Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 13th Feb 2009 20:25 UTC, submitted by Moulinneuf
Apple The iPhone, Apple's current cash cow and best selling cellular phone in the United States, is a completely closed phone in that only applications from the App Store can be installed on the phone. However, by jailbreaking the iPhone you can install applications from whatever source you want, which might be desirable if an application you want isn't allowed into the App Store by Apple. The Cupertino company has never had an official stance on jailbeaking, but this has now changed: according to them, it's a breach of copyright.
Thread beginning with comment 348816
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Perspective
by elsewhere on Sat 14th Feb 2009 05:29 UTC
elsewhere
Member since:
2005-07-13

Not that I want to be in the position to defend Apple, but let's keep this in perspective. The EFF requested a waiver on the DMCA to formally permit jail-breaking for iPhones. Did anyone expect Apple to remain silent? It would be bigger news if they didn't respond.

I strongly doubt that this signifies the beginning of some sort of RIAA-type inquisition of iPhone jail-breakers. The legal types in Cupertino are simply justifying their pay.

The real issue here is about the DMCA, and the fact that this sort of exception is technically required. The decision will likely have implications for consumers regardless of how it turns out. Apple is Apple, and will always be Apple, and this is just Apple being Apple.

It's ridiculous that the EFF should have to basically request permission on behalf of consumers to "legally" jail-break their phones, and it's ridiculous that Apple can actually argue that they shouldn't be allowed. The DMCA is the real evil here.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Perspective
by Valhalla on Sat 14th Feb 2009 07:29 in reply to "Perspective"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

You sound as if DMCA just popped up out of nowhere. DMCA is the direct result of intense lobbying from corporations such as Apple. You're just doing exactly what they want you to do, blame the law (that they invented and lobbyied through to legislation) instead of the actual corporations who actually created and nurtured said law.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Perspective
by marbiol on Sat 14th Feb 2009 11:33 in reply to "Perspective"
marbiol 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.

Reply Parent Score: 1