Slashdot Mirror
Jail-Breaking iPhones at the Apple Store
An anonymous reader writes "According to an article in Xconomy, iPhone hacker and author Jonathan Zdziarski was invited to speak at an Apple Store in Cambridge, MA last week where he talked about the history of iPhone hacking, jail-breaking, and limitations of the official SDK. From the article, "Zdziarski was one of the first software engineers to figure out how to hack the iPhone, and he's the author of a forthcoming O'Reilly Media book called iPhone Open Application Development, which gives readers explicit instructions on jail-breaking iPhones. So for Apple to give Zdziarski the podium at an Apple retail location is a little like Steve Ballmer inviting Linus Torvalds to speak at a Windows product launch." Zdziarski reports in his own blog how the open source community was on the iPhone developer scene as early as 2007, long before enterprises got there, and estimates that nearly 40% of all iPhones have been jail-broken to run the third-party community software installer. Finally, this story from Top Tech News suggests that open source software might actually create competition for Apple's "official" developers, because applications using the open source iPhone compiler are not subject to the same limitations as official Apple SDK programs are."
Both Apple and ATT have non free practices at the core of their business. It is not surprising that they would each pretend to be more customer friendly than they really are. The iPhone suffers restrictions from both companies that are integral to each company's business model.
It would be better to have free software devices that could use free spectrum. This would remove the ability of others to restrict your communications and such things are vital if we are to undo the damage broadcast media has done to democracy.
No calls now, I'm
"So for Apple to give Zdziarski the podium at an Apple retail location is a little like Steve Ballmer inviting Linus Torvalds to speak at a Windows product launch."
I would say very little like this if at all, when you use a hacked iphone you still had to shell out the bucks(to apple) for the device. When you run Linux you can completely avoid giving any cash to Microsoft.
open source software might actually create competition for Apple's "official" developers
:)
Riiiiiiight, just like the homebrew scene creates competition for Sony, Nintendo, and the Xbox 360. If someone want to goof around with doing homebrew iPhone apps, great! But, there is no way that jailbroken apps will be any sort of successful business model for the iPhone. No business will pay for it or install it, and too few consumers will be brave enough to jailbreak. 40% of iPhones are jailbroken? Ridiculous.
If devs really want to do open source phone applications why aren't they using Android or OpenMoko?
- "When you want something with all your heart, the entire universe conspires to give it to you" -Paulo Coelho
And people have tried to develop such devices. And no one has bought them. No one has bought them because the UI is bad, the industrial design is worse and when people have problems they are told to fix them themselves or to search the forums.
Apple is extremely customer friendly. They make it easy and pleasant to use their devices for the purposes advertised. However, they are not particularly Open Source friendly. Not as bad as some, not as good as others. Open source and customer friendly occasionally overlap, but most open source is not particularly customer friendly and many of the basic devices that make our lives easier are not open source.
Open source/unlocked apps will be a competitive option only for those who have the technical gumption to risk bricking or otherwise crippling their phone, and the burden of time and attention required to learn how to uncripple it. This is acceptable to the hacker community, but not to the majority of iPhone users, who just want a stable, uninterrupted user experience.
I was at a seminar given by reps from RIM, the Blackberry maker. The guy -- fairly senior -- said there are features that they would love to include on their Blackberrys (blackberries?), which the customers want, but the carriers won't allow them to provide those features because they want to offer their own services and charge customers high rates for them.
While I don't doubt your honesty, RIM makes available a fully documented SDK and has done so for years. If the carriers don't want RIM to provide these features, nothing is stopping anyone else from doing so. There are lots of 3rd-party applications available for the blackberry platform.
Apple probably needs to provide a veneer of protection to keep its contract with the carrier, but is quite happy when somebody hacks their phone, as it helps them to sell more phones.
True, but Apple gets a monthly tribute from AT&T for every iphone that is active with AT&T. Which is bigger, Apple's margins on iphone sales or AT&T's tribute to Apple?
I keep seeing these two concepts being confused. Jailbreaking is the act of circumventing the original OS to run arbitrary code. Unlocking is the act of disabling the link between the handset and the AT&T SIM, thereby allowing the use of other mobile providers. The former does not imply the latter.
