So basically, you're incapable of a rational argument.
There's no way to logically get from my statement to yours.
Not from that statement alone, but it can be deduced from the fact that you are arguing that jailbreaking is immoral and illegal (with no law on point) in some way. Yet for AT&T contracts, you believe there should be "some mechanism" for AT&T to allow you to use the device that they helped pay for on a competitor's network.
Not from that statement alone, but it can be deduced from the fact that you are arguing that jailbreaking is immoral and illegal (with no law on point) in some way. Yet for AT&T contracts, you believe there should be "some mechanism" for AT&T to allow you to use the device that they helped pay for on a competitor's network.
I guess you really are incapable of rational thought.
The AT&T contract has a fixed life time. Once you have fulfilled your obligations, the contract is no longer in effect. By not allowing you to use your phone on other carriers, AT&T is effectively extracting something from you that is not part of the contract. IOW, they're taking more than you agreed to.
Apple's EULA, OTOH, is a permanent part of the device and does not have a limiting time period. When you agreed to the EULA, you did not agree not to jailbreak it for 2 years. You agreed not to jailbreak it PERIOD.
....Once again, the fact that Apple doesn't go after individuals for jailbreaking doesn't mean they agree with it. If they agreed with it, they wouldn't have terms in their EULA prohibiting it....
Do EULAs have any serious legal standing? From a practical standpoint it's nearly impossible to be a functioning member of today's society without having "agreed" to hundreds, if not thousands of these voluminous "contracts". It's not like we each have a crack legal team to analyze these things. We all just click "ok", or agree implicitly by loading the software. It's simply not practical to function otherwise. Doesn't this tend to make the "contract" a sham? I've always wondered about how that really plays from a legal standpoint.
That being said, I can understand the jailbreaking phenomenon from a intellectual curiosity standpoint but from a practical standpoint it's just way too much hassle.
You do not own Mac OS or iPHone OS. You have a license to use it. That license comes with certain terms. One of those terms is that you can not jail break it. So you have broken the license agreement.
Just ask Psystar how legal it is. They were very severely slapped around by the judge for doing essentially what you're advocating. The fact that they made money on it was not a key part of the decision.
All of this "it's my device and I can do what I want" whining is a bunch of self-centered rationalization by people who have no clue about intellectual property.
THAT is TOTAL BS!!!! The reason that Psystar was sued had everything to do with the profiteering on the MacOS. If what you said was true Apple would be going after the OSx86 project (which has been around for years) as well as individuals who turn their PCs into hackintoshes. Get your facts straight.
Also, your comment about "it is my device" is wrong. While the OS might be licensed, the hardware belongs to the owner.
Apple's EULA, OTOH, is a permanent part of the device and does not have a limiting time period. When you agreed to the EULA, you did not agree not to jailbreak it for 2 years. You agreed not to jailbreak it PERIOD.
I bought my iPhone secondhand from some guy. I agreed to nothing.
Who is arguing for specific performance? Yet another straw man argument.
Likely you do not realize it, or maybe you are just Trolling, but you yourself are "arguing for specific performance".
"allows a user to sign a contract and then violate it simply because they want to do something different?"
To force a user to adhere to a contract, rather than to violate it, is called "specific performance". It is a rare, extraordinary remedy.
In general, we allow users to sign a contract and then violate it. We do not force them to perform the contract. Instead, we put the non-breaching party into the same economic position they would have been in had the contract been enforced. We do NOT enforce the contract. We "allow the user to violate it".
If you cannot fathom the distinction, then so be it.
I guess you really are incapable of rational thought.
The AT&T contract has a fixed life time. Once you have fulfilled your obligations, the contract is no longer in effect. By not allowing you to use your phone on other carriers, AT&T is effectively extracting something from you that is not part of the contract. IOW, they're taking more than you agreed to.
Apple's EULA, OTOH, is a permanent part of the device and does not have a limiting time period. When you agreed to the EULA, you did not agree not to jailbreak it for 2 years. You agreed not to jailbreak it PERIOD.
NOW do you see the difference?
