Excellent move on the freedom front in regards carriers. Really bad, bad, move on the "your allowed to jailbreak" front. I can't see how anyone can have any data security if jailbreaking is allowed.
man, seriously? do you even know what jailbreaking is? you can write your own programs on a mac, and there's data security there. you shouldn't have to pay apple $100 and give up 30% of your revenue just to get your application on apple's platform. how can you possibly think this law is a bad thing
ALL phones should be unlocked. exclusive contracts, 2 year contracts...those things bring down the US cellular industry. where is the advantage to the consumer to lock everything down?
all these tactics are meant to force us to stick with a carrier that we aren't satisfied with. there should be free, open competition. imagine if it didn't matter which phone you bought. phone companies would compete on PRICE and SERVICE instead of competing on who can get the best contracts
I hope this doesn't allow apps to be copied freely, or digital media. Piracy has killed many a platform in the past. Anyway it doesn't apply to me, I live in a country where crime is still illegal.
um hello? apple doesn't have DRM on any apps or music.
you don't know what jailbreaking or unlocking is at all. both of these things allow nothing of the sort. this allows you to install non-apple approved applications and use your iphone with t-mobile. this should have been legal in the first place.
it's not a crime to modify the software of your own device that you bought as long as you don't sell your modified system.
You might own some aspects of the hardware, but Apple owns the OS completely. We should consider ourself lucky that apple doesn't remotely wipe all their software and brick the phone. Instead, they let us continue to use thier software for free.
wrong. you are allowed to modify software if you do not distribute or sell your changes. this law further emphasizes the right to install your own software on your own device.
the software isn't free. you paid hundreds of dollars to buy the hardware that runs this software, which you can't run on anything else. why in the world would you take the side of the US cellular industry?
Sounds great. Here in Canada we have something similar. They government charges a levy on all blank media and all harddrives. They tried to expand this to all electronic devices that can store digital media. You buy a blank CD, pay a levy. Buy a blank DVD, pay a levy. Buy an iPod, and they wanted you to pay a $75 levy (I believe this specific bill failed). The monies collected were passed on to the record and film companies in order to compensate them for the theft that we, as purchasers of the blank media, were assumed to be committing.
That is in essence what you are asking for.
stupid stupid stupid
jailbreaking doesn't enable software piracy.
apple's own apps have NO DRM AT ALL!! if you download one, you can load it on your ipod without paying.
even if they do have DRM, this law has nothing to do with it. you should be able to access the full system instead of what apple wants you to access. jailbreaking has nothing to do with piracy it has to do with being able to run your own applications as a developer without paying apple $100 + 30% of your revenue.
the canadian system is stupid it ASSUMES YOU ARE A PIRATE! what if you buy a hard drive and everything you buy for it is legal? i know a lot of people who have never pirated a thing in their lives. why should they pay this stupid levy????
Can't wait for all the new jailbait iPhone Porn App viruses.
i'm sorry, you are just uninformed. why is it that it's okay to have unrestricted software on a Mac or PC but it's not okay for ipod/iphone/ipad? computers and ipods are technically the SAME THING.
APPLE WANTS TO MAKE $100 + 30% OF PROFITS FROM EVERY DEVELOPER! IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT!
no one is forcing you to jailbreak your phone or download apps that are shady. that's your stupid own fault. i have been running without anti virus on a PC for years without issue because i'm not a typical dumb user.
FIrstly, this change doesn't actually make it make it 'legal', whatever that means, to jailbreak a phone. It removes one particular legal obstacle in doing so, which was an implied copyright infringement if you hacked the security.
It does not give you a a free pass to actually copy code as part of the jailbreak.
It does not give you a waver from the contracts that you have agreed to, as a user, including to not reverse engineer parts of the system.
But that aside, what impact does this have on Apple.
Apple has a pretty simple relationship with the iPhone user. They charge a premium price for a premium phone, hardware and software.
While Apple manages the device and applications available for it in a way that some find an issue, for most users this is actually a major blessing in that it minimises worry about malware.
For those who wanted an iPhone, but have found this unacceptable, then jail-breaking has been available for some time.
It is noticeable that Apple was done little to prevent this, they have only discouraged it. They have not prosecuted the originators of the hacks, in fact in some cases they appear to have employed them. They have not changed they keys with each release of the software. They've not done any number of things that they could have done to deliberately disadvantage users who have jail-broken. Because if a few competent users choose to take responsibility for maybe bricking their phones, well thats up to them. Apple have been paid and need take no responsibility for the consequences.
If this takes off in a bigger way, I think that Apple's main concern will simply be to leave no ambiguity in the relationship. i.e. that once you jail-break then Apple is not responsible for any problems that you may have. Thats down to the people who supplied the jail-break.
Yes, Jail-break software providers. If what you are doing isn't illegal, then you are much more likely to actually get sued by the people who have problems - disclaimers or not.
However, what about Microsoft.
Presumably if I have a legal copy of XP and Microsoft wont activate it, because they say I've done so too often, or because they want to force me to Vista/7/whatever, then by the same logic I am entitled to break the security on XP in order to action my right to continue to use it. Obviously we can't all do this so presumably we can share the break around. That'll cut down on take up of new WIndows revisions!
What about Google
Google are putting a lot of effort into their 'free' phone system, Android. They don't have the simple customer relationship that Apple has. They presumably assume that they will make their money later by using the system to channel users through their search engines to their adverts.
