Apple's new iTunes surprise: No more jailbreaking
You just bought a new MacBook Pro. You can't wait to pull it out of the box and sync it with your shiny new iPhone. Perhaps you travel abroad a lot, and you can't afford to pay AT&T's insane international roaming rates (Who can?). Or perhaps you have an application that Apple won't provide you through its App Store but that can be installed on a jailbroken phone.
If you have a new MacBook, you may be out of luck. If you have Windows, however, you should be fine. The irony is stifling.
Gizmodo is reporting that Apple has found a novel way to prevent the jailbreaking of its iPhones, one that no cracking of the iPhone firmware is going to fix. This time, Apple apparently is using a custom build of iTunes in the newest MacBook line to stymie attempts to jailbreak iPhones:
The new aluminum MacBooks...don't seem to be able to recognize an iPhone or iPod Touch when it is booted into DFU mode, a vital requirement for jailbreaking...Though the hardware is where one sees the most conspicuous changes in the new MacBook, this problem most likely stems from a subtle software modification. It's not clear what specifically changed, but a new build of iTunes, unique to the new MacBooks, seems like a likely culprit.
In this iPhone cat-and-mouse game, Apple seems to be turning to ever more ingenious methods to keep cash rolling in the door. Customers? Well, their best bet for circumventing Apple's wily ways is to jailbreak the iPhone using Windows-based iTunes.
How ironic (and sad) is that? The more we buy into Apple, the less freedom. Sounds like Microsoft, doesn't it? This time, however, it's worse, because Apple also controls the hardware.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 
The reason we chose Apple was they offered the best of both worlds. Darwin is built on open source and with projects such as macports and fink I can get pretty much any open source product on OS X, yet I also get access to the non-free stuff as well without having to spend days getting a driver to load.
But their handling of the App Store is shameful, and I definitely don't like the direction they are going. I'm pretty certain my next laptop will be running Linux, and as soon as a decent mobile browser comes out the Touch will be on eBay.
Alex Alexzander
Please provide me with your personal email address, so I may contact you regarding any decisions I'll need to make in the future with regard to purchasing computer s/ware and h/ware to operate my business successfully for the next 14 years as, apparently, I've been hoodwinked for the past 14 by buying into a company whose products "just work."
Hope you and "the rest of the world" have a Windows day!
Alex Alexzander
I suspect the only 'issue' you've ever had with a Mac is that you couldn't grok the simple interface, and the one time you stumbled on Terminal, it scared the crap out of you enough that you went running back to the Windows GUI with an uncontrollable whimpering.
PS: How about some proof for your blind accusations? Yeah, didn't think you'd have any.
Alex Alexzander
and
"Alex Alexzander: " try google'ing my name and see how much Mac experience I have. I bet far more than you"
Well I Googled you Alex and I assume you are the person who designs DVD menus, wrote books about that and such. Is that so? When I get a chance I will take a look at the book.
As to my Penguin friend it has been my experience that you are correct about the Mac OS being too easy for some people, maybe not Alex. Anyway I know a few people like that, they will call me and I will help them with a simple problem. Yet they work doing wonderful things in aerospace, science, and other engineering types of work, go figure.
It isn't "ironic (and sad)" that Apple is tightening its software up so that jailbreaking doesn't work. When you buy an iPhone, you agree that you won't jailbreak it. If you break that agreement, you are BREAKING YOUR WORD, not to mention breaching the legal contract that you agreed to when you bought the phone.
Matt, why do you believe that it's OK to break your word, but that it isn't OK to take any steps to prevent or to discourage people from doing so? Personally I find lies and broken promises completely unacceptable, and I find it entirely acceptable for people to take measures to protect against them. I think most right-thinking people would agree.
Oh cry me a river.
Seriously, where do you fanboys come from? Once you BUY a device, you should be able to do WHATEVER you want with it. Not just what the company that sells it to you thinks you might like to do.
Perhaps if you bought a car, you'd be happy for it to only allow you to drive from New York state to Ohio, but most people would expect to be able to take it wherever they pleased.
