Citizens don't trust their governement. Will they now trust the corporate sector??
Two sides of the same coin. At least our government officials are elected. Though it often seems hard to tell.
I certainly won't argue that blind faith in government regulation is the way to go. To assume that elected officials only have the best interest of the public at heart in the face of massive corporate lobbying and cronyism is naive. As you said, two sides of the same coin.
Anyways, to get back to the main discussion about jailbreaking, this is all about personal freedom (in the face of unnecessary ties between service provider and phones) -- something I'd think would appeal to most Americans.
Ridiculous. Attack an insect and it'll react and attempt to survive rather more than your iPhone. We don't how this stuff works in humans, so the arbitrary decision that 'lower' life forms don't have it is just dumb even if you do know words like 'neocortex'.
It is immoral to torture anything.
On the contrary there is a lot known about brain structure and function: never enough, but not nothing. Insects, like shellfish and unlike mammals, appear to lack structures that correspond with the parts of our brains associated with feelings, which are emotional motivations beyond sensing and reacting. The primitive part of the human nervous system will withdraw the hand from a dangerous heat source before the mind is aware of pain; that may be as high as things go in insects. If a torture subject can't suffer, can it be tortured? We don't know insects can't suffer but it seems unlikely. I'm not into recreational animal abuse, and I would be concerned about the psychology of a person who would be. We got into this because I was questioning how a self-proclaimed atheist would defend insect rights when it's hard to make an evidence-based case for that. I don't think atheism and morality are incompatible, but I would think empathy would be necessary to guide it, and I don't think empathizing with insects is rational, based on what we know about their capabilities. Anyway, it was a curious example with which to try to illuminate iPhone usage ethics.
Ultimately I was trying to side with those who say if you buy an iPhone, the equipment is yours do with as you please within the law and any contract terms you knowingly agreed to. Using a product does not itself obligate you to purchase compatible products only from vendors authorized by the manufacturer and it would be anticompetitive for governments to allow such tying. The iPhone is the customer's tool, not the other way around. Some countries have made it illegal to impose phone service exclusivity on customers. The U.S. has not. The arbitrariness of law from jurisdiction to jurisdiction reminds us that you can't rely on laws to guide morals.
There seems to be a lot of misinformation about jailbreaking in this thread. If you know how to put the ipod/phone into DFU and restore, you can NEVER break your iDevice. It doesn't void your warranty if you restore. So it's a risk to void the warranty if you go to the Apple Store, show them it's jailbroken and then give them your name, address, and credit card your iTunes account is on. Do you think anyone would do that? No. There's no risk involved here ladies.
I don't see what the big deal is. I bought my iPhone 3G S so I should be able do do whatever the he'll I want to it. The problem with AI is that a lot of the posters here act like stockholders/investors first instead of like enthusiasts first at typical hardware sites.
With that mindset, you can only think about "protecting the company" first, instead of the typical giddy reaction that most tinkerers have.
I did jailbreak my old iPod touch 1G before there was even an app store. But once the app store came out, I stopped jailbreaking as most of the apps I wanted were on the official app store for free.
But if someone wants to jailbreak (it's rather easy to revert), that's their right.
I don't see what the big deal is. I bought my iPhone 3G S so I should be able do do whatever the he'll I want to it. The problem with AI is that a lot of the posters here act like stockholders/investors first instead of like enthusiasts first at typical hardware sites.
Contract and IP law would beg to differ but I accept the point you're making. Such constraints seem 'artificial' - knowing fully that most constraints are so. I find it interesting that on a lot of Mac sites people can talk freely about jailbreaking (effectively breaking a contract term) but not hackintosh (effectively breaking a contract term). I guess the characterisation is the breaking of a licence term. The hardware and the software of a particular device are two legally separate things but for some reason, because you're holding a shiny apple piece of kit when you're done jailbreaking, it's OK. It might go back, as you say, to some cheerleader aspect of being a Apple fan, but the in the end, what the end user is doing is the same thing - violating a licence.
Quote:
But if someone wants to jailbreak (it's rather easy to revert), that's their right.
I agree. Doesn't interest me too much, but you've paid the price of admission. Why not?
Just because you have the ability to create a fully unlocked phone doesn't mean you wouldn't have to get into bed with the cellular service providers in order to have someone to actually provide service for it.
I don't think you get the point of unlocked phones. If I have an unlocked phone (like the Nokia E75 sitting on my desk), I can get any service provider to provide service for it. They don't have to know anything about what model phone I have: if it takes a SIM card, the service happens.
