It seems that these guys are really good at finding security holes in iOS. That would certainly make them of some value to Apple.
Exactly, although I'd expect their motivation might be somewhat diminished if their reward is a pay-check instead of an accolade for giving users more freedom. Also, when you are playing the defensive, you have to find every vulnerability; when you are playing the offensive, you only have to find 1.
I think the better solution here is to take away the reasons that people install custom firmware. Make iOS development cheaper or free. Allow people to do things like this:
Imagine that with Airplay to an HDTV. Right now they don't allow apps with interpreted code but all they have to do is warn people that they use interpreted code and you use them at your own risk. Lastly there's customisation and I think they could be a little more flexible on this front. Even have an official theme SDK where you can adjust the Dock, sounds, icons etc. and allow it be reset with a click.
Not sure that is true. Apple doesn't make a lot of profit from App sales. It isn't part of its plan. Apple's mostly trying to sell hardware. Many people buy iPhones (thereby making Apple a profit) to jailbreak and unlock the phone to use on other networks. Crushing that ability ultimately kills sales.
Further, developers on iOS already make far more then on competing platforms. People who download illegal software, where not buying it anyway, so I doubt there is much lost revenue there.
I am a shareholder as well, and I have a jailbroken phone. I have bought a lot of software on the phone. I wouldn't' have an iPhone at all if I couldn't jailbreak it to unlock it. Therefore in my case being able to jailbreak the phone made Apple money in my case.
Apple App purchases are projected to be around $3 billion in 2011.
Apple takes in 30% of that figure for close to a billion dollars.
I'm not sure of the overhead of Apple not having to develop most of these apps themselves, but I imagine it's close to $0.
What if Apple were to officially support a jail-brake option? I know that sounds like a contradiction - let me explain: If Apple allowed Jail-braking as a user option giving complete control over what they install on their iPhones, with a warning that doing so would open the door to malware, instability, and security issues, then iPhones would have the best of both worlds. The warning could also stipulate that if Jail-braking is chosen and things go wrong, then the only support that Apple would offer is complete re-installation of iOS, and that the safety of user data is their own responsibility.
I expect I am missing something obvious here that would make this a stupid idea (hey, it's late and I'm v tired!).
IF Apple supported jail-breaking and something went wrong Apple would be blamed regardless of the warning. Some idiot would sue probably claiming that since Apple allowed jail-breaking that meant that there was an implied endorsement hence negating the warning / disclaimer.
Right now they don't allow apps with interpreted code but all they have to do is warn people that they use interpreted code and you use them at your own risk. Lastly there's customisation and I think they could be a little more flexible on this front. Even have an official theme SDK where you can adjust the Dock, sounds, icons etc. and allow it be reset with a click.
That is way too complicated. The iPhone needs to be fully usable by grandma and the toddlers.
Techies and nerds are NOT the target audience. They think different, but Apple is now fully mainstream. It needs to keep its products fully simplified.
Capabilities of the iDevices need to be evaluated by referencing scared old ladies. If a capability might cause them to have to think, it should be rejected. That has worked VERY well for Apple's stockholders. I can't see Apple killing the golden goose for the sake of a minority who think different from the mainstream. Years ago? Sure. Now? No way.
Why the hell would I pay $649? I can definitely understand his motivation... if you're traveling overseas and still want to use your iPhone, a quick jailbreak + unlock is a hellofalot more efficient and cheaper solution than buying a $649 iPhone from Apple.
Well, at the very least, hopefully this will shutup those that always ranted about the jb devs being a bunch of thieving degenerates. The more of these guys go to work for Apple and contribute to the haters daily experience the less they can allow themselves to irrationally hate them.
Haters gonna hate.
Those haters are simply parroting the party line. They will direct their hate at whatever Apple tells them to hate.
If Apple allowed Jail-braking as a user option giving complete control over what they install on their iPhones, with a warning that doing so would open the door to malware, instability, and security issues, then iPhones would have the best of both worlds. The warning could also stipulate that if Jail-braking is chosen and things go wrong, then the only support that Apple would offer is complete re-installation of iOS, and that the safety of user data is their own responsibility..
