iPhone: Upset about no jailbreak for 6.0.1

[labman]

Originally Posted by Qaanol

I do not use an Xbox, and I have not looked into the specifics of Xbox game distribution, so I do not know how analogous it is to the iOS ecosystem.

I think that game developers should be able to create and distribute games for Xbox, Playstation, and any other platform they want, regardless of whether Microsoft, Sony, or anyone else wants them to.

The fundamental basis of a free market is that no one can tell anyone else what they may or may not make or sell. When one agent in the market forcibly prevents others from competing, that is an abuse of monopoly power.

Angry Birds perfect example of IOS Monopoly on game Developers. (NOT) But Many company get a exclusive with a game company usually it's something both party's are happy with they sign a agreement. normally I'd say we are getting off topic but since we have at least 10 of these threads I don't see the harm.

[brayhite]

Originally Posted by Qaanol

That word: I do not think it means what you think it means.

To your larger point, I am saying Apple should not be able to prevent others from competing in the market for distributing iOS apps, and Apple should not be able to prevent individuals from installing and running the apps of their choice on their devices.

To the even larger point, I am saying no company should be allowed to abusive its monopoly position in order to stifle competition and deny consumers control over their purchased goods.

It has a monopoly position on its own created ecosystem that isn't a commodity or industry standard. Why should Apple have to change how it runs its own ecosystem that is profitable and detrimental to arguably only a small percentage of the overall iOS-consumer market?

----------

Originally Posted by Qaanol

That word: I do not think it means what you think it means.

To your larger point, I am saying Apple should not be able to prevent others from competing in the market for distributing iOS apps, and Apple should not be able to prevent individuals from installing and running the apps of their choice on their devices.

To the even larger point, I am saying no company should be allowed to abusive its monopoly position in order to stifle competition and deny consumers control over their purchased goods.

And while I would be the first to say the patent system is overtly flawed and needs revamping, how is this argument no different from saying nothing should be patentable? Or do you also think patents should be eliminated and nothing should be exclusive to a single company whom created/bought the technology/good/service?

And since you seem to be arguing on the behalf of developers, can't the same argument also be made AGAINST developers who only create their product for one platform? If you think Apple should let iOS device owners install iOS apps from any source, shouldn't developers be forced to make their app work on all platforms?

[Qaanol]

Originally Posted by brayhite

It has a monopoly position on its own created ecosystem that isn't a commodity or industry standard. Why should Apple have to change how it runs its own ecosystem that is profitable and detrimental to arguably only a small percentage of the overall iOS-consumer market?

You bring up an excellent point, and I am glad to have this opportunity to address it.

There are, essentially, three major problems. Two of these I have already addressed: Apple is preventing customers from having full control over the devices they bought, which weakens the doctrine of first sale; and Apple is preventing anyone from offering a competing distribution system, which acts against the free market.

The third issue, however, is potentially the most important. And that is, suppose you are a developer who has made an app, and I am a consumer who wishes to purchase that app. Apple has set themselves up as an arbiter who can unilaterally decide whether or not to allow us to complete that transaction—and Apple will take a substantial cut of the purchase price if they allow it.

The fact that all of this takes place on a platform Apple designed is immaterial. If anything, that merely reinforces the totality of their monopoly. In this regard, the situation is quite similar to Microsoft, when that company was found guilty of abusing its monopoly by bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. It all took place in the Windows ecosystem, and that ecosystem was in fact a monopoly.

In much the same way, Apple now has a monopoly—not on iPhones nor on iOS, but on the distribution of apps, the allocation of trust to apps, and the ability to compete in the market for iOS apps.

Originally Posted by brayhite

And while I would be the first to say the patent system is overtly flawed and needs revamping, how is this argument no different from saying nothing should be patentable?

Another good point. Patents exist to serve an important purpose: they promote and encourage innovation, by enabling inventors to make a profit off their ideas. The ultimate goal of patents, as spelled out in the US Constitution itself, is to advance the technology which is available to everyone.

Apple has patents (I believe) on their custom-designed processor chips, among other things. No one else can make an exact copy of the iPhone for a number of years, and that is fine.

But Apple does not have a patent on “software which can run on that chip”. Such a concept would not be patentable in the first place. That would be like saying, just because you invented a new type of table, that gave you the right to decide what your customers were allowed to put on top of that table after you sold it to them.

Apple can use its patents to profit in the sale of its phones, but they should not be allowed to abuse that exclusivity in order to prevent anyone from competing against them in distributing software for those phones.

