I hope that anyone caught trying to bypass the security(?) and jailbreaking using another source will be dragged out the store by store security and banned from all apple stores for the remainder of their lives
Short of a permanent restraining order, how would Apple ever enforce it? Face-recognition software that records everyone entering every store?
An escort off mall property would be good enough for a first-time offense. Ramp up the penalties if they feel a need to continue after that.
I imagine the case would go more along the lines of how the iPhone is a complex piece of equipment controlled by software, processor clockspeed control and overheating issues would be brought in along with interference with protective features built into the official software and the jury would not "burst out laughing" and neither would the judge, especially when Apple bring in technical and legal experts paid for with very deep pockets.
Connection established, the end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaisersoze
This is utter nonsense. No way, no how does anything that you do, that does not actually cause damage to the device, void any warranty!! What you are saying is absurd. Imagine, for a moment, Apple going into court and saying something along the lines of this: "Yes, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we acknowledge that this iPad has a manufacturing defect, and does not work because of a defect in the manufacturing. However, Mr. Smith here, the owner of this phone, had jailbroken his iPad. This has nothing to do with the reason it isn't working, but the fact that it doesn't is irrelevant, because the warranty states that the warranty will not be honored if the iPad is jailbroken. Thus, even though there is no connection whatsoever between the fact that the iPad doesn't work and the fact that he jailbroke his phone, we still are not obligated to honor the warranty."
Clearly this thread is in need of an attorney who specializes in these matters to weigh in. Both sides are stating their cases with a certainty that is most likely based on their world view rather than specific case law. One or the other side may be right, or more likely, the whole thing is uncertain, with cases going every which way depending on specifics and jurisdiction. Please, lawyers, a lil' help for our armchair attorneys?
So as to avoid misinterpretation of what I want to say, let me be perfectly clear about this: no person should ever go into any store and do the sort of thing that people are doing here! This is wrong, wrong, wrong.
However, on this thread, I have seen a number of intelligent, informed comments about jailbreaking, which have not condoned what people have done with phones on display in the stores, and people here have taken exception in a manner that implicitly equates a pro-jailbreaking position with a pro-vandalism. In order for the dialog here to have a semblance of intelligence, it is necessary that everyone here try to keep these two separated. Please be clear whether what you are for or against is the vandalism, and avoid confusing, in your arguments, vandalism with the underlying question of jailbreaking.
That said, I want to say something about the underlying question of jailbreaking. (Although, I do abhor vandalism of any sort.)
When I think about this jailbreaking stuff, I think that Apple must be out of their collective minds, particularly when it comes to the iPad. No way, no how should they ever have thought that they should be allowed to control what applications run on the iPads that people buy. No way, no how should they ever have thought that it should be their right to collect a fee for each and every application that anyone downloads to their iPad.
No way, no how should Apple have ever thought that it should be up to them to decide what sort of development tools may or may not be used to develop applications for the iPad or the iPhone. This is preposterous.
No way, no how should Apple have ever thought that it should be up to them to decide anything about what software the owner of the iPad should be allowed to run on the iPad. This applies not only to application software, but to the OS.
No way, no how should Apple have ever decided to do anything to make it particularly difficult for anyone who wanted to install a different operating system, to do so.
The situation here is preposterous. Once you purchase the device, it is yours to do with as you choose. It is not Apple's business to even know what operating system software you run.
This is all likely going to become very apparent very soon, when lots of corporations decide that they like the iPad, but do not like the operating system, and want to either change the operating system or install a completely different operating system. This is going to happen, very soon. More and more companies and going to make statements to the effect that they liked the iPad, and liked many aspects of Apple's operating system, but did not like all of it, and were just bothered by the fact that Apple takes such a strong stand with respect to the owners' right to run whatever software they choose. As this issue gains prominence, which it will, Apple will be faced with a tough decision. On the one hand, they can cave in and admit that their position on this was never appropriate, and admit by extension that the same is true with respect to the iPhone. On the other hand, they can continue down the same path and continue to get more and more bad press and bad rep over this issue, until it reaches the point where just about everyone with half a brain figures out that all this has ever really been about from day one, is a tactic on the part of Apple to be able to take a little off the top for every application that anyone has installed on these devices. The thing that boggles my mind is that there are people who think that this has ever been about anything other than this. This is all that this has ever been about, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a rube. I'll guarantee you that there isn't anyone on Wall Street who was ever fooled by this charade.
Now, I for one plan to go visit an Apple store this very day and purchase a 32 GByte iPad. My reasons are partly that I think that Apple did an excellent job with it in every respect, to include the environment in which the applications run. I think it is highly unlikely that I will ever have any desire to replace the operating system or modify it in a way that would motivate me to "jailbreak" the phone. But none of this has any relevance to the principle that I have tried to articulate above. There is a principle here, and Apple is very, very much on the wrong side of the principle. They are completely, totally on the wrong side of the principle, and sooner or later, just about everyone is going to come to this realization.
The way is thinking "Different," Apple's corporate philosophy. The how is success, which Apple is having in spades by doing things this way. It appears from your post that you may lean toward Libertarianism. I have no problem with that. But calling others who don't agree with you names ("a rube" for example) does little to sway them to your otherwise arguable points.
Apple has been taken to task for their way of doing things pretty much from day one. You may not like it, but it has served them well. Looking at past success may be more valid than citing what corporate uses might do in the future. In the past, corporations pretty much shut Apple out. That is no longer the case. More and more they are embracing its products. You may be right that Apple's stance may cost them some business, but the record would seem to indicate that Apple will not fail because of it.
