In Defense of Jailbreaking 405
Keith found a nice manifesto saying "There's a trend that's been disturbing me lately. When the topic of modding or jailbreaking comes up — say, in the wake of the iPad announcement, or Sony's restrictive PS3 update — there is an outcry. Who am I to tell Apple what's best for their devices?"
Apple can kiss my shiny white ass (Score:5, Interesting)
Who are Apple to tell me what I can and can't run? Precicely why I'll be buying a Lenovo Ideapad U1 (have been waiting for a device "like" the iPad for almost as long as my flying car, FINALLY somebody listened to the idea of simply having a detachable screen).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I call shenanigans. No one's telling you what to run.
As a developer, you are free to upload any app you write to your phone. If you want to sell your app through their store, they have a right to decide what they sell and what they don't. I you can't live with that, move on and develop for a platform that meets your needs.
As a consumer, if you choose to buy a device whose store does not sell the apps you want or need, the choice to buy was yours and yours alone.
Get off your high horse, put your money where
As a developer, there is an annual fee. (Score:3, Insightful)
As a developer, you are free to upload any app you write to your phone.
As a developer, there is an annual fee. This fee over the estimated 5-year useful life of a device often exceeds the retail price of the device itself. Do you understand the complaints about XNA and iPhone OS now?
Re:As a developer, there is an annual fee. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:As a developer, there is an annual fee. (Score:5, Insightful)
Console like simplicity is good for most typical users, but it effectively excludes the more technical class of users who want more control. In that respect, current games consoles and ipad/iphone go too far one way, while something like windows that requires you to deal with updates, drivers and anti malware protection etc goes too far in the other.
A compromise more like the Amiga would be better - typical users could boot the machine directly into a game or specific apps either from floppy or cd on certain models, while more technically literate users could boot up into workbench etc.
Don't alienate the geeks when making products suitable for end users.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
These aren't products "suitable for end users", these are products specifically designed for and targeted to end users.
-dZ.
IPhone vs. Android Review - In Reality (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's end the Apple myth. I see all these planted and biased reviews, and I can't take it. They're just garbage and they're feeding the Apple image, which frankly isn't true. I recently used an IPhone, AND an Android phone. Both phones for a month (not 2 days like most reviewers). Let me precede that both are pretty darn good. But the IPhone isn't better. Here are my findings as to what is better about each over the other:
IPhone
1. Appearance of "smoothness." Notice I said "appearance." They're both just as
Re:As a developer, there is an annual fee. (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is why, as a developer, I can't imagine the draw to develop for the iPhad platform (the potential for riches is greatly overrated), when there is an alternative.
Re:As a developer, there is an annual fee. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see why it's so hard to grasp the iPhone is not, and was never intended to be, a general-purpose computing device. The development model, OS and user experience are designed to bring console-style simplicity and reliability to a smartphone. It works, and everyone is really happy with it, other than a few geeks who just can't grasp that it's not designed to be a really really small laptop.
Agreed. If you buy an iPhone when you really wanted an Android phone, or an XBox 360 when you wanted a PC, or any number of other closed-platform solutions when what you wanted was an open-platform you have only yourself to blame.
After you have bought the device that doesn't fit your requirements is the wrong time to complain about it. Either don't buy it, or deal with the limitations. Simply buying the closed device and then complaining that it's closed continues to funnel money towards that closed platform, and away from the open platform you should have purchased instead. Suddenly, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Re:As a developer, there is an annual fee. (Score:4, Insightful)
How much do you think it costs to develop games for the PS3 or XBox 360? Developing professionally for those platforms costs thousands of dollars.
Don't you see that as a problem? If I wish to develop something for use on the console that I own, I should be able to do that. If other people find it valuable and want to pay me for a copy, I should be able to let them do that. At no point should I have to ask permission from anyone or pay anyone.