Sure, they probably won't sell it to their customers, but there's nothing stopping you selling the unlocked phone for anyone to use as they please, and there's nothing stopping them using it.
Surely Uncle Sam already had the iPhone cracked before junior discovered it, Apple having to supply them with one before release, it was perhaps other governments who were doing the bidding.
Not likely. The people that work for governments and government contractors are almost never top shelf.
I personally have not bought the 3GS because I was waiting for the jailbreak. The Hotz jailbreak is not enough: I want a more thorough treatment. I'm not a kid anymore with the free time to keep hacking the phone as I see it necessary. I need the jailbreak because I wish to run the Dvorak keyboard, which Apple has not implemented (lazy). I don't even care about the network, or the warranty. Just give me freedom to write and/or install the apps I want to install.
If you want to screw up your iPhone, go ahead and get on this bandwagon. Just remember that practically voids your warranty. And Apple can lock you out of iTunes anytime. Beware of these quacks.
Definitely, not for me.
you are really missing out. jailbreaking is harmless and you can always revert to the original firmware. i've been doing it on my touch since 1.0. it's far safer than any other kind of hacking done on most other devices.
it doesn't void your warranty at all. apple has never locked me out of itunes because there's no way for them to know that i've jailbroken my device. they also really don't care, why would they want to prevent me from purchasing songs / apps on itunes and giving them money?
you can let apple and other corporations push you around, or you can use your device how you want to without the artificial restrictions they push upon you. imagine buying a Mac or PC where you can only purchase applications approved directly by the manufacturer. imagine being able to only run one program at once even though the device is capable of running more. that's the iphone/ipod touch. my jailbroken ipod can do all the things that apple won't allow me to do because they don't trust me, and they essentially think that i'm a stupid consumer. it's extremely insulting.
even better, imagine a world of Macs and PCs where all software companies have to pay Microsoft/Apple 30% of the purchase price for all their applications. what a ridiculous idea.
Funny how people that don't jailbreak like to slam on those of us who do as if it is some evil doing. I don't criticize those who don't jailbreak so let me do my thing. I love Apple products but at the end of the day they are still corp America and don't get me started on that. I do have to laugh at the commercials about 3GS taking video. That is so old news to us. Come on Apple, as much as I love you, everyone else is like yo catch up with the times and let your users be free!
I would expect that AT&T sets an expectation and baseline on the data usage that each member will use. I would expect that they maintain a ratio for upload and download that will best support their network capabilities. If everyone hacked their phone to use for their laptop, the network could suffer.
With that being said, the tethering profile being available and a 'plan' for paying for tethering not available, I'll bend my morals and use tethering. If AT&T brings a decent (under $15 plan) for tethering I'll gladly pay it. Any more than that is rediculous and pure greed on their part.
Comments
In some cases we need a helluva lot more of this.
Citizens don't trust their governement. Will they now trust the corporate sector??
Two sides of the same coin. At least our government officials are elected. Though it often seems hard to tell.
I certainly won't argue that blind faith in government regulation is the way to go. To assume that elected officials only have the best interest of the public at heart in the face of massive corporate lobbying and cronyism is naive. As you said, two sides of the same coin.
Anyways, to get back to the main discussion about jailbreaking, this is all about personal freedom (in the face of unnecessary ties between service provider and phones) -- something I'd think would appeal to most Americans.
Ridiculous. Attack an insect and it'll react and attempt to survive rather more than your iPhone. We don't how this stuff works in humans, so the arbitrary decision that 'lower' life forms don't have it is just dumb even if you do know words like 'neocortex'.
It is immoral to torture anything.
On the contrary there is a lot known about brain structure and function: never enough, but not nothing. Insects, like shellfish and unlike mammals, appear to lack structures that correspond with the parts of our brains associated with feelings, which are emotional motivations beyond sensing and reacting. The primitive part of the human nervous system will withdraw the hand from a dangerous heat source before the mind is aware of pain; that may be as high as things go in insects. If a torture subject can't suffer, can it be tortured? We don't know insects can't suffer but it seems unlikely. I'm not into recreational animal abuse, and I would be concerned about the psychology of a person who would be. We got into this because I was questioning how a self-proclaimed atheist would defend insect rights when it's hard to make an evidence-based case for that. I don't think atheism and morality are incompatible, but I would think empathy would be necessary to guide it, and I don't think empathizing with insects is rational, based on what we know about their capabilities. Anyway, it was a curious example with which to try to illuminate iPhone usage ethics.