They appear to retain the ability to control the form of Android that goes out to end users, and therefore the ability, once they have build their market share with Mr Nice freebies, to lock down the browsers and search engines that users can easily access.
So, brainwash-breaking for Android phones that, say, block the phone's ability to waste bandwidth picking up advertising, would be OK too. That might be seriously popular on a mobile device and might remove 100% of Googles return for investing in Android in the first place.
apple's own apps have NO DRM AT ALL!! if you download one, you can load it on your ipod without paying.
even if they do have DRM, this law has nothing to do with it. you should be able to access the full system instead of what apple wants you to access. jailbreaking has nothing to do with piracy it has to do with being able to run your own applications as a developer without paying apple $100 + 30% of your revenue.
the canadian system is stupid it ASSUMES YOU ARE A PIRATE! what if you buy a hard drive and everything you buy for it is legal? i know a lot of people who have never pirated a thing in their lives. why should they pay this stupid levy????
Sorry, I forgot to use the <sarcasm> tag again. Some people can't tell sarcasm when it isn't used.
I hope this doesn't allow apps to be copied freely, or digital media. Piracy has killed many a platform in the past. Anyway it doesn't apply to me, I live in a country where crime is still illegal.
Nope, this doesn't change the illegal status of distributing apps without the copyright holder's consent. The exemption specifically states that jailbreaking is only authorized in situations where the 3rd party software to be installed, was obtained legally.
If a person uses a jailbreak to install 3rd party software which was obtained illegally, then that particular person's instance of jailbreaking reverts back to a DMCA violation.
________________________
I haven't had the patience to read over all the comments so far, but has it been noted yet that the "SIM unlocking" portion of this announcement isn't actually new?
The previous list of DMCA exemptions, published several years ago, contained an extremely similar provision, so people who use software to hack their out-of-contract phones to break the SIM lock are basically in the same position they've been in since the iPhone first came into existence.
FIrstly, this change doesn't actually make it make it 'legal', whatever that means, to jailbreak a phone. It removes one particular legal obstacle in doing so, which was an implied copyright infringement if you hacked the security.
It does not give you a a free pass to actually copy code as part of the jailbreak.
It does not give you a waver from the contracts that you have agreed to, as a user, including to not reverse engineer parts of the system.
But that aside, what impact does this have on Apple.
Apple has a pretty simple relationship with the iPhone user. They charge a premium price for a premium phone, hardware and software.
While Apple manages the device and applications available for it in a way that some find an issue, for most users this is actually a major blessing in that it minimises worry about malware.
For those who wanted an iPhone, but have found this unacceptable, then jail-breaking has been available for some time.
It is noticeable that Apple was done little to prevent this, they have only discouraged it. They have not prosecuted the originators of the hacks, in fact in some cases they appear to have employed them. They have not changed they keys with each release of the software. They've not done any number of things that they could have done to deliberately disadvantage users who have jail-broken. Because if a few competent users choose to take responsibility for maybe bricking their phones, well thats up to them. Apple have been paid and need take no responsibility for the consequences.
If this takes off in a bigger way, I think that Apple's main concern will simply be to leave no ambiguity in the relationship. i.e. that once you jail-break then Apple is not responsible for any problems that you may have. Thats down to the people who supplied the jail-break.
Yes, Jail-break software providers. If what you are doing isn't illegal, then you are much more likely to actually get sued by the people who have problems - disclaimers or not.
However, what about Microsoft.
Presumably if I have a legal copy of XP and Microsoft wont activate it, because they say I've done so too often, or because they want to force me to Vista/7/whatever, then by the same logic I am entitled to break the security on XP in order to action my right to continue to use it. Obviously we can't all do this so presumably we can share the break around. That'll cut down on take up of new WIndows revisions!
What about Google
Google are putting a lot of effort into their 'free' phone system, Android. They don't have the simple customer relationship that Apple has. They presumably assume that they will make their money later by using the system to channel users through their search engines to their adverts.
They appear to retain the ability to control the form of Android that goes out to end users, and therefore the ability, once they have build their market share with Mr Nice freebies, to lock down the browsers and search engines that users can easily access.
So, brainwash-breaking for Android phones that, say, block the phone's ability to waste bandwidth picking up advertising, would be OK too. That might be seriously popular on a mobile device and might remove 100% of Googles return for investing in Android in the first place.
Just a thought.
Firstly, yes, it does explicitly make jailbreaking legal in the US.
Second, it has no bearing at all on Windows XP, the classes are specifically limited to mobile telephones.
Third, yes, google might be concerned about this allowing devs to create better adblocking for Android. So, another win for consumers. But, as with iAds, given some devs depend on it for revenue, it might be a loss for them.
Oh really? Most jailbreakers use illegally obtained software. 90% you say. Where is the data to back up that claim? Recently Jay Freeman in an interview stated about 6 million people (out of 100+ million iDevices) jailbreak the iOS based on Cydia stats. Show us where 90% of them use illegal software?
Jay's quoted usage only reflects the number of users that have jailbroken their devices and downloaded materials Cydia. It does not say that 90% of those 6million Cydia users are only getting their apps from Cydia, no one has the data on whether on not those folks are pirating apps. The OP might not have hard data on if 90% of jailbreakers use pirated apps, but it goes along with my informal poll of friends who have jailbroken the phone.
