Submitted by 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.
As part of the 2009 DMCA rulemaking process, the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an exemption for iPhone jailbreaking, something which hundreds of thousands of iPhone owners have already done. There are several applications that require jailbreaking such as turn-by-turn directions, using the iPhone camera for video, laptop tethering, and so on.
However, jailbreaking requires modified versions of Apple’s bootloader and operating system software, which indeed is a breach of copyright once these modifications are distributed to third parties. As such, Apple has filed comments to the EFF exemption request, asking the Copyright Office to disregard it. However, as the EFF notes: “The courts have long recognized that copying software while reverse engineering is a fair use when done for purposes of fostering interoperability with independently created software, a body of law that Apple conveniently fails to mention.”
So, for the first time, Apple has taken an official stance against jailbreaking your iPhone. It will be very interesting to see what the Copyright Office will decide.
I don’t own an iPhone (thank God) but let’s suppose I do. Why can’t I do anything I want with the product that I bought? I didn’t steal it, I paid for it. If I want to stick this iPhone up Steve Jobs’ arse is that a breach of copyright too?
In the US they call it ‘capitalism’. The right to not to sell the actual software/device, just rent licences for people so they can perform certain actions with it.
Edited 2009-02-13 20:49 UTC
I see.
So, those who buy an Iphone are merely renting the hardware — they do not actually own the Iphones that they thought they purchased.
Thanks for clearing-up the issue.
Well, sticking your iPhone up his arse might actually be filed under assault
but who can tell with Apple? Maybe his arse is copyrighted too, and that would be an illegal modification.
Apple doesn’t want you to have control, they want to keep control. I’m not sure what they’re playing at, history shows us in broad terms what eventually happens to those who squeeze their fist just a bit too hard, and the outcome isn’t usually good for the arm controlling that fist when that happens.
I really like the Macintosh, but I’m considering moving away from it, and to Linux full time–sure, some parts of Linux still feel ridiculously dated, but so do some parts of OS X. I can’t help but wonder what’s next from Apple these days, how long until they decide what software I can use on my Macintosh, for example? You might think I’m being a bit paranoid, and maybe I am, but the fact is they’d probably do that if they could get away with it.
Apple needs to concentrate a bit less on their legal bs, and maybe start improving the iPhone if they don’t want it to be hacked. Set permanent guidelines for the app store as to which programs will be allowed, and stick to them. Open the platform up a bit, and they won’t need to waste their money in this legal bs and might actually, *gasp*, start to compete on features and technical merit alone. The iPod and iPhone lines are seriously behind their competition in many respects.
Go ahead and do what you want with your phone. Just don’t expect support from Apple or AT&T when it breaks.
I don’t think copyright means what Apple’s lawyers think it means
Another stage in Apple’s slow metamorphosis into the RIAA. When your reaction to evidence of your customer’s demands is to sue them, instead of find a way to make money while delivering what they want, you are on a hiding to nowhere. This is getting so totally last century, but worse, its the antithesis of cool.
iPhone end user aren’t really Apples customers in this market, the cell phone companies with the exclusive deals are. So yes, Apple is doing exactly what their customers demand.
Those who buy Apple Iphones are Apple customers.
Apple’s actions cannot be justified by blaming the cell phone companies who are Apple’s partners.
Yes, even though Apple may get money off the telephony companies their customer *still* is the end-user. Without those end-users Apple and partners cannot make any money. Sure, they can temporarily make sales “stuffing the channel”, as Microsoft did with Vista, but once they forget where the source of the demand is they are on the road to ruin.
It’ll take a while but once people get pissed enough with Apple’s restrictions (it takes time for people to learn for themselves, as most ignore the warnings of others) then there’ll be a move to open platforms like Android etc. Apple still can still prevent this migration (by easing restrictions) but I don’t think it is in their DNA. People will blame Apple’s demise on Job’s health but it is actually their authoritarian impulses that really irk the cognoscenti that buy their products.
It would be a different story if there were no alternatives (Android etc). I personally have eschewed getting an iPhone, because it is so closes, while I wait for an Android-based product to be imported to my location. My colleagues all are tempted to ‘jail-break’ their iPhones (and it is well within their technical abilities) but realise how Apple will ‘brick’ their phones with a later update if they do this. They are starting to wish they’d waited for Android-based phones. Poor bastards.
Edited 2009-02-13 22:43 UTC
I just don’t really understand who they’re after really. Is it the user? i.e. black helicopters in your window after you commit the sinful jailbreaking act? Or is it software developers?
