I've jailbroken my phone and haven't pirated anything. In fact I think there are websites that you can download all the apps without the DRM without jailbreaking (and I remember reading that Saurik banned some of some people who were promoting pirated apps from doing so via Cydia). Jailbreaking does allow me to have more than one app open at once, change the theme on my iPhone, and to use my 3G phone to shoot video etc. all of which are legal and don't affect your bandwidth in any way.
This wouldn't be necessary if Apple ran an open platform and allowed people to install whatever they liked ON THEIR OWN HARDWARE.
Apple brought jailbreaking upon themselves, and long may it continue.
This is EXACTLY what I want to say. I run a jailbroken iPhone because I want to be able to do what I want with MY hardware. Apple doesn't own my iPhone, I do. It's unethical for them to try to tell me what I can and can't run on MY hardware.
If I want to give up a bit of battery life and let something I consider important, I can. If I want to run code on MY hardware, I can. And Apple should be prohibited from doing anything that might stop me. They're welcome to put up scary warnings when I install something unapproved, but they shouldn't be able to even attempt to stop me.
Sure that sounds reasonable to you but from AT&T's perspective, they structured the data plan for the iPhone based on what they thought would be typical usage patterns by a phone user. A notebook computer can consume a lot more data than someone on a phone would ever use.
True enough. What that equates to is that they structured and offered their data plans with the assumption that you would not use it fully. If you buy 12 apples, it should be expected that you might want all of them. If they only let you take take home 5, then they shouldn't have charged you for 12. Ignoring tethering, AT&T's entire structure for data was flawed as is evidenced by their own statements on how they did not expect the surge in data usage that the average iPhone user generated. They anticipated and based their plans around the assumption that people would not use what they paid for, but they would charge for it fully regardless.
Notebook can use up more data, but if the usage levels are within you plan, shouldn't you be entitled to use that data? Should they then be prohibiting tethering?
But, as tundraboy believes, using what you paid for is sociopathic.
I've read some of this thread, but can't really bear to read any more comments degrading and flat out blaming the jailbreaking community for a number of problems.
I honestly don't think that the few people who have jailbroken their phone to use the slingbox app over th 3G network are really contributing that much to the overall network congestion. All the 14 year old girls that have never heard of jailbreaking, but are addicted to youtube probably contribute more. What we have here is an arbitrary restriction on bandwidth that is based on one additional non bandwidth related criteria: who provides the app? Why is it that if Apple provides an app, it can be a bandwidth hog, but others can't?
Don't get me wrong, I fully recognize Apples right to restrict apps to protect and shape the user experience for the majority of their customers as they see fit. However, I also recognize that some people desire more out of their phones, and why shouldn't they be able to get it if they have the means to (at their own risk of course)? Things such as piracy should be dealt with separately and are already illegal anyway. If you jailbrake your phone to steal apps, you are doing something illegal. I however, don't see anything morally wrong with jailbreaking your phone to use an app that was not approved for the app store, or to unlock additional functions of the phone. I don't know American laws, but if the process of jailbreaking a phone, is/ever becomes illegal, it will be a very sad day for the consumer.
When I bought my iPhone, I expected to jailbrake it, but thus far I haven't felt the need to. I do however acknowledge and support those who do.
One additional comment. I'm of the opinion that carrier locking should be illegal, or at the very least unlocking should be legal and unlocking services must be provided (at the point of sale) for phones that are not being subsidized by the carrier. If you buy a phone outright, why should it be restricted to a certain carrier? The phone is yours, the carrier you purchased it from is simply a vendor. Similarly if you complete the terms of your contract, or pay the termination fee, the carrier should have no further influence on who you get your cell service from. Again the phone is yours to keep and your relationship with the cell carrier has ended, yet they attempt to keep you through locking your phone to their cell service. Jailbreaking to unlock your phone for use with another carrier should not be required in the first place. In Canada we had proposed legislation that would have made it illegal to unlock a phone, and that is completely the wrong direction (again I don't know the American law, maybe someone could enlighten me).
What a ridiculous, ignorant comment. I jailbreak and don't use any of those applications. Jailbreaking isn't for running illegal applications, it's for having CONTROL over the device i BOUGHT, meaning I own it. ...