Actually, as long as you subscribe to AT&T service, you are still under a contract. Granted, that contract is terminable at will with notice, but you are still under contract. So there really is no difference at all. Also, the EULA encompasses all of the protections within the iPhone, INCLUDING being locked to AT&T. Thus, if you argue that the EULA is a permanent part of the device, then the carrier lock is also a permanent part of the device. And this all remains in place even if you terminate your contract with AT&T.
Your arguments are starting to look less and less rational. I didn't even know that was possible.
THAT is TOTAL BS!!!! The reason that Psystar was sued had everything to do with the profiteering on the MacOS. If what you said was true Apple would be going after the OSx86 project (which has been around for years) as well as individuals who turn their PCs into hackintoshes. Get your facts straight.
Funny that you're telling me to get the facts straight when you apparently haven't even read the Psystar ruling. Alsup's ruling is very clear. Psystar lost because what they did was inherently a violation of the EULA and DMCA - NOT because they profited from it. Just read the case before blathering any more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naboozle
Do EULAs have any serious legal standing?
Yes. Read the Psystar case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych
Actually, as long as you subscribe to AT&T service, you are still under a contract. Granted, that contract is terminable at will with notice, but you are still under contract. So there really is no difference at all. Also, the EULA encompasses all of the protections within the iPhone, INCLUDING being locked to AT&T. Thus, if you argue that the EULA is a permanent part of the device, then the carrier lock is also a permanent part of the device. And this all remains in place even if you terminate your contract with AT&T.
Your arguments are starting to look less and less rational. I didn't even know that was possible.
IOW, you lost the argument.
Even if you are correct that the AT&T contract remains in place and can be terminated at will, there is no mechanism to terminate it and have the phone 'freed', so my argument doesn't change. Once you sign up for the AT&T contract, there is no mechanism for you to regain full use of the phone after the contract is finished.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh.B.
Troll.
You mis-spelled "waah, waah, waah. I can't come up with a rational argument, so I'll resort to name calling".
Even if you are correct that the AT&T contract remains in place and can be terminated at will, there is no mechanism to terminate it and have the phone 'freed', so my argument doesn't change. Once you sign up for the AT&T contract, there is no mechanism for you to regain full use of the phone after the contract is finished.
First, any bargained for exchange of goods or services for payment involves a contract. Not all contracts need be in writing, and they can be implied by your actions. Ordering a number 6 ten piece at McDonalds with a Diet Coke? That's an implied contract.
Second, you can buy a phone from the Apple store without ever signing a contract or agreeing to a contract with AT&T. The phone is still locked to AT&T. The EULA ensures this. This is what makes your argument that there should be some way to "free" the phone contradictory to your arguments against jailbreaking. I am simply pointing out that they are similar restrictions on the same product, in place because of the same EULA. Yet you are irrationally taking different positions when it comes to the different restrictions.
It never ceases to amaze me some of the attitudes of people around here. I wonder if the people who are against jailbreaking are the same ones who wanted so badly to be hallway monitor at school, or who would be so elated to "tattle" on anyone they think was breaking the rules.
I've read through the entire thread and what I see is a lot of misinformation being spread and used as an argument against jailbreaking. The ones who do jailbreak know what's up.
Something about this reminds me of watching a Fox News segment on pot...
"You need WiFi to call over Skype. Skype calls over 3G networks are currently not allowed due to contractual restrictions."
That is the error message I get.
Hmmm...... I've never tried that since I always use Skype only on wifi (if a cell signal is available in the US, I use ATT, and outside US I make Skype calls only with wifi since I have data roaming turned off).
Have you tried Truphone? (Perhaps I should try it out myself, and report).
Hmmm...... I've never tried that since I always use Skype only on wifi (if a cell signal is available in the US, I use ATT, and outside US I make Skype calls only with wifi since I have data roaming turned off).
Have you tried Truphone? (Perhaps I should try it out myself, and report).
Have not tried Truephone. I use Skype to dial phone numbers overseas since it is cheaper. I have not tried to talk with Skype to Skype over 3G, only wiFi so I don't know if that part works or not.
I really don't want to jail break anything so if I do end up getting an iPad it won't replace my iPhone hence I will not need to use it as a phone anyway.
Probably won't see the new jailbreak until OS4 comes out to thwart Apple from patching it (many exploits are held on purpose when close to a new OS release).
