var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
jwm1314
February 14, 2009 4:46 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

While I agree with the EFF, you can't try and say it doesn't work because it'll fall apart as a business model in another industry.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
narq
February 16, 2009 6:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jwm1314: If they make their claim, you would own the iPhone hardware but license the iPhone software. This would require a contract which limits you to only use the iPhone software on your iPhone hardware creating a monopoly of usage when combined with the app store and iTunes... which creates a huge monopoly if you think about it. At this point the government could make claim that apple is monopolizing the iPhone market and needs to open its software environment for use. Now if you hack your iPhone, I could see that voiding your warranty but they shouldn't be able to press charges for that.

If this happened the government would then say there has to be a competing market for apps and itunes. It's a slippery slope and I'm amazed the government isn't already looking at the app store and itunes since you are required approval before sale and competing software is not allowed. There's a point when limiting use becomes illegal.

To take the car argument further... Say apple makes a car.

The iCar has an ok stereo, but if you want a better one you have to buy an apple supplied stereo from the apple store. No 3rd party accessories.

Say the iCar doesn't come with a rear view mirror. You can't just put on in because apple plans on making one in the future so that is competing market. No rear view mirrors are approved.

Say you want to put a new paint job on your car, well you need to pay for the use of apple's special paint tool pending approval of the paint job.

Say you want to put down rubber mats in your car and you found these really nice ones on the Internet that will work. Apple doesn't allow mats in their cars because it conflicts with the design elements. Having one would be against usage terms and could result in jail time or fines.

See how utterly absurd this is? We're not just talking about a GM part in a GM car. Apple's talking about nitpicking little items like fuzzy dice and stickers on the window. In case no one has ever noticed, apple has always been an evil corporation. Microsoft was the scapegoat. Now you're starting to see the true face of apple.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jswilson64
February 16, 2009 5:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jwm1314: Heck, Apple used to have a patent or somesuch on a LENGTH of screwdriver. You had to have a super-long driver to open the case of the original Mac, and you couldn't buy that length of screwdriver anywhere.


That's what my Mac-using friends told me, at least. I was too busy swapping ISA cards out inside my PC clone.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Blueskylaw
February 14, 2009 11:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jwm1314:

What does GM have to say about all of this?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Corporate_guy
February 14, 2009 10:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jwm1314: Yes you can. Explaining issues like this as a familiar and easier to understand analogy is a good way to do it.
But I have heard from a buddy at autozone that car companies ARE doing the same thing as apple. He said newer model chevies require a special tool to take off the windshield wipers so that you have to take them to a chevy dealer to change them out.
Also I think all companies have lock codes on their radios to force you to go to the dealer to reenable the radio after your battery dies.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Xerloq
February 20, 2009 5:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Corporate_guy: Every industry uses special tools... they eventually make their way into the mainstream.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Shuaib Ahmad Shameem
February 15, 2009 12:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Corporate_guy:

They do have lock codes, but the code is always inside of your owners manual, so that you don't try random codes and then lock the radio. That's when you have to go to the dealer.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Corporate_guy
February 15, 2009 4:01 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shuaib Ahmad Shameem: I have never heard of the code being in the owners manual. I will check, but I am sure your claim is false. Autozone changes batteries, if they knew the code was in the manual, they could tell the person and they could get the code. Instead they call the dealer and the dealer will not hand them out.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
rorschachex
February 15, 2009 8:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Corporate_guy: The code isn't in the owner's manual per se (it's not printed in the manual). It's a little card that's put in there with all of the other pamphlets and manuals (like the pamphlet from the DMV and from your tire manufacturer).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
CharityCaecus
February 15, 2009 5:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Corporate_guy: That's a pretty bold claim. My dealer wrote out the code on a card and placed it in the owners manual when the car was bought.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|*
February 15, 2009 2:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shuaib Ahmad Shameem: my Honda factory radio wouldn't work after i got it back from Honda, so i called them up, they gave me a working code over the phone

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Jim Topoleski
February 14, 2009 4:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The problem with EFF's analogy is that many of those things they atate ARE infact illegal in many states unless you get wavers thanks to emissions laws.

And ALL unless done by the manufacturer themselves would absolve said manufacturer from supporting the vehicle.

What EFF was trying to do in the original filing was say that Jailbreaking should be legal and Apple should continue to SUPPORT a jailbroken phone.

Apple is just responding to this claim.

Apple doesnt expect to win, BUT Apple is hoping they will toss out EFFs claim too. What they are looking for is for no ruling basically, which is different than illegal, but allow them to continue to not support people who hack their phones.

Reply
9 replies
\"user-pic\"
verazula
February 14, 2009 7:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jim Topoleski: Why does California feel like they're so special anyway? All this jumping through hoops and making different versions of car models just for California to feel better about itself while not helping the ultimate problem!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
February 15, 2009 1:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@verazula: Because we are special. And, on behalf of all 38 million of us, we feel g-r-e-a-t, thanks for asking.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RvLeshrac
February 14, 2009 5:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jim Topoleski:


Actually, none of them absolve the manufacturer from supporting the vehicle under warranty UNLESS they can prove that the work or the addition of aftermarket parts caused the fault. By law.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
DaleM
February 14, 2009 5:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jim Topoleski: \"What they are looking for is for no ruling basically, which is different than illegal, but allow them to continue to not support people who hack their phones.\"

If that is the case then why are they also pushing for financial rewards and jail time.

I am quite familiar with voiding warranties on multiple products - bicycles, cars, stereo equipment, computers, boats, etc, - simply by working on them myself and frequently making them do what they were never intended to but none of those manufacturers have protections that would put me in jail or fine me for doing so; they simply refuse to support the product, as should apple.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 21, 2009 12:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DaleM: They are not pushing for special penalties. The jail time and fines referred to in the article are the original penalties set up in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
calacak
February 14, 2009 5:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jim Topoleski: Actually, in those states you refer too, it's illegal *IF* you run it on public roads. There is nothing illegal in buying a Miata, making modifications and running it on the local track.

Additionally, using the car analogy is even better than you think, because it shares a similarity to the phone problem. Back when automakers began to use computers in their cars and could run diagnostics, they attempted to block/hide access to this, to force car owners to return to dealerships for these costly diagnostics.