I imagine the case would go more along the lines of how the iPhone is a complex piece of equipment controlled by software, processor clockspeed control and overheating issues would be brought in along with interference with protective features built into the official software and the jury would not "burst out laughing" and neither would the judge, especially when Apple bring in technical and legal experts paid for with very deep pockets.
Connection established, the end.
The way that you imagine that it would go is not at all the way that it is likely to go. Your imagination differs markedly from reality. If Apple's lawyers started down that path, any half-decent attorney for the plaintiff would point out that it is all a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, and the jury will be inclined to agree.
But where you really have missed the point, and have revealed a naive perspective on such matters, is in thinking that Apple's lawyers would try to pull that off. What they say in the warranty, and what they would do in a court of law, are not one and the same thing. In all likelihood, if the phone or iPad was broken and the evidence was compelling that it was due to a manufacturing defect, Apple would honor the warranty immediately, even in the face of certain knowledge that the phone or iPad had been jailbroken. For them not to do that, and refuse to honor the warranty merely because it had been jailbroken and without any reason to think that the jailbreaking was the true cause of the failure, would be overtly unethical and dishonest. Fortunately, what Apple is likely to do in this situation, and what a few people here seem to think that they would do, are two very different things. Fortunately and notwithstanding whatever language they put in the warranty, Apple's ethics, assuming they are anything like what they should be and what can reasonably be expected, are far stronger than what many people here seem to think. The ironic thing about this is that the people who seem to think that Apple would not behave ethically when faced with a manufacturing defect in a device that had been jailbroken are the same people who go to great lengths to defend Apple for their unpalatable efforts to control what software people are able to run on the devices that they own. If people really do believe that Apple would behave that unethically with respect to honoring the warranty, why are they so predisposed to take up the defense of Apple? This befuddles me.
The way is thinking "Different," Apple's corporate philosophy. The how is success, which Apple is having in spades by doing things this way. It appears from your post that you may lean toward Libertarianism. I have no problem with that. But calling others who don't agree with you names ("a rube" for example) does little to sway them to your otherwise arguable points.
Apple's financial success what nothing at all to do per se with anything I said or with the subject of this thread. Unless by chance you mean to suggest that Apple SHOULD do anything that they can get away with doing if it means more profit. For the record, I own a pretty good chuck of Apple stock, and there isn't anything that makes me much happier than seeing the value of Apple stock increase. But there are limits. There is a principle here, and Apple is decidedly on the wrong side of this principle. People have every right to run whatever software they want to run on any device that they have purchased.
Now, as for you equating this opinion that I have just expressed with Libertarianism, this is patently absurd. Libertarianism is specifically about government interference in private lives, or the lack thereof. There is no meaningful similarity between Libertarianism and the right for people who own iPads to choose what software it runs. There is a similarity, I'll grant, but this similarity is exceedingly superficial, so superficial in fact that it is downright bizarre that it would occur to anyone to draw this similarity. The only role that the government has played in any of this, so far, is to assert that it is the owner's right to run whatever software they want. So far. This is almost certainly going to escalate. It might not get much further here in the USA any time soon, but the EU does not tolerate this sort of thing. The EU will put a stop to this nonsense in short order, relatively speaking, and one or the other of the judicial or executive branch of our government, probably both, will quickly follow suit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber
Apple has been taken to task for their way of doing things pretty much from day one. You may not like it, but it has served them well. Looking at past success may be more valid than citing what corporate uses might do in the future. In the past, corporations pretty much shut Apple out. That is no longer the case. More and more they are embracing its products. You may be right that Apple's stance may cost them some business, but the record would seem to indicate that Apple will not fail because of it.
This is silly on multiple levels. For one, I like it very much for selfish reasons when Apple does well financially. It annoys me greatly whenever someone such as yourself feels compelled to come to the defense of poor little old Apple anytime that anyone has any issues with Apple's business practices. The plain fact of the matter is that Apple is trying to get away with something that no other company has ever previously dared to try and get away with. They did this on their own, and the questions that they have brought to the forefront are so glaring that there is no way that any thinking person can overlook them. This leaves me befuddled whenever someone such as yourself responds to the reasoned criticisms of what Apple is doing, by yakking about how everyone has picked on poor little old Apple, etc., etc., etc. Given what they are doing, it seems to me that the strongest position that any thinking, fair-minded person could take in favor of Apple would be a sort of, "Well, perhaps there is some justification for them to do this, perhaps, but eventually the courts and the laws of the land will likely have something to say about this." It is a virtual certainty that it won't be terribly long before the various courts and governments of the world are going to have a whole lot to say about this, and it is a virtual certainty that Apple is going to be left with a big black eye and with egg on their corporate face. And this is as it should be, because what they are attempting to do, i.e., control what software people can or can't run on their devices, is B.S. of the highest order. Eventually, just about everyone is going to come around to this conclusion, including just about everyone who has defended Apple in this thread.