Also, I think it is interesting that the term Jailbreak was even invented if the users were not intending to use pirated or illegal software. Before the iPhone there was no technical definition of 'JailBreak' and still today if you look up the definition of the word, the only technological references are to iOS devices. A new term was created when the first iPhones were cracked/hacked and as a collective community we associated that procedure with an illegal term. I think that gives a little insight into the mindset of those who first 'jailbroke' their devices.
Bull. Very few governments mandate that a carrier must unlock cell phones at any time. With the exception of Singapore, no other country in the world has such law against SIM locking.
Singapore appears to be the only country that has an outright ban on all SIM locks. But several other countries have limitations on how long a SIM lock can last, and have mandatory programs obliging the carriers to provide official unlocks (sometimes for a fee, but sometimes they're legally required to do it for free, depending on the country) after a certain period of time (or after the bundled contract expires, or under other conditions that may vary from country to country).
Jay's quoted usage only reflects the number of users that have jailbroken their devices and downloaded materials Cydia. It does not say that 90% of those 6million Cydia users are only getting their apps from Cydia, no one has the data on whether on not those folks are pirating apps. The OP might not have hard data on if 90% of jailbreakers use pirated apps, but it goes along with my informal poll of friends who have jailbroken the phone.
Also, I think it is interesting that the term Jailbreak was even invented if the users were not intending to use pirated or illegal software. Before the iPhone there was no technical definition of 'JailBreak' and still today if you look up the definition of the word, the only technological references are to iOS devices. A new term was created when the first iPhones were cracked/hacked and as a collective community we associated that procedure with an illegal term. I think that gives a little insight into the mindset of those who first 'jailbroke' their devices.
A little bit more history for you: When the first iPhones were jailbroken, no 3rd party apps existed yet to be pirated. So the very first jailbreakers had to have been using the technique to write their own original software. Indeed, in those days, the only way for anybody to distribute any of their own original native apps was through jailbreaking.
Also, I think it is interesting that the term Jailbreak was even invented if the users were not intending to use pirated or illegal software. Before the iPhone there was no technical definition of 'JailBreak' and still today if you look up the definition of the word, the only technological references are to iOS devices. A new term was created when the first iPhones were cracked/hacked and as a collective community we associated that procedure with an illegal term. I think that gives a little insight into the mindset of those who first 'jailbroke' their devices.
That being that they felt their devices were unnecessarily locked up? I guess the could have called it "Method to remove burdensome restrictions on usage of personal property and to install applications and utilities selected by the owner instead of a another party". But that doesn't have the same ring to it.
And other than the terminology, rooting of locked down devices has been around for much longer than the iPhone.
Personally, I question the ethics of the people jailbreaking their phones. On one hand, I agree that it's their phone (subisdized by AT&T), so they can do what they want with it. But to my mind, as soon as you've decided to jailbreak your phone, you've implicity stated: "Yes, I know better than Apple. I will support my own device, thank you very much". Yet, the next time Apple releases a software update, these hypocrites start trying to install the updated firmware. This is unethical. Youv'e already stated (implictly at least) that you will provide your own support. Why do you think you have a right to additional support from Apple. Find and patch your own bugs. Add your own capabilities as you see fit. But you have no right to use Apple software any more.
Sorry for the rant. I guess I'm not a people person.
So to answer the original question of "Now what?", I say that Apple should step up their efforts to brick jailbroken phones with future software updates.
Henry 3 Dogg, there is a lot of sound reason in your thoughts. To put it in another way, Apple, as a primarily hardware company, will likely benefit form the gained consumer freedom; software companies such as Google and MS might find the new laws less positive to their business models.
Personally, I question the ethics of the people jailbreaking their phones. On one hand, I agree that it's their phone (subisdized by AT&T), so they can do what they want with it. But to my mind, as soon as you've decided to jailbreak your phone, you've implicity stated: "Yes, I know better than Apple. I will support my own device, thank you very much". Yet, the next time Apple releases a software update, these hypocrites start trying to install the updated firmware. This is unethical. Youv'e already stated (implictly at least) that you will provide your own support. Why do you think you have a right to additional support from Apple. Find and patch your own bugs. Add your own capabilities as you see fit. But you have no right to use Apple software any more.
Sorry for the rant. I guess I'm not a people person.
So to answer the original question of "Now what?", I say that Apple should step up their efforts to brick jailbroken phones with future software updates.
And if they are a year old and out of warranty? They perform a legal act of opening their phone and you say brick 'em? I assume you have applied updates even if you phone is out of warranty. Is that unethical? Shouldn't you pay be expected to pay for AppleCare if you expect Apple to continue to support your old, legacy device? Have you ever applied software updates to you Mac, even though it was out of warranty? If you decided not to pay Apple for extended warranty coverage, aren't you saying "Yes, I know better than Apple. I will support my own device, thank you very much"? " Youv'e already stated (implictly at least) that you will provide your own support. Why do you think you have a right to additional support from Apple. Find and patch your own bugs. Add your own capabilities as you see fit. But you have no right to use Apple software any more. "
They problem with that thinking is you do still have the right to use Apple software, whether it is out of warranty or if you have legally jailbroken it. You paid for it, you have the right to use it. You have broken your warranty or have let your warranty expire. This doesn't remove your right to use it.
