I still don't get why people who want all this tweaking ability just don't go Android. Seems to me jailbreaking is more trouble than its worth,
Because most Android devices *also* need similar circumventions (see "rooting an Android device"), and the internals are far less standardized than iOS is because of that Dalvik mishegaas and everybody throwing on their own UI, so you paradoxically end up *worse* off in the end.
Personally, I want one of Maemo/Meego/Sailfish to take over the world, but that seems unlikely. Besides, it occasionally helps that I can run the same apps as other folks I know who use iPhones and iPads because I recommended them to said folks.
The problem with saying jailbreaking has nothing to do with stealing is human nature. All locking a phone does is put up a virtual wall between the customer and the merchandise. Yes this means that certain products cannot be added to the phone that in other situations would be very useful for the customer to obtain that software. This does not mean that you have a natural right to jailbreak your phone. You can't force Walmart to carry products that it deems unacceptable. Why should you be able to force Apple to do the same? I will admit that there are honest people who don't steal, but if I could cut a door into Walmart with a saw and used it to load my paid for merchandise, would they be happy with my behavior? Even if I was the landlord, and owned the building, Walmart would be quite right to use any legal means available to shut that door down. You own your phone, but you do not own the software that runs it.
I am quite willing to admit that the relationship between Apple and the phone company leads to decisions about phone software that are not in the best interest of the phone owner. The government should step in and force the telecoms to offer software that allows you to use their system without arbitrary system barriers designed to milk the customer for unreasonable charges. Text messaging is the classic example here. Ending the contracts to lock phones is another. Those are issues that need to be taken up in a political realm, and not simply ignored. Everybody has a right to get a fair price for their phone and usage charges. The current system gives big customers discounts and over charges the small user. This is not a good thing. Walmart doesn't have one set of prices for one customer and another for you.
We need to take charge of our society just like our parents and grandparents did before us. If we don't then we deserve what we get. Using jailbreaks to avoid this problem is not a responsible solution.
That's a terrible analogy. By jailbreaking, nobody is forcing Apple to sell unapproved apps in their store. Jailbreaking merely overrides Apple's restrictions so that users can install whatever they like on their devices. We OWN our phones and should be free to use them as we see fit. This is not breaking into Walmart and forcing them to stock different merchandise. It's going to a different store of our choosing and buying whatever the hell we want.
Now, it's not Apple's responsibility to facilitate this, given that a) the App Store is a big revenue generator for them and b) their curation of the App Store is what maintains the level of quality and security that is clearly absent on the Android platform. Furthermore we shouldn't be shocked when Apple takes steps to prevent this from occurring.
But it's a mistake to suggest that it's a) morally wrong or b) illegal for users to jailbreak their phones. If someone wants to install a custom keyboard - which Apple expressly forbids in their App Store - then nobody has a right to tell that person they can't do it - if they figure out a means to do so on their own or with someone else's help.
The only place where morality and legality come into play are areas like pirated apps and enabling of features like tethering without paying for them. As far as apps go, I'm a huge supporter of paying developers for their efforts. They clearly deserve to be rewarded for the great work they produce. On the other hand, I'm not going to shed a tear for AT&T if they see a drop in revenue from tethering fees, which by all rights should be free since they're essentially double-billing us for using the same data we're already paying for.
So to summarize, it's OK for Apple to control what's on their App Store and take measures to dissuade users from jailbreaking. It's also OK for users to jailbreak. It's not OK to steal from talented and hard working developers who create great apps. And finally, no one should give a flying crap about AT&T's ill-gained profits.
The problem with saying jailbreaking has nothing to do with stealing is human nature. All locking a phone does is put up a virtual wall between the customer and the merchandise. Yes this means that certain products cannot be added to the phone that in other situations would be very useful for the customer to obtain that software. This does not mean that you have a natural right to jailbreak your phone. You can't force Walmart to carry products that it deems unacceptable. Why should you be able to force Apple to do the same? I will admit that there are honest people who don't steal, but if I could cut a door into Walmart with a saw and used it to load my paid for merchandise, would they be happy with my behavior? Even if I was the landlord, and owned the building, Walmart would be quite right to use any legal means available to shut that door down. You own your phone, but you do not own the software that runs it.
I am quite willing to admit that the relationship between Apple and the phone company leads to decisions about phone software that are not in the best interest of the phone owner. The government should step in and force the telecoms to offer software that allows you to use their system without arbitrary system barriers designed to milk the customer for unreasonable charges. Text messaging is the classic example here. Ending the contracts to lock phones is another. Those are issues that need to be taken up in a political realm, and not simply ignored. Everybody has a right to get a fair price for their phone and usage charges. The current system gives big customers discounts and over charges the small user. This is not a good thing. Walmart doesn't have one set of prices for one customer and another for you.
We need to take charge of our society just like our parents and grandparents did before us. If we don't then we deserve what we get. Using jailbreaks to avoid this problem is not a responsible solution.
This is the most ridiculous piece of reasoning I've read in a long time.
According to you, a manufacturer has the right to decide how you use a product you paid for, as a consequence e.g.:
a) you are a criminal if you blow up CDs in a microwave oven, because that's not what they were designed for, and because you don't own the software that controls the device
b) you're a criminal because you use a screwdriver as a chisel because it says on the handle "Do not use as a chisel"...
c) you're a criminal if you chip your car, because the ECU software isn't owned by you...
Further, every Mac sold is a device for committing piracy, because OS X allows for user's root access to the devices they own.