It never ceases to amaze me some of the attitudes of people around here. I wonder if the people who are against jailbreaking are the same ones who wanted so badly to be hallway monitor at school, or who would be so elated to "tattle" on anyone they think was breaking the rules.
I've read through the entire thread and what I see is a lot of misinformation being spread and used as an argument against jailbreaking. The ones who do jailbreak know what's up.
Instead of inflammatory fact-free posts, maybe you should stick to the facts? What 'misinformation' is being spread? Why not counter the alleged misinformation rather than simply making personal attacks?
For the record, the reason I am opposed to people violating EULAs is that I have spent most of my career in businesses where my company was the innovator and created high value products - only to see competitors try to come in with shoddy copies. I understand the value of intellectual property.
I have also dealt with the kind of customer who messes things up with their own actions and then blames the manufacturer for the problems. "Sure, I plugged this stereo into a 440 outlet, but it's the manufacturer's fault that it broke". I can understand Apple's desire to not make it easy for people to mess up their products - because Apple will get the blame when people mess things up - whether that's fair or not.
For the record, the reason I am opposed to people violating EULAs is that I have spent most of my career in businesses where my company was the innovator and created high value products - only to see competitors try to come in with shoddy copies. I understand the value of intellectual property.
EULA only "binds" an end user with which you have a contractual relationship. Not a competitor. You need to look to copyright/patent law to deal with that.
Just proves that you have no idea about what you are talking about.
The "journalism" here at AI gets more and more discredited by articles like this one, which spreads the lies that Apple wants people to believe about jailbreaking.
First, jailbreaks don't modify the hardware, at least not the ones being talked about here. Therefore it would be hard for Apple to make the case that they "void the warranty".
Second, jail breaking has little to do with unlocking. Jail breaking is mainly concerned with one thing: give the owner ownership of a device he paid for. All Macs ship "jail broken", and as Apple tries to start rolling up and replace the Mac market over years to come with ever more sophisticated touch devices (the iPad already gains an optional keyboard), the question is if you will still own your computer in a few years, or if you have to ask daddy Apple for permission before you run software on your computer. Apple tries to monopolize application distribution, good taste, and decide for the user what does or does not constitute appropriate use of a computer. This gives a corporate entity power that the constitution doesn't even give the government.
Third, that jailbreaking is there to "steal apps" is pure propaganda. Yes, it becomes possible, but except for a few rogue people, most people who jailbreak simply do it to make full use of the device, e.g. to install apps that Apple bans from the app store, things like access to Google Voice, a Unix shell, etc.
Fourth, the real dilemma the article doesn't even mention: the fact that an iPhone/iPad can be jail broken is a massive security risk. However, giving people full access to the phone is not. If Apple gave the legitimate users full access to the phone, jail breaking wouldn't be required. What jailbreaking encourages and necessitates is hacking into your own device bypassing the security mechanisms, while the security mechanisms should be used to give the legitimate users full access to the device while keeping everyone else out.
With Apple's current policies you have to pray for the devices and software not to be secure, just so you can get at your own device! If that's not a perverted situation, then I don't know what is; because I want my devices to be secure, but I also want to exercise full ownership over what I buy. The two would not need to be at odds, but Apple artificially creates a situation where they are at odds.
It's sad when articles here start containing more and more of the boiler plate phrases we know all too well from corporate news outlets, where entire people, concepts, etc. are reduced to a single catch phrase which is then repeated over and over again until the public believes it.
To make it look like jail breaking is just there to steal software and switch carrier, is not only two times wrong, it's also misleading, because with the need for an unlock on a non-carrier-locked iPad it attempts to make jail breakers look like warranty-voiding criminals.
Learn the facts, stop spreading Apple corporate propaganda. Sad to see AI sink to this level. Of course, it just shows how successful Apple's legal intimidation tactics are: there's no good Apple rumor site left, and the Apple related web sites just spread corporate drivel.
Instead of inflammatory fact-free posts, maybe you should stick to the facts? What 'misinformation' is being spread? Why not counter the alleged misinformation rather than simply making personal attacks?
For the record, the reason I am opposed to people violating EULAs is that I have spent most of my career in businesses where my company was the innovator and created high value products - only to see competitors try to come in with shoddy copies. I understand the value of intellectual property.