Good for you if you don't rip off apps, but this is a specious argument you are making here.
1) You *do* have control over the phone, you can install Linux on it, hammer nails with the case, ... whatever you want.
2) You don't "own" the software on the phone, you only license it.
3) When you licence the software you agree to the contract.
The only study I'm aware of done by anyone into the details of whether apps are ripped off by jail-breakers came back with a figure of over 90% (theft). An app maker tracked the apps usage by having it call home and it turned out that over 90% of all the people using his app did not actually buy it. 90% for cripes sake!
So yeah, jail-breaking your phone is not *necessarily* done to steal apps, but give the average idiot the possibility of getting all the apps for free and guess what happens?
Tulkas, with your thinking, I'd advise you to never buy a house with a home owners association.
And I would be adverse to ever buying a home in a neighbourhood with restrictive covenants. That leads to things like idiots sending veterans letters telling them they have to take down their little garden flags. Asinine restrictions are just asinine restrictions.
Some people like to have others think for them. It makes them worm and fuzzy I guess or maybe thinking it just to hard. (tundraboy, newbee, etc). They are likely the type that would opt for a homeowners association that would instruct them on how to act, think and behave...otherwise they risk being sociopathic, narcissistic, thieves...or people capable of their own thoughts, but that might be a little to edgy for them.
Actually, you make a very good point. The people raging against jailbreaking do seem to share a common trait, but I wasn't able to really put my finger on it until your post. They really are like those that love homeowner associations with really restrictive covenants...unthinking zombies...
You really are having difficulty with simple concepts presented, aren't you?
Do I again, have to explain to you that govenment restrictions, i.e. laws are what prohibit you from shooting someone? I really hope that I don't have to explain that to you again. Please tell me you understand legislated restrictions imposed by the government and restriction put in place by an external, third party (i.e. not the government for the slow)
Perhaps my "attempt" at humor was over the top/ your head ... I would have thought the placement of TWO LAUGHING ICONS would have been a big enough hint. ...my bad.
I installed a tethering profile freely available over the internet. It installs from the iPhone?s browser and allows tethering. worked the same way for MMS. It doesn?t require bypassing any of the locks in place in the OS and doesn?t allow for anything else than adding that specific profile to the iPhone. However, this only worked up until 3.0.1, after that the profiles were signed making tethering a complex setup even for jailbroken phones running 3.1 or later. There is a very distinct difference between adding a profile, unlocking and jailbreaking.
Thanks for clearing that up for me .... who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks?
There is no way for AT&T to determine if an Iphone is jailbroken or not and whether the app using bandwidth was purchase or not. What AT&T is say which is the case even for computer and the internet, it is only a small % of the users who actually use most of the bandwidth. Their concerns are what happen if this trend changes and a larger % start using more bandwidth.
BTW the same was true 20 yrs again what only a small % use most of the phone bandwidth. Phone networks were only designed to handle 1/3 of all the possible calls if everyone tried making a call at once.
Of course, the significant difference is that you pay for each call. If you make more calls and use more bandwidth, you pay more. In the case of the iPhone and data usage, everyone pays the same amount, and yet some use significantly more bandwidth than others. But this applies to whether the iPhone was jailbroken or not, so it doesn't really matter in the context of this conversation unless it can be shown that jailbroken phones (and the apps then installed on them) use a disproportionate share of the bandwidth.
True enough. What that equates to is that they structured and offered their data plans with the assumption that you would not use it fully. If you buy 12 apples, it should be expected that you might want all of them. If they only let you take take home 5, then they shouldn't have charged you for 12.
Not exactly how I think they intended. Lets say a grocery store runs an ad that says apples 1 cent each. Limit 5 per customer. The 5 apples is ok because the store knows your are going to buy milk and eggs while you are there getting your bargain apples. Sure you can come back every 2 minutes and buy just 5 more apples but it isn't very convenient for you to do that. The store isn't going to let you back up a truck and buy apples all day long at 1 cent each, they would lose money.
