And when will slashdotters see that Apple is bad for the industry?
Because AT&T changed their data plans?
They want to control everything, require you to buy Mac OSX to develop for iPad and iPhone, charge a lot more for hardware than needed and do shit things like this.
How utterly controlling of Apple to let AT&T do something like this! Wait...
Apple is the new bad guy, not Microsoft.
Call me when Apple engages in even a tenth the shenanigans that MS has.
In this you're implying that you agree with my assertion that apple is certainly trying to make jailbreaking illegal.
Your argument rests on reading into my words something I didn't say. What I actually wrote does not contradict anything.
If you're not implying this, then you agree with my statement and it isn't a strawman anymore since then I'm not putting words in your mouth, but simply reflecting what you actually imply.
That's not what a straw man means. All it means is you are putting up defense against an argument I didn't make.
This is a red herring. You haven't explained how you can justify making two completely different statements when nothing has changed in the time between making them.
The first statement was:
1a. I never said that 1b. you have built a straw man
My second statement was:
2. Apple isn't trying to make jailbreaking illegal in that EFF/DMCA document
None of those are contradictory.
The reason I didn't clarify 1a is because I didn't think you were going to be a moron and continue down this pointless track of "Apple is trying to make it illegal". I was wrong. Reading more into what I wrote than what I wrote is not a valid attack.
You started the nitpicking with your "trying to make"/making legal distinction. Don't pick a fight unless you can go all the way. And as far as logic goes, you pretty much landed yourself in a soup trying to appear cleverer than you really are.
What are you talking about? I'm supposed to defend myself against something I didn't say? That I was being clever by not saying something that I didn't say? That 'logic' means "whatever bhagwad infers"?
In effect, you agree that Apple is trying to make Jailbreaking illegal. Otherwise your strawman refutation is invalid.
No, a straw man just means you were attacking something I hadn't said as though I did.
Since these are contradictory statements, the only way both your statements can be consistent and true is if your opinion of the fact in question has changed between the making of the two statements.
No, it was a straw man. That doesn't change if later I do say that thing. If you eat a steak which you later crap out, that doesn't it goes back in time and becomes crap when you ate it. It was still steak then, and will always have been.
So yeah, it's pretty much a requirement I'm afraid.
You're not afraid, you're just wrong.
Are you done trying to score a silly point? Logic is not on your side on this one, and neither is context.
We are in the end of that era right now, not that the era has ended.
I disagree, strongly....
Microsoft will continue on its slow decline, but they aren't going anywhere
I skipped the parts that have nothing to do with what you quoted. I don't think we disagree at all on this.
As for the parts I left out, Macs are still very important to Apple, and not just for "mystique". You're right that Apple isn't going after market share (although you're wrong to say they don't care about it, or worse, deliberately don't want it). But you've got cause and effect reversed here:
If Apple had a significant market share of the grey suits and cubicles, they lose this magical branding. They just become Microsoft or IBM.
If Apple did what it takes to take a significant share of the business market, they would lose what makes their products great. They'd pretty much have to either license Mac OS X for non-Apple hardware, which would multiply Apple's market share overnight, while simultaneously decimating the market for Macs, and lowering the overall quality of Mac OS X computers.
And this, we definitely disagree on 100%:
We are at the end of any era where Apple gave a shit about desktops and laptops though.
The Mac is going to be important to Apple for a very long time. The PC market is at its zenith right now, basically everyone has one and the bulk of the things the PC is going to replace has already been done, now it's just going to be faster, more storage, smaller and cheaper.
On the other hand, smart phones are still growing, and the tablet is still nascent. Lots of growth, so Apple is focusing on that.
Lastly, although out of order:
Apple are now a successful entertainment company
Apple is a technology company. The largest and the best in the world. Apple does not create entertainment. They resell it, although they don't make much money doing that. They make the vast overwhelming majority of their money selling hardware. Entertainment is just one aspect of their hardware sales.
"It's pretty clearly the end of the Microsoft Era." Call me when osx breaks 20%. Or whe pad w/e usage is more important than pc usage.
We are in the end of that era right now, not that the era has ended. MS is becoming increasingly irrelevant by the day, and the market is reflecting that. Apple's market cap exceeding MS's is a milestone on this road. To focus on Mac OS X market share vs Windows 7 market share is focusing on where the puck was, and not where it's going.
Microsoft got it. They've had tablets and phones and all sorts of cool electronics, even years before the competition.
