or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple and EFF argue over iPhone jailbreaking
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple and EFF argue over iPhone jailbreaking

post #1 of 95
Thread Starter 
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has filed requests with the US Copyright Office to exempt activities from legal threats under the DMCA, one of which attacks Apple's secured software business model on the iPhone.

Apple responded with claims that the EFF's exemption would only stifle innovation, not promote it, and claims that allowing users to jailbreak the iPhone would really only result in damage to the phone, its software market, and users' experience.

The Jailbreak DMCA Exemption

The EFF wants users to be able to freely modify Apple's iPhone software so that applications independent of the official App Store can be used on it. The group has proposed an exemption to the DMCA for "computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute lawfully obtained software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications with computer programs on the telephone handset."

Fred von Lohmann, writing for the EFF, called Apple's software restrictions for only allowing approved software to be installed via iTunes "corporate paternalism" and said it was comparable to an automaker welding shut the hood of its cars to only allow servicing to be done by authorized dealers. In response, Apple said in its own legal filing (PDF) that the EFF's "arguments really amount to an attack on Apples particular business choices with respect to the design of the iPhone mobile computing platform and the strategy for delivering applications software for the iPhone through the iPhone App Store."

"Much of EFFs arguments are based on issues that do not have relevance to a DMCA exemption, such as how Apple is compensated for distributing iPhone-compatible applications," Apple stated in the filing, noting that "Congress has already explicitly addressed circumvention for interoperability" in the DMCA, and that the "Copyright Office should not create interoperability exemptions outside that statutory structure, at least without a clear showing of specific and significant harm."

Apple said the "EFF apparently desires to use the rulemaking process to alter Apples business practices by negating DMCA protection for technologies that interfere with what EFF seems to assume would be a more socially desirable business model that is more 'open.' Specifically, it seeks through the proposed exemption to clear the path for those who would hack the iPhones operating system so that a proprietary mobile computing platform protected by copyright can be transformed into one on which any third party application can be run, without taking account of the undesirable consequences that would ensue from the transformation."

The iPhone software business model

The response also stated that the "EFFs submission offers no proof that this proposed transformation would actually increase innovation or investment in creative works, and as this submission demonstrates, it would not do so." After citing the success of the App Store business model (the company managed to repeat that it now has 15,000 apps for the iPhone seven different times in the document), Apple added, "the evidence shows that a business model in which handsets can be widely jailbroken with the attendant problems that result would in fact hinder the creation and distribution of creative works for the platform."

Apple stated that the iPhone's operating system "was designed not just to enable the making of phone calls, but specifically to provide a rich mobile computing platform so that Apple, applications developers and iPhone users could all benefit from a very wide range of functionality. In that respect, the significance of the iPhone OS to Apples entry and long-term product strategy cannot be overstated.

"The platform provided by the OS has created positive feedback loops so that a large community of developers has been willing to invest in iPhone technologies, elevate the platform and the iPhone user experience, and benefit themselves, Apple and consumers alike."

The iPhone security model

Apple described its security model as a "chain of trust," stating "The iPhone contains a number of TPMs [technology protection measures] that protect the bootloader and OS from modification or corruption, and verify their origin, thereby helping to ensure proper functioning of the device. A secure read only memory (ROM) in the hardware of the device contains cryptographic keys that are used to validate the bootloader and the OS.

"Upon power up, the secure ROM uses the keys to validate the bootloader before loading it (by verifying its digital signature), and the bootloader then validates the OS before loading it for execution (again, by verifying its digital signature). The validation process verifies that the bootloader and OS
originated from Apple and that they have not been altered.

"Commencing with version 2.0 of the OS, the OS similarly validates all application programs loaded into the iPhone, also by verifying their digital signatures to confirm that they have been accepted by Apple for execution on the iPhone and have not been altered. The sequence of validations from the bootloader to the OS to the application programs is referred to by Apple as the 'chain of trust.'"

Apple claims damages for jailbreaking

Apple described a number of reasons for protecting its software on the phone, stating that "modifications can readily cause significant problems in the operation of the iPhone for the following reasons, among others:

"The OS implements a number of essential safety and control functions. For example, it monitors the thermal condition of the device and shuts it down if it is overheating. It controls the charging of the battery, instructing the relevant circuitry when to start and stop charging the battery, and at what level to charge it. The OS also implements certain governors on the phones volume. If modifications to the OS were to interfere with these control functions, even unintentionally, the phone could be physically damaged or the battery could be overcharged.

