"Apple justifies this by claiming that opening the iPhone to independently created applications will compromise safety, security, reliability, and swing the doors wide for those who want to run pirated software. If this sounds like FUD, that's because it is."
Given what's really happening, I think they went a bit overboard by claiming it is FUD.
And for those claiming that Apple does this because they want the 30% cut of the revenue (there are many over at CNET), recognize that Apple allows for you to sell your app for free (and pay Apple just the developer's fee), and then get revenue from ads (and Apple gets zip from the ads).
That said, on the whole, I generally am sympathetic with EFF's position and I want Apple to put forth a way so that not all iPhone apps need to come through the App Store.
What Apple does with the iPhone is nothing different than what console makers have been doing for years. As much respect as I have for the EFF, I think this time they've gone too far. While open platforms can certainly be a good thing, it's not anyone's right to demand a certain platform be so. If you don't like closed platforms, vote with your wallet and buy something else.
Interesting that Apple touts one of the two worst abuses of the App store as a positive. Who the hell asked them to limit what a paying adult can or cannot view on their legally purchased iPhone. The fact that they made an author remove the f' word from the book to be hosted on the App Store was beyond terrible, as bad as anything Wal-Mart ever did against music, but nobody seems to be very upset about Apple playing moral cop on the iPhone.
Oh well.
You can load all the porn on your iPhone that you want, you just can't buy it through the App store. I agree with you that making an author remove a word from his book is going too far.
But if Apple let developers sell sexually explicit applications in the App Store, then Apple would be in the porn business. Apple has the right to not distribute porn, and to not be a conduit for hate speech. I hope they keep it reasonable, though - if it's art, allow it through (up to a point).
Let's be clear here. Apple has NEVER made any noises about going after any iPhone user who jailbreaks their iPhone. This response to the EFF petition is not about going after anyone. All Apple is trying to do in its response is to stop a ruling that would change the legality of jailbreaking the phone.
This is analogous to how Apple has NEVER gone after any PC user who puts Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware. It's been possible for several years and people have reported doing it and Apple has done zilch about it.
Finally someone who gets it.
TUAW and a few other sites are actually stirring up a hornets nest by posting articles that say that Apple is behind some kind of a move to "shut down jailbreakers," which is the exact opposite of what has happened. I'm not against anyone who personally wants to jailbreak their phone, but allowing it on a grand commercial scale as a legal option is just insane. The EFF started this by applying for the process to be made legal. Apple is just responding as they pretty much have to.
Jailbreaking is on the whole really about piracy and everyone knows it. All this crap about "freeing your devices" is just that, crap. This current news is now all over he net and 90% of what you read about it is the opposite of the truth. If the "jailbreak community" cared about freedom, they should also care about truth, but they don't. Most everything you read about this is just anti-Apple bull from a bunch of teenagers.
You need to visit John Gruber over at daringfireball.net. He's been writing about this over the past week. He has data on this from developers tracking web hits from their iPhone apps. Fairplay for the apps has already been broken.
yep. there are multi-hundred iPhone/iPod Touch app packages circulating on the torrent sites. These apps can only be installed on hacked devices.
"Apple justifies this by claiming that opening the iPhone to independently created applications will compromise safety, security, reliability, and swing the doors wide for those who want to run pirated software. If this sounds like FUD, that's because it is."
How can they even say that with a straight face?
If you were trying this case in a court room and one lawyer countered the other by saying the other lawyer was just exaggerating or trying to scare people the judge would laugh you out of court. You have to have a counter argument, you can't just say "that's not true" without offering some kind of examination of the facts.
This statement makes about as much sense as "I know you are but what am I?"
jailbreaking is bullshit. The arguement that it would increase innovation is bullshit, it would only promote piracy.
I have to say that's utter bollocks.
I had a jailbroken phone before the app-store happened: it was the only way to run non-Apple programs. The programs I used were all free.
At the moment, my phone is not jailbroken. Why? Because I'm registered as an iPhone developer, and thus have enough access to the internals of my phone. (I enabled emoji just by compiling the source code posted online, for example.)
But were I not a developer, I would definitely jailbreak. There's so many interesting things you can do that aren't allowed by the app-store. I'm working at the moment to find a way to do real-time barcode scanning via the iPhone camera. For this I need unsupported APIs, so there's no way an app-store app could do it... but I still want to have a go at writing such a thing.
I've never installed a pirated iPhone app, and never will. There are many other reasons to jailbreak besides that!