Because of government pressure to open this up, there are now many companies that specialize in re-mapping these computers for enthusiasts, not to mention your ability to buy the necessary tools to run diagnostics on your own car.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TechnoDestructo
February 16, 2009 5:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@calacak:

Protip: don't buy a non-OBD fuel injected car, for just this reason. Even if it isn't some hair-pullingly complicated and finicky 1970s holdover, chances are you're going to have to go to a dealer for diagnostics...still.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
B
February 14, 2009 5:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@calacak: Aren't the jailbroken phones being run on AT&T's roads, though? I guess you can jailbreak one and use it on a different network, too, but there's also iTunes and the App Store which would be Apple's \"roads\" in this analogy. I'm not sure what damage an unlocked phone could do there, perhaps run malicious software that's transmitted to and infects other iPhones, or mess up the wireless networks. Personally, I don't care if other people modify their cars, unless the modifications make the cars less safe, and more likely to injure others in an accident. The same goes for jailbroken phones.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Charles Duffy
February 14, 2009 5:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jim Topoleski: This is flatly untrue. A DMCA exception does not require Apple to continue to support the phones.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Corporate-Shill
February 14, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Let'em have their way.


At the end of the day the consumer will determine which is the better mousetrap.


Personally I will buy from the company which is progressive and supports my freedom of choice rather than Apple.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
crouton976
February 15, 2009 2:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Corporate-Shill: Sounds like you're in the market for a G1 =)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
taking_this_easy
February 14, 2009 5:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Corporate-Shill: dont forget the Apple fanboys who will support their company no matter what Apple does...


i think that consumers should be able to do whatever with thier phones after buying them... otherwise it'll be considered renting...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
scottr0829
February 14, 2009 5:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@taking_this_easy: I agree with you as long as you add the stipulation that the company is no longer responsible for supporting your phone when it comes to anything affected by changes you made.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
February 14, 2009 9:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@scottr0829: But of course they don't. If Apple doesn't test all updates and hardware enhancements against 'broken iPhones (and the 'broken apps) and their 'broken iPhone is bricked, they're the first to loudly, shrilly complain. Forever.
And, regards the car analogy: it's a good one, but changing your carburetor won't blow your suspension. Not the case with closely-interrelated software like this.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
FLEB
February 15, 2009 12:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: Personally, the fact that you even can \"brick\" devices like this through nothing but software modifications just sounds like laziness or shortcutting.

At the very least, there should be some usable interface to the outside world, implemented in ROM, that would allow for restoration of a device that can't boot to the normal operating system. I can't fault just Apple here-- I know of plenty of products that warn of \"bricking\" from an improperly-applied or third-party update.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Corporate-Shill
February 14, 2009 7:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@scottr0829:


Same thing GM, Toyota etc say with regards to aftermarket parts and add-ons.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
February 14, 2009 5:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If Apple only allowed for-fee apps on the iPhone, I'd be howling w/ the rest of the deluge of Apple-haters to follow. But they DO allow garage developers to offer their free apps to Touch/iPhone users, gratis. They even pay the bandwidth charges, admin and the costs of certifying. These aren't insignificant costs, but they shoulder them anyway. Apple wants a clean ecosystem on their platform that's fair to all developers.
And, considering they've had two or three years to sue jailbreak-enabling developers and haven't, they have no interest in doing so (lords know they have the legal firepower in reserve). They're fine with keeping it a gray area. But the EFF lawsuit changes things in a way that forces them to act, similar to when someone comes out with a trademark-infringing product advertised widely.

If someone wants to develop an open system, there are those available, but Apple's isn't it. But a whining few want the openness of Android, when buying an iPhone, and the EFF lawsuit wants to enshrine this \"right\" into law. Which doesn't seem fair. Especially considering non-profit, small developers are already supported in Apple's ecosystem.

It comes across as a bit heavy, but I can see the rationalization. If you want a truly open system, don't buy Apple. If you want a more stable, elegant, safer one, buy Apple - consumers have obviously voiced which they prefer, given Apple's high sales numbers.

Finally, anyone want to be that if a trojan came out thru this \"liberated\" scheme, the media would accurately point out the facts? Nope. It'd be Apple Virus Destroys the World! That's unfair.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
sweetdreamsaremadeofthis
February 20, 2009 5:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: Personally, I think they haven't sued and are leaving jailbreaking in a \"gray\" area because that legal firepower you mention has advised them that they'd lose. By leaving it in the gray area for the last 2 years they can bluster and release updates that screw with jailbreaks intentionally. They're meanwhile trying to get lawmakers to step in and change the law, so they could win in the coming legal battle.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sleze69
February 14, 2009 9:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: Actually they still restrict the free ones if they do something for which Apple charges (like ITunes for example) or anything they just don't like (regardless of harm/bad intensions).


They are selling a portable computer. They don't have a right to regulate what we put on it unless they are actually renting it to us.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Irashtar
February 14, 2009 5:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: And they not only have the absolute final say in which programs get added to their store, they have a track record of not allowing some programmers to use undocumented features, while letting others do so.
They haven't sued the jailbreakers for several reasons, for example, no one is profiting from it (well, besides those that jailbreak your phone for a fee, different matter entirely).
And if you want the best of both worlds, you're SOL? That hardly seems fair.
Hyperbole, They never once blamed Microsoft directly for spam or popups or viruses that have hit more people than all of the ip* combined.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
February 15, 2009 2:50 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Irashtar: Actually, many people DO blame Microsoft for viruses popups, etc. I work as a compute tech, and a vast majority have no idea that \"windows\" is only the OS on their computer, and not the photo editing software, the media player, the internet, etc. They come and say \"My Windows is broken\" or \"windows excel is broken\" or \"microsoft anti virus\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
February 14, 2009 5:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Irashtar: But people - correctly - point out that Windows is inherently less safe than Linux or OS X alternatives, since the latter two were designed, from inception, to be safe. Jailbreakers open a yawning back door, which Apple doesn't want enshrined into law.
And, it's not a Best of Both Worlds - people buy Apple because it's a controlled environment (although they lack the vocabulary to see it as such). They're inimical. Want totally open? Buy Android. Done! :)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
February 15, 2009 2:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: Actually, they were not designed to be safe, they were designed to be modular, being safe is a benefit of being modular becasue when one part is busted, it doesn't usually break the rest. The down side is, it requires a better understanding to work with since you need to know exactly what module is needed for something to work, which in my opinion is a good thing, but in the opinion of the millions who don't give a crap about how a computer works and just want to do their job or play a game, it isn't.