Reading the article, the title here is only half the story.
The copyright portion is total BS (although Apple is trying to claim this, yes). The bigger push is that this is a DMCA violation, which technically that may be true. the DMCA is pure crap, but currently it’s law.
Really the answer here is that people shouldn’t buy Apple products if they don’t want to get abused. Same argument that’s made with Microsoft. The biggest deal is that Apple doesn’t hold a monopoly on the market which means people don’t have to buy their stuff to still be able to use products and services.
Apple:
* Using *your* purchased iPhone as you see fit is illegal if you do not do what we tell you to do.
* Installing OSX on anything besides an authorized Apple product is illegal.
* Using our *patented* two-finger gestures on anything but an authorized Apple product is illegal.
I say, give the control-freaks at Apple the non-patentable one-finger gesture, do the same to the Microsoft Monopolists, and use open-source products such as Linux on YOUR computers and cell phones. Enough is enough.
Need I say more?
It is like saying I can’t put a new motor in my car!
Yes, in certain countries, like my own, you can’t change/tune the engine in your own car… It’s an illegal action and your car will not pass annual inspection… :S
I’ve been screaming Archos on every Ipod article and yelling boycott apple more than is healthy. Today I ask you, I have been calling for a boycott of Apple for a year, are you ready to boycott yet?
Edited 2009-02-13 22:19 UTC
You’re going to have to make a slicker marketing push for it then.
Everyone i know who owns an iphone doesn’t care, they like the lack of choice and freedom becase they get a ‘desirable’ device.
I hate marketing so much for that.
Honestly, I don’t claim to have any clue whatsoever about the legality of such things in the US, but here in Finland you ARE allowed to jailbreak/modify/etc peripherals you have legally bought. That means also iPhone. Of course, modifying the radio transmitter or such parts would require you to get legal permission as there are regulations for radio transmitters/receivers. But modifying your phone to include extra applications or to allow installation of such isn’t illegal here.
Now, Apple may call it whatever they wish, actually there has been some campaigns here about f.ex. installing OSX on non-Apple computers. They’d like it to be illegal and they hope people believe it to be illegal as long as Apple spouts it long enough. Unfortunately for them, unless there’s some radical change to copyright laws coming of which I am not aware of there’s very little Apple can do.
Then, a personal point of view; what Apple is doing is wrong. They are deliberately trying to force people to use a service which only Apple can provide, of which Apple benefits, and which only Apple controls. That doesn’t fly in my book. People should be allowed to install whatever the heck they want to as long as it’s a legal copy.
That’s because you live in a free country and not in an oppressive corporate state (sorry, couldnt help myself). Although I hear Nokia want to strip search their employees (and some retard minister agreeing) so maybe you’re heading that way too.
what’s really bullsh**t is your using the word retard to describe another person.
I don’t understand why Apple crap is so popular!?! Is it because their junk is pretty? Take iPods for example: I can list several better media players that are cheaper and offer more features. So the iPhone is pretty and innovative… so what?!? Apple’s draconian business practices are invasive and too restrictive. It’s like having your parents standing over you while you make out with your significant other!!! This latest claim is ridiculous and practically unenforcible. I’m glad I’m not an Apple customer.
It’s the same reason people keep voting for the same corrupt politicians and keep consuming the same low-quality mindless trash on the radio and tv. It’s popular, and they’re more socially accepted if they conform. It’s popular because the media tells them it is. That simple. It’s sad, but it’s true.
Another factor, I think is that it’s more expensive. I don’t know what it’s like in other parts of the world, but here the more money you spend (waste) the higher your social status. Welcome to the United States. The world leader in ignorance and decadence.
Edited 2009-02-14 04:26 UTC
I just feel bad for anyone that purchases an iPhone, only to find this out after the fact. I am sure that those wonderful salespeople at the AT&T store are honest and forthright with everyone…just kidding.
Not that I’m defending Apple, or the quality of their iPods, but can you name me another media player that has all of the following features:
* Plays both MP3 and AAC (should be an easy one, and would prefer it to have ogg as well)
* Plays both MPEG4 and h.264 video, and can do so in such a way that if the correct encoding options are supplied, the video is of good quality all the way from an iPod Nano to a large SD TV set
* takes advantage of the MP4 container’s chapter marks hack
* has the ability to speak its menus aloud
While Rockbox can solve both 1 and 4, there are no currently manufactured players with the ability to run rockbox, which means finding a used or referbished player. I haven’t yet found another media player that can handle number 2, as all the rest seem to need the videos to be converted before you can load them up, whereas the iPod can take up to 1.5mbps mpeg4 and baseline h.264 encoded at standard loose anamorphic, and will adjust the resolution accordingly using the pixel aspect ratio atom. This means you only need make one rip of your DVDs if you do it properly, and you can transfer them without a lengthy conversion process. I realize the MP4 chapter mark feature is a hack, and as far as I know Apple are the big supporters of that though VLC can now use them too.
