Why Apple should end it's fight against jailbreakers

[JohnnyApple]

​

Colin Gibbs who writes for the Giga Om Network has written up a nice article about a recent Apple patent application to identify the “hacking, jailbreaking, unlocking or removal of a SIM card†from a phone so the device can be located and its data erased.

This is aimed squarely at the people who are modifying/hacking their devices and giving themselves the ability to install apps not seen in the app store and other benefits.

The question is, should Apple really be focused on this? Apple has a sterling reputation, and with the exception of the recent iPhone 4 Antennae issue they've handled every mis-step in a great fashion.

This however could potentially expose them to some really nasty feelings from users who have their devices "bricked" remotely. Imagine plunking down your hard earned cash for an iPhone 4 or an iPad and hacking it as you see fit only to see Apple render the device useless from afar.

I can't imagine I'd feel to good about that. I own the device, I should be able to use it as I please... at least, that's my opinion.

What are your thoughts on the matter? Please let us know as a reply to this post.

Full Article: Why Apple Should End Its Fight Against iPhone Jailbreaking

 

[gentlefury]

There would be so many lawsuits they would be crippled. Especially since a judge already ruled on the legality of jail breaking...that would be a basic privacy breach and essentially apple installing a Trojan in their devices. They have no right to what I do with my device.

You do realize that the second the first bricked idevice occurs there will be 50 jailbreaks that disable the killswitch within a day.

 

[henry2]

There would be so many lawsuits they would be crippled. Especially since a judge already ruled on the legality of jail breaking...that would be a basic privacy breach and essentially apple installing a Trojan in their devices. They have no right to what I do with my device.

You do realize that the second the first bricked idevice occurs there will be 50 jailbreaks that disable the killswitch within a day.

i do have a problem with the whole fact after i have bought the item and it mine that apple can come in behind the curtain and make sure they can control the device even farther ..

to me that has allway smack of the 1984 big brother .for once i put my money on the table the device becomes my personal property and no longer own by the apple company so what i do with it is my business not there..

i mean that if i was renting a device from apple that a diff story but i am not it or i got it through work and they said i could not do this or this to the device i would understand it ..but i puting out my own hard earned cash then it no one business what i do with it after it leaves the store..

 

[King Hal]

I'm not a keen jailbreaker but there's no way Apple should be able brick a device they no longer own

 

[DroidUser84]

I agree with the others, though I imagine everyone is. While my iPad is not jailbroken, and probably never will be, I do believe that everyone should have the right to do with their device as they please.

Now if you jailbreak it and then try to sell it in a retail environment still hacked then I disagree with that.

 

[pallentx]

They would be stupid to fight it. Theres a pretty big base of users who would all go to Android if they did that. Being able to jailbreak is what keeps a lot of people in the iOS game.

 

[LGgeek]

They would be stupid to fight it. Theres a pretty big base of users who would all go to Android if they did that. Being able to jailbreak is what keeps a lot of people in the iOS game.

+1
If I couldn't jailbreak MY idevices then would move to another platform.
Besides if it wasn't for the jailbreak community there would not be an app store. In the beginnig apple said there would be no third party apps, then the JB community kept embarrassing them with really great apps that people wanted. Now the app store makes tons of money for them, Appl you're welcome.

 

[gilroykilroy]

It really depends upon what you are jailbreaking the phone for. If you are jailbreaking the phone to install apps that Apple deems "unworthy" but you want to run anyway (accepting the consequences) then you should be able to.

If you are jailbreaking for theft of services (i.e. being able to tether without paying additional carrier fees or installing apps that you didn't pay for) I can see where the carrier would get upset and require the phone vendor to make sure you cannot do this.

I believe most jailbreaking falls into this second category (trying to get something for nothing.) Whether you believe this is just or not it still is against the TOU of the carrier.

Since phones still have to be put on carriers phone makers need to appease them to some extent and this means doing all they can to prevent users from circumventing the TOU.

 

[pallentx]

If you are jailbreaking for theft of services (i.e. being able to tether without paying additional carrier fees or installing apps that you didn't pay for) I can see where the carrier would get upset and require the phone vendor to make sure you cannot do this.

I agree. Though, I don't know that its the majority of what is being done currently in the jail-breaking community. People I know that have jail-broken, don't do it to pirate software, but to get additional features not available officially. I think they do enable tethering on their phones though, which the carriers might not be happy about.

