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.
I don't think this policy has anything to do with compelling Apple to "support" jailbroken software. At the end of the day, all it is doing is removing the DMCA restriction on circumventing digital locks as a jailbreaking deterrent Apple can use.
Anything else in Apple's toolchest of deterrents (such as voiding warranty etc) are still just as available to them as they've always been.
The DMCA is just one legal roadblock to declaring jailbreaking "legal". Other obstacles exist as well. In this proceeding, the LoC only had authority to rule on the DMCA, not any of the other potential obstacles.
For example, the LoC's ruling explicitly states that it is not making any determination whatsoever as to whether or not jailbreaking constitutes a violation of Apple's exclusive rights under the traditional notion of copyright.
In the Register of Copyright's recommendation to the LoC, she acknowledges that Apple undoubtedly owns the intangible rights to the copyright of the software, but she also recognizes that currently, the distinction between owning a physical object that contains a piece of software versus owning the copy embodied thereon, versus simply holding a license to use a piece of software, is contentious, and courts these days are returning conflicting decisions on the matter. She states that in her opinion jailbreaking ought to qualify as a fair use, but she acknowledges that's a decision that would ultimately be up to other federal agencies or the courts to decide.
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.
Isn't tethering mainly the domain of the carrier? If Apple doesn't sanction a method, it's because AT&T doesn't, and they aren't going to start sanctioning it just because someone can do it. You are still going to be completely on your own.
I suppose the key word in my question was "compelling." If I've already got an iPhone in my pocket, cracking it to permit tethering it to my iPad seems well below that threshold. The same goes, double, for customizing the interface. The bottom line is, I don't see jailbreaking becoming any more compelling after this ruling than before it. You are still taking a substantial risk with your expensive, complex device, one which is not going to be supported by the manufacturer. Some people love to tinker but most just want the thing to work. To which group is Apple marketing the iPhone?
Isn't tethering mainly the domain of the carrier? If Apple doesn't sanction a method, it's because AT&T doesn't, and they aren't going to start sanctioning it just because someone can do it. You are still going to be completely on your own.
I suppose the key word in my question was "compelling." If I've already got an iPhone in my pocket, cracking it to permit tethering it to my iPad seems well below that threshold. The same goes, double, for customizing the interface. The bottom line is, I don't see jailbreaking becoming any more compelling after this ruling than before it. You are still taking a substantial risk with your expensive, complex device, one which is not going to be supported by the manufacturer. Some people love to tinker but most just want the thing to work. To which group is Apple marketing the iPhone?
Tethering is partially the domain of the carrier but it is up to Apple in the end. In Canada, my carrier allows tethering. But, I had to wait for Apple to enable it in the OS before I could use it, unless I had chosen to jailbreak. The same for MMS. So, if my carrier allows it or I pay for the service, how else can you get your phone to do it unless you jailbreak, if Apple disables it? Now, in my case, if I buy a wifi iPad, I am allowed by my carrier to share my 3G signal with it, but I cannot since there is no way through the stock OS to do this. But, if I jailbreak, I can share the connection via wifi. My 3G is out of warranty anyway, so what exactly would I lose? For me, it might be compelling. But for now, I have no requirement that would compel me to jailbreak and so I never have.
The ruling in and of itself won't make it any more or less compelling. Either you reasons or you do not. But, it might bring it out of the underground. That might have the effect of removing a psychological barrier some people have with trying it out.
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?
This ultimately comes down to the question of whether or not your purchase of an iPhone constitutes a sale or a lease.
The act of running the software involves copying the software out of mass storage into the computer's RAM. Without any other provisions to the contrary, this copy would be a violation of the copyright holder's exclusive rights.
Two provisions exist which can get around this violation:
1) The copyright holder grants you a license to use the software.
2) Copyright law (United States Code Title 17 section 117) allows for such copies to be made without the copyright holder's consent if the copy is made by the legal owner of a copy of the software. (Elsewhere in the law, a "copy" of a copyrighed work is defined as the physical object on which the copyrighted work is embodied -- hence the owner of a copy of a copyrighted work is literally the exact same thing as the owner of the physical object that contains the copyighted work.)