Viruses and pop ups were NOT a concern when these were being designed, although data security was, but that was built into the data transfer protocols that both systems use as well as the file systems they each use.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Colage
February 14, 2009 10:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: People buy Apple because it's a controlled environment? I don't think that's even close to true. I suppose people buy iPhones because being able to run more than one app at a time is too confusing for them?

Fact is that the iPhone is not Mac OS X. A developer can write a Mac OS program and distribute it without ever having to interact with Apple. To write an iPhone program is to be forced to use their channels to distribute it. You can say what you will about system integrity or what have you, but when there's an iron wall around the software (as designed) and Apple is the gatekeeper, they're overstepping their bounds. To compare, if Microsoft only allowed software to be installed through a Windows Marketplace for Win 7, would you think that's a good idea?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
February 15, 2009 1:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Colage: But that's the product, isn't it? People don't buy iPhone expecting to hack it. They buy it expecting to use it, safely, simply and powerfully. In a closed ecosystem, as we cognizantti call it.
Hobbyists have tons of options (Android is a-w-e-s-o-m-e), but iPhone ain't it. Those that buy an iPhone, then complain about its being closed are like those sad, sad people buying a puppy then complaining it won't purr, no matter how long its tummy is rubbed. :)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Colage
February 15, 2009 7:17 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: Right, and I agree that someone who wants to tinker around under the hood probably shouldn't buy an iPhone. But the fact remains that Apple won't approve apps that operate within a fairly confined environment. I'm sure the average end-user could get some utility out of, say, QuickGold, or xGPS. And the fact that you need to jailbreak to do something as simple as get a different background is a little silly.

I guess my overarching point is that people do expect to be able to use an iPhone safely, simply and powerfully, as you say. But Apple's approval process hamstrings each of those aspects from reaching their fullest potential.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ojzitro
February 14, 2009 5:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: Well stated argument...and to be truthful, I could care less, because I don't even want a smart phone of any brand.

There are a couple holes in your argument, the only one of note though is that OS X and Linux are inherently \"safer\" than Windows. That is a myth. Truth be told, if OS X overtook windows in market share, or even broke into a 1/3 or the business machines that windows currently resides on, you would see a ginat wave of OS X viruses abound.

It is not worth the trouble of hackers to try and manipulate such a small number of machines, when power lies in quantity of bots at your disposal. That is why windows is always the target.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
February 14, 2009 6:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ojzitro: Picture this, you're a snot-nosed, wannabe virus artiste. Sharpening your mad hax0r skills you have a choice btn being the guy that wrote the 5,478th virus on Windows, or the first to write one on either OS X or Linux, which would you choose?
You'd do the latter.
Then cry bitter, bitter tears as these robust, well-engineered OSs slap back your puny, puny efforts with ease. Because, a decade ago, software engineers who forgot more than you will ever learn, architected an OS right.
So, wiping the tears from your downy cheeks, you gather yourself, then become the proud (?) artiste of the 5,478th virus to hit Windows. This week.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
February 15, 2009 2:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: Uh...there are lots of viruses for OS X and *nix based OSs and even more exploits for the various services they run. Do you really think all of the websites that get hacked are windows servers? You just dont hear about the virus that infected \"millions of home users linux machines\" becasue there aren't millions of home users running linux.

I like the myth that Linux is way safer then windows becasue it makes for easy picking when attacking a linux server that some amateur admin decided would be good becasue it is \"secure\" when in reality he has no idea how to secure it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Alexander Lyon
February 14, 2009 11:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: The \"first\" OS X virus was coded in 2006 ([www.sophos.com]) and there have already been a whole host of OS X backdoor and security oversights that have been pointed out (Hovdy-A, RKOSX-A, Jahlav, Oomp-A...). Apple's Macbook running OS X was even the big, big loser at last year's Tipping Point ([www.efluxmedia.com]). Whilst Ubuntu remained unhacked after three days of decreasing security, Windows lasted two days. However, Mac lasted only two minutes. Yes, two minutes (the security flaw has thankfully since been corrected by Macintosh).

The more popular a system is, the more attacks it will get, since the question is more \"how many did you affect\" than \"how many-th were you\". Both for wannabe virus writers and people who actually earn a living doing it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
February 15, 2009 1:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Alexander Lyon:
2.16.2006 News:
Mac OS X Virus Alert - Sophos Anti Virus has found the first 'real virus' for Mac OS X known as OSX/Leap-A or OSX/Oompa-A. The OSX/Leap worm or trojan is spread via instant messenger forwarding itself as a file named 'latestpics.tgz'. When launched, the worm attempts to spread via iChat sending itself to the users buddy list. The application will also try to infect the recently used applications.\" (SecureMac)

It helps to get the terminology straight. A virus is different than a trojan horse, which is different than a worm. Shouldn't need to point this out, but since sophos, your cite, says it's a trojan... It doesn't help when sites, trying to hype pageviews, hype things, but there you are. My statement stands.

Tipping Point's test pointed out a failure of Flash, did it not? A theoretical one that wasn't replicated in the wild? But yeah, given the close interrelations between 3rd-party add-ons and the OS, doesn't it make Apple's position regards this even more persuasive? There's a ton of personal data on an iPhone, in a form factor that facilitates theft far more than a desktop or laptop. Apple's smart - and justified, and protective of their customers - to take even more protective measures, right?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Alexander Lyon
February 15, 2009 2:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: Whilst most people consider worms and viruses to be a very similar if not almost identical category (Sophos, for instance, consider \"worms [to be] a sub category of the group of malware known as viruses\"), if you want to strictly differentiate beween them, then the first non-worm OS X virus was RUBY, also in 2006.

Tipping point 2008 exploited a Flash flaw that Safari and OS X didn't cover (Windows Vista did, strangely enough), but Tipping point 2007 used a QuickTime flaw that Safari and OS X mismanaged ([www.infoworld.com])... Apple's OS X is not inherently more secure than Vista, IMO.

