Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 13th Feb 2009 20:25 UTC, submitted by Moulinneuf
Permalink for comment 348852
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-20
As elsewhere said, there's no way that Apple would remain silent if an explicit request to allow jailbreaking was requested. They've remained silent on it until now presumably as it's been a primarily non-profit core of developers working on the project (ignoring that some developers have used jailbroken phones as a way to get their paid apps on). In the same way, they (from a legal standpoint), allowed a community of developers to hack OS X on to commodity hardware, but are now embroiled in litigation with Psystar for directly profiting from the same process.
Apple could afford to allow this to happen as long as it was low key and most importantly unofficial, but they cannot allow the possibility of a formal legal opening to any profit-making companies to provide hacked versions of their software. I don't see this as an 'Apple is now big-corporate evil' shift, it's merely a necessary response to protect their code (ie. copyright and IP), prevent brand dilution and also legal threats to themselves from various partners.