If it's a sale, then you own the object, and therefore by definition you own the copy of software embodied within the object, and therefore section 117 applies.
If it's a lease, then you don't own the object, and therefore title 117 doesn't apply, so your ability to run the software is totally dependent on the permission you receive by means of a software license. If you violate that license, then Apple can revoke it, and subsequently, any attempt you make to run the software will violate Apple's exclusive rights as copyright holder. Everything listed in this paragraph this happens without the aid of any DMCA provisions, so the new DMCA exception doesn't change anything.
Case law on this issue currently has conflicting court decisions. It appears as though the most recent court decision leans more towards opinion that if the transaction results in irrevocable permission for the customer to possess the physical object, then the transaction constitutes a "sale" rather than a "lease".
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?
I'm not sure that the warranty has anything to do with it. It's more of a EULA thing. You agreed to play by the rules. You're now breaking the rules. No soup for you!
Al Capone was indicted for income tax invasion, not something like RICO.
I like the Freudianism but it is called income tax evasion
It's true that in the US you can be sued for almost anything. The sad thing is that Apple has more money than Bolivia and can probably sue any jailbreaker to bankruptcy. What is a really good outcome of the legalization of jailbreaking is that Cydia and probably a few more companies can now attract real capital. Regular banks don't loan money to "shady businesses" so your interest will be either very high or you have to rely on private capital. I think that the appstore can use some competition. It's competition that made the US into what it is today and Apples protectionist behavior may have fitted in the 19th century but is severely out of date in the 21st century. Even in the 19th century, companies like Remington didn't proscribe the paper you could use in their typewriters. If Cydia or any of the others can offer better deals to developers and have less or no censorship, I see a lot of developers switching.
Tethering is partially the domain of the carrier but it is up to Apple in the end. In Canada, my carrier allows tethering. But, I had to wait for Apple to enable it in the OS before I could use it, unless I had chosen to jailbreak. The same for MMS. So, if my carrier allows it or I pay for the service, how else can you get your phone to do it unless you jailbreak, if Apple disables it? Now, in my case, if I buy a wifi iPad, I am allowed by my carrier to share my 3G signal with it, but I cannot since there is no way through the stock OS to do this. But, if I jailbreak, I can share the connection via wifi. My 3G is out of warranty anyway, so what exactly would I lose? For me, it might be compelling. But for now, I have no requirement that would compel me to jailbreak and so I never have.
The ruling in and of itself won't make it any more or less compelling. Either you reasons or you do not. But, it might bring it out of the underground. That might have the effect of removing a psychological barrier some people have with trying it out.
So answer me this: Why does Apple permit tethering in Canada, but not in the U.S.? Is Apple in Canada a different company than Apple in the U.S.? Seems to me the only variable is the carrier. Also, why would Apple wish to deny this service to their customers? Are they being arbitrary? Perverse?
Their statement, cited now on a number of websites, is this:
Quote:
Apple’s goal has always been to insure that our customers have a great experience with their iPhone and we know that jailbreaking can severely degrade the experience. As we’ve said before, the vast majority of customers do not jailbreak their iPhones as this can violate the warranty and can cause the iPhone to become unstable and not work reliably.
Effectively they're restating the position they'd had all along that jailbreaking is still a warranty-voiding act that diminishes product performance and customer satisfaction, and that this new DMCA exemption doesn't change that.
So answer me this: Why does Apple permit tethering in Canada, but not in the U.S.? Is Apple in Canada a different company than Apple in the U.S.? Seems to me the only variable is the carrier. Also, why would Apple wish to deny this service to their customers? Are they being arbitrary? Perverse?
At the moment, it is all on the carriers to decide. Apple, since OS3 has allowed the carriers to enable tethering, per account. However, prior to that OS release, no carrier could enable tethering on the iPhones, regardless of if they allowed it, since Apple did not expose it in the OS. Apple made no secrets that it was pressure from AT&T that prevented them from enabling tethering in the US, and they then didn't enable it for the rest of us. So, even though it was at AT&T's request, it was applied by Apple to the rest of the markets.
