I really don't want to disagree with you because I don't believe in Jail Breaking in any manner but if it's as easy as it seems to be than Apple's security into their core programming isn't as secure as it should be.
Nobody knows what else a Jail Broken phone opens up but the developers that wrote the Jail Break. I want my phone secure and not Jail Broke. At least I have (at this point) a small bit of comfort Apple is keeping my data on my phone secure.
Both my 2G and 3G are iPhones. My 2G phone is still not activated and I use it when I'm at home within my WiFi to save battery life of my 3G.
It may be an expensive iPod but I like the option of having both. My iPhone 3G creates a pop sound about every 5 minutes in my Bose Wireless Dock and my 2G doesn't, even when it was active on 2.01 (now currently not active on 2.1 and still no popping sound).
Bose solution was to put my phone in AirPlane Mode. That is not an option for me as 99% of my calls are to my cell phone and not my home phone.
Never will be a fan of Jail Breaking. If it gets to the point that Apple doesn't satisfy my needs and there is a better alternative I'll consider switching Vendors.
Edit.
I was a little sad when I read that Steve Wozniak Jail Broke is 3G iPhone. It really lowered my level of respect I had for him.
What's sad is that Wozniak needing to Jailbreak his iPhone seeing as he'll most certainly get inside copies and more that he isn't showing much in-depth knowledge of OS X for the iPhone, let alone embedded hardware.
It just reinforces the fact that Wozniak's 15 minutes of fame was the Apple II.
VLC and DivX. The best reasons of all to jailbreak.
Same thing as the only decent Apple TV is a hacked Apple TV.
I got my ipod Touch this week and I cannot wait to jailbreak it, I would never have bought it if I thought I would never be able to get my own movie files on it.
You are stealing money from Apple that would have recognized profit from the App Store. So ultimately you are hurting the Apple Community as a whole because great Apps aren't making the store.
I really think you are not seeing the big picture here. It's the jailbreak community that has pushed and promote many aspects of Apple's own tech. Just look at BootCamp and the App Store for examples. There is no money being stolen from Apple or the App Store. I'm jailbreaking my iPhone to run apps that aren't available on the App Store. The moral or legal issues are as severe as pulling the label off a mattress.
As always, some ridiculous definitions of "security" floating around here. Apple preventing you from installing software you choose to install yourself is not "security"; it is a RESTRICTION.
Security is preventing someone else from installing or otherwise doing things you don't want done.
As always, some ridiculous definitions of "security" floating around here. Apple preventing you from installing software you choose to install yourself is not "security"; it is a RESTRICTION.
Security is preventing someone else from installing or otherwise doing things you don't want done.
This has been and will continue to be an area of contention. I'm on the side that a mobile phone OS has a different dynamic than a desktop OS, no matter how advanced it is. That a restriction of what kind of apps can be installed through official channels is a form of security*. I certainly don't want to have to run diagnostics and virus protection on my phone and Apple doesn't want customers and potential customers that aren't as tech savvy as you turned off from the iPhone because pundits report of malware using your phone to make international calls or send SMS spam or steal or personal info or brick the device.
Tech savvy users have a very simple fix for creating and installing any app they can conceive of with the Jailbreak community.
I beleive Apple has a different motivation (than posted here so far) for preventing updates to jail-broken phones.
Remember the public outcry when an apple update accidentally bricked some jail broken phones? Well the only way they can ensure that their update process won't brick phones is to check first that phones are in a known state.
Of course this theory is less sinister and where's the fun in that?
I wouldn't necessarily say that market share is #1, but rather market appeal. If Apple makes a phone and (claims to) open that phone up for third party development, then the App market should truly be open. They shouldn't be able to shut down apps that may challenge an existing Apple-app (Read: "Apple's App-Store Rejection Policies Raise Concerns") at a whim. Just as if a third party made an iLife competitor for Mac, Apple should have as much right to shut it down as any App for the iPhone: None.
Apple refuses to compete on a level playing field and uses the App-store, DRM, and EULAs to make sure that they stay on top. That, my friends, is why we need groups like the Dev Team and the OSx86 community to keep fighting against anti-competitive companies who refuse to fight by the rules of the free market.