And if they are a year old and out of warranty? They perform a legal act of opening their phone and you say brick 'em? I assume you have applied updates even if you phone is out of warranty. Is that unethical? Shouldn't you pay be expected to pay for AppleCare if you expect Apple to continue to support your old, legacy device? Have you ever applied software updates to you Mac, even though it was out of warranty? If you decided not to pay Apple for extended warranty coverage, aren't you saying "Yes, I know better than Apple. I will support my own device, thank you very much"? " Youv'e already stated (implictly at least) that you will provide your own support. Why do you think you have a right to additional support from Apple. Find and patch your own bugs. Add your own capabilities as you see fit. But you have no right to use Apple software any more. "
They problem with that thinking is you do still have the right to use Apple software, whether it is out of warranty or if you have legally jailbroken it. You paid for it, you have the right to use it. You have broken your warranty or have let your warranty expire. This doesn't remove your right to use it.
More like two years old and out of contract. AppleCare or not, I believe Apple will make it very clear that they will not support customers who bypass the AppStore, and especially to the extent that future updates to iOS may brick their iPhone and/or make non-approved apps nonfunctional. All things considered, I am missing the attraction of anyone going this route. Somebody help me on this. Other than using a two year old phone with an expired contract off the AT&T network, what are the compelling reasons?
And if they are a year old and out of warranty? They perform a legal act of opening their phone and you say brick 'em? I assume you have applied updates even if you phone is out of warranty. Is that unethical? Shouldn't you pay be expected to pay for AppleCare if you expect Apple to continue to support your old, legacy device? Have you ever applied software updates to you Mac, even though it was out of warranty? If you decided not to pay Apple for extended warranty coverage, aren't you saying "Yes, I know better than Apple. I will support my own device, thank you very much"? " Youv'e already stated (implictly at least) that you will provide your own support. Why do you think you have a right to additional support from Apple. Find and patch your own bugs. Add your own capabilities as you see fit. But you have no right to use Apple software any more. "
They problem with that thinking is you do still have the right to use Apple software, whether it is out of warranty or if you have legally jailbroken it. You paid for it, you have the right to use it. You have broken your warranty or have let your warranty expire. This doesn't remove your right to use it.
I'm not saying jailbreaking is illegal. I'm just saying that you should no longer have any rights to updated software from Apple. You are on your own. Since bricking would only occur if you're installing something that you should no longer be entitled to, then bricking shouldn't really be unexpected.
I just think that if you break Apple's rules, you break their support. What does "you paid for it" mean? To get support from Apple, you have to play by the rules. If you change the rules, you change the support commitment.
More like two years old and out of contract. AppleCare or not, I believe Apple will make it very clear that they will not support customers who bypass the AppStore, and especially to the extent that future updates to iOS may brick their iPhone and/or make non-approved apps nonfunctional. All things considered, I am missing the attraction of anyone going this route. Somebody help me on this. Other than using a two year old phone with an expired contract off the AT&T network, what are the compelling reasons?
Maybe you have a wifi iPad and want to get it online when you are out of the house. You pay for tethering, but since there is no Apple sanctioned method, you JB so you can use your iPhone as a wifi router. Everything is legal and above board, but the you can't do it without jailbreaking. Or perhaps you are really interested in the services that Google Voice offers. You JB and you can now use the 3rd party apps that Apple used to allow. Again, legal, but restrictions prevent you. Maybe you want to customize and theme the interface. Maybe you want to take advantage of the apps created by developers that have been rejected by Apple for less than technical reasons. Maybe you travel a lot and would like to avoid being bent over paying AT&T roaming rates and would use a local carrier instead. maybe you toggle settings fairly often, depending on environment and circumstance (sort of like MacOS locations) but find it a pain to have to drill down in Settings for each one and would prefer to be able to set and use one touch switches to flip a batch of settings. Maybe you love your iPhone but don't like the idea of being told what you are allowed and not allowed to do with it, even if it is Apple that is deciding for you.
There are lots of reason, but their importance will vary by person. I think the most common reason are the same reasons few of us would ever buy a Mac that didn't allow us to use it as we choose. I haven't ever jailbroken my 3G. I might after I get the 4 so I can pass the 3G onto my wife or sister to use on another carrier.
I'm not saying jailbreaking is illegal. I'm just saying that you should no longer have any rights to updated software from Apple. You are on your own. Since bricking would only occur if you're installing something that you should no longer be entitled to, then bricking shouldn't really be unexpected.
I just think that if you break Apple's rules, you break their support. What does "you paid for it" mean? To get support from Apple, you have to play by the rules. If you change the rules, you change the support commitment.
You wrote " But you have no right to use Apple software any more. " You paid for it, why shouldn't you be allowed to use it? You have as much right to use the software after it is jailbroken as you do after your warranty has expired. In both cases, you have no warranty. But you have every right to continue to use it. Because you paid for it.
As for software updates, you are probably right. Once you have voided your warranty, you certainly shouldn't expect Apple to support it, just as once you allow your warranty to expire you shouldn't expect Apple to support it. But software updates have traditionally fallen outside of warranty expectations. I am sure you continue to apply software updates after your warranty has expired. You have chosen not to pay for additional warranty support and have decided to support it on your own, yet you continue to take advantage of the free software updates. Is that unethical?
Whether you are out of warranty because you jailbroke or because you allowed you warranty to expire, you are out of warranty. neither should really feel entitled to free updates, should they?