Similarly, at the moment, my carrier would not care what method I use for tethering, being USB, BT, IR or wifi. But, because of the design of the iPad, if I wanted to share my iPhone's connection with the iPad or any other wifi device, I would have to use wifi. This is not possible, as Apple has not exposed it in the OS. It would be trivial for them to do it, but there are obvious downsides (massive battery drain mainly). I would assume even AT&T, if you were paying your tethering fee, would allow you to tethering your other devices to your phone using wifi. But, at the moment it is on Apple to allow it. So, the only option to enable this if to jailbreak.
At the moment, it is all on the carriers to decide. Apple, since OS3 has allowed the carriers to enable tethering, per account. However, prior to that OS release, no carrier could enable tethering on the iPhones, regardless of if they allowed it, since Apple did not expose it in the OS. Apple made no secrets that it was pressure from AT&T that prevented them from enabling tethering in the US, and they then didn't enable it for the rest of us. So, even though it was at AT&T's request, it was applied by Apple to the rest of the markets.
Similarly, at the moment, my carrier would not care what method I use for tethering, being USB, BT, IR or wifi. But, because of the design of the iPad, if I wanted to share my iPhone's connection with the iPad or any other wifi device, I would have to use wifi. This is not possible, as Apple has not exposed it in the OS. It would be trivial for them to do it, but there are obvious downsides (massive battery drain mainly). I would assume even AT&T, if you were paying your tethering fee, would allow you to tethering your other devices to your phone using wifi. But, at the moment it is on Apple to allow it. So, the only option to enable this if to jailbreak.
So it is up the the carriers, ultimately. That is my point. Apple has no incentive whatsoever to withhold this feature from their customers. The reason they don't is apparently that they will have problems with AT&T -- very likely serious contractual issues. It appears they have little choice, yet it still seems to be Apple's fault. You may see jailbreaking as the "solution," but I think this begs the real question about the origin of the problem.
So it is up the the carriers, ultimately. That is my point. Apple has no incentive whatsoever to withhold this feature from their customers. The reason they don't is apparently that they will have problems with AT&T -- very likely serious contractual issues. It appears they have little choice, yet it still seems to be Apple's fault. You may see jailbreaking as the "solution," but I think this begs the real question about the origin of the problem.
Some of it is up to the carriers, some of it is up to Apple. The carrier might allow something, but Apple doesn't allow it. Apple might enable something, but your carrier might not allow it. USB tethering was at one point blocked by Apple (for AT&T) but now it is all up to AT&T for the US. Wifi tethering is allowed by carriers that allow tethering, but Apple doesn't enable it.
Some of it is up to the carriers, some of it is up to Apple. The carrier might allow something, but Apple doesn't allow it. Apple might enable something, but your carrier might not allow it. USB tethering was at one point blocked by Apple (for AT&T) but now it is all up to AT&T for the US. Wifi tethering is allowed by carriers that allow tethering, but Apple doesn't enable it.
But again, my question is also about what incentive Apple has to disallow it. If you can't think of a plausible reason, and if you know of one you certainly haven't mentioned it, then I believe you should place the blame (if that's want you call it) where it belongs -- on the carrier.
But again, my question is also about what incentive Apple has to disallow it. If you can't think of a plausible reason, and if you know of one you certainly haven't mentioned it, then I believe you should place the blame (if that's want you call it) where it belongs -- on the carrier.
Hmmm, I guess we would only be guessing at their 'incentives'. For wifi tethering, I imagine Apple feels the battery drain is too great a trade off. I really can't guess at any other reason for Apple not exposing this setting. For not allowing MMS or tethering worldwide, I would guess that they didn't want to embarrass AT&T early on by allowing it on every carrier except AT&T. Obviously, at some point, they changed their mind and allowed it internationally, but included an ability for the carrier to determine if the feature was functional or not.
Functions that are simply not exposed in the OS (but are through jailbreaking) at hidden by Apple. They might be contractually bound but certainly they have different contracts with different carriers.
Anyway, to your original discussion as to whether having to jailbreak to get tethering was the 'fault' of Apple or the carrier, I would still assert that it depends on what exactly you mean by tethering. Certainly, for basic USB/BT tethering, that is all on the carrier now though in earlier OSes it was at Apple's discretion. For wifi tethering however, it is on Apple as the carrier cannot expose the feature, though they may allow it. So, the benefit of jailbreaking, if done to get wifi sharing, is to get around an Apple imposed limitation. No blame on Apple, I am sure they have their reasons. Perhaps they don't want to go back to the days of explaining how to improve battery performance (turn screen down, turn off wifi and now disable wifi sharing). But, for those that can live with the battery hit, it might be a compelling feature and if their carrier allows it, then jailbreaking is a must to get it.