And as a side note to all you people with 2G iPhones you are now using as iPods... Please, let's work out a deal... I'll send you $300, you can buy yourselves a new 16GB iPod Touch, double your capacity, save space in your pocket, and I'll have an iPhone. OR... buy an 8GB, still save room in your pocket and have $70 of spending money... PM me. Seriously.
You are all correct that it is not illegal to "unlock" your phone until January 2009 when it will be voted on again.
You are stealing money from Apple that would have recognized profit from the App Store. So ultimately you are hurting the Apple Community as a whole because great Apps aren't making the store.
Lastly, My 2G phone has WiFi and everything but phone and SMS and sync's with iTunes with no problem.
I'm not going to post anything else on the matter because I'm obviously a minority here and people seem to think that breaking a license agreement means nothing; but will be the first to complain when Apple does something you disagree with.
-Old Timer
As an FYI, even jailbroken, unlocked phones still have access to the App-Store. One would feasibly only use Installer.app to get an application that wasn't sold on the store. The only reason it wouldn't be sold on the store is because Apple would bar it. The only reason Apple would bar it is because it threatens other Apple/AT&T business. THAT is what is unethical. If Joe Blow wants to write a tethering App and sell it for $9.99 a pop versus AT&T's $30/month, why shouldn't he be able to??? Proponents of Apple's closed system are perpetuating a corrupted marketplace where corporations decide who makes money and who doesn't, rather than the consumer.
As an FYI, even jailbroken, unlocked phones still have access to the App-Store. One would feasibly only use Installer.app to get an application that wasn't sold on the store. The only reason it wouldn't be sold on the store is because Apple would bar it. The only reason Apple would bar it is because it threatens other Apple/AT&T business. THAT is what is unethical. If Joe Blow wants to write a tethering App and sell it for $9.99 a pop versus AT&T's $30/month, why shouldn't he be able to??? Proponents of Apple's closed system are perpetuating a corrupted marketplace where corporations decide who makes money and who doesn't, rather than the consumer.
-Clive
Apple making an alternate App Store and choosing the what can and can't be sold or given away is not unethical or illegal. Apple has the right, as do all companies, to create a closed system. A store has a right to which items it wants to sell and which items it wants representing it. If Apple doesn't want a "fart app" they have the same right as any other retailer not to carry Whoopee Cushions.
The only thing unethical being mentioned here is stating that the AT&T agreement you signed should be allowed to be broken and taken advantage of because they won't find out. AT&T has priced their smartphone data plans at half the price of their notebook USB card plans for a reason. If this contract breaking abuse becomes commonplace and AT&T can't figure out who is doing the abusing they will have no choice but to lose money or to raise the data plans on the iPhone for future customers to account for this unethical behavior. I have an idea which one they would choose.
The only problem I have with Apple removing the app is that there are carriers outside the US that do allow tethering at no additional cost. Unfortunately the App Store doesn't currently appear to differentiate between carriers and countries. This obviously makes things more complex, but it may be necessary in the future.
Apple making an alternate App Store and choosing the what can and can't be sold or given away is not unethical or illegal.
No, no. This is where you are wrong, Soli. The App Store isn't an "alternate." It's the only "legal" means to purchase 3rd party apps.
A store has the right not to sell a whoopee cushion, yes, but if that company were to block that whoopee cushion from any other means of getting to your house, that is anti-competitive.
Apple can block Whoopee Cushion Plus.app (for the Mac) from being sold in their own Apple stores & apple.com, but there's nothing it can do to prevent a user from downloading and installing it on their own computer. Right? So what gives Apple the right to determine what apps I can and can't install on my iPhone?
So long as the App-Store is the only legal means to get apps onto the iPhone, Apple should not have the right to block certain apps. If they are unwilling to agree to this, they must instead allow alternate sources of app installation. Failure to do either could (and should) be seen as anti-competitive behavior in what is supposed to be a free-market.
No, no. This is where you are wrong, Soli. The App Store isn't an "alternate." It's the only "legal" means to purchase 3rd party apps.
A store has the right not to sell a whoopee cushion, yes, but if that company were to block that whoopee cushion from any other means of getting to your house, that is anti-competitive.