"The OS implements a number of security functions that protect both the iPhone itself and the telephone network to which it connects. For example, the OS implements certain controls on how application programs are able to execute on the iPhone to help prevent viruses and other forms of malware from executing. Modification of the OS can interfere with these functions and open up security holes that could enable malware to accomplish malicious things through the iPhone, such as stealing information from the users contacts database. The OS also controls a critical portion of the device known as the baseband processor (BBP) that is used to connect to a telephone network and to utilize services on the network. By circumventing access controls on the OS, third parties could gain unauthorized access to the BBP, which could in turn result in gaining unauthorized access to and use of the telephone network or even causing operational damage to the network.

"The OS makes available functions and services to application programs through its APIs and system calls. Modifications to the OS can, whether intentionally or unintentionally, interfere with the proper operation of the APIs and system calls, causing application programs to fail to operate correctly on the phone. Moreover, updates to the OS distributed by Apple may not work correctly with modified earlier versions of the OS. When users attempt to update a device whose OS has been previously modified, serious functional problems can result, potentially causing the device to fail to operate."

Apple noted that "other phone vendors have done the same," citing the EFF's own submission, which described how the Android T-Mobile G1 "will load only signed firmware images, which prevents G1 users from making modifications to the operating system kernel."

Apple defends App Store restrictions

"Through the App Store, Apple is able to help prevent distribution of applications that could cause damage to its OS or cause other problems for end users. For example, through its current App Store review procedures, Apple has prevented distribution of applications that transfer excessive amounts of data to the phone network that can cause a degradation of service such as dropped calls, and applications that utilize undocumented APIs that are not designed for general usage and that can cause an application to crash when invoked. Apple currently also reviews
applications submitted to the App Store to screen for sexually explicit content and hate speech."

The filing also contradicted claims made by the EFF that that Apple refuses to approve applications that "duplicate functionality" offered by Apples own software. "This is incorrect. Apple has, for example, approved multiple general web browsers, which compete with Apples own Safari web browser, and multiple mail programs, which compete with Apples own mail program for the iPhone," the company said.

Apple also cited piracy as a reason for its App Store controls. "There are many instances in which unauthorized persons 'strip' the TPMs protecting such content, thereby placing it 'in the clear' (i.e., in unprotected form). With the TPM removed, pirated copies of the content in unprotected form can then be widely distributed among persons who do not pay for it, typically through unlawful peer-to-peer networks and other online distribution sites.

"Such has happened, for example, to a copyrighted game owned by Apple called 'Texas Hold 'Em,' as well as to a host of popular games from third party vendors. However, the stripped games can be played only on jailbroken iPhones, because the TPMs on the iPhone would otherwise prevent them from playing." Apple also noted the NES emulator app, which "will enable stripped Nintendo games to be played on jailbroken iPhones [contrary to the copyright of those games]."

"Apple believes that the proposed exemption would further facilitate and encourage this form of piracy. Piracy, in turn, can diminish the investment that developers are willing to make in the creation of copyrighted works for the iPhone, contrary to the fundamental purpose of the copyright law to encourage the creation of new works of authorship."

Apple's jailbreak expenses

Apple's filing also stated that "further modifications to the OS are often necessary to enable certain kinds of applications to run even after the basic jailbreaking is accomplished. Such modifications are infringing and can give rise to additional functional problems on the iPhone, such as interfering with operation of certain APIs or system calls, or creating incompatibilities with other updated components of the OS. In short, the initial infringing acts on the OS often lead to other infringing acts, which in turn can lead to yet further functional problems."

"Functional problems that result from unauthorized modifications to the OS increase Apples support costs substantially. Apples iPhone support department has received literally millions of reported incidents of software that crashes on jailbroken iPhones, although it works properly on unmodified iPhones. For example, one recent software crash caused by jailbroken phones was reported over 1.6 million times from users of just 10,000 jailbroken phones. Two other recent crashes caused by jailbroken phones were reported over 2 million times and over 2.4 million times, respectively.

"Apple has also become aware that some jailbroken versions of the bootloader make it impossible to update the baseband processor (BBP) in the iPhone, which controls the ability of the iPhone to connect up to the telephone network and make calls. Because each update that Apple distributes to the BBP contains updates and fixes, a phone that cannot update the BBP will potentially experience problems making calls. When that happens, Apples support department gets flooded with calls.

