As well they should. While you might now be legally allowed to mod your property, if you damage it by doing so, you are on your own.
As more and more functionality of a device is enforced by software, this argument is going to bite back.
The FCC mandates that 802.11 cards only transmit on certain frequencies, and at certain power levels. This is enfoced in SW, not hardware, so that the same hardware can be sold to other countries with differing restrictions.
The same issue applies to GSM phones (and LTE phones in the future). Allowing users to run any OS/software on these platforms is going to lead to serious network performance problems. Imagine the excitement of the latest hack that lets your phone get more bandwidth than another user's phone.
I think that the US Govt should let the market decide what products are wanted or not. If people don't like the iPhone approach, buy a Droid. Don't tell companies what others should be able to do within the bounds of your product. Stop meddling. Let capitalism and a free economy sort this out. Adams is rolling over in his grave with this one.
Read this on TechCrunch this morning and was jumping up and down for like 2 minutes. I am happy that jailbreaking can no longer be opposed on legal basis, though I doubt it will make it any easier to jailbreak, cause companies will still try to block it through hardware/firmware updates. They can say it's for stability or some other BS. But at least there is no legal argument for them.
Apple's warranty is, as always, subject to limits imposed by the laws designed to protect consumers. If the law now effectively provides for interoperability the warranty can't take away those rights.
You're right that they can test the law, and they clearly will be unhappy about this (as they submitted to the Copyright Office not to provide the exemption) but given it's out in the open that government is working to help consumers Apple would have to obviously go against it's customers interests to do so. They've again said they like making their customers happy and to make that credible they need to see that consumers are sick of locked phones just like people were with DRM.
As the Antennagate issue is still settling down they will also think twice about how the groundswell of a solid fanbase will work against them when it wants to.
Not the way I read it. All that appears to have happened is that according to a ruling from the Copyright Office (only an opinion, really), Apple can't use the DMCA to attack those who provide methods for jailbreaking their iPhones. Not that they ever have before, to my knowledge. This does NOT appear to mean that Apple has to provide customers who do so with any support whatsoever for problems they may encounter by having done so. It's also not clear whether Apple has any other recourse, or whether the law as it has been interpreted by the Copyright Office would stand up to legal muster in a court.
Let's be clear: only Congress has the power to make laws. If Apple doesn't like the way this is going, be sure that they will move on it in whatever way they believe protects their interests. I suspect that those who believe that everything just changed are probably going to be disappointed.
I think your understanding is correct. Nothing in any of the articles or posts about this that I have read imply Apple would be obligated to open or unlock anyone's iPhone. But, it does mean they won't be able to go after those that do so or provide the means to do it...for the next 3 years anyway.
Apple never has. And I don't believe they ever intended to do so. Certainly they would be hard pressed to stop individuals.
However, as table in the third exemption,
Quote:
(3) Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.
…it is now made clearly clear that Apple can pursue against anybody who uses firmware or software on a new wireless telephone handset in order to connect to just any network of their choosing.
Now that is interesting.
My Ignore List (Subject to change) AngusYoung battlescarred'red 1 Bagman BenRoethig Blackintosh Bloodshottrollin captmark Chopper chronster Da Harder extremeskater iGenius (aka Josh.B and SpotOn) g3-ro gVibe Gazoobee ski1 Sofabut SpotOn StLBluesFan Stonefree Tekstud AngusYoung Mactripper (aka WooHoo) Matt_s Stevie Stonefree webmail
Mario Ciabarra, founder of Rock Your Phone, which calls itself an "independent iPhone application store," said the rules mark the first step toward opening the iPhone app market to competition and removing the "handcuffs" that Apple imposes on developers that want to reach users of the wildly popular device.
More diverse app choices for those who desire them is a very good thing indeed - !
Your ability to buy an unlocked iPhone is based on government policy that mandates it. In the US, even after we have fulfilled the contract with AT&T, we cannot even move to the other GSM provider in the US, T-Mobile. This ruling today is a first step but the government needs to go further to mandate that providers settle on the standard that most of the world has settled on (i.e. abandon WiMax) and force handset makers to sell unlocked devises and/or unlock off-contract devices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
You have the right to tinker and make your own tools.
You do not have the right to distribute tools that circumvent the protections.
Tough luck Dev Team.
