The iPhone 4S Has Been Jailbroken
iclarified.com
iclarified.com
edit: I take it back and agree wholeheartedly with cryptoz.
Now you don't need permission from Apple to run some of your own software on a device you paid for.
I don't have any interest in "hacking" into my car, dishwasher, or fridge. I want them to _just work_, and I want to know who to call when they break.
So then, it is entirely reasonable that most people simply want their electronics to work, rather than to somehow feel that just because they can't tinker and mod their device, their ownership is somehow hindered.
Although I do feel that media DRM (movies, music, DVD region codes) can often hinder the ownership experience, I simply don't see how these devices being locked down actually hurt MOST consumers who aren't even interested in such details.
I don't understand that. For example, few people care about taxes, war, or clean energy policies (less than 50% vote in much of North America). Does that mean the work done in these areas doesn't matter? The fact that most people don't care has little to do with the truth of the matter.
Only Apple owns iPhones. It doesn't matter that nobody cares about this, they still don't own their phone.
That’s the point of disagreement. I don’t understand what’s so bad about it.
As to why it's good or bad, that's entirely personal preference. For me, I want to own it because I want the option to change it. That's all. Therefore, for me, it's terrible to buy a device I don't own. That should answer your question about why it's bad.
Maybe it's not bad for you. Maybe it's good for you to not own the device. That's fine; I'm only here to remind you that you don't own it (after it was erroneously suggested up top that you do own it)
Some just cannot tell owning and controlling apart.
Or are we only having this discussion because we all here collectively care more about the hackability of electronics?
I, however, like to be more pragmatic.
1. As far as I know Apple never used that capability. They removed apps from the store, they never remotely removed apps from devices. (I think Apple claims that they only want to use this capability for removing maleware. Now, you might not believe them but their track record is pretty clean in that regard.)
2. Shitstorms will make anyone with such a capability think long and hard about actually using it. (I think Amazon at least apologized for what happened, I don’t know what else they did for the customers who lost their copies.) Apple can’t just treat their customers like crap.
It’s right to be vigilant about theoretical capability but I don’t think I’m completely irresponsible when I recognize factors that will prevent Apple from using their theoretical capability to its full extent.
But by every definition of ownership recognized by society and our laws (at least in the United States), you completely own your phone. You are lawfully allowed to do the following: - crush it, destroy it, put it in the dishwasher, or drive over it - open it up all you want - sell it to someone else - Install alternate software on it
You are under no obligation to anyone once you have purchased that phone. It is, by ANY definition, legally your property.
The WORST thing Apple can do to you, is void your warranty. And that is completely acceptable.
Whether you think it should be less or more difficult is a philosophical discussion. The fact is, you have all the same protections under any laws that most people who "own" things have.
Reply to VladRussian Below (I couldn't find a reply link): Won't get me to disagree with you on anything related to the DMCA. I think it is a pigheaded piece of evil legislation. :) But most of the things I'm talking about aren't related to the DMCA (at least I hope not).
before that the "WORST" was much worse http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/26/library-of-congress-adds-...
And this is the main point of all these discussions. It isn't about technical obstacles put in place by Apple and difficulty to break them as it only adds more interest to process, It is about criminalizing the very act of analysis of the system, ie. an act of mental activity, applied to the system you're supposedly own.
>I understand the need to confuse "ownership" with hackability, for the purposes of philosophizing on this site. We are all tinkerers.
Nobody tries to confuse ownership and hackability. They are orthogonal. What people still trying to bend their minds around is the ownership and off-limit (for your mind) holes in that ownership established by DMCA.
And in what way, shape or form does this require the device to be locked down to hell and back? That argument is a fallacy - correlation does not imply causation. The two things are completely unrelated to each other, yet people continue to assert that from one follows the other (locked -> just works), and that the opposite is also True (free -> doesn't just work).
It's bullshit, and I'm sick and tired of hearing it. There's absolutely no reason for locking down a device besides wanting to restrict the user's freedom. This isn't about "just working", it isn't about better support, it's about unjustified control over the user's actions.
Tell that to the iOS developer who is getting bad reviews because the app does not run correctly on jailbroken devices where some system modification has been installed.
In this sense, "Just works" relates to restrictions on users.
No. Still attacking a symptom. Standard compliance solves the same problem, without having to lock down the system. If programmers are unable or unwilling to conform to standards, then this is again not the fault of the system[1]. Give up on arguing that there is any sort of causation between "locked" and "just works". It's wrong.
[1] Actually, in this case it's the fault of the system. The lock places a false sense of security on programmers, which is pretty dangerous.
But standards compliance is a sort of restriction on the apps the user can run. If you make the standards stricter and stricter, you restrict the space of configurations more -- and make it easier to get configurations that work together.
