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
Not jailbroken, an overpriced pretty piece of junk (yes I own one) jail broken and with installer, an awesome tool and I love it.
I get the feeling Apple secretly likes the fact that it's been cracked and made useful, regardless of how ATT feels about it.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
This article is a hoax. iPhones are provably 100% secure.
"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
This is not a mistake on Apple's part. Their contract with AT&T probably prevents them from releasing an unlocked phone within the time period of the contract, and if Apple were to release unlocking instructions themselves it would legally be almost the same as releasing an unlocked phone: ie contract violation. Instead, they have been careful to remain neutral about it, in order to respect their contract with AT&T. At the same time, they are very happy that people all over the world use (unlocked) iPhones, and Apple executives have probably spent a lot of time thinking about how they could have played the game differently with AT&T to still get the contract with them (which you'll remember took a major infrastructural investment on AT&T's part to bring the iPhone -- and only the iPhone -- visual voicemail) , while not having to wait on their laurels for third parties to purchase, unlock, and ship their phones to the rest of the world. It must be very painful to have to keep mum, when the whole world wants your product, and you have a contract you've signed in your home country that keeps you from giving it to them. The news that they are inviting a speaker who is active in iPhone unlocking just confirms this suspicion, and of course the biggest confirmation will be seeing if Apple suddenly changes policy upon the expiration of the AT&T contract. We don't know the terms of that contract, but it's safe to guess it's a 12, 18, 24, or 36 month contract. I'm betting it was a 12-month contract, which is a very long time in the mobile phone world, and that upon the anniversary of the release of iPhone you will see an end to the silence on Apple's part regarding unlocking.
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.
This statement is bizarre to me because, according to Shannon, information capacity is directly proportional to bandwidth. So it seems like the scarcity in bandwidth also exists in information capacity. Care to comment?
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
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 wouldn't be surprised if, in the specific case of the iPhone, Apple is perfectly happy to let the hackers hack.
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. So, by analogy to RIM, 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.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Pretend to be more customer friendly than they really are? From some of the anti-Apple stuff I've read on here, it seems that Apple is, in fact, more customer friendly than they appear to be. After all, if this was Microsoft or many other companies, I'm sure DMCA letters would have been sent out by now. I think it just goes to show that Apple are generally only as restricting as they need to be.
Not all of us mind paying for software, you know. That's one thing I have never understood about the OSS movement -- that some people think that everything should be free and that anyone who tries to make a profit from software is somehow "bad". The two worlds can co-exist together.
A post on ZDNet and /. threads from anonymous internet users "clearly demonstrates" Apple's internal corporate policies and intentions? Are you serious? I would say this article "clearly demonstrates" the exact opposite. In other words, no one really knows if Apple is pleased with the situation or not.
Personally, I think they are pleased, yet cautious. If they damage their relationship with AT&T they will not have future relationships with any carriers, and the iPhone will die. Yet the iPhone's popularity appears to be viral partly from unlocking. So they have to walk a fine line for now.
Developers: We can use your help.
I agree with you, and the (grand?)-parent post. Another glaring indicator by what Apple isn't doing is the lack of legal retaliation. Apple has a history of meticulously tracking down and punishing, or at the very least, settleing with NDA violators. If Apple cared about keeping the iPhone in-jail, or locked-down, we'd hear about it in the form of NDA and intellectual property lawsuits. But the Apple legal team is quiet... a little too quiet. The first Beta of the iPhone SDK appeared on torrents and usenet almost immediately after its release... but we haven't heard of any complaints from Apple about it.
The Admin and the Engineer
No, their official statements and the EULA of the iPhone SDK demonstrate their policies and intentions. Have you not been paying attention?
Wishing for something hard enough does not make it come true, and your speculation is just wishful thinking.
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.
Can anyone provide IPA on Zdziarski? Gee, that's seems unpronounceable
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?
Who modded the troll up?
Apple's SDK is in beta, and no applications can be installed on the iPhone/iPod touch UNLESS that person has a $99 Apple certificate key to install that app for testing purposes. Until June, when Apple releases the 2.0 software upgrade, nothing can be installed for anyone.
