailbreak the ipad as soon as I can. I don't do anything illegal. I simply want to be able to customize the look and feel of my device. If I pay so much money for something, it is mine and I want to be able to do whatever the hell I want with it. If I want a customized theme or sounds, then I'm going to do whatever process is required to be able to install them. If I want apps that apple has deemed inappropriate, well it's my device and I will install anything I damn well please. it is all fine an dandy to want to give customers a quality user experience by locking the device down, but some customers want more. better yet, why not take the issues most jailbreakers talk about, the biggest reasons why people jailbreak in the first place, and implement them into the product to begin with. Do that and innocent jailbreakers will no longer have a need for it.
post #15 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I may be wrong but I was of the understanding apps can be shared and loaded into a jail-broken iPhone (so presumably iPad). Newsgroups and the like carry many already so I assume they work although I have no idea if they do or not. If not they are certainly wasting bandwidth uploading them!

The apps that you can get on a jailbroken device are apps specifically written for that. They are apps that apple will not allow in the app store. Apps that allow processes that apple doesn't want you to be able to have. Sometimes they are free, and sometimes you still have to pay for them.
post #16 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I may be wrong but I was of the understanding apps can be shared and loaded into a jail-broken iPhone (so presumably iPad). Newsgroups and the like carry many already so I assume they work although I have no idea if they do or not. If not they are certainly wasting bandwidth uploading them!

The key is that you must have a copy of the application in hand (downloaded/copied from somewhere) so that you can apply the hack that allows the digital signature stuff to run - and of course your iPhone/Touch and now iPad must be jail-broken to get the hack to work.

Because it is the digital signature that is compromised to allow you fool the OS into thinking it is OK it opens the application to anything, including dangerous code (malicious or just poorly written). It also allows people to apply hacks such as the removal of copyright notices and the copying not only of the app but codes resources which can be traced using gdb or other tools.

There are times it would have been nice to change a bit of an app just by editing a nib or a SQLite database to add some functionality but that is not allowed under the EULA (please, lets not get off on whether the EULA is enforceable or not since that has been beaten to death).

I look forward to iPhone OS 4 and the enhancements it will bring to all of us. I don't need to jailbreak my iPhone or my iPad.
post #17 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by sigsanders View Post

I jailbroke my ipod and I will jailbreak the ipad as soon as I can. I don't do anything illegal.

You do not own Mac OS or iPHone OS. You have a license to use it. That license comes with certain terms. One of those terms is that you can not jail break it. So you have broken the license agreement.

Just ask Psystar how legal it is. They were very severely slapped around by the judge for doing essentially what you're advocating. The fact that they made money on it was not a key part of the decision.

All of this "it's my device and I can do what I want" whining is a bunch of self-centered rationalization by people who have no clue about intellectual property.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #18 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by sigsanders View Post

The apps that you can get on a jailbroken device are apps specifically written for that. They are apps that apple will not allow in the app store. Apps that allow processes that apple doesn't want you to be able to have. Sometimes they are free, and sometimes you still have to pay for them.

Au contraire! You are mistaken - any app can be used and the code signing broken to STEAL a copy of that app. As I mentioned in a previous post all you need is access to the app itself via a friend that haas purchased or stolen it or BitTorrent. The simple process to overcome the code signing is well documented on the internet by those that are interested in such exploits.

Code signing serves multiple purposes of which DRM is just one. The other is that it is supposed to provide you with a digital certificate that indicates it has not been hacked or patched so that viruses and malicious code does not begin to move about our devices.

All of OS X is signed which is an assurance that you are running unmodified code. I for one like that - a lot!
post #19 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

YJust ask Psystar how legal it is. They were very severely slapped around by the judge for doing essentially what you're advocating. The fact that they made money on it was not a key part of the decision.

No, they weren't. They were sued for creating a business around it. Apple has never gone after the OSx86 Project, they've never gone after the iPhone OS jailbreakers, and they never gone after the end user not even Psystar's customers which they would have had a record of due to the court case.

