Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 30th Aug 2010 22:47 UTC
Apple Since interesting news that I'm actually knowledgeable about is still a little hard to come by, I have to work a little harder. This is something interesting to discuss: John Gruber, rather famous Apple blogger, is now arguing that Apple is in fact not fighting the jailbreaking community. Wait, what?
Thread beginning with comment 438725
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Why are people so delusional?
by thavith_osn on Tue 31st Aug 2010 00:14 UTC in reply to "Why are people so delusional?"
thavith_osn
Member since:
2005-07-11

Just so you know, there is no 100% proof of evolution or climate change, both have a lot of holes in them, that is why they are currently classified as theories and not laws (no matter what Carl Sagan said - LOL). Creationists and those that argue that there is no climate change (or at least, induced by humans) have a lot of holes in their arguments too.

We don't know all the facts about Apple's motives. We can look at the evidence and try and have an educated guess, but the fact is, we don't know the facts about most things, and certainly not Apple's motives, just as we don't know what MS's motives are or indeed Google and so on.

To suppose otherwise is arrogance (as has been pointed out).

The fact is, if there is a security hole, then Apple (and I would hope other companies) should fix them and pronto. If you are currently jail-breaking (or should I write gaol-breaking) your phone, then this will be an expected inconvenience.

Personally, I would like to have root access on my phone, and it would be nice if Apple provided that (as they currently do with their desktop OS X). How this would be managed would be very interesting.

My guess (and it is totally a guess) is that Apple isn't so much against jail-breaking as much as carriers might be more against it. Allowing people to find ways to not pay AT&T (or Optus in my case) wouldn't be in their best interest. I do understand that Apple would lose revenue from the App Store too, so they have a vested interest also.

Reply Parent Score: -1

Voiding the warranty
by WorknMan on Tue 31st Aug 2010 00:48 in reply to "RE: Why are people so delusional?"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

From the article:

Of course, your warranty should void when you jailbreak your phone; this is only natural.


Why? If I buy a new PC, format the hard drive and install whatever I want, should that also void my warranty? And what are smartphones other than pocket-sized PCs?

I wouldn't expect them to support me software-wise if I jailbroke and installed unsupported apps, or if I took iOS off altogether and installed Android, but unless I just completely brick the phone while tinkering with it (user error), shouldn't I still be able to get support if, for example, the home button completely stopped working, or the screen died?

Edited 2010-08-31 00:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE: Voiding the warranty
by umccullough on Tue 31st Aug 2010 01:43 in reply to "Voiding the warranty"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Why? If I buy a new PC, format the hard drive and install whatever I want, should that also void my warranty? And what are smartphones other than pocket-sized PCs?


The correct analogy in this case would be that you bought a new PC and re-flashed the BIOS with a hacked version.

Say as a result you perhaps bricked the machine, or something went wrong with the overvoltage/overheat protection logic and it caused your mainboard to fry.

I'd say the manufacturer has a pretty good case for voiding your warranty (assuming this was disclosed in the terms).

Most "consumer devices" are not designed to be user-hacked - phones, game consoles, GPS units, etc. generally fall into this category.

On the other hand, your PC is designed (for the most part) to run any suitable OS - there are numerous ways built into the BIOS which allow booting alternative OSes from the start.

Reply Parent Score: 3

samwight Member since:
2010-08-31

"that is why they are currently classified as theories and not laws"

You mean like the kinetic theory of gases? Or the theory of relativity? Or Copernicus's heliocentric theory?

The truth is Newton's *Law* of Gravity is less successful in describing gravity than Einstein's *Theory* of General Relativity.

You can look up scientific "law" and "theory" on wikipedia. Your naive understanding of the terms does not reflect actual usage in science.

Reply Parent Score: 5

AnyoneEB Member since:
2008-10-26

Just so you know, there is no 100% proof of evolution or climate change, both have a lot of holes in them, that is why they are currently classified as theories and not laws (no matter what Carl Sagan said - LOL).

Sorry, this is off-topic and I do not want to start a discussion on climate change, but the "just a theory" line of reasoning always annoys me:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Scientific_theory
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Scientific_law

Summary: in science, laws are observations and theories are explanations. Really good theories don't become laws, they become established and accepted scientific theories. The theory of evolution explains why we observe evolution. The theory of global warming explains why we see global warming. Of course, if the theory does not match the facts, then it is a bad theory, but an established scientific theory will have experiments and measurements that give reason to believe it is a good model for the way the world works. Science never "proves" anything; it provides evidence that a given explanation seems to work very well.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Icaria Member since:
2010-06-19

Christ, there's always one.

"Just so you know, there is no 100% proof of evolution or climate change"

There's just no reasonable objections and few reasonable objections, respectively.

"both have a lot of holes in them"

Bullshit.

"that is why they are currently classified as theories and not laws (no matter what Carl Sagan said - LOL)."

Sigh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

Theory > law. People really shouldn't pretend to knowledge.

"Creationists and those that argue that there is no climate change (or at least, induced by humans) have a lot of holes in their arguments too."

Understatement. Even mentioning the latter in the same breath as Anthropogenic climate change and evolution, is to afford these kooks more credibility than they're worth. Creationists and (largely) AGW deniers belong to the same clade as astrologists and NWO conspiracy theorists. Placing them on the same pedestal as biologists and climatologists, is to denigrate them and their body of work rather abhorrently.

(Sorry for the OT rant but I can't abide by this kind of vapid nonsense.)

Reply Parent Score: 3