And no, I do not think Apple has a basis to wish to condemn jailbreaking. Theft of information is a different thing entirely. When someone purchases an equipment, they have the right to use it as they wish, but can only claim guarantee or warranty if they use it within confines set when they bought the product. Jailbreaking an iPhone can therefore void warranty, but I can't see how it could cause harm to Apple. If you want a secure, simple system, then don't jailbreak your iPhone, but the counterpart is that you're limited in regards as to what you can do with your iPhone. Jailbreaking might open up security flaws, but that is at the user's discretion. If you want to fiddle around with your toaster at home and unknowingly create a fire hazard, does this mean that it should be worthy of jail time? Or does it just mean that you voided the warranty/guarantee and when it stops working or starts a small fire you can't get it repaired or sue the company that made it?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
February 15, 2009 6:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Alexander Lyon: And, to your second point, I'm pretty sure, given Apple's past actions, that they're only reserving the right to sue commercial developers that do Very Bad Things with jailbreaking. They've had years to do something but haven't.
And while you and I know the tradeoffs, there are a lot of people who jailbreak that might not. But it'll be a learning experience for them if everything bursts into flames (shrug) But I can see where people would want to roam free - I just don't think Apple owes them anything when/if stuff breaks.

I think Apple didn't want to be where they are now. Gray was fine with them. EFF came and sued to enshrine this \"right\", so they had to do something, else a court would have ruled against them automatically.

And, like Ojzitro, I got no dog in this hunt: I'm wired enough as it is, so I don't really need a rich phone. But it's fun to cover. :)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
February 15, 2009 6:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Alexander Lyon: It's cool that we're both reasonably knowledgeable but come at different interpretations, agreeably.
Regards the malware that users initiate: I'm filled with tough love. Anyone that, while in chat, double-clicks on a trojan from a stranger (a lustly, busty one at that), THEN clicks \"do you want to download this from an unknown source\", THEN OKs another one saying, \"Do you REALLY want to install this program that you downloaded from the internet?\", well - deserves what they get.
Some people, you can't protect from stupidity, and should be using painted blocks of wood instead of computers. It'll save the rest of us a lot of grief.

A sociologist ran an experiment, using a Google adsense banner ad that said, \"Your computer is virus free! Do you want to download one?\" Depressingly, over a couple hundred people clicked the Yes button and visited his page. Sigh.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
February 14, 2009 6:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: Oh, thanks for your comment, tho. Much appreciated. (got carried away in describing my scenario to give you props!)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ojzitro
February 14, 2009 6:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: UNIX based OS systems are a harder nut to crack indeed, and script kiddies do not have the chops, and pros do not have the financial motivation. That does not mean you will not see a rise in attempts, as the OS gains in popularity.

[news.zdnet.com]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
February 15, 2009 3:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ojzitro: Only harder if secured properly vs. a windows server some admin didnt secure.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ojzitro
February 14, 2009 6:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ojzitro: It really is a conundrum, it will never proven, or disproven without a giant shift in computing platforms. Say if.....Apple sold a PC version of their OS.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
DaleM
February 14, 2009 5:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My wife and I were discussing getting iPhones in the near future but positions such as Apples makes me question if I want to support their company with my money.

Their position, effectively, is they still own the phone via copyright protection and determine exactly what you can do with it, period. How many consumers would be accepting of that position in other products they purchased:
- Televisions that could ONLY be used with comcast.
- Cars that could ONLY be fueled by BP gas, not Amoco.
- CD players that would ONLY play music released by Sony Records.
- Radios that would only play Clear Channel stations.

People would not be accepting of that.

It is also common knowledge if I put a supercharger on my on my LeSabre that I have voided my engine warranty, that does not give license for Buick to then remove my super charger and set it back to stock - which Apple would propose to do via their updates.

Eventually Tyson will put copyrights on their chicken dictating it can only be used in Enchiladas.

Ridiculous.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
ojzitro
February 14, 2009 5:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DaleM: I'm amazed anybody still drives a LeSabre.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
February 15, 2009 1:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ojzitro: \"I'm amazed anybody gets laid driving a LeSabre.\"
There, fixed it for you. :)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
DaleM
February 15, 2009 3:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep:

Well, Married for seven years to a girl I have known for 14 years and yes, I still get laid.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TechnoDestructo
February 16, 2009 5:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DaleM:

Big back seats have a purpose. Also front bench seats.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
DaleM
February 14, 2009 11:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ojzitro:

14 years old.
Good MPG for it's size.
Totally paid for so it only costs $60 a month to own.
Less than 120,000 miles.
Has never cost more than $100 to repair anything on it.

It makes a heck of a lot more sense to drive a car that I already own than go into debt buying something else more \"fashionable\". I figure owning my LeSabre is saving me $600-700 a month that a new car would cost (Car Payment + Full Coverage Insurance).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Necoras
February 14, 2009 5:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DaleM: Ya, that's one of the reasons my wife and I got G1s. I've got the hacked version with multitouch running and neither Google nor T-mobile care. I like the idea that I can write my own code and run it on there.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
downwithmonstercable
February 14, 2009 5:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is just one more thing that makes me wonder why there are so many apple fanboys. I have nothing against their products aside from their absurd prices. But why does apple keep pulling this kind of stuff? Let the people buy your overpriced hardware and do what they wish. Stop micromanaging everything and artificially inflating your prices.

I can't actually see Apple prosecuting based on this, but who knows what they will do at this point...

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
FLEB
February 15, 2009 12:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@downwithmonstercable: I think it's a values thing. Apple products, and the Apple fan base, value things like style, design, and simplicity, while other products and people value versatility, variety, and options.

While Apple's wanting to limit aftermarket modification of their products can be seen to be in-line with their \"seamless, working product\" ideal, they do tend to jump into the application-- or enforcement-- with a bit too much vigor.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SpiderPaintingDollars
February 15, 2009 8:36 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@FLEB: As an Apple user myself, I think you're correct. I didn't actually buy my Apple based on simplicity or style. Although they did play a part in it. I bought it for options, the incredible, secure, and stable operating system, and because I was tired of PCs. Plus, I kinda just wanted one. Nonetheless, what many people who have never used an Apple write off as fact is entirely fiction (yes I'm going out on a very tiny twig here), they look at Apples computers as having the simplicity of an iPod. Not true. However it is true that most of their user base wouldn't even know that its based upon UNIX, or what Terminal Does. Not to insinuate anything on your part. Apple, does, however just love their own Intellectual Property a little too much. Things I create on my Mac usually end up as 1) internal to my company, but yet anyone can have a copy (providing it isn't the actual data files, or something that gives me a competitive edge) 2) completely open and free on my site under GPL or 3) as with much of it, something no one wants, created of boredom. Apple however, are complete IP Nazis and many times, non-Apple users are wondering \"why do they not care\" or \"why do they let them hound them like this?\". I'm very disconnected from Apple besides an iPod touch (non jailbroken because I see no advantage to do so on a touch) and an iMac, and a MacBook for college, and the software updates. I'm not an Apple fanboy per se, I am an advocate for Apple products because I believe that for 1) older people 2) younger people and 3) people who don't want to have to bother with things like viruses, spyware, and the like -- they're perfect. I'm a techie and I love apple, but still hate a lot of what they're doing with regard to protecting their IP. And really, it won't stop anything, I read their filing and it makes its case as effectively as putting a fire out with a flamethrower.
Written on a 

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Heresy Of Truth
February 14, 2009 5:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I guess I must be too old. I remember a time when what you bought was yours. Unequivocally. That meant if you wanted to open it up, rearrange it's innards, or cannibalize it to make it into something else, you could. Folks that did it were thought of as hobbyists, or weekend DIYers.