Are there other media players that meet all of the above? The iPod may not have the best sound quality, it doesn’t, but where it wins is being most things to most people. It’s not perfect and isn’t designed to be, it’s designed to be minimum fuss to the majority of users. This is why, in my opinion, it’s so popular. The majority of users won’t ever run up against its restrictions. I am actually asking, if there are players that can do all of this or even come close I’d like to know about them. Even better if they’re USB MSC compliant.
ever heared of cowon?
for example the movieplayer of the A3 supports:
Fileformate: AVI, WMV, ASF, MP4, MATROSKA (MKV), MPG/MPEG, DAT, MTV, OGM
Video Codec: DivX 3.11/4/5/6, XviD, MPEG-4 SP/ASP, WMV 9/8/7, H.264 MP, M-JPEG, MPEG 1/2
Video-Resolution Max 1280×720, 30 fps
Audio Codec: MPEG1 Layer 1/2/3, WMA, FLAC, OGG Vorbis, AAC/AAC+, AC3, BSAC, True Audio, WavPack, G.726, PCM
Samplerate: Max 96kHz, 1,4Mbps
Looks like that certainly has most of what I want in it. No speaking menus though, but as it seems to use a folder/files navigation structure that’s not as much of an issue as it would be with an iPod-like player. It’d support hardware Matroska playback too, something I’ve been wanting for a while–I’ve wanted to move to mkv, but haven’t done so due to a lack of a hardware player that I’d like. This one, the Cowon A3, might just do it, thanks.
Fred von Lohmann has hit the nail on the head!!
Of course, it helps that it just so happens to vindicate my stance in regards to Apple v. Psystar 😉
–The loon
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.
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.
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.
Its really very sad in a way, this. I can recall (many years ago now) when it seemed that Apple was a creative and liberating force in the world of personal computing. At that time, what you could do, what they enabled, was more important than what they stopped you from doing. It was a different world of course. There really did seem then to be such a thing as freedom from the command line. It was an illusion, of course.
As this case shows, and its alas one of many, they lost their way somewhere. Their focus turned from enabling to prevention. Their marketing became more and more cult oriented. The lockins became ever more obtrusive. The hostility they aroused outside the cult increased. And finally we end up here, in a business model where the maker of a device which will run all kinds of software wants the legal right to operate the only retail outlet for that software, and wants the right to restrict what network services the device accesses. By reliance on criminal sanctions no less.
And the cultists continue to applaud!
Its simply hubris on their part, and blind worship on the part of the cult. And it will have its terrible fall. It is hard to see how, but you can see it must come, because they are so radically out of touch with the way the technology world is moving this century. They really are working hard on making themselves into an irrelevant ‘nasty company’. One supposes they cannot see this is what they are doing, or are they blinded by their own hype? But this, like the Psystar suit, and the PearC and efi-x cases they will be unable to do anything about, shows you cannot sue your way into peoples hearts. Or sue your way into staying there.
Its a bit like the Microsoft Windows suit. Using the courts to try to stop people getting what they want, in this case your own customers, is a colossal management distraction and completely destructive because of the unrealistic expectations it arouses. And because of the unrealistic view of the company and its markets that it encourages.
Oh well. Onward and downward!
Apple has always been like this, really. They’ve never wanted you to open your computer.
The designers of the Macintosh tried to add hardware expandability to the Mac, but Steve Jobs refused to let the change go through. They tried a number of times, actually; in the end only the memory of the original Macintosh was unofficially expandable with a soldering iron, and this change was sneaked past Steve.
The Mac || was the first Macintosh with a “slot”; the machine nearly didn’t make it off the drawing board.
The original iMac had an expansion slot that was to be for Apple’s use only. Certain third party companies reverse-engineered the slot and started releasing addon cards, so Apple removed the slot from future iMacs.
Only one RAM slot could be reached on the rev A, B and C iMacs. There was one that was only accessible by taking out the CPU. Any other upgrade involved a new motherboard. The Rev C iMac was the last Macintosh I bought, but I know from reports that the later Macintoshes are still not designed to be opened or upgraded. I was always wondering why Apple bothered to waste time and money on this “unibody” stuff for their laptops, until I realised that it becomes much more difficult for users to upgrade a unibody machine.