I'm guessing that the reasons, whatever they may be, aren't arbitrary or capricious. Some likely are a product of their relationships with their wireless partners, and others have to do with the design and performance of the product. I think those are safe guesses.
This takes me back to my original point. If you jailbreak your iPhone, you are operating the device outside of its design limits. As they say in aviation, if you choose to fly an airplane outside the documented performance envelope, you are voluntarily becoming a test pilot. IOW, anything could happen, and you are completely on your own. Not that breaking a product for which you have invented your own performance standards won't come back on the manufacturer. We know that they very often do, to the detriment of the manufacturer.
So I see Apple's concerns over jailbreaking to be legitimate. Contrary to the conspiracy theorists among us, they don't deprive us of product features for perverse reasons. We may not always know their reasons, and we may not always like their reasons. But we should know that they have them, and that Apple will very likely have to live with the consequences of individuals deciding to become test pilots.
I'm guessing that the reasons, whatever they may be, aren't arbitrary or capricious. Some likely are a product of their relationships with their wireless partners, and others have to do with the design and performance of the product. I think those are safe guesses.
This takes me back to my original point. If you jailbreak your iPhone, you are operating the device outside of its design limits. As they say in aviation, if you choose to fly an airplane outside the documented performance envelope, you are voluntarily becoming a test pilot. IOW, anything could happen, and you are completely on your own. Not that breaking a product for which you have invented your own performance standards won't come back on the manufacturer. We know that they very often do, to the detriment of the manufacturer.
So I see Apple's concerns over jailbreaking to be legitimate. Contrary to the conspiracy theorists among us, they don't deprive us of product features for perverse reasons. We may not always know their reasons, and we may not always like their reasons. But we should know that they have them, and that Apple will very likely have to live with the consequences of individuals deciding to become test pilots.
Absolutely agree. Engineering and design are often about tradeoffs, often with an eye to what will benefit the most users. Wifi sharing I think is one of these. Does enabling wifi sharing benefit enough users to expose them to the tradeoff of seriously diminished battery life?
The LoC ruling now allows those that feel they are willing to take that trade off to do so. Will it come back on Apple when people start saying their battery life sucks? Maybe, but if Apple says it is a direct result of a warranty voiding user operation, it probably wouldn't. Just like when the first iPhone worm came out or when the root password vuln came out, both were only possible on jailbroken phones. While there was some fuss initial, when people and especially the media got the message that unjailbroken phones (or those that changed their password) were not affected, Apple didn't have to fix or resolve anything.
Absolutely agree. Engineering and design are often about tradeoffs, often with an eye to what will benefit the most users. Wifi sharing I think is one of these. Does enabling wifi sharing benefit enough users to expose them to the tradeoff of seriously diminished battery life?
The LoC ruling now allows those that feel they are willing to take that trade off to do so. Will it come back on Apple when people start saying their battery life sucks? Maybe, but if Apple says it is a direct result of a warranty voiding user operation, it probably wouldn't. Just like when the first iPhone worm came out or when the root password vuln came out, both were only possible on jailbroken phones. While there was some fuss initial, when people and especially the media got the message that unjailbroken phones (or those that changed their password) were not affected, Apple didn't have to fix or resolve anything.
I'm still predicting that hacking iPhones won't become any more compelling after this ruling than before, if only because Apple hasn't gone after the hackers previously. What I can also predict is that if it does become more commonplace, that Apple will have to wear the consequences. And again, I go back to my original point. What is Apple's market? Apple is selling to people who don't want to live in the Wild West. If someone wants to hack and tinker, let them buy an Android phone. I think it would be deeply unfortunate if the alternative for a more controlled environment was made effectively unavailable just because some people don't like it, and can't see their way clear to making that choice just for themselves and not for others.
Comments
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.