For years handsets have been sold with customized carrier firmware which, depending on the handset model impose all sorts of restrictions from SIM locking, Internet settings, splash screens and interfaces and the ringtones and software which can be used with carrier specific handsets.
VLC for iPhone - Because I want to be able to just punch in any streaming audio/video URL and play it rather than be limited to particular set of choices (tied to revenue streams/advertising).
Tethering - Because I'm paying a substantial amount for a data plan and want to be able to use it how I see fit.
Cycorder - Even if the camera is only 15 fps, it shouldn't be limited to still photos.
SSH - Until Apple comes up with a more general syncing mechanism, SSH remains the best way to get files to and from the iPhone (from any OS).
None of those have anything to do piracy -- just with being able to use my iPhone how I want. The same as I am allowed to do with my desktop computer.
I fully understand Apple's intent with locking the iPhone down so that people don't get stung by shoddy or maliciously crafted applications. However, it would be nice to have an option to approve installation of unsigned applications.
I have no problem with Apple controlling the content on it's store. I, however, have a problem with there being no other outlet for me to buy content if Apple is preventing content I want from being sold. I am not leasing an iPhone. I bought it. If I want to add an application or content to the device I should be allowed to do so. That doesn't mean Apple should be forced to support the device if I load unauthorized applications, but Apple shouldn't be allowed to prevent me outright.
I don't find Apple's position defensible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Why would they need to be asked before choosing what is distributed in their own store? As for Wal-Mart, yeah I think having labels edit albums before agreeing to sell them is a bit extreme, but they have the right to not sell a product if it doesn't fit within their model.
Well, I thought the counter argument would be that there are plenty of legitimate iPhone applications that only run on a jailbroken iPhone now. Moreover, I don't want a company telling me what words I can and cannot read.
Keep in mind, I'm an Apple stockholder, and would never willing touch a Windows PC. Apple's just wrong on this one. If I jailbreak the phone, Apple isn't forced to support the Phone. That is fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
How can they even say that with a straight face?
If you were trying this case in a court room and one lawyer countered the other by saying the other lawyer was just exaggerating or trying to scare people the judge would laugh you out of court. You have to have a counter argument, you can't just say "that's not true" without offering some kind of examination of the facts.
This statement makes about as much sense as "I know you are but what am I?"
I have no problem with Apple controlling the content on it's store. I, however, have a problem with there being no other outlet for me to buy content if Apple is preventing content I want from being sold. I am not leasing an iPhone. I bought it. If I want to add an application or content to the device I should be allowed to do so. That doesn't mean Apple should be forced to support the device if I load unauthorized applications, but Apple shouldn't be allowed to prevent me outright.
I don't find Apple's position defensible.
They aren't telling what you can and cannot read. They are telling you what content they will support. Think about it from a more extreme example for a moment: should Apple hardcore pornographic novelettes on the device because of a perversisn of Free Speech deems that any company should be required to distribute any text that one wishes? I doubt you would agree with that. While the word 'fuck' is quite tame compared to my example Apple has to draw the line somewhere, and they are within their rights to do so. There is an open Internet that the iPhone will access without discrimantion*.
* The iPhone needs a Guest Account and Parental Control options.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Well, I thought the counter argument would be that there are plenty of legitimate iPhone applications that only run on a jailbroken iPhone now. Moreover, I don't want a company telling me what words I can and cannot read.
Keep in mind, I'm an Apple stockholder, and would never willing touch a Windows PC. Apple's just wrong on this one. If I jailbreak the phone, Apple isn't forced to support the Phone. That is fine.
Their inlies the problem. By officially allowing this Apple would be responsible to some extent, but more importantly Apple would end up taking a lot more calls and servicing a log more iPhones and iTouches simply from opening up the door.
BTW, I have jailbroken and unlocked both of my iPhones.
There's only one Android phone being sold right now, and as far as I know, only in the U.S.
It's a bit early to say that Android lost.
My remark was not to imply that Android lost. I don't think they will nor do I hope they do.
Every complaint that the vocal minority makes about the iPhone or Apples business practices in its ecosystem, surely can be corrected and developed on Android I would think.
Which is why I don't understand why people make such a big stink about it. Vocal minority. It's all they are. Only one person in my very large circle of iPhone users has a jailbroken phone. And that is only because he lives in Austria and it was before they introduced it. Everyone else is happy to keep it that way.