If on the other hand you agree to the terms and conditions, you have made a promise to do some things and not to do others. In particular, you have promised not to jailbreak the device. If you then do so anyway, you have lied and broken a promise. That is unethical. It doesn't matter whether you feel you have some sort of God-given "right" to do what you are doing; the fact is that you broke a promise.
Of course, you don't like it when it's described that way, so you'll try to rationalise it any way you can. But you'll still be in the wrong.
...by your logic, any attempt to get out of such an unreasonable contract would be immoral and the loan sharks would be entirely in the right.
After all, when you take out such a loan you agree to a set of terms and conditions under which you are provided with the money. Note: YOU AGREE. You have the option to refuse the terms and conditions, in which case you can seek a loan elsewhere.
If on the other hand you agree to the terms and conditions, you have made a promise to do some things and not to do others. In particular, you have promised not to default on the loan. If you then do so anyway, you have lied and broken a promise. That is unethical. It doesn't matter whether you feel you have some sort of God-given "right" to do what you are doing; the fact is that you broke a promise.
Of course, you don't like it when it's described that way, so you'll try to rationalise it any way you can. But you'll still be in the wrong.
If the contract was itself made in bad faith, as would be the case for your putative loan agreement one would assume, then that obviously puts a different spin on matters (though in such cases it's possible that *both* parties are in the wrong, depending on the exact circumstances). But that simply isn't true for the agreement you have with Apple if you buy and activate an iPhone.
It's probably also worth noting that in many countries, there is a cap on the interest rate you are allowed to charge, so 3000% APR would indeed be illegal. And in Common Law countries, such a loan agreement would probably also fall foul of rules concerning unfair contracts. Your agreement with Apple is neither illegal nor does it seem likely that a court of law would find it unfair (N.B. it is the opinion of the *court*, not your opinion or mine, that matters here).
Really, how could someone "naively" sign a contract for a loan with an interest rate of 3000% APR? The whole idea is just astonishing.
But, let's say someone does sign such a contract, and they're not completely illiterate. I'd say "naive" would be an understatement -- "blithering idiotic" would be a better description. In such case, that person probably should default and lose everything, and, if they have any sense at all, learn from their mistake, and move on. Actually, if they have any sense at all, and they've realized the mistake they've made, they'd run (not walk) to their nearest credit union, and get a loan, at a reasonable rate, to pay off the loan that has the hyper-usury rate.
Your example doesn't even come close to comparing with signing an iPhone activation agreement.
BTW, I don't own an iPhone. I don't have a need for one, and the service plan is far too expensive to justify buying one for the fun of it -- not that I wouldn't like to -- a couple of friends have them, and they're pretty spiffy. Instead, I own a Nokia N75, that I bought from... wait for it... AT&T. I've been a Ma Bell customer for over 30 years, and I've never had any serious problems with them, or their service, and the N75, which is not as spiffy as the iPhone, is, nevertheless, very nice, and it does everything I need it to do, and then some. And the service plan is very affordable.
I do, however, agree with ajhoughton, that if you sign an agreement, you've made a promise. If you can't abide by the agreement, you shouldn't sign it -- you should pass on the iPhone and purchase something else.
By not reading it? By being mentally subnormal and unable to make your own decisions? I know there have been cases of people signing for loans at 300% APR, I was just exaggerating for effect.
"In such case, that person probably should default and lose everything, and, if they have any sense at all, learn from their mistake, and move on."
Wow, that's a fundamental lack of compassion. Someone's been taken advantage of but they should just suck it up. If their IQ is below 60 should they be sterilised as well? You read like a sociopath. I suppose con-artists should never be arrested either? Let's punish people for being too trusting and let others rip them off knowing full well that they won't question it until it's too late.
"Your example doesn't even come close to comparing with signing an iPhone activation agreement."
I KNOW.
THAT'S THE POINT.
I copy/pasted his words, changed about three of them and it makes perfect semantic sense. Why? Because it has zero substance to it. His entire argument was "you signed an agreement, you shouldn't question it" which is not something the US or UK legal systems agree with at all and which is more obviously ridiculous the greater the extreme to which it is applied.
At no point has this person argued that it's not an unreasonable clause, just that it doesn't matter if it is unreasonable. I wonder why.