Aren't iPhone 4's sold unlocked?
They will be in Australia, the 8GB 3GS is available from Apple stores here unlocked (4 launches in a couple of days).
The new stock of the 8GB 3GS's we have been getting now come with a carrier sticker on the box, which wasn't there on the older models).
The one's from the Apple store are unsubsidised, the one's from the carriers aren't.
Apple should just start doing that in America.
$6 or $700 from Apple, $199 or $299 from AT&T (with an unlocking fee).
The other issue is grey market phones, forcing the sale of unlocked handsets could lead to America subsidising phones destined for other countries.
"The worm does not affect most iPhone users; only those with jailbroken iPhones that are running a Unix utility called SSH (Secure Shell) with the iPhone?s default password, ?alpine,? still in use."
Nice try but it's not a threat; similar to the idiots, who don't change the psw on their routers.
Not a chance in hell. When will the pseudo-tech crowd finally admit that real people don't think or act like they do. The typical Apple customer has no interest in modifying, jailbreaking, or doing anything else with their device. And they are not technically inclined to do so either. They are not tinkerers. They may want to copy/convert their DVDs to give to their friends but they are not capable of doing so. Just visit any website that discusses such software. The nerds probably see this as some sort of victory over the manufacturers but it is not. Nothing changes where the rubber hits the road. Jailbroken devices are in the extreme minority and will remain so.
Who said anything about jailbreaking!? My post was about unlocking a fully paid-for phone.
I see a lot of posts here assuming that these rules will force or compel Apple or at&t to facilitate unlocking. On what assumption are you basing this? Wishful thinking?
Read para 3 where it says ".......another exemption was approved that would allow all cell phone users to unlock their device for use on an unapproved carrier."
It doesn't compel anything. I predict that it will happen by itself, with a nudge from courts (and Congress) who will inevitably weigh in on this.
Unlike you, I'd rather be a wishful thinker than a useless pessimist or a cynic.
Read para 3 where it says ".......another exemption was approved that would allow all cell phone users to unlock their device for use on an unapproved carrier."
It doesn't compel anything. I predict that it will happen by itself, with a nudge from courts (and Congress) who will inevitably weigh in on this.
Unlike you, I'd rather be a wishful thinker than a useless pessimist or a cynic.
It just say that cell phone users CAN'T get sued by carriers via DMCA if the cell users unlock their own cell phones.
What has the iphone's worldwide launch taught you? Simlocking laws don't work.
Your ability to buy an unlocked iPhone is based on government policy that mandates it. In the US, even after we have fulfilled the contract with AT&T, we cannot even move to the other GSM provider in the US, T-Mobile. This ruling today is a first step but the government needs to go further to mandate that providers settle on the standard that most of the world has settled on (i.e. abandon WiMax) and force handset makers to sell unlocked devises and/or unlock off-contract 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.
Most carriers who will unlock your phone will do so providing you can prove that it is legally yours. This is easy if you bought the phone from them and/or you have proof that you are the titled owner?understandable. Most will charge for such.
Most carriers don't unilaterally unlock phones and many don't even want to. The liabilities are a concern. However there are sources that will show/tell you how to do it, some for a fee, or sell the necessary software to do-it-youselves.
Mario Ciabarra, founder of Rock Your Phone, which calls itself an "independent iPhone application store," said the rules mark the first step toward opening the iPhone app market to competition and removing the "handcuffs" that Apple imposes on developers that want to reach users of the wildly popular device.
More diverse app choices for those who desire them is a very good thing indeed - !
Your ability to buy an unlocked iPhone is based on government policy that mandates it. In the US, even after we have fulfilled the contract with AT&T, we cannot even move to the other GSM provider in the US, T-Mobile. This ruling today is a first step but the government needs to go further to mandate that providers settle on the standard that most of the world has settled on (i.e. abandon WiMax) and force handset makers to sell unlocked devises and/or unlock off-contract devices.
All of Europe has migrated to American style "technology neutral" spectrum auctions --- their system was a MASSIVE FAILURE. This is silicon valley technology we are talking about --- if bureaucrats can pick winners, they would have quit their jobs and become high tech billionaires.
Only Singapore (Israel is currently putting the law to the cabinet) forces the selling of unlocked phones. The worldwide launch of the iphone teaches the world one thing --- Europe doesn't have much of a simlocking laws that works in real life.