Comments
Wow. That was unexpected.
Excellent move on the freedom front in regards carriers. Really bad, bad, move on the "your allowed to jailbreak" front. I can't see how anyone can have any data security if jailbreaking is allowed.
man, seriously? do you even know what jailbreaking is? you can write your own programs on a mac, and there's data security there. you shouldn't have to pay apple $100 and give up 30% of your revenue just to get your application on apple's platform. how can you possibly think this law is a bad thing
ALL phones should be unlocked. exclusive contracts, 2 year contracts...those things bring down the US cellular industry. where is the advantage to the consumer to lock everything down?
all these tactics are meant to force us to stick with a carrier that we aren't satisfied with. there should be free, open competition. imagine if it didn't matter which phone you bought. phone companies would compete on PRICE and SERVICE instead of competing on who can get the best contracts
I hope this doesn't allow apps to be copied freely, or digital media. Piracy has killed many a platform in the past. Anyway it doesn't apply to me, I live in a country where crime is still illegal.
um hello? apple doesn't have DRM on any apps or music.
you don't know what jailbreaking or unlocking is at all. both of these things allow nothing of the sort. this allows you to install non-apple approved applications and use your iphone with t-mobile. this should have been legal in the first place.
it's not a crime to modify the software of your own device that you bought as long as you don't sell your modified system.
You might own some aspects of the hardware, but Apple owns the OS completely. We should consider ourself lucky that apple doesn't remotely wipe all their software and brick the phone. Instead, they let us continue to use thier software for free.
wrong. you are allowed to modify software if you do not distribute or sell your changes. this law further emphasizes the right to install your own software on your own device.
the software isn't free. you paid hundreds of dollars to buy the hardware that runs this software, which you can't run on anything else. why in the world would you take the side of the US cellular industry?
Sounds great. Here in Canada we have something similar. They government charges a levy on all blank media and all harddrives. They tried to expand this to all electronic devices that can store digital media. You buy a blank CD, pay a levy. Buy a blank DVD, pay a levy. Buy an iPod, and they wanted you to pay a $75 levy (I believe this specific bill failed). The monies collected were passed on to the record and film companies in order to compensate them for the theft that we, as purchasers of the blank media, were assumed to be committing.
That is in essence what you are asking for.
stupid stupid stupid
jailbreaking doesn't enable software piracy.
apple's own apps have NO DRM AT ALL!! if you download one, you can load it on your ipod without paying.
even if they do have DRM, this law has nothing to do with it. you should be able to access the full system instead of what apple wants you to access. jailbreaking has nothing to do with piracy it has to do with being able to run your own applications as a developer without paying apple $100 + 30% of your revenue.
the canadian system is stupid it ASSUMES YOU ARE A PIRATE! what if you buy a hard drive and everything you buy for it is legal? i know a lot of people who have never pirated a thing in their lives. why should they pay this stupid levy????
Can't wait for all the new jailbait iPhone Porn App viruses.
i'm sorry, you are just uninformed. why is it that it's okay to have unrestricted software on a Mac or PC but it's not okay for ipod/iphone/ipad? computers and ipods are technically the SAME THING.
APPLE WANTS TO MAKE $100 + 30% OF PROFITS FROM EVERY DEVELOPER! IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT!
no one is forcing you to jailbreak your phone or download apps that are shady. that's your stupid own fault. i have been running without anti virus on a PC for years without issue because i'm not a typical dumb user.
enjoy your apple nanny state.
It does not give you a a free pass to actually copy code as part of the jailbreak.
It does not give you a waver from the contracts that you have agreed to, as a user, including to not reverse engineer parts of the system.
But that aside, what impact does this have on Apple.
Apple has a pretty simple relationship with the iPhone user. They charge a premium price for a premium phone, hardware and software.
While Apple manages the device and applications available for it in a way that some find an issue, for most users this is actually a major blessing in that it minimises worry about malware.
For those who wanted an iPhone, but have found this unacceptable, then jail-breaking has been available for some time.
It is noticeable that Apple was done little to prevent this, they have only discouraged it. They have not prosecuted the originators of the hacks, in fact in some cases they appear to have employed them. They have not changed they keys with each release of the software. They've not done any number of things that they could have done to deliberately disadvantage users who have jail-broken. Because if a few competent users choose to take responsibility for maybe bricking their phones, well thats up to them. Apple have been paid and need take no responsibility for the consequences.
If this takes off in a bigger way, I think that Apple's main concern will simply be to leave no ambiguity in the relationship. i.e. that once you jail-break then Apple is not responsible for any problems that you may have. Thats down to the people who supplied the jail-break.
Yes, Jail-break software providers. If what you are doing isn't illegal, then you are much more likely to actually get sued by the people who have problems - disclaimers or not.
However, what about Microsoft.
Presumably if I have a legal copy of XP and Microsoft wont activate it, because they say I've done so too often, or because they want to force me to Vista/7/whatever, then by the same logic I am entitled to break the security on XP in order to action my right to continue to use it. Obviously we can't all do this so presumably we can share the break around. That'll cut down on take up of new WIndows revisions!
What about Google
Google are putting a lot of effort into their 'free' phone system, Android. They don't have the simple customer relationship that Apple has. They presumably assume that they will make their money later by using the system to channel users through their search engines to their adverts.
