iOS6 wish: "Jailbreak" toggle

[moonman239]

I would love it if Apple would let me jailbreak my phone. Like by going to Settings, then toggling "Jailbroken" from "OFF" to "ON." That would be awesome sauce!

They would probably sell a lot more iPhones that way

 

[roadbloc]

Pointless and never going to happen.

 

[Ashwood11]

Then your warranty would toggle on and off.

 

[Qaanol]

Apple is currently abusing its monopoly position. It has become the controlling Big Brother it was supposed to smash in its iconic 1984 TV commercial. The right thing to do is allow the owners of the devices in question—iPhones, iPads, iPod Touches, iTVs, etc.—to have control over what software applications run on their own devices.

Apple is using a “trusted computing” model, where Apple gets to decide which programs are trusted. That is wrong way to do it. The owner of the device needs to have the ability to allocate his or her own trust, and thereby to run apps of his or her own choosing.

The only thing I trust Apple—or any other corporation—to do is look out for its own bottom line and shareholder profits. In fact, a 93-year-old Supreme Court decision held that corporations are legal obligated to make shareholder profits their foremost concern.

Apple gets a large cut of all apps sold through its App Store, and Apple’s actions make its App Store a monopoly. It is unreasonable to expect that Apple would voluntarily give up that monopoly position and its accompanying profits.

The only efficacious solution is for the federal government to launch an anti-trust investigation. One may hope Apple would respond by providing built-in jailbreak capabilities, so as to remove itself from the monopoly position. If it does not, however, the correct outcome of such a case would be a legal injunction forcing Apple to do so, and also providing monetary damages paid by Apple to all App Developers that were forced into using the monopolistic App Store for distribution.

 

[WordMasterRice]

Apple is currently abusing its monopoly position. It has become the controlling Big Brother it was supposed to smash in its iconic 1984 TV commercial. The right thing to do is allow the owners of the devices in question—iPhones, iPads, iPod Touches, iTVs, etc.—to have control over what software applications run on their own devices.

Apple is using a “trusted computing” model, where Apple gets to decide which programs are trusted. That is wrong way to do it. The owner of the device needs to have the ability to allocate his or her own trust, and thereby to run apps of his or her own choosing.

The only thing I trust Apple—or any other corporation—to do is look out for its own bottom line and shareholder profits. In fact, a 93-year-old Supreme Court decision held that corporations are legal obligated to make shareholder profits their foremost concern.

Apple gets a large cut of all apps sold through its App Store, and Apple’s actions make its App Store a monopoly. It is unreasonable to expect that Apple would voluntarily give up that monopoly position and its accompanying profits.

The only efficacious solution is for the federal government to launch an anti-trust investigation. One may hope Apple would respond by providing built-in jailbreak capabilities, so as to remove itself from the monopoly position. If it does not, however, the correct outcome of such a case would be a legal injunction forcing Apple to do so, and also providing monetary damages paid by Apple to all App Developers that were forced into using the monopolistic App Store for distribution.

That really would be a dream come true.

 

[APlotdevice]

Apple would never support full out jailbreaking. Not just because they want to control the experience, but also because jailbreaking allows for app piracy.

A somewhat more reasonable suggestion would be to import "Gatekeeper" from OSX ML. Whereby you can install apps from trusted third party sources.

 

[Qaanol]

Apple would never support full out jailbreaking. Not just because they want to control the experience, but also because jailbreaking allows for app piracy.

Actually, I’d make the argument that, by controlling what apps are available, Apple has taken on accountability—whether it wants it or not—for any copyright, trademark, patent, or other violation that ends up available in the App Store. As in, by attempting to police apps, it follows that, if Apple mistakenly approves something illegal into the App Store, then Apple must be held liable as complicit in the violation for its role in approving said app.

“Common Carrier” protection cannot possibly apply to an intermediary such as Apple who actually looks at each individual submission and only provides access to the ones it deems “acceptable”.

On the other hand, if Apple let people install and run whatever they wanted—like they do with OS X—then any person who uses illegal programs is entirely culpable for their own actions, and Apple has no responsibility in the matter.

A somewhat more reasonable suggestion would be to import "Gatekeeper" from OSX ML. Whereby you can install apps from trusted third party sources.

Trusted by whom? Apple?

My whole point is that you, as owner and operator of your own physical property, in this case an iOS device, must—by any reasonable definition of “ownership”—be the person with final say regarding what sources you trust for programs you run on your own device.

 

[kayloh20]

This would also allow Apple to track who's jailbreaking their phones and void warranty as opposed to the current situation where people can pretend they never jailbroke by restoring.

I approve.

 

[ADMProducer]

This would also allow Apple to track who's jailbreaking their phones and void warranty as opposed to the current situation where people can pretend they never jailbroke by restoring.