Besides, standards, at least open ones, are usually collaborative efforts of multiple actively involved parties, while restricted systems are controlled by a single entity - which again is bad.
Jailbreaking and the third-party add-ons that it enables can increase the Just Works factor of a device.
Of course hackers define ownership that way.
Fundamentally, people will not purchase something unless they think (however fleetingly) that it will be of benefit to them. Your right; they might not know exactly what they are getting into. But companies can't lie about it. And in this day and age, the information is usually obtainable without too much work.
Thanks to the jailbreak, it is possible in principle to get Android running on the iPhone hardware. In practice, this may not be possible yet, but it has been accomplished before on earlier hardware.
Therefore, buying an iPhone is not that different from buying a Mac: You get a computer with a proprietary operating system, which (thanks to DevTeam) can be bypassed and replaced with anything that will run, which will eventually include Android assuming people care enough to make it work (they will).
The parent comment, that this is a win consumers shouldn't need to fight for, is one I support wholeheartedly.
bootlace works well on older iphones.
One means legal possession. The other means domination over something, eg., the locked out libraries cydia gives access to.
Is your definition of ownership including the software? That's not exactly fair, because you never own software unless you personally write it; any software is installed under a license.
Not at all. Software is sold. Until that changes the EULA is irrelevant.
Copyright law has specific exemptions for copying a program in memory, etc, for the purposes of executing it. No license has is needed, making the justification for EULAs nonexistent.
Technically this might be true, but Free Software licenses allow you varying degrees of do what the fuck you want, while proprietary licenses grant you a (temporary) right to use the software, and nothing else. With FS, I own the copy I received. With proprietary licenses, I don't.
I personally would prefer permissive licenses (or really, no licenses at all, but we're not going to arrive at this point any time soon), and actually use them for some stuff. It's just that the GPL is necessary to force change right now.
—
† Using your definition of “owning”. I won’t complain about your definition but don’t be surprised when others do.
Couldn't you say that for just about anything containing an integrated circuit?
So, a proponent of that claim should even it to some things without an IC.
On the facts (and not definitions) I do agree with you. Apple does have control over what iOS runs, that’s certainly true. What I’m saying is that I do not care about that.
This is not black and white either: I know what Apple allows and what they don’t. There are some annoying issues with that but I’m personally not affected by them. It’s a negative point for me, certainly one I considered when I bought my iPad, but on balance it wasn’t important enough for me to care about it at all.
I know that Apple can unilaterally change what they allow and what not but 1) there is public pressure on them not to and 2) my iPad won’t survive forever and I can switch to something else quick enough.
That's certainly your prerogative. I think that more people should care, but it's ultimately your choice to make, not mine. At least you're making an informed decision and I can respect that even if I disagree.
My worry is that many people don't care right now because they're not informed and because Apple isn't doing anything most people would care about. And that sets things up for someday when, in the pursuit of profit, they will start abusing it in ways that most people care about. By then, it will be too late.
Maybe I'm wrong about that. It turned out that I was right about Sony, though. I would have liked to buy some of their products, even knowing their faults, but I refused. And I by refusing to buy from them from the start, I avoided all sorts of trouble later on.
True, Apple could be a different case. I just don't care enough about them to find that out the hard way.
However - I think it's different for cars, which are often brought up as a comparison but can in fact be customized in many ways.
option 1: if you buy an iPhone you get f'ed by Apple.
option 2: if you buy an Android phone you get f'ed by Google, your Carrier and your phone manufacturer. true story.
The reality of the situation is of course nothing like what you are saying.
This is a ridiculous logical fallacy. People want a car or a phone that works. Outside of a few hackers and geeks, nobody cares if they can load their own custom software on it.
However, when people purchase a small computer, it's reasonable to assume that the ability to modify the software on it is something that could define "ownership", just the way car tinkerers own their cars and show that by fiddling around with the insides.
However, if you do certain mods, said car is no longer street legal.
> Your analogy fails because nobody has any expectation of replacing or changing the software in a car
Not so fast. There are lots of folks who want to change the engine control software, specifically the software related to engine performance. There's even an industry that serves (and sometimes cheats) such people.
Does Apple claim that jail breaking is breaking the law or breaking a contract?
FWIW, the car companies do go after (some) folks who produce "mods" on intellectual property grounds. They haven't yet gone after users but there doesn't seem to be any any reason why they couldn't, using exactly the same reasoning as Apple.
> It's completely unanalogous.
It may not be exactly the same, but there are significant similarities.
In both cases, we have IP claims and (some) users want to "not manufacturer" software mods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#United_States_...
Apple claimed it was illegal under the DMCA. They were shot down, and now only claim it voids the warranty.
> It may not be exactly the same, but there are significant similarities.
Don't defend broken analogies. And yes, it is broken. They're supposed to help in making a point, not prove it, anyways.