Rooting/Jailbreaking a device you own has nothing to do with piracy, the rules against it are primarily a consequence of badly written legislation with side effects that the spooks love: devices you can't control, inspect, understand, such that they can permanently embed a bug on your person; you don't think for a moment that e.g. the NSA will not jailbreak a device behind your back if they have the chance to do so?
Rooting/Jailbreaking is users asserting their rights of owners over devices they legally bought, and a necessary step to prevent wholesale erosion of property and civil rights under the guise of anti-piracy legislation.
Neither the people replying nor the people writing the article (want to) get it.
Jailbreaking is first and foremost about taking ownership of a device paid for; there would be no need to find or break security measures if Apple gave legitimate owners of a device legitimate means to access the hardware as master (i.e. root) rather than as a chattel/child with Apple as big daddy.
It's perfectly fine for Apple to support only specific configuration, it's not fine for Apple to prevent me from exercising my rights as an owner to do with a device as I please.
This is even more important knowing that there always will be security holes, so users need to have the option of monitoring their own devices, rather than being unaware victims of cyber snooping and other unsavory activities which may escape a user's awareness because no look behind the scenes is possible.
The issue about piracy is a red herring that Apple loved to trott out to explain their users being locked out (makes me wonder why Mac and PC users don't need to be locked out...)
Did the system come as a surprise to you when you first turned on your iPhone?
And let me inform you of something: Yes, it is TOTALLY fine for Apple to "prevent [you] from exercising your rights to do with a device as [you] please" if they made the device and sold it to you, and you agreed to the license. Don't like it? Get an Android phone. But as long as you:
1) Were well aware of the situation when you purchased the phone,
2) Agreed to the license when activating the phone,
Then you're damned right they can determine how the phone is to be interacted with.
You own your phone, but you do not own the software that runs it.
I am quite willing to admit that the relationship between Apple and the phone company leads to decisions about phone software that are not in the best interest of the phone owner. The government should step in and force the telecoms to offer software that allows you to use their system without arbitrary system barriers designed to milk the customer for unreasonable charges.
We need to take charge of our society just like our parents and grandparents did before us. If we don't then we deserve what we get. Using jailbreaks to avoid this problem is not a responsible solution.
The top sentence in this quotation says it all. I believe it is total BS too. Not the statement or it's truth, but the legal ramifications that go with it. When I bought my first computer and turned it on I read the license agreement for XP. It said I didn't own the software. This made me very angry. My $1200 just went into that system and here is a company telling me I don't own it. F___ That! When I buy a book, a car, or furniture I own it and can sell it and change it in any way that suits me. What gives the company the right to tell me I don't own this software? I can understand that if I duplicate a car or book and sell it as my own then I'm perhaps violating copyright laws. Being told I can't change or modify something for which I paid money in advance to own is just absurd.
I don't know how to program a computer. I can follow instructions from others who want to help me have a better experience with my devices. I claim that right and won't ever give it up. Something that is mine is mine not Apple's or Microsux'. I'll do what I want with it. Jailbreaking is an intrinsic right. If someone doesn't want to do it then that is totally fine with me. Just don't tell me how to use a device I paid to own.
It is for these reasons I've become a fan of GNU/Linux. Throw off the chains of Microsux and Apple and dare to be free. The open source community is improving in leaps and bounds. It even leads in many ways. Check it out at Distrowatch.com.
Did the system come as a surprise to you when you first turned on your iPhone?
And let me inform you of something: Yes, it is TOTALLY fine for Apple to "prevent [you] from exercising your rights to do with a device as [you] please" if they made the device and sold it to you, and you agreed to the license. Don't like it? Get an Android phone. But as long as you:
1) Were well aware of the situation when you purchased the phone,
2) Agreed to the license when activating the phone,
Then you're damned right they can determine how the phone is to be interacted with.
Jesus. Go get a Samsung.
Um. "Selling the phone/device" and "agreeing to a license" do NOT go together. The hardware is yours and that's that and you can do what you like with it so long as you don't break the law (much in the same way that you own the sledgehammer, but that doesn't make it okay to use it to bash somebody's skull in). The *software* is never sold, however; what's sold is a license to use it. That's the legal structure this takes. And per US law, Apple can't insist that you refrain from jailbreaking because it is a lawful activity. It's piracy that is unlawful, and despite efforts by Apple (and by some trolls here) to conflate the concepts they remain separate and legally different according to US federal law.
As for "you agreed, so that's that" - I'm not sure if the license does include a provision along the lines of "you agree not to 'jailbreak'", but even if it did, I'm not sure if that clause would actually be enforceable if it was taken to court. Popular perception aside, contract strength (and that's what an EULA is - a contract between the vendor and the customer) is determined not based on "it was written down, and you said yes, so there", but based on how legally enforceable what was written down is. It is not exactly trivial to sign away basic legal rights in a manner that can be made to stick.
What I find curious, by the way, is this open hostility to the very idea of jailbreaking and jailbreak users. What is it about jailbreaks that threatens you? Why are you so overwhelmingly hostile to the point of insisting that people go away and use something else entirely rather than slightly modifying what they have? How does this affect you or those you care about or Apple in any possible way? What is the motivation for this snide, dismissive hatred? Because I frankly don't get it. It makes no sense to me.