I have also dealt with the kind of customer who messes things up with their own actions and then blames the manufacturer for the problems. "Sure, I plugged this stereo into a 440 outlet, but it's the manufacturer's fault that it broke". I can understand Apple's desire to not make it easy for people to mess up their products - because Apple will get the blame when people mess things up - whether that's fair or not.
Ok, first of all, telling someone they like to follow rules is a personal attack? It's just a type of person. I personally found the suckups in school to be arrogant, annoying, and repulsive, but it's still not a "personal attack" to assume such characteristics in someone. Oh, but wait, it's ok to call all jailbreakers software pirates and thieves right?
ANYWAYS, I'm glad you're up front about the bias that contributes to your take on things, but they do nothing to dissuade someone like me from jailbreaking an iphone.
So lets break this down, shal we?
Jailbreaking leads to software pirating: False and illogical. As someone pointed out, it's like saying pot automatically leads to crack. I'm not an expert on how to pirate apps or anything, but I assume there's some parallel between pirating an app for a phone, and pirating software for a Mac isn't there? Oh, and didn't Apple ban hacked iphones from the app store? Just wondering...
Jailbreaking is an extreme security vulnerability: WEELLL, not really... There will always be some dope who doesn't really know what he's doing, but the warnings are as clear as day: Do this at YOUR own risk. You void your warranty, meaning Apple isn't responsible for any damages. So what is the biggest security risk? From installing OpenSSH? Usually there's a reason for installing such a thing (because as far as I know, no jailbreaking method includes openSSH) and not setting a password is THEIR mistake. A mistake they must take responsibility for.
Jailbreaking can help terrorists: Might not have been mentioned here, but Apple sure as hell mentioned it. Does everyone remember?
Jailbreaking can cause irreversible damage if not done right: So can pulling out the cable during a software update, right?
I don't own an iphone, but I know if I did I'd jailbreak it just as I flashed a custom rom to my TP2. Maybe it's just a different mindset when it comes to stuff like this, like overclocking a computer, or beefing up a car's engine, but I and many like me know they don't call it a RISK for nothing, and you take responsibility for anything that goes wrong while taking that risk.
Really, give me better reasons not to jailbreak an iphone. I think the best reason someday will be "Apple has allowed apps for jailbroken iphones into the app store"
Comments
So basically, you're incapable of a rational argument.
There's no way to logically get from my statement to yours.
Not from that statement alone, but it can be deduced from the fact that you are arguing that jailbreaking is immoral and illegal (with no law on point) in some way. Yet for AT&T contracts, you believe there should be "some mechanism" for AT&T to allow you to use the device that they helped pay for on a competitor's network.
Not from that statement alone, but it can be deduced from the fact that you are arguing that jailbreaking is immoral and illegal (with no law on point) in some way. Yet for AT&T contracts, you believe there should be "some mechanism" for AT&T to allow you to use the device that they helped pay for on a competitor's network.
I guess you really are incapable of rational thought.
The AT&T contract has a fixed life time. Once you have fulfilled your obligations, the contract is no longer in effect. By not allowing you to use your phone on other carriers, AT&T is effectively extracting something from you that is not part of the contract. IOW, they're taking more than you agreed to.
Apple's EULA, OTOH, is a permanent part of the device and does not have a limiting time period. When you agreed to the EULA, you did not agree not to jailbreak it for 2 years. You agreed not to jailbreak it PERIOD.
NOW do you see the difference?
....Once again, the fact that Apple doesn't go after individuals for jailbreaking doesn't mean they agree with it. If they agreed with it, they wouldn't have terms in their EULA prohibiting it....
Do EULAs have any serious legal standing? From a practical standpoint it's nearly impossible to be a functioning member of today's society without having "agreed" to hundreds, if not thousands of these voluminous "contracts". It's not like we each have a crack legal team to analyze these things. We all just click "ok", or agree implicitly by loading the software. It's simply not practical to function otherwise. Doesn't this tend to make the "contract" a sham? I've always wondered about how that really plays from a legal standpoint.
That being said, I can understand the jailbreaking phenomenon from a intellectual curiosity standpoint but from a practical standpoint it's just way too much hassle.
You do not own Mac OS or iPHone OS. You have a license to use it. That license comes with certain terms. One of those terms is that you can not jail break it. So you have broken the license agreement.
