This would be the equivalent to a restaurant letting you bring in a cooler full of your own food. You’re dreaming.
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.
Cydia Files Appeal in Higher Court in Legal Battle Against Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This would be the equivalent to a restaurant letting you bring in a cooler full of your own food. You’re dreaming.
"Excess control" were my words, not necessarily part of a legal definition or description of antitrust laws and regulations. However, the sentiment is certainly what can apply. In the tech world, Microsoft requiring IE to be included with Windows is an example of an attempt of "excess control" of Windows that got them "in trouble." Microsoft restricting alternative browsers from being loaded on Windows is another example of what got them "in trouble."
In a similar fashion, Apple restricting alternative browser engines, app stores, etc. on iPhones they sell or those sold by third party retailers could be seen as having "excess control" of iOS and may get Apple "in trouble" given their dominance of mobile OS in the U.S.
Dominance is what my cable provider has. I have no alternative. It’s restricted by law. Popularity is what apple has. They produce a product people want to buy in droves.
Popularity should not be regulated. What was legal in 2007 with regards to the way the App Store operated is still legal and has stood a challenge in the court.
The software and firmware isn’t your property. And you can do what you want with the hardware. Apple isn’t obligated to help you.
Cable and utility companies are typically defined or declared as "natural monopolies" and uniquely regulated by state and/or local governments. This is a different scenario than what we are talking about here with Apple/iOS.
I can't put my own software on the hardware. I don't want Apple to help me do it, I want them to let me do it.
There's a very big difference between "not helping" and "putting a barrier".
the vast majority of people are clueless as you put it... I know from the support calls i answered. the general phone user has little idea. and letting these people play and load bad apps is a huge potential issue. and it can affect others.
i am still happy if Apple lets you do it but cuts you free.
your hardware, you install the software you want but dont expect to interact with bog standard Apple users without huge limits on you.
Not trying to be offensive, but apple doesn’t have to make it easy.
You bought the wrong product then. Your expectations were misaligned. Consumer oriented electronic products are very difficult to change out the hardware and software: eg tvs, receivers, etc.
Apple (Samsung, LG etc) isn’t obligated to make it easy for anybody to do what they want with their hardware.
i dont like the order Samsung set the icons on their smart tvs or i dont like the font size Tesla uses on their icon bar... should every company be forced to open their siftware so we can tinker as we want on their hardware? where do you draw the line?
bottom line, you knew the device was locked before you bought it.
yet you bought it and now whinge.
They can hide the feature so that you can't accidentally enable it, and while at it provide warnings, require the passcode etc.
I don't mind it being hard. As long as it is always possible to do.
All products with software should be made in such a way as to allow arbitrary code to run.
Make it hard I don't mind, just not impossible
Open the hardware, not the software. In most cases it'd be useless to begin with as there's not much you can do, but on a smartphone you can install another OS that supports that hardware or make patches to the current OS (aka jailbreak it).
Also don't include hardware with read only software (embedded systems) in this as it's obviously physically impossible to write software in it. My point is, if it's physically possible, there should be no artificial barriers to prevent you from doing it.
Last edited:
Apple doesn’t make a product to your specifications and a consumer oriented mass manufacturer shouldn’t have to (although it could) custom produce for a customer. They don’t have to manufacture a product where operating systems can be swapped as easy as changing a flat tire. There are already products in the market where they are manufactured closer to your custom specifications. They are called android or there are roll your own phones.
Again, I don't want it to be easy, I want it to be possible. I'd buy an Android phone if I could install iOS in it. My endgoal always is a jailbroken iOS. (Don't tell me "just jailbreak", I want it to be always possible, not necessarily easy but possible).
Obviously there needs to be a law to force companies to do this, it's only fair.
And regarding the legality of that, jailbroken iOS is modded iOS and legal. Corellium is iOS on non-Apple hardware and Corellium won in the Corellium vs. Apple lawsuit. It's against Apple's wishes and TOS but still legal. I couldn't care less about Apple's wishes.
That “law” probably will never happen. My guess it would affect all consumer risk fed devices with operating systems and firmwares. Apple is under no obligation to design a phone specifically for your requirements. You are free to buy an iPhone and see if it meets your requirements and if not return it in 14 days, no questions asked. The no questions asked return policy is probably why there isn’t a law or class action suit.
Jailbreaking is an example of you doing what you want with the hardware and apple not making it easy. As far as Correlium they didn’t win. It is still not legal to sell such hardware with iOS. They are allowed to use it for security and research. IIRC, apple didn’t lose, an agreement was made.
Jailbreaking isn't just "not easy", sometimes it's not possible. There is still no full jailbreak for iOS 15.0. And in the case of installing another OS, a jailbreak isn't enough, you need a bootchain vulnerability which doesn't have to exist considering the bootchain code is not very complex. If it doesn't exist it's not just a matter of skill, is it? It's straight out physically impossible.
And yes, Apple lost.
For the 100th time, I don't want them to design a phone for my requirements. I am capable of adding the features I want myself as long as I have access to the code that runs on the hardware, which I don't without a jailbreak and should have it at all times.
It may be hard, but if ultimately a jailbreak does arrive, it invalidates the above.
No they settled. https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/11/...-security-virtual-iphone-dmca-lawsuit-settled
Beating the proverbial dead horse. What you want is irrelevant. Apple isn’t going to do it and nor are they under any obligation to.
What do you say about the case of the bootchain which might not always be vulnerable? And such a vulnerability is required to boot a second OS.
After the judge dismissed the copyright part of the suit.
Vulnerabilities always seem to exist.
Then there is the DCMA provision. However the settlement is sealed.