Originally Posted by brayhite

Or do you also think patents should be eliminated and nothing should be exclusive to a single company whom created/bought the technology/good/service?

Not at all, I strongly support the patent system. (Certain software patents, however, should be thrown out entirely—you should be able to patent an implementation, not an idea—but that is a topic for a whole different thread. And in that other thread I would argue that the *copyright* system should be reformed to more closely match the patent system, with 20-year durations, but again, different thread.)

Originally Posted by brayhite

And since you seem to be arguing on the behalf of developers, can't the same argument also be made AGAINST developers who only create their product for one platform? If you think Apple should let iOS device owners install iOS apps from any source, shouldn't developers be forced to make their app work on all platforms?

That does not follow. Software developers are free to make programs for whatever platforms they want—or at least they should be.

[Applejuiced]

All that freedom you're talking about Qaanol would be great and nice but sadly I dont think its going to happen bro.
I think if Apple allowed the device to get JB/rooted by those who want to do it then we could see a lot more improvement and even competing appstores like you said. Cause also cydia is kinda a competing appstore where Jailbreakers can purchase apps and packages not allowed by apple and install them on their devices.
But I dont think they would even want to think about something like that

[spotsphill]

I was not aware that developers were upset about their inability to earn a living off of the iOS App Store. In fact, I thought Apple was among the leaders in developer satisfaction. I am not nearly as emotionally deep in this debate as Qaanol is, nor do I want to be, so I just did a quick Google search and found this interesting article: Which app stores keep their developers happy?

[rrandyy]

Originally Posted by Qaanol

which weakens the doctrine of first sale;

I am an intellectual property attorney. I can confirm that you do not know what you are talking about. First, the doctrine of first sale has nothing to do with monopolies. Second, the doctrine of first sale does not apply when a company sells you a product that embodies their intellectual property. It only applies when you resell that product (a second sale) to a third party. Hence the name doctrine of *first* sale and not just "doctrine of sales." Third, monopolies are much, much, much more complicated than you are making them out to be.

If you are so confident in your analysis, you should contact the justice department. If you are not, you should acknowledge that you are describing how you think the laws should be written, not how they are actually written.

That being said, I am not your attorney.

[brayhite]

Originally Posted by Qaanol

You bring up an excellent point, and I am glad to have this opportunity to address it.

There are, essentially, three major problems. Two of these I have already addressed: Apple is preventing customers from having full control over the devices they bought, which weakens the doctrine of first sale

I still don't see how the doctrine of first sale applies here. Apple can't take legal action to keep you from doing anything with their device. They can make it hard or near impossible, but not take legal action to keep it from happening. First sale is meant to protect consumers from legal action, not theoretically. Theoretically, you can do whatever the hell you want with an iPhone regarding app installation. Apple can theoretically do what it can to prevent it. Apple CAN'T take legal action to stop you from doing something other than what it intended. Maybe you can explain where I'm mistaken.

Originally Posted by Qaanol

and Apple is preventing anyone from offering a competing distribution system, which acts against the free market.

Why does Apple's created ecosystem have to adhere to free market philosophy? It's not a federal system. It's not legally in the wrong. If you disagree with the philosophy behind Apple's ecosystem, fine. Some people also disagree with a free market economy. So it's a wash.

Originally Posted by Qaanol

The third issue, however, is potentially the most important. And that is, suppose you are a developer who has made an app, and I am a consumer who wishes to purchase that app. Apple has set themselves up as an arbiter who can unilaterally decide whether or not to allow us to complete that transaction—and Apple will take a substantial cut of the purchase price if they allow it.

The fact that all of this takes place on a platform Apple designed is immaterial. If anything, that merely reinforces the totality of their monopoly. In this regard, the situation is quite similar to Microsoft, when that company was found guilty of abusing its monopoly by bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. It all took place in the Windows ecosystem, and that ecosystem was in fact a monopoly.

In much the same way, Apple now has a monopoly—not on iPhones nor on iOS, but on the distribution of apps, the allocation of trust to apps, and the ability to compete in the market for iOS apps.

The fact Apple designed the platform and has made it clear it isn't an open-sourced environment is VERY relevant here. Apple unilaterally regulates our app transaction ONLY if the app is an iOS app. You start your scenario in the context of the entire mobile app industry, then jump to Apple's "monopoly" as if it applies to the entire industry. But it doesn't - it ONLY applies to Apple's subset of the mobile app industry.