The top sentence in this quotation says it all. I believe it is total BS too. Not the statement or it's truth, but the legal ramifications that go with it. When I bought my first computer and turned it on I read the license agreement for XP. It said I didn't own the software. This made me very angry. My $1200 just went into that system and here is a company telling me I don't own it. F___ That! When I buy a book, a car, or furniture I own it and can sell it and change it in any way that suits me. What gives the company the right to tell me I don't own this software? I can understand that if I duplicate a car or book and sell it as my own then I'm perhaps violating copyright laws. Being told I can't change or modify something for which I paid money in advance to own is just absurd.
I don't know how to program a computer. I can follow instructions from others who want to help me have a better experience with my devices. I claim that right and won't ever give it up. Something that is mine is mine not Apple's or Microsux'. I'll do what I want with it. Jailbreaking is an intrinsic right. If someone doesn't want to do it then that is totally fine with me. Just don't tell me how to use a device I paid to own.
It is for these reasons I've become a fan of GNU/Linux. Throw off the chains of Microsux and Apple and dare to be free. The open source community is improving in leaps and bounds. It even leads in many ways. Check it out at Distrowatch.com.
Um. Speaking as a card-carrying paying member of the Free Software Foundation myself... you are NOT doing GNU/Linux any marketing favors with this kind of rant. Just a hint.
What gives the company that right is that they did not actually sell you full ownership rights to the software. They sold a license and included the software usable under that license along with. I'm not fond of that "bundling it together" arrangement either, but they're legally allowed to do it that way. That they've made it all too easy to assume otherwise doesn't necessarily change that (although I'm not sure of the current legal strength of most EULAs in court).
Heck, technically you don't own any of the GPL software you have either - copyright remains with the author or (if it's a GNU project) the FSF (since they require reassignment for legal defense reasons). But the rights you have with it under the license are MUCH broader and are much more respectful of the desire to tinker with the stuff one uses on a daily basis.
To all those hateful people wanting Jailbreaking to fail: you are ignorant of what jailbreaking means. It just means opening up root access and contrary to what you think you know, most people do it to mod their device's look, feel, and capabilities.
Personally I use only a few JB apps, but they aren't available natively and don't have anything to do with piracy.
1. ActionMenu: a persistent system wide clipboard. 2. Winterboard: a theming apps that allows you to change the look and feel of the OS with free and paid theme packages. 3. MyWi: a tethering app so I can the unlimited data plan I pay for without having to change everyone on my family plan to a shared plan.
The ability to pirate apps isn't part of the Jailbreak itself and hurts, not helps, the JB developers who often themselves create and sell apps to JB users.
Did the system come as a surprise to you when you first turned on your iPhone?
And let me inform you of something: Yes, it is TOTALLY fine for Apple to "prevent [you] from exercising your rights to do with a device as [you] please" if they made the device and sold it to you, and you agreed to the license. Don't like it? Get an Android phone. But as long as you:
1) Were well aware of the situation when you purchased the phone,
2) Agreed to the license when activating the phone,
Then you're damned right they can determine how the phone is to be interacted with.
Jesus. Go get a Samsung.
You're a great fascist.
Why must Apple and others sell items with such restrictive agreements? Think about it. How does it benefit them? All they have to do is give a warranty for the hardware and original software. They don't need to honor warranties for non-Apple software? They don't honor warranties for non-Apple software. So why is there this big need to control the users? Why must they dictate what we can do with our property?
This is about controlling people. These agreements are invasions of privacy. These companies are interfering with our lives from afar. They let their machines come into our homes and they are then dictating to us what we can do with them. That is unacceptable.
Most of us wouldn't stand for the US government blocking web sites and preventing us from getting information on the internet or running certain programs on our devices. The Chinese government does it for their people. They are blocking access to technology and information. Computer and phone manufacturers are doing a similar thing to end users. They just don't have the same force and power behind them. They are still exercising power over individuals by telling them what they can and can't do. Instead of using physical treats of violence they use financial force. They void warranties.
Spending hundreds of dollars on a device and having it die due to a manufacturing flaw would be very detrimental to many people if there were no warranty. Who's to say that these companies with their proprietary secret hidden code, haven't embedded kill switches in these devices that can be activated when one loads "unapproved" software? Then they can just void a warranty and blame the user. Until the code is visible to all, we'll never know if this isn't already happening.
“I was definitely talking about stealing CDs and illegally distributing them. Like, totally. That’s what I wanted people to do when I said that.”
–Steven P. Jobs
No, really keep it up. Is English not your first language? Do you not comprehend context?
Originally Posted by Smallwheels
Why must Apple and others sell items with such restrictive agreements? Think about it. How does it benefit them?
It ensures quality of device, quality of support, and quality of reputation.
This is about controlling people. These agreements are invasions of privacy. These companies are interfering with our lives from afar. They let their machines come into our homes and they are then dictating to us what we can do with them. That is unacceptable.
Nice psychosis you have there. Who was it, again, who dictates what machines goes into what house? The companies?
Computer and phone manufacturers are doing a similar thing to end users.
Yeah! You should be able to access all the child porn you want! You should be able to steal all the software you want! How dare they stop you! You won’t stand for this!
Spending hundreds of dollars on a device and having it die due to a manufacturing flaw would be very detrimental to many people if there were no warranty.
Good thing there’s a warranty, huh.
Who's to say that these companies with their proprietary secret hidden code, haven't embedded kill switches in these devices that can be activated when one loads "unapproved" software?
I’m to say. So is everyone else who isn’t a nutcase. Someone just saw the trailer for Dragon Day…
Aside from patches to various free software projects (which, for this context probably doesn't count), probably none you would know unless you're into statistical bioinformatics research.
