Corellium didn't agree to anything. There's no EULA page you must go through in order to download an ipsw
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Corellium Accuses Apple of Using Lawsuit to 'Crack Down on Jailbreaking'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Corellium didn't agree to anything. There's no EULA page you must go through in order to download an ipsw
How convenient, ignoring the TaiG app that was added in a jailbreak without user consent, which resulted in controversy that I already mentioned in this thread. It was only removed after somebody reverse engineered the jailbreak and sounded the alarm.
THAT SKETCHY JAILBREAK WAS DEVELOPED BY A TEAM WHICH INCLUDED THE CO-FOUNDER OF CORELLIUM.
Many jailbreak teams were paid by piracy app stores to release their tools bundled with the stores (early versions of evasi0n, TaiG, Pangu), I am not denying that. But that doesn't change the fact that no public jailbreak included malware. And also doesn't change the fact that these jailbreaks exposed security issues and forced Apple to fix them, thereby improving iOS's security.
How do YOU know? Chinese users were furious when they found out, and for good reason. Do you have solid proof that those "piracy stores" don't contain malware? Citation needed.
I don't know if the stores had malware (but considering it's been years, someone would've found out by now), but I DO know that the jailbreak tools themselves did not have any malware. They were reverse-engineered by multiple people that had suspects, and they found nothing.
How, exactly, is bundling an app without user consent NOT considered a form of malware? The definition of malware includes "stealing data", and you have no proof that the app did not phone home to Chinese servers with the user's data (WITHOUT user consent). If they were paying the teams upwards of a million bucks to bundle their app, they certainly wanted a return on their investment, no?
All jailbreaks I know of had an optional switch for the third party app store. And some of them (Pangu jailbreaks) didn't even have that option for non-chinese users, so even if someone in US wanted the store they had to get the chinese version of the jailbreak.
What is it about lack of user consent that you don't understand?
There was no "switch" in the case I'm referring to. It was bundled as a default and did not have Cydia for Chinese users. Source: https://www.itnews.com.au/news/evad3rs-remove-taig-in-ios-7-jailbreak-controversy-368368
Also, I doubt they paid "up to a million bucks", and the money was probably regained by ads, piracy is very wide-spread in China.
[automerge]1578073487[/automerge]
Well I don't know about that, I wasn't part of this community during evasi0n times. But I still don't think it's a big deal, they gave us a jailbreak and improved iOS security, that's the important part.
[automerge]1578073487[/automerge]
Well I don't know about that, I wasn't part of this community during evasi0n times. But I still don't think it's a big deal, they gave us a jailbreak and improved iOS security, that's the important part.
You love to comment and not cite sources, so I hope this clears things up for you: https://mac.softpedia.com/blog/Evad...reak-Bundled-with-Taig-App-Store-411722.shtml
[automerge]1578073574[/automerge]
A Narcissist's Prayer
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal. <-- you are here
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did...
You deserved it.
Ok, my bad. But i still think that they could gain the revenue back with ads. Chinese users were very active jailbreak users at the time.
jailbreaking your iPhone is a huge security risk especially if you do online banking on your phone
Circumventing copyright protect is the shortest way to a DCMA smackdown.
Your opinion and mine is irrelevant, it’s the courts opinion, and could go up to SCOTUS if necessary.(I already cited Aereo, as an example of a firm who thought they did it right, but got a SCOTUS smack down)
I never said my opinion is relevant. You keep putting words in my mouth.
Last edited by a moderator:
So what is “Corellium didn't agree to any EULA”? And what follows as to whether they went afoul of an agreement. Fact?
Last edited by a moderator:
The specific sentence you quoted is a fact (and before you go and misquote me again, that doesn't mean EVERTHING i said is a fact).
The fact is the use of apple's website has T&C. Whether you think those T&C is relevant, is immaterial.
Most of what you quoted in your previous posts are opinion and anecdotal.
(opinion ahead, since you probably won't be able to tell) I do not agree that "using the website = me agreeing with their terms", it's Apple's responsibility to only give me content if I do agree with their terms. I do not accept passive methods of agreement, and they can't force me to, imo the only enforcable agreement method is when there is an agree button. Small analogy, I cannot sue you for breaking a contract when I say "by breathing you agree to give me your money", but I can do so when the contract involves saying "I agree" by the other party; stupid example but shows my point.
If it ever were to come down to legal actions, your “opinion” is immaterial, imo. See, I have an opinion on your opinion. If I left out the “IMO” the statement could have been construed as fact. Easy-peasy.
That’s not what this is about, therefore there weren’t any misquotes, only misguided responses.
None of what we're saying here is relevant to the court. The judge doesn't get opinions from macrumors, therefore you can't expect me to talk about anything that is relevant to the court
Agreed. Corellium can say what wants. MacRumors posters can have opinions on the matter. And I said above, the court will rule as they see fit.