Apple can block <i>Whoopee Cushion Plus.app</i> (for the Mac) from being sold in their own Apple stores & apple.com, but there's nothing it can do to prevent a user from downloading and installing it on their own computer. Right? So what gives Apple the right to determine what apps I can and can't install on my iPhone?
So long as the App-Store is the only legal means to get apps onto the iPhone, Apple should not have the right to block certain apps. If they are unwilling to agree to this, they must instead allow alternate sources of app installation. Failure to do either could (and should) be seen as anti-competitive behavior in what is supposed to be a free-market.
-Clive
There is nothing illegal about Jailbreaking your iPhone. There is no reason you even have to run OS X on your iPhone. I'm sure Android will be ported to it eventually, just because. There is no reason one has to buy an iPhone to get apps on a phone. It's a free market, if a devloper doesn't like what a retailer chooses to sell they can create apps for RiM or Symbian or WinMo.
Any retailer has the right to sell the items that best represents its store. It also has the right to disallow items if it violates contracts it has with other companies. The tethering app probably violates most of their carriers contracts with users, but with certainty it violates the Apple's largest iPhone reseller, AT&T.
There is nothing illegal about Jailbreaking your iPhone. There is no reason you even have to run OS X on your iPhone. I'm sure Android will be ported to it eventually, just because. There is no reason one has to buy an iPhone to get apps on a phone. It's a free market, if a devloper doesn't like what a retailer chooses to sell they can create apps for RiM or Symbian or WinMo.
Any retailer has the right to sell the items that best represents its store. It also has the right to disallow items if it violates contracts it has with other companies. The tethering app probably violates most of their carriers contracts with users, but with certainty it violates the Apple's largest iPhone reseller, AT&T.
Actually, Jailbreaking is a violation of the DMCA, as it is circumvention of means used to protect copyrighted software. Jailbreaking is ONLY legal for the sake of carrier-unlocking the iPhone (one of the DMCA exceptions). Jailbreaking for any other purpose is copyright infringement.
I agree with you that Apple can choose what software to sell in its own app-store, but it can't prohibit other iPhone app-stores from existing/selling certain software. Right now, it does.
Actually, Jailbreaking is a violation of the DMCA, as it is circumvention of means used to protect copyrighted software. Jailbreaking is ONLY legal for the sake of carrier-unlocking the iPhone (one of the DMCA exceptions). Jailbreaking for any other purpose is copyright infringement.
I agree with you that Apple can choose what software to sell in its own app-store, but it can't prohibit other iPhone app-stores from existing/selling certain software. Right now, it does.
-Clive
That doesn't apply to your own device as long you aren't selling it. You are allowed to alter software you own in any way you see fit. The same way you can soup up your car, juts don't expect your warranty to remain intact.
5. \tComputer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network.
That doesn't apply to your own device as long you aren't selling it. You are allowed to alter software you own in any way you see fit. The same way you can soup up your car, juts don't expect your warranty to remain intact.
5. \tComputer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network.
Legalese never quite states exactly what you want it to and it's always up for debate, so I'm sure this discussion isn't over.
I would personally agree that it is within a user's right to jailbreak his/her own phone, even if not for the purpose of unlocking, but there are many who disagree - those who say its illegal to modify his/her own PC to run OS X on it, for example (and yes, there are some who do state that it is literally illegal because it bypasses the means used to protect the copyrighted code). There are more, still, who argue that we don't own our copy, and that we instead license the OS, in which case, we would be legally subject to the terms of the EULA.
All this aside, let's assume you're right and a court decides that Jailbreaking is legal for a user to do, and Cydia, Installer.app & App-Store all become bona fide app distribution sources. Jailbreaking is so contrived that getting to the alternatives is all but impossible for the majority of users, even if they wanted to! Once again, we find that the playing field is tilted in Apple's favor.
I understand the potential tech-support nightmare that may occur by allowing developers free-reign in iPhone App-land. I also understand the contract violations that could occur with Apple's other partners. That doesn't negate the fact that the choice should be there for the consumer, and the choice should be accessible. The only way it can work with the current infrastructure is if Apple would allow the distribution of Cydia on the App Store, with the disclaimer that downloading it voids your warranty. Of course, Apple will never do it, regardless of the fact that anything less than that is unfair to the consumer...