1) If you really think that matters, you're being finicky just to try to justify an ad-hominem. Are you selling anything on the App Store yourself and suffering from piracy as a result, or are you pretending to empathize with developers based on your assumptions as to what "universal opinion" is or should be about jailbreaking?
2) To actually answer the question, by the way - yes, roughly speaking. Didn't write the app in question (and it's both iOS and Android), but I've been part of the qa and testing, and it's not in the public App Store because it's specific to a research study that I don't believe I'm allowed to talk about.
I didn't say that your lack of software ownership was the right situation. I agree that it is nothing more than leaving control of your property with the seller after the sale. It is not the way the laws in this country should be written, but is the way they currently stand.
The system in China has spawned a process by which the people only get a little more bread by carving it out. Cheating. This has led to pollution, corruption, bribes, taking advantage of others (even in the same village), and it has become the norm. If you don't go along, you don't get along. Please, don't expect anything different coming out of there. We will go along because we see money to be made. The largest capitalists taking advantage of the largest communist labor pool. Thing is, the leaders of the communists are happy to sell their comrades labor to their supposed enemy. Jailbreakers, by definition, are crooks. Please, don't hate, just accept it. Jailbreakers try to circumvent the contracts that Apple have made. The only thing that could destroy this system of cheating is honor. If I don't get it fair and square, I don't want it.
Or, in other words, you are freely allowed to circumvent the operating system's protections w/r/t what applications may execute, so long as the sole purpose is to execute other applications that you have the legal right to own and access.
Or, in short... you're not just wrong, you're provably and demonstrably wrong. "Please, don't hate, accept it."
(NOTE: As this only cites US law, it obviously only applies to US jurisdictions. If you live elsewhere, the legal situation may be different. As I and Apple are both US residents, though, this is good enough for me. Apple still insists that such a procedure voids the warranty - as is their wont and legal right to assert.)
1) If you really think that matters, you're being finicky just to try to justify an ad-hominem. Are you selling anything on the App Store yourself and suffering from piracy as a result, or are you pretending to empathize with developers based on your assumptions as to what "universal opinion" is or should be about jailbreaking?
2) To actually answer the question, by the way - yes, roughly speaking. Didn't write the app in question (and it's both iOS and Android), but I've been part of the qa and testing, and it's not in the public App Store because it's specific to a research study that I don't believe I'm allowed to talk about.
I want an App store that attracts developers and maintains their livelihoods.
Apple is the first to come up with that in a truly successful way.
Symbian (previously the most widely used smartphone OS) never provided protection from piracy which pretty much killed it, volunteers can only do so much.
If I want to steal others work I would start by Jailbreaking then installing this Taig repository of pirated stuff.
So many tosspots whining about their right to do stuff, go contribute to one of the free and open iOS and Android alternatives, such as Ubuntu, Firefox and others.
[quote]Um. "Selling the phone/device" and "agreeing to a license" do NOT go together. The hardware is yours and that's that and you can do what you like with it so long as you don't break the law (much in the same way that you own the sledgehammer, but that doesn't make it okay to use it to bash somebody's skull in). The *software* is never sold, however; what's sold is a license to use it. That's the legal structure this takes. And per US law, Apple can't insist that you refrain from jailbreaking because it is a lawful activity. It's piracy that is unlawful, and despite efforts by Apple (and by some trolls here) to conflate the concepts they remain separate and legally different according to US federal law.[/quote]
I phrased that very badly, you're correct.
Quote:
As for "you agreed, so that's that" - I'm not sure if the license does include a provision along the lines of "you agree not to 'jailbreak'", but even if it did, I'm not sure if that clause would actually be enforceable if it was taken to court. Popular perception aside, contract strength (and that's what an EULA is - a contract between the vendor and the customer) is determined not based on "it was written down, and you said yes, so there", but based on how legally enforceable what was written down is. It is not exactly trivial to sign away basic legal rights in a manner that can be made to stick.
I am aware of how contract law works. My point was that, within the law anyways, Apple licenses something to you. You click on "Agree" -- twice, actually -- and they can put whatever restrictions they want onto your use, assuming those restrictions aren't already otherwise illegal. Your "basic legal rights" are exactly what you signed onto by pressing "Agree."
Quote:
What I find curious, by the way, is this open hostility to the very idea of jailbreaking and jailbreak users. What is it about jailbreaks that threatens you? Why are you so overwhelmingly hostile to the point of insisting that people go away and use something else entirely rather than slightly modifying what they have? How does this affect you or those you care about or Apple in any possible way? What is the motivation for this snide, dismissive hatred? Because I frankly don't get it. It makes no sense to me.
Nothing threatens me. I couldn't care less, to be honest. What bothers, me, though, is someone claiming that the iPhone he bought is somehow so screwed up -- due to THINGS HE KNEW ABOUT GOING IN! It's like me buying a Shakira (well, old Shakira, anyways) album called "Sale e Sol" and then complaining that it's in Spanish.
When I was sick of Windows -- sometime between '95 and '98 -- I moved to Linux. I ran that for many years. Eventually, I got my first Mac, a TiPb G4, and that was that (god, I miss that machine -- spilled a Coke on it in my sleep ). If I wanted Windows, I ran that (god knows why). When I wanted free software and a system with which I could do absolutely anything, I ran Linux. When I wanted a Mac and a very free OS, I ran and am running OSX.
So, I run the OS which most fits my use-case scenario. If digging into the root system and messing around with the file system most fits your use-case scenario, then why use iOS? Why not use Android? Clearly, that fits the scenario much better.