This whole business of telling me what I can't do with a item I purchased is pretty irritating. If I want to deep fry it, breaded, and use it as an art piece, that should be fine. If I want to add apps, at my own risk, from a friend, I should be able to do that too.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
jswilson64
February 16, 2009 5:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Heresy Of Truth: You're probably old enough to remember \"renting\" your phone from Ma Bell, too. Was that phone yours, or theirs?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Pylon83
February 14, 2009 5:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Heresy Of Truth:
Part of Apple's argument is that your modifications to the phone software could potentially cause problems across the entire network, justifying the limitations. I'm not necessarily saying I agree, but there is some merit to the argument that you knew what you were getting when you bought the phone.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Heresy Of Truth
February 15, 2009 9:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Pylon83:

Actually, I don't own one. I'm a firm believer in the idea that if I can't modify it, I don't own it. Therefore, I haven't gotten one yet.

To be fair, I have considered it. I will be jailbreaking it, if I make that decision, though.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
FLEB
February 15, 2009 12:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Pylon83: Part of Apple's argument is that your modifications to the phone software could potentially cause problems across the entire network

Counter-point to Apple, AT&T, et al: If my widdle cell-phone can cause significant problems to the network just because it's running some unblessed code, and your network can't stop me, then clearly your network sucks, and I'd have to question your entry into the cell phone/service industries respectively.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
February 15, 2009 2:08 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@FLEB: I wholeheartedly agree with the above logic.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
DaleM
February 14, 2009 5:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Pylon83:
I would argue many consumers are not sophisticated enough to know what the limitations are, and I am certain Apple are not making great efforts express those limitations at time of purchase. Certainly they will will you all the great things you CAN do with your new phones while not telling you everything you CANNOT.

So far, Heresy Of Truth has my support.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Pylon83
February 14, 2009 5:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DaleM:
While not a perfect counter-argument, the people who are seeking to jailbreak are sophisticated enough to know what the limitations are, and they are the ones claiming harm.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Pylon83
February 14, 2009 5:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I agree with those above that indicate that this isn't a battle that Apple even wanted. The evidence seems to indicate that they were fine turning a blind eye to the jailbreaking (so long as those who jailbroke didn't seek support). The EFF started the fight, and Apple probably has an obligation (to their shareholders) to respond. Not responding, or responding and saying \"Ok\" could set a dangerous precedent. Apple also has some obligation under the copyright laws to defend/protect their copyrights or potentially lose protection.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
FLEB
February 15, 2009 12:45 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Pylon83: Apple also has some obligation under the copyright laws to defend/protect their copyrights or potentially lose protection.

Wrong on two counts: First off, the \"defend or lose\" applies to trademarks, not copyrights. The basic idea is that common language can't be restricted from use via trademark (no exclusivity for \"Meat brand meat\"), and this even applies if you let your trademarked term become common through inaction.

Secondly, where is there copyright even being infringed? Copyright is the ability to grant and restrict the right to copy and distribute a creative work. This has nothing to do with the right to restrict personal use or modification of a device.

\"Circumvention\" did became entwined in the concept of copyright, but only in making the act of circumventing a copy-control device illegal via the DMCA. If you're twiddling your own bits or making completely third-party add-ons to a device, there's no copyright being infringed.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
February 15, 2009 2:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@FLEB: not supporting apple's claims here, but actually i think the one sliver of truth to their argument is that at some level, circumvention must exist. jailbreaking is only possible b/c some really awesome programmers spent countless hours dissecting the existing code to find a way to exploit it.

personally, i think it's total bullshit. as others have already stated, it's MINE, i PAID FOR IT & if i want to create/download homebrew apps, then that's my prerogative.

even if apple wins, i doubt it will make a difference. sony's been trying to brick PSPs since homebrews killed the UMD, without any luck. there's just too much of a desire for freedom in the marketplace. the smart ones embrace it; the rest will get tramples trying to hold it back.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Joeb5
February 14, 2009 5:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

THE DMCA SAYS YOU CAN HACK / UNLOCK your phone to use on any network

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Pylon83
February 14, 2009 5:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Joeb5:
Jailbreak != unlock. Unlocking it to work on another carrier isn't the same as jailbreaking it to run other applications. That said, AFAIK, you have to jailbreak the iPhone to unlock it .

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Tekneek
February 14, 2009 5:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

EFF is right. Apple can refuse to support a \"jailbreaked\" phone, and even not cover it with a warranty. Make it a crime? Copyright law is totally out of control when \"copyright violation\" is a crime (and I know we've already started down that slippery slope). Copyright violation should be a civil matter, just like patent violations.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Jayrom Acorda
February 14, 2009 5:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"if they circumvented copyright for a financial gain.\"


Technically according to that language if you do it to your iPhone, don't use any Apps from the Appstore you gain from jailbreaking, and don't switch carriers you're pretty much safe? Lol. So basically just customize your phone by jailbreaking is fine, since you're not exhibiting \"financial gain\" through just customizing? That's how I understand it though.
I'm thinking if Apple let people customizing their iPhone/iPod Touches more, there would be no real reason to jailbreak for except *ahem* \"saving money.\" I know for myself, I've seen some custimizations that make jeailbreaking appealing.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
TorrentFreak
February 14, 2009 5:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is pathetic. You bought the phone right? So since you OWN the phone you can do whatever the damn hell you want with it. They have a copyright case if you take their software and try to pawn it off as your own. Once you own something, it is yours. You can throw it away, burn it, stomp on it, wipe its hard drive, or *gasp* put freeware/shareware on it if you chose. It is YOUR phone not apples.