So weak, in fact, that you don't have a counter argument. Nor, sadly, did you bother to read it properly (see below).
"His entire argument was "you signed an agreement, you shouldn't question it""
That's not true. Please don't paraphrase me inaccurately.
My argument is about breaking your word. Not about agreements or laws or any such thing. It's about the fact that when you bought the phone, you promised Apple you wouldn't jailbreak it, and then went right ahead and did it anyway. The fact that that promise was contained in a legal agreement is irrelevant.
"At no point has this person argued that it's not an unreasonable clause, just that it doesn't matter if it is unreasonable. I wonder why."
That's not true either. I said quite specifically that I didn't think that Apple's agreement was likely to be found unfair by a court. I also don't find it unreasonable on a personal level, but both things are really irrelevant to this entire discussion.
The worst part of all of this is that people like you *know* that I'm right and that you're doing something wrong. That's why you fight so hard to justify your position; you're trying to justify it to yourself as much as to anyone else.
Alex Alexzander
I'd have to be totally inebriated to buy a laptop without an ieee1394 interface.
/P
every other handset i've ever had is more open than the iPhone
on the HTC WinMo phones you just need to run an EXE on the very few that are locked to a network anyway, and can install anything you want.
nokia's and everything else you can unlock pretty easy, and install what you want (if it's for that platform)
Of course, if you really feel the need to do so with a WinMo phone you can just cook yourself a custom ROM.
Life without walls, eh?
In the 21 century, why on earth would you release a phone if it won't come with mms service (which was the case until a couple of months, and even when that has changed, it's only pictures, not multimedia which is what the two m's in mms stand for), file transfer via blutooth, and a lot of other options that are just common sense with mobile phone? If you don't take that into account when you release a new phone, then you're asking for it to be jailbroken. If you want that problem to be fixed, then fix the problems with your product, not ban others from trying to find alternative solutions! if anything, I think Apple should be thankful you can jailbreak an iphone. I personally wouldn't have bought it if it wasn't for that.
Microsoft was a monopolist in the past, but today that are down right warm and fuzzy compared to Apple. (grin)
Alex Alexzander
Jailbreaking an iPhone is creating a custom product that is NOT legally an iPhone anymore and is against the usage agreements but more to the fact almost everyone who has jailbroken an iphone has had issues ranging from losing files and apps or memory to constant rebooting or bricking.
Surely stopping the casual jailbreaking of iphones is protecting the user only those adventurous enough should be able to do it and hopefully they can cope with the consequences of jalbreaking.
I dont see the same argument about the Symbian OS but perhaps its because the iphone is so goo people just have this desire to tinker... after all the iphone is the ultimate smart-phone/PDA/MP3 player combo.
PS. To hell with that usage agreement. Apple needs to remember just who is paying who; when Apple starts paying me to use their products _then_ they can dictate to me.
leave well enough alone or don't buy it.
you do know that updates tend to brick the jailbroken...
Jailbreaking simply removes the restriction that prevents an individual from installing custom applications. It does not remove the network provider restriction so that user is still bound to use AT&T until that lock is removed.
Unlocking removed the actual provider lock that keeps an individual using that phone on the network from which it was purchased under. AT&T would, in most cases, have no issue with providing instructions on how to unlock a phone once the 2 years was up except that the iPhone has no hardware or software method for such action. The iPhone community has found no way to unlock the 3G iPhone yet however the original generation have been like that for a very long time.
To back up the unlocking section; I have a Motorola phone that AT&T handed over the subsidy unlock code once the contract was near it's end. I also follow along with the jailbreaking and unlocking community and have jailbroken my phone previously. I actually reverted to the stock firmware due to some unrelated issues.
Apple is preventing jailbreaking so that an individual is forced to continue to purchase applications via their AppStore. Jailbreaking does not, in normal circumstances, cause bricking unless you are simply too impatient to finish the process and reboot too early. If they are losing files then it is their fault for not backing them up to begin with. By removing the DFU mode recognition in the iTunes software they make it next to impossible to restore back a clean version of the firmware. Every action goes both ways. It can both go against them and for them. Here the DFU mode was a vital recovery mode that allowed an individual to downgrade or restore their firmware to a factory mode. This phone does not have to be jailbroken to use that mode or to have a reason to do so. On that note the most recent jailbreak software does most of it right on the phone and automates the DFU mode activation. It never required iTunes to "recognize" the DFU mode and hasn't for quite some time.