AT&T wants to charge you as much as the market will bear for unlimited data knowing you can only download so much on a phone, but if you back up your (truck) notebook that messes up their economics of the original offer.
... They really are like those that love homeowner associations with really restrictive covenants...unthinking zombies...
.
I think you'd find that HOA supporters are not at all about being "unthinking". Quite the opposite. It's more about forethought (because they need to read the CC&Rs to determine the implications of the restrictions) and retention of objective property value, in addition to use of HOA amenities. In the past, I found resident participation at HOA meetings generally demonstrates thoughtful (though sometimes vituperative), tempered concern and consideration for the community above individual rights. Not quite the same as you characterize it or them. As with the iPhone and services, your contractual agreement is a matter of choice. One's subjective agenda doesn't alter the nature of an agreement.
Aside from legalities, perhaps the iPhone usage disagreement simply comes down to where one applies the "greater good" concept ... as, in life.
Perhaps my "attempt" at humor was over the top/ your head ... I would have thought the placement of TWO LAUGHING ICONS would have been a big enough hint. ...my bad.
It was clear that it was an attempt at humour. But it was so irrelevant and showed such a complete misunderstanding of the issue, that it deserved a response.
Not exactly how I think they intended. Lets say a grocery store runs an ad that says apples 1 cent each. Limit 5 per customer. The 5 apples is ok because the store knows your are going to buy milk and eggs while you are there getting your bargain apples. Sure you can come back every 2 minutes and buy just 5 more apples but it isn't very convenient for you to do that. The store isn't going to let you back up a truck and buy apples all day long at 1 cent each, they would lose money.
AT&T wants to charge you as much as the market will bear for unlimited data knowing you can only download so much on a phone, but if you back up your (truck) notebook that messes up their economics of the original offer.
More similar to the grocery store advertising them as 5 cents each, unlimited quantity and then imposing restrictions on how you may carry them, because they expect you will only take 5. If their business plan is based around the economics of each customer only ever taking 5, then they should not advertise it as unlimited. And if they do impose a limit on how many you may take, how you take it should be irrelevant.
I think you'd find that HOA supporters are not at all about being "unthinking". Quite the opposite. It's more about forethought and retention of objective property value, in addition to use of HOA amenities. In the past, I found resident participation at HOA meetings generally demonstrates thoughtful (though sometimes vituperative), tempered concern and consideration for the community above individual rights. Not quite the same as you characterize it or them. As with the iPhone and services, your contractual agreement is a matter of choice. One's subjective agenda doesn't alter the nature of an agreement.
Aside from legalities, perhaps the iPhone usage disagreement simply comes down to where one applies the "greater good" concept ... as, in life.
The thing about 'common good' is it never seems to work well when imposed.
I am quite certain there are those that love the idea of HOA. I do not.
I try to live very concerned about how my decisions affect those around me. I like to think I am concerned about the 'common good' of my community, neighbourhood, etc. But, I also like to think I still have freedom of choice in my own home, within the law (it is unfortunate that I have to make this obvious qualification, but...), even if this freedom is only imagined.
Man over 100 posts. Tulkas, I give you the cookie for (sort-of, maybe, probably not in the right way, trying) to fight the good fight but I think you're fighting a losing battle with this crowd. Unless of course you're actually trying to encourage crazy response rates to this article and make apple insider enough ad money to power the servers for the year heh.
For my own anecdotal experience, I don't know of anyone who has a jailbroken device that steals applications. They usually would do this to enable applications which apple would reject. However, has time has progressed, most of my friends and associates don't even bother anymore. Most of what the iphone offers are "good enough" not to bother. The only things they lament on are: "Where's my Google Voice App" and "Show me the tethering!!". Unfortunately these "friends" have not given me a Voice invite so I can't join that choir and I think AT&T would price tethering out of the range of usefulness anyway. Not to mention 3G is so damned slow for anything.
I see jailbreaking as the "competitor" to the sanctioned Apple Apps which Apple has to compete with. While for me personally, its too much of a pain in the arse to bother with, if it encourages Apple to actually offer the functionally in sanctioned Apps then I'm all for it.