I have said it before and I will say it again. Apple is a publicly held corporation. Their fiduciary duty is to their shareholders. Their goal is to be profitable. However, their business model (strategy of doing business in order to be profitable) centers around making well-designed, elegant, easy-to-use, robust products. (By 'robust' I mean in a design/UI sense, not necessarily in a hardware sense.) They believe that controlling and streamlining the entire consumer experience from start to finish is the best way to deliver their product--this is the reason behind the Apple Retail Stores, the near-obsessive attention to the packaging, and the restrictions of the iPhone OS. Make no mistake; Apple doesn't do this out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it because it is a way to stand out in a competitive and rapidly shifting industry, and be profitable. But this long-held strategy of attention to the consumer experience and design excellence has created a community of Apple enthusiasts, and they often misinterpret Apple as being more altruistic than they actually are.
The hacker philosophy runs completely counter to Apple's view because they believe devices are meant to be experimented on, each component dissected, analyzed, and understood. They are unafraid of taking something apart and reassembling it to meet their needs. Apple's model is geared not towards these hackers, but to the average consumer, who, if allowed to tinker, would probably break something and have no idea how to fix it. The wildly popular success of iPods and the increasing market share of Macs in the face of the MS monopoly demonstrates that Apple's strategy is the correct one to adopt--the average user values stability and predictability over the ability to play Dr. Frankenstein with their precious, beautifully designed Mac/iPod/iPhone. The idea that "it just works" is in itself a kind of freedom.
Apple knows they can't keep the iPhone OS locked down forever. They knew it before they even had built the thing. They realized, however, that (1) upon initial release, the OS would not be complete, (2) they needed to buy themselves time to establish a user base and fix stability issues, (3) locking the OS would prevent the casual user from messing around and then complaining that the iPhone sucks because it's too easy to break, (4) it fits with their business model. The only good thing the hackers/jailbreakers have done is to push Apple to develop the SDK faster, and put more emphasis on security. I don't see their actual jailbreaking as being particularly relevant, because it is still not something that most users would do. Many users so strongly enjoy the integrated, streamlined Apple experience that the last thing they want to do is run some "shady" code and open themselves up to the unknown. It all goes back to the philosophical dichotomy mentioned above.
Well, if he voluntarily "tells on himself" at the open request of apple, it would be really difficult for him to claim ignorance or deny much of the charges.
I give kudos to him but I would still be cautious in what and how something was said. Simply switching an attitude of It's mine, I bought it to a everyone should have the right to not be limited by corporations can go a long way in persuading a judge or jury to take a specific stand. I remember having a car malfunction and losing control and running off the road once. I told the cop that "I noticed problems and pulled over to park while it became increasingly hard to control the vehicle". He tore up a "failure to control" ticket because I ran into a ditch that I rightly should have gotten and instead gave me a fix-it ticket where if I could show the car had been fixed in a certain amount of time, it wouldn't cost me anything. There was no mechanical error until after I left the road, I wasn't paying attention and came upon a corner too fast.
Still, this would only work a couple of times so maybe it is to collect evidence on other people?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Software freedom does not keep people from profiting.
I agree, and it comes down to different business models. There is room for different business models, and in Apple's case, they have choose one business model over another. Perhaps they could make it work by being more like IBM, or perhaps for the kind of products that Apple wants to sell, their business model works better for them. And why shouldn't they have that choice?
The moral objection comes from stripping people of their software freedom.
But that assumes that the product would otherwise have been made using another business model. It also assumes that putting one's own interests above others is immoral. Uncompassionate or selfish, perhaps.
People who do this pretend that it's the only way for them to make money but it's clearly about means of extortion now.
Really? everyone who charges for software pretends that it's the only way? Perhaps for some, it actually is, and for some, it's simply a choice. And I'm sure there are some who pretend that, too. I'd hardly call it extortion in most cases.
Non free software is bad for you, even if it does one or two things you like. It's owners think they have a right to tell you what you can and can not do. If you give them that they will simply take more from you.