From my understanding of Apple's policies, it is trying to protect its bottom line, including its liability to potential lawsuits because of potential consequences of jailbreaking.
Their rules made it clear that if you jailbreak -- accept the consquences.
In practice, as shown in the forum posts, some customers blame Apple, e.g., the stolen IDs fiasco, before they blame themselves. And such postings would then lead to Apple detractors to magnify the issues, as if it was really Apple that automatically triggered all such problems.
CGC
Exactly. But worse is the pure redundancy of this law. It's almost as if certain politicians were passing duplicate laws with very flowery proclamations to make it sound like something revolutionary has happened. Kind of reminiscent of the South Park episode "Canada on Strike" - the long costly struggle for poor, downtrodden software pirates has finally payed off, free gum and a Bennignas coupon!
Jailbreak your device, and the manufacturer still says... sorry we don't support this so it voids the warrantee and you assume all liability.
The software security can only be bypassed if the product is not manufactured anymore. Mmmkay.
Sounds like the morons are celebrateing before reading the fine print...
Nothing, that's what. Apple never sued jailbreakers, and now they can't. I've always maintained that Apple is a hardware company, and they make most of their revenue from hardware sales. The only problem is that carriers subsidize the cost of the iPhone, so jailbreaking to run on another network potentially impacts Apple's bottom line, in that they don't recoup the costs if you buy it at subsidized prices, but don't go through the official carrier. Otherwise, Apple made their money (assuming you sign up with the official carrier, like AT&T) when you bought the phone.
I would love to see the faces of the folks who jailbreak, then try to go to the Genius Bar when something goes horribly wrong with their iPhone.
"But, but, but..... waddayamean, no warranty service?"
Yep.
Exactly the same as those people who bring in Macs with non-Apple software on them. They are on their own! But, but, I downloaded it from the Internet somewhere! No, I don't know what it was named! Help!
Comments
As well they should. While you might now be legally allowed to mod your property, if you damage it by doing so, you are on your own.
As more and more functionality of a device is enforced by software, this argument is going to bite back.
The FCC mandates that 802.11 cards only transmit on certain frequencies, and at certain power levels. This is enfoced in SW, not hardware, so that the same hardware can be sold to other countries with differing restrictions.
The same issue applies to GSM phones (and LTE phones in the future). Allowing users to run any OS/software on these platforms is going to lead to serious network performance problems. Imagine the excitement of the latest hack that lets your phone get more bandwidth than another user's phone.
I think that the US Govt should let the market decide what products are wanted or not. If people don't like the iPhone approach, buy a Droid. Don't tell companies what others should be able to do within the bounds of your product. Stop meddling. Let capitalism and a free economy sort this out. Adams is rolling over in his grave with this one.
You do not have the right to distribute tools that circumvent the protections.
Tough luck Dev Team.
Aren't iPhone 4's sold unlocked?
They will be in Australia, the 8GB 3GS is available from Apple stores here unlocked (4 launches in a couple of days).
The new stock of the 8GB 3GS's we have been getting now come with a carrier sticker on the box, which wasn't there on the older models).
The one's from the Apple store are unsubsidised, the one's from the carriers aren't.
Apple should just start doing that in America.
$6 or $700 from Apple, $199 or $299 from AT&T (with an unlocking fee).
The other issue is grey market phones, forcing the sale of unlocked handsets could lead to America subsidising phones destined for other countries.
Apple's warranty is, as always, subject to limits imposed by the laws designed to protect consumers. If the law now effectively provides for interoperability the warranty can't take away those rights.
You're right that they can test the law, and they clearly will be unhappy about this (as they submitted to the Copyright Office not to provide the exemption) but given it's out in the open that government is working to help consumers Apple would have to obviously go against it's customers interests to do so. They've again said they like making their customers happy and to make that credible they need to see that consumers are sick of locked phones just like people were with DRM.
As the Antennagate issue is still settling down they will also think twice about how the groundswell of a solid fanbase will work against them when it wants to.
Not the way I read it. All that appears to have happened is that according to a ruling from the Copyright Office (only an opinion, really), Apple can't use the DMCA to attack those who provide methods for jailbreaking their iPhones. Not that they ever have before, to my knowledge. This does NOT appear to mean that Apple has to provide customers who do so with any support whatsoever for problems they may encounter by having done so. It's also not clear whether Apple has any other recourse, or whether the law as it has been interpreted by the Copyright Office would stand up to legal muster in a court.