Legally Apple can't prohibit jail breaking as an option. But legally they don't have to support any device that has been jailbroken. not even helping to restore it. So they don't. (in the US at least, other countries might still ban jail breaking)
More or less the same as you are describing.
As for the t-shirt etc. I would believe it if it wasn't for the fact that anyone can get to the shop with no fuss and buy that shirt. It proves nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz
Just look at the leaps from iPhone to iPhone 3G to iPhone 3GS. None of them compare to the leap to iPhone 4 from the 3GS, imho. And I strongly suspect that has something to do with the iPhone facing a more competitive market.
That phone and its price would more appealing if the carriers weren't allowed to charge the same rates for a fully paid phone as a subsidized one. I mean they claim you are paying off what they paid on your behalf a little each month but they aren't paying anything so why should they get that extra $15-20 every month
That is way too complicated. The iPhone needs to be fully usable by grandma and the toddlers.
Techies and nerds are NOT the target audience. They think different, but Apple is now fully mainstream. It needs to keep its products fully simplified.
Capabilities of the iDevices need to be evaluated by referencing scared old ladies. If a capability might cause them to have to think, it should be rejected. That has worked VERY well for Apple's stockholders. I can't see Apple killing the golden goose for the sake of a minority who think different from the mainstream. Years ago? Sure. Now? No way.
Comments
It seems that these guys are really good at finding security holes in iOS. That would certainly make them of some value to Apple.
Exactly, although I'd expect their motivation might be somewhat diminished if their reward is a pay-check instead of an accolade for giving users more freedom. Also, when you are playing the defensive, you have to find every vulnerability; when you are playing the offensive, you only have to find 1.
I think the better solution here is to take away the reasons that people install custom firmware. Make iOS development cheaper or free. Allow people to do things like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=my2Fn2waJGM
Imagine that with Airplay to an HDTV. Right now they don't allow apps with interpreted code but all they have to do is warn people that they use interpreted code and you use them at your own risk. Lastly there's customisation and I think they could be a little more flexible on this front. Even have an official theme SDK where you can adjust the Dock, sounds, icons etc. and allow it be reset with a click.
Not sure that is true. Apple doesn't make a lot of profit from App sales. It isn't part of its plan. Apple's mostly trying to sell hardware. Many people buy iPhones (thereby making Apple a profit) to jailbreak and unlock the phone to use on other networks. Crushing that ability ultimately kills sales.
Further, developers on iOS already make far more then on competing platforms. People who download illegal software, where not buying it anyway, so I doubt there is much lost revenue there.
I am a shareholder as well, and I have a jailbroken phone. I have bought a lot of software on the phone. I wouldn't' have an iPhone at all if I couldn't jailbreak it to unlock it. Therefore in my case being able to jailbreak the phone made Apple money in my case.
Apple App purchases are projected to be around $3 billion in 2011.
Apple takes in 30% of that figure for close to a billion dollars.
I'm not sure of the overhead of Apple not having to develop most of these apps themselves, but I imagine it's close to $0.
$1 billion is a lot in my book...
What if Apple were to officially support a jail-brake option? I know that sounds like a contradiction - let me explain: If Apple allowed Jail-braking as a user option giving complete control over what they install on their iPhones, with a warning that doing so would open the door to malware, instability, and security issues, then iPhones would have the best of both worlds. The warning could also stipulate that if Jail-braking is chosen and things go wrong, then the only support that Apple would offer is complete re-installation of iOS, and that the safety of user data is their own responsibility.
I expect I am missing something obvious here that would make this a stupid idea (hey, it's late and I'm v tired!).
IF Apple supported jail-breaking and something went wrong Apple would be blamed regardless of the warning. Some idiot would sue probably claiming that since Apple allowed jail-breaking that meant that there was an implied endorsement hence negating the warning / disclaimer.