Outside of the Xbox, which "cool electronics" are you referring to? And MS has never had any tablets or phones (well, now they have the Kin), they've only had tablet and phone operating systems.
And their best success, the XBOX, lost money hand over fist for years.
You worded that as though MS has finally made a profit on the Xbox. They're still billions in the hole on that one.
Apple is certainly trying to make jailbreaking illegal
"Please quote where I said otherwise"
Context. That must be it...
The context is I said one thing after the other. You brought in a straw man, then continued with it, so naturally I will address that thing.
When I wrote the first thing you quoted, it was true. You were making a straw man, and I never said anything about that. When I wrote the second thing, it was also true, as Apple is not trying to make jailbreaking illegal in the EFF/DMCA article to which my statement was addressing.
If I say, "I've never hit a home run", at a time when I haven't, but then later hit a home run, there's nothing false or contradictory in that.
Android prior to the iPhone was more of a Blackberry style OS. The iPhone completely changed the direction of the smart phone market.
You must be kidding. Android is a modified Linux with its own UI and "Java" environment.
Whereas iPhone OS is based on an actual UNIX, with its own UI and CocoaTouch environment.
How you would end up with this design copying from Apple, I don't know.
Android is a complete rip-off of the iPhone OS. All you have to do is look at them to see this. The sad thing is that it's a poor rip-off. Unless you're a certain type of geek. In that case, quality isn't as important as freedom, and Android is a little bit freer than iPhone OS.
Apple's hardware also is mostly not of their engineering, they just put components together like any other PC vendor.
That statement shows significant ignorance. I suggest there isn't a single PC maker that puts anywhere near as much into the engineering of their PCs as Apple.
one-piece full metal body here (which is also one of the things with the apple-sy trade-off of looks vs functionality - because this makes the battery on an iPod Touch and iPhone almost irreplaceable by normal people, something which is very simple on other devices and something which HAS to be done eventually)
Do you know that Apple engineered their batteries to last five years? Needing to take your MacBook Pro in once every five years (assuming you even keep it that long), is not a big deal. And if you do want to replace it yourself, you need only be capable of unscrewing about a dozen screws.
Simply put, Apple is marketing + useless gadgets + a few pieces of good software in the standard package.
If that were true, Apple would not be as successful as they are today.
Not particularly convincing to many people like me for the price they're selling at
Agreed. But you must also be aware that most people aren't like you.
and with the apparent toll on freedom and even life that takes.
Although it's hyperbolic, I can at least understand the rationale behind "toll on freedom", but "toll on life"? I'll be interested to hear an explanation of this that doesn't reflect poorly on your sanity.
Pardon me, but didn't you say this in an earlier comment?
Me - Apple is certainly trying to make jailbreaking illegal.
You - Please quote where I said otherwise. Straw Man #1.
I'm quoting you now where you said otherwise. Not a strawman argument anymore. So let's go back to the first comment shall we? Incidentally, let me know which of your two statements you actually believe in.
Context, jackass. Both comments I made are 100% true.
> Yeah, people might confuse success for something that people actually want!
You mean like MS-DOS vs. Macintosh?
MS-DOS is an OS, Macintosh is a computer.
But yes, businesses (who were the primary purchasers of computers back then) wanted PCs running MS-DOS more than they wanted Macintoshes running Mac OS, at least at the prices offered.
Interesting article. Asus leaked that they will be building Apple's tablet, based on the Intel Core processors, and it will run Leopard. In 2007.
As for the relationship between Asus (and other Taiwanese companies) and Apple, they have been manufacturing Apple products for years, but they have not been making them. That's how the entire industry works. And anyone who pays any attention to the tech world already knows this. Foxconn specifically has been prominent in the news in this regard, but this dynamic is by no means kept secret. Apple products even prominently display "Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China".
There is a lot of content on the web that requires flash. For some people, they will not purchase an iPad because it does not have flash, and will not allow them to view all fo the content they normally view. For those people, having flash certainly is a selling point.
I suspect the number of people who will not buy an iPad due to its lack of Flash are already outnumbered by the people who have already bought an iPad.
Lack of Flash is used as a jab against the iPad disproportionate with the actual impact the lack of Flash has on the consumer. It's a cry of desperation from the underdog. Flash is already being replaced all across the web, driven by the demand from iPhone OS users.
God I hope you're wrong. The iPad is in desperate need of a decent competitor - otherwise people are going to start thinking that a giant iPod Touch is the only way to go when it comes to tablets.