I don't think this policy has anything to do with compelling Apple to "support" jailbroken software. At the end of the day, all it is doing is removing the DMCA restriction on circumventing digital locks as a jailbreaking deterrent Apple can use.
Anything else in Apple's toolchest of deterrents (such as voiding warranty etc) are still just as available to them as they've always been.
The DMCA is just one legal roadblock to declaring jailbreaking "legal". Other obstacles exist as well. In this proceeding, the LoC only had authority to rule on the DMCA, not any of the other potential obstacles.
For example, the LoC's ruling explicitly states that it is not making any determination whatsoever as to whether or not jailbreaking constitutes a violation of Apple's exclusive rights under the traditional notion of copyright.
In the Register of Copyright's recommendation to the LoC, she acknowledges that Apple undoubtedly owns the intangible rights to the copyright of the software, but she also recognizes that currently, the distinction between owning a physical object that contains a piece of software versus owning the copy embodied thereon, versus simply holding a license to use a piece of software, is contentious, and courts these days are returning conflicting decisions on the matter. She states that in her opinion jailbreaking ought to qualify as a fair use, but she acknowledges that's a decision that would ultimately be up to other federal agencies or the courts to decide.
At least, that's the way I've interpreted it.
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.
Isn't tethering mainly the domain of the carrier? If Apple doesn't sanction a method, it's because AT&T doesn't, and they aren't going to start sanctioning it just because someone can do it. You are still going to be completely on your own.
I suppose the key word in my question was "compelling." If I've already got an iPhone in my pocket, cracking it to permit tethering it to my iPad seems well below that threshold. The same goes, double, for customizing the interface. The bottom line is, I don't see jailbreaking becoming any more compelling after this ruling than before it. You are still taking a substantial risk with your expensive, complex device, one which is not going to be supported by the manufacturer. Some people love to tinker but most just want the thing to work. To which group is Apple marketing the iPhone?
Isn't tethering mainly the domain of the carrier? If Apple doesn't sanction a method, it's because AT&T doesn't, and they aren't going to start sanctioning it just because someone can do it. You are still going to be completely on your own.
I suppose the key word in my question was "compelling." If I've already got an iPhone in my pocket, cracking it to permit tethering it to my iPad seems well below that threshold. The same goes, double, for customizing the interface. The bottom line is, I don't see jailbreaking becoming any more compelling after this ruling than before it. You are still taking a substantial risk with your expensive, complex device, one which is not going to be supported by the manufacturer. Some people love to tinker but most just want the thing to work. To which group is Apple marketing the iPhone?
Tethering is partially the domain of the carrier but it is up to Apple in the end. In Canada, my carrier allows tethering. But, I had to wait for Apple to enable it in the OS before I could use it, unless I had chosen to jailbreak. The same for MMS. So, if my carrier allows it or I pay for the service, how else can you get your phone to do it unless you jailbreak, if Apple disables it? Now, in my case, if I buy a wifi iPad, I am allowed by my carrier to share my 3G signal with it, but I cannot since there is no way through the stock OS to do this. But, if I jailbreak, I can share the connection via wifi. My 3G is out of warranty anyway, so what exactly would I lose? For me, it might be compelling. But for now, I have no requirement that would compel me to jailbreak and so I never have.
The ruling in and of itself won't make it any more or less compelling. Either you reasons or you do not. But, it might bring it out of the underground. That might have the effect of removing a psychological barrier some people have with trying it out.
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?
This ultimately comes down to the question of whether or not your purchase of an iPhone constitutes a sale or a lease.
The act of running the software involves copying the software out of mass storage into the computer's RAM. Without any other provisions to the contrary, this copy would be a violation of the copyright holder's exclusive rights.
Two provisions exist which can get around this violation:
1) The copyright holder grants you a license to use the software.
2) Copyright law (United States Code Title 17 section 117) allows for such copies to be made without the copyright holder's consent if the copy is made by the legal owner of a copy of the software. (Elsewhere in the law, a "copy" of a copyrighed work is defined as the physical object on which the copyrighted work is embodied -- hence the owner of a copy of a copyrighted work is literally the exact same thing as the owner of the physical object that contains the copyighted work.)
If it's a sale, then you own the object, and therefore by definition you own the copy of software embodied within the object, and therefore section 117 applies.
