AppleTV Runs iOS, Already Jailbroken

Wired has noted that "Soon, thanks to the tireless efforts of the iPhone Dev Team, you will be able to install apps on your AppleTV. An upcoming Jailbreak tool, called SHAtter, has already been used to unlock the new Apple TV's firmware." The units are supposedly now shipping. I have a lot of questions about the device (like how will it handle the photo screen saver if your local machines are offline) but hacking it might make the thing more usable (divx please, and how about letting my screen share my desktop to my TV?).

Comments

Re:ARM

[ivucica]

An arm and a leg.

Gluttons for abuse

[Microlith]

hacking it might make the thing more usable

Tragic, of course, that people would buy something so crippled and locked down they must "jailbreak" it to make it more useful.

Certainly this is effort better spent improving solutions that are more open from the get-go?

Re:Gluttons for abuse

[tzhuge]

That's a straw-man.

'People' do not buy something 'they must jailbreak'. The vast majority buy a product that they want because it does enough of what they want for it to be worth the price. The jailbreakers do what they do because they find some enjoyment in doing it. The people who use the product jailbroken are often just messing around. They use jailbreak because the can. Those that buy a product that does not meet their need, then use jailbreak to make the product meet their need are mythical, except perhaps when there are in fact no alternatives at all.

Frankly what's really tragic is that so many people insist on whining about products they clearly don't want instead of just buying and enjoying what they do want. It's also tragic that so many keep rationalizing their 'superior' choice by denigrating others.

Re:Gluttons for abuse

[Microlith]

what's really tragic is that so many people insist on whining about products they clearly don't want

I'm more concerned about people encouraging and supporting Apple's attitude of lock down and customer control.

Re:Gluttons for abuse

[Microlith]

The iOS device - like the PS3 or Wii - is pefectly tuned for success in its core markets

The iOS device is not tuned like the PS3 or Wii, Apple is directly targeting iOS devices for general purpose mobile computing and home computing.

and there the jailbreak doesn't happen because no one gives a damn about the OtherOS - or whatever else it is that the geek is pining for.

Indeed, but this does not justify heavy lock down.

Unless, of course, that what the geek is pining for is a free copy of Fallout: New Vegas or the Blu-Ray screener of Iron Man 3.

You insult everyone who appreciates not having lock down, and everyone who has argued against DRM with that bullshit pro-MPAA/pro-RIAA style argument.

Re:Honest question

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Does it bother anyone else that Apple products are so quickly hacked? I don't mean from a security standpoint, I mean because people feel the need to hack them so they can do what they want.

Doesn't that mean they should just buy something that isn't so limited in the first place? Or is this one of those "we buy a locked device because we want to hack it" sort of things...

The AppleTV isn't "limited" to most people out there, only to geeks who poo-poo any devices that do anything less than their custom Linux HTPC. I've said this before: Apple doesn't implement features unless it can make them easy to use and understand and nicely designed. They don't start with a feature list and then make crappy implementations of them so they can add a bullet point to the list. They also look forward not backward and simplify where possible (eg. mandating use of h.264 instead of divx and hundreds of other formats.) If you find this approach philosophically abhorrent then use something else please and accept there are those of us that like it that way.

I don't think that's the reason people hack them anyway, they hack them because they can and for bragging rights.

Geeks Can't Grok Tradeoffs

[Ukab the Great]

Technically there's tradeoff between meeting more obscure customer demand vs. safety issues. If a business refuses to serve the steak bloody rare, then they piss off the steak geeks and lose potential revenue. Yet if the business allows undercooked meat, they lose the safety net of well-done meat that protects their customers from e-coli and the resulting bad press and lawsuits.

The food safety engineer understands food and also understands there's no right answer to the question of allowing bloody rare steak; the company gives up one thing to get another thing. What it really boils down to is what side of the tradeoff he's on and what balancing of the food equation best serves the needs of the target audience.

The food geek only understand food; he doesn't understand the concept of tradeoff. He screams and howls that the steak is unfairly being crippled and that he's not getting it his way and his freedoms are getting infringed upon by "the man" because it's easier to understand the concept of the "man" than an equation that must be balanced on both sides to produce the best results for the target audience, which in the case of Burger King and their lawyers doesn't happen to be him.