A new feature is when you add something, removing limitations is not adding anything. You know they can do this without even needing to update iOS? Simply provide everyone a free or paid certificate that can be used for mass app distribution without limitations
Artificial limitations on hardware shouldn't be allowed, that's the point I'm trying to convey. It's one thing when I'm trying to do something that doesn't work but another when it would work if they didn't put an unbypassable barrier on it.
Fair enough. Kinda defeats your argument though. Since we are still talking about you wanting to do something that requires modifying Apple's code.Bootchain - The iPhone Wiki
www.theiphonewiki.com
I'm sure Apple's website also references their chain of trust somewhere. It's common knowledge at this point.
Whether it should be allowed or not, Apple has a bunch of limitations in place. One could try to sue. Get legislators to write laws that forbid it, etc. But I can just image the hue and cry when one has to load their own firmware on a microwave.
At the first sight yes, why bother installing a new OS when I could buy another phone? It's deeper than that. If I can install another OS, there's nothing preventing me from installing a modded iOS. I'd be breaking the TOS, but I'm not breaking a law doing that, and I'm doing it anyway when jailbreaking.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I live in the US, so I don't know what's legal or not, I'm arguing purely from how I think things should be
Its purpose is preventing you from loading untrusted code. Which I should be able to do on my hardware.
Installing a modded version of iOS is certainly a violation of copyright law unless it fall under specific fair use exceptions.
You're playing with words a bit there. You are obviously aware of security benefits of preventing untrusted code from running. Improving security isn't "artificial".
Nope. There is no fair use exemption for modifying copyrighted software for personal use. You can create copies of software you own for personal use. But you don't have the right to modify it.
Maybe "artificial" is not the right word to convey my message? Maybe "active limitation" is better? When something would work but there's a barrier that prevents it to, then "active", if the software doesn't work because it wasn't designed to run then "passive", in other words it's not the fault of the hardware designer.
Why is jailbreaking legal if jailbreaking modifies Apple code (without distributing Apple code)?Nope. There is no fair use exemption for modifying copyrighted software for personal use. You can create copies of software you own for personal use. But you don't have the right to modify it.
Historically, there has never been a company that has only 60% share of a particular market within which there are only two major players where legal action was taken based on their “dominant position”. Apple would be the first IF it goes forward.
No, it’s the same thing. I can understand how, for the point you’re attempting to make, it would be very convenient if it weren’t the same thing. But, for purposes of bringing forth legal action, in the history of both “monopoly power” and “dominant position” it is indeed the same. Which is why, since their inception, no legal action had been taken against Apple until recently.
I understand your point, but I disagree with it. I don't think Apple should degrade the security of their product, so you can hack it to work how you want. Especially since it's pretty clear what you want is to modify their IP to work how you want.
Yes, like “adding-sideloading-that’s-not-like-the-current-sideloading-but,-instead-a-different-sideloading-that’s-the-kind-of-sideloading-a-particular-user-likes”.
I understand your point, but I disagree with it. I don't think Apple should degrade the security of their product, so you can hack it to work how you want. Especially since it's pretty clear what you want is to modify their IP to work how you want.
Removing the 7 day limitation doesn't make it a different kind of sideloading. Sideloading simply means installing apps outside the centralized store. With or without limitations, it's still sideloading.
Jailbreaking isn't legal for most use cases. However, there is a specific DMCA exemption to allow jailbreaking in order to install apps that would otherwise work except for the DRM. Jailbreaking to modify iOS is still illegal. Strangely, the exemption only applies to smartphone, not tablets.
Lol, modifing iOS not a use case, jailbreaking IS modifing iOS. Jailbreaking can't work without modifying iOS. The moment you click jailbreak you're modifying iOS. It can't be that hard to understand.Jailbreaking isn't legal for most use cases. However, there is a specific DMCA exemption to allow jailbreaking in order to install apps that would otherwise work except for the DRM. Jailbreaking to modify iOS is still illegal. Strangely, the exemption only applies to smartphone, not tablets.
iOS jailbreaking - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
You've said multiple times there wouldn't be a lawsuit if this or that, but in my eyes it's still unfair even if they had 20% of the mobile market and 100% of the iOS apps market
Correct. The exemption gives you permission to modify iOS (aka jailbreak) for the specific purpose of bypassing DRM requirements on apps.