If it's a lease, then you don't own the object, and therefore title 117 doesn't apply, so your ability to run the software is totally dependent on the permission you receive by means of a software license. If you violate that license, then Apple can revoke it, and subsequently, any attempt you make to run the software will violate Apple's exclusive rights as copyright holder. Everything listed in this paragraph this happens without the aid of any DMCA provisions, so the new DMCA exception doesn't change anything.
Case law on this issue currently has conflicting court decisions. It appears as though the most recent court decision leans more towards opinion that if the transaction results in irrevocable permission for the customer to possess the physical object, then the transaction constitutes a "sale" rather than a "lease".
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?
I'm not sure that the warranty has anything to do with it. It's more of a EULA thing. You agreed to play by the rules. You're now breaking the rules. No soup for you!
Al Capone was indicted for income tax invasion, not something like RICO.
Yea I think you've made my point better than I ever could.
Al Capone was indicted for income tax invasion, not something like RICO.
I like the Freudianism but it is called income tax evasion
It's true that in the US you can be sued for almost anything. The sad thing is that Apple has more money than Bolivia and can probably sue any jailbreaker to bankruptcy. What is a really good outcome of the legalization of jailbreaking is that Cydia and probably a few more companies can now attract real capital. Regular banks don't loan money to "shady businesses" so your interest will be either very high or you have to rely on private capital. I think that the appstore can use some competition. It's competition that made the US into what it is today and Apples protectionist behavior may have fitted in the 19th century but is severely out of date in the 21st century. Even in the 19th century, companies like Remington didn't proscribe the paper you could use in their typewriters. If Cydia or any of the others can offer better deals to developers and have less or no censorship, I see a lot of developers switching.
Tethering is partially the domain of the carrier but it is up to Apple in the end. In Canada, my carrier allows tethering. But, I had to wait for Apple to enable it in the OS before I could use it, unless I had chosen to jailbreak. The same for MMS. So, if my carrier allows it or I pay for the service, how else can you get your phone to do it unless you jailbreak, if Apple disables it? Now, in my case, if I buy a wifi iPad, I am allowed by my carrier to share my 3G signal with it, but I cannot since there is no way through the stock OS to do this. But, if I jailbreak, I can share the connection via wifi. My 3G is out of warranty anyway, so what exactly would I lose? For me, it might be compelling. But for now, I have no requirement that would compel me to jailbreak and so I never have.
The ruling in and of itself won't make it any more or less compelling. Either you reasons or you do not. But, it might bring it out of the underground. That might have the effect of removing a psychological barrier some people have with trying it out.
So answer me this: Why does Apple permit tethering in Canada, but not in the U.S.? Is Apple in Canada a different company than Apple in the U.S.? Seems to me the only variable is the carrier. Also, why would Apple wish to deny this service to their customers? Are they being arbitrary? Perverse?
Waiting for APPLE to comment.
Their statement, cited now on a number of websites, is this:
Apple’s goal has always been to insure that our customers have a great experience with their iPhone and we know that jailbreaking can severely degrade the experience. As we’ve said before, the vast majority of customers do not jailbreak their iPhones as this can violate the warranty and can cause the iPhone to become unstable and not work reliably.
Effectively they're restating the position they'd had all along that jailbreaking is still a warranty-voiding act that diminishes product performance and customer satisfaction, and that this new DMCA exemption doesn't change that.
So answer me this: Why does Apple permit tethering in Canada, but not in the U.S.? Is Apple in Canada a different company than Apple in the U.S.? Seems to me the only variable is the carrier. Also, why would Apple wish to deny this service to their customers? Are they being arbitrary? Perverse?
At the moment, it is all on the carriers to decide. Apple, since OS3 has allowed the carriers to enable tethering, per account. However, prior to that OS release, no carrier could enable tethering on the iPhones, regardless of if they allowed it, since Apple did not expose it in the OS. Apple made no secrets that it was pressure from AT&T that prevented them from enabling tethering in the US, and they then didn't enable it for the rest of us. So, even though it was at AT&T's request, it was applied by Apple to the rest of the markets.