But nothing will change because our government will turn another blind eye on another situation as another lobbyist hands another politician another gigantic check.
That's why if consumers don't fight for their right to choose, they become victims of the unfree-market in which we live.
I really think you are not seeing the big picture here. It's the jailbreak community that has pushed and promote many aspects of Apple's own tech. Just look at BootCamp and the App Store for examples. There is no money being stolen from Apple or the App Store. I'm jailbreaking my iPhone to run apps that aren't available on the App Store. The moral or legal issues are as severe as pulling the label off a mattress.
That's questionable, for Apple's products, but you're ALLOWED to pull the label off a mattress, or anything else. It's the STORE that's not allowed to do that.
I don't see what Bootcamp has to do with this. It has nothing to do with the open source efforts, which are bungled anyway, and almost useless.
You're allowed to jailbreak your phone, for sure, as long as you don;t go whining back to Apple if something happens as a result, as some here have tried to do.
As for taking money out of Apple's pocket, it isn't really the main issue, but it's likely happening as a result. People who jailbreak are probably getting programs that way instead of programs from the app store, so they are giving not only Apple less money, but the programmers and companies who sell properly through the approved channel.
That doesn't apply to your own device as long you aren't selling it. You are allowed to alter software you own in any way you see fit. The same way you can soup up your car, juts don't expect your warranty to remain intact.
5. \tComputer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network.
No, no. This is where you are wrong, Soli. The App Store isn't an "alternate." It's the only "legal" means to purchase 3rd party apps.
It is clear what you're trying to say, but I think you've gone a bit far. There are plenty of 3rd party apps available for purchase from 3rd parties. (Just not for the iPhone)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
A store has the right not to sell a whoopee cushion, yes, but if that company were to block that whoopee cushion from any other means of getting to your house, that is anti-competitive.
Apple can block Whoopee Cushion Plus.app (for the Mac) from being sold in their own Apple stores & apple.com, but there's nothing it can do to prevent a user from downloading and installing it on their own computer. Right? So what gives Apple the right to determine what apps I can and can't install on my iPhone?
So long as the App-Store is the only legal means to get apps onto the iPhone, Apple should not have the right to block certain apps. If they are unwilling to agree to this, they must instead allow alternate sources of app installation. Failure to do either could (and should) be seen as anti-competitive behavior in what is supposed to be a free-market.
-Clive
I sympathize with your dislike of corporations wielding too much power over their customers. In one sense, customers aren't "free" to do whatever they want.
On the other hand, I also don't want the government telling people what to do. In this case, "people" also refers to the "people" running companies. If I were running a company, I'd want to be "free" to do business without government intervention.
Without doubt, there is a delicate and debatable, optimal balance between the two "freedoms". I think you'd have more credibility in this debate if you at least acknowledge that it is indeed a tradeoff. Consumer protection and state controlled markets are one and the same. The real question is... where to draw the line?
Has competition been hurt by Apple's entry into the mobile phone market with their entirely vertical device? So far I'd say that the product you're criticizing for being a closed platform, has actually raised consumer choice. The danger comes later, if apple were to kill off the competition, they could use their vertical product to prevent new entrants into the market. US law accounts for this dichotomy by making certain practices illegal for companies in a monopolistic market position.
Of course, Apple will never do it, regardless of the fact that anything less than that is unfair to the consumer...
You keep coming at this from the position that the iPhone is the only player in town. If you don't like it then you have a right to choose another phone. If I don't like the analog channels my cable company pushes for ch2 thru ch98 I can go with Verizon, satellite providers, OTA digital or nothing at all. If I want a channel that my cable company doesn't provide or one that they only offer for the most expensive cable plans I have the same choices as listed above.
Cydia is just a bonus for those who want more out of their device. The App Store is not something that Apple is required to provide to their customers. It's done simply to add value to the device. If the rules or offering don't appeal to you as a customer you have the right to choose another phone. If the rules don't appeal to you as a developer you have the right to choose a different mobile platform in which to code. The iPhone is not the only game in town. If they rules are too stringent for coders and customers alike then the iPhone's 3000 apps won't be growing much and we'll see other mobile platforms advancing even further in the future.