As always, insightful reactions. What I'd like to see is a more proactive approach from you.
What do you think the government of China will do to protect Apple from the (I believe) coming onslaught of pirates and hacks against iOS, primarily and OSX secondarily? I wonder if China's government has an interest in preserving the spirit of the contracts it makes with Apple and other US companies, or in merely advancing its own ends. Cloaked in ruse and deception, China seems to allow its courts to advance spurious claims and subvert contracts for the benefit of Chinese companies against western interests.
Comments
I still don't get why people who want all this tweaking ability just don't go Android. Seems to me jailbreaking is more trouble than its worth,
Because most Android devices *also* need similar circumventions (see "rooting an Android device"), and the internals are far less standardized than iOS is because of that Dalvik mishegaas and everybody throwing on their own UI, so you paradoxically end up *worse* off in the end.
Personally, I want one of Maemo/Meego/Sailfish to take over the world, but that seems unlikely.
Besides, it occasionally helps that I can run the same apps as other folks I know who use iPhones and iPads because I recommended them to said folks.
They’d rather live next to the hog rendering plant than in it.
The problem with saying jailbreaking has nothing to do with stealing is human nature. All locking a phone does is put up a virtual wall between the customer and the merchandise. Yes this means that certain products cannot be added to the phone that in other situations would be very useful for the customer to obtain that software. This does not mean that you have a natural right to jailbreak your phone. You can't force Walmart to carry products that it deems unacceptable. Why should you be able to force Apple to do the same? I will admit that there are honest people who don't steal, but if I could cut a door into Walmart with a saw and used it to load my paid for merchandise, would they be happy with my behavior? Even if I was the landlord, and owned the building, Walmart would be quite right to use any legal means available to shut that door down. You own your phone, but you do not own the software that runs it.
I am quite willing to admit that the relationship between Apple and the phone company leads to decisions about phone software that are not in the best interest of the phone owner. The government should step in and force the telecoms to offer software that allows you to use their system without arbitrary system barriers designed to milk the customer for unreasonable charges. Text messaging is the classic example here. Ending the contracts to lock phones is another. Those are issues that need to be taken up in a political realm, and not simply ignored. Everybody has a right to get a fair price for their phone and usage charges. The current system gives big customers discounts and over charges the small user. This is not a good thing. Walmart doesn't have one set of prices for one customer and another for you.
We need to take charge of our society just like our parents and grandparents did before us. If we don't then we deserve what we get. Using jailbreaks to avoid this problem is not a responsible solution.
That's a terrible analogy. By jailbreaking, nobody is forcing Apple to sell unapproved apps in their store. Jailbreaking merely overrides Apple's restrictions so that users can install whatever they like on their devices. We OWN our phones and should be free to use them as we see fit. This is not breaking into Walmart and forcing them to stock different merchandise. It's going to a different store of our choosing and buying whatever the hell we want.
Now, it's not Apple's responsibility to facilitate this, given that a) the App Store is a big revenue generator for them and b) their curation of the App Store is what maintains the level of quality and security that is clearly absent on the Android platform. Furthermore we shouldn't be shocked when Apple takes steps to prevent this from occurring.
But it's a mistake to suggest that it's a) morally wrong or b) illegal for users to jailbreak their phones. If someone wants to install a custom keyboard - which Apple expressly forbids in their App Store - then nobody has a right to tell that person they can't do it - if they figure out a means to do so on their own or with someone else's help.
The only place where morality and legality come into play are areas like pirated apps and enabling of features like tethering without paying for them. As far as apps go, I'm a huge supporter of paying developers for their efforts. They clearly deserve to be rewarded for the great work they produce. On the other hand, I'm not going to shed a tear for AT&T if they see a drop in revenue from tethering fees, which by all rights should be free since they're essentially double-billing us for using the same data we're already paying for.
So to summarize, it's OK for Apple to control what's on their App Store and take measures to dissuade users from jailbreaking. It's also OK for users to jailbreak. It's not OK to steal from talented and hard working developers who create great apps. And finally, no one should give a flying crap about AT&T's ill-gained profits.
The problem with saying jailbreaking has nothing to do with stealing is human nature. All locking a phone does is put up a virtual wall between the customer and the merchandise. Yes this means that certain products cannot be added to the phone that in other situations would be very useful for the customer to obtain that software. This does not mean that you have a natural right to jailbreak your phone. You can't force Walmart to carry products that it deems unacceptable. Why should you be able to force Apple to do the same? I will admit that there are honest people who don't steal, but if I could cut a door into Walmart with a saw and used it to load my paid for merchandise, would they be happy with my behavior? Even if I was the landlord, and owned the building, Walmart would be quite right to use any legal means available to shut that door down. You own your phone, but you do not own the software that runs it.
I am quite willing to admit that the relationship between Apple and the phone company leads to decisions about phone software that are not in the best interest of the phone owner. The government should step in and force the telecoms to offer software that allows you to use their system without arbitrary system barriers designed to milk the customer for unreasonable charges. Text messaging is the classic example here. Ending the contracts to lock phones is another. Those are issues that need to be taken up in a political realm, and not simply ignored. Everybody has a right to get a fair price for their phone and usage charges. The current system gives big customers discounts and over charges the small user. This is not a good thing. Walmart doesn't have one set of prices for one customer and another for you.
We need to take charge of our society just like our parents and grandparents did before us. If we don't then we deserve what we get. Using jailbreaks to avoid this problem is not a responsible solution.
This is the most ridiculous piece of reasoning I've read in a long time.