And I agree with Apple's argument about corruption done on the phone due to jailbreaking. If you download some unauthorized hack that ultimately ruins your phone - and I don't care if you own the hardware - by corrupting the system software, you're plain out of luck. Don't go crying back to Apple expecting them to offer you warranty support for it. I know you folks would easily try to play stupid and just walk up to an Apple counter and tell them "I dunno, it just stopped working. I didn't do anything" with the hopes they fall for it.
In the end, it will be the 1% (the vocal minority) that will ruin it for everyone else. Honestly people, you have way too much time on your hands.
I agree with this argument. This is how companies should learn, though people and their buying power. Remember the boycotts of certain products or companies due to their business practices? We should continue to do this!
As for me, I am taking my money else where, and not to Apple because of how I disagree with their practices. I also will tell others to do the same. That's how it works.
I choose to do things my way, not the Apple way. Why do I come to this site then? I get bored and its fun to say things now and then.
Thanks for agreeing. I myself have no problem with how Apple runs its iPhone ecosystem. Of course, there are people out there that agree in the complete opposite. That is totally okay. It's a balance of good and bad and Apple feels that their current model works for them.
There are other companies that I refuse to do business with because of their practices. Apple is not one of them for me. I support and respect your belief and right to choose who gets your business.
From how I read the complaint from EFF they want Apple to be forced to allow jailbreaking in certain circumstances. This leaves Apple officially supporting jailbreaking when it is not in line with their business model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
I have no problem with Apple controlling the content on it's store. I, however, have a problem with there being no other outlet for me to buy content if Apple is preventing content I want from being sold. I am not leasing an iPhone. I bought it. If I want to add an application or content to the device I should be allowed to do so. That doesn't mean Apple should be forced to support the device if I load unauthorized applications, but Apple shouldn't be allowed to prevent me outright.
Companies are free to establish standards for content it chooses to support. Free speech does not apply in this case. In one way or another content is censored in all mass media.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Well, I thought the counter argument would be that there are plenty of legitimate iPhone applications that only run on a jailbroken iPhone now. Moreover, I don't want a company telling me what words I can and cannot read.
Keep in mind, I'm an Apple stockholder, and would never willing touch a Windows PC. Apple's just wrong on this one. If I jailbreak the phone, Apple isn't forced to support the Phone. That is fine.
Comments
From the EFF article by Fred von Lohmann:
"Apple justifies this by claiming that opening the iPhone to independently created applications will compromise safety, security, reliability, and swing the doors wide for those who want to run pirated software. If this sounds like FUD, that's because it is."
Given what's really happening, I think they went a bit overboard by claiming it is FUD.
And for those claiming that Apple does this because they want the 30% cut of the revenue (there are many over at CNET), recognize that Apple allows for you to sell your app for free (and pay Apple just the developer's fee), and then get revenue from ads (and Apple gets zip from the ads).
That said, on the whole, I generally am sympathetic with EFF's position and I want Apple to put forth a way so that not all iPhone apps need to come through the App Store.
I wouldn't have known where to begin.
I find that a search engine, like Google, is a good place to start:
Interesting that Apple touts one of the two worst abuses of the App store as a positive. Who the hell asked them to limit what a paying adult can or cannot view on their legally purchased iPhone. The fact that they made an author remove the f' word from the book to be hosted on the App Store was beyond terrible, as bad as anything Wal-Mart ever did against music, but nobody seems to be very upset about Apple playing moral cop on the iPhone.
Oh well.
You can load all the porn on your iPhone that you want, you just can't buy it through the App store. I agree with you that making an author remove a word from his book is going too far.
But if Apple let developers sell sexually explicit applications in the App Store, then Apple would be in the porn business. Apple has the right to not distribute porn, and to not be a conduit for hate speech. I hope they keep it reasonable, though - if it's art, allow it through (up to a point).
Let's be clear here. Apple has NEVER made any noises about going after any iPhone user who jailbreaks their iPhone. This response to the EFF petition is not about going after anyone. All Apple is trying to do in its response is to stop a ruling that would change the legality of jailbreaking the phone.
This is analogous to how Apple has NEVER gone after any PC user who puts Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware. It's been possible for several years and people have reported doing it and Apple has done zilch about it.
Finally someone who gets it.
TUAW and a few other sites are actually stirring up a hornets nest by posting articles that say that Apple is behind some kind of a move to "shut down jailbreakers," which is the exact opposite of what has happened. I'm not against anyone who personally wants to jailbreak their phone, but allowing it on a grand commercial scale as a legal option is just insane. The EFF started this by applying for the process to be made legal. Apple is just responding as they pretty much have to.