Once again. Jailbreak != Unlock
P.S. - I'll mention the latest updates. Jailbreaking is not yet possible on the 2nd generation IPod Touch units. This will also likely be the case on the next generation of iPhones. This is a hardware restriction. Unlocking is not yet possible on the current generation of iPhones which is also a hardware restriction. The iPhones being sold in Hong Kong though are already unlocked so you can use those on any provider but you have to pay $800 for them.
@Goodbye Helicopter: Updates do not brick jailbroken phones. Just those that are unlocked from the network. In 99% of the cases an update will remove the jailbreak and you will need to redo the process however it will not brick the phone.
Your thoughts?
Bd..
"The iPhone community has found no way to unlock the 3G iPhone yet however the original generation have been like that for a very long time."
and
Unlocking is not yet possible on the current generation of iPhones which is also a hardware restriction.
Yes, the iPhone community have not found unlock. However you are wrong, a locked 3G iPhone can be, legally, unlocked by Apple at the behest of a carrier.
Here in Australia, the iPhone comes locked to a carrier, after you have signed a contract (ie bought the phone), or purchased a prepaid phone outright, you can request for it to be unlocked. Either way they start out locked to a carrier, but can be unlocked.
Some carrier charge a fee, some don't. It does take several days, as it is done through Apple & iTunes, but it can be done.
There is no reason this won't be the case for the iPhone and iPhone 3G in the United States and elsewhere, albeit it may not be till people's original contracts expire. I do not recall anywhere, other then idle speculation, where Apple or AT&T and others have said otherwise. (please show me the light if I'm wrong on that, but it would surprise me)
None the less it is possible to unlock a iPhone 3G, so it is obviously not purely a hardware restriction, or even an Apple one but an AT&T/carrier restriction.
On the point of Jailbreaking, its your choice to do so. I personally haven't found a need to, then again I got Netshare before it was banned.(which I think was more the carriers fault again then Apples, but I am a Fanboy after all)
Your arguments are ridiculous. Apple are perfectly entitled to lock their product down if they want - how else can they ensure it keeps working?
Not that there's any evidence that this is at all the reason it's locked down or that there aren't other much more likely reasons like sales channel monopoly but your argument has less base than a Communist Presidential Candidate.
Having had ideas and images stolen from me in the past, I fully support Apple and their quest to keep their line of products and software pure and simple. Are you listening Psystar?
Just thought I'd point that out.
Personally I don't care where an app comes from or who gets the money. If the price is right and it does what I want, I'll buy it and install it.
I have several iPhone apps that I use daily - that for one reason or another Apple will not certify - so the develop must pursue other channels to market.
As a developer, I wouldn't mind giving 30% of my profits to Apple because the increased sales channel is worth it. But if you've spent hours/days/weeks developing an app and Apple says no - you have no other recourse.
As a consumer, I am caught n the middle. I like my phone. I like Apple. But I will not let them tell me what I can do them. I paid a lot of money for these "toys". If I want to put it on vibrate and stick it up my butt, it is my prerogative.
The loss is Apple's. By blocking a $1.99 sale they have lost $1,999 because I will not buy a Macbook. (Its easy to install OS X on a PC laptop.)
Hell, most adults no longer live at home with Mommy and Daddy. They pay their own way in life. They find out that they are bound by their agreements. They are not allowed to buy products which are sold under conditions, only to turn around and complain about those terms. If you don't like the terms-- don't buy the product.
You have no legal or moral right to complain when Apple chooses to makes it more difficult for you to break your agreements. Only a child would think so, because a child takes no responsibility for their actions.
It's like selling a car for which you can only buy fuel from the manufacturer's garages. People don't expect it because it's ridiculous and they're, unsurprisingly, upset when they find the clause buried in all the small-print instead of stated clearly upfront.