Similarly, at the moment, my carrier would not care what method I use for tethering, being USB, BT, IR or wifi. But, because of the design of the iPad, if I wanted to share my iPhone's connection with the iPad or any other wifi device, I would have to use wifi. This is not possible, as Apple has not exposed it in the OS. It would be trivial for them to do it, but there are obvious downsides (massive battery drain mainly). I would assume even AT&T, if you were paying your tethering fee, would allow you to tethering your other devices to your phone using wifi. But, at the moment it is on Apple to allow it. So, the only option to enable this if to jailbreak.
At the moment, it is all on the carriers to decide. Apple, since OS3 has allowed the carriers to enable tethering, per account. However, prior to that OS release, no carrier could enable tethering on the iPhones, regardless of if they allowed it, since Apple did not expose it in the OS. Apple made no secrets that it was pressure from AT&T that prevented them from enabling tethering in the US, and they then didn't enable it for the rest of us. So, even though it was at AT&T's request, it was applied by Apple to the rest of the markets.
Similarly, at the moment, my carrier would not care what method I use for tethering, being USB, BT, IR or wifi. But, because of the design of the iPad, if I wanted to share my iPhone's connection with the iPad or any other wifi device, I would have to use wifi. This is not possible, as Apple has not exposed it in the OS. It would be trivial for them to do it, but there are obvious downsides (massive battery drain mainly). I would assume even AT&T, if you were paying your tethering fee, would allow you to tethering your other devices to your phone using wifi. But, at the moment it is on Apple to allow it. So, the only option to enable this if to jailbreak.
So it is up the the carriers, ultimately. That is my point. Apple has no incentive whatsoever to withhold this feature from their customers. The reason they don't is apparently that they will have problems with AT&T -- very likely serious contractual issues. It appears they have little choice, yet it still seems to be Apple's fault. You may see jailbreaking as the "solution," but I think this begs the real question about the origin of the problem.
So it is up the the carriers, ultimately. That is my point. Apple has no incentive whatsoever to withhold this feature from their customers. The reason they don't is apparently that they will have problems with AT&T -- very likely serious contractual issues. It appears they have little choice, yet it still seems to be Apple's fault. You may see jailbreaking as the "solution," but I think this begs the real question about the origin of the problem.
Some of it is up to the carriers, some of it is up to Apple. The carrier might allow something, but Apple doesn't allow it. Apple might enable something, but your carrier might not allow it. USB tethering was at one point blocked by Apple (for AT&T) but now it is all up to AT&T for the US. Wifi tethering is allowed by carriers that allow tethering, but Apple doesn't enable it.
Some of it is up to the carriers, some of it is up to Apple. The carrier might allow something, but Apple doesn't allow it. Apple might enable something, but your carrier might not allow it. USB tethering was at one point blocked by Apple (for AT&T) but now it is all up to AT&T for the US. Wifi tethering is allowed by carriers that allow tethering, but Apple doesn't enable it.
But again, my question is also about what incentive Apple has to disallow it. If you can't think of a plausible reason, and if you know of one you certainly haven't mentioned it, then I believe you should place the blame (if that's want you call it) where it belongs -- on the carrier.
But again, my question is also about what incentive Apple has to disallow it. If you can't think of a plausible reason, and if you know of one you certainly haven't mentioned it, then I believe you should place the blame (if that's want you call it) where it belongs -- on the carrier.
Hmmm, I guess we would only be guessing at their 'incentives'. For wifi tethering, I imagine Apple feels the battery drain is too great a trade off. I really can't guess at any other reason for Apple not exposing this setting. For not allowing MMS or tethering worldwide, I would guess that they didn't want to embarrass AT&T early on by allowing it on every carrier except AT&T. Obviously, at some point, they changed their mind and allowed it internationally, but included an ability for the carrier to determine if the feature was functional or not.
Functions that are simply not exposed in the OS (but are through jailbreaking) at hidden by Apple. They might be contractually bound but certainly they have different contracts with different carriers.