"Apple incurs very substantial expenses to investigate these problems reported to its support department to determine whether they result from problems in Apples own software, or result from unauthorized modifications performed by users in jailbreaking. Apple expects that reported problems from jailbroken phones will increase dramatically if the Class #1 exemption proposed by EFF were to be allowed, substantially increasing Apples support costs even more."

The fair use argument

The EFF's submission states that reproduction and modification of a phones firmware incident to jailbreaking is non-infringing fair use. Apple argues that jailbreaking fails all four "nonexclusive statutory fair use factors prescribed in § 107 of the copyright statute," which it cited as "(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

"Because a jailbroken OS is often used to play pirated content, such activity should be considered of a commercial nature since it avoids paying fees for the content. Therefore, factor 1 weighs against fair use. Factors 2 and 3 also weigh against fair use because the copyrighted works at issue are highly creative and not factual in nature, and essentially the entire work is being copied. Of most importance is factor 4, because the effect of these unauthorized uses is to diminish the value of the copyrighted works to Apple."

Apple states that the "EFFs argument that factor 4 cuts in favor of fair use because Apple makes various versions of the iPhone firmware available 'for free from its own website, demonstrating that the firmware has no independent economic value' is wholly off the mark. The iPhone firmware is not itself a product; it is a component of the iPhone mobile computing product.

"The value of the OS software to the iPhone, and therefore to Apple, cannot be assessed independent of the iPhone itself. The OSs value is as platform software for the mobile computing experience that differentiates the iPhone from its many competitors. The value of platform software, in turn, is related to the number and quality of applications written to run on the platform and the availability of safe and secure means of distributing these applications to consumers.

"Apple created at substantial cost the ecosystem that makes the SDK and the App Store available to developers, who in turn write applications to the platform, which in turn make the iPhone a more attractive product to consumers. All of these benefits are promoted by the TPMs that safeguard the iPhone OS. EFFs submission offers no evidence to support the bald assertions that nullifying DMCA protections for such TPMs will produce more benefits for society and more investment in copyrighted works than Apple has demonstrably created through its iPhone
product design and strategy."

Apple: no harm, no foul

"EFFs submission does not provide any support for the assumption underlying the proposed jailbreaking exemption that copyright advancement will be furthered and the level of innovation would be the same or better by nullifying TPMs on the iPhone in order to force a more open iPhone platform.

"Indeed, this assumption is contrary to Congress expressed beliefs in passing the DMCA in the first place that without the technological adjuncts of laws preventing circumvention of access controls, copyright expansion and innovation (so important to the U.S. economy) would be chilled, as companies questioned whether to spend millions on innovations that might not be legally protectable. In other words, that society would never even get innovations like the iPhone and the applications it has spawned in the first place."

The Copyright Office will deliberate over the proposed DMCA exemptions and issue a ruling in October.
post #2 of 95
First post! (Stupid, I know...)
When will the governments realize it's got to be funky, sexy ladies?
-Flight of the Conchords
Reply
When will the governments realize it's got to be funky, sexy ladies?
-Flight of the Conchords
Reply
post #3 of 95
I disagree with both EFF and Apple's reasoning.
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 #4 of 95
Quote:
Apple currently also reviews applications submitted to the App Store to screen for sexually explicit content and hate speech.

Interesting that Apple touts one of the two worst abuses of the App store as a positive. Who the hell asked them to limit what a paying adult can or cannot view on their legally purchased iPhone. The fact that they made an author remove the f' word from the book to be hosted on the App Store was beyond terrible, as bad as anything Wal-Mart ever did against music, but nobody seems to be very upset about Apple playing moral cop on the iPhone.

Oh well.
post #5 of 95
Quote:
"In other words, that society would never even get innovations like the iPhone and the applications it has spawned in the first place."

actually, tons of applications were available before the SDK "innovation" via the jailbreak
post #6 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by mknopp View Post

Interesting that Apple touts one of the two worst abuses of the App store as a positive. Who the hell asked them to limit what a paying adult can or cannot view on their legally purchased iPhone. The fact that they made an author remove the f' word from the book to be hosted on the App Store was beyond terrible, as bad as anything Wal-Mart ever did against music, but nobody seems to be very upset about Apple playing moral cop on the iPhone.

Oh well.