People would have little to interest in doing this if Apple did a number of things:
- enable multi-tasking on the 2G and 3G models - it works fine
- allow users access to their phone filesystem
- allow custom gestures throughout the OS to control the system like the use of Activator so you don't have to wear out the home button. I'd personally prefer a 3 finger tap or swipe to bring up the app switcher
- don't charge developers to be able to build apps, only to publish them (yes even free ones)
- allow the use of code emulation
- act sensibly around the issue of tethering, allow it for free but throttle it
If they did those things, almost no one would have a need to jailbreak. Instead Apple lay down firm rules with poor reasons for why they are in place. The iPhone 3G can run at least 16 third party apps at once and still works well. Sure the RAM limit forces some apps to run the shutdown code but put a limit of 8 apps at a time on it.
Allowing access to the phone filesystem for users who know what they are doing is not a problem, just like it's not a problem in OS X.
Charging developers to write code is silly because not only don't they do this for OS X, it puts off people even getting started. If a user wants to publish and sell an app then charge them at that point - even if it's a free app. If a user simply wants to install apps on their own phone, why charge them?
Blocking emulated code is understandable but it could come with a warning to the user that installing it may cause data loss and Apple take no liability for it. The worst that happens is people have to do a restore. If users could develop for free, they would have the ability to install these kinds of apps.
If they throttle tethering to the point that it consumes no more than average phone browsing then there should be no issue.
People are jailbreaking to get these features. Most users don't care about stealing apps. Apple still need to patch these security flaws but they would do well to change their rules too so that people don't develop a malicious attitude towards them.
At first I thought "avoids the warranty" - what a clever play on words.
e if you do jailbreak your iPhone, Apple will "avoid" doing any warranty work for you.
So you mean to assert that if your iPhone has a manufacturing defect unrelated to your having jailbroken the phone, that they will deny warranty coverage? Do you have any evidence to back this up? Do you know someone to whom this actually happened? It's kind of funny that there are lots of people who say that Apple will do this, but if it were me and I would going to say something of that sort that I know someone else would challenge, I would give the particulars in the first place.
Blocking the URL wouldn't work. All someone would have to do is go to tinyural.com and set up an alternative URL that maps to the same IP.
Not sure since I have not tried tinyurl but I was under the impression that it was a redirect to the actual website not a proxy. If that were the case the router is still blocking the unwanted IP address.
Charging developers to write code is silly because not only don't they do this for OS X, it puts off people even getting started. If a user wants to publish and sell an app then charge them at that point - even if it's a free app. If a user simply wants to install apps on their own phone, why charge them?
Do they do this? I just downloaded Xcode because I am hoping at some point to have the ability to create web sites with the advanced things html5 can do and it appears they may add that in the next version. I downloaded Xcode for iPhone apps so I can start to learn it. I haven't done much with it yet as it is completely new to me, but it looked like I could start to create an app with it. I didn't pay anything to set up a developer account or download Xcode. If I wanted to put an app up in the store I need to apply for that and it costs $99 a year.
Do they do this? I just downloaded Xcode because I am hoping at some point to have the ability to create web sites with the advanced things html5 can do and it appears they may add that in the next version. I downloaded Xcode for iPhone apps so I can start to learn it. I haven't done much with it yet as it is completely new to me, but it looked like I could start to create an app with it. I didn't pay anything to set up a developer account or download Xcode. If I wanted to put an app up in the store I need to apply for that and it costs $99 a year.
Just confused about your statement.
xcode comes with your Mac, but registering as an iPhone developer is required in order to install your app on an iPhone for testing. Sure you can use the simulator for free but the next step to publishing is testing on actual hardware. Registering costs $99. I'm not sure about the iPhone ide since I am registered but they may require you to sign up first before allowing the ide download.
People would have little to interest in doing this if Apple did a number of things:
...
Instead Apple lay down firm rules with poor reasons for why they are in place.
Yes, Apple has not provided adequate justification for the restriction. There is compelling evidence that there is a control-freak personality behind it all, and that this is all that this is really about, i.e., one person trying to control as much as he possibly can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Allowing access to the phone filesystem for users who know what they are doing is not a problem, just like it's not a problem in OS X.
Users do in fact access the filesystem, but only through application software. The issue here, as I see it, is with being unable to open any file with any desired application. I think this is probably what you mean. When you use a file system browser such as Finder to peruse the file system, you are using application-level software to explore the file system, and assuming that you have admin privileges, you can open any file using any application that is willing to open that file. It should be possible to write a file browser app to run on the iPad. If Apple prohibits this by prohibiting an application from opening the root of the file system and searching the file tree, then this qualifies as a restriction that should not exist. As the owner of the device, I have every right to use an application that does this, whether I write it myself using either their development tools or any other tools from any other source, or whether I use off-the-shelf tools commercially available.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Charging developers to write code is silly because not only don't they do this for OS X, it puts off people even getting started. If a user wants to publish and sell an app then charge them at that point - even if it's a free app. If a user simply wants to install apps on their own phone, why charge them?
It is reasonable for them to charge for the use of their development tools. It is reasonable for them to charge a fee for downloading an app through their app store. It is not reasonable for them to place restrictions that make it inordinately difficult for owners to download apps from places other than Apple's app store, and even for apps downloaded via their app store, it is not reasonable for them to restrict the development tools that may be used to develop apps that can be accessed via their app store. If they are concerned about the run-time behavior of certain apps, the way to fix that is to fix the operating system so that it will not allow apps to misbehave at run time. Trying to solve any ostensible problem of this sort by putting restrictions on what development tools can be used is B.S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Blocking emulated code is understandable but it could come with a warning to the user that installing it may cause data loss and Apple take no liability for it. The worst that happens is people have to do a restore. If users could develop for free, they would have the ability to install these kinds of apps.