How is it bad for me? If Apple didn't follow their business model, they may have simply chosen not to do it at all. Then I wouldn't even have the choice to buy it. Your argument hinges on a false premise and makes assumptions about what I value.
I just hope that since creative is shooting themselves in the foot by going with S/W sound that some company will come along with an affordable replacement.IMHO onboard sound will never beat a dedicated card anymore than an all in one sound effect chip will beat dedicated rack effects.But that is my 02c,YMMV.But you really should read it--How many companies can you name that would threaten legal action for providing a WORKING Vista driver for their product for free?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
So for Apple to give Zdziarski the podium at an Apple retail location is a little like Steve Ballmer inviting Linus Torvalds to speak at a Windows product launch."
I'd say it's more like Citibank inviting Mitnick to talk about security, or the MPAA inviting DVD Jon.
I will never understand OS wars. I run XP, Vista, Ubuntu, Arch, BSD, and OS X on various machines and partitions in this house. Right tool for the job, that's all there is to it.
+++ATH0
This is a very subjective thing to measure. For one person, "customer friendly" might mean "makes a product that the customer thinks makes him cool" and for another it might mean "helps the customer adapt a product to his own purposes, rather than expect the customer to adapt to the purposes of the manufacturer".
You know, if you'd been fair enough to point out some of the things the iPhone does well -- say, "provides a smooth and unexcelled mobile web browsing experience" or "offers a well-integrated convergence between music player and phone" -- instead of "a product that the customer thinks makes him cool," you might have delivered some genuine insight and actually deserved the mod up.*
You started off so well, too. Lots of people on Slashdot (and elsewhere) can't seem to understand that just because a given product doesn't embody their priorities, there may still be a legitimate market for it.
And then you went south, essentially suggesting that anybody who finds the iPhone sufficient for their purposes must be buying it as a status item.
And people wonder why Apple fans sometimes end up with a chip on their shoulder.
Tweet, tweet.
I do not comment on every issue related to Apple. I typically write about topics that either interest me, or are being falsely portrayed by idiots in the corporate media.
Taking that into perspective, it's no mystery why I quite consistently side with Apple: I'm choosing between Apple and Idiots. There are plenty of valid criticisms of Apple, and I do take some effort to mention these when they haven't already been drummed to death.
Calling me a shill just highlights that you don't know what a shill is. FYI: it pertains to somebody who directs attention to a product they know is worthless or a rip off, like carnival games, while pretending they have benefitted from them or are a happy customer. For that reason, I have no problem speaking of Windows Shills.
Describing the genius of a marketing strategy, or plotting tech trends that appear to favor Apple is not something than can be described as being a shill.
Your position on unrestricted mobile development is your own opinion (one you hold with all the other corporate media idiots, I might add). I've detailed rational reasons why I disagree, and think Apple is doing the right thing. I have not seen any rational ideas bubble up from the OMG APPLE HURTS US WITH RESTRICTIONS camp, just frothy emotional outbreaks and broad generalizations that dismiss the facts the Windows PC is a security nightmare, Java ME is a mess on phones, and that Symbian and RIM are both pursuing a similar restriction strategy as Apple.
You can spew emotional rhetoric about how everything Apple does is an expression of the farcical tyranny of Steve Jobs, and how Apple has a moral obligation to open EDGE to VoIP despite its contracts with AT&T, but it doesn't add up to anything more than the whining of an anti-fanboy.
Microsoft attained its position by being anticompetitive: announcing products it never shipped on time, exclusive agreements that blocked any rivals, products tied to its core monopolies, and buying up products and companies and shutting them down. Apple is attaining its success by delivering better products, putting a lot of work into them, a lot of forethought, and delivering consistent advancements.
If you want to dismiss me as a shill for being the lone voice in the wilderness defending one of the best companies to ever exist in tech, pound your keyboard to death doing so. If you want to insist that Apple has a moral obligation to start following your strategies now that it has leading products and significant market power, you are sure free to babble on about it just like the 90% of CNET/ZDNet that wasn't recently laid off. However, you don't really have any right to demonize me for writing truth and reporting accurately, and allowing critics such as yourself to freely post your own counterpoints in the comments of my articles.