I approve.

Don't be so stupid. If it was accesible in the software it will then be covered by the warranty.

That being said, it would never happen.

 

[DryEyez]

That goes against the entire religion of what apple is. They will never 'consent' to jailbreaking your device

 

[rdowns]

Apple is currently abusing its monopoly position.

I stopped reading there. Perhaps you ought to know what a monopoly is before embarking on a post such as that one.

 

[APlotdevice]

Actually, I’d make the argument that, by controlling what apps are available, Apple has taken on accountability—whether it wants it or not—for any copyright, trademark, patent, or other violation that ends up available in the App Store. As in, by attempting to police apps, it follows that, if Apple mistakenly approves something illegal into the App Store, then Apple must be held liable as complicit in the violation for its role in approving said app.

“Common Carrier” protection cannot possibly apply to an intermediary such as Apple who actually looks at each individual submission and only provides access to the ones it deems “acceptable”.

On the other hand, if Apple let people install and run whatever they wanted—like they do with OS X—then any person who uses illegal programs is entirely culpable for their own actions, and Apple has no responsibility in the matter.

"Accountability" still exists on the Mac App Store. It has nothing to do with whether the platform is open. A store owner is responsible for what is sold in their store. On the occasions that an app is mistakenly approved, Apple does remove said app upon discovery of that mistake.

Trusted by whom? Apple?

My whole point is that you, as owner and operator of your own physical property, in this case an iOS device, must—by any reasonable definition of “ownership”—be the person with final say regarding what sources you trust for programs you run on your own device.

To be clear I personally do think that the device owner should be trusted. However many app publishers and other content providers feel otherwise. They want their IP to be "protected", and put considerable pressure on companies like Apple to do so. There is also the whole issue of viruses and spyware. More tech savvy users generally know how to avoid these, however they make up only a small minority of consumers. Apple has a long standing reputation of being the "safe" choice, though the increased popularity of their products means that malicious groups are increasingly likely to target them.

 

[Invincibilizer]

I stopped reading there. Perhaps you ought to know what a monopoly is before embarking on a post such as that one.

Barely any updates to the iPod touch line the last year, if that's not abusive power under a monopoly then i don't know what is

 

[swordfish5736]

Barely any updates to the iPod touch line the last year, if that's not abusive power under a monopoly then i don't know what is

I don't think the iPod touch is on the same yearly update schedule as the iPhone. I also don't think most people who buy iPod touch's would replace them yearly with the next one like a lot of iPhone owners do(I also know a lot of iPhone owners who do not replace every year). The fact that the product roadmap is not how you like it does not make it a monopoly. There are other devices out there-yes i know they don't compete much at all but they are there- How is a product road-map abusive power under a monopoly? The iPod classic hasn't seen an update it quiet awhile but that doesn't make it abuse of power, in that case apple more and more people are buying iPod touch's and iPhones instead of regular iPods.

I also don't think keeping iOS a closed system is monopolistic either. It has become more open since it was created so if it were a monopoly shouldn't it have become more closed since it was created?


It'd be great to see apple put a gatekeeper option into iOS but i just don't see it happening anytime soon. What happens when somebody that isn't so tech savvy decides to turn it off and they end up with spyware on there phone. They will blame apple for allowing it to happen as will everyone else. The way i see it its a damned if you do damned if you don't situation for apple. Either they get scrutinized for having such a "walled garden" or they get scrutinized for leaving it to open to the average consumer.

I think there is a middle point somewhere with a solution that hasn't been implemented yet but if anybody could pull it off i'd say its apple. Maybe apple will put gatekeeper in iOS 6 create a new section of the app store, require the user to understand what they are going to be installing and allow things from cydia to be sold thru that. More money for cydia devs and more money for apple, i doubt it but i'd like it.

 

[3bs]

I think there is a middle point somewhere with a solution that hasn't been implemented yet but if anybody could pull it off i'd say its apple. Maybe apple will put gatekeeper in iOS 6 create a new section of the app store, require the user to understand what they are going to be installing and allow things from cydia to be sold thru that. More money for cydia devs and more money for apple, i doubt it but i'd like it.

Not a bad idea. I too doubt it'll happen though.

 

[swordfish5736]

Not a bad idea. I too doubt it'll happen though.

I highly doubt it would happen as well but can dream can't we?

 

[3bs]

I highly doubt it would happen as well but can dream can't we?

We sure can.

 

[Qaanol]

I stopped reading there. Perhaps you ought to know what a monopoly is before embarking on a post such as that one.

Apple Inc. categorically and unambiguously maintains a monopoly over the distribution of software for the iOS platform. The only significant competition comes from Cydia, and Apple has consistently endeavored to make it more and more difficult to access Cydia.