And actually, this is not similar to Microsoft's IE situation at ALL. Why? Because the monopoly was over the ENTIRE internet browser industry that was capable of running on the MS platform. Apple doesn't have a monopoly over the entire mobile app industry - just the Apple-created mobile app industry which happens to be the ONLY mobile app industry that Apple's OS was built to allow.

They would be similar if Apple was bundling the App Store on its iPhones that ran an OS that also supported apps from Google Marketplace, Amazon App Store, MS's app market and Blackberry OS apps, and greatly influenced which app market was being used. Since Apple doesn't allow other app markets on its devices, and therefore has no market outside of its own, then it's not in the wrong. And since there's a viable and arguably superior alternative to Apple's app market, there's no argument to be made that Apple has a monopoly that should be legally changed.

Originally Posted by Qaanol

Another good point. Patents exist to serve an important purpose: they promote and encourage innovation, by enabling inventors to make a profit off their ideas. The ultimate goal of patents, as spelled out in the US Constitution itself, is to advance the technology which is available to everyone.

Apple has patents (I believe) on their custom-designed processor chips, among other things. No one else can make an exact copy of the iPhone for a number of years, and that is fine.

But Apple does not have a patent on “software which can run on that chip”. Such a concept would not be patentable in the first place. That would be like saying, just because you invented a new type of table, that gave you the right to decide what your customers were allowed to put on top of that table after you sold it to them.

Apple can use its patents to profit in the sale of its phones, but they should not be allowed to abuse that exclusivity in order to prevent anyone from competing against them in distributing software for those phones.

Not at all, I strongly support the patent system. (Certain software patents, however, should be thrown out entirely—you should be able to patent an implementation, not an idea—but that is a topic for a whole different thread. And in that other thread I would argue that the *copyright* system should be reformed to more closely match the patent system, with 20-year durations, but again, different thread.)

Again, Apple doesn't legally have the right to tell you what apps you can install. They can just make it hard as hell to prevent non-Apple supported apps from being installed. This is a key difference. I can invent a new table and give it a finish that requires it be cleaned with a liquid I made. In this case, I'm making it hard as hell for you to clean your table without using my product. Someone else could make an alternative liquid that cleans my table. Nothing legally keeps me from changing the finish on the table to make it harder to clean with the alternative liquid. And nothing should. It's my table that I invented.

Originally Posted by Qaanol

That does not follow. Software developers are free to make programs for whatever platforms they want—or at least they should be.

The argument follows if you agree with me that the fact Apple created the ecosystem is important. Otherwise, you don't recognize the link.

[VanityBonet]

somebody said it was a iblacklist like version in the app store and i downloaded that crap...and freaking gagged...why in the blank will apple not have a call block feature in their store...oh wait that will come in ios10 and they will say its groundbreaking...

[Qaanol]

Originally Posted by rrandyy

you should acknowledge that you are describing how you think the laws should be written

I am describing how I think the laws should be written.

[dhlizard]

I guess when/if your are made "king", you will get your wish

[Qaanol]

Originally Posted by dhlizard

I guess when/if your are made "king", you will get your wish

I’m rather more interested in raising awareness that a problem exists, at the moment.

[Jordan921]

Patiently waiting also. I really miss bitesms.

[From A Buick 8]

Originally Posted by Jordan921

Patiently waiting also. I really miss bitesms.

Hells yes i miss the bitesms feature to schedule a text. Also miss the app ( forget the name) thats more options to the paste menu.

[labman]

Originally Posted by Qaanol

I’m rather more interested in raising awareness that a problem exists, at the moment.

Try Change.org!

[Qaanol]

Originally Posted by brayhite

Apple can't take legal action to keep you from doing anything with their device.

In the United States, the only reason that is true, is that the Library of Congress made a specific exemption for iPhones, to allow jailbreaking them. Before that exemption, and after it ends if it is allowed to expire, it was illegal under the DMCA to jailbreak your iPhone.

The DMCA provides criminal penalties for using your own legally-purchased devices to run your own legally-purchased software, if the device-maker doesn’t want you to.

There is no exemption for Playstations. There is no exemption for Xboxes.

There is no exemption for iPads.
It is *illegal* to jailbreak an iPad.

Do you see the problem I am trying to address? The laws themselves are wrong and need to be fixed.

Originally Posted by brayhite

Theoretically, you can do whatever the hell you want with an iPhone regarding app installation. Apple can theoretically do what it can to prevent it. Apple CAN'T take legal action to stop you from doing something other than what it intended. Maybe you can explain where I'm mistaken.