However, my overall view on the topic is, "What the hell do I care what someone else does with their phone?". Jailbreaking is Apple's problem; not mine.
The thing about 'common good' is it never seems to work well when imposed.
I am quite certain there are those that love the idea of HOA. I do not.
I try to live very concerned about how my decisions affect those around me. I like to think I am concerned about the 'common good' of my community, neighbourhood, etc. But, I also like to think I still have freedom of choice in my own home, within the law (it is unfortunate that I have to make this obvious qualification, but...), even if this freedom is only imagined.
"Imposed" is one of those emotional triggers. In the analogy of an HOA, and with the iPhone usage agreement, I was under the impression an agreement was being discussed, not an imposition (implicitly or explicitly). That then comes down to pre-purchase choice. If I'm mistaken and it's about an imposition of unstated limitations, then that would be a different matter.
As a recent poster pointed out regarding iPhone ownership, there are restrictions on both ownership and licensing. Agreed, the same is true for community standards, regulations, and laws ... both internal and external to the residence structure and property. Freedom of choice is not absolute, but it should be clearly stated, or appropriately rectified when in dispute. But, getting wound up on how usage should be, in order to justify one's actions, seems faulty.
You seem very easily confused. Perhaps I should repeat what you replied to:
Where do I say the contract should be broken? My argument is that because the contracts are becoming so overly restrictive, this is a reason why net neutrality has become an issue. You don't agree with that argument? OK, you explain why it is not a reason why net neutrality has become an issue. You think it is because people are happy with the restrictions in place?
Let me know if you need me to repeat this again. I 'd like you to be able to keep up.
First of all, all of my previous posts have been against jailbreaking, hence my references to contracts. If I have mistakenly assumed that your take on jailbreaking was that it's ok then I apologize for that. (It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong btw)
Secondly, on net neutrality and restrictions. While, on the surface, total freedom on the use of the internet seems like a worthy goal. The problem , as I see it, would be the same as always. Some people will try to abuse it by posting offensive material, by hogging bandwidth, etc. Let's face it, if I am surrounded by a few hundred people downloading/uploading 24/7, I'm guessing my internet provider will want to charge them more or, what's worse, charge me more for a small amount of usage. So I think we are in for some restrictions, if we like it or not. The trick now is to properly define "overly restrictive". Good luck with that one. P.S. Don't worry about me keeping up. I may be slow, but I'm not stopped.
More similar to the grocery store advertising them as 5 cents each, unlimited quantity and then imposing restrictions on how you may carry them, because they expect you will only take 5. If their business plan is based around the economics of each customer only ever taking 5, then they should not advertise it as unlimited. And if they do impose a limit on how many you may take, how you take it should be irrelevant.
Actually, as far as analogies on the economics of the AT&T data plan goes, it's more like an "all you can eat" buffet. You can eat as much as you want, while you are there, but you can't take a "doggy bag" home with you, nor can two people share a plate. It's priced based on the expectation that the average person can only eat so much. Tethering your notebook is like sharing your plate with a competitive eater.
Anyway, the data plan is part of the overall service agreement, which does include unlimited data, but also forbids tethering, so obviously, it's only unlimited within that context.
It was clear that it was an attempt at humour. But it was so irrelevant and showed such a complete misunderstanding of the issue, that it deserved a response.
Humor doesn't HAVE to be relevant, just funny. Jeeesh even, take a vallium, would you?
First of all, all of my previous posts have been against jailbreaking, hence my references to contracts. If I have mistakenly assumed that your take on jailbreaking was that it's ok then I apologize for that. (It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong btw)
Secondly, on net neutrality and restrictions. While, on the surface, total freedom on the use of the internet seems like a worthy goal. The problem , as I see it, would be the same as always. Some people will try to abuse it by posting offensive material, by hogging bandwidth, etc. Let's face it, if I am surrounded by a few hundred people downloading/uploading 24/7, I'm guessing my internet provider will want to charge them more or, what's worse, charge me more for a small amount of usage. So I think we are in for some restrictions, if we like it or not. The trick now is to properly define "overly restrictive". Good luck with that one. P.S. Don't worry about me keeping up. I may be slow, but I'm not stopped.
