Just unjailbroke phone. My question is.....

TonyC28

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Aug 15, 2009
1,651
4,867
USA
(I un-jailbroke my phone becuase I noticed a big drop in battery life. I'm sure I did something wrong or could have avoided it but that's not why I'm here)

My question is....why doesn't Apple just sell some of the stuff that people do through jailbreaking? Call me a dork, but my first reason for jailbreaking was to customize my phone with themes and stuff like that. So why doesn't Apple sell themes through the App Store? Or sell backgrounds that users can have on their springboard?

It seems that one way to limit jailbreaking (at least for people like me who do it for customization and not free apps) would be to take away the reason to jailbreak in the first place. I would gladly pay a couple bucks for a theme rather than jailbreaking my phone and voiding the warantee.
 

labman

macrumors 604
Jun 9, 2009
7,787
1
Mich near Detroit
Don't know

Ask Apple or Steve Jobs if you get a answer please report back to us. But they will tell you battery life and it uses extra memory. Any way there are quite a few threads where this was discussed. Jb is not fir everybody!
 

theNEOone

macrumors 6502
Jun 28, 2007
250
0
NYC
I don't think anybody knows the real reason behind Apple's decision. Although I'm sure there are several possibilities for justifying why Apple doesn't allow certain things, I think that the limitation surrounding customization options has to do with uniformity. For the longest time, Apple products weren't really known for their technological superiority. Apple was about taking a couple of things in the market, integrating them into a nicely packaged product that was easy to use and easy to identify. This second part is particularly important for their type of branding and marketing for their products. The wanted a similar user experience across all their products, which means limiting customization. They also wanted to minimize bugs and glitches, which usually means keeping certain things out of the hands of users. This company culture found its way into the iPhone. I think they're starting to get a bit more hands-off, but not nearly enough for us power users. I also jailbroke my phone (initially) to theme my phone, but later found a host of apps available that would never see the light of day in the App Store (at least not in the foreseeable future). It's Apples loss, IMO - I've spent about $60-75 through Cydia, but maybe only $10-15 in the App Store.


=|
 

TonyC28

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Aug 15, 2009
1,651
4,867
USA
Thanks for the answer theNEOone. I guess that all makes sense. I'd be thrilled if Apple would add QuickReplySMS to the iPhone. For anyone who does a lot of texting that app is awesome
 

thelatinist

macrumors 603
Aug 15, 2009
5,934
49
Connecticut, USA
I'm working up a comprehensive post on Jailbreaking and Apple's attitudes toward it. Let me sum up: Apple wants to control every part of the iPhone user experience. They want you to think of your phone as a device rather than as a computer. We don't expect to customize our DVD player; we accept that the manufacturer will design an interface and we will use it. Apple wants its phone to be like that. Their goal is to create the perfect user experience according to their standards, and they want every iPhone to conform to that experience. You or I might think customizing the experience to our own tastes would be better, but Apple disagrees.
 

steve knight

macrumors 68030
Jan 28, 2009
2,638
7,090
They are controll freaks. But we can always hope for future software updates to allow some more customizing features.
very true and the only thing that will loosen them up is competition. lose sales then you start getting creative.
 

theNEOone

macrumors 6502
Jun 28, 2007
250
0
NYC
I'm working up a comprehensive post on Jailbreaking and Apple's attitudes toward it. Let me sum up: Apple wants to control every part of the iPhone user experience. They want you to think of your phone as a device rather than as a computer. We don't expect to customize our DVD player; we accept that the manufacturer will design an interface and we will use it. Apple wants its phone to be like that. Their goal is to create the perfect user experience according to their standards, and they want every iPhone to conform to that experience. You or I might think customizing the experience to our own tastes would be better, but Apple disagrees.
You might want to take a step back. Your explanation doesn't seem plausible to me. I agree that Apple wants to tightly control the user experience, but I don't agree with your reasoning behind WHY Apple wants to exert this level of control. You can't compare a DVD player to a smartphone. I can list all of the reasons why, but the single most important reason is that a DVD player is a passive device, in that a user "passively interacts with it." In other words, you load a disc, press a button, and sit back for 2 hours while the DVD player does it's thing. Because you only minimally engage the device, the interface is quite irrelevant. With an iPhone, a user ACTIVELY interacts with it. In addition to the fact that your interaction with the device determines 90% of your satisfaction with it, you're doing a heck of a lot more with your iPhone than just watching videos. The interface most definitely matters, and Apple is most definitely NOT trying to get you to think that the iPhone is not a computer (lots of negatives in there...sorry). You're talking about a completely different usage paradigm.