Blocking emulated code is not reasonable. Interpreted code, notwithstanding that it may imply looping, branching, etc., is not meaningfully distinguished from a data file. There has to be a compiled application to run the interpreted code, and if this compiled application is doing something (as a proxy for the interpreted code) that it should not do, then again the solution to this is to fix the OS so that no compiled application is permitted to do whatever it is that it is deemed undesirable. If an owner runs a script and it deletes files, that is the owner's fault.
Apple's attitude towards the matter of interpreted code suggests to me that they do not truly understand the fundamental concepts of an operating system. I get the sense is that when they ported their old OS to a variant of UNIX, that their OS people did not really understand the underlying philosophies of UNIX, and merely did what was necessary to emulate their old run-time environment over UNIX. I see evidence of this not merely in their bizarre approach to addressing concerns with Flash, interpreted code, and the tools used to build applications, but also in the way that the apps work on OS X. Unfortunately I haven't looked into this, because every time I start to read about Objective-C, I just want to puke. It is without question one of the ugliest programming languages ever to have been invented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
If they throttle tethering to the point that it consumes no more than average phone browsing then there should be no issue.
That is true, but ATT would still want to charge extra for doing this, simply because any time that anyone wants to use something in a way that is different and special, the marketing people whose job it is to find new ways to charge people will want to charge special. It makes no difference whether the usage is any greater.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
People are jailbreaking to get these features. Most users don't care about stealing apps. Apple still need to patch these security flaws but they would do well to change their rules too so that people don't develop a malicious attitude towards them.
Indeed, the reasons that people want to jailbreak are for the most part fully legitimate. Where Apple has a legitimate reason, they go about it the wrong way, and confuse the public with their intentions. Even when it happens that they have good intentions, the public is unable to distinguish between this and when they are only trying to make money off all the apps that get downloaded. With respect to the runtime concerns of apps such as Flash, they should address those concerns, assuming the concerns are legitimate, not by trying to control the tools used to develop apps or by restricting apps that interpret scripts, but rather by fixing whatever is wrong with the operating system, so that the compiled application cannot do whatever it does that Apple doesn't like. Anyone who knows anything at all about software engineering must surely have realized this, which really makes you wonder why Apple does not realize this, and what exactly is going on inside the company. You cannot help but get the sense that there must be hundreds if not thousands of software engineers within the company who know that this is all B.S., and that they must be afraid to speak up. You cannot help but get the sense that there is one powerful individual who is a genius but who is also very, very paranoid, who controls everything and who severely disciplines anyone who questions him.
And this is as it should be, because what they are attempting to do, i.e., control what software people can or can't run on their devices, is B.S. of the highest order. Eventually, just about everyone is going to come around to this conclusion, including just about everyone who has defended Apple in this thread.
I understand your position, I just don't find it compelling. I maintain that yours is very much a libertarian (small "el") point of view: maximum freedom and choice for individuals, unfettered by regulation. Whether such control is governmental or private seems a quibble to me, the principal is similar.
You can find a way to run any software on an Apple device you like. You won't be arrested for doing it. You can put wings and an engine on your Mac and fly it if you want. Is it that you want Apple to provide warranty and service no matter what you choose to do with it? Seems like you want to have it both ways. Maximum freedom for you, for Apple?, not so much.
I didn't pay anything to set up a developer account or download Xcode. If I wanted to put an app up in the store I need to apply for that and it costs $99 a year.
Technically you can develop an iPhone app without signing up to the developer program but as mstone says, you can't test your app on your device. This means no camera access, no accelerometer, compass, gyroscope. No multi-touch either as your mouse can only simulate one press. You can't test your app running multiple apps alongside it nor can you easily determine the performance of the app when it runs on the phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaisersoze
If they are concerned about the run-time behavior of certain apps, the way to fix that is to fix the operating system so that it will not allow apps to misbehave at run time.
Exactly, build a better sandbox.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaisersoze
Apple's attitude towards the matter of interpreted code suggests to me that they do not truly understand the fundamental concepts of an operating system.
Plus even assuming an app could do something malicious using interpreted code like wipe the phone or contacts, a normal app can do this and they wouldn't notice. There was an app in the App Store that did something really basic with colors but hidden in the app was a way to enable tethering, which they didn't spot.
Isolating the code better protects against this. The exploit that this thread talks about shows that they clearly haven't figured out how to do this when they can't protect their most vulnerable app from it.
Perhaps consumers would like to see how the Apple hardware runs on Jailbreak compared to iOS4. It's obvious that Apple did not thoroughly test their software. I am a longtime Apple user but their performance as of late reminds me of MS, Toyota and BP.
If you really are a longtime user of apple products and still can't see the unsurpassed positive impact this company has on the whole computer related marked, You really need to see a doctor.
Technically you can develop an iPhone app without signing up to the developer program but as mstone says, you can't test your app on your device. This means no camera access, no accelerometer, compass, gyroscope. No multi-touch either as your mouse can only simulate one press. You can't test your app running multiple apps alongside it nor can you easily determine the performance of the app when it runs on the phone.
Okay, I see, they do have some sort of emulator so I could test. I do agree I would like to put my apps on my device, but actually I can still develop something, learn how to do it, etc, without paying.