Yah I agree with you. I do feel they could still screen apps on their app store (it is theirs to do with what they want). I don't feel they should restrict what applications can run on an iphone though. I agree and disagree with both sides on this one.

I don't like how anyone can tell me what i can and can't do with something i OWN.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #7 of 95
Since "applications independent of the official App Store" means, 99.9% of the time, "pirated applications," and since I hope to sell an app or two of my own someday and get PAID for my efforts, I can't side with the EFF here.

I do want to see Apple loosen up its policies, though--and indeed they have been doing so.

(Note: I'm not saying Jailbreaking is mainly done for piracy--I think modding the UI is at least as big a reason, probably THE biggest, and I'm glad that jailbreaking is alive and well. I'm saying that if you made a list of the APPS people need to jailbreak to install, 99.9% of them will be pirated apps. With only a handful of original apps that Apple rejected. And yes, all of this is separate from the issue of carrier unlocking. I'm just talking apps.)
post #8 of 95
I have nothing against somebody who jailbreaks the iPhone if they just genuinely want to tinker with the device they pay for, without abusing the carrier's network. I'm a geek, and I love to play with my tech toys. It's geeks tinkering (ex Linux) that got IT to where it is today, and this should be strongly encouraged. Apple should absolutely not go after these people , since they paid a fair price for their device, and should be treated the same as people who mod their XBoxes to install Linux, for example. Should their warranty be violated? Probably, but I don't think they care.

However, I have a real problem with people who jailbreak their iPhones simply to install pirated apps, or to abuse the carrier network. These people are just looking to get something for free that they should be paying for.

Granted, a lot of the blame should go to AT&T and the other carriers, and not Apple, for wanting to lock down the device so tightly.
post #9 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by mknopp View Post

Interesting that Apple touts one of the two worst abuses of the App store as a positive. Who the hell asked them to limit what a paying adult can or cannot view on their legally purchased iPhone. The fact that they made an author remove the f' word from the book to be hosted on the App Store was beyond terrible, as bad as anything Wal-Mart ever did against music, but nobody seems to be very upset about Apple playing moral cop on the iPhone. ...

I noticed that also.

The EFF would have a much better case, (and would actually do more good for the consumer) if it merely took Apple to task for these kinds of moralistic, patently unfair restrictions on content, than the case they are apparently trying to argue here. I don't really see how EFF really has any argument at all.

I found it especially illuminating (and unexpected), to find out the volume of complaint calls Apple has to deal with over jailbreaking. That's an incredible amount of money and time down the drain just to satisfy some cranky kid jail-breakers.

Overall, I'm starting to believe that the EFF is becoming as anachronistic as the RIAA is. This statement by Apple in particular ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple

The iPhone firmware is not itself a product; it is a component of the iPhone mobile computing product.

... makes me think that the EFF still seems to cling to the old model where a device and it's software are two separate things as if we were all back in the days of Unix terminals and 286's. An OS is not just something you buy to make an otherwise "black box" run programs, integrated technologies have been the rule for many years now. You only have a "right" to run whatever software you want on your device if you still feel like you are living in the 1970's. In today's world, this makes much less sense.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #10 of 95
This is good news. Apple needs to stop taking a totalitarian approach. If it's good enough for normal computers its good enough for phones. All their arguments are utter bullshit designed to give them maximum control and maximum revenue.
post #11 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by HHH View Post

actually, tons of applications were available before the SDK "innovation" via the jailbreak

Yeah, but that stopped dead when the SDK was released. The only new apps since then have been ripped off ones and ones that are dis-allowed by Apple.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #12 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

Since "applications independent of the official App Store" means, 99.9% of the time "pirated applications," and since I hope to sell an app or two of my own someday and get PAID for my efforts, I can't side with the EFF here.

I do want to see Apple loosen up its policies, though--and indeed they have been doing so.

I'm an iPhone developer myself. I've made some good change from them. So I think I am qualified to say this...

A) I don't know what you mean by pirated apps. Most of the jail broken compatible apps are merely free apps. Supplied because there wasn't an easy way to make apps before.

B) Most people won't be jail breaking their phones. Nor will there be an online store to grab apps from. Most of the people out there won't have the knowledge to jail break nor will want to spend the time messing with trying to find the right app.

C) Jail breaking has been available since early on and it never really caught on. Now with the app store a lot of people don't have reasons to jail break.