Apple has never wanted users to be able to do anything with their computers except what is approved, and there’s absolutely no surprise that they want to class jailbreaking iPhones as being illegal.
I am an iPhone user I have a 2G and 3G iPhone and what I found is the OS is too fat.
I found that most of the things that Apple didn’t include or is blocking has been left out because the OS can’t handle it.
Both of my phones are Jailbroken (F! Apple) and I have installed some jailbroken applications that Apple don’t allow. For instance xGPS is a real time GPS app, but the current version can’t really do real time because the iPhone 3G can’t refresh the maps fast enough to be real time.
Another example is that Apple doesn’t allow background apps but there is a jail broken app called backgrounder that allows any app to run even if you close it. When I use this and then try to run more then 1 app in the background my phone goes in slow motion. For instance if I run Bee Jive IM in the background.
Just looks like Apple is covering their own short comings. Because Apple could make money off any jailbroken app by allowing it into the App store.
But they know things like real time GPS which would need to be able to run in the background would make your iPhony run real slow.
I know, you are saying that I am doggin Apple but I have 2 iPhones. Well heck they look darn good. The ladies love them. LOL!
So, we roll out the usual trolls and Haters. I own a Mac. I own a PC. I own a Nokia N800. I’ve used Android on a real device. I’ve run Windows, BeOS, AmigaOS, RiscOS, Mac OS 7 thru 9, Mac OS X, Linux (starting with a pre Redhat distro that was one of the first to use ELF binaries) to SuSE 11 and Ubuntu 9.x.
Android is clunky and doesn’t have the appeal to me of iPhone OS.
Linux has chaned very little (from an end user perspective) since Mandrake 8.0.
Windows seems to be regressing rather than improving.
Nokia hasn’t got a clue how to support end users. Maemo is a complete joke.
Mac OS X just works for me. iPhone just works for me. I read the specs, I understood all of the limitations. I didn’t presume any wishy washy bullshit rose tinted shite that most of the people here complaining seem to have. It’s really quite a sad state of affairs when brats get their knickers in a twist and shout about Apple being evil because Apple dares to make a product with a vague amount of purpose. Heaven forbid we can’t install an IM client or take video. Seriously. Grow up.
This must, from its tone, be a defense of the proposition that Apple is right to restrict installation of applications to those available for sale through tha app store? That it is right to do this through invoking the criminal law? And that it is right to prevent people by criminal sanctions from moving from one network operator to another?
This is not about what Apple should do, its what customers should be allowed to do.
Make the case, do please.
Oh, you mean bullshit like copyright law and consumer rights? I’m sure Apple’s lawyers appreciate your willingness to bend over.
No, because they’re are trying to control what you can do with a product that you have bought and own.
Did Apple hide the facts concerning the nature of the iPod or iPhone? I don’t belive so, so your argument falls flat. It’s not about bending over, it’s about opening your eyes and reading the small print. I knew the restrictions when I got my iPhone. I got my iPhone because I tried other options, including open ones, and realized they were all flawed. At the end of the day I got a capable media device with installable apps that does exactly what I need it to. It replaced my N800, 5th gen iPod and SE k750i in one device.
I bought mine on a contract. I don’t “own” it for another 18 months. I possess it, which is not the same thing by a long shot.
That’s a ridiculous justification for having limitations imposed. So if you buy a house (a contract with the bank) would you expect to not be able to hammer a nail in the wall because you don’t “own” if for another 25 years? You possess the house, but it’s not the same thing by a long shot.
but you havent use a NeXT! ha!
This is the kind of thing that disinclines me to ever purchase an iPhone or an iPod touch.
To give a real world example: a roommate got a new iPod touch for Christmas and they’ve regularly hooked it up to the aux. input on their stereo. They wanted take that setup a bit further, and asked me to get things setup so that the iPod could receive an audio stream from one of the desktop computers in the house.
The server setup was simple enough – but it turns out that the iPod touch can’t receive a live encoder stream. It could handle it, if I installed a port of VLC – but there’s no way that VLC will ever make into the app store (duplicate functionality), so that would mean jailbreaking the device.
It strikes me as more than a little pathetic to have a situation where the hardware & software are both perfectly capable of a fairly standard, straightforward task (hell, the MediaPlayer from circa. 1998 versions of BeOS could handle streaming audio) – but you’re prevented due to arbitrary decisions made by Apple.
This is one of the reasons why I will never buy an Apple product.