Does it go against your agreement? Sure. Is it something to be worried about? Depends on your level of expertise in that if you foolishly send your device to Apple to fix an issue without wiping the device first they may end up dropping you from your warranty. Is that a reason for no one to ever jailbreak? Absolutely not. It's your device, do with it what your wish, but if you break an agreement be prepared to also suffer the consequences if you get caught
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #20 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot View Post

The key is that you must have a copy of the application in hand (downloaded/copied from somewhere) so that you can apply the hack that allows the digital signature stuff to run - and of course your iPhone/Touch and now iPad must be jail-broken to get the hack to work.

Because it is the digital signature that is compromised to allow you fool the OS into thinking it is OK it opens the application to anything, including dangerous code (malicious or just poorly written). It also allows people to apply hacks such as the removal of copyright notices and the copying not only of the app but codes resources which can be traced using gdb or other tools.

There are times it would have been nice to change a bit of an app just by editing a nib or a SQLite database to add some functionality but that is not allowed under the EULA (please, lets not get off on whether the EULA is enforceable or not since that has been beaten to death).

I look forward to iPhone OS 4 and the enhancements it will bring to all of us. I don't need to jailbreak my iPhone or my iPad.

Thanks for the explanation. I was shown an upload of the Tom Tom software a while back and assumed it would work on a jail broken device. As solipsism warns though, I am not prepared to lose my Apple cover and have no interest in such things other than out of academic curiosity.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #21 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

No, they weren't. They were sued for creating a business around it. Apple has never gone after the OSx86 Project, they've never gone after the iPhone OS jailbreakers, and they never gone after the end user not even Psystar's customers which they would have had a record of due to the court case.

You need to go back and read Judge Alsup's ruling. There is absolutely nothing in the ruling related to resale.

Psystar was penalized for things like:
- Making derivative works, not selling them
- Making unauthorized copies, not selling them
- Circumventing DMCA, not selling systems

Alsup was very, very clear. The actions that Psystar did were illegal - whether they sold the units or not. Please read the rulings before posting on the subject.

The fact that Apple hasn't gone after jailbreakers or OS X 86 isn't at all relevant to the discussion. It may simply not be worth the effort to them at this point. That doesn't mean they agree with it. In fact, their EULA specifically says that they DON'T agree with it.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #22 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by tumme-totte View Post

No, it's not! I run a small company with 20 employees. Simply put: I rely on Apple to protect me from loads of viruses, problems the user can't solve themselves and other unwanted support issues. Apples protective ways saves me money and time. And gives me the right arguments to choose Apple in front of Windows. I am willing to pay a premium for that if necessary. Since I do not need other stuff like virus programs, support and other problems.

Whoa there...are you so sure of your superior security?

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...g_contest.html

As apple products become more mainstream and popular they are going to become a much greater target for malicious hackers and criminal enterprise. We've just seen the tip of the iceberg. Sorry, but security is one area where Apple better plan on making a huge push. In the past, part of apples security was their dedicated fan base. This benefit has become diluted by the popular public with little or no computer knowledge.

I'm a proud owner of multiple apple products, but I'm also waiting for the &$)@ to hit the fan.
post #23 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

You need to go back and read Judge Alsup's ruling. There is absolutely nothing in the ruling related to resale.

Psystar was penalized for things like:
- Making derivative works, not selling them
- Making unauthorized copies, not selling them
- Circumventing DMCA, not selling systems

Alsup was very, very clear. The actions that Psystar did were illegal - whether they sold the units or not. Please read the rulings before posting on the subject.

No, they were sued for creating a business around it. What they were penalized for is irrelevant, what is relevant is why Apple went after them in the first place.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #24 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh.B. View Post

If this is true, then why does Apple allow software installation on a Mac which has not been preapproved?

ISTM that each and every thing you say could be a reason for Apple to lock down the Mac too. But they have not.