Point is, your apps will still sell just as they would have before. If someone wanted a free pirated app they would have got it regardless even now. This won't change that.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #13 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

I noticed that also.

The EFF would have a much better case, (and would actually do more good for the consumer) if it merely took Apple to task for these kinds of moralistic, patently unfair restrictions on content, than the case they are apparently trying to argue here. I don't really see how EFF really has any argument at all.

I found it especially illuminating (and unexpected), to find out the volume of complaint calls Apple has to deal with over jailbreaking. That's an incredible amount of money and time down the drain just to satisfy some cranky kid jail-breakers.

Overall, I'm starting to believe that the EFF is becoming as anachronistic as the RIAA is. This statement by Apple in particular ...



... makes me think that the EFF still seems to cling to the old model where a device and it's software are two separate things as if we were all back in the days of Unix terminals and 286's. An OS is not just something you buy to make an otherwise "black box" run programs, integrated technologies have been the rule for many years now. You only have a "right" to run whatever software you want on your device if you still feel like you are living in the 1970's. In today's world, this makes much less sense.

Uh why? Because some corporation, acting only in self interest, tells you too? It's really idiotic to suggest that the 1970s are somehow different to today, except in performance.
post #14 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by mknopp View Post

Who the hell asked them to limit what a paying adult can or cannot view on their legally purchased iPhone.

Why would they need to be asked before choosing what is distributed in their own store? As for Wal-Mart, yeah I think having labels edit albums before agreeing to sell them is a bit extreme, but they have the right to not sell a product if it doesn't fit within their model.
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 #15 of 95
Quote:
The iPhone firmware is not itself a product; it is a component of the iPhone mobile computing product.

That's funny, because Apple used the opposite argument when they charged me for upgrading my iPod Touch.
post #16 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by HHH View Post

actually, tons of applications were available before the SDK "innovation" via the jailbreak

and there is still a lot of potential for innovation while following the rules.

frankly I have to side with Apple on this one. this is no better than psystar hacking OSX to work on their machines.

that said, I don't think Apple should waste time going after folks. Let it stand that if you jailbreak/unlock your phone, it has no more support from Apple. let folks take the risk if they dare. if someone goes up on the web and blantantly flaunts their jail breaking service, send them the old cease and desist but don't start up a massive campaign to hunt folks down. instead spend the time and money on legally providing the stuff that folks are going 'black market' to get. like video and mms. and find a way to 'adult' code the app store so those that want boobies can have them but the under 18 crowd wont' see it so your obscenity protection issue is covered (which would be required by all kinds of laws). and then let folks have at it.

those things right there will put a lot of folks out of business and end all kinds of excuses being tossed out there.
post #17 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by merdhead View Post

Uh why? Because some corporation, acting only in self interest, tells you too? It's really idiotic to suggest that the 1970s are somehow different to today, except in performance.

I know your just a troll, but you used to be human once right?

I said what I said because it's true. It was true long before the iPhone came on the scene.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #18 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

I'm an iPhone developer myself. I've made some good change from them. So I think I am qualified to say this...

A) I don't know what you mean by pirated apps. Most of the jail broken compatible apps are merely free apps. Supplied because there wasn't an easy way to make apps before.

B) Most people won't be jail breaking their phones. Nor will there be an online store to grab apps from. Most of the people out there won't have the knowledge to jail break nor will want to spend the time messing with trying to find the right app.

C) Jail breaking has been available since early on and it never really caught on. Now with the app store a lot of people don't have reasons to jail break.

Point is, your apps will still sell just as they would have before. If someone wanted a free pirated app they would have got it regardless even now. This won't change that.

You have totally missed the point (three times over!)

"pirated apps" are stolen apps (there are lots and lots of them)
The point is (as I understand it) if the EFF wins this, jail-breaking will go "mainstream" because it will be legally protected. This will significantly increase the incidence of jailbreaking, jailbroken phones etc.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #19 of 95
What ever happened to the whiners... uh.. I mean "disgruntled" folks explaining how Android was going to whip Apple into submission and allow true freedom to do what they want on their phone? Why pick on Apple?

Is it possible that Android is turning out not to be the miracle-maker it was made out to be so those folks are going back to Apple and complain some more?

If you don't like how a company does business, by all means.. take your money elsewhere. If enough people do that, most companies would listen.