Let's be clear: only Congress has the power to make laws. If Apple doesn't like the way this is going, be sure that they will move on it in whatever way they believe protects their interests. I suspect that those who believe that everything just changed are probably going to be disappointed.
I think your understanding is correct. Nothing in any of the articles or posts about this that I have read imply Apple would be obligated to open or unlock anyone's iPhone. But, it does mean they won't be able to go after those that do so or provide the means to do it...for the next 3 years anyway.
Apple never has. And I don't believe they ever intended to do so. Certainly they would be hard pressed to stop individuals.
However, as table in the third exemption,
(3) Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.
…it is now made clearly clear that Apple can pursue against anybody who uses firmware or software on a new wireless telephone handset in order to connect to just any network of their choosing.
Now that is interesting.
My Ignore List (Subject to change) AngusYoung battlescarred'red 1 Bagman BenRoethig Blackintosh Bloodshottrollin captmark Chopper chronster Da Harder extremeskater iGenius (aka Josh.B and SpotOn) g3-ro gVibe Gazoobee ski1 Sofabut SpotOn StLBluesFan Stonefree Tekstud AngusYoung Mactripper (aka WooHoo) Matt_s Stevie Stonefree webmail
More diverse app choices for those who desire them is a very good thing indeed - !
You have the right to tinker and make your own tools.
You do not have the right to distribute tools that circumvent the protections.
Tough luck Dev Team.
Aren't iPhone 4's sold unlocked?
They will be in Australia, the 8GB 3GS is available from Apple stores here unlocked (4 launches in a couple of days).
The new stock of the 8GB 3GS's we have been getting now come with a carrier sticker on the box, which wasn't there on the older models).
The one's from the Apple store are unsubsidised, the one's from the carriers aren't.
Apple should just start doing that in America.
$6 or $700 from Apple, $199 or $299 from AT&T (with an unlocking fee).
The other issue is grey market phones, forcing the sale of unlocked handsets could lead to America subsidising phones destined for other countries.
You don't know what your talking about:
http://www.macworld.com/article/1437...hone_worm.html
"The worm does not affect most iPhone users; only those with jailbroken iPhones that are running a Unix utility called SSH (Secure Shell) with the iPhone?s default password, ?alpine,? still in use."
Nice try but it's not a threat; similar to the idiots, who don't change the psw on their routers.
Not a chance in hell. When will the pseudo-tech crowd finally admit that real people don't think or act like they do. The typical Apple customer has no interest in modifying, jailbreaking, or doing anything else with their device. And they are not technically inclined to do so either. They are not tinkerers. They may want to copy/convert their DVDs to give to their friends but they are not capable of doing so. Just visit any website that discusses such software. The nerds probably see this as some sort of victory over the manufacturers but it is not. Nothing changes where the rubber hits the road. Jailbroken devices are in the extreme minority and will remain so.
Who said anything about jailbreaking!? My post was about unlocking a fully paid-for phone.
I see a lot of posts here assuming that these rules will force or compel Apple or at&t to facilitate unlocking. On what assumption are you basing this? Wishful thinking?
Read para 3 where it says ".......another exemption was approved that would allow all cell phone users to unlock their device for use on an unapproved carrier."
It doesn't compel anything. I predict that it will happen by itself, with a nudge from courts (and Congress) who will inevitably weigh in on this.
Unlike you, I'd rather be a wishful thinker than a useless pessimist or a cynic.
Why would Apple even care?
Jobs is a control freak.
Read para 3 where it says ".......another exemption was approved that would allow all cell phone users to unlock their device for use on an unapproved carrier."
It doesn't compel anything. I predict that it will happen by itself, with a nudge from courts (and Congress) who will inevitably weigh in on this.
Unlike you, I'd rather be a wishful thinker than a useless pessimist or a cynic.
It just say that cell phone users CAN'T get sued by carriers via DMCA if the cell users unlock their own cell phones.
What has the iphone's worldwide launch taught you? Simlocking laws don't work.