Actually as a graphic artist I am more interested in epub for iBooks. I found out that if I use Adobe InDesign to make an epub doc I can't put it on my own device (because of the DRM) but I can use Stanza to make epub files from my pdfs that I can put on my own device. I do agree this is a bit crazy!!! However, I do think this is all growing so fast that limits for now are okay. (no way ever am I jailbreaking my device) but in the future I hope that I could actually test my creations on my own iWhatever.
Comments
I hope that anyone caught trying to bypass the security(?) and jailbreaking using another source will be dragged out the store by store security and banned from all apple stores for the remainder of their lives
Short of a permanent restraining order, how would Apple ever enforce it? Face-recognition software that records everyone entering every store?
An escort off mall property would be good enough for a first-time offense. Ramp up the penalties if they feel a need to continue after that.
Connection established, the end.
This is utter nonsense. No way, no how does anything that you do, that does not actually cause damage to the device, void any warranty!! What you are saying is absurd. Imagine, for a moment, Apple going into court and saying something along the lines of this: "Yes, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we acknowledge that this iPad has a manufacturing defect, and does not work because of a defect in the manufacturing. However, Mr. Smith here, the owner of this phone, had jailbroken his iPad. This has nothing to do with the reason it isn't working, but the fact that it doesn't is irrelevant, because the warranty states that the warranty will not be honored if the iPad is jailbroken. Thus, even though there is no connection whatsoever between the fact that the iPad doesn't work and the fact that he jailbroke his phone, we still are not obligated to honor the warranty."
No doubt the jury would all burst out laughing.
That's so cute!
Are those the GOP talking points for the week?
If you think it's not factual you should explain it rather than saying outright that a comment on BP is automatically a political statement.
However, on this thread, I have seen a number of intelligent, informed comments about jailbreaking, which have not condoned what people have done with phones on display in the stores, and people here have taken exception in a manner that implicitly equates a pro-jailbreaking position with a pro-vandalism. In order for the dialog here to have a semblance of intelligence, it is necessary that everyone here try to keep these two separated. Please be clear whether what you are for or against is the vandalism, and avoid confusing, in your arguments, vandalism with the underlying question of jailbreaking.
That said, I want to say something about the underlying question of jailbreaking. (Although, I do abhor vandalism of any sort.)
When I think about this jailbreaking stuff, I think that Apple must be out of their collective minds, particularly when it comes to the iPad. No way, no how should they ever have thought that they should be allowed to control what applications run on the iPads that people buy. No way, no how should they ever have thought that it should be their right to collect a fee for each and every application that anyone downloads to their iPad.
No way, no how should Apple have ever thought that it should be up to them to decide what sort of development tools may or may not be used to develop applications for the iPad or the iPhone. This is preposterous.
No way, no how should Apple have ever thought that it should be up to them to decide anything about what software the owner of the iPad should be allowed to run on the iPad. This applies not only to application software, but to the OS.
No way, no how should Apple have ever decided to do anything to make it particularly difficult for anyone who wanted to install a different operating system, to do so.
The situation here is preposterous. Once you purchase the device, it is yours to do with as you choose. It is not Apple's business to even know what operating system software you run.
This is all likely going to become very apparent very soon, when lots of corporations decide that they like the iPad, but do not like the operating system, and want to either change the operating system or install a completely different operating system. This is going to happen, very soon. More and more companies and going to make statements to the effect that they liked the iPad, and liked many aspects of Apple's operating system, but did not like all of it, and were just bothered by the fact that Apple takes such a strong stand with respect to the owners' right to run whatever software they choose. As this issue gains prominence, which it will, Apple will be faced with a tough decision. On the one hand, they can cave in and admit that their position on this was never appropriate, and admit by extension that the same is true with respect to the iPhone. On the other hand, they can continue down the same path and continue to get more and more bad press and bad rep over this issue, until it reaches the point where just about everyone with half a brain figures out that all this has ever really been about from day one, is a tactic on the part of Apple to be able to take a little off the top for every application that anyone has installed on these devices. The thing that boggles my mind is that there are people who think that this has ever been about anything other than this. This is all that this has ever been about, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a rube. I'll guarantee you that there isn't anyone on Wall Street who was ever fooled by this charade.
Now, I for one plan to go visit an Apple store this very day and purchase a 32 GByte iPad. My reasons are partly that I think that Apple did an excellent job with it in every respect, to include the environment in which the applications run. I think it is highly unlikely that I will ever have any desire to replace the operating system or modify it in a way that would motivate me to "jailbreak" the phone. But none of this has any relevance to the principle that I have tried to articulate above. There is a principle here, and Apple is very, very much on the wrong side of the principle. They are completely, totally on the wrong side of the principle, and sooner or later, just about everyone is going to come to this realization.
Apple has been taken to task for their way of doing things pretty much from day one. You may not like it, but it has served them well. Looking at past success may be more valid than citing what corporate uses might do in the future. In the past, corporations pretty much shut Apple out. That is no longer the case. More and more they are embracing its products. You may be right that Apple's stance may cost them some business, but the record would seem to indicate that Apple will not fail because of it.
I imagine the case would go more along the lines of how the iPhone is a complex piece of equipment controlled by software, processor clockspeed control and overheating issues would be brought in along with interference with protective features built into the official software and the jury would not "burst out laughing" and neither would the judge, especially when Apple bring in technical and legal experts paid for with very deep pockets.
Connection established, the end.
The way that you imagine that it would go is not at all the way that it is likely to go. Your imagination differs markedly from reality. If Apple's lawyers started down that path, any half-decent attorney for the plaintiff would point out that it is all a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, and the jury will be inclined to agree.