Have I explained sufficiently?

[Applejuiced]

Originally Posted by Qaanol

In the United States, the only reason that is true, is that the Library of Congress made a specific exemption for iPhones, to allow jailbreaking them. Before that exemption, and after it ends if it is allowed to expire, it was illegal under the DMCA to jailbreak your iPhone.

The DMCA provides criminal penalties for using your own legally-purchased devices to run your own legally-purchased software, if the device-maker doesn’t want you to.

There is no exemption for Playstations. There is no exemption for Xboxes.

There is no exemption for iPads.
It is *illegal* to jailbreak an iPad.

Do you see the problem I am trying to address? The laws themselves are wrong and need to be fixed.


Have I explained sufficiently?

I feel what you're saying.
Its pretty messed up you cant do what you want to your own device.
It would be great if all that could change but those huge companies got a lot of money and power and they can manipulate those in power to push laws to protect themselves. Not the end user, customer or consumer but to benefit their pocket.

[brayhite]

Originally Posted by Qaanol

In the United States, the only reason that is true, is that the Library of Congress made a specific exemption for iPhones, to allow jailbreaking them. Before that exemption, and after it ends if it is allowed to expire, it was illegal under the DMCA to jailbreak your iPhone.

The DMCA provides criminal penalties for using your own legally-purchased devices to run your own legally-purchased software, if the device-maker doesn’t want you to.

There is no exemption for Playstations. There is no exemption for Xboxes.

There is no exemption for iPads.
It is *illegal* to jailbreak an iPad.

Do you see the problem I am trying to address? The laws themselves are wrong and need to be fixed.


Have I explained sufficiently?

I agree with you the laws are broken. And I was honestly not aware of the latest DMCA changes. Maybe it's my own interpretation, but just because the law doesn't specifically say tablets can be jailbroken, does that necessarily mean it's illegal? The original Ars Technica article has a quote where they say they can't define tablet, therefore can't extend exemption to tablet... okay, so since they arguably can't tell me what a tablet is or is not, then how can they say whether it's illegal to jailbreak or not?

Or is the law saying only what we outline and define can be jailbroken, all other devices, defined or not, cannot be (televisions, Apple TV, game systems, etc.)?

[SFC Archer]

Originally Posted by Qaanol

Suppose I am an app developer and I want to distribute my apps. The official app store charges a 30% cut (plus $100 a year), so I decide to go with one of the competing app distribution channels.

…only to find that Apple has prevented iOS devices from installing apps that didn’t come from Apple’s own app store, so there are no competing app stores.

That is unambiguously a monopoly on app distribution. Apple is abusing its position by forcibly stifling competition in the market for distributing iOS apps.

Furthermore, the concept of “ownership” necessarily entails the power to do whatever one wishes with one’s possessions (so long as no one else gets hurt.) In order to meaningfully say you “own” an iOS device, you must be able to install and run any programs you choose.

By preventing individuals from running the apps of their choice on their iOS devices, Apple has undermined the concept of ownership in this arena. The morally and legally right thing to do is for Apple to provide a mechanism through which iOS device owners can authorize apps to run on their own devices.

If Apple wants to maintain strict control over which programs are allowed in its official app store, that is fine. But preemptively disallowing competing app stores is unacceptable, and denying consumers the ability to run the apps of their choice on the iOS devices they own is even worse.

Hmmm...I guess you should not have clicked on that button during set up that says you agree to Apples Terms and Conditions Then when you installed iTunes on your computer you clicked on and agreed to those Terms and Conditions OOOOPS...now figure out how to use it WITHOUT agreeing to those terms and quit your whining about something you agreed to

[jinkoh]

My advice for everyone waiting for a jailbreak is for them to get distracted by more interesting things that won't cause them so much grief. Every time you catch yourself thinking "oh goddamn this iPhone, it's useless without JB", just forget about it. It's not happening right now. It probably will sometime down the road. Stop stirring up the muck in your head that makes you annoyed about it, and move on

[gotluck]

Originally Posted by Qaanol

I’m rather more interested in raising awareness that a problem exists, at the moment.

For what it's worth I agree with you.

Once we buy the hardware, it's ours and we should be able to do as we please with it.

It is truly a shame that we must hack our devices to get out of Apple's walled garden. If only they would give us the key.

For fun, go take a look at Apple TV 2nd gen prices on ebay.. They go for more than the cost of a brand new 3rd gen from Apple. Seriously? Obviously, Apple's products would be worth even more if they were freed from their chains and turn into quite the more impressive piece of kit.