Yeah, people might confuse success for something that people actually want!
I for one would welcome a 10-12" Windows 7 tablet with 10 hours of battery life... oh, and no capacitive screen - Wacom stylus please!
I'm sure there's a small, but very real, market for tablets of the type you are describing, that market is completely dwarfed by the market for the iPad.
And if I jailbreak without running pirate apps? Surely you're not implying that apple is ok with that?
I've already covered this two posts back when I wrote, "I've never implied Apple is OK with jailbreaking. I'm merely stating that Apple hasn't made it illegal."
In any case, jailbreaking and pirating apps need to be dealt with separately because I can jailbreak without pirating anything.
You should heed your own words. You claimed that Apple has (made, tried to make, said) jailbreaking illegal, when all they've done is said it violates the DMCA if used to pirate apps.
Any part of their TOS that stops me from doing what I want with my device will not stand up to legal scrutiny - and I'm willing to bet on this.
That's not what the law says.
To end this, filing comments as part of the 2009 DMCA triennial rulemaking regarding jailbreaking constitutes "trying" in my book. If they just wanted to make a statement they could have issued a press release.
They aren't trying to make it illegal. They are claiming that it already is.
If you read Page 11 section A of their filing you'll see this: "Jailbreaking Results in Copyright Infringement". The subsection A makes no mention of pirated apps meaning that apple is against jailbreaking per se and not just in connection with pirated apps.
The only copyright infringement that exists in the process is pirating apps. If they are claiming that simply modifying the system files themselves constitutes copyright infringement, I don't think that position is legally tenable.
Distributing copyrighted files in the process of jailbreaking, however, most definitely would run afoul of copyright laws (and potentially the DMCA).
By trying to make jailbreaking illegal, apple is trying to mess with my right to do what I want with my device - no matter what the DMCA says.
They aren't trying to make it illegal. They made the claim that it already is if you jailbreak to run pirated apps.
Some things are, some aren't. Some are in some circumstances and not in others.
I'm saying in this case, Apple's TOS falls into the latter category. And I'm sure a court of law will uphold my inbuilt rights to do what I want with my device.
You'll need to be more specific. Apple's TOS almost certainly does not fall into the latter category, although parts most likely fall into the latter in some circumstances.
As for your right to jailbreak, I've never said otherwise, and aside from Apple saying to do so pirate apps violates the DMCA, they've never said it's illegal either.
On the n900, the devices are called wlan0 and gprs0. IMHO, it's a way better naming than ethX, but at the end, who cares, as long as you can identify who's in use?
I never said what they are called, just that they have labels like those, using examples most familiar to people here for a point of reference, but I assume the developer never deals with that directly, and just uses APIs that say "this is only for WiFi" or "if we're on 3G, let me know so I can do things differently", etc.
Now, about the revenue of the app store, how can you tell? I'm sure you are just making a wild guess here, and mine is that you are totally wrong. Let's say every iPhone user is buying 10 USD worth of apps, that is already reaching a quarter of a billion. Are you saying that this is insignificant? I don't think so.
Apple has maintained for years now that the iTunes stores are run at close to break-even. You're most likely correct that the iTunes stores generate a lot of revenue, but I never said they didn't, I said that revenue is not the purpose of app lock-in, and that the stores aren't a big profit center for Apple.
I don't have numbers but iTunes could be large enough to count as one (remember monopolies in the eye of the law don't need to fulfill the strict definition of a monopoly, merely be strong enough that they can effectively control the market)
Correct, but Apple is not a monopoly in any market, including online music. They are the largest music store, but music is quite readily available from multiple sources.
"Apple hasn't made jailbreaking illegal". You're implying that Apple is ok with Jailbreaking. If you didn't imply that, what point were you trying to make?
I was replying to a false statement that you made: "by making jailbreaking illegal, apple is messing with my right to do what I want with my device - no matter what the DMCA says." I've never implied Apple is OK with jailbreaking. I'm merely stating that Apple hasn't made it illegal.
If you want to nitpick, I can say that your sentence is a tautology because Apple isn't a lawmaker and can't make anything legal or illegal!
Of course it's a tautology. That's why it so effectively disproves your original assertion. Apple hasn't made jailbreaking illegal because they can't. But jailbreaking isn't even illegal in the first place. Apple can claim it violates the DMCA all they want (and quite likely, under some circumstances it does), but for the purpose of running third-party apps, it very much is not illegal.