I actually do support the idea of jailbreaking. But that wasn't specifically what my post that you referred to was about, hence my overreaction.
You are right about the difficulties that will occur when trying to set fair boundaries for usage and restrictions. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed. And it doesn't mean those that support more freedom deserve derision and scorn, a la tundraboy. JailBreaking does not automatically make you a thief or a sociopath (also a la tundra boy).
Comments
This wouldn't be necessary if Apple ran an open platform and allowed people to install whatever they liked ON THEIR OWN HARDWARE.
Apple brought jailbreaking upon themselves, and long may it continue.
This is EXACTLY what I want to say. I run a jailbroken iPhone because I want to be able to do what I want with MY hardware. Apple doesn't own my iPhone, I do. It's unethical for them to try to tell me what I can and can't run on MY hardware.
If I want to give up a bit of battery life and let something I consider important, I can. If I want to run code on MY hardware, I can. And Apple should be prohibited from doing anything that might stop me. They're welcome to put up scary warnings when I install something unapproved, but they shouldn't be able to even attempt to stop me.
Sure that sounds reasonable to you but from AT&T's perspective, they structured the data plan for the iPhone based on what they thought would be typical usage patterns by a phone user. A notebook computer can consume a lot more data than someone on a phone would ever use.
True enough. What that equates to is that they structured and offered their data plans with the assumption that you would not use it fully. If you buy 12 apples, it should be expected that you might want all of them. If they only let you take take home 5, then they shouldn't have charged you for 12. Ignoring tethering, AT&T's entire structure for data was flawed as is evidenced by their own statements on how they did not expect the surge in data usage that the average iPhone user generated. They anticipated and based their plans around the assumption that people would not use what they paid for, but they would charge for it fully regardless.
Notebook can use up more data, but if the usage levels are within you plan, shouldn't you be entitled to use that data? Should they then be prohibiting tethering?
But, as tundraboy believes, using what you paid for is sociopathic.
I honestly don't think that the few people who have jailbroken their phone to use the slingbox app over th 3G network are really contributing that much to the overall network congestion. All the 14 year old girls that have never heard of jailbreaking, but are addicted to youtube probably contribute more. What we have here is an arbitrary restriction on bandwidth that is based on one additional non bandwidth related criteria: who provides the app? Why is it that if Apple provides an app, it can be a bandwidth hog, but others can't?
Don't get me wrong, I fully recognize Apples right to restrict apps to protect and shape the user experience for the majority of their customers as they see fit. However, I also recognize that some people desire more out of their phones, and why shouldn't they be able to get it if they have the means to (at their own risk of course)? Things such as piracy should be dealt with separately and are already illegal anyway. If you jailbrake your phone to steal apps, you are doing something illegal. I however, don't see anything morally wrong with jailbreaking your phone to use an app that was not approved for the app store, or to unlock additional functions of the phone. I don't know American laws, but if the process of jailbreaking a phone, is/ever becomes illegal, it will be a very sad day for the consumer.
When I bought my iPhone, I expected to jailbrake it, but thus far I haven't felt the need to. I do however acknowledge and support those who do.
One additional comment. I'm of the opinion that carrier locking should be illegal, or at the very least unlocking should be legal and unlocking services must be provided (at the point of sale) for phones that are not being subsidized by the carrier. If you buy a phone outright, why should it be restricted to a certain carrier? The phone is yours, the carrier you purchased it from is simply a vendor. Similarly if you complete the terms of your contract, or pay the termination fee, the carrier should have no further influence on who you get your cell service from. Again the phone is yours to keep and your relationship with the cell carrier has ended, yet they attempt to keep you through locking your phone to their cell service. Jailbreaking to unlock your phone for use with another carrier should not be required in the first place. In Canada we had proposed legislation that would have made it illegal to unlock a phone, and that is completely the wrong direction (again I don't know the American law, maybe someone could enlighten me).
What a ridiculous, ignorant comment. I jailbreak and don't use any of those applications. Jailbreaking isn't for running illegal applications, it's for having CONTROL over the device i BOUGHT, meaning I own it. ...