To use the venerable car analogy, if I want to manufacture after-market addons for a car I should not have to ask GM for permission or pay them any sort of fee.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
actually, i think you miss the point. If you buy something it should be yours to do whatever you choose to do with. People are purchasing iphones and ps3's, they aren't leasing them. Once you take possession after purchase they shouldn't be able to change they deal... its called bait and switch and is a questionable practice.
full disclosure; i own neither device because of said practices and while the ipad looks like a nice device I'll never own one of those either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
/. system not working correctly today...
First, there is no "bait and switch". The deal is clear and in the open from the beginning.
Actually, the alternative OS removal with the PS3 happened quite some time after the units were put of for sale. I think many in the EU will succeed in getting some sort of compensation for their purchases because of it as mentioned here on /. last week [slashdot.org].
The seller decides what they are offering to a customer, and what they charge the customer for this offering. A different offering would cost different amounts of money. You are basically saying that you don't want to allow any contracts where contracts are used to establish what you get for your money.
Actually, I never said anything of the sort. I read the fine print and decided caveat emptor. The way the agreement went with the iphone said essentially that I am paying for a device that I wouldn't technically own, j
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.alwaysinnovating.com/home/index.htm [alwaysinnovating.com]
Not Apple's... (Score:2)
Once you've purchased it, the device isn't Apple's any more, it's yours.
Re: (Score:2)
The device is yours but the services are still theirs.
If they don't want out of spec devices using their services and you want to use their services perhaps you shouldn't take your device out of spec.
Re: (Score:2)
If only they ran an operating system that was standards compliant, then all they would have to do is comply to that standard.
How hard can that be?
Re:Apple can kiss my shiny white ass (Score:5, Interesting)
I bought smartphones before Android was around.
They ran Symbian.
Since the iPhone is hardly a smartphone I never thought of buying one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ya gotta love the sensitivity of the slashdot children when you criticize anything about their firefox blankey.
..when you go out of your way to criticize firefox on a topic that has nothing to do with firefox. Yeah, I know, like petulant little children, all modding that off topic flamebaiting as off topic, the nerve! They're almost as bad as [insert group here] when I go into one of their [rallies/forums/other place of gathering or discussion] and talk trash on [insert unrelated subject that happens to be viewed favorably by a good number of said partisans].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It can't even show animated GIFs,
Yes, it can. You just need to use the Movie api instead of ImageView. Next Android version will add it to the default browser, but by the time that is released, Flash will be out of beta.
DMCA still makes it illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Certainly a worthy moral argument, but thanks to the WIPO copyright Treaty (which everyone, except for a few of us crazies who were warning about it, completely ignored back when it was being debated), such circumvention of technology (specifically if it's designed to access protect copyrighted content) is nonetheless illegal in many WIPO countries, including the U.S.
From the anti-circumvention section of the DMCA [cornell.edu]: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
And notice the language there. It doesn't say "no company may do this for profit" or "no one can do this for anyone else" (as many mistakenly believe), it says "No person." That means you sitting at home jailbreaking your own cellphone. Now, maybe you could make the case that an iPhone and its OS is not a "work protected under this title" but I think that would be a hard sell.
Re:DMCA still makes it illegal (Score:4, Insightful)
Doesn't sound like it effectively controls anything if it can be so easily bypassed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can we stop with this idiocy? "Effectively controlling" is not the same as "being effective". The Content Scramling System used to encrypt data on DVDs is effectively controlling region coding (et al), but it is not very effective at it. But during normal operation of a (properly licensed blah blah blah) DVD player, it will indeed "effectively control" your access to the data on a disk.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously, do you think the word "effectively" means what you think it means in the context of the law that criminalizes bypassing the technological measure, if simply bypassing the technological measure would render the law moot?
That's not how it works. In this context "effectively" means than under normal operation the effect of the measure is to control access to a work.
How about a quote from the summary judgement Apple obtained against Psystar:
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But if it results in a lawsuit and your bankruptcy, that's effective enough for the legal system.