My assumptions:
1. A user's satisfaction with (and perceived usefulness of) the iPhone (or any smartphone) depends on the interface
2. There are tens of millions of different users, potentially using the iPhone in different ways
3. Each person's way of using the phone will be different
4. There is no way to create a single user interface that's perfect for every user
5. Apple knows this

My interpretation:
Apple's reasoning behind tightly controlling the iPhone goes beyond creating a "perfect" UI and forcing it on everyone.


=|
 

thelatinist

macrumors 603
Aug 15, 2009
5,934
49
Connecticut, USA
You might want to take a step back. Your explanation doesn't seem plausible to me. I agree that Apple wants to tightly control the user experience, but I don't agree with your reasoning of WHY Apple wants to exert this level of control. You can't compare a DVD player to a phone. I can list all of the reasons why, but the single most important reason is that a DVD player is a passive device, in that a user "passively interacts with it." In other words, you load a disc, press a button, and sit back for 2 hours while the DVD player does it's thing. Because you only minimally engage the device, the interface is quite irrelevant. With an iPhone, a user ACTIVELY interacts with it. In addition to the fact that your interaction with the device determines 90% of your satisfaction with it, you're doing a heck of a lot more with your iPhone than just watching videos. The interface most definitely matters, and Apple is most definitely NOT trying to get you to think that the iPhone is not a computer (lots of negatives in there...sorry). You're talking about a completely different usage paradigm.
They most certainly do not want you to think of your device as a computer. A computer is the ultimate jack-of-all trades, infinitely extensible in its abilities and customizable to the individual's tastes, style, and workflow. The iPhone in its jailbroken form is just such a machine. It is a fully-capable mini computer with an excellent and extensible BSD kernel.

But that is not what Apple wants. This is why they are so against jailbreaking. They want to determine which functionality your iPhone will have, and they want your interaction to completely passive...that of a consumer. They set the entire UI and allow no customization. You interact with your phone only in ways that Apple decides you can. Apps are like DVDs...they are content that you consume. They cannot interact with the OS except in certain prescribed ways, and private APIs are stricly forbidden. The same goes for videos and music...they are content to be consumed.

Sure the phone is a more complex device than a DVD player, and its apps are more interactive than a DVD menu, but they still want you to accept the iPhone as a device with certain prescribed and limited functions. I would argue that this paradigm is far closer to a DVD player than it is to a computer. To Apple, the iPhone is a platform for consumption of content and services.

I would like to add that your patronizing tone is offensive.
 

theNEOone

macrumors 6502
Jun 28, 2007
250
0
NYC
They most certainly do not want you to think of your device as a computer. A computer is the ultimate jack-of-all trades, infinitely extensible in its abilities and customizable to the individual's tastes, style, and workflow. The iPhone in its jailbroken form is just such a machine. It is a fully-capable mini computer with an excellent and extensible BSD kernel.

But that is not what Apple wants. This is why they are so against jailbreaking. They want to determine which functionality your iPhone will have, and they want your interaction to completely passive...that of a consumer. They set the entire UI and allow no customization. You interact with your phone only in ways that Apple decides you can. Apps are like DVDs...they are content that you consume. They cannot interact with the OS except in certain prescribed ways, and private APIs are stricly forbidden. The same goes for videos and music...they are content to be consumed.

Sure the phone is a more complex device than a DVD player, and its apps are more interactive than a DVD menu, but they still want you to accept the iPhone as a device with certain prescribed and limited functions. I would argue that this paradigm is far closer to a DVD player than it is to a computer. To Apple, the iPhone is a platform for consumption of content and services.

I would like to add that your patronizing tone is offensive.
Apologies for the tone - I get that alot.

I think you are wrong.

Although part of the iPhone is a platform for consumption of content and services, most of it is not.