Good for you if you don't rip off apps, but this is a specious argument you are making here.
1) You *do* have control over the phone, you can install Linux on it, hammer nails with the case, ... whatever you want.
2) You don't "own" the software on the phone, you only license it.
3) When you licence the software you agree to the contract.
The only study I'm aware of done by anyone into the details of whether apps are ripped off by jail-breakers came back with a figure of over 90% (theft). An app maker tracked the apps usage by having it call home and it turned out that over 90% of all the people using his app did not actually buy it. 90% for cripes sake!
So yeah, jail-breaking your phone is not *necessarily* done to steal apps, but give the average idiot the possibility of getting all the apps for free and guess what happens?
Tulkas, with your thinking, I'd advise you to never buy a house with a home owners association.
And I would be adverse to ever buying a home in a neighbourhood with restrictive covenants. That leads to things like idiots sending veterans letters telling them they have to take down their little garden flags. Asinine restrictions are just asinine restrictions.
Some people like to have others think for them. It makes them worm and fuzzy I guess or maybe thinking it just to hard. (tundraboy, newbee, etc). They are likely the type that would opt for a homeowners association that would instruct them on how to act, think and behave...otherwise they risk being sociopathic, narcissistic, thieves...or people capable of their own thoughts, but that might be a little to edgy for them.
Actually, you make a very good point. The people raging against jailbreaking do seem to share a common trait, but I wasn't able to really put my finger on it until your post. They really are like those that love homeowner associations with really restrictive covenants...unthinking zombies...
It's the Stepford Wives.
You really are having difficulty with simple concepts presented, aren't you?
Do I again, have to explain to you that govenment restrictions, i.e. laws are what prohibit you from shooting someone? I really hope that I don't have to explain that to you again. Please tell me you understand legislated restrictions imposed by the government and restriction put in place by an external, third party (i.e. not the government for the slow)
Perhaps my "attempt" at humor was over the top/ your head ... I would have thought the placement of TWO LAUGHING ICONS would have been a big enough hint. ...my bad.
I installed a tethering profile freely available over the internet. It installs from the iPhone?s browser and allows tethering. worked the same way for MMS. It doesn?t require bypassing any of the locks in place in the OS and doesn?t allow for anything else than adding that specific profile to the iPhone. However, this only worked up until 3.0.1, after that the profiles were signed making tethering a complex setup even for jailbroken phones running 3.1 or later. There is a very distinct difference between adding a profile, unlocking and jailbreaking.
Thanks for clearing that up for me .... who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks?
There is no way for AT&T to determine if an Iphone is jailbroken or not and whether the app using bandwidth was purchase or not. What AT&T is say which is the case even for computer and the internet, it is only a small % of the users who actually use most of the bandwidth. Their concerns are what happen if this trend changes and a larger % start using more bandwidth.
BTW the same was true 20 yrs again what only a small % use most of the phone bandwidth. Phone networks were only designed to handle 1/3 of all the possible calls if everyone tried making a call at once.
Of course, the significant difference is that you pay for each call. If you make more calls and use more bandwidth, you pay more. In the case of the iPhone and data usage, everyone pays the same amount, and yet some use significantly more bandwidth than others. But this applies to whether the iPhone was jailbroken or not, so it doesn't really matter in the context of this conversation unless it can be shown that jailbroken phones (and the apps then installed on them) use a disproportionate share of the bandwidth.
True enough. What that equates to is that they structured and offered their data plans with the assumption that you would not use it fully. If you buy 12 apples, it should be expected that you might want all of them. If they only let you take take home 5, then they shouldn't have charged you for 12.
Not exactly how I think they intended. Lets say a grocery store runs an ad that says apples 1 cent each. Limit 5 per customer. The 5 apples is ok because the store knows your are going to buy milk and eggs while you are there getting your bargain apples. Sure you can come back every 2 minutes and buy just 5 more apples but it isn't very convenient for you to do that. The store isn't going to let you back up a truck and buy apples all day long at 1 cent each, they would lose money.
AT&T wants to charge you as much as the market will bear for unlimited data knowing you can only download so much on a phone, but if you back up your (truck) notebook that messes up their economics of the original offer.