Your ability to buy an unlocked iPhone is based on government policy that mandates it. In the US, even after we have fulfilled the contract with AT&T, we cannot even move to the other GSM provider in the US, T-Mobile. This ruling today is a first step but the government needs to go further to mandate that providers settle on the standard that most of the world has settled on (i.e. abandon WiMax) and force handset makers to sell unlocked devises and/or unlock off-contract 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.
Most carriers who will unlock your phone will do so providing you can prove that it is legally yours. This is easy if you bought the phone from them and/or you have proof that you are the titled owner?understandable. Most will charge for such.
Most carriers don't unilaterally unlock phones and many don't even want to. The liabilities are a concern. However there are sources that will show/tell you how to do it, some for a fee, or sell the necessary software to do-it-youselves.
Mario Ciabarra, founder of Rock Your Phone, which calls itself an "independent iPhone application store," said the rules mark the first step toward opening the iPhone app market to competition and removing the "handcuffs" that Apple imposes on developers that want to reach users of the wildly popular device.
More diverse app choices for those who desire them is a very good thing indeed - !
Mario Ciabarra is delusional.
Your ability to buy an unlocked iPhone is based on government policy that mandates it. In the US, even after we have fulfilled the contract with AT&T, we cannot even move to the other GSM provider in the US, T-Mobile. This ruling today is a first step but the government needs to go further to mandate that providers settle on the standard that most of the world has settled on (i.e. abandon WiMax) and force handset makers to sell unlocked devises and/or unlock off-contract devices.
All of Europe has migrated to American style "technology neutral" spectrum auctions --- their system was a MASSIVE FAILURE. This is silicon valley technology we are talking about --- if bureaucrats can pick winners, they would have quit their jobs and become high tech billionaires.
Only Singapore (Israel is currently putting the law to the cabinet) forces the selling of unlocked phones. The worldwide launch of the iphone teaches the world one thing --- Europe doesn't have much of a simlocking laws that works in real life.
From my understanding of Apple's policies, it is trying to protect its bottom line, including its liability to potential lawsuits because of potential consequences of jailbreaking.
Their rules made it clear that if you jailbreak -- accept the consquences.
In practice, as shown in the forum posts, some customers blame Apple, e.g., the stolen IDs fiasco, before they blame themselves. And such postings would then lead to Apple detractors to magnify the issues, as if it was really Apple that automatically triggered all such problems.
CGC
Exactly. But worse is the pure redundancy of this law. It's almost as if certain politicians were passing duplicate laws with very flowery proclamations to make it sound like something revolutionary has happened. Kind of reminiscent of the South Park episode "Canada on Strike" - the long costly struggle for poor, downtrodden software pirates has finally payed off, free gum and a Bennignas coupon!
Jailbreak your device, and the manufacturer still says... sorry we don't support this so it voids the warrantee and you assume all liability.
The software security can only be bypassed if the product is not manufactured anymore. Mmmkay.
Sounds like the morons are celebrateing before reading the fine print...
..."but the headline says we won!"
Haha.
I can't see how anyone can have any data security if jailbreaking is allowed.
Pretty much like the Mac where you can install any old software you want. No data security at all.
Hahaha Apple. Now what?
Nothing, that's what. Apple never sued jailbreakers, and now they can't. I've always maintained that Apple is a hardware company, and they make most of their revenue from hardware sales. The only problem is that carriers subsidize the cost of the iPhone, so jailbreaking to run on another network potentially impacts Apple's bottom line, in that they don't recoup the costs if you buy it at subsidized prices, but don't go through the official carrier. Otherwise, Apple made their money (assuming you sign up with the official carrier, like AT&T) when you bought the phone.
Jobs is a control freak.
You know... stupid people mix emotion with reality.
I think you've confused your diaper with the reading material.
If that's too subtle, try this:
I think you've entirely failed to make a point and lobbed an insult.
Perhaps if you work up some of that frothing into a nice lather,
get your face all red & sweaty,
bug out your eyes,
and squeak out your words in your best little-big man voice...
it might help make your case.
I would love to see the faces of the folks who jailbreak, then try to go to the Genius Bar when something goes horribly wrong with their iPhone.
"But, but, but..... waddayamean, no warranty service?"
Yep.
Exactly the same as those people who bring in Macs with non-Apple software on them. They are on their own! But, but, I downloaded it from the Internet somewhere! No, I don't know what it was named! Help!