In a sufficiently complex system they do, the bootchain is not complex enough to guarantee the existence of a vulnerability 100% of the time (although the kernel is). Besides I shouldn't need a vulnerability to access my own device.
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
Apple isn’t under any obligation to provide access in a way that lets you do what you want with your device. You can buy it and then return it. Harping about lack of access on a forum isn’t going to change that.
They should be under obligation to provide access for me to do anything that is physically possible to do with it.
No they shouldn’t. And that comment applies to any manufacturer of consumer oriented mass produced electronic devices that uses an operating system or firmware. These firms aren’t under any obligation to provide that level of access.
Whatever phraseology you use, it probably won’t happen. Saying it “should” happen won’t increase the odds. I’m saying it shouldn’t and won’t happen.
Why shouldn't it? Security? People should choose if they want someone else to do their security for them. I don't.
It shouldn’t happen because it’s their (Apples’) product and they designed their products a certain way. If they choose to design it another way they can certainly do that. But to this point they haven’t. That you want apples products designed a certain way is your right…and you’re right not buy them if they don’t meet your requirements. It’s your right to petition the government to force it to happen or make people see your point of view and rally the troops not buy said product until they change it. However saying apple “should” is probably not gonna make it happen.
They can design it how they want, but it should also be my right to modify it how I want. As it stands only their right is being fulfilled. That's how I think it should change.
You’re on the losing end of this. It’s your right to not buy a product that doesn’t fulfill your requirements. That’s where it begins and ends.
And good luck with the Cydia appeal toward changing anything meaningful. David vs Goliath I suppose.
It also should be my right to buy a product and force it to fulfill my requirements.
Last edited:
The restaurant is iOS. That’s Apple’s property. Jailbreak your phone and do what you want.
But I'm talking about the hardware. The hardware is my property, I should be able to put arbitrary code in it including another OS.
I’m just a hobby iOS/iPados developer (in my spare time), and no matter how frustrating was 10d mailing with apple about one app that I developed a year or more ago, as a user I appreciate precautions they take before approval. Other stores will not do like they are doing todays
Cydia parent company SaurikIT, LLC has filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit after U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers dismissed the company's antitrust lawsuit against Apple last month, according to court documents. SaurikIT had voluntarily asked for the case to be dismissed so the appeal process could begin at the higher court.
SaurikIT sued Apple in late 2020, alleging that the company has an illegal monopoly over iOS app distribution given that the App Store is the only authorized marketplace where users can download apps on the iPhone and iPad. The complaint also alleged that Apple has "consistently tried to snuff out alternative app stores," including Cydia.
Cydia launched in early 2008, months before Apple's own App Store. The app allows users who "jailbreak" their iPhone or iPad to install apps outside of the App Store, as well as themes and tweaks that customize the look and functionality of iOS. For example, long before Apple introduced the Control Center on the iPhone, there was a tweak available on Cydia called SBSettings that offered similar functionality.
The lawsuit alleged that Cydia was the "the App Store before the App Store" and the "first comprehensive solution" for expanding the iPhone's capabilities, although it's worth noting that another unofficial App Store known as Installer launched prior to Cydia.
SaurikIT is owned by Jay Freeman, who is one of several developers and companies who have sued Apple for alleged anticompetitive behavior in relation to the App Store over the past few years, with others including Fortnite creator Epic Games, streaming music service Spotify, FlickType keyboard app creator Kosta Eleftheriou, and more.
Apple has repeatedly denied that the App Store is a monopoly given that it faces competition from the Google Play store on Android devices. Apple has also repeatedly touted the privacy and security benefits of the App Store, arguing that third-party app stores on the iPhone could expose users to fraud, malware, and other risks.
Article Link: Cydia Files Appeal in Higher Court in Legal Battle Against Apple
I really don't think Apple would want to be declared a natural monopoly as that could open themselves up to a unique set of regulatory requirements including having to meet additional/expanded product or service level requirements (e.g., providing OS support for at least X years, allowing alternative browser engines, etc.), getting approval on pricing (e.g., having to get approval if they want to price the 128GB iPhone 15 at $879), and so on.
They may be facing antitrust regulatory scrutiny now but actually being declared a natural monopoly could make things even worse for them as far as federal and/or state and/or local government mandates.
No. Every manufacturer essentially has a monopoly on their own products but very few companies are declared natural monopolies. Natural monopiles are more related to industries like cable and various utilities. In those particular industries, a government can control which company or companies market their products/services in a given geographical area and require the companies to meet certain unique requirements and follow certain rules including and beyond what we're talking about here with the iOS alternative app store situation.
and for the 101th time, why should Apple provide you access to the IP source code?
how many companies allow or do that?
it's where their value lies... and not allowing access can have security benefits so people can't exploit loopholes easily.
and exactly what list of features are you planning to add?
and let's see your code to do it?
or are you going to keep your code secret and not share it?
Again, jailbreaking is legal only for a specific purpose defined by the DMCA exemption.
Distribution and derivative works are separate exclusive rights under copyright law. Not distributing a derivative work doesn't make it legal.
Chapter 1 - Circular 92 | U.S. Copyright Office
Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright
www.copyright.gov
That my point. Your just making terms to describe what you feel the law should be. I provided a description directly from the FTC. Having "excess control" of a market does not trigger antitrust actions.
Again, it requires "significant and durable market power" combined with "exclusionary conduct" without "legitimate business justification." Apple doesn't meet any of these thresholds.
No, I was describing in my own words how laws and litigation had been handled in the past. We'll see how regulators and the courts feel going forward. The DOJ didn't like Microsoft's browser (and other) restrictions in Windows in the 1990s and may very well feel similarly about Apple's app store (and other) restrictions in iOS in the 2020s.
Whatever happens, I doubt any actions will result in Apple being broken up (as the judge had ruled in the MS case but was later overturned) but could certainly result in Apple having to loosen their restrictions or "excess control" of iOS.
But your description doesn't reflect what happened in the past. Again, a summary of the issues in the Microsoft case are described on the FTC website that I linked to. It has all the components that I quoted. Apple's situation does not.
What will likely happen is that new laws will be drafted to take away some of Apple's platform power just like we see in Europe. Again, new laws. Not antitrust actions based on current laws.