Just ask Psystar how legal it is. They were very severely slapped around by the judge for doing essentially what you're advocating. The fact that they made money on it was not a key part of the decision.
All of this "it's my device and I can do what I want" whining is a bunch of self-centered rationalization by people who have no clue about intellectual property.
THAT is TOTAL BS!!!! The reason that Psystar was sued had everything to do with the profiteering on the MacOS. If what you said was true Apple would be going after the OSx86 project (which has been around for years) as well as individuals who turn their PCs into hackintoshes. Get your facts straight.
Also, your comment about "it is my device" is wrong. While the OS might be licensed, the hardware belongs to the owner.
Apple's EULA, OTOH, is a permanent part of the device and does not have a limiting time period. When you agreed to the EULA, you did not agree not to jailbreak it for 2 years. You agreed not to jailbreak it PERIOD.
I bought my iPhone secondhand from some guy. I agreed to nothing.
Who is arguing for specific performance? Yet another straw man argument.
Likely you do not realize it, or maybe you are just Trolling, but you yourself are "arguing for specific performance".
"allows a user to sign a contract and then violate it simply because they want to do something different?"
To force a user to adhere to a contract, rather than to violate it, is called "specific performance". It is a rare, extraordinary remedy.
In general, we allow users to sign a contract and then violate it. We do not force them to perform the contract. Instead, we put the non-breaching party into the same economic position they would have been in had the contract been enforced. We do NOT enforce the contract. We "allow the user to violate it".
If you cannot fathom the distinction, then so be it.
I guess you really are incapable of rational thought.
The AT&T contract has a fixed life time. Once you have fulfilled your obligations, the contract is no longer in effect. By not allowing you to use your phone on other carriers, AT&T is effectively extracting something from you that is not part of the contract. IOW, they're taking more than you agreed to.
Apple's EULA, OTOH, is a permanent part of the device and does not have a limiting time period. When you agreed to the EULA, you did not agree not to jailbreak it for 2 years. You agreed not to jailbreak it PERIOD.
NOW do you see the difference?
Actually, as long as you subscribe to AT&T service, you are still under a contract. Granted, that contract is terminable at will with notice, but you are still under contract. So there really is no difference at all. Also, the EULA encompasses all of the protections within the iPhone, INCLUDING being locked to AT&T. Thus, if you argue that the EULA is a permanent part of the device, then the carrier lock is also a permanent part of the device. And this all remains in place even if you terminate your contract with AT&T.
Your arguments are starting to look less and less rational. I didn't even know that was possible.
So basically, you're incapable of a rational argument.
Troll.
I guess you really are incapable of rational thought.
Troll.
THAT is TOTAL BS!!!! The reason that Psystar was sued had everything to do with the profiteering on the MacOS. If what you said was true Apple would be going after the OSx86 project (which has been around for years) as well as individuals who turn their PCs into hackintoshes. Get your facts straight.
Funny that you're telling me to get the facts straight when you apparently haven't even read the Psystar ruling. Alsup's ruling is very clear. Psystar lost because what they did was inherently a violation of the EULA and DMCA - NOT because they profited from it. Just read the case before blathering any more.
Do EULAs have any serious legal standing?
Yes. Read the Psystar case.
Actually, as long as you subscribe to AT&T service, you are still under a contract. Granted, that contract is terminable at will with notice, but you are still under contract. So there really is no difference at all. Also, the EULA encompasses all of the protections within the iPhone, INCLUDING being locked to AT&T. Thus, if you argue that the EULA is a permanent part of the device, then the carrier lock is also a permanent part of the device. And this all remains in place even if you terminate your contract with AT&T.
Your arguments are starting to look less and less rational. I didn't even know that was possible.
IOW, you lost the argument.
Even if you are correct that the AT&T contract remains in place and can be terminated at will, there is no mechanism to terminate it and have the phone 'freed', so my argument doesn't change. Once you sign up for the AT&T contract, there is no mechanism for you to regain full use of the phone after the contract is finished.
Troll.
You mis-spelled "waah, waah, waah. I can't come up with a rational argument, so I'll resort to name calling".