To correct the parent, there are zero legitimate applications that have been released into the wild. The link you gave is for source code or something that can be run on an emulator. By June, there will be more than the hundreds that the jailbroken installer.app has
This got cut from the submission:
"And when I say it's like Torvalds speaking at a Windows launch what I mean is its not like that at all."
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
Not all of us mind paying for software, you know. That's one thing I have never understood about the OSS movement -- that some people think that everything should be free and that anyone who tries to make a profit from software is somehow "bad". The two worlds can co-exist together.
When OSS people use the word "free", they are referring to freedom, not price.
The official chain of distribution will be SDK -> iTunes -> user.
This will likely be very similar to iTunes podcasting delivery service.
There is the first app to be released that will be able to use this pathway. I agree there are a ton of jailbroken apps... and that was the point of the post. Apple's way is way behind the current developers' methods.
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.
Note that "inTheLoo" is one of twitter's sockpuppets, along with "Mactrope", who just happened to also post (or rather, shill) in this thread.
The twitter monologues. Click on my homepage and be amazed.
If you want to jailbreak an ipod touch/iphone you still have to downgrade to 1.1.1
Not any more. With ziPhone, jailbreaking and unlocking any iPhone up to 1.1.4 is trivial; details here.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Most Slashdot users are technical people. We find having an ssh client/server on the phone to be enormously useful. We like having access to the BSD underpinnings of the machine. We like being able to use AIM without going through a slow website. We like being able to stream music from our iPhones to computers at the houses that we're at with Firefly Media Server. We even like having MobileScrobbler around.
And no, Apple's apps are not more refined than all the stuff on Installer. MobileScrobbler, Sketches, and MobileChat are examples of how you're wrong, especially when you compare them to something like MobileMail.app which STILL cannot delete multiple emails at once or switch between accounts in any kind of convenient way.
The jailbreakers have, in fact, shown Apple up at every turn.
+++ATH0
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.
Creative's behavior is reprehensible, but the topic is irrelevant. twitter now has a grand total of five Slashdot accounts (that I know of). How would you like to be involved in a thread where you think you're talking to different people that are actually the same person? What possible purpose would having all these accounts possible have other than gaming the moderation system?
The twitter monologues. Click on my homepage and be amazed.
He's already ground two multi-thousand post accounts into negative karma hell because of things like these. Now he has five accounts he uses to reply to his own posts and pretend he's multiple people arguing about the same thing.
In my book, that kind of behavior is dishonest and unacceptable.
The twitter monologues. Click on my homepage and be amazed.
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.
Since you asked for it:
Phone 2.0 SDK: The No Multitasking Myth
The short version: remember the headlines gasping that the iPhone could have spy software installed that took pictures with its camera and mailed them to the Terrorists? That can't happen with SDK software. It can (hypothetically) happen with jailbroken phones. That's why Apple has engineered safeguards into its SDK. Because it's trying to be responsible, unlike the current state of Windows, Java, Flash and other filthy platforms.
The fact that you'd rather spew forth ignorance than recognize that obvious fact demonstrates that you're either a moron or highly disingenuous. You don't have to support Apple's outlook, but representing it as a pointless limitation that hurts users is simply irresponsible.
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
Partial List
MobileScrobbler
Sketches
Flashlight (amazing how often this comes in handy)
OpenSSH (server and client)
MobileChat
bsflite
ScummVM
VNsea
iPhysics (SO ADDICTIVE OMG)
PocketGuitar
VNotes
Firefly Media Server
+++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 attended the event at the Apple Store. The event was an Apple iPhone SDK party sponsored by the Boston Chapter of Mobile Monday. Since it involved the Apple SDK, the event was conducted at the local Apple Store, a first for a Mobile Monday meeting. After the talk, and demos, there was a party at a nearby hotel. The hotel party was sponsored by local companies only, no known Apple involvement. Not sure if Apple had anything to do with the event other than supplying the location since it was celebrating the release of the iPhone SDK, and sponsored by Mobile Monday. The main speaker only talked for about 20 minutes, and the talk was very general in nature. The store was too small to host all that attended, and the store was trying to conduct their normal retail operations while the meeting was in progress. No seats, standing only with one or two exceptions. Would have preferred the meeting at the normal locations - MIT classroom, or nearby Nokia Research Center.
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