I have considered jail-breaking and will likely do it after the 4.0 jailbreak is available. My motivation for doing so is additional capabilities, file system access and such.

 

[pallentx]

BTW - the whole notion of "I own the device, I should be able to do what I want with it" probably doesn't hold up legally.

In IT, there are lots of instances where you buy hardware and pay for features to be enabled. Our sysadmin was just telling me the other day that we have a fiber-optic switch. We can plug things into the switch, but to turn the port on, we have to pay for the license to do so. This kind of thing happens quite a bit in Enterprise IT systems, but consumers are much less tolerant of these kinds of pricing schemes.

 

[Tinman]

BTW - the whole notion of "I own the device, I should be able to do what I want with it" probably doesn't hold up legally.

I wouldn't bet the kids' education on that assertion.

The ipad is not like the fiber switch you mentioned, since that product was sold with in-the-field upgrades available for a fee. It is just less expensive for the manufacture to include the hardware functionality, that you explicitly didn't pay for, right from the get-go rather than having to physically modifiy the product in the field.



Michael

 

[pallentx]

BTW - the whole notion of "I own the device, I should be able to do what I want with it" probably doesn't hold up legally.

I wouldn't bet the kids' education on that assertion.

The ipad is not like the fiber switch you mentioned, since that product was sold with in-the-field upgrades available for a fee. It is just less expensive for the manufacture to include the hardware functionality, that you explicitly didn't pay for, right from the get-go rather than having to physically modifiy the product in the field.

Michael

yeah, I dont really know the details of law regarding this stuff. It just seems that if a switch manufacturer can tell me I cant plug something in without paying first, a phone manufacturer can say I cant tether my phone to a laptop (thus using a LOT more data) without paying more. I would expect them to not be happy with me finding ways around that.

 

[Tinman]

BTW - the whole notion of "I own the device, I should be able to do what I want with it" probably doesn't hold up legally.

I wouldn't bet the kids' education on that assertion.

The ipad is not like the fiber switch you mentioned, since that product was sold with in-the-field upgrades available for a fee. It is just less expensive for the manufacture to include the hardware functionality, that you explicitly didn't pay for, right from the get-go rather than having to physically modifiy the product in the field.

Michael

yeah, I dont really know the details of law regarding this stuff. It just seems that if a switch manufacturer can tell me I cant plug something in without paying first, a phone manufacturer can say I cant tether my phone to a laptop (thus using a LOT more data) without paying more. I would expect them to not be happy with me finding ways around that.

Well that is a bit different than saying you can't jailbreak. As for tethering I would say that AT&T wouldn't like not getting the extra money... for sure. But I don't put tethering in the same camp as cracked apps.

I am also sure AT&T would rather you stay on a contract and only use them for the iPhone too. Yet the DMCA, draconian enough as it is, has specifically been updated to ensure mobile phone unlocking is indeed legal.

Now as a disclaimer I do have my iPhone 4 jailbroken and I did buy MyWi to feed 3G to my iPad (rarely need to though, but it is nice to have when/if needed). I am on the $25 per month 2GB data plan. I pay for 2GB per month and I honestly think AT&T would be screwing me to charge me $20 per month and not give me one single byte extra of data. Heck I think they are screwing us by touting rollover minutes yet no rollover data.

As it is I use less than a quarter of that 2GB and if I wasn't using it with my iPad I'd be using it on my iPhone. iPad just makes it nicer (though my iPad is usually used at home... it's on WiFi 95%+ of the time).



Michael

 

[pallentx]

I am not against jailbreaking for sure. I plan to jailbreak my ipad when 4.0 comes out. I just find it interesting how much more complicated and irritating licensing is in the corporate IT world. Cell phone consumers would never tolerate that kind of thing in the consumer world. A lot of software companies charge you by how many cores your CPUs have. Its exactly the same software, you just pay more if you have a dual core or 4 quad core CPUs running it.

 

[Tinman]

Well I would already have my iPad jailbroken but I took too long to buy one. Mine came with 3.2.2 already installed. It's soooooo hard not having some of my most needed jailbreak apps on my iPad. Heck, above and beyond that I just miss 4.x on it! For the love of God no task switcher is killing me.



Michael