 

[swordfish5736]

Apple Inc. categorically and unambiguously maintains a monopoly over the distribution of software for the iOS platform. The only significant competition comes from Cydia, and Apple has consistently endeavored to make it more and more difficult to access Cydia.

what do you consider the definition of a monopoly?

by your logic microsoft also has a monopoly on the windows phone software platform cause they control it.

that's like saying a car maker has a monopoly on there brand of vehicle cause you can only buy it with an engine produced by them.

 

[jmmo20]

Apple would never support full out jailbreaking. Not just because they want to control the experience, but also because jailbreaking allows for app piracy.

A somewhat more reasonable suggestion would be to import "Gatekeeper" from OSX ML. Whereby you can install apps from trusted third party sources.

Actually Apple has done virtually nothing to prevent piracy.
In contract to music piracy, where they updated so many times the fairplay protocol. Once the app fairplay was broken when jailbreak was first avaialbe, apple hasn't changed it.

If only Apple would put half the effort they put to prevent jailbreaking into preventing app piracy on jailbroken iphones..

 

[5aga]

Apple is currently abusing its monopoly position. It has become the controlling Big Brother it was supposed to smash in its iconic 1984 TV commercial. The right thing to do is allow the owners of the devices in question—iPhones, iPads, iPod Touches, iTVs, etc.—to have control over what software applications run on their own devices.

Apple is using a “trusted computing” model, where Apple gets to decide which programs are trusted. That is wrong way to do it. The owner of the device needs to have the ability to allocate his or her own trust, and thereby to run apps of his or her own choosing.

The only thing I trust Apple—or any other corporation—to do is look out for its own bottom line and shareholder profits. In fact, a 93-year-old Supreme Court decision held that corporations are legal obligated to make shareholder profits their foremost concern.

Apple gets a large cut of all apps sold through its App Store, and Apple’s actions make its App Store a monopoly. It is unreasonable to expect that Apple would voluntarily give up that monopoly position and its accompanying profits.

The only efficacious solution is for the federal government to launch an anti-trust investigation. One may hope Apple would respond by providing built-in jailbreak capabilities, so as to remove itself from the monopoly position. If it does not, however, the correct outcome of such a case would be a legal injunction forcing Apple to do so, and also providing monetary damages paid by Apple to all App Developers that were forced into using the monopolistic App Store for distribution.

I didn't realize Apple devices are the only options on the market. You sound as if they "forced" you into buying their product.

If you don't like Apple's system,there are definitely other options.

 

[Qaanol]

what do you consider the definition of a monopoly?

mo·nop·o·ly   [muh-nop-uh-lee]
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.

In this case, the service is “distribution of apps” and the particular market is “the iOS platform”.

by your logic microsoft also has a monopoly on the windows phone software platform cause they control it.

I don’t know anything about Windows phones, so I cannot comment on the matter.

that's like saying a car maker has a monopoly on there brand of vehicle cause you can only buy it with an engine produced by them.

Not quite. It’s more like a car maker that does everything it can to prevent independent mechanics from replacing any part of the engine, and for other modifications like replacing the radio or changing the type of headlight, mechanics are required to pay 30% of their fee to the car maker.

I didn't realize Apple devices are the only options on the market.

You are making a straw man argument, which is a logical fallacy. You are talking as if my claim had to do with a monopoly on phones or other physical devices. It does not. What I claim is that Apple has a monopoly on the distribution of software for the iOS platform. It is a monopoly on a service.

You sound as if they "forced" you into buying their product.

This straw man is irrelevant. I am factually accurate in stating that developers of iOS apps are essentially forced into using Apple’s distribution system, the App Store. That is the monopoly.

If you don't like Apple's system,there are definitely other options.

Again, it is not a monopoly on physical hardware. It is a monopoly on the distribution of software for a specific platform. A developer of iOS software does not have other reasonable options for distribution. The only significant alternative to the monopolistic App Store is the Cydia store, and Apple continues to put great effort into making Cydia inaccessible.

 

[porcupine8]

I would rather they just fix all of the things that make me want to jailbreak.

 

[McGiord]

What is needed is an iPhone iWoz.
It comes with 8 expansion slots.

 

[moonman239]

I would rather they just fix all of the things that make me want to jailbreak.

There you go. My other suggestion was to make an iOS-Android hybrid OS, perhaps allowing the user to either have an Apple-esque level of control over their devices or an Android-esque level of control over their devices. They would be able to choose between letting Apple control what they do on their devices and the open world that Android gives you access to.

Anyways, I should mention that I wrote an e-mail to Tim Cook. I'll let you know what he says about it when and if I ever get a reply.