Since apple isn't claiming a law violation, the only remaining difference is that some people don't know about chipping cars. Is that a serious problem?
They were. Steve Jobs and everyone who still works at Apple would have been okay with it if you were in prison for tinkering with your iPad.
That's an argument that the analogy didn't work before. We're talking about now.
Even if your analogy didn't stink, and it does, it would still be meaningless because it's just a thing you said, not a validated and useful model. So give it up.
I didn't, but there isn't a lot of diversity in the iPhone mods. The vast majority are jailbreaking whereas the car mods change behavior.
> it would still be meaningless because it's just a thing you said, not a validated and useful model.
Validated? It's just as "validated" as iPhone jail breaking.
In fact, since some car mods can result in illegal behavior, not just IP violations, ....
Which reminds me - why is it so important to you that iPhone mods be considered "rad", "sticking it to the man", unique, etc?
Likewise, the first time a customer tries to make a phone call and instead gets a pop up ad saying "YOUR PHONE IS AT RISK!!!!1!!!11!1!" you will know you failed at delivering a successful smartphone experience.
To most people, ownership means legal control over physical possession, and the right to transfer 'ownership'. Apple can't legally require that I return my iPhone to them, just as Toyota can't legally require that I return my minivan to one of their dealers. They 'belong' to me - I 'own' them and control who possesses them.
we'll talk in several years when it will be implantable devices and in several years more when they will be integrated into you neural circuitry and you will be under impression that these thoughts and memories are yours... well, until the DRM allows you to have that impression :) One can easily extrapolate how, like your photos today, Facebook will also have the right to use your dreams in promotional ad campaings.
Rather, it's a win consumers should not fight for. Just don't buy those devices.
>Customers pay $1.8 million, but are only allowed to drive the car on special track days which are approved by Ferrari. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari_fxx
Most people would agree that the core ideas behind copyright law are useful, necessary, and just, or at least they'd agree that there is no chance that the law's fundamental basis will change anytime soon.
So no, all you've done is make a minor change to the device's operation that allows you to do some things with it that weren't as easy to do before. That's great, but casting it as some kind of moral act of "ownership" makes absolutely no sense. If you didn't build it yourself -- all of it -- you don't "own" it.
You've paid your 500 bucks. They lock it down so that the 99.999% of people who have no interest in jailbreaking don't screw themselves up and don't get infected by viruses. If a fringe minority decides to jailbreak that, that's not a problem for Apple so long as it remains a fringe minority.
Seems like a win-win.
(Even Google's Chromebook strategy is good; a hardware switch.)
With this model Apple misses out on their 30% cut of app sales.
2) Why is it obvious that everybody would suddenly switch to not selling through the App Store?
I don’t think alternate app stores on Android are terribly successful. Maybe they are, I don’t know, but I haven’t heard about it. People stick to the defaults and what’s convenient and easily discoverable.
Such a switch would be relevant for very few people. There is no reason Apple couldn’t do it. It just wouldn’t be good or bad for them. They can be lazy.
This is fascinating. Do you have any sources?
This is by now an old quote (from January 2010 – how time runs) so things might have changed. There just isn’t any more current information. Nevertheless, if you look at Apple’s numbers it’s pretty obvious that they make the vast majority of their money by selling hardware. Music, videos and apps make the hardware more attractive, not a lot of money for Apple.
Apple pays support costs (facilities, labor, etc.) for everyone who brings in an iOS device to a store, and it's their best interest to allow their personnel to turn problems around quickly. If an in-warranty device is "broken," they can send the customer home with a refurb one within fifteen minutes (I've done this for a screen). An easy jailbreak means more devices will come in broken, they'll have to keep more replacements in stock, and they won't necessarily be able to turn customers away for it because there might not be a good way to detect a jailbreak.
Jailbreaking is also a security problem for enterprises. If a user can run arbitrary un-sandboxed code, there's no way the device's owner can trust it to receive sensitive emails, be wiped remotely, and so on.
Jailbreaking is more like rooting an Android than the unknown sources checkbox.
Yes, that is really, really stupid. Don't just take my word for it:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/circumventing-copyrig...
Note that this is different from saying that it is criminal. Under U.S. copyright law, not every infringement is criminal. In fact, criminal infringements are the exception, not the rule.
So, as far as I know, they did not claim what you say they claim. Unless you have a good citation to the contrary, that is.
To me, it looks like Apple is actively locking down the platform in a big way and trying pretty hard to shut down jailbreaking entirely. Given how long it's been on the iPad 2, I fear that they're succeeding, too.
That said, MuscleNerd states very clearly in his tweets that this 4S jailbreak is a work in progress ("Huge missing pieces prevent public release. LOTS of work left") with no promised release dates.
I can change the display format for the time in the status bar, but I can't have an animated kitty running about up there, as much as I'd like to.