If apples says no, you don't own it and you only \"lease\" it then I would suggest you find another company/phone to do business with because they don't respect your rights as a consumer.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 18, 2009 5:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TorrentFreak: Rights as outline by who? I think they are exercising their rights as a company. That being said... I do think that they should allow you to do what you want... but that SHOULD NOT have to support a device that is being used outside of their stated intended use (such as unlocking and jailbreaking), because then they are being forced to support work (and mistakes) that others are doing.

They are using their rights as a company, the consumer can use their right as a consumer and move on to another company if they don't like it. That's capitalism.

P.S. - I'm not necessarily an iphone fan - I have windows mobile which I hack and modify all of the time.

Also, I don't think this move with effect the majority of their consumers (vast majority). Every iPhone user I know is perfectly happy to use AT&T and use it within the terms of contract.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Davan
February 14, 2009 6:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Lol I hope that they are successfull, and then all the apple sheeple can walk around with their glazed over eyes, using all their MEMEphones exactly the same way. Thats progress

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
catskyfire
February 14, 2009 6:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It seems to me that Apple is applying to hardware what the RIAA has been applying to CDs and music. The idea that though you possess a physical item (a CD or an Iphone), that you don't actually OWN it, only the right to use it as they see fit.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
draiko
February 15, 2009 6:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@catskyfire: Totally agree here.


If Apple wants you to use the iPhone in the way they dictate, then the way they sell an iPhone is all false.


You don't buy the iPhone, you're renting it. If you bought your iPhone, you would be able to do whatever you wish to it.


Apple sucks. Anyone who owns an iPhone has been completely ripped off... end of story.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 15, 2009 6:31 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@draiko: along the lines of renting the phone.. does anyone know yet what these \"owners\" of the iphones are getting after they want to switch phones and carriers after their two year agreement? is it going to then be just a brick? are people just trying not to think about it - sorta like the uninstalling instructions for ubuntu: \"Why would you want to uninstall?\"

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
XianZhuXuande
February 14, 2009 6:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Apple is not going to be going after end users for those fines, period. The real story here is that EFF wants Jailbreaking to be permitted under the DMCA and they also want Apple to permit applications to be loaded outside the App Store without Apple's control. EFF is the one here seeking change. We have no reason to believe Apple wants to do anything differently now than they did before.

Read source articles on stuff like this.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
newfenoix
February 14, 2009 7:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Apple has serious issues. I have read of all kinds of problems with the iPhone on this very site. There is a very easy solution to this problem...stop buying Apple products and they will stop this nonsense.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Bog
February 14, 2009 7:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

But the question is. Do you really own the phone at all; or are you really just leasing it in such a way that it makes you feel like you bought it but you really just have a lease that lets you physically keep the phone, but Apple still retains ownership. TorrentFreak (above) is right. But the fact remains, if the lawsuit is true, the you don't actually own the phone, you are leasing it with license to use, or destroy but never modify.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Pandrogas
February 16, 2009 8:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Bog: If you pay for the hardware, then you own the unit. There's no copyright claim if you're hacking hardware you own. AT&T might have a claim based on you being on their network, but you can tell Apple to go **** themselves if this is the case.


That being said, it could be considered to be on lease if you're still paying it off via contract, but implying that doing something beyond what the manufacturer desires or intends causing the owner to incur serious fines or jail time is more than a little absurd.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
f3rg
February 14, 2009 8:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I've never been an Apple customer, and with them doing crap like this, I never will be, either.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Zenatrul
February 14, 2009 8:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm not sure with the 3G phones if they get them to do this or not anymore but with the original iPhone when you were activating it with AT&T you had to accept the iPhones Software License agreement and it does talk about jailbreaking and such.


[images.apple.com]

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
aphexbr
February 14, 2009 9:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

For all the clueless pro-Apple folks above, bear this in mind: Apple *already* have adequate protections for anything that happens to their phones as a result of jailbreaking.

If jailbreaking allows pirated apps to be installed, they can already prosecute those who supply the pirated apps.

If jailbreaking allows a virus to spread across a network, not only would it most likely only affect other jailbroken phones (thus reducing the desire to obtain one), but there are already well-practiced legal steps to take to prosecute virus authors.

If they're worried about quality and security issues, then they can refuse to service a jailbroken phone, just as the manufacturer of any item can refuse service if the item has been modified beyond factory build. So, Apple can rightly claim that a jailbroken phone is less secure and less valuable than a standard build.

So, why this crap about sending people to jail and fining them for opening up their own product? I don't get Nintendo or Microsoft sending the lawyers round, for instance, if I hack or modify their games consoles. They can make it difficult for me to obtain pirated games (and use existing protections to prosecute those who supply them), refuse to service my modified system, block online play or offer upgrades that won't work with a hacked system. So why are Apple so special that they need extra legal protection?

As ever, this is about a big company taking the lazy way out through the courts. They have an easy road to take to make jailbreaking undesirable for the majority of users - simply offer high quality, safe software through iTunes that meets the needs of the users. When their restrictions start blocking the useful software from legitimate channels (e.g. a last.fm client capable of scrobbling your library or the useful apps mentioned on EFF's post), that's when people turn to jailbreaking.

By the way, remember that this is about jailbreaking, not unlocking the phone. Also remember that while everything here refers to the iPhone, the iPod Touch is built on the same software and would thus be restricted in the same ways.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Outrun1986
February 14, 2009 10:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@aphexbr: The thing that gets me is that everyone assumes you are jailbreaking for the reason of engaging in piracy. There are people out there (although they are the minority) that jailbreak because they just want to experience extra content, or because they want to make their device do more things. Things that these devices SHOULD do but don't because either someone was lazy or they just feel like they didn't need to include that feature that you want in the final released product.

With game consoles, some people jailbreak because they actually want to play Japanese games on their American console, legit Japanese games that they actually bought and paid for. Although why its forbidden to play another region's content (legally) is beyond me, it would just equal more sales of games for the console makers if this was allowed.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
FLEB
February 15, 2009 12:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Outrun1986: Yep, it's legal laziness all around. Since it's possible to pirate on a broken box, breaking a box is clearly an attempt to pirate. And, look! Now as long as we use the same lockdown for region controls, we can legally enforce market segmentation by saying deregionizing is somehow related to piracy!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Pylon83
February 14, 2009 9:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@aphexbr:
If you would actually read what it says, they are not pushing for people who jailbreak their phones to go to jail. The only time one would face the possibility of going to jail is if they circumvent the access protection for financial gain. You jailbreaking your personal phone does not fall within that. I'd recommend reading the actual text before jumping to conclusions.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
RichasB
February 14, 2009 9:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

All I know is that if it wasn't for jailbreaking, I would have NEVER purchased an iPhone. However, I hate both BS&T and Apple, as both companies are unreasonably over priced and both companies like to over step their boundaries and tell you what to do. I thought this was America? When the hell did a corporation start getting more say than the people? I still can't believe they require you to bring your Social Security number when you want to buy an iPhone? WTF? It's just a stupid phone, not a weapon or a car!