My thoughts on the matter are simple -- if I paid for it, it's mine, I do what I want with it. This does not include copying for others. But it does include loaning to others, using with others, modifying to my heart's content, and anything I want. I do not modify my semi-auto rifles to full auto, as regardless of whether I think that should be my right, it's a serious felony where I live, and I choose to not
Re: (Score:2)
What's meant by 'effectively' in that context?
I'm not sure, but I do know that there are a few lawyers looking to make money from arguing over it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So one Might use jailbreaking to violate copyright, therefore he must be restricted from doing it.
By the same logic, government might cut off your internet at any moment, restrict you to your house. Kill you because you Might be a terrorist who wants to kill the President or whatever.
Can a government enforcing rules that criminalize the WHOLE of the population be called "democracy"?
Re:DMCA still makes it illegal (Score:5, Funny)
When you start lumping all individuals together it's starting to sound like Katamari Democracy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I am not a lawyer, but I have read the DMCA, and it (this section) applies to copyrighted "works", which devices are not generally considered to be. So, no, I don't think that this is relevant. Can you show case law to the contrary ?
Re:DMCA still makes it illegal (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
From what I've heard of it, jailbreaking is not aimed at the device itself, but at its software. While you might have a point if jailbreaking involved completely wiping the Apple OS from the phone and putting your own OS on it, IIRC it's actually aimed at modding the existing Apple software, which would certainly be considered a copyrighted work. If I am wrong here, I welcome correction.
This DMCA provision is in regards to the "Lock" behind which the "content" is stored. I'm not certain if an operating system qualifies as a work under this title. Regardless, it's definitely nonsensical, because "jailbreaking" is a case where the "lock" and the "content" are one and the same. I wonder if you could call a "jailbroken" OS as a derivative work...
Re:DMCA still makes it illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Modding for piracy vs. modding for other reasons (Score:2)
People have been arrested for modding consoles
Every time I have read about this, it turned out that the modder had promoted the modification for use with infringing copies of entire non-free video games.
Re:DMCA still makes it illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
One can also use a pencil and paper to infringe on copyright, using nothing more than their own intellect as a means to circumvent the copy protection.
Taken entirely literally, without exempting private use, the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA makes it a criminal act to be intelligent enough to do this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What's gud for beeg cumpnies is gud for 'Merka
Re: (Score:2)
Please identify the specific work referred to (in the iP*d context), and the technological measure that limits access to it. This is non-obvious.
DMCA doesn't merely say "no reverse engineering." It's pretty specific. It's still wide enough for a shitload of abuse, but it doesn't just magically apply in every situation where people want it to. If you're going to say it applies here, then fill in the blanks.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is jailbreaking primarily intended to defeat a technological measure that limits access to the OS? In what way can you read the OS on a jailbroken iP*d that you can't with a non-jailbroken one?
DMCA also says you can UNLOCK a phone and lexmark (Score:2)
DMCA also says you can UNLOCK a phone and lexmark tried to use the same crap to lock out 3rd party ink and they lost in court.
Re: (Score:2)
you're the one who bought the product (Score:5, Insightful)
that means it's YOURS now. end of story.
Re:you're the one who bought the product (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
if it's ruled with an iron fist, why are there so many jailbroken devices out there?
If it's an iron fist, obviously that fist is rather rusted over.
if only that were the end (Score:2)
I agree that if you bought it you own it. ANd would you agree that if you break it or want service it's okay for apple not to supply it? And if something bricks it, it's not apple's problem?
THe trouble with computing devices is that the grey area of "normal use" is so broad it's hard to know where to draw a reasonable line. For example, if I buy a water resistant timex watch and I wear it in the shower and it gets wet inside. was directed water under pressure normal use for a water resistant watch. Sho
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that if you bought it you own it. ANd would you agree that if you break it or want service it's okay for apple not to supply it? And if something bricks it, it's not apple's problem?