That's for a court of law to decide.
They already have. It's called contracts, and they've been around for thousands of years.
On the one hand you claim that I'm bound by an objectionable TOS. On the other hand you claim it depends on the circumstances. Can you enlighten us as to what exactly these circumstances are that determine whether or not I'm bound by a TOS?
I've never said that anything in a contract is enforceable. Some things are, some aren't. Some are in some circumstances and not in others. It's been that way for a very long time.
I think the point is that it's not been available over 3G.
AT&T has allowed this for over half a year now. And even when AT&T disallowed it, this in now way constitutes a response to "cite one example of this [software not being approved for taking away profits] from Apple."
Apple is certainly trying to make jailbreaking illegal.
Please quote where I said otherwise. Straw Man #1.
Moreover, I believe that any TOS stripping people of their right to use a product legally bought in any way they wish without hurting others is legally questionable.
You may believe that, but you'd be wrong.
Are you saying Apple can write anything in their TOS and that if I bought the product I'm legally bound by it?
Absolutely not. Straw Man #2a.
What if they insert a clause saying I have to pay them $10,000 whenever they want?
By making jailbreaking illegal, apple is messing with my right to do what I want with my device - no matter what the DMCA says.
If something is illegal (hint: Apple hasn't made jailbreaking illegal), and you know that going into it, the only one messing with your rights are yourself for voluntarily giving them away. Unless you have no choice but to buy such a product (such as when states require Word documents or IE, for example, to interact with them).
Jailbreak away, you will not go to jail. Or don't buy an iPad. Or buy one and just use the App Store. It's called freedom. Contrary to many here, Apple has not taken away any of your freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
You got +5 Interesting, but are entirely off topic. AT&T are changing the plans they offer, existing customers don't lose their current plans.
And when will slashdotters see that Apple is bad for the industry?
Because AT&T changed their data plans?
They want to control everything, require you to buy Mac OSX to develop for iPad and iPhone, charge a lot more for hardware than needed and do shit things like this.
How utterly controlling of Apple to let AT&T do something like this! Wait...
Apple is the new bad guy, not Microsoft.
Call me when Apple engages in even a tenth the shenanigans that MS has.
In this you're implying that you agree with my assertion that apple is certainly trying to make jailbreaking illegal.
Your argument rests on reading into my words something I didn't say. What I actually wrote does not contradict anything.
If you're not implying this, then you agree with my statement and it isn't a strawman anymore since then I'm not putting words in your mouth, but simply reflecting what you actually imply.
That's not what a straw man means. All it means is you are putting up defense against an argument I didn't make.
This is a red herring. You haven't explained how you can justify making two completely different statements when nothing has changed in the time between making them.
The first statement was:
1a. I never said that
1b. you have built a straw man
My second statement was:
2. Apple isn't trying to make jailbreaking illegal in that EFF/DMCA document
None of those are contradictory.
The reason I didn't clarify 1a is because I didn't think you were going to be a moron and continue down this pointless track of "Apple is trying to make it illegal". I was wrong. Reading more into what I wrote than what I wrote is not a valid attack.
You started the nitpicking with your "trying to make"/making legal distinction. Don't pick a fight unless you can go all the way. And as far as logic goes, you pretty much landed yourself in a soup trying to appear cleverer than you really are.
What are you talking about? I'm supposed to defend myself against something I didn't say? That I was being clever by not saying something that I didn't say? That 'logic' means "whatever bhagwad infers"?
In effect, you agree that Apple is trying to make Jailbreaking illegal. Otherwise your strawman refutation is invalid.
No, a straw man just means you were attacking something I hadn't said as though I did.
Since these are contradictory statements, the only way both your statements can be consistent and true is if your opinion of the fact in question has changed between the making of the two statements.
No, it was a straw man. That doesn't change if later I do say that thing. If you eat a steak which you later crap out, that doesn't it goes back in time and becomes crap when you ate it. It was still steak then, and will always have been.
So yeah, it's pretty much a requirement I'm afraid.
You're not afraid, you're just wrong.
Are you done trying to score a silly point? Logic is not on your side on this one, and neither is context.
We are in the end of that era right now, not that the era has ended.
I disagree, strongly. ...
Microsoft will continue on its slow decline, but they aren't going anywhere
I skipped the parts that have nothing to do with what you quoted. I don't think we disagree at all on this.