They appear to retain the ability to control the form of Android that goes out to end users, and therefore the ability, once they have build their market share with Mr Nice freebies, to lock down the browsers and search engines that users can easily access.
So, brainwash-breaking for Android phones that, say, block the phone's ability to waste bandwidth picking up advertising, would be OK too. That might be seriously popular on a mobile device and might remove 100% of Googles return for investing in Android in the first place.
Just a thought.
stupid stupid stupid
jailbreaking doesn't enable software piracy.
apple's own apps have NO DRM AT ALL!! if you download one, you can load it on your ipod without paying.
even if they do have DRM, this law has nothing to do with it. you should be able to access the full system instead of what apple wants you to access. jailbreaking has nothing to do with piracy it has to do with being able to run your own applications as a developer without paying apple $100 + 30% of your revenue.
the canadian system is stupid it ASSUMES YOU ARE A PIRATE! what if you buy a hard drive and everything you buy for it is legal? i know a lot of people who have never pirated a thing in their lives. why should they pay this stupid levy????
Sorry, I forgot to use the <sarcasm> tag again. Some people can't tell sarcasm when it isn't used.
I hope this doesn't allow apps to be copied freely, or digital media. Piracy has killed many a platform in the past. Anyway it doesn't apply to me, I live in a country where crime is still illegal.
Nope, this doesn't change the illegal status of distributing apps without the copyright holder's consent. The exemption specifically states that jailbreaking is only authorized in situations where the 3rd party software to be installed, was obtained legally.
If a person uses a jailbreak to install 3rd party software which was obtained illegally, then that particular person's instance of jailbreaking reverts back to a DMCA violation.
________________________
I haven't had the patience to read over all the comments so far, but has it been noted yet that the "SIM unlocking" portion of this announcement isn't actually new?
The previous list of DMCA exemptions, published several years ago, contained an extremely similar provision, so people who use software to hack their out-of-contract phones to break the SIM lock are basically in the same position they've been in since the iPhone first came into existence.
FIrstly, this change doesn't actually make it make it 'legal', whatever that means, to jailbreak a phone. It removes one particular legal obstacle in doing so, which was an implied copyright infringement if you hacked the security.
It does not give you a a free pass to actually copy code as part of the jailbreak.
It does not give you a waver from the contracts that you have agreed to, as a user, including to not reverse engineer parts of the system.
But that aside, what impact does this have on Apple.
Apple has a pretty simple relationship with the iPhone user. They charge a premium price for a premium phone, hardware and software.
While Apple manages the device and applications available for it in a way that some find an issue, for most users this is actually a major blessing in that it minimises worry about malware.
For those who wanted an iPhone, but have found this unacceptable, then jail-breaking has been available for some time.
It is noticeable that Apple was done little to prevent this, they have only discouraged it. They have not prosecuted the originators of the hacks, in fact in some cases they appear to have employed them. They have not changed they keys with each release of the software. They've not done any number of things that they could have done to deliberately disadvantage users who have jail-broken. Because if a few competent users choose to take responsibility for maybe bricking their phones, well thats up to them. Apple have been paid and need take no responsibility for the consequences.
If this takes off in a bigger way, I think that Apple's main concern will simply be to leave no ambiguity in the relationship. i.e. that once you jail-break then Apple is not responsible for any problems that you may have. Thats down to the people who supplied the jail-break.
Yes, Jail-break software providers. If what you are doing isn't illegal, then you are much more likely to actually get sued by the people who have problems - disclaimers or not.
However, what about Microsoft.
Presumably if I have a legal copy of XP and Microsoft wont activate it, because they say I've done so too often, or because they want to force me to Vista/7/whatever, then by the same logic I am entitled to break the security on XP in order to action my right to continue to use it. Obviously we can't all do this so presumably we can share the break around. That'll cut down on take up of new WIndows revisions!
What about Google
Google are putting a lot of effort into their 'free' phone system, Android. They don't have the simple customer relationship that Apple has. They presumably assume that they will make their money later by using the system to channel users through their search engines to their adverts.
They appear to retain the ability to control the form of Android that goes out to end users, and therefore the ability, once they have build their market share with Mr Nice freebies, to lock down the browsers and search engines that users can easily access.
So, brainwash-breaking for Android phones that, say, block the phone's ability to waste bandwidth picking up advertising, would be OK too. That might be seriously popular on a mobile device and might remove 100% of Googles return for investing in Android in the first place.
Just a thought.
Firstly, yes, it does explicitly make jailbreaking legal in the US.
Second, it has no bearing at all on Windows XP, the classes are specifically limited to mobile telephones.
Third, yes, google might be concerned about this allowing devs to create better adblocking for Android. So, another win for consumers. But, as with iAds, given some devs depend on it for revenue, it might be a loss for them.
Oh really? Most jailbreakers use illegally obtained software. 90% you say. Where is the data to back up that claim? Recently Jay Freeman in an interview stated about 6 million people (out of 100+ million iDevices) jailbreak the iOS based on Cydia stats. Show us where 90% of them use illegal software?
Jay's quoted usage only reflects the number of users that have jailbroken their devices and downloaded materials Cydia. It does not say that 90% of those 6million Cydia users are only getting their apps from Cydia, no one has the data on whether on not those folks are pirating apps. The OP might not have hard data on if 90% of jailbreakers use pirated apps, but it goes along with my informal poll of friends who have jailbroken the phone.