You can't unlock the EDGE iPhone without jailbreaking it first so I see that as an implied, but I know what you are saying and wondered if anyone would pick up on that point
Comments
LOL, WTF? That's the dumbest shit I ever heard.
I really don't want to disagree with you because I don't believe in Jail Breaking in any manner but if it's as easy as it seems to be than Apple's security into their core programming isn't as secure as it should be.
Nobody knows what else a Jail Broken phone opens up but the developers that wrote the Jail Break. I want my phone secure and not Jail Broke. At least I have (at this point) a small bit of comfort Apple is keeping my data on my phone secure.
run dtrace on the iPhone SDK.
Both my 2G and 3G are iPhones. My 2G phone is still not activated and I use it when I'm at home within my WiFi to save battery life of my 3G.
It may be an expensive iPod but I like the option of having both. My iPhone 3G creates a pop sound about every 5 minutes in my Bose Wireless Dock and my 2G doesn't, even when it was active on 2.01 (now currently not active on 2.1 and still no popping sound).
Bose solution was to put my phone in AirPlane Mode. That is not an option for me as 99% of my calls are to my cell phone and not my home phone.
Never will be a fan of Jail Breaking. If it gets to the point that Apple doesn't satisfy my needs and there is a better alternative I'll consider switching Vendors.
Edit.
I was a little sad when I read that Steve Wozniak Jail Broke is 3G iPhone. It really lowered my level of respect I had for him.
What's sad is that Wozniak needing to Jailbreak his iPhone seeing as he'll most certainly get inside copies and more that he isn't showing much in-depth knowledge of OS X for the iPhone, let alone embedded hardware.
It just reinforces the fact that Wozniak's 15 minutes of fame was the Apple II.
Same thing as the only decent Apple TV is a hacked Apple TV.
I got my ipod Touch this week and I cannot wait to jailbreak it, I would never have bought it if I thought I would never be able to get my own movie files on it.
You are stealing money from Apple that would have recognized profit from the App Store. So ultimately you are hurting the Apple Community as a whole because great Apps aren't making the store.
I really think you are not seeing the big picture here. It's the jailbreak community that has pushed and promote many aspects of Apple's own tech. Just look at BootCamp and the App Store for examples. There is no money being stolen from Apple or the App Store. I'm jailbreaking my iPhone to run apps that aren't available on the App Store. The moral or legal issues are as severe as pulling the label off a mattress.
Security is preventing someone else from installing or otherwise doing things you don't want done.
As always, some ridiculous definitions of "security" floating around here. Apple preventing you from installing software you choose to install yourself is not "security"; it is a RESTRICTION.
Security is preventing someone else from installing or otherwise doing things you don't want done.
This has been and will continue to be an area of contention. I'm on the side that a mobile phone OS has a different dynamic than a desktop OS, no matter how advanced it is. That a restriction of what kind of apps can be installed through official channels is a form of security*. I certainly don't want to have to run diagnostics and virus protection on my phone and Apple doesn't want customers and potential customers that aren't as tech savvy as you turned off from the iPhone because pundits report of malware using your phone to make international calls or send SMS spam or steal or personal info or brick the device.
Tech savvy users have a very simple fix for creating and installing any app they can conceive of with the Jailbreak community.
Remember the public outcry when an apple update accidentally bricked some jail broken phones? Well the only way they can ensure that their update process won't brick phones is to check first that phones are in a known state.
Of course this theory is less sinister and where's the fun in that?
Apple refuses to compete on a level playing field and uses the App-store, DRM, and EULAs to make sure that they stay on top. That, my friends, is why we need groups like the Dev Team and the OSx86 community to keep fighting against anti-competitive companies who refuse to fight by the rules of the free market.
And as a side note to all you people with 2G iPhones you are now using as iPods... Please, let's work out a deal... I'll send you $300, you can buy yourselves a new 16GB iPod Touch, double your capacity, save space in your pocket, and I'll have an iPhone. OR... buy an 8GB, still save room in your pocket and have $70 of spending money... PM me. Seriously.
-Clive
You are all correct that it is not illegal to "unlock" your phone until January 2009 when it will be voted on again.
You are stealing money from Apple that would have recognized profit from the App Store. So ultimately you are hurting the Apple Community as a whole because great Apps aren't making the store.