But then, it's only a vocal .03% of people kicking and screaming about it. Can't we just put the volume on "mute" for these people?
post #20 of 95
A better one would be that BMW tells you look, use our shop and we guarantee the thing will run. Use any grease monkey who thinks they can trick out a beemer and you're on your own. And if we find someone used rogue parts to mod your baby and you bring it to us for scheduled service, we'll make it run to spec and toss the icky parts, duct tape, bailing wire and all. You have been warned. Since there's no ASE-style certification for anyone who writes a rogue app, it's hard to blame Apple for wanting to preserve the integrity of their product.
post #21 of 95
There's only one Android phone being sold right now, and as far as I know, only in the U.S.

It's a bit early to say that Android lost.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

What ever happened to the whiners... uh.. I mean "disgruntled" folks explaining how Android was going to whip Apple into submission and allow true freedom to do what they want on their phone? Why pick on Apple?

Is it possible that Android is turning out not to be the miracle-maker it was made out to be so those folks are going back to Apple and complain some more?

If you don't like how a company does business, by all means.. take your money elsewhere. If enough people do that, most companies would listen.

But then, it's only a vocal .03% of people kicking and screaming about it. Can't we just put the volume on "mute" for these people?
post #22 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

Since "applications independent of the official App Store" means, 99.9% of the time, "pirated applications," and since I hope to sell an app or two of my own someday and get PAID for my efforts, I can't side with the EFF here.

I do want to see Apple loosen up its policies, though--and indeed they have been doing so.

(Note: I'm not saying Jailbreaking is mainly done for piracy--I think modding the UI is at least as big a reason, probably THE biggest, and I'm glad that jailbreaking is alive and well. I'm saying that if you made a list of the APPS people need to jailbreak to install, 99.9% of them will be pirated apps. With only a handful of original apps that Apple rejected. And yes, all of this is separate from the issue of carrier unlocking. I'm just talking apps.)

Your fears seem to be out of proportion to reality. The Apple store apps are encrypted and copy protected. I haven't really heard of jailbreaking being used for iPhone app piracy, and I haven't heard of people widely cracking the app copy protection.
post #23 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpellino View Post

A better one would be that BMW tells you look, use our shop and we guarantee the thing will run. Use any grease monkey who thinks they can trick out a beemer and you're on your own. And if we find someone used rogue parts to mod your baby and you bring it to us for scheduled service, we'll make it run to spec and toss the icky parts, duct tape, bailing wire and all. You have been warned. Since there's no ASE-style certification for anyone who writes a rogue app, it's hard to blame Apple for wanting to preserve the integrity of their product.

That argument seems a bit out of wack. Is there a similar certification program for writing Mac apps? How many Mac apps out there are responsible for tarnishing Apple's Mac platform because of uncertified programmers? How many of those users actually blame Apple for issues caused by the rogue apps?
post #24 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Piracy - how? The Apple store apps were encrypted and copy protected. I haven't really heard of jailbreaking being used for piracy either, and I haven't heard of people cracking the copy protection. So your fears seem to be out of proportion to reality.

The App Store copy protection already cracked but only work on jailbroked iPhones. The protection can be removed from any app by a simple one click application called Crackulous that you install in your jailbroken iPhone. The you upload the app to P2P sharing websites. This has been going on for a while now.
post #25 of 95
...Openmoko.

Yes, on the one hand information wants to be free.
On the other hand, it also wants a working BT driver, a tolerable data rate, MP3 playback and a GPS that takes less than 10 minutes to get a fix.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

What ever happened to the whiners... uh.. I mean "disgruntled" folks explaining how Android was going to whip Apple into submission and allow true freedom to do what they want on their phone? Why pick on Apple?

Is it possible that Android is turning out not to be the miracle-maker it was made out to be so those folks are going back to Apple and complain some more?
post #26 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

Yah I agree with you. I do feel they could still screen apps on their app store (it is theirs to do with what they want). I don't feel they should restrict what applications can run on an iphone though. I agree and disagree with both sides on this one.

I don't like how anyone can tell me what i can and can't do with something i OWN.

The hardware you may own but the software is licensed. The software owner retain all rights to the software. This is similar to buying a CD, you don't own the music.
post #27 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

If you don't like how a company does business, by all means.. take your money elsewhere. If enough people do that, most companies would listen.

I agree with this argument. This is how companies should learn, though people and their buying power. Remember the boycotts of certain products or companies due to their business practices? We should continue to do this!

