Zibri's Latest Post

[dupdup]

I've been using a Ziphone Jailbroken phone w/o problem for a while now, so I've come to respect what Zibri did. In his latest post here:

http://status.ziphone.org/

Zibri seems to be indicating there may be issues with the dev team approach if I understand his point. Also alluded to other dire consequences:

"About the 'soon to be released' hacks,
think about the playstation or online games;
you can crack them, but you won't be able
to play online with legit buyers.

Now think: what is an offline iPhone?
A paperweight.
That's what you're gonna have
if (WHEN) apple decides to push a button.
And this time they will."

I don't know the history here, but it is starting to make me uncomfortable, cause I really love my apps and summerboard skins. Can someone comment on what is going on here between these guys? Also whether you think he might be right.

 

[Warbrain]

I think he's referring to the iPhone 3G. They could have developed a kill switch in the code for the 3G when the OS is compromised. I hope not but you never know.

It could also be Zibri being a paranoid bastard.

 

[Asar]

he makes a great point.

 

[Nicholie]

I've been using a Ziphone Jailbroken phone w/o problem for a while now, so I've come to respect what Zibri did. In his latest post here:

http://status.ziphone.org/

Zibri seems to be indicating there may be issues with the dev team approach if I understand his point. Also alluded to other dire consequences:

"About the 'soon to be released' hacks,
think about the playstation or online games;
you can crack them, but you won't be able
to play online with legit buyers.

Now think: what is an offline iPhone?
A paperweight.
That's what you're gonna have
if (WHEN) apple decides to push a button.
And this time they will."

I don't know the history here, but it is starting to make me uncomfortable, cause I really love my apps and summerboard skins. Can someone comment on what is going on here between these guys? Also whether you think he might be right.

Lets poke some holes in this.

Why would Apple cut this out? They've effectively already done all there obligations to AT&T, as you now can't buy the device without signing their dotted line. What people do with there phones from their is sadly NOT Apple's problem, or they would have done so in the past year that it has literally ran rampant. If anything, the popularity ratio of jailbreaking to the ratio of sold iPhones can only be expected to DECREASE dramatically over the course of the iPhone 3g due to the App Store and increased consumption.

Security is a big issue for Apple & the iPhone. They won't to give everyone a secure experience, so certain apps that are in the Jailbroken catalog just will not happen. Does this mean Apple is against its users compromising there own security for them? Absolutely not.

App Store Revenue. Given the App Store is ran through iTunes the same way music is, Apple's philosophy stays the same as for Music. The iTunes stores are NOT designed to profit, but only provide self-sustaining revenue.

Now, i'm not saying Apple isn't going to try to prevent such action through fixing security holes in its OS in future updates, much like they did with the previous iPhone. But to just flick a switch and all of a sudden your jailbroken iPhone phones home and bricks itself?

Not happening.

 

[hard-case]

I'm sure it's possible, but logically speaking I kinda doubt it.

1. No WAY would the PR/Marketing people let something like that fly. The moment Apple "flips that switch" they're going to have a *****TORM of negative publicity that's going to be very, very hard to come back from...

2. AT&T is also involved in this venture, and anyone who buys an iPhone is locked into a 2 year contract. AT&T would get a LOT of flack as well, and I wouldn't be surprised to see people pushing for contract cancellations and going to another carrier, thus further cutting into Apple and AT&T's revenue.

2. It's kinda rare, actually, to find that heavy a penalty for intrusion/modification. Mostly because you always run the risk of a "false positive" event, and a lot of companies just won't want to face that kind of risk.

3. What is the benefit of taking such a stance? There's no monetary benefit due to the requirement of a contract, unlike the first iPhone release. Apple is getting paid for it, as is AT&T. There's no public relations or marketing benefit. Where's the upside for Apple?

What I would see is something like during an iTunes sync the system detects a "modified" firmware, and it would then proceed to download and reflash to a standard version. Something like that, where the user can easily restore their phone to good working order.

 

[frosse]

I kinda agree with Zibri about this opensource thing, how can it be stealing if its open source?