Even if you are correct that the AT&T contract remains in place and can be terminated at will, there is no mechanism to terminate it and have the phone 'freed', so my argument doesn't change. Once you sign up for the AT&T contract, there is no mechanism for you to regain full use of the phone after the contract is finished.
First, any bargained for exchange of goods or services for payment involves a contract. Not all contracts need be in writing, and they can be implied by your actions. Ordering a number 6 ten piece at McDonalds with a Diet Coke? That's an implied contract.
Second, you can buy a phone from the Apple store without ever signing a contract or agreeing to a contract with AT&T. The phone is still locked to AT&T. The EULA ensures this. This is what makes your argument that there should be some way to "free" the phone contradictory to your arguments against jailbreaking. I am simply pointing out that they are similar restrictions on the same product, in place because of the same EULA. Yet you are irrationally taking different positions when it comes to the different restrictions.
I've read through the entire thread and what I see is a lot of misinformation being spread and used as an argument against jailbreaking. The ones who do jailbreak know what's up.
Something about this reminds me of watching a Fox News segment on pot...
Something about this reminds me of watching a Fox News segment on pot...
I just tried it on my iPhone.
"You need WiFi to call over Skype. Skype calls over 3G networks are currently not allowed due to contractual restrictions."
That is the error message I get.
Hmmm...... I've never tried that since I always use Skype only on wifi (if a cell signal is available in the US, I use ATT, and outside US I make Skype calls only with wifi since I have data roaming turned off).
Have you tried Truphone? (Perhaps I should try it out myself, and report).
Hmmm...... I've never tried that since I always use Skype only on wifi (if a cell signal is available in the US, I use ATT, and outside US I make Skype calls only with wifi since I have data roaming turned off).
Have you tried Truphone? (Perhaps I should try it out myself, and report).
Have not tried Truephone. I use Skype to dial phone numbers overseas since it is cheaper. I have not tried to talk with Skype to Skype over 3G, only wiFi so I don't know if that part works or not.
I really don't want to jail break anything so if I do end up getting an iPad it won't replace my iPhone hence I will not need to use it as a phone anyway.
It never ceases to amaze me some of the attitudes of people around here. I wonder if the people who are against jailbreaking are the same ones who wanted so badly to be hallway monitor at school, or who would be so elated to "tattle" on anyone they think was breaking the rules.
I've read through the entire thread and what I see is a lot of misinformation being spread and used as an argument against jailbreaking. The ones who do jailbreak know what's up.
Instead of inflammatory fact-free posts, maybe you should stick to the facts? What 'misinformation' is being spread? Why not counter the alleged misinformation rather than simply making personal attacks?
For the record, the reason I am opposed to people violating EULAs is that I have spent most of my career in businesses where my company was the innovator and created high value products - only to see competitors try to come in with shoddy copies. I understand the value of intellectual property.
I have also dealt with the kind of customer who messes things up with their own actions and then blames the manufacturer for the problems. "Sure, I plugged this stereo into a 440 outlet, but it's the manufacturer's fault that it broke". I can understand Apple's desire to not make it easy for people to mess up their products - because Apple will get the blame when people mess things up - whether that's fair or not.
For the record, the reason I am opposed to people violating EULAs is that I have spent most of my career in businesses where my company was the innovator and created high value products - only to see competitors try to come in with shoddy copies. I understand the value of intellectual property.
EULA only "binds" an end user with which you have a contractual relationship. Not a competitor. You need to look to copyright/patent law to deal with that.
Just proves that you have no idea about what you are talking about.
First, jailbreaks don't modify the hardware, at least not the ones being talked about here. Therefore it would be hard for Apple to make the case that they "void the warranty".
Second, jail breaking has little to do with unlocking. Jail breaking is mainly concerned with one thing: give the owner ownership of a device he paid for. All Macs ship "jail broken", and as Apple tries to start rolling up and replace the Mac market over years to come with ever more sophisticated touch devices (the iPad already gains an optional keyboard), the question is if you will still own your computer in a few years, or if you have to ask daddy Apple for permission before you run software on your computer. Apple tries to monopolize application distribution, good taste, and decide for the user what does or does not constitute appropriate use of a computer. This gives a corporate entity power that the constitution doesn't even give the government.