Lastly, My 2G phone has WiFi and everything but phone and SMS and sync's with iTunes with no problem.
I'm not going to post anything else on the matter because I'm obviously a minority here and people seem to think that breaking a license agreement means nothing; but will be the first to complain when Apple does something you disagree with.
-Old Timer
As an FYI, even jailbroken, unlocked phones still have access to the App-Store. One would feasibly only use Installer.app to get an application that wasn't sold on the store. The only reason it wouldn't be sold on the store is because Apple would bar it. The only reason Apple would bar it is because it threatens other Apple/AT&T business. THAT is what is unethical. If Joe Blow wants to write a tethering App and sell it for $9.99 a pop versus AT&T's $30/month, why shouldn't he be able to??? Proponents of Apple's closed system are perpetuating a corrupted marketplace where corporations decide who makes money and who doesn't, rather than the consumer.
-Clive
As an FYI, even jailbroken, unlocked phones still have access to the App-Store. One would feasibly only use Installer.app to get an application that wasn't sold on the store. The only reason it wouldn't be sold on the store is because Apple would bar it. The only reason Apple would bar it is because it threatens other Apple/AT&T business. THAT is what is unethical. If Joe Blow wants to write a tethering App and sell it for $9.99 a pop versus AT&T's $30/month, why shouldn't he be able to??? Proponents of Apple's closed system are perpetuating a corrupted marketplace where corporations decide who makes money and who doesn't, rather than the consumer.
-Clive
Apple making an alternate App Store and choosing the what can and can't be sold or given away is not unethical or illegal. Apple has the right, as do all companies, to create a closed system. A store has a right to which items it wants to sell and which items it wants representing it. If Apple doesn't want a "fart app" they have the same right as any other retailer not to carry Whoopee Cushions.
The only thing unethical being mentioned here is stating that the AT&T agreement you signed should be allowed to be broken and taken advantage of because they won't find out. AT&T has priced their smartphone data plans at half the price of their notebook USB card plans for a reason. If this contract breaking abuse becomes commonplace and AT&T can't figure out who is doing the abusing they will have no choice but to lose money or to raise the data plans on the iPhone for future customers to account for this unethical behavior. I have an idea which one they would choose.
The only problem I have with Apple removing the app is that there are carriers outside the US that do allow tethering at no additional cost. Unfortunately the App Store doesn't currently appear to differentiate between carriers and countries. This obviously makes things more complex, but it may be necessary in the future.
Apple making an alternate App Store and choosing the what can and can't be sold or given away is not unethical or illegal.
No, no. This is where you are wrong, Soli. The App Store isn't an "alternate." It's the only "legal" means to purchase 3rd party apps.
A store has the right not to sell a whoopee cushion, yes, but if that company were to block that whoopee cushion from any other means of getting to your house, that is anti-competitive.
Apple can block Whoopee Cushion Plus.app (for the Mac) from being sold in their own Apple stores & apple.com, but there's nothing it can do to prevent a user from downloading and installing it on their own computer. Right? So what gives Apple the right to determine what apps I can and can't install on my iPhone?
So long as the App-Store is the only legal means to get apps onto the iPhone, Apple should not have the right to block certain apps. If they are unwilling to agree to this, they must instead allow alternate sources of app installation. Failure to do either could (and should) be seen as anti-competitive behavior in what is supposed to be a free-market.
-Clive
No, no. This is where you are wrong, Soli. The App Store isn't an "alternate." It's the only "legal" means to purchase 3rd party apps.
A store has the right not to sell a whoopee cushion, yes, but if that company were to block that whoopee cushion from any other means of getting to your house, that is anti-competitive.
Apple can block <i>Whoopee Cushion Plus.app</i> (for the Mac) from being sold in their own Apple stores & apple.com, but there's nothing it can do to prevent a user from downloading and installing it on their own computer. Right? So what gives Apple the right to determine what apps I can and can't install on my iPhone?
So long as the App-Store is the only legal means to get apps onto the iPhone, Apple should not have the right to block certain apps. If they are unwilling to agree to this, they must instead allow alternate sources of app installation. Failure to do either could (and should) be seen as anti-competitive behavior in what is supposed to be a free-market.