According to you, a manufacturer has the right to decide how you use a product you paid for, as a consequence e.g.:
a) you are a criminal if you blow up CDs in a microwave oven, because that's not what they were designed for, and because you don't own the software that controls the device
b) you're a criminal because you use a screwdriver as a chisel because it says on the handle "Do not use as a chisel"...
c) you're a criminal if you chip your car, because the ECU software isn't owned by you...
Further, every Mac sold is a device for committing piracy, because OS X allows for user's root access to the devices they own.
Rooting/Jailbreaking a device you own has nothing to do with piracy, the rules against it are primarily a consequence of badly written legislation with side effects that the spooks love: devices you can't control, inspect, understand, such that they can permanently embed a bug on your person; you don't think for a moment that e.g. the NSA will not jailbreak a device behind your back if they have the chance to do so?
Rooting/Jailbreaking is users asserting their rights of owners over devices they legally bought, and a necessary step to prevent wholesale erosion of property and civil rights under the guise of anti-piracy legislation.
Neither the people replying nor the people writing the article (want to) get it.
Jailbreaking is first and foremost about taking ownership of a device paid for; there would be no need to find or break security measures if Apple gave legitimate owners of a device legitimate means to access the hardware as master (i.e. root) rather than as a chattel/child with Apple as big daddy.
It's perfectly fine for Apple to support only specific configuration, it's not fine for Apple to prevent me from exercising my rights as an owner to do with a device as I please.
This is even more important knowing that there always will be security holes, so users need to have the option of monitoring their own devices, rather than being unaware victims of cyber snooping and other unsavory activities which may escape a user's awareness because no look behind the scenes is possible.
The issue about piracy is a red herring that Apple loved to trott out to explain their users being locked out (makes me wonder why Mac and PC users don't need to be locked out...)
Did the system come as a surprise to you when you first turned on your iPhone?
And let me inform you of something: Yes, it is TOTALLY fine for Apple to "prevent [you] from exercising your rights to do with a device as [you] please" if they made the device and sold it to you, and you agreed to the license. Don't like it? Get an Android phone. But as long as you:
1) Were well aware of the situation when you purchased the phone,
2) Agreed to the license when activating the phone,
Then you're damned right they can determine how the phone is to be interacted with.
Jesus. Go get a Samsung.
You own your phone, but you do not own the software that runs it.
I am quite willing to admit that the relationship between Apple and the phone company leads to decisions about phone software that are not in the best interest of the phone owner. The government should step in and force the telecoms to offer software that allows you to use their system without arbitrary system barriers designed to milk the customer for unreasonable charges.
We need to take charge of our society just like our parents and grandparents did before us. If we don't then we deserve what we get. Using jailbreaks to avoid this problem is not a responsible solution.
The top sentence in this quotation says it all. I believe it is total BS too. Not the statement or it's truth, but the legal ramifications that go with it. When I bought my first computer and turned it on I read the license agreement for XP. It said I didn't own the software. This made me very angry. My $1200 just went into that system and here is a company telling me I don't own it. F___ That! When I buy a book, a car, or furniture I own it and can sell it and change it in any way that suits me. What gives the company the right to tell me I don't own this software? I can understand that if I duplicate a car or book and sell it as my own then I'm perhaps violating copyright laws. Being told I can't change or modify something for which I paid money in advance to own is just absurd.
I don't know how to program a computer. I can follow instructions from others who want to help me have a better experience with my devices. I claim that right and won't ever give it up. Something that is mine is mine not Apple's or Microsux'. I'll do what I want with it. Jailbreaking is an intrinsic right. If someone doesn't want to do it then that is totally fine with me. Just don't tell me how to use a device I paid to own.
It is for these reasons I've become a fan of GNU/Linux. Throw off the chains of Microsux and Apple and dare to be free. The open source community is improving in leaps and bounds. It even leads in many ways. Check it out at Distrowatch.com.
Rip, Mix, Burn - Steven P. Jobs
Did the system come as a surprise to you when you first turned on your iPhone?
And let me inform you of something: Yes, it is TOTALLY fine for Apple to "prevent [you] from exercising your rights to do with a device as [you] please" if they made the device and sold it to you, and you agreed to the license. Don't like it? Get an Android phone. But as long as you:
1) Were well aware of the situation when you purchased the phone,
2) Agreed to the license when activating the phone,
Then you're damned right they can determine how the phone is to be interacted with.
Jesus. Go get a Samsung.
Um. "Selling the phone/device" and "agreeing to a license" do NOT go together. The hardware is yours and that's that and you can do what you like with it so long as you don't break the law (much in the same way that you own the sledgehammer, but that doesn't make it okay to use it to bash somebody's skull in). The *software* is never sold, however; what's sold is a license to use it. That's the legal structure this takes. And per US law, Apple can't insist that you refrain from jailbreaking because it is a lawful activity. It's piracy that is unlawful, and despite efforts by Apple (and by some trolls here) to conflate the concepts they remain separate and legally different according to US federal law.
As for "you agreed, so that's that" - I'm not sure if the license does include a provision along the lines of "you agree not to 'jailbreak'", but even if it did, I'm not sure if that clause would actually be enforceable if it was taken to court. Popular perception aside, contract strength (and that's what an EULA is - a contract between the vendor and the customer) is determined not based on "it was written down, and you said yes, so there", but based on how legally enforceable what was written down is. It is not exactly trivial to sign away basic legal rights in a manner that can be made to stick.