... They really are like those that love homeowner associations with really restrictive covenants...unthinking zombies...
.
I think you'd find that HOA supporters are not at all about being "unthinking". Quite the opposite. It's more about forethought (because they need to read the CC&Rs to determine the implications of the restrictions) and retention of objective property value, in addition to use of HOA amenities. In the past, I found resident participation at HOA meetings generally demonstrates thoughtful (though sometimes vituperative), tempered concern and consideration for the community above individual rights. Not quite the same as you characterize it or them. As with the iPhone and services, your contractual agreement is a matter of choice. One's subjective agenda doesn't alter the nature of an agreement.
Aside from legalities, perhaps the iPhone usage disagreement simply comes down to where one applies the "greater good" concept ... as, in life.
Perhaps my "attempt" at humor was over the top/ your head ... I would have thought the placement of TWO LAUGHING ICONS would have been a big enough hint. ...my bad.
It was clear that it was an attempt at humour. But it was so irrelevant and showed such a complete misunderstanding of the issue, that it deserved a response.
Not exactly how I think they intended. Lets say a grocery store runs an ad that says apples 1 cent each. Limit 5 per customer. The 5 apples is ok because the store knows your are going to buy milk and eggs while you are there getting your bargain apples. Sure you can come back every 2 minutes and buy just 5 more apples but it isn't very convenient for you to do that. The store isn't going to let you back up a truck and buy apples all day long at 1 cent each, they would lose money.
AT&T wants to charge you as much as the market will bear for unlimited data knowing you can only download so much on a phone, but if you back up your (truck) notebook that messes up their economics of the original offer.
More similar to the grocery store advertising them as 5 cents each, unlimited quantity and then imposing restrictions on how you may carry them, because they expect you will only take 5. If their business plan is based around the economics of each customer only ever taking 5, then they should not advertise it as unlimited. And if they do impose a limit on how many you may take, how you take it should be irrelevant.
I think you'd find that HOA supporters are not at all about being "unthinking". Quite the opposite. It's more about forethought and retention of objective property value, in addition to use of HOA amenities. In the past, I found resident participation at HOA meetings generally demonstrates thoughtful (though sometimes vituperative), tempered concern and consideration for the community above individual rights. Not quite the same as you characterize it or them. As with the iPhone and services, your contractual agreement is a matter of choice. One's subjective agenda doesn't alter the nature of an agreement.
Aside from legalities, perhaps the iPhone usage disagreement simply comes down to where one applies the "greater good" concept ... as, in life.
The thing about 'common good' is it never seems to work well when imposed.
I am quite certain there are those that love the idea of HOA. I do not.
I try to live very concerned about how my decisions affect those around me. I like to think I am concerned about the 'common good' of my community, neighbourhood, etc. But, I also like to think I still have freedom of choice in my own home, within the law (it is unfortunate that I have to make this obvious qualification, but...), even if this freedom is only imagined.
For my own anecdotal experience, I don't know of anyone who has a jailbroken device that steals applications. They usually would do this to enable applications which apple would reject. However, has time has progressed, most of my friends and associates don't even bother anymore. Most of what the iphone offers are "good enough" not to bother. The only things they lament on are: "Where's my Google Voice App" and "Show me the tethering!!". Unfortunately these "friends" have not given me a Voice invite so I can't join that choir and I think AT&T would price tethering out of the range of usefulness anyway. Not to mention 3G is so damned slow for anything.
I see jailbreaking as the "competitor" to the sanctioned Apple Apps which Apple has to compete with. While for me personally, its too much of a pain in the arse to bother with, if it encourages Apple to actually offer the functionally in sanctioned Apps then I'm all for it.
However, my overall view on the topic is, "What the hell do I care what someone else does with their phone?". Jailbreaking is Apple's problem; not mine.
The thing about 'common good' is it never seems to work well when imposed.
I am quite certain there are those that love the idea of HOA. I do not.
I try to live very concerned about how my decisions affect those around me. I like to think I am concerned about the 'common good' of my community, neighbourhood, etc. But, I also like to think I still have freedom of choice in my own home, within the law (it is unfortunate that I have to make this obvious qualification, but...), even if this freedom is only imagined.