Third, that jailbreaking is there to "steal apps" is pure propaganda. Yes, it becomes possible, but except for a few rogue people, most people who jailbreak simply do it to make full use of the device, e.g. to install apps that Apple bans from the app store, things like access to Google Voice, a Unix shell, etc.
Fourth, the real dilemma the article doesn't even mention: the fact that an iPhone/iPad can be jail broken is a massive security risk. However, giving people full access to the phone is not. If Apple gave the legitimate users full access to the phone, jail breaking wouldn't be required. What jailbreaking encourages and necessitates is hacking into your own device bypassing the security mechanisms, while the security mechanisms should be used to give the legitimate users full access to the device while keeping everyone else out.
With Apple's current policies you have to pray for the devices and software not to be secure, just so you can get at your own device! If that's not a perverted situation, then I don't know what is; because I want my devices to be secure, but I also want to exercise full ownership over what I buy. The two would not need to be at odds, but Apple artificially creates a situation where they are at odds.
It's sad when articles here start containing more and more of the boiler plate phrases we know all too well from corporate news outlets, where entire people, concepts, etc. are reduced to a single catch phrase which is then repeated over and over again until the public believes it.
To make it look like jail breaking is just there to steal software and switch carrier, is not only two times wrong, it's also misleading, because with the need for an unlock on a non-carrier-locked iPad it attempts to make jail breakers look like warranty-voiding criminals.
Learn the facts, stop spreading Apple corporate propaganda. Sad to see AI sink to this level. Of course, it just shows how successful Apple's legal intimidation tactics are: there's no good Apple rumor site left, and the Apple related web sites just spread corporate drivel.
Instead of inflammatory fact-free posts, maybe you should stick to the facts? What 'misinformation' is being spread? Why not counter the alleged misinformation rather than simply making personal attacks?
For the record, the reason I am opposed to people violating EULAs is that I have spent most of my career in businesses where my company was the innovator and created high value products - only to see competitors try to come in with shoddy copies. I understand the value of intellectual property.
I have also dealt with the kind of customer who messes things up with their own actions and then blames the manufacturer for the problems. "Sure, I plugged this stereo into a 440 outlet, but it's the manufacturer's fault that it broke". I can understand Apple's desire to not make it easy for people to mess up their products - because Apple will get the blame when people mess things up - whether that's fair or not.
Ok, first of all, telling someone they like to follow rules is a personal attack? It's just a type of person. I personally found the suckups in school to be arrogant, annoying, and repulsive, but it's still not a "personal attack" to assume such characteristics in someone. Oh, but wait, it's ok to call all jailbreakers software pirates and thieves right?
ANYWAYS, I'm glad you're up front about the bias that contributes to your take on things, but they do nothing to dissuade someone like me from jailbreaking an iphone.
So lets break this down, shal we?
Jailbreaking leads to software pirating: False and illogical. As someone pointed out, it's like saying pot automatically leads to crack. I'm not an expert on how to pirate apps or anything, but I assume there's some parallel between pirating an app for a phone, and pirating software for a Mac isn't there? Oh, and didn't Apple ban hacked iphones from the app store? Just wondering...
Jailbreaking is an extreme security vulnerability: WEELLL, not really... There will always be some dope who doesn't really know what he's doing, but the warnings are as clear as day: Do this at YOUR own risk. You void your warranty, meaning Apple isn't responsible for any damages. So what is the biggest security risk? From installing OpenSSH? Usually there's a reason for installing such a thing (because as far as I know, no jailbreaking method includes openSSH) and not setting a password is THEIR mistake. A mistake they must take responsibility for.
Jailbreaking can help terrorists: Might not have been mentioned here, but Apple sure as hell mentioned it. Does everyone remember?
Jailbreaking can cause irreversible damage if not done right: So can pulling out the cable during a software update, right?
I don't own an iphone, but I know if I did I'd jailbreak it just as I flashed a custom rom to my TP2. Maybe it's just a different mindset when it comes to stuff like this, like overclocking a computer, or beefing up a car's engine, but I and many like me know they don't call it a RISK for nothing, and you take responsibility for anything that goes wrong while taking that risk.
Really, give me better reasons not to jailbreak an iphone. I think the best reason someday will be "Apple has allowed apps for jailbroken iphones into the app store"