Right now they don't allow apps with interpreted code but all they have to do is warn people that they use interpreted code and you use them at your own risk. Lastly there's customisation and I think they could be a little more flexible on this front. Even have an official theme SDK where you can adjust the Dock, sounds, icons etc. and allow it be reset with a click.
That is way too complicated. The iPhone needs to be fully usable by grandma and the toddlers.
Techies and nerds are NOT the target audience. They think different, but Apple is now fully mainstream. It needs to keep its products fully simplified.
Capabilities of the iDevices need to be evaluated by referencing scared old ladies. If a capability might cause them to have to think, it should be rejected. That has worked VERY well for Apple's stockholders. I can't see Apple killing the golden goose for the sake of a minority who think different from the mainstream. Years ago? Sure. Now? No way.
Apple App purchases are projected to be around $3 billion in 2011.
Apple takes in 30% of that figure for close to a billion dollars.
I'm not sure of the overhead of Apple not having to develop most of these apps themselves, but I imagine it's close to $0.
$1 billion is a lot in my book...
The current meme is that Apple just barely breaks even from the App Store.
Tell that to the millions of people unlocking iPhones to operate on different carriers (myself included). Jail breaking is an essential step to that.
No, Apple already sells a phone for that. No need for a Jailbreak.
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC603LL/A
No, Apple already sells a phone for that. No need for a Jailbreak.
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC603LL/A
Why the hell would I pay $649? I can definitely understand his motivation... if you're traveling overseas and still want to use your iPhone, a quick jailbreak + unlock is a hellofalot more efficient and cheaper solution than buying a $649 iPhone from Apple.
Well, at the very least, hopefully this will shutup those that always ranted about the jb devs being a bunch of thieving degenerates. The more of these guys go to work for Apple and contribute to the haters daily experience the less they can allow themselves to irrationally hate them.
Haters gonna hate.
Those haters are simply parroting the party line. They will direct their hate at whatever Apple tells them to hate.
But? "MuscleNerd"? Really? Is he? Can we f*ck as well as hire him?
If Apple allowed Jail-braking as a user option giving complete control over what they install on their iPhones, with a warning that doing so would open the door to malware, instability, and security issues, then iPhones would have the best of both worlds. The warning could also stipulate that if Jail-braking is chosen and things go wrong, then the only support that Apple would offer is complete re-installation of iOS, and that the safety of user data is their own responsibility..
Legally Apple can't prohibit jail breaking as an option. But legally they don't have to support any device that has been jailbroken. not even helping to restore it. So they don't. (in the US at least, other countries might still ban jail breaking)
More or less the same as you are describing.
As for the t-shirt etc. I would believe it if it wasn't for the fact that anyone can get to the shop with no fuss and buy that shirt. It proves nothing.
Just look at the leaps from iPhone to iPhone 3G to iPhone 3GS. None of them compare to the leap to iPhone 4 from the 3GS, imho. And I strongly suspect that has something to do with the iPhone facing a more competitive market.
That phone and its price would more appealing if the carriers weren't allowed to charge the same rates for a fully paid phone as a subsidized one. I mean they claim you are paying off what they paid on your behalf a little each month but they aren't paying anything so why should they get that extra $15-20 every month
Unlike many hackers, he has a well paying job
Nothing wrong with him touring the campus of a company he respects
MuscleNerd has no intention of working for Apple
Unlike many hackers, he has a well paying job
Nothing wrong with him touring the campus of a company he respects
Apple implanted a chip in him while he wasn't looking, to spy on the Dev Team!
That is way too complicated. The iPhone needs to be fully usable by grandma and the toddlers.
Techies and nerds are NOT the target audience. They think different, but Apple is now fully mainstream. It needs to keep its products fully simplified.
Capabilities of the iDevices need to be evaluated by referencing scared old ladies. If a capability might cause them to have to think, it should be rejected. That has worked VERY well for Apple's stockholders. I can't see Apple killing the golden goose for the sake of a minority who think different from the mainstream. Years ago? Sure. Now? No way.
This is so, so, so true... well said.