As for the parts I left out, Macs are still very important to Apple, and not just for "mystique". You're right that Apple isn't going after market share (although you're wrong to say they don't care about it, or worse, deliberately don't want it). But you've got cause and effect reversed here:
If Apple had a significant market share of the grey suits and cubicles, they lose this magical branding. They just become Microsoft or IBM.
If Apple did what it takes to take a significant share of the business market, they would lose what makes their products great. They'd pretty much have to either license Mac OS X for non-Apple hardware, which would multiply Apple's market share overnight, while simultaneously decimating the market for Macs, and lowering the overall quality of Mac OS X computers.
And this, we definitely disagree on 100%:
We are at the end of any era where Apple gave a shit about desktops and laptops though.
The Mac is going to be important to Apple for a very long time. The PC market is at its zenith right now, basically everyone has one and the bulk of the things the PC is going to replace has already been done, now it's just going to be faster, more storage, smaller and cheaper.
On the other hand, smart phones are still growing, and the tablet is still nascent. Lots of growth, so Apple is focusing on that.
Lastly, although out of order:
Apple are now a successful entertainment company
Apple is a technology company. The largest and the best in the world. Apple does not create entertainment. They resell it, although they don't make much money doing that. They make the vast overwhelming majority of their money selling hardware. Entertainment is just one aspect of their hardware sales.
To follow your logic, in the time since you made the two statements, apple has changed their policy and stopped trying to make jailbreaking illegal!
That's not a requirement for both of my statements to be correct and non-contradictory.
"It's pretty clearly the end of the Microsoft Era." Call me when osx breaks 20%. Or whe pad w/e usage is more important than pc usage.
We are in the end of that era right now, not that the era has ended. MS is becoming increasingly irrelevant by the day, and the market is reflecting that. Apple's market cap exceeding MS's is a milestone on this road. To focus on Mac OS X market share vs Windows 7 market share is focusing on where the puck was, and not where it's going.
Microsoft got it. They've had tablets and phones and all sorts of cool electronics, even years before the competition.
Outside of the Xbox, which "cool electronics" are you referring to? And MS has never had any tablets or phones (well, now they have the Kin), they've only had tablet and phone operating systems.
And their best success, the XBOX, lost money hand over fist for years.
You worded that as though MS has finally made a profit on the Xbox. They're still billions in the hole on that one.
"They are trying to make jailbreaking illegal"
vs
Apple is certainly trying to make jailbreaking illegal
"Please quote where I said otherwise"
Context. That must be it...
The context is I said one thing after the other. You brought in a straw man, then continued with it, so naturally I will address that thing.
When I wrote the first thing you quoted, it was true. You were making a straw man, and I never said anything about that. When I wrote the second thing, it was also true, as Apple is not trying to make jailbreaking illegal in the EFF/DMCA article to which my statement was addressing.
If I say, "I've never hit a home run", at a time when I haven't, but then later hit a home run, there's nothing false or contradictory in that.
In other words, context, jackass.
The iPhone's OS design made Android possible?
Android prior to the iPhone was more of a Blackberry style OS. The iPhone completely changed the direction of the smart phone market.
You must be kidding. Android is a modified Linux with its own UI and "Java" environment.
Whereas iPhone OS is based on an actual UNIX, with its own UI and CocoaTouch environment.
How you would end up with this design copying from Apple, I don't know.
Android is a complete rip-off of the iPhone OS. All you have to do is look at them to see this. The sad thing is that it's a poor rip-off. Unless you're a certain type of geek. In that case, quality isn't as important as freedom, and Android is a little bit freer than iPhone OS.
Apple's hardware also is mostly not of their engineering, they just put components together like any other PC vendor.
That statement shows significant ignorance. I suggest there isn't a single PC maker that puts anywhere near as much into the engineering of their PCs as Apple.
one-piece full metal body here (which is also one of the things with the apple-sy trade-off of looks vs functionality - because this makes the battery on an iPod Touch and iPhone almost irreplaceable by normal people, something which is very simple on other devices and something which HAS to be done eventually)
Do you know that Apple engineered their batteries to last five years? Needing to take your MacBook Pro in once every five years (assuming you even keep it that long), is not a big deal. And if you do want to replace it yourself, you need only be capable of unscrewing about a dozen screws.
Simply put, Apple is marketing + useless gadgets + a few pieces of good software in the standard package.
If that were true, Apple would not be as successful as they are today.