Also, I think it is interesting that the term Jailbreak was even invented if the users were not intending to use pirated or illegal software. Before the iPhone there was no technical definition of 'JailBreak' and still today if you look up the definition of the word, the only technological references are to iOS devices. A new term was created when the first iPhones were cracked/hacked and as a collective community we associated that procedure with an illegal term. I think that gives a little insight into the mindset of those who first 'jailbroke' their devices.
Bull. Very few governments mandate that a carrier must unlock cell phones at any time. With the exception of Singapore, no other country in the world has such law against SIM locking.
Singapore appears to be the only country that has an outright ban on all SIM locks. But several other countries have limitations on how long a SIM lock can last, and have mandatory programs obliging the carriers to provide official unlocks (sometimes for a fee, but sometimes they're legally required to do it for free, depending on the country) after a certain period of time (or after the bundled contract expires, or under other conditions that may vary from country to country).
Jay's quoted usage only reflects the number of users that have jailbroken their devices and downloaded materials Cydia. It does not say that 90% of those 6million Cydia users are only getting their apps from Cydia, no one has the data on whether on not those folks are pirating apps. The OP might not have hard data on if 90% of jailbreakers use pirated apps, but it goes along with my informal poll of friends who have jailbroken the phone.
Also, I think it is interesting that the term Jailbreak was even invented if the users were not intending to use pirated or illegal software. Before the iPhone there was no technical definition of 'JailBreak' and still today if you look up the definition of the word, the only technological references are to iOS devices. A new term was created when the first iPhones were cracked/hacked and as a collective community we associated that procedure with an illegal term. I think that gives a little insight into the mindset of those who first 'jailbroke' their devices.
A little bit more history for you: When the first iPhones were jailbroken, no 3rd party apps existed yet to be pirated. So the very first jailbreakers had to have been using the technique to write their own original software. Indeed, in those days, the only way for anybody to distribute any of their own original native apps was through jailbreaking.
Also, I think it is interesting that the term Jailbreak was even invented if the users were not intending to use pirated or illegal software. Before the iPhone there was no technical definition of 'JailBreak' and still today if you look up the definition of the word, the only technological references are to iOS devices. A new term was created when the first iPhones were cracked/hacked and as a collective community we associated that procedure with an illegal term. I think that gives a little insight into the mindset of those who first 'jailbroke' their devices.
That being that they felt their devices were unnecessarily locked up? I guess the could have called it "Method to remove burdensome restrictions on usage of personal property and to install applications and utilities selected by the owner instead of a another party". But that doesn't have the same ring to it.
And other than the terminology, rooting of locked down devices has been around for much longer than the iPhone.
Hahaha Apple. Now what?
Personally, I question the ethics of the people jailbreaking their phones. On one hand, I agree that it's their phone (subisdized by AT&T), so they can do what they want with it. But to my mind, as soon as you've decided to jailbreak your phone, you've implicity stated: "Yes, I know better than Apple. I will support my own device, thank you very much". Yet, the next time Apple releases a software update, these hypocrites start trying to install the updated firmware. This is unethical. Youv'e already stated (implictly at least) that you will provide your own support. Why do you think you have a right to additional support from Apple. Find and patch your own bugs. Add your own capabilities as you see fit. But you have no right to use Apple software any more.
Sorry for the rant. I guess I'm not a people person.
So to answer the original question of "Now what?", I say that Apple should step up their efforts to brick jailbroken phones with future software updates.
...Just a thought.
Henry 3 Dogg, there is a lot of sound reason in your thoughts. To put it in another way, Apple, as a primarily hardware company, will likely benefit form the gained consumer freedom; software companies such as Google and MS might find the new laws less positive to their business models.
Personally, I question the ethics of the people jailbreaking their phones. On one hand, I agree that it's their phone (subisdized by AT&T), so they can do what they want with it. But to my mind, as soon as you've decided to jailbreak your phone, you've implicity stated: "Yes, I know better than Apple. I will support my own device, thank you very much". Yet, the next time Apple releases a software update, these hypocrites start trying to install the updated firmware. This is unethical. Youv'e already stated (implictly at least) that you will provide your own support. Why do you think you have a right to additional support from Apple. Find and patch your own bugs. Add your own capabilities as you see fit. But you have no right to use Apple software any more.
Sorry for the rant. I guess I'm not a people person.
So to answer the original question of "Now what?", I say that Apple should step up their efforts to brick jailbroken phones with future software updates.
And if they are a year old and out of warranty? They perform a legal act of opening their phone and you say brick 'em? I assume you have applied updates even if you phone is out of warranty. Is that unethical? Shouldn't you pay be expected to pay for AppleCare if you expect Apple to continue to support your old, legacy device? Have you ever applied software updates to you Mac, even though it was out of warranty? If you decided not to pay Apple for extended warranty coverage, aren't you saying "Yes, I know better than Apple. I will support my own device, thank you very much"? " Youv'e already stated (implictly at least) that you will provide your own support. Why do you think you have a right to additional support from Apple. Find and patch your own bugs. Add your own capabilities as you see fit. But you have no right to use Apple software any more. "
They problem with that thinking is you do still have the right to use Apple software, whether it is out of warranty or if you have legally jailbroken it. You paid for it, you have the right to use it. You have broken your warranty or have let your warranty expire. This doesn't remove your right to use it.