I'm not "consuming" when I write an email.
I'm not "consuming" when I make a phone call.
I'm not "consuming" when I send a text, mms, etc.
I'm not "consuming" when I record a video, edit it and post it on YouTube.
I'm not "consuming" when I snap a picture and post it to Flikr.
I'm not "consuming" when I update my Facebook status or post to a friend's wall.
I'm not "consuming" when I tweet.
I'm not "consuming" when I take notes or create a To-Do list.
I'm not "consuming" when I process a credit-card payment.
I'm not "consuming" when I send a PayPal payment to a buddy.

etc etc ad infinitum

In each of the instances above I'm creating content. In some cases I'm consuming services to help me create content, but I'm not "consuming content" in the way you explained (hence the quotations). DVD players offer 0% content creation abilities, with or without associated services. Even if Apple did intend for the phone to be a platform that's entirely consumption-based, there's still a difference between active consumption and passive consumption. When I play a game, I'm consuming content, but you'd better believe that I'm not being passive. Interface matters when I'm playing a game. It does not matter when I'm watching a DVD. But I'm digressing here...

Back on topic...

You're making an argument that presents Apple as wanting to create and distribute a "limited" device. This seems like the complete opposite of what they've been trying to do. Each software release adds more functionality and each hardware release adds more storage and (recently) faster processing power. This seems alot more like a computer than a DVD player. What DVD manufacturer releases a new player and talks about new UI enhancements, software functionality, storage, and processing power???

You should revisit your thesis. You call the Jailbroken iPhone a fully capable mini-computer, yet the stock iPhone not. That's an awfully razor-thin distinction between calling something computer-like ("infinitely extensible" w/e that means) and DVD player-like.


=|
 

thelatinist

macrumors 603
Aug 15, 2009
5,934
49
Connecticut, USA
The history of the iPhone is the history of a limited device. Apple placed a chroot jail on the OS to prevent any consumer interaction with the way the phone runs. Originally Apple had no intention of allowing any non-native apps to run on the phone; in concept, all applications were to be web-based and were to have no access to the phone's hardware. Our phone was to have only the functionality that Apple designed into the phone.

The App store changed this paradigm, true. We can now have applications on our phone. But this did not alter Apple's commitment to keeping the iPhone a limited device. Apps are restricted only to functionality Apple approves of. Apple prevents applications from changing in any way the appearance of the UI, from altering or even duplicating any core functionality, and from accessing most hardware. An app can't even store content on your phone in such a way that it can be accessed by other apps or transfer files via USB! No customization of the phone is allowed in any way. You can't execute code not signed by apple. Perhaps you don't even realize just how restricted your use of your phone is.

Your argument that every release adds some functionality is precisely the point; it is Apple's functionality. We are still not allowed to create our own. If Apple wanted our iPhone to be a fully-functional and customizable computer, it could have done so long ago; remove the chroot jail and let us execute our own code. Until then, the unjailbroken iPhone remains only what Apple wants it to be.
 

TonyC28

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Aug 15, 2009
1,651
4,867
USA
I just think Apple is missing out on some profits. Sell themes through the app store. Sell SMS tones through the app store. And in 4.0 incorporate QuickReplySMS...my favorite app I got through Cydia.

I'm not suggesting they should make the iPhone totally open. And since I don't know crap about computers I don't even know what "open" really means. But when I saw how many different themes there are out there I immediately thought "why isn't Apple selling these through the app store?" Theres a lot of money to be made
 

trainguy77

macrumors 68040
Nov 13, 2003
3,567
1
I think apple just needs to push harder for adding some basic features. Like really? Why can't my iPhone always vibrate for texts and ring for calls?

By apple more features like this it would help limit the jailbreaking done.
Add something like sbsettings, and custom SMS tones.

So many smalls things to code could help the situation.
 

BergerFan

macrumors 68020
Mar 6, 2008
2,167
61
Mos Eisley
I think apple just needs to push harder for adding some basic features. Like really? Why can't my iPhone always vibrate for texts and ring for calls?

By apple more features like this it would help limit the jailbreaking done.
Add something like sbsettings, and custom SMS tones.

So many smalls things to code could help the situation.
Totally agreed. The only reason why I'm willing to put up with a tethered 3GS jailbreak, is for SBSettings, custom SMS tones and wallpaper on my homescreen via Winterboard - all of which, Apple could easily implement in OS 4.0.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.