Not particularly convincing to many people like me for the price they're selling at
Agreed. But you must also be aware that most people aren't like you.
and with the apparent toll on freedom and even life that takes.
Although it's hyperbolic, I can at least understand the rationale behind "toll on freedom", but "toll on life"? I'll be interested to hear an explanation of this that doesn't reflect poorly on your sanity.
I missed this gem:
They aren't trying to make it illegal.
Pardon me, but didn't you say this in an earlier comment?
Me - Apple is certainly trying to make jailbreaking illegal.
You - Please quote where I said otherwise. Straw Man #1.
I'm quoting you now where you said otherwise. Not a strawman argument anymore. So let's go back to the first comment shall we? Incidentally, let me know which of your two statements you actually believe in.
Context, jackass. Both comments I made are 100% true.
> Yeah, people might confuse success for something that people actually want!
You mean like MS-DOS vs. Macintosh?
MS-DOS is an OS, Macintosh is a computer.
But yes, businesses (who were the primary purchasers of computers back then) wanted PCs running MS-DOS more than they wanted Macintoshes running Mac OS, at least at the prices offered.
Interesting article. Asus leaked that they will be building Apple's tablet, based on the Intel Core processors, and it will run Leopard. In 2007.
As for the relationship between Asus (and other Taiwanese companies) and Apple, they have been manufacturing Apple products for years, but they have not been making them. That's how the entire industry works. And anyone who pays any attention to the tech world already knows this. Foxconn specifically has been prominent in the news in this regard, but this dynamic is by no means kept secret. Apple products even prominently display "Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China".
There is a lot of content on the web that requires flash. For some people, they will not purchase an iPad because it does not have flash, and will not allow them to view all fo the content they normally view. For those people, having flash certainly is a selling point.
I suspect the number of people who will not buy an iPad due to its lack of Flash are already outnumbered by the people who have already bought an iPad.
Lack of Flash is used as a jab against the iPad disproportionate with the actual impact the lack of Flash has on the consumer. It's a cry of desperation from the underdog. Flash is already being replaced all across the web, driven by the demand from iPhone OS users.
It's a slate, not a tablet.
Tablet PCs have keyboards, slates don't.
Tablet != Tablet PC.
I hate it when marketing tries to redefine a word.
You mean like MS using the word "slate" like crazy during CES when everyone thought Apple was going to call their tablet the iSlate?
God I hope you're wrong. The iPad is in desperate need of a decent competitor - otherwise people are going to start thinking that a giant iPod Touch is the only way to go when it comes to tablets.
Yeah, people might confuse success for something that people actually want!
I for one would welcome a 10-12" Windows 7 tablet with 10 hours of battery life... oh, and no capacitive screen - Wacom stylus please!
I'm sure there's a small, but very real, market for tablets of the type you are describing, that market is completely dwarfed by the market for the iPad.
And if I jailbreak without running pirate apps? Surely you're not implying that apple is ok with that?
I've already covered this two posts back when I wrote, "I've never implied Apple is OK with jailbreaking. I'm merely stating that Apple hasn't made it illegal."
In any case, jailbreaking and pirating apps need to be dealt with separately because I can jailbreak without pirating anything.
You should heed your own words. You claimed that Apple has (made, tried to make, said) jailbreaking illegal, when all they've done is said it violates the DMCA if used to pirate apps.
Any part of their TOS that stops me from doing what I want with my device will not stand up to legal scrutiny - and I'm willing to bet on this.
That's not what the law says.
To end this, filing comments as part of the 2009 DMCA triennial rulemaking regarding jailbreaking constitutes "trying" in my book. If they just wanted to make a statement they could have issued a press release.
They aren't trying to make it illegal. They are claiming that it already is.
If you read Page 11 section A of their filing you'll see this: "Jailbreaking Results in Copyright Infringement". The subsection A makes no mention of pirated apps meaning that apple is against jailbreaking per se and not just in connection with pirated apps.
The only copyright infringement that exists in the process is pirating apps. If they are claiming that simply modifying the system files themselves constitutes copyright infringement, I don't think that position is legally tenable.
Distributing copyrighted files in the process of jailbreaking, however, most definitely would run afoul of copyright laws (and potentially the DMCA).
Let's start over.
By trying to make jailbreaking illegal, apple is trying to mess with my right to do what I want with my device - no matter what the DMCA says.
They aren't trying to make it illegal. They made the claim that it already is if you jailbreak to run pirated apps.