And if they are a year old and out of warranty? They perform a legal act of opening their phone and you say brick 'em? I assume you have applied updates even if you phone is out of warranty. Is that unethical? Shouldn't you pay be expected to pay for AppleCare if you expect Apple to continue to support your old, legacy device? Have you ever applied software updates to you Mac, even though it was out of warranty? If you decided not to pay Apple for extended warranty coverage, aren't you saying "Yes, I know better than Apple. I will support my own device, thank you very much"? " Youv'e already stated (implictly at least) that you will provide your own support. Why do you think you have a right to additional support from Apple. Find and patch your own bugs. Add your own capabilities as you see fit. But you have no right to use Apple software any more. "
They problem with that thinking is you do still have the right to use Apple software, whether it is out of warranty or if you have legally jailbroken it. You paid for it, you have the right to use it. You have broken your warranty or have let your warranty expire. This doesn't remove your right to use it.
More like two years old and out of contract. AppleCare or not, I believe Apple will make it very clear that they will not support customers who bypass the AppStore, and especially to the extent that future updates to iOS may brick their iPhone and/or make non-approved apps nonfunctional. All things considered, I am missing the attraction of anyone going this route. Somebody help me on this. Other than using a two year old phone with an expired contract off the AT&T network, what are the compelling reasons?
And if they are a year old and out of warranty? They perform a legal act of opening their phone and you say brick 'em? I assume you have applied updates even if you phone is out of warranty. Is that unethical? Shouldn't you pay be expected to pay for AppleCare if you expect Apple to continue to support your old, legacy device? Have you ever applied software updates to you Mac, even though it was out of warranty? If you decided not to pay Apple for extended warranty coverage, aren't you saying "Yes, I know better than Apple. I will support my own device, thank you very much"? " Youv'e already stated (implictly at least) that you will provide your own support. Why do you think you have a right to additional support from Apple. Find and patch your own bugs. Add your own capabilities as you see fit. But you have no right to use Apple software any more. "
They problem with that thinking is you do still have the right to use Apple software, whether it is out of warranty or if you have legally jailbroken it. You paid for it, you have the right to use it. You have broken your warranty or have let your warranty expire. This doesn't remove your right to use it.
I'm not saying jailbreaking is illegal. I'm just saying that you should no longer have any rights to updated software from Apple. You are on your own. Since bricking would only occur if you're installing something that you should no longer be entitled to, then bricking shouldn't really be unexpected.
I just think that if you break Apple's rules, you break their support. What does "you paid for it" mean? To get support from Apple, you have to play by the rules. If you change the rules, you change the support commitment.
More like two years old and out of contract. AppleCare or not, I believe Apple will make it very clear that they will not support customers who bypass the AppStore, and especially to the extent that future updates to iOS may brick their iPhone and/or make non-approved apps nonfunctional. All things considered, I am missing the attraction of anyone going this route. Somebody help me on this. Other than using a two year old phone with an expired contract off the AT&T network, what are the compelling reasons?
Maybe you have a wifi iPad and want to get it online when you are out of the house. You pay for tethering, but since there is no Apple sanctioned method, you JB so you can use your iPhone as a wifi router. Everything is legal and above board, but the you can't do it without jailbreaking. Or perhaps you are really interested in the services that Google Voice offers. You JB and you can now use the 3rd party apps that Apple used to allow. Again, legal, but restrictions prevent you. Maybe you want to customize and theme the interface. Maybe you want to take advantage of the apps created by developers that have been rejected by Apple for less than technical reasons. Maybe you travel a lot and would like to avoid being bent over paying AT&T roaming rates and would use a local carrier instead. maybe you toggle settings fairly often, depending on environment and circumstance (sort of like MacOS locations) but find it a pain to have to drill down in Settings for each one and would prefer to be able to set and use one touch switches to flip a batch of settings. Maybe you love your iPhone but don't like the idea of being told what you are allowed and not allowed to do with it, even if it is Apple that is deciding for you.
There are lots of reason, but their importance will vary by person. I think the most common reason are the same reasons few of us would ever buy a Mac that didn't allow us to use it as we choose. I haven't ever jailbroken my 3G. I might after I get the 4 so I can pass the 3G onto my wife or sister to use on another carrier.
I'm not saying jailbreaking is illegal. I'm just saying that you should no longer have any rights to updated software from Apple. You are on your own. Since bricking would only occur if you're installing something that you should no longer be entitled to, then bricking shouldn't really be unexpected.
I just think that if you break Apple's rules, you break their support. What does "you paid for it" mean? To get support from Apple, you have to play by the rules. If you change the rules, you change the support commitment.
You wrote " But you have no right to use Apple software any more. " You paid for it, why shouldn't you be allowed to use it? You have as much right to use the software after it is jailbroken as you do after your warranty has expired. In both cases, you have no warranty. But you have every right to continue to use it. Because you paid for it.
As for software updates, you are probably right. Once you have voided your warranty, you certainly shouldn't expect Apple to support it, just as once you allow your warranty to expire you shouldn't expect Apple to support it. But software updates have traditionally fallen outside of warranty expectations. I am sure you continue to apply software updates after your warranty has expired. You have chosen not to pay for additional warranty support and have decided to support it on your own, yet you continue to take advantage of the free software updates. Is that unethical?
Whether you are out of warranty because you jailbroke or because you allowed you warranty to expire, you are out of warranty. neither should really feel entitled to free updates, should they?