Ultimately I was trying to side with those who say if you buy an iPhone, the equipment is yours do with as you please within the law and any contract terms you knowingly agreed to. Using a product does not itself obligate you to purchase compatible products only from vendors authorized by the manufacturer and it would be anticompetitive for governments to allow such tying. The iPhone is the customer's tool, not the other way around. Some countries have made it illegal to impose phone service exclusivity on customers. The U.S. has not. The arbitrariness of law from jurisdiction to jurisdiction reminds us that you can't rely on laws to guide morals.
With that mindset, you can only think about "protecting the company" first, instead of the typical giddy reaction that most tinkerers have.
I did jailbreak my old iPod touch 1G before there was even an app store. But once the app store came out, I stopped jailbreaking as most of the apps I wanted were on the official app store for free.
But if someone wants to jailbreak (it's rather easy to revert), that's their right.
I don't see what the big deal is. I bought my iPhone 3G S so I should be able do do whatever the he'll I want to it. The problem with AI is that a lot of the posters here act like stockholders/investors first instead of like enthusiasts first at typical hardware sites.
Contract and IP law would beg to differ but I accept the point you're making. Such constraints seem 'artificial' - knowing fully that most constraints are so. I find it interesting that on a lot of Mac sites people can talk freely about jailbreaking (effectively breaking a contract term) but not hackintosh (effectively breaking a contract term). I guess the characterisation is the breaking of a licence term. The hardware and the software of a particular device are two legally separate things but for some reason, because you're holding a shiny apple piece of kit when you're done jailbreaking, it's OK. It might go back, as you say, to some cheerleader aspect of being a Apple fan, but the in the end, what the end user is doing is the same thing - violating a licence.
But if someone wants to jailbreak (it's rather easy to revert), that's their right.
I agree. Doesn't interest me too much, but you've paid the price of admission. Why not?
Just because you have the ability to create a fully unlocked phone doesn't mean you wouldn't have to get into bed with the cellular service providers in order to have someone to actually provide service for it.
I don't think you get the point of unlocked phones. If I have an unlocked phone (like the Nokia E75 sitting on my desk), I can get any service provider to provide service for it. They don't have to know anything about what model phone I have: if it takes a SIM card, the service happens.
Sure, they probably won't sell it to their customers, but there's nothing stopping you selling the unlocked phone for anyone to use as they please, and there's nothing stopping them using it.
Amorya
Surely Uncle Sam already had the iPhone cracked before junior discovered it, Apple having to supply them with one before release, it was perhaps other governments who were doing the bidding.
Not likely. The people that work for governments and government contractors are almost never top shelf.
I personally have not bought the 3GS because I was waiting for the jailbreak. The Hotz jailbreak is not enough: I want a more thorough treatment. I'm not a kid anymore with the free time to keep hacking the phone as I see it necessary. I need the jailbreak because I wish to run the Dvorak keyboard, which Apple has not implemented (lazy). I don't even care about the network, or the warranty. Just give me freedom to write and/or install the apps I want to install.
If you want to screw up your iPhone, go ahead and get on this bandwagon. Just remember that practically voids your warranty. And Apple can lock you out of iTunes anytime. Beware of these quacks.
Definitely, not for me.
you are really missing out. jailbreaking is harmless and you can always revert to the original firmware. i've been doing it on my touch since 1.0. it's far safer than any other kind of hacking done on most other devices.
it doesn't void your warranty at all. apple has never locked me out of itunes because there's no way for them to know that i've jailbroken my device. they also really don't care, why would they want to prevent me from purchasing songs / apps on itunes and giving them money?
you can let apple and other corporations push you around, or you can use your device how you want to without the artificial restrictions they push upon you. imagine buying a Mac or PC where you can only purchase applications approved directly by the manufacturer. imagine being able to only run one program at once even though the device is capable of running more. that's the iphone/ipod touch. my jailbroken ipod can do all the things that apple won't allow me to do because they don't trust me, and they essentially think that i'm a stupid consumer. it's extremely insulting.
even better, imagine a world of Macs and PCs where all software companies have to pay Microsoft/Apple 30% of the purchase price for all their applications. what a ridiculous idea.
With that being said, the tethering profile being available and a 'plan' for paying for tethering not available, I'll bend my morals and use tethering. If AT&T brings a decent (under $15 plan) for tethering I'll gladly pay it. Any more than that is rediculous and pure greed on their part.