As for me, I am taking my money else where, and not to Apple because of how I disagree with their practices. I also will tell others to do the same. That's how it works.

I choose to do things my way, not the Apple way. Why do I come to this site then? I get bored and its fun to say things now and then.
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
post #28 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

I'm an iPhone developer myself. I've made some good change from them. So I think I am qualified to say this...

A) I don't know what you mean by pirated apps. Most of the jail broken compatible apps are merely free apps. Supplied because there wasn't an easy way to make apps before.

B) Most people won't be jail breaking their phones. Nor will there be an online store to grab apps from. Most of the people out there won't have the knowledge to jail break nor will want to spend the time messing with trying to find the right app.

C) Jail breaking has been available since early on and it never really caught on. Now with the app store a lot of people don't have reasons to jail break.

Point is, your apps will still sell just as they would have before. If someone wanted a free pirated app they would have got it regardless even now. This won't change that.

Not sure what you mean in A. If I go to the torrent sites, I can find both the free and the non-free App Store apps there packaged together very nicely for downloading in bunches. Those DRM-removed versions of the apps will only work on jailbroken phones.

If the EFF position was victorious, you can bet it would become even easier to jailbreak. Jailbreaking software would be advertised and made available all over the place. And the easier it is to jailbreak, the more people will do it. A good number of those people will then just download the DRM-removed versions of the apps.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #29 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

That argument seems a bit out of wack. Is there a similar certification program for writing Mac apps? How many Mac apps out there are responsible for tarnishing Apple's Mac platform because of uncertified programmers? How many of those users actually blame Apple for issues caused by the rogue apps?

Remember the iWork 09 trojan?

The problem with cell phones is that if someone developed a virus that calls 900 or overseas number then you will have to pay for it no matter what. However, if someone steals you Visa card number you will probably find out about it quickly and don't have to pay anything.
post #30 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

Since "applications independent of the official App Store" means, 99.9% of the time, "pirated applications," and since I hope to sell an app or two of my own someday and get PAID for my efforts, I can't side with the EFF here.

99% of non App Store apps on jailbroken phones are pirated? Don't be ridiculous. I am proudly jailbroken on three iPhones I own, and have jailbroken iPhones for several friends.

I don't jailbreak so that I can steal applications. I have plenty of applications from the generous jailbreak community that add functionality that Apple refuses to. I can copy and paste on my iPhone, I can send streaming video via Qik, I can take video captures with Cycorder, I can take pictures in burst mode with Snapture, and I can run whatever app I want in background mode. None of that is pirated software, and none of that is available on the App Store. On top of that, I have a much improved access to the device for backup and restore of apps (use rsync over wifi) and a better settings control.

I have paid for 50+ apps on the App Store, ranging from 99 cents to $19.99, and I resent you lumping all jailbreakers in with the kiddy crowd that won't pay for anything.
post #31 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

that said, I don't think Apple should waste time going after folks. Let it stand that if you jailbreak/unlock your phone, it has no more support from Apple. let folks take the risk if they dare. if someone goes up on the web and blantantly flaunts their jail breaking service, send them the old cease and desist but don't start up a massive campaign to hunt folks down. instead spend the time and money on legally providing the stuff that folks are going 'black market' to get. like video and mms. and find a way to 'adult' code the app store so those that want boobies can have them but the under 18 crowd wont' see it so your obscenity protection issue is covered (which would be required by all kinds of laws). and then let folks have at it.

Let's be clear here. Apple has NEVER made any noises about going after any iPhone user who jailbreaks their iPhone. This response to the EFF petition is not about going after anyone. All Apple is trying to do in its response is to stop a ruling that would change the legality of jailbreaking the phone.

This is analogous to how Apple has NEVER gone after any PC user who puts Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware. It's been possible for several years and people have reported doing it and Apple has done zilch about it.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #32 of 95
jailbreaking is bullshit. The arguement that it would increase innovation is bullshit, it would only promote piracy.

I guess you jailbreaking supporters think apple should open up OS X to be used on any hardware....doing so just opens up the OS (Mac and iPhone) to the same problems MS has, ie having to support every conceivable hardware/software configuration possible which only leads to one thing...the inability to do so which leads to customer dissatisfaction.
post #33 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Remember the iWork 09 trojan?

The problem with cell phones is that if someone developed a virus that calls 900 or overseas number then you will have to pay for it no matter what. However, if someone steals you Visa card number you will probably find out about it quickly and don't have to pay anything.

