Correct me if I am wrong, but since Jailbreaking has been deemed legal, shouldn't it be illegal for Apple to prevent the rooting of its devices?
Sounds messed up, in my opinion.
Sounds messed up, in my opinion.
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.
Wait Wait Apple slow down
- Thread starter Jayman34187
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sure, but jailbreaking like in the one that was just patched is actually done via a security exploit which will open up your device to do just about anything a hacker wants it to do.
Just because jailbreaking is legal doesn't mean Apple has to allow it. They can block it all they want.
its legal but it will void your warranty, just because jailbreaking can screw up your device and apple doesnt want to fix all of those problems
Yeah, but Apple still will void your warranty if you jailbreak. They just don't want anything not official on your device.
Nothing has really changed in the way that Apple handles jailbreaks, and there's nothing in there saying that they can't plug known security holes.
That judgement merely stated that jail breaking does not violate the DCMA (the only real law Apple could of brought criminal charges against someone under).
Nowhere does it state that Apple MUST allow some method of jail breaking to exist. Note, this also means (especially as Apple uses a LIMITED warranty) that they are perfectly in the right to say jail breaking a phone voids the warranty.
So if I bought a new car from GM and wanted to add mods to it GM didn't intend for the car to have, like lets say an Upgraded computer chip to make the car go faster , Can GM lie to me about a new an Improved Computer program even better than the upgrade I put on it and block the computer from being able to upgrade it again?
Can they lie about what they do to your car? No. If they do something, and they lie about what they are doing (outright, a lie of omission would probably "be okay") and that new upgrade did nothing but stop you from modifying the car's computer, then they would be in the wrong.
The DCMA/Jailbreak ruling was necessary as under prior interpretations of the DCMA, Apple could of sued you and/or the dev team for bypassing copyright restrictions. They no longer can. (Unfortunetly, to many other companies still could under similar situations. Betamax says you can have a backup copy, DCMA says it's illegal to make [but not have] a back up copy if there are any anti-copy measures on the piece of IP).
Apple isn't blocking you from upgrading the software at all. Neither are they lying to you. You can go ahead and upgrade a jailbroken iPhone, no one is denying you that privilege. What Apple's doing is simply denying your phone the warranty that came with the phone they sent you, not the one you modified. It's a bit of a restrictive measure, but it's a good way to guarantee that if you had to change your phone for whatever reason it's Apple's sole responsibility. It broke on it's own and wasn't changed in any way that could have damaged it. Microsoft has banned thousands of users, not all for having broken laws. Simply for using modified hardware that they don't allow.
In the case of the car, why not just reinsert the original chip and upgrade it from there? After you've done that, replace the chip with your own once more. iPhone users have to do the same to upgrade their phones.
Apple have the right to void the warranty if the phone gets a jailbreak, just like GM can void a warranty on engine if anything is used but DexCool antifreeze in a GM vehicle. That is fine... But GM can't tell me what I can and can't put in my car just Apple Shouldn't be able to tell you what Apps you can and can't put on your phone. It's your phone. if it voids your warranty that is your choice, shouldn't be Apples.
Found this.... So does this new OS 4.1 go against this below?
It could quite possibly become the mother of all antitrust cases because a plaintiff in this lawsuit is anyone who bought an iPhone since day one, ZDNet warned. Litigants demand that sales of locked iPhones in the US be stopped and are seeking unspecified damages. The lawsuit alleges that Apple and AT&T willfully engaged into monopoly practices because theyve been discouraging users from leaving the network by refusing to unlock their iPhones following the expiration of their two-year service contracts.
This, in turn, is a serious violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 2301 et seq), and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 1030). Beyond the device and carrier lock-in, the plaintiffs contended that Apple monopolized third-party applications for the iPhone and that the iPhone became unusable if a customer had unlocked it for use on another service provider. Ouch!
Thank you for providing what is the real issue here. I didn't dig into this past the headlines when the decision was announced and the first question I had was about the legality of the issue.
What is DCMA? Were there ever any charges brought to anyone for jail breaking? What would have been a typical or worst cast scenario if jailbreaking was allowed to be illegal?
At this point, I'm doing a mental exercise, like I said I haven't read any of the other discussions on it. The car analogy I can sort of see - perhaps modding a car in a certain way would create an unsafe situation for its occupants or other drivers.
Altering an electronic device isn't the same, just the technicality of breaking a contract although no real damages result. Or perhaps in can result in theft of bandwidth. Still, even those two examples don't strike me as criminal.
Ack, had that backwards. It's DMCA - a bit of US law.
Now, Apple had never sued under this, but they liked having the option.
Now, Apple had never sued under this, but they liked having the option.
Ok, so you agree it's fine they void the warranty, what else do you need?
Oh yes, because I'm sure everyone will just agree to voiding their own warranties willingly? You remind me of a teenager complaining about how controlling parents can be.
I think the issue he has is that there is no way enabled by Apple to add Apps that don't meet appstore approval.
Nope, they can prevent it as much as they want and its perfectly legal to do so.
1) Jailbreaking could be construed as breaking the Software License Agreement.
2) There is no software warranty. Apple doesn't even warrant their own software, and every agreement you sign with them states that they don't even have the obligation of making sure their own OS or updates work.
Therefore jailbreaking via software does NOT legally violate the hardware warranty, IMO, since it only covers hardware and hardware-related mods. In fact, it's almost word for word the same hardware warranty as the one used for other Apple products such as laptops, that people put "unapproved" software on all the time.
3) However, Apple decided that as a matter of policy, they could use software jailbreaking as an excuse to deny hardware warranty work.
2) There is no software warranty. Apple doesn't even warrant their own software, and every agreement you sign with them states that they don't even have the obligation of making sure their own OS or updates work.
Therefore jailbreaking via software does NOT legally violate the hardware warranty, IMO, since it only covers hardware and hardware-related mods. In fact, it's almost word for word the same hardware warranty as the one used for other Apple products such as laptops, that people put "unapproved" software on all the time.
3) However, Apple decided that as a matter of policy, they could use software jailbreaking as an excuse to deny hardware warranty work.
Not unless you enjoy living in the stone ages and wish all creativity and innovations to stop. They must have some level of security to protect its users otherwise people would not purchase their product. If the analog cell phone system was still in use today, how many people here would buy an analog phone knowing how easy people could listen in on their calls?
No, that lawsuit is a joke and a waste of the courts time. Limiting the iPhone to one carrier is not a monopoly; it is nothing more then one of many products that can be used to access a service. It can only be a monopoly if the user has no choice but to use the iPhone, that is clearly not the case. Desire and choice are not the same.
Yep, some even try to avoid covering repairs if you didnt do the required 30K mile service or dont do your rootine maintance thru the dealer etc...
What exactly is Apple lying about? The stated precisely what the update does in the release notes: it patches a serious vulnerability in the PDF software. The fact that it happens to block jail breaking is just a side effect (a desirable one for Apple in this case).
To keep with your car analogy, it would be like GM discovering a flaw in the braking system of one of its cars, and doing a recall/repair that happens to make it more difficult to do some other unnecessary modification to the vehicle.
The thing about this is that Apple is fast to patch anything jailbreak related, but they're twiddling their thumbs on the proximity sensor issue.