-Clive
There is nothing illegal about Jailbreaking your iPhone. There is no reason you even have to run OS X on your iPhone. I'm sure Android will be ported to it eventually, just because. There is no reason one has to buy an iPhone to get apps on a phone. It's a free market, if a devloper doesn't like what a retailer chooses to sell they can create apps for RiM or Symbian or WinMo.
Any retailer has the right to sell the items that best represents its store. It also has the right to disallow items if it violates contracts it has with other companies. The tethering app probably violates most of their carriers contracts with users, but with certainty it violates the Apple's largest iPhone reseller, AT&T.
There is nothing illegal about Jailbreaking your iPhone. There is no reason you even have to run OS X on your iPhone. I'm sure Android will be ported to it eventually, just because. There is no reason one has to buy an iPhone to get apps on a phone. It's a free market, if a devloper doesn't like what a retailer chooses to sell they can create apps for RiM or Symbian or WinMo.
Any retailer has the right to sell the items that best represents its store. It also has the right to disallow items if it violates contracts it has with other companies. The tethering app probably violates most of their carriers contracts with users, but with certainty it violates the Apple's largest iPhone reseller, AT&T.
Actually, Jailbreaking is a violation of the DMCA, as it is circumvention of means used to protect copyrighted software. Jailbreaking is ONLY legal for the sake of carrier-unlocking the iPhone (one of the DMCA exceptions). Jailbreaking for any other purpose is copyright infringement.
I agree with you that Apple can choose what software to sell in its own app-store, but it can't prohibit other iPhone app-stores from existing/selling certain software. Right now, it does.
-Clive
Actually, Jailbreaking is a violation of the DMCA, as it is circumvention of means used to protect copyrighted software. Jailbreaking is ONLY legal for the sake of carrier-unlocking the iPhone (one of the DMCA exceptions). Jailbreaking for any other purpose is copyright infringement.
I agree with you that Apple can choose what software to sell in its own app-store, but it can't prohibit other iPhone app-stores from existing/selling certain software. Right now, it does.
-Clive
That doesn't apply to your own device as long you aren't selling it. You are allowed to alter software you own in any way you see fit. The same way you can soup up your car, juts don't expect your warranty to remain intact.Legalese never quite states exactly what you want it to and it's always up for debate, so I'm sure this discussion isn't over.
That doesn't apply to your own device as long you aren't selling it. You are allowed to alter software you own in any way you see fit. The same way you can soup up your car, juts don't expect your warranty to remain intact.Legalese never quite states exactly what you want it to and it's always up for debate, so I'm sure this discussion isn't over.
I would personally agree that it is within a user's right to jailbreak his/her own phone, even if not for the purpose of unlocking, but there are many who disagree - those who say its illegal to modify his/her own PC to run OS X on it, for example (and yes, there are some who do state that it is literally illegal because it bypasses the means used to protect the copyrighted code). There are more, still, who argue that we don't own our copy, and that we instead license the OS, in which case, we would be legally subject to the terms of the EULA.
All this aside, let's assume you're right and a court decides that Jailbreaking is legal for a user to do, and Cydia, Installer.app & App-Store all become bona fide app distribution sources. Jailbreaking is so contrived that getting to the alternatives is all but impossible for the majority of users, even if they wanted to! Once again, we find that the playing field is tilted in Apple's favor.
I understand the potential tech-support nightmare that may occur by allowing developers free-reign in iPhone App-land. I also understand the contract violations that could occur with Apple's other partners. That doesn't negate the fact that the choice should be there for the consumer, and the choice should be accessible. The only way it can work with the current infrastructure is if Apple would allow the distribution of Cydia on the App Store, with the disclaimer that downloading it voids your warranty. Of course, Apple will never do it, regardless of the fact that anything less than that is unfair to the consumer...
But nothing will change because our government will turn another blind eye on another situation as another lobbyist hands another politician another gigantic check.
That's why if consumers don't fight for their right to choose, they become victims of the unfree-market in which we live.