Nevertheless, I own my iPhone, not Steve Jobs. The only thing Apple can say is that they created it, but once you sell it, you have no more say. Even if Apple comes out of the blue and says it's wants the government to make it punishable to jailbreak, it would never pass. It would make as much sense as Honda all of a sudden telling me that I can't put a turbo in my car or even better, convert it to run on veggie oil.

However, there is a big difference, and that is the specific consumer group that purchases that item. Let's face it, those of us who love open source and are tech savvy are a unique people. The average iPhone user is your stereotypical Starbucks Fashion Yupie who could care less about these restrictions, they just want an iPhone because it's \"cool\". These mindless consumers would not support a boycott and thus protesting for an open source world is hard :/

Long live Non-Restricting, Consumer Friendly Open Source/Freeware! <3 Mozilla! VLC! Ubuntu! :D

(As for those of you that say I shouldn't complain about Apple if I bought their phone at the ridiculous price of $700/500, know that I bought mines off some stranger for $150, in cash. No paper trail an NO contracts! I put the SIM card from a $15 Pre-Paid Motorola in it and I now love my iPhone (thx to the Dev team of course, bless those hooligans)

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Josh Terry
February 16, 2009 4:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

dude, i don't know where you've been for the last 233 years, but corporations have ALWAYS ran this country. to think anything else is naive and narrow minded. this country is ran by money, bottom line. hate to break it to you, but until something has more value than money, that's the way it will be.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
February 14, 2009 9:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RichasB: Curious why you didn't buy an Android. Not a compelling value proposition?
And, at $150, cash, from a street scalawag, is it, err, hot?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Pylon83
February 14, 2009 9:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RichasB:
\"Even if Apple comes out of the blue and says it's wants the government to make it punishable to jailbreak, it would never pass.\"

Apple doesn't need to \"ask\" the government to make is punishable. As far as they are concerned, it already is. The EFF apparrantly believes it probably is, hence they are asking for a specific exception from the DMCA. Your analogy to the Honda is also misplaced. You putting a Turbo on your Honda doesn't carry the possibility of causing problems for all of the other cars on the road. By modifying the iPhone to run untested apps, you (arguably) run the risk of causing problems for the ATT network and potentially spreading viruses. However far-fetched those concerns may be, they are legitimate concerns, and they are vastly different from the concerns of Turbo-Charging your Civic.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MrEvil
February 16, 2009 5:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Pylon83: I don't know, turbocharging a Civic lets it make much more HP than it would in a stock configuration which could lead to the greater possibility of the driver losing control which DOES affect other vehicles on the road....maybe not all of them everywhere all at once, but at least in the general vicinity.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
savdavid
February 14, 2009 9:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If no one would buy their phones, they would change their tune real fast. Problem solved.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Jeff Katz
February 14, 2009 10:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I am very much against the EFF here, for the first time ever. Apple wants to be able to go after software pirates, to go after the people illegally (they're using stuff that's reverse engineered- that's legal- but distributing it is not) hacking their phones and pulling applications off of them to distribute to other hacked phones. Piracy is a HUGE problem on the app store, and it's a topic that has hit rather close to home.

I wrote up a bunch of stuff dealing with this in my Triphids post-mortem, which is located at [www.kraln.com]

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Ajh
February 14, 2009 10:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jeff Katz: Ooo People are pirating stuff from the app store? That's not good at all. Just making it to where you don't have to pay AT&Ts prices I can agree with (Like some of the above people putting a prepaid sim in their phone and such.), but I'm not behind stealing software.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Ajh
February 14, 2009 10:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I would say that jailbreaking your phone should void your warranty..oh wait..doesn't it do that already?

What more do they need to do?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 14, 2009 10:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is why I will never buy another apple product as long as I live. When I buy something I want to own it, not rent it, especially at the outrageously high prices apple charges. Their stuff just isn't worth the hassle...

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Bog
February 15, 2009 12:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

What people are also forgetting, Is that most companies, mostly with a published product, including software, media (music etc.) do not believe in, or recognize any facet of fair use and that copyright is an absolute.

In Apple's eyes. You don't own your iPhone, you are licensing or leasing it.

And as it stands now, it appears that to unlock a phone to use it on another network it must also be jailbroken. I don't know if that is correct but it seems to be for now.

I think that it is an issue of control than anything else.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
February 15, 2009 12:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I had been toying with the idea of a Mac laptop partially because I am frustrated with Microsoft's efforts to try to own your software and rent it to you in future versions. In light of this nonsense where Apple is trying to say you don't really own a tangible object you purchased forget it. No MAC for me.

I will continue to gravitate towards whatever technology and applications are least onerous. I wish someone would donate some funds into pushing Linux that last step to be totally user friendly and compatible.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Chris Walters
February 15, 2009 4:35 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bohemian:

I wish someone would donate some funds into pushing Linux that last step to be totally user friendly and compatible.
Me too. I've gone to Ubuntu and come back 3 times now -- now I alternate between OS X and XP depending on what computer I'm using, and I'm biding my time for that Ubuntu that truly hits the user-friendly sweet spot. I can figure out how to make it work--I've gotten it to work on my old iBook G4 and an ASUS Eee netbook--but it's always so much trouble, and at some point last year I realized I'm not enough of a geek to do this the right way, and I could better spend my time elsewhere.