Apple would also have to take a financial responsibility if such an app were to be passed in the App Store.
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 #34 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

This is analogous to how Apple has NEVER gone after any PC user who puts Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware. It's been possible for several years and people have reported doing it and Apple has done zilch about it.

ever heard of psystar?
post #35 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booga View Post

That's funny, because Apple used the opposite argument when they charged me for upgrading my iPod Touch.

Not really - but it is precisely because the firmware is a component of the finished product that Apple sold you that they believe they have to charge you the $10 per Sarbanes-Oxley.

SOX attempts to stop vendors from recording the full revenue from the sale of a product if the product is not complete at the time of sale. For iPhone, Apple is saying that iPhone is not complete as the functionality (per its firmware) will be enhanced from time to time over the 2-year lifespan of the product, so they only record 1/8 of the revenue. If the firmware was a separate component, Apple could've recorded the full revenue at time of sale.

By the way, for iPod touch, Apple is saying that it is being sold to you as is - no further functionality to be provided. So Apple records the full revenue.

Let me just add: I think this whole deferred revenue/SOX thing is just nuts.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #36 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Your fears seem to be out of proportion to reality. The Apple store apps are encrypted and copy protected. I haven't really heard of jailbreaking being used for iPhone app piracy, and I haven't heard of people widely cracking the app copy protection.

You need to visit John Gruber over at daringfireball.net. He's been writing about this over the past week. He has data on this from developers tracking web hits from their iPhone apps. Fairplay for the apps has already been broken.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #37 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by vassillios View Post

ever heard of psystar?

Psystar is not your "PC user". It's a company whose economic model is to license something from someone else, change it in violation of the license, and then resell it.

The key word in the above sentence is "RESELL".
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #38 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by vassillios View Post

jailbreaking is bullshit. The arguement that it would increase innovation is bullshit, it would only promote piracy.

I guess you jailbreaking supporters think apple should open up OS X to be used on any hardware....doing so just opens up the OS (Mac and iPhone) to the same problems MS has, ie having to support every conceivable hardware/software configuration possible which only leads to one thing...the inability to do so which leads to customer dissatisfaction.


I would call all of the "Features" that DistortedLoop pointed out to be very innovative and if I'd known I could do all these things I would have Jail Broke my phone in a heartbeat.

I have plenty of applications from the generous jailbreak community that add functionality that Apple refuses to. I can copy and paste on my iPhone, I can send streaming video via Qik, I can take video captures with Cycorder, I can take pictures in burst mode with Snapture, and I can run whatever app I want in background mode. None of that is pirated software, and none of that is available on the App Store. On top of that, I have a much improved access to the device for backup and restore of apps (use rsync over wifi) and a better settings control.

I'd actually purchase another iPhone if Apple got off their Ass and INNOVATED some of the above or allowed it on their POS phone.
post #39 of 95
The problem is that the jailbreaking community will complain to Apple for not letting them jailbreak their phone, then, if it is indeed allowed, complain to Apple for not providing the proper hardware for functionality for anything and everything under the sun.

99.2% of consumers who buy an iPhone want it for what it does now. If these jailbreakers convince perfectly normal, but non-tech-savvy people to install rogue software, it's not the jailbreakers but Apple who will hear it for the non-functionality of something that's really not Apple's fault. Moreover, jailbreaking allows phones to run unauthorized on networks and potentially garner services that everyone else pays for. If this was not at least to some extent a goal of jailbreaking, then these people would be perfectly happy jailbreaking an iPod Touch. It runs the same software, just lacks the baseband necessary for cellular access.

In reality, 98% of what I want to do with my phone is covered by Apple or apps from the app store. After reading enough of the Podcaster hype, and then it came out with 2.2, I thought "wow, this is so awesome, at last my phone will be complete." Yeah, now how much do I use it? Almost never. Cut and paste? Would be nice, but again, bet I would use three times a month. This is why jailbreaking will never catch on, no one wants the rest of their life consumed with keeping the carrot ahead of the horse.
post #40 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by vassillios View Post

ever heard of psystar?

Apple hasn't gone after hobbyists. The OSx86 Project is still alone and kicking with no legal trouble from Apple. Psystar is a company trying to get away with being an unofficial cloner.
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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple and EFF argue over iPhone jailbreaking