-Clive
I really think you are not seeing the big picture here. It's the jailbreak community that has pushed and promote many aspects of Apple's own tech. Just look at BootCamp and the App Store for examples. There is no money being stolen from Apple or the App Store. I'm jailbreaking my iPhone to run apps that aren't available on the App Store. The moral or legal issues are as severe as pulling the label off a mattress.
That's questionable, for Apple's products, but you're ALLOWED to pull the label off a mattress, or anything else. It's the STORE that's not allowed to do that.
I don't see what Bootcamp has to do with this. It has nothing to do with the open source efforts, which are bungled anyway, and almost useless.
You're allowed to jailbreak your phone, for sure, as long as you don;t go whining back to Apple if something happens as a result, as some here have tried to do.
As for taking money out of Apple's pocket, it isn't really the main issue, but it's likely happening as a result. People who jailbreak are probably getting programs that way instead of programs from the app store, so they are giving not only Apple less money, but the programmers and companies who sell properly through the approved channel.
That doesn't apply to your own device as long you aren't selling it. You are allowed to alter software you own in any way you see fit. The same way you can soup up your car, juts don't expect your warranty to remain intact.Legalese never quite states exactly what you want it to and it's always up for debate, so I'm sure this discussion isn't over.
Clive is correct on this matter.
You're confusing jailbreaking with unlocking.
It also doesn't matter whether it's your own device, or whether it's a software company.
No, no. This is where you are wrong, Soli. The App Store isn't an "alternate." It's the only "legal" means to purchase 3rd party apps.
It is clear what you're trying to say, but I think you've gone a bit far. There are plenty of 3rd party apps available for purchase from 3rd parties. (Just not for the iPhone)
A store has the right not to sell a whoopee cushion, yes, but if that company were to block that whoopee cushion from any other means of getting to your house, that is anti-competitive.
Apple can block Whoopee Cushion Plus.app (for the Mac) from being sold in their own Apple stores & apple.com, but there's nothing it can do to prevent a user from downloading and installing it on their own computer. Right? So what gives Apple the right to determine what apps I can and can't install on my iPhone?
So long as the App-Store is the only legal means to get apps onto the iPhone, Apple should not have the right to block certain apps. If they are unwilling to agree to this, they must instead allow alternate sources of app installation. Failure to do either could (and should) be seen as anti-competitive behavior in what is supposed to be a free-market.
-Clive
I sympathize with your dislike of corporations wielding too much power over their customers. In one sense, customers aren't "free" to do whatever they want.
On the other hand, I also don't want the government telling people what to do. In this case, "people" also refers to the "people" running companies. If I were running a company, I'd want to be "free" to do business without government intervention.
Without doubt, there is a delicate and debatable, optimal balance between the two "freedoms". I think you'd have more credibility in this debate if you at least acknowledge that it is indeed a tradeoff. Consumer protection and state controlled markets are one and the same. The real question is... where to draw the line?
Has competition been hurt by Apple's entry into the mobile phone market with their entirely vertical device? So far I'd say that the product you're criticizing for being a closed platform, has actually raised consumer choice. The danger comes later, if apple were to kill off the competition, they could use their vertical product to prevent new entrants into the market. US law accounts for this dichotomy by making certain practices illegal for companies in a monopolistic market position.
Of course, Apple will never do it, regardless of the fact that anything less than that is unfair to the consumer...
You keep coming at this from the position that the iPhone is the only player in town. If you don't like it then you have a right to choose another phone. If I don't like the analog channels my cable company pushes for ch2 thru ch98 I can go with Verizon, satellite providers, OTA digital or nothing at all. If I want a channel that my cable company doesn't provide or one that they only offer for the most expensive cable plans I have the same choices as listed above.
Cydia is just a bonus for those who want more out of their device. The App Store is not something that Apple is required to provide to their customers. It's done simply to add value to the device. If the rules or offering don't appeal to you as a customer you have the right to choose another phone. If the rules don't appeal to you as a developer you have the right to choose a different mobile platform in which to code. The iPhone is not the only game in town. If they rules are too stringent for coders and customers alike then the iPhone's 3000 apps won't be growing much and we'll see other mobile platforms advancing even further in the future.
You're confusing jailbreaking with unlocking.
You can't unlock the EDGE iPhone without jailbreaking it first so I see that as an implied, but I know what you are saying and wondered if anyone would pick up on that point