Anyway, to your original discussion as to whether having to jailbreak to get tethering was the 'fault' of Apple or the carrier, I would still assert that it depends on what exactly you mean by tethering. Certainly, for basic USB/BT tethering, that is all on the carrier now though in earlier OSes it was at Apple's discretion. For wifi tethering however, it is on Apple as the carrier cannot expose the feature, though they may allow it. So, the benefit of jailbreaking, if done to get wifi sharing, is to get around an Apple imposed limitation. No blame on Apple, I am sure they have their reasons. Perhaps they don't want to go back to the days of explaining how to improve battery performance (turn screen down, turn off wifi and now disable wifi sharing). But, for those that can live with the battery hit, it might be a compelling feature and if their carrier allows it, then jailbreaking is a must to get it.
This takes me back to my original point. If you jailbreak your iPhone, you are operating the device outside of its design limits. As they say in aviation, if you choose to fly an airplane outside the documented performance envelope, you are voluntarily becoming a test pilot. IOW, anything could happen, and you are completely on your own. Not that breaking a product for which you have invented your own performance standards won't come back on the manufacturer. We know that they very often do, to the detriment of the manufacturer.
So I see Apple's concerns over jailbreaking to be legitimate. Contrary to the conspiracy theorists among us, they don't deprive us of product features for perverse reasons. We may not always know their reasons, and we may not always like their reasons. But we should know that they have them, and that Apple will very likely have to live with the consequences of individuals deciding to become test pilots.
I'm guessing that the reasons, whatever they may be, aren't arbitrary or capricious. Some likely are a product of their relationships with their wireless partners, and others have to do with the design and performance of the product. I think those are safe guesses.
This takes me back to my original point. If you jailbreak your iPhone, you are operating the device outside of its design limits. As they say in aviation, if you choose to fly an airplane outside the documented performance envelope, you are voluntarily becoming a test pilot. IOW, anything could happen, and you are completely on your own. Not that breaking a product for which you have invented your own performance standards won't come back on the manufacturer. We know that they very often do, to the detriment of the manufacturer.
So I see Apple's concerns over jailbreaking to be legitimate. Contrary to the conspiracy theorists among us, they don't deprive us of product features for perverse reasons. We may not always know their reasons, and we may not always like their reasons. But we should know that they have them, and that Apple will very likely have to live with the consequences of individuals deciding to become test pilots.
Absolutely agree. Engineering and design are often about tradeoffs, often with an eye to what will benefit the most users. Wifi sharing I think is one of these. Does enabling wifi sharing benefit enough users to expose them to the tradeoff of seriously diminished battery life?
The LoC ruling now allows those that feel they are willing to take that trade off to do so. Will it come back on Apple when people start saying their battery life sucks? Maybe, but if Apple says it is a direct result of a warranty voiding user operation, it probably wouldn't. Just like when the first iPhone worm came out or when the root password vuln came out, both were only possible on jailbroken phones. While there was some fuss initial, when people and especially the media got the message that unjailbroken phones (or those that changed their password) were not affected, Apple didn't have to fix or resolve anything.
Absolutely agree. Engineering and design are often about tradeoffs, often with an eye to what will benefit the most users. Wifi sharing I think is one of these. Does enabling wifi sharing benefit enough users to expose them to the tradeoff of seriously diminished battery life?
The LoC ruling now allows those that feel they are willing to take that trade off to do so. Will it come back on Apple when people start saying their battery life sucks? Maybe, but if Apple says it is a direct result of a warranty voiding user operation, it probably wouldn't. Just like when the first iPhone worm came out or when the root password vuln came out, both were only possible on jailbroken phones. While there was some fuss initial, when people and especially the media got the message that unjailbroken phones (or those that changed their password) were not affected, Apple didn't have to fix or resolve anything.
I'm still predicting that hacking iPhones won't become any more compelling after this ruling than before, if only because Apple hasn't gone after the hackers previously. What I can also predict is that if it does become more commonplace, that Apple will have to wear the consequences. And again, I go back to my original point. What is Apple's market? Apple is selling to people who don't want to live in the Wild West. If someone wants to hack and tinker, let them buy an Android phone. I think it would be deeply unfortunate if the alternative for a more controlled environment was made effectively unavailable just because some people don't like it, and can't see their way clear to making that choice just for themselves and not for others.
I can not see flash videos but I finally browse websites with flash menus or other flash content.
I did write more about this on http://wiki.nisi.ro/2010/08/how-to-i...n-your-iphone/
I hope the link is not against this forum.