So I ask again why it is necessary to jailbreak iDevices?

Maybe no one has explained it to you - an iPhone and a Mac are different. Customers have different expectations from a cell phone than from a personal computer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

No, they were sued for creating a business around it. What they were penalized for is irrelevant, what is relevant is why Apple went after them in the first place.

Please read the court filings before spewing nonsense. It may be true that Apple chose to go after Psystar for commercial reasons, but the fact that Psystar was selling the computers had no place in the rulings. The rulings stated very clearly that what Psystar did was wrong - not because they were selling them for a profit, but because they violated the EULA and DMCA. Your continued assertions otherwise do not invalidate the very simple, clear court ruling on the subject.

Please stop with the unfounded nonsense when you apparently haven't even read the relevant court rulings.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #25 of 81
The EULA is a contract. It isn't a criminal statute that you can violate. When you jailbreak you do violate the EULA. But that's simply breach of contract, not a criminal act.

Where it can get hairy is where the DMCA comes into play. However the DMCA only makes it criminal if you are doing it for criminal acts, or if the value of the software ripped off exceeds a certain amount.

Just like if you break your lease, the landlord can sue you for damages but you won't go to jail.

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #26 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

The EULA is a contract. It isn't a criminal statute that you can violate. When you jailbreak you do violate the EULA. But that's simply breach of contract, not a criminal act.

Where it can get hairy is where the DMCA comes into play. However the DMCA only makes it criminal if you are doing it for criminal acts, or if the value of the software ripped off exceeds a certain amount.

Just like if you break your lease, the landlord can sue you for damages but you won't go to jail.

All true. But where did anyone say that you'd go to jail for jailbreaking your phone? That is what is called a strawman argument.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #27 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

All true. But where did anyone say that you'd go to jail for jailbreaking your phone? That is what is called a strawman argument.

People were calling it illegal to jailbreak.

In actuality the law allows us to breach contracts where it is efficient. Seems like this is one of those cases. (The value to apple of keeping your device locked down is next to 0, while he value to you of jailbreaking is much higher.)

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #28 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

PIn actuality the law allows us to breach contracts where it is efficient. Seems like this is one of those cases. (The value to apple of keeping your device locked down is next to 0, while he value to you of jailbreaking is much higher.)

That is, of course, nonsense. There is a great deal of value to Apple to having consistency and not being faced with consumer complaints.

More importantly, what precedent allows a user to sign a contract and then violate it simply because they want to do something different? That's what you're advocating and it's not supported by any law on the books.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #29 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Please read the court filings before spewing nonsense. It may be true that Apple chose to go after Psystar for commercial reasons, but the fact that Psystar was selling the computers had no place in the rulings. The rulings stated very clearly that what Psystar did was wrong - not because they were selling them for a profit, but because they violated the EULA and DMCA. Your continued assertions otherwise do not invalidate the very simple, clear court ruling on the subject.

Please stop with the unfounded nonsense when you apparently haven't even read the relevant court rulings.

Oy vey! Look, it's not that hard. Apple went after Psystar for selling Mac clones. They have never gone after any of the very public projects to run any flavor of OS X on other machines, including the OSx86 Project which made Psystar possible in the first place, or users.

The ruling is the decision made by the judge. It is not made by Apple! Apple didn't submit a ruling to the courts. The judge's decision, called a ruling, is a RESULT of the case Apple presented.


PS: May be true? What other reasons could there possibly be if not relating to commerce?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #30 of 81
Just curious if a jail broken iPad 3G will be able to make phone calls.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #31 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by s4mb4 View Post

jailbreaking --> installous --> stealing.

i do not mind ethical uses of JB'ing, but to many kids out there want to JB so they can get free apps.

Those who want to steal will do it regardless. If it's not Apple, it'll be something else.

I view guys like these as free R&D for Apple!
post #32 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Just curious if a jail broken iPad 3G will be able to make phone calls.

What's with this stuff about iPads not being able to make phone calls!?