What I find curious, by the way, is this open hostility to the very idea of jailbreaking and jailbreak users. What is it about jailbreaks that threatens you? Why are you so overwhelmingly hostile to the point of insisting that people go away and use something else entirely rather than slightly modifying what they have? How does this affect you or those you care about or Apple in any possible way? What is the motivation for this snide, dismissive hatred? Because I frankly don't get it. It makes no sense to me.
The top sentence in this quotation says it all. I believe it is total BS too. Not the statement or it's truth, but the legal ramifications that go with it. When I bought my first computer and turned it on I read the license agreement for XP. It said I didn't own the software. This made me very angry. My $1200 just went into that system and here is a company telling me I don't own it. F___ That! When I buy a book, a car, or furniture I own it and can sell it and change it in any way that suits me. What gives the company the right to tell me I don't own this software? I can understand that if I duplicate a car or book and sell it as my own then I'm perhaps violating copyright laws. Being told I can't change or modify something for which I paid money in advance to own is just absurd.
I don't know how to program a computer. I can follow instructions from others who want to help me have a better experience with my devices. I claim that right and won't ever give it up. Something that is mine is mine not Apple's or Microsux'. I'll do what I want with it. Jailbreaking is an intrinsic right. If someone doesn't want to do it then that is totally fine with me. Just don't tell me how to use a device I paid to own.
It is for these reasons I've become a fan of GNU/Linux. Throw off the chains of Microsux and Apple and dare to be free. The open source community is improving in leaps and bounds. It even leads in many ways. Check it out at Distrowatch.com.
Um. Speaking as a card-carrying paying member of the Free Software Foundation myself... you are NOT doing GNU/Linux any marketing favors with this kind of rant. Just a hint.
What gives the company that right is that they did not actually sell you full ownership rights to the software. They sold a license and included the software usable under that license along with. I'm not fond of that "bundling it together" arrangement either, but they're legally allowed to do it that way. That they've made it all too easy to assume otherwise doesn't necessarily change that (although I'm not sure of the current legal strength of most EULAs in court).
Heck, technically you don't own any of the GPL software you have either - copyright remains with the author or (if it's a GNU project) the FSF (since they require reassignment for legal defense reasons). But the rights you have with it under the license are MUCH broader and are much more respectful of the desire to tinker with the stuff one uses on a daily basis.
Personally I use only a few JB apps, but they aren't available natively and don't have anything to do with piracy.
1. ActionMenu: a persistent system wide clipboard.
2. Winterboard: a theming apps that allows you to change the look and feel of the OS with free and paid theme packages.
3. MyWi: a tethering app so I can the unlimited data plan I pay for without having to change everyone on my family plan to a shared plan.
The ability to pirate apps isn't part of the Jailbreak itself and hurts, not helps, the JB developers who often themselves create and sell apps to JB users.
Did the system come as a surprise to you when you first turned on your iPhone?
And let me inform you of something: Yes, it is TOTALLY fine for Apple to "prevent [you] from exercising your rights to do with a device as [you] please" if they made the device and sold it to you, and you agreed to the license. Don't like it? Get an Android phone. But as long as you:
1) Were well aware of the situation when you purchased the phone,
2) Agreed to the license when activating the phone,
Then you're damned right they can determine how the phone is to be interacted with.
Jesus. Go get a Samsung.
You're a great fascist.
Why must Apple and others sell items with such restrictive agreements? Think about it. How does it benefit them? All they have to do is give a warranty for the hardware and original software. They don't need to honor warranties for non-Apple software? They don't honor warranties for non-Apple software. So why is there this big need to control the users? Why must they dictate what we can do with our property?
This is about controlling people. These agreements are invasions of privacy. These companies are interfering with our lives from afar. They let their machines come into our homes and they are then dictating to us what we can do with them. That is unacceptable.
Most of us wouldn't stand for the US government blocking web sites and preventing us from getting information on the internet or running certain programs on our devices. The Chinese government does it for their people. They are blocking access to technology and information. Computer and phone manufacturers are doing a similar thing to end users. They just don't have the same force and power behind them. They are still exercising power over individuals by telling them what they can and can't do. Instead of using physical treats of violence they use financial force. They void warranties.
Spending hundreds of dollars on a device and having it die due to a manufacturing flaw would be very detrimental to many people if there were no warranty. Who's to say that these companies with their proprietary secret hidden code, haven't embedded kill switches in these devices that can be activated when one loads "unapproved" software? Then they can just void a warranty and blame the user. Until the code is visible to all, we'll never know if this isn't already happening.
“I was definitely talking about stealing CDs and illegally distributing them. Like, totally. That’s what I wanted people to do when I said that.”
–Steven P. Jobs
No, really keep it up. Is English not your first language? Do you not comprehend context?
Why must Apple and others sell items with such restrictive agreements? Think about it. How does it benefit them?
It ensures quality of device, quality of support, and quality of reputation.
This is about controlling people. These agreements are invasions of privacy. These companies are interfering with our lives from afar. They let their machines come into our homes and they are then dictating to us what we can do with them. That is unacceptable.
Nice psychosis you have there. Who was it, again, who dictates what machines goes into what house? The companies?
Yeah! You should be able to access all the child porn you want! You should be able to steal all the software you want! How dare they stop you! You won’t stand for this!
Good thing there’s a warranty, huh.
I’m to say. So is everyone else who isn’t a nutcase. Someone just saw the trailer for Dragon Day…
Aside from patches to various free software projects (which, for this context probably doesn't count), probably none you would know unless you're into statistical bioinformatics research.
So no iOS app dev work?