Jailbreaking is on the whole really about piracy and everyone knows it. All this crap about "freeing your devices" is just that, crap. This current news is now all over he net and 90% of what you read about it is the opposite of the truth. If the "jailbreak community" cared about freedom, they should also care about truth, but they don't. Most everything you read about this is just anti-Apple bull from a bunch of teenagers.
Thanks for the info. I wouldn't have known where to begin. Much appreciated. I'm going to give it a try right now.
At your own risk. I did not even jailbreak my iPhone. This is what I read from what I've read on the news sites.
You need to visit John Gruber over at daringfireball.net. He's been writing about this over the past week. He has data on this from developers tracking web hits from their iPhone apps. Fairplay for the apps has already been broken.
yep. there are multi-hundred iPhone/iPod Touch app packages circulating on the torrent sites. These apps can only be installed on hacked devices.
From the EFF article by Fred von Lohmann:
"Apple justifies this by claiming that opening the iPhone to independently created applications will compromise safety, security, reliability, and swing the doors wide for those who want to run pirated software. If this sounds like FUD, that's because it is."
How can they even say that with a straight face?
If you were trying this case in a court room and one lawyer countered the other by saying the other lawyer was just exaggerating or trying to scare people the judge would laugh you out of court. You have to have a counter argument, you can't just say "that's not true" without offering some kind of examination of the facts.
This statement makes about as much sense as "I know you are but what am I?"
EFF sounds like a bunch of babies.
This statement makes about as much sense as "I know you are but what am I?"
The old "I know you are but what am I?" Defense. Second only to the Chewbacca Defense.
jailbreaking is bullshit. The arguement that it would increase innovation is bullshit, it would only promote piracy.
I have to say that's utter bollocks.
I had a jailbroken phone before the app-store happened: it was the only way to run non-Apple programs. The programs I used were all free.
At the moment, my phone is not jailbroken. Why? Because I'm registered as an iPhone developer, and thus have enough access to the internals of my phone. (I enabled emoji just by compiling the source code posted online, for example.)
But were I not a developer, I would definitely jailbreak. There's so many interesting things you can do that aren't allowed by the app-store. I'm working at the moment to find a way to do real-time barcode scanning via the iPhone camera. For this I need unsupported APIs, so there's no way an app-store app could do it... but I still want to have a go at writing such a thing.
I've never installed a pirated iPhone app, and never will. There are many other reasons to jailbreak besides that!
Amorya
For years handsets have been sold with customized carrier firmware which, depending on the handset model impose all sorts of restrictions from SIM locking, Internet settings, splash screens and interfaces and the ringtones and software which can be used with carrier specific handsets.
Shouldn't these also be included?
- VLC for iPhone - Because I want to be able to just punch in any streaming audio/video URL and play it rather than be limited to particular set of choices (tied to revenue streams/advertising).
- Tethering - Because I'm paying a substantial amount for a data plan and want to be able to use it how I see fit.
- Cycorder - Even if the camera is only 15 fps, it shouldn't be limited to still photos.
- SSH - Until Apple comes up with a more general syncing mechanism, SSH remains the best way to get files to and from the iPhone (from any OS).
None of those have anything to do piracy -- just with being able to use my iPhone how I want. The same as I am allowed to do with my desktop computer.I fully understand Apple's intent with locking the iPhone down so that people don't get stung by shoddy or maliciously crafted applications. However, it would be nice to have an option to approve installation of unsigned applications.
The EFF wants users to be able to freely modify Apple's iPhone software so that applications independent of the official App Store can be used on it.
The Copyright Office will deliberate over the proposed DMCA exemptions and issue a ruling in October.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
If you REALLY want a smart phone with little or no quality control on the software, go buy a Palm Pre. Oh...and good luck with that.....
Me...I'm sticking with my iPhone and some quality control....
I don't find Apple's position defensible.
Why would they need to be asked before choosing what is distributed in their own store? As for Wal-Mart, yeah I think having labels edit albums before agreeing to sell them is a bit extreme, but they have the right to not sell a product if it doesn't fit within their model.
Keep in mind, I'm an Apple stockholder, and would never willing touch a Windows PC. Apple's just wrong on this one. If I jailbreak the phone, Apple isn't forced to support the Phone. That is fine.
How can they even say that with a straight face?