But where you really have missed the point, and have revealed a naive perspective on such matters, is in thinking that Apple's lawyers would try to pull that off. What they say in the warranty, and what they would do in a court of law, are not one and the same thing. In all likelihood, if the phone or iPad was broken and the evidence was compelling that it was due to a manufacturing defect, Apple would honor the warranty immediately, even in the face of certain knowledge that the phone or iPad had been jailbroken. For them not to do that, and refuse to honor the warranty merely because it had been jailbroken and without any reason to think that the jailbreaking was the true cause of the failure, would be overtly unethical and dishonest. Fortunately, what Apple is likely to do in this situation, and what a few people here seem to think that they would do, are two very different things. Fortunately and notwithstanding whatever language they put in the warranty, Apple's ethics, assuming they are anything like what they should be and what can reasonably be expected, are far stronger than what many people here seem to think. The ironic thing about this is that the people who seem to think that Apple would not behave ethically when faced with a manufacturing defect in a device that had been jailbroken are the same people who go to great lengths to defend Apple for their unpalatable efforts to control what software people are able to run on the devices that they own. If people really do believe that Apple would behave that unethically with respect to honoring the warranty, why are they so predisposed to take up the defense of Apple? This befuddles me.
The way is thinking "Different," Apple's corporate philosophy. The how is success, which Apple is having in spades by doing things this way. It appears from your post that you may lean toward Libertarianism. I have no problem with that. But calling others who don't agree with you names ("a rube" for example) does little to sway them to your otherwise arguable points.
Apple's financial success what nothing at all to do per se with anything I said or with the subject of this thread. Unless by chance you mean to suggest that Apple SHOULD do anything that they can get away with doing if it means more profit. For the record, I own a pretty good chuck of Apple stock, and there isn't anything that makes me much happier than seeing the value of Apple stock increase. But there are limits. There is a principle here, and Apple is decidedly on the wrong side of this principle. People have every right to run whatever software they want to run on any device that they have purchased.
Now, as for you equating this opinion that I have just expressed with Libertarianism, this is patently absurd. Libertarianism is specifically about government interference in private lives, or the lack thereof. There is no meaningful similarity between Libertarianism and the right for people who own iPads to choose what software it runs. There is a similarity, I'll grant, but this similarity is exceedingly superficial, so superficial in fact that it is downright bizarre that it would occur to anyone to draw this similarity. The only role that the government has played in any of this, so far, is to assert that it is the owner's right to run whatever software they want. So far. This is almost certainly going to escalate. It might not get much further here in the USA any time soon, but the EU does not tolerate this sort of thing. The EU will put a stop to this nonsense in short order, relatively speaking, and one or the other of the judicial or executive branch of our government, probably both, will quickly follow suit.
Apple has been taken to task for their way of doing things pretty much from day one. You may not like it, but it has served them well. Looking at past success may be more valid than citing what corporate uses might do in the future. In the past, corporations pretty much shut Apple out. That is no longer the case. More and more they are embracing its products. You may be right that Apple's stance may cost them some business, but the record would seem to indicate that Apple will not fail because of it.
This is silly on multiple levels. For one, I like it very much for selfish reasons when Apple does well financially. It annoys me greatly whenever someone such as yourself feels compelled to come to the defense of poor little old Apple anytime that anyone has any issues with Apple's business practices. The plain fact of the matter is that Apple is trying to get away with something that no other company has ever previously dared to try and get away with. They did this on their own, and the questions that they have brought to the forefront are so glaring that there is no way that any thinking person can overlook them. This leaves me befuddled whenever someone such as yourself responds to the reasoned criticisms of what Apple is doing, by yakking about how everyone has picked on poor little old Apple, etc., etc., etc. Given what they are doing, it seems to me that the strongest position that any thinking, fair-minded person could take in favor of Apple would be a sort of, "Well, perhaps there is some justification for them to do this, perhaps, but eventually the courts and the laws of the land will likely have something to say about this." It is a virtual certainty that it won't be terribly long before the various courts and governments of the world are going to have a whole lot to say about this, and it is a virtual certainty that Apple is going to be left with a big black eye and with egg on their corporate face. And this is as it should be, because what they are attempting to do, i.e., control what software people can or can't run on their devices, is B.S. of the highest order. Eventually, just about everyone is going to come around to this conclusion, including just about everyone who has defended Apple in this thread.
- enable multi-tasking on the 2G and 3G models - it works fine
- allow users access to their phone filesystem
- allow custom gestures throughout the OS to control the system like the use of Activator so you don't have to wear out the home button. I'd personally prefer a 3 finger tap or swipe to bring up the app switcher
- don't charge developers to be able to build apps, only to publish them (yes even free ones)
- allow the use of code emulation
- act sensibly around the issue of tethering, allow it for free but throttle it
If they did those things, almost no one would have a need to jailbreak. Instead Apple lay down firm rules with poor reasons for why they are in place. The iPhone 3G can run at least 16 third party apps at once and still works well. Sure the RAM limit forces some apps to run the shutdown code but put a limit of 8 apps at a time on it.
Allowing access to the phone filesystem for users who know what they are doing is not a problem, just like it's not a problem in OS X.
Charging developers to write code is silly because not only don't they do this for OS X, it puts off people even getting started. If a user wants to publish and sell an app then charge them at that point - even if it's a free app. If a user simply wants to install apps on their own phone, why charge them?