"Imposed" is one of those emotional triggers. In the analogy of an HOA, and with the iPhone usage agreement, I was under the impression an agreement was being discussed, not an imposition (implicitly or explicitly). That then comes down to pre-purchase choice. If I'm mistaken and it's about an imposition of unstated limitations, then that would be a different matter.
As a recent poster pointed out regarding iPhone ownership, there are restrictions on both ownership and licensing. Agreed, the same is true for community standards, regulations, and laws ... both internal and external to the residence structure and property. Freedom of choice is not absolute, but it should be clearly stated, or appropriately rectified when in dispute. But, getting wound up on how usage should be, in order to justify one's actions, seems faulty.
You seem very easily confused. Perhaps I should repeat what you replied to:
Where do I say the contract should be broken? My argument is that because the contracts are becoming so overly restrictive, this is a reason why net neutrality has become an issue. You don't agree with that argument? OK, you explain why it is not a reason why net neutrality has become an issue. You think it is because people are happy with the restrictions in place?
Let me know if you need me to repeat this again. I 'd like you to be able to keep up.
First of all, all of my previous posts have been against jailbreaking, hence my references to contracts. If I have mistakenly assumed that your take on jailbreaking was that it's ok then I apologize for that. (It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong btw)
Secondly, on net neutrality and restrictions. While, on the surface, total freedom on the use of the internet seems like a worthy goal. The problem , as I see it, would be the same as always. Some people will try to abuse it by posting offensive material, by hogging bandwidth, etc. Let's face it, if I am surrounded by a few hundred people downloading/uploading 24/7, I'm guessing my internet provider will want to charge them more or, what's worse, charge me more for a small amount of usage. So I think we are in for some restrictions, if we like it or not. The trick now is to properly define "overly restrictive". Good luck with that one. P.S. Don't worry about me keeping up. I may be slow, but I'm not stopped.
More similar to the grocery store advertising them as 5 cents each, unlimited quantity and then imposing restrictions on how you may carry them, because they expect you will only take 5. If their business plan is based around the economics of each customer only ever taking 5, then they should not advertise it as unlimited. And if they do impose a limit on how many you may take, how you take it should be irrelevant.
Actually, as far as analogies on the economics of the AT&T data plan goes, it's more like an "all you can eat" buffet. You can eat as much as you want, while you are there, but you can't take a "doggy bag" home with you, nor can two people share a plate. It's priced based on the expectation that the average person can only eat so much. Tethering your notebook is like sharing your plate with a competitive eater.
Anyway, the data plan is part of the overall service agreement, which does include unlimited data, but also forbids tethering, so obviously, it's only unlimited within that context.
It was clear that it was an attempt at humour. But it was so irrelevant and showed such a complete misunderstanding of the issue, that it deserved a response.
Humor doesn't HAVE to be relevant, just funny. Jeeesh even, take a vallium, would you?
First of all, all of my previous posts have been against jailbreaking, hence my references to contracts. If I have mistakenly assumed that your take on jailbreaking was that it's ok then I apologize for that. (It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong btw)
Secondly, on net neutrality and restrictions. While, on the surface, total freedom on the use of the internet seems like a worthy goal. The problem , as I see it, would be the same as always. Some people will try to abuse it by posting offensive material, by hogging bandwidth, etc. Let's face it, if I am surrounded by a few hundred people downloading/uploading 24/7, I'm guessing my internet provider will want to charge them more or, what's worse, charge me more for a small amount of usage. So I think we are in for some restrictions, if we like it or not. The trick now is to properly define "overly restrictive". Good luck with that one. P.S. Don't worry about me keeping up. I may be slow, but I'm not stopped.
I actually do support the idea of jailbreaking. But that wasn't specifically what my post that you referred to was about, hence my overreaction.
You are right about the difficulties that will occur when trying to set fair boundaries for usage and restrictions. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed. And it doesn't mean those that support more freedom deserve derision and scorn, a la tundraboy. JailBreaking does not automatically make you a thief or a sociopath (also a la tundra boy).