So no iOS app dev work?
1) If you really think that matters, you're being finicky just to try to justify an ad-hominem. Are you selling anything on the App Store yourself and suffering from piracy as a result, or are you pretending to empathize with developers based on your assumptions as to what "universal opinion" is or should be about jailbreaking?
2) To actually answer the question, by the way - yes, roughly speaking. Didn't write the app in question (and it's both iOS and Android), but I've been part of the qa and testing, and it's not in the public App Store because it's specific to a research study that I don't believe I'm allowed to talk about.
I didn't say that your lack of software ownership was the right situation. I agree that it is nothing more than leaving control of your property with the seller after the sale. It is not the way the laws in this country should be written, but is the way they currently stand.
Jailbreakers, by definition, are crooks. Please, don't hate, just accept it. Jailbreakers try to circumvent the contracts that Apple have made. The only thing that could destroy this system of cheating is honor. If I don't get it fair and square, I don't want it.
Jailbreakers, by definition, are crooks. Please, don't hate, just accept it.
Under 17 U.S.C. § 1201 (part of the DMCA) the Library of Congress may designate certain classes of work as being exempt from DMCA prohibitions. Included in these exceptions, as of 2010 are "Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications [read: operating systems such as iOS or Android], where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained [emphasis added], with computer programs on the telephone handset."
Or, in other words, you are freely allowed to circumvent the operating system's protections w/r/t what applications may execute, so long as the sole purpose is to execute other applications that you have the legal right to own and access.
Or, in short... you're not just wrong, you're provably and demonstrably wrong. "Please, don't hate, accept it."
(NOTE: As this only cites US law, it obviously only applies to US jurisdictions. If you live elsewhere, the legal situation may be different. As I and Apple are both US residents, though, this is good enough for me.
Apple still insists that such a procedure voids the warranty - as is their wont and legal right to assert.)
1) If you really think that matters, you're being finicky just to try to justify an ad-hominem. Are you selling anything on the App Store yourself and suffering from piracy as a result, or are you pretending to empathize with developers based on your assumptions as to what "universal opinion" is or should be about jailbreaking?
2) To actually answer the question, by the way - yes, roughly speaking. Didn't write the app in question (and it's both iOS and Android), but I've been part of the qa and testing, and it's not in the public App Store because it's specific to a research study that I don't believe I'm allowed to talk about.
I want an App store that attracts developers and maintains their livelihoods.
Apple is the first to come up with that in a truly successful way.
Symbian (previously the most widely used smartphone OS) never provided protection from piracy which pretty much killed it, volunteers can only do so much.
If I want to steal others work I would start by Jailbreaking then installing this Taig repository of pirated stuff.
So many tosspots whining about their right to do stuff, go contribute to one of the free and open iOS and Android alternatives, such as Ubuntu, Firefox and others.
[quote]Um. "Selling the phone/device" and "agreeing to a license" do NOT go together. The hardware is yours and that's that and you can do what you like with it so long as you don't break the law (much in the same way that you own the sledgehammer, but that doesn't make it okay to use it to bash somebody's skull in). The *software* is never sold, however; what's sold is a license to use it. That's the legal structure this takes. And per US law, Apple can't insist that you refrain from jailbreaking because it is a lawful activity. It's piracy that is unlawful, and despite efforts by Apple (and by some trolls here) to conflate the concepts they remain separate and legally different according to US federal law.[/quote]
I phrased that very badly, you're correct.
I am aware of how contract law works. My point was that, within the law anyways, Apple licenses something to you. You click on "Agree" -- twice, actually -- and they can put whatever restrictions they want onto your use, assuming those restrictions aren't already otherwise illegal. Your "basic legal rights" are exactly what you signed onto by pressing "Agree."
What I find curious, by the way, is this open hostility to the very idea of jailbreaking and jailbreak users. What is it about jailbreaks that threatens you? Why are you so overwhelmingly hostile to the point of insisting that people go away and use something else entirely rather than slightly modifying what they have? How does this affect you or those you care about or Apple in any possible way? What is the motivation for this snide, dismissive hatred? Because I frankly don't get it. It makes no sense to me.
Nothing threatens me. I couldn't care less, to be honest. What bothers, me, though, is someone claiming that the iPhone he bought is somehow so screwed up -- due to THINGS HE KNEW ABOUT GOING IN! It's like me buying a Shakira (well, old Shakira, anyways) album called "Sale e Sol" and then complaining that it's in Spanish.
When I was sick of Windows -- sometime between '95 and '98 -- I moved to Linux. I ran that for many years. Eventually, I got my first Mac, a TiPb G4, and that was that (god, I miss that machine -- spilled a Coke on it in my sleep
). If I wanted Windows, I ran that (god knows why). When I wanted free software and a system with which I could do absolutely anything, I ran Linux. When I wanted a Mac and a very free OS, I ran and am running OSX.
So, I run the OS which most fits my use-case scenario. If digging into the root system and messing around with the file system most fits your use-case scenario, then why use iOS? Why not use Android? Clearly, that fits the scenario much better.
As always, insightful reactions. What I'd like to see is a more proactive approach from you.
What do you think the government of China will do to protect Apple from the (I believe) coming onslaught of pirates and hacks against iOS, primarily and OSX secondarily? I wonder if China's government has an interest in preserving the spirit of the contracts it makes with Apple and other US companies, or in merely advancing its own ends. Cloaked in ruse and deception, China seems to allow its courts to advance spurious claims and subvert contracts for the benefit of Chinese companies against western interests.