Blocking emulated code is understandable but it could come with a warning to the user that installing it may cause data loss and Apple take no liability for it. The worst that happens is people have to do a restore. If users could develop for free, they would have the ability to install these kinds of apps.
If they throttle tethering to the point that it consumes no more than average phone browsing then there should be no issue.
People are jailbreaking to get these features. Most users don't care about stealing apps. Apple still need to patch these security flaws but they would do well to change their rules too so that people don't develop a malicious attitude towards them.
Jailbreak isn't illegal since 1 week... just avoids the warranty.
At first I thought "avoids the warranty" - what a clever play on words.
Then I realized that perhaps English is not your primary language.
Either way I like it, because if you do jailbreak your iPhone, Apple will "avoid" doing any warranty work for you.
At first I thought "avoids the warranty" - what a clever play on words.
e if you do jailbreak your iPhone, Apple will "avoid" doing any warranty work for you.
So you mean to assert that if your iPhone has a manufacturing defect unrelated to your having jailbroken the phone, that they will deny warranty coverage? Do you have any evidence to back this up? Do you know someone to whom this actually happened? It's kind of funny that there are lots of people who say that Apple will do this, but if it were me and I would going to say something of that sort that I know someone else would challenge, I would give the particulars in the first place.
Blocking the URL wouldn't work. All someone would have to do is go to tinyural.com and set up an alternative URL that maps to the same IP.
Not sure since I have not tried tinyurl but I was under the impression that it was a redirect to the actual website not a proxy. If that were the case the router is still blocking the unwanted IP address.
Charging developers to write code is silly because not only don't they do this for OS X, it puts off people even getting started. If a user wants to publish and sell an app then charge them at that point - even if it's a free app. If a user simply wants to install apps on their own phone, why charge them?
Do they do this? I just downloaded Xcode because I am hoping at some point to have the ability to create web sites with the advanced things html5 can do and it appears they may add that in the next version. I downloaded Xcode for iPhone apps so I can start to learn it. I haven't done much with it yet as it is completely new to me, but it looked like I could start to create an app with it. I didn't pay anything to set up a developer account or download Xcode. If I wanted to put an app up in the store I need to apply for that and it costs $99 a year.
Just confused about your statement.
Do they do this? I just downloaded Xcode because I am hoping at some point to have the ability to create web sites with the advanced things html5 can do and it appears they may add that in the next version. I downloaded Xcode for iPhone apps so I can start to learn it. I haven't done much with it yet as it is completely new to me, but it looked like I could start to create an app with it. I didn't pay anything to set up a developer account or download Xcode. If I wanted to put an app up in the store I need to apply for that and it costs $99 a year.
Just confused about your statement.
xcode comes with your Mac, but registering as an iPhone developer is required in order to install your app on an iPhone for testing. Sure you can use the simulator for free but the next step to publishing is testing on actual hardware. Registering costs $99. I'm not sure about the iPhone ide since I am registered but they may require you to sign up first before allowing the ide download.
People would have little to interest in doing this if Apple did a number of things:
...
Instead Apple lay down firm rules with poor reasons for why they are in place.
Yes, Apple has not provided adequate justification for the restriction. There is compelling evidence that there is a control-freak personality behind it all, and that this is all that this is really about, i.e., one person trying to control as much as he possibly can.
Allowing access to the phone filesystem for users who know what they are doing is not a problem, just like it's not a problem in OS X.
Users do in fact access the filesystem, but only through application software. The issue here, as I see it, is with being unable to open any file with any desired application. I think this is probably what you mean. When you use a file system browser such as Finder to peruse the file system, you are using application-level software to explore the file system, and assuming that you have admin privileges, you can open any file using any application that is willing to open that file. It should be possible to write a file browser app to run on the iPad. If Apple prohibits this by prohibiting an application from opening the root of the file system and searching the file tree, then this qualifies as a restriction that should not exist. As the owner of the device, I have every right to use an application that does this, whether I write it myself using either their development tools or any other tools from any other source, or whether I use off-the-shelf tools commercially available.
Charging developers to write code is silly because not only don't they do this for OS X, it puts off people even getting started. If a user wants to publish and sell an app then charge them at that point - even if it's a free app. If a user simply wants to install apps on their own phone, why charge them?
It is reasonable for them to charge for the use of their development tools. It is reasonable for them to charge a fee for downloading an app through their app store. It is not reasonable for them to place restrictions that make it inordinately difficult for owners to download apps from places other than Apple's app store, and even for apps downloaded via their app store, it is not reasonable for them to restrict the development tools that may be used to develop apps that can be accessed via their app store. If they are concerned about the run-time behavior of certain apps, the way to fix that is to fix the operating system so that it will not allow apps to misbehave at run time. Trying to solve any ostensible problem of this sort by putting restrictions on what development tools can be used is B.S.
Blocking emulated code is understandable but it could come with a warning to the user that installing it may cause data loss and Apple take no liability for it. The worst that happens is people have to do a restore. If users could develop for free, they would have the ability to install these kinds of apps.
Blocking emulated code is not reasonable. Interpreted code, notwithstanding that it may imply looping, branching, etc., is not meaningfully distinguished from a data file. There has to be a compiled application to run the interpreted code, and if this compiled application is doing something (as a proxy for the interpreted code) that it should not do, then again the solution to this is to fix the OS so that no compiled application is permitted to do whatever it is that it is deemed undesirable. If an owner runs a script and it deletes files, that is the owner's fault.
