Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th May 2012 18:28 UTC
Apple "I think that Apple could be just as strong and good and be open, but how can you challenge it when a company is making that much money?", Wozniak told a crowd in Sydney, according to ITNews. They'd score so many brownie points the internet would explode.
Permalink for comment 518195
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

I'm not sure it does, when I do a search on "cease and desist apple jailbreak" I get nothing related to actual jail breaking and Apple making a problem of it. It seems that their stance on it is that it may void your warranty.

I assure you I'm not making this up:

Being in the app store makes it easier for your product to be found.

I'm not saying they should remove the app store. I'm saying it shouldn't be mandatory. They are two completely different points.

Apple takes care of the hosting and financial bit. Apple just doesn't steal your money, they give something in return.

Not offering consumers nor developers an opt out and actively banning apps that link to sites with their own stores (as they had done with Amazon and Dropbox, to name but two high profile cases) is literally forcing developers to use Apple's own store and pricing model.

Hence why I'd welcome an app store opt out rather than seeing their core products open sourced. In my opinion an open platform is more useful to more people than open source.

No doubt if you don't need to do anything special to install cracked apps more people would install them.

That's pure conjecture and quite honestly the argument of jailbreaking vs cracked software has been done to death on multiple platforms.

As I said before, if people are really that bothered to save < $2 per app, and happy to download from untrusted sources and install god knows what, then jailbreaking is the least of their worries. They'd likely already be jailbroken so Apple are clearly already ineffective at stopping piracy.

So why punish everyone - or more specifically: you're genuine paying customers - for the unpreventable actions of a small few (relatively speaking).

And you want Apple to spend money and recourses to police apps you install outside of their app store? I don't think they'll do that.

You're putting words into my mouth. I never suggested Apple should police 3rd party apps. I'm just saying that the remote nuke option is still there if known trojans are discovered.

However I don't think Apple should even need to do that as if the official app store is an opt out (a point I keep stating and you keep ignoring), then you're also stopping the very stupid from installing such apps and thus putting the onus on the individual when things cock up. And unofficial app stores will likely police their own catalogue of apps else gain a negative reputation (app stores with a negative reputation will thusly be avoided by users).

Furthermore you seem to have bought into this weird belief that Apple's way is the only safe way and anyone that strays from that path is automatically a pirate, and anything outside of Apples ecosystem is full of malware. The world outside of Apple really isn't that grim. ;) So while Apple might make arguments about their walled garden being for users own protection, in reality it's just a way of locking you guys into Apple's pricing structure.

Edited 2012-05-15 11:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5