Jailbreaking cannot "brick" your iPhone. You can restore it to factory settings by simply doing a "Restore" in iTunes. This has nothing to do with the current software on the phone at all, since restoring wipes the phone entirely anyway.
I'd bet that people that jail break and brick make more than their share of service requests and cause more than their share of replacements.
Nope. Quite the contrary, in fact.
When you buy it... (Score:4, Insightful)
...it becomes YOUR device.
Re:When you buy it... (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree wholeheartedly. However, the flip side is that Apple ought not have to support the device short of hardware failures.
Face it... people buy Apple because it works out of the box without having to configure anything. People who buy Apple products are generally okay with being limited on capabilities.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Limited?" (Score:2)
While I'm in favour of jailbreaking and such, I think what you really mean is something other than limited on capabilities. Now if you mean "limited on capabilities" in the sense that the obtaining of apps is restricted to Apple's app store, well... restriction of source is only a restriction on capability if you can't find what you need at that source. If there's something you need to do on an iPhone, there's probably
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason I don't jailbreak my iphone is because I don't want it to stop
working as a phone. I use it for work and it would be really inconvenient if I
bricked my phone.
Otherwise, there would be nothing stopping me.
Regardless of all of the other hype and nonsense, the iphone is first and
foremost a phone. Whatever else it does or can do is not just secondary
but a distant third.
Re: (Score:2)
If there's something you need to do on an iPhone, there's probably an application that'll do it.
How about something to let me listen to Internet radio and surf the web at the same time without having to buy two devices? In iPhone OS 2 and 3, this required jailbreaking, and it still does on pre-3GS devices.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the inability to multitask (corrected, apparently, in iPhone OS/4) would bug me, but it turns out it's a non-issue.
I use Spotify all the time, it has completely replaced the iPod app on my iPhone. But there's no way I'd pay 10€/mo. if I couldn't background the app. Having to pause my music to answer an SMS, or to check my email would be very, very frustrating. The next major version indeed corrects that, but not if you own a 3G like I do. Except if you jailbreak and enable multitasking, that is ;)
Other cool (non-essential) JB apps are :
OT: MS bashing (Score:2)
rule number 1 of slashdot: ANY thread can be twisted into a bash of microsoft. no exceptions.
...and should be. no exceptions.
Re: (Score:2)
That was back before Apple took the crown for "Most Evil Company".
Strange to see Apple making even Microsoft look like the nicer company these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can somone translate this to English?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, you bought the device. You however bought a license for the software.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed, (and I agree with you), but...when you purchased it, you accepted the T&Cs...
Re:When you buy it... (Score:5, Insightful)
It becomes your device, but we have overwhelmingly (99%+) voted for (and re-elected many times, confirming again and again) a government that creates laws which say that people are not allowed to do certain things with their own devices. This is with bipartisan support and utter lack of any controversy. Or rather, the only controversy is in internet blog postings. When it comes to the ballot box, though, people are very unified in strongly supporting the idea that government should initiate force to limit what people can do with things that they own.
Think about it: we even still have drug laws, so that "ownership" of our own bodies is itself, is a murky concept. If ownership of yourself doesn't mean anything, how can owning a widget mean anything? We'll value personal dignity long before we take the more radical step of recognizing personal property, and even that first simple step is likely many decades away.
Don't like it? Start voting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...it becomes YOUR device.
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!
However, Apple and the carrier still get to tell you how, where and when you can use it on their network(s) or to access their material or content.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, it is your device. To do with as you please. As long as you follow the law!
Since the law im the US now prevent owners from doing quite a lot with their own devices... you're fucked.
I hate it, I suspect you hate it just as much... but for now that is the state of things :(
Electronics recycling (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As I say there are more open versions of most things
What's the more open version of, say, a video game console that allows two to four players to plug in gamepads and play on one TV-sized monitor?
except cell phones
The article is about a cell phone.