Some things are, some aren't. Some are in some circumstances and not in others.
I'm saying in this case, Apple's TOS falls into the latter category. And I'm sure a court of law will uphold my inbuilt rights to do what I want with my device.
You'll need to be more specific. Apple's TOS almost certainly does not fall into the latter category, although parts most likely fall into the latter in some circumstances.
As for your right to jailbreak, I've never said otherwise, and aside from Apple saying to do so pirate apps violates the DMCA, they've never said it's illegal either.
On the n900, the devices are called wlan0 and gprs0. IMHO, it's a way better naming than ethX, but at the end, who cares, as long as you can identify who's in use?
I never said what they are called, just that they have labels like those, using examples most familiar to people here for a point of reference, but I assume the developer never deals with that directly, and just uses APIs that say "this is only for WiFi" or "if we're on 3G, let me know so I can do things differently", etc.
Now, about the revenue of the app store, how can you tell? I'm sure you are just making a wild guess here, and mine is that you are totally wrong. Let's say every iPhone user is buying 10 USD worth of apps, that is already reaching a quarter of a billion. Are you saying that this is insignificant? I don't think so.
Apple has maintained for years now that the iTunes stores are run at close to break-even. You're most likely correct that the iTunes stores generate a lot of revenue, but I never said they didn't, I said that revenue is not the purpose of app lock-in, and that the stores aren't a big profit center for Apple.
I don't have numbers but iTunes could be large enough to count as one (remember monopolies in the eye of the law don't need to fulfill the strict definition of a monopoly, merely be strong enough that they can effectively control the market)
Correct, but Apple is not a monopoly in any market, including online music. They are the largest music store, but music is quite readily available from multiple sources.
"Apple hasn't made jailbreaking illegal". You're implying that Apple is ok with Jailbreaking. If you didn't imply that, what point were you trying to make?
I was replying to a false statement that you made: "by making jailbreaking illegal, apple is messing with my right to do what I want with my device - no matter what the DMCA says." I've never implied Apple is OK with jailbreaking. I'm merely stating that Apple hasn't made it illegal.
If you want to nitpick, I can say that your sentence is a tautology because Apple isn't a lawmaker and can't make anything legal or illegal!
Of course it's a tautology. That's why it so effectively disproves your original assertion. Apple hasn't made jailbreaking illegal because they can't. But jailbreaking isn't even illegal in the first place. Apple can claim it violates the DMCA all they want (and quite likely, under some circumstances it does), but for the purpose of running third-party apps, it very much is not illegal.
That's for a court of law to decide.
They already have. It's called contracts, and they've been around for thousands of years.
On the one hand you claim that I'm bound by an objectionable TOS. On the other hand you claim it depends on the circumstances. Can you enlighten us as to what exactly these circumstances are that determine whether or not I'm bound by a TOS?
I've never said that anything in a contract is enforceable. Some things are, some aren't. Some are in some circumstances and not in others. It's been that way for a very long time.
I think the point is that it's not been available over 3G.
AT&T has allowed this for over half a year now. And even when AT&T disallowed it, this in now way constitutes a response to "cite one example of this [software not being approved for taking away profits] from Apple."
Apple is certainly trying to make jailbreaking illegal.
Please quote where I said otherwise. Straw Man #1.
Moreover, I believe that any TOS stripping people of their right to use a product legally bought in any way they wish without hurting others is legally questionable.
You may believe that, but you'd be wrong.
Are you saying Apple can write anything in their TOS and that if I bought the product I'm legally bound by it?
Absolutely not. Straw Man #2a.
What if they insert a clause saying I have to pay them $10,000 whenever they want?
Depends on the context. Straw Man #2b.
By making jailbreaking illegal, apple is messing with my right to do what I want with my device - no matter what the DMCA says.
If something is illegal (hint: Apple hasn't made jailbreaking illegal), and you know that going into it, the only one messing with your rights are yourself for voluntarily giving them away. Unless you have no choice but to buy such a product (such as when states require Word documents or IE, for example, to interact with them).
Jailbreak away, you will not go to jail. Or don't buy an iPad. Or buy one and just use the App Store. It's called freedom. Contrary to many here, Apple has not taken away any of your freedom.
Unlike games, media are actually important to society. Letting apple control them even a bit sets a bad precedent.
Apple controls no one except for Apple. People voluntarily buy into Apple's products, and they can get rid of them voluntarily, at any time.