I also disagree with your opinion that "Apple is better because the product is better, not because they have better control over your experience." I would say Apple's products are often better because it offers better control over your experience. That's why it "just works," and why DIY FOSS does not. There are great advantages to open ended freedom, but there are drawbacks too. Most people don't want a car that forces them to do daily maintenance on it for it to work.
A maintenance free battery and computer-controlled ignition are not "freedom barriers" but rather time savers that prevent drivers from having to pour water in their battery, balance its electrolytes, and fiddle with rotors, points and a tricky butterfly valve. It's the same thing with the sealed battery in the iPhone and the limitations on apps to prevent them from going apeshit and killing your phone.
You can continue to froth emotionally about how evil Apple is for not following the "wisdom" of the crowd, but I prefer to think Apple knows more about what its doing than the morons who are too quick to bewail it.
And now, a link:
Mac Shot First: 10 Reasons Why CanSecWest Targets Apple
but empowering CLI scripting, X11 apps and Unix power tools on a desktop machine is not equivalent to allowing developers to convert the iPhone into another junk mobile platform with the interface of WinCE, the stability of the Palm OS, the performance of Java ME, the viruses of Symbian, and the political feuding and incompatibilities of mobile Linux.
You have repeatedly failed to explain why the one leads to the other, and why changing from a desktop to a mobile device magically makes this a huge problem. The reasons cited (which aren't reasons so much as emotional reactions) are often something along the lines of "OMG ITS A FONE IT HAS TO WERK!!!!1" Well, see, here's the problem with this logic. Take a look at Windows Mobile phones, which I think we can agree are an example of some of the worst mobile device design in terms of software that you can find in the industry. Even when these break, they do so in a manageable fashion. They get slow. They get unresponsive. They become cruddy. They can, however, typically still make phone calls. It takes a LOT to crap your phone up to the point where it can't even make phone calls.
Now let's look at Mobile OS X. My jailbroken 1.1.4 iPhone, for example, has about 20 applications loaded on it, including Samba, AFPd, OpenSSH, Firefly Media Server, MobileRSS, and PureFTPd. All the applications I just mentioned run daemons in the background. Strangely, not only have I ALWAYS been able to make phone calls, but this doesn't seem to slow down my phone at all -- mostly because good software development and the sensible organization of OS X prevent them from doing so. Where Apple leads, developers follow --this has been demonstrated time and again in the desktop release of OS X, and it leads to good software development practice.
One reason the iPod worked is that Apple didn't clutter it with a public API for adding bells and whistles.
What? What could that possibly have to do with A) the iPod's excellent value B) its excellent integration with iTunes C) the terrific, simple UI? Again, a question you have failed to answer over and over is how person A's installing Widget Q onto their device somehow ruins person B's experience with THEIR device.
Adding a limited SDK is better than turning it into a Linux Tinker Toy set that converts into a pile of junk after you install a few apps.
Oh, Linux hate, too! You've managed to cover all the bases! Lovely! Very cute comment, except this doesn't happen. With any device. Installing applications does not magically convert devices into piles of junk. How do you even believe the garbage that you write? Have you even used a jailbroken iPhone or iPod touch? Have you worked out the system by which fully-capable devices destroy the happiness that stock users have? I hope you can describe it for us here, really, I'm all ears.
Despite all of Apple's restrictions, there will apparently continue to be a jailbreak community adding unsupported apps, so I don't understand what the controversy is here. It looks like we can all have our cake and eat it too.
The problem here is that we are never promised this will always be possible. All we are told is that Apple won't do anything to specifically hurt jailbreak, which was already proved false in the 1.1.2 to 1.1.3 transition -- the AFC hack that allowed it was deactivated, despite its not being a security risk and not causing errors.
All Apple would have to do is put somewhere, out of the way, on some obscure portion of the iPhone bit of their site, "here is how to activate 'developer mode' on your iPhone or iPod touch. Please note that activating this mode will void any software support Apple offers on the device and is intended for advanced users only. Developer mode may damage your device, so take care." This, of course, would be total bullshit, as no iPhone or iPod touch has ever been bricked from simply jailbreaking, but the warning would stop casual users, who would then be free
+++ATH0