Apple's attitude towards the matter of interpreted code suggests to me that they do not truly understand the fundamental concepts of an operating system. I get the sense is that when they ported their old OS to a variant of UNIX, that their OS people did not really understand the underlying philosophies of UNIX, and merely did what was necessary to emulate their old run-time environment over UNIX. I see evidence of this not merely in their bizarre approach to addressing concerns with Flash, interpreted code, and the tools used to build applications, but also in the way that the apps work on OS X. Unfortunately I haven't looked into this, because every time I start to read about Objective-C, I just want to puke. It is without question one of the ugliest programming languages ever to have been invented.
If they throttle tethering to the point that it consumes no more than average phone browsing then there should be no issue.
That is true, but ATT would still want to charge extra for doing this, simply because any time that anyone wants to use something in a way that is different and special, the marketing people whose job it is to find new ways to charge people will want to charge special. It makes no difference whether the usage is any greater.
People are jailbreaking to get these features. Most users don't care about stealing apps. Apple still need to patch these security flaws but they would do well to change their rules too so that people don't develop a malicious attitude towards them.
Indeed, the reasons that people want to jailbreak are for the most part fully legitimate. Where Apple has a legitimate reason, they go about it the wrong way, and confuse the public with their intentions. Even when it happens that they have good intentions, the public is unable to distinguish between this and when they are only trying to make money off all the apps that get downloaded. With respect to the runtime concerns of apps such as Flash, they should address those concerns, assuming the concerns are legitimate, not by trying to control the tools used to develop apps or by restricting apps that interpret scripts, but rather by fixing whatever is wrong with the operating system, so that the compiled application cannot do whatever it does that Apple doesn't like. Anyone who knows anything at all about software engineering must surely have realized this, which really makes you wonder why Apple does not realize this, and what exactly is going on inside the company. You cannot help but get the sense that there must be hundreds if not thousands of software engineers within the company who know that this is all B.S., and that they must be afraid to speak up. You cannot help but get the sense that there is one powerful individual who is a genius but who is also very, very paranoid, who controls everything and who severely disciplines anyone who questions him.
And this is as it should be, because what they are attempting to do, i.e., control what software people can or can't run on their devices, is B.S. of the highest order. Eventually, just about everyone is going to come around to this conclusion, including just about everyone who has defended Apple in this thread.
I understand your position, I just don't find it compelling. I maintain that yours is very much a libertarian (small "el") point of view: maximum freedom and choice for individuals, unfettered by regulation. Whether such control is governmental or private seems a quibble to me, the principal is similar.
You can find a way to run any software on an Apple device you like. You won't be arrested for doing it. You can put wings and an engine on your Mac and fly it if you want. Is it that you want Apple to provide warranty and service no matter what you choose to do with it? Seems like you want to have it both ways. Maximum freedom for you, for Apple?, not so much.
I didn't pay anything to set up a developer account or download Xcode. If I wanted to put an app up in the store I need to apply for that and it costs $99 a year.
Technically you can develop an iPhone app without signing up to the developer program but as mstone says, you can't test your app on your device. This means no camera access, no accelerometer, compass, gyroscope. No multi-touch either as your mouse can only simulate one press. You can't test your app running multiple apps alongside it nor can you easily determine the performance of the app when it runs on the phone.
If they are concerned about the run-time behavior of certain apps, the way to fix that is to fix the operating system so that it will not allow apps to misbehave at run time.
Exactly, build a better sandbox.
Apple's attitude towards the matter of interpreted code suggests to me that they do not truly understand the fundamental concepts of an operating system.
Plus even assuming an app could do something malicious using interpreted code like wipe the phone or contacts, a normal app can do this and they wouldn't notice. There was an app in the App Store that did something really basic with colors but hidden in the app was a way to enable tethering, which they didn't spot.
Isolating the code better protects against this. The exploit that this thread talks about shows that they clearly haven't figured out how to do this when they can't protect their most vulnerable app from it.
Perhaps it's a network thing in which case other makes of phone have the same issue.
- act sensibly around the issue of tethering, allow it for free but throttle it
Perhaps consumers would like to see how the Apple hardware runs on Jailbreak compared to iOS4. It's obvious that Apple did not thoroughly test their software. I am a longtime Apple user but their performance as of late reminds me of MS, Toyota and BP.
If you really are a longtime user of apple products and still can't see the unsurpassed positive impact this company has on the whole computer related marked, You really need to see a doctor.
Technically you can develop an iPhone app without signing up to the developer program but as mstone says, you can't test your app on your device. This means no camera access, no accelerometer, compass, gyroscope. No multi-touch either as your mouse can only simulate one press. You can't test your app running multiple apps alongside it nor can you easily determine the performance of the app when it runs on the phone.
Okay, I see, they do have some sort of emulator so I could test. I do agree I would like to put my apps on my device, but actually I can still develop something, learn how to do it, etc, without paying.
Actually as a graphic artist I am more interested in epub for iBooks. I found out that if I use Adobe InDesign to make an epub doc I can't put it on my own device (because of the DRM) but I can use Stanza to make epub files from my pdfs that I can put on my own device. I do agree this is a bit crazy!!! However, I do think this is all growing so fast that limits for now are okay. (no way ever am I jailbreaking my device) but in the future I hope that I could actually test my creations on my own iWhatever.