If you were trying this case in a court room and one lawyer countered the other by saying the other lawyer was just exaggerating or trying to scare people the judge would laugh you out of court. You have to have a counter argument, you can't just say "that's not true" without offering some kind of examination of the facts.
This statement makes about as much sense as "I know you are but what am I?"
EFF sounds like a bunch of babies.
I have no problem with Apple controlling the content on it's store. I, however, have a problem with there being no other outlet for me to buy content if Apple is preventing content I want from being sold. I am not leasing an iPhone. I bought it. If I want to add an application or content to the device I should be allowed to do so. That doesn't mean Apple should be forced to support the device if I load unauthorized applications, but Apple shouldn't be allowed to prevent me outright.
I don't find Apple's position defensible.
They aren't telling what you can and cannot read. They are telling you what content they will support. Think about it from a more extreme example for a moment: should Apple hardcore pornographic novelettes on the device because of a perversisn of Free Speech deems that any company should be required to distribute any text that one wishes? I doubt you would agree with that. While the word 'fuck' is quite tame compared to my example Apple has to draw the line somewhere, and they are within their rights to do so. There is an open Internet that the iPhone will access without discrimantion*.
* The iPhone needs a Guest Account and Parental Control options.
Well, I thought the counter argument would be that there are plenty of legitimate iPhone applications that only run on a jailbroken iPhone now. Moreover, I don't want a company telling me what words I can and cannot read.
Keep in mind, I'm an Apple stockholder, and would never willing touch a Windows PC. Apple's just wrong on this one. If I jailbreak the phone, Apple isn't forced to support the Phone. That is fine.
Their inlies the problem. By officially allowing this Apple would be responsible to some extent, but more importantly Apple would end up taking a lot more calls and servicing a log more iPhones and iTouches simply from opening up the door.
BTW, I have jailbroken and unlocked both of my iPhones.
There's only one Android phone being sold right now, and as far as I know, only in the U.S.
It's a bit early to say that Android lost.
My remark was not to imply that Android lost. I don't think they will nor do I hope they do.
Every complaint that the vocal minority makes about the iPhone or Apples business practices in its ecosystem, surely can be corrected and developed on Android I would think.
Which is why I don't understand why people make such a big stink about it. Vocal minority. It's all they are. Only one person in my very large circle of iPhone users has a jailbroken phone. And that is only because he lives in Austria and it was before they introduced it. Everyone else is happy to keep it that way.
And I agree with Apple's argument about corruption done on the phone due to jailbreaking. If you download some unauthorized hack that ultimately ruins your phone - and I don't care if you own the hardware - by corrupting the system software, you're plain out of luck. Don't go crying back to Apple expecting them to offer you warranty support for it. I know you folks would easily try to play stupid and just walk up to an Apple counter and tell them "I dunno, it just stopped working. I didn't do anything" with the hopes they fall for it.
In the end, it will be the 1% (the vocal minority) that will ruin it for everyone else. Honestly people, you have way too much time on your hands.
I agree with this argument. This is how companies should learn, though people and their buying power. Remember the boycotts of certain products or companies due to their business practices? We should continue to do this!
As for me, I am taking my money else where, and not to Apple because of how I disagree with their practices. I also will tell others to do the same. That's how it works.
I choose to do things my way, not the Apple way. Why do I come to this site then? I get bored and its fun to say things now and then.
Thanks for agreeing. I myself have no problem with how Apple runs its iPhone ecosystem. Of course, there are people out there that agree in the complete opposite. That is totally okay. It's a balance of good and bad and Apple feels that their current model works for them.
There are other companies that I refuse to do business with because of their practices. Apple is not one of them for me. I support and respect your belief and right to choose who gets your business.
I have no problem with Apple controlling the content on it's store. I, however, have a problem with there being no other outlet for me to buy content if Apple is preventing content I want from being sold. I am not leasing an iPhone. I bought it. If I want to add an application or content to the device I should be allowed to do so. That doesn't mean Apple should be forced to support the device if I load unauthorized applications, but Apple shouldn't be allowed to prevent me outright.
I don't find Apple's position defensible.
Well, I thought the counter argument would be that there are plenty of legitimate iPhone applications that only run on a jailbroken iPhone now. Moreover, I don't want a company telling me what words I can and cannot read.
Keep in mind, I'm an Apple stockholder, and would never willing touch a Windows PC. Apple's just wrong on this one. If I jailbreak the phone, Apple isn't forced to support the Phone. That is fine.