If you're upset with how something works because you feel it infringes on your rights (I, as the rightful owner of a piece of hardware should be allowed to do what I want, with what I own. I bought it. Its mine. Why are they still controlling it?), I think maybe one should do something. Back in the day of the 13 colonies, I didn't see the people who first started the revolution say, "But guuuuyys... we don't have a right to complain! We're bound by these laws. If we don't like it, we can just leave."
Your argument is actually similar to the good old "If you don't like how we do things down here, then get the hell out". No, it's not as simple and retarded as that. People ARE actually free to change their mind, and decide later that the agreement they've signed is not fair. And please believe me, whoever says that this behaviour is unethical is inaccurate. Whoever promotes the idea that it's illegal does not know enough. You have to be a complete naive person to think that things are that black and white. An agreement could still be taken to court iand judged against if the court find the terms to be unfair to one of the involved parties.
More importantly, your point of view, even if put nicely (which is NOT the case with most Apple fans), doesn't automatically make other point of views invalid - they're just different than yours. I have noticed that most Apple fans state their opinions (and sometimes wishes) as facts. They also tend to enjoy bullying anyone who doesn't enjoy the "experience". I, for one, knew what I was getting myself into and, yes, only bought the iphone BECAUSE it can be jailbroken, cause otherwise it's an iPod that can make calls. If that's what i'm left with, I'd be better off getting an ipod and then getting a good Nokia. The fact that i'm a music freak made me in love with the product, but never actually changed my mind about Apple's greedy policies. The moment a product comes out that could provide what iphone does (i.e. similar apps, etc) my iphone is turning back to an iPod.
There is no obligation to install every available application on a PC. The fact that you can is a freedom, not a compulsion.
Because if you have a really fine car then you get the engine tuned to suit exactly what you need, you don't just settle for Porsche's factory settings.
Actually, on the other hand, perhaps you should take it one step further.
Let me help you:
<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=Alex+Alexzander">Alex Alexzander</a>
@UrbanBard, no, only a child needs his hand holding while he uses his toys and needs to be told what he can and cant do with it, us grown ups expect some freedom with our devices.
jesus people, you buy a product, its yours to do with whatever you want.
my car, my house, my stereo, my TV, my phone...oh wait...
unless its apple of course.
THATS why people are complaining...you BOUGHT the fricking thing, you didnt RENT it
get a winMo phone guys, it just works ;o)
- by irondog1970 November 4, 2008 9:26 AM PST
- I have to agree with UrbanBrad.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by odubtaig November 4, 2008 10:10 AM PST
- If I'm in a coffee shop, do I own that shop?
- Like this
-
- by pjhenry1216 November 4, 2008 10:33 AM PST
- If you own the coffee shop and then someone told you that you couldn't sit there, yes, i'd have a problem. If you owned the restroom and were told you couldn't use it, yes I'd have a problem.
- Like this
-
- by gerrrg November 4, 2008 10:39 AM PST
- Android / G1 is pretty awesome. Thousands of people having downloaded all the different apps, and people rating by number of stars, you can easily figure out which is crap and what is really cool and useful.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (93 Comments)Life is filled with choices, and sometimes those choices are mutually exclusive. In fact, many business have restrictive rules.
If a coffee shop has a policy of "if you didn't buy it here, don't eat/drink it here"--is this draconian? Is it too much to ask of a coffee shop to restrict their seats, employees, and resources to just anyone?
Should stores be required to allow anyone to use their restrooms, or is it okay for stores to say "restrooms for customers only"?
You know full well that buying an iPhone means going along with its T&C's. If you don't to abide by them, then by an Android. Let the free market system work its magic.
And if the Android fails because alot of their applications are crap, and it proves to be as difficult to use as Linux, and the business world & non-Linux world don't buy it, then that's just the way it is.
It's just the way it is, folks.
No.
If I pay for an iPhone do I own that iPhone?
Yes.
Are you comparing apples and oranges?
Yes.
Is your analogy broken, false and misleading?
Oh yes.
Each day there are new and updated apps and games...So much so that I check every other day to see what's been added.
Open is good.