Heard of Skype? Truphone? Text+?
post #33 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Oy vey! Look, it's not that hard. Apple went after Psystar for selling Mac clones. They have never gone after any of the very public projects to run any flavor of OS X on other machines, including the OSx86 Project which made Psystar possible in the first place, or users.

The ruling is the decision made by the judge. It is not made by Apple! Apple didn't submit a ruling to the courts. The judge's decision, called a ruling, is a RESULT of the case Apple presented.


PS: May be true? What other reasons could there possibly be if not relating to commerce?

That's all completely, 100% irrelevant.

Someone asked whether jailbreaking the iPad was wrong or not. According to Alsup's decision, it is clearly wrong - a violation of both the EULA and DMCA (regardless of whether you do it for commercial or personal reasons). The court has ruled that it's wrong.

Whether Apple is going to go after you for doing it is a completely different, and irrelevant, topic.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #34 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

What's with this stuff about iPads not being able to make phone calls!?

Heard of Skype? Truphone? Text+?

I have skype and an account with a phone number for when I travel abroad. Does it work over the 3G network as well as wifi?

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #35 of 81
I find it funny that people who have no problem torrenting a movie or an album get all up in arms about doing the same with an iPhone/iPad app. I would even go as far as saying that some people who make apps for the AppStore that complain about people pirating their games have downloaded a movie or song from the internet.

If you are ok torrenting a movie, don't draw some imaginary line with an app from the AppStore.

Anyway, I can't wait to jailbreak my iPad. SBSettings is sorely missed.
post #36 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I have skype and an account with a phone number for when I travel abroad. Does it work over the 3G network as well as wifi?

I don't have the 3G model yet (eagerly waiting for it), but I don't see why not?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125486091615268647.html
post #37 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I don't have the 3G model yet (eagerly waiting for it), but I don't see why not?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125486091615268647.html

I just tried it on my iPhone.

"You need WiFi to call over Skype. Skype calls over 3G networks are currently not allowed due to contractual restrictions."

That is the error message I get.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #38 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That is, of course, nonsense. There is a great deal of value to Apple to having consistency and not being faced with consumer complaints.

And when someone jailbreaks, the warranty is voided and Apple is off the hook with regard to customer complaints. This would make it GOOD for apple for people to jailbreak, seeing as though Apple charges over $100 for a year of warranty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

More importantly, what precedent allows a user to sign a contract and then violate it simply because they want to do something different? That's what you're advocating and it's not supported by any law on the books.

It's a legal theory called "Efficient Breach" put forth by Richard Posner. It's actually supported by our whole body of contracts law which allows a party only to recover for actual damages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_breach

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #39 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That's all completely, 100% irrelevant.

Someone asked whether jailbreaking the iPad was wrong or not. According to Alsup's decision, it is clearly wrong - a violation of both the EULA and DMCA (regardless of whether you do it for commercial or personal reasons). The court has ruled that it's wrong.

Whether Apple is going to go after you for doing it is a completely different, and irrelevant, topic.

Violating a contract such as an EULA is wholly different from doing something criminal. Just because the law allows a plaintiff to get damages in a civil suit from the defendant doesn't mean the defendant was doing something morally wrong in any way.

Is it wrong to pay for food instead of rent when you only have enough money to pay for one? No. But can you be sued for it? Yes.

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #40 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh.B. View Post

Orders for specific performance of contracts are rare. When specific performance would cause economic waste, such orders are nearly nonexistent.

Courts generally do NOT enforce the covenants contained in contracts. Instead, they require that the non-breaching party be put in as good a position as if the contract were fulfilled.

Indeed, specific performance of contractual terms is an extraordinary remedy.

Exactly. Specific performance is only allowed when the plaintiff cannot be made whole again by a monetary reward. The only application in the courts of this remedy has been in real estate contracts, since no two pieces of land are alike.

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › iPad 'jailbreak' demoed, compatible with iPhone 3GS, iPod touch