I think you are: (Score:4, Insightful)
Who am I to tell Apple what's best for their devices?
The user who paid for the lovemaking device without having to first agree to anything.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not their devices (Score:4, Insightful)
Who am I to tell Apple what's best for their devices?"
Assuming that you haven't been shoplifting, they are not their devices. They are your (our) devices.
Having said that, if Apple says that doing such-and-such may wreck the machines, you've been warned.
Re:It's not their devices (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, just buy an open platform like Android to begin with.
if i paid money for it.... (Score:2, Funny)
(*) Disclaimer - or i can not buy jailed device in the first place and save myself some trouble.
Re:if i paid money for it.... (Score:5, Funny)
you forgot
* blend it
Re:if i paid money for it.... (Score:4, Funny)
Buy it, use it, break it, fix it,
Trash it, change it, mail - upgrade it,
Charge it, pawn it, zoom it, press it,
Snap it, work it, quick - erase it,
Write it, cut it, paste it, save it,
Load it, check it, quick - rewrite it,
Plug it, play it, burn it, rip it,
Drag and drop it, zip - unzip it,
Lock it, fill it, call it, find it,
View it, code it, jam - unlock it,
Surf it, scroll it, pause it, click it,
Cross it, crack it, switch - update it,
Name it, rate it, tune it, print it,
Scan it, send it, fax - rename it,
Touch it, bring it, Pay it, watch it,
Turn it, leave it, start - format it.
Technologic [youtube.com]
What bugs me (Score:3, Interesting)
Take away service? Ok,that's fair. You don't know what I put on this device, so I can understand if you don't want to support it.
Discontinue updates? I get that, for the same reason as above.
Void warranty? I get that too, since I could easily be an idiot who broke it and that's not your responsibility.
But the one I don't get is why companies are allowed to write EULA's that basically allow them to retain ownership of a device after it's been "purchased." For all legal purposes, this item belongs to the consumer. If it's stolen, it's returned to the consumer, not Apple. Why then, is Apple allowed to make this claim to ownership?
Again, I'm very much in favor of realizing and accepting consequences under the law...but I really think the law is flawed here. The rules for EULA's needs to be visited and rewritten such that purchases of technology amount to more than borrowing your big brother's gameboy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Please note EULAs can specify all kind of bullshit like you disclaim rights to all your property and internal organs, and sign up to be Steve Jobs' sex slave. It doesn't mean they are valid claims, and that anyone is ever able to enforce them. There are consumer right laws that limit the scope of EULA and they are simply invalid wherever they trespass on these consumer rights.
It's the same like you can sue anyone for anything ever, except if what they did is not unlawful, your case will be thrown out of cou
Finally! A Whitelist! (Score:5, Insightful)
"You can never succeed trying to filter out all the bad stuff. You need a whitelist of the good stuff."
But then someone else always says
"But who creates the whitelist?"
And both get modded +5 insightful. In this case, Apple created the Whitelist that all the security people say we need. And applied it to a whole platform. They apparently do code reviews, and enforce proper usage of the API.
Personally, if I had an iPhone, I'd jailbreak it. But I like the idea that I can give one to my Mom, let her get apps off the app store, and not have to de-gunk the malware every 3 months like I do with her PC.
Re:Finally! A Whitelist! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone, even whitelist proponents, would say that whitelist guarantees privacy or security. Rather they'd say that at least there's someone making an effort to enforce a consistent set of rules.
Straw man? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have not seen the outcry you're talking about. I think this post is just another angle for people to rail against Apple's policies.
Which is fine, BTW! People are certainly welcome to do so, and to an extent I agree with the outcry. But I object to the implied victimhood here--of a person beset upon by the horde.
Jailbreaking is very likely legal due to the first sale doctrine. But it hasn't been tested mainly because Apple has yet to go after a single customer for jailbreaking a product they own. They won't honor the warranty, but they're not bothering them either. It's the right place for a tech company to be IMO. If I install a new engine management chip in my Civic, Honda won't honor that warranty either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you managed to slap 24 inch mud and snows on your Civic in some half crazed attempt to pretend you're a monster truck - Honda may well fail to honor the warranty when the constant velocity joints fail in a week.