As soon as I see an Ubuntu or other Linux distro I can live with, with enough mature open source apps (mainly I'm thinking video and audio editors,and some way to develop Flash nonsense when I'm feeling bored), I'll be off Apple and Windows 4EVA. Grrr.
Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
coren
February 15, 2009 3:50 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Isn't there something in the contract you sign/agree to when you get one of these suckers that says you're not supposed to jailbreak it? I know Apple isn't punishing anyone for jailbreaks, but if it's in the contract that they can, then I don't see where EFF has a case - you aren't forced to buy an iPhone, so it's a voluntary agreement. If you don't agree, don't get one.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
RogueWarrior
February 15, 2009 4:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

IMHO, this has nothing to do with copyright protection and I'll bet Apple doesn't really care. My guess is that AT&T is gearing up to charge yet another obscene monthly fee for tethering over and above the phone and data plans that they're screaming bloody murder to Apple.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
fatcop
February 15, 2009 5:12 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Old Jobs looks like he is working his way through the final stages of the aids. As much as a cult of personality as apple is, I can't see them being much of a factor when he finally succumbs to the aids.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 15, 2009 7:40 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Why isn't the apple / att agreement illegal tying (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce) ) under the Sherman anti-trust act?Is requiring the users to buy an undesired product (att services) to get an iPhone an example of illegal tying.

Hmm. A bit of googling shows some people think so.

http://technologizer.com/2008/10/07/apple-iphone-antitrust-suit-allowed-to-proceed/

This seems more promising than suing over the right to hack.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Chong Soh
February 15, 2009 12:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I am an apple supporter, I admit.


However, just like everyone else here... I think its BS.. that being said..


For those naive ones that may think this wont get somme kind of government backing should really open their eyes. Corporations own Washington, does anyone not think Apple will go to a random politican and just dump a million into his pocket to pass this thing through?


This is a joke and I'm severely disappointed in Apple. I just hope this will recieve a giant backlash and the bad PR will make apple rethink some things

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 15, 2009 2:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Bring it on Apple. I am ready for starting the class action law suit. I want to be reimbursed my $600 dollars. Apple has the right to stop upgrading the iPhones it feels have violated the terms of their agreement. It has the right of refusing maintenance for these and void the guarantee. They can even prevent me from using iTunes to re-sync the phone. But, I own an original phone. It is mine, my property. I can bake it in lasagna if I so choose. The unmitigated gall of these assholes. Initially they restrict the development. They realize that a group of dedicated hackers opens a much wider market than they anticipated, they are forced to open the marker to their great economic benefit and then they turn around and attack the very group of people that has made you more profitable. Screw you Apple. Bring it on. I cannot wait to joint the amazing movement that will form against apple. Nothing converts you faster into an asshole that a little success.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Rich Nagel
February 15, 2009 2:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

apple is dumb!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
kreatre2009
February 15, 2009 5:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Read the license agreement that you are asked to agree/disagree to and, you'll see that Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, etc. own the software. You don't own it. You are purchasing a license. The iPhone is preloaded with a variant of Mac OS X which was created by and licenses by Apple. Although I think that Apple is going a bit far with some of this, they have a right to control how their software is used. If you don't like the restrictions that come along with the software license, then don't buy the iPhone. Don't buy a computer or, anything else that has software.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
P_Smith
February 15, 2009 9:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You know what happened the last time Apple prevented any unapproved third parties from making software or hardware (including clones) for/of an Apple?


Apple went from more than 10% of computing market share to less than 1%.


If they keep up this stupidity, they deserve to have it happen again. They're biting the apple that feeds them.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 15, 2009 9:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Actually Apple is within its rights to sell you only a license for the phone, and not the phone itself. If you don't agree with the purchase contract, don't purchase.

Of course, once everyone understands this, then it becomes a good reason NOT to buy anything from Apple, since you are not actually buying the phone, but a license to use it.

All the more reason to choose to buy something else that does not come with such a restrictive license. If consumers object, then Apple will lose sales. Lose enough and they should go out of business.

But Apple is correct - so long as everyone who buys their product understands that they are entering into a contract and not buying the complete rights to something.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
James Greeson
February 15, 2009 10:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"Corporate Shrill\" said:


\"Personally I will buy from the company which is progressive and supports my freedom of choice rather than Apple.\"


Who? MicroSoft? {Snerk}

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Smorgasbord
February 16, 2009 10:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I haven't seen the iPhone purchase agreement, but I am guessing things like this are covered in it.

I look at things this way: If I owned the company, how would I want it? You do buy the phone, but that doesn't mean you can do anything you want with it. You either lease or buy (with royalties included in the price) the products that the device uses. The people who create the programs do so to make money. If they would have to develop the programs for fee, nobody would make them.

I am guessing most of the people who say everything on the iPhone should be free are the same ones who thought it was OK for Napster to offer free music.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Silversmok3
February 16, 2009 2:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Everything thats bought and sold today outside of a stick of gum has terms and conditions.Its common consumer knowledge that to purchase an iPhone requires either a 2 year contract with AT&T, or an AT&T account to use it.


So your choice is either pay up to AT&T , or no iPhone.


Those are the rules, and by circumventing them theres risk of consequences-after all, every jailbroken phone that's sold costs AT&T $2000 roughly in lost monthly subsidies. Multiply that individual revenue against every hacked phone sold, and its no surprise that Apple/ATT aren't just gonna sit around and allow people to circumvent the rules.


After realizing that keeping my cell discount wasnt possible with the iPhone, I saw the light and bought a Blackberry :)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
sp00nix
February 16, 2009 3:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is why i don't like apple. MS doesn't care if i modify the OS on my phone, people crank out custom OS ROMS for my HTC all the time. They make it better. That and all the cool freeware out there for it.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Josh Terry
February 16, 2009 4:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

for those of you making a big deal out of nothing here, yes apple has proposed legal action here but just like microsoft and other software companies, chances of prosecution will be limited IF you find any at all. it's not worth $2500 dollars, to apple, to send you to jail for hacking the software on your iphone. oh, for all you microsoft lovers out there, the fine for altering or pirating any piece of microsoft software is $250,000 per violation. quit your whining about this legal action.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 17, 2009 5:24 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This coming from a company who started their carrier pretty much using an illegal blue box. Think about it, they broke the phone system and now they want to complain about us breaking their phone system. A bunch of hypocrites if you ask me.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
May 9, 2009 1:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If Microsoft applied these tactics to a phone they created all hell would break loose. It seems Apple can be as anti-competitive as it likes with no legal action coming their way. It's a joke. I don't know why people buy Crapple gear anyway.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Billy Seroyer
June 24, 2009 4:40 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Apple us reacting the same damn way the music industry would. They are afraid of losing money, so there going to sue everyone that try's to mess with there software. it's so typical for them to be afraid of someone thats not Apple, there a reason way Microsoft is so much bigger, and more profitable then apple, they create the platform for other's to build on.

Reply
");