Jailbroken iOS > Android > Stock iOS

----------

Originally Posted by SFC Archer

Hmmm...I guess you should not have clicked on that button during set up that says you agree to Apples Terms and Conditions Then when you installed iTunes on your computer you clicked on and agreed to those Terms and Conditions OOOOPS...now figure out how to use it WITHOUT agreeing to those terms and quit your whining about something you agreed to

Great... why can I install whatever from wherever I want on my PC then? Where's the consistency? His point is that the terms and conditions are BS and that the government/s should do something about it.

I know nothing is going to change and that I will have to leave iOS eventually...

[BFizzzle]

Originally Posted by dhlizard

Unless you are smart enough to develop your own jailbreak tool, what other choice do you have except to wait.

All these repetitious threads complaining about the time it takes for a new jailbreak for a new firmware level and new devices are superfluous, new jailbreaks just take time, perhaps you should have kept your 4S.

i think he was using the figure of speech..

i dont think he meant any disrespect or complaining directly about the devs.. hes just sounds a bit impatient and eager to free his 5..


but you are right it is an unnecessary new thread

[SFC Archer]

Originally Posted by gotluck

For what it's worth I agree with you.

Once we buy the hardware, it's ours and we should be able to do as we please with it.

It is truly a shame that we must hack our devices to get out of Apple's walled garden. If only they would give us the key.

For fun, go take a look at Apple TV 2nd gen prices on ebay.. They go for more than the cost of a brand new 3rd gen from Apple. Seriously? Obviously, Apple's products would be worth even more if they were freed from their chains and turn into quite the more impressive piece of kit.

Jailbroken iOS > Android > Stock iOS

----------



Great... why can I install whatever from wherever I want on my PC then? Where's the consistency? His point is that the terms and conditions are BS and that the government/s should do something about it.

I know nothing is going to change and that I will have to leave iOS eventually...

So you want a government that cant even pass a budget or agree on something to tell little ole Apple to quit picking on us Great, thats all we need "MORE GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS". So sad that the people cant fix/change things, we have to have the Government do it all...Baaahhhhhhh!

Because the PC you bought allows you to install other programs when you click on the approve Terms and Conditions.

[BFizzzle]

Originally Posted by gotluck

For what it's worth I agree with you.

Once we buy the hardware, it's ours and we should be able to do as we please with it.

It is truly a shame that we must hack our devices to get out of Apple's walled garden. If only they would give us the key.

For fun, go take a look at Apple TV 2nd gen prices on ebay.. They go for more than the cost of a brand new 3rd gen from Apple. Seriously? Obviously, Apple's products would be worth even more if they were freed from their chains and turn into quite the more impressive piece of kit.

Jailbroken iOS > Android > Stock iOS

----------



Great... why can I install whatever from wherever I want on my PC then? Where's the consistency? His point is that the terms and conditions are BS and that the government/s should do something about it.

I know nothing is going to change and that I will have to leave iOS eventually...

but isnt it APPLES device until we purchase it as is? so shouldnt they have the right to install whatever they see fit on it? and if the consumer disagrees on the state of it..they dont have to purchase it?

So wouldnt it be just as much their freedom to install safeguards as its ours to try and remove them after we purchase them?

Jailbreaking/rooting your phone is legal ya know.
its wrong that an ipad cant be though..

----------

Originally Posted by SFC Archer

So you want a government that cant even pass a budget or agree on something to tell little ole Apple to quit picking on us Great, thats all we need "MORE GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS". So sad that the people cant fix/change things, we have to have the Government do it all...Baaahhhhhhh!

Because the PC you bought allows you to install other programs when you click on the approve Terms and Conditions.

i know..they dont realize that gov regulating that..would kind of contradict the fact that its there right to do whatever they want to what they own.. Apple owns the device until we buy it. Whos to say they are any more wrong for installing safeguards than it is to remove those safeguards after you purchase it.

FYI i am all for jailbreaks.

[gotluck]

Originally Posted by SFC Archer

So sad that the people cant fix/change things, we have to have the Government do it all...Baaahhhhhhh!

seriously... How am I suppose to solve the issue of Apple not giving me the keys to their walled garden? Don't turn this into political BS. Hacking the device is the only way and it's honestly above my skills. Thankfully there are people out there that release the jailbreaks for others. Like I'm personally going to convince Apple to take the lockdown off iOS?

Only Apple gains from the status quo, why would you defend it? It only hurts the user. If you don't want the freedom, you don't have to use it.