How's that for a tortured car analogy?
Re: (Score:2)
Bravo! I would mod you up, but I already commented on this thread.
-dZ.
Re: (Score:2)
From the article: (Score:2)
You may not and you agree not to, or to enable others to, copy (except as expressly permitted by this License), decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, attempt to derive the source code of, decrypt, modify, or create derivative works of the iPad Software or any services provided by the iPad Software, or any part thereof
This License is effective until terminated. Your rights under this License will terminate automatically or otherwise cease to be effective without notice from Apple if you fail to comply with any term(s) of this License. Upon the termination of this License, you shall cease all use of the iPad Software
In other words, jailbreaking is a good way to indicate that you want to terminate the licence. After which you are no longer bound to its terms.
Finally, a controlled test (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One of my geek friends is a total oss zealot bought a droid phone for him, the one that was touch screen only like an iphone, and one with a keyboard for his texting like mad wife. They quickly found they couldn't always download the same apps from the market place due to hardware differences of the two phones. And it happened a few times.
All my none geek friends who got one b/c they were with verizon were elated at first, but now are kind of ho-hum and most will tell you if they could have gotten an iPho
spread the word (Score:5, Insightful)
A couple of my coworkers were talking recently about Kindles and iPads. I told them about the DRM. Neither of them knew what DRM stood for, so I had to explain. Neither of them had heard of the infamous incident involving Orwell's 1984 [wikipedia.org]. Neither of them knew about the history of DRM'd media becoming unplayable within 5 years after people buy it, because the company running the DRM dies or abandons the project.
Once people are educated about the issues, then it's up to them. If they buy a locked-down device, that's their decision. They know what they're getting into. We all buy coffee pots and wristwatches without any expectation that we'll be allowed to load arbitrary software into their CPUs. Everybody just has to draw their own individual line between the devices where they care about lockdown and the devices where they don't.
The crunchgear article has some major logical flaws. The author states, "Lastly, I would like to humbly thank Apple, Sony, Microsoft, and all the others, for creating wonderful devices which I plan to enjoy to the fullest extent." In other words, he's bought these locked-down devices, and now he has to find some way to justify buying them, even though he's unhappy with the EULAs. "A popular objection is that one doesn't have to buy the devices that happen to be wrapped up in restrictive systems or deliberately limited. Vote with your wallet, right? [***] Sure, and even when you jailbreak or mod, you are doing just that. You bought the device most suited to your needs." At the point where I inserted the [***] there is a major gap in his logic. He's paid money to these companies. He has voted with his wallet. He's cast his vote in favor of locked-down devices. He didn't buy the device most suited to his needs. He bought a device that was unsuited to his needs, and then modified it in order to suit his needs. He also ignores the very real practical consequences of modding and jailbreaking. The manufacturer is almost certainly never going to give him warranty service, and some of them may actually intentionally or unintentionally brick his device when it phones home for software updates.
Here are a couple of proposals that I'd consider more realistic. Both of these really do involve voting with your wallet. (1) If there are no options that avoid DRM and lockdowns, don't buy. This is my current attitude about the Kindle and iPod. I'll buy one when there is a non-DRM'd library of books available for it that is roughly the same size as Amazon's current catalog. (2) Buy the lesser of two evils. E.g., I believe Android is significantly less locked down than iPhone, so if I were choosing between the two, I'd buy an Android.
Don't buy a jailed device in the first place (Score:2)
The fact that people want to jailbreak their iPhone says one thing to me -- they shouldn't have bought it.
Think about it, it's a device that's broken out of the box, to the extent that in order to use it for the purpose you bought it for, you have to mend it. And the act of mending it invalidates the warranty!
Why not just buy something that does the job you want it to do in the first place? If Apple don't make such a device, buy one from someone else.
If everyone did this, perhaps market forces would cause A
Who? (Score:2)
Who am I?
Before the purchase?
I am the customer... and the customer is always right, amirite?
It is their job to make me satisfied with the sale I am about to commit to.
And after the purchase?
I am the owner... and who is Apple to tell me what’s best for my devices?
They’re just the manufacturer, and all the more say that the manufacturer gets is to print out nice full-colour manuals, instructional booklets, and quick start guides that I won’t ever read (step 1: open box, remove this instructi
Apple and Sony are not comparable (Score:3, Insightful)
In Apple's case, jailbreaking is to open up a closed device. Of course, anyone buying an Apple iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad just because you can jailbreak it and do what you want is pretty stupid - there are millions of other devices out there that are perfectly open. Jailbreaking is a bonus to make a nice device even better. But one should not be under any pretenses that it's sanctioned nor available everywhere (e.g., the second run iPhone 3GS require re-jailbreaking every time you reboot it).
In Sony's case, they're removing an advertised feature. In which case, "jailbreaking" is to get back what Sony sold me.
Apple never sold me anything on the basis that it can be jailbroken - the features and restrictions thereof have been known at the time of purchase. I still use them because they're pretty nice devices, and all are jailbroken because I might as well do it and enjoy the nice bonus.
Sony sold me a PS3 on the belief it has a certain set of features, namely, OtherOS. Now they're taking away that feature, so I am entitled to do whatever it takes to get back the same featureset that Sony offered when it sold it to me.
In one case, jailbreaking gets you more stuff. In the other, jailbreaking is to get back stuff you bought. Hell, Apple's rolled out more features for my iPhone than came with it when I bought it. Sony's pretty much ensured launch unit PS3s still command original selling prices on the used market by removing stuff every hardware revision. Heck, even the Xbox360 gained features on newer revisions (HDMI output...).
And yes, while I believe you can do anything you want with hardware, I also don't buy hardware just because someone's already hacked it, but whether or not that device without hacking would be useful to me. If I have two similar devices then the availability of a hack might sway me one way or another, but it's never a checklist item.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody has ever bought an iPhone just because you can jailbreak it. The people who buy them with the intention of jailbreaking them have compared the options and decided they would rather have the iPhone and then go through the process of removing some of the restrictions, than any of the other choices which m
Article is badly written (Score:2)
It claims EULA's are legally binding contracts. They are not. End of story. A EULA isn't worth the paper it ain't written on.
Don't Buy It (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll never get this obsession with buying Apple products - supposedly it's because they "just work", but when you have to void the warranty to get it to do what you want it to do, you're obviously admitting that it doesn't "just work". Why buy it when you can get something that is designed to be open and hackable [nokia.com]?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for hacking and modding and sticking it to the man, but since when is forking over your hard earned cash (to the man, no less) for a device that is hack-hostile "sticking it to the man"? Why not instead encourage companies that are encouraging you to be more than a consumer?
mac os x also needs to be open to all x86 hardware (Score:2)
mac os x also needs to be open to all x86 hardware as well.
and apple still like to pull that video card lock in carp so you pay $250-$300 for a old video that cost about $50 - $100 more then the pc ver of it.
It's not THEIR device (Score:2)
Because YOU bought it. Therefore, it's YOUR device and YOU deserve to be allowed to do whatever the fuck YOU want to.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That money only buys a window into the walled garden experience.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your iPad/PlayStation/XBOX costs MORE than you are currently paying for it. Apple/Sony/Microsoft is selling it to you more cheaply because they want to make up the difference by selling you software.
I'm calling BS here. I heard the claims of how the XBox business model is based on selling software in some way, but to think Microsoft isn't pulling a profit from selling just the hardware is pure stupidity. Lemme